Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the business for next week I want to say that on Monday we shall dispose of Orders of the Day Nos. 2 and 3, as they appear on today’s Order Paper. The next item of business will be Order of the Day No. 14, viz. the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Liquor Amendment Bill. On Monday I shall move that the House shall continue to sit until the discussion of this Bill has been concluded. On Tuesday the House will deal with Order of the Day No. 1, as it appears on today’s Order Paper. After that Orders of the Day Nos. 4 and 5 and the Orders following these will be taken in the sequence in which they now appear. On Wednesday we shall deal with the Criminal Procedure Bill after the Second Reading speech on the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill has been delivered.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”).

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, it is essential for us to discuss a matter of this nature in this House, because in the light of the serious threat our country being faced with at present, we badly need imaginative information work. Never in the past has the lie being used against South Africa as viciously as it is today. Seldom have the weapons of psychological warfare been used against South Africa on the scale we are experiencing today. The world is in the midst of a period of crises in virtually every country in the world. At no time since the Second World War has the world known any peace, and there have been more than 130 revolutions, civil wars, coups d’état, guerrilla onslaughts and conventional wars in almost every part of the world. Everywhere there has been bloodshed.

Because South Africa is identified with most race questions in the world, it finds itself in the cross-fire of the nations and has become the target of a full-scale propaganda war. Consequently it is within this cross-fire that our men in the Department of Information have to do their work. Our information staff have been confronted with a modern crusade against merciless powers and against organizations and countries engaged in creating a revolutionary climate against South Africa, a revolutionary climate which they are trying to carry to within the borders of our country. We are confronted with powers that are inciting the outside world into a physical confrontation with South Africa.

The weapons they use against us are the old, old weapons of bribery, suspicion-sowing, slander, subversion, indoctrination and propaganda of a religious, a scientific, a political and an economic nature. Their methods are new and effective and diabolically dangerous. This is psychological warfare at its best because it is aimed at conquering the spirit of men.

Among the enemies of South Africa responsible for this are the UNO, the World Council of Churches, Russia, international communism and its innumerable bed-fellows, inter alia, the OAU, most of the socialist countries of the Third World and on top of that, the pink liberals of the academic world and the news media of the world, and the professional anti-South African activists. Among the latter are many communists who have fled from South Africa or who have been chased out of the country. Anti-South African organizations have sprung up like mushrooms throughout the world, and they are being supplied with money from across the world for use against South Africa.

The immediate objectives of these people are the destruction of South Africa’s trade, the withholding of investments from South Africa, preventing foreign companies from doing business in South Africa and the discouragement of immigration to and tourism in South Africa. Furthermore, they also try to wreck sporting links and diplomatic relations with South Africa.

Behind all these things is communist Russia, a country which, in its striving for world domination, is planning an onslaught on the whole of Southern Africa, and in the process has its propaganda sights full on South Africa. Prof. Ronald Hilton, director of the Institute for International Affairs in California, correctly states the following in this connection—

He goes on to say—

In its efforts Russia has a very zealous ally—if not a compromised ally—in the form of the General Assembly of the UNO, the official organ of the UNO, and even its Secretary-General. South Africa’s successful policy of multinational development has been declared a punishable crime by the UNO, because it is in conflict with their objectives of Black majority government in South Africa. That is why our homelands are being discredited as “ghettos of despair and disease” where people are intentionally kept in ignorance and poverty.

Hon. members of the Opposition who think that this onslaught on South Africa can be parried by preaching political integration would be shocked if they became acquainted with the true enemies of South Africa abroad. In this onslaught on South Africa no one is spared, neither United Party supporter nor Nat nor Prog, not even the Roman Catholic priests of Rhodesia. Some of the hon. members of the Opposition already made the acquaintance of the enemies of South Africa. After all, the hon. member for Houghton knows how it feels to be reviled as a “fascist in disguise” in America. The hon. member for Yeoville could tell us more about his brush with demonstrators who wanted to wreck his lectures at an American university.

Order! Hon. members must kindly not converse so loudly. They may converse, but they must do so very quietly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. members of the PRP are accustomed to being attacked sharply, but are probably not accustomed to all the invective directed at them in America. There they are called “People who spout racism and fascism”, “fascist mouthpieces for US imperialism” and “South African fascist Members of Parliament”.

Surely the hon. members of the Opposition cannot deny that the countries of the so-called Third World and the communist countries would not recognize a UP or PRP Government if they were to come to power tomorrow. We must be grateful to know after Durbanville that they will not come to power. [Interjections.] The countries of the Third World demand one thing only and that is Black majority government. They do not demand it in a year or two years’ time, but immediately. Their attitude has its origin in the anti-White racism which has taken root in the world in recent times. All the fine political theories of the UP and the PRP will make no impression on these people. We need not go overseas to find evidence for this statement. We need only mention the case of Tsietsi Mashinini, the Black student who fled from South Africa and told so many lies overseas.

What did he say to two reporters from Beeid in Gaberone, Botswana, on 16 January this year? He said that all the Whites had to leave South Africa, or they would be killed. When he was asked whether there was any difference between Dr. Albert Hertzog and the hon. member for Houghton, his words were—

This is what Tsietsi Mashinini said about the hon. member for Houghton.

The onslaught is aimed at the White Government in South Africa and the Whites of the country. That is why the new trend is now to reject the White standpoint automatically, whatever it may be. These enemies of ours—I already mentioned who they are—are not in the slightest interested in the politics of the White political parties of South Africa. They have a fanatical obsession for the concept of “one man, one vote”. They no longer speak in terms of majority government, but only in terms of “Black majority”. They have but one blatant objective: To destroy our right to self-determination and the structure of our society.

The hon. members of the Opposition must not put the blame on the Government for this onslaught on South Africa, because did not Gen. Smuts warn as long ago as 1947 that a major change was occurring in the world? On 21 January 1947 Gen. Smuts said in the House that South Africa had come under the whip, and according to Hansard (Hansard, Vol. 59, col. 10920) he put it as follows—

Therefore these things started way back in the Smuts era and even the Smuts politics could not make a dent in them. It is the same kind of onslaught as that which Gen. Smuts was faced with, except that in the meantime it has grown in intensity. This is the onslaught which our information staff are faced with.

What is very disturbing is that there are still people and bodies which, in South Africa’s hour of need, bedevil the task of the information staff with speeches and statements which play right into the hands of this pitiless onslaught on South Africa. Some of the most venomous and unjustified attacks on South Africa have been based on what our own people say, sometimes in this House. One finds cuttings from South Africa in the offices of the UNO, the OAU, the World Council of Churches and in Moscow and Peking. They are ammunition in the hands of our enemies, they are dagger-thrusts at the heart of South Africa. We do not want to blame the Press because newspapers are so often the sounding board of news and events, but when Radio Moscow praises a South African newspaper like the Rand Daily Mail “for exposing the terrible regime in South Africa”, loyal South Africans are shaken. Do these people not realize that in these times South Africa needs the highest loyalty of its people? The Department of Information, with its dynamic Minister and genial Secretary at its head, and its numerous able officers in the front lines throughout the world have displayed exceptional initiative in recent years. They have stood their ground in a manner deserving of the country’s highest praise. Their conduct has compelled the respect of people overseas.

Because it is realized that the Department of Information has a major task on its hands in dealing with the propaganda onslaught against South Africa, the Government increased the appropriation for the department from R6 million in 1971 to R15 million in 1977-’78. The department has increased the number of its officials abroad threefold and has drastically boosted its production of news material, films, books and publications.

The Department of Information has distinguished itself in another respect, too. Due to the smear campaign against South Africa, our men have learned that in many cases soft talk does not help. As a result they have adopted an aggressive strategy. In cases where newspapers and politicians persist in telling lies and applying blatant double standards against South Africa, their words are now being thrown back at them and their hypocrisy is being unmasked. For example, the unfounded accusations against South Africa made by the drug pedlar, Price of Britain, were very quickly and effectively proved false. Vigorous action against smear campaigns, particularly those waged on British television, have made our opponents more wary. The success achieved by these aggressive methods have elicited a reaction among our traditional enemies. This proves that we have achieved success and that our actions have struck home. These people have been hurt.

I want to quote a few examples of this. Due to the success we have achieved, the apartheid committee of the UNO has requested more money for the General Assembly to counter South Africa’s efforts. In London, the anti-apartheid movement has received distress calls from its counterpart in the Netherlands because S.A. Information has achieved success with its advertisements in the Netherlands. In a debate in the apartheid committee of the UNO, a day after South Africa’s advertisement campaign about the homelands, India’s representative remarked that the campaign had been “cunning” and “brilliant”. The success our information staff achieved can be inferred from this. What a fine testimonial our information staff received for the successes they have achieved in America in recent years. In The Citizen of 20 December, Ada Parker writes as follows—

She goes on to speak about the major breakthroughs made by South Africa in the USA last year. The most important was the “Face the Nation” television interview given by our esteemed Prime Minister. It is estimated that at least 40 million people within and outside America watched it. News commentators were full of praise for the Prime Minister’s conduct. Mr. Vorster is honest, sincere and realistic, they said. From this it is evident once again that our hon. Prime Minister is indeed South Africa’s very best information officer. Apart from that, Adv. Pik Botha acted as Ambassador in at least 20 major TV presentations. South Africa’s information films were exhibited no fewer than 1 200 times on television in America last year and had an estimated audience of 18 million. The information film Lifeline dealing with the Cape sea route was described in America as “the finest statement ever made on film about freedom of the seas and an orderly world”. I could continue in this way to mention examples of success, but enough of this.

I want to conclude by mentioning one final example which is such an outstanding one that it deserves special mention. When the department decided for economic reasons to suspend all foreign language editions of the periodical Panorama for an indefinite period, there was a flood of protest from Europe. More than 10 000 letters asking that the periodical be continued with were received from throughout Europe by their printers in Berne, Switzerland. Among those who pleaded that this periodical should not be suspended was the German Minister of the Interior. Of all the appeals, the clergymen of all Christian churches reacted most strongly. In hundreds of letters they requested that the periodical should continue, particularly for the sake of its positive influence on the youth. Other correspondents, on the other hand, said that it would be a tragedy if this periodical, which gave such a comprehensive picture of South Africa, were to cease publication “while our eastern neighbours are spending millions on propaganda against South Africa”. Sir, it is understandable that the Department of Information responded to the thousands of distress calls received and that the publication of Panorama in foreign languages was resumed shortly afterwards.

Within the country, too, our information staff are doing praiseworthy work. My colleagues will have more to say about this later, but particularly with regard to the improvement of race relations in South Africa, they are doing a fine job. Just to give you an idea of the work they are doing, I just want to mention the following: Over the past year they have paid about 10 000 contact calls, and held 1 500 film exhibitions and 700 speeches and lectures. Hundreds of thousands of people have been reached in this way and the message of good relations in South Africa has been brought home to these people.

Sir, is it not time for all of us to realize that this work is no longer the task of the Department of Information alone? The time has come for us South Africans all along the line, from all strata of our population, to awake to the fact that this country that has been so good to us and that is so good to us, needs us very badly in these times. The time has come for South Africa’s information effort to come from more than just the Department of Information. That effort must become a more co-ordinated effort on everyone’s part. It must come from businessmen, from academics, from everyone, from all sections of our society, right down to that schoolboy or -girl who writes a letter to a friend abroad. It must be a truly national effort, a demonstration of patriotism and loyalty towards South Africa. It must be done, firstly, to defend our country’s good name abroad and, secondly, to assist in bringing about better human relations within the country. If ever there was a time in which it was necessary for all of us to take part in the major task of the Department of Information, then that time is the present.

Mr. Speaker, when I was asked to take part in this debate, I asked myself what had been the objective of the hon. member for Bloemfontein North in moving this motion. I asked myself whether his objective had been simply to use the motion to justify the Government’s policy, to extol the information service and other services, and to laud everything that may be attributed to that Government. In other words, I asked myself whether the hon. member was going to use the motion to pronounce a eulogy on the Government and its services. Secondly, I asked myself whether he aimed to label all critics of South Africa as enemies of South Africa and then to blame them for everything that goes wrong in this country, for all the deficiencies and inadequacies in the Government’s policy, and, in so doing, to use this motion for making an attack on his political opponents. Thirdly, I asked myself whether it was perhaps his constructive aim to have a close look at the kind of image which South Africa has abroad and also to examine the efficiency of our information service and the other means of defence we have available to us, and to ask ourselves whether there were in fact constructive suggestions which we could make during this debate to see whether we could contribute to strengthening the information service and the means of defence against attacks from outside.

I am afraid that I heard very little of the latter in the speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein North. He did use the opportunity to drag politics into the debate, he did use the opportunity to justify the Government’s policy and he did use the motion to attack our enemies—which is entirely justified. However, he made little use of the opportunity to have a positive and objective look at our relations with the outside world, the means of defence we do have available to us and the improvements that can be made in order to strengthen our attempts and to rectify the matter. As far as I am concerned, I find it very difficult, therefore, to support the hon. member’s motion, precisely because his approach has, I believe, been completely erroneous and unconstructive. As far as I am concerned, I shall try to examine the matter closely, to approach it more objectively and also to give credit where it is due. I shall not make use of the opportunity to attack the information service, because in this respect, I agree with the hon. member that this service is doing very valuable work abroad.

†It is perhaps symptomatic of the particular motive and approach of the hon. member for Bloemfontein North, that in the whole of his speech he did not on a single occasion refer to the very valuable work which is voluntarily being done and which is voluntarily being contributed by the private sector through the South Africa Foundation. It is by no means my intention to say anything which will create any kind of ill-feeling or which will draw any invidious comparison between the work of the Department of Information— which has its own very considerable value— and the work of the South Africa Foundation, which also has its own very considerable value. They both make their contribution. But I must draw to the attention of this House that in the whole of the approach of the hon. member for Bloemfontein North there was no mention whatsoever of this very important and valuable contribution being made by the private sector to the defence of South Africa against unwarranted and unjustified attacks from abroad.

In approaching this question we must first of all distinguish between the propaganda from abroad and its nature and deal with that as one matter. Then we should look at the nature of our defences in South Africa and deal with that as a separate issue. The two are obviously related, but one cannot look at the remedy and judge whether it is a good remedy, unless one first assesses the nature of the disease.

I think that our first task must therefore be to look at the kind of attacks suffered by South Africa, and the kind of insidious propaganda that is made against us, and to distinguish between that kind of propaganda and the other factors that give rise to South Africa’s image abroad. I agree immediately that there is a very important sector of hostile activity against South Africa directed purely towards the destruction of South Africa’s image for political purposes. I believe that the hon. member for Bloemfontein North is entirely correct in identifying the existence of that kind of hostile propaganda. I believe that it has political motives. He referred to “genadelose magte”, and he went on to say: “Agter dit alles sit kommunistiese Rusland.”

It is all very well to identify this field of activity against South Africa, but it is highly dangerous to assume that because that kind of activity does exist, all or most of that activity springs from the same source and motives. I say this because there are other areas, which are equally dangerous and in which we are equally vulnerable, from which hostile attacks against South Africa emanate. I therefore believe that to over-simplify the matter and to identify everything as being of communist origin—as a vast, skilful, highly-engineered international conspiracy against South Africa—is to misunderstand the nature of what is going on. I repeat that I am not saying that such activity does not exist, because I am aware that it does, but to identify all criticism and all hostile activity against South Africa as emanating from that source, is to mislead ourselves very badly and to weaken our ability to oppose and resist that kind of activity.

There is another kind of activity that does not have this malign intent. There is, for example, a very important field of activity which does South Africa harm abroad, and here I am referring to the existence of a very wide, active, hostile and strongly critical treatment of news from South Africa. If one looks at the media in the Western countries, for example in America and Europe, one finds that there is a constant flow of articles and news items which are strongly critical of South Africa or which, if not critical by virtue of comment, are critical by implication because they single out for attention those things which are harmful to South Africa’s image and which give South Africa, its policies, its people and its economy, a bad name abroad.

There is a caricaturing of South Africa, perhaps not deliberately designed in many cases, but because the sort of things that are published are newsworthy and are the kind of items that people choose to read about— disaster news, if you like. That news is read, seen on television or heard by people who have no real built-in defence against it because they themselves are so uninformed about South Africa. I think we must be careful to distinguish between the first kind of criticism I mentioned—the conspiracy theory, if you like—and the second kind which arises out of the nature of the news services and the nature of the society we have in South Africa. I do not want to enter into a political dispute, but we do have a society in South Africa which, by any general standards, must be acknowledged to be extraordinary, and the events occurring in this extraordinary society are obviously newsworthy in other parts of the world. When reports are therefore received about events and are measured up by people who are uninformed about the whole background of the South African scene, unquestionaly such news items and reports do make a most unfavourable impact on the minds of those people abroad. I think this is an area which needs to be distinguished from that which the hon. member for Bloemfontein North waxed so eloquent about.

Then there is another field of criticism. I refer to the field of concerned criticism by friendly people, responsible people, people who are reasonably well informed about South Africa. They, too, are critical of much that goes on here. They are critical in a positive sense. These are the sort of people who invest their money in South Africa. They are the sort of people who contribute to the South African economy. They are not hostile to South Africa, or their money would not be here. They are critical because they are concerned about the safety of their investments. They are concerned about the welfare of the society in which they are participating financially. These people cannot by any means be classed as enemies of South Africa. We need to look at their criticisms, their intent, their goodwill towards South Africa and, in fact, to give that the merit it deserves. These people are our friends. They wish to be our friends and, when they criticize us, it ill behoves us to treat them as though they were enemies of South Africa and unreasonable, blind critics of what we do here.

In the short space of time available to me this morning, I do not want to go into any greater detail, although one can draw other distinctions. I thought it would be useful, in an objective appraisal of this problem, to draw broad distinctions between these three main classes. It is quite clear that, in response to these kinds of criticism, these kinds of attacks, if you wish, the information services must vary their responses according to the nature of the attacks. I believe that, by and large, the Department of Information does in fact identify these different kinds of attacks and does try to respond in degree and in measure to the nature of the attacks, the criticism or the ill-will as it emanates from these different sources.

There is, however, a tendency—we heard some of it this morning and I believe one should warn against it—to over-react to those who have deliberate hostile intent and whose credibility in their own countries is in fact extremely low. I except, obviously, the Russian communist conspiracy, but there are many others who are hostile to South Africa and who use opportunities within organizations to bring ill-fame to South Africa, but who in their own countries are in discredit. The overseas audience—the London audience, the Paris audience or the New York audience, shall we say—is very often not all that unsophisticated, and is well able to recognize the source from which these attacks come and to write them off accordingly. It is a great mistake, I think, to underestimate the ability of ordinary people, when exposed to news services, to identify double standards, because double standards are employed by people who, for ulterior motives, exploit every opportunity to do damage to others. When we over-react to this sort of people, these kinds of organizations, I believe that we waste our time and money and that we seek confrontation in areas where confrontation is really hardly worthwhile and where we tend, perhaps, to lend emphasis to the wrong issues and to the wrong aspects and are misled in our approach and our reaction to this kind of propaganda. It was Samuel Butler who, many years ago, said—

I think we must beware of this kind of reaction of being over-orthodox and dealing out blows and knocks to all and sundry who are in fact not worthwhile enemies, who are not worth the powder and shot we expend on them. I believe that, if I have a criticism of the speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein North this morning, it is that he used a lot of powder and shot on people and areas where, in fact, the enemies were hardly visible and of little importance.

To return to the second class of criticisms, viz. the media and the high impact they have, I believe we need to look in the main at two things. The first is better background information. It was my experience some years ago, when I was at the United Nations, that I was asked by the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs to look up information which was not available in the office of the South African delegation and which was not available at the United Nations. I had to go to the New York Public Library. This library is one of the most important libraries in the world. I spent a few days there seeking background information about South Africa. The paucity of literature at that time about South Africa in a library of that kind was quite appalling. I was horrified at the absence of literature about South Africa. What is true of the library of New York, is also true of the libraries of London, Paris and a number of other places. There is very little serious literature about South Africa to be found. Obviously South Africa cannot supply every library in the world with a full range of bibliography and information about South Africa. But I think it should try, because research students, people who are interested in South Africa, people who write, people who are propagandists, people who are in fact influence makers through the media, do not have libraries of South Africana; they do go to public libraries and to university libraries. I believe we should try to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that there is good, reliable, impartial, objective information about South Africa in these public libraries. I have spoken about this before and I believe an attempt has been made—I think the hon. the Minister, the last time I mentioned this, said that an attempt was being made—to supplement the sources of South African information available in important libraries. I hope that better background information is, as a result, being provided in this field.

On this point I must also pay tribute to the Department of Information for the publications which it puts out, for the quality of its films, the quality of its TV films as well, and I believe that, on the whole, the kind of information it puts out abroad—I leave aside some of the information it puts out locally, because I do not propose to deal with this this morning—is of a high standard, is well printed, tends to be objective and provides those who read this information or seek information with a fairly good background understanding of the positive aspects of South African life. Having said that and having paid that tribute, I must also say that we must pay more attention to the unfavourable events which occur in South Africa and which inevitably are disseminated and published abroad. Again without going into any political argument, one must point out that such an instance as that relating to the admission of non-White children to Catholic schools, is one which receives world-wide publicity. The Catholic world is a very important part of Europe and the Western World and is very powerful and influential. When something happens which is seen to be a confrontation or a challenge—I say “seen to be”—with the Catholic world, one picks up many enemies. What happened at the school in question was a very trivial matter. In respect of the number of people involved, it was a very insignificant matter and could have done no real damage to South Africa or the policies of the Government if it had been overlooked or if the regulation in question had been waived or ignored as a matter of exception. But the dogmatic determination to go on which these things does us incalculable harm overseas and no amount of propaganda, no amount of excellent information, can overcome it. I believe the Minister of Information must take a stronger line about these things and ensure that his colleagues do not do things which, for very small gain at home, do massive damage to South Africa abroad. We stand in a crisis situation and we cannot afford to do ourselves the damage which we actually do to ourselves.

I could go on, but my allotted time is nearly expired. I could refer to the Modderdam Road incidents. I could refer to bannings, to restrictions, and to many things which, no doubt, have a local justification or a local rationale in South Africa, but which really are not important or vital to the survival of South Africa at all, but the impact of which abroad could have a major effect on our ability to survive, on our ability to obtain foreign investments, moral support from abroad, friends and alliances abroad, at a time when the future of South Africa is in fact seriously endangered.

Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. member for Von Brandis was ready and waiting for the hon. member who preceded him to make a tremendous attack on the Official Opposition. Of course it was a very great disappointment for him that this did not happen. So all he did was accuse the hon. member of aiming at and attacking his political opponents. That is not the object of this motion. Today, on behalf of this House, we want to thank the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister, the Secretary and every member of this department—right down to the messengers—for the fine, outstanding service they render South Africa. There is no department in South Africa which beats this one. There is no department which is more effective, more consistent and more straightforward than the Department of Information and its officials. In saying this I do not mean that there are no Government departments like it. Exactly the same can be said of the other Government departments, but at the moment I am only speaking about the Department of Information.

I sincerely thank the hon. member for Von Brandis for saying that he does not want to criticize the department, but to pay tribute to it. The Official Opposition showed a very good disposition here today, and I hope that in future, when a department gives of its best to South Africa, as this department has done, they will also thank them as they have done today. I thank them for this.

The hon. member for Von Brandis raised a few matters. Amongst other things he said that the hon. member did not refer to the private sector at all. However, I want to point out to him that no one can speak about the whole of South Africa and the outside world and everything else in the space of 20 minutes. I am going to speak about foreign countries. The member on the Government side who will speak after me will discuss the interior. However, I want to put it clearly that I have praise for the private sector—including the South Africa Foundation to which the hon. member for Von Brandis referred. I also praise and pay tribute to our industrialists, our merchants, our businessmen, our people in the tourist industry and in all sectors, for what they are doing to project South Africa’s image. We are engaged in psychological warfare, and he who is not for us, is against us. I want to tell the people of South Africa bluntly that the time has now come for us to gird ourselves and go forward for South Africa’s sake. What is important now, is not petty political arguments, or whatever. The recent by-election showed us where we stand and where the road of South Africa lies. As far as I am concerned, we must take that road.

The hon. member for Von Brandis referred to the poor library service abroad. This is so. The hon. the Minister and his department noticed this a long time ago. Something has already been done about it. The hon. the Minister, as well as the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department, are concerned about the fact that libraries throughout the world are not richly endowed with good literature on South Africa. What do we find there? Filthy, subversive, mendacious literature by the ton. This is literature which one dares not look at; literature which is so immoral and sordid that one dare not touch it with a barge-pole. This is why the Department of Information has made it its aim to concentrate on the libraries of universities, provincial capitals, colleges, high schools, institutes and Parliaments abroad. In terms of a new departmental scheme it will be arranged that almost 2 000 different libraries of universities and colleges abroad will each receive at least 50 books on South Africa in the course of the next 10 years.

This is my reply to the objection raised by the hon. member. I am pleased that he referred to it. It is a matter which calls for attention. The hon. member expressed fine, sound criticism. It is to be recommended. I hope there will be more constructive suggestions and criticism of this nature when the Information vote is introduced again in future. Fortunately this has already been done. Hon. members will discover that every suggestion they make will come just too late, because the department will already be carrying it out. However, this does not matter. It is a good thing.

Mr. Speaker, an onslaught is being made on South Africa, an onslaught the like of which has not been experienced by any other country in the world. That onslaught is being waged by and in the Press, as well as on the radio, on television, by governments, on political platforms, in churches, in trade unions, at universities, in the UNO and everywhere else. However, it is not all the people, every living being on earth, that is involved. In a newspaper it may perhaps be just the editor who is against it. The editor of the Rand Daily Mail is opposed to the UP and feels that the PRP should govern, but all the readers of the Rand Daily Mail are definitely not opposed to the UP. Even hon. members of the UP read it. Similarly, not everyone in all circles abroad where attacks are made on South Africa, are necessarily against South Africa. I now want to say what is behind it all. Prof. Ronald Hilton, director of the Institute for International Affairs in California, wrote about Russia a few years ago as follows—

Who is the enemy of South Africa today? It is the communist. This Government shut down Russia’s embassy in South Africa years ago. The struggle is for the continued existence of communism and whether it will rule the world. In the first place we must know our enemies, because one cannot fight one’s enemy if one does not know him. Our enemy utilizes all possible ways and means in the struggle. If he could have, he would have used me and he would have used other hon. members. He uses many of South Africa’s people without their knowledge and this is what the PRP is guilty of, unaware of the fact that they are being used and misused by communism in order to achieve their objectives. When we know our enemy, we can strike. Many of our forefathers came from England and England is one of our best allies. In England there are 18 anti-apartheid organizations, 23 other British organizations with observer status and 45 local committees of the anti-South African organization are distributed throughout all the big cities of England. In South Africa there are still eight organizations which support them like Swapo, the ANC, the PAC, the Christian Institute and even the S.A. Council of Churches. These bodies unwittingly allow themselves to be used as instruments in the hands of the group agitators overseas. After all, not everyone in England is against South Africa, but look at the agitation instigated there.

Furthermore one need only look at what is happening at the UNO and the attacks on South Africa made in this organization. Between 24 and 28 May last year an “international seminar on the eradication of apartheid and support of the struggle for liberation in South Africa” was held in Havana, Cuba. The seminar was not held in order to drive the NP or the Afrikaner from South Africa, but to demand the head of the White man in South Africa. They want to destroy the White man, because Africa’s slogan, “Africa for the Africans”, must triumph. What does Uganda or any other Black State have to do with the domestic policy of South Africa? Where are the World Council of Churches and all the other bodies now that there is so much murder and violence in Uganda? Where is the Opposition in this respect? They must stand with us so that we can pass judgment on and condemn them jointly for what they are doing. The very first thing said at the seminar in Havana was—

That lot at the UNO got the wind up about the good work done by the department and the hon. the Minister. This is why the very first thing they discussed concerned propaganda. This is the first thing which they tackled at that conference. They go on to say—I quote from their official documents—

After all, it is this Opposition that complained here that there is a dispute between the Department of Information and the Department of Foreign Affairs. Those people get their information from speeches made by these people, for example those of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. This has been said here over and over again. After all, there are no such disagreements. Mr. Speaker, you can see what these people resort to in their efforts to get at South Africa.

What is the method which the department and the hon. the Minister adopt to fight back? The lie is the order of the day throughout the world. It is used wherever possible. Double standards are encountered everywhere. In recent times, however, the department’s policy has been to take the lies being used against South Africa and blatantly hurl them back at those agitators. I want to point out one very successful method. When the drug pedlar Price made his lying accusations— which were of course absolute rubbish—in the British newspaper The Observer, the department clamped down. They threw it back in his teeth without a blush. We call to mind those smear campaigns launched on British television. Our officials stood their ground and emerged from the struggle with great credit. The department also operates in many other spheres.

For instance they also carry on advertising campaigns, like the one in Germany to introduce South Africa to our trading partners. Whites and Blacks appeared on one platform in order to state and promote South Africa’s interests. We expected approximately 60 German entrepreneurs to attend the seminar in Dusseldorf, but believe it or not, over 200 arrived. This testifies to the good work of the Department of Information, to the good friends which we have and to the interest of our trading partners in South Africa, its people, and the stability of this Government.

The hon. member for Von Brandis said that people were concerned about their investments, but South Africa can still account for every cent. The country does not owe anyone money it cannot pay. We are reliable and creditworthy.

The department has made efforts at the personal level in order to ascertain to what extent this could promote South Africa’s interest. This is made possible by overseas visits by the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister, the Secretary and senior officials. We only have R13,8 million available to do all the work. In 1975 we only had 19 offices in 17 countries, but the department and its officials did their work. Our guest programme includes inviting to South Africa policy-makers and opinion formers such as politicians, editors, professors, clergymen and businessmen. The department keeps in touch with world leaders. I just want to point out that the hon. the Minister held talks with the former vice-President of the United States of America, Mr. Agnew, and later, too, with another former vice-President, Mr. Ford, when both were still serving in that capacity, so that they could see South Africa in the correct perspective.

If we look at the annual report of the department for the 1974 calendar year, we find on page 41 a fine photograph of two men and a woman. The caption reads as follows—

Sir, information on South Africa was given to this man when he was still the governor of a State. He therefore knows what is going on in South Africa. I wonder whether the Opposition realizes that this man is the President of the USA today. That man knows what is going on in South Africa. Therefore, as regards this type of work, the department is already four or five years ahead. They see to it that people on a high level are provided with the correct information in advance.

We also find that radio and television are made use of. I just want to quote one example in order to show how effectively the department can act in this connection. I refer to the slanderous film “Last Grave at Dimbaza”, which was shown on a television network in the USA a little more than a year ago. The department countered this almost immediately with the film “Black Man Alive”. The result was that our ambassador participated in a television discussion with Mr. Anthony Lewis, and refuted all his allegations. In addition, a written reply appeared later on, called “The South African reply to Dimbaza”, which was published in the New York Times. Sir, I now want to ask what the hon. member for Houghton had to say at that time regarding “Last Grave at Dimbaza”. What role did she play? What questions did she ask here and what attacks did she make? She must tell us now where she stands, now that that matter has been revealed.

Sir, there is still a great deal that could be said in this connection. I should like to refer to the Yearbook, which is a fantastic piece of work. It has already been prescribed at four universities and is internationally recognized as one of the best year books ever published in any country. Then, too, there is the Digest, the circulation of which is 110 000 per week. This magazine gives everyone’s opinion. There are even a few priceless cartoons of the Opposition and the PRP. The outside world praises and pays tribute to us for this unbiased periodical. There is much I could quote in this connection, but unfortunately my time has almost expired. I should have liked to refer to what was said overseas as a result of the temporary suspension of Panorama. We were paid the most glowing compliment we have ever received, by newspaper editors, ministers, members of parliament, radio announcers and heads of universities throughout the world. These people had the highest praise for this impartial, well-considered, neatly presented and excellent piece of work. They said it would be a loss for the world should that magazine cease to be published. Other publications, too, are issued by the department, such as “Opportunities for the Coloureds”, “Die Magtige Rivier getem” and “A State in the making”. As regards the latter publication, I want to say that that State, of course, has now been made. Today we have the independent Transkei.

Sir, I want to conclude by making this appeal. Let us, one and all, not only say that the department has done good work. Every man, woman, boy, girl and infant, White and Black, is responsible for the continued existence of this country, our fatherland. Whether he be an employer or an employee, whether he supports the Opposition or not, the greatest contribution which he can make, is the following: If he is incapable of doing anything positive, he must just stop slandering this country.

Mr. Speaker, one obviously agrees with the sentiments of the hon. member for Sunnyside when he talks about people here wanting to “beswadder” the country. Nobody wants to “beswadder” the country. Our whole purpose in participating in this debate is to show how best we can defend this country. The hon. member for Sunnyside will be shocked if I join in the paean of praise that he has just sung in defence of the Department of Information. I want to try to be a little more realistic than he has been. Let us accept that there is in fact what this motion calls a “subversive propaganda onslaught against South Africa”. Let us accept, too, that there are forces inside and outside the country working for the overthrow of established government by violent or revolutionary means. Let us accept that this is so. Our problem then is to know how best to counter this. We all know that much of what is published abroad about South Africa is untrue or hopelessly exaggerated and unjust. No South African with any common sense would try to defend this. But how best can we counter all the propaganda which is aimed at weakening our position? My submission is that this Government and its agencies are unequipped to do this task effectively and that they are having, in fact, only the minimum of success in their efforts to sell the real South Africa because they are trying to sell a Nationalist version of South Africa. That, I submit, is trying to sell the unsaleable. Nobody in the Free World is going to buy separate development because the world very properly knows that separate development is simply apartheid in some slight disguise. It might, in fact, be argued that this Government and its policies are about as bad an advertisement for South Africa as one can possibly get. Let us take apartheid in its latest guise. It is now known as “plural democracy”, of which the hon. the Minister of the Interior is a great protagonist. This is now being sold—although I must admit a little sheepishly—as a universal franchise. Surely this contention is an insult to the intelligence of normal people, and to advance it in an effort to counteract what this motion calls “the stream of false propaganda” is not only a waste of time, but is positively counterproductive. Who in the decision-making agencies in Washington, Paris, London and Bonn is going to believe that a plural democracy is a substitute for a general franchise? Nobody. Seen for what it is, it is an attempt to evade the heart of South Africa’s political problem. Where does this kind of propaganda get us? It simply destroys our credibility. I therefore suggest that to disseminate information suggesting that we have solved the problem of giving all sections of the community a fair share in the governmental process, is a waste of time and it brings this country and its agencies into disrepute. That is what, in fact, happens.

You are a real old sourpuss this morning.

Let us take another issue which has brought South Africa into disrepute, viz. this question of the removal of discrimination based on race and colour to which we are now committed. The Government is on record as wanting to abolish this. What has it done in practice in 2½ years since Ambassador Pik Botha gave this undertaking? It has removed race division signs on post offices; thank heaven for that. It has opened up a few hotels and theatres to people of colour. It has made possible a measure of multiracial sport, although calling it multinational, whatever that may be. In the last few days it has very commendably introduced the new Workmen’s Compensation Bill, treating all workers, irrespective of colour, on an equal footing. This, I would say, is the best propaganda that this country has had for months. This shows the direction in which we have to move. However, in the major fields of race discrimination this Government has not done a thing, and to try to pretend differently in the outside world is simply to make ourselves ridiculous.

You were fast asleep.

Hundreds of thousands of people of colour are not allowed to do the work of which they are capable. I need not run through this whole catalogue of discrimination, because we already know it. Why do we not do something about that? That would be the best propaganda that this country could possibly get. That would be the answer to subversive propaganda and that would be the answer to our detractors and those who want to plough us under. I submit that not all the information or propaganda services in the world will manage to create what this motion calls “a positive image of South Africa” as long as our Statute Book and our way of life are the embodiment of discrimination based on race and colour. This is what is wrong. To the extent that the Department of Information and other Government agencies try to counter false propaganda by trying to justify these aspects of Nationalist policy, they are simply wasting their time and they are wasting the money of the taxpayers. If they do not believe that coming from these benches, let me quote to them what one of their own people has said. He is one of their own people, one of the leading intellectuals in that party, namely Dr. Willem de Klerk. He said this a few months ago, in November, when he talked about the question of what one can do to defend South Africa. He said—

Here he refers to the Government—

There it is. These are the facts.

Now you can read what Durbanville said!

It is very clear, from what the mover and the seconder of this motion have said, that communism, of course, as one would have expected, is high on their list of priorities. Naturally I am even more opposed to communism than they are because it is the antithesis of my whole political philosophy. I put the individual before the State, unlike some of the gentlemen on the other side. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton has exactly the same philosophy. There is absolutely no difference at all. She is a democrat like we are, unlike those hon. members. That is the difference. We are never going to fight communism unless we can offer the dispossessed in our country what they, not we, regard as a fair share of the opportunities for wealth. To keep on moaning about communism in the outside world and how to counter it effectively, without doing some of these things, is not going to get us anywhere. We are never going to be able to compete successfully with communism while 70% of the population regards itself as being deprived of rights and opportunities. People are going to be attracted to communism, or any other revolutionary doctrine for that matter, as long as they are convinced that they have nothing to lose by abandoning one system and embracing another. This is what our propaganda services ought to realize. It is no use fulminating against communism while this kind of situation prevails. Let me give an example taken from two impeccable sources, i.e. the SABC on the one hand, of course, and Rapport. Dr. Frank Quint, a professional man who was taking part in a panel discussion a few weeks ago, said the following—

These are the facts. Here we have to do with the true facts of the condition, and not with theories or false propaganda which comes from everywhere. I say again that we are never going to fight communism successfully as long as we ourselves perpetrate some of communism’s worst sins like detention without trial, keeping people incommunicado for indefinite periods, restricting freedom of movement and making people carry passes. We are never going to convince the noncommunist world to take us seriously in our opposition to communism as long as we keep on threatening the freedom of the Press and restricting its rights, as was done in the recent Defence Bill. We are never successfully going to counter communism or hostile criticism from the Free World, which is what people are complaining about here, as long as we harry newspaper men, as has been happening recently. There was the case just a couple of days ago of another reporter on The World in Johannesburg being detained.

You forgot about Holiday and Rabkin!

The editor had to protest. He said the following to the hon. the Minister of Justice—

Look at the adverse publicity South Africa received today at the hands of the International Press Institute which records “a sharp crack-down on free reporting in South Africa”. No information officer or any genius in any information department is going to undo the kind of damage that is done by such action on the part of the Government.

Where do you get that?

That is what is going to happen. Let us look for a moment, critically if we can, at the work of the Department of Information abroad. I do not want to minimize, for one moment, the difficulties experienced by our information people overseas. I think they often do a magnificent job under very trying circumstances and for this we want to thank them. However, there are so many exceptions and we feel we must draw attention to them. Far too often their approach is hopelessly wrong because of the defensive attitude of their spokesmen and the feeling that they must always put the Establishment point of view, no matter how indefensible it is. I shall be giving an example of this in a minute. I have an example here, and this is a report that was written by the political correspondent of the Daily Dispatch after he spent a couple of weeks in the United States talking to all kinds of people over there. He admits that the Department of Information has a difficult and unrewarding job overseas, but he goes on to say—

He says that time and again in the United States he was shown or told about letters sent to newspapers by the department complaining about the alleged misuse of facts. On every occasion this man says he was asked with regard to the information people: “What is wrong with these people? How can they expect us to publish this kind of thing?” He gives examples of this, which I am prepared to give to the department. He spoke at one stage to the foreign policy spokesman of the Conservative Party in Canada—this really ought to appeal to the heart of the Minister of Information—who was astonished at the reaction of information people there. This man expressed deep sympathy to an information officer over what had happened in Soweto when, according to him, the information officer “turned on me as if I had attacked his mother and said that in South Africa ‘everything is all right’ ”. No doubt that officer was just taking his cue from the Prime Minister who said there was no crisis in this country. What kind of effect does this produce on the outside world? It makes us look absolutely absurd. Sir, one can go on like this almost indefinitely, but I have to hurry.

Look at what is happening in the USA where, incidentally, if I may say so, the Department of Information has become associated with what I can only call some very controversial personalities. I am thinking at the moment of two people in particular: An Episcopalian minister and columnist, Lester Kinsolving and a Black public relations man called Andrew Hatcher. The Washington Post revealed recently that Kinsolving received shares valued at over £2 000 from Donald de Kieffer, a partner in a law firm the department employs there, for attending company meetings and replying to charges. For this little effort on his part, the State Department’s Correspondents’ Association expelled Mr. Kinsolving. That is the kind of attitude he was meeting with from his colleagues. As far as Mr. Hatcher is concerned, he is a Black man who has little standing in the Black community—the department can accept that. The hon. member for Sunnyside spoke of the work of the hon. member for Houghton. I may say that the Department of Information did not hesitate to publish a picture of the hon. member for Houghton in the company of Mr. Hatcher and to use this as evidence in their favour. Therefore, when it suits them, we do of course have our uses, but then, I am afraid, it is a very selective process. I am simply arguing that we have to be terribly careful what we do over there.

Let me indicate the type of reaction we have had. The Washington Post which, heaven knows, is no rag, has spoken of the department’s activities in Washington as being “as bad as the lobbying of the South Koreans”, who have been accused variously of attempting to influence Congress by allegedly buying off members. We have to think of these things. The Washington Post also published, a couple of weeks ago, a lengthy front-page article, what they call an exposé, of the machinery of what the newspaper termed “a sophisticated public relations campaign”. I am entirely in favour of sophisticated publicity campaigns, provided they do not become counter-productive as so much of the Department’s work has become. I am afraid that that is precisely what this Madison Avenue approach may be doing. I should like to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say about this. Are they serving the purpose of countering false propaganda, or are they giving this country a phony image? That is what I want to know.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that all responsible South Africans want to counteract false propaganda. Everyone wants to build up a positive image of South Africa. Nothing will produce a more positive image of South Africa more swiftly and more effectively than a change of heart on the part of this benighted Government with its deplorable record of blunder and bluster and its endless sins of omission and commission, committed in an attempt to implement a policy which is so often in conflict with basic human rights. [Interjections.] After Durbanville, I fear that the chances of this happening are minimal and that we are in for even more “krag-dadigheid” than we have ever had before. Therefore South Africa must continue to suffer and to bleed.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Parktown has proved one thing this morning, it is that the biggest propagandists against South Africa are certain elements within the Opposition, supported by an extremely hostile English-language Press. This unholy alliance is the source of virtually all subversive propaganda against South Africa abroad, from where it is applied in a thick stream to seek the downfall of a peaceful and stable country, one with a stable anti-communist Government. One of the most undermining forms of propaganda is when insurrection and revolution is stirred up deliberately, because this not only discourages investors, but also causes them to flee.

I shall return to the hon. member for Parktown later on.

During the debate on the part appropriation Bill I said that, inter alia, the Sunday Times was deliberately stirring up insurrection and revolution. The very next Sunday, 13 February, the editor of the Sunday Times challenged me to make the statement in public so that he might summon me for damages. I want to adduce evidence today that the Sunday Times is deliberately stirring up insurrection and revolution as a part of an undermining propaganda campaign against South Africa locally, a campaign which must find a response abroad. Hon. members should listen to what I am going to read out to them now. In the same newspaper in which I was challenged, the following appeared—

Take note of the words “a White friend”. This is an indication already. I quote further—

This is not a subtle insinuation. [Interjections.] I am not through yet. This is not a subtle insinuation, but a deliberate attempt to create the impression that the non-Whites will acquire the property of the Whites within a certain time. I quote further—

Once again, not an insinuation, but a blatant statement that the Whites in this country will succumb as a result of revolution. I quote further—

Mr. Speaker, I want to contend that these statements which were allegedly overheard, are absolutely false fabrications concocted by the Sunday Times, for the purpose of creating a psychosis of insurrection and revolution as a part of the subversive internal onslaught on the Government. The hon. member for Bryanston, who was so loud-mouthed a few moments ago, said the following the very next day, on Monday, 14 February—

Mr. Speaker, is this not remarkable, this similarity, within a matter of two days, between the statements and remarks of the Sunday Times and those of the hon. member for Bryanston? Now I want to ask the hon. member for Bryanston—he is laughing at the moment—whether this statement is calculated to improve or to detract from South Africa’s image abroad.

It is to wake you up! Because you are asleep! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I can set the hon. member’s mind at rest. We are awake. However, he and his party, with their type of propaganda onslaught, are creating a psychosis for insurrection and revolution, things which will destroy this country and all its people, White and Black—and that hon. member is included in this. Further allegations, such as the one which we have just heard from the hon. member for Parktown, allegations concerning detentions by the Police, etc., as well as the statement which he made by way of implication, viz. that South Africa was a Police State, and that South Africa was facing its own French revolution, are statements which are freely made by those people.

Is this not undermining, destructive propaganda against South Africa? Is this not foreign propaganda of which the origin is here in our midst? Remarks of this type which are cold-bloodedly calculated to create a certain situation in South Africa, something which is being done as a part of an undermining propaganda onslaught, is also the source of the overseas onslaught against South Africa.

That is not true!

Mr. Speaker, I regret that this is hurting the hon. member. Of course, he knows that this is true. Since the motion before this House asks that we take cognizance of the subversive propaganda onslaught against South Africa, Opposition actions to which I have referred, and the conduct of its partners in the Press, definitely constitute one of the fronts which we shall have to investigate urgently. Surely I have the right to ask the hon. the Minister who is to reply to the motion later on, how long we are still going to tolerate this. How long can South Africa afford this? What are we going to do about this? That is the question. What are we going to do about it?

What do you suggest?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown said that the NP policy was the cause of the propaganda against South Africa. Surely this is not true. This is the very type of propaganda on which these people (the PRP themselves) prey. Surely the foreign onslaughts against South Africa, both in the political and economic spheres, are not inspired chiefly by this, because, after all, there are examples, unprecedented examples, of much more serious forms of discrimination throughout the world. Did the world not take cognizance of an exhibition of photographs which was held in London this week at which photographs of the riots in Soweto were exhibited? Where do those photographs come from? Who took those photographs? Why are photographs taken in Cambodia not being exhibited in London today as well, photographs taken in Cambodia, where 1,2 million people died as a result of communist brutalities last year? This number exceeds the number of people who died in the last war. Of a total of 7 million people, 2,25 million were exterminated by the communists. This week we learned of a report which read that in Indonesia more than one hundred thousand people had died as a result of communist brutalities last year. What is happening in Uganda? Why are photographs of what is happening in these territories not being exhibited in London too? Cruelty and discrimination in other countries do not attract any attention. It does not bother the world nor does it bother the Opposition. It is not discussed in the UNO and no money, time and energy is spent on taking action against it. But thousands of millions of rands are being spent throughout the world—and it would be interesting to know exactly how much—to plan and engage in hostility against South Africa. This is a sheer, unnecessary waste of money which is instrumental in promoting inflation in the world. This money could much rather be utilized for alleviating the real distress of hunger and sickness in the world. These are conditions which South Africa does not know, in any event, but which will be transferred to South Africa and created here if the world persists in its senseless deeds against South Africa, supported by our own Opposition and hostile elements in our own Press.

Now, the question is why action is being taken against South Africa alone, while there are examples of much worse forms of discrimination in other countries of the world, which cannot be compared to South Africa in brutality, because we are definitely not brutal. The reply to the question why South Africa alone is singled out, is that South Africa, the country of so-called suppression, allows effective propaganda machinery to be created against it, and in addition protects such machinery. The propaganda machinery can act here and abroad at their own sweet will. After all, we know that other countries of the world do not tolerate anything of the kind. They act against it with cold-blooded violence. Then these tyrants are the professional stone-throwers at South Africa in the world forum. These are the people who determine the criteria and lay down the guide-lines on which hon. members sitting here rely in their judgment against South Africa.

It seems to me as though the political thugs have gained the say in international politics and our Opposition worships them. Political gangsters who measure with double standards, control international politics today. With their power and influence they force virtually the whole world to hate South Africa. Some countries have to spend millions of rands and other countries have to do without millions of rands on account of the hate campaign against South Africa. The thousands of millions of rands spent in this useless way, will probably be calculated by some organization in the future and I believe that the amount will shock the world. The world will be shocked to know how many thousands of millions of rands are spent in a useless way in the attempt to generate hate against South Africa.

We must reverse this position now. We must ward off this vicious onslaught on South Africa by the mighty people of the world. This virtually appears to be an impossible task, especially if one has to do with certain elements in the Opposition as well as certain hostile elements in our Press. Yet spectacular progress has been made which the Opposition, through the hon. member for Parktown, has tried to belittle. The hon. member belittles the attempts which we are making to counteract the propaganda which is being used to our detriment abroad. My colleagues on this side have already referred to the attempts which are being made and the hon. the Minister who is to reply before long, will definitely also elaborate on this.

I just want to add that the department, with its 21 local and 19 foreign offices staffed by White, Black and Coloured people, is doing a Herculean task for South Africa, one which is of inestimable value. Locally the officials of the department occupy a position of confidence—not in a position of authority— as regards our non-Whites. The officials are repeatedly consulted about the creation of goodwill and good relations. In spite of the fact that the Opposition tries to drive in wedges and seek confrontation between White and Black, there are hundreds of Blacks who come to the department to seek and offer help. I want to refer to one example. Two years ago riots occurred at the Free State goldmines. There was a shouting, screaming mass who were breaking down gates and plundering. One single White man, an official of the Department of Information, met and addressed this mass, after which they dispersed calmly. This is the type of work which can be done by the department if we are afforded the opportunity of conducting our affairs in peace and quiet, without subversive propaganda which is deliberately created.

However, the question is what else we should do. The reply is that we should discipline the hostile elements in our Press and certain elements in the Opposition. I do not say that we should muzzle them, but that we should discipline them.

How are you going to do it?

I shall tell that hon. member in a moment how we are going to do it. The inspiration which creates patriotism and the love of one’s fatherland and which compels one to serve one’s people and fatherland in an unqualified way without seeking personal gain—least of all political gain—and which makes one act responsibly from one’s own free will, is obviously lacking in that group of people. I do not know what inspriation they have. I do not know what their compensation is, but I can hazard a guess in this regard. I can form a good idea about that.

The question is what else we should do in order to break down this undermining propaganda and the selective moralities of the political intriguers of this world. The answer is not to be found in an adaptation of policy as the hon. member for Parktown said, because Africa does not seek any change of policy, political participation or a sharing of power, not even between separate Black races, let alone between White and Black. What makes him think that this will stop the advance of communists through Africa? On the contrary. The communists seek a takeover of power and to this end they employ not only undermining propaganda, but also the brute force of war.

In order to reverse the position, I believe our Ministers, as our most important line of information, must take action overseas and bring about personal contact. The senseless questions put by the Opposition in this House each year on journeys and the cost of such journeys, must now come to an end. Any Minister who is worth his salt, must travel abroad to put the case of South Africa in the face of the enemy. The Opposition should not make this smack of extravagance. Our second most important line of information is our ambassadors and information men abroad. They should address masses of people instead of just relying on information documents, because by doing so we are no longer achieving our end.

I should just like to put one matter to the hon. the Minister for further consideration. Our third line of information ought to be knowledgeable, properly equipped members of Parliament, who can put the Government’s case abroad by means of personal contact. It is the Government’s task to propagate its case and policy abroad and to make it acceptable. To that end it should make use of knowledgeable, properly equipped members of Parliament. [Interjections.] Naturally, I exclude the enemies of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I want to record on behalf of the hon. members who sit on these benches with me our appreciation of the work which is done by the department in a field which is not always easy, either within South Africa or, more particularly, outside South Africa. There are some of us who have first-hand experience of the work done by our information service overseas. We should like to pay tribute to the department for the work it has been doing. We are also sensitive to the difficulties under which they work.

If the figure that is given today is correct, namely that R15 million is devoted to the information services, I would say that it is a very small amount to be spent by a country which is singled out for criticism to the extent that we have been in all forums of the world for so long. I think it is right for us to remember that the department’s information services very often operate in a hostile atmosphere and in countries where South Africa’s name is anathema. It is also my experience that there is a fund of goodwill that is being tapped by our information officers even in those countries that are hostile to us. I think that they are doing good work in that respect as well. A third reason why they operate under some difficulty, is because they are public servants and, to that extent, being employees of the Government, they cannot necessarily make the same impact as people who are not in that capacity. In addition, there are the unsympathetic ears which they very often have to reach running the public media overseas, for example the radio, television and the public Press. Very often when I was overseas I saw that our Department of Information wished to correct erroneous things that had been said about South Africa but for them to be able to get a correction in some of those newspapers was almost an impossible task. Therefore it is a fact that they work under considerable difficulties overseas.

These difficulties are also aggravated by actions of people here at home. In this respect the hon. the Ministers themselves are not entirely blameless. I was in Washington in August and happened to be with the head of our information services there when the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs made a speech at the Natal congress of the NP. The information officer interpreted the hon. the Minister’s speech in all good faith and gave it a heading, which I found completely acceptable. Within a day of its having been distributed, a correction had to be issued in the United Nations on the grounds that our information service had not properly interpreted what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had said to the NP congress. An information service cannot function like that overseas. Another incident while I was overseas, was the hon. the Minister of Justice making a speech in the Free State in which he said some things that were open to misinterpretation and, sure enough, our information service in America had to try and explain the next day what the hon. the Minister had in fact said.

We also have Press reports from South Africa sent overseas by stringers. It was referred to as long ago as the report of the Press commission, and it seems to me as if the Government has done singularly little about it. The Press commission referred to a man called Uys, who has continued to write for the Sunday Times for years and years as a dishonest journalist. I have quoted on occasions in this House the other things which the Press commission said about him. Stanley Uys, however, is now the overseas representative of the Saan-group in London. What harm has this man not done to the image of South Africa through the years? If one reads previous debates in this House, going as far back as the days of Eric Louw, one sees that he was also critical of Stanley Uys. This man is now in a position to write authoritatively regarding conditions in South Africa where he has been shown, by his actions in South Africa, to be a liar and has been condemned by the Press commission as having been a dishonest journalist. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Parktown is a very capable and very nice man, but he has a blind spot when it comes to the Press. He refers to restrictions on Press freedom, to the harrying of the Press and to the restrictions on other Pressmen, but has he forgotten that two Pressmen like Holiday and Rabkin have recently been tried under the Terrorism Act, have been found guilty and have been sentenced to gaol for some considerable period of time? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Parktown should therefore look carefully also at the profession to which he belonged. I think it would be fair to say there is Press freedom in South Africa and that it has never been restricted, but that there has also been an abuse of Press freedom by many of the newspapers in South Africa to the extent that it has become a licence. It is a pity that the hon. member, who is a capable member who can make a good contribution, spoilt his speech today by what I can only describe as extravagant language of the same kind that is sent overseas by some of the newspapers in South Africa and which is used to our disadvantage there.

I believe in an aggressive approach by our information department. It is a department which should fight back and which should hit back where it possibly can. It is far better than an approach of self-defence and that is why we welcome the television interviews, the information films and the replies, where possible across the public media, that emanate from the department. We on these benches also believe in a constructive approach. Not only should there be an aggressive approach, but we also believe in doing something constructive here in South Africa.

*For this reason I move the following amendment—

†This amendment covers a point made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North, namely that the whole of the South African population should realize the dangers in which we are. The amendment also goes further because it asks the hon. the Minister to see that the whole population of South Africa is inspanned in an effort to have an aggressive fight-back in the field of information. All the people in South Africa must be inspanned, irrespective of colour. I am going to make a suggestion that an action committee be formed consisting of people of all races to work for and to decide upon the methods by which South Africa can best sell itself overseas positively and accurately and how it can, if necessary, defend itself. If there is a successful attack on South Africa, as is referred to in the hon. member’s motion, then it will not only affect the White people of South Africa, it is going to affect all people in South Africa. That is why all people in South Africa should be inspanned to try to assist the department in its effort to sell our country, a country which belongs to all of us, regardless of colour, better overseas and to stave off …

Are you going to sell eye-wash?

… attacks that are made upon us. I anticipated that the hon. member for Houghton might conceivably make an interjection like that. I am going to tell her what one can sell overseas.

I would like to know.

There are innumerable benefits that the non-White people in this country of ours enjoy that are not enjoyed by non-White people in the rest of the African continent. Secondly, there is an inestimable amount of goodwill between the races in South Africa which even we ourselves do not often appreciate. I believe that there is far more racial goodwill between White and non-White in South Africa than there is ill-will and tension. The same thing applies to Rhodesia, which I recently visited. I had not been there for many years, and I expected to see evidence of racial tension. However, if one goes through the cities of Rhodesia, one sees very little evidence of racial tension, but one does see manifestations of racial good-will. The same applies here. I believe that there are untapped resources of goodwill among Coloured people, Indian people and the Black people of South Africa which could be inspanned in a national effort, sponsored by the hon. the Minister of Information. This can be done by sending people overseas, all of us together as teams, to try to put right the record as far as South Africa is concerned. I have no doubt whatsoever that people of all races in the times of danger that face us, will come forward and help, provided leadership is given by the hon. the Minister and provided the form of action committee, the establishment of which I advocated today, is brought into being.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that South Africa is the target of subversive propaganda is, of course, something which we all accept. This is beyond all doubt. However, we must not think that it is only South Africa who has to contend with this problem. The extent may be greater in our case, but false and subversive propaganda is being used against almost all countries today, whether the country be rich or poor, developed or undeveloped. It is not only being applied in the Communist or socialist world, but also in the Free World. The technique sometimes varies between sophisticated methods and flagrant, pointblank methods. However, most of the time one is dealing with subtle methods. Of course, it is true that the propagandist or false apostle, one can say, battens on the ignorance of the uninformed, and therefore it is the first task of any Government to ensure that when its country, its people, its norms, its morals and customs are under attack and it is being condemned, it is at least condemned for those things to which it really subscribes and in which it really believes, and not those things which are incorrectly attributed to it. This motion states that appreciation must be expressed for what is being done internally and abroad by means of the dissemination of information and otherwise. One cannot fault it as such, especially if one believes that what is being done, is effective.

†However, I wish to draw a clear-cut distinction between what is being done in this regard abroad and what is being done inside South Africa. First of all I must admit that in South Africa I have not come across any “stream of false propaganda” about the Government’s policy in South Africa. In fact, the reverse is true. One finds that there is a stream of false propaganda emanating from the Government side, its newspapers and its communications media—notably the SABC—about the policies of its political opponents. We in the UP, in particular, have had experience of this, over a large number of years, from both the Afrikaans-language and the English-language Press. We have had such false propaganda to cope with about our party and our policies in this country.

What is your policy?

The fact that one has had experience of this over the years about Opposition policies, does not mean that false propaganda about NP policies is not evident in South Africa. In this regard I think the Government should take a look at itself. It often presents its own internal policies in a deliberately incorrect way in order to play up to some local audience, or to hide some undesirable features. I want to give an example. This is why there is very little agreement, even amongst Government supporters, about the real intention and purpose of independent Bantustans or homelands. One therefore has difficulty in deciding between the true and the false state of affairs. For some the independence of homelands, as presented, is the ultimate in the liberation of the Black man. It is right and just, according to their argument, that each nation must have its own sovereignty. It does not matter whether that nation is poor, it is there and must have its own country. There are others, however, who honestly and sincerely believe that the real intention and purpose of the policy of independent homelands, for instance, has been—and still is—an exercise in terms of which one can discriminate, with a clear conscience, against Blacks who happen to be outside the homelands because, after all, they can enjoy liberties and freedom elsewhere. So here one has a difficulty created internally by the supporters of the Government themselves, and obviously this has an effect on South Africa. This is, for instance, why in Parliament we have had—I can well remember this—the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education speaking about “die onvervreembare reg van die burgers van een land om teen die burgers van ’n ander land te diskrimineer in hierdie opsig”. The point I want to make is that we have a situation where both views cannot be true. One must be false. If anyone has to be blamed for this situation, however, it is the Government itself.

It needs to look at itself. It has landed in this trouble through its own actions and, I would say, through its inability to withstand the temptation of presenting and marketing its policy in an ambiguous way in an effort to make that policy, in many respects, be and mean all things to all men. I do not accept that there exists, internally, this tremendous stream of false propaganda. Whatever false propaganda there may be about their own policy and their own intention, I believe they should have a hard look at themselves. One also finds that in South Africa thousands of rand are spent in distributing pamphlets and publications such as the South African Digest. This must cost the State and the information services something. Money of the taxpayer, which could in fact have been spent far more fruitfully overseas, is really just being wasted here internally.

As far as false propaganda abroad is concerned, the Government in many respects also faces certain dilemmas in counteracting that propaganda. The basic reason for this is that, quite frankly, it is forced by circumstances to adjust its own policy deliberately for overseas consumption. I think that most of us have discovered that overseas critics are not as ignorant about South Africa as we might believe, particularly concerning the real conditions in South Africa.

You will be surprised.

The problem is, Sir, that we are living in a fool’s paradise if we believe that this is just a question of people not knowing the true facts. In many respects they know the facts all too well. But just as is the case internally, the reason why we receive bad publicity overseas is not so much the false propaganda but rather the inherent ambiguities in the Government’s own policies.

Let me give an example of this. The Government’s sport policy since the tragic Loskop Dam speech …

Which one?

You might well ask. Since then there have been so many adjustments, somersaults and promises that have not been kept that it is very difficult, even in South Africa itself, to distinguish between what is false and what is true, between policy and intent. In many cases when the true or actual situation is explained to people it does far more damage than good because it in fact lends credibility to those people who claim, for example, that South Africa practises discrimination. It is ironic but a fact, that, without the ambiguities of the Government’s sport policy over the last decade or so, people like Denis Brutus and Peter Hain would most probably have remained unknown and been on the dole. They would most probably have been without an occupation. But we are making mistakes here …

In what respect?

By having this type of policy. You know, Sir, years ago the Nationalist Party used to accuse the United Party of having one policy for the platteland and one for the cities. In the case of the sport policy, the Nationalist Party today have …

Oh, nonsense.

Of course! One has but to read through the reports of the latest get-together, at which there were I do not know how many sport administrators explaining things to them, to see that there is a golden thread running to the effect that one can at least sell that policy in an area such as that hon. member’s constituency and that one can then go along and sell a different version elsewhere. That is basically the trouble. Honestly, must we accept that all the sport administrators in South Africa are mentally retarded? Because that is the only other alternative. Why is there all this confusion?

You are making a proper fool of yourself.

Sir, I think that that hon. gentleman is protesting far too much. He knows very well that this is part of the trouble. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I share the view that there are people throughout the world who are just waiting, hoping that we will make mistakes so that they can grab the opportunity and exploit it, turn it to their own advantage and use it in their campaign against South Africa. It is because of this that we have to be so careful when we come to matters such as this. The hon. member for Parys said that we need to discipline hon. members of the Opposition, but, quite frankly, where we really need discipline, is within the ranks of the governing party. Let us face it: Whatever we say is not of such great importance. After all, it can be said that it was said only by the Opposition and, therefore, how much weight does it carry in South Africa? However, when some one on the other side say these things, whether a member of the NP, a Minister or even a Deputy Minister, they would say: “Well, he is from the inner circle. What he says must be right. If there is confusion in his mind, then there is something inherently wrong with this.” It is because of that that I say: For the sake of South Africa, let us have much more discipline within the ranks of the Government.

Mr. Speaker, I think this House is indebted to the hon. member for Bloemfontein North for having broached this matter here today. I think it is necessary for us to take another look, in the first place, at the onslaught against South Africa and also at who is responsible for it and, in the second place, at the measure of success we have achieved in our attempts to ward off the onslaught. We are dealing here with a very delicate question, where a war of words is being waged and where different factions are fighting for control of the human spirit. Such a war of words is a far more subtle and dangerous than a conventional war, for the enemy is not always identifiable. One does not always know where he is, nor does one know what methods he is going to use. Therefore I say it is certainly necessary, not only that this matter be dicussed but also that a word of thanks ought to be conveyed, from both sides of this House, even from the PRP, to our information officers which South Africa has in the front lines overseas and who have to wage this struggle against people who are sometimes not only mercilessly but also diabolically engaged in launching attacks on us with distortions of facts and confusion of the circumstances. Let me add at once that it is a fact that the Department of Information is making use of people of all colours and races in its information offensive. There is nothing strange about this. On the contrary. Surely hon. members ought to know that I announced in this House a year or two ago that we had employed Coloureds and Asiatics in our information service, that we had stationed some of them overseas. Among others there are two Asiatics at our information office in London, who are stating South Africa’s case. They are full-time officials of the department. At present we have two Coloureds who are at work on a full-time basis in New York stating South Africa’s case there.

Last year we had quite a number of Xhosa overseas, in the employ of the Department of Information, to state South Africa’s case there and to be trained there so that they may, be good information officers for their own Government. We shall soon, as the development in regard to the independence of Bophuthatswana proceeds, be training a number of information officers from Bophuthatswana as well, and shall make use of them at home and abroad to acquire experience, to be able in this way to state their own case, that of their own people. That is part of the picture. It is being done every day. Internally we receive regular visits from opinion-makers from abroad who ask to speak not only to Whites, but also to Blacks, Coloureds, to business leaders and others to hear their honest opinions at first hand. In this way, everyone is being used to state South Africa’s case and to convey the true facts.

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

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, just before lunch I was expressing my thanks to the hon. member for Bloemfontein North for having brought this matter up for discussion today. I also want to thank the speakers from all the various parties who participated in the debate. I also want to convey my thanks to them for the general spirit of responsibility in which this debate took place. However, I would not be doing my duty if I omitted to single out the hon. member for Parktown. His contribution was definitely not only unconstructive, but was, in my opinion, no contribution of any kind through which the necessary status and recognition was accorded to this debate, a status and recognition which the debate does in fact deserve. [Interjections.] That is what I want to say about him as an individual, but further than that I want to say nothing. I do not want to talk to him or his party. Perhaps I shall refer to them again at a later stage.

What is the Department of Information dealing with now in practice? In my opinion the department is dealing in the first place with an onslaught by communism on certain parts of the world, parts of the world which they eventually wish to conquer for their own purposes. In that process we are also dealing with an onslaught on South Africa. The communists do not at this juncture want peace in this part of the world. The communists have no interest in having peace here, and therefore I am convinced in my own mind that they will do everything in their power to prevent a peaceful solution from being found in Rhodesia, for example. It does not suit their purpose at this juncture to have peace in this southern portion of the African continent. It suits their present purpose to have trouble here. Their onslaught on South Africa will therefore be continued.

Mr. Speaker, it is actually far worse even than that. In the global strategy of their onslaught, with world domination as their goal, they will surely not allow themselves to be stopped by what happens in South Africa with regard to changes of Government or in policy. Are there really hon. members who believe that if the PRP were to come into power in South Africa tomorrow, the communists would immediately stop their onslaughts on South Africa, immediately abandon their world strategy, their plan which was worked out years ago? Would they immediately be satisfied because this has now happened?

We do not say that. But we shall in any event make more friends than you have! [Interjections.]

No, Mr. Speaker. On the contrary. [Interjections.] As long ago as October 1973—and I think the hon. member for Parktown should make a very careful note of this date—the Johannesburg newspaper The Star wrote in an editorial column … Of course I am not quite certain who the editor of The Star was at the time. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Parktown will know. I am not certain.

He looks guilty. [Interjections.]

However, what did the editor write on that occasion? He wrote—

So what!

This is how The Star reacted in October 1973.

So what! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am not discussing this matter with the hon. member. I am merely saying that he was still quite sensible then. He is now sitting in a party in which, it seems, he is no longer required to be sensible. [Interjections.]

At that time I had been away for three years from The Star, but the newspaper was still wise nevertheless. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member need not be so sensitive about the election results on the Reef. He may leave if he likes, and we shall continue with our task. He need not concern himself about it. [Interjections.] What is the truth, however? I think history has proved beyond all doubt that communism at the present juncture in its ever-expanding world role, literally and figuratively manifests the characteristics of a mole. Not only do the communists work underground, not only do they dig tunnels below the ground, they are also brought up short when they meet strong resistance and then turn in another direction. It is only when they are able to move through soft soil, without any obstructions in their way, that they will continue to dig and burrow. However, when they come up against a hard rock or against a stone, they turn away, and it is only in isolated and in extreme cases that they will climb in with force of arms and make use of violent means to achieve their goal. In most parts of the world, however, they avoid an armed confrontation and they prefer instead to give way when they meet with strong resistance. Therefore, if we were to put up a poor show here—for whatever reason, or were to make concessions in a way which would create the impression that we were weak internally, it would only serve as an invitation to these people to interfere. They would prefer this, rather than the solid resistance which is being offered at the moment.

I should like to continue in this vein. We are being blamed for many things, but there is one thing which I have recently found a little disconcerting, and I think we and the entire Western world should take a good, hard look at this. In the totalitarian States and in the communist bloc there is no freedom of the Press, no freedom of opinion, of movement, no freedom of any kind. They are controlled by dictatorial measures. The people in those countries are indoctrinated by all the media, the radio, television, newspapers, etc. into believing that what the State does, is right. They are conditioned in all respects to believe that the correct thing is being done. There is no criticism or questioning of what is being done. This is drummed into their thoughts. In this way what is created is not free people or people who think for themselves, but indoctrinated people who become inspired with the correctness of what they believe in. They are so inspired with it that they are prepared to make sacrifices for it, to fight for it and even, if necessary, to die for it. This is the onslaught of the totalitarian State on the West.

In contrast to this the West stands for the fine principles of freedom of speech, Press and religion. The individual must be free to live as he wishes. These are certainly fine ideals for which people will be prepared to die. This is true. Nevertheless one sometimes wonders what will happen when these two schools of thought come up against one another. On the one hand you have the indoctrinated person who only has one thing in his mind, viz. that what he stands for is correct, for that is what he has been indoctrinated to believe. The other person fights for an ideal which is questioned by many around him. It is questioned by his Press, as a result of the freedom of the Press, and by many people who point out weaknesses and errors. If this is taken into consideration, one wonders whether the Western world should not once again try to encourage and inculcate in everyone a new loyalty, patriotism and inspiration for those ideals for which the Western world stands, unequivocally and without any question. In this way we would once again be able to build up a true inspiration for those ideals in which we believe, in contrast to communism with its indoctrination of people in a specific direction. The question arises whether Western society and the fabric of that society does not in essence bear within it the implicit weakness and inability to withstand the united onslaught of the communist with his indoctrinated conduct. I see the clock is ticking away as rapidly as it did last Friday. I shall do my best to finish.

†Secondly, we find people are uninformed or ill-informed about South Africa and do not realize the complexity of its population compilation, or the genuine attempts being made by dedicated, honest people of all races in this country to solve these very difficult problems. Neither do they know about the sincerity of our people. In reality some of these people are too busy even to try to make an in-depth study of this complicated problem. The result is that they over-simplify the problem. People tend to over-simplify all over the world. Switzerland, for example, is so over-simplified that it is immediately associated with one concept only, and that is ice, snow and high mountains. I think the United States of America is quite often over-simplified and associated with everything in the superlative. We associate the United States with everything that is bigger and better, like king-sized Coke and the Dagwood sandwiches …

And things like Ministers’ motor-cars.

Please grow up! I am just using examples. Now, what are the facts? South Africa’s position also is over-simplified and the association is only with one thing: South Africa is a country of suppression. It is over-simplified to merely this, that there are White people suppressing people of other races. No argument will convince them of the opposite. Nothing that you tell them about schools, universities, health services, independence, the fact that people have free elections and can vote, etc., can convince them. The impression seems to be that they have made up their minds the easy way, they are convinced that we are suppressing people and we should not confuse them with the facts.

That seems to be the attitude of many of these people. The news media of our country and the overseas news media could be some of the major allies of South Africa. This department really goes out of its way to assist the Press in South Africa and overseas. Local correspondents will be able to testify of the assistance given by the Department of Information at Press conferences, interviews and with transportation by air to areas where they can look around to see what really happens. If they want to be honest, journalists from overseas newspapers, news agencies, visiting journalists and television teams must testify to the assistance given by the Department of Information. In the majority of these cases we find objectivity and understanding. People are still critical in their articles about what we are doing, but at least there is a better understanding of the problems. The attitude seems to be that they are prepared to give credit where credit is due.

Lately, however, I have perceived a new phenomenon appearing in these papers. I want to call this journalistic racism. It seems to be a new product, produced, packaged and distributed mostly by certain overseas newspapers. This new journalism purports to concern itself with the human dignity, political rights and the economic and spiritual well-being of Black people, but not all Black people, only those who are in contact with White people. If the human dignity of Black people, their political rights and their religion are denied or even ruthlessly stamped out—as happened to the Black Christians in the Sudan and is now happening to Black Christians in Mozambique, Uganda, Guinea, Angola and other assorted one-man Black Marxist dictatorships—the hostile analysis and constant publicity of these events are avoided or played down deliberately. In terms of the new journalistic racism, human dignity is only at stake within a framework of Black/White relations. The newspaper editors and particularly the reporters who were allowed to create this new Frankenstein will probably protest at being labelled journalistic racists, but the obsession with ethnic problems in South Africa, to the exclusion of similar problems elsewhere in the world or on this continent, reflected in the columns of certain of these newspapers, cannot be explained in any other way. While one of these journalists was in South Africa, a coup d’état took place in Burundi. The problem in Burundi is that only 14% of the Blacks, the Watusi, have the vote and they ruthlessly oppress the Bahutu, who comprise 85% of the population. There is no sign of Black majority rule. After an abortive uprising of the Bahutus in 1972, Watusi troups systematically slaughtered some 200 000 Bahutus, civil servants, students and priests. This newspaper correspondent should have done a series of in-depth articles on discrimination in Burundi, or Black discrimination against Blacks. Instead the anti-White racism or journalistic racism of the editor of this paper prevailed, and a series on South Africa was published.

The riots in South Africa of last year are a serious matter in our eyes in that they were damaging to our relations with Africa, to our socio-political development and to human relations in this country and in general. We are sorry that this happened, but nothing that has happened in South Africa during the past months can even begin to compare with the religious, political, racial and ethnic conflicts which have torn the fabric of society elsewhere in Africa, Latin America, Europe and Asia during the past two decades and which, according to the latest count, left more than 12 million people dead. Cambodia is a good example of this. Yet the events in South Africa, because, I want to claim, of journalistic racism, a new phenomenon in journalism, have been deliberately lifted out of their global and even their African context, to be dealt with in scope and depth normally reserved for wars such as in the Middle East. The massacres in Rwanda, Burundi, the Cameroons, Uganda and in the Sudan received at that time less persistent coverage and analysis in the newspaper world than South Africa’s internal riots.

One of the ways in which we try to counteract this negative or slanted reporting, is to make use of unorthodox methods, such as the appointment of public relations firms to promote South Africa and the appointment of lobbyists. I call it unorthodox, but that would only be true in the South African local context. The appointment of lobbyists by countries, firms and organizations to serve a certain common interest, is, as a matter of fact, common practice in America. Unorthodox methods have indeed been singularly effective in the past year in the department’s efforts to promote understanding among opinion-makers and decision-takers abroad. Take, for instance, our lobbyists in Washington. This is what Mr. Paul Hencke of the prestigious Washington magazine, United States News and World Report, wrote recently—

This comment by a formidable observer in Washington, seems to express an opinion shared by many of our arch-enemies in a number of anti-South African organizations abroad. In the past few months alone several articles and books were inspired and produced by these adversaries in which they expressed concern about South Africa’s success in fighting the psychological battle, the war of words. Our lobbying firm in Washington, as I have already indicated, was successful in defeating the so-called Transkei resolution, which would not only have committed the United States Congress to non-recognition of the independent homeland, but would also have had serious implications in other fields. This resolution would have seriously affected our relationship with the United States of America in a much broader area. By canvassing congressmen and arming them with information about the Transkei, this firm succeeded in whipping up enough support in a matter of three days to defeat the so-called Transkei resolution as proposed by Congressman Diggs. At this stage our Washington lobbyists are busy supplying American firms who have interests in South Africa, with all the necessary data and details in order to enable them to stave off attacks on their presence in the Republic of South Africa.

This brings me to the statement issued by several United States firms in Washington recently. This week several American firms with local affiliations issued a statement of principles for their operations in South Africa. The six-point statement contains guide-lines concerning equal and fair employment of Black workers in South Africa, their training and education, housing, recreation and health facilities. In expressing their desire to contribute to the well-being of the Black worker in South Africa, these American companies are to be commended. In fact, the authorities welcome their declared intent to give further impetus to the existing extensive development programmes already in operation in South Africa, as a result of which the Black man finds himself outstripping his counterpart on the African continent, and in many other areas of the world, in all fields of human endeavour. It is, of course, assumed that the same guide-lines will be applicable to other parts of the continent and of the world where these and other American firms have business interests at the same time.

*What are we dealing with in practice as far as this motion is concerned and what are we, as Department of Information, at present engaged in doing? In the first place we are faced with an organized communist onslaught on South Africa in an attempt to soften up our people so that communism may ultimately triumph and so that they may ultimately control South Africa in their plan for ultimate world domination. In the second place, an onslaught is being financed and organized by anti-South African groups. Some people owe their entire livelihood to an anti-South African campaign. So we find people who do not know what they are demonstrating for, but who are paid simply to keep an anti-South African campaign going in numerous countries of the world: Professional demonstrators are paid to demonstrate and sometime, to the great amusement of all observers, they use last week’s placard for this week’s demonstration. In addition we also have to deal with the uninformed masses. One is astonished—if one speaks to the ordinary man in the street overseas—at his ignorance of South Africa, an abysmal ignorance which one cannot understand, particularly in view of the modem communications media which are available and the tremendous spate of knowledge which is disseminated from time to time.

What is the answer to all these problems, what are we doing about them and what ought we to do? I think it is in the interests of everyone in this House and in the interests of everyone in this country that we should do what we are called upon to do to convey the correct image of South Africa at any price. I have frequently stated abroad, and I want to repeat it here, that I am prepared to be criticized, and even prepared to be crucified if necessary for what our policy is. We are so frequently criticized, crucified and condemned in advance for what other people think our policy is. This is where our problem lies. [Interjections.]

Secondly, I want to make a serious appeal to everyone—and I am including in this appeal Ministers, members of the Government, the Opposition and everyone else in South Africa—to weigh the words we use in connection with South Africa so that we do not create unnecessary problems for South Africa and so that we do not embarrass South Africa unnecessarily and in that way provide our enemies with ammunition with which they can attack our country and distort our image. I have included everyone in my appeal and I want to add that I am making a special appeal to our English-language Press in South Africa. I am not singling them out because I want to suggest that they alone are guilty of this, I am singling them out for one reason only, and that is because the language in which they write is an international language, a language which is understood all over the world, while the other Press media are not understood all over the world. I am making an appeal to them not to be so irresponsible in their legitimate attacks on the Government— they are entitled to do so in terms of our policy that the Press in South Africa must be free and we have no intention of touching this—as to harm South Africa itself or the image of South Africa in the process through mistakes. These newspapers are read overseas, and I am therefore asking them for responsible journalism, particularly those whose language medium is internationally understood.

In addition we should, before we act, give thorough consideration to our actions. Of course we cannot allow overseas pressure to dictate to us. That we cannot do, but sometimes we do stupid things, and I want to mention an example of this.

Hear, hear!

It seems I have a chorus of supporters on the other side today. We consider many things before we decide about them and put them into effect. I often find myself in a quandary. I find myself in a position where, as Minister of Information, I know what effect a certain decision is going to have on the image of South Africa abroad. But owing to my position as Minister of the Interior I have a duty to perform in respect of the internal security of the State. Sometimes I have to choose between those two alternatives, knowing that if, as Minister of the Interior, I put that action into effect, it will reflect in a certain way on our country overseas.

However, if I do not put it into effect, it will lead to greater internal problems and then I have to accept what weighs most heavily. That is the problem we frequently have to to contend with. However, we sometimes do stupid things, and I want to give an example of this. We have done all kinds of things to rectify South Africa’s image, in the field of sport as well. Wonderful results have been achieved in many countries of the world. A certain person—I do not want to mention names now because I do not want to take up old issues—then decided to take a certain Black athlete who was on a practice run near Pretoria off the road and to arrest him after saying to the athlete: “You may not run here; you may not participate here.” Everything we have built up over a period of six months with our efforts overseas is destroyed with that one report and that one photograph which appeared in the Press. Therefore we are sometimes unnecessarily stupid in our actions in this regard, and we have to be more careful.

It is true, after all, that this country is our common and only fatherland. If there were ever a reason for everyone in South Africa to join forces and manifest loyalty and unshakeable patriotism towards our homeland, it is the times we are now living in, for now all of us have to act with greater collective responsibility than ever before so that we do not, in these days in particular, afford our foreign opponents the opportunity of damaging South Africa in any way. In this the Department of Information will take the lead and in this numerous other departments are co-operating with us in an important and prominent role. The Departments of Foreign Affairs and Information are co-operating perfectly in this field. Our officials in the front lines are fighting daily for this cause. I am therefore asking that speeches in this House and outside should be made in such a way that, without there being any need for us to impose any restrictions on anyone if they want to attack the Government, South Africa’s enemies cannot get at us as a result of speeches made here or elsewhere.

I want to thank the hon. member once again for his motion, as well as all members who participated in the debate, and give them the assurance that this is the course they will find the Department of Information and its officers adopting in defence of our common fatherland against any external attacks that may be made on us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in moving the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) the operation of laws in force in the Republic and which apply to Bantu in or near such urban areas;
2. (2) the operation of the laws relating to freedom of movement and employment and the production of reference books or other identification documents; and
3. (3) the employment and housing of migrant labourers, as well as the economic and social effects of the migrant labour system on the way of life of the labourers concerned and on the urban Bantu community in general, and the future policy, which should be followed in this regard.

The importance of the problems of the urban Bantu probably no longer needs to be stressed in this House. The events of the past few months since June last year bear eloquent testimony to the situation. However, the way we approach our Black problem in the cities is indeed going to be the touchstone as regards the question whether our relations policy in South Africa can be successfully handled or whether it will perhaps lead inevitably to confrontation, conflict and eventual race warfare. No aspect of the Bantu question and the problem of the relations between Whites and Bantu is as potentially explosive as this very aspect, viz. the presence of the Black man in our urban areas outside the homelands. We can do what we like, but the number of Black people in the cities, in other words, our urban Black population, is going to increase inexorably. The figures are there; statistics are available for those who want to see them.

The drawing power of our economy, our economy’s dependence on Bantu labour and the incapacity of the homelands and other rural areas to create sufficient employment opportunities, is simply going to result in the number of Blacks in our urban areas increasing progressively. The presence of the Black man in our cities must therefore be recognized as a permanent and unchangeable element in our population structure. It must also be recognized as a phenomenon which cannot be changed. Any other point of departure is unrealistic and, indeed, dangerous in the extreme. When I refer to the Black man in the city, I am of course referring chiefly to the established urban population and not to the temporary contract workers. It is very clear that the aspirations of the Black man in the city cannot be satisfied within the framework of the policy of homeland development.

Oh, nonsense!

The simple reason for this is that the homeland Governments are unable to play a material role in the improvement of the concrete living conditions of the Bantu in the cities.

But that is simply not true.

The hon. member over there knows that it is true, because the homeland Governments do not have the power, capital or legislative authority to be able to do so. [Interjections.] The urbanization of the Black man has, as we know, been linked with the process of social disorganization and disruption, because in this urban milieu it is no longer possible to give expression to the old tribal traditions, conceptions and values and to regulate the life of those people accordingly. The points of view and discipline which applied in tribal life simply cannot be adapted to urban society.

However, the Black man in the city is not only involved in the urban milieu, but also to a greater or lesser extent in our Western existence, with our Western points of view, system of values and way of life to which, in many respects, he gives a content of his own. He is also involved in the technological role of the 20th century, which differs radically from the subsistence-economical background from which he and his forebears have come, and of which the outstanding characteristic is the emphasis on individual initiative and competition based on a moneyed economy and a disciplined work performance which is wholly alien to the traditional culture of the Bantu in his original society. Due to these circumstances the Bantu in the city has developed an acute awareness of his place and his role in the society he is in. It is beyond question that in the course of time he has developed a very political awareness of his place in this order, this dispensation, in which he finds himself. The urbanization and industrialization of the Bantu have, in the nature of the matter, given rise to a tremendous politicization of his thinking. This is quite understandable and would have occurred in the case of any other group in the same circumstances.

However, the mistake we are making is to think that his rejection of and resistance to the place allotted to him in the system in which he finds himself is only of recent origin. It is my contention that from as far back as the beginning of this century the Bantu outside the homelands has resisted the order in which he has found himself in one form or another. Up to the end of the last century it was for the most part resistance on the part of the Bantu to the establishment of White authority over his tribes and his tribal areas. At the beginning of this century that resistance changed and took another form, and, due to the circumstances I have mentioned, it became the resistance of the more sophisticated and, eventually, also the urbanized Bantu to the order that was established for them in South Africa.

If I may take up a moment of the House’s time, I do just want to refer briefly to some of the developments in that resistance movement of the Black man against this order. It began as long ago as 1906 and 1907, when the Blacks in the two northern provinces raised serious objections to the granting of crown colony status to the two former republics …

What about Mapoch?

The hon. member opposite can laugh if he wants to. If he wants to regard this as a laughing matter, it is his affair and not mine, fortunately. As I said, there was strong resistance to the exclusion of the Blacks from political rights in the dispensation that came into being in the northern provinces in 1906 and 1907. It was led by an organization which existed as long ago as 1907, viz. the Orange River Colony Native Vigilance Association. In 1909 representations were made by the Bantu to the National Convention in regard to the place of the Bantu in the State which was to be established. As you will remember, Sir, that convention, too, was an exclusively White body in which the non-White had no say and in which he was therefore unable to make any contribution to the form of the new State which was to be established. I am aware of the representations made to the British Parliament in connection with the provisions of the draft South Africa Act in terms of which the non-Whites in the Northern provinces were essentially without the franchise and without any participation in our political structure. Those appeals arose out of a conference convened in Bloemfontein in 1909.

In 1912 the South African Native National Congress, which became the ANC in 1925, came into being. For many years after its establishment the ANC was a highly respected body whose appeals were in fact given a serious hearing and which was in fact also regarded as a responsible body in our political structure.

After the First World War there was fairly widespread labour unrest which gave rise, inter alia, to the establishment by Clemens Kadalie of his Industrial and Commercial Workers’ Union in 1918. In the ’twenties there were appeals and demonstrations on various fronts on the part of Kadalie and his ICU, particularly in regard to the forming of trade unions, with the aim of improving the conditions of the Bantu worker in our industries.

In 1919 we had the first real example of passive resistance, when passes that had to be carried by the Bantu were burnt on a large scale and hundreds of Bantu were arrested. A large deputation came to Cape Town to submit their grievances to the Government.

In 1935-’36 the A AC—the All-Africa Convention—was established, its main task being to protest against the legislation which was adopted here in 1936 and which the late Gen. Hertzog had made public as far back as 1927.

In 1939 there was once again a strong deputation in Cape Town to protest against the policy of discrimination and withholding of rights for these people.

In 1943 the Non-European Unity Movement was established, as was the Youth League of the ANC, which raised the idea of unconstitutional action for the first time within the ANC.

In 1946 the great strike on the Rand gold mines took place, arranged by the African Mineworkers’ Union.

In 1947 the Congress Alliance came into being, with the express aim of combating race discrimination in South Africa.

Subsequently, in 1949 and 1950, there was serious disorder on the Witwatersrand.

In 1952 we had the Defiance Campaign with serious disorder in October and November of that year in Port Elizabeth, Johannesburg, Kimberley, East London and elsewhere.

In 1950 there were the demonstrations before the Houses of Parliament in Cape Town.

Why are you not discussing the motion?

I am coming to that. I just want to tell that hon. Deputy Minister that what I am trying to do … [Interjections.] … is to indicate that the resistance on the part of the urban Bantu has been front page news in South Africa for many years and that we shall have to do something about it. I do want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to be patient; I am coming to the points he would like to hear. In 1956 and 1958—the hon. the Deputy Minister knows this—there were serious demonstrations against passes for women in places like Winburg, Bethlehem, Johannesburg, East London, Evaton, Standerton and Kroonstad. In 1957 ’ there was the bus boycott at Alexandra. In 1957 and 1958 there were demonstrations in Johannesburg and at Zeerust. In 1959 and 1960 there was serious disorder in Durban and Pietermaritzburg.

What about the Bondelswarts?

In 1959 there were riots in Paarl.

When was the rinderpest?

In 1960 there was disorder at Sharpeville and elsewhere, and in 1961 and 1962 there was sustained disorder in various parts of the country. In 1962 disorder again occurred at Paarl, and in the meantime there was also disorder at various educational institutions …

And then in the UP!

In 1973 there were strikes in Natal and in Johannesburg. In 1974 there was the problem at Turfloop …

And in 1974 the disorder in the UP began!

Last year the riots in Soweto and elsewhere occurred.

Mr. Speaker, from this brief historical survey it is surely very clear that the Black man in the cities in particular, has found the existing dispensation unacceptable and has resisted it to an increasing extent. In the course of time the nature of the resistance of those people has changed. Initially it was an effort to get that pattern changed by way of conciliation, by way of persuasion, by way of appeals, by way of deputations. In other words, these were peaceful efforts. In time those initial peaceful efforts began to assume the form, first of passive resistance, and subsequently, of violent rebellion against the existing order.

Do you approve of it?

Mr. Speaker, I do not approve of it. The hon. member knows that, after all. I am giving a resumé of the situation. That resistance, those developments, went hand in hand with the awakening of a Black consciousness, something which has also taken shape in Black theology. It has also found expression, to an increasing extent, in the concept of Black Power. In essence, what it amounts to is the development of a Black nationalism as a counter to, as a reply to, as a reaction to, White nationalism, and more specifically, Afrikaner nationalism. It has also been linked with the development of the Pan-African ideal; in other words, the identifying of the Black man of South Africa with the Black man of this continent. It is very clear that these developments have been exploited by communist agitators, for their own purposes of course. However, it is equally clear that the basic line of thought, the basic development, the basic resistance, is not ascribeable to communist interference and communist inspiration. [Interjections.] Among the young Blacks in particular, the intensity of their rejection of the existing dispensation and their resistance to this order, has increased steadily in the course of time. In many respects the nature of that rejection has also become more intense. By way of summary, it is surely very clear that if we consider the position of the urban Bantu, that position has changed over the past 75 years from one of peaceful efforts to bring about change to one of increasing confrontation and even one of violent resistance. These are facts none of us can escape. I am merely stating the facts.

You are exaggerating.

We have thus far succeeded in combating and suppressing that resistance effectively with the aid of our Police and our Defence Force …

Where do you get that from?

I am referring to the states of emergency declared previously. [Interjections.] Oh please, surely hon. members know that …

Order! Personally I am very indulgent during Second Reading speeches and speeches introducing motions, because there are time limits, but I must say that the hon. member is not really confining himself to his motion.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I am coming to the point I want to make in my motion. [Interjections.] Clearly, all responsible people in our country put the maintenance of law and order first. The point I want to make is that in our treatment of the urban Bantu and in dealing with that problem, we cannot simply treat the symptoms, but must go back to the true causes of the dissatisfaction and the resistance. That is why I welcome the fact that with reference to the latest difficulties we have had in our Black residential areas, the Government has appointed the Cillié Commission to institute an investigation into the causes of the disorder. Perhaps it is a pity that the Cillié Commission is not empowered to make recommendations. That is why I want to say in advance that the motion I am proposing in no way detracts from the necessity or the existence of the Cillié Commission. In many respects my motion goes a great deal further than the terms of reference of the Cillié Commission.

It is vital that we do everything in our power to prevent and counteract the process of confrontation with the urban Black people. My motion does not ask for the general re-evaluation and alteration of the system as a whole. That is not what is being asked for, although I am convinced that such a change is essential if we are to ensure our security and peaceful existence for all in South Africa. What I am asking for in my motion is the appointment of a representative commission of enquiry to investigate the practical, concrete points of difficulty affecting the urban Bantu. I believe that if we could remove some of those points of difficulty, we would perhaps be able to avert more effectively the growth and development of a further process of confrontation. In the motion I asked for the appointment of such a commission, which, generally speaking, would have to devote attention to the administration and living conditions of Blacks in our urban areas. They would have to give special attention to the three points specified in the motion.

As far as I can recall, the last commission which looked at the position of the urban Bantu in general terms, was the Native Laws Commission of 1946-’48, the so-called Fagan Commission. As we know, some of the recommendations of the commission were in fact applied in due course, but others fell by the wayside. I want to refer, inter alia, to some of those recommendations which have not yet in fact been accorded due recognition. In its summary the commission states (page 48)—

The commission states that it can be guided and regulated, but it is impossible to prevent or to turn it in the opposite direction. The commission goes on to say that we have to accept the fact that there is a permanent urban Bantu population. The commission also made recommendations relating to the pass laws. It also recommended, inter alia, that the mere non-production of a document as such should not be punishable.

However, a period of 30 years has passed since the commission published its report. During those 30 years, vast changes have occurred within and outside South Africa. Vast changes have occurred, too, in the nature of our urban Black population. The awareness of our urban Black population has increased tremendously, too. Taking that change into account, it seems to me that it has become essential, in these altered circumstances, and taking into account everything that has taken place over the past 30 years, for us to appoint a new commission to take a fresh look at the living conditions and the administration of our urban Black people.

My hon. colleagues on this side who are going to take part in this discussion, will further elucidate some of the points in my motion. As regards the motivation in general, I want to content myself with merely emphasizing that the unending legislation and regulations which apply to the urban Black today, justify revision. In fact, that revision is vital.

It is vital that we should give the Bantu in the cities a vested interest in the upholding of this society and the safeguarding of this order. Steps must be taken without delay to reduce drastically the large number of technical offences of which Bantu are found guilty annually and which cause hundreds of thousands of them to be sent to trial and put into gaol. It is vital that the urban Bantu be afforded a degree of security and personal freedom so that he can be liberated to an increasing extent from the control and supervision exercised by officials over his daily activities. I think it is essential that those points of difficulty and irritations which have become unnedessary and which only give rise to bitterness and resistance, be eliminated as soon as possible. It is essential that the Bantu in the city be accorded greater responsibility and power in the control of his own affairs and his own community and that the overall quality of the life of the urban Bantu be improved drastically. We need only visit any of these Black residential areas and, for a moment, draw a comparison between the way of life there and that which we enjoy, to realize how essential it is that the quality of the life of the Black man in the city should be improved drastically.

I am aware that in the course of this session we shall probably deal with certain Bills which will, inter alia, give the Bantu in the urban area a greater say. We all welcome such measures.

I want to state very clearly that the appointment of such a commission should not be interpreted as a motion of no confidence in the Government, because that is not my intention. What it does mean is that we should launch a credible effort in this way in order to eliminate a situation of confrontation—to “defuse” it, if you will— and establish a new basis for co-operation and mutual understanding.

The sober fact is that no institutionalized channel exists today whereby the Black city dweller can air his grievances and his dissatisfaction to the Government, to Parliament and to the White population. The urban Bantu Councils and the advisory committees are clearly not effective channels in this connection. This is surely quite clear from what we have experienced in recent months. One of the causes of their ineffectiveness may be that these bodies possess only advisory powers. Another possibility is that their appeals have to be made via officials before reaching the Cabinet and the Minister. Furthermore, it is very clear that the vast majority of the urban Bantu do not accept the homeland leaders as people qualified to speak on their behalf.

Surely it is well known that the Bantu are not represented in the Cabinet Council. I believe it is a tragedy that at this stage there are no proper, recognized institutions or channels which could serve as a mouthpiece for the Bantu, to enable him to air his dissatisfaction and his grievances to the Government, Parliament and the White population. In time, institutions of this nature which did exist either fell away or were done away with or banned. I have in mind, for example, the indirect representation in Parliament which the Bantu enjoyed, because while those representatives were here, they could at least tell Parliament how their Black voters out there were thinking and feeling. We had better accept the fact …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am sorry. I am almost finished and my time is almost up. As a result, no acknowledged channels or institutions exist today by means of which the urban Bantu can air his grievances and dissatisfaction. The result is that White and Black are living in two separate camps in South Africa. In this regard I make the earnest plea that we should appoint a commission to create an opportunity, at least, to meet this need and investigate the points of difficulty. In the motion I refer to a representative commission, viz. the commission must not consist solely of people who represent the various spheres of life of our White population, e.g. the churches, but Blacks, too, will serve on the commission. If there are no Blacks on the commission, the commission will have no credibility in the eyes of the Black population. If we want to make the recommendations of the commission acceptable to the Bantu as well, it is essential that Blacks, too, should serve on the commission.

Mr. Speaker, firstly I should like to react to certain allegations made by the hon. member for Edenvale. In the first place the hon. member for Edenvale speaks about the urban Bantu as if he belonged to a separate, a different, an individual population group which had come into being in South Africa. I do not know any urban Bantu, because I have never yet come across a Bantu in this country who, when I ask him what he is, tells me that he is an urban Black. Every Bantu with whom I have ever spoken has told me that he is a Tswana or a Xhosa or a Zulu, even if he lives in Soweto and was born there. The other premise of the hon. member for Edenvale differs so much from the basic premise of this side that the two can never meet. The difference between the hon. member and us on this side of the House is that we do not consider South Africa to be a unitary State, while that hon. member sees South Africa as a unitary State. The second basic premise on which we differ is that our standpoint is that the Bantu are present in the White area in a secondary capacity. On the other hand, the Whites are present in the Bantu areas in a secondary capacity. [Interjections.]

Order!

What I hold against the hon. member is that he spent a great deal of time telling us about resistance amongst the Bantu in South Africa. It seemed to me that he wanted to create the impression that there was a growing resistance and a growing rebellion amongst the Blacks in this country. He also made the statement that we were heading for an unavoidable confrontation situation. I hold it very much against the hon. member, and I differ radically from him in this respect. We are not heading for an unavoidable confrontation situation in South Africa.

The hon. member mentioned the riots, and let us now put this in perspective. There are more than 1 million people living in Soweto, and how many thousands of them revolted? Perhaps 10 000 or 15 000 of them, but what did the rest of those people do? The rest of those people ranged themselves on the side of those who wanted to maintain law and order and peace there. If this resistance movement were growing at such a pace and if we were headed for an unavoidable confrontation situation, as is alleged, there would not only have been 15 000 people in Soweto who revolted. Then the whole Soweto would have revolted and all the Blacks in the urban areas would have revolted. However, the fact is that the circumstances which have been created by the Government in South Africa for the Blacks in urban areas, are such that inciters and agitators cannot succeed in inducing the Black masses to revolt against the present order. These are the facts and this is the point, that the circumstances which have been created in South Africa are not as bad as that hon. member wants to make out. On the contrary, they are so good that agitators, inciters and underminers cannot succeed in mobilizing the Black masses in South Africa.

At the very outset of his speech, the hon. member said that the homeland Governments did not have the power to bring about concrete improvements in the conditions of life of the Bantu in the urban areas. The hon. member’s premise was and he suggested that there were no communication channels for the Bantu in the urban areas. I want to make the statement here that there are various communication channels for the Bantu in the urban areas. The urban Bantu councils, the advisory committees, etc., have already been mentioned. However, we have also created the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards, which are continually in contact with the people in the urban areas. I believe that the homeland leaders are looking after the interests of the Bantu in the urban areas in an extremely competent, effective way, and I want to prove this statement this afternoon.

I want to refer back to 22 January 1975, when there were discussions between the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his Deputy Ministers and the various homeland leaders. On that occasion 14 items were placed on the agenda for discussion. I looked at those items one by one and found that eight of them—i.e. the majority of the matters which were under discussion—dealt specifically with the Bantu in urban areas. I should just like to quote which items were discussed. However, we must bear in mind that the discussions were held before the riots took place because I am speaking of January 1975 now. On that occasion “Security of Tenure and Home Ownership” was discussed. On that occasion the homeland leaders also put the case for home ownership for the Bantu in urban areas, and let us listen to what the hon. the Prime Minister said—

This was at the beginning of 1975. Today we have the results. The Black home ownership scheme is already being implemented at the request of the homeland leaders. These are the fruits of that request by the homeland leaders. The following point which the homeland leaders raised was “Trading Rights of Black People in Urban Areas”. I quote—

The homeland leaders are the ones who requested this. And what have been the results? I quote—

Another speaker on my side will indicate that every one of these points has been considered by the hon. the Minister. Changes have been brought about and regulations have been made in that connection. Some of these matters are still being considered. In other words, here again we had effective liaison, the effective statement of the requirements of the Bantu in urban areas by their homeland leaders, with the necessary results.

However, the hon. member wants to allege that the homeland leaders cannot look after the interests of their people in the urban areas. The following point of discussion was “Medium of Instruction in Black Schools in the Urban Areas and Matters Relating to Black Universities”. I quote—

Legislation has been laid upon the table here in connection with Black universities and the gradual Africanization of those universities. This legislation provides for these requests. Therefore these requests of the homeland leaders have produced results.

I want to go further and refer to another aspect which is the subject of a great deal of discussion, namely “Influx Control Regulations and Bantu Affairs Administration Boards”. The homeland leaders discussed this as well. Let me quote what the hon. the Prime Minister said about this—

A committee was formed in order to discuss at the highest level the problems which the people were experiencing in regard to influx control.

I want to go further. The following point which the homeland leaders raised was “the Position of Professionally Trained Black People in the Urban Residential Areas; the question of Civic Rights for Blacks in the Urban Areas”. This all concerns urban areas. Here their case was being put to the hon. the Prime Minister and to the Minister concerned at the highest level. At that meeting in 1975 they requested “the right to participate and to control their local authorities”. In that connection I may just mention that a request was addressed to the Government long before the riots. Hon. members must remember that it was long before the riots. On 19-20 October 1976, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development made an announcement in connection with these communal councils, to which I shall return in a moment. One hopes that we shall have legislation in connection with the communal councils before this House shortly.

I want to go further. A following point which was raised by the homeland leaders was “Ethnic Groupings in the Urban Residential Areas”. I quote once again—

What did the hon. the Prime Minister say? Hon. members must listen carefully—

This is the committee of three homeland leaders who will engage in discussions with the department. Once again it has a direct bearing on the Bantu in urban areas.

The next point which the homeland leaders raised was “Transportation in the Urban Areas”. This too is a question which affects the daily lives and circumstances of the Bantu in the city. The question of trade unions was also raised. If time had allowed me, I could have continued to mention various matters which the homeland leaders raised on behalf of the people in the urban areas. Not only did they raise them, but there was a positive reaction from the part of the Government, a reaction in the form of legislation and adaptations which were made.

I want to go further. The hon. member also made a great fuss about the Bantu in urban areas. I wonder whether the hon. member has read properly the statement issued by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development on 19/20 October last year. The hon. the Minister stated the following objectives—

Listen to what the hon. the Minister went on to say. Fine things are being aimed at for the Blacks in the cities. To me, this statement is evidence of a very sympathetic approach on the part of the Government towards the Blacks who are living in urban areas. No-one on this side of the House would begrudge those people a good life and favourable circumstances, such as we demand for ourselves. The Minister went on to say—

This holds out the prospect of a new dispensation and new circumstances for the Bantu in the urban areas, and this flows from the requests which the homeland leaders addressed to the Minister concerned and to the hon. the Prime Minister. Under these circumstances, I am not prepared to support the motion of the hon. member …

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

The hon. member will just have to be very brief, because I have very little time left.

Will you tell us whether these communal councils will have the same powers as local authorities, with the right to levy taxes, negotiate loans and with land tenure … [Interjections.]

The hon. member may resume his seat. I shall reply to that.

The hon. member will receive all that information in the legislation which will be presented to the House, perhaps even during this session. Then the hon. member will be able to discuss this matter further. In the light of the fact that I cannot support this motion, and in the light of the fact that a commission of inquiry will take years and that we should not like to freeze all action in connection with the Bantu, I move an amendment—

1. (1) the continuous liaison taking place at various levels between the Government and Bantu Affairs Administration Board and Black leaders on matters affecting the Bantu in White areas; and
2. (2) the proposed measures announced by the Minister in regard to the administration of Bantu in urban areas.”.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Lydenburg has demonstrated once again the great talent that members of the Nationalist Government have to deceive themselves, because if one had listened to him this afternoon one could only draw the conclusion that everything in the garden was lovely. All I can say is that if everything is so good, why is everything so bad? That is obviously what anybody who looks at South Africa with an objective eye today will say about this country. There are bedevilled race relations, an economy which is shrinking because investors have got no confidence, and a general feeling of uneasiness throughout this entire country. However, the hon. member tells us that there have been these consultations between the hon. the Prime Minister and the homeland leaders and he talks about consultations which took place in January 1975. And what does he tell us has happened since then? He tells us that many of the demands that have been made by the homeland leaders on behalf of urban Africans have in fact been accepted. First of all, I want to put it to the hon. member that the townpeople have no option but to allow the homeland leaders to bargain on their behalf with the hon. the Prime Minister. They themselves have no direct channels of negotiation what-so-ever. The hon. member deceives himself if he thinks that that satisfies the urban Africans, because it does not.

Another thing is that many of these so-called concessions mentioned by the hon. member were completely wrecked by conditions that were added to those concessions. I have only to remind this House that for nearly a year and a half not a single house was taken up under the 30-year leasehold system because, for reasons best known to himself, the hon. the Minister decided that persons had to produce homelands citizenship certificates before they could get those houses. Whatever the hon. the Deputy Minister says about the traders’ licences, there is no doubt that the original regulations when published made no mention about existing licences being excluded, and as he well knows, from citizenship certificate requirements, as those licences have to be applied for each year. It was only later that the hon. the Deputy Minister announced that those regulations would apply, not to existing licences, but to new licensees. I just want to mention those few points. [Interjections.]

You can believe that if you want to. Nobody can change your mind.

It is not a case of believing it, it is factual. I have the actual regulation, the date it was promulgated and also the hon. the Minister’s statement thereafter. Unfortunately I have no time to deal further with the hon. member for Lydenburg because I have a lot to say about the motion before the House.

I really rose to support the motion of the hon. member for Edenvale. What he is really doing, of course, is to ask for another Fagan Commission—this he told us right at the end of his speech—a Fagan Commission with one important difference and that is that it is to be a representative commission which will have Africans sitting on it as well. I, of course, agree with that idea, but I must in all honesty tell the hon. member that I doubt very much that we are going to get an awful lot of additional information from a new commission of inquiry which has almost the identical terms of reference with that of the Fagan Commission which sat from 1946 and reported in 1948.

Mr. Speaker, over the years we have had so many experts pronouncing on the results of the urbanization of Africans that I really doubt whether we are going to get an awful lot of extra information today. However, I do agree that there are a great many changes in the direction of policy which this House, and the Government in particular, ought to examine. From treatises, from addresses, from papers, from books that have been published by academics, by sociologists, by churchmen and indeed, even by members of this House, we know all about the effects of the laws that govern the lives of Africans in the urban areas, and, of course, the pass laws, influx control and the migratory labour system generally. Innumerable sociologists have pointed out that the migrant labour system is an important factor, though by no means the only one, in the increasing incidence of social problems in the urban areas, problems such as illegitimacy, alcoholism and violence, in both the rural and the urban African communities.

Many economists have condemned the migrant labour system as being hopelessly uneconomic. It reduces productivity in the rural areas, because the able-bodied men are away most of the time. It also prevents the acquisition of skills in the urban areas, because the labour is not stable. It is moving back from town to country and from occupation to occupation. There is no doutbt that all of this has increased and exacerbated the problems that are always related to urbanization.

Dr. Wilson, in a recent book on the subject of migrant labour in South Africa, says with considerable feeling—

Mr. Speaker, in November last year a symposium was held at Unisa, a symposium which was organized by the National Council for Marriage and Family Life. Among those who condemned the migratory labour system at that symposium was none other than the hon. the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare, Mr. Punt Janson. We have on record that a Black leader like Gatsha Buthelezi, said that the migratory labour system was ruining his people. Finally, there is the famous report of the Cape Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church, in 1965, stating in paragraph 22—

Mr. Speaker, there could not be any stronger condemnation of that system. I wonder, with all this weight of evidence of the evils of the migratory labour system, of which the pass laws are a concomitant part, why it is that the Government, which has been in power now for 29 miserable years, has not set out to try to phase out this system? One realizes it cannot be abandoned overnight. One realizes that there are instances when the migratory labour system is in fact acceptable, as, for instance, when it is used only in a very small percentage of the labour force, when that percentage consists of unmarried young men who do not stay away from home for any length of time. But one wonders why the Government has not otherwise phased the system out.

In fact, not only has the Government not made any attempt to phase out this system, which has been condemned root and branch by academics and by commissions of inquiry. On the contrary, it has taken step after step to entrench and to reinforce the system. It has put measure after measure on the Statute Book to bolster up the premise, which was the basic premise of the Stallard Commission Report, way back in 1922, when it said—

Mr. Speaker, the Nationalist Government has based its entire labour policy on that premise, a premise which is 56 years old and that inspite of the fact that many things have happened in the interim. What has happened? South Africa has urbanized. That is one of the things that has happened. Another thing that is of enormous importance, is the industrial revolution which has taken place in South Africa. The industrial revolution requires, our economy requires, the use of stabilized, skilled African labour. The Government persists in this absurd policy, although second and third generation urban-born Africans exist today who have never set foot in the homelands, to which the hon. member for Lydenburg said they are so attached. Law after law has been put on the Statute Book in hot pursuit of the Verwoerdian myth that in the year 1978—next year, mind you—will see a reversal of the stream of Africans coming into the urban areas, Africans then starting to return to the homelands. All this is supposed to take place next year. In hot pursuit of this myth the Government has defaulted in its housing policy in the urban areas. It has failed to keep up even with the natural demand of the population for houses and has allowed gross overcrowding in all the urban townships throughout South Africa.

I cannot understand why the Government takes no note of the enormous changes which have been taking place in South Africa. Amendment after amendment to the Urban Areas Act and the Bantu Labour Act has been passed, tightening up influx control and efflux enforcement, and making it ever more difficult for women and children to enter the urban areas to join their husbands and fathers in the towns. In 1968 very important amendments were made to the labour regulations amendments which reduced all labour entering the urban areas to the status of migrant labour for ever, in perpetuity. The people who come in after 1 April 1968 no longer have the opportunity of qualifying for de jure right of permanency in the urban areas under section 10(1 )(b). From then on it was migratory labour and nothing else. The Blacks came in as contract workers and had to spend eleven months in town and go back again to the rural areas for one month with their families, not on a transitional temporary basis, but for ever, for the duration of their working lives. That is the direction of the whole labour policy in this country. The Blacks have become contract workers, labour units, migrants, doomed for ever to live either in those ghastly unisex hostels which house well over 2 000 men in Alexandra township in Johannesburg for instance, or they have to live as lodgers in somebody else’s house, because there is no hope of their ever getting homes of their own and having their families join them. On the Statute Book there is a tremendous number of laws controlling every aspect of the life of the Black man in the city. He must be the most legislated against and regulated for human being in the whole of the Western world. If one looks at Butterworth, one will find that one entire bulging volume in marked “Bantu”, devoted just to the Bantu. There is one whole fat volume just for the Bantu, because law after law affecting them has been put on the Statute Book. Of course, the inevitable result of all this has been the astronomical rise in pass law convictions which is now more than a quarter of a million per year and is turning millions of Africans into statutory criminals, causing burning resentment and contempt for the law. It is no wonder that the pass laws have been cited over and over again as one of the major causes of racial friction in South Africa. The Viljoen Commission on Penal Reform stated that the use of a criminal law to deal with the control of influx into the cities should be curtailed as much as possible. The Commission urged most strenuously that if influx control is deemed to be unavoidable, serious consideration should be given to the depenalization of influx control measures. Not even the aid centres have really helped very much, because they can only operate within the law; that is all. They cannot give the men mobility when they do not have a right or mobility in terms of the law.

The faith that the Government showed in Dr. Verwoerd’s crystal ball, has led to all sorts of consequences: pass-law offences, shortage of housing and, worst of all, it has contributed enormously to the growing dissatisfaction amongst urban Africans. I say that it has led to the urban unrest that we have had and it will continue to lead to more urban violence. The hon. member for Lydenburg should not comfort himself with the thought that so few people took part in the urban unrest in Soweto. Let me tell him that those young people who were in rebellion against the introduction of Afrikaans as a teaching medium …

Nonsense!

Well, we will see. That was the catalyst. I do not say it was the only reason. I am the one in this House who has been saying year in and year out that Soweto is a tinder-box and that anything can set that tinder-box alight. [Interjections.] Afrikaans as a medium of instruction happened to be the catalyst, whether the hon. members like it or not. However, South Africa can and no doubt will continue on the course laid down by long-dead men on the Stallard Commission and South Africa can and will wreak all the havoc as a result of this outmoded system of trying to force the long-suffering African people to put up with the consequences of the migrant labour system and all the laws which govern the lives of Africans in the urban areas and make it intolerable in so many respects. I have to warn the House, as I have so often done in the past, that the patience of people at the receiving end of these laws is running out. I often wish that hon. members would go down and be confronted by the people who are on the receiving end of the laws passed in this House. They should go to the Bantu Commissioners’ courts and to the Black Sash advice office and meet some of the people who have to suffer the laws passed in this House. Then they will realize that patience is running out.

For economic and moral reasons and reasons of good sense, South Africa should seek the alternative to the present system. In a nutshell, that is, of course, the recognition of the permanency of the urban African population and the granting to Africans the elementary rights of mobility in their own country and the right to sell their labour freely in the best market. Only if that is done and radical and fundamental changes are made to the whole system of urban administration of the Black townships in South Africa, can we have any hope of future security in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a comment in passing on the speech of the hon. member for Houghton. I am very pleased and thankful for one thing and that is that she is not my mother-in-law.

The feeling is mutual! [Interjections.]

I have great sympathy for the American Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Young, but I am thankful that he did not have the misfortune of having lunch with the hon. member for Houghton. I think his impression of South Africa would then have been much worse.

*Mr. Speaker, on this occasion it is very clear to us that the hon. member for Houghton does not support the idea of a commission. She has, in fact, already made her findings. That is implicit in her concluding words, i.e. that she wants to ensure the permanence of the Bantu. In other words, she has already furnished her evidence, arrived at her conclusions and today she delivered judgment. Therefore it is useless to argue with the hon. member. For instance the hon. member referred here to the issue of hostel dwellers. I can understand that she is very dissatisfied with hostel dwellers, especially those in Soweto, because they were the ones, after all, who refused to strike and submit to intimidation. It was the hostel dwellers themselves who took up arms. We do not want to condone this, but they did in fact try to prevent themselves from being intimidated.

We do not want to condone the drawbacks of migrant labour or claim that it involves no evils. There are, however, other measures that we have suggested through the years, that we have tried to implement and carry into effect in practice, but we have received no assistance or support from that side of the House. Therefore they are promoting this evil by implication. I am referring to our policy of decentralization. What are those hon. members, who profess to have influence—and who in fact do have it—in the industrial world, and businessmen, doing with regard to decentralization? We have not yet seen the hon. member for Houghton standing up and pleading for decentralization in order to escape the problem of migrant labour.

No, she wants to ensure the permanence of the Bantu. In a moment I shall try to indicate that the hon. member for Houghton and, with respect, the hon. member for Edenvale, are still living in the days when the hon. member for Edenvale consulted his notes of 1948 with regard to these problems. As far as the references by the hon. member for Houghton to commerce and the lack of channels of communication are concerned—the hon. member for Houghton is not listening to me at the moment—she is reproaching the hon. Deputy Minister with the fact that there is no communication, but has the hon. member ever heard of the organization known as The National African Federated Chamber of Commerce? Does the hon. member for Houghton know that this organization is in constant contact with the hon. Minister? Does the hon. member know that the hon. Minister receives the advice of those people and considers it and that communication therefore does, in fact, exist? Apparently the hon. member has not read the regulations in this respect. The regulations have a bearing on a whole series of aspects. To mention only one, I refer to the question of licences. The fact of the matter is that the permit which gave offence was disposed of and that it is now only necessary for these people to acquire a permit at the outset and afterwards to acquire a licence in the normal way. What is wrong with an African having to renew his licence every year?

That is not what I complained about, you silly man.

Then what is the hon. member complaining about? Is it about the initial permit?

About the citizenship certificate.

That is something of the past.

The fact is that the licence must be taken out by the Bantu, too. Although it is not linked to any condition, the fact remains that it means a great deal to the Bantu that the situation is being made equivalent to that of the Whites. What does this involve? What it amounts to is that the licence must be renewed annually. The hon. member must take cognizance of the fact that there is communication in all these areas. The hon. member must take cognizance of the fact that a whole series of changes have come into effect in the provisions relating to the Black dealer. Does the hon. member for Houghton advocate that Whites should invest capital and open shops in urban Bantu residential areas?

I do not want any of those restrictions. You do not seem to understand that.

The fact of the matter is that this so-called liberal paternalism is in fact aimed at harming the Black man. Why do we impose the restrictions? It is to prevent competitive White capital from ousting the Black man. It is therefore in the interests of the Black man. If the Black people do not see it like this, I would be very surprised. I am in fact under the impression that some of the advice that has reached the hon. the Deputy Minister is to the effect that they do want protection against competitive White capital.

I want to come back to the argument of the hon. member for Edenvale. The hon. member will concede that it is difficult for us to support his motion, because he makes principles out of the points of difficulty in the policy, and he wants to lead us astray. We should see the discussion today against the background of the different existing policies. For this reason I take pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Lydenburg, i.e. that in the light of the fact that our general policy and principles have succeeded, we express our confidence in the administration, etc. Hon. members can laugh now, but I want to maintain that our general policy has succeeded to such an extent that the momentum it has gained can no longer be arrested. The independence of the Transkei is infact relevant here. The whole argument of the hon. member for Edenvale was based on figures, but I shall return to that at a later stage. We accept that in the process, we shall encounter socio-economic problems, problems which we shall have to deal with, but the NP can cope with them. The hon. Opposition is welcome to make a contribution, but apparently they do not want to do that. If we observe the momentum of the policy, we see that millions of Black people will soon be excluded from our political structure. The hon. member, on the other hand, is trying, by means of his motion and with the support of the hon. member for Houghton, to introduce elements that are to arrest this momentum. I therefore read sinister motives into this. The hon. member does not want to help. He says he does not want to move a motion of no-confidence but he is raising points relating to influx control and he is supported in this by the hon. member for Houghton, because she is the seconder. For that reason I must take it that she is going to support the idea. What this amounts to therefore is an arresting of the momentum we have created. You base your argument on the fact that the numbers in the White area will soon exceed the numbers in the Black areas. I do want to recommend that you sometimes read the speeches of Minister and Deputy Ministers. On 10 January this year the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Development delivered a speech in which he furnished very interesting information. If you had read that speech, you would not have introduced the motion, because the motion is based on the wrong figures.

Order! The hon. member should address the Chair.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I became excited about the mistake the hon. member for Edenvale made that I forgot for a moment to address the Chair. The hon. Deputy Minister indicated that the Bantu population in the homelands had increased from 4,1 million to 6,9 million between 1960 and 1972. That represents an increase of 5,2%. As far as the increase in the White areas outside the homelands is concerned, the hon. Deputy Minister indicated that the numbers had increased from 6,8 million to 8 million. In other words, the numbers had increased at a rate of 1,6%. With the momentum that this party’s policy has developed, it is therefore logical that by the year 2000 these figures will be different, so that the following will be a fair projection. Of the anticipated 38 million, 27,5 million will be living in the Bantu homelands. If, therefore, we accept that this momentum cannot be arrested, we should deal with the problems that emerge from that on the basis that they are socio-economic problems, and then we do not need a commission.

However, let us look at the question on influx control. What is the basis of the system? Its basis is of course the interest of the Bantu man and the Bantu woman themselves. How can we allow 50 000 to stream into the White areas if there are only employment opportunities for 30 000? That is the fact the hon. the Prime Minister put to the ministers of the homelands when they spoke to him. Once one reaches that point where it is necessary to control the movement of people, how is it done? I am under the impression that there is no civilized country in the world that does not have identity documents. The hon. members spoke about reference books, and the hon. member for Houghton spoke about pass-laws, with all the emotion she is able to attach to that. However, I ask the hon. member if she disagrees with me on the issue that there should be identity documents? Does the hon. member differ from me on that score?

Passbooks are not just identity documents.

There must be identity documents. What is recorded in those identity documents?: The name, address, origin, parentage, taxes paid, licences, nationality …

[Inaudible.]

I cannot talk to that hon. member; after all, he no longer has a constituency. [Interjections.] I ask the hon. member what information appears in the identity document? [Interjections.] Those are all things that appear in a reference book today. We can talk about any document—“a rose by any name”. However, the fact is that the moment one concedes that the movements of people must be controlled in their own interests, identity documents become important. What one calls them is irrelevant. Why should we therefore have a commission of inquiry in this regard? The hon. member for Houghton links this with migrant labourers. She links it with migrant labour. A while ago we had to pass legislation to deal with the identity of the people of the BLS countries and other countries. Migrant labour is a phenomenon encountered throughout Africa. The author Kimble points out that it is a situation endemic to Africa. We know, however, that it is also endemic to Europe. There is, for instance, a movement of Sundanese working in Uganda, and the information I have here was obtained about 6 months ago. The same applies to Uganda, Tanzania and Zanzibar. Twenty-two thousand inhabitants of Tanzania are, in turn, working in Malawi and also in Zanzibar, and 36 000 even go to work in Rhodesia.

But it is our citizens we are talking about, not foreigners.

I am speaking about identity documents. If we want identity documents for these people, can the hon. member for Houghton say what they must look like? Those people must identify themselves. The same applies to the people of the Transkei and any other citizen. Does the hon. member not own a Book of Life?

But I can come and work in Pretoria if I want to.

All people who move around in South Africa must be identified. [Interjections.]

Finally, I just want to say something with regard to migrant labourers. We have almost a million people from the BLS countries working here. Does the hon. member want their families to accompany them every time they have to come here? I am convinced that the hon. member will be able to realize the absurdity of her argument. The hon. member for Edenvale will also realize that we cannot accept a historical motivation for a commission of inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Bloemfontein West when he says that there is no need for a commission of inquiry in this regard. However, I do not agree with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lydenburg because I do not believe that the general principles of policy of the Government have yet succeeded. Since I do not agree with the motion of the hon. member for Edenvale either, I move as a further amendment—

1. (1) eliminating the present points of difficulty;
2. (2) protecting the group identity of the various population groups; and
3. (3) maintaining human and civilized standards.”.

I do not believe that the hon. member for Edenvale can be opposed to this amendment. He asked for an inquiry and the amendment also asks for an inquiry. The hon. member asked for the points of difficulty to be eliminated. This is also asked for in this amendment. After all, he cannot be opposed to the maintenance of group identity when he is a member of a party which professes to advocate it. In any event, discussions with the PRP a few weeks ago failed as a result of the fact that they advocate group identity. Of course, the hon. member is also a former member of Sabra, which also advocated group identity. Therefore he cannot be opposed to the maintenance of civilization and the human dignity of people. Everyone in this House advocates that. I therefore want to suggest that the hon. member should think of withdrawing his motion because it is a far-reaching motion, but it is not stated in a positive way. After all, a commission costs a great deal of money and today we are living in a period of economic recession and unemployment. In my opinion the money spent on a commission could be much better employed in uplifting the urban Bantu. Why must the conditions of only those Bantu outside the homelands be investigated? What about the urban Bantu in those homelands which have not yet accepted independence? In this connection one thinks of places like Mdantsane, Zwelitsha in the Ciskei, Umlazi and Hammarsdale in Zululand and Ga Rankuwa in the Transvaal and … what is the name of that homeland again?

Bophuthatswana.

Are we dealing with another instance of the Soweto syndrome? Surely there are other urban Bantu in South Africa besides those who live in Soweto. I believe that if there is to be an inquiry in regard to the urban Bantu, everyone should be treated in the same way.

In the second leg of his motion the hon. member asks that “the operation of the laws relating to freedom of movement and employment and the production of reference books” be investigated. Is this a deliberate attempt to stir up trouble by referring again to influx control and pass laws? After all, influx control was a measure introduced and piloted through Parliament by the UP. Full-scale disorder would develop in and around our cities if that legislation were repealed today. We would have more squatter problems, more slums and a large-scale lowering of the standard of living. I wonder whether in asking for the legislation to be investigated, the hon. member wants it repealed?

I also have a reference book. I have it here with me.

But a policeman cannot ask for it in Adderley Street.

You don’t go to gaol if you don’t produce it.

In every country in the world people carry reference books, and in some countries the authorities are more strict in this regard than in others. Can hon. members tell me how one is going to apply influx control if one cannot ask a person for his reference book in order to see who he is? After all, it is absolutely necessary for people to have a reference book so that one can check where they come from. Or do those hon. members want to aggravate squatter conditions? Perhaps it would be a good thing if we all carried the same kind of reference book, and some attention could be given to this.

Mr. Speaker, in regards to employment and identity documents, I want to say that probably every developed country has a specific procedure for employment and the identification of workers. Quite by chance the vast majority of our workers are Black people. Should we be different to other countries merely because our workers are of a different colour?

Let us take a look at the third leg of the motion. It deals with migratory labourers. We all realize that we are faced with a great problem in this respect, but we all realize too that the vast majority of migratory labourers come from neighbouring states and that the economies of those neighbouring states are dependent, to a large extent, on the incomes earned by those migratory labourers in the Republic of South Africa. I want to put a question to the hon. member: If the Government appointed a commission like the one the hon. member is asking for and that commission drew up a report in which it is stated that there is insufficient control of the influx to the cities, that that control should be applied more strictly, that there should be more decentralization to keep these people at their places of origin and that we should immediately put a stop to the employment of foreign migratory labourers, would he and his party agree to that? Would they be prepared to accept it? It may very well happen. If the vast majority of our migratory labourers come from the outside world, it is obvious that a commission consisting of White South Africans and Black people, as the hon. member asked for, would request, under those circumstances, that the foreigners should not come to our country and that the work should be given to our own people. Would the party be prepared to accept this?

No one will deny the fact that we do have problems. However, I do not believe that there is any need to appoint a further commission, but—this is acutally sub judice at the moment—I am sure that the Cillié Commission will investigate many aspects of the problems of our urban Bantu. Furthermore, the department itself can investigate the matter further through the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards, the urban Bantu councils and the community councils. I believe that we should do as much as possible to eliminate the points of difficulty, to maintain group identity and to maintain human, civilized standards at all times.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that we should specifically today be discussing a motion of the hon. member for Edenvale on the presence of Black people in White areas. We have just had a municipal election in the Transvaal in which that hon. member’s party and the PRP stated their case in connection with Black people in White areas, and I think it is very clear that the hon. member for Pinelands—where those people bother you in the street—was very excited about the fact that the PRP made some small measure of progress in the Johannesburg municipal elections. I can add that the NP made much better progress than the PRP but the point at issue here is that the hon. member for Edenvale brought this motion to the House today. I would have said that he should have withdrawn it after the municipal election result. Mr. Speaker, allow me to take him back in time to the days of the rebellion when a day of prayer was held in my constituency for the reuniting of the people including the UP, the proud old SAP of those days. I was then still a small child and only heard about these things afterwards. From one old man the following prayer was heard—I am not making fun of a day of prayer but I think that it is very applicable today, especially in present-day circumstances: Wij sijn gelijk aan de ploegschaar—wij roesten, maar wij wijken niet. Maar plaas tog verstand in die koppe van die Sappe dat hulle na ons toe kom, want wij na hulle “never, never, never!” I should just like to tell the hon. member for Edenvale and the hon. member for Houghton that they made a great fuss about homeland leaders not being able to convey the message of the so-called urban Bantu.

So-called?

Yes, the so-called urban Bantu. What those hon. members are conveniently forgetting is that we have 4,4 million Black people in our Bantu residential areas in White South Africa, but that in our White rural areas we have 3,6 million Black people.

However, they are not worried about the 3,6 million people; they are just worried about those 4,4 million because they know, as someone behind me said, that the farmers look after those 3,6 million people in any event. In connection with a question of the acceptance of Black homeland leaders by the so-called urban Blacks I should like to quote something which the president of the National African Federated Chamber of Commerce wrote to Chief Buthelezi on 31 October 1974. Amongst other things he said—

It is not an ordinary Black man who is stating the case in these terms; it is man who holds a specific position in organized commerce within the Black areas, a very important position; what is more important, however, over and above what he says here—and I put this to the collective Opposition to consider—is that they should accept that we in South Africa have reached the stage today where the argument, about whether homeland leaders can speak on behalf of the Bantu in White areas or not, can no longer be presented. This is a watered down argument. It is a concept which the NP and its policy established. In this connection I should like to speak to the hon. member for Edenvale because that hon. member charges this side of the House—I should not like to offend him, but I think I ought to reprimand him a little about this today—with being the cause of the destruction of the PAC, the ANC, those channels which he describes as the mouthpieces of the Blacks. If the NP really was the cause of it, we can thank the Lord that the NP did do it. The NP has never destroyed the mouthpieces in the ranks of the Black people in White areas or any other place; it has merely created properly organized channels instead. In the world of today, the Africa of today, one of the most important things that can be done is to create the necessary channels so that people can listen and speak and so that things can be taken further.

The NP standpoint in regard to Black people in White areas is very clear. In spite of the fact that they suffered great losses on the very question of Black people in White areas, I think that the hon. member for Edenvale came here today, with the idea of confronting this side of the House with the idea that the Government should create a kind of Erica Theron commission for the Black people in White areas, as if these are comparable situations!

Let us tell one another today: We can discuss all kinds of other things, but there are two things we cannot discuss. The one is the question of whether the Black man, be he in an area adjacent to a White urban area, on White farms, or wherever he may be within a White area, should obtain political rights in South Africa. There is a second point we cannot discuss. This side of the House has repeatedly stated, and does so every day, that we cannot argue about land claims, land tenure or land right claims within a White area for those people. If we were prepared to discuss those two things with one another, this side of the House would have to concede that it would also be prepared to discuss the so-called possible claims of Whites in Bantu areas, whether in independent or non-independent homelands; this boils down to the same thing because we consider those people to be in a certain position here, as we are in a certain position in their area.

Mr. Speaker, if we could just achieve clarity on those two concepts, we would be able to argue the point sensibly with one another; not by means of commissions but by means of argument in this House. Then we would be able to argue the point sensibly and in the process those two parties would be able to make a contribution. Then we will be able to argue the point, but not as we had to the other day, during the debate on the additional appropriation, because R20 million more was requested for housing. Then the hon. member for Constantia said the Government was guilty of over-spending. We would then be able to talk sensibly about the privileges these people enjoy in the White areas, just as the Whites in Bantu areas can rely on privileges, but not on rights.

In conclusion I should like to ask the joint Opposition not to make it necessary for us on this side of the House—and I want to choose my words carefully now—to look at Act No. 25 of 1945. By their insistence on the so-called permanence of the Blacks in White areas they must not make it necessary for the Government to look at that Act, in particular section 10. We all know that that Act is part of a trilogy of acts dealing chiefly with a measure which stems from the Native Trust and Land Act, Act No. 18 of 1936. What this measure basically amounts to is that Blacks receive more land because their political rights have been taken away from them. It was the UP which as far back as 1945, came up with legislation which is actually nothing more than a permanent measure in regard to influx control. If those hon. members therefore want to consider the relative permanency of those influx control measures as creating a situation of permanence for the Blacks, and if I feel threatened on the basis of the two standpoints I have put forward here, which also constitute NP policy, I shall feel myself at liberty to look at section 10 of Act. No. 25 of 1945 with an open mind, without in any way offending anyone.

Mr. Speaker, I do not really want to react to the reply of the Independent UP. One of their members is, in any case, always busy—or feels like—selling Valiants. What he does is to come along with his white Valiant to a man who wants to buy it, Mr. John Vorster. He says to him: “Mr. Vorster, you have a nice Valiant. I shall come and fix it for you. Come and get in.” Then Mr. John Vorster says: “No, I do not want to fix it. Come and get in. What is wrong with my Valiant?” And so it continues. Those hon. members cannot get into the NP fast enough. However, their whole method is absolutely transparent. We know how they run after the NP and woo them—from as far back as June last year. [Interjections.] We also know which of them visited the hon. the Prime Minister. All we are doing now is waiting for them to land among the débris of South African political history. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Speaker, I think we have heard some very interesting points of view in the debate this afternoon, and I believe that the hon. members for Lydenburg, Bloemfontein West and Schweizer-Reneke have set the position out very clearly, viz. that there is a basic difference of premise between that side of the House and this side. The difference of premise is that that side of the House is a radical, revolutionary party which has changed the face of South Africa. However, I want to identify with the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. He says that the homeland leaders express the feelings of the urban Blacks. I want to read what one of the homeland leaders said—

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the homeland leaders—

He goes on to say—

Now, that is what the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke is doing, and I want to tell him that Paul Kruger tried to stem the tide of history by denying the “udlanders” the vote in the Republic of the Transvaal …

You should not let the name of Paul Kruger pass over your lips!

… and he will try to stem the tide of history against the way in which it is moving forward.

Do you agree with that homeland leader?

Mr. Speaker, I am telling that hon. member that the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke says the homeland leaders are entitled to talk on behalf of the urban Africans. Now, I am telling him what a homeland leader says. Mr. Speaker, he says—

Do you agree with him?

Mr. Speaker, the point is that we are dealing with a situation where the forces of history are washing away the ideology of the Nationalist Party. Next year, 1978, is the very year, the magic year, the mystical year, of Eiselen, of Verwoerd, but nothing will happen. There will be more Black people than ever before, because people will move into the cities in ever increasing numbers.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Lydenburg is not here, because I would like to talk with him. In Natal we have an urban African situation, but we do not have an ideological problem, because the South African Government has in this case been eminently sensible. A White area of KwaMashu—a so-called White area—is now going to be made a homeland. It is going to be handed over to KwaZulu. Umlazi is a big urban area next to Durban.

It is a homeland belonging to KwaZulu. Why does the Government not rather declare the urban African areas homelands? If they want to work within the framework of their policy and give the urban African a better deal—and I accept their integrity when they say that they want for the Black man in the city what we want for ourselves—why do they not declare the urban African areas homelands, and let the Black people link them to a homeland? Why do they not declare Soweto a Black homeland? Then, all their problems will be solved. They only have to apply such intent … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to have a debate. We want to find out from these people what they can do to help the Black man. I do not accept for a minute that there is not concern about the urban African. Benbo, which is hardly an organization which is here to support the Opposition, says that at least 1,2 million Blacks are permanently absent from the homelands. Mr. J. C. de Villiers, the director of the West Rand Bantu Affairs Administration Board says, there ought to be a commission to look at the urban Bantu laws administration. The hon. the Minister of Justice, in his frustration over the last year at the silence of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, says he wants more self-government for the urban Blacks. Volkshandel, in July 1976, says: “A better deal for urban Blacks.” The Transvaal Chamber of Industries sends out its memo.

Mr. Speaker, even the editor of Die Burger is reported to have said that, as far as he can see, he has his safety-belt on and he is waiting for the crash-landing in South Africa. However, suddenly he grabs the joy-stick and he says: “Give the urban African, the Coloureds and the Indians a new deal.” He disagrees with the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. He recognizes the position of the urban African as a different kettle of fish, politically speaking, to the position of those in the homelands. Let us therefore not have any illusions. There are many people, Nationalists and Opposition supporters, who realize that there must be a new deal for the urban African; Why do we say this? I just want to quote some of the legislative problems that the Blacks have. A Black may not be permitted to be in a prescribed area for longer than 72 hours, unless he qualifies under section 10. A Black may not live in an urban area except in a Bantu township, in a Bantu hostel, in accommodation approved by his employer. A Black may not work in an urban area unless he complies with the above two points, has received permission from the labour bureau and has been notified that he has not been withdrawn. A Black may not live in a Bantu township without the permission of the township’s superintendent. Similarly, he may only live where a Bantu township superintendent permits him to live. The family of a Black may not live with him in a Bantu township. A Black may not work outside the prescribed area in which he resides for longer than 30 days. A Black may not be employed for longer than 30 days and still reside in a Bantu township without the permission of the township superintendent. A Black may not accept employment which is not authorized by the labour bureau. A Black may not move from one prescribed area to another without the permission of the labour bureau of each area concerned. A Black may not start a business or participate in a business as a principal in a Bantu township without the permission of the township superintendent, nor in any area not zoned for him. A Black may not do any work from which he is prohibited in terms of legislation. We can go on listing many examples of this. That is why one finds many urban Black people saying they have nothing to lose except their chains.

If one asks them about communism, they will answer that as far as they are concerned, it does not matter whether it is Nationalist communism or Russian communism. They will point out that they must get permits for everything, stand in queues and have identity documents and that, as far as they are concerned, they are living under Black socialism and do not mind changing their masters. This is a genuine feeling among the urban Blacks. I believe that this Commission is desperately important. The hon. member for Houghton pointed out that these are almost exactly the terms of the Fagan Commission. However, there is something that concerns me. I want to ask hon. members on the other side of the House how many of them have had a good, long, heart-to-heart discussion with an educated, articulate Black? I am not speaking about agreeing with him, but how many hon. members have had genuine, heart-to-heart, “man teenoor man” discussions?

All of us!

Listening to what the members say, I find them difficult to talk to. That is why I believe that the commission should be representative. What concerns me is that there are many people in the House who never really talk as equals— not in a patronizing, paternal way, but as equals—to the Blacks. It is difficult for a White South African to do that, because by nature we are embarrassed in those circumstances. I believe that if we had a commission which was genuinely representative and could go into the matter in an objective way, it would be helpful. I believe that the Cillié Commission will help to some extent, but I believe that as a result of the findings of the Cillié Commission, we will need a proper commission to go into the whole matter.

Lastly, I want to bring to the attention of the House the problems of influx control. At the moment we have, in South Africa, 989 court cases per day, including Sundays and public holidays, concerning statutory offences under the influx control regulations. We are not naive and therefore accept that when one has an exploding and urbanizing population and an industrializing society, one has to have some form of control to prevent the development of slums such as there are round Lagos, and the ones I saw two months ago in Nairobi. However, on what basis are the influx control regulations applied? That is the question. Are they applied with work and accommodation as the criteria or are they applied for ideological reasons? If we think we are able to stop people from moving into our cities, we are mad. It is like trying to stop ants from getting at the sugar. One will never stop them from going in. In Germany they had to put up minefields, guns and fences to try to stop people crossing from East to West Germany. Often this was done, not for political reasons but for purely economic reasons. A man can earn more in the urban areas. We will not be able to stop it and I believe we have to look at this whole position because it is one of the greatest sources of friction. What happened in South West Africa? The first thing that the Turnhalle got rid of was the application of the pass laws. What happened in 1960 when Khosane led 5 000 people on to Stalplein outside Parliament? They asked for the pass laws to be repealed. This is the single, most irritating aspect of this Government’s laws. We should not believe that the Black man does not appreciate the necessity of influx control. Of course he does. The Black man is a law-abiding person, but objects to the hurt which comes with it. We are an industrializing society, but we do not have enough White people. We need to use our resources and therefore cannot afford the luxury of migratory labour in that sense any longer. We have to try to establish a stable population for the purposes of our economy.

I would like to raise some other points, but time does not permit me. [Interjections.] Oh, Mr. Speaker, I am informed that I have more time, so I would like to raise one other matter … [Interjections.] I want to give a little, practical, human example of the difficulties which occur. At this stage I just want to pay tribute to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration … [Interjections.] I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister is handling his portfolio in a very human and understanding way. [Interjections.]

Now you can sit down. [Interjections.]

I want to mention the strange case of Mr. Ntinga who has lived in Clermont for 26 years. He is a carpenter with his own business and wants to operate a mobile canteen to sell cooked food to Black workers in New Germany, which is a White township right next to the Black area of Clermont. Because he has never been employed—he has been making furniture and has been self-employed—he is not in the books of the Department of Bantu Administration—what a mercy for him! As far as the department is concerned, he officially does not exist because he owns his own piece of land registered in the deeds office at Pietermaritzburg. He is able to raise the money to start the business but he cannot get a licence. If he wants to obtain a licence to trade among exclusively Black people in a White area, he must get Ministerial approval. The hon. the Deputy Minister is now considering the matter and I am sure that he is going to give this man the necessary approval. [Interjections.] I want to point out that here we have a man who has always helped himself, a man who owes us nothing. He has never been a burden on the State; he has always worked for himself and looked after himself. That man cannot get ahead because of Government regulations. I believe that this is the kind of thing that should be avoided. If this man does not become bitter and twisted and an agitator I do not know why he does not, but it is certainly not the assistance of this Government that prevents him from doing that.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard about the restrictions that are on the Statute Book regarding the urban Bantu, and I am sure hon. members of this House are as shocked as I am to hear about this. If this is what the Nationalists mean by a second-class citizen, I just hope that we will not be placed in the same category when we visit the homelands. I want to have a look at some of the economic and environmental implications of Nationalist policy in regard to the South African urban Bantu. Firstly, we face this massive urban sprawl which is, however, not particular to South Africa. It is found all over the world. It nevertheless reflects a trend in our South African Bantu townships where some of the more aggravating and extreme forms of the evil inherent in this type of situation are to be found. Our view is that the problems which face the urban African are aggravated by the policies and legislation of the Government. Therefore I am happy to support the motion of the hon. member for Edenvale that a commission of inquiry be appointed to investigate and report on the administrative and living conditions of the Bantu in urban areas outside the homelands. It is obvious that despite our stringent pass laws, and despite influx control, there still is a high rate of net migration from the rural to the urban areas. Only now do we see the Government striking at the source. Had they taken the advice of this side of the House years ago and opened the gates for White capital to enter the homelands, this outflow could perhaps have been checked and we could perhaps have had happily employed Bantu in the rural areas. When one looks at the statistics of this flow one is quite amazed.

I take these statistics from a book by Dr. Gavin Maasdorp, in which he shows that the national migration average between 1960 and 1970 was 3,4%. In the Durban area alone the average was 6,2%. I just want to point out that that is double the national birthrate. Today we see that Dr. Wollheim, the spokesman of the Shelter Organization which provides funds for housing for squatters, calls for R90 million to build homes for people in the Cape Peninsula. It is then obvious that the supply of official low-cost housing has not kept pace with the demand. If one looks at the figure for Soweto, one sees that 45 000 houses are required in the next 10 years. In my area, greater Pietermaritzburg, 30 000 houses are required in the same period. That means that 20 houses will have to be made available every day in those two areas alone. What about the dozens of other municipalities that have to provide housing? The influx of Bantu is not stopping. They are coming in. We heard the hon. the Minister saying that they have stopped building houses in the Cape five years ago. What has happened? He has not stemmed the tide. It has increased. The efforts to provide housing are, in fact, hopelessly inadequate. We believe that this colossal backlog in Bantu housing is not due to bad planning, but to bad policy. It has never been the policy of the Government to provide for more and more housing. As soon as one provides adequate housing, one attracts more people. What is apartheid after all? Apartheid is designed to repel Bantu from the urban areas, not to attract them. There has been this reluctance to provide facilities to accommodate them, yet they still keep on coming. Like King Canute, hon. Ministers have tried to stem the migration tide, but they have been overtaken by it. To continue to ignore it and to persist in a policy that classifies the urban Bantu as temporary sojourners is, in our view, short-sighted and, in the long run, dangerous.

Surely the hon. the Minister and the Government must now, after all these years, face the facts confronting them and make the changes to their policy. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West, whom I see is here, is quite happy to accept the socio-economic problems attendant on the influx of urban Bantu. He said a momentum was taking place and is continuing. I should like him just to examine the nature of some of these socioeconomic problems. I suggest he look at the standard type of home that is provided. It has an area of 511 square feet. It is laid down in the Green Book that uniform specifications are two bedrooms, a living room, a surfaced kitchen, no ceilings, a tin roof and an outside toilet. That is probably one of the better class houses one can get. The minimum rental is R20,95 per month. What scope is there for individual expression and what chance of privacy? I ask this because, according to Dr. Maasdorp’s book the average room occupancy is 3,4 persons. Yet, despite that there are long queues of people waiting to be accepted and to obtain a home. When these homes eventually do become available, they are gratefully snapped up. Where do these people find themselves?

Where do they come from?

That hon. member for Vryheid is making a great deal of noise. I should like him to put himself in this position. Let us say he has been waiting five years and in the meantime has got married and had a few children, so the house he has is now no longer really acceptable. Because the house is a random allocation, however, he finds that it is situated between a beer hall and a brothel. It might be his cup of tea, but it is not the cup of tea for many other people. The result is that one gets the social alienation that is a product of such random allocation, and this is the fault of the Government. One finds unlikes are associating, and community spirit or social progress is not possible in that situation. As a result people isolate themselves. They live in bubbles of isolation and antagonism develops. One must also take a look at the question of lack of privacy. One has these little matchbox houses into which people are crammed. Mr. Robert Msimang, a respected Black leader at Edendale in my part of the country, says that the lack of privacy “is directly responsible for the explosion of illegitimate children amongst the urban Bantu and has reduced their moral standards to lower than that of animals”. Here we have shades of Dickens writing in the Victorian era. There was a great Russian psychologist by the name of Pavlov who did experiments with rats and produced similar social behaviour patterns where aggression and tension arose out of overcrowding. This is exactly what we are finding in our townships.

I shall send you some specimens.

One can look at the crime rate, again in reply to the hon. member for Bloemfontein West who says that we accept these problems as long as the momentum is not stopped. There is a big file on this. Some of the top crimes listed are drunkenness—well, that might not be a crime—burglary, assault and malicious damage to property, which occurs most frequently. The cause of this would appear to be frustration. We have seen this boiling up in the townships during the last six months. It had a wide base; it was not just one thing. The spark might have been the Afrikaans-language issue, but the problem has a wide base.

This week we even heard the hon. the Deputy Minister appealing for more crèches and more social workers. Surely this is tantamount to an admission that the Government has not provided an infra structure for these people in this situation. We can see why—because they do not classify these people as permanents, and yet they are there and have to have the facilities that people want if they are living anywhere on a permanent basis. At Thornhill; in fact, we see a similar situation developing right under our noses. What sort of things does one need in the infra structure? Kwa Mashu has six crèches which accommodate 560 children, but there are 15 000 children. There is one out-patients’ clinic for African alcoholics which was established in 1969. There is no public transport in the evenings. The beer halls close at 5.30 and 8.30, and then what happens? The shebeens take over. Sports facilities are inferior, in quantity and in quality, to those in the White group. There one has people living in juxtaposition with affluent White areas. Domestic workers go into the White areas and compare the standards in the White homes with their own. They are held down, however, and their ambitions cannot be realized because of the restrictions placed on them by the Government.

What do you propose?

I am coming to that. I am just sorry to see that the hon. member for Lydenburg is not here because he says that is their lot as they are second-class citizens. I am sorry but we cannot accept that. In the sphere of education there is also very little hope. The children start school with a meagre breakfast; they are listless because they are undernourished. They are also disinterested and they cannot sustain their concentration. There are also insufficient schools. I can go on about this but time does not permit me to do so. I shall therefore deal with it under the Bantu Education Vote. The teachers themselves are not motivated.

There is also the development of tsotsism in the townships because of the ego-deficiency of people whose traditional position as family patriarchs has been undermined. They cannot compete with the Whites in the open market because they are restricted. As a result they find that their ego is satisfied by assault and robbery. The hon. the Minister knows that as well as anybody else.

To sum up, we see that the Bantu townships are administrative areas, incidentally inhabited by Africans, where life is one of drab uniformity and where gaiety and spontaneity are lacking. While the Government persists with this policy of regarding urban Blacks as temporary sojourners and does not provide adequate amenities for the growing African population, this dissatisfaction and discontent will grow. I want to challenge the hon. member for Bloemfontein West. That momentum that he is talking about, in terms of his ideology, is not only going to be stopped; it is going to be engulfed by the very problems that policy has generated.

I should like to ask him in what other country one has an economic colour bar operating, a colour bar which is supported by social, educational and political legislation. The apartheid laws of South Africa give rise to the extremes between rich and poor in this country. It is this condition of poverty which holds them down and frustrates them. The Bureau of Market Research, for instance, indicated that 79% of Bantu households had an income of under R80 per month, while the White equivalent is an income of R590 per month. What are the causes of this inequality? It can be found in the fact that Whites in South Africa have the monopoly of skills through better training and through better vocational opportunities. The Whites are protected through job reservation, which has created artificial shortages of skilled labour. Legislative restrictions on the acquisition of skills by Blacks and the movement of African workers results in a large pool of labour engaged in subsistence agriculture in the homelands and in an elastic supply of unskilled labour in the modem sector. Where these skills overlap, e.g. teachers, doctors, clerks and mechanics, there is unequal payment of salaries for the same trained people. Consequently South Africa has a discriminatory distribution of income. In fact, 10% of our population controls 58% of the total income. By comparison, the figure in the USA is 27%, in Japan 30%, in Britain 31% and only in Gabon, somewhere in the north of Africa, is it 60%. Surely this is a unique degree of inequality and a reflection on the South African system. What are the solutions? I suggest a massive development of African agriculture and industry in the homelands. Then one will get an increase in the wage rate and Africans who are tempted to enter the urban area will at least demand a higher salary. There should be a gradual exclusion of cheap, foreign and unskilled labour in order to give our own people better opportunities. We should abolish the labour restrictions which would consequently lead to vertical mobility and would remove the extremes in the distribution of wealth.

Earlier in my speech I referred to housing shortages, and I should now like to refer to the problem we have had recently with the squatters at Modderdam Road. One cannot provide the money for what is required, but one can harness the energies and the imaginations of those people. If one can provide a site, facilities and building material for those people, let them build their own houses. When the Government of Luanda had a squatter problem, they gave these people a plateau and the squatters built some very interesting little houses. This Government should not, through their urban planners, impose upper middle-class building standards on these people, standards which, for example, include cross-ventilation and damp-course. Those facilities can be added later, as their living standards improve. If there is going to be no change in Government policy, we are going to have the situation which the hon. member for Hillbrow described, i.e. the effect of the existing policy will be to create an unstable, rootless, rejected and frustrated urban Black proletariat with tremendous potential for revolutionary action and exploitation.

Mr. Speaker, all matters pertaining to groups dealt with by this House, and therefore matters pertaining to the Black people as well, are important. Consequently, we are conducting an important debate here today and I want to thank members on both sides of the House for their contributions. I just want to mention that the hon. member for Lydenburg has apologized for not being able to be present, but this is due to circumstances beyond his control.

If unbiased judges had listened to this debate, they would have said that there was no need for me to reply, because the members on my side of the House replied effectively to most of the arguments. It is most unfortunate that the time for the debate is limited because I shall most certainly be unable to deal with all the aspects.

I think the hon. member for Edenvale was faced with a very great problem today when he had to introduce the motion. The hon. member’s dilemma was—I do not think my judgment is wrong—that he had to speak in very general terms because there was no policy on which he could find his views. I should like to know what policy the UP adheres to at the moment. The hon. member had no purely political policy according to which he could state his case and therefore he had to do it in very general terms. I was filled with expectation and I believed that we would hear some very clear alternatives in the discussion, e.g. that if it could not be done this way, then we would have to do it another way, because that was what the UP believed in. The hon. member said he was not moving a motion of no confidence in the Government; he just wanted to point out a few aspects. In other words, it seems to me that the hon. member wants to accept our actions in most cases, because he has no other basis for arguments according to which he can condemn them or outline an alternative. I think the hon. member sketched the history of resistance in South Africa a little one-sidedly and, if I remember correctly Mr. Speaker, you warned him to come back to the motion. It is true that there was resistance but I should like to take the hon. member a little further back than 1907, where he began. In 1894, W. H. (Bill) Andrews had already established the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. In 1902 he returned to South Africa, having got out during the Anglo-Boer War. When the Communist Party was officially establisehd in South Africa in 1921, Bill Andrews was one of the committee members. In 1931 he made a plea for the restructuring of the capitalist system and at that time they wanted to get rid of him because he was not considered revolutionary enough. He persevered, however, and we hear of him again in 1947 when a charge of sedition was brought against him. At that time he was the leader of the Communist Party. I at least know a little about that as well. There was a time when those people did not proclaim purely Marxist doctrines, but merely tried to gain control of White labour interests. Afterwards with the Freedom Charter of 1950, it became a very definite passive resistance. From 1960 onwards, it became active resistance. I could go on in this way, but I do not want to devote any more time to that. I do not think the hon. member for Edenvale laid enough emphasis on this aspect of the resistance which we have been experiencing in South Africa for many years now. The red colour always shows through, no matter what form of resistance we encounter amongst leading Blacks in South Africa. In this regard, once again, it does not involve the Black masses, but certain groups of people who, from a very early stage, have been won over in order to further the aims of the people to whom I referred. The hon. member also referred to the quality of the standard of living of our Bantu, but I shall expand on that later.

The hon. member for Houghton gives me problems and I wonder whether I ought not to accept the advice which a Black man once gave me. He wrote: “That woman Suzman, he is also big trouble for the Afrikaans people and I think we should go to a witch doctor to fix her big trouble”. [Interjections.] It seems to me as if the hon. member for Houghton does not want to accept what one tells her, and I shall therefore accept the advice of this old Black friend, who said that we ought to take her to a witch doctor so that we can find the right potion to bring about a change in her views and policy. The hon. member for Houghton has a way of making nicely exaggerated statements, e.g. when she referred to Butterworths and said “ ’n Hele dik rooi boek, soos daardie wat in die rak staan, vol met Bantoewetgewing.” But here is another thick red book, a whole volume just on White agriculture—not even on Black agriculture. Here is just as thick a volume on customs and excise. It sounds so exaggerated when the hon. member refers to a “hele dik rooi boek”. However, there are 29 or 26 thick red books on the other side there, and it is therefore not nearly as bad as the hon. member makes out. However, we know what such exaggerated statements eventually lead to.

Customs and excise apply to the Bantu as well.

I shall return to many of the things which the hon. member mentioned.

In my opinion, the hon. member for Albany moved a realistic amendment, but I can reply to each of its subdivisions, e.g. the elimination of bottle-necks and what is being done in this regard. I hope I shall have a chance to return to this. The hon. member referred to group identity as well and I want to tell him that we envisage this in our legislation as well and I am pleased that we are receiving positive support from that side of the House on group identity in South Africa. As regards the humane and refined standards which we have to maintain, this is actually the crux of our policy, viz. that while the Blacks are in our area, we should like to give them refined and humane standards under all circumstances. Consequently, I do not really want to be at loggerheads with the hon. member because I think he has moved a very fair amendment and made a fair contribution. I have a problem as far as the hon. member for Pinetown is concerned. I am very honestly … [Interjections.]

Order!

I appreciate that the hon. member is a new member and one does not want to blame him for his mode of action. However, I think the hon. member is often extremely arrogant, even when he refers to the hon. the Prime Minister. It is all very well for one to have one’s differences in this House, yet one must know one’s place and keep to it, especially if one is a new member in this House. I shall return to many of the matters and I shall deal with the numerous control measures to which the hon. member referred. I could take almost every one of those control measures and, if I were a Black man, tell him what I would do without experiencing any difficulty or without an official hurting my pride, telling me to be off, or anything of that nature, and still reach my place of employment, or wherever I would like to be. I think it is unfair to read out a whole list of control measures and then to say that no one can get around them and that they restrict the movement of people and reduce their chances of finding work.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North reacted extremely acrimoniously. However, he did not listen to the matter which the hon. member for Green Point and I thrashed out between ourselves a week or two ago in respect of housing conditions, housing requirements, etc., in the White areas. He spoke about the upgrading of standards and about shortages which must be eliminated. I agree with him, and we have discussed it already, but he apparently does not take into consideration the question of costs and the contribution which can be made by the Bantu person who has to rent the house. All the blame is then placed on us on this side of the House, as if those people whom we are discussing today did not also have certain responsibilities, in respect of the size of their families, for example. This is where our great problem lies, because we in South Africa are hamstrung by numbers. Must I simply keep quiet about it and keep on making provision for the increasing numbers no matter what it costs, and even if it eventually breaks the back of our economy? However, the hon. member spoke about it as if it were dead easy. One wave of the magic wand and there the houses are or the quality is upgraded without costing a cent. Do hon. members know what still worries me when I talk about responsibilities? We talk about needs in Bantu residential areas, in Soweto as well, for shops, for example. It then worries me terribly that a Black businessman wanted to spend an amount of R50 000, I think it was, on saving a pop festival in Swaziland.

He wanted to spend a lot more on saving the festival.

Was it more than that? I think it was a lot more but I am just saying R50 000. Just imagine what I could have done for the construction of a shopping complex in Soweto with a contribution of R50 000. All this is thrown in our faces, however; we must accept full responsibility for everything which is wrong. This is unfair, however, because the responsibility lies in another sphere as well and there are people who will have to accept greater responsibility. In case I do not come back to this, I want to say now, as far as provision for Blacks within the White areas is concerned, that there are three bodies which will have to accept the responsibility of making contributions. Firstly, there is the individual himself and as a result of rising incomes, he is finding himself in an increasingly favourable position to do so. Then there are the employers and I want to say again that people in the White area who insist on taking Blacks into their service, will have to pay more and more for this. The State, in the normal execution of its duties, will also have to make its contribution because there are some people who cannot look after themselves and who cannot go to an employer for assistance. The State will have to accept responsibility for them.

We now come to the crux of the motion, namely the request that a commission of inquiry be appointed. However, my time has almost expired and I shall therefore have to deal with it briefly and quickly and state the information I already have so that a commission is not necessary. During the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Green Point, I referred to a housing survey. I asked that that housing survey be viewed as a standard document and that it be supplemented every year because I want to have the new data every year. It does not only deal with housing; it deals with all the amenities in every Bantu town in South Africa, namely the number of sports grounds, shops and all the other types of amenity. Consequently, I do not need a commission in that regard. As far as building standards and the upgrading of squatter conditions are concerned, we are in communication with the National Building Research Institute, and I am sorry that I cannot dwell on this. As far as commerce is concerned, I have opened the doors to Black merchants and have asked Mr. Motsuenyane and his NAFCOC to come and talk to me every year, because we have something to say to each other. They did not have this opportunity before. I did not know why this is the case, but I do not blame anyone for it. I said that I would send a circular to all the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards and that I would tell them that NAFCOC had its regional offices and regional committees in various areas and that contact was to be made with them in order to find out what their requirements were.

I wish you luck with it.

Thank you very much. However, I do not know whether I should accept it from the hon. member as being sincere because at other times he can give one such a hard kick on the shin that one does not know whether he is now treating one decently or not. I should like to go on to say, however, that I do not need information on the question of labour because I am in the process of looking at whether we cannot establish a new dispensation in respect of labour. As far as labour is concerned, we are faced with the problem of control measures. I may put it this way: We have said to the Black: “Ipi lo pass, faka lo stamp.” Finish and klaar. We did not want to know any more than this from him, however, and I think this was wrong. One has to bring the Black man to a service centre, and I am now talking a little idealistically. I have already initiated a pilot scheme at one venue, in order to work out this procedure. He must be brought to a service centre where he may register as a work-seeker. Then we should have to ascertain from him what his standard of education was and what training he had had and what other qualifications he had obtained. He would also be asked what other certificates of special training he had. He would be asked what work he was interested in and he would even be able to state three choices. All that information is desired in relation to the work-seeker. On the other hand, an employer would not only have to tell me that he was in the building industry, for example, and that he needed someone to help him. He would have to spell out his requirement so that I would be in a better position to bring the work-seeker, about whom I would already a wealth of information at my disposal, even his aptitude, which could be determined by way of an aptitude test, to the employer and so that he might be employed in a job to which he was suited. If I can do this after communication with the homelands, I can use these employment centres for channelling labour to places where it is needed so that there will no longer be labour at some places where no vacancies exist. If they are labourers on their own, I can even arrange visits for wives to their husbands or vice versa. This is because I have a record at my disposal and I know exactly where people are going and these are not people who simply set a course for wherever vacancies exist, as is the universal tendency. Can we not establish a pattern which is different from the universal pattern, by establishing some of these amenities, for example? I could have spoken at length on this and said a lot more about it.

However, other scientific investigations are also being made and for these, we are using our universities, the Rand Afrikaans University, for example, which is at present engaged in an assignment concerning the effect of migrant labour on the urban Bantu. We have these objective scientific investigations which are much better than the subjective views of a commission in which, inter alia, there are politicians who might simply want to boost their own policies. Besides that—and reference has been made to it today—there are also the talks which the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development are holding with homeland leaders, since they hold discussions annually as a group, but also with individual leaders and with members of the homeland Cabinets. I have an opportunity there and I have spoken to many of these people about many of the matters which affect their people in the White area. This is another demonstration of the fact that those people can speak on behalf of and about their people in the White area. We must not dismiss the matter by stating that most urban Bantu have become totally estranged from their homeland area and that they do not even know their leaders, etc. I have seen an investigation which indicates that 70% to 80% of the people can say at once where they come from and who their leaders in a particular area are. Not only do they say “Mr. Matanzima” but they also know who the chief is in the area concerned. Whilst I am on that subject, I just want to add something. We state so glibly that virtually every Black in South Africa comes to work here on a basis of a man on his own but in truth, between 70% and 80% of them work here on a family basis. Consequently, we are not to present the matter in such a way that it seems as if we are only dealing with a mass of men on their own and the problems they have. Nor do I want to underestimate their problems.

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