Mr. Speaker, before I go any further I wish to move as an amendment—

Before the debate was adjourned last night I was dealing with certain questions put by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I wish to reply here and now to another of his questions. He put a question to me in connection with certain laws and referred to the legislation relating to separate facilities. Allow me to inform him that the standpoint of the Government is that no Act is an end in itself. An Act is a means to achieve an end and accordingly Acts must from time to time and in changing circumstances, particularly in a changing world, be examined and improved where necessary, or even repealed. That has been the procedure over the years. I dealt with that process last year and stated the standpoint of the Government. I still stand by that. If there are aspects of laws that are unnecessarily hurtful and may be altered without disturbing good order, they will be altered. However, this will always be done within the framework of the fundamental principles of the party in power, in this case the NP. I take it that if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were to find himself in that position one day, he would also do so on the basis of the fundamental principles of his party.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the legislation relating to separate amenities, and to the report of a sub-committee in that connection. The matter is at present receiving the attention of the Government, and a standpoint will be adopted in that regard in due course.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not take it amiss of me if I tell him that I listened carefully to his speech. I have no alternative but to conclude that whatever skilful choice of words he adopts, he is advocating nothing less than a unitary State in South Africa. He can elaborate on it in as many phrases and fine words as he likes, but one refrain recurred throughout his speech, and that was that the country must be either prepared for, or taken further along the road towards, a unitary State. There our ways part, drastically and in opposite directions, because let me say this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon: This party, and I together with the party, are convinced that the course he wants to adopt does not represent a solution for South Africa, but would prepare the way for chaos and confrontation, far more so than in any other African State which has met with development or deterioration by adopting that course.

Over the past decade or two, and even before declaration of the Republic, the Republic of South Africa has had to endure a great deal from prophets of doom, prophets of doom that have sat in those benches and prophets of doom outside this House. Books have been written about us. Premature funeral orations for South Africa have even been delivered. Even funeral orations for the NP Government were delivered more than two to three decades ago. One could compile an anthology of sayings from the benches of the Opposition, from their kindred spirits outside this House and their blood-relations outside South Africa. One could compile an anthology entitled “The Sayings of the Knights of Despair”.

It is true that in some respects South Africa is a hard-pressed country, and it is also true that in some respects South Africa is a stormy country. But we are not the only country experiencing difficulties. We are not the only country threatened by storms in the political and other spheres. Indeed, we are living in a world full of hardships, storms and threats. But I and those that I represent here, and my colleagues, reject the suggestion that South Africa is a doomed country.

It is true that we are a much-discussed country and we are a coveted country because we are a country that lies in the way of great world powers. It is so. But, stripped of all the false propaganda against us, against our country, South Africa is a country of hope and a country of the future. That future and that hope lies in the wealth, in the quality and the diversity of its people, in its scenic beauty, its strategic minerals and economic capacity. If we utilize these things in the right way, if we utilize them in a positive way, then we shall make of this country—much discussed and coveted as it is—as one of our authors put it, “a land with a purpose”.

Today I wish to talk about that land with a purpose and the path that lies ahead of it. We are in the first place an important country, a land with a purpose among the nations and the peoples of the world, because we are situated on the most important sea route of the globe. No effort to gloss over or ignore that fact, whether from abroad or from South Africa, can destroy its economic strategic value. The more problems arise in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf, and the more problems occur in other oceans, for example the Atlantic Ocean, the greater the economic and strategic value of South Africa becomes. Secondly, the fact that in the midst of much uncertainty we have the most efficient maritime harbours of any country in Africa, as well as an extremely efficient transportation system, makes of us an important country not only for ourselves, but also for others who undervalue us at present. Closely bound up with that is the significance of Simonstown in its modernized form, and in addition Silvermine, with its capacity to be of tremendous value for shipping throughout the world. All this makes of South Africa an important land with a purpose.

Moreover, the reality of our growing economy which attracts people to invest here, provides employment and makes of South Africa and South West Africa the only two African States which in fact export food and can export food to a starving world, make of us an important country, a land with a purpose. In his recent interesting study Southern Africa now and in the future, Prof. Hoek furnished the following interesting statistics. He said that the value of the industrial production of the Republic of South Africa comprised 40% of that of the entire continent of Africa. Mining production comprised 45% of the continent’s production, and its production of steel comprised 66% of the continent’s production; its gross national product, 25%; the length of the railway network, 29%; passenger and commercial vehicles, 46%; maize, 41%; and red meat, 30%. This was correctly summed up by someone else who wrote as follows about South Africa—

During the first nine months of 1980 our gross domestic product was 8% higher than during the same period in 1979. The first estimates for 1980 indicate that we have maintained a growth rate of 8%—not that it will remain so, but this is an achievement in a world in which countries, developing countries, have not even achieved a growth rate of 3% while some have even a minus growth rate. The Republic of South Africa is a go-ahead State as far as housing is concerned, and I think that comparatively speaking there is no other country in the world that can pride itself on housing achievements equal to those of the RSA in this field.

Moreover, statistics show that with regard to education for Whites, Brown people, South African Indians and Black people, there has been a positive improvement, particularly since 1970, which can only be described as phenomenal. The number of matriculants who have come onto the labour market, the number of people who have undergone university training and the number of people who have undergone technical training have had an effect on the general participation of all population groups in the economic revival of South Africa. In other words, the graph indicates progress and not a decline. In this field, too, South Africa is helping its people to make progress.

In the field of science as well, it is a fact that the RSA has made phenomenal progress. Since 1945, research activities have expanded to such an extent that at the moment 300 organizations are engaged in research and 15 000 manyears are being spent on it. Our growing economy benefits from this. But what is more, South Africa makes it’s influence felt in the field of science in its relations with other countries, and several countries of the world are co-operating with some of our bodies in this important field.

I do not maintain that all these achievements are exclusively ascribable to the Government. I do not take all the credit for this on behalf of the Government. To do so would be presumptuous. What I do want to ask, however, is this: Would this progress, these exceptional achievements on the part of our mining industry, our industries, our agriculture and numerous other sectors, have been possible with an administration and a Government which were not to be trusted, which should be rejected? When is one to trust a Government if it cannot be trusted when these facts count in its favour, when these facts bear testimony to a country which is making sparkling progress and achieving sparkling growth, a country which is a country of hope and which is increasingly becoming an intended country and is strategically one of the most important countries in the world? These facts cannot be denied by anyone. I could mention a great many other facts, too, which prove that general improvement is on its way in South Africa.

We know that there are factors which also have a detrimental effect, but we are giving attention to those. Here I have in mind for example our pensioners, who are at all times accorded a high priority by the Government with regard to services rendered by the State. What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said is indeed true. He said that he admitted that the economy is doing well, but then he followed that up with: “But, but, but …”

It is true that there is a conflict situation in the world. We live—for those with the eyes to see—in a world in which various factors create tension and violence. I do not want to say that the world has not experienced violence before, but in the field of international terrorism, for example, the world has never before experienced anything like what has now become the burden of nations, and South Africa, too, is saddled with this problem, although with this difference: It deals with its terrorists, something which other countries have not always managed to do. We must take into account this conflict situation which also affects Africa and our sub-continent of Southern Africa.

I wish to submit this afternoon that there is ample evidence—not only in the possession of the Government, but also for others to see—that an organized effort is being made to destabilize Southern Africa. Therefore I was amazed to hear the speech by the hon. member for Sandton yesterday. It was an incredible speech. I find it incredible that a man in this Parliament can maintain— moreover, in the presence of his leader— that there is no such thing as a total threat against South Africa. It is amazing. I do not even want to discuss it. I can only express my amazement at the fact that a member of Parliament can utter such statements. I hope his constituency takes cognizance of them.

I do not believe . . .

Do you think the United Kingdom is in that total onslaught?

Of course Great Britain is in it. How otherwise does the hon. member explain the bomb explosions in the streets of London? How does he explain the death of one of their most respected leaders some months ago?

What has that got to do with it?

I am sorry, but I should prefer to continue with my speech. The consequences of the Second World War placed the Western democracies, in their understanding of free enterprise, and all value systems world-wide, on the defensive. The self-interest of some Western democracies, for example with respect to Nigeria, results in them often applying double standards in their actions with respect to the Republic of South Africa. The consciences of some of them are floating in the oil barrels of Nigeria. An authority accurately summarizes the conflict situation in the following words—

He goes on to say—

Those of us who sit here and make a study of these things know that this summary is a correct summary of the situation. It is endorsed by responsible leaders in other countries. Through appeasement the Free World has found itself caught in one strategic pincer after another, and slowly but surely they have yielded before the strategy of victimization, intimidation and expansionism. This led to Afghanistan and could also lead to Pakistan, Poland and Southern Africa, and then the hon. member speaks about “no threat”.

I said that I did not believe that there was a total onslaught against South Africa.

Southern Africa, with the Republic of South Africa as the final objective, is being subjected to onslaughts by various forces, and I want to mention them. Firstly, there is a sustained propaganda campaign against the Republic of South Africa from UN circles. That propaganda is emphasized by certain elements in this country, elements that delight in inciting other people, by way of negativism, to intensify their onslaught, and who present South Africa as a country of injustice. Even religion is used for this purpose. For example, the UN passed 18 resolutions against the Republic of South Africa in 1980, on the basis of which 15 different organs are actively working against us. The cost involved, for which money is drawn from the pockets of taxpayers in the West and channelled to those UN agencies, amounts to R16 million per annum.

The price of the Citizen.

That hon. member is not interested in things that threaten South Africa. It is only due to his own petty-mindedness that he is interested in persisting in that view of his. In any event I am not speaking to him, but to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It seems to me as if certain people at the UN are playing the game of agitating against South Africa in order to make a living. In all seriousness, this seems to be the case.

Let me state a further fact which we are simply inclined to disregard because we have grown so used to it. A sustained arms embargo is being implemented against us. The fact that we have broken it, and have done so effectively, is thanks to the Co-operation between the State and the private sector in South Africa. We joined forces as a team and saw to it that in the field of arms supply, South Africa achieved wonderful results, so much so that it has even been able to join the ranks of exporting countries. Our rightful participation in UN proceedings is denied us, but States with no comprehension of how a government is elected participate in order to deny us our rights, and this is tolerated. States which have never heard of a democratic concept, let alone implemented one, who would not know what one looked like, take a hand in denying us our rights, whereas they are permitted to do as they like in their countries. An oil embargo is being imposed on us, and nevertheless this intended country, this country of development, is providing an answer in this field as well by way of the energy it is generating, the initiative it is taking to set an example for other countries, even large countries, as far as production and energy supply are concerned.

One often gains the impression—and I say this with all responsibility—that some Western leaders, in spite of their dependence on our strategic minerals and our trade, adopt the standpoint, and secretly hope, that the Whites in the Republic of South Africa will be decapitated politically. One often gains that impression. If only the Russian bear and its fellow-travellers in the leftist radical world could be kept quiet, the Whites can be decapitated politically, and what is more, the Afrikaner people and the other White majorities can be broken and their strength reduced to a protesting minority. Then South Africa would crumble. The Government and the party I represent are not prepared to help play that game.

It is gratifying and encouraging to see that more and more voices are being heard throughout the Free World that consider the stability, the economic strength and the military capacity of the Republic of South Africa to be indispensable to the Free World. Similar statements have been made in the past by individuals, but their number is growing because the truth is beginning to be perceived, and no wonder. We know that it was reported last year what Dr. Glagolev said about Russia, namely—

I should like to quote a few extracts from the latest book written about the international situation by an expert, a man who was intimately involved in this situation in Nato, namely Sir Walter Walker. I refer to his latest book The Next Domino. In it he states—and I agree 100% with this from our own experience—

On South Africa he had the following to say—

And yet that hon. member maintains that there is no threat.

†Mr. Speaker, in this connection I wish to refer to a matter which is of grave importance to the security of Southern Africa and to the well-being of the peoples of this part of the world. I deem this an opportune occasion to announce that another Russian spy operating in this country has been arrested. Maj. Aleksei Michailovitch Kozlov, a senior officer in the KGB, was arrested in South Africa during the course of his fourth visit to Southern Africa. I do not intend going into detail about this arrest. What I intend to deal with, primarily, are the political and security implications surrounding Maj. Kozlov’s visits to Southern Africa. Outstanding intelligence work and thorough interrogation revealed that Maj. Kozlov is not the classical example of the Russian so-called “illegal”. He was not based in Southern Africa. No, Mr. Speaker, Maj. Kozlov’s main task was to act as an eye-witness to the effects of his country’s interference into otherwise peaceful developments in Southern Africa. His job was to assess the damage caused by the activities of other organs of his Government, notably those organs which train, finance, indoctrinate, maintain and arm terrorist groups like the ANC, Swapo and others in Southern Africa.

Kozlov first visited Southern Africa, and in particular South Africa, South West Africa and Rhodesia, as it was then known, during 1976. We know, and this is confirmed by Kozlov, that the ANC in particular is the subject of intense interest in Moscow. Several Soviet analysts of the situation in South Africa are of the opinion that the ANC’s activities inside South Africa do not in fact match the organization’s claims abroad and do not justify the money and energy spent on the organization by Moscow. Moreover, Soviet analysts had warned that while most of the ANC’s secret control group, the so-called “Congress Group”, were loyal proSoviet communists, others in senior positions in the ANC were suspected of being internationalists whose primary loyalty lay with international socialism, and some were even suspected of being financed from Western sources. Major Kozlov therefore had to visit South Africa to make sure that Moscow’s proxy sources in this country were indeed as effective and loyal as they claimed to be. His visit to South West Africa and Rhodesia had as purpose more or less similar missions, except that the Soviet clients whose activities had to be monitored, were Swapo and certain Rhodesian political groups respectively.

Kozlov, inter alia, reported to his superiors in Moscow that representatives of the ANC were unable to convince that the ANC had indeed been responsible for the Soweto disturbances during 1976. He also gained the impression that local ANC cadres were not as generously funded as were the so-called Black Consciousness groups, whose finances emanate from European socialist parties. Kozlov also reported to the Kremlin that ANC leaders were squandering Soviet aid unnecessarily on ego-trips abroad—we all know they travel around merrily—and that the activities of Black Consciousness groups in South Africa do not pose any danger to Soviet long-term interests as long as these groups were going out of their way to destabilize the country and had the support of certain anti-government newspapers. [Interjections.]

Detailed reports on the situation in Southern Africa and the part played by movements like Swapo and the ANC, submitted by them to the Kremlin, had been studied by Kozlov in Moscow prior to his visit to Southern Africa. He was able to compare these reports with the actual situation in the countries visited by him. According to him, his findings tended to disprove some of the claims made. As regards the repeated assertions that South Africa was a volcano which could be expected to erupt any minute, he was obliged to report to his superiors that this was just not so. He also found no visible Swapo support in the areas of South West Africa visited by him.

As a result of Kozlov’s visit and his report to Moscow, Nujoma and company were advised to continue to opt for violent solutions until such time as Western Governments could be persuaded that Swapo was the group most likely to win an election in the territory.

As suggested by him, Swapo was instructed to change its headquarters from Lusaka to Angola, i.e. from an English-speaking socialist country to a Portuguesespeaking Marxist State, and to have most of its more outspoken communist leaders serve in Luanda, where they would be relatively out of the way and would thus not negatively affect Swapo’s image in the West. The other part of the Russian strategy was to base Swapo leaders who have had their basic schooling in institutions financed by Western agencies, in Western capitals. In this way, it was argued, Swapo, while retaining its military character, could continue to enjoy the support of liberals in Europe and elsewhere: Probably in South Africa as well.

During 1980 Major Kozlov’s fourth visit to Southern Africa—his third to South Africa— turned out to be a very unfortunate one because he was arrested before concluding it.

I may, in addition, mention that Kozlov found that Swapo could only hope to win an election in South West Africa provided they were allowed the right, expressly or by implication, of intimidating the voters. He claimed that Swapo’s strength in compounds in the diamond areas was a pointer to the kind of coercion which was possible under conditions where so-called “impartial supervision” prevailed.

The investigations into Major Kozlov’s activities in Southern Africa are still continuing, but one fact already emerges as an ominous indication of Moscow’s designs in Southern Africa. It is a fact that the Soviets do not hesitate to send their men, repeatedly as it turned out, and at great cost and risk, to spy on us in Africa.

Fortunately Soviet spies can be caught, and when they are, there is normally quite a bonus for us. In Major Kozlov’s case the bonus already runs to three volumes of valuable information.

*In the interests of State security no further information will be made known concerning this matter. The Director (Press Secretariat) of my office will release this statement with appropriate photographs.

While I am discussing the position and the threat in Southern Africa I naturally wish to say a few words about South West Africa. Let me begin by saying that as far as South West Africa is concerned, the Security Forces of our country have to their credit an achievement which, in all terrorist wars, must be regarded as one of the greatest achievements of the past few decades, because our forces have been consistently successful against terrorism, which has at all times been pinned down on the northern border of South West Africa and has not been permitted to occupy the country. This is an achievement for which we can only thank our security forces.

The standpoint of the Government has always been and still is that the people of South West Africa will have to decide their own future by constitutional means. Accordingly, we have consistently consulted and dealt closely with the democratic parties there, and did so during the events of December as well. We have always adopted the standpoint that we cannot decide on their behalf. We do not stand in the way of the progress of South West Africa and its people towards full independence. We recognize their right to self-determination. I want to stress these two points: We do not block their progress towards full independence, and we recognize their right to self-determination. Our contribution towards maintaining order there and protecting them against terrorism and violent intimidation has been made at the request of those recognized leaders and was and is intended specifically to assist them to decide their own future. In this regard the determination of the South African Government to help them preserve that right should not be underestimated. The Republic of South Africa, both the State and the private sector, have shown their good faith towards that country over several decades by collectively spending more than R3 000 million on the infrastructure and development of South West Africa. That does not include defence costs. In addition I want to mention the fact that certain services rendered in South West Africa by the Republic of South Africa, for example the Railway service, a service which is indispensable for that country, still show an annual loss of several millions.

We have also displayed our willingness to co-operate with the international community in an effort to achieve a fair and just solution in connection with South West Africa, and we shall continue in that spirit to extend our co-operation, but we are not prepared to expose the South African people to intimidation and/or terror. I therefore hope that as in the past we shall be able to rely on Parliament as a whole, as it represents the public of South Africa.

We are striving for stability in South West Africa as well as in our own country and our neighbouring States. This is one of the principal aims of the Government’s activities, namely to help ensure stability for this country and for our neighbouring States.

This explains our standpoint and our actions at the conference held in Geneva. In my opinion we have achieved two important goals recently. In the first place, the multiparty conference in Geneva achieved de facto recognition for the democratic parties, not without resistance and not without effort from certain quarters to prevent this. They are now in the ring. In the second place, not only the implementation of resolution 435 is being discussed, but also the partiality of the UN, which is blatantly obvious, matters relating to the demilitarized zone, and built-in rights for other minority groups in South West Africa.

I now wish to announce, Mr. Speaker, that in this spirit of negotiation with those parties after the Geneva conference, we intend holding further discussions with recognized leaders and representatives of the parties in South West Africa in Cape Town on 5 and 6 February in order to acquaint ourselves with their standpoints.

In the case of South West Africa, just as in the case of the Republic of South Africa and its immediate neighbours, those value systems which we seek to preserve for the sake of mutual happiness are of decisive importance, for example the rights of minority groups and everything that has already been built up and forms part of a great heritage of stability, and serves as a foundation for progress. I remain convinced that if the people of South West Africa, in spite of the differences that may exist among them, get their priorities straight, stand together with regard to the security of their country and establish effective government, the country will prosper in the future.

It is my personal conviction—and I have had close ties with that country for many years—that the future and security of South West Africa will be secured by its people and that that country will develop well. But there are a few conditions attached. Terrorists must not be put in a position to continue their murderous onslaughts and subversive activities from the Free World. If international terrorism is to be fought, it must be fought on the borders of South West Africa as well. The White and other minority groups must be afforded a real opportunity of building up the development and stability of South West Africa. The frontline States must end their dangerous policy of harbouring Cubans and terrorists. This is not in the interests of South West Africa; it is not in the interests of Southern Africa, nor is it in the interests of the frontline States. I shall leave the matter at that. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will deal with further aspects which, inter alia, were also raised here yesterday by the hon. member.

There is another facet to which I want to refer briefly. More than ever before Africa itself has become embroiled in the world power struggle, and although African countries have a great deal of voting power at the UN, a voting power which they can use optimistically at times, we all know that Africa is experiencing increasing economic hardship. I do not want to dwell on that at length. I do not want to revel in the decline of countries situated on the same continent as the Republic of South Africa. It is indeed true that from the earliest times Africa has been exploited by colonial powers, and even after its constitutional emancipation Africa, despite billions of dollars in the form of loans and free gifts, is for the most part retreating into poverty. This has happened because in my opinion freedom without responsibility, without hard work and proper management, is an empty phrase. We must not make that mistake. Allow me to refer hon. members to what is said in the United. Nations Surrey on Africa—

Now I put the question: Has Soviet expansionism brought liberation here, or is it trying to appease the hunger and stop the decline? And does the UN, with all its ramifications, have any solution to these problems?

I do not think we should follow the path followed by colonial powers in Southern Africa. We ourselves have suffered under colonialism. In fact, we were the first in Southern Africa to rid ourselves of the colonial yoke. We must not participate in processes of exploitation, not in the Republic of South Africa nor anywhere else. Where it exists, we must remove it systematically. We must give effect to the concepts of self-determination and freedom, not by a policy of surrender, not by a policy or recipes that have already been tried and have failed, but by means of a structure built on responsibility and justice. However, justice and Christian love do not mean that national suicide is a prerequisite for the upliftment and freedom of others. In the light of these facts, these urgent conditions, it would be foolish to have part in a strategy which led to a confrontation between Whites and Non-Whites.

I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that this is not what this side of the House is seeking with the solutions it is offering, for in the first place we do not see the struggle in Southern Africa as a struggle between Whites and non-Whites. It is an entirely different struggle. It is a struggle between the powers of chaos, Marxism and destruction on the one hand and the powers of order, Christian civilization and the upliftment of people on the other.

I am saying this because there is a civil war in Angola. There are millions of people under Dr. Savimbi who believe in a system of values other than Marxism and who are fighting for that system of values. In South West Africa the task of the S.A. Defence Force and S.A. Police is being facilitated by thousands of Black and Coloured people who reject terrorism and Marxist tyranny in South West Africa, as is the case in the Republic of South Africa as well. In Zimbabwe and Moambique large numbers of people are suffering under the Marxist yoke, and they are fighting it, perhaps not openly at this stage, but nevertheless they are there.

That is why I reject a war mentality in South Africa. I do not want to adopt the standpoint that we in this country are simply to take up arms. We did so when it was necessary. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that we should think about every young man who has died. We have thought about them. We have tried to cause as little loss of life as possible, and the fact that South Africa has succeeded in keeping the terrorists beyond the border, in Angola, where they are protected while their leaders live in luxury in other countries of the world, has meant that few people on that border have died. We were able to do so because we acted effectively. But we have done our duty towards those people who needed protection.

As I said, I reject a war mentality, but no State which confronts Marxism, no State which wishes to preserve itself in an orderly way, can dismantle or weaken its forces of law and order in this struggle, for Marxist and Russian expansionist forces believe in one thing only, and that is power, military power, military domination, military imperialism.

In the second place, I reject the politics of hatred which could play into the hands of the communists. That is why I reject the politics of the extreme rightwing groups in our ranks in South Africa. These are people who carry on on public platforms as if only they exist, and they do so with only one purpose in mind, viz. to exploit sentiment for petty party-political gain. However, what is true of those extreme rightwing groups that act despicably and practise the politics of hatred, is also true of the leftwing radicals in this country who wish to exploit Black and Coloured prejudice for the sake of their own sickly spirit which they want to disseminate in South Africa without plucking any of its fruits. That is why I reject politics of this kind.

I believe that the Republic of South Africa must offer an alternative that is better than Marxism, and that is why this Government has gone out of its way, in the unique position in which this country finds itself and without creating a policy of economic enslavement, to seek co-operation with our neighbouring States. We are aware that we are living in a world in which unselfish friendship between States does not exist. Only interests count. Any friendship between States is built on interests. Today international relations are not built on friendship, but on common interests, and there are tremendous common interests in South Africa on which we can build relations. It is specifically the common interests on the subcontinent of Southern Africa which can be served by a constellation of States, while the right to self-determination and the preservation of separate interests are not prejudiced. I need hardly mention the necessity of reaching accord with one another in the spheres of health, water conservation, food production, tourism and nature and game conservation. These and many others are common interests which make this essential.

In his haste to get at me the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a snide reference to the idea of a constellation of States and said: “Not even your own people understand it; they think it is something to do with the stars.” Of course it has something to do with the stars. However, he never looks at the stars, because he never looks upwards. It would be good for him, too, if he were to cast his gaze upwards for a change. He now levels the accusation at me that the people do not know what it is all about. Quite by chance I received a very interesting document through the post yesterday from the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences of the University of the Orange Free State, which was compiled by nine or 10 post-graduate students of that faculty. Let me quote only two or three paragraphs from it—

These people understand it.

They see more in it than you ever dreamt about.

Leave me alone. The hon. member can go and argue with those people if he wishes. Let him pay them a visit in the Orange Free State. [Interjections.]

We therefore want a system introduced in respect of our Black peoples, a system based on the principle that we are a multinational country. We are indeed a multinational country. We did not make it one. Nor is it ideology, but a reality. What we propose must be acceptable, not only to the Republic of South Africa, but as far as possible to the self-governing and independent Black States and other neighbouring States as well. It must be based on practical principles that can be implemented. Accordingly we have already taken steps. We have had discussions with our own independent countries. We have had discussions with other independent countries as well and I trust I will not be expected to mention names here. In any event, we arrived at a sound understanding and a large measure of concurrence. Recently we had very productive discussions with a neighbouring country with which relations had not been at all good. In the same spirit and with good results we have had discussions with our own States which have already gained their freedom.

I am not saying that this new heaven will come overnight. I am not saying that we are not going to have many setbacks and disappointments. But what I do say is that this is the only basis on which this country with its multinational structure can find happiness. Otherwise we are going to find ourselves lost in the same maze as the rest of Africa finds itself in, viz. the poverty and decline to which I referred a moment ago. The result would be that South Africa’s development would be hamstrung.

That is why we approached the private sector and said: “This is not something the Government can do alone.” And we obtained the private sector’s assistance. It was granted enthusiastically, and not in words only. When we reached an agreement with the private sector that one of the first steps to be taken should be to enable people to earn a living, we said: “Let us establish a development corporation for small business undertakings.” This proposal emanated from the private sector. We accommodated them by saying: “The Government will contribute, but then you must contribute as well. Let us form a partnership with one another on this important path of development.” The private sector contributed beyond expectations. Just as they stepped into the breach when we appealed to them to assist in breaking the arms embargo, the private sector again stepped into the breach and said: “Very well, we realize that this is in the interests of South Africa.” Consequently they poured in millions of rands, more than we anticipated we would receive. In this way, then, the first step is already being taken.

Surely we know from conviction and from what we see that South Africa’s economy has developed to such an extent that in four areas in particular, i.e. the PWV area, the area around Cape Town and those around Port Elizabeth and Durban, such an economic upsurge has taken place that an excessive number of people has poured into these areas, with the result that backward areas have developed. That is why we said, after thorough discussion and study on the part of the Government, that we have become convinced that consolidation as such is not the sole solution to the economic problems of Black States. One cannot simply add land and think that the people’s problems will be solved in that way. Areas remain which can be developed to good effect.

In the Republic as well as its neighbouring States there is a need for regional development in the form of decentralization, with the object of creating employment opportunities in the proximity of the original sources of labour. Accordingly we announced—and the private sector welcomed this and are co-operating with us enthusiastically—that we would create new growth poles by means of a system of decentralization in order to ensure economic co-operation across borders, radiating from those growth poles.

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that despite all these things the Government is not to be trusted and, Sir, we are doing these things without restricting political self-determination or independence. We are doing it as propounded in the study made by this university, in a way that is not to the detriment of the cultural concepts, political ambitions and legitimate aspirations for independence of other peoples.

That is why we said that we would also take a step further by establishing a development bank. Considerable progress has already been made with discussions and preparations for establishing a development bank for Southern Africa to assist in making development possible in a responsible and disciplined way, in contrast to what is happening in certain parts of Africa. We do not want to make the mistake of pouring millions into a bottomless pit and then leaving it at that.

But we went further. We caused the question of consolidation to be re-examined. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition now argues that if one moves and begins with new initiatives, that is wrong as well. Or else I do not understand him. We said emphatically that we wanted to know where we stood in respect of consolidation. I want to make a few observations in this regard. The land consolidation programme cannot be viewed in isolation. It must be seen as part of our overall plan for decentralization, for regional development and to assist in creating new growth points. However, it must also be seen as imperative that the essential steps be taken in those Black States to ensure that more people are able to earn a living there.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will probably not differ with me when I tell him that one of the major problems in Africa, and in our neighbouring States as well, is the utilization of land. Unless Africa begins to adopt a drastic change in its attitude to the utilization of land and the production which that land has to yield, it will not have sufficient food and will continue to live in poverty. That was one of the fruits of this very thorough investigation which we caused to be instituted into consolidation, viz. that we became convinced that we should not simply continue to add land. We do have an undertaking in terms of the 1936 legislation, and we shall abide by the undertaking that the 1975 proposals will be implemented. However, we are going to conduct negotiations with Black Governments—and we are already doing so—on the question of the utilization of land by means of better production methods, as well as on the question of private ownership. All new land, apart from that which was agreed upon in the 1936 legislation, which can be added, or be considered for addition, will not be added unless we receive guarantees on the question of private ownership. I say this here this afternoon with the utmost resolve. Even if it takes longer, it is in the interests of the Black States, in the interests of the Black people themselves, and in the interests of Southern Africa.

It is estimated that 23% of what was earlier the best agricultural potential of the Republic of South Africa is situated in the Black States. Yet agriculture is not being practised to best effect on that land. If this were to happen, it is estimated that it would be possible to produce food for 25 million people on the existing Black land. Furthermore, it remains the joint task of all of us to ensure that, by means of persuasion, deliberation, guidance and assistance, we can make that food production and that improved utilization of land possible. This is an enormous task, for it is totally in conflict with the traditions of Africa. However, we must undertake it in the interests of humanity, and in particular in the interests of our entire subcontinent.

That is why I announced that the Government intends to invest the Commission for Co-operation and Development, under the leadership of the hon. member, Mr. Van der Walt, with more effective authority, and to elevate the post of the chairman, with a view to continued attention, in this regard as well. He will have to work in close co-operation with the other committees with regard to the constellation concept in order to develop a total strategy in this respect.

I just want to say a few more things in connection with consolidation because I do not want to be misunderstood. We want to discharge our obligations in terms of the 1936 legislation, and where it is in the interests of South Africa and of the Black States concerned, we shall go further in certain respects and make adjustments, however that may be abused. We cannot take any notice of the gossip-mongers outside, people who exploit matters for the sake of their little parties. We want to do what is in the interests of South Africa. We must do what is in the interests of the whole of Southern Africa in order to defeat communism.

The reports of the Commission for Co-operation deal in general with three instruments in the hands of the Government with which to attain the ideal of peaceful coexistence and development. The first is the instrument of geographic planning with a view to establishing a sound basis for the development of viable and full-fledged new States. The second is the instrument of constitutional arrangements, on which we are negotiating with Black States. This morning again I read in one of our sour newspapers, a newspaper whose editor had again had an overdose of lemon juice, that the Government had ostensibly told the Black man: “You are now going to be given no further attention.” What nonsense! We are constantly consulting them. In the third place, there is the instrument of planning, financing and budgeting in respect of the economic development, particularly of the national States. The specific matters arising from the commission’s reports, those to which the Government is at present giving attention, are, inter alia, the following: The economic prospects for Southern Africa over the next decade; the norms for the economic viability of States and the specific level of development in each State; and all aspects relating to the political, economic and social progress in respect of each of the national States. We are negotiating on these matters and there are in-depth studies in this regard by the commission in co-operation with other experts.

Therefore it must be fully realized that the proposals of the Commission for Co-operation and Development cover a wide and comprehensive field, in view of its terms of reference. It must be emphasized that there is a close relationship between the consolidation processes and the policy of establishing a confederation or constellation of States, based on the interdependence of States in Southern Africa.

The consolidation proposals of the Commission for Co-operation and Development will therefore not be released at this stage for everyone to talk about. There will be orderly negotiations with the States concerned and with the people affected. Subsequently they will be submitted to the Government for consideration, and once the Government has made its decisions, it will come to Parliament with its decisions.

As long as it is not before the election.

It is strange that some people always walk back to front. [Interjections.] Sir, do you know what Langenhoven said about that? He said: “Moenie met jou agterkant na ’n man toe aankom nie; hy mag dink jy lyk alkant so!”

That is true. In any event the hon. member’s back looks better than his front.

Let me summarize. Preference is being given to the implementation of the 1975 proposals. Since it is clear that negotiations with independent States must be conducted on an ad hoc basis, preference will be given to the matters affecting them. Apart from that the priority needs of the non-independent States will also be considered. Transfers of Trust Lands which have already been purchased, will be effected in the shortest possible time on an economic and productive basis.

Consequently it is clear that the Government is continuing to develop and promote in a positive way its adopted policy of the development of separate peoples and States. This is part of the only alternative which is the answer to Marxism in Southern Africa.

In conclusion I wish to deal with a matter on which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put a question to me and on which I put one to him in return. I think he will agree with me that when I say that I reject the principle of “one man, one vote” in South Africa in a unitary State, whether union or federal, it is not only my personal opinion, but also the opinion of two commissions we had. In the first place there is the Erika Theron Commission, which expressly said in its report (Par. 178 p. 519)—

After all, this principle of “one man, one vote” is an inherent part of the Westminster system. Even then, the Erika Theron Commission told us clearly that although they could not express a final opinion because they had not examined the matter fully, they felt that further steps should be taken to make a special study of this. They felt it should be done on a different basis from the Westminster system. In saying that, they are actually supporting my standpoint, i.e. that the system of one man, one vote is not acceptable to South Africa.

Not at all.

Of course.

Not acceptable under the Westminster system.

[Inaudible.]

But I said under the Westminster system, whether unitary or federal. It is something completely different if one introduces one man, one vote for Bophuthatswana, for Transkei, for Ciskei or for Zululand, and accepts that same principle for South Africa, for this Parliament. But then it is not one man, one vote in a unitary or in a federal State. That is the point. That same standpoint was supported by the Schlebusch Commission . . .

And in a confederal State?

. . . with the help of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who expressly stated that the Westminster system, without any adaptations, offered no solution to the political problems of the Republic and that the so-called one man, one vote system within the present political structure would probably lead to the domination of minorities by majorities and to serious conflicts between population groups.

That is our policy.

I know it is the policy of the hon. member for Yeoville. I know very well that that hon. member is not in favour of one man, one vote. But that is not true of all the members who are sitting around him. However, we shall not go into that this afternoon. That can wait for another occasion. But I absolutely accept that the hon. member for Yeoville does not advocate that policy.

And the bishop?

But I also say the hon. member is one of the voices crying in the wilderness in that party.

You have been dreaming.

The hon. member over there who is talking about dreaming would do well to go and read his speech which he made in the Senate. But that is not the point.

Trees are going to grow in the desert!

On the basis of that standpoint I said, when the President’s Council was established, that there were two reasons why I could not agree to having the Black nations represented on the President’s Council. The first reason is that they have advanced much further constitutionally than the Coloured people and the South African Indians. They have their own structures. Some have self-government. Some have independent States.

And the urban Black man?

The urban Black man? Let me remind you again of what Langenhoven said. He said: “If a cat has kittens in an oven, they are not little loaves that have been born there.”

You are not a clown. Just reply to the question.

Shut up!

Mr. Speaker, I should prefer to continue talking to responsible people.

The fact is that the Black man has his own structures. I have visited these Black States. The one thing that struck me was the connection that existed between the man living in his Black State and the man in the city. It struck me that many people in each of these Black States told me that they were not only visited over weekends by people from the cities, but that the people in the cities were increasingly sending their children to school in the Black States. In other words, there is an interaction of interests. That is why the Government has adopted the standpoint that we shall create separate structures for the Black people in the cities, that we shall confer a higher status than that of municipality upon those structures and that we shall grant powers to them, but that they will always have to maintain their ties with the structures existing in their own States. We are working on that and we shall continue to work on it. We are getting enthusiastic co-operation from Black leaders in that field.

I admit that the radicals do not support us, because the radicals want a unitary State with one man, one vote. That is the parting of the ways. This, therefore, is the first reason why I said I was not prepared to have Black people represented on the President’s Council, because the President’s Council has to advise us on improved structures among the Whites, the South African Coloured people and the South African Indians, who have to work out a future within one political context, not on the basis of one man, one vote. I hope I have now made myself clear and that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now knows exactly where he stands with me.

Then I went on to say that if there was a drastic departure by the President’s Council in its proposals affecting those matters on which we submitted proposals to the Schlebusch Commission, and on which our party congresses have taken a stand, I should have to go back to the party congresses in that connection. That is the democratic way. Even if my congresses were to approve that drastic departure, I should have to submit it to the country by way of referendum. Therefore my course should be quite clear to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he will admit that among the Blacks outside the homelands, there are some—I shall not say what percentage—who have severed all links with the homelands and regard themselves as citizens of South Africa?

In every nation there are those who sever all links with their own people. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I also ask whether the views and interests of those people, who have now become completely urbanized, will not be taken into consideration at all if they wish to be South Africans and not members of the population of another country?

My standpoint is that if a man has become urbanized, it does not mean that he is different from the man living in Zululand, for example. Let me give an example. I say this with all due respect. The wife of the Chief Minister of Zululand was born in the city and she worked as a teacher in the city. This just goes to prove the point I made, that the fact that one is living in the city does not turn one into a different kind of person, no more than a South African living in the city is a different person from the one living in the rural areas.

He wants a choice. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what would happen if only one of the congresses of the NP said it refused to accept the proposals of the President’s Council. [Interjections.] Would the hon. the Prime Minister still go on with the referendum, or would one congress have a veto?

My reply to the hon. member is that he should leave the affairs of my party in the hands of the party. There is a prescribed procedure to be adopted if one of the congresses differs with the others.

Yes, then you go to the federal council.

No. The federal council is merely advisory. [Interjections.] The hon. member is quite wrong.

If I am wrong, give me the answer.

The constitution of the party contains a prescribed procedure which the hon. member can ascertain from me. It spells out what we are to do when congresses differ with one another. It says what is to be done until agreement can be reached.

But tell me what it is.

I am dealing with other things now. [Interjections.]

Andries has a veto.

Order!

I can assure the hon. member that the way I know our congresses, they have very, very seldom, if ever, really differed with one another on the vitally important questions in South Africa’s history when they have deliberated upon these. [Interjections.] There is one thing, for example, which we can do, and that is to convene a central congress and to thrash out the matter there until agreement has been reached. [Interjections.] There is no clique within the NP. [Interjections.]

Order!

There is a further point I wish to make. This road is a much better one than the road proposed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. What did he tell us? He is going to organize a national convention, and at that national convention, not only the recognized elected leaders of the Blacks and the Coloured people will be represented. No, he is going to assemble all the people he can get together in South Africa. Some people in his party are agitating for Mandela to be there too. The hon. leader is sowing the seed for an agitation for one man, one vote, and he will not be able to stem that tide, for if he takes that course, he will be placing himself on a slippery slope. He will find himself on a road where other people have found themselves. I do not wish to now discuss neighbouring States, but his policy is more dangerous than Mr. Ian Smith’s in Rhodesia was. It will have the same outcome. It will lead to one man, one vote and Black majority government in this country with the Whites a protesting minority. The mistake that is made by most people who think the way he does—in other countries as well—is not to take cognisance of the determination of White South Africa to survive in its own right in this country. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can make a valuable contribution in this connection. In the circles in which he moves he can tell people they must not underestimate this determination.

He can tell that to his benchfellow as well.

I now wish to conclude.

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. the Prime Minister accept that the security and survival of the Whites depend on the extent to which we are able to reach an agreement with the Black nations of South Africa?

No, that is not the whole picture. If it were, our history would be a lie. It may be one of the factors.

An important factor.

The decisive precondition for the survival of White South Africa is its will to survive. [Interjections.] One of the newspapers has written that the Afrikaners first have to be divided among themselves, that they first have to be split, if this country is to be saved.

Sir, the Afrikaner people will not allow itself to be split. Hon. members can accept that when I say so this afternoon. The Afrikaner people is not going to commit national suicide in order to satisfy certain newspapers. English-speaking South Africans have built up through hard work the economic interest they have acquired in this country, and if I sum them up correctly and I consider the spirit that has prevailed among them even since the 1820 settlers themselves evinced that spirit, those people are not prepared to hand this country over either. There are other minority groups in this country whose survival depend on the survival of the Afrikaners and the English-speaking people.

There are other minority groups in South Africa as well. There are not only White minority groups in the country, there are Black and Coloured minority groups in this country as well. That is why the hon. member is quite wrong in saying that our survival depends on our relationship with those people. I want to tell the hon. member today that the security, the survival and the happiness of Black South Africa depend on the survival of White South Africa.

I now wish to conclude. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me to announce a plan for the future of Southern Africa, and then went on to announce the plan himself. He announced that plan in Simonstown. But he could not even sell the plan in Simonstown, and now he wants me to sell it to South Africa. After Simonstown he tried to sell that plan in East London North. There it was not accepted either. Now he says that because he cannot sell it, I must sell it for him. The hon. member must forgive me, but I am not going to sell his plans that have failed.

But you are such a good salesman that you can sell anything.

There is a Marxist threat against Southern Africa, and therefore against the Republic of South Africa as well. The Government remains determined to deal with it through the development and implementation of a national strategy, and in a democracy it is difficult to launch a national strategy because there are inherent divisions in a democracy. I admit that, but my impression is that we are getting more and more support for it, from circles outside the NP as well. Since I became Prime Minister, I have laid down certain guidelines with the approval of the Cabinet and the NP congresses. These have been announced in the form of the twelvepoint plan. We are convinced that this twelve-point plan, if positively implemented, is the correct way in which the security, prosperity and freedom of the Republic and its population groups may be assured.

The way in which we want to move into the future has already become evident from several initiatives in various fields. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition admitted himself that these have appealed to people’s imagination, and we shall continue along these lines. The Government is convinced that in this way, it is propagating a better alternative to Marxism in Southern Africa in order to protect the rights of minority groups, to recognize the right of nations to self-determination and to make Southern Africa a bulwark for the Free World. We must not now sit back and say that we are not going to proceed with our plan because it is temporarily unacceptable in certain quarters in the Free World. What is in the interests of South Africa cannot be worked out in Britain or in New York. It must be worked out in South Africa. The Government believes that in this way, the standards of White Christian civilization will be upheld and that radicalism, of the left as well as of the right, will be rejected. This is necessary if the happiness and the welfare, the security and the freedom of our country are to be promoted, and in addition to that—and I want to emphasize this—the recognition and the acceptance of the existence of multinationalism and of minorities in the Republic of South Africa will no longer be at issue.

Therefore we, on our part, shall display goodwill towards the non-Whites every day, but then non-White leaders will also have to display greater goodwill towards White South Africa. They must stop trying to outbid the radicals in their ranks. They must take a stand for good relations. The acceptance of vertical differentiation with the built-in principle of self-determination must apply on as many levels as possible and this means that there will also be decentralized powers which can be derived from the central authority.

This will give rise to the establishment of constitutional structures providing for the full independence of the respective Black nations, with the consequent creation, in co-operation with those States, of means of ensuring their development. What is even more important to the happiness of this country is the acceptance, not only by this party, but by all the sections of the population of South Africa, of the principle of separate schools and communities wherever possible as being fundamental to happy social circumstances. We must adhere to that. I know there are people in the party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who do not like this, but the happiness of this country is dependent on it. If we were to surrender this, there would be chaos in this country.

Now I wish to make an announcement. We recently had a delimitation of constituencies and new voter’s rolls were drawn up on this basis. As a result of this delimitation, 37 constituencies were drastically changed, 11 constituencies disappeared and 11 new constituencies were created. To have approximately 30 by-elections arising from this would in my opinion be a waste of energy for the country and for the various parties.

Goodbye, Harry. [Interjections.]

Consequently the Government has decided to hold a general election, and the Government will recommend to the State President that he issue a proclamation on 27 February in terms of which nomination day will be Monday, 23 March, and election day will be Wednesday, 29 April. I have every confidence in placing the NP Government in the hands of the electorate. I know they desire, as we do, that the security, prosperity and freedom of the Republic of South Africa should be preserved. We also know that beyond the forces of evil that are threatening our country, our destiny is in the hands of the God who rules nations and who has ordained a course for every nation.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to see that the moment that the hon. the Prime Minister announced the election there was an exodus from his ranks from the House, no doubt in order to go and attend to their constituencies. This to some extent is perhaps a forecasting of what is to happen and that our position in the Opposition benches will be strengthened as a result of this election. [Interjections.] The truth is that the real issue as to where this motion of no confidence and the amendment of confidence will be tested will now be 29 April of this year when the people of South Africa will have to judge whether or not the Government has a record on which it should be reinstated. Let me say right away that the official Opposition accepts the challenge that the hon. the Prime Minister has thrown out today. We will meet him on the battlefield of this election. [Interjections.] It is interesting to know why the hon. the Prime Minister has chosen to go to the country now instead of going after the end of the parliamentary session or instead of seeing out a larger portion of his term of office. The reasons for this are very clear. Firstly, he is faced with a mismanagement of the economy in regard to inflation that is second to none. We have an inflationary situation which is deteriorating and which the hon. the Prime Minister knows is going to get worse. Secondly, he can talk about the year 1980 as having been a good year for growth but he knows, and his advisers have told him, that certainly now things are not going to be so good. There are other reasons for his calling an election. We are going to have a Part Appropriation Bill and during the discussion on this Bill we are going to be told, as has already been forecast, that the teachers, nurses and policemen are going to get more money. This is going to be done before the election when it should have been done last year because the situation should not have been allowed to deteriorate in the fashion in which it has. This is obviously going to be an election stunt. The reality is, of course, that we are not going to have the budget before the election. We are going to have the budget after the election, which means that money will first be disbursed without the taxpayer’s being told what he is going to have to pay for it until after the election has taken place. [Interjections.] That is the reason why the hon. the Prime Minister will not see out this particular session of Parliament. That is why there will be no budget before the election. That is also one of the reasons why this election is taking place at this particular time.

There are, however, also other reasons, other reasons which became apparent during the debate so far today. One of them is that the hon. the Prime Minister will be going to the country to ask for a constitutional blank cheque. He is not prepared to tell us what he foresees is to be the position of the Coloured and the Indian people in South Africa. He is not prepared to tell us what he thinks is likely to happen about the question of whether there will or will not be Coloured and Indian people sitting in this Parliament. He is not prepared to tell us whether it is not contemplated in the inner circles of his party that the upper House will be reinstated in a multiracial fashion. That part he is not prepared to tell the country. In other words, in regard to the constitutional situation in South Africa, the hon. the Prime Minister is not prepared to take the country into his confidence before an election takes place. He is asking for a constitutional blank cheque. He is asking the electorate to leave it to him to decide what should be done hereafter.

Exactly the same thing applies in regard to the removal of discrimination. Nobody in the hon. the Prime Minister’s own party knows how far discrimination is going to be removed. Nobody knows how far the Government is going to go, and nobody in the country knows what is really going to be done in regard to these issues. When it comes to the question of Black people in South Africa the only thing we know is that it is now quite apparent that despite all the talk there has been about the new verligte image, the new approach, the true policy of the NP under the leadership of the present hon. Prime Minister is that eventually, if his constitutional proposals in regard to the Black people are implemented to the full, there will be no Black South African citizens. That is what is taking place. We have in fact been conned, if I may use that term in a political sense, into believing that there would be a change in that regard. The reality is that the position is still the same and that it is not going to be any different.

So we have a situation in which, in the economic sphere, inflation is on the increase while the rate of growth is on the decrease. There are also other reasons. One of them is that the troubles inside the NP are on the increase and there is no doubt that the momentum of change inside the NP is on the decrease. The reality is that one of the reasons why the hon. the Prime Minister cannot see out his full term is because the one way of uniting the NP is to call an election, to have a common opponent in the form of the PFP in the hope that everybody will forget about the troubles in the ranks of the NP. [Interjections.] I see the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is laughing. The reality is, however, that he himself knows the game of Dallas that is being played inside his caucus. He knows what is going on there. He knows about the manoeuvring for power. He knows what is taking place, and that is the reality of the situation. [Interjections.]

Let me, however, go on to something which is in fact one of the major issues that has arisen in respect of the President’s Council, something that is relevant to our going to the country and dealing with the constitutional future of South Africa. We have had the hon. the Prime Minister tell us—not only today—but also yesterday and before—that if recommendations of the President’s Council were to differ drastically from NP policy, if there were changes in principle—because he regards the two as the same—he would first go to his party congresses and secondly, have a referendum. The question, however, which really remains unanswered is the question of what is regarded by the NP as a matter of policy and what is regarded as a matter of principle, or is it not really only a question of interpretation?

The Prime Minister will interpret the issue as he sees it and will decide whether it is appropriate that a matter should be a matter of principle or whether it should be a matter of policy. The other question to which the hon. the Prime Minister owes the country an answer is whether he and his congresses will regard a recommendation from the President’s Council that Coloured and Indian people should have direct representation and sit in this House as a matter of policy or as a matter of principle. In other words, Sir, is it necessary for him to have a referendum or to go to his congresses in order to allow Coloured and Indian people to take their seats in this House? Sir, there is no answer; nobody is prepared to answer that question. Nobody is prepared to say to us whether that is a matter of principle or whether it is a matter of policy. One thing was very apparent this afternoon and that is that the hon. the Prime Minister, despite all his power, is not master in his own house because the congress of the Transvaal is going to exercise a veto. Unless he can get the leader of the party in that province to agree and to get his congress to agree, no constitutional proposal will have a hope of success or of becoming law. Without the agreement of the leader in the Transvaal—he who exercises the veto; one might call him “Andries Veto”—no such proposal has a chance of success because he is the man who exercises the power and the right in such a matter.

[Inaudible.]

That Minister is not master in that house. He is not even the No. 2; Andries is. He must accept that reality of life.

Harry, you were the No. 2, and now you are nothing!

That is all right. To be nothing in a party of this kind is better than to be No. 2 over there, when you know that you may be chopped any day. In all humility, I am quite happy to be nothing. It is not that serious. [Interjections.]

Sir, I should like to touch on some other matters which I think are important and which we are going to have to debate as the election campaign takes its course. One of the tragedies in South Africa is that the role of what I call the “centrists” or “moderates” in South African politics is regrettably not understood by this Government. I use the words “centrists” and “moderates” rather than the word “liberals” because that word is equally misunderstood and misinterpreted in South Africa. As I see it, the solution to South Africa’s problems lies in three fundamentals: Firstly, that changes must be made peacefully; secondly, that changes to be made must have as their consequence the removal of discrimination; and thirdly, that a changed society must not result in a constitutional structure in which one or other group can dominate others and in which cultural, religious and similar values are therefore not protected.

Radicals who believe in confrontation politics regard the centrists and the moderates as their major opponents because the moderate policies of negotiation and change by peaceful means on an orderly and systematic basis avoid confrontation and therefore in the view of the radicals, stave off revolution. The radicals want confrontation and revolution as soon as possible. The position of the English Press in South Africa is perhaps illustrative of the utter misunderstanding which exists on this issue. The Nationalist politician regards the English Press as his enemy. He regards it as harming the country and he regards it as extreme and unpatriotic. Radical Black elements regard the English Press as an obstacle to revolution. They regard it as being concerned with irrelevancies and lacking in understanding for their cause. The extreme radical wishes the Press to serve his cause and rejects the basic premise that while comment in the Press may be subjective, facts must be objectively stated. In their view both comment and fact must be harnessed in the revolutionary struggle. Centrist forces are in the view of the radicals more dangerous than those of the right wing, as the right wing will in fact help to bring about confrontation, which centrists will postpone, and so possibly even avoid confrontation and therefore revolution.

In preventing the publication of the newspapers of the Argus group which were serving the Black community, the Government in fact played right into the hands of revolutionary-inclined radicals. Even though the newspapers were highly critical of the Government and could in a detailed analysis be shown to be subject to criticism on the grounds of objectivity, in the eyes, however, of the revolutionary they were part of the present system and part of a process of peaceful, as opposed to revolutionary change. If it is suggested that revolutionaries tried to infiltrate the newspapers and used its premises to meet, then the State has and had ample remedies.

One does not condemn or destroy the institution or the entity if some of the members are doing wrong. One of the Afrikaans newspapers spoke about throwing out the baby with the bathwater but what has happened here is that the Government has thrown out the baby and actually kept the bathwater. That is the reality of what has happened in these particular circumstances.

If the radicals had had the power to close those newspapers they would have done so. In fact, the Government did it for them. Government supporters who were suffering under criticism of these papers, who were irritated, annoyed and even infuriated by the way they wrote, may not see it in this way. But the reality is that by preventing publication the Government has unwittingly served a radical and revolutionary cause.

The position of the centrist in a political scene is like a lightning conductor. The centrist and the moderate are the major obstacles in the way of confrontation and revolution. They can prevent revolution and the Government should be thankful to them instead of heaping abuse and worse upon them.

When we speak about stability there are two points I would really like to make here. We have had a situation in South Africa where the Government, by reason of its failures, has in fact threatened the stability of the White community of South Africa. And those threats to the White community and to the community as a whole have come as a result of the failure of the Government to deal with four major public service manpower situations and its failure to deal with the real priorities which are required in South Africa.

Firstly, we deal with the law enforcement situation and the Police. Here there is a serious shortage of personnel, but what in fact has happened? The Minister of Police stopped overtime work because he said there was no money available for overtime pay; all the money allocated for overtime pay had been exhausted. The reality of life is, however, that we could have voted that money in the Additional Estimates that are due to come up shortly because there is no shortage of money.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to deal with the crime situation in detail, but this is a serious matter and the situation of the Police is one that needs to be dealt with urgently.

In the field of health we have the same situation in regard to the shortage of nurses in South Africa, and here too the Government has failed to alleviate the position.

In regard to the Defence Force there is a serious shortage of Permanent Force personnel. Why? Because of the prevailing conditions of service and the salaries paid.

In the field of teaching and training we have the same situation because of a failure on the part of the Government to appreciate that there are priorities and that these priorities must be dealt with in order to preserve the stability of South Africa. And all four of these factors that I have mentioned are essential to this.

But there is another failure that the Government is responsible for, and that is the failure on its part to inspire the people. In my view that is one of its biggest failures. Talking about the Defence Force—and I speak specifically to the new hon. Minister on this matter—we had a war once when tens of thousands of people volunteered, not for one, two or three months, not for one or two years, but until the war was over. There was a spirit, a feeling, an inspiration among the people. But the Government has failed to inspire the people of South Africa. Not only that, the Government has failed to encourage the people of South Africa to show a willingness to make sacrifices to preserve what in fact they value. On the contrary, there has been an attitude in South Africa that people regard material wealth and pleasure as more important. But the Government has not been able to inspire the people in regard to the sacrifices and worthy causes that the hon. the Prime Minister spoke about.

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

No, I do not have the time. I only have one minute left. There is another matter with which I wish to deal, but unfortunately I do not have the time to deal in detail with the hon. the Minister of Finance. However, the position in regard to inflation is becoming worse and worse by the day and I can list hon. members the statistics on this score. What I call upon the Minister of Finance to do is to launch a massive anti-inflation campaign in South Africa to include both the public sector and the ordinary consumer because we have to curb inflation now. It is a recognized fact worldwide that once inflation reaches the level at which it is now, the danger of its moving even higher is greater than ever before.

But you want higher salaries.

Dr. De Kock said that himself. Do not argue with me.

But you want higher salaries? You have just said you want higher salaries.

I am saying to the hon. the Minister that unless he actually deals effectively with inflation, unless he starts a national campaign on this, he is heading for real trouble in South Africa because inflation is something that can destroy the community. We experienced a boom in 1980 but there are people who have been by-passed by the boom. There are housewives whom one does not have to tell about inflation; there are the workers whom one does not have to tell about inflation; there are the unemployed whom one does not have to tell about inflation; there are the people in the depressed rural areas whom one does not have to tell about inflation and then there are also the elderly and the pensioners. When the Government goes to the people and asks for confidence, these people are going to express their lack of confidence in the Government’s ability to fight inflation—they would vote for this motion which is before us today—and, in fact, they will demonstrate on 29 April that the Government at the time of a boom failed South Africa because it allowed these people to suffer and to be by-passed.

Mr. Speaker, in the most recent debates in which he participated, the hon. member for Yeoville made it very difficult for anyone to conduct a proper discussion on financial and economic affairs in this House. I think he must decide now together with his Whips and the people in his party what type of spokesman he is, because his typical pattern is that he uses three quarters of his time—in this debate it was a mere 20 minutes, and this for a senior member of the party—to give a summary of political affairs and then rattles off a number of financial points in the space of five minutes. This is definitely not conducive to a discussion on financial affairs. That is why the hon. member for Yeoville has once again simply made a few passing remarks about a few very important financial phenomena in South Africa, but once again he did not give us any constructive contribution whatsoever regarding the solution to this problem.

†I want to remind the hon. member for Yeoville that he said a little earlier that he accepted the challenge of the hon. the Prime Minister and that he would meet us again on the battlefields. I want to remind him that before he can meet the NP on the battlefields of the election he will have to meet one of his own colleagues on the battlefield of the nomination election because, very cleverly, he was done out of his constituency and he will have to fight against the “Houghton clique” for his very existence in that party. It is no wonder that somebody on our side said: “Goodbye Harry.”

A second point I wish to make to the hon. member is that whether or not an announcement will be made during the discussion on the Part Appropriation Bill as to salary increases and so on is not at issue. The people concerned have been aware for a long time that salary increases are in the offing for them, but they also realize that a specialist commission was appointed and that it was looking into the whole salary situation, particularly with regard to teachers, with a view to finding a structure which will accommodate the teaching profession in a manner which will be suitable to that particular profession. In other words, whether they are getting an increase now or whether they should have got it a little earlier, they are going to like it and that is what is important, moreover, they deserve it.

*If one wants to discuss the economy in South Africa, a subject which unfortunately is apparently very low on the list of priorities of the Opposition members, one must make a very thorough investigation of the entire question of inflation. It is no news to us that inflation is the prime destroyer of wealth and of the income of aged people in particular. It is a terrible problem throughout the world and throughout the world people are thinking of methods to solve this problem, but not one of them has come up with a satisfactory solution. However, the South African economy is almost like a game of golf. Even when an experienced golfer starts cutting or slicing the ball, the very first thing he must ask himself is whether he is not lifting his head up too much. This is one of the basic mistakes when things start going wrong in a game of golf. The same thing happens in the economy. If things start going wrong, the very first thing one can ask is: What role does inflation play? In today’s circumstances—and the hon. member for Yeoville and his colleagues will not get past this—we have a degree of inflation that we are not happy with. We also have a money supply problem which we are not at all happy with, but the hon. member did not come forward and say what his party would have done if they had been swamped with our current money supply as a result of our advantageous position with regard to the balance of payments. Fortunately, as a result of the discipline on this side of the House, with regard to economic development in South Africa, we can look at the problem of inflation from a position of economic strength, a position from which we are able to do something about it.

There are two ways only in which we can approach the whole matter. Firstly, on the long term, we must combat the basic factors which give rise to inflation. On the short term, we must also give relief to those who are very adversely affected by the influence of inflation.

However, let us take a look at our privileged position which enables us as a country to approach the problem of inflation at this point in time from a position of strength. We have a shining reputation in the world, like a bright star. I have here an authoritative publication in which someone says that the world has been powerless for seven years already, watching the world economy stagnate. Under these circumstances we in South Africa today can still say that we are coping well so far and that we do have a momentum that, with further discipline, will still be able to carry us forward and give us a few more years of prosperity. According to this publication, this disease affects any country, regardless of its system. The instruments—whether they be Keynesian or Marxist—that used to combat inflation in the past, no longer work today. In other words, what one needs, is a dynamic package of policy instruments to control the problem to any degree at all.

In South Africa we have one long-term solution to our economic problem and this is growth and development, but growth and development without causing the flames of inflation to burn higher, without having an adverse effect on employment and without jeopardizing company liquidity, as can so easily happen in certain circumstances. In South Africa we can identify three sets of factors which play a tremendously important role and which lie at the root of our problem. In the first place, we in South Africa have a unique tendency towards inflation built into our economy. There are certain basic factors which cause that tendency. In the second place we have specific initiators, and when these initiators appear on the scene, they initiate a process of inflation which is then further influenced by a third set of factors, and those factors are the propagating factors which propagate inflation and destroy many aspects of our growing economy.

I should just like to dwell for a moment on the initiators. For a long time we have been suffering from cost-push-inflation. Last year the hon. the Minister said that in order to combat demand-pull-inflation we would have to be generous with our imports in order to provide an adequate supply of consumer goods. This is what he in fact did. The value of our imports increased by 40%. Therefore the Minister issued a warning as early as last year and said that we are already seeing the danger signs of demand-pull-inflation. As far as our initiators are concerned, we are once again faced with a strange combination of cost-push-inflation and a degree of demandpull-inflation, and this is why the old methods of Keynes and other thinkers in this sphere no longer work today, because a dynamic package for combating these problems simultaneously is practically impossible to find today.

I want to say more about the structural problems, the inherent tendency towards inflation in South Africa. The first important aspect and all that I will have time for is the fact that it is not economic factors that play a very important role in the question of inflation. Psychological factors and some social factors affect the role that the economically active person plays in the economy. The first of these is an unfortunate phenomenon found throughout the entire world, something that one can actually describe as greed, a tendency on the part of some people to take more out of the economy than they put into it. There is still a terrible discrepancy between the value of a person’s achievement and the money that he puts into his pocket at the end of each week or month. This is a fact that manifests itself from the highest managerial positions to the lowest labour posts: A discrepancy, a greed and a tendency to take more out of the economy than one is prepared to put into it.

In South Africa, and throughout the world, man’s influence on the economic process is still terribly important. Everything cannot be done by machines. Man’s attitude to his work is therefore of tremendous importance. What do we find in South Africa? How convenient it is for people who look at South Africa’s economy to forget that a vast portion, in fact the majority of our workers’ corps, are people who have either been working for a salary for a very short while, or not at all. These are people who are remunerated in natura and who, until recently, lived exclusively in the environment of a subsistence economy or live within one today. These are people who are not equipped, from the viewpoint of their value systems and culture, to be of use in an industrial economy like the one in South Africa. Basically, therefore, it is a period of transition for those people, which causes them to suffer culture shock, because they were accustomed to a subsistence economy and now they have to leave behind part of their cultural heritage, which worked well in South Africa a few generations ago, but no longer works today, and suddenly they find themselves in an industrial environment where they have to do specific, small specialized jobs for a wage. This has a tremendous effect on the attitude of our workers to their activity in the economy.

We in South Africa are faced with an inherent problem in our economy which is still going to trouble us for a long time to come. That is why it is a mammoth task which the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization and the people who assist him are doing. Not only are they attending to the better training of people who have been in a free market economy for a long time, viz. the Whites and to a certain extent the Coloureds and Asians of this country, but they are also training people for whom it is a total cultural change to find themselves in an industrial environment. Our only solution is to train people to make this transition from a subsistence economy to a free market economy possible.

When one discovers what a tremendous stumbling block this is in the economy and what a tendency towards inflation it causes, one is amazed if one looks at the far rightist approach towards labour in South Africa: These people cannot perceive the realities of the labour situation.

Another very important occurrence with regard to employment, is that a tremendous transition has taken place since the thirties, from agriculturally-orientated workers to industrially-orientated workers. This transition was of such a magnitude that the percentage by which each year’s inflow exceeded that of the previous year, has exceeded the percentage population growth since 1930. However, since 1970 there has been a levelling-off. Apart from the fact that this plateau arose as a result of the recession which in itself gave rise to problems, there was also a wave of young Black people who entered the labour market. Even though our population growth was just over 2% on the average, the growth amongst Black work seekers was approximately 5½%, which caused a tremendous problem, because everyone must work and everyone must eat, and it contributes towards counter-revolution if one can accommodate such young people in one’s economy in some way or other. As a result, a situation has arisen with regard to certain social, political and strategic considerations, where the authorities and the private sector i themselves are obliged to contribute in order to perpetuate this discrepancy between achievement and wages for the sake of other considerations.

I want to dwell briefly on the question of how we should solve the problems arising from inflation, particularly with regard to the aged. Contrary to what the hon. member for Yeoville said, the Government has a record of which it may be proud in this regard. We must bear in mind—and the figures prove it—that the increase in social pensions has exceeded the rate of inflation every year for the past number of years, particularly if we also take into account the bonuses which the hon. the Minister of Finance grants from time to time. Consequently, these people were at least able to keep pace with the increase in the cost of living. The Government also has understanding with regard to the housing problem. That is why certain things are in the pipeline. That is why there was also a tremendous increase in the loans granted for economic and sub-economic housing. I am grateful that in my constituency too, aged people who did not qualify for subsidized loans got together and said that they were going to do something about their own situation. In this respect they received a good deal of aid from the Government. I am referring to the construction of cluster housing for the aged which aims at assuring them of a place to stay in their old age.

From the viewpoint of the elderly retired person, it is also a very good thing that the rate of interest has been increased once again. I am quite convinced that, in the same way as we have a means test for social pensioners, we can also do something by means of a means test about the position of the aged person who has made provision for himself, but who has been ruined by a rate of inflation that may increase by several per cent in one year, for which he was not able to make proper provision in his time. I ask that we should give our serious consideration to making it possible by means of a means test or some other mechanism or other for people who have made provision for their old age to invest their funds in such a way that their cost of living will not erode their capital as drastically as is the case at present. Even if such a person receives 7½% or 10% on his investment—and this is possible once again today—the fact remains that this is less than the rate of inflation, that he has to use his basic capital assets to complement his earnings from interest. I think that we are obliged to accommodate these people. In the nature of things, we endorse the free market system. That is why we must look after those people who are prepared to look after themselves and do not want to become a burden to the State in their old age.

I think we also have a good record as regards the taxation of the aged—because people who have an income, should be taxable to some degree, despite their age. Since 1975, the taxation threshold for people older than 60 years has been increased from R1 100 to R3 000. Therefore this assists the person in the lower income group without necessarily assisting the person in the higher income group to the same extent.

The Government also has a good record with regard to subsidies. In this year alone, food subsidies amounted to the enormous sum of over R200 million. I think this is to the Government’s credit.

I want to conclude. I am quite convinced that in the long term we can solve the structural problems built into our economy. This is an objective which is within our reach. However, it requires discipline not only on the part of the Government, but also on the part of the private sector. I think that the Government has set a brilliant example by managing their affairs very well and bringing about an effective increase of a mere 2% in its expenditure. If we can motivate the private sector and every individual to put their shoulders to the wheel so as to put our economy in order and not to allow a destructive spiral of wage and price increases to destroy our prosperity then we can once again, in contrast to the rest of the world, experience a boom for a long period and enjoy the required prosperity. In this respect the Government may be thanked for having created the infrastructure, through its discipline, to bring the economy to the position that it is in at the moment. I am sure that in the coming election we on this side of the House have a very advantageous platform from the viewpoint of the financial and economic management of South Africa, together with the care granted to the people who suffer under what is difficult to control.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to react to the speech by the hon. member for Florida, since he has raised a very important aspect here this afternoon, namely the South African economy. All of us are aware of the fact that at present South Africa is entering one of its most favourable periods in terms of gold sales and foreign and internal revenue. The hon. member has also mentioned another very important factor, however, and that is that at the moment we are experiencing a spiralling inflation rate in South Africa. Judging by the latest figures, it is quite possible that if matters continue as they are, South Africa will have an inflation rate of approximately 17% or 18% within the next five years. I wish to make the point that the basic reasons why we have such a high rate of inflation, are to be sought in the policy of the NP Government. The Government has been in power for 32 years now. We in the NRP concede that a certain measure of inflation is indeed being imported from overseas. That is of course inevitable. But what is our greatest shortage in South Africa today, and why is the cost of labour increasing? The reason is that our shortage of labour is hampering us.

Let us go into the reasons why we have a shortage of skilled workers in South Africa. In the first place, there is the Government’s policy of job reservation. In the second place, there is the question of Black education. We are facing the problem today that within three years we shall have a minimum shortage of between 50 000 and 80 000 skilled workers in the engineering industry. That is purely attributable to the fact that the Government has prevented us from utilizing the skills of all the population groups in South Africa. That is the crux of the matter. It is utterly impossible to maintain a low rate of inflation without skilled and trained people. It is inevitable, that when too few people are requested to perform too much work, salaries and wages will rocket. I wish to ask the hon. member for Florida whether this is not true, whether it has not only been during the past 12 or 14 months that the Government has come to its senses and has begun to realize where the problem lies. Nevertheless, the Government is still being dilatory, and consequently the preparation and school training of Black people, Coloureds and Indians are also still tardy. We in the NRP consequently feel that the blame for the current high rate of inflation rests squarely on the shoulders of the Government.

†My intention was not to speak about economic problems and the economic welfare of South Africa today. We have listened to a most interesting speech by the hon. the Prime Minister here today. I would like to make the attitude of the NRP quite clear with regard to the statements he made. In the first instance we wish to warn the hon. the Prime Minister, his Cabinet, the Government, that no amount of calling out of elections is going to solve the constitutional problems of South Africa. The problems do not lie in the alternative solutions available, but in the inability of the Government to implement any new constitutional proposals. That is the problem. When we return from the next general election—as the NRP will with increased strength—we will find that the NP is as debilitated as it was before the election, as they were in 1974 and in 1977, because the problems of South Africa lie not in the theoretical and practical institutional models available to the Government, but in the inability of the Government to move forward. Therefore we do not think the election which is going to take place on 29 April will solve any of the Government’s or South Africa’s problems. The reason why I say this is because of the lack of insight which hon. members on the other side of the House show about what the real problems of South Africa are. If we are unable to identify the real problems, then obviously it is impossible to find real solutions to those problems.

We must examine under a microscope, as we will indeed do in the forthcoming election, the policies and the actions of the Government. As an example of the lack of insight on the part of hon. members opposite into the solutions available to the South African constitutional problems, I quote the speech of the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. He made a very serious mistake here yesterday when he equated the policy of the NRP with that of the PFP. That was a very serious mistake indeed. It also shows his lack of insight into the alternative constitutional models available to South Africa. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister, as well as to other hon. Ministers and to hon. members opposite, that this Government is totally illogical in its approach to solving our constitutional and other problems. It is inconsequential and it is dilatory in trying to solve our problems. Calling out a general election in order to solve problems within the NP is not in the interests of solving constitutional problems in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the hon. the Prime Minister have accepted the fact that a referendum is a useful tool for finding out what people think about proposed changes, and in all probability the Government will accept the outcome of such a referendum. I ask the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs whether, if severe change is recommended by the President’s Council, the Cabinet will accept the outcome of a referendum. Will they live with that referendum result, or will they reject it and ride rough-shod over the will of the majority of the people? The hon. the Minister evidently cannot answer me, because he does not know what the problems are, he does not know what the solutions are going to be, and he does not know what the outcome is going to be. [Interjections.]

He does not know whether he is verlig or verkramp. [Interjections.]

It is fine to accept the results of a referendum, and let us assume the Government will accept it and will abide by the will of the majority of the White people. Why then is it not possible to test the will of the people in the homelands by way of a referendum as well in connection with whether they want independence or not?

But we have just done so in the case of the Ciskei.

Now the hon. the Minister tells us it has been done in the Ciskei. We believe that. We have accepted that. I should like, however, to ask the hon. the Minister the following question: If the majority of the people of KwaZulu, by way of a fair referendum, said they did not want KwaZulu to become an independent homeland, will he accept that result?

Then matters remain exactly the way they are now.

Then matters remain exactly the way they are, Mr. Speaker. That is the problem. There is no solution for these matters in the policy of the NP. [Interjections.] That is the problem with hon. members opposite. They cannot accept that if one wants peace in South Africa, if one wants to preserve democracy and private free enterprise, one must get those people in the homeland areas with one and not against one.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to know from the hon. member for Durban North whether, if the majority of the Zulus were to intimate in a referendum that they wish to be represented in this Parliament on a basis of “one man, one vote” his party would agree to that?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is well aware that the policy of the NRP is not one of “one man, one vote”. [Interjections.] However, we do not wish to reject those people. We do not wish to throw them out of South Africa. [Interjections.] We want them with us in this country to help us bolster a stronger South Africa.

We retain them in a confederation.

We talk of a federation. Evidently the hon. the Minister is interested in that.

A confederation. [Interjections.]

Before coming to that, however, I first wish to say something about the total onslaught on South Africa. That total onslaught is directed at the system of democracy and free enterprise. That is the onslaught. We need only look at the history of Africa. That is what the onslaught is directed against. Although it is important to note that it is a Marxist onslaught, it is more important to realize that the onslaught is aimed at democracy and the system of free enterprise. I wish to put it to the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and to his colleagues that the hon. the Prime Minister has totally rejected the Blacks today as far as a new deal in South Africa is concerned. He has rejected them altogether. He has circumvented the President’s Council altogether; he has now virtually rejected that, too. He has said that in future it would not be possible at all for South Africa that Blacks could be involved in a new dispensation within the country.

Surely that is not correct.

That is exactly what the hon. the Prime Minister said.

He did not say so.

Now one doubts the sincerity of hon. members opposite as far as the functions of the President’s Council are concerned. What I do wish to point out to the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, however, is that the latest research has proved that there are approximately 9 million Black people outside the homelands of which approximately 2 million represent the third longest minority group, the urbanized Blacks. They firmly believe in democracy, they support democracy and the system of free enterprise.

†And that, Sir, is where the onslaught is on South Africa. It is an onslaught on a value system, a way of living, democracy and free enterprise. The question is whether this Government can be trusted to preserve and maintain, in the interests of future generations, our democratic private enterprise system.

No, it cannot.

The answer must be an unqualified “no”. I say this because by ignoring the reality of the plural society in South Africa—and we agree with the hon. the Minister and that side of the House that South Africa is a plural society—we shall be heading for trouble. We have to recognize the reality of this plurality. We have to recognize the fact that the urbanized Black is totally different to the homeland traditional Black because the urbanized Black supports democracy and private free enterprise. The difficulty of hon. members on that side of the House is that they do not recognize this problem and so they do not even have any solution which can accommodate the aspirations of the urban Blacks. That group is going to become the most important minority group in the future survival of South Africa. If that group is on our side we shall go from strength to strength. If, however, the people who form that group are not with us, if we reject them, if we ignore them, they will become our most vicious enemies in the struggle for survival in Africa. Despite the NP Government, there is still time to win and maintain the goodwill of those people. However, then the NP Government must be prepared to recognize the problem and it must also be prepared to listen to the solutions offered to accommodate those people in a constitutional structure in South Africa where we do not have domination of one group by another. That is the answer. The answer to the new republic that is being built in this country by us lies in a federal-confederal structure, and the hon. the Minister and the hon. members on that side of the House are going to hear this many times during the forthcoming election campaign. However, because certain people take a little longer to appreciate the solutions, I shall relate them here today for the benefit of the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Minister spoke here on behalf of the Government about the protection of minority rights, the lack of domination by one group of another and a prosperous future in South Africa for each group where each group can retain its own identity.

That is our policy.

It may be your policy but it is not your practice.

It is not your practice at all.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister why his side of the House rejects the Blacks in South Africa who support democracy and private free enterprise. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister said clearly today, the hon. the Minister himself has said and the members of the NP have said on many occasions that Blacks will have no stake or participation in the establishment of any constitutional dispensation for South Africa in the future. They must go back to the homelands. They must be driven back to the homelands politically because they will not be permitted to participate in the Government of South Africa. That is correct. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me. That is what the hon. the Prime Minister said here today. Blacks will not be allowed to participate. I am referring specifically to what the hon. the Prime Minister said here today when my leader, the hon. member for Durban Point put the question to him: “What about the urbanized Blacks?” My hon. leader did not refer to “urban-dwelling” Blacks but to “urbanized” Blacks, those Blacks who support democracy and private free enterprise. To this question the hon. the Prime Minister replied directly that they would have no participation or part to play in the making of a constitution for South Africa.

Members on that side cannot appreciate these points. There is a difference between a traditional Black and an urbanized Black, and that difference is vital to our future security in South Africa. That difference is that they support democracy and private free enterprise, which is where our future lies. I believe the time has come for the public of South Africa to realize that any future constitution in which they wish to guarantee the rights of minorities lies vested in an accommodation of the urbanized Blacks, the Asiatics, the Coloureds and the Whites in a federation and the homeland Blacks joined to us in a confederation. That is the only way to prevent group domination.

I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister that if he accepts the principle of holding a referendum to solve problems, why then is he so against local option? The signs of a mature democracy lie in the devolution of power from central Government to second tier and ultimately to the people themselves. Democracy is government for the people, by the people. That is what democracy is all about. The policy of the NRP recognizes this and we stand for the devolution of power from central Government to regional and local areas, for the very simple reason that if one wishes to protect minority rights and wishes to perpetuate democracy, then it is unavoidable. One must have a devolution of power. The true signs of a mature democracy lie in the extent of devolution of power to the lower levels. If the hon. the Minister, the central Government, is prepared to accept the referendum system as a system for determining the wish and the will of the majority of people, then why can it not also be used at the second and third tiers of government? Those very things that are of intimate concern to the individual, for example residential areas, schooling and recreational facilities, must be under the control of the people themselves at their own particular level. We cannot have a uniform policy in South Africa dictating the control of those facilities. It is for the people in a prescribed area themselves to determine whether they wish to retain that area as an exclusive area or whether they are prepared to open it to all race groups. That should be the policy of our Government. Only in that way can one exercise and provide a solution for the real problems facing South Africa. Not all the people of South Africa feel that they want to remain exclusive. Many of them do. But that should be the right of the groups to decide for themselves. This country has been ridden and hampered for 32 years with centralized government and decisions coming from Pretoria, decisions which in many cases have proved totally disastrous for the area and for the function to be performed. Let me remind the hon. the Minister and the Government of the unrest in Soweto in 1976. There the decision on education and language or medium of instruction was taken by Pretoria. The determining factor was the policy of the NP. The will of the people and their own preference were totally ignored and ridden over roughshod. The hon. the Minister of Police will remember that. He must go and read the Cillié report. The origin of the problem in Soweto lay in dissatisfaction with Black education and the medium of instruction.

Not the language issue.

The hon. the Minister must read the report. They rode roughshod over the will of the majority of the people who were intimately concerned with that system. If the Government had listened then to what the local people wanted, we could well have avoided the Soweto incidents. The hon. the Minister of Police will come back to us and say: “There were rowdy elements involved; there were communist agitators involved.” That probably is so. But they came after the trouble had started. The foment of trouble with the local population lay in the medium of instruction in the schools of Soweto. And that problem still exists today. Boycotts of schools are still taking place, although to a lesser extent.

They have all been called off.

They have all been called off now, but how long has it taken? How long has it taken when the very problem could have been avoided by listening to the will of the majority of the people concerned in that area? That is why this party believes in the devolution of power in relation to those matters which are of intimate concern to the community itself. We must stop this business of dictating what is in the interests of everybody else from Pretoria, for then we are going to perpetuate the misery which exists in South Africa and which existed in the past. We are going to increase the risk of revolution and disorder. Revolution and disorder can only take place where there is dissatisfaction and unrest amongst a large section of the population. If we give the other race groups of this country the opportunity to remain culturally exclusive and we also give them the opportunity for self-help in the political field, if we allow them to make decisions when things are of intimate concern to themselves, then only can we guarantee that the future of South Africa will be along the road of democracy and private free enterprise.

Finally I wish to refer to the attitude of the Government to the recommendations and the construction of the President’s Council. The President’s Council was established by this House and was entrenched in the constitution of South Africa during the 1980 session. This council, whose task it is to establish a new political dispensation for South Africa, has in my opinion been circumvented by the statements of the Government. When I asked the hon. the Prime Minister last year what alternative there would be to the constellation concept if it failed, he said there would be no alternative. He was asked the same question today and we got the same answer. When we asked what about the urbanized Blacks, we got the same answer: They are to be totally excluded. What then, in all honesty, is the function of the President’s Council going to be? If it is going to be to recommend that the Indians and the Coloureds of South Africa must take part with the Whites in governing South Africa, thereby excluding at least a further 20% of the population from participating in the political, the social and the economic structure, I believe that the Government in its present attitude has closed the doors for positive and beneficial constitutional development in South Africa. This is a very serious thing indeed, a very serious negative attitude to take to the possibilities which were offered to us through the President’s Council. We understand that the hon. the Prime Minister had consulted certain Black leaders and on the basis of the discussion which he had with them he decided not to utilize the council for Black South African citizens. We understand that, but the question must be asked: Why was there a lack of co-operation from the Black leaders? The answer to that is because of the total rejection by the Government of the Black citizens of South Africa. That policy, the total rejection of the Blacks, is still going to cause this country greater hardship and more hardship than it has in the past. Those people, like ourselves, were born in this country, they have their future in this country, they have their children’s future in this country and they want to remain part of this country in the full sense of the word. This party believes, therefore, that if we want to avoid group domination, if we want to avoid the problems of forced separation and forced integration, then there is only one policy direction for South Africa, i.e. a federation between urbanized Blacks, Coloureds, Indians and Whites, without group domination and a confederation for the homeland areas. When we have reestablished mutual confidence, which has been so destructively undermined between race groups by the NP over 32 years, when we have re-established mutual confidence between all groups then we will go from strength to strength and ultimately find what we have all been looking for, namely a stable, democratic private free-enterprise-based constellation of Southern African States, but those Southern African States will not be the homelands only. They will also be to the north of us. We will create new allies where we now have enemies. We shall then become the workshop of the world, the greatest source of raw material and human endeavour, but I regret that as long as we have the present Government with its present policy thinking, its blinkers, its lack of appreciation of the real problems of South Africa and, even more so, no solution for the accommodation of the urban Blacks, this country can only give that Government a total vote of no confidence.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to follow up on the argument of the hon. member for Durban North. We are accustomed to listening with interest to this hon. member when he confines himself to matters of which he has a considerable knowledge, for example labour matters, etc. We are also aware however—and this was clearly indicated today—that he finds it difficult to shake off his colonial antecedents, because it is quite surprising, in these times, to find a member still talking in this House about traditional Blacks and urbanized Blacks. We do not think in those terms. If that hon. gentleman is still prepared to draw that distinction in his mind, it shows how completely outdated he is in his thinking about the aspirations of the Black peoples of South Africa as a whole.

We have now arrived at the end of the third day of the debate, and one would have expected, at this stage, to have had some form of attack by the Opposition, or at least some form of approach criticizing the Government and presenting some suggestions that the public of South Africa could consider as alternative policies to those of the Government. In desperation, however, they had to resort today to putting up the hon. member for Yeoville who talked about inspiration, but I think he should have addressed his remarks about inspiring Government members and party members to his own party.

If the House will forgive me, I should like to spend just one or two minutes in a close analysis of the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in introducing the debate. One would have thought that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in particular, would have seized the opportunity, not only to spotlight the acts of omission or commission by the Government, or even its failures, but also to present the Opposition’s alternatives which could be weighed against Government policy by members of the general public. Last year the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in the no-confidence debate, was listened to with a great deal of tolerance and interest. We realized that his approach would be an academic one because of his background and that he had not obtained the experience, from his former back-bench position, to be able to face realistically the practical political considerations of the day. A comparison of his speech last year with that made in this debate still shows his continuing academic approach, divorced from political realities. In his speech there was, however, the implied admission that the achievements of this Government, and in particular those of the hon. the Prime Minister, left little on which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition could base his no-confidence motion. The only positive proposal in the entire speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was the familiar cry—and this implies discarding his own responsibilities—about leaving everything involving the future of South Africa to the determination of a national convention, an idea which, even in his own ranks, has already been discarded.

Where do you get that from?

Let me illustrate certain aspects of his speech. He began by praising the hon. the Prime Minister when he said—

Where in his entire speech of nearly two hours did he allege that the climate of optimism in South Africa had ceased to exist, or that its tempo had not increased. However, to offer some justification for the motion of no-confidence he talked about the “half-baked” leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister towards the end of his speech. I have said that the approach of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that of a political academic and not that of a political leader dealing with matters on a political basis. Any outsider who reads the Hansard of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s speech, will see that his thesis and arguments are based on the concept—as was so admirably pointed out here today by the hon. the Prime Minister—that our country consists of one homogeneous people, irrespective of colour; that no differences exist among all our various ethnic groups, other than that the White group have managed to manoeuvre themselves into a situation of political control, with the resulting control of the whole of the economy and consequent exploitation of the other minority groups. To illustrate his argument, he used the existing division of land in South Africa. His arguments were presented in this regard in exactly the same way as Mr. Mugabe’s party presented its arguments in Zimbabwe in the last election. They spoke about the so-called inequality of the division of land which existed in Zimbabwe. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition ignored entirely the historical origins and the continuing process, over many years, of allocating further land to Blacks, a process which has been accentuated today with the appointment of the commission dealing with the consolidation of the homelands. He took his thesis even further by concluding that existing land divisions were a flagrant contradiction of the free market economy. He proceeded to take this argument even further by saying that there was a complete abregation of the Government standpoint that the independent states should become viable economic units. This is arrant nonsense. What is happening is that with the development of an economic community of Southern Africa there can only be a broadening and strengthening of the economic structures and viability of the homelands.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition prefaced his speech by looking at South Africa in the international context. He stated that he had paid visits overseas during the past recess and had come to the conclusion that there was increasing pessimism—I hope I am interpreting him correctly—in Europe, I presume, over the possibility of violent struggle in South Africa before solutions to our problems could be found. I hope I am giving a correct interpretation of his remarks. I also visited several countries in Europe in the recess and I found no such pessimism. I do not know to whom the hon. the Leader of the Opposition talked but I talked to a great many leaders in the industrial and banking world. I should like to say that I only wish that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition could have the same optimism about the future of our country that I found that these people, who are in leading positions in Europe, have about the future of South Africa. They are foreigners, people who have never resided here. They have a realization of the importance of South Africa to the Western and European communities, the same realization and understanding that leaders of the Western nations have of the hon. the Prime Minister’s initiatives. The concept of a constellation of states in Southern Africa and the establishment of a Southern African economic community have gripped the imagination of leaders in Europe. They understand that we are the fourth most important supplier of material resources to the economic community of Western Europe. They understand that we stand eighth on the list of nations who are buyers of products manufactured in Europe. I should like to give some tangible evidence to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the House today of the confidence that is being displayed in Europe towards South Africa, the Government of South Africa and the people of South Africa. I want to make this available to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today because he may find it valuable in the election. I have here a prospectus dated June 1980 for a loan of some DM 120 million, underwritten by five banks.

It is an old saying that one puts one’s money where one puts one’s confidence. This loan is underwritten by the major banks of Europe. What is remarkable about this prospectus is that it is a document of utter confidence and the finest summary that I have ever read and that one can find anywhere in the world of the political, the financial, the labour and the socio-economic aspects of South Africa. It is a better summary of that than could be produced in South Africa, after thorough research. It surprises me that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can make a speech as he did in introducing this debate after stating he had visited Europe. He must have talked to some people there concerned with these issues. Yet, in ignorance he could come here and make the statements he did make.

I want to quote just one thing from the prospectus. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition devoted a great deal of his attention to the aspect of new constitutional structures for South Africa in the future. Let me read what is said here. Talking about a new constitution in a financial prospectus concerning thousands of people who have to contribute their money for investment in South Africa, it says here—

One could not find better evidence of the understanding on the part of thinking people in regard to the Government’s policies in this multinational country. I commend this document to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I also had the opportunity of talking to other industrialists. I specified the one because that matter has been made public. Here we have a subscribed loan of DM 120 million fully subscribed. These are bearer bonds reflecting South Africa, the people of South Africa and their initiatives.

They were over-subscribed.

Yes. Another major company made an investment of DM 40 million and the total invested by other companies, to whose representatives I spoke, would interest the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I cannot mention the companies by name, but I shall give the names to him privately, because these are matters that have not been made public. The further total investments over the last six months by three industrial companies amount to over DM 100 million. The point is that, if there was no confidence in South Africa and if there was no confidence in the Government and its policies, the policies with which it hopes to take South Africa into the future—remember that these are long-term investments— such investments would not be made. People do not invest their money where there is no confidence. These people have an understanding of the situation which the Leader of the Opposition fails to have. This is a document of confidence in South Africa and its Government. It contains the closest political analysis. As I say, I commend it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I would now like to advance the second piece of evidence, which is, I think, even more interesting. I also commend this to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I refer to a book I have here written by another banker. I think the hon. the Minister of Finance may know him. I mention his name because it is public. It is Prof. Jorisson, who sits on the board of a very important bank. His book is entitled Zondebok Zuid-Afrika. This book is 236 pages of complete confidence in the future of our country, 236 pages of complete understanding of the problems we face here in South Africa. It is even more than that. It is a document which inspires, and I think the hon. the Minister of Finance will agree with me that it has inspired a great deal of confidence in thinking circles in Europe. I think I should quote the last sentence in this book to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition so that he can gain a better understanding. It is written in Flemish—

The West will have more need of South Africa than South Africa of the West. That is his conclusion. I recommend that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition read it.

There was another interesting aspect that arose out of my visit and all the confidence I found people to have in South Africa. I also found no confidence in the Opposition in South Africa. This was a very interesting aspect because the issue of no confidence in the Opposition in South Africa arose out of their own contacts. This is an absolutely impartial judgment delivered by an important and large federation representing some thousands of workers in Europe. Their delegation paid us a visit and after their interviews—I cannot recall their mentioning an official interview with the Government in their report but certainly there was one as far as the official Opposition was concerned—they made the very interesting observation in reporting to their members at their international federation congress in Europe—I am referring to the delegation: “That the official Opposition do not inspire great hopes of its being able to offer an effective political alternative to the present Government policies of South Africa.” That was said by impartial observers who are not involved in our political set-up. They said this after talking to representatives of the PFP. After a thorough confidential discussion they came to the conclusion that the policies of the PFP do not provide any effective political alternative to the present Government policies of South Africa. This is impartial not prejudiced evidence.

If they should try to find impartial evidence about you you would not look too good.

That hon. member must wait until Harry kicks him out of his seat. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes to the House and says that there is increasing pessimism about the possibility of violence in South Africa before a solution is found to our problems. Whom he talked to I do not know because he did not say, but he obviously did not talk to the right people. Perhaps he talked to the leftist radicals.

During the course of his speech the hon. member for Berea said that we sit here as a White Parliament. I want to tell the hon. member that we sit here as a White Parliament because we are not prepared to abdicate our responsibilities. This White Parliament created the President’s Council because we realized that we cannot any longer legislate in isolation in South Africa when it comes to the interests of important minorities in our country such as the Coloured and Indian communities. We realize that there is no going back to the old way and that we have to legislate in consultation. If this were not so the President’s Council would have no meaning. We are fundamentally an unequal society and through the years both inside and outside Parliament it has been our struggle to find solutions to the many problems in our multinational country. Therefore, I want to ask the Opposition why they always attempt to conceal, like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did in his opening speech in this debate, the positive aspects of Government policy from the outside world? If they do not conceal them, why do they present a distorted picture of South Africa? No other country in the world has so many different peoples, so many differences in colour, so many languages and so many socio-economic problems.

I want now to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition four questions which I hope he will be gracious enough to reply to when he replies to the debate. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether it is not true that what has been achieved as a result of Government policy has not brought about an improvement in the general living standards of all the population groups and a consequent easing of tensions in South Africa? Is it not true? Is it not true that with the policy of separate development, leaders of all ethnic groups have been elected and identified among our people, and that discussions are continuing to take place among them? Is this not true? Is it not true that, as a result of Government policy, the relations between the various population groups have become more and more relaxed with the result that our people are more and more engaged in informal discussions, something which leads to a greater understanding among all of us? This is a direct result of Government policy. Is that not true?

The next question I should like to put to the hon. Leader of the Opposition is this: Is it not true that steps are continually being taken for the complete removal of unjustified discriminatory measures in our country? Is this not true? This is so. If the answer is in the affirmative—an honest answer—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not during the forthcoming election allow his party to project a distorted view to the electorate of the Government’s attitude and policies. This is the road along which we are walking now. We are on a new road to the future, a road indicated by the hon. the Prime Minister. In the forthcoming election South Africa will be asked to pass judgment on a new political dispensation for all our people. It will be a road on which the White community will have to carry ever-increasing responsibilities. It is a road on which we cannot turn back. If we are to retain our identity as a nation and fulfil our destiny in Africa, this is a road on which we cannot turn back. We have to achieve within a decade or two what Europe has striven to achieve as an economic community, as a constellation of States, over many centuries, and which it has not yet achieved. For the sake of our own future we cannot turn back. It is a pity indeed that in a country such as ours we have to have an Opposition which is becoming completely irrelevant in the context of the future of our country. In the election which is ahead of us they will find that the people of South Africa who want to walk along the new road indicated by the hon. the Prime Minister will reject them as being completely irrelevant in every way to the future of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Von Brandis seems not only to have missed the message overseas, but also to be quite deaf to the message of the hon. the Prime Minister himself who has, over the past month or certainly since he became Prime Minister of South Africa, made it very clear that we are living in extremely dangerous and trying times in South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister is in fact on record as saying that we must either adapt or die. That is exactly the kind of message which we cannot get into the head of the hon. member for Von Brandis. It is therefore very good to know that he has no seat at present and that he will certainly have no seat to go to after the election.

You will be surprised.

The hon. member for Von Brandis has asked a number of questions of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and I have full confidence that my leader will be able to answer them in about one minute of his time when he replies to the debate on Friday. Therefore I shall not try to reply to that now.

I must confess, however, that I have mixed feelings about participating in this debate at the moment. Having listened to the hon. the Prime Minister and particularly to the last part of his speech when he announced the general election on 29 April, my first thought because of the very atmosphere created by that sort of announcement, was that if I had the right to move the adjournment of this debate, I would have done so. I do not have that right, however. Yet, when I think about it it seems to me that this is a tremendous opportunity of speaking in a no-confidence debate after listening carefully to what the hon. the Prime Minister had to say and taking into account the lack of reasons given by him for the calling of an election. When thinking of the fact that we have been in this Parliament for about six years it is quite remarkable that we have already had two elections, and that we are now about to have a third one. It is quite remarkable that whenever the Government gets into trouble—and goodness knows it is in enough trouble now—it seeks a solution in the calling of a general election. That seems to be the only real reason. [Interjections.] When we came to Parliament last year we came full of expectations.

We came full of expectations because of the promises that the hon. the Prime Minister had made, because of the statements that he had issued and because of the debates that had taken place at various NP congresses. We all know that we were doomed to disappointment because nothing of true significance took place during last year’s parliamentary session. Once again a very patient electorate says: “Well, now we are really going to see the hon. the Prime Minister in action. He has all his forces behind him, he has been able to restrain the right wing and, now when we go to Parliament there will be legislation, there will be a new spirit, a new deal”—to use the words the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development used. And what do we have? On the third day of the session of Parliament we are told that we are going to adjourn very soon because there are so many electoral vacancies, we do not wish to waste money and therefore we are going to have a general election. What absolute nonsense! [Interjections.] Those are no grounds whatsoever for calling an election. It is another way of ducking out.

We will fight the election and we will grow, about that I have no doubt. But I believe we are doing this country an injustice by constantly using its resources in order to shelter behind the Government’s own inadequacies. Whilst it is of course true that we have a buoyant economy we also know that there are a great number of people who are not sharing in that economy right now and who do not enjoy the advantages that ought to flow from that. Instead, we are going to spend millions of rands on yet another general election. To prove what? In heaven’s name, to prove what? To prove again that the hon. the Prime Minister has to hold his team together. The time has come when the hon. the Prime Minister must decide whether he is going to go forward or back, because this constant marking time means he is going to go back.

Is this your swansong?

No, Sir, not at all. I will have a few more opportunities. I do not know what is going to happen in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to try to address myself to two issues in this no-confidence debate. The first is the so-called developing policy within the NP, as we have heard it enunciated in this debate by hon. Ministers in particular and by the hon. the Prime Minister himself. Then I want to say something about what I regard as the educational crisis that faces our country, and I will return to that in a moment.

In 1948 it was quite clear that in order to safeguard the identity of the White community the NP Government decided that its emphasis must be on total separation between the races. This was strenuously applied and maintained in every conceivable area of life—in residential areas, the workplace, transport, universities, public amenities, sport, schools, etc. In its zealous and fanatical obeisance to separation this Government has left a trail of human wreckage which will remain to haunt all men of conscience for generations to come. However, in the past few years and particularly since the hon. the Prime Minister assumed that office, there has been a growing awareness of a most unpalatable truth: The god of separation has clay feet. Separation has not brought the salvation or the security which was promised by those first protagonists. It has done just the opposite. It has eroded the considerable goodwill which existed between Black and White; it has isolated South Africa from the international community; it has put at risk the very fabric of our society in South Africa. Ironically, separation always at the expense of the vast majority of the residents of this land, the Blacks, has placed the White community in far greater jeopardy than ever before. Separation is, for all to see, a massive failure.

As a result of this failure the hon. the Prime Minister, his Cabinet and his party have done two things. On the one hand they have tightened control, stepped up coercion and are bent on co-opting whatever group or whichever individual possible. That is why we see the latest instance, the banning of two newspapers.

Only a few hours ago I heard that two more Black journalists have been banned. So it goes on. It is almost a daily occurrence, and the hon. member for Von Brandis wonders why there is real anxiety in many areas overseas, anxiety which I certainly experienced travelling with some of his colleagues who must surely bear testimony of it in exactly the same way as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition found on a separate visit. That is the one thing they have done.

Secondly, the lines have been redrawn. This has meant that large parts of the apartheid apparatus have had to be scrapped. Separation is no longer rigid or all-embracing. In certain areas it has been dispensed with altogether, notably in sport, restaurants, opera houses, hotels and the like. Suddenly this is a development of Nationalist policy—a complete turnabout from the rigid separation to a very different drawing of the lines. But, Sir, there are certain basic and fundamental areas in Nationalist policy where the line remains drawn. It has been shifted, but it still includes residential areas and schools. This is now the latest and last stand of the NP on apartheid. Last year we heard all the various promises and we actually saw some results. But the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs earlier in this debate emphasized that this is where the line was drawn— at schools and residential areas. Today again the hon. the Prime Minister made exactly the same point.

I want to link that drawing of the line to two questions put by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the hon. the Prime Minister. The first question was quite straightforward: “Will Blacks ever be included in the President’s Council?” The Prime Minister replied: “No.” To the credit of the official Opposition, I think we must be the only people in South Africa who actually believed the hon. the Prime Minister when he said that last year. We took him at his word. For a lot of other people, including many in this House—to my left and across the floor—and many outside said: “Well, he cannot be serious. He will not do it. It is a first step. Do not worry. He has to take the verkramptes along with him, “Slowly, slowly, he will catch the monkey.” But we took him seriously and once again we have been vindicated. We accepted that the hon. the Prime Minister was deadly serious when he said there was an insurmountable obstacle which prevented Blacks from serving on the President’s Council, and this has been confirmed today. But there are all sorts of consequences that flow from that. I would like to say to those who said: “He cannot be serious. Do not worry, in one year there will be Blacks on the President’s Council”, I think they must now make up their minds. They must decide one way or another or, are they going to find yet another excuse for staying there?

The second question is, I believe, much more serious. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked the hon. the Prime Minister whether he saw Blacks as having a different constitutional solution to that of the Coloureds and the Asians. Once again, to his credit, the hon. the Prime Minister gave an unequivocal “Yes”. In these cryptic replies I believe the hon. the Prime Minister has demonstrated the shift from total separation between Black and White to a new dispensation where Whites, Coloureds and Asians will be viewed together. What a tragedy then, if this is so, that instead of spelling out in some detail as to what this means, what this new dispensation is all about, he announces a general election. Once again we are left not really knowing what this new dispensation is all about. But one thing we can say and that is that it is clear that as this new dispensation unfolds, the lines will have to be redrawn again. Let us assume that they accept that. Once again I believe that the lines will have to be redrawn, for can the Government honestly believe that strict separation in residential areas and schools will continue? Of course not! That is the problem in that party. That is the hidden agenda, and that is why tensions are there. Because anyone with a modicum of common sense knows that if one begins to shift away from a total separate disposition and one begins to include Coloureds, Asians and Chinese together with Whites in a new dispensation, one cannot say to them then in all conscience: “So far, but of course you cannot live there, you cannot go to the schools and you must have separate amenities.” There comes a time when one has to bite the bullet. One cannot have one’s cake and eat it. That is what the Government simply does not have the courage to do. That is why, I suppose, there is to be yet another general election.

The call will come in this new dispensation. Residential areas and schools will be opened to Coloureds and Asians, but of course not to Blacks. That will be the new drawing of the line, and the inevitable progress to an open society will continue. We welcome this. We welcome this because we believe this is a direct consequence of the pressure that we have put on the Government over the years. Whilst we welcome this, we deplore the delay, the posturing, the kicking and the struggling, of the unwholesome sight of the Government dragged by the weight of its past failures, and the consequences of its new allignment with the Coloureds and Asians, towards the waters of change. More than that, I want to underline the danger in South Africa of attempting to resolve a constitutional deadlock for Coloureds and Asians at the expense of the Blacks. I warn the Government that if it embarks on this road, it will place Whites in even greater jeopardy than ever before. I am very grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister for saying: “Ek verwerp ’n skietmentaliteit”. We all do, but I believe that if one begins to set the Coloureds, Asians and Whites together as one group over against the Blacks, then we have within this the very seeds of a civil war where there will be no winners, only losers. If he wants to exacerbate conflict in our society, if the Government wants to heighten polarization, then it must continue along this road. There will be a stand-off position developing the like of which we have not seen before. When will the hon. the Prime Minister, his colleagues, the NP, realize that one cannot wish away the millions of Blacks in South Africa? This attitude only encourages radical Blacks to seek a solution which will leave no room for Whites, because the Blacks in South Africa will continue to demand full citizenship in their own country, fair access to land, basic health services, job opportunities without strings attached, equal educational facilities and legitimate participation in the political processes which shape their destinies.

Are they still walking through Pinelands?

That is the answer, and that hon. member who cannot keep his mouth shut—I wish he would—does not understand just how serious the situation in this country is. For him it is a big game.

I must correct you.

I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that one cannot resolve the problems of South Africa by holding yet another general election. I urge him and plead with him to acknowledge that separation has demonstrably failed, to jettison this outworn creed in its entirety and to usher in a new dispensation which includes not only Coloureds and Asians, but also Blacks. Otherwise there is no hope, no matter how hard we all work.

I said at the beginning of my speech that I wanted to refer, albeit very briefly, to what I regard as the educational crisis in our country, a further reason for a vote of no confidence in this Government. I am sorry I have to do this upon the appointment of a new Minister of National Education, but his presence only accentuates the problem, because in the short space of six years he is the fifth Minister of National Education. Is it therefore any wonder that the teachers—the White teachers at least—believe that this Government is playing fast and loose with their profession? One sees, after all, the unedifying spectacle of a very distinguished man, now Minister of National Education, making promises publicly, to teachers, about an interim increase before the end of the year. We see him going to the Cabinet only to be told “no”, in no uncertain terms, by the hon. the Minister of Finance and his colleagues, and then we see him having to go back to the hundreds and thousands of teachers all over South Africa who have been pleading for a square deal for a very long time . . .

You are just misrepresenting the whole thing.

I remember that hon. Minister standing up and saying that they were going to be given special treatment, a square deal. That was, however, three or four years ago, and successor after successor has been appointed, but each stays only long enough to make promises and then leaves, being transferred to yet another portfolio. The teachers of this country have stated publicly that this Government is bleeding this profession to death. I believe that the Government’s unwillingness to meet the teachers halfway last year has led to a loss in recruitment, a greater inclination to resign and, last but not least, a tremendous loss in morale. I know full-well that there is going to be an increase granted. We all know that the Government intends to do so, but nothing it does is going to take away what it did to those teachers over the last five or 10 years. If the Government’s record is bad in White education—with its attitude towards the teachers in this country jeopardizing the future of our children—how much greater is not its bad record when it comes to Black education?

This is your swan-song.

Despite the enormous strides that have been made—and I concede this immediately—the fact of the matter is that the ominous shadow hanging over this country in the form of long years of neglect, boycotts and deprivation, is going to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for us to do what we have to do, and that is to equip and educate all our young people for a new South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, since I have now, for the first time, had the privilege of attracting your attention in this House, I should like, by your leave, to make a few personal comments. In the first place I should like to thank various persons on this side of the House, and also on that side of the House, particularly the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, for the words of welcome which were addressed to me and other newcomers to the House. It is a privilege to be able to occupy this position. In the first place it is a privilege to be part of the team of the hon. the Prime Minister, with whose leadership I associate myself with great pride and confidence because of my faith in his vision, his courage, his penetrating analysis of our problems and his extraordinary team-building ability. However, it is also a privilege for me to be able to occupy a position here which is a continuation of what I consider to be a calling to which I have so far devoted the major portion of my life, viz. education. Last but not least it is a privilege for me to be here as a member who identifies with and is involved in the NP, with whose principles, history and aspirations I fully associate myself, the more so because it is also concerned with the fundamental principle of nationalism, a principle in which I believe not only because I know it is a real force—I almost wish to say a natural force which one can only deny or renounce at great risk—but also because I know that it is a splendid force, a dynamo which has a creative and inspiring capacity, as hon. members on this side of the House, and indeed many people in many communities in the country who believe in nationalism, who identify themselves with it and derive their strength from it, can testify.

I listened with great appreciation and with a touch of amusement—I am saying this with hesitation on this first occasion—to the interest displayed by hon. members on the opposite side of the House, not only in education, but particularly—and this is what struck me—in the teachers as well, who so frequently in the past had to endure sharply critical words from circles with which hon. members on that side of the House are associated, and in particular that critical comment which was so frequently made about them, i.e. that their profession was one of indoctrination. That is why it was gratifying to hear this particular interest in and also concern for the teachers being expressed.

I wish to ask this House to bear in mind how many drastic changes, improvements and, one could almost say, revolutions in the status of education in this country have occurred under the regime of this party during the past few decades. I will admit that the achievements in education cannot be exclusively attributed to political leadership or national administration, but that a large diversity of contributors must be given credit for those achievements. However, I wish to emphasize here as my conviction that this side of the House may with pride ask the people to re-entrust the mandate to it of taking care of education in our country, and may do so on the basis on what has been achieved in education thanks to the leadership and the support given to education during the past two decades from the central as well as provincial levels of government.

We need only recall once again what the position was at the beginning of the ’fifties, when the party represented by this side of the House took over control of education. I wish to recall one example of something which I experienced in my previous career on the Witwatersrand. In 1950, when a change was effected and the responsibility for education in the Transvaal was entrusted to the NP, there were only three Afrikaans-medium high schools on the entire Witwatersrand, as against 26 English-medium high schools, while the population distribution was virtually equal. At that stage it was deemed unnecessary that a certain sector of the population should receive tuition up to matriculation level, and junior high schools were deemed to be sufficient. I believe that the achievements of the NP and this Government in the field of education are simply so outstanding that we have, in the course of time, begun to take them for granted. I am referring to the high and efficient standard of amenities which have been made available for education owing to the accession to office and the vision of the Government and the provincial education departments, amenities which in my opinion could successfully bear comparison with those of any other community in the world.

I wish to refer to the exceptionally high status which education as a science has achieved in our country and the consequently high standard of teacher training on which we in this country can pride ourselves. I wish to refer to specific qualities in our education which we still find with pride in this country, at a time in which education in the rest of the world has sunk to dubious depths and has begun to assume a dubious form. I am referring here to the exceptional balance struck in education between emphasis on the intellect, the body and the person as a whole, the equilibrium achieved in the formation of the South African teaching tradition. I wish to refer—and this is of great importance in a period in which disorder is arising in many education systems, even in the Western World—to the equilibrium which it has been possible to maintain in education in this country between the self-development of the individual in education and the preservation of discipline and respect for order. This does not go without saying, as anyone knows who is conversant with what is happening today in the schools of many established Western societies. I also wish to refer to the fact that in this country we have never been ashamed to base our education on a Christian and broadly national basis, in contrast with the false pretention of a so-called neutral education, even religiously neutral education, which apparently seems to be advocated in many Western countries.

I wish, as far as my department is concerned, to refer specifically to the excellent record in the sphere of the development of special education for handicapped children, a field in which South Africa is a world leader in many respects. In this connection I wish to refer in particular to the “Worcester tradition”, if I may put it in that way, of education for the blind and the deaf. This is admired in many quarters of the world. At the other end of the scale, or parallel to this, attention is also being concentrated, particularly in recent times, on specifically enriched education for highly gifted pupils.

I should also like to refer to the tertiary level, for I believe that owing to phenomenal progress in State financing for tertiary education, we can refer with great pride to the progress being made, particularly in advanced study and research on post-graduate level. A few decades ago most young South Africans still had to go abroad after they had acquired their first degree to undertake advanced study there. Today, however, they may confidently undertake that advanced study in our own universities, and in general it is only necessary to go abroad for postdoctoral studies. But what is more, I know from my own experience that while in the past there was a one-way traffic of South Africans who had to go abroad to drink at the fountains of knowledge there, we may feel proud today that the respect for the research and training on an advanced level at our universities in South Africa, thanks to the amenities made available there and to the calibre of people it is possible to attract, has led to experts from abroad coming here not merely to pay casual visits but also to do research here, to co-operate with and publish in collaboration with our own scientists. This could not have happened of its own accord, nor could it have happened solely through the will and zeal of the universities concerned. It was possible owing to a farsighted and imaginative policy of financing and support, made available to the universities by the Central Government during the past decade or two.

In particular I also wish to ask hon. members to pay attention to the particular successes which have been achieved on a tertiary level with the application of knowledge here in South Africa. Once again these are successes made possible by the vision of my esteemed predecessors. This led to the establishment of our system of technikons, with which we are making a very special contribution to establish more vocationally orientated training which concentrates to a greater extent on practical application of knowledge than the emphasis usually is in tertiary training.

In this connection I do not wish to burden this House with all kinds of statistics. However, I believe that the Government can go to the people with the greatest confidence owing to its achievements not only of yesterday and today, but of three decades in respect of education in its broadest sense, on the school level, the university level, the teachers’ training college level and technikon level.

It is not only in this respect that a total image of education of which we may be proud has been established during the past few decades. I also wish to add, even though it is not my responsibility, that I believe that it is an achievement of which we may be proud that this has also been accomplished in respect of the progress in education for the non-White population groups.

There is no doubt that there are backlogs, but any person who wishes to exploit these backlogs as being the fault of this side of the House, is not taking into account the realities of the development in education of a developing community. I can say this because as an Afrikaner I myself know of a development phase in the history of the education of my own people. When the fathers and mothers of those of us who are sitting here were primarily teachers, they also had only a Std. 8 qualification plus two years, or Std. 10 plus one year, but with these qualifications we attracted some of the best people from our national community who built education up. Although we are now, as far as the other population groups are concerned, still at a level of development at this stage at which we have far from sufficient numbers of adequately qualified teachers available, we should take cognizance of the course of development of the education of the Afrikaner nation. We should have confidence that in this way in future the existing inequalities can progressively be overcome and eliminated for the other population groups as well, particularly when seen against the background of the tremendous rate of progress in the provision of educational services for the other population groups.

I also wish to refer with confidence to the earnestness with which the Government has in the recent past dealt with the problem areas identified by the teaching profession— the teachers and educators in a general sense. Earlier in the debate somewhat scornful reference was made to the hon. the Prime Minister’s use of the words “key profession” in respect of education. I can also refer to a previous Prime Minister who referred to education as the mother of professions, but I wish to say that according to my convictions and my experience there has basically been a relationship of trust and loyalty, in spite of any differences which there might have been, in the recent past as well, because the teaching profession knows that this side of the House is in real earnest—I almost wish to say on the basis of innate or ingrown experience—when it speaks about education being the mother of i professions or the key profession.

In addition I wish to refer to the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has in the recent past singled out the teaching profession for direct personal discussions between him and representatives of that profession. I do not think that there are any other professions in the country which are capable of saying that on a professional level they were able to attract the attention of no less a person than the hon. the Prime Minister himself to their problems and representations. I think this is a clear demonstration of the high esteem in which it is held and the exceptional importance which this side of the House attaches to the teaching profession on the very highest level.

I also wish to refer to the exceptional trouble which has been taken by my predecessors recently, particularly in respect of White education, to establish comprehensive negotiating mechanisms to involve all sectors of the teaching family, not only the administrational bodies, but also the teacher in the class and his professional representatives, in the furnishing of advice to the Government, mechanisms which are provided from time to time by my department. These consultative mechanisms which have recently been established are comprehensive in the sense that for the first time they really include all components of the teaching family. Channels have been created for the schools, the technikons, the universities as well as the organized profession to give them a say in the advice transmitted to the Government. However, it is not only comprehensive, but also continual, because for the first time in recent years on-going bodies have been established which give continual attention to bottlenecks and problems concerning the conditions of service of the profession.

In addition I wish to refer with great appreciation to the initiative taken by my immediate predecessor in the launching of comprehensive and penetrating investigations. Occasionally rather acrimonious emphasis was placed on that as well by hon. members opposite. But I wish to claim that it is in fact a demonstration of the vision of this Government that it caused these investigations to be instituted into what is such an extremely important profession. That they are being taken seriously by the profession itself and by teaching bodies as such, can best be demonstrated by the fact that large numbers of experts, once again from all sectors of education from all sectors— schools, universities, technicons, education departments, and even from the private sector—are involved in these investigations. I am referring here to the investigation by the HSRC into education in general with regard to all population groups in the country, and also to the so-called project inquiry by the Department of National Education, which deals more specifically with the status of the White educator. The fact that the teaching bodies made themselves available in these large numbers for this task, and are still doing so, is a clear indication of the earnestness and the appreciation with which they welcome this opportunity for exhaustive investigation and future planning on the part of the Government.

In addition I also wish to express great appreciation for the rate at which this investigation is being carried out, as is already apparent from the recent report of the project committee of the Department of National Education in connection with the status of the educator, which reached the Government as early as the beginning of this year.

I also wish to refer with great appreciation to the exceptional vision, to the broad view taken of the contribution which education has to make, which was apparent from the terms of reference given at the time by the hon. the Prime Minister to the HSRC when he entrusted this investigation into the education of all population groups in our country to that body.

The terms of reference were that that investigation should be aimed at ensuring that education in South Africa would ensure the optimum development of the potential of all inhabitants, the self-realization of the inhabitants. Not only does it deal with the inhabitants as individuals, but also with the inhabitants as members of separate communities. In fact it is my conviction that, just as differentiation in education is an accepted principal and an accepted practice to make provision for differences in individual needs among different pupils, differentiation in education is also necessary in order to take into account the cultural differences among communities.

The second guideline which the hon. the Prime Minister laid down in his terms of reference to the HSRC was that education should make provision for economic growth in the country, the provision of top-level manpower and the provision of the necessary skills and knowledge, the application of which forms an essential basis for economic growth in our modern times.

In addition the terms of reference state that regard should be had to the contribution of education to the improvement in the standard of living of all the inhabitants of the country, the standard of living in respect of which education is a key for each individual, not only to bring about economic improvement in his life, but also an improvement in his social circumstances, the circumstances of his accommodation and in the standard of his recreational life.

In those terms of reference the hon. the Prime Minister also made it clear that this investigation should be geared to devising and proposing ways and means which would lead to education for all inhabitants of the country and for all population groups in the country being of an equal standard, and where this is not the case, of achieving that. At the same time the hon. the Prime Minister also declared it an important guiding principle that this investigation should take place with due regard for the realities of the population structure of this country.

Consequently I wish to point out in conclusion, also with reference to the remarks made by the hon. member for Pinelands, that the convictions of hon. members on this side of the House, as set out in the twelve-point plan of the hon. the Prime Minister, viz. that for orderly development and for a peaceful society we should in this ethnic diversity of ours in South Africa have separate schools and separate communities, is not based on mere political grounds, but on sound pedagogic principles. Separate schools are based on the obvious, logical pedagogic principle which has also been spelt out clearly in the rest of Africa, with their insistence on “indigenization of the education”, that education has to do with the communication of culture. Education does not simply take place like a shot in the dark. Education has to do with the communication of culture, with the relay race involving one stage after another, where cultural values are transferred from one generation to another. This, obviously, makes education in separate schools essential. But for education to be effective, the learning process must also begin with the known, with the individual’s own language, his own cultural circumstances, his own values, his own community, from whence doors to the unknown or the alien can be opened for the pupil as he grows older. This is an educational experience which has been plainly apparent throughout the world, i.e. that education which does not begin with the familiar and with one’s personal experience and develops from there, is simply lost and leads to the disorganization of the pupil.

Education should also ensure a feeling of security, of safety in the pupil, because a learning process in an uncertain and insecure mental condition is doomed to failure, and for that reason, too, education in the pupil’s community from his own schools and in his own cultural community is essential. Last, but not least, for practical reasons, also from the point of view of those of us who feel concerned—and I think we may justifiably feel concerned in many respects—about the inequalities which still exist in the standard of the provision of education for the various population groups, education in separate educational systems and in separate schools is practically the most effective way of ensuring that there will be a body which can clearly identify the inequalities which may exist in a specific community, and then devote itself in earnest to beginning to eliminate those inequalities, as I believe we should all agree and concede has in recent months and years been done in respect of Indians and Coloureds in particular by the Department of Education and Training and the Department of Internal Affairs.

In view of all these things I am filled with confidence and I am in fact eager and I feel like an athlete who wishes to get off to a good start in the race, in order to put this record to the acid test. I know that we are going to come through that test with flying colours.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to be able to congratulate a person whom I have known for many years on his first contribution in this House. Apart from his work on the large number of commissions, committees, boards and other constructive activities in the service of the public which my colleague, the hon. the Minister of National Education, has behind him, and which was crowned with great success, we know him to be the person who caused the Rand Afrikaans University to come into existence with a great success. We who frequently drive past the RAU, cannot but observe the symbolism of the solid, granite-like concrete structures which stand there as a challenge, but which also purvey the learning which enables one to resist. He is responsible for that. When the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government decided rather urgently to ask my hon. colleague to become Administrator-General of South West Africa, he agreed within a few hours to serve there if the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister thought that it was in the interests of South Africa. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister of National Education on this interesting and extremely well formulated first contribution in this House. We who listened to him realized once again how deeply he penetrates to the essentials of a subject. It is a privilege to have him as a colleague in the Cabinet.