Mr. Speaker, as regards the business of the House for next week, I wish to inform hon. members that the Agriculture and Fisheries Vote will be discussed on Monday, 14 September. The Railway Budget Speech will be delivered on Wednesday, 16 September, and the Justice Vote will come up for discussion on the same day. On Thursday, 17 September, the Foreign Affairs and Information Vote will be discussed.

If time permits, the House will also continue to deal with the legislation on the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, last night when the debate adjourned I was referring to the contribution by the hon. member for Green Point. I want to say here and now that I should very much like to reply to the individual contributions of hon. members and discuss with them the subjects they mentioned. However, I think it is important that we should refer just for a moment to the purpose of this department as formulated in the budget. What is important in this particular regard is that the department is responsible for the administration of the constitution of our country, and because this is so I think that hon. members will agree with me that it can reasonably be expected of me to give some indication of the standpoint of the Government with regard to the population groups falling within the ambit of this department’s responsibility. I therefore ask hon. members to understand if I do not react in great detail to individual members, but rather confine myself to the subjects which hon. members have discussed with me in this particular connection.

I want to begin by saying that as regards the Brown section of our population and, of course, the Indian section of our population as well, I must account for the Government’s progress or otherwise with regard to the political, social, educational and economic contribusion and progress of these specific population groups. I want to say right at the outset that one of the cardinal conditions attached to any or all of these spheres is intrinsically bound up with the composition of the population of the country. Secondly, I want to say that people who want to play on the sensitive strings of the relations politics in this country should preferably not have clumsy fingers, because I wish to make the general statement that whatever the conditions may be for progress in the political sphere, there is one absolute and essential precondition and that is that a disposition must prevail in this country which can accommodate and neutralize the resistance and the fears of people. I am pointing out in this regard that there is a connection between reform in every sphere of human activity, and stability, and that the possibility of conflict is greater in the process of reform than otherwise. On the one hand it is, as I see it, a matter of the need for reform, and on the other, one of the maintenance of stability in spite of reform.

Right at the outset I want to formulate and state my standpoint and that of the Government very clearly and without any reserve or qualification. I think it is essential that it be said, firstly, that strategies or political models formulated with a view to reform are futile and pointless if such models or strategies are proposals to bring about the destabilization of the society and proposals to bring about disorder and chaos.

In general, I want to say—and I say this with great respect—that we cannot concern ourselves with academic exercises which show little understanding of the realities of the South African society, and in particular do not show any understanding of the politically relevant factors which have an effect on the process of reform.

In the second place, I wish to state as my point of view and as the point of view of the Government which I represent in this regard that the status quo cannot be maintained in South Africa. However I want to go further by saying that it ought not to be maintained. Measured against the demands of fairness and justice, and with the constant desire to continue to live in this country on the one hand, and on the other to let live, and rather to live in prosperity than in misery and economic decay, to live in dignity, without shame and preserving the values and norms which characterize democratic societies as we should like to see them and which distinguish them from dictatorships, and which distinguish civilized communities from primitive communities, the status quo in this country must change substantially.

†The point I should like to make in this regard is as follows: In a society which is marked by diversity, by conflict of interests and aspirations, by different aspirations and differences in culture and values and stages of development, by a degree of heterogeneity which has become and is, in fact, the trade mark of the society, one cannot simply just say that a new constitutional model providing, for instance, for a universal franchise or a qualified franchise or for meaningful participation in the decision-making of the country in the constitutional institutions of the country, will suddenly change what has been termed a deeply divided society into a model State with contented, prosperous citizens, in a State that will enthusiastically be welcomed into the gallery of Western countries.

*If hon. members agree with me as regards this formulation of our standpoint, then I want to stress this once again and plead for understanding of the fact that there has never before in the history of our country been such an intense realization and appreciation of the fact that sound mutual relations among the population groups of this country in these times we are living in, are a precondition for the successful and peaceful regulation of our society, and, what is more, are also a precondition for progress on the road of constitutional reform in the social and economic spheres.

The complexity of our society emphasizes the reality of the high intensity of the emotional barriers which represent restrictions and limitations on the progress towards a political dispensation capable of satisfying the reasonable expectations of the various population groups. If I personally can identify one challenge to the leaders of all the groups living in this country I would say that it is to be found in the search for relations attitudes based on mental and intellectual flexibility, insight and understanding. It will be to no one’s benefit if every population group in the country over-emphasizes its own expectations in our circumstances. No one on this side of the House disputes the claims of any group as regards rights and privileges, in this regard the claims of the Coloureds and the Indians in particular. However, the question we have to contend with is how these rights and privileges may be provided without destruction of existing rights, values and norms. For this reason my predecessors established relations committees made up of Brown and White people. While few of the hon. members opposite participated in them, altogether 1 487 White and 1 302 Brown people served on 151 relations committees, and the success of this effort cannot be measured in terms of the physical or material results achieved in this way. However, we can measure them on the basis that these people did succeed in illustrating in practice how people of different population groups can plan together without losing their identity and, if they achieved nothing else, I still say that they have done a great deal for our country.

This is not, of course, a substitute for political institutions, nor is it a substitute for participation—which is something that is needed in this country—in the decision-making processes by that population group and others in our country. However, it is a powerful factor for the creation of a climate in which relations attitudes can develop and flourish. This Government is irrevocably committed to the impartial preservation of the rights and privileges of every section of our population, and in order to give White, Brown and Asian the assurance that the Government will carry out this undertaking, which is not of recent origin, the most important political initiative ever taken in the history of this country was taken when the President’s Council was established. We can scorn and disparage it. We can even question the success of this institution if we wish. We could also condemn it in advance if we wanted to, but the institution of the President’s Council emphasizes certain important movements. In the first instance, it emphasizes the standpoint that constitutional reform is a process and not a once-only act, and that it is the result of mutual attitudes between people which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, and not the cause. This also underlines the fact that constitutional reform requires consultation and deliberation over a wide spectrum in order to increase its acceptability, and participation of the affected groups. I ask any hon. member in this House to give me an example from the history of this country to indicate where these standpoints have been endorsed in this way. The fact that this could happen in my opinion attests to the maturity of the people who are participating and that also includes the maturity of thought of my people.

There are people who regard the President’s Council as a risky enterprise, a dangerous venture, and there are others who say it is inadequate to bring about the reform we need. In this regard I should like to state a third standpoint. In my opinion it is one of the great opportunities in the history of this country’s development to carry out an investigation in the constitutional sphere in a spirit of calm and self-control and to deliberate with one another and develop a structure which we should like to call the political dispensation of the country. Whatever reservations we may have with regard to this institution, and despite the deficiencies we may implicitly regard it as having, could we not for once emphasize the positive aspects reflected in this course of development? After all, there has never before been any such development. I think it is important that we in this House should account for our approach to the aspirations, the desires and expectations of the people living here.

I want to say today that the reactions of the Government—and that goes for this Government too—to the expectations and aspirations of its population will implicitly depend on the image that Government has of the composition of the population of the country in question. I do not wish to weary the House with a long history of the matter, but I do want to say that the image with regard to the composition of a population has changed over the centuries. In the 17th and 18th century the image was that of Christian and non-Christian. Up to the 20th century the image was that of a European. Our country did not escape that, because in our own country we spoke about the Europeans and non-Europeans. At the same time, however, there was an image which some people described as unsophisticated but which I want to describe as dangerous. There are hon. members in this House who are party to the dangerous aspect of that image, viz. the view that the population is only White and non-White. That is a false image. If we in this debate achieve nothing else, I hope that we can at least convince one another what the true image of this society is so that on that basis we can consider whether we have any points of departure for constitutional development in the country. The multiplicity, or plurality if you want to call it that, is not only the outstanding characteristic of the composition of the population of the country, but is also the most influential factor in the political, social, economic and educational spheres in the country since 1652. The population of a country does not comprise Whites and Black people only. I see a growing tendency in certain media, particularly the media that employ one language, to describe the people of the country who are not Whites, as Black, and to do so in a considered, but dangerous way. By doing so they seek to unleash and propagate the forces of confrontation between White and non-White. In this regard I want to issue the warning that if the conflict were to occur all values would be destroyed. We can differ from one another politically, but we who sit here must not allow our differences to become a divisive factor in the ranks of the other people. I have no prophetic gift, but if we do not do that, then no constitutional solution is possible for the country. In a community such as ours it goes without saying that the different groups will have diverse expectations and conflicting aspirations which can only be realized at the cost of those of the other groups. Various factors have an effect on the expectations and desires of people. The church has an effect on them, we in politics have an effect on them, the media have an effect on them and advertising has an effect on them. We must not underestimate the demonstration effect in this country. We must not underestimate the expectations by way of comparisons with what others have and what some do not have. The fact that other population groups are striving to achieve the same standards in many respects, to have the same educational standards and to cherish the same financial and political expectations as the Whites can in one respect be welcomed, because it can have a stabilizing effect on the society. On the other hand, however, it can have a destabilizing effect on the society. If it is the desire of the other population groups in the country to achieve the same style of living and the same standards of living as the Whites without understanding that that requires a quid pro quo, then we are on a dangerous road. The quid pro quo is the fact that they must realize what inputs of hard work and discipline are necessary to enable one to ensure and afford the output of a high standard of living. In a nut shell, the aspirations and desires of groups can easily be misused by radical elements, and this is in fact being done, not with the intention of realizing desires, and not because they want to achieve anything thereby, but because they want to destabilize the society.

I want to say that the cultivation of these unattainable aspirations entails a threat and a danger. The hon. member for Bloemfontein North referred to this and I agree that there are people who are trying to create the impression in this country that the position of the Whites is temporary, and what is more, that the presence of the Whites is a hindrance to the progress of the other population groups. There are people who seek to create the impression that the Whites will be ousted. I say that that is dangerous, because we as Whites share the fate of the other population groups in this country. For true reform, and for a real increase of standards of living and values, White security in this country is indispensable.

On the other hand, there are also people who see in reform a threat to their position and who think that their position can only be maintained by the domination or oppression of other groups. I say that their standpoint is just as dangerous as those of the other groups. I shall go so far as to say that their standpoint is in conflict with the concepts of Christianity and justice which we profess. The sooner we in this country achieve unanimity on these matters, the sooner we shall make progress.

I do not say this in a personal or critical way. I am merely stating a fact. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should just understand how unrealistic is his perception of the composition of the population of the country, and of the expectations and desires of the population groups. The hon. Leader should just realize that if he wishes to realize the rights and privileges of individuals in South Africa, he must adopt as a premise that they belong to groups. This is not because we have made it so; nor is it because we have willed it so. It is because this is part of the hard realities of the country.

What is the NP’s reply to this? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not agree in this regard. The reply of the NP is separate development. However, we are so inclined to forget that this formulation of policy comprises two components, that is development-oriented as well as separation-oriented.

Now, I just want to put the following question: At what stage have the Indians and the Brown people in this country made most progress in every sphere of their activities: the economic, even the political, the social and the educational?

The hon. member for Sunnyside does not think much of what you are saying. [Interjections.]

I really do not want to argue with the hon. member for Bryanston now. What are the essential characteristics of separate development? They are, specifically, to eliminate the domination of one group by another. It is aimed specifically at removing contact through which conflict could arise. It is specifically aimed at eliminating unjust discrimination and affording people opportunities for development. What is the point of departure of the NP with regard to the Brown people? I should like to state it. In contrast to the NP, the official Opposition have never formulated their standpoints—apart from their idea of a national convention. This has never happened. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition attends a meeting of management committees and pleads that the President’s Council should give attention to certain facets. However he himself boycotts the President’s Council. [Interjections.] However, when he speaks from a different platform he recognizes the President’s Council. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition condemns the system of management committees but just like the Labour Party, he uses them as a platform to air his views. If that is not contradictory, then I should like to know what is.

The NP was the first party that was prepared to subject the progress of Brown people in the educational, economic, social and political fields to a critical investigation, a critical investigation by a multinational committee.

That is why they have no franchise today.

In my opinion there are many of them who are far more entitled to be enfranchised than the hon. member for Green Point. [Interjections.]

Give them the vote, then. [Interjections.]

The NP would not have ordered that investigation if it had been satisfied with the progress made. The statement I want to make is this: The NP has done something about the matter. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on the other hand, has not yet convened a national convention. Surely he is entitled to do so if he wants to.

He cannot get them together.

Of course he cannot get them together. I do not even believe that all his own people want to go. [Interjections.]

However, let us go further. The NP appointed a commission and issued its findings with regard to the politics of the country. All hon. members of this House—even though in some cases it was a case of lip service only—agreed with that. I want to refer to just one of those findings. They said that we should reform the Westminster system in order to satisfy the rightful aspirations of these people. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition signed it, although his own benchmate did not agree. However, I do not wish to discuss dividedness and forked tongues now. I do not have the time. However, the NP accepted it, and did not only accept it. It initiated a process to investigate possible ways of reforming the system, and came forward with proposals. Whatever the models may be to give effect to the proposals, they contain concepts and principles, and these I now wish to discuss.

The first is that the NP recognizes that as far as the Brown people, the White people and the Indians of the country are concerned, there is one national State which they will have to share with one another. This is inherent in the proposals put to this House by the NP. The second is that these sections of the population that have to share the same national State with one another, must be entitled to participation in the decision-making process where their common interests are affected. The third concept or principle it has accepted is that institutions must be created within which these principles can be put into effect in practice. The fourth is that if one wants a well-regulated society, one has to recognize that there are matters of common interest on the one hand and matters of exclusive interest on the other. Therefore the NP states as a principle that the politics of the country must reflect the diversity of the population groups living here. It maintains that anyone who seeks to deny that does not take into account the realities in the country and the emotional limitations and expectations of people. That is why this party took the first step of endorsing that specific standpoint and reformed this Parliament, converting it from a bicameral Parliament into a unicameral Parliament. By doing so it recognized as a point of principle that the composition of Parliament did not remain as was before. It went further than any other party was prepared to go in practice. I am not speaking about theory; I am speaking about practice. It said that because a body was necessary to resolve the conflict in a conflict situation, the position of the head of State in the country should be changed so that he could join with one of the Parliaments to give the final ruling on the question of conflict. Because it—viz. the NP—recognizes that that conflict could concern matters of common concern, it states as a premise and point of departure that the body which has the power, the authority, to take that decision must be elected by the various population groups affected. We may change the models and we may change the formulations, but we do not get away from the points of departure incorporated here as principles. I therefore say to myself and to hon. members opposite that if these are points of departure—because they are nothing else—then do they not deserve our support? The fact remains that if this model were not to work, then we could always try that of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. However, once we have tried his, we would know it would not work and then we could not try this one again. [Interjections.] I do not say this in a hostile way. I say it because I deal with these people every day.

It is a deal: If your policy fails you, give our model a try.

Do you know, Sir, that the Labour Party—and I say this in all humility today—is today seeking a platform to make itself heard? The tragedy was that they destroyed their Coloured Representative Council not because it represented the culmination of an expectation—no one never maintained that—but because it represented to them exposure to the democratic process and a forum in which they could be heard. I do not reproach them for using the system of local authorities which the hon. member for Constantia rejects, in order to make their collective voice heard. I do not apologize for listening to them within that management structure.

I want to go further. As far as the Indians are concerned, we shall debate in this House the Indian Council that is to be established. However, if we forget for one moment that like other people, they have in view politics of potential winners, then we are making a mistake. If we have formulated our political standpoints solely on the basis of public statements and on the basis of the fears of people, we would not be in a position to find the answers we ought to have.

If I may turn to the various aspects mentioned today by hon. members, I wish to make one general remark, and that is that each of these contributions and the subjects discussed here, concern the lives of the people who live here and how they will be influenced.

The hon. member for Green Point referred, inter alia, to the restructuring of the department. I want to say at once that I think that this restructuring is significant in certain ways, apart from the merging of certain former departments and Ministries under one head. If the hon. member takes a look at this he will find that in this department are merged the former departments of the Interior, of Coloured Affairs and Relations, Indian Affairs and so on, and that in terms of the new organization there are three main branches; firstly, the political affairs which I began with today, secondly, the developmental aspect of the communities that have to be served by us in terms of the constitution; and thirdly, the administration of the country.

I wish to point out that under the heading of political affairs fall all the matters relating to the constitution of the Republic, the relations between the central Government and the provinces, the provinces and the political development of the Indian and Coloured communities. Accordingly the population register also falls under this head, as do elections, passports etc.

I wonder whether we realize what has happened in this past year. The total number of officials in the department is 47 858. That is not so important, but when one looks at the composition, one finds that the Whites number 3 456, the Indians, 10 285 and the Coloureds, 33 444. This one should compare with the position ten years ago, and I say that in this department the population groups have found a home within the administration of their own country. This shows that the management of the country is not solely in the hands of the executive but also in the hands of the people who are entrusted with the administration of the country. The hon. member referred to the new identity document and said that there was much public resistance to the question of fingerprints as a form or method of identification. The hon. member is aware that the identity document is in fact intended to be a uniform document for the whole population and that draft legislation in this regard is being drafted. He is also aware that the draft legislation has been published for public comment and formulation of standpoints. In contrast to what he contends, the commentary we have received is minor and for the most part is to the effect that we should make use of identification in the form of fingerprints in cases of people who cannot provide their own signature. Apparently there are recent developments which make it possible to identify signatures as well.

I want to give the undertaking that my department will investigate all these possibilities, but there is one thing I want to stress, and that is that besides identification, it is also a matter of the security of the country. I need not tell the hon. member today that the time has come for the country to become aware of danger, not to become panic-stricken, but to be prepared. Nor need I say to the hon. member that people who seek the downfall of the country infiltrate even friendly organizations in an effort to achieve their goal. I am prepared to consider any reasonable proposal, as long as it does not endanger the security of the country.

I have dealt with the question of the passports and the visas and I do not believe the hon. member wants me to take the matter any further this afternoon.

I now turn to the hon. member for Rissik. I thank him for his friendly remarks concerning my department and its officials and for his good wishes addressed to me and to my Deputy Minister. The aspects to which he referred are important. The first is that he states that foreigners in our country encounter problems as regards communication. There I agree with him. I believe that we could improve the public service rendered by the department in regard to immigrants if we could find people who could speak more languages. In any event, we employ them if we can find them. In fact, we also make use of people overseas who can speak the languages in question. However I believe it is important for us to realize that this has an important effect on the process of assimilation of people emigrating to a foreign country.

The hon. member referred to the people in our foreign service. We have given the necessary application forms to the Department of Foreign Affairs, and we shall see to it that this is done regularly in future. It seems to me as if the people abroad are not as willing to vote as we are.

I now wish to refer to the hon. member’s comments on publications and authors, but in a different context. Due to technological development, new forms of communication are constantly being developed, and the one to which I wish to refer now is the use of videocassettes and cassettes themselves. With reference to reports I have received which indicate that the control in terms of the existing legislation cannot be exercised over the modern forms of film, namely videocassettes, and that problems are also being encountered in regard to the copyright on films, I have appointed an interdepartmental committee of representatives of the departments concerned to carry out an investigation and make recommendations to me in connection with the legal situation in our country relating to the film industry. They must also determine whether the measures at present on the Statute Book are adequate to solve the problems being experienced in regard to videocassettes, the copyright in the film industry and, thirdly, problems relating to the practicability of the measures contained in the publications Act, 1974. I should like to take this opportunity to indicate that memoranda in this specific regard must be submitted by interested persons to the chairman of the Committee of Inquiry into Publications Control, Room 403, Private Bag X114, Pretoria, no later than 31 October.

†I should now like to turn to the hon. member for Durban Central. He mentioned the fact that the percentage of publications relating to political subjects referred to the committees had increased. Of course, there has been an increase in the number of these publications, and this underscores the warning that we on this side of the House have persistently issued in regard to the onslaught on this country in respect of various aspects of human endeavour. It is a fact that the number of political publications that are being brought to the attention of the Directorate of Publications is increasing daily, and I submit that this can be expected, as there is a close connection between this type of publication and the escalation of the onslaught against our country in this particular sphere. However, instead of condemning this because it is also his country that it affects, the hon. member criticizes the fact that attention is being concentrated on eliminating these things from the South African scene. What sort of mentality have we to deal with in South Africa?

That is a very good question.

Of course. I could buy that hon. member a mirror. [Interjections.]

Moreover, more than 50% of the publications falling under this head emanate … [Interjections.] Will the hon. member please be quiet? [Interjections.]

Order!

In any event, 50% of these publications emanate from organizations which propagate a declared policy of violence against South Africa: the ANC, the PAC, the South African Communist Party, the Anti-Apartheid Movement and Swapo. The hon. official Opposition are constantly complaining that their loyalty to the country is being questioned. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is constantly complaining that we question their patriotism.

That is right.

Tyll Eulenspiegel said: “The people hate me, but I make them hate me.” I therefore wish to ask the hon. leader: Why does he associate with these bodies? Why are the official Opposition the intercessors for these people and these institutions that seek the violent overthrow of the existing order?

That is out of order.

Order!

No, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister entitled to allege that we are the “intercessors” for these banned organizations? [Interjections.]

Order! Would the hon. the Minister just elaborate on what he said?

What I am alleging, is that the hon. member for Durban Central attacked the Government on the grounds of the fact that political publications are to an increasing extent being referred to the Directorate of Publications in terms of the Publications Act, and now I want to tell him for whom he is interceding. I maintain that 50% of the publications which are being referred in this way, and which have a bearing on this subject, come from people who advocate violent change in our country. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I asked you to give a ruling whether the hon. the Minister was entitled to use the word “intercessors” in relation to those institutions. He either used the word “intercessors” or he did not.

Yes, he did use the word “intercessors”.

If he did, if he said that we on this side of the House were in fact the “intercessors” for those banned, unlawful organizations that he mentioned, what I want to know is whether he is permitted to do so. [Interjections.]

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order: The hon. the Minister said that the official Opposition were the intercessors for those who wished to overthrow authority in South Africa.

I did not say that.

It is my submission that he was trying to imply in that way that the official Opposition is subversive, and that is not permissible in Parliament.

Order! The hon. the Minister did not put it like that. I have given my ruling. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order: In the light of a ruling given by Mr. Speaker on Monday, 23 February 1976, may I ask you whether you would not be prepared to consider your ruling and to give your ruling later. With great respect, if this is allowed to go without due consideration, one would be setting a precedent, and with respect I think that this ruling should be looked at. I merely ask that you consider giving a ruling later.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I should like to enlighten the hon. member. Mr. Chairman, to help you, as well as the hon. Whip on the opposite side, I shall not take this specific point further, and give you an opportunity to consider it.

Withdraw it.

No, why?

Because it is unparliamentary and untrue. I say you are an intercessor for communism.

I think that is a reflection on the Chair …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words that the hon. the Minister is an intercessor for communism.

I shall not withdraw unless the hon. the Minister withdraws his words.

Order! I request the hon. member for Bryanston to withdraw that remark of his.

Certainly not! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, can you explain the difference between the word “intercessor” as used by the hon. the Minister and as used by the hon. member for Bryanston?

Order! I want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow that when it is alleged that the hon. Opposition are intercessors for the retention or passing of publications … [Interjections.] Order! Hon. members must please give me an opportunity to state my standpoint. The standpoint which the hon. the Minister stated was that those hon. members were intercessors for publications which were a danger to the State. However, if the hon. member for Bryanston says that the hon. the Minister is an intercessor for communism, it is unparliamentary, and I am now asking him again to withdraw it, otherwise I shall have to make use of Standing Order No. 111. I appeal to the hon. member to withdraw his remark.

I refuse to withdraw it.

I ask the hon. member to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

[Whereupon Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg withdrew from the Chamber.]

Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order: Do I understand that you concede that the hon. the Minister used the word “intercessors” in respect of certain banned, unlawful organizations in respect of hon. members on this side?

I understood the hon. the Minister to say that he used the word “intercessors” in relation to preventing the spreading of these unlawful publications.

Mr. Chairman, would you ask the hon. the Minister what exactly he did say?

Sir, I shall gladly explain. I told the hon. member for Durban Central that 50% of the publications for which he was interceding … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to explain his argument further.

I shall repeat what I said. I said that in any case more than 50% of the publications which fall into this category—the publications to which the hon. member for Durban Central referred—come from organizations which propagate a declared policy of violence against South Africa, for example the ANC, the PAC, the Communist Party, the Anti-Apartheid Movement and Swapo. I also said—I cannot remember my exact words—that if we accuse those hon. members of being disloyal and of being un-South African, they complain. I then said that Tyll Eulenspiegel had said: “The people are angry at me, but I make them angry”. I then asked “When are you going to stop acting as intercessors for those people?” [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: On exactly the same grounds that you asked the hon. member for Bryanston to withdraw his statement, I ask you to order the hon. the Minister to withdraw his statement.

Order! I adhere to my ruling. The hon. the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that we on this side of the House have no intention of accepting your ruling.

Is that a reflection on the Chair?

Yes, it is; it is intended to be.

Order! I request the hon. member to withdraw that.

I shall not withdraw it.

Then I ask the hon. member to leave the Chamber.

[Whereupon Mr. B. R. Bamford withdrew from the Chamber.]

Boycotters! [Interjections.]

Alf, you are in charge now!

I am the Whip.

It is just a pity that you still have a Van der Merwe with you, Alf!

Order! I will be pleased if hon. members would now afford the hon. the Minister an opportunity to continue his speech.

I should like to have an indication from the hon. Whip of the official Opposition whether he expects me to reply to the points which were raised by the hon. members who have left the Chamber.

Decide about that for yourself.

Make your speech and sit down.

Sir, I did not know that the hon. member for Green Point was the new Chairman of Committees of this House.

He is a lawyer.

I despair of my profession! Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umbilo referred to the number of people in South Africa who have not yet become South African citizens. He suggested that we should take certain steps to ensure that these people become South African citizens. He suggested that we should for example institute a differential tax. I do not believe one should resort to that type of measure. I agree with the hon. member for Klip River that one should not indiscriminately grant the citizenship of one’s country to people who may not want it. The hon. member will also understand, however, that there are many and varied reasons why people do not take up citizenship of a country. In our case there are many immigrants who are the beneficiaries of certain social and other pensions from their countries of origin, benefits they would lose if they were to take up South African citizenship. The fact that they do not take up citizenship does therefore not imply disloyalty to South Africa. He will understand that.

Having said that, let me say that I believe it is obligatory that we should encourage people to become citizens of this country. In this particular regard I believe that the State and the private sector, private individuals, have a material role to play. Therefore my department allocates funds to two bodies in particular to assist people to settle in this country and to ensure that they are assimilated. I am referring to the Vereniging vir Europese Immigrasie and to the 1820 British Settlers Association. Large sums of money are being allocated in this connection.

In other words, I support the sentiments expressed by the hon. member, but he will also understand that the method used is rather important. I think we should persuade people and assist them rather than to coerce them in the way suggested by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Umhlanga said the population register was in a shambles and he produced some evidence to corroborate his statement.

*I am the last person to suggest that we have been 100% successful in this connection.

†I am immediately prepared to concede that there are problems in this regard. Let me say, however, that despite concerted efforts the population register is not yet complete, and the register of addresses is only partially up to date. On 31 July 1981, 6 437 187 persons had been included in the population register, and according to the population projections of the Directorate of Statistics 958 137 persons must still be included in that register. As a result of the extent of the activities connected with the compilation and the maintenance of the register, together with the fact that these functions are at present being performed on a centralized basis—in Pretoria—practical bottlenecks are being experienced in respect of the efficient functioning of the system. The greatest single factor which can be mentioned in this particular connection is the fact that the connecting link between the department and the individual member of the population whom it is supposed to identify and register and with whose change of address it must keep abreast, is too long and too impersonal.

*Consequently there is a need to decentralize the process. I shall refer to this again in a moment when I reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Durban Point.

Why are there such long delays in receiving replies from the department?

I am coming to that. However, let me first sketch the extent of the volume of work which is involved. The hon. member for Durban Point must bear in mind that we make use of mechanical aids in our work. There are certain problems in this connection which I shall explain to the hon. member later. A total of 15 000 applications for new identity documents and 8 000 applications for the re-issuing of documents reach our office every month. This means that 23 000 applications are received every month.

†Of the approximately 1 000 applications per day, literally dozens of incomplete application forms are being received. Some applications are not accompanied by the prescribed documents, such as a driver’s licence, photographs of the applicant, etc., while other applications contain information which does not correspond with the applicant’s birth or marriage certificate, for instance, which we have on record.

*Therefore the hon. member will understand our problems. I shall return later to the procedure we should like to adopt in future.

The hon. member for Constantia is not and I shall therefore not reply to his speech.

The hon. member for Jeppe referred to immigrants who do not take up citizenship. I referred to this subject in my reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Umbilo and I therefore assume that the hon. member for Jeppe took cognizance of what I said.

The hon. member for Durban Point initially referred to the fact that he also experienced a delay in the processing of postal votes. I have sympathy for the hon. member.

I had a majority of 700 with postal votes.

I mean this collectively and not individually. In 1976 a Select Committee of Parliament recommended that the systems for absent and special voters should both be retained. Although the system in regard to special voters is simpler than the one in connection with absent voters, the retention of the latter system is necessary because there are voters who, owing to their circumstances, cannot vote as special voters, for example voters who are too old, who are ill or who live on remotely situated farms. By way of obitur dictum I just wish to point out that certain experts nevertheless maintain that a postal vote is the safest kind of vote. It seems I am receiving confirmation of this on the part of the hon. member for Koedoespoort.

After the election my department held a symposium on 3 June this year. On that occasion differences of opinion emerged on the question of whether the postal vote could still be justified. Attention was focussed on the fact that Select Committees of Parliament had not been prepared to recommend its abolution.

There was a difference of opinion.

According to my information it was an unanimous opinion. However, I do not wish to argue about that now. However, it is intended to effect certain amendments to the Electoral Act, and I hope to introduce a Bill in that connection next year. It is concerned with the fact that a postal vote may only be issued to voters who cannot visit a polling office for special voters or the polling booth on polling day.

That is what we agreed on.

There was agreement on the principle of the postal vote. Secondly it is envisaged that the issuing of postal and special votes should commence on the same day. At present the issuing of postal votes and special votes does not commence on the same day. Thirdly it is envisaged that electoral officers may make use of blank ballot papers in connection with the first issuing of postal votes—that is to say, while the printed ballot papers are not yet available.

The hon. member also referred to the voter’s roll and to the general registration of voters. I do not want to spend much time on these matters. In the first place I wish to point out that it was not a general registration. It was a supplementary registration, although many people were under the impression that it was a general registration. After the new voter’s lists had been published after the completion of the general registration in December 1979, voters were afforded three opportunities by way of Press statements, on 28 December 1979, 11 January 1980, and 18 January 1980, to look up the voter’s lists which were available in all electoral offices and in magistrates’ offices in the Republic and establish whether their names were on the voter’s list for the electoral division in which they were living.

It is impractical to do that.

No, it is not impractical. In addition we asked voters to fill in a new application if their names were not on the lists, for example because they had changed their place of residence during or since the general registration of voters, or had not been visited during the general registration of voters by an official enumerator, or had not been home when one called. The hon. member must understand that it is primarily the responsibility of the voter himself to register. The new lists, which had in this case been compiled after the general registration, were made available to all the political parties on 24 December, and put into operation in terms of the provisions of the Electoral Act by proclamation on 23 January. I want to concede at once that we received reports from controlling officers that the co-operation of the public had not always been satisfactory. In addition problems were experienced—I concede this readily—in finding sufficient enumerators. People resigned during the registration period. On the other hand—and apparently this is becoming a habit—more people have dogs these days and the enumerators do not wish to call on houses which have a “Beware of the Dog” signs on the gates. Hon. members may laugh, but it is nevertheless true. The voters who had been on the previous list and whose names had been omitted were again given an opportunity, until seven days before polling day, to have their names reinstated on the voter’s list. According to the reports which I received—and this is important—only 6 421 voters—the hon. member for Randfontein mentioned the figure—out of a total of 2 118 700 voters who had according to report been living at the same address for years, were omitted from the list. In other words, a percentage of only 0,3. This percentage must be measured against the percentage of voters whose names were on the list and who did not vote. That was 34%. I think this is a fair method of comparison. In the new plans we accepted that there were deficiencies, and I am not condoning or excusing the deficiencies. We must do everything in our power to eliminate them.

Those 6 421 mean nothing.

Let us not argue about this across the floor of the House. We can discuss the matter later. What are our plans for the future? Firstly, I have said that the line of communication between the head office of the department in Pretoria and an individual who has to be identified, registered and processed, is too long and too impersonal. That is why the Government has decided that the activities of the department should be decentralized, by means of the utilization of local authorities as suboffices or agencies of the regional office.

That was my suggestion.

I have no objection if the hon. member makes good suggestions. I have never ever suggested that we have the sole right to do that. Secondly, a network is being constructed for the collection of applications for identity documents and notification of changes of address. The South African voter—and the hon. member knows this—is not alert to the need to report any change of address. In many cases he wishes to avoid doing so for other reasons. One major contributory factor is that he has to report such a change of address at various places. He must report for the purposes of the population register and also in respect of the voter’s roll as it is compiled at the moment. Consequently it happens that if he has notified the one body, he assumes that the other has also been informed. In my own constituency I myself experience great problems and heard unfriendly remarks. As a result of the decision to which I referred, i.e. the decentralization of the activities of the department, it is being envisaged that there shall be continuous liaison with other Government departments, other authoritative bodies, bodies rendering services to the public in the public sector, and where this rendering of service is of real importance, that the person himself shall identify himself and produce verification of his own address. What I have in mind here are the Government departments, provincial administrations, municipalities, divisional councils, banks, building societies—major employers. We want to involve all these people in this effort, and I believe that if we are able to do so then the voter’s roll which we will be able to compile after July next year from the population registration register will be a far more effective and reliable reflection of the actual position than is the case at present. I hope the hon. member is satisfied with the steps we are now taking.

And the Railways?

Yes, the Railways is being included. Let me read out the list to the hon. member again. There are Government departments, provincial administrations, including local authorities, the Railways, statutory bodies such as Escom, private institutions, school principals, the Press and so on. We shall try to compile it in this way.

The hon. member for Randfontein referred to the need for and necessity of immigration. Let me say at once that the need for immigration is closely connected with the economic cycle. In times when there is a levelling off of the economy in our country, the numbers who come are from the nature of the case fewer and when there is an economic upswing in their countries of origin, those numbers are even smaller. Consequently there is a direct relationship between the economic cycle here and in the countries of origin which influences the number of immigrants. There is a second fact to which I wish to draw the attention of this hon. member in this connection, and that is that in the first instance, immigration to this country is selective immigration. It is selective immigration as regards the high level manpower which we need. We cannot allow immigrants to enter this country at the expense of the local population. On the one hand, therefore, we have a policy of enhancing the training of our own people and supplementing this with immigrants where there are shortages. In this connection I also want to say that considerable amounts of money are being spent by the department in this specific connection. Between 1976 and 1981 the total amount of R11,8 million was spent on various forms of assistance to immigrants and immigrant organizations. In the present financial year it is estimated—just for one year—that the amount spent will amount to R6,75 million. This is in the form of passage or transfer and transportation costs, accommodation, transportation costs within the Republic itself, and so on. In this connection we have been reasonably successful, and it is expected that if we are able to maintain the present rate we will quite probably receive a total of 35 000 immigrants this year, with a loss, as far as emigrants are concerned, of 9 000. This represents a net gain of 26 000 immigrants.

The hon. member for Roodepoort also referred to the settlement and residence of Portuguese people who are illegally in this country. The hon. member is aware that during 1978 we afforded the illegal immigrants in the country an opportunity of reporting to the authorities. Experience has shown, however, that the granting of an amnesty as we did in 1978 encourages the entry of aliens who do not comply with the immigration requirements, in the hope that they will be able to stay in this country. I just wish to say that in my opinion sufficient opportunities exist at present, as well as assistance for aliens to obtain consent in advance to come and work here or to come and settle here. Therefore the hon. member will understand that although I sympathize with his standpoint, we cannot find occasion now to grant amnesty.

The hon. member for Edenvale is not here.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort made suggestions, as did the hon. member for Klip River, in respect of the better utilization of the identity document. They put forward interesting suggestions in this specific regard, and I shall ask my department to consider them.

I conclude by saying thank you very much to the hon. members for Turffontein, Helderkruin, Bloemfontein North and Mossel Bay for their contributions, and also to those other members who discussed the question of the constitutional development of this country.

One aspect remains which I still wish to deal with, and it was raised by the hon. member for Maitland. He gave us an account of the events surrounding the placing of an advertisement in one of our English-language morning newspapers, The Cape Times. He recounted the history of the matter to us, and pointed out, inter alia, that at the same time as the advertisement was placed on the front page of that particular issue of the newspaper, comment on the contents of the advertisement by political parties was also published. He also pointed out that in those specific circumstances the editor of the newspaper said that he would welcome any inquiry which the Press Council could institute in this connection.

There is only one inevitable conclusion which can be drawn from this standpoint of the editor and that is that he thought that his conduct was no infringement of the editorial or journalistic ethical code and that his conduct could therefore stand up to scrutiny by the Press Council. In the second place it is important to note, with reference to this conclusion, that the editor obviously found on a subsequent occasion that his conduct could not stand up to the scrutiny of a critical investigation by the Press Council into his deplorable conduct. It is very important to observe in this connection that besides the contractual obligation and the ordinary rules which apply in the commercial world when it comes to the relationship between an advertiser and a medium of advertisement, a very important ethical question is at stake here. Because the action taken in this connection was that of the editorial staff, viz. the editor of the newspaper, his conduct, tested against the ethical norms of the code, is to my mind relevant.

I read the report on the hearing of this matter and the complaints by the chairman of the council, after he had called in the assistance of four people to advise him. In terms of the report it is very interesting to note that two of the members whom the chairman called in to advise him, were representatives of the Press. They were, so to speak, called in to sit in judgement and give a verdict on their own people. It is equally interesting to note that the two other members, to whom I shall refer as lay members for the purposes of this discussion, adopted a contrary standpoint, namely that the Press Council did have jurisdiction to hear the case.

If I construe the verdict of the chairman correctly, what it amounts to is that on the basis of the authoritative verdict of a previous chairman of the Press Council, viz. Mr. Justice De Villiers, the council cannot concern itself with what preceded the publication and on that basis does not have jurisdiction.

I say at once that the gravamen of the charge is concerned with what the consequences of the aforesaid action of the editor in this connection were, for the action to which exception was taken occurred simultaneously, the publication of the advertisement and comment on it in the same issue. Consequently I think there was a blunder in the juridical sense of the word. Whether I am correct in this connection or whether the chairman of the Press Council was correct, the fact remains that another important point emerges. It is this: What now?

I must inevitably conclude that in this specific case the Press Council, as an organ of the Press Union, was therefore not capable of ensuring that justice was done to the people involved. Consequently I believe that a situation has developed here in which there are real misgivings as to the effectiveness of the mechanism to exercise discipline and apply the codes of the Press. Without anticipating any findings, I, as the responsible Minister, must state at this stage that I shall of course have to give attention to the efficiency and effectiveness or otherwise of th existing system. In this connection I must say one thing, however, and I am doing this with profound conviction, viz. I believe that the media must play a part in this country, and I do not wish to condemn the media as such by definition. On the other hand, however, I would be failing in my duty if I did not say that the conduct of this specific newspaper on this specific occasion was merely symptomatic of what it is constantly doing. In the second place, it is astounding that a medium which is constantly adopting a standpoint on the morality of other people can in such a flagrant way reject all concepts of ethical codes and morality. That is why I submit that, apart from the fact that this newspaper did itself a disservice, it also did the Press as an institution in this country a disservice. Not only did it seriously harm the Press as an institution, but also seriously polluted it. I deplore an institution of democracy—because the Press is such an institution—being jeopardized in such a way.

Mr. Chairman, earlier on in his speech the hon. the Minister made an outrageous allegation against hon. members on this side of the House …

Where are they?

… and uttered outrageous words, words which in my opinion are unappropriate in this House or in any decent debate. You, Mr. Chairman, asked the Minister to repeat what he had said, and he then dragged it out into a long story, but was not prepared to repeat the words. Sir, I do not have the words to describe the character of a man who acts in such a way.

Careful now.

I do not have the words to describe such behaviour, and as a result of your decision, Sir …

Are you now casting a reflection on the Chair?

Be quiet for a moment. Your decision, Sir, was very difficult for us on this side of the House to accept, and in view of that I cannot continue with my speech and as a sign of protest I am going to leave the House. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I find myself in the situation where I look before me and see an official Opposition that has been thinned out, and if I look a little further, I actually see an obsolete official Opposition. [Interjections.]

You will be surprised.

Over the past 15 years it has been my lot to participate in the debate on this Vote, particularly when the Coloured population of our country come under discussion. Over the years I have often received the impression that there was a dialogue between this side of the House and hon. members on the opposite side. It always proceeded more or less as follows: The Opposition parties attack the governing party because we have not done enough for the Coloured people, because of what we have ostensibly neglected to do or because of what we have done wrongly, and then when we have to reply, we usually have to mention where we did in fact do things correctly, what good things we did in fact do and why the things that we did, were in fact done correctly. However, what I feel is a wrong way of debating, is when superficial debating points only are being used, while two White parties are in actual fact turning the Coloured people into a political football.

History decided that the Whites of this country received a heritage from various nations that, under the specific circumstances, were not sovereignly independent and whose political rights were restricted to a large extent. That is why I myself would like to see the position in South Africa where the Coloured population and other nations are completely independent and will be exercizing control over their own affairs, whilst the leaders of the respective groups can discuss with one another matters of common interest to the respective nations. I think the leaders of those nations are best able to look after the interests of their own people. The situation that we saw here today, this débâcle, this ridiculous behaviour, this absolutely impulsive behaviour on the part of the official Opposition, does, however, also have an effect on the other nations, specifically on the Coloured people.

I should like to state my case in this regard. In the first instance it means that antagonism is being directed at the Whites in general, because in a conversation which should concern the affairs of the Coloureds, all we have is a quarrel between the White parties. This is further emphasized when everything that goes wrong in the Coloured community is ascribed to the actions of the Whites, as if the Whites had not carried out their duty at a certain stage, whether on the short or the long term.

The second effect that this has, is to put the leaders of the Coloured people in a position to play the two or three White political parties off against one another in an irresponsible fashion. This may then result in unfair or unreasonable demands being made of all the political parties.

A third consequence is that a feeling of apathy may arise amongst the Coloured people, whilst in actual fact they should be making plans to become autonomous and self-sufficient in order to assume responsibility for the affairs that concern them personally.

A further effect is that Coloured leaders can often make unrealistic, unfair and selfish demands without being able to perceive or understand the consequences thereof themselves. In spite of this negative effect, which the dialogue between ourselves and the official Opposition parties may have, however we have nevertheless made very good progress in South Africa. In actual fact, we have achieved more and progressed further than is often perceived or admitted by the Coloured people themselves or by our own people. In this respect the NP has been at the helm, and it did so, not only because we had the control in our hands, but because our premise was absolutely correct. Now I want to refer to page 4 of the department’s report. Under the heading “Promotion of sound inter-group relations: Whites and Coloureds” we find the following—

It goes on to say—

As far as this particular aspect is concerned, I should like to say a few things and here I want to come back to the hon. invisible member for Green Point, who is not in the House at the moment for various reasons. I hope the invisible member …

Order! The hon. member must refer to the hon. member as “the hon. member for Green Point”.

I do so with pleasure and refer to the hon. member for Green Point in absentia. I hope he will read my Hansard. I now come to the fair, reasonable and correct remarks and replies by the hon. the Minister to the official Opposition. I want to remind the House of what the hon. member said here yesterday. With reference to Bishop Tutu’s passport, he said the following, inter alia—

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries then asked—

I spoke after the hon. member for Green Point yesterday afternoon too, but I did not want to refer to this then. However, I want to say now that yesterday there were people who were physically present in this parliamentary building and who listened to the debate. They were people from the Government of Qwaqwa, the Government of kwaZulu …

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I am rising to give the hon. member for Rissik the opportunity of completing his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. lonely Whip opposite. I just want to remind him of the statement that I made yesterday, viz. that whereas the hon. member for Green Point requested the privilege of the half hour, he spoke for only 21 minutes. When I pointed this out to the hon. Whip, he said that he had asked for 20 minutes only. I went to look at Hansard and discovered that I was correct. I think the hon. Whip should take another look at that.

When the hon. member for Green Point made these irresponsible statements yesterday, there were people in the House from Qwaqwa, kwaZulu, Gazankulu, Kangwane, the Ciskei and Lebowa, who were all within hearing distance. With reference to the statements that the hon. member for Green Point made in pursuance of the statement made by the hon. young member in the back bench on the opposite side and the reply of the hon. the Minister, no thinking member of the House and no person who follows the politics of South Africa can but be convinced that the official Opposition does not care a straw for relations between the various nations in South Africa. It is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister to make sure that not only do the people who enter our country, do so with good intentions, but that also people that leave our country, do so with good intentions, but then the hon. member for Green Point says that the behaviour of the hon. the Minister “was the most blatant way of rubbing the nose of the Black man in South Africa in the mud”. The NP’s record over the past 30 years of building up relations between people and groups of people is there for all to see. If we have perhaps failed here and there, I want to say that this is only human. However, no one can deny that the good intentions were there. I want to say that what the hon. member for Green Point said, forces me to reach the same conclusion as the hon. the Minister expressed here this afternoon. Earlier this year we were told that, particularly when he has a glass of red wine in his hand—and I think many of us debate with one another in this way—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition discusses the continued existence of the Afrikaans language. However, I should very much like to know what type of conversation takes place when members of the official Opposition are alone, with or without red wine, and when they speak to members of the Black population groups or about the Coloured people. Since the hon. member for Green Point is prepared to say in public what he said in this highest council chamber in the country whilst there were Black people present, it is not surprising to me that sometimes in South Africa we have the problem of friction that has arisen between members of the various population groups and that there are in fact Black and Coloured leaders in South Africa—in this case Coloured leaders—who are sometimes doubtful as to the sincerity of the NP and its policy. Good relations require the best qualities of man, and this means the highest ethic norms which any community can utilize in order to perpetuate its conservation and to guarantee its continued existence. Poor human relations and poor national relations are as old as mankind itself. Wars across the borders of countries and the destruction of nations have occurred for the very reason that people, groups of people and leaders of nations and communities had poor relations with one another. I want to say that the end of the White man in Southern Africa or of the NP, will not lead to an end to relations conflict between individuals or nations in Southern Africa. I want to state categorically that if the NP had not come forward with its policy during the years after the Second World War, we in South Africa would have encountered chaos and suppression on the largest possible scale. This will also be the situation when the NP is no longer in power here in South Africa.

The leaders of the various nations and of political parties in South Africa and in Southern Africa, must accept two realities in South Africa. The one is that one cannot be a leader here if one does not accept the existence of other nations and other national groups. The second reality that must be accepted, is that each leader and his own population group cannot dominate or govern the other population groups. These two realities are embodied, not only in the principles of the NP, but in its ideals as well. In the heritage that it received, the NP wants to escape from having ruled over other nations. Political philosophers in Southern Africa will have to be prepared, in solving the issues and in formulating their policy, not only to spell out very clearly what will happen in the future, what their plans are for the nations of Southern Africa and for their own nation, but they will also have to bear in mind that a nation is not easily broken, except when its leaders promise it one thing and then do another.

That is why I want to state clearly that the official Opposition will have to spell out very clearly where they are heading with regard to the national situation in South Africa.

Then I just want to make one final remark. This is that we must take care that our points of departure with regard to dealing with the national situation in South Africa are in fact the true starting point. In solving the national issue in South Africa, we cannot begin in the middle. We must commence at the beginning of the road. The roots must be very deep and be very strongly anchored. Therefore, when we start on a solution of the national problems, we must begin at the true foundations. Only if we do this, do we have a chance of succeeding in solving this problem with which we are faced. With regard to certain academics, I should also just like to make a final remark. During the recent election campaign, I spoke to two academics, inter alia. One came from the north and the other from the south. I do not want to mention now which of them said what to me. However, one of them adopted the standpoint that the Coloured people are the most wronged people in South Africa, due to the policy of the NP. He also alleged that the Coloured population would have progressed much further if they had been given the opportunity to take over the government of the country and therefore had been placed in the position to look after themselves properly. My reply to that hon. gentleman was that, in dealing with this issue, the NP has accepted the principle from the very outset that the Coloured people have had the opportunity, and still have it, in every facet of their lifestyle, to look after their own affairs and to take the majority of the decisions with regard to their own affairs. We shall have to get rid of the way of thinking displayed by that academic in the world of academics in South Africa.

However, I also spoke to a second academic. His standpoint was that the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government should move more rapidly and that much more rapid progress should be made in Southern Africa. In reply to my counter question as to in what direction more rapid progress should be made, that learned gentleman could not say a word. There are a number of people outside practical politics who want the NP to move more and more quickly, without wanting to or being able to give an answer themselves regarding exactly where the rate of progress should lead. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I should like to refer to some remarks the hon. the Prime Minister made on Tuesday, 25 August (Hansard, col. 1860) when he was referring to the Coloureds. He said—

One may well ask: How does the hon. the Prime Minister or the Nationalist Party see the Coloured community? One may well put a further question: Are the Coloureds not a tangible result of interaction between groups? I believe they are a community that grew out of the history of South Africa. Of that there can be no doubt. I do not believe that their loyalty to South Africa can be questioned. I would even go so far as to say that they are better patriots than some of those White South Africans who have two passports, in case things get too hot and they can go somewhere else. If ever there was an indictment of this Government, surely it is the sad and miserable record of their handling of the Coloured community. I doubt whether there is an hon. member sitting in this House and who is honest with himself who will not agree that the Coloured community have received the rough end of the stick ever since this Government came into power. After the treatment they have received, there can be little doubt that the Coloureds have every right to be disenchanted with the connotation of White and/or White Government. One would think that the Coloureds were not part and parcel of South Africa. One would think they do not belong to the same churches as we do. One would think they do not have the same cultural background as we do. However, in all instances the answer is in the affirmative. I should again like to refer to what the hon. the Prime Minister said on the same day, and I quote again (Hansard, 25 August, col. I860)—

If what has been said is true, and I believe it is true, then one may ask: Why the rejection of the Coloured community? If one says there is no rejection, then I shall ask a further question. How does one equate the Coloured soldier on the border, fighting for his country as well as for ours, with his position when he returns to civvy street? How does one equate the position of the immigrant who can trade in a White area without a permit with that of the Coloured who cannot trade there without a permit? How does one equate the Government’s hesitant and part action on the Erika Theron report with the findings and recommendations contained in that report? I believe that even at this late stage there is still a little goodwill left.

From discussions we have had, all that the Coloureds are looking for is a square deal to be recognized as full South African citizens with their own political rights. At this moment in time, they have no political forum, and if we are to kindle that little fire of goodwill that is left, then a prerequisite is a free election to ascertain their current political leaders. Having said that, then the Government must also recognize those leaders as being truly representative of the Coloured community, even if they are not ad idem with the Government’s thinking. Then I believe a set of objectives must be agreed to and a plan of action to obtain those objectives must be put into operation as soon as possible. There can be no question about the fact that some form of consensus must be reached with the Coloured community. For a start and as a gesture of goodwill on the part of the Government, I believe that the very symbol of rejection, that word “apartheid” and all its connotations, must be obliterated from the Government’s thinking and also from legislation. If, after all, the Indian community can have elections to ascertain their true political leaders, why then cannot the same apply to the Coloureds? Constitution-making is in progress and referendums are being spoken about. Is not now the time to establish the true political leaders so that they, too, may participate when the time comes in a discussion about their future as well as ours? In my opinion it is imperative for this to happen. What is equally important is that if a referendum is called for on future proposals, I believe it is their right, just as much as it is ours, to participate in that decision-making. Only together on a basis of mutual consensus will we survive as a nation.

Now, Sir, if I may, I should like to deal with one aspect of community life that crops up from time to time with a great deal of adverse publicity and which I believe is a disgrace to what we may call living in a civilized society. I am referring to the Coloured places of safety and, in particular, I wish to discuss the one at Wentworth. The treatment meted out to some of the children here is absolutely shocking. One would think that a place of safety meant just that. Certainly, one would expect a certain amount of discipline but also a lot of love and attention to try to stabilize those children who are sent there. In most cases it is not the children who are the problem but the parents. I believe, therefore, that the children should in fact be given that little extra attention by welfare workers and those people under whose care they are placed. But no, Sir. It would appear that Wentworth is a place of terror. Children are not allowed out to go to school in case they run away. Children are beaten by other children. Children are put into solitary confinement.

Is the hon. member judging from press reports in this regard? What is the source of his information?

No, Sir. I also believe that sjamboks are used on children if they oversleep. Although children are supposed to stay there for not longer than six months before being transferred to some other industrial school or reform school, I believe the children are kept there for a great deal longer. This is mainly because there are no other institutions to which they can be sent and there are no other places for them.

In order to assist me, will the hon. member please give me the source of his information?

I want to put this question to the hon. the Minister: Is his department doing anything about this state of affairs? I should also like to ask him about the staff employed at these institutions. Either they are not suitable or else they are not adequately trained. If this is the position, why is the department not attracting the right kind of staff? Is it because sufficient money is not being paid to attract the right professional staff? After all, it is the professional social worker who should be able to handle these children. It is the professional and not the amateur who should care for these children. We hope that these children will be reared in the correct way so that one day they will be solid and respectable citizens and so I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reply to me in due course in regard to this particular matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast who has just resumed his seat, made two mistakes. The one was that he spoke about the “Nationalist Party”. As long as the Opposition parties persist in referring to the governing party in that way, they will continue to disturb the relations between our parties. “Nationalist Party” does not mean the same as “National Party”.

The second mistake that he made, if I understood him correctly, was that he alleged that the state in which a large portion of the Coloured population still find themselves today, is due to the Government’s behaviour with regard to the Coloureds. Perhaps one should forgive the hon. member. Perhaps he has not been involved in politics long enough to know what happened prior to 1948. Here in my hand I have a publication by the information service of the NP which gives an excellent background summary of what the situation was in 1948 when this party came into power. I hope you will allow me, Sir, to quote the circumstances cited in it, so that we can inform the hon. member about it. It reads as follows, inter alia—

With that I conclude the quotation.

I want to suggest that the hon. member takes a look at what has been achieved since 1948 in the form of assistance by the NP Government in order to carry out upliftment work amongst the Coloured population. I shall make some reference to this in the rest of my speech too.

I am a champion of White and Coloured interests in the Western Cape. I hope that you do not rule me out of order for saying this! The Coloured people are the majority group in the Western Cape. Their progress or their decline therefore has a considerable influence on this part of our country. I read a report in Tegniek of September 1979 on a speech by Dr. Anton Rupert and in it he makes this statement, inter alia—

I think that if we analyse this statement and apply it to the Coloured population, we are obliged to come to the conclusion that many opportunities have been created and are still being created, but that the best use is not always being made of those opportunities.

Therefore, to a certain extent we could wash our hands of the matter, and we have reason to do so, because the figures prove quite a record. I am referring to a few factors only. In 1973 there were 586 000 Coloured pupils at school, but in 1980 there were 754 000. In 1980 more than 8 000 Coloured students were registered at universities. Specialized training is being offered at 14 training schools and colleges today. Since 1960 in particular, the Coloureds have been occupying the more advanced levels of the professions to an increasing extent. In the years 1973 to 1979, more than 50 300 Coloureds entered the white collar professions. This took place over a period of six years. In the same period of six years, a further 6 000 Coloureds entered the ranks of skilled artisans. In the same period of six years the semi-skilled labourers increased by 32 300 to 285 600. The income of Coloured households in the Cape Peninsula increased on average from R1 586 in 1970 to R3 131 in 1975—a 97% increase in five years. Between 1960 and 1980 the economically active Coloured labour force nearly doubled to 1 million.

Therefore, development has taken place. Opportunities were created and utilized to the very great benefit of the Coloured population.

However, there is also one negative figure that gives me cause for concern. Between the years 1973 and 1979 the number of unskilled Coloured labourers increased by 24 600. This is a highly undesirable situation. It is to the detriment of the Coloureds, because it is in that category that we also find most of the unemployed and work-shy, so that they become the very reason for the large number of Black unskilled workers in the Western Cape.

The Government has a very positive standpoint with regard to this matter. I am referring to the White Paper published by the Government with reference to the Erika Theron report. I want to quote the first paragraph on page 19—

The White Paper goes on to point out that this state of affairs has many negative consequences, for instance the workshy who are battening like parasites on others, the high crime rate, the threat to the law-abiding citizens in those communities, and incentive to squat because they do not have the means to afford proper housing, the inability to care for dependants, the high birth rate and the high illegitimate birth rate, therefore, a general burden on the State with regard to that specific category. The Government then comes to the following conclusion which appears on page 19 of the White Paper—

This was the Government’s standpoint with regard to recommendations 32(a) and (b) of the commission, as well as 34(a). Perhaps for the record I should quote these recommendations too. Paragraph 32(a) reads—

(b) the services of these centres be aimed at basic literacy, rehabilitation, discipline and certain work skills, in an attempt to eliminate educational, social, psychological and other handicaps as far as possible and to establish labour discipline …

34(a) the Registration for Employment Act (Act 34 of 1945) be modernized and strictly enforced to ensure that every person who is fit for and who is not employed in a regular and identified occupation shall register at a labour bureau …

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I am simply rising to give the hon. member the opportunity of completing his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip.

In pursuance of the recommendation concerning labour registration, it is interesting to note that according to Die Burger of 13 March 1963, the well-known prof. S. P. Cilliers from Stellenbosch had already asked whether compulsory labour legislation for Whites and Coloureds, which applies to the Black people, should not also be introduced. I can assure hon. members that that idea enjoys a great deal of support today.

The Government also accepted recommendation 39 of the Commission. It reads—

In those parts of the country which are demarcated as Coloured and White labour areas and as Coloured preferential areas an equal effort should be made to ensure that every White and every Coloured worker is fully employed.

The Government also accepted recommendations 42(a) and (b). I shall first read the motivation for the Commission’s recommendation—

1. (a) the Government re-affirm its declared policy that the Western Cape is mainly a White and Coloured labour zone and take appropriate steps to give full effect to this policy;
2. (b) section (3)(1) of the Environmental Planning Act (Act 88 of 1967), which applies to certain magisterial districts in the Cape Province and which provides that factories in the magisterial districts concerned may be established and extended only if White and Coloured labour is used, be strictly enforced.

It is also interesting to take note of another aspect. In pursuance of this recommendation by the commission, which was accepted by the Government, prof. S. P. Cilliers, to whom I referred a moment ago, submitted the following very positive motivation for these proposals in the same speech, which was published on 13 March 1963 in Die Burger—

This is a very well-motivated standpoint, and it is also Government policy. However, in 1981 we find two interesting phenomena. Firstly, we find that skilled and trained Coloured workers are leaving the Western Cape and settling in the Transvaal, and we find that the Whites in the Western Cape are decreasing in numbers. The conclusion that we can make, is that the providers of employment in the Western Cape are decreasing, and this holds problems in store for us.

That is why I want to ask for the unskilled Coloureds to be trained and even to be forced to work—if this is the only way—in order to improve the quality of their own lives, to be an asset to the community instead of a burden or threat and to limit the number of Black people in this section of the country to the essential minimum. However, then I also ask that the Coloureds should be trained so that they can be utilized as employers, because otherwise we are heading for a decline in this area.

Could the hon. the Minister possibly give us an indication of what has been done with regard to these accepted recommendations since the publication of this White Paper, in order to prepare the large number of unskilled Coloureds for entering the labour market. Could he possibly also indicate any planning in this regard. The annual report of the department refers briefly to this, but it is not general knowledge. In my opinion, it is a matter of high priority, and particularly in the spirit of the speech which the hon. the Minister delivered in this House this afternoon, I want to say that to my mind it is a very topical matter.

Mr. Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.

Arising from what the hon. the Minister had to say in this debate yesterday about the question of Bishop Tutu’s passport, I now wish to make an accusation against him. I want to accuse him of having strengthened the case of those persons who want to discourage investment in South Africa. He did so through his inept handling of the question of Bishop Tutu’s passport. He strengthened the case of the anti-investment school of thought by his ridiculous action in withdrawing the Bishop’s passport. In doing so, he gave greater publicity to the Bishop’s standpoint in this connection than it would ever have received if that person had indeed gone overseas. [Interjections.] What is much more important is that the impression has been created that the arguments for investment in South Africa are so pathetic that they are not proof against Bishop Tutu’s arguments against investment. But surely this is not so. Surely there is a strong case to be made out for investment. No one could probably have done it better than the hon. member for Pinelands did on a national television network in the USA. I also want to make the accusation against the hon. the Minister that he must have known that his conduct in this connection would be counterproductive abroad. Nevertheless, he and the rest of the Government proceeded with it for reasons of political expediency, in order to present themselves as good, strong and forceful people in the eyes of the short-sighted right wing of their own party. This was just another example of the way in which party interests are given priority over national interests by that hon. Minister and his colleagues.

†Then the hon. the Minister had the gall to come to the House and to cover up his ineptitude and the dereliction of duty in this respect with the most ridiculous emotional rubbish that I have heard for a very long time. The hon. the Minister actually maintained that I had insulted the Springboks by making the comparison, as if the good character of every individual member of that team had anything whatsoever to do with the decision of the New Zealand Government to allow the tour to take place in their country. That argument was so transparent in its fundamental dishonesty that most speakers on the other side of the House were in fact too embarrassed to deal with it and preferred to deal with the issue in a more responsible way by addressing themselves directly to my argument rather than to get involved in the hon. the Minister’s ridiculous emotionalism. In his tirade the hon. the Minister deliberately avoided the significance of my comparison, namely that, firstly, judging by their record in the past, the Nationalist Government would not have allowed a sporting team into South Africa if it was in any way politically inexpedient in the same sort of circumstances that faced the New Zealand Government and, secondly, that judging the New Zealand Government by their record in this respect, they would not have withdrawn the passport of one of their own citizens in the same circumstances as the Nationalist Government did in the case of Bishop Tutu. Right at the end of his speech last night the hon. the Minister came back to the issue, but then he made a great fuss of the Government’s right to withhold or cancel a passport in terms of legal decisions. Once again this is a red herring, because just as I do not associate myself with Bishop Tutu’s view by challenging the withdrawal of his passport, so similarly do I not challenge the hon. the Minister’s or the Government’s legal right to withdraw a citizen’s passport in certain circumstances when I challenge this particular Minister’s action.

I now want to refer very briefly to the dispute between The Cape Times and the NP that has been raised by the hon. member for Maitland and by the hon. the Minister himself. Let me say right away that I do not believe that that is a matter that belongs with the Press Council at all. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a matter of ethics. Surely the Press Council has not been introduced for that sort of function at all. If the NP has a case at all, it is a contractual matter, a matter of their rights as an advertiser in the newspaper. Therefore they should take the matter to court. If they have a case at all, let them take the matter to court. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Press Council.

Do you believe it was ethical?

I believe it shows the gross disregard of hon. members on the other side of the House for Press freedom. They in fact think and suggest that the Press Council should be given powers to deal with this kind of thing.

Did you read the judgment?

This is utter nonsense. I maintain that if the Press Council should have the right to deliberate and to mediate in this situation …

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

No. I really do not have the time. The hon. member must shut up and sit down.

If the Press Council must have the right to mediate in this particular dispute, it should also have the right to investigate the attitude of certain Afrikaans daily newspapers, like Die Burger, which refuse point blank to place any advertisement emanating from an Opposition party. Then one enters a different area altogether, and therefore the Press Council should also have that right. It is a completely ridiculous suggestion that the Press Council should be empowered to deal with that sort of situation.

*I also want to talk to the hon. the Minister in his capacity as a kind of colonial governor of the Coloured population in South Africa. I call him this because, in spite of all the “wonderful” progress referred to by the hon. member for False Bay and other hon. members on that side of the House, the Coloured people actually have no political representation at all today. Therefore they must address themselves to the hon. the Minister to discuss their rights with the Government through him. Now that the NP has been in power for 33 years, the position with regard to the political rights of the Coloured people is in a bigger mess than it has ever been. The Coloured person’s position as a South African is in a dead-end street and the Coloured person has been further alienated from the Government and in fact from the White South African than ever before, in spite of the cultural affinity which he should naturally feel for the White people.

In his speech, the hon. the Minister referred to the fact that everyone who was not a part of the White group was being described as Black. He said this was an unfortunate description and that it had all kinds of political consequences. He said, among other things, that it was actually concerned with polarization and that it led to racial friction. In the speech he made a short while ago, the hon. member for Rissik also spoke about the question of disturbing race relations. He accused me of bedevilling race relations by saying that through the withdrawal of Bishop Tutu’s passport, the Black man’s nose was actually being rubbed in the mud. I do not want to say any more about that. The hon. the Minister accused the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of having no perception of the needs and desires of the various groups in South Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can speak for himself, but I just want to say that when one considers the record of the Government’s conduct towards the population group we are now dealing with, i.e. the Coloured people, with one change after another and one constitutional experiment after another and one failure after another, no other element, no other group, has made a greater contribution to racial polarization in South Africa than this very Government itself.

The latest manifestation of the Government’s attitude towards the Coloured people and their political rights was the cynical introduction of the legislation to create a nominated Coloured Persons’ Council. It appears that this plan has been shelved for the moment. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question and I would like a very clear reply to it from the hon. the Minister. There was a question on the Question Paper in my name this afternoon, asking whether the Minister or the Government had already decided …

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to enable the hon. member to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. Whip for the opportunity he is giving me to proceed.

There was a question on the Question Paper in connection with the plans of the Government to repeal legislation authorizing the establishment of the nominated Coloured Council. I am afraid that the hon. Minister’s reply to that did not quite satisfy me. I should very much like to ask the hon. the Minister one simple and straightforward question. I should like to have the hon. the Minister’s attention.

You have my attention.

I should very much like to know from him whether at this stage he still regards it as a possibility that a nominated Coloured Persons’ Council may be established in terms of the Act passed by Parliament last year. I should very much like to have a reply to that.

The introduction of the legislation to establish that council was a performance without precedent in this House, of course. Hon. members will recall that the then Minister who was responsible for that legislation, Mr. Marais Steyn, justified it by telling us that the CPRC had requested its own abolition. However, he deliberately failed to mention what the CPC would have said about a nominated council if they had been consulted about it. Once again, as so often in the past, the Government avoided reality in so far as it affected the Coloured peoples.

Today we have the position that the political rights of the Coloured people have been referred to a body which I can only describe as a new form of commission. As in the case of the Theron Commission, the President’s Council, too, was appointed to enable the Government to avoid a little longer the unpleasant realities of political rights for people of colour in South Africa.

†In reality, Sir, the President’s Council’s function, like that of the Erika Theron Commission, is to discover the obvious but to do so slowly and gradually in order to make it digestible to the delicate system of the NP. [Interjections.] Having appointed the President’s Council to solve its problems, the NP then proceeded to reassure its own supporters of the potential of this body. In this whole process, however, they placed severe constraint on that body, severe constraint on the sort of recommendations that that body can make and that can be viable in terms of NP thinking at this moment. I am afraid there is no way in which the President’s Council can produce a solution within those constraints, a solution that can come anywhere near satisfying the Coloured population.

The hon. the Minister can maintain peace within his own party by using the same method of constraint. He cannot, however, produce, within those constraints, a solution to the dilemma of the Coloured people. Surely the hon. the Minister realizes why the CRC has failed. It has failed because it was an inferior body, because it was a subordinate body.

Let us just briefly consider the position of the Coloured community as a minority group. During the last few months I was very pleased to hear, particularly this hon. Minister, talk of minority groups and their rights, as well as the necessity to protect their rights. Let us, however just have a look at the Coloured people as a minority group. The Government concedes that they are not a nation. The hon. the Prime Minister said so himself the other day. The Government also concedes that they will not become a nation. In spite of that, however, they insist on treating them as a separate political entity. This means that they are being made by law to be a minority group and are not permitted to be part of a political majority group or of any other group in accordance with the principles of free association. The fact that this status is forced upon the Coloured people is already the first infringement of the concept of self-determination, in which the NP professes to believe.

The second infringement of the concept of self-determination in the Government’s thinking on the Coloured people is that they, the Government, and not the Coloured people themselves, will decide upon which are the areas of common concern where joint deliberation takes place, and which are the divisible areas, of interest only to the group and over which the particular group itself will have control.

The third fundamental clash between the Government’s policy and the concept of self-determination is that, in the area of common concern, where decisions have to be taken on behalf of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, the Government provides for a statutory majority right for itself, and thus in fact creates a situation in which it maintains White domination, White political domination. Whether we admit it in so many words or not, that is very clearly the position. I fear that in this way we are not making any progress towards a solution of the constitutional dilemma of the Coloured people in this country.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of his speech the hon. member for Green Point referred to the hon. the Minister as a colonial governor of the Coloureds. I believe that every country and every nation having such a governor would be very happy—someone who has so much concern, so much piety, so much fairness and justness as the hon. the Minister shows the Coloureds.

Now please take your tongue out of your cheek.

I am convinced that if South Africa had had governors with the same attitude as that of the hon. the Minister, our history would have been different.

The hon. member for Green Point also said that the Coloureds today are South Africans in a dead-end street. Surely the hon. member knows that is not true. In South Africa—our fatherland and their fatherland—there are, after all, many opportunities for the Coloureds. Allow me to point out only one of them. Does the hon. member not realize that the Coloured nation is not able to provide a sufficient number of teachers to meet its own requirements? The door is therefore wide open. Surely that is not a dead-end street.

In this way I could continue to point out examples in all fields. In every field we will find that more opportunities exist for Coloureds today than ever before in the history of South Africa. The hon. member for Green Point also emphasized that tremendous alienation has set in. I deny this. As far as I am concerned, there are good relations between Whites and Coloureds in this country. I do not claim that the relations are 100%. It is for that very reason that we launched a relations effort in this country six years ago. As the hon. the Minister has already pointed out, there are 150 relations committees in this country and almost 3 000 people serve on these relations committees. The cream of the White and Coloured communities serves on these relations committees. Today, therefore, I wish to convey my thanks and appreciation to these committees, in particular for the great task they are performing in South Africa.

Since October last year, when we assumed these posts, the hon. the Minister and I have visited numerous relations committees throughout South Africa and have attended many conferences of relations committees. I therefore want to say that we have an hon. Minister who does everything in his power to speak to Coloureds, whose door is always open, who visits relations committees and attends relations conferences. We have been impressed by the scope of the work performed by these committees and the extreme importance of the task they are performing.

This afternoon I wish to level the accusation at the official Opposition that I have never heard them mention these relations committees. I have never seen one of them at a relations committee meeting or a conference relations committees. If they really have such an interest in good relations, I want to ask the Opposition why they do not attend these conferences and why they take no interest in the work being done by these committees.

It has become clear to me that the system of relations committees is here to stay, not because we are faced with deteriorating relations but because as a result of this system greater understanding has developed in South Africa, not only for each others’ communities, but understanding in both these groups, Whites and Coloureds in our country, for the problems of our country.

Today I should like to mention with appreciation Coloured leaders who are also concerned about the problems of South Africa, who are just as eager as we are to find solutions to these problems.

Relations committees have given their members the opportunity to identify problems and shortcomings in society. They also afford an opportunity of making more information available. The department has therefore come to the conclusion that relations committees have a greater role to play in the future. The department is also giving real attention to the system of relations committees. I therefore wish to make an appeal to all relations committees in South Africa to remain active, to dedicate themselves anew to the great task they are performing, in the knowledge that they are playing an important role in South Africa.

I have already said that we have not had much support from the Opposition in this connection. Unfortunately there are also many other people who want to boycott and wreck relations committees. We have too many of these people and this afternoon I want to talk specifically about these derogatory and negative attitudes.

I want to make a very earnest appeal this afternoon to all Coloureds in South Africa, and I want to make a very earnest appeal to everyone in the Coloured community—I am truly doing this in earnest and from my heart—that there be greater levelheadedness in that community. That community is not only harming itself. They are also placing themselves in a position where they can have no prospects of a good and happy future in this country. What is the South African set-up? This has been asked frequently in this House. Let us repeat it in this House this afternoon.

It must be recognized that the South African population consists of various population groups. The hon. member for South Coast asked: Who are the Coloureds? I want to tell the hon. member that since we became a Union—we could take it from the birth of South Africa, but let us take it from the time of Union—all the political parties made provision in their policies for the various population groups in this country. They made provision for Whites and for Coloureds. The hon. member for Turffontein recently said what the policy of the United Party was. I remember in 1972 in the by-election in Oudtshoorn that it was the policy of the United Party that if they came to power there would be six representatives for the Coloureds. They could be Coloureds chosen by the Coloureds themselves. Every political party has therefore always recognized that this separate group exists in this country—the Brown people or the Coloureds. We must accept this. The official Opposition wants to shy away from this but we must accept it. [Interjections.] We have different population groups in this country.

Let me say this afternoon that no one can change this. The NP cannot change it, the PFP cannot change it and the NRP cannot change it. No one in South Africa can change this state of affairs. But surely it is not a disgrace that this is so. It is not a disgrace that we have Whites and Coloureds and Blacks and different peoples in this country. It is surely not a disadvantage to belong to a different group to the group I belong to. However, I wish to issue a warning that the disadvantage or the danger will lie in the fact that if this composition of the population in South Africa is handled incorrectly, we shall all suffer the consequences. For this reason a policy is followed in South Africa in which minority groups are protected; what is more, it is a policy in which every group has self-determination; and in addition it is a policy in which every group is put in the position to be able to develop to the full. These three things form the crux of the policy of the NP. Surely this is the crux of our policy, in which every population group and therefore also the Coloureds, can share in this country. As regards protection, every minority group in this country—and that includes the Coloureds, is protected. They must be protected and they are being protected. As regards self-determination, every group must have the opportunity to decide about its own affairs. I have said in this House that the Coloureds have their own institutions. I have referred on occasion to religious institutions. This afternoon I want to refer to the NG Mission Church. This is an institution of which the Coloureds are proud, and now one of these young Coloured ministers, Dr.

Alan Boesak, comes along and he does not know where the NG Mission Church originated. He has not made any contribution to that church. He has made less of a contribution to that church than I have. He has done less work for that church than I have. Now he gets up onto a stage …

Order! I am sorry but the hon. the Deputy Minister’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon. the Deputy Minister the opportunity to finish his speech.

Sir, I thank the hon. Whip.

The third point is development. Every group must have the opportunity to develop fully.

Unfortunately, there are people in South Africa who do not wish to recognize these important ingredients for an orderly dispensation in our country. Therefore no account is taken of reality. The implementation of this policy offers opportunities to people—I want to be honest about this—to sow confusion, because they emphasize the negative things that may exist in the policy. I acknowledge that there are certainly negative aspects in our policy. Now these people come along and they emphasize those things and they reject the results already achieved. They also reject the eventual future we can achieve by means of this policy.

For example, separate residential areas can be considered a cruel measure, whereas in fact this measure has been responsible for clearing up poor residential areas and establishing beautiful, new and modern residential areas. This legislation has offered the opportunity for home ownership and is still doing so to a greater extent today.

The policy of separate education systems for the various population groups can be belittled. Derogatory things can be said about it and it can be made to look suspect, but the results being achieved are being wilfully suppressed. If we look at Coloured education, we see that in 1964 the number of pupils enrolled was 356 000, whereas in 1980 it was 720 000. In 1964 11 000 teachers were employed, but in 1980 there were 26 000 teachers involved in Coloured teaching. Education is now compulsory. We find that in 1980, everyone between the ages of 7 and 16 years is compelled to attend school.

Let us consider transport schemes. In 1976, R578 000 was spent on this, but in 1980 the figure was R2,4 million. Let us consider lodging allowances. In 1976 R978 000 was spent on this, whereas in 1980 expenditure totalled R2,3 million. I can continue in this way. Let us consider the number of candidates for the senior certificate. In 1964 there were 1 300, but in 1980 there were 8 389. Is that not progress? Is this population group, then, in a dead-end street? Continuous attention is being given to education. For example I have in mind the salaries of teachers. This year, with the announcement of the increase in salaries for teachers, we achieved parity.

I contend this afternoon that bigger and better results can be achieved if there is positive co-operation. However, I wish to emphasize and issue a serious warning that schools may not be used to achieve political goals … [Interjections.] … because if this happens in Coloured education, the Coloured child will suffer. They will be the only ones to suffer in this country.

The system of local management committees can succeed if both sides—and by this I mean management committees and in particular municipalities—act with more purpose. Self-determination with regard to local matters must be used positively and it can be developed positively. There are some people who see salvation in a single municipality. I personally am of the opinion that if one prefers representation by one or two members to that of a self-governing committee, one is abandoning self-determination concerning a matter which affects the daily weal and woe of one’s people.

What I therefore wish to emphasize this afternoon is that we must make an honest diagnosis of this policy which has been the policy in South Africa for the past 30 years. This is also the policy the voters have recently said must be implemented in this country. We must diagnose it and emphasize the positive side more than the negative side.

I wish to refer to the economic sphere. There we find well-established Coloureds. The aid and the assistance of the development and finance corporation has played a major role in this connection. Here we also find the protective element of the policy; this is clearly evident, because no one but a Coloured may have a business undertaking in a Coloured residential area.

The hon. member for South Coast referred to the immigrant who comes to South Africa and may open a business undertaking without a permit. However, that immigrant may not open a business undertaking in Mitchell’s Plain, and even I may not open a business undertaking there.

[Inaudible.]

Can the hon. member open a business undertaking in Mitchells Plain? [Interjections.]

The hon. Opposition should hold discussions with moderate Coloured leaders. I wish to address the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—I have respect for him—and ask him if he cannot persuade the members of his party to speak to moderate Coloured leaders. Can he not persuade them to speak to businessmen from the ranks of the Coloureds who have made use of the Development and Finance Corporation? These are people who have risen to the top and are proud. They want protection and are in fact asking us for more protection. We are therefore not blind to what is negative in our policy. Nor are we blind to those aspects which are hurtful; as a matter of fact, we are eliminating these things in an attempt to have a just policy.

Unfortunately my time has expired, but I want to issue a warning against harping on certain subjects, because it is this sort of behaviour which gives rise to unrest and tension in communities and population groups in our country. In this connection I want to refer to the attitude of some Coloured leaders not to want to negotiate or participate if the Black nations are not involved. This afternoon I want to say to the Coloured population group that they must again take notice of the structures already created for Black peoples and the progress and development those nations have achieved. Three of our Black nations are already independent, a fourth is on the eve of independence and the remainder have their own legislative assemblies. In other words, there is not a single Black nation in South Africa which does not accept the concept of self-determination. Add to this the community councils for Blacks living outside the various Black States, and then it must be clear to everyone that the Black nations have progressed a long way along the political path.

Now the official Opposition must please help me. I do not know of a single Black nation or a single Black leader that refuses to negotiate with the Government if the Coloureds or their leaders are not also involved. The official Opposition must inform me if they know of such a leader. Chief Buthelezi negotiates with the Government, but has he ever asked: “Where is the Rev. Hendrickse?” However, the official Opposition wants absolutely nothing to do with the President’s Council. Other Black leaders and Governments speak to and negotiate with the Government, but have they ever asked where the Coloureds are? Have they ever asked what we are doing for the Coloureds? [Interjections.] No, that is not so. The official Opposition wants the Coloureds to stagnate, because the Black people must also be involved.

Accordingly I want to issue a serious warning to the Coloured population in South Africa this afternoon that they are lagging behind and they will find it difficult to catch up because they are looking back over their shoulders at others. The President’s Council was established for this purpose and I believe it is a unique opportunity for Whites and Coloureds to hold discussions about the problems of our common fatherland.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened attentively to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s view of the world as seen by the Coloured people. However, if there had been a Coloured representative in this House, I wonder whether he would have painted the same rosy picture of the circumstances in which the Coloured people find themselves today. From the reports of the Theron Commission and the Cillié Commission, and even from the remarks of the former Coloured Representative Council, everything does not seem to be as rosy as the hon. member believes. The hon. the Deputy Minister began by referring to the relations committees. I do not intend to criticize the relations committees, because I think they are a step in the right direction. I think it is better to talk to one another than not to talk to one another, but they are making only a small contribution towards repairing the damage done by the Verwoerdian apartheid which was applied to the Coloured people and the Whites in South Africa and towards gradually bringing people together again. Talking together is a good thing, but not as good as working together. Playing sport together does much more than talking to one another on relations committees. Working together in the church, in the labour field, in the business world, in welfare organizations, and even on the political level, is much more important than just talking to one another and creating a positive attitude. I am not criticizing those bodies, but talking to one another should actually be converted into working together in a united organization.

I should now like to come to the constitutional aspect which the hon. the Minister touched on. It surprises me that the hon. the Minister did not repudiate the hon. member for Mossel Bay. He should actually have repudiated him, because that hon. member…

You should have listened.

… said we could not give the Coloured people a veto in connection with the work which is being done on a new constitutional dispensation, for if we have to obtain their consent, we are giving them an opportunity to wreck the dispensation before it gets off the ground. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is in fact the case. Is the Government committed to obtaining the consent of the Coloured people as well for a new dispensation in South Africa? It is true that there are minorities, but are we not also obliged to obtain the consent of a group such as the Coloured people? The hon. member for Turffontein said that the right of the White people to self-determination should not be denied. Of course that is important, but what about the right of the Coloured people to self-determination? Are they not equally entitled to self-determination?

Of course. How many more times must we say it?

Then I ask the hon. the Minister this question: Has the Government committed itself to obtaining the consent of the Coloured people for a new political dispensation in South Africa, or is the Government simply going to push it through on the basis of White authority?

You have to obtain his cooperation.

If the Government has in fact committed itself to obtaining the consent of the Coloured people for a new dispensation in South Africa, why not have a referendum for the Coloured people, since the hon. the Prime Minister does hold out the prospect of a referendum for the Whites? [Interjections.] If we want to create a new constitution for South Africa, surely it must be based on the approval of all the groups in society, and if there is a prospect of a referendum for the Whites, it must be possible to extend the same principle to the Coloured people, the Indians and other race groups.

Very sensible.

I therefore ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to tell us whether the Government intends to hold a referendum for the Coloured people as well, as it intends doing for the Whites. Will this be done to obtain the approval of the Coloured people and the Indians?

I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree to that.

I wonder whether he will reply to that.

I shall discuss it.

The hon. the Minister spoke about the conflict of interests and aspirations.

†He spoke of differences of culture and of values and of differences in the stages of development. He said we have to take these factors into account. I do not want to argue that there are not any differences in South Africa.

Yes, differences in your own party.

I want to go back to the very important statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House on 25 August. He said two important things. He said, firstly (Hansard, 23 April 1981, col. I860)—

*However, there is no large group in South Africa which is homogeneous. The Afrikaners are not homogeneous …

Why then are you quarreling with him?

… and the English-speaking people are not homogeneous. Nor are the Indians and the Coloured people homogeneous. This is nothing new.

†He went on to say (Hansard, 25 August 1981, col. I860)—

He went on to say that they speak our language, share our religion and share our civilized values. I am leaving out the Blacks because, in terms of this debate I am compelled to do so, but why, in this debate, does the hon. the Minister put forward the fact that the cardinal issues are differences of culture, values and stage of development, when the hon. the Prime Minister said that the Coloureds … [Interjections.] They live in the Cape as Western groups with Afrikaans and English as their language mediums. He says the only characteristic which the Coloureds have in common is similar physical characteristics. That is all. I consider that as an absolutely vital statement for the hon. the Prime Minister to have made. What did he in fact say? *He said that as far as the group identity of the Coloured people was concerned, this had nothing to do with culture, language or religion. That is what the hon. the Prime Minister said.

†The hon. the Prime Minister says that the Coloureds have only physical characteristics in common. Forget all the other arguments; they are only “oëverblindery”. In terms of NP policy as far as the Coloureds are concerned, they have different physical characteristics. I realize the importance of that. It has nothing to do with the Coloured nation. It has to do with racism and with colour prejudice.

*The hon. the Prime Minister said that the Coloured people had only their physical characteristics in common. He explained that the other aspects mentioned by the hon. the Minister were the same as in the case of the Whites. If all the other things are the same, then the NP’s attitude towards the Coloured people is a purely racist attitude based on colour prejudice. That is what we have to infer from the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement.

†The second statement, which is just as important, is that he says of the Coloureds—

I do not want to object to that phrase, because I happen to agree with the hon. the Prime Minister. However, correct as that statement may be, it is a fundamental departure from the basic philosophy of the NP as spelt out by Dr. Verwoerd and Mr. John Vorster. We must not hide this. I happen to think that it is important. When the hon. the Prime Minister was still the Minister of Defence, he rushed to the side of the then Prime Minister, Mr. B. J. Vorster, when he said (Hansard, 23 April 1971 col. 5110)—

He went on to say that we have—

—the White and the Coloured nations—

The Federale Raad of the NP met a few days later and issued a statement endorsing these statements of the then Prime Minister. A few weeks later Prime Minister B. J. Vorster went to the ASB congress and said—

He also said that the two groups must share the same country. I think it is very important to realize that the Government has moved away from the concept of a Coloured nation.

*If the Coloured people are not a nation, then I ask the hon. the Minister: to what nation do the Coloured people belong?

Mr. Chairman, does the hon. member regard the Coloured people as a separate nation?

Order! The hon. member does not wish to answer a question.

If the Coloured people are not a separate nation, and if they have to share the same area of South Africa, I ask the hon. the Minister: Do the Coloured people form part of the same nation as the Whites in South Africa?

Constitutionally, yes.

They form part of the same nation. Are the members of the Coloured population of that South African nation and the members of the White population going to get the same political rights? Will they be regarded as equals?

I shall reply to you.

Are they going to be regarded as equals as far as their political rights are concerned? I want to ask a further question: In this nation, this country, this geo-political entity which is South Africa, where, in the words of the hon. the Minister, the Coloured people form part of the same nation as the Whites in South Africa, is the hon. the Minister prepared to divide the sovereignty of that country between Coloured people and Whites? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sea Point kicked up a fuss about a few matters here and created the impression that the NP does not really know what it intends doing in respect of the constitutional set-up as far as the relations situation in South Africa between Whites and Coloureds is concerned. Let me make one thing clear from the outset. The hon. member quoted from the translated Hansard and spoke of “Coloureds not being a nation or a nation in the making”.

“Being a nation in the making.”

When the hon. the Prime Minister said that in this House, he spoke Afrikaans and he said he did not consider the Coloureds to be a “volk of ’n volk-in-wording”. Those are the words he used. Unfortunately it is difficult to find an English word which has exactly the same meaning as the Afrikaans word “volk”. This is a bit of a dilemma and I can understand that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot understand the finer nuance of the concept.

The former leader.

I beg your pardon; I made a mistake. I am referring to the hon. member for Sea Point, the ex-leader. I can understand that he cannot understand the finer nuance of the difference between the two concepts.

Allow me however to refer to a non-emotional matter, namely the Jewish people. This has nothing to do with South Africa as such. This is a staunch concept of unity associated with the Jewish people. There is, however, such a thing as an Israeli nation. The Israeli nation includes the Arabs living in Israel, but the Arabs living in Israel and who are members of the Israeli nation do not form part of the Jewish people. In the same way here in South Africa we can draw a distinction between the concepts “volk” and “nasie”. There is a difference between the concepts “Afrikanervolk” and “Suid-Afrikaanse nasie”. It is the difference between these concepts that is involved here.

The hon. the Prime Minister said he does not consider the Coloureds to be a “volk of ’n volk-in-wording”. As far as I am concerned a very simple explanation of this concept is that there must be a will to be a “volk” before there can be one. There must be the will to be part of a “volk”. The Afrikaner has shown his will to be part of a “volk”. The Afrikaner community, too, was not originally a homogeneous community. It consists of descendants of Dutch, French, German and English stock, but it has developed thanks to the will which existed to be a “volk”. Therein lies the difference.

If the Coloured communities do not display the will to belong to a single “volk” with its own identity, then surely the simple fact of the matter is that they are not a “volk” or necessarily a “volk-in-wording”. This is what the hon. the Prime Minister said and meant when he said that he did not consider them to be a “volk of ’n volk- in-wording”.

Let us not argue about this concept now. It is an academic concept. Let me rather discuss the Opposition’s attitude, as revealed in the debate, to the Coloureds in the political structure, in the social structure and in the overall structure in Southern Africa. I wish to state categorically that the official Opposition is misusing the Coloureds to try to bring about political confrontation in South Africa. They are not there to promote the Coloured people’s basic interests or to uplift them.

You are ridiculous.

It is not ridiculous at all. Let me give an example. On a former occasion the hon. member for Constantia objected to housing which was to have been provided for Coloureds in the Constantia area. When he was confronted with this he said he had no objections as long as it occurred under normal residential conditions. What the hon. member for Constantia was actually revealing was a kind of liberal snobbishness.

Racism. [Interjections.]

It is a liberal snobbishness which is nothing but racism. [Interjections.] What their standpoint boils down to is that they will be prepared to accept a few selected, rich, affluent and academically qualified Coloureds in Constantia, in an area which fits in with the community living there. However, as soon as another social sector enters Constantia, they object to it. This is typical of the entire attitude which has prevailed in South Africa since the previous century. I want to give the hon. members an example of this.

When I was elected member of this House in 1966, and arrived here for the first time, I could not immediately find a place to stay in Acacia Park, and at first I had to rent a flat. In reply to an advertisement I happened to telephone someone who had a flat available in Kenilworth. We arranged to meet. The man was English-speaking, and I spoke to him in English. When I speak English it is not with an obvious Afrikaans accent. We spoke together in a friendly manner. At that stage I was still living in Pinetown and I told the man this. Everything was hunkydory—to use the English word. Suddenly the man asked me: “You are United Party, are you not?” I then said: “No, I am National Party”, whereupon the man said: “Good gracious me, that changes the situation. Then you should stay in the northern suburbs, and not in the southern suburbs.”

This is the typical kind of snobbishness that … [Interjections.] What this actually boiled down to was that I was completely acceptable to the man until he established that I was a member of the NP and not a member of the then official Opposition party, the United Party. [Interjections.]

You must have told him you were a member of the Broederbond. [Interjections.]

More than any other group in this country, the PFP today typifies this snobbistic attitude. [Interjections.] They have absolutely no interest in the uplifting of and the real welfare of the Coloureds. However, they will misuse the Coloureds in order to cause political confrontation. It is this characteristic of theirs which is absolutely objectionable. It is their typical racism, which they cover with the cloak of social snobbishness. [Interjections.] For this reason it is very clear that … [Interjections.] By the way, I can just mention that when one of the members of the PFP went to live in Acacia Park I believe he was offered a large sum of money to move out of Acacia Park and stay in a private residence. This is typical of the sort of snobbishness we find in the PFP.

Who was that man?

No, I shall not mention his name. He is not at present here in this House. [Interjections.] The NP has always been candid in its honest and benevolent attitude towards all the population groups of South Africa. The NP has always proved that it has a real interest in the honest upliftment of the people of Southern Africa. It is honest in these intentions.

What do you say to that, Helen?

[Inaudible.]

If the NP takes cognizance of group interests, it does not do so because of a dishonest feeling of snobbishness, but because of a feeling for the maintenance of the normal political relations situation in South Africa. As a matter of fact, the NP believes that normal political relations must take place on the basis that the right to self-determination of all population groups must be of primary importance, that the Coloureds have a right to political self-determination, but that the Whites also have a right to political self-determination. It is easy for the PFP, which is not in a position to implement its policy, to talk, and to voice negative criticism, but we reject the negative, snobbistic attitude of the PFP.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I should like to state—lest I should be accused of being snobbish—that some of my best friends are Nationalist Afrikaners. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The trouble is that that is just the sort of remark that hon. member would make. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I find that the convoluted thinking of the hon. member for Klip River with regard to when a nation is a nation and when not is beyond my comprehension. [Interjections.] Well, the hon. member should therefore not expect me to react to what he said. [Interjections.] I do find it very difficult to understand some of the attitudes of hon. members on the other side. In many ways they have done a terrific amount for the Coloured people. There is no question about that. But where the difficulty lies is that they are doing things for the Coloured people and not with them. This is one of the problems, and I therefore believe that it is important to get with them and discuss what they are doing and to get their general consensus where necessary. It would perhaps be a little more acceptable.

The hon. member for Constantia was in some little trouble with his “snobisme”, and so forth, but unfortunately he has a little problem with me too. In his speech earlier on he made the point that the management committee system had failed. Those were the words he used. He added that in any case it never was any good. I should like to make something of this because I think he is quite wrong. From the lofty elevation of considerable theory and little practical experience it is very easy to make such a statement. The hon. member nor his party have ever been in a governmental position. However, in Natal we, the NRP, happen to have some practical experience of running a Government albeit a provincial Government. So I will say quite clearly that whilst the management committee system may be reaching towards the end of its period of usefulness, it cannot be said that it was never any good or that it failed in its purpose.

I should like to make this particular point loud and clear, because what is being advocated, if one accepts that the management committee system was never any good, is to do what the metropolitan powers did in the rest of Africa, namely to walk out and to throw everybody in at the deep end and say: Govern yourself! That of course is quite preposterous. Everyone of us here agrees that the metropolitan powers in Europe did Africa a grave disservice when they did that. The management committee system in fact served an exceptionally good purpose in that it trained a very large cadre of people of the Coloured and Indian community in the intricacies of local government. There is no question about that. He quotes as his example of the utter failure, what happened in the development of the township of Pacaltsdorp in the Cape. From what I know of it, it has not been a very great success. However in Natal, on the other hand, we have had several of the local affairs committees that have built themselves up to become fully-fledged local authorities. Furthermore, we have experimented, within the framework of the law—because we are very law-abiding people in Natal—with various other types of local government systems. One of the experiments, an experiment that I am sure would gladden the heart of the hon. member for Constantia, was to legally create a fully-fledged multi-racial local authority. We managed to do it, and it was the local option of the people concerned that it was done. Just for the record, there were 30 000 people in the town concerned and originally there were more Whites than Indians on the Town Board. Later, at the request of the Whites and because the Indian population were in the majority, additional Indians were put on the committee. And what happened? They chose to elect a White as their chairman of their board. What we did, was within the framework of the law. We did it because they asked us to appoint people whom they unofficially had elected. It is a rather extraordinary thing to do, but the point is that if they had not had the experience through the management committees, which, incidentally, we call local affairs committees in Natal, they would not have been able to do that. A number of other experiments have been carried out, and there is no doubt about it that the local affairs or management committee system has been of inestimable value.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I must make this point loud and clear: There are certain areas that can never be autonomous. They can never be viable propositions. Incidentally, in my opinion this word “viable” is a word that is too frequently used. It can mean anything to anybody. To the more affluent society it means full services and facilities together with all the luxuries of theatres, massive public buildings and so forth whereas to the less affluent it simply means having reasonable water, sewerage and other services and being able to pay for them. Therefore “viability” is a word that can be stretched to cover almost anything. However, many of these local affairs committees in areas where there has been a willingness to co-operate on the part of the parent local authority, have worked well. Many of them are in fact to all practical intents and purposes, but only by grace and favour, councils. However, I believe that this system has outlived its usefulness and that it should not be a question of grace and favour. It should be a question of right. I know that the system is being discussed by the President’s Council and I most sincerely hope that in its first report the President’s Council will make some moves in this particular direction.

As far as the Coloured and Indian communities are concerned we in this party are firmly of the opinion that where there is a situation where people have to pay by way of rates, they must have a say by means of a vote. This is why it is so important that the people concerned are not treated as children or “bywoners” and left out on a limb to work their way up and not have a real say in what is going on. I do not mean an advisory say only. They must have a deliberative say. This is where I believe we come unstuck on the question of the Coloured and Indian people in local government.

Mr. Chairman, for many years now we have been hearing the expression “one man, one vote”. After the protest by the official Opposition today we saw before us one man and a lot of empty benches!

I do not want to talk about the Coloureds this afternoon. I would rather talk to them. I entertain great expectations of the President’s Council and for this reason I should not like to anticipate matters. However, there is one thing I must rectify. Yesterday the hon. member for Green Point was given a good hiding as you would a naughty child and if he continues as he has been doing today, he will get another hiding. He spoke about the “cynical legislation” of the Government which established the Coloured Persons Council. I just want to tell the hon. member he should really do his homework better. His friend left his briefcase here but it seems to me he left his briefcase at home. That Coloured Persons Council was established by a Select Committee of this Parliament and all the parties in existence at the time, were represented on that Select Committee. The legislation which hon. member calls “cynical legislation” was drafted on the unanimous recommendation of a Select Committee of this Parliament. The Coloured Persons Council was unanimously established. I also want to tell that hon. member that when that legislation was discussed in this House it was not put to the vote. It was passed unanimously, except for one provision. The Opposition opposed the removal of the Coloured representatives from Parliament and they voted against that specific clause.

Mr. Chairman, may I, in order to eliminate possible confusion ask the hon. member if he is referring to the Coloured Persons Representative Council or the nominated Coloured Persons Council? Legislation pertaining to the latter was passed last year.

I am referring to the Coloured Persons Representative Council, but the hon. member said the Coloured Persons Council.

I was referring to the other one.

Even in this connection the hon. member is wrong, for this council was born out of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, because the previous legislation provided for 20 members to be appointed and 20 elected. The one council was born out of the other. I advise the hon. member to do his homework better if he wants to make statements of this kind.

So much is being said about reform and change and I should like to say a few words about the voters’ lists and the development of the franchise for the Whites. I do not want to criticize the hon. the Minister or the department, but I thought that with the arrival of population registration and computers, we would eventually have a better voters’ roll than the one we still have. I have been involved in elections for many years; since 1934 I have taken part in every general election in South Africa and I have seen better voters’ rolls than the one we have at present.

I do not know if we should start elsewhere. Should we not start with the voter again? Are we not over-organizing the entire matter without actually getting back to the voter? We have publicity and propaganda during a general registration, but after that everything ends right there. I should like to suggest that a bulletin be issued to the news media every month. Look, we have television and radio services. The bulletin must deal with registration, because registration is a continuous process.

It seems to me that our people do not attach as much value to their right to vote as they used to. There was a time in our history when people walked for miles to vote, but they also walked for miles to have their names entered on the voters’ roll. At the time there were no people or a department to help them to register; everyone had to see to it himself that his name was placed on the voters’ roll.

Up to 1929 the Westminster system was fully applicable to us and everyone in South Africa, Whites and non-Whites, was subject to a qualified franchise. One had to own property valued at £50—R100 in today’s money—or lease property valued at £50 or earn £50 a year. In those days the farms were large, but of course their valuation in those days was not high. A father and four sons would be living on a very large farm and the sons would all be over 21 years of age, but the value of the farm was such that only the farmer and one or two of the sons could vote; the others were not entitled to vote. In any case movable property was not taken into account. The people who were entitled to register made certain that their names appeared on the voters’ roll; they set great store by it. It was only in 1929 that all White men over the age of 21 years became entitled to vote.

The qualification for Whites was removed, but for the Coloureds it was still a requirement until the ’fifties and then it was abolished. In the case of the Black man the qualification was a requirement until 1936. Although I was still very young at the time, I can remember that 1929 election very well, because then all my older brothers were able to vote, which had not been the case before, and in that election there was a very high percentage poll. In 1930 women got the vote…

That was a mistake! [Interjections.]

Legislation introducing a general franchise for Whites was passed in 1931. The hon. the Minister said it was a mistake to give women the vote, but I want to point out that women caused a complete change in the politics of South Africa. In respect of working methods in South Africa women have also caused a complete change because they pull their weight in party organizations and today they are still the best workers.

Hear, hear!

People speak so easily about reform, but the concessions in regard to the franchise were not obtained overnight. At the time it called for a tremendous struggle to obtain that franchise. As a matter of fact, we only got the franchise after the Pact Government under Gen. Hertzog had gained power. Before that time we were discredited and our names could not appear on the voters’ roll. As a matter of fact, we were humiliated, but since then we have risen to our feet.

However, I believe we must bring the privilege of being able to vote to the attention of our people more intensively. I cannot believe that the young people of today are less interested in these matters than the young people of yesteryear. In those days registration officers did not look for possible voters. One sometimes had to walk 60 miles to the nearest magistrate’s office to be registered. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I will not react to what the hon. member Mr. Van Staden had to say about the voter’s roll, but I want to refer to two other points he raised. In the first place he obviously misunderstood the hon. member for Green Point’s reference to the Coloured Persons Representative Council. The hon. member for Green Point referred to the Council established last year by legislation. [Interjections.] Then I also want to point out to the hon. member Mr. Van Staden that when women were enfranchised in 1930, that was also the first time since 1910 that Coloureds and Blacks were discriminated against politically, because Coloured and Black women were enfranchised in 1930 along with White women. At that time, however, it was not alleged that the Coloureds were a separate nation and that such a step was therefore justified; it was a purely racist step. [Interjections.]

What was your standpoint …?

I shall return to the hon. member for Klip River and the question of the concept of “volk” later, because this has a bearing on what I want to say.

I should like to dwell for a few moments on what the hon. member for Mossel Bay said about the question of the level of acceptability. He said, inter alia, that if we require concurrence, it means a right of veto. If one rejects the concept that the concurrence of the Coloureds and Asiatics is essential, you are obviously accepting that the Whites are then arrogating to themselves the right to impose their will on the Coloureds and Asiatics, in spite of any objections they may have. In other words, we then have a purely political wielding of power by the Whites, provided of course that we accepted the statement that their concurrence is not essential. In the final instance, then, the Whites have the sole right to decide what the political future of this country will be. With all due modesty I also want to say that the hon. member for Mossel Bay defined the problem incorrectly. The issue is not the concept of concurrence or the obtaining of approval. What is essential in South Africa is that in the drawing up of a constitution there should not only be deliberation by all the groups, but also joint decision-making. If there is no joint decision-making on a new constitution, that constitution cannot work in South Africa.

What about a referendum?

A referendum may mean “concurrence” and “consent”, but it does not necessarily mean joint deliberation in the drawing up of the constitution. I should also like to react to what the hon. member for Bloemfontein North said. I reject his initial accusation in connection with the reactionary politics supposedly practiced by the PFP. I do not know on what basis the hon. member said that the national convention had become a bone of contention in the ranks of the PFP. It is very clear that the hon. member has no idea of what goes on in the ranks of the PFP. The hon. member for Bloemfontein North said the PFP was refusing to help the Government in its attempts at reform, and he also said the Government was on a dynamic course towards a new dispensation. I waited in vain to learn from the hon. member or any other hon. member of that side what these attempts at reform were. I am still waiting to find out what these dynamic steps on the way to constitutional progress by the Government are. I am not referring to the appointment of the President’s Council, but what is this dynamic process of constitutional adjustment I have heard about?

The hon. member for Bloemfontein North laid down four requirements, viz. the preservation of Western civilization, the maintenance of the standard of living and values of the Whites and in the constitutional sphere the assurance that South Africa would remain a sovereign independent State. Those three prerequisites are quite understandable, and I do not know of anyone who would object to them. What I do, however, have reservations about is his fourth requirement, viz. that at the end of the process the Whites must retain their right to self-determination over their own world and future. I ask again: What is meant by this? I shall return to this when I deal with the speech made by the hon. member for Klip River.

I should also like to reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Turffontein. The statement he made that the PFP’s national convention meant that the PFP did not consider this Parliament capable of bringing about constitutional change is nonsense, because all proposals accepted by the national convention must be moulded into legislative shape by this Parliament. After all, the national convention has no legislative power. [Interjections.] Then that hon. member must also say that the establishment of the President’s Council is an admission on the part of the Government that this Parliament is not capable of bringing about constitutional change. [Interjections.] To say that South Africa, as a result of the calling of a national convention, must surrender its sovereignty is incomprehensible to me. [Interjections.] It seems to me there is a lack of understanding of the essential nature of a national convention.

In connection with our entire system there are three principle points of departure I wish to set out. The political conflict situation in South Africa can only be resolved if a satisfactory arrangement is found for the Black people in South Africa to realize their political potential. My second point is that the creation of independent Black States cannot with the best will in the world offer a solution to the problems involved in allowing the Blacks to realize their political potential. At best it can only do this in part. My third point is that a large section of the Coloured and Asian population is not going to be satisfied with a political arrangement which excludes the Blacks. These are the three principle points of departure.

This brings me again to the question of “volk”, because the basic problem in South Africa lies in the fact that a political meaning is attached to the concept of “volk wees” in terms of the granting of or denying of political rights and participation in the political process. This is the crux of the problem.

Is this happening only in South Africa?

No, that is beside the point. I am referring to South Africa now.

I am referring to Western countries.

In this connection I am not going to get involved in a semantic discussion on the difference between a “volk” and a “nasie”. If one defines “volk” as being a historic cultural entity, in that sense there is a difference between “volk” and “nasie”. Our first question then is: How should we define “volk”? If we define “volk” as a cultural historic entity, I have no problems with it. The second question is: What do we understand by the right to self-determination? It is of no avail bandying this word about across the floor of this House if we do not define what we mean by the right to self-determination. The third question is in the form of a problem I want to put to the hon. the Minister: It is impossible, when there are various “volke”—if I may use this term—living within the same geographic State, for each one of those “volke” to receive full right to self-determination over its own destiny. It is unthinkable. It is impossible.

But surely I said that.

Very well, then we must not talk of self-determination. If we accept the statement that if there are various “volke” living permanently in the same geographic area the concept of the right to self-determination is irrelevant, as the hon. the Minister has conceded it is, then I have the right to ask that that concept be defined.

Just go and read up what you said in the past.

The hon. the Prime Minister should also go and read up what he had to say in the past. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to what the hon. member Prof. Olivier has just said and also to what the hon. member for Sea Point said earlier. However, I just want to refer in passing to what the hon. member for South Coast said earlier.

†The hon. member for South Coast, whom unfortunately I do not see in the House at the moment, posed some questions, and asked how one could equate certain things with certain other things. I want to tell him that he committed a fallacy when he equated the acceptance of the existence of separate Coloured communities as a distinguishable separate group, with discrimination.

*The hon. member simply proceeded from the assumption that if we accept that there are Coloured communities and that those communities constitute a distinguishable group, this must necessarily amount to discrimination. However, these two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Acceptance of the reality of a diversity of peoples has nothing to do with discrimination, nor does discrimination result from the acceptance of the existence of various population groups. These are two completely different concepts.

I want to come back to what the hon. member Prof. Olivier and the hon. member for Sea Point had to say with regard to the concepts of “people” and “nation”. It is quite clear that the hon. members of the official Opposition have not the faintest notion of the basic difference between “people” and “nation”, the difference which the hon. member for Klip River has already identified. The concept of “nation”, or “nationalism”, or “nationality” if you like, is obviously a constitutional one. It relates to citizenship of a specific State.

Of course.

Therefore it is a constitutional concept. It is possible that various peoples may live in one and the same State and may be citizens of that State. The concept of “people” is essentially a cultural, historical concept, and therefore it is quite wrong to equate the concept of “people” with the concept “nation”, as if they were the same thing.

They may be, but they are not always.

It is possible, of course, and it is perhaps even the rule for one specific people only to live within the boundaries of one national State. What makes the position of South Africa so unique is that there are various peoples living within the borders of the same national State. Apart from the various peoples living here, there are other population groups that are not full-fledged peoples. This is the fact which the hon. the Prime Minister, with all due respect, correctly identified when he said that the Coloureds were not a full-fledged people because they lacked those qualities which are normally associated with a distinct people. The Coloureds are in fact not a people or a “volk-in-wording” because there is no indication that the Coloureds are acquiring those qualities of a distinct people.

What are those?

If the hon. member would keep quiet, I shall tell him presently. The hon. the Prime Minister has spelt them out quite clearly and it is only people who are deaf or stupid, or too lazy to read Hansard, who still do not know. For the information of that stupid, lazy or deaf hon. member I want to spell out …

Order! The hon. member should not be so personal.

I shall leave it at that, Sir. The hon. the Prime Minister spelt it out quite clearly in this House on 25 August—

So there is a diversity of communities. If the hon. member would take the trouble to read section 5 of the Population Registration Act, he would notice that this Act identifies the following communities within the Coloured group, i.e. the Cape Coloureds, Malays, Griquas, Chinese, Indians, other Asians and other coloureds—all separate communities, but grouped together under the name “Coloureds”.

It is all very well to have witty arguments here about who and what a Coloured person actually is. If the public gallery were full of visitors, and 10 Coloured persons were sitting among all those visitors, every hon. member would be able to identify those 10 Coloured persons. [Interjections.] How would this be possible if they could not be identified as a distinguishable group?

But is it necessary to distinguish them? [Interjections.]

Hon. members of the Opposition can chuckle over this matter as much as they like, but the reality of the composition of the South African population is such that there is in fact a group of South African citizens—I emphasize “South African citizens”, because they form part of the South African nation—who distinguish themselves as the Coloured population. We all know who they are, so conducting long arguments here about who the Coloureds are is a waste of precious time. [Interjections.]

I want to suggest to hon. members of the Opposition that their time would be much better spent in trying to promote the wellbeing of those people. In this respect I want to endorse what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs said earlier in connection with the well-being of this group of people and the fact that more has been done for this group of people under the NP Government than in all the years before.

What became of their franchise? Where do they vote now? [Interjections.]

I want to tell hon. members of the official Opposition that in my constituency, in Mossel Bay, the biggest business enterprise is a Coloured enterprise. That Coloured enterprise was established with the help of the Coloured Development Corporation.

But where do they vote?

If you put that question to the managing director of that Coloured firm, he would tell you what he told one of the spiritual associates of the PFP. That was on the occasion of a congress at Mossel Bay, when this man waxed eloquent about the so-called principle of open business areas. Then that Coloured man confronted him and told him that this success story of Coloured business initiative in Mossel Bay, had been written with the aid of the Coloured Development Corporation, and that such a thing would never have been possible under any other dispensation than that of the NP Government. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mossel Bay and many other hon. members opposite keep on churning out reams and reams of verbiage, all to avoid the basic question, which is the following: “Where are the Coloured people going to vote, and are they going to be allowed to vote here?” That is all we want to hear. That is all the world wants to hear. Instead of that they keep on giving us reams and reams of words which get us nowhere. [Interjections.]

Before addressing myself to the subject about which I should like to talk, I want to react briefly to what the hon. member for Klip River, who is not here now, had to say. I also want to react to the utterings of many other hon. members who have tried to make some cheap political capital out of the Groot Constantia cottages issue. Only one of those who did this, is here now. That is the hon. member for De Kuilen. I hope he will listen to me and tell all the others what I am going to say. I do not mind being attacked for the things for which I stand, but I do not appreciate being attacked for the things for which I do not stand.

I should like to restate that for me any member of any colour group is welcome to come into Constantia on a normal basis. I believe that the labourers at Groot Constantia are welcome to live on the estate and to be decently housed, but no developer—in this case the Groot Constantia Control Board—is welcome to build a substantial cluster housing scheme of 52 units, according to Die Burger, in that historic triangle. This is a town-planning matter, and I stand by my view regardless of the colour of the occupants on either side of the fence. The present cluster housing scheme of 52 units is opposed by the divisional council on town-planning grounds, and the hon. the Minister knows that. It can also be shown that it offends against the principles of the Constantia town-planning scheme. The hon. member for Maitland must put this in his pipe and smoke it because in his maiden speech in the provincial council in 1974 he himself took up a stand to preserve the historic triangle. Later in 1976 he even sent an SOS to the Administrator fighting against another cluster housing scheme. This time, however, it was for Whites. It was also in the historic triangle. It was a scheme for 72 units. It lay just on the other side of the estate. I therefore hope hon. members are going to drop this business of trying to make a racial issue out of this town-planning matter. I dissociate myself with all those people who are trying to make racial capital out of it. The biggest culprits are certain members of the NP. They are the last people who should accuse others of racialism.

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

The hon. member can ask me a question in another debate. I do not have the time now.

I should like to address a number of points to the hon. the Minister in connection with the constitutional position of the Coloured people at the present time. I believe, and the hon. the Minister must correct me if I am wrong, that he met with an organization called Cope in May 1981. I believe the meeting was held at the request of the hon. the Minister for the purpose of meeting this organization and that he was presented with a memorandum dated 22 May, signed by the leadership of Cope, the memorandum being entitled “The need for a communication mechanism between the Government and the Coloured people.” I have an alleged true copy of that memorandum with me this afternoon and I should like to refer to certain of its highlights. I believe that some of the points raised in the memorandum have far-reaching implications. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister for certain assurances arising from these points. The opening sentence of the memorandum deals specifically with the vacuum that exists between the Government and the Coloured population. It goes on to set out, as they see it, the background for this situation. They say, and this is under point 3—

Under point 4 they make the point that—

Point 7 states—

Point 8 states—

Point 9(1) states—

and here they are talking about a consultative body. The emphasis is on appointed rather than on elected—

Point 10 states, and this is a crucial point—

That is to consider proposals coming from the President’s Council. Point 11 states—

This has some wide-ranging implications. I now wish to raise some matters with the hon. the Minister. It is said in this memorandum that he asked to meet the organization. It is a body that has no proven electoral support among the Coloured community. Claims have been made, but there is no proven electoral support. He asked to meet them to discuss a matter that affects the political future of the Coloured people. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he chose to speak to this organization. Will he tell us who else he has been speaking to among the Coloured community to ascertain their opinions and how often has he recently met the official Coloured parties on these matters? If we could receive this basic information from the hon. the Minister it would be useful for Parliament. Secondly, is it correct, as alleged here, that a wave of radicalism is sweeping through the Coloured community? If that is correct, what is the hon. the Minister going to do about it? We listened to him for 90 minutes this afternoon and he has not yet answered that question.

If you will keep your speeches shorter I shall also be more brief.

The third issue that I want to raise is a crucial question, because until now the hon. the Minister has not given us an answer. He even refused to give an answer on a question on the Question Paper by the hon. member for Green Point this afternoon. He is refusing to say what he is going to do with the Coloured Persons’ Council that was supposed to be appointed. We are awaiting an answer on that. I want to ask the hon. the Minister a straightforward question, and he must tell Parliament: Does he agree that the body to be the channel between the Government and the Coloured people at the present time should be an appointed body? If so, how does he square that point of view with what the hon. member for Klip River said the other day when he spoke on the Indian Council Bill? I quote again from his Hansard. He says—

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see that the hon. member for Klip River is back in the House because I was busy quoting him when business was suspended for supper. I was asking the hon. the Minister whether he was going to come clean with South Africa in regard to whether he believes that a nominated body can represent the Coloured people at this time. If he does, then he must square what he says and what he does with what the hon. member for Klip River had to say the other day, according to his Hansard. He said—

Before I leave the hon. member for Klip River who became so distressed because he felt that he had been discriminated against owing to the fact that he was a member of the NP, let me just remind the hon. member for Klip River that the policies of the Government to which he subscribes create that kind of situation almost every day for people of colour, and far worse. It is as well that he is on the receiving end for a change!

Also on the subject of having nominated people to stand in as a channel for communication with the Coloured people, I want to remind the hon. the Minister of a quotation that appeared in Die Burger of 30 May of last year. This was an article written by Chris Greyling, a lecturer at UWC. He said, inter alia—

My final question to the hon. the Minister is this: Does he agree that a nominated body should be asked to consider proposals to be made by the President’s Council? This is one of the most disturbing aspects of these proposals. How can a nominated body consider the proposals of another nominated body? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia was delivering his speech when the business of the House was suspended a short time ago. He was making such a fuss that he made me think of Halley’s comet—I am tempted to say, “Hulley’s” comet!—which appears about once every 100 years. It produces a tremendous streak of light and then there is nothing left, apart from that streak. The hon. member reminded me of the man who had nothing to say and so wrote in the margin of his speech: “Argument weak. Shout like hell!”

We had a very good example today of “window-dressing” when the official Opposition walked out. I could describe it in brief as “tokenism”. It is very easy to have a great deal to say about the Coloureds and about all the other population groups in this country and what ought to be done for them, but I wish they would tell us from their side what is being done through their initiatives for the various population groups in South Africa, instead of just putting a series of questions to the hon. the Minister. We on the Government side can take them everywhere in South Africa to show them what we have done.

Just tell us when they are going to get the vote.

Mr. Chairman, Halley’s comet has passed already! I do not take any more notice of him.

Tell us about their vote.

There are a few remarks I want to make about a subject touched on here this afternoon by hon. members on this side of the House, namely Coloured identity. I want to begin by making the following statements. In the first place, there are few people about whom such confusion and ignorance exists as about these 2 million people living among us. Even the wording in our present legislation is vague on the subject. The Population Registration Act of 1950 merely states that a Coloured person is neither Black nor White. Usually the people who know least about them have the most to say about them. There are also disturbing aspects, for example, the prejudice and lack of understanding and the ignorance that prevails among many people. Nowadays this plays a tremendous role in the attitudes and mutual relations among people. It is a pity that Whites in general not only have little knowledge of these people but also have little contact with them, particularly with the people at a developed level. It is true that there is good contact between the farmers and their Coloured labourers, but there is very little contact between people at the professional level, and this is true on both sides of the line. There are several Whites of my acquaintance who say that they have never in their lives had the opportunity to speak to a Coloured person, particularly in the north, in Transvaal. This applies to both English- and Afrikaans-speaking people in the country. Talks by Coloureds and about Coloureds before and for White audiences are a very popular phenomenon. A great deal is said, but there are barriers of colour, class, status, tradition, lack of confidence, myths and suspicions that have prevented Whites and Coloured people from really getting to know and understand one another over the decades. The list of negative characteristics of the Coloureds is long, and now I am speaking about what one hears and reads in general when these people are spoken and written about, whereas in fact they are unknown. It is easy to generalize about them, for example by calling them dishonest, unreliable and stupid. These are not appropriate expressions, and my question is whether these characteristics apply to those people only. Are they not a widespread human phenomenon? I want to speak about the Coloureds as “the stranger in our midst”. They have been made strangers and kept that way by regarding them as a homogeneous group; by attributing a specific identity to them; by categorizing, qualifying and quantifying them separately. I want to make a few statements with reference to what one hears when one listens to speeches about these people, and I want to ask whether they are correct. For example, it is said that all Coloured people are of the same origin, share the same culture, are similar and belong together. They also belong to the same separate nation, and this nation is a nation in the making and they ought therefore by implication to have a homeland of their own. The alternative to the identity theory is integration with either White or Black. These are simple generalizations which are untrue. According to the Theron report and other scientific literature on the subject, the following is crystal clear: The Coloured community is the most heterogeneous group of people in South Africa. As we have heard from hon. members earlier today, the Act differentiates among seven different sub-groups of the Coloured population group, and I shall not repeat them all. The Act simply refers to all as “Coloured persons”. Years ago, authorities on the subject ascertained that 25 different tribes could be distinguished among the Hottentots alone. However, I come back to the wider group, namely the Coloureds or the coloured persons as such. Not only their origin, but also their appearance is heterogeneous. One need only enter a Coloured classroom and look at the children to realize to what extent their appearance varies.

A second misconception associated with the myth of Coloured identity is that there is a specific Coloured culture, viz. totally different to that of any other population group in South Africa. The fact is that the Coloured culture which we know and with which we are concerned is basically the same as that of the Western culture.

A third misconception is that the Coloureds are a separate nation. It has been spelt out very clearly this evening and this afternoon as well that the concept “nation” is a political concept and that French- and German-speaking Swiss belong to one nation just as English- and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans belong to one nation. The fact that the Coloureds are by no means a separate nation or “volk-in-wording” is confirmed by the fact that they do not live in a demarcated region or possess a homeland, and in that sense do not have total independence. Moreover, the legislation relating to the re-classification of people also states very pertinently that if there is no such diversity, there need be no reclassification.

It is also important to take cognizance of the fact that after the passing of two laws, viz. the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act, more intermingling has taken place among Coloureds and Blacks than among Coloureds and Whites, and this has resulted in the “volk- in-wording” concept becoming still more irrelevant and illogical. These two Acts tend to force the Coloureds off the road towards being a “volk-in-wording” rather than on to it. Looking at the Theron report, one notes that only the Coloured people are described and defined by the report as a group comprising different subgroups.

In these few facts I have furnished, I have spotlighted the Coloured as a person, and I have done so in the profound realization that constitutionally speaking, we must look one another very straight in the eye, both now and in the future. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the speech made by the hon. member for Brits reflected once again the dilemma in which the NP Government finds itself in respect of the identity and the future of the Coloureds.

†We had a fascinating exercise on the difference between a “volk” and a “nasie”. When the hon. the Prime Minister said “Die Kleurlinge is nie ’n volk of ’n volk- in-wording nie”, he was not dealing with this issue from a sociological or from a cultural point of view. He was dealing very specifically with the question of Venda, Bophuthatswana and Transkei. Then he went on to say “This is how I see the Coloured people”. In other words, he was seeing the Coloureds in the “volk” situation because of a political connotation. He was dealing with a political situation. The hon. member for Klip River said “Daar is ’n Joodse volk en daar is ander volke”. Is he or is he not suggesting that that should have any bearing on their political rights?

I was speaking about the concept of “volk”.

What he was saying is that a concept of “volk” has nothing to do with political rights. Then, Sir, I want to know what has got to do with political rights. Then the hon. the Minister said “The Coloureds are part of the same South African nation as the Whites”. [Interjections.]

‘However, Mr. Vorster said—and I am saying this to the hon. member for Rissik and other hon. members—that the Coloureds were a nation in the making. He said in Parliament (Hansard, 1971, col. 5164)—

Now who is right?

Yes, now who is right? He also said that South Africa’s dilemma was that we had a White nation and a Coloured nation and that we had to reconcile these two within one community or one area.

†If hon. members accept what the present hon. Prime Minister has said, i.e. “Hulle is nie ’n volk-in-wording nie” …

What is the date of that quotation?

I was quoting from Hansard of 23 April 1971, column 5164. [Interjections.]

What about the past ten years?

There has been a fundamental shift, and we are not complaining about it, but what we want to get quite clear is all this semantic nonsense, the way in which the Nationalist Party …

Not “Nationalist”.

… has spent 30 years trying to analyse the Coloured people, instead of getting on with one basic thing, and that is saying whether they accept them as full and equal citizens of South Africa. That is all we want to know. [Interjections.] All the rest of it is either designed to duck the issue, or to disguise the basic differences there are within that party towards the Coloured people.

I want to refer again to the Theron Commission, on which there were members of the Government. What did the Theron Commission say about the Coloured people? It was said that they are really not a people because of an ethnic or other identity, but actually a people by rejection. I quote (page 463, paragraph 21.5)—

Surely this differs from what you have just said.

I am coming to the question of rejection, and I quote—

So they are a group by exclusion. I quote further—

In other words, the Coloured are what they are, not because of positive self-identification, but because of discrimination on the part of the NP.

Not true.

I quote further—

*The hon. the Minister said that perhaps we were wrong in perceiving South Africa as consisting merely of a White group and a Black group, for there were other groups as well within those groups. He also said that certain newspapers that used one language were playing a part in causing this polarization between Black and White.

Can’t you read?

He was referring to unilingual newspapers that emphasized this point.

†If he were a Coloured man, would he not see the NP’s policy as one of the prime reasons for the alienation of many Coloureds from the Whites and a large number of Coloureds’ identification with the Black consciousness concept?

The answer is “no”.

He might well say “no”, but I must quote an article that appeared in one of this week’s newspapers. It is a serious article written on the question of “Swart bewussyn”. I quote—

Who said that?

I quote further—

The article continues—

It was a member of the National Party, of this Parliament, who said this. It was the hon. member for Randburg who said that the Coloureds are to an increasing extent identifying with the Black consciousness movement because people are indeed being oppressed in South Africa. But who is responsible for this oppression? Is it the Opposition, or the English-language Press, or the NP Government? Surely it is this Government in particular that is responsible for the fact that, according to one of that hon. member’s colleagues, more and more Coloureds are moving in the direction of Black consciousness. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister …

That is a false inference from what he wrote.

No, that is what he wrote. I quoted the article.

It is a false inference.

No, it is not a false inference. Will the hon. the Minister interpret it for us then?

I shall do so.

Right. However, the hon. the Minister must interpret it according to these words, and not his own words. In any case, let us forget about this altercation on nations, communities, identity and groups and let us discuss political rights. Is the Government prepared to grant Coloureds the same rights as the Whites in their common fatherland where, according to the hon. the Minister, they are now part of one nation? Is the hon. the Minister prepared to grant them equal rights?

Yes or no?

Is the hon. the Minister prepared to allow the Coloureds, as equal citizens of the same country and of the same nation, to take decisions in some sort of Parliament together with the Whites?

Yes or no?

Is the hon. the Minister prepared to share the sovereignty of the country with the Coloureds in one government structure, with one executive council and one legislative body? If he is not prepared to do this then we can continue to discuss peoples, nationalities and languages until the NP looks the Coloureds in the eye and says: “You are citizens of South Africa. You are equal citizens of South Africa, and we are prepared to accept you, not on the basis of prejudice or because of the colour of your skin, but we are prepared to accept you as equal citizens of South Africa.” Otherwise there is no solution. Then all the work and efforts of the President’s Council are a waste of time. It will be a mere waste of time until the Government reaches the very simple conclusion that the Coloureds are South Africans, that they share the country with us and are entitled to equal political rights. If they do not, there will be no solution for the future.

Finally I wish to refer to two newspaper reports. One is a report concerning a speech by the hon. member for De Aar, who unfortunately could not be present tonight. What did he say, according to a report in last Sunday’s Rapport? He said—

And what did the hon. member for Randburg say? Just the opposite, viz.—

How did the hon. member for Randburg conclude his article? He put it very neatly—

Ons moet vir hulle lief wees. Ons moet leer om hulle te verstaan.

[Time expired.]

Order! I wish to draw hon. members’ attention once again—and I hope for the last time this sesssion—to the fact that in terms of Standing Order No. 105, members may not converse aloud in this House. I should appreciate it if hon. members would comply with this.

Mr. Chairman, one is amazed at the fuss, verging on play-acting of the hon. member for Sea Point when he tried to make a case in high-flown fashion against the National Party. But what is he trying to achieve by making this fuss? He is simply trying to distract attention from the essence of what we are involved in the House. Then he still says of his own accord: “Let us leave all these definitions and expositions of all sorts of things and let us do something for the Coloureds”. Then, with the best intentions in the world, the NP comes forward with systems in an honest attempt to help the Coloureds, and what happens then? Then the hon. member for Sea Point boycotts the attempts that are being made. That is why I say the hon. member is raising dust storms in the House, behind which he and his pathetic little party have to hide to escape the contempt of the voting corps outside.

Let me give another example. Mention was made in the debate, and reference is often made, to the absolute necessity of good human relations and the promotion of a good dispositions between the various population groups in the country. We do this in our striving for a happy co-existence and a successful and peaceful undertaking by our society with a view to progress in our society and reform in the social, economic and political spheres. Where does the PFP stand with regard to this action? One wants to ask them: Is the PFP in agreement with the Coloured’s Labour Party in their attempt to boycott the relations committees? If they are not in agreement with the Labour Party, why do we never hear it in the House or see it in the Press? The question is whether these people are really serious in saying that they are also seeking a solution to this considerable problem with which we are faced in this country. The question is whether they are really being honest when they stand up and say that we must accept the Coloured as a fellow citizen in the country and assimilate him into our own community. The question is whether they are not doing so, in full awareness of the fact that they will never in a million years come into power in this country and have to accept that responsibility, because when they are requested to take part under the present circumstances, we have behaviour like that of the hon. member for Constantia with regard to building a few Coloured houses in Constantia.

In this way, one can give one example on top of the other of cases where they do not practise what they preach in this country of ours. We established and developed relations committees because one cannot promote this type of relationship by means of legislation. The first relations committees were established in 1975. This was almost six years ago. They are voluntary efforts which are based on the principle that the establishment of relations committees would not be enforced anywhere and that no one would be forced to serve on these relations committees. Therefore, it is a voluntary effort by means of which an attempt is being made to achieve something which will be acceptable to all, by means of discussion and coexistence of Coloureds and Whites, and which therefore ought to work. The proper regulation and arrangement is being carried out by nine departmental relations officers who each have a specific area, and I think it is right for us to pay tribute to these people tonight for the gigantic task that they are accomplishing in this regard.

The further we progress in our search for acceptable solutions for the successful, peaceful undertaking of our complex community, the more intensely we become aware of and appreciate the fact that sound basic relations between people and between the population groups in the country in the era in which we are living, is a pre-requisite for success. It is because we are so very much aware of this that we are concerned about the suggestion that the relations committees and the interest in our relations committees are showing signs of waning. We are concerned to hear that the attendance figure at relations committees is not as it should be and that there are relations committees that do not meet as regularly as we should like them to do. Then we also note that in the past, relations committees achieved considerable success on the local level, and that many solutions have already been found on the local level as a result of efforts on the part of these relations committees. Furthermore, we also note that as local problems are being solved, relations committees are becoming increasingly involved in matters of a broader national interest, and we also find that relations committees today are beginning to talk about the general shortage of Coloured housing, for instance, as well as about the lack of adequate schooling facilities for Coloureds, the dual medium class system in Coloured schools, the lack of overnight facilities for Coloured people who are travelling, the promotion of the co-operation between local bodies, the wages and accommodation of farm workers, as well as matters that are not necessarily of a local nature, but of a more general nature and concern to the Coloured community. They are also talking about the lack of employment opportunities for Coloureds, the place of the Coloureds in a future new dispensation, etc. Then one feels that a dialogue is really in progress and it is absolutely essential for this dialogue to continue.

That is why one feels concerned when one realizes that a waning, decreasing interest is to be detected in the efforts of relations committees.

The reasons for this—if we have to look for them—are most probably in the first place, the school boycotts that we experienced and the effects thereof on the ideas of Whites and of Coloureds—Whites who think that Coloureds are too irresponsible to accept responsibility for Coloured education and therefore are no longer so interested in the provision of these facilities, and even go so far as to lose interest in the discussions regarding these aspects. Then there is also the shortage of funds for the relations committees, which contributes to the fact that their status is actually not much higher than that of a debating society in which people argue with one another. There are other reasons too. Another one is, that despite the establishment of the President’s Council, Coloureds feel that at that level they actually have little say in the establishment of a new State dispensation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Swellendam basically put questions to the PFP, and hon. members of that party will no doubt reply to those questions in the course of this debate.

You probably mean they will no doubt remain silent about them.

Furthermore, the hon. member for Swellendam also dealt in general with the problems of the so-called Coloured people.

Why “so-called”?

I should like to associate myself with that tonight and …

Why do you say “so-called”?

Those are the words of hon. members of the NP themselves. [Interjections.] They themselves talk of the “so-called” Coloured population. [Interjections.]

No, definitely not.

Those are your own words.

Now hon. members of the NP want to argue about it, Mr. Chairman. And yet that is their view of Coloured people … [Interjections.]

Never.

… but when one uses their own definition in this House, they become excited about it. [Interjections.] It is those very differentiating factors which have been mentioned in this debate, initially by the hon. the Prime Minister, which I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and with hon. members opposite tonight. We have heard from several hon. members opposite, and first and foremost from the Prime Minister himself, that the Coloured group—if I may use this neutral term—are in the view of the NP not a nation at this stage, but a people.

No, never. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, they are either a people or they are a nation. [Interjections.]

Oh no. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is what hon. members opposite said.

No. You have it all wrong.

Apparently hon. members opposite are now preoccupied with a definition of the Coloureds. One hears from one hon. member that they are in fact a people, whereas we hear from another hon. member that they are not a nation. [Interjections.]

You are now dangerously confused. [Interjections.]

This confusion that exists in the National Party is merely a reflection of the consternation that occurs within that party. Irrespective of whether we are correct technically about our definition of what is a cultural group, which is really the equivalent of a “people” … a cultural group is a people in terms of the definition of the hon. member for Klip River and “’n nasie” is “a nation” …

What is your definition?

I shall get to that. This preoccupation with a fine definition of the Coloured group is something new in the National Party. In the first instance we heard from the hon. the Prime Minister, who started the ball rolling, that the Coloureds were not a nation in the making. But he recognizes that they are a heterogeneous cultural group. And that is so, depending on one’s frame of reference and one’s perception of the Coloureds. But I do not think that is the significance of the debate here. The question that must be answered, and I hope the hon. the Minister or his deputy will shed some light on this, is why is this suddenly a very important issue. In 1977—I think the hon. the Minister will agree with this—the National Party proposals for a new constitutional deal in South Africa, proposals that have been tabled as a draft Bill with the President’s Council in the last instance and with the Schlebusch Commission in the first instance, visualized one Parliament for the Coloured group, one Parliament for the White group and one Parliament for the Indian group. If it was in order to lump the Coloured people together in one Parliament in 1977, why then the preoccupation with the differentials that occur within the Coloured group at this stage? I believe that the significance of this preoccupation with the definition of the Coloured group as a heterogeneous group gives us an indication of what this Government expects to come out of the President’s Council. I think we can speculate on that without in any way prescribing to the President’s Council. It seems to me, however, that within the National Party—and the hon. member for Klip River will notice that I did not say the Nationalist Party—there are obviously two factions at work, and it would appear that the Cape faction, under the leadership of the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs—I presume he is still the de facto leader of the party in the Cape …

I am not.

The hon. the Prime Minister is the leader in the Cape.

I said “de facto”. In any event, the hon. the Minister’s faction in the National Party is obviously gaining the ascendancy, because we know, and we respect this fact, that the Cape section of the National Party has always suggested, indicated and lobbied for the inclusion of the Coloured group with the Whites.

No.

Of course they have. The hon. member for Kimberley South who fives up in the northern part of the Cape, would not know about this. The other section of the National Party, predominantly the Free State and the Transvaal, but not necessarily the Natal section, has always said that the Coloureds should be treated as a separate ethnic group. Hence the consternation within the National Party. There is obviously a deliberate attempt for some specific purpose to break down the concept of the Coloureds as a homogeneous group. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us some indication why there is this sudden preoccupation with a differential definition of the Coloured group exists. It must have some significance. The National Party does nothing for nothing. The hon. the Prime Minister started the ball rolling, the hon. the Minister picked up the ball, the hon. the Deputy Minister picked up the ball and the hon. member for Brits, who I think has four Coloureds in his constituency, have all been preoccupied with this question of a definition of the Coloured people.

It just shows we are a willing team.

That could well be. I believe the significance of this lies in what the National Party Government, and particularly this hon. Minister, expects to come out of the President’s Council. They are trying to convey, perhaps quite realistically, the perception of the Coloureds as a heterogenous group that could be considered to some extent to be a constitutional group but not as a social group. I believe that it is very significant that the debate has taken the particular turn that it has. I think the question is not so much who has the correct definition of the Coloured group but rather why is there this preoccupation with the redefinition of the Coloured group?

In the last few minutes available to me I should like to ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether his party will be in agreement that the recommendations of the President’s Council should go to a referendum—I understood him to say as much today—of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians? Is that what the hon. member for Sea Point said?

I was referring to the recommendations of this Parliament.

Not of the President’s Council?

No. We are not interested in preliminary recommendations but only in the final recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, do I understand the hon. member for Sea Point correctly to say that he would prefer the recommendations of this Parliament to go to a referendum and not what emanates from a report of the President’s Council?

Obviously the President’s Council is advisory to the Government. It is this Parliament that will have to decide what goes to a referendum.

Thank you. Would the hon. member therefore agree that any of the recommendations accepted by this Parliament should go to a referendum in which the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites would participate? I think that is what the hon. member intimated.

What are you trying to say?

I am trying to get an answer from the hon. member for Sea Point. The hon. member for Sea Point pleaded with the hon. the Minister today to allow the Coloureds to participate in a referendum.

I said if the Whites were going to have it, why should the Coloureds not have it.

Thank you. I should now like to ask the hon. member Prof. Olivier whether he agrees with the concept that that referendum should be held among the Coloureds, Indians and Whites as far as the recommendations of this Parliament are concerned? Does the hon. member accept that, because I did not understand him too clearly when he said that a referendum was not part of the mechanism for settlement?

I was talking about “instemming” as against “beraadslaging” and “medebesluitneming”.

I understand that. So the hon. member rejects the referendum as a mechanism for that?

It is one of the mechanisms. There is also the question of “besluitneming”. [Interjections.]

I just wanted to get some clarity in regard to the concept because we seem again to have some difficulty between the point of view of the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member Prof. Olivier. [Interjections.] It seems to me, Sir, that the hon. member for Sea Point is prepared to use the referendum mechanism for determining the attitude of the various cultural groups provided it is based on the recommendation of this Parliament while the hon. member Prof. Olivier is not prepared to accept referendum mechanisms for determining the attitude towards this group. That is how I read it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to participate in this debate …

Then you can sit down again! [Interjections.]

… but since the hon. member for Edenvale saw fit to drag the riots at Reiger Park into the debate yesterday afternoon, I am bound to present the standpoint of Boksburg.

The statements which the hon. member made here about the so-called reasons for the riots are not entirely true, and I think I should begin by referring to his Hansard to find what he said. He said inter alia the following—

I reject that hon. member’s argument that housing was the cause of the riots. Throughout his argument it was quite obvious that he wanted to throw up a smoke screen to conceal race riots between Coloureds and Indians. I want to say to him that it is equally clear that he was misused in this House by militant Coloured leaders in an effort to protect those militant leaders against a boycott effort which boomeranged on them. It was a boycott which a small group of Coloureds wanted to impose against an Indian businessman, and it went sour. It developed into a race conflict between Coloureds and Indians. The boycott action was intended to intimidate Coloureds into not using the taxi services of Gungadine, the Indian trader. The Indian and his taxi drivers reacted to that and the riots stemmed from this situation. I am going to read to hon. members the pamphlet distributed among Coloureds two days before the riots, and then hon. members must decide for themselves whether it was an issue of housing, as the hon. member contended, or not. The title of this note reminds one quite strongly of PFP propaganda. It reads—

Vir jou eie veiligheid Vrydag is lydag vir Gungadine 8 Mei 1981.

The date is underlined—

I am not going to read the next line because I do not like Coloured people being referred to in that way. It goes on—

Then follows a word which I cannot use because I am not sure whether it is Parliamentary language or not—

Alpha is apparently a gang—

The last three lines are underlined. I do not want to weary the Committee further with that pamphlet but I leave it to the Committee to decide what gave rise to the race riots between Coloureds and Indians. I say they arose because a Coloured trader was threatened because he was a stronger and more resourceful trader, and therefore he had to be got rid of. It is a pity that this hon. member has done the community of Reiger Park this injustice. It is a pity that he dragged the people of Reiger Park into this council chamber in order to further his party’s political standpoints here.

He never discussed that.

Mr. Chairman, it is all there in his Hansard. The hon. member can go and read it if he wants to. [Interjections.]

We in Boksburg would rather let sleeping dogs lie, because many innocent people suffered as a result of the race hatred which arose from the pamphlet of the Alpha gang. An innocent child lost his life there due to people who write such things about Reiger Park. A terror gang is to be blamed, and not a so-called housing crisis, as the hon. member sought to maintain. After all, there is nothing about housing in this pamphlet.

The Coloureds were aware that we had appointed a State Committee with the specific purpose of investigating the housing shortage and the possible expansion of the borders of Reiger Park. The Coloureds were also aware that Reiger Park as a whole fell within the noise zone of Jan Smuts Airport. Just as the Coloureds were affected by that noise zone, the Whites of Boksburg, too, were affected by the contour lines of that noise zone. The population density of Reiger Park cannot be increased due to the noise zone and this also applies to the rest of that part of Boksburg which coincides with the noise zone. We cannot do so in the White section either, and in that part of Boksburg the Whites suffer severe financial losses as a result.

The day I took my seat in this House, I began to work on this matter in all earnest, firstly to see whether we could not have the noise zone withdrawn up to a certain point, because in the years that I as a member of that city council helped build Reiger Park, we realized that we were faced with a problem as far as housing for those people is concerned. The inhabitants of Boksburg supported us in all respects in our efforts to expand. However, it is a fact of life that the problem of noise zones exists around the airports of the world.

We build there “never mind” the noise zones.

The hon. the Minister of Community Development states that he will build there, “never mind” the noise zones. I believe that we shall have to decide whether the noise zones are not a sacred cow, because if we are to make housing available, we shall have to take another look at that matter.

For him to come and say that all those things took place there …

Is that the Minister?

I am referring to the hon. member for Edenvale who said that all those things took place there and that we were not even aware of them. However, that is not true. If that hon. member had not been so new to this House and to politics, he would have known that we have deliberated with various ministers and departments for a number of years and tried to determine in which direction we could move. The hon. the Minister has just said that it is possible that buildings will be erected in that area, but we have another dilemma in that noise zone, because 80% to 90% of the land on which we want to build, belongs to the mine. The mine has surface rights and is at present engaged in a R300 million expansion. It is one of the richest mines in South Africa.

To whom does the mine belong?

It is the ERPM Mine. That mine undoubtedly needs the land for the envisaged expansions, and South Africa does need the mine. For this reason I believe this House ought to realize what the problem involves and why we have struggled to shift the borders of Reiger Park.

The hon. member said that he noted the land was going to be granted. That, Sir, is another indication of how inexperienced he is in politics. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, there are one or two matters of an administrative nature that I should like to raise, but first of all I want to refer briefly to a great disservice that the official Opposition is doing the Coloureds. In fact, they are doing the entire country and all its people a disservice, but it is the Coloured community that is being affected in particular. In fact, one can almost call it a sin, because they are confusing the Coloured population with regard to establishing priorities for themselves, i.e. identifying what is important for them and what is less important.

In the process, the Opposition is also trying to bedevil relations between the Government and the Coloured community. What are they doing? They are continually trying to influence the Coloured people in order to bring about an excessive obsession with political rights. The Coloured community is continually being told and convinced that political rights are priority number one for them.

The fact is that when the identification of priorities is left to the Coloureds themselves and they react spontaneously, it is a completely different picture. Then we find that political rights appear rather low down on their list of priorities. We have authoritative evidence of this from none less than the Theron Commission. Perhaps we are inclined to forget it, but it is a good thing for us to remind ourselves from time to time of this finding of the Theron Commission. We recall that random samples were taken amongst groups of urban Coloureds as well as amongst Coloured leaders, and it is striking and very significant that both the urban population and the Coloured leaders came to the same conclusion. On a table of seven issues that are receiving urgent attention, both these groups placed political and civil rights fourth on that list. It is remarkable that all the groups were practically unanimous in granting the highest priority to matters such as better employment opportunities, remuneration and housing and educational matters. It is also important to note that segregation, discrimination and petty apartheid were right at the bottom of the list. In other words, the Coloured leaders put those aspects sixth on the list of seven items, whilst the urban population put it right at the bottom of the list. Therefore, they allocated the very lowest priority to it.

It is not this Government’s aim to make a political issue of the interests and the future of our Coloured people. It is this Government’s responsibility—and it sees it as its task—to continue to bring about a new, better dispensation for all the population groups in the country, including the Coloureds, of course. The Government will not and dare not be scared off, put off or thwarted by the evil obstruction politics of the Opposition. The Government knows what its duty is in this regard. It knows what its responsibility is and in co-operation—I emphasize this—with the Coloured population, particularly the Coloured leaders, it will continue inexorably to do its duty by fulfilling that responsibility.

There is a matter to which I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention. I am referring to the system of remuneration of teachers in subsidized Coloured schools. I have received petitions regarding this matter, and if my information is correct, it is a system which apparently lends itself to abuse and anomalies. The reason for this apparently lies in the way in which part-time teachers are remunerated in these subsidized schools, because they are not paid by the month, the week or by the day, but by the hour. I understand that the rate has recently been increased from R8,60 to R10,46 per hour. The reason why it is being alleged that this is open to abuse, is because of the fact that temporary teachers are remunerated not only for work during school hours, but for overtime too. Overtime assumes a variety of forms, for instance extra-mural activities, of which sport is only one. Provision is even made for preparation and for corrections. I should like to mention a few phenomena which occur as a result of this. It appears as if there is more interest in a temporary appointment than in a permanent appointment. I assume that a permanent appointment does have other benefits, but on the mere basis of remuneration, a temporary appointment is much more attractive than a permanent appointment. The person with a permanent appointment, for instance, is not paid for extra-mural activities such as assisting with sport and so on, whilst the part time teacher is in fact being paid for every possible duty outside school hours.

Perhaps this is an extreme case, but there is the example of a lady with matric as her only academic qualification. She teaches typing for only two hours a day, and for this she is paid her R20,92 a day. Then she is also allowed two hours for preparation and correction. This gives her a total daily remuneration of R41,84. The trend is therefore that permanent members of staff find some reason or other to resign and then to be re-appointed in a temporary capacity, so that they can share in the benefits of overtime remuneration. Apparently the management of such an institution has absolute discretion to decide what overtime will be paid to such a person. Of course, the money comes from the Exchequer. I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate further on this. I just wanted to bring the matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I am sure that he will give proper attention to it. There is another matter of topical importance that I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister, and this is the question of the transferability of bursary commitments. Provision has already been made for White teachers to have a permanent appointment at Coloured schools, and also those who are appointed in a temporary capacity, but then it is only unmarried female teachers and male teachers, provided that they are appointed for a minimum of four years in secondary posts and that they are fully qualified. The extension that is required, is that provision should also be made for fully qualified married women teachers who are appointed for more than four years. I just want to remind the hon. the Minister of the matter. Hopefully there will be the opportunity at some time or other to reach a decision on the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to talk to the hon. the Minister about Coloured education. The hon. members for Boksburg and Sundays River must forgive me for not reacting to them. However, before I come to the question of Coloured education, I want to make a final remark about the subject I raised earlier this evening, namely the question of whether or not the Coloureds are a distinct people. I want to make a statement to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and also to the hon. the Minister of Statistics and Administration, who sometimes seems to me to be the only Minister in the NP Cabinet, who is capable of fundamental thought. The statement I want to make is that if the Coloured group is not a separate people, then the only basis on which compulsory differentiation can be applied to them is that of colour. That policy is racist. That is the statement I want to make, and I shall leave it at that.

I should like to talk to the hon. the Minister about the question of Coloured education. I greatly appreciate the improvements which have been made in the field of Coloured education. I am referring to the bigger budget, the improvement in salary scales and the general improvement with regard to education. I am aware of these, but I am not going to mention all the particulars. There is sincere appreciation for the fact that so much progress has been made, but the hon. the Minister will naturally understand that one has to see those changes within the context of the times in which they took place. For example, I appreciate the fact that from category C upwards, salary parity has been achieved in schools, technical colleges, training colleges and universities. However, the hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that as far as education is concerned, those salaries cover only about 26% of the Coloured educational staff. The great majority of Coloured teachers fall in categories A and B. As the hon. the Minister knows, there is a difference of about R2 000 a year in the starting and top salaries of those groups. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that 10 years ago, in 1971, former Minister Loots held out the prospect of parity being achieved. If we still find today, after 10 years, that if my figures are correct, that parity has not yet been achieved for more than 70% of the serving Coloured teachers, then something is seriously wrong somewhere. That promise was made as far back as 9 June 1971.

That is really an unscientific approach.

I do not want to furnish any details. That is not necessary. However, when we look at what the differentiation was in the educational budget per pupil in 1971 …

You compared the salaries of under-qualified people and fully qualified people. That is nonsense.

No, I am not talking about that kind of comparison. I am talking about categories A and B.

But they are under-qualified.

I shall come back to that later. The sober fact is that there is intense dissatisfaction among the Coloured people about the lack of full parity for all ranks.

Let me go further. It is not just a question of salary parity. We know that there is simply no parity as far as schools, accommodation and facilities are concerned. I have already said that I appreciate the progress that has been made. I just want to say that the gap which still exists is very great. I associate myself with what Dr. De Loor said, namely that there is an urgent need for us to make greater provision for the education of other groups than the Whites in the near future.

I want to raise two further points in this connection. The first is the question of the professional status of Coloured teachers. I wish to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to what the Council of Education for Coloured people says in this connection in paragraph 18 of its latest report, the one for 1979. There they seriously object to the lack of recognition for the professional status of the Coloured teacher. I shall not quote it, but I want to refer the hon. the Minister to this particular paragraph.

Then there is the question of the De Lange report. I am sorry that we do not have that report available, but I could not escape the impression that the hon. the Minister of National Education had in certain respects anticipated that report.

No, it is the policy of the NP which I stated.

Very well, thank you very much. The only inference I can draw from that is that the policy of the NP will be maintained no matter what the De Lange Commission may find. [Interjections.] I am just putting the question. In this connection I should like to point out that in its latest statement, Joctasa, i.e. the Joint Council of Teachers’ Associations of South Africa, very sharply criticized the attitude of the Government as expressed by the hon. the Minister in this connection. The statement appeared in the newspaper this morning. I shall not elaborate on it. I also want to quote in this connection what Mr. Franklin Sonn wrote about this in Rapport on 2 August—

Die RGN-verslag sal beslis groot uitdagings aan die Regering stel. Soos Utasa ondervind het …

That is the Coloured teachers’ association—

It seems that this has in fact been the case. I read further—

Mr. Sonn is not the only one who says this. In the latest edition of Bulletin of the Africa Institute of South Africa there is an article written by Mr. Stan Schoeman. Surely he is not a supporter of the PFP. With regard to the present educational dispensation he says that it must be fundamentally revised, and referring to the differentiation he writes—

That is a swear word to the NP. I read further—

He concludes by saying, and I read the last paragraph—

That is what the hon. the Minister has rejected—

I shall not read any further. All I want to add is that it is quite clear that the appointment of this commission has created very great expectations among the Coloured population about a new educational system in South Africa. I can only say that my interpretation of what the hon. the Minister has done in this connection is that he has actually told the Coloured people in advance that those expectations of theirs cannot be fulfilled.

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of his speech, the hon. member Prof. Olivier made statements about education which were really unfounded. I want to put it to the hon. member that I had really expected a lot more of him than that. I believe that the hon. the Minister will reply to him in due course.

I expected nothing more of him. We were students together.

Oh, well.

All of a sudden a great fuss is being made about the heterogeneity of the Coloured group in this country. The impression is being created that what the hon. the Prime Minister said recently is suddenly something new.

It is, yes.

It is not.

That is what the NP says now.

The hon. member for Durban North would do well to read what the Population Registration Act—Act No. 30 of 1950—has to say about this. In that Act it is stated, inter alia, that a Coloured person is a person who is not a White person or a Black. Later in the same Act it is stated that the State President may by proclamation in the Gazette lay down the ethnic or other groups into which Coloured persons and Blacks etc. shall be classified. [Interjections.] Now we have separate groups, as the hon. the Prime Minister also said. We have never disputed that, after all. We have Griquas, Malays, Chinese, Asians, and so on. Therefore this is no homogeneous group. Nor did we ever say it was. It is stated as such in the Population Registration Act—Act No. 30 of 1950. In other words, these are not matters which were suddenly born here yesterday or the day before. Surely this is not a new policy. The hon. the Prime Minister told us so clearly.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question?

No, Mr. Chairman, I have very little time at my disposal. I have only 10 minutes. [Interjections.] I urge the hon. member to go and do his homework this evening for once. He would do well to study Act No. 30 of 1950. If he did so, he would realize that there is absolutely nothing new in this.

Earlier this evening the hon. member for Constantia asked who the hon. the Minister was really addressing. The hon. the Minister will reply to that himself, but I want to put it to the hon. member once again that we speak to all political parties and to all groups. We speak at any time, day or night, with people who come to us. We even speak to Progs who come to us. That is true. We speak to them, too. [Interjections.]

When those hon. members opposite were all on holiday just before Christmas, we were engaged in a discussion that lasted two to three hours. It was no easy discussion. The hon. member for Constantia should rather pray that he never becomes this hon. Minister’s deputy. I can tell you how difficult it is to keep up. Moreover, I am a widower who has other commitments too. [Interjections.]

Does that mean that you have to cook food as well? [Interjections.]

We speak to independents, to militants, to moderates and to all other people who approach us. There are also many other groups that we still have to meet. We find it very difficult to accommodate everyone. However, the doors stand open for everyone who wants to come and speak to us.

Earlier this afternoon, in the course of the debate, I said that certain statements were being made which gave rise to concern. I said that one of those statements was that the Coloureds said that they did not wish to negotiate with the Government if the Black people were not also involved. I just wish to add that I am gratified to have detected a change in the attitude of the Labour Party and that discussions and negotiations will, after all, be proceeded with.

This evening I also wish to deal with a second statement that is being made, viz. that the White people reject the Brown people. Earlier on I referred to the fact that the existence of relations committees and the opportunity for discussions created thereby should serve as proof that this statement is untrue. The hon. member for Sea Point said that we should not merely talk; it was necessary to act as well. I think that there are many acts of White people and Brown people who come together, who do not merely speak to one another, but who also undertake things jointly. No one is rejected, but from the White side there is only a reasonable and fair expectation that the Brown people in South Africa should play their part as well, and that they should also utilize the opportunities which will be available to them. A negative approach does not arouse the interest of others, but cools that interest. There exists among White people today a very great reservoir of goodwill towards Brown people, and due to this spirit of goodwill the White people want to remove that in the policy which is offensive and hurtful.

I said this afternoon that we were aware of this and that these things were being removed. However—I want to state this clearly—we are not prepared to tamper with the basis of our policy, because this would result in a total collapse of an orderly State. Since 1948 the voters of South Africa have regularly returned us to Parliament as the Government. This is a mandate that they have granted. The basis of that policy is that we must recognize the existence of the various groups in this country.

I also wish to refer to a third statement mentioned here this evening, and that is that the Brown people of South Africa are second-class citizens. This has become a cliché used as a handy method of arousing emotions and causing unrest. If, for example, I find established Brown businessmen in South Africa, if home-ownership is within the reach of everyone, if a Brown man is the rector of a university, if Brown people were in charge of teachers’ colleges, technikons and schools, if a Brown man is a member of a Springbok team, if a Brown man is an assistant manager of that team, if the highest civil award, namely the Decoration for Meritorious Service, is awarded to Brown people, if there are Brown officers in the S.A. Defence Force and the S.A. Police, then I ask hon. members this evening to mention the restrictions which make it impossible for a person to reach the highest level in this country.

What about the franchise?

I am coming to the franchise now. Hon. members should just bear in mind that one cannot live on a vote alone. Hon. members should rather ask: What is being done every day, and if I were a Brown man, how could I progress? The Brown man can make progress—let us leave politics out of it for a moment—to the highest level in the country.

I know that reference is being made to the political area and hon. members are stating, quite correctly, that the Coloureds do not have elected representatives and have no share in the decision-making process.

What about the Cango Caves?

We shall not allow that hon. member into the Cango Caves. [Interjections.] I agree with the hon. members, but in this regard I want to draw their attention to the fact that every step taken in the political sphere—and I want hon. members to listen to this—that has been taken, or every proposal of the Government, is opposed, or else there has been no co-operation, or else the institution has collapsed. I want to refer hon. members to a proposal of a Cabinet Council relating to the extension of the powers of the CRC made by the former Prime Minister. It was rejected. When he opened the then CRC I was there. He extended the hand of friendship and said: Let us look at these matters. This was rejected.

Let us look at the constitutional plan of the Government which provided for decision-making concerning their own affairs and joint responsibility in matters of common concern, which was rejected. Hon. members are aware that initially it was accepted. However, those hon. members know that after they had spoken to these people, it was rejected. Let us look at the working of the CRC, which was obstructed and which led to the eventual dissolution and abolition of that council. Let us consider the participation in the President’s Council which was rejected by those hon. members. All negotiations have been onesided. They consisted of the stating of demands which did not take the realities into account.

I contend this evening—and the hon. member Prof. Olivier, who was a professor in his day, will agree with me—that if some of these proposals had been accepted, then we would certainly have had a point of departure. This would have been the case years ago. Then we should not still have been at the starting point. We should already have been on the way and we could already have made adjustments in the political sphere along the way. Then there could have been progress. However, from the Brown side there has always been rejection, and we have never got to square one.

I want to ask this evening, in all seriousness: Is there a will to co-operate, is there a positive approach and is there a positive attitude? I also wish to ask this evening: Is a militant attitude the solution to our problems? I want to issue this warning: In this country, militancy is answered with militancy. I want to ask this evening: Do several opportunities not go by unutilized? My appeal in this debate this evening is this: Let us co-operate in a positive and Christian way to eliminate what is negative in our communities and our fatherland. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the course of his address earlier this evening the hon. member for Sea Point maintained that a constitutional dispensation for South Africa should be based on the consensus of all the population groups in this country. He stated quite emphatically that there should be consensus. Unfortunately, the hon. member is not here at the moment.

The hon. member did not give me enough time to warn him to be here.

I am sorry about that. However, I shall put certain questions and he can reply to them later. The first question I want to put to the hon. member for Sea Point is this: When has consensus been reached about the present constitutional dispensation in South Africa? If consensus is the only basis on which to obtain a constitutional dispensation for South Africa, how can the hon. member for Sea Point justify the present constitutional dispensation? Patently, Sir, there has never been consensus in regard to the present constitutional dispensation. [Interjections.]

They speak about consensus, but they are here on sufferance.

That just shows that the reality is different to what the hon. members of the official Opposition seek to maintain.

The next question I want to put to the hon. member for Sea Point is this: If he adopts the premise that a future constitutional dispensation can only be based on consensus, what is he going to do if consensus cannot be obtained among the various population groups.

Speculation is pointless.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North says that speculation is pointless. By saying that he displays a flagrant ignorance of political trends in this country. The fact is that demands are made from the ranks of the Coloureds and the Indians which are totally unacceptable to the Whites.

But Kowie is often opposed to consensus too! What is more, there often was no consensus.

Yes, that is also true. If, then, consensus cannot be achieved, it means that the status quo must continue. I want to ask the hon. members of the official Opposition whether they are in favour of the status quo continuing? The hon. the Minister argued correctly that the status quo in South Africa was not tenable. However, what the standpoint of the hon. members of the Opposition amounts to is that it is necessary to strive for “pie in the sky”. As long as that cannot be achieved, the status quo must apply. In other words, they are in effect advocating the maintenance of the status quo. I believe I have thereby pointed out the hollowness of the argument of the hon. member for Sea Point. The hon. member Prof. Olivier then elaborates on it further and says that the issue is not one of the agreement of the various population groups, but of joint decision-making.

Yes, of course.

Now the hon. member for Johannesburg North is too quick to say: “Yes, of course”. The hon. member Prof. Olivier says: “All proposals of a national convention—according to their model, I assume—must be approved by this Parliament and must be cast in a specific form by this Parliament.

That is the theory.

It has nothing to do with the theory but is in fact the practice and the reality of the situation. After all, there are no Coloureds or Indians in this Parliament, and according to the argument of the hon. member Prof. Olivier, the national convention can only make recommendations to this Parliament. Where, then, is the joint decision-making? There is no joint decision-making, but joint advice, because the decision-making takes place here.

Nevertheless the composition of the convention differs.

The fact of the matter is that that, too, is a hollow argument. The hon. the Minister rightly pointed out that we could never reach a final decision on that. I shall refer to this again at a later stage. If the words of the hon. members of the official Opposition mean anything, then the composition of the national convention must be entirely different to that of this Parliament. However, the hon. members disparage all efforts to define specific population groups in the country. They attack the Population Registration Act, and I now want to know from them how they are going to identify the representatives of the Coloured population group who are to participate in the national convention. It has already been pointed out that the Coloured population group, by definition, comprises seven separate communities.

It is a people convention and not an ethnic convention.

Then you must not go there.

The hon. member for Greytown, who is a new member, has no idea of the kind of argument we have had to hear here over the years. [Interjections.] Over the years the hon. members of the Opposition have argued here that the Population Registration Act is a monster, because it differentiates between people. However, the same hon. members have argued here at great length that their national convention would be a convention of all interest groups.

Political groups.

No, all interest groups.

The wording was “all interest groups”. I now want to know whether the Coloureds are also an interest group.

If you can read Afrikaans. [Interjections.]

How do they identify the representatives of the Coloureds, who have to participate in this national convention, without the Population Registration Act? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Sea Point also made certain other flagrant statements. Referring to the Coloureds, he says: “They are what they are by the discrimination of the NP.” That is blatantly untrue. Surely the NP did not create the Coloured population group. [Interjections.] I do not have time for frivolity now. The NP did not create the Coloured population group and did not tell them that they had distinctive interests of their own. During the congress of the Federal Party in 1975 Dr. Bergins had the following to say …

Where is he now?

I am coming to that. Dr. Bergins said on that occasion—

The hon. member now ask me where Dr. Bergins is. I concede at once that this he was not interpreting the sentiments of all Coloureds, but the fact of the matter is that these sentiments have been expressed in the ranks of the Coloureds and they were not told to say so by the NP. Therefore, bearing this in mind, it is untrue to say that the Coloureds are what they are due to the discrimination of the NP. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mossel Bay will forgive me if I do not follow him in detail regarding the arguments he raised, as I wish to deal with another matter. However, there are two points that he made which I feel I should respond to. He commenced by addressing a question to my colleague the hon. member for Sea Point and asked him when there was consensus about the present constitutional dispensation in South Africa. Has the hon. member not heard of the National Convention of 1909? [Interjections.] Imperfect though it was, that was an attempt to achieve consensus between factions of the White community—and I say it was imperfect because it excluded other races. It was, however, an attempt to find consensus among the factions of the White community. The hon. member should also look at the 1977 proposals of the NP. Surely, that was also an attempt to achieve consensus?

Why did you object to it?

Because it was imperfect and would not work. The hon. member for Mossel Bay is rejecting the idea of finding consensus. [Interjections.] What is one left with if one does not seek consensus? One is left with a situation of unilateral decision-making, and that is what we want to avoid. However, I want to leave the matter at that because the hon. the Minister has a vast empire; he deals with a vast area of subject matter. It does not only include the Coloured community but also includes another section of our community and that is the Indian community, and I therefore propose to switch the debate in order to deal with this very …

It also includes the White people.

It also includes the White people but I want now to deal with problems relating to the Indian community. There are a number of matters that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister.

The Indian community are a minority group in this country. Most of them are fourth and fifth generation South Africans but they are a voiceless minority as far as the legislative bodies that matter in South Africa are concerned. It is true that in terms of Government policy and ideology they are now moving towards an elected Indian Council but I do not want to cover that matter at this stage as we have dealt with it during this session and also during previous sessions. An election is going to be held and we shall see what measure of support that election receives from the Indian community, and we shall also see to what extent the new elected council will meet the aspirations of the Indian community. Whatever the future of that council may be, whatever increase there might be in the powers granted to the council, over and above the very restricted powers the existing council has, the Indian community of South Africa is still going to be very much subject to laws that are passed by this sovereign Parliament. The fact is that even in terms of Government policy, the whole concept of separate development, there is no question of the Indian community being given their own homeland or separate geographic areas. These people, good South Africans that they are, are going to continue to live and work in the common area of the Republic of South Africa which they will share at least with the Whites and Coloureds in terms of NP policy, but in actual fact they will be sharing it with all the population groups of this country. As they will physically be part of the common area of South Africa in terms of Government policy, it is essential—and presumably the Government wants them to be a contented and satisfied section of the South African community—that this hon. Minister and the Government give serious attention to the whole question of discrimination as it relates to the Indian community. In our view discrimination is inherent in the Government’s general policy relating to the Indian community, so I will make it easier for the hon. the Minister by telling him to try to get rid of “hurtful discrimination” as far as the Indian community is concerned, if I may quote a phrase of the NP. I am looking at the issue at that level.

Let me give the hon. the Minister some examples of hurtful discrimination, and I should like the hon. the Minister to respond to these examples. I shall put them by way of questions. When is the Government, for example, going to remove the restrictions that bar Indians from staying in the Orange Free State for more than 48 hours? [Interjections.] When is that going to be done? When is the Government going to remove the restrictions on the Indian community in regard to Vryheid in Natal? The hon. the Minister was there towards the end of last year. There are Indians working in the town of Vryheid under special permits, but they cannot live there and have to commute many miles—sometimes each day—in order to get to and from work. Why this discrimination? What possible justification can there be for this sort of situation obtaining both in the Orange Free State and in an area of common South Africa like the Vryheid area? Are these areas not part of common South Africa that have to be shared by Whites, Coloureds and Indians in terms of Government policy?

I also want to give another example of hurtful discrimination affecting the Indian community, and this is a matter that concerns the Indian community very much indeed. Can the hon. the Minister tell me why there are restrictions on a South African Indian man who wants to marry a woman in India or Pakistan? Why are those restrictions there? If a man wants to marry an Indian woman in India or Pakistan he has to get the permission of the Nationalist Government in order to do so.

That is not true.

What is their position then?

They can get married.

But what is their position when it comes to bringing a wife to South Africa?

What has that got to do with marriage?

This is a constant problem.

No, but you were talking about the marriage. [Interjections.]

What the hon. the Minister is saying is that they can get married but they cannot bring their wives to this country. [Interjections.] That does not, however, apply to a White South African, and remember we are now talking about hurtful discrimination. It is possible for a White man in South Africa to marry an English girl, a Dutch girl or a Portuguese girl and have no problems wondering whether he would be able to bring her to South Africa, but it does apply to the Indian community. The hon. the Minister knows this. He knows it is a constant problem, a constant source of concern to the Indian community. If that is not hurtful discrimination, what is? I ask the hon. the Minister to deal with that and to tell us what possible reason there can be for that discrimination to operate against the Indian community, when the same restrictions do not apply to other communities in South Africa.

I shall.

I look forward to the hon. the Minister’s reply.

There is another matter I should like to raise, and that is the question of trading rights in the central business areas of our cities and towns. I know that the hon. the Minister might say that it is not his responsibility, being the responsibility of his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Community Development. It is, however, again a matter of vital concern to the Indian community in many of our cities and towns, and particularly in the city of Durban. I should therefore like to know what the hon. the Minister, as the responsible Minister looking after the welfare of the Indian community, is doing to activate a decision which will open up these areas as free-trading areas. It is a matter of importance. There is reference to it in the departmental report. The Durban city council is in favour of these areas becoming free-trading areas, particularly in the centre of Durban. The Chamber of Commerce has also come out in favour of this, and the Indian community is of course also in favour of it. So I want to know why the Government is dragging its heels with regard to this very important matter.

Finally, in the limited time at my disposal, I want to come to the question of the University of Durban-Westville which has its problems as far as staff, students and administration are concerned. The university also has a major problem as to its status as an institution of higher education and its acceptance and identification as such by the Indian community. These problems are not helped by allegations of victimization of staff, of irregularities in the handling of disputes and other matters. There is no public evidence that these allegations are being investigated. The hon. the Minister will know what I am talking about, because he and I have had correspondence on this subject. I am referring particularly to allegations relating to the refusal to allow a member of the staff to continue research, viz. a certain Dr. Katzeff. He was one of the members of staff of the University.

Are you quite serious? You wrote to me as a lawyer. Do you want me to reply to you as a member of Parliament?

In my last letter to the hon. the Minister I told him that prior to writing that letter I had been handling the matter on a professional basis, but I have now been asked to raise it publicly and politically. The hon. the Minister replied that I could do so if I wanted to. That letter is here.

Order! I regret the hon. member’s time has expired.

Well, I still hope the hon. the Minister will deal with it.

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member for Berea decided to switch this debate and deal with Indian affairs, there were still some matters that were raised by other hon. members of the official Opposition to which I should like to come back. I think it was the hon. member for Constantia, who, for the second time, quoted part of a speech I made on Wednesday, 26 August, when I dealt with the Indian Electoral Act. The hon. member for Constantia quoted the following portion of my speech (Hansard, 26 August 1981, col. 2035)—

In quoting that portion of what I had said, the hon. member selectively left out that I was reacting to what Dr. Ismail Dhoodhat, a member of the Indian Council stated in the meeting of the Indian Council in Durban, and I repeat the quotation from The Cape Times which I read on that occasion—

That was the quotation from the Press report on what Dr. Ismail Dhoodhat was supposed to have said. I then said (Hansard, 26 August 1981, col. 2035)—

My attitude there was that, if in fact the representatives on the Indian Council now claim that the radicals are the real leaders, this should become known. But the interpretation the hon. member for Constantia appears to give to this is …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he has the same views on the Coloured community as he has on the Indian community?

I have exactly the same views in respect of this particular issue, but the hon. member for Constantia appears to misunderstand or deliberately ministerpret what I said. I did not say that the radicals are the real leaders. I said that, if the radicals are the real leaders, we are prepared to deal with them and enter into discussions. That is what I said.

Now the hon. member creates the impression that I indicated that the radicals are the real leaders. That has, however, been the attitude of the PFP all along. They regard people as real leaders who have never been elected as real leaders. They regard Mandela as a real leader.

Who said that?

They regard Bishop Tutu as a real leader, although he has never been elected by anybody. They regard this other guy, Dr. Motlana, as a real leader.

Who said so?

The hon. member for Houghton has said so on numerous occasions. Those people have, however, never stood up to be elected by their people.

Would you like to take a small bet?

Dr. Motlana has never fought an election. Until such time as they have fought elections, they have not been shown by their people to be the real leaders. [Interjections.] This is the point at issue.

We are prepared to have real leaders elected and we are prepared to negotiate with them whoever is elected and to enter into discussions with them.

What about the Coloureds?

As far as the Coloureds are concerned, exactly the same applies. When on a previous occasion members of the Labour Party were elected by the electorate of the Coloured community, we accepted that they had been elected and we were prepared to enter into negotiations with them and to accept them into the discussion process as representatives of the Coloureds.

Why did you pass legislation on the day of the elections? [Interjections.]

I did not hear that interjection.

You passed legislation concerning them on the day of the elections. [Interjections?]

Sir, it appears to be a rather confused interjection.

The position is that whatever leaders are brought forward by the electoral community will be the people we will deal with. They might be radical or less radical, but if they are elected as the real leaders, then obviously the negotiation and discussion process must continue. That is our attitude.

Will you allow another election?

The important thing is that the PFP is not really interested in having representatives elected by a community. They are deliberately trying to misuse Coloureds and Indians, be they radical or otherwise, for political reasons.

Where do you get that from?

They are deliberately trying to misuse them. I sincerely believe that, if the Coloured community were to elect their representatives through a normal electoral process, then not necessarily after the first election but in time they would appreciate the responsibilities of carrying out their duty. It is obvious that any organization that is elected for the first time must find its feet. This has happened in the Coloured Council that was elected. Members switched from one party to another. This has also happened in the Indian Council where members switched their loyalties from one group to another because they had not established political parties yet. In the process of finding their feet there were switches and changes.

As long as these changes take place it merely indicates that they are still in the process of establishing themselves along the path of a normal democratic dispensation.

Have they found their feet yet?

As far as the Coloured community is concerned, they themselves were responsible for the abolition of the CRC because of the obstructionist attitude some of them adopted. After they had done that, however, it would appear that they themselves regretted that step, because they realized that they had now lost a platform of responsible negotiation.

We believe that the only correct way for responsible negotiation is by way of an election in which the leaders will be able to participate in responsible discussion. I should like the PFP to consider the aspect that their appeal for power-sharing within a single political concept is an irresponsible attitude and that it will not serve the real interests of the Coloured people. Their real interests will only be served if they elect their own representatives to deal with their problems in a responsible way.

That means no power-sharing.

When will you know whether they have found their feet?

It is not for me to say when they have found their feet. They themselves will determine that, and the hon. member for Hillbrow should know it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, on 29 April this year we held a general election in South Africa. On that occasion the separate standpoints of policy of the various political parties were presented to the voters of South Africa. However, the PFP neglected to spell out its policy in full to the voters. On 29 April this year the voters of the Republic of South Africa rejected the PFP as a government for this country. They ought to take cognizance of that. The NP spelled out its policy in full.

Which policy was that?

Act No. 101 of 1980 gave birth to a President’s Council. What is the purpose of the President’s Council? It is to institute an investigation into and report to Parliament on how a dispensation can be worked out in terms of which this country can be made a happy place—which it is in fact at present—so that all peoples living in this country can live together happily. [Interjections.]

Why did the PFP not participate in the President’s Council? Do hon. members know why the PFP does not want to become involved in the President’s Council?

Tell us.

I am going to tell you this evening. The PFP is afraid of one thing, viz. that it can see that the NP’s policy is going to succeed. [Interjections.] The NP is going to work out a dispensation in this country … [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister this evening that they must not deviate from this course, and that they must forget about an obstructive party like the PFP. We can no longer afford to be hamstrung by them. We must move ahead. We simply cannot look behind us any more. We must work out a dispensation in this country which can make all our people happy.

You have been unable to do so since 1948.

Mr. Chairman, I should not like to react to a person like the hon. member for Durban Central. What does he know about 1948? Let us rather leave him at that.

At that stage he was still in the mountains.

Today a great deal of emphasis has been placed on the question of colour in particular. Despite many other things the NP, quite apart from all the other things it has achieved, has over the years uplifted the Coloured nation (“volk”) as no one else has done.

The Coloured nation (“volk”)? [Interjections.]

I thought the Coloureds were not a nation (“volk”). [Interjections.]

I think it is a great pity—after all, this affects the Coloureds, people who are not represented in this Parliament—that the PFP is using this House as a platform and is trying to force the debate which is being conducted here down to a level at which they would like to conduct it. As far as I am concerned, the Coloureds are elevated well above the level at which the PFP finds itself here this evening. I want to tell the hon. the Minister this evening that the responsibility his department has towards the Coloureds, is a great responsibility. The department also has a responsibility towards the Indians. However, the department has a responsibility towards the Whites as well and I want to come back to this for a while this evening.

The number of members of the provincial councils is laid down in the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. The Republic of South Africa Constitution Act is based on the South Africa Act of 1909 and we are also acquainted with Act 32 of 1961. This evening I want to confine myself principally to only one section in the Constitution Act, viz. the one which determines the number of members of the Executive Committee of each province. I am not happy about the fact that the number of members in each province is four. Everyone is aware of the fact that over many years the position has been that the members of the Executive Committees of the provinces do not serve in a full-time capacity, yet at present all of them are serving in a full-time capacity.

I now want to look at the various provinces. Hon. members will unfortunately have to bear with me for a while this evening while I elaborate a little on the statistics, for I want to substantiate my argument in respect of the number of members of the Executive Committees of the various provinces. If, for example, we look at the budgets of the various provinces, they are as follows: Transvaal, R1 469 233 000; Cape Province, R1 157 273 000; Orange Free State, R312 889 000; and Natal, R478 374 000. When hon. members compare these figures they will agree with me that the growth and development in the various provinces are not in any way on a par.

I want to consider one further aspect, i.e. education. The education budget of the Transvaal alone is almost as much as the total budget of Natal. The education budgets of the various provinces are as follows: Transvaal, R448 244 000; Cape Province, R299 340 000; Orange Free State, R77 842 000; and Natal, R112 106 000.

If one examines the number of pupils in the various provinces, one finds the following: Transvaal, 506 278; Cape Province, 227 989; Orange Free State, 71 323; and Natal, 102 107. The total number of White children in the Transvaal comprises 56% of the White school-going pupils of the Republic as a whole. If we examine educational institutions, we see that 45% of the White educational institutions are in the Transvaal.

My time is very limited, but I do want to give an indication of the position in respect of hospital services. The budgets for hospital services in the various provinces are as follows: Transvaal, R430 261 000; Cape Province, R420 198 000; Orange Free State, R82 500 000; and Natal, R148 863 000. The number of beds in the various provinces are as follows: In the Transvaal, 21 505; in the Cape Province, 14 717; in the Orange Free State, 4 675; and in Natal, 10 678. I can continue in this way, but perhaps I should refer to dual lane freeways. Of the total number of freeways in this country, we find 48% in the Transvaal.

I have tried to give an indication this evening that there is unhappiness in the Transvaal. I should consequently like to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the number of members of the Executive Committees in the various provinces. The number of such members in the Transvaal must be given proper attention and in my opinion ought to be increased.

The final point to which I want to refer—this, too, contributes to the unhappiness—is that the provincial secretaries in all four provinces receive precisely the same salary. Of course the same applies to members of the Executive Committees as well. I honestly believe that this is not a satisfactory state of affairs.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mossel Bay and the hon. member for Witbank made substantially the same point. The hon. member for Mossel Bay said that it was in effect the Government that had put the Coloureds where they were and that they are where they are because they are Coloureds. The hon. member for Witbank said that it was in fact this Government that had really uplifted the Coloured people. The hon. member for Mossel Bay quoted Mr. Bergins, the leader of the Federal Party, in regard to what he had said, I think, in 1975. I should just like to quote to hon. members now what Mr. Bergins said in 1977 in an interview with To the Point. He said—

He was referring here to the question of classification—

That is what Mr. Bergins said. However, Sir, I do not wish to go into any more detail in reply to those two hon. gentlemen and so I shall leave the matter at that.

I want to address myself very briefly to the hon. the Minister in connection with one specific problem and I wish to do this without generating any heat. The problem I am referring to is in regard to the Indian children in Natal who are not attending school at present. I think that there are still about 350 Indian children who cannot attend school because they have been suspended.

Are those the boycotters?

I am going to deal with this matter as fairly as I can, Sir. These children are missing school at a very important time of their lives and I want to discuss the reasons for this. It is obviously not a desirable thing for us in South Africa—it is not a desirable thing for the children themselves or their parents or for any of us—that this state of affairs should continue. It certainly is not desirable for the children themselves. In the remarks I have to make I do not wish to attack any person here tonight. In fact, I do not wish to mention any person by name or refer to the position he holds. I want to make that quite clear. I think the hon. the Minister will know why I am saying this and will understand why I am saying it. Neither do I wish to deal with any of the litigants who have been litigating in this matter. I do not wish to refer to them at all. In fact, I do not wish to stir up any personal issues at all.

Then you are running out of a speech.

The reason why I wish to discuss the matter in this way is because I have a very earnest and very sincere wish to see the matter of these suspended children brought to a satisfactory conclusion. I think this can be done by the hon. the Minister.

What happened, Sir, was that a large number of Indian pupils in Natal stayed away from classes at their school, in some cases—initially—for one day, and in other cases for two days. Then the authorities issued a warning to these children. They said that the children must not repeat such behaviour because, if they did, they could be expelled. Certain pupils did, in fact, repeat their behaviour and this resulted in more than 600 initially being suspended.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest it is clear—there is no question about it—that it is not desirable that pupils should miss school and boycott classes. There is no doubt that this is behaviour that must be dealt with firmly by the authorities. However, the situation that we have there today is that there are still over 350 pupils suspended from schools after a lapse of nearly four months. These children are unable to go to any other State school and they are now, in effect, on the streets during school hours without any schools to go to. That is simply a fact. Whatever the rights of the authorities may be I want to ask this question: Is it really impossible to maintain a reasonable measure of control over pupils—one can never have perfect control—without suspending hundreds of them? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. Are the authorities looking at the causes of this behaviour? I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that we cannot afford to go on in this way. There is resentment in Natal over the refusal of the authorities to say when they are going to readmit these children. It does not help to say, as has been said by the authorities, that they can apply for readmission next year and that the authorities will consider their applications favourably. The children were told in July that they could apologize and reapply for admission and most of them did so. A certain number were taken back but over 350 have still not been admitted and therefore there is still this resentment.

I think the hon. the Minister will understand that the question of the education of one’s children or the denial of the right to the education of one’s children at any particular time is a matter which is close to the deepest feelings of any parent. I want to appeal earnestly to the hon. the Minister to intervene in this matter immediately and to lend his authority and his weight to ending this unsatisfactory situation. He has the power and influence with the officials and his school principals to do so and I believe the hon. the Minister can with magnanimity act in a way that will reflect with great credit on him to end a very undesirable situation. I believe that the hon. the Minister can do it in a way which will evoke a favourable response from those affected, particularly from the parents. I therefore appeal to him to intervene and to allow these children to be readmitted to school forthwith. Some of these children were 14 when they were suspended and some were even older. I believe that if the hon. the Minister were to do something like that it would give rise to a positive attitude on the part of the children and their parents and it would give rise to a positive relationship in Natal between the parents and the children on the one hand and the authorities on the other. I believe that we have had enough of this confrontation and that an end must be made of this matter now.

In my view it would be a good thing if those concerned were to meet with the parents and children and discuss the problems that led to the riots in an effort to prevent a recurrence of these riots. I have no doubt that these problems would at least be substantially eliminated if the hon. the Minister would do that.

Finally, I was pleased to read in one of the Natal newspapers this morning that the hon. the Minister might be meeting parents shortly. I do not know if that report was correct but that was what it said. I hope that such a meeting can take place and that the discussions will be fruitful.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. member for Pinetown that in my opinion neither this side of the House nor the Government has any intention of seeking confrontation with pupils who want to attend school. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister is approaching the problem which the hon. member raised with great sympathy. Pupils in South Africa who want to attend school will, of course, be accommodated, but the Government also made it very clear that people who want to misuse children in South Africa for their own political purposes will not get away with it and that drastic action will be taken against them.

In that case punish those people and not the children. [Interjections.]

That hon. member is terribly loquacious, but we trust that he will cool off in due course.

Earlier this evening the hon. member for Durban North tried to drag sinister hidden meanings into the debate on “nasie” and “volk”.

Order! The hon. member may not use the word “sinister” and must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir. The hon. member tried to create incorrect impressions in respect of the debate on “volk” and “nasie”. I do not want to debate the concepts of “volk” and “nasie” with the hon. member, and consequently I shall leave it at that. However, I do want to ask him how his party and he see the future of the Coloured people in South Africa. After all, they, too, are going to have a separate Parliament for the Coloureds, and referred to themselves as pluralists in the South African set-up. After all, this is what they believe in. But how are those hon. members going to draw a distinction between the various communities or groups in South Africa? How are they going to determine who belongs to which group? I want to ask the hon. member whether his party accepts the Population Registration Act. They do not accept the legislation on race classification. But they do have the principle of “local option”—everyone can decide what he is, and then their party will accept it. This is the trouble with those hon. members; they criticize very easily, but when one pins them down on realities and what they want to do for South Africa, they pay lipservice to pluralism in South Africa.

One fact which we in South Africa have to face, is that we have a diversity of people here. Among them the Coloureds and the Indians are two communities which fall under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister. It does not matter what we make of this, whether we speak of ethnicity, of groups, communities or of races or even—as the PFP does—of cultural groups in South Africa. The fact of the matter is that we are dealing with a diversity of people in South Africa. Throughout this debate, though, the hon. members opposite have been obsessed with the story of political rights for the Coloureds. One is constantly hearing, by way of interjections, questions on what we are going to do about the political rights of the Coloureds. [Interjections.] But there is a question which I should like to put to them. Do they accept the principal of pluralism in South Africa? Surely the hon. member for Johannesburg North was the great White father of the two political parties on that side. Does he accept the principle of pluralism.

Brotherly father.

However, they do not want to reply. [Interjections.]

And then Kobie’s 40 points became 28.

As I said, they do not want to reply, for the only man in the opposition who has ever believed in the principle of pluralism was the previous hon. member for Bezuidenhout, Mr. Japie Basson. However, they got rid of him.

For that very reason.

Earlier in this debate I challenged them on the idea of a national convention. After all, the PFP is so sacrosanct. They are, after all, the people who are so honourable and upright in their intentions to find solutions in South African politics. Consequently I accepted that when they spoke of a national convention, such a national convention would establish a completely new constitutional dispensation for South Africa, outside this Parliament of course. But, no, then the hon. member Prof. Olivier said that I was talking nonsense.

Yes, you are always talking nonsense.

I want to thank him very sincerely, for he gave me a booklet entitled “Report of the Constitutional Committee of the Progressive Federal Party and Policy Decisions”. If one examines it, one sees very interesting things. On page 15, paragraph 3.2, there is, for example the caption “A new political dispensation”. Let me quote what is stated there—

Those are the harsh words those people use. But they go further—

They speak of pluralism in their booklet, but ultimately they do not want to admit that they are pluralists, or in any event they do not want to accept the fact that we are dealing with a plural situation in South Africa. If they are then in such earnest in their endeavour to find a solution for South Africa, I find it difficult to understand how they can boycott the President’s Council. They are so concerned about the situation that they speak of “racial confrontation” in South Africa if urgent steps are not taken. And yet, when the opportunity arises, they do nothing about it. Then they boycott an institution such as the President’s Council.

However, there is also another very interesting situation at which one should take a look. I quote what is stated in paragraph 3.4.3 on page 16 of the booklet—

Further on in the booklet, in paragraph 3.5, they put the question: “Why a national convention?” I quote—

Hon. members must please take careful note of this word “unilaterally”—

However, I am gradually discovering that the national convention of those hon. members is a farce, for it has no teeth.

Yes, like the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

Yes, just like the hon. member for Johannesburg North. They say that if the proposals of a national convention for a solution is rejected by this Parliament, which is in the hands of one community in South Africa, viz. the White group, the proposals are going to mean nothing to South Africa. Then they must start all over again. Who is now “unilaterally” …

Mr. Chairman, if the President’s Council does not come forward with acceptable proposals, what is the Government’s standpoint in that regard going to be?

We have no problems with that. It is those hon. members who have problems with the President’s Council. [Interjections.] We are adopting a very clear standpoint. Surely the Prime Minister said very clearly that if the President’s Council came forward with proposals, he would in the very first place refer them to his congresses to obtain their consent. The hon. the Prime Minister has always said that Parliament is the highest authoritative body in South Africa, and we will decide on the matter. If the Government takes the lead in South Africa—after all, we are the majority party—surely there will be no problems.

Then those hon. members must not argue with us and say: “No unilateral decision will be allowed to accept or not to accept certain constitutional proposals”.

There is a further very interesting point as well. Those hon. members are also going to establish a Federal Senate in South Africa.

Give the report to the hon. the Minister, too. He has not yet seen it.

The PFP declares—

1. (a) an equal number of Senators, representing each Federal State, and
2. (b) one Senator representing each of the Cultural Councils which have been registered at the Federal Constitutional Court.

Who are these people who are going to have themselves registered with a “Federal Constitutional Court” as cultural groups in South Africa? Will a group, for example the Coloureds, accept this? If the Coloureds, about whom hon. members are arguing vehemently, or a sector of the Coloureds, decide that they are a separate cultural group and that they want to have themselves registered, what are those hon. members going to do in respect of those people and their political rights?

Mr. Chairman, I listened to this debate with great astonishment.

To the last speaker in particular.

Yes, to the last speaker in particular, for I share his astonishment at the inability of the hon. member for Durban North to make a contribution. We are supposed to assess specific facets of the services which my department has to render to communities. With only a few exceptions, no contribution was made by hon. members opposite in respect of the different various groups and I intend to say more about that at a later stage. However, I first want to come to the hon. member for Pinetown. I intend to reply to his requests with the same measure of reasonableness with which he put them. Before doing so, however, I must first refer to certain other events pertaining to the subject which the hon. member for Pinetown discussed this evening, viz. the hon. member’s conduct earlier today. What did I find? I found that on 5 August this year a report appeared in The Daily News—this is a newspaper, is it not?—in which it is stated—

The report states that the hon. member for Pinetown made an appeal to me, and continues—

The report goes on to state—

In The Natal Mercury of the following day, 6 August, I read the following—

In the first place that hon. member, whom I have learnt is the chief spokesman of the official Opposition on the subject, never contacted me.

I tried and you know it.

The hon. member must not become excited now. He never contacted me. If he did try—which I do not want to dispute; how can I dispute something that I do not know about?—he could in that case have waited for an assessment. I informed the hon. member that I was dealing with this matter, for there are also certain codes which apply to us as Parliamentarians when it comes to officials who cannot defend themselves. The hon. member then went to the media—which he has every right to do—and condemned one of the top professional officers of my department and demanded his removal from office.

Cold-blooded.

He did this without ascertaining for himself what the facts are. I maintain in all fairness that this was a mistake and that it did not promote the case of the people on behalf of whom he is professing to make the appeal. However, there was a time when the hon. member was not here, and one is inclined to forget things. I now want to make him an offer. My door is open to him, as it is to every other hon. member, to come and discuss matters with me dealing with any subject within the scope of my responsibilities. I want to make an appeal this evening on behalf of those people who are responsible for the administration of this country, people who, under difficult circumstances, are responsible for rendering services to all these population groups in this country. I am asking that they be given the recognition they deserve. Even today the hon. member does not yet have the evidence at his disposal—and if he does have it, he has kept it from me—on the basis of which he addressed this request to me via the Press.

Now I want to come to the subject which the hon. member discussed. I think he will concede that one of the most important components of education and training is self-discipline and the application of discipline by the educators, whether it be the parents or the teachers. It is one of the essential requirements that self-discipline be applied or that discipline be applied by others.

You should read Dr. Spock.

Oh, please, Sir, that frivolous member should rather keep quiet, for I am not talking to him, except to say that he, too, can take the lesson which I am teaching the other hon. members to heart. [Interjections.]

Order!

Discipline is also important in respect of the other pupils who subject themselves to the educational process in the school. Historically speaking these boycotts did not start this year, but last year, not so? I see the hon. member nodding in agreement. The boycotts this year began in the first place in order to commemorate last year’s boycotts.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.