Mr. Speaker, I move—

14h15 until the House adjourns upon its own resolution;

10h00 until the House adjourns upon its own resolution.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, just before this House adjourned last night, I was answering the remarks of the hon. member Prof. Olivier, in consequence of his doubts regarding an allegedly too dominating position of the Minister in the control and the management of technical colleges. I pointed out that it was not realistic to compare technical colleges with technikons and universities, as he in fact did, especially in the light of the level of staff qualifications and management of the latter institutions. I also referred to what the hon. member for Durban North said in his arguments against those objections.

In conclusion, I want to reemphasize that the Minister has an important role to play in the process of ensuring co-ordination among the various technical colleges, co-ordination with regard to the judicious placing of the various training opportunities, to ensure that the courses offered by the various colleges are not duplicated unnecessarily, and also co-ordination with regard to syllabuses in order to ensure the standard of all the different institutions at the same level. At the same time this is a matter which can be reviewed as the technical colleges develop in the new dispensation and, if need be, revised. At this stage, however, like the hon. member for Durban North, I am convinced that the necessary arrangements can best be made in this way.

I have now dealt with all the contributions of hon. members. In conclusion I just want to express my thanks to all of them for their positive support for this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The effect of this amendment will be that with regard to the composition of the councils of the technical colleges, it will not be specifically prescribed that those who are appointed by the Minister as members of the council must have special knowledge of an educational matter. This is also not done in the legislation on universities and technikons. It is assumed that the Minister will take the relevant qualifications into consideration when making such nominations. In some instances, the emphasis can be placed on educational expertise, in others, on business expertise and similar important skills.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This means that the Minister is authorized, but not compelled, to incorporate provisions relating to the effective accomplishment of the amalgamation of technical colleges in the notices in question in the Gazette.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, we come now to the Third Reading of this Bill and we on this side of the House would like to convey our best wishes for the successful development of this system of technical colleges under the hon. the Minister and his department. We do hope that they will come up to expectations.

I shall not speak for long, but allow me to react briefly to two of the more ideological aspects which emerged during the debate. The hon. the Minister has just dealt with one aspect, namely the question of the powers of the Minister, in which connection he drew a distinction between technical colleges on the one hand and technikons and universities on the other. Expressed in general terms, I agree with the hon. the Minister that it would be fair to draw this distinction. If one looks at how the technikons are controlled and one compares this with the Vista University, there is in fact no difference; in other words, the differences in the powers and the authority of the Minister concerned, as contained in this Bill, in comparison with those which he has in respect of technikons and the Vista University, are few and far between. Therefore in practice it appears to me as though the hon. the Minister will have to be of assistance, so that in the field of universities we try to make some other arrangement than the one which applies in the case of technical colleges.

The second point I want to deal with, is the reference made here yesterday to which the hon. the Minister reacted, namely that as far as the general policy is concerned, it is the policy of the Government that there shall be separate institutions, but not so much on the basis of the various national groups, because the point has already been made that although it was originally the basic motivation to establish so-called ethnically orientated institutions, that point of departure has in many respects fallen away with the development we have had, such as at Medunsa, the Vista University and in many other cases. I still want to say—and I address this particularly to the hon. the Minister, because we know him to be honest in his thinking—that there is a fundamental difference between community facilities created on a voluntary basis for that community, and a policy of enforced apartheid. There is a fundamental distinction. The hon. the Minister ought to acknowledge that fundamental distinction in terms of his own experience in South West Africa where several of the legislative measures of the Republic of South Africa are no longer applicable. I therefore want to emphasize that, if we persist with what I in fact consider to be a very dangerous premise, namely to want to have constant recourse to an element of statutory compulsion with regard to arrangements among the various groups or races in South Africa, it is a foolish premise, one which is fraught with danger to South Africa and which will still cause us much bitter remorse in South Africa. I accept the philosophical and the ideological difference between those of us on this side of the House and the Government, but I do not want to emphasize that difference. I only want to say that if we continue in this manner, it will indeed cause us to reap the bitter fruits of our folly. I also want to reiterate that I feel that the hon. the Minister, if he would really give careful consideration to these things, would agree with me that the less compulsion that is used to achieve these goals, the better.

Finally, and in reply to what the hon. member for Durban North said, I feel that there are many provisions in this Bill which have very little to do with finances as such, but even if one were to accept the general premise that, because there are large financial allocations, especially in the case of the Vista University, ministerial approval is required for these allocations, it is still clear that considerable donations are also expected from the private sector for the technical colleges. There are many cases in this Bill where a direct connection with financial matters cannot really be sought.

They are not universities.

The hon. member adopted exactly the same attitude in the case of universities, and I do not want to pursue this matter further, except to say that the justification the hon. member gave for it was in my opinion not convincing.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reply briefly to the remarks of the hon. member Prof. Olivier. I want to point out that the comparison with the Vista University Bill was not really applicable either. The Vista University is a new institution which has to be built up from scratch and, as is the case with the establishment of new universities for other communities, for example for Whites, as a matter of course a greater degree of external control, is exercised in the beginning phase, either by the State, by other university institutions or by both together. Indeed, this is nothing new. In this Bill what is basically involved is the transformation of a system of existing technical colleges and institutes into a new system with greater self-management. There is therefore a basis of built-up experience on which to proceed, and therefore the comparison is really not valid.

I want to make one further remark in connection with the comparison the hon. member drew with South West Africa. I have said many times in the past that to compare what happened in South West Africa with what happens and may happen in South Africa, is simply unrealistic. The entire set-up in South West Africa is different to that in South Africa. South West Africa is a vast territory. There is little demographic pressure. The population is dispersed and is only urbanized and industrialized to a slight extent. Natural ethnic bonds are very strong in South West Africa and a natural sorting-out of population relations and settlement, without the degree of statutory compulsion necessitated by a more complex community such as that in South Africa, can more readily happen there than here in South Africa. It would therefore be foolish to draw a simple comparison between the situations.

The policy of the Government of recognizing national diversity and attempting to achieve self-determination for each specific group, is in fact based on the unique, particularly complex circumstances that prevail in South Africa. In other circumstances, such as in America, for example, no right-thinking South African could quite understand why segregation should be necessary. The circumstances in America are so different that there was simply no really inherent justification for segregation. I therefore want to ask that we consider this matter in the context of the facts of South Africa.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The proposed amendments do not involve any new principles, but merely seek to improve the functioning of the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites. The amendment of the definitions of “head of education” and “school” is purely technical in view of the rationalization which occurred in the Public Service.

I should like to elucidate further the deletion of the definition of “teacher” and the insertion of the definition of “professionally qualified teacher”.

In order to promote the objectives of the council, the designation of the profession protected by the council, viz. “teacher”, ought to be used only by persons who satisfy the definition of “teacher” in the Act, viz. a White person who holds a professional teacher’s qualification. Because of the numerous reference to the word “teacher” in other Acts and ordinances, the restriction of the use of the word “teacher” to this Act alone as well as rendering any other use or misuse thereof punishable, will result in a drastic restriction being imposed on the use of a general word. A restriction on the use of the word “teacher” will also have as a result that persons who do not hold professional teacher’s qualifications but who are registered or provisionally registered with the council in terms of section 15 or section 16, respectively, will be allowed to teach at a school but will not be allowed to call themselves teachers. In order to eliminate this problem the Bill proposes to substitute for the word “teacher”, wherever it appears in the Act, the words “professionally qualified teacher” so that it is only the use of the latter term which is being restricted and protected.

†The powers of the council with regard to the provisional registration of persons are being extended to certain temporary appointments. Persons who are not professionally qualified, but who are appointed for periods longer than three months in a full-time temporary capacity, as contemplated in clause 2, will henceforth have to register provisionally. The result will be that the professional code of conduct will also apply to these persons.

Section 21(e) of the Act is being amended to provide that a person who pretends to be registered or provisionally registered in terms of the Act, and who is not registered as such, will be guilty of an offence. The penalty that can be imposed in such a case is already provided for in section 21 of the Act.

*A new section, which I should like to elucidate further, is also being inserted into the Act.

In terms of section 18(a) of the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites Act, 1976, the council has the power to inquire or cause an inquiry to be instituted into a complaint, charge or allegation of a contravention of a provision of the professional code of conduct against a registered of provisionally registered person. Section 22 of the Act provides that if the conduct forming the subject of such a complaint, charge or allegation is connected with the commission of an offence of which such person has been convicted by a court of law, the record of the relevant court proceedings shall be prima facie proof of the commission of that offence.

The Professional Code of Conduct for Teachers, drawn up in terms of section 15(1)(d) of the Act and promulgated by Government Gazette No. 1958 of 29 September 1978 provides, inter alia, that a teacher may not commit a criminal offence. In the code “teacher” means a registered teacher or person, as well as a provisionally registered person.

The council, however, is not empowered to act of its own accord to inquire into a complaint. The complaint, charge or allegation has to be submitted to the registrar in writing as laid down by regulation 3 of the regulations promulgated by Government Gazette No. R.2181 of 3 November 1978 which deals with the inquiry into alleged contraventions of the professional code of conduct for teachers and the conducting of inquiries.

The problem to which this state of affairs gives rise in particular, is that when a teacher is, for example, convicted: of an offence in a court of law, the incident is usually given extensive publicity in the Press, but unless the matter is broached with the council in writing, no action can be taken in that regard. However, this problem is now being solved as enunciated in clause 5.

Section 24 is being amended by providing that a person may also appeal against the imposition of a penalty provided for in section 18(b) of the Act.

Finally, provision is being made for the extension of the council’s powers to make regulations which are essential to its effective functioning.

Mr. Speaker, it is now more than five years since the principal Act, which is being amended today, was passed. There have been minor amendments before now, but this is certainly the first amendment of some substance, even though most of the amendments are merely of a technical nature.

I think it is worth looking back to see just how the Act has worked over that period. This is useful if one wants to look at what one is going to achieve by these amendments.

I think that it is true to say that as far as the teaching profession is concerned, the teachers’ council, as constituted five years ago, has been something of a disappointment. That is, of course, not to say that it has been a complete failure, but it has tended to be something of a nonentity and has not excited the teaching profession in this country very much.

Talk about a subject about which you know something.

I believe that this is because it suffers from certain fatal defects. The first is that the teachers’ council will not be a professional body as long as membership is based on racial criteria and not on professional qualifications alone.

Order! I wish to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that the principle, as originally agreed upon by this House, cannot be debated now. The amendments being brought about are merely technical amendments, and the original principle of the Act cannot therefore be debated now.

Yes, but I am referring to the fact that in his introductory speech the hon. the Minister said “… ten einde die raad se doelstellings te bevorder …” with reference to the question of redefining the word “teacher” or eliminating the word “teacher” in isolation. It is in clause 1(b) of this Bill that the term ‘professionally qualified teacher’ is being applied to teachers, a definition of ‘professionally qualified teacher’ being inserted accordingly. It is in the context of the definition of “professionally qualified teacher” that I made my reference.

Order! It is still not relevant to argue the question of race under this amending Bill. The hon. member must refrain from referring to this aspect of the original Act.

Actually I nave already finished with that, Sir.

As far as the definition of a “professionally qualified teacher” is concerned, I think it is interesting to look back at what the hon. the Minister of National Education at the time, now the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, said, (Hansard, 24 May 1976, col. 7395)—

He further said—

Sir, I do not propose to comment on that as you have ruled, quite correctly, that we must not debate the question of whether the council should be for Whites or not. I would, however, be pleased if the hon. the Minister could tell us what progress is being made in terms of those comments about the other councils and about a co-ordinating body of some sort.

It is also interesting to note—the hon. the Minister did not refer to this specifically—that in clause 1(d) of this amending Bill the words “who are not White persons” are being removed. They are set out at the bottom of page 1, in line 27. In the absence of a specific explanation from the hon. the Minister, I assume that it is being done because the words are now being considered as superfluous and also because the Government is attempting to remove references to race wherever possible. It certainly is disappointing that that reference is being removed in that paragraph but not also in clause 1(b) where reference is made to “professionally qualified teachers”.

I now want to come to another area which I think has been a problem area for the Teachers’ Council for Whites in relation to what we are discussing now. I should like to quote what the then Minister of National Education said (Hansard, 25 May 1976, col. 7524)—

Here I am referring to the fact that the council’s professional status also suffers because it cannot determine what a professional teacher’s qualification is, as we are now defining it in clause 1(b). In other words, the Committee of Heads of Education was doing it. The then Minister said at the time that he could not change it because of the National Education Act. He then went on to say—

Therefore I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister would also comment on that remark in his reply, viz. whether there has been any progress in looking at that matter. In terms of the definition which is being amended, nothing has in fact changed in that regard, and the definition of a professional teacher’s qualification still remains in the hands of the Committee of Heads of Education. To that extent we see this amending Bill as representing an opportunity missed. There certainly are some limited improvements, but it will not turn the Teachers’ Council into a true professional body.

As we see it, there are five changes of some consequence in the Bill. The first is that covered by clauses 2 and 3 in terms of which teachers are now required to be registered or provisionally registered to be eligible for appointment for a period exceeding three months in a full-time temporary capacity. That to us, and, I believe, to the teaching profession makes a lot of sense and we support it. Clause 4 makes it an offence to pretend to be registered or provisionally registered when one is not, and this is obviously a sensible thing if the status of the teaching profession is to be protected. Clause 5 is the one requiring courts to inform the S.A. Teachers’ Council if a teacher is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment or a fine of R200 or more. We looked hard at that and we do not have any problem with it because it is obviously sensible that the council should have as much relevant information as possible about the members registered with it. Clause 6 clarifies the right to appeal against the imposition of a penalty. This, too, is obviously a desirable thing. Clause 7 makes provision for the payment of allowances to witnesses, which we also feel is sensible.

Those are the five parts of the Bill which we think introduce changes other than purely technical ones. We think they are all desirable and accordingly we will be supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am merely rising to express my thanks to the official Opposition for supporting this amending Bill. I would honestly have been surprised if there had not once again been a sting in the tail. I shall not pursue the matter. What I did find shocking was that the S.A. Teachers’ Council was referred to as a “disappointed body”. I advise the hon. member to read the standpoints and report of the chairman of the S.A. Teachers’ Council, Dr. Nico van Loggerenberg, to find out how much appreciation and pride there is in the association for what was established in 1976.

Then I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the Bill at present before us. By introducing this much-needed Bill without delay, he has shown that he did not delay in contacting the teaching profession and ascertaining its needs. We are deeply grateful to the hon. the Minister for this.

There are two matters here which I find of great significance. The first is the definition of who may register with the S.A. Teachers’ Council, for which we on this side of the House are deeply grateful. In particular the extension of registration to the temporary teacher who has been teaching for a period exceeding three months, is a great improvement and we want to thank the hon. the Minister for it.

The profession would like to see every teacher entering the classroom, endorsing the creed of the teaching profession, but I think this measure brings us as close as possible to the ideal.

I also want to refer to the proposed new section 22A with which we are very satisfied and which effects a major improvement. This concerns the teacher who has committed an offence outside the field of education. Very practical arrangements are being made to provide how this matter can be dealt with by the S.A. Teachers’ Council.

One matter has stood over from the principal Act of 1976. At that time it was said that the Teachers’ Council would draw up a creed for the teacher. I have the creed here and it is really a shame that one cannot place part of it on record. I just want to refer to one point in the creed which was drawn up by the profession itself and which, for me, effectively summarizes the teacher’s attitude to his pupil—

We on this side of the House congratulate the S.A. Teachers’ Council on drawing up of this wonderful creed. We wish them every success with the development of their own association and the development of education. We are content to leave the flower of our nation in their hands. It gives us pleasure to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches have no problems with this Bill either. We have established from the profession itself that they are quite satisfied with the amendments contained in this Bill. In fact, in many instances, they have been lobbying for this for some time.

The gravamen of the Bill is threefold, firstly, to make provision for discrimination or differentiation between those people who are professionally qualified in the occupation of a teacher and who require this particular status to be accorded them. I think the facility for those who are not professionally qualified to continue to remain in the profession is a very sound and pragmatic principle which the hon. the Minister has pursued in this particular Bill. We are also most grateful for the fact that the outflow of this particular legislation is that it will also set standards for non-State institutions. Perhaps not directly but certainly indirectly it will have a very beneficial effect on those other institutions, those academies and the type of institution that employs tutors and educators as well. If an individual is professionally registered with the council, that will be an asset to him should he ever move out of the orbit of State education as well. The inclusion of the offence of calling oneself a teacher unlawfully is concomitant with professional registration.

The one area where we do, however, have some questions to put to the hon. the Minister is in connection with clause 5 in principle. I refer to the vexed question of having to deal with the double punishment of an offender. We are fully appreciative of the fact that every profession must have a code of conduct, a code of ethics, and that, because of the high profile which individuals in education have, if an individual is guilty of a misdemeanour as defined in clause 5 then, of course, as the hon. the Minister himself said in his introductory speech, this receives quite considerable publicity. However, there is always the problem inherent in this, particularly in view of the fact that once such an offence has been committed by an individual it will be brought to the notice of the council, of the double punishment of such an individual. I think it is an unavoidable problem but it is certainly one that will require the attention of the hon. the Minister and the council as far as the application of the provisions of clause 5 is concerned. Every profession—medical, dental and pharmaceutical—has exactly the same pragmatic problem in the administration of its code of ethics.

I should like to illustrate to the hon. the Minister what may possibly happen in order to indicate that we should perhaps rethink the emphasis of this particular clause. An individual who is an educator or a professional teacher may be found guilty of a contravention of the traffic laws which, for instance, carries with it a mandatory fine in excess of R200. The case of such an individual is then brought to the notice of the council and the council itself will institute an investigation as a result of which it may well consider the offence to be a criminal offence. In certain instances, of course, in terms of the law it will be. However, flowing from that as well, there is the very real possibility that such an individual will now be deregistered or taken off the roll. In practice, therefore, one can have situations where a teacher could be punished three times, firstly, by the fact that he is fined in excess of R200 or is sentenced to imprisonment for a certain period; secondly, because there has been fairly wide publicity, such an individual will already have been punished in a certain sense because of the scope of that publicity; and thirdly, the council itself may take retributive steps against that individual. All we can suggest is that this matter be approached with extreme caution and pragmatism by the council itself. One should also, of course, wherever possible, uphold the standards of the ethics within the profession without actually becoming administrators of triple or double punishment in respect of an individual.

Finally, Sir, I should like to say that we believe that these provisions are important because they are the end result of a process of negotiation and discussion by the profession which has accepted them and therefore we shall also be supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. members for their support for the legislation. I should like to say—unfortunately I must do so in contrast to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens—that we profoundly appreciate the extent to which the prestige of the teaching profession has been promoted by the council in the few short years of its existence. It is not a council which is constantly in the public eye, because teaching is a happy profession in which there is little reason for disciplinary action. One of the main reasons for the establishment of the council was of course so that the profession could discipline itself through the council—indeed, this is one of the characteristics of a profession. The fact that this council is therefore not constantly in the public eye, is to me an indication of the ethical and correct professional behaviour of the members of the profession and this is cause for gratitude rather than concern.

I should like to refer to the question of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens on the proposed deletion of the words “who are not White persons” in terms of clause 1(d). The deletion is proposed because the reference in the remaining parts of the provision to the specific departments responsible for the education of non-Whites, makes those words completely unnecessary. That is all one can read into the amendment.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens referred to my predecessor’s remarks on the occasion of the submission of the legislation when he wanted to know whether the council must also have the responsibility of determining the professional qualifications of teachers. This is a responsibility which at the moment still rests with the Committee of Heads of Education. No change has been made to this situation, and I want to make this quite clear, so that this House will understand that the professional character of the teaching profession differs from that of other professions in two very important aspects.

The first difference lies in the fact that the teaching profession is not a self-employed profession, as most other professions are. The teaching profession is by definition an employee profession. Moreover it is a profession that is for the most part employed by a single employer, the State. It therefore goes without saying that in the case of education the employer will have a considerable say in the determining of qualifications, in contrast to the other professions, which are self-employed and whose members therefore have the major say in the determining of qualifications.

The second difference between the teaching profession and other professions lies in the fact that the clients of the other professions are usually adults who are autonomous and therefore can take decisions themselves concerning what professional persons’ services they want to avail themselves of, whereas in the case of the teaching profession the client is a minor who cannot decide whether he wants to make use of the teaching services; he is compelled by law to make use of them. In any event he is in most cases compelled, as regards the choice of school, to go to a specific school. Nor, when he is in school, can he decide in what class he wants to be or what teacher he wants to have; that too is decided for him. The client in the case of the teaching profession is therefore in a position of far less freedom and because the client cannot protect himself, it is necessary that there be a greater degree of control exercised by the employer—i.e. the state, by means of its education department that employs these professional people—over the teaching profession than in the case of other professions.

However, I want to give the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens the assurance that the matter of a good balance between co-responsibility of the profession and co-responsibility of the employer—i.e. the Committee of Heads of Education as the spokesman of the employer—in determining professional qualifications is something that will receive my sympathetic attention in the future and I shall see to it that justice is done on both sides.

I should like to voice my appreciation for the reference made by the hon. member for Brentwood to the creed of the Teachers Council. It is something of which I, too, took note with great appreciation and pride. As a matter of fact, I have a copy of it hanging in my office.

I want to assure the hon. member for Durban North that the sensitive issue that he raised of possible double punishment is something I am sure we can assume will be applied responsibly by the council. As a matter of fact, he himself indicated that the legislation leaves adequate room for a wise council to deal with it correctly. This matter will also, as he requested, receive my care and attention to ensure that everything does in fact go smoothly.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a purely grammatical matter. I refer to clause 1(d), which relates to an amended definition of “school”. Prior to this amendment, the definition read: “… an educational institution for persons who are not White persons where full-time education … is given”. Now, with this Bill, we are deleting the words “who are not White persons”, which means that the definition will now read: … an educational institution for persons where full-time education … is given”. The words “for persons” have obviously now become superfluous, and I therefore move—

Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept this amendment. I congratulate the hon. member. I think he would be a very good language teacher.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on page 165 of the Order Paper, as follows—

Subsection (2), to which this amendment relates, has to do with the appointment of an acting rector. Under clauses 1, 3 and 4, we have tried to indicate our objection to the lack of internal autonomy and the constant refrain of “with the approval of the Minister”. I stated then that I would not motivate each amendment that I would move in this regard, since I had already done so fairly exhaustively under those clauses that I have mentioned. There is no need for me, therefore, to motivate this amendment any further. I move the amendment, and hope that the Committee will accept it.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I cannot comply with the hon. member’s hopes and expectations by accepting this amendment. I want to explain the position briefly. If the hon. member studies the history of existing universities he will find that they did not begin immediately as autonomous universities, as is the case here. They began as university colleges with much greater control over them. Here we have a university with full autonomy from the outset. As a result one must expect that there will be aspects over which the Minister must have control, for example as regards finance and the appointment of executive officials of the university, such as the rector and the acting rector, if one is appointed. In these cases ministerial approval is necessary. I want to tell the hon. member that I am convinced that the degree of ministerial control exercised by virtue of this single measure is less than was the case with the existing universities when they were first established. This university is starting out with a greater degree of internal autonomy than did those universities. The university is starting out with internal autonomy. This provision is necessary because we are building up a new university from scratch. At the moment there is still nothing. That is why this single provision is being introduced. The hon. member for Durban North pointed out very effectively the other day that we must consider this undertaking as a company with a number of shareholders, with the State as the shareholder that must make the financial contribution. That is why it is essential that the State have a say in respect of certain aspects—not all, but only a few, namely, financial matters and the appointment of executive officials at that institution. I am afraid that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This also has to do with the appointment of a vice-rector. In the previous clause we dealt with the fact that the council with the approval of the Minister was able to appoint a vice-rector as an acting rector. This clause deals with the actual formal appointment of a vice-rector. Therefore my amendment is consequential and simply seeks to amend the clause in such a way that the appointment of a vice-rector will not be subject to the approval of the Minister. I just want to say in one sentence that we believe that the council as a board of directors, does a very good job, and we should therefore leave the appointment of a vice-rector to it.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have already replied to this amendment under clause 8. The position is the same. I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, this is a slightly different amendment. This clause deals with the appointment of the staff of the university. The effect of the amendment will be to afford a right of appeal to any member of the staff who has been discharged. We are dealing here not so much with the powers of the Minister as with the protection of members of the staff. The right of appeal is quite customary and normal in other universities. In this instance I think the hon. the Minister is almost bound to accept this amendment because I am sure that he would want the right of appeal to be there in the case of a discharge. I am not going to motivate the amendment any further as we discussed it fully in the Select Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. member again, but at the same time I want to reassure him by telling him that what he has asked for already appears in the clause.

No.

Such provision is in fact made, but allow me just to outline what is provided in clause 15. That clause provides that no person may be appointed, promoted or transferred as far as certain posts determined by the Minister are concerned, without his approval. What happens in practice is that when a person is appointed, the Minister delegates to the council the power to make that appointment. The Minister therefore gives the council the power—except in the case of the rector and the vice-rector—to appoint persons, but where a person is to be discharged, the approval of the Minister must first be sought. As far as promotions and appointments are concerned, the council only needs the approval of the Minister in the case of executive posts, whereas in other cases that power is delegated. In the case of the discharge of staff the Minister’s approval must be sought. In effect, therefore, provision is already made for what the hon. member is requesting.

Mr. Chairman, in spite of the arguments advanced by the hon. the Minister we believe, along with the official Opposition, that the hon. the Minister has no option but to accept this amendment because in essence what it is doing is to make tangible the appeal procedure which the hon. the Minister has spoken about. We think that this is a considerable improvement on what is stated in the clause. The hon. the Minister is quite correct that any discharge may be referred to him.

Not “may be”. It must be referred to me.

In practice one will find that it may be so. However, I think the clearer wording of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands makes it very specific that the individual who is discharged may, if he is aggrieved by the discharge, appeal to the Minister. I think there is a difference in emphasis rather than in principle. On that basis we will fully support the amendment and we trust that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to accept this improvement in the principle which he himself accepts in this clause.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21:

Mr. Chairman, I move the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 16, in lines 2 and 3, to omit “, with the permission in writing of the Minister, granted on such conditions as he may determine,”;
2. (2) on page 16, in lines 7 to 9, to omit subsection (2).

Clause 21 deals with the admission as students of persons other than Blacks. The Committee will recall that clause 3(2) provides that this university will be for Black students. However, there is a qualification to that which makes it possible, with the permission in writing of the Minister granted on conditions that he may determine, for certain students other than Blacks to be admitted. The hon. the Minister actually mentioned in the Second Reading that some of those persons he had in mind were lecturers and their families and so on. We of course welcome the opportunity for this university to be marginally open, even to this limited extent. We do not believe that it should be necessary to have the Minister’s permission in writing granted on such conditions as he may determine. That is the reason why I moved my first amendment.

My second amendment seeks to omit subsection (2) of clause 21, which reads as follows—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister—and I am not referring to him in his personal capacity, but in his official capacity—again comes over as an ogre. First of all he has to give permission in writing, and secondly he has to do so on certain conditions. We do not know what those conditions are. That is not quite clear. What we do know, however, is that in the light of the arguments presented here by the hon. the Minister and some of his hon. colleagues during the course of the debate on this Bill, those conditions will be fairly stringent. It will be very difficult for anybody other than a Black student to gain admittance.

I see the hon. the Minister is nodding his head. He obviously agrees with the logic of my argument. For that reason we will obviously vote against this clause because we want this university to be open as we believe all universities should be open. We also believe that the council should make the decisions about who should have the right of attendance. It follows automatically, if we want to be consistent, that we should oppose this clause as well. We are going to do so and that is why I moved those two amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I do not find it at all strange that the hon. member for Pinelands stated that he and his party will vote against this specific clause. Indeed, they did the same thing in the case of clause 3, which in fact determined the essence and the character of the Vista University.

I want to react briefly to what the hon. member for Pinelands said. It is very clear that the essence of the Vista University lies in the fact that the university is basically intended for Black people. We have already debated that. However, what the hon. member for Pinelands and other hon. members opposite must appreciate, is the fact that we on this side of the House, and therefore the hon. the Minister of Education and Training as well, understand that specific circumstances can exist which are in the best interests of those persons serving the Vista University too, and that in those specific circumstances and under specific conditions people who are not Blacks can be admitted to that university. This is a well-known provision which, as a matter of fact, appears in the Black Universities Act as well. In that regard, because it lies at the root of the entire concept regarding the Vista University, I believe it is only logical and essential that it must require the written consent of the Minister. From this hon. members of the Opposition must not necessarily deduce that it is entirely a control measure which will be applied coercively by the Minister. The mere fact that the possibility is created in legislation, attests to the good faith and the good intentions of this side of the House to meet a duly proven need.

This brings me to the second amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands. If such a student is admitted to the university, it is obviously logical that if that student acts contrary to the conditions under which he was admitted, the Minister must have the right to tell him that he has not met the requirements or the conditions and that he must therefore leave the university. I do not understand how the hon. member for Pinelands can object to that, except on the basis of the fact that he rejects the principle itself. That I can of course understand.

Mr. Chairman, I merely want to explain to the hon. member for Pinelands why we are unable to support his amendments in this particular instance. He probably wonders why we are unable to support him, because we supported the movement to open tertiary education to all races, and it might seem now that we are not in support of this particular principle. However, I should like to explain to the hon. member that in practical terms the effect of his amendment to subsection (1) will prohibit the entrance of any persons other than Blacks to this university. We believe, although it may only be a crumb, that it goes some way towards the admission of members of other race groups other than Blacks. With the Minister’s permission this can occur. Therefore we find that if we support the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands, even that minuscule movement towards opening tertiary education would in fact be negatived.

We also have some difficult with the amendment to subsection (2). It is pure logic that if a person is granted permission in terms of a contractual right, as it were, and there are certain specific conditions, then obviously those conditions must be adhered to in order to have any force or viability. Otherwise there is no point in laying down conditions. If one just has a laissez-faire approach, then, of course, one gets into trouble. Therefore if conditions are laid down for entry, they must have force. Therefore we shall not be able to support the amendment to subsection (2) either.

Mr. Chairman, in response to what the hon. member for Durban North has said, I fail to follow the logic of his argument. All that we are proposing in this amendment is that the words as indicated should be omitted. Clause 21(1) will then read—

In this way you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

No, I am merely saying that it does not mean that under those circumstances, if the amendment is accepted, the council will not be in a position to allow other people than Blacks as students.

‘Furthermore, in reply to the hon. member for Virginia, I just want to point out that in clause 22 it is stated very clearly that—

This means in effect, and the hon. member for Virginia will have to concede the point, that if any student at that university, including a non-Black student, should behave in a way unacceptable to the council, the council may exercise the powers bestowed on it in terms of clause 22 and refuse such student further admission. That, then, is my interpretation; in other words, I do not want to accept the argument of the hon. member for Virginia that if we should leave the permission in the hands of the council, the council would, for example, not act against students, whoever they may be, who do not behave according to the norms of that university.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member Prof. Olivier said that he failed to follow the logic of the hon. member for Durban North’s argument. The hon. member need not worry. It is not necessary for him to follow the logic of the argument. The hon. member for Durban North is correct. [Interjections.]

*He may as well accept it whether or not it sounds logical to him, but the hon. member is right. I just want to tell the hon. member and other hon. members that in this case, too, we have been arguing a great deal about the contents of the clause, except perhaps as far as subsection (2) is concerned. We have not discussed that yet. I think the hon. member is making a mistake. Of course the next clause, viz. clause 22, deals only with the admission of Blacks. In that sense this university is, of course, fully autonomous. The Minister has no say in that regard. As far as Black people are concerned, the university is totally autonomous. The autonomy of the university comes into the picture only when people who are not Blacks want to attend the university. It is only then when, according to those hon. members, the autonomy of the university is at issue. I do not regard this as a curtailment of the autonomy, but I can understand that hon. members argue along those lines. As far as the admission of Black people is concerned, the university is fully autonomous. However, we do understand that a need may arise for people other than Blacks to study at this university, just as it is necessary in certain circumstances for Blacks to study at White universities, e.g. in subjects which are not taught at their universities or in certain fields of study, for example African studies, African languages or whatever, where a professor at this university is the greatest authority in the country and where a student has good reason to want to study under that professor. In such a case a student may apply to be enrolled at such university and the council may then, with the permission of the Minister, grant the application. Suppose a student were to obtain permission to take a certain course at the university and while he is there he decides to follow another course which is in fact available at the university which he had to attend originally. Then there is no reason for his having to attend another university. In such a case the conditions falls away and the Minister should have the right to withdraw the permission which he had granted.

If hon. members would study the report once again they would see that a need does exist among the Black people for a university such as this. We are now establishing such a university and surely we have to make the facilities there available to those among whom there is a need for such a university. Hon. members are also aware that, inter alia, lower tuition fees will be paid at this university, and therefore we have to take steps to ensure that the facilities at this university will be utilized by those for whom they are intended in the first place. Accordingly we must have this protection to prevent these facilities from being utilized by others who have no need for them and for whom sufficient facilities already exist.

Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to three points that the hon. the Minister has now made. Firstly, the report to which he referred makes it very clear that they are not speaking in racially exclusive terms, and therefore I do not think that he has any support there. Secondly, the hon. the Minister referred to my colleague’s argument that if my amendment was actually accepted by the Committee clause 22 could then prevent any students from being accepted, except those admitted by the council. The hon. the Minister said that that only refers to Black students. However, that is not what the law says. Clause 22 reads—

In the Bill there is no definition of “person” or “student”. As this clause reads therefore it cannot only refer to Black, White or any other student. In my view the hon. the Minister’s argument in this regard does not hold water.

But it is when the council refuses students.

That is true, but it does not say “Black”.

In the case of a refusal.

Yes, but in the case of a refusal it could be Whites.

Yes, it can.

That is not what the hon. the Minister said before, Sir.

In regard to the third point the hon. the Minister leapt to the defence of the hon. member for Durban North. However, there is really no logic in either the hon. the Minister’s defence or in the hon. member’s argument. The hon. member said by way of interjection that we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But for the life of me I cannot understand what he means. The wording at the moment is—

Now leave out the words that we want to omit, and it will then read—

It is quite clear that if our amendment is accepted, it would simply mean that the council can accept non-Blacks into the university, because the council would be making the decision and will not require the permission of the Minister. That is the only thing we want to have taken out. On the logic of the hon. member for Durban North’s argument, he must support this amendment because his argument is totally at variance.

I am, however, not going to pursue it further. We stand by our amendment. The illogicality seems to sweep from NRP to Nat, and we are not going to have anything to do with that.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to comment on the strategy employed by the hon. member for Pinelands. He knows that we have already progressed from clause 3, which has been approved by this Committee, right through to clause 21. Therefore one can only read the significance of the words and the provisions in clause 21 when read in conjunction with the precedents, which is the approval of clause 3(2). As things stand at the moment, therefore, the university is only there for Blacks. [Interjections.] The hon. member will have to accept that as a fact, because it has been approved by this Committee.

But this is a qualifying clause.

There has, however, been a considerable improvement, and here I am referring to that aspect in principle and not in any quantitative sense. Now, however, an exception is to be made in the sense that with the approval of the hon. the Minister members of race groups other than the Black group may be admitted to the university. That is why I told the hon. member for Pinelands that if that provision is removed from clause 21, by way of an amendment—and that would be the effect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands—those people would not be admitted because clause 3(2) allows only for Blacks.

But the council can still do that.

Amendments put and the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I now move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 16, in lines 26 to 27, to omit “with the approval of the Minister, granted with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance”;
2. (2) on page 16, in lines 28 to 30, to omit subsection (2).

Once again this concerns the control of the university by the council and the powers of the council vis-à-vis the Minister. I hope the hon. the Minister does not find my comparison unflattering, but he reminds me a great deal of that well-known former member of the Security Council of the UN whose vocabulary apparently consisted of only one word, namely “nyet”. Even when we raise the best arguments, the hon. the Minister continues to dig in his heels. The issue here is the fees payable to the university by students. We feel, in the first place, that the amount must be determined by the council. I have referred to this many times. It is a responsible council. To a large extent the Minister has the say as to the appointment of members of the council. I cannot understand why we cannot give the council the power to determine the tuition fees themselves. That is what my first amendment is about. I shall not go into further particulars. We have already argued this matter many times.

The second amendment concerns that portion of the fees which the Minister may determine must be paid into the Exchequer. Owing to our belief in the necessity that the council must be afforded greater autonomous powers, it is our view that those fees must accrue to the university itself, under the control of the council, and not the Exchequer. The Select Committee accepted that the council must be able to accept donations, to which no conditions are attached. It therefore appears to me to be essential that those donations must accrue to the council and not the State Exchequer, because if they accrue to the State Exchequer, I am afraid that people will be disinclined to grant aid to the university by means of financial donations. Many of the donors will not be prepared to grant that aid if the money is paid into the Exchequer.

That does not appear in the clause.

I am merely repeating the argument. If we accept that it is logical that the donations must be paid to the council and not the State Exchequer, it is also logical that the tuition fees will be paid to the council and not the State Exchequer. It is simply for that reason that we feel that it is essential that these two amendments be moved here in what I trust is not a vain hope that the Minister will find them acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I should now like to make the hon. member very happy—not by accepting his amendments, but by telling him, in the first place, that the Bill does not provide anywhere, and it will not happen in practice, that donations received by the university will be paid into the Exchequer. The hon. member need not therefore be concerned about that. In the second place, the hon. member said that I did not want to accept the best arguments he and the entire Opposition advanced. I want to tell him it does not matter how good his arguments are. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that the clause in its present form is in the interests of the students. This is the net effect of this clause and this is why we are not prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendments. What is envisaged is to make facilities available to the students at the lowest possible cost. That is why the State is prepared to finance the university and to allow the university to receive donations. The intention is to bring the facilities within the reach of as many students as possible. The fees must therefore be as low as possible.

As the clause reads at present, the council of a university will not benefit by it. As a result there will be no incentive for them to charge high tuition fees. The only incentive will be to keep the fees as low as possible to draw as many students as possible. The clause in its present form is therefore in the interests of the student. As the Minister concerned I can give the hon. members the assurance that there is no intention to raise the tuition fees. The net effect of this clause is therefore in the interests of the student. After the university has become established and the pattern has been laid down, as has happened with other universities, we shall reconsider the second amendment of the hon. member, namely, to allow the council to keep the fees.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 26:

This clause has to do with the faculties, departments and courses. As the clause stands, the council requires the approval of the Minister in order to establish certain faculties. In subsection (2) the council is given the power to establish any department or any course for a degree, diploma or certificate or in a subject. In this case the council requires the prior approval of the Minister. In fact, the hon. the Minister will probably have to take up residence there. I think that that will be the only way in which he will be able to cope with all the work he is going to have to do at that university. At this stage I wish to move the amendment to this clause standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

All I ask by means of this amendment is that the council be given a little latitude so that at least they can say they have something to do with a subject. [Interjections.] I am convinced that the hon. the Minister does not want a long argument in this regard. He knows that this amendment is justified. In fact, he will probably want to accept it immediately. In the circumstances, I leave it with him in the hope that he will at least be prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think I must begin by saying that I really hope the day will dawn when that hon. member proposes an amendment I shall be prepared to accept. [Interjections.] It is becoming a problem. I should very much like to help him. Perhaps he should come and see me beforehand and I can then help him to formulate an amendment that will be acceptable to me.

In this case there are two reasons why I cannot accept the amendment. The first is that there is a financial implication. If a subject is introduced it means staff, equipment, accommodation etc. There are a number of matters of a financial nature. The Minister must therefore be aware of them so that they can be budgeted for. There is also a second reason. At other universities—including those falling under the hon. the Minister of National Education—they cannot merely start a faculty. There are many universities that would like to start an engineering faculty or a medical faculty, but the authorities refuse; it is not in the interests of the country. We have exactly the same situation here. [Interjections.]

You go a little further.

Yes, but my experience is that if universities want a faculty and they perhaps realize that there is not really justification for the establishment of such a faculty because it cannot be viable, then they begin with a subject with the aim of starting a faculty. That subject then becomes the start of that faculty. Let us take agriculture as an example. At the University of Fort Hare there is in fact a faculty of agriculture, but both the other universities also want faculties agriculture. We can understand that if each of those universities begin with a subject which they hope will lead to a faculty, it would be a good thing from the point of view of co-ordination if the Minister were to co-ordinate matters to some extent. However, as far as three faculties of agriculture are concerned, the Minister will say: “No, at this stage three such faculties could not be conducted viably.” What he can say, however, is that the one faculty should move in the direction of, say, forestry, for which a need does exist, and the other two can move in other directions in agriculture, perhaps agricultural engineering or something similar. The approval mentioned in this clause has the effect that the Minister can play a co-ordinating role in this connection and can possibly give that university a good idea in choosing a course for which a need does in fact exist.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 34:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Basically this is concerned with a matter which we have discussed repeatedly—and I am not going to dwell on it for long—namely the powers of the council. I want to say at once that nobody objects to the proper auditing of the council’s books. All we are saying, is that surely the council, as the responsible body, will ensure that its books are properly audited. In other words, we feel that it is unnecessary to involve the Auditor-General in this regard. In particular I wish to refer to the provisions of clause 35, which reads as follows—

In other words, according to these provisions the council has to keep books and keep proper account of all its income and expenditure and in terms of the clause I have just quoted, it is required to submit to the Minister such returns as the Minister may request. In these circumstances it looks to me as if, as is the case with other universities, the council itself assumes the responsibility for the auditing and the examination of its books and statements.

Mr. Chairman, what is the implication of the amendment moved by the hon. member Prof. Olivier? The implication is that if the amendment is accepted, there will be nothing in the Bill that requires the university to have its books audited. The hon. member may now tell me that a responsible council would do so. However, we are a responsible Government, although that side of the House does not want to accept it and are forever complaining about something.

What we do have, is an irresponsible Opposition.

Why should we say that all councils are responsible councils?

In view of the Information debacle, surely we have reason to doubt.

What is more: I think it is merely a sound business principle to ensure that every business—actually the university is also a business in view of the fact that it works with a tremendous amount of money—has to have its books audited. The hon. member says that the official Opposition is not opposed to the fact that the books have to be audited.

Of course.

Why is the hon. member then afraid of having the Auditor-General audit them?

No, what is at issue is the autonomy of the council.

What is at issue is not the autonomy of the council; what is at issue is merely—the hon. member himself concedes that such a council will have its books audited in any case—that the books have to be audited by the Auditor-General. Why? Because a particularly large contribution to the funds of this specific university will be made by the State, a larger contribution than in the case of ordinary residential universities. That is the first point.

I now put the second argument to the hon. member. If the hon. member alleges that clause 35 already anticipates the provision in clause 34, he is wrong. What does clause 35 provide? Clause 35 refers to the returns and statistics, and if he wants to, the hon. member can read into that “financial” returns, but this is not how the clause reads.

It could be read into it.

Yes, it could, but it is not in fact what is provided there and, therefore, it might as well not be read into it. To place it beyond all doubt, it is provided in clause 35 that it is the responsibility of the Auditor-General. As far as I am concerned, therefore, the amendment of the hon. member cannot be accepted.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

New clause to follow clause 37:

Mr. Chairman, at the University of Stellenbosch …

Order! The hon. member must first of all move his amendment.

Do I really have to move it? I thought I could speak …

No, I am affording the hon. member the opportunity to move his amendment, if he so wishes.

Can I not speak to it first?

No, the hon. member must first of all move it.

Sir, under the circumstances I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Prohibition of religious test.

38. No test whatever of religious belief shall be imposed on any person as a condition of his becoming or continuing to be a graduate of the University or a teacher or student of the University, or of his holding any office, receiving any emolument, or exercising any privileges therein, nor shall any preference be given to, or advantage be withheld from, any person on the ground of his religious belief.

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the new clause as it seeks to introduce a new and important principle not contemplated by the Bill as read a Second Time.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, we come now to the final stage of the discussion on this Bill, which has taken a very long time to gain passage from the Second Reading and through the Committee Stage, until now. Hon. members will know that there was also a Select Committee on this Bill, where some of us had an opportunity of looking at this measure with considerable care. I am very glad that a number of amendments that were moved during that time were accepted by the Select Committee and now form part of the new Bill. Obviously, Sir, I have a number of reservations, and I shall list them very briefly, because we have spent a great deal of time on this legislation for a new university.

The effect of this legislation means that a new university will be formed and constituted somewhere to be determined by the hon. the Minister, but obviously somewhere in the PWV area, wherever it seems right for the headquarters to be. This will be an administrative centre and administrative headquarters, which of course makes it very different from other universities. Together with this there will be satellite campuses throughout the country. This also gives it an air of novelty, of something different, not so much in the sense that it is different from similar institutions in other parts of the world, but certainly in the sense that it is something a little different for South Africa. In addition, use will be made of existing structures, facilities and staff. This, too, together with the anticipated liaison with the private sector, industry and commerce, makes a great deal of sense, and it is my hope that despite the major reservations that we have regarding this university, there will be not only liaison, but active support and donations from the private sector towards the building up of this facility.

Mr. Speaker, we have tried to state as clearly as we could the reasons for our objection, and I list them briefly once more. Firstly, we cannot support a university which in this day and age will be racially exclusive. There is a qualification, but it is a very small one, in clause 21, and I would say, having read the inter-departmental report, the so-called Retief Report which the hon. the Minister kindly made available to my colleagues and myself, that on balance, if you look at the recommendations and in particular at the one dissenting voice, it is clear that they are far more on our side in our objections rather than on the side of the Minister and of the Government, in so far as the report states quite clearly that voluntary differentiation ought to be the name of the game, as it were, rather than compulsory segregation. It is another way of saying that universities ought to be open, and we have stated again and again that we believe it should be the right of the council of the university itself to decide who should study there, by whom they should be taught and what they should learn.

The second major problem we have with this legislation—and we have had no cause to change our minds—is the lack of internal autonomy. We have moved a number of amendments, which unfortunately the hon. the Minister has not seen his way clear to accept. Therefore our objection still stands, both in terms of clause 3 and in terms of the number of instances which to us appear to deny internal autonomy.

The third reason which we offered was that we believe that this legislation is premature, not in terms of the needs of the country, but premature in the light of the very significant and far-reaching De Lange Commission. It is ironic that at six o’clock tonight this report will be made available. I assume that the hon. the Minister as a member of the Cabinet has already seen this report. I assume that the hon. member for Virginia has not seen the report, and if that is the case, I wish him well when he reads it. I hope very much that some of the recommendations of the De Lange Commission will cause him to come running back to this House asking for amending legislation immediately and to acknowledge and admit that this legislation was premature, and that if the recommendations are acceptable to the Government, we will have to change our whole approach quite substantially. I hope all this comes true round about six o’clock tonight. However, it is a pity that we did not wait for this report, because then I could have been proved wrong or right, as the case may be.

I had hoped to introduce a new clause into this Bill. The only reason I wanted to do that was because if one looks at the University of Stellenbosch and the statutes which govern that university and others, one will find that there is a conscience clause. We believe that that is important for any university. We are sorry that it was not possible to insert such a clause in this Bill. It may well be that it was our fault for not having read the Bill more carefully and having raised this point during the Second Reading debate. However, judging by the response in the Select Committee I do not think I would have been able to get a conscience clause accepted. It seems to us that it has proved necessary and very helpful in many of the major universities in South Africa and elsewhere, and I am sorry, therefore that it is not possible to introduce it here.

Finally, I want to say that I believe that there is a desperate need for further university facilities for students of all race groups. I want to stress that any move providing facilities on a tertiary basis for Blacks will be warmly endorsed and welcomed by the official Opposition. We are only sorry that it has to start in this way. We would have hoped that this university, which will be very largely Black by virtue of the circumstances and the placing of the university, etc., could have been an open university from its inception.

For these reasons and the objections we have stated, we will not be able to support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the stage at which this Bill is to become law. I think that this is a sincere and well-considered effort, in view of this country’s manpower requirements and the need among many Black people to improve their academic qualifications, to meet these requirements. I consider that the inherent potential of the Vista University will be of great benefit not only to the full-time Black students and working Black students, but ultimately to the benefit of our entire country, its economy and all its people as well.

By means of the Vista University new horizons are being opened up for the Black people. I do not intend to discuss all of them, but I just want to say it provides wide-spread opportunities for study in the sense that decentralized opportunities for study will be provided, we could say decentralized study campuses throughout this country and primarily where there are concentrations of Black people. The university will provide courses of which the standard is guaranteed. Courses will be provided even up to degree level; there will be courses for high-level manpower as well as courses in the lower technical spheres. The opportunity to enable far more Black students to qualify academically within a specific period, is being provided by the Vista University, something they have not had before. Black working people too are being afforded opportunities to qualify themselves and to have the benefit of contact tuition as well. Those who have in the past had to avail themselves of correspondence courses, know how difficult this is. Personally I am grateful that, by means of the Vista University, we are also affording Black students the opportunity of qualifying themselves academically, although not on a full-time basis, through contact education. Furthermore I want to say that the advantage of receiving community-orientated tuition in a familiar milieu is, as far as I am concerned, one of the most important advantages of the Vista University. Problems of adjustment are most definitely experienced on the social level and in respect of study possibilities and methods when a Black student has to attend a White university. It is indeed true that these problems of adjustment are being experienced by White students as well, but this is true to an even greater extent in the case of Black students. That is why it is a good thing that we are affording Black people the opportunity of continuing their studies within their specific milieu at the Vista University.

I want to refer to page 79 of the Retief report which has been quoted extensively during this discussion. I quote—

We find these words in this same report. I am grateful that, with the Vista University, we are able to satisfy the needs and expectations of a large number of Black people who would like to see their children studying at a university for Black people which meets this specific requirement of the Black parents.

As far as autonomy is concerned, I should like to submit the following hypothesis to this House, for it is something which is repeated so often by hon. members on that side of this House: There is no such thing as absolute autonomy.

I accept that.

It simply does not exist.

I accept that.

I am afraid that that side of the House—and they must not shout me down—elevates autonomy to an absolute. But this is not true, and the hon. members know it. If they would admit this—as they are doing—I then say to them that their recognition of it is not apparent from their arguments, for time and again they have come back to this aspect, and it is not in any way the intention of this side of the House to keep on curtailing that autonomy every day. The hon. member for Pinelands told the hon. the Minister that he would have to go and stay on the campus because of all his responsibilities. That is precisely what he does not have to do, because he trusts that council.

Reference was also made to the De Lange report. I do not want to discuss this report except to say the following: Action must be taken within the specific State system. Certain things must take place within the specific standpoints, premises and policies of a Government. I am not anticipating the De Lange report, nor, in fact, do I know what that report is going to recommend. I do know one thing however, and that is that this side of the House does not govern haphazardly. This side of the House, too, has its specific standpoints in respect of education and the milieu in which education must take place. This I know—and I can say this with a clear conscience today—that this side of the House seeks to grant equal educational opportunities and education of an equal quality and standard to everyone in this country. I am convinced—quite apart from the excellent report which will be tabled by the De Lange Commission—that decisions will be taken by this House and this Government within this norm. This is the very reason why it is such a terrible shortcoming to me that the De Lange report was not tabled before we piloted through this Act.

In conclusion I should like to ask the hon. member for Pinelands, in respect of the final amendment he tried to have accepted, to go and read pages 125 and 139 of the Afrikaans version of the Van Wyk de Vries report, for then he may see the light.

Mr. Speaker, much of what I should have liked to say during Third Reading has in fact already been said at Second Reading and during the Committee Stage, as well as in the Select Committee. I think we have already had a certain degree of repetition. We have, however, stated what our objections are in respect of this Bill, as well as what we find acceptable and also what we would have liked to see improved. I do believe, however, that it is worth re-emphasizing very briefly that we recognize the extreme urgency of creating more university cum technikon tertiary education opportunities for members of all race groups, in particular the Blacks in South Africa. We are a highly industrialized society. The demands on manpower in South Africa are strained to the limit, and there is evidence by both the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions, and in the legislation that has flowed from them, that the race is now on to train more and more skilled people, to educate people of all race groups to a higher level.

While there are a number of amendments or improvements we would have liked to see brought about in this Bill, namely that tertiary education should be available and open to all race groups, without any impediments being placed on it, except that the council should set standards, and whilst we also share the feelings of the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member Prof. Olivier in this respect, we do believe in fact that there would also have been merit in their argument had the hon. member for Pinelands been able to move his final amendment, which would have stood as clause 38, namely the conscience clause. We would certainly have supported that as well.

I am, however, very disappointed that the official Opposition have now taken the stand that because the Bill is not perfect, in their opinion, that they, in the words of the hon. member for Pinelands, will have nothing to do with this university. I think that is not a very practical approach to take in respect of the creation of an institution as innovative and as necessary in South Africa as the Vista University. It is rather like saying that until we reduce the accident rate on our roads to zero, we are not going to allow motor vehicles on our roads. It is that sort of “it has to be perfect” approach that motivates them to refuse even utilizing that particular effort. That is the attitude of the PFP.

They know the world is imperfect. If the world was not imperfect I think the hon. member for Pinelands would never have had an occupation at all. [Interjections.] The world is imperfect, and measures adopted by this House can in fact always be improved still further. What is necessary, however, is that we should move forward. We must use what we have, even though it is imperfect. That is why we on this side of the House will support the Third Reading of this Bill, despite the fact that I moved an amendment to have the Bill read a Second Time only after it had been referred to a Select Committee. We will be supporting the Third Reading of this Bill in the interests of tertiary education, not only for the Blacks, but also for the sake of the welfare of the whole of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to thank all hon. members who participated in this long-drawn-out debate for their contributions. Even though we differed, I still believe it was a useful debate. I also want to point out that the debate was of a high standard. It is as well that we have been able to discuss this matter so intensively. I should also like to thank everyone who served on the Select Committee once again. Furthermore I want to avail myself of this opportunity of expressing my sincere gratitude to the Retief Committee and all the members serving on it for this creative effort of theirs.

Before going any further—in case I forget it—I should just like to say something at the outset about the fact that the official Opposition apparently considers this legislation to be less than perfect. This very fact may be the best indication that we are on the right track. If they had been of the opinion that this was sound legislation, there would probably have been some flaw in it somewhere. [Interjections.] Consequently I feel far more at ease now than I did before.

I should just like to make two brief quotes from the Retief Committee report. The first of these is paragraph 8.2, on page 18 of the report. I quote—

Then they go on to mention the components. However, they say that they will not hesitate to suggest unconventional methods. Eminent educationists in South Africa served on the Retief Committee, people who know universities better than anyone else in this country. That committee consisted of Whites as well as Blacks and has in actual fact come forward with an unconventioned proposal. It is one of the indications of the creative ability of the people of South Africa to come forward with unconventional solutions when they encounter problems. That is why, on this occasion, I should like to express the hope that we are really engaged in something unique here and that this university is not going to function in the same way as the ordinary conventional universities. It is going to function in the sense that it is not going to have only one campus, but in fact a number of campuses. In the second place it is not only going to admit people with matriculation exemption and provide them with a university education, it is going to meet other requirements as well. In that sense it is going to be an open university, just as the European universities of Europe are open. We are really engaged in a piece of creative work here in the history of education in South Africa. The hon. member said that we should wait until the De Lange Commission’s recommendations were known. At this stage I just want to say that I do not believe that the De Lange Commission studied this subject, which is being dealt with in the Retief Committee report, as intensively as this committee did. Naturally the De Lange Commission was aware of this committee and is not likely to have duplicated its work. But we shall see whether this is the case when the report is available. Consequently, since there is such a great need as this committee has found, I do not think that it is necessary to delay it. In view of the Committee’s recommendations, it is justified to proceed to meet the needs as rapidly as possible.

Then I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Virginia in connection with the Government’s standpoint. The Government has experience and knows from that experience what system produces success, brings peace and avoids tension in South Africa. Consequently we do not intend to deviate from it. That is why we believe in institutions for the various population groups. In actual fact the Retief Committee confirmed this as well. That is why I should like to say in the second place that, with what this Bill is going to establish, we shall be satisfying a need. The committee states this need on page 165 of the report as follows—

The committee motivates this by saying—

Hon. members have said that the Retief Committee report was actually a confirmation of what they were advocating. When one reads this determinations of needs by the committee and its motivation, one sees that what is being proposed in this legislation satisfies those requirements exactly, viz. a university for Black people.

Finally I want to refer to the hon. member for Pinelands, and he must listen carefully, for I want to give him some sound advice. An article written by the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson appeared in the Miami Herald of 28 July, 1981. The hon. member for Pinelands and Rev. Jesse Jackson have quite a lot in common. After all, both of them were once clergymen. In addition they have another common attribute, which is that both of them are trying to be leaders of the Black people, Jackson in America and the hon. member for Pinelands in South Africa.

Jesse Jackson is a Black leader.

I believe that the Rev. Jackson is adopting the correct policy, and that is why he has a chance of realizing his ideal. But the hon. member for Pinelands will have to change his policy if he really wants to become a leader of the Black people in South Africa. What does Rev. Jackson say in this article? He writes about the Black people of America and says—

Where is their integration now?

This is what Jesse Jackson says—

He goes on to say that Black Americans must use their power and start to bargain with persons and bodies in America, for they are the ninth greatest nation in the world.

I want to conclude by telling the hon. member for Pinelands that his dream of becoming a leader of the Black people in South Africa will, in my opinion, never be realized. He must go and learn from Rev. Jesse Jackson who is a spiritual compatriot of his. Then he will not say the kind of things he has been saying in connection with this Bill, nor do as much harm to his own future as he did during this debate.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As a result of having had two sessions this year, the unusually short period of less than two months has elapsed since I introduced my budget in August. Nevertheless, a significant amount of new information has become available since that time, both on our own economy and on the state of the international economy. In bringing the House up to date on the overall economic situation as I see it, I want to begin by briefly referring to some salient developments on the international economic scene—especially since I am just back from the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, where I had the opportunity to learn about these developments at first hand in the meetings as such and in discussions with a large number of leading personalities in the world of economics and finance.

In my budget speech I underlined the important influence that international economic tendencies have on the performance of the South African economy, and I emphasized that these influences have to be taken into account in formulating our fiscal and monetary policies. I also mentioned that according to the available economic forecasts, we could expect no more than a very modest revival of economic growth in the industrialized countries, and a stagnation in their import volumes.

Apart from a somewhat optimistic view about the prospects for world inflation to moderate in the period ahead of us, the outlook on growth and trade remains basically the same. However, in two important respects there have been positive developments which gave me cause for optimism, especially about the medium to longer-term outlook.

*Greater realism in the IMF and the World Bank

The first positive development that struck me was that for the first time in years, there were signs at these meetings of a better understanding of the reasons for the world’s economic problems and of the kind of measures required to bring these under control, as well as the will on the part of governments of major countries to take the necessary measures. In the international organizations themselves, too, there are signs that the tide is turning and that a healthier direction will be followed than has been the case in recent years.

This greater realism was perhaps most evident in the speech of welcome which President Reagan made to the delegates. He emphasized that countries could not expect to solve their economic problems, and that they could not expect organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank to solve those problems for them, if they were not prepared to set their own economic affairs in order first—even this meant that measures would have to be taken of which the initial effect could be painful. In many respects, this message is diametrically opposed to the views which in recent years, since the disruptive action of the oil exporting countries began in 1973, had gained wide acceptance in the IMF and the World Bank. With regard to the Third World countries in particular, strong pressure was brought to bear on the IMF to use all kinds of special credit arrangements to soften the impact of the rising oil price on the real incomes of the oil-importing countries, while the governments of many of those countries continued to shrink from the measures of adjustment that were essential in order to recognize the actual decline in their real incomes.

Therefore it was refreshing to observe strong indications at the recently concluded meetings of a rethink on these matters and of a more realistic approach which is gaining ground. Of course, this more realistic approach is not unfamiliar to South Africa—in fact, it has been the basic principle of our fiscal policy in recent years, and the policy of consolidation and adjustment which I expounded in my budget speech in August is still in accordance with that approach. The fundamentally sound financial discipline exercised in South Africa in recent years has repeatedly been recognized in professional evaluations of the South African economy undertaken by the IMF.

†Recognition of the monetary role of gold

The second positive development that I want to single out from my observations of the past week is the increasingly more positive recognition of the role that gold plays, and the potentially enhanced role it can play, in international monetary arrangements. For years I have taken every possible opportunity to plead, not for any specific form of a gold standard that would best serve South Africa’s interests as the world’s major gold producer, but for a serious, concerted and authoritative study of the ways in which gold could best be used to improve the international payments system in the interest of all countries. As witness the appointment of a gold commission in the United States, with the Secretary of the Treasury as its chairman, there is now for the first time in years a willingness to explore this matter in a rational and responsible manner, rather than to try to evade it on emotional and quasi-political grounds. It is still too early to say what will be the outcome of the processes that are being set in motion to set right the lack of official international recognition of the role of gold in recent years. It is therefore also too early to say what the implications for South Africa might be. However, I am optimistic about the fact that a more positive attitude about the role of gold is beginning to emerge, and in addressing the annual meetings I took the opportunity once again of stating South Africa’s position on the matter and to offer our co-operation on any positive proposals that may emerge.

The domestic economy

In the more immediate future, of course, we cannot yet expect any dramatic impact on the South African economy to result from the positive international developments which I have mentioned. The updated information which has become available since I introduced the budget confirms in all important respects the diagnosis that formed the basis of my budget proposals.

*Slower economic growth

From the latest information it is clear, firstly, that there is a slow-down in the expansion of real economic activity, which has been caused partly by the scarcity of certain production factors such as skilled manpower and partly by demand factors such as the effect of the international economic recession on South Africa’s export earnings. Excluding agriculture, the real domestic product, for example, increased by a seasonally adjusted annual rate of only 2½% during the second quarter of 1981. In evaluating this lower growth rate, however, it must be borne in mind at all times, as I have emphasized before, that economic activities were raised to a high level by the high economic growth rate of 1980. In the manufacturing industry, for example, the average utilization of production capacity was still around 90% at the time of the latest survey. Although the growth rate has dropped, therefore, most sectors are still flourishing.

This statement is also confirmed by the latest information about the spending side of the economy. After a pause in the first quarter, real private consumer spending, for example, especially on durable and semidurable goods, has strongly increased again, while the real fixed investment of the private manufacturing industry and of agriculture, as well as inventory investment, has kept growing. However, the slow-down in economic activity has already been reflected in a decline in the real fixed capital expenditure on residential buildings and in the transport, commerce and service sectors during the second quarter.

Lower inflation rate

A gratifying tendency in the domestic economy which I cannot omit to mention is the moderation there has been in the inflation rate lately. At a seasonally adjusted annual rate, the consumer price index rose by 10,4% in the second quarter, after comparable increases of 13,1% in the first quarter of this year and 22,0% in the last quarter of 1980. A corresponding tendency could also be observed in respect of the production price index (formerly called the wholesale price index), which increased by a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 20,7% in the last quarter of 1980 and by 10,1% and 8,1% respectively in the first and second quarters of this year. Of course, the rate of increase of these price criteria will fluctuate from one month to another, but there are definite indications of a downward tendency. It is very encouraging that this can be said at a time when most sectors of the economy are functioning at fairly full utilization of capacity.

†The need for consolidation and adjustment

The fact that the economy is still operating at a high level of activity, and that the inflation rate appears to be showing a moderating tendency, should however not lead us to believe that we can avoid the process of adjustment that the economy has been undergoing. In the first place, even though the moderating tendency in the inflation rate is encouraging, prices are still rising too rapidly to allow us to say that the battle against inflation has been won. Secondly, if nothing else reminds us of the need for consolidation and adjustment, the performance of the balance of payments should most certainly do so.

As has often been explained, the fact that the current account of the balance of payments swung from a surplus of R2 830 million in 1980 to a seasonally adjusted annual deficit of R1 290 million in the first quarter of 1981, should in itself not be a cause for concern, since this conforms to the typical pattern of the South African economy during the whole post-World War II period at comparable stages of the business cycle. Even the further increase in the deficit, expressed at a seasonally adjusted annual rate, to R5 050 million in the second quarter, should be seen in perspective. As explained in the September issue of the Quarterly Bulletin of the South African Reserve Bank, certain special developments had the effect of raising the deficit, so that its value in the second quarter cannot be seen as a true indication of the cyclical trends at work. There are, of course, also certain self-correcting and other factors that should help to keep the current account deficit within bounds. As the real activity in the economy, in particular fixed and inventory investment, slows down, the volume and value of imports can be expected to respond by slowing down as well. The stronger performance of the gold price in the past month should, if continued, as I fully expect, also help to keep the deficit at an acceptable level.

However, what we certainly should avoid are fiscal and monetary policies that could result in the deficit in the current account of the balance of payments getting out of hand by persistently moving beyond the roughly 2½% of gross domestic product that the current account deficit has amounted to on average in the post-war years. On the contrary, fiscal and monetary policy should be aimed at supporting the automatic and other forces in keeping the current account deficit within acceptable limits. If this can be achieved—and I hope we are all equally determined that it must be achieved—the financing of the current account deficit should not pose any serious difficulties. The high rating that South Africa has over the past several years earned in international financial markets, would be maintained, and would ensure access to the required financial sources. However, should we not achieve this objective of keeping the current account deficit within acceptable limits—and, I must add, the parallel objective of bringing our inflation rate down further—that confidence can be seriously undermined, with the result that the financing of the current account deficit could become more difficult.

In the light of these considerations, it is encouraging that the Reserve Bank’s policy of allowing the changed balance of payments situation to exert its effect on the money supply, has been remarkably successful, to the extent that the rise in the broadly defined money supply declined from a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 53% in the first four months of 1981, to 14% in the three months May to July. A continuation of this policy of effectively controlling the rise in the money supply will be an essential condition for achieving the twin objectives of further moderating the inflation rate and keeping the deficit in the current account of the balance of payments under control.

Inevitably, the reduced liquidity in the economy which is brought about by this policy, has the effect of pushing up interest rates. This is a concommitant of sound monetary policy that cannot be avoided at the stage of the business cycle in which South Africa finds itself at present, and, in fact, attempts to avoid it can only exact a heavy price later on in the form of higher inflation and excessive balance of payments deficits.

The need for discipline in public spending

The other essential elements of the stabilization policy that is required in South Africa at the present stage, are continued dissipline in public spending and the sound financing of that spending. I remain convinced that the intention I expressed in introducing the budget, viz. to continue to keep Government spending tightly in rein, is justified by the facts of our economic situation, and I shall do my best to carry it through. Furthermore, the effective interest rate of 13,23% offered on the latest issue of long-term Government stock, which opened last week, is an indication of our determination to finance Government spending in a sound manner—i.e. without having to have recourse to borrowing from the monetary banking sector, which would seriously undermine our monetary policy.

Of course, this fiscal policy approach, in conjunction with the monetary policy that is being pursued, also can have certain unpleasant side effects. In particular, it requires acceptance of a somewhat lower economic growth rate, a lower rate of increase in salaries and wages and in profits than in recent months, and possibly a moderate degree of unemployment amongst certain categories of labour. However, I am convinced that not only can we at this stage afford to have a somewhat slower growth period for a while, but that we actually need a pause to enable us to catch up on our training programme and on other measures to widen bottlenecks in the economy. Those bottlenecks, of course, arose from the condition of exceptionally high growth of 8% last year. This is precisely what I wished to convey in my budget speech by styling the present phase of or fiscal policy as one of consolidation and adjustment, but let it always be remembered it is consolidation and adjustment of an economy which, basically, is extremely strong.

Preservation of pension interests

Finally, I wish to refer to the proposed measure aimed at the preservation of pension rights and interests.

From time to time I receive representations, some of them on an urgent basis, to make statements that workers in certain industries or certain sectors of the economy be exempted from the proposed Preservation of Pension Interests Bill. The draft Bill is at present still circulating for comment, and amendments to the Bill will be considered in the light of the comments now being received. I feel, however, that I must emphasize strongly that the underlying principle of the Bill, viz. that pension interests be preserved until retirement age, would be undermined if exemptions were to be granted on such a sectoral or indeed an industrial basis.

The decision on whether or not to introduce a pension scheme as part of the working conditions of the labour force in a particular industry or in a particular sector of the economy, is one that employers themselves must make in consultation with their employees. If it should be decided to introduce a savings plan rather than a pension scheme, the Bill would of course not apply. However, if it is decided to have a pension scheme, the principle of preservation until retirement age would have to be adhered to.

I want to stress what has been said on more than one occasion, that all persons who are in employment when the Bill takes effect will have the option to decide as to whether or not they wish to fall under the provisions of the intended legislation. It is only in the case of new employees, that is, those who are taken into service after the Bill becomes effective, that the option will not apply.

Mr. Speaker, it has been instructive to listen to the brief survey of international and local economic developments given by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I believe the hon. the Minister will understand that I cannot react in detail to all the information he has made available to us, but some of my colleagues will be studying his speech and will undoubtedly react to the points he raised in it.

We welcome the fact that there is greater realism in international circles concerning economic financial spending, as well as the fact that a revaluation is taking place concerning the role of gold. As far as local economic developments are concerned, I notice that the hon. the Minister has mentioned the fact that there is a slower economic growth rate which can be attributed in part, as the hon. the Minister said, to the scarcity of certain production factors, such as skilled workers, and partly to demand factors, such as the effect of the international economic recession. I want to come back to some of these domestic problems in the course of my speech. One problem which really fascinates me in this connection, especially as a layman in the economic field, is the political consequences of the monetary discipline which is being exercised by the American Government, for example, as well as by the British Government. What one is going to watch with great interest in the coming months, one might say, is the reaction which is going to develop when the disciplinary measures of the Reagan Administration, as well as those of the Thatcher Administration, really begin to make themselves felt in the political sphere, because I think that political reaction is going to have important implications for South Africa as well. What is important is that if we want to exercise the same degree of discipline—and I notice that this is the policy of the hon. the Minister—then we are naturally faced with much more complicated domestic problems than either of those two countries. Therefore, while it is essential of course, that greater discipline be exercised in public spending, we must at the same time, in the light of our internal situation, be very sensitive to the consequences this may have, especially in the field of unemployment and the reaction this may spark off.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is inappropriate, in discussing the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, briefly to review the session that lies behind us. This is what I want to do in the short time available to me. I want to begin by saying that we must see this session against the background and the results of the general election. What many outsiders often fail to grasp is that although the emergence of the so-called right-wing in White politics does not necessarily pose an electoral threat to the Government, it does pose a threat to the traditional unity of the NP, and that is why the Government is sensitive to this right-wing threat. What does this traditional unity of the NP consist of? What is it based on? Apart from the impact of nationalism, of course, it is identified in particular with the idea of a White South Africa which can determine its own destiny on a segregated basis, politically, economically and socially. I think this is the idea that has begun to take root in White politics in South Africa, especially since 1948—the rather crude term “apartheid” tried to express in a fairly simple way this idea that White South Africa can exist on a segregated basis, and can determine its own destiny politically, economically and socially. This political-ideological premise has since 1948 been the rationalization for virtually all contentious and even uncontentious measures taken by the NP, from the so-called apartheid and segregation measures right through to the homeland policy.

Now the question arises: Why is the right-wing threatening this source of unity? I want to put it like this: For the simple reason that they are accusing the Government of being unable to give the White man the apartheid which the Government promised him. That is what they are saying—I know they are going from one platform to another. One has to say that for decades, the NP promised the White voter that the NP would segregate the White man out of political, social and economic integration. That was the message that came from the NP. The HNP, followed by other right-wing groups, began to be critical of the NP when they began to realize that in spite of the rhetoric and promises, the boundaries of segregation were slowly but surely breaking down around the White people. In the social field, there were matters like sport, hotels, parks, etc. In the economic field, there were Black labour mobility and the development of Black trade unions. In the political-constitutional field, there is the realization on the part of the National Party that constitutional development cannot take place unilaterally and that the other population groups must also be involved in the process of constitutional development. In particular, this found expression in the Commission of Inquiry into the Constitution, known as the Schlebusch Commission. As a result of these developments, tensions began to build up in the National Party, both from the right and from within the National Party. Those at the helm, those in office, the leadership within the National Party, had to reconcile two conflicting demands: Within White politics, the growing demand that traditional unity on the basis of segregation and White self-determination be reaffirmed—that was the new demand that was formulated—and outside White politics, the demands of people of colour that fundamental reforms be made in the economic, social and political spheres to satisfy their aspirations. These were the two conflicting demands.

These conflicting demands were largely responsible for the fact that great confusion began to arise about the so-called initiatives of the NP, what exactly was meant by adapt or die, how the Carlton Conference, say, could be translated into practical reality, and what the specific implications of the 12-point plan were for several spheres of everyday life, such as housing, residential areas, education, transport, etc. These problems had to be faced while these conflicting demands were building up. Because of these demands that were building up, statements by Government spokesmen became vaguer and more abstract in an attempt to resolve these contradictions. I do not say they are deliberately trying to evade the problem, but in order to accommodate these demands, they began to talk on a higher and vaguer and more general level of abstraction. This in itself created even more confusion. There was some creative ambiguity in the terminology of some Government spokesmen. I am not saying this in a derogatory sense. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs is a person I like to listen to, but I have to listen for a long while to come to a concrete conclusion, precisely because of the problems I have tried to outline here.

Meanwhile, a new facet had begun to develop in politics, apart from these two demands. This came from those one could call the technocrats: the economic and other advisers and planners of the Government. Their input is directly related to the possibility of survival and the central role which the economy has to play in this connection. They pointed out coolly and clinically to us the dangers of inflation, the demand for and the over-supply of labour, the reality of urbanization, the need for economic growth, etc. They were not so much interested in the traditional unity of the National Party or in the nature and extent of the demands of people of colour. Survival and stability were their objectives, and their advice was mainly directed at achieving these.

Now the hon. the Prime Minister happened to call an election at the very moment when these three currents in our politics were gaining momentum. The right wing was mobilizing on a larger scale than ever before. As against that, the demands and protests of the people of colour made it clear that adjustments would simply have to be made. Problems of survival indicated that economically speaking, the country was entering a difficult phase in the short term with regard to the cost of living in particular. The general election had important implications for all three these currents.

In respect of the first one, the ideological unity of the National Party on the basis of White self-determination based on segregation, this was most deeply prejudiced by the growth of the right wing. I think all political commentators will agree with this. The conduct of the authorities during the election, especially the way they indulged in Black peril politics, led to increasing displeasure and disappointment among people of colour about the non-materialization of the Government’s promised reform. On the level of survival, it was clearly apparent that the average voter was going to be increasingly sensitive to problems concerning the cost of living and price increases.

It is against this background, bearing in mind that this is an exceptionally short session, that we have to evaluate the Government’s performance during this session. In doing so, I have two dominant impressions.

†The first dominant impression that I have gathered from this session from the Opposition benches is that the Nationalist Party is suffering from an ideological hardening of the arteries. They are, in other words, experiencing a bad case of political arteriosclerosis. We witnessed pathetic attempts on the part of Government spokesmen to reaffirm the NP’s commitment to the traditional basis of NP unity that has so effectively been eroded by the growth of the HNP. The Government tried to reaffirm its commitment to that traditional base of unity. The hon. the Prime Minister started off by saying that White self-determination would be the measure of all reform in South Africa, and it was not quite fortuitous that he equated it by a slip of the tongue with White domination. This sounds good to the ears of the right because this is the way in which Dr. Verwoerd used to refer to it when he was Prime Minister.

This was followed by extraordinary attempts on the part of senior Government spokesmen trying to outbid one another on how they were going to cope with the problem of “verdringing”, swamping. At the same time the disgusting and indefensible action against the Nyanga squatters was also an attempt to reaffirm the Coloured labour preference policy for the Western Cape, which basically means segregating Blacks out of the area. Finally, if one could resist the temptation and not become a political junkie following the hon. the Minister of Cooperation and Development into the constitutional psychedelia of Ciskei independence and its presumed advantages, even this was an attempt to demonstrate a commitment to White self-determination through segregation. One of the symptoms of arteriosclerosis is senility with the ability at the same time to recall in detail past experiences whilst being confused about the present. The Government is suffering from a bad case of ideological senility accompanied by a nostalgic longing for old-time White self-determination based on apartheid. The Government’s confusion arises out of its inability to deliver the goods.

The second dominant impression is that the Government is increasingly—and I think this is very significant—losing administrative control over its own ideological commitment. In short, it is not as easy to service White domination as it used to be. I want to illustrate this. One of the fundamental errors of the HNP is that it does not realize that it is a physical impossibility to bring about White self-determination as Whites have become accustomed to and maintain rigid segregation. It cannot be done. If there is one person who will be a hopeless failure within a few months of becoming Prime Minister, it will be Mr. Jaap Marais, simply because what he promises the White voter cannot be delivered. Nobody realizes this better than the present Government and its leadership. They have changed not because of some philantrophic hindsight, or because they have become raging liberals or humanists or because they are determined to sell the Whites out. They have changed simply because circumstances have forced them to and they had no choice. Every time they have changed or adjusted, they have lost a little bit more of administrative control over realizing their ideological vision. To the extent that this has happened, there has been progress. It has again been demonstrated in this session that in South Africa we measure progress by the way in which the Government moves away from its own ideological obsession. The following were positive developments in this session and I stress: They were positive developments: The labour laws which were passed were, although not perfect, an important improvement on existing practices. They simply underscored the increasing economic integration that South Africa is experiencing. Unfortunately, if similar reforms do not occur in the political sphere, labour—and particularly Black labour—will become a political battlefield. Secondly, the new awareness on the part of the Government concerning the reality of urbanization is also a positive development. This was reflected in the problems that we have had to discuss and face—which was also mentioned by Government spokesmen—namely housing, deconcentration of industries and decentralization of industries. As far as housing is concerned, it was a particularly significant development when the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development said that there would be a new differentiated housing policy which would make it possible to have housing right through from controlled squatting to economic housing.

The importance and the significance of this have been stressed by numerous people. I do not want to do that again, but I am sure hon. members have received the latest circular from the Human Sciences Research Council. It is entitled “Urbanization in South Africa: Problems or Opportunities?” I should like to make two quotes from this document. The first one is as follows—

The hard fact with which we have to come to terms is that 75% of the population of this country lives on 4% of the surface of this country. I quote further—

I do detect a new awareness on the part of Government spokesmen—not all of them, but some of them—in respect of the realities of urbanization.

A third example that I should like to mention as a positive and constructive development has been the amendment of the Liquor Act in order to promote non-racial sport. This gives effect to the recommendations by the Government’s own commission of inquiry into the normalization of sport. Given the urgency of the times, I have to say that these are timid changes. Yet they do signify a sacrifice of ideological purity and also a growing realization that apartheid or segregation, as originally conceived, is unsaleable. I used the word “timid” because in terms of the expectations raised this session has been a major disappointment as well. One at least expected the Government to act following the Grosskopf and De Lange Commission Reports. We did expect that. I think this was a fairly universal expectation before the beginning of this session. We did not expect the Government to come forward with many major reforms, but I think the average person who was interested in change, legitimately expected that the Government would come forward with certain steps in this regard. This has not happened, and that is a grave disappointment.

One suspects in this respect that there is still a desperate attempt to pursue unattainable ideological goals. The Government’s move away from apartheid therefore, I conclude, is going to be slow, reluctant and painful. This is so because force of circumstances rather than their own inclination will bring about the abandonment of apartheid. This is the essential difference between reform on the one hand and adjustment on the other hand.

Reform refers to the fact that a government systematically introduces changes in the political, economic and social spheres in order to achieve some kind of overall goal, whereas adjustment on the other hand, means that the Government has to take into account new political, economic and social realities, and therefore abandon old policies and practices. That is why I say the Government is adjusting and not so much reforming.

’Because this is so, I believe that there will be a growing divergence between the Government’s policy and reality. To the extent to which the Government will try to cling to outdated ideological objectives, while they ought to be adjusting to demographic, social and economic realities, a growing divergence is going to develop between policy and reality. Therefore the South Africa experienced every day by the average person, Black or White, is going to bear less and less resemblance to the ideological objectives of the authorities. For example, I ask any hon. member to go and stand in Eloff Street in Johannesburg at any time of the day and to say to himself aloud three times: “I am now in White South Africa.” I wonder how long he will go on believing himself. Another example is this. Any hon. member can try confronting nine out of every ten Black city-dwellers in the street and telling them: “I just want to put it to you that you are not South Africans.” Surely that would sound absurd.

Ridiculous.

Yes, it would sound ridiculous. One would not be able to believe it. That is why I say that in the mind of the average South African—Black and White—there is going to be a growing divergence between policy and reality. I could go on to mention many other examples. That is why I say that increasingly, the ideological world for which we prepare our young people is not going to exist in the hard reality in which we live. This poses a major threat to internal stability and order, based on consensus and cooperation, for in such a climate, where there is a divergence between reality and policy, suspicion and uncertainty flourish, aspirations are frustrated and expectations are raised to an unrealistic level. Over-reaction on the part of the authorities as well as the subjects then becomes the order of the day. On the part of the authorities, I believe, the danger exists that fruitless witch-hunts may be confused with the effective maintenance of law and order, with the result that the attempts to maintain law and order will themselves contribute to destabilization. This growing divergence between policy and reality is going to contribute more than anything else to internal polarization and to the undermining of co-operation and consensus in this country. For this reason, the single most important cause—and I wish to emphasize this very strongly—of internal vulnerability to the possibility of evolutionary change is going to be the Government’s obsession with the ideological objectives of apartheid, of separate development. What are these objectives? I should like to mention three, because these are the things that the White voter is being promised. Firstly, that the constitutional aspirations of Blacks must be accommodated only in independent national States. We can forget about that. However, the Government is going to persist with it. Secondly, that Coloured people and Asians can be accommodated in a shared constitutional dispensation along with the Whites, without power sharing and with the consent and complaisance of the excluded Blacks. They believe this and they will say it too. But we know it is foolishness; it will not happen. Thirdly, that racially discriminating measures or segregation measures must be maintained in the face of increasing urbanization and economic integration. I have just read to hon. members what the tempo of urbanization is going to be, namely 75% of our people on 4% of the country’s surface. However, the Government is going to persist with segregation measures in spite of increasing economic integration and urbanization. This, too, will contribute to conflict.

Increasingly, the inevitable adjustments that have to be made in respect of education, urban migration, housing, community development, labour mobility and bargaining power, transport, etc., are going to be in shrill contrast to these objectives I have just mentioned to hon. members. Therefore I must tell the hon. the Minister of Defence with all due respect: No matter how essential a total strategy may be in the face of onslaughts from outside, if that strategy is based on the objectives of separate development or apartheid, it is doomed to failure, for while the strategy is designed to resist onslaughts from outside, the most important onslaughts are going to come from outside, the most important onslaughts are going to come from inside South Africa. If this is so, the question occurs to me, and, I am sure, to everybody else: What alternatives are there? What possibilities are there? (Interjections.] I am always very glad when I can anticipate the way hon. members would like me to talk, because then I know that they are listening to me. When one considers the matter carefully, there are only two; there are only two alternative, pure constitutional models one can examine. The one is radical partition. Hoernlé was the first man who spoke about this in the ’thirties, and the man who speaks about it today, and he speaks about it in a way which is more radical than anything in the NP’s policy, is of course the head of Sabra, Dr. Boshoff. He speaks about radical partition and how it is to be brought about. However, is it a feasible policy? Can it work? There are two simple questions that have to be asked about any partition policy, namely, who cuts up the cake and who chooses? It is as simple as that. If one is going to cut and choose, there is going to be trouble. Surely we know this. We know that every time there is partition in South Africa as a result of a national State becoming independent, we are institutionalizing land as a source of conflict in the country. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt knows that we shall always have problems about land because of the fact that the one side divides the cake and also decides who is to have the pieces. So there is no historic precedent for radical partition on a peaceful basis, because the line that is drawn usually indicates where the two parties stopped fighting. Therefore I do not believe that this offers any solution.

Another alternative is that we must accept that a shared South Africa, a shared constitution for all the population groups, has to be developed.

Is that your solution?

Yes, naturally. I believe that a shared constitution should be developed for a shared South Africa. It may be asked whether this is feasible. I say yes, it is more feasible than partition, more feasible than the objectives of the Government. It will be extremely difficult, but it is not as impossible as partition, as what the Government is trying to do. In developing a shared constitution, we must try to bring about effective negotiation and to have a joint declaration of intent drawn up in the process of negotiation. I have often spoken about this, and hon. members are aware of it. This is actually the only real alternative.

What is more dangerous than the two alternatives I have just set out is a policy of pseudo or half-hearted segregation combined with a policy of pseudo or half-hearted shared constitutional dispensation. And that is what we are engaged in at this stage. The point is not whether the official Opposition likes it or not, because the official Opposition finds itself on the side of those who enjoy the advantages of a White régime. The feasibility or practicability of this policy depends on the co-operation of people not represented in this House. About that, however, I cannot do anything. It is the Government which has the power to decide whether it wants to persist with a policy of pseudo segregation and pseudo shared constitutional development, or whether it is actively going to use its position of power in an attempt to negotiate a shared constitutional dispensation in which all the people can believe. However, if they do this and they keep glancing over their right shoulder to see how the pace has to be set, as it were…

Like Piketberg.

Yes, Piketberg is an important point. If the Government is going to remain intent on ascertaining how the pace is set by the right wing in White politics, I am afraid that we shall be back to square one, facing the problems I outlined right at the outset, namely that the Government is going to try to reconcile two irreconcilable demands, on the one hand promising the White voter apartheid or segregation and on the other hand promising the Blacks that their aspirations and demands are going to be met. Here I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Florida during the censure debate. The time will come when the Government and all White political parties that are really interested in reform and development will have to pluck up their courage and confront the right wing. However, one thing is certain: If the NP tries to maintain its unity on the traditional basis, while at the same time implying that it is going to bring about reforms, it is bluffing itself and the rest of South Africa. We do not have much time left and we cannot afford that. I think the time should be utilized so that a meaningful debate can be conducted in this House about how we can bring about real change in South Africa which can defuse the possibility of violent and revolutionary change. [Interjections.] I can assure hon. members that if the Government persists with the policy of—as I call it—pseudo segregation and pseudo shared constitutional development, the inevitable consequence of such development will be to give greater impetus to those who will turn increasingly to revolutionary change. Signs of this are already clearly visible in South Africa. In fact, the hon. the Minister of Defence gave us some alarming statistics to indicate the increase in internal subversion and terrorism. Naturally, this is related to dissatisfaction and problems in the economy, but also with the nature of the political and constitutional development which is being envisaged for South Africa. We as Whites cannot bluff ourselves that we can, as it were, remove 75% of the urban Blacks to 13% of the country’s surface, situated mainly in the rural areas. It is nonsensical to do this, and we shall have to come to our senses soon, because the future of our children depends on it.

Mr. Speaker, if one had been sitting here, listening quietly to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and had been asked to form an opinion on what he was saying, one would have said that the NP had lost the election on 29 April, for what his whole argument amounted to was that if the NP wished to be sensible, it would abandon its policy, which to a great extent inspires confidence in the people we are representing here, and adopt the policy of the PFP—in as far as they do have a policy which has materialized, a policy which was rejected so vigorously at the polling booths.

Yes, if you had South Africa’s interests at heart, you would do so.

I want to differ fundamentally from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with regard to his analysis of the essence of the NP. He commenced his historical analysis by indicating that the NP was in essence a party which was geared solely to White interests and rights. However, this is not true. I can quote what General Hertzog said as long ago as 1927 when he cried out that the thing which concerned him most, was dishonesty towards persons of colour, i.e. Blacks and Coloureds, and said that the NP stood for a fair dispensation for all the people of South Africa.

Then you kicked him out.

Surely the NP has never ventured upon the course the HNP has now adopted. [Interjections.] That is why we felt ourselves perfectly entitled to resist that onslaught in the general election and in the Piketberg by-election and expose it as an onslaught which was irreconcilable with the basis and the principles of the NP and its history. [Interjections.]

A pathetic scampering about.

However, I want to charge the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with having made a second unscientific statement. I am referring to the fact that he assessed the NP against the background of false expectations which were created by incorrect interpretations which were not attached by Nationalists to statements which had been made over the past two or three years, but which the Opposition and in particular people in that party attached to them. They were creating their own bogyman. After they had referred to what the hon. the Prime Minister had said in connection with more effective consolidation and all his new initiatives, they arrived at a conclusion and planted the seed that the NP had actually decided to defraud the voting public by implementing PFP policies. They then want to test us against that and see whether we have in fact implemented PFP policy. They then decide that we have not done so and say that we are backing down. Surely this is not true. The real new initiatives and the real fundamental renewal aspects which have been announced are receiving urgent attention, and things are happening.

That hon. member must not reproach us for his non-participation in the President’s Council. That was his own free choice. However, the President’s Council is a fact. Intensive discussions are also taking place on that council as to how the Coloureds and the Indians may obtain fundamental political rights and arrive at political self-realization. Surely this is not backing down. Surely this is action. Something is taking place, but in an orderly way. [Interjections.]

Surely the real economic initiatives of intensified decentralization are the real answer to the urbanization problem with which the hon. leader is so obsessed. No one disputes the fact that we are caught up in an urbanization process. However, the question is where this should take place. Should the Cape Peninsula metropolis simply be suffocated through the influx of thousands of people, irrespective of the available employment opportunities? Or should there be economic decentralization which will ensure that the urbanization takes place in an orderly pattern, in such a way that it is in the best interests of everyone?

The Development Bank is becoming a reality. In addition there is the Small Business Development Corporation. There is in other words a stimulus to cause the new prospects, which have been envisaged by the hon. the Prime Minister, to work in practice.

He said that we were too careful when it came to change. The answer to that is: It depends on which norm one is applying. I agree with him that, from his point of view, we are probably being too careful. The fact that he feels that way emphasizes that we are on the correct road, for if he were satisfied, it would mean that we would be acting in conflict with the fundamental principles of the Government. Those hon. members must know that as long as the NP Government is in power, renewal and change in this country will take place within the framework of the principles of the NP and in implementation of the mandate of the voters. Consequently we need not argue about that. We shall implement our policy, and we believe our policy is correct. We have the election results to demonstrate that we have the support of the majority of our people.

The hon. member says in respect of Black people that we are placing them before Hobson’s choice by saying: “Independence is the only way to achieve self-realization politically”. However, this is an inadequate statement of the NP’s policy. We believe that once a State has become independent, a family of States will come into existence. Because there is also such a thing—this is a material fact—as economic interdependence, common interests and common threats, co-prosperity machinery will also be developed. That is why we say that we see the growth of a confederation of States in future in which one could co-operate, whilst retaining self-determination and sovereignity. Consequently it is not true to say that we are herding the Blacks into a tiny little State far away from everything, as was implied during the debate on the Status of Ciskei Bill and that we are saying: “Go forth and seek your own salvation”. This is an absolute distortion of everything this party has ever envisaged.

I want to level the charge at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that his last statement of the problem, viz. that we have a choice between radical partition or a common constitution in a common South Africa, is an absolute oversimplification and consequently a false statement of the problem. What is the hon. the leader saying? He is saying that there cannot be a watertight compartmentalization of the various population groups. The NP admits this. It is the HNP which is pursuing the dream that it is possible to have watertight compartmentalization.

However, the opposite, the PFP’s policy, is just as unrealistic. I shall discuss this more comprehensively at a later stage, but just allow me at this stage to state the situation simply: It is not possible to maintain a common constitution and a common South Africa in a country in which there are so many different peoples with their own nationalisms, desires, ideals, pride and traditions. The respective peoples will not subject themselves to a different majority. It is not a feasible objective, just as watertight compartmentalization is not a feasible objective. That is why the mistake that that party is making, and which the HNP and all the other splinter groups are making, is basically the same mistake, viz. they are oversimplifying reality.

To succeed in avoiding confrontation in South Africa, one must make provision for separation and collectivity, for diversity and co-operation. There are no simple answers. If the hon. the leader cannot assimilate the more intricate formulas required for these intricate problems properly, as the NP sees them realistically, he should perhaps listen for a while before trying to analyse the essence of the NP in an authoritative way and making a clever speech about it. He does not understand us, nor does he understand our policy.

At the risk of an analytical review of this session being repetitive and boring, I, too, would like to make an attempt in this direction. My point of departure is that I have respect for Parliament, and a deeply rooted conviction that we who are assembled here have been called upon to make a constructive contribution, by means of our speeches and debates, to finding a solution to the urgent problems with which we are faced. If I ask whether we have achieved that objective during this session, there is no simple answer. In as far as the Government took the initiative by way of legislation, the answer is positive. Hon. members opposite may differ with that, for we did not implement their policy, but Bills were introduced, reports were tabled and policy was announced which was intended and ought to contribute towards order, development, growth and the creation of opportunities for everyone. In that sense of the word we have achieved something during this session, but it was unilateral action on the part of the Government.

Seen from another point of view, this session was a mockery of democracy. Nothing or very little came of constructive interaction between the governing party and the Opposition, which is surely something which ought to be pursued. If I ask myself why this is the case—I honestly want to try to be as objective as possible—then I come to the conclusion that the fundamental cause is to be found in the official Opposition’s refusal to accept the reality of group existence, group aspirations, group fears, group loyalty and group adherence. This unwillingness and impotence of the PFP soured and emasculated the debates, like a dreary refrain.

The desire of the Ciskeian nation was recklessly scorned and denigrated in the constitutional sphere; again in the constitutional sphere the pressing question of the meaningful accommodation of the Coloureds and the Indians was subordinated to the PFP’s mania that the Black nations, despite their differentness, their history, their traditions and the fact that they have their own territories and nationhood, have to form part of one community. They are still entangled in the old PFP philosophy—I want to say: the old PFP morass—of the early ’sixties when the hon. member for Sea Point said in this House—

Not only the group prejudice, but also the group loyalty and the group feeling must, according to him, be reduced and there must be positive action to suppressing nationhood, to suppress Afrikanerdom, to suppress the pride of the Zulu, to suppress the pride of every nation.

You are at Hyde Park Corner again.

According to him all these things must be levelled so that everyone is simply a South African.

In the educational and social sphere the PFP advocated integration ad nauseam during this session and refused point-blank to take cognizance of group differences and the power of group identity. Schools and residential areas must, according to them, be thrown open, tertiary institutions must be thrown open and squatting must be legalized. According to them all doors must simply be thrown open and all existing dividing lines which people want, must be broken down.

In the economic sphere the disregard of group interests almost reached a hysterical climax too. The hon. member for Pinelands almost tripped over his own feet in his haste to destroy the group security of the White mineworkers and reproached the NP for recognizing and wishing to protect the reality of the group interests of that important group in our economy. The hon. member for Yeoville, in conjunction with his commission, drafted a new economic policy for the PFP. I read it carefully and besides being an accumulation of platitudes, I was unable to find a single effort in it to deal with the reality—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that we must examine the facts—of the White worker’s security and his needs. It is as though they do not exist and in this disregard by the PFP of an inescapable aspect of reality—the existence of nations and of groups and of everything which these concepts imply—lies the germ which stifled and killed meaningful debate during this session. This is the cause, Mr. Speaker, of the futility of Opposition politics.

The hon. the Leader of the official Opposition accused us of running away from reality, for example in his argument on urbanization. The truth is that his solutions are dreams built on sand—that the multinationalism of the RSA is simply something temporary and that it will pass. Sir, it will not go away. As has been demonstrated in so many other States in Africa and elsewhere, nationhood is a force one dare not ignore. He who ignores it plucks the bitter fruits of his omission.

That is why you have to enforce it.

Yes, I shall now tell the hon. member how we are enforcing it and why. Against this background, with special reference to the sixth Wiehahn report, I want to deal briefly with the NP’s standpoint on the cardinal fact of multinationalism and the question as to how this should be recognized in the interests of everyone.

Our practical points of departure in an over-simplified form for the sake of brevity and time, are the following: Confrontation between nations and groups which is a real risk, must be prevented and constructive co-operation achieved—certainly an objective which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can support. The prevention of confrontation can only be achieved if the domination of other groups by one group or the repression of one group by the others can be eliminated—a logical conclusion which his logic, too, tells him is correct. Domination and encroachment and the accompanying friction and conflict can only be eliminated if adequate recognition is granted to the existence of nations and groups and if it is possible for them to maintain themselves as groups. Only when they have that sense of security will you be able to instil the spirit among them of wishing to co-operate and of venturing into a co-prosperity structure because their security has been guaranteed. Co-operation is only feasible if unfair discrimination is removed and every nation and group enjoy sufficient security against domination and encroachment. These practical points of departure find expression in the NP’s policy of self-determination, separate schools, separate community life and vertical differentiation on the one hand …

And White domination on the other.

… and at the same time co-operation built on justice, opportunities for everyone, the fact of common interests which we recognize, on the other.

In the constitutional sphere there has to be division of power and the practicing of self-determination in separate political institutions in order to eliminate domination and to guarantee the already established freedom of the White for him. At the same time co-operation on matters of common interest is sought within a just constitutional framework which does not lend itself to group domination. Similarly the NP perceives that in the economic sphere a distinction should be drawn between group interests and common interests which are at the same time part of reality, and that both these aspects of reality should find expression in practical and feasible arrangements.

I want to illustrate this point on the basis of the sixth report of the Wiehahn Commission and the position of the White mineworkers in particular. The commission which carried out the investigation and the Government realize that the security of the White mine-worker, his job security and the protection of his entrenched rights—consequently the group interests of the White mine-worker—have to be maintained. At the same time the interests of South Africa demand that adjustments should in fact be made in the mining industry. This is succinctly and clearly explained in the White Paper. I quote—

This practical emerges from these facts: How does one reconcile these two objectives of group security and of adjustment? That party’s reply is: Forget about group security; throw the baby out with the bathwater, surrender and delete it.

That does not appear anywhere in our policy.

Their policy is the policy of capitulation.

The White Paper is clear about this as well where it deals with the definition of “scheduled person”. Departing from the principle of self-determination in the industrial sphere as well, the Government states that the parties must seek a formula themselves to achieve these objectives. That is why the following emerges very clearly from the White Paper—

I want to advocate today that everyone in South Africa, employers and trade unions in the mining industry, political parties, we who are here as well as those who are not here, should approach these thorny problems in the labour sphere in the mining industry with circumspection.

I want to address myself to the trade unions in particular. It is in the interests of the mine-workers and of South Africa that there should be a sound attitude between Government and trade union, Government and employer, and trade unions and employers. There is the willingness to do so on the one hand, but that goodwill comes from both sides. The time has arrived for all interested parties, employers and employees’ organizations in the mining industry, to examine the labour and other problems in the industry with new eyes.

It is an indisputable fact that there are bottlenecks which acquire urgent attention and this is clearly illustrated in the sixth report. The principle bottleneck which we are concerned with here, is the growing shortages which are indicated by the commission’s report. I am aware of the fact that the seriousness of the problems is being disputed from some quarters, but, more than anything else it is surely a factual question about which it is possible to reach consensus specifically through negotiation and dialogue and consultation. Nothing is going to be solved by our sitting here and glaring at one another. Nor is dialogue through the public Press going to solve the problems facing us. That is why I say that penetrating dialogue is vital.

However, I see three prerequisites for causing such a dialogue to succeed. Firstly, employers in the mining industry must realize that they will have to prove that they are in earnest in ensuring the employment security of the White mine-worker. Concrete proposals providing effective and on-going protection for White mine-workers will, in my opinion, have to be made. Secondly, trade unions in the mining industry who are acting entirely within their rights by fighting and negotiating for security for their members, will have to be prepared to sit down with a positive approach and bargain around the conference table. Not only for the rights and privileges of their own members, but also for a dispensation which will at the same time ensure the development and progress of the mining industry in South Africa and eliminate unnecessary discrimination. Thirdly, the existing mistrust between employers and employees in the mining industry—something which I observe clearly and which I think is deeply rooted—will have to be transformed into a spirit of seeking solutions to bottlenecks together.

I want to advocate a new spirit of enterprise and creativity, a new spirit of confidence which can be brought about only by true dialogue and negotiation. I want to give the assurance that the Government will strive to achieve this goal, than is the Mining Workers’ Union or anyone else. The Government is no more prepared to allow the White worker to be supplanted or prejudiced. To the same extent the Government is not prepared to see the economic artery of South Africa being endangered for the sake of Jaap Marais’s and Connie Mulder’s frustrations and ambitions. That is why my appeal to the interested parties is: Negotiate in the best tradition of the reconciliatory philosophy of our labour legislation. Create your own future by co-operating constructively—by way of negotiation—on a formula which reconciles group interests and national interests with each other. Just as this has to be done in the constitutional sphere, so it is also necessary to reconcile the two aspects of reality with each other in this sphere. The suppression or negation of the one at the cost of the other will give rise to chaos.

Everyone must realize that the tremendous expansion facing the mining industry, in the coal field in particular, will make pressing demands on our manpower, and that for that reason an orderly arrangement will have to be made. Expansion in the mineral field is one of the foundation stones on which the long-term security of the White mine-worker, of the employer and of everyone in South Africa, White and Black wherever they are, of the whole of the Republic of South Africa, will have to be built. That is why the situation demands the highest possible measure of responsibility from everyone involved, not to roll stones in the path of expansion and, may I express the hope as well, not to politicize it excessively in this debate.

The NP’s philosophy is diametrically opposed to the PFP’s, and if we want to conduct a meaningful debate in this House, in the session which lies ahead and in the final stages of this session, we shall have to learn to argue on the basis that what is happening in this country takes place, until the voters decide differently, within the framework of our principles, otherwise we are going to continue to be bogged down in this futile kicking up of dust and analyses which do not take account of the true essence, convictions and principles of the NP.

Mr. Speaker, it was particularly interesting to listen to the hon. the Minister while he was dealing with trade unions, because he commenced his speech by making the statement that the NP had never followed the road of the HNP. I can remember so well—I can still hear the voices from various platforms—how it was said that the policy of that party would ensure that the Black man was kept in his place and that the Indians would be put out of the country—but they did not use those words, those terms …

The policy of this party is not based on hatred.

In my first debate in the Other Place this Government introduced job reservation. Mixed trade unions were prohibited, etc. etc. So let us forget about the distant past. I shall refer to it again later on, but it was interesting to hear in the same speech that that party had never followed the road of the HNP, and to hear towards the end of the speech the hon. the Minister’s attitude with regard to trade unions.

I can, to a large extent, agree with the hon. the Minister’s analysis of the problem. The problem I have, however, is that while the hon. the Minister is able to analyse the problem, he is unable to give us a solution. I have been awaiting this debate with great hopes and expectations. I am pleased that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is here. I have been cherising the special hope that we should be able to conduct a meaningful debate here among the three parties on policy and the direction for the future. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself said towards the end of his speech that we should conduct a debate in this Parliament on how this could be achieved. For a moment I truly believed that we were getting there when the hon. the leader referred to the two alternatives and dealt with radical partition and a common constitution in a common South Africa. However, when he was asked what his policy was, he said—and this was his only reference to his real policy—that he believed in a common constitution and a common South Africa. But then he called for a debate on how this could be achieved. No, by this time we should have been engaged in that already. This is not a debate for the future. For half an hour we listened to the shortcomings of the Government, but heard precious little about the alternatives offered by the PFP.

†Mr. Speaker, the session is ending with the mystery of the new mandate still unsolved. The new mandate of the election in April which we expected to come here and see unfold before us, is still a mystery mandate. It still remains the old vague twelve points, but it has not yet emerged in a form which indicates a clear direction for South Africa. The best that can be said is that it marks the end of an era, with one exception, viz. the homelands policy, an era in which the circle is slowly closing. This marks the end of an experiment which failed, and when the circle closes South Africa and this House will be back where we started in 1948. The policy that was going to last for a thousand years, has disappeared; the experiment has failed and left nothing to take its place. Surely, this is what we should be debating here, because each one of the positive steps which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition mentioned and which I have listed, namely labour legislation, a new approach to trade unionism, the withdrawal of job reservation, the question of training for skilled work the placing of sport back in the control of the sportsmen and other administrative actions, when carried out to their full and logical conclusion, take us back to where we started in 1948. In 1948 there were open trade unions. In 1948 sportsmen controlled their own affairs. In 1948 there was no job reservation. With all these things that are being removed and altered we will be in roughly the same position we were in 32 years ago. I accept that here and there there are hesitant improvements, for instance the liquor aspect relating to sportclubs.

I said the exception was the homeland policy and I intend dealing with it. [Interjections.] I am not going to run away from it. The problem as I see it is that whilst an era has ended, too many of its shackles live on and the Government seems unable to throw them off. Too much of the philosophy just refuses to die. The hon. Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs when he talked about ethnic identity said “It won’t go away”. Of course it won’t go away, but it seems as if the philosophy of the old NP also won’t go away. It will not die, and this is the problem that I find. The spirit of the original NP, even the original initials of HNP, is now stalking South Africa in a new cloak, as a new party, but the old spirit is still there. This party which is struggling to break into a new way of thinking is watching the effects of its original attitudes, the decades of indoctrination and the effect this has had on the electorate over the years. The challenge of today is to find new answers. It is a challenge which is facing this Parliament and the President’s Council. The challenge is to find an alternative to both the White domination of the past and the other alternative of Black-Power—the domination by Black Power which flows from the rule of the masses. The hon. the Minister was quite right because the key to that solution is pluralism. It is the only course which can meet the aspirations of people and at the same time protect minority rights and fears. All parties in this House claim to reject majority rule. I see the leader of the PFP has left the Chamber. He has made his speech and has now disappeared; so perhaps someone else will answer for him. His party says it rejects majority rule, but it does not deny that it stands for a policy of “one man, one vote” on a common voters’ roll in geographic States within one parliamentary system. That is a step on the way to majority rule and ultimately to Black Power. We should be debating this because the only alternative to that is either partition to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred or a third road of pluralism which accommodates the fact of ethnic and group identities in the system. The Government recognizes this but fails to grasp the opportunity that it has. It is still using pluralism as an instrument of separation. This is my main charge against this Government. It is the greatest disservice it does to South Africa. It treats pluralism as an instrument of separation. Only this Government has the power to change the situation. However, the problem is that it does not seem to have the courage to grasp that opportunity.

The indications which have been forthcoming during this session have certainly not been encouraging. Even when the new and much-heralded new deal for the Ciskei—which the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development hailed as a great new step into a great new future—appeared before this House, it was the “mixture as before,” identical to legislation of the past. The only difference was an agreement to be made in the future which holds a possibility of a confederation spelled out in the vaguest terms and generalities. We are not going to debate that now; we have already done so and we will do so again during the Third Reading of the Ciskei legislation. This was a big opportunity, an opportunity which the Government should have grasped. With Parliament due to be prorogued tomorrow, what does the hon. the Prime Minister reveal to the electorate about this new mandate that is new, clear or specific? What is he going to take back to his congresses? I believe he is not even going to open his Transvaal congress this year, and I cannot blame him because what does he have to take there?

Listen Vause, your people are now joining the HNP.

Yes. [Interjections.] There are, in fact, those who are doing so.

†That is nothing new. There are some members of the old United Party, old Bloedsappe, who have joined or who are now supporting the HNP. They are doing so out of frustration and out of a bitter and deep antagonism towards the Government … [Interjections.] They say: “Die HNP slaan hard, en ons gaan hulle steun”.

Just leave it to me to make my own arrangements concerning my attendance at congresses.

That is all right. My point is that the hon. the Prime Minister has nothing to take back to his congresses. He has nothing new except an attempt to reconcile the built-in conflict from the past, which still lives on and which the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs touched on, the built-in conflict between the old ideas, the old philosophies and the new philosophy which is supposed to be emerging.

Vause, do you still have a conference?

Mr. Speaker, that hon. Minister knows that the greatest fear in the NP today is their fear of the HNP. [Interjections.] They know too what the danger of that is to South Africa. They know the danger of the HNP to South Africa, but instead of taking the result of a by-election such as that of yesterday as a sign that they need not worry, they say: “Well, there were 1 200 HNP supporters so we must now go back to the laager, back into the shell, and we must go slowly with reforms”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I say—I have said it before—the NRP has committed itself to helping to write new chapters in South Africa’s history. What we are not prepared to do, however, is to become co-authors of a mere rehash of the old apartheid philosophy. Such a rewriting of the old concept is a waste of time, and this is what has emerged from this session. It has emerged from the speech of the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs that whilst they talk of movement and of change, there is still always that dragging of feet because of the shackles of the old concepts from which they appear to be unable to break away.

Vause, why can you not convince the electorate?

Mr. Speaker, I am going to deal with that in a moment. [Interjections.] I am going to come to that. Those old concepts are the concepts which have led to the confrontation and to the frustrations of today. It is always so that those who advocate moderation in any political system are the people who find it hardest to sell. They are the moderates, the seekers after peace, who face the most difficult task. It is never an easy task. Witness, Mr. Speaker, the brutal assassination of Pres. Sadat of Egypt, a man who was seeking peace. It is always the moderate, the seeker after peace, who becomes the target of the extremists. When one is pleading and fighting for moderation one gets shot at from both sides. I am not pretending that we are a fast-growing party, ready to take over the Government, but what I am saying is that our ideas, our thinking, is a contribution to which South Africa will turn more and more, as witness the take-over of some of our phraseology.

In the few minutes left to me I should like to set out in a positive way what we see as the essential elements for any solution to the problem of peaceful coexistence and to the problem of creating a peaceful, stable and secure future for every member of every population group in South Africa. I believe that the first must be the recognition of the cardinal role of the group dynamic in our system. We must strip group or ethnic identity of all traces of abuse, the abuse of using it as an instrument of inferiority, discrimination or domination. We must make it the instrument of co-operation and of security, the basis for achieving a new society acceptable to all the peoples of South Africa. We have said that we must give priority to identifying the aspirations of non-homeland Blacks and their accommodation within South Africa’s social and political structure, accommodation in accordance with the reality and not with White assumptions of what those realities are. We believe that constitutional change must be the product of negotiation between all groups, including Blacks, but we are not committed to any specific method or procedure provided it is acceptable to a broad enough cross-section of all groups in South Africa. That alone can make its recommendations acceptable to most of our peoples. One will never get unanimity on a new constitution, but one must take along with one sufficient of the responsible and moderate people to know that one will have a positive majority. We believe, too, that any new system must include a built-in certainty that it cannot be used as a stepping stone for the mere replacemen of minority domination by majority domination. Let me say clearly, we believe that this needs much more than constitutional devices and minority vetoes. This is one of our basic disagreements with the PFP. We believe it requires an element of segmental autonomy, a political power base for each community and a high degree of self-administration and group option over intimate affairs. And, of course, any new system must eliminate the sort of discrimination that has created the miseries, the frustrations and the resentments that bedevil South Africa’s human relations today. Laws such as the Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act must obviously go and we need a whole new approach to the question of the freedom of association. The hallmarks of a free democratic society—the rule of law, a free enterprise system and a single economy—must all be entrenched. They must not just be there; they must also be safeguarded against misuse and abuse by people who want to use the instruments of a democratic society in attempts to destroy the system itself. This is the delicate balance for which this Government has not yet found the answer.

These are some of the requisites for any new system with any hope of success. Of course there will be desperate attempts to destroy it, attempts by those seeking to retain White domination by force and those seeking Black domination, Black power, ostensibly—yes, I know—by peaceful political process, but knowing in fact that only unrest and revolution can achieve it and so covertly working towards this end, and with them those who have become unwitting tools of the cause of the people who know that their objective can only be achieved by violence.

In conclusion I want to say that we see these prerequisites that I have listed as the minimum base on which the moderates of all groups can come together in an effort to build a peaceful future for South Africa. That base must be strong enough to with stand the attacks from left and right, and its attraction must be powerful enough to counteract the pull of the old and known ideas to which people tend to cling. It must be powerful and visible enough to be believed and accepted.

One leg is a confederation that must provide a formally structured centre to attract and accommodate people from all groups across the colour fine. The other leg must emerge from the President’s Council. Our policy is before that body and I do not intend to deal with it. However, I believe that the next session of Parliament will show inevitably whether South Africa can be saved from confrontation, conflict and violence; whether the faith and the efforts of the moderates of all races, working together towards a new Republic, will be strong enough to counteract the forces of undermining, subversion, violence and all the other things that lead toward revolution. This, Sir, is the test facing every single South African who thinks seriously about the future. I hope that we will be able to debate this, not as vague philosophies, not as second-year political science lectures, but as the cold reality of the South African way of life, the cold reality of our plural society and the need to structure our future on a system that will ensure that nobody will be dominated or suppressed, but that each will have a place and a share in a country that has an unlimited future if only our people, both White and Black, can find a way to exploit and use it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point always strikes me as a tragic figure. There was a time when he participated in a political debate with great conviction and skill. However, recently it appears to me as if the hon. member can no longer speak with conviction, and this is the case because the mandate that he received in the past election, is continually dwindling. The hon. member talks about pluralism, but recently he had an opportunity to prove whether he is on the side of pluralism and on the side of the so-called moderates in South Africa. However, the hon. member displayed a lack of leadership and courage on that occasion. He had a few hundred supporters in the Piketberg constituency. Why did he not give those people guidance? During the recent general election the hon. the Prime Minister told Nationalists that where there was no NP candidate, they should vote against the PFP. Therefore, they could vote for the NRP if they wished. However, where was the hon. member for Durban Point with his few hundred people in Piketberg? [Interjections.] Surely he could have called the moderates together there and said: We stand for the maintenance of the plural character of our South African community. However, the hon. member was not prepared to do so. That is why he and his party will be ground between the two political stones in South Africa. [Interjections.] I do not want the hon. member for Durban Point to become a tragic figure in South African politics. However, I do not pity the hon. member, because every man makes his own decisions. However, I do want to make another request of that hon. member. He knows politics and he also knows the desires of the people of South Africa. He must please not fall between two stools any longer. It is only a man with a big behind who can refrain from falling between two stools. [Interjections.] I therefore want to make that serious request of the hon. member for Durban Point. The time has come for he and his party to make a decision.

I am not prepared to sell my conscience or my soul for political gain.

The hon. member need not sell his conscience or his soul. [Interjections.] He simply has to bear the interests of South Africa and all its people in mind, and that is all!

That is what I am doing.

That hon. member and his party are in favour of confederation. He is always saying so. However, it became very clear during this session that there is a world of difference between the confederation that he is proposing and the type of confederation that this side of the House is advocating. [Interjections.] What that hon. member is advocating, is a confederation of self-governing States, not independent States, sovereign independent States. Therefore, what that hon. member and his party are holding out in prospect, is a type of umbrella super-parliament in South Africa. The hon. member is shaking his head. Then if he says “no” and is in favour of a confederation that will prevent majority rule in South Africa, he has no choice but to advocate a confederation of sovereign independent States in South Africa. Then the hon. member will be able to move away from those two stools that he is falling between.

We shall debate it tomorrow.

If he does not, the voting corps of South Africa will wipe out the entire NRP, including the hon. member for Durban Point, as that party has already been wiped out everywhere, except for that small patch in Natal. We do not want the hon. member for Durban Point to be lost to South African politics, because he can play a role. However, he must just have the courage of his convictions and display leadership. Then he will indeed be able to play that role. He must not, like other political leaders …

Go over to the NP.

… forget what the realities in South Africa are, and in doing so disappear from the political scene.

You saved your skin, didn’t you?

It is not a question of saving one’s skin. After all, we all know that the South African situation has changed. I am not ashamed to say so either. [Interjections.] The situation in South Africa will have to undergo even more changes too. Nor is the NP ashamed to say that it too has changed. It is continually saying so. As recently as last weekend, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs said once again at a youth conference that the NP is not afraid and will not be afraid to say that changes are taking place and that it is involved in a process of renewal. [Interjections.]

I now want to come to the type of debate that one should conduct on an occasion like this. After having been together here for nearly three months, each one of us has his own impressions of the parliamentary session. It is very clear to me that the NP still has a firm hold of the reins and will continue to do so for a long time to come, and that this party is also the only one that offers any hope to South Africa. We on this side of the House are aware of the fact that South Africa has a tremendous economic potential, and it is a good thing that the hon. the Minister of Finance has told the House and South Africa today that, in spite of problems abroad, we still have a wonderful potential here. South Africa’s finances and its economy are being controlled in an orderly, disciplined fashion. We are envied our economic growth rate by many countries of the world, whilst they are experiencing stagnation, together with a tremendously high rate of inflation. However, we are still experiencing growth at a reasonable rate in this country, and all this is due to good control and good government. We know that unemployment is a problem that is being experienced throughout the world. In South Africa too we cannot be satisfied with the standard of living of many of our people either. However, when we compare it to comparable countries, we find that the standard of living of all our people is high. Many concessions could be made in the part appropriation this year. Wage and salary increases were granted, for instance. In the main budget we balanced the books with a minimum burden on the consumers of South Africa. No increases were announced in the Post Office budget, and the Railways also balanced its books with the minimum of increases.

†It is no wonder that this budget was described as a “workmanlike” budget by a local newspaper, a newspaper opposed to the Government. South Africa’s economic potential is vast, and I think we are ready for a tremendous surge of economic development in the 1980s. We can offer all the strategic minerals required by the West. In time to come, because the world will become more dependent upon nuclear power, we can become one of the few energy exporting countries in the world. Today we are using our labour from all population groups better than in the past; therefore our growth in the years ahead could be much faster. As far as growth is concerned, our stakes are very high. In the beginning of the year this country was described by the “Economist Intelligence Unit”, a top world research unit, as one of the exceptions with a tremendous growth rate, whilst the Western world, such as Canada, Britain, West Germany, France, the United States and so on, could expect a growth rate of only 1% this year.

*In this way the Black people in South Africa have achieved a much greater share in the total personal income in this country, on a percentage basis, between 1975 and 1980. Between 1975 and 1980 their share in the personal income has increased from 26% to nearly 30%. Their buying power is becoming increasingly larger. The less well-off people in South Africa are also much better off under the NP.

†Everybody is sharing in our economic cake and I believe that the cake in South Africa is getting bigger. In one year alone our gross domestic product jumped by close on 33%. Last year it was close on R60 000 million, nearly 33% more than in 1979. I believe this comes about because of the way in which we are planning our economic future. Making more use of our labour resources and training our people better must make of South Africa a champion amongst countries in which the prospective investor would like to invest money. Only recently an international magazine, Institutional Investor, rated South Africa as the most creditworthy country on the continent of Africa. Zimbabwe, our very close neighbour, was rated tenth in importance. It is small wonder that a French magazine of repute said a while ago that Mr. P. W. Botha was heading South Africa as an industrial leader should head a larger company. Therefore I believe we have every reason for optimism in South Africa provided no stone is left unturned in an effort to increase everybody’s productivity.

”Therefore it is ironical that, whilst we have the potential to make our people really economically prosperous, we are faced with a total onslaught from outside. However, what is more tragic, is that the official Opposition believes that there is no total onslaught against South Africa. They have said it again this session, and the hon. member for Houghton repeated it from one platform to the other during the general election, that there is no total onslaught against South Africa.

They are bluffing themselves.

They want to make out that it is the Government’s policy that is the cause of a total onslaught against South Africa. This is actually where the fault lies according to the hon. members on that side of the House. I believe that they are creating an atmosphere in which revolution in South Africa can prosper. The Black man must continually be told that he should be dissatisfied. The official Opposition is making the Black man afraid of the White man. According to them, the motives of this side of the House are not honest. They say: “It is sham reform”. I am still coming to that.

So much has already been said about the onslaught by the communists that I do not want to speak about it again. Experts in all spheres who have made a study of the Russian presence in our area, however, admit that there is such an onslaught against us. The facts are there for anyone to check up on. I want to refer to two experts only. Baron Huyn, a member of the German Bundestag, issued a warning as early as in 1977 in an information sheet comprising 25 pages, that support for the terrorists actually meant support of Russian penetration in Africa. He said—

Last year Prof. Rothenberg, an American expert on Soviet foreign policy, warned that—

†He prepared a study entitled “USSR and Africa—New Dimensions of Soviet Global Power” and Prof. Rothenberg is no ordinary professor. He headed the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the United States on the USSR under the Kennedy and the Johnson Administrations. He came to the conclusion that whereas in earlier years Rhodesia and Namibia were designated as the principal targets with South Africa, South Africa was defined as a distant future objective. However, recent Soviet analyses have made South Africa a more immediate target.

*Then the hon. members of the official Opposition say, however, that there is no total onslaught against South Africa and that there is no danger from outside. It is tragic that we have had to hear once again this session that those hon. gentlemen do not realize that this is a danger that has not been created by this Government. Whether they had been governing or whether the NRP had been governing, we would have had this danger from outside.

†Prof. Rothenberg went on to say—

Where this is the position, where even Mr. Oppenheimer agreed with the hon. the Prime Minister at Carlton last year that we were facing a total onslaught, why are the hon. members of the PFP trying to lull South Africa into a sense of false security?

Is the United States part of the total onslaught?

I believe, Sir, that they are busy preparing South Africa for a Rhodesian-type Government. That is what they want. [Interjections.]

*Sir, we need the goodwill of all the population groups in this country to combat this total onslaught. That is why it is so unfair to say that the adjustments that are being made today are merely cosmetic and a sham. To create the impression that the PFP would make real changes with joint voters’ rolls, sharing of power on every level and ultimate compulsory integration in a Bill of Rights, is in my opinion paving the way for a clash. That clash will not be between White and Black alone, but it will also be between Black and Black.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said once again here today that he is seeking consensus. According to The Cape Times of 28 June, however, he says the following—

†So the story goes on, Sir. That is his story not mine. [Interjections.] What has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition done? I should like to put one question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to ask him what he did to the “verligte” United Party supporters in 1979, and what he has done subsequently. He carried out an unprecedented purge of old United Party supporters. They were kicked out of their positions of authority in that party.

*Mr. Harry Schwarz was warned by the Press in good time that he would be kicked out of his post, that his position would be in danger. Then, like a real Hopalong Cassidy, Mr. Schwarz said: “As far as I am concerned they can come and get me. I am there fighting. If it is high noon I am ready and my guns are oiled.” That is what he said, Sir. But this cowboy bit the dust and Derick de Villiers bit the dust. Japie Basson bit the dust too. These were the verligte old United Party people that that hon. Leader of the Opposition and his party dealt with. Now he asks verligte Nationalists to join him. That was the time when Mr. Schwarz spoke about the “power clique”. But he said even worse things than this to the Press. I quote—

Now I want to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition. After all, he was already the leader of that party. Surely he sat on the platform during that congress. He was part of that process. What did he do to put a stop to it? But, Sir, now he has the temerity to ask verligte Nationalists to support him. If that is what he does to verligte old United Party supporters, Sir, what is he going to do with verligte Nationalists in the future?

That hon. member could probably not have found anyone more verlig than Mr. Japie Basson, and he was also given the push. I believe that the people who can choose between what is right and wrong in South Africa, will turn down his invitation, because the policy of States obtaining their freedom is irreversible in South Africa. That is why the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs was so correct in saying that we can only conduct a decent, meaningful debate in South Africa if we are prepared to accept that certain things in South Africa are a fait accompli—and the creation of Black States that are obtaining their freedom is irreversible. The Nationalist has an unshakeable belief in a devolution of power and authority to the various population groups. When the prospect of a national convention is held out to him, a Nationalist does not allow himself to be hoodwinked. Nor will he be caught by the idea of a consensus Cabinet, which could consist of the hon. member for Houghton, Mr. Jaap Marais and Nelson Mandela. After all, such a Cabinet would never work in South Africa. The Nationalist in South Africa will turn down that invitation, because he realizes that the physical security of all South Africans and other citizens around us is priority number one. That is why the NP can look back to a session of further extensions to the castle of good relations in South Africa. The road ahead that has been pointed out, also holds great promise for the future, and I believe that the Opposition can play a positive role only if they are prepared to accept the reality that South Africa has its various groups that will have to co-exist, but that we cannot move in the direction of Black domination in this country.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that I could also qualify for description as a former verligte UP supporter, I am really not interested in debating such matters with the hon. member in the limited time available in a debate such as this one, and in the light of its importance. If ever there was irrelevant history, this is it. I just want to react to one point made by the hon. member, and that is the question of a total onslaught. If that hon. member could convince his colleagues of the fact that they should define “total onslaught”, and should decide and agree on what they want to include in it and what they want to exclude, then we could conduct a meaningful debate about it, but as long as certain people include the United States and friendly countries in Western Europe in the total onslaught, and include even Black groups and Coloured parties in this country, we cannot discuss it, because then we are talking about a concept which is undefined and in respect of which that hon. member cannot even agree with his own colleagues on what it is supposed to mean.

Furthermore, I wish to react to one or two points raised by the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. I am sorry that he is not here at the moment. The hon. the Minister was obviously addressing the right wing of his own party, the HNP and the Mineworkers’ Union under Mr. Arrie Paulus. It was quite clear whom he was addressing. The hon. the Minister used a very interesting expression. He spoke of the “group interest of the White mineworkers” and said that this group interest should now be protected. To me this is a foreign concept, even in the NP’s terminology. Since when do the White mineworkers have a group interest? What cultural element is characteristic of the White mineworker of South Africa? It is a lot of rubbish. Either there is a cultural principle applicable to them, or there is an economic principle applicable to them. He cannot talk about a cultural principle or about a group interest which these people have. When he talks about a group interest of the White mineworkers of South Africa, as he did, this is a purely racist concept. He cannot get away from that. As long as he declares himself prepared to recognize such a group interest, as long as he advocates it and makes it quite clear how he feels about it, the hon. the Minister cannot escape the charge that he holds a racist view. How he reconciles himself with the standpoint which the hon. the Minister of Manpower adopted on this in his legislation I suppose we shall never learn.

†Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to something which I believe could be useful in discussing the question of change and reform in South Africa. In the course of the past few days a controversy has arisen in Cape Town which I believe highlights a number of aspects of reform in South Africa. I refer, of course, to the question of the Royal Cape Golf Club which has refused Blacks membership.

Tell us where you stand.

Yes, I shall. The hon. member must just listen.

Mr. Speaker, if there were indeed no difficulties about legally having multiracial membership and about the members of the different races of that club being able to enjoy every facility offered by the club, then the club deserves no sympathy whatsoever. I say that without any reservation.

Are you a member of the club?

No, I am not a member of the club.

†Mr. Speaker, there is, however, every indication that absolute confusion reigns about the legal position of that club and its ability to open its doors to members of other races. Without even discussing all the elements of the matter—there is a lot of vagueness about it and I am sure there is much difference of opinion about it—I think it is worthwhile just looking at some aspects. After the hon. the Minister of National Education had recently issued a statement to the effect that there was nothing stopping any club from admitting Black members, the Royal Cape Club issued a statement in reply. In their statement they admitted that a circular emanated from the office of the Secretary for Sport, Mr. Beyers Hoek, in March 1980 to the effect that sports activities in future would be disassociated from the Group Areas Act and that the provisions of that Act regarding permits would in future not be applicable to sport. Yet that club in a statement maintains that another club was, subsequent to the issuing of that circular, told that it was not allowed to serve liquor to non-White members until a permit in terms of the Group Areas Act had been obtained. As a result of that the other club entered into negotiations with members of the Government, with Cabinet Ministers and senior officials, and this all culminated in a letter from the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs—as he was then called—confirming that a permit in terms of the Group Areas Act was required. In effect the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and the chairman of the Liquor Board had then repudiated the circular emanating from the Secretary for Sport.

What ridiculous situations do we find ourselves in if this sort of thing is taking place in South Africa? It is as a result of one thing and one thing only and that is the reluctance and shabby approach to reform that this Government shows. This confusion is still very much in evidence today. Two very prominent legal men in statements to the Press today have made it clear that one cannot undo a legal provision by an administrative order or a statement. The group areas restrictions are still on the Statute Book and they still apply to sports clubs. The truth of the matter is that the Government who made the laws that are creating problems now expect the public to initiate reform by taking risks with the law and then perhaps finding themselves on the wrong side of the law. A club is now expected not to pay so much attention to the law and the letter of it but to decide their position by analysing the contents, particularly the nuances of Government statements. Does the Government expect a sports club and other members of the public to cease to obtain the advice of lawyers and rather obtain the services of some full-time political commissar? The Government is creating confusion and chaos and is playing with fire by suggesting and urging that the laws on the Statute Books should be ignored in certain instances.

That is tantamount to incitement.

Even so hon. members on the other side of the House talk about extra-parliamentary and illegal activities and in doing so are casting a slur on hon. members of this side of the House. What nonsense. Bad legislation cannot be rectified and improved by breaking such regulations or even by issuing permits. It must be rectified in the Statute Books or removed from the Statute Books. Misleading circulars cannot be allowed to emanate from Government offices any more. Unfulfilled promises must stop because they create confusion in the minds of people so that they do not know where they stand. How can we afford to have such a ridiculous discussion as to what the present position should be in spite of the fact that the law is absolutely clear in that regard? What is more, the Government is always found out when they take this sort of attitude. In spite of this situation the Government is prepared to blame someone else. The hon. the Minister of National Education in the statement mentioned by me earlier blames public statements issued by other people, when we land ourselves in hot water in the international sporting world. What nonsense, when he does not have the courage to rectify these things in the Statute Book.

*One cannot stalk apartheid; one has to attack it head on and destroy it. [Interjections.] But attacking it implies, of course, that one wants to do away with it, and I am not at all sure that hon. members on that side want that. There is obviously no agreement about this in Government circles. Every step taken towards reform is a compromise and bears the scars of battle between the hardline verkramptes and the closet verligtes in that party. The process of reform is a drop-by-drop process applied by the Government. It is a process of firing a shot in the dark and waiting to hear who cries out. So tentative and so lacking in motivation is the Government’s movement towards reform that the effect of some changes are denied in public statements. It is done with such a lack of conviction that they sometimes have to deny that these steps do indeed amount to reform. I do not believe that we have time to drag our feet in this way. The hon. the Prime Minister has said that we must change to be strong. Mr. Speaker, even if the hon. the Prime Minister were Methuselah himself, he would still be dying more rapidly than he is changing. What is urgently necessary on the part of the Government is that hon. members of the NP who believe in change should act on their belief, otherwise their understanding of matters will be of no avail to South Africa. What it really means is that they are letting down the people whom they are actually supposed to represent in this House. These meaningless statements we have often had to listen to in the past must now come to an end. They only create chaos and confusion, then they serve to obscure politics and the political debate in South Africa. [Interjections.] We can no longer waste our time on all kinds of trivialities in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs once said that he refused to die for the sake of an apartheid sign in a lift. But heaven knows, he has not lifted a finger to have those signs removed. People like the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, who have commented on the Immorality Act—what did they mean by that and what have they done about it? Have they lifted a finger to alleviate the suffering and the misery caused by that Act? [Interjections.] They have done absolutely nothing about it.

You tell us about the so-called pain and misery there has been. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the hon. member for Hercules has asked that question.

He is so enlightened that he does not even know that.

The hon. member for Hercules might just have a look at yesterday’s question paper. He might read there the reply given to a question I had asked about people—a married couple—who are returning to South Africa from abroad. He might read the replies given to me on that question by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Justice. Then he might reflect on the suffering caused by that.

But he cannot reflect at all.

We must understand that reform which takes place drop by drop, and especially pseudo reform, cause more pain and suffering than old-style apartheid. With that we at least knew where we stood.

Let us take, for example, the situation of the Indian boy who was refused admission to the Long Street swimming bath here in Cape Town a few days ago.

Disgraceful.

Surely there is not a single hon. member of the NP who would tell me that this was not a hurtful action against that poor child; a little boy who went swimming with his White friend, and who was refused admission to that swimming bath. Of course, the Cape Town town clerk was then asked what the position was. He explained. It had been made clear to him by the Government that that boy could gain admission to the swimming bath if he was going to swim in a swimming gala. Under those circumstances he can swim in that swimming bath, but if he dares to go there to practise, there is trouble. If he dares to go swimming there for his own recreation, he is turned away. [Interjections.] That is the logic of hon. members on the other side of the House. That is their logic, their standpoint and their conviction, and then they believe they can sell this to people of colour in this country. Then the hon. member for De Kuilen talks about the cooperation of other people which we need. As long as we treat other people in that way, we can forget about obtaining the cooperation of the vast majority of people of colour in South Africa. It is for these reasons that, just like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I am bitterly disappointed about the fact that this session of Parliament has produced nothing more by way of legislation than mere statutory amendments, which have now made it possible for members of a club to have drinks together, irrespective of any differences in the colour of their skins. But I suppose we must regard this as a single step forward. However, if we cannot achieve any more than this in a session which has extended over more than two months, it will certainly take us 200 years to achieve anything substantial. We simply do not have that much time.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point touched on a number of matters. I am going to refer to a few of them.

At the start of his speech he asked a question relating to the speech by the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. He wants to know how White mineworkers can have a group interest. He wants to know how one can consider the cultural background of White mineworkers since, according to him, they have either a cultural background or an economic interest. That is the argument advanced by the hon. member.

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon. member said very clearly that one should look at either the economic interest or the cultural background of the White mineworker, but that one could not look at both. However, the fact is that culture, cultural interests, exist in this country. Moreover, the fact is that economic interests do exist too. Therefore, when we speak about the true realities of South Africa—and hon. members of the PFP are constantly talking about them—what I want to know is this: Since when must we only consider half of these realities?

Do you agree that apartheid legislation must be protected? [Interjections.]

I am only saying that the structure must be such that they too, as a separate group … [Interjections.] If hon. members of the Opposition will give me the opportunity to reply to the questions they have asked, I shall do so with pleasure. I say that our structure must be such that members of cultural groups, too, should be able to feel secure and provided for as members of that group, wherever they fit into the societal structure. That is imperative, but that does not mean that we protect specific groups. It means that specific groups must still feel provided for, even within a total structure in which every individual may be protected individually.

You benefit certain groups at the expense of others.

No, the hon. member cannot say that. He must look at the White Paper, because that is what the hon. member for Green Point was discussing. He must tell us what he is referring to when he states that we protect specific groups and not all.

Let us take the second aspect which the hon. member made a big fuss about, viz. the polemic about the Royal Cape golf club. The hon. member must be fair to us. Was it not possible for this club to apply for a permit to admit non-White people, too, as members of that club? Surely that was possible.

I am not defending the club.

Then I simply do not understand the hon. member. The polemic which arose concerning the actions of the club is now being blamed wholly on the Government, but after all, it was the Government that enabled these people to do what they want to do. [Interjections.] However, what they want to do—and the hon. member must listen carefully now—is not to admit people of any colour other than White. Now they are hiding behind the Government. That hon. member stands up here and has the arrogance to argue with the Government concerning things which his party’s people fail to do. What amazes me still more is that that hon. member stands up here as an apologist, whereas I understand that the hon. member for Constantia is actually a member of that club, but has not yet discussed the matter. I therefore hope that he will enter this debate at a later stage and will come and tell us what his standpoint in the club was and whether he insisted that the club take the necessary steps to admit members of colour. I should now like to quote a very brief extract from Rapport of 4 October entitled “Progge sal moet wys”, the first paragraph of which reads as follows—

He goes on to say that he has no confidence whatsoever in the Progs. They stridently demand things that they do not want for themselves. However, they constantly blame this on the Government and hide behind a so-called impossible situation which the Government is supposed to have caused, in which they are unable to act.

The hon. member said here that one could not stalk apartheid. One had to charge it. He reminded me of Don Quixote, who charged into a lot of windmills. The hon. member is going to get a bloody nose if he carries on in this way.

He also kicked up a fuss here about the fact that the Government had supposedly done nothing about Section 16 of the Immorality Act nor about the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. But we debated these matters in this House during this session. After all, the hon. the Prime Minister has already said that he has referred this matter to the churches and that they have been asked to investigate it. He said that it was a contentious matter and that the nation was divided in that regard. After all, it is on record that he cannot reconcile his standpoint with its being sinful in principle for people of different colours or cultures to marry.

Amend the Act then.

Surely the hon. the Prime Minister outlined clearly to hon. members the procedure he is following. He said that this was an extremely sensitive area. Let us not make trouble in this regard. We can achieve nothing thereby. The nation is not only divided; it is more than divided.

And in the interim?

I am sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not present. He, too, made certain statements. The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs dealt very effectively with most of them. The hon. Leader of the Opposition adopts the standpoint that there are two contradictions in the policy of the National Party. He states: On the one hand we ask for self-determination, because self-determination is supposedly the basis, but on the other hand, he says, we want to satisfy the aspirations of people of other colours and cultures. By implication he states that one cannot do both. Do I understand him correctly? Do I understand hon. members on that side of the House correctly? According to them, is our choice really between self-determination for groups, and accommodation of the aspirations of people of colour? Hon. members must listen carefully now. The issue here is not the aspirations of the Whites as well, but only those of the people of colour. That, then, is the choice we are faced with. Surely that is neither correct nor true. One must necessarily be able to do both. If one cannot do both, then there is no method to achieve co-existence anywhere in the world. The right to self-determination must exist, but it must also be possible to satisfy the aspirations of all groups and peoples.

I do not wish to waste much time on the other issues raised by the hon. member but I do just want to refer to one statement made by the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition. He said that this party had intimated, specifically through the hon. the Prime Minister, that it was in favour of White domination. We have discussed this contention on a number of occasions. In his participation of the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition denied that he had said that the Government’s policy held out the prospect of White domination. He said that he was referring to the proposals of 1977. Why, then, does he again raise the idea of domination at this stage, referring to the Freudian slip of the tongue?

The hon. the Leader of the official Opposition went on to state that the Government had lost administrative control of its own ideology for White domination. That is not our ideology, Sir. Since when has it been our ideology? The hon. leader links this to a former Prime Minister, Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd. However, Dr. Verwoerd stated expressly that the aim of his formulation of policy of independent States was specifically to get away from White domination, because it was unacceptable in principle. Hon. members must not equate a status quo which we should all like to change with an objective of this Government and the NP.

However, there is also something else I want to deal with. In the White electorate there are among others, basically two philosophies which are in conflict with the philosophy of the NP. I want to look at both, evaluate them briefly and make an analysis of the philosophy of the NP before evaluating that as well. The first philosophy, as expressed for the most part by the official Opposition and supporters of the PFP, is that the answer as regards defusing the potential conflict is to be found in the denial or non-emphasis of cultural differences. It is aimed at eventual destruction of diversity.

No.

Yes, because it must disappear. As long as diversity exists, conflict will exist. We must move away from that, get rid of it. If the differences disappear, the potential for conflict disappears.

The differences will not disappear, but one must not stress them.

However, one should at least take cognizance of them. Then one has to accommodate them. That was quite a breath of fresh air from the hon. member for Bryanston. However, he shall have to think about it again.

The identity of Jewish people is not protected.

His colleague who sits behind him denies it because he now states that other groups are not protected. People will object to the next statement I am going to make, as the hon. member is in fact doing, but the protagonists of this philosophy believe that the total security of communities is specifically to be found in a uniform system of values. The socioeconomic and constitutional approach of that party is one that seeks to do away with the distinction of ethnicity and any structures that are created. What that entails in essence is the fact that the culture and traditions of peoples and groups must disappear or ought to disappear.

I do not wish to discuss discrimination at length except to say that those hon. members with their philosophy are constantly harping on the discrimination of this side of the House. However, it has been said over and over again that we should like to get away from that and we have also stated in our 12 point plan how we want to get away from it. If, then, I speak about a distinction between structures, about differentiation, then I am in no way advocating discrimination. Hon. members know that to me it is totally indefensible that one should benefit at the expense of another solely because the other’s skin colour or culture is different. The destruction of value systems by a conscious or unconscious policy of cultural imperialism is equally unacceptable to me.

What do the things I have just said mean in practice? What are the drawbacks of this philosophy? The acculturation process of equalization which forces people together, deprives civilizations—and here I am referring to civilizations that exist in the South African context—of that permanence to which they owe their whole existence. Take away a man’s permanence and one destroys him. By destroying his character, you destroy the person.

However, there is a second drawback. Most certain of all, as proved by history, is that this approach is a chimaera. Champions of this philosophy must furnish us with examples of where this approach has been successful. A people with its own value system does not allow itself to be deprived of those value systems voluntarily. Nationalism does not allow itself to be forced into oblivion.

This brings me to a third aspect. To force one’s processes and those things that are characteristic of one’s system on others is not a stabilizing process. Indeed, it destabilizes the established community to have to use alien instruments.

Let us be practical again. Chief Minister Gatsha Buthelezi is the traditional political leader of the Zulu people. As chief of his tribe he is political leader almost by succession. Hon. members should go and ask any organizer of Inkatha how difficult it is to bring home to the Zulu at election times that he should go and vote for his chief. Usually the reaction is one of immediate aggression, because who questions his leadership? The enfranchized person immediately becomes hot under the collar. There are even those—I am now talking about large numbers of people among the Zulus—who believe that it is a humiliation for their chief to subject his position, which he occupies in his own right according to their traditions, to a test in terms of Western democratic systems. To them the Western democracy is simply not synonymous with the will of the people. Our people so often argue from the point of view of value systems which indicate very subjectively that democracy gives rise to maximum stability. That is simply not true. If it is projected onto alien value systems it in fact results in instability, which is the result of uncertainty.

This brings me to my fourth point. People adopting this philosophy are constantly speaking about change—we heard it again today—but change into what? This philosophy calls for a change by way of the incorporation of other value systems in the subjective value systems. Change in a direction which those for whom the changes are envisaged do not want, is as good as no change. It is totally meaningless. The change we seek must be synchronized with the expectations of those who expect to benefit thereby. The process of equalization is not a change for these people either; it is unacceptable to them. It can and, I believe, will be totally counter-productive in the long term.

In the fifth place, the structures for government which basically centralize and then seek to decentralize on a geographic basis, are doomed to failure. After all, conflict in the RSA is not essentially a matter of the conflicting interests of regions or geographic areas. Conflict is primarily a matter of differing cultures and differing value systems in South Africa, like the conflict arising from various traditions, nationalisms and emanating from the various ethnicities. To seek to solve this problem which is at the corporative level, at the geographic level, is to make a blunder. One achieves nothing thereby.

[Inaudible.]

I refer to a system of centralization from which there is decentralization. That is not our policy. The hon. member should sit still and listen. I am coming to the NP.

The second major philosophy which is in conflict with the thinking of the NP is that of the reactionary groups that believe that a community can only maintain itself by maintaining power over others and exercising it strictly. Exception will be taken to this exposition of the philosophy too, but those people moralize that they too want others to have the rights which they demand for themselves as long—and this they do not say—as they do not have to see how that other person exercises his rights and as long as they cannot see where he does it. It is said: “He must exercise them on my conditions. I decide what his rights are and where he can exercise them.” Moreover the demographic realities we are faced with are totally ignored by them. It is said: “The man can do as he likes in the homelands, but here where I am he has nothing to say.” They say they reject discrimination, but discrimination only in the sense that the other person can do as he likes in his territory just as they do as they like in their territory. They believe: “In my territory I can knock him about, and in his territory he can knock me about.” These people cast back to the basic standpoint expounded by Dr. Verwoerd in his time. A great leader is done an injustice and a slur is cast on him because he was not able to spell out his philosophy and his visions further. His time was up before he or we realized it. If people want to use Dr. Verwoerd today as Hitler eventually used Nietzsche, then that is a dangerous and dishonest game.

Secondly, power politics on the basis of the domination of the one group by another not only makes a mockery of morality, but also makes something new of the debate. Suddenly the debate no longer concerns the issue of whether we are in fact going to go under, but only the issue of when it will become a reality. Then we will not be debating the question whether we are going to lose, but only the date of our subjection. Empires have come to a fall. This pattern will undoubtedly continue. History has the last word.

This brings me to the basic philosophy of the NP and those that support it. The crucial word in this philosophy is self-determination. The right of self-determination of peoples, of population groups and of interest groups is the key. Each must have the say in respect of its own affairs, but self-determination immediately implies that they cannot be exercized in isolation. Indeed, self-determination involves contact, consultation and, in a sense, co-determination as well. Indeed, it implies connectedness. Self-determination is not absolute in the sense that it is limited by other basic premises. For example, self-determination only takes place within a framework of justice, and rightly so. Outside of justice, violence is done to the right of self-determination. The premise in the implementation of this philosophy is, then, reality, but the total reality.

South Africa is a nation of peoples, of population groups and of interest groups, and he who overlooks that cannot contribute towards its development. These peoples, population groups and interest groups are also indissolubly linked to one another, and he who does not recognize that, equally does not form part of the solution. These two ideas go hand in hand. The various groups are identified in their co-existence. This very co-existence is the result of their independent existence. If we do not accommodate both of these concepts in a process of development, then we are simply not dealing with reality.

We identify these groups in the politics of South Africa by co-operation and the creating of structures in which we can all realize ourselves to the full, and we believe that these structures grow from the basic level and not from a centralized position. It is from this basic level that we must again build the pyramid. The PFP, with their philosophy of the destruction of differences, also believe in a pyramid, but a pyramid in which the power in the top structure, lacking cultural differences, decentralizes from the top on a basis of geography, whereas the basic differences, according to this philosophy, eventually dwindle and disappear. The exponent of power politics draws a horizontal line through the top of the pyramid and then sees himself and his small group as the little upper pyramid in which power vests. He believes that the stability of the total pyramid is based on the stability of the uppermost small pyramid.

The NP, too, sees a pyramid, but it sees it as the ordered reality in a meaningful society with the broad base of the pyramid as the strength of its stability. In this approach every building-block retains the basis of its own identity and character, each component of the South African pyramid retains its self-determination and co-operates in a process of reconciliation, towards a clearly defined point. As one moves up the pyramid, the levels of contact increase. Measured horizontally, the need for joint decision-making increases as one ascends the pyramid. The areas where joint decision-making is necessary, however, become fewer.

This brings me to a description of the basic level of the building-blocks. Even supporters of the NP often see these foundation stones as similar in appearance. We, too, often judge them by subjective norms. If we believe in self-determination, we must also recognize that those foundation stones can be entirely different in appearance. Moreover, we often apply our subjective criteria to systems which derive from other values. We cannot expect of others to use Western democratic systems if they are alient to their culture. They may experience these instruments as being too alien to use. After all, who are we to condemn or reject a one party system for Africa? If we object to others who want to prescribe to us what should apply here, what right have we to judge what applies to communities with a different system of values? We must have understanding for all those systems and those other needs. We shall also have to accept this in respect of peoples and population groups who form part of our total community.

A second idea in this regard is that this will not exempt us from the obligation to build a pyramid. We shall all have to work together to achieve a reconciliation of systems within the total framework. The components of the confederation envisaged need not all be made up of uniform blocks. This will demand an adjustment from the electorate of which we do not have the slightest idea as yet. It will also impose an obligation on the executive to negotiate this with other groups, for which they will need the support and understanding of people to a degree unheard of in world history. It will demand of Parliament a co-operation which will make its role even more subordinate to that of the executive in future. I am opposed to any idea of a benevolent dictatorship. I reject it with my whole being. However, in its understanding and support for the executive, Parliament, while preserving all its powers and authority, will have to give the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet a far freer hand. The media, too, will have to play an important role in this regard. They will have to act positively and with far more understanding in order to preserve our own system of values. The executive in turn will only succeed if it can convince the electorate of its goodwill. To succeed in that it must make possible a free and open flow of information. There must be real communication. I believe that in openness, South Africa will give the executive this power, this freedom of action, and I also wish to make the appeal that this Parliament adopt the same approach.

Mr. Speaker, I always find it very pleasant and interesting to listen to the hon. member for Randburg. We have here an example of an hon. member who very clearly wants to move away from discrimination, but he has to undergo the most painful process of trying to justify his party’s direction. I believe that that hon. member will also eventually realize, as many others have, that White domination is of the essence of his party …

That is a stupid remark.

… and as long as that remains the case, it will be impossible for that party to bring about real reform in this country.

The remark has just been made that that is a stupid thing to say, but towards the end of the hon. member’s speech he did make it clear that he agreed with me, because he indicated that although he was opposed to a dictatorship, he may have had in mind the need to grant the hon. the Prime Minister the powers to act as a dictator in certain circumstances, in order to bring about the changes which he is in favour of. It was an interesting speech, and I think the last two or three sentences in particular intimated very clearly to this side of the House what is going on in that hon. member’s mind.

Towards the end of the session one wonders to what extent we are better off today than we were at the start of the session. We must review the situation. In spite of sound legislation in the labour field which has been welcomed by all and which will result in better manpower utilization, training and bargaining—apart from certain legislation relating to the liquor industry which affords certain additional possibilities for sports clubs—very little has really been done to usher in a new dispensation, a new political dispensation. In some respects, I believe, the party opposite has even retreated further along the road of the old separation policy. The re-confirmation that the Black man will not share South African citizenship and the further creation of additional independent but also non-viable homelands proved this as far as I am concerned. 1980 and 1981 are pre-eminently the years in which the impossibility of the homelands as an alternative to the old system was spelt out, not only by the PFP but also by the Government’s instrument itself. In May 1980 the hon. elected member, Mr. Van der Walt, pointed out to the Government that the homelands were able to provide employment to less than 29% of their annual population increase. He went on to point out that only 3,1% of the gross national product emanated from the homelands in 1975. In 1980 the homelands could not even feed themselves. To refer once again to the hon. elected member, he said that only three million of the 10 million homelanders could feed themselves with food produced by themselves. And then, in reply to a question as to why the homelands were so backward, he replied that the problem was partially attributable to the fact that the number of contract workers had increased from 793 000 in 1970 to 1,1 million in 1978. I calculate that by this time the figure for contract workers as well as commuters is probably in the region of 1,5 million.

1,7 million.

Then it is even worse.

It is not worse; it is in terms of our policy.

This means that the so-called “brain drain” which occurs from the homelands to the other regions has an extremely restrictive effect on the local economy because those with the experience, strength and youth are outside those areas. If there was any doubt in 1980 as to the viability of those territories or even the possibility of any significant economic growth there, it was finally put paid to this year. The same responsible person, the hon. member to whom I have referred, confirmed that the number of employees who were unable to find work in the homelands was not 29% but that only 14% could be provided with employment there. It was also said by the same hon. member that consolidation was impossible in South Africa. I can refer interested members to the hon. member’s Hansard, column 376 and 377, dated 29 January 1981. Meaningful consolidation would require an additional three million hectares of land at a price of approximately R6 000 million per annum over a ten-year period. Even then the economic potential of the homelands would increase by a mere ½%. Therefore the answer is very clear. Additional purchases of land are not the answer.

We know that. That was my influence, not yours.

Yes, the hon. member said that. To combat increasing rural poverty, the people on the platteland should rather be encouraged to move to the cities, where employment opportunities either exist for them or can be created where the necessary facilities can be created for them. But that is not Government policy. It is a possible solution which we on this side propose.

Well, well! Since when?

Hon. members must realize that we cannot evade our responsibility by creating these pauper States with no hope of economic development, and then trying to create the impression that the problem of a joint political say is solved by the creation of the homelands. That is dishonest towards the White voter. It is misleading. If we do not begin to move swiftly in another direction, this evasion of our responsibilities will necessarily lead to violence and possible bloodshed in this country.

Before and after this election there was speculation as to possible change in the direction taken by the Government. Both within and outside this House there were expectations that the hon. the Prime Minister and at least a part of his Cabinet would give certain indications during this session by means of new legislation concerning the new direction they had adopted. As I have said, very little has come of that. If one assumes that certain hon. members on that side of the House—not all hon. members on that side of the House, but some of them—are in earnest in wanting to move away from all forms of race discrimination, then they should at least admit to themselves today that they have been disillusioned.

You are talking nonsense. You do not know what you are talking about.

I am not speaking about you, because you are not one of those who want to move away from race discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may an hon. member refer to another hon. member as “you”?

Order! Hon. members must address one another in proper parliamentary fashion.

Very well, Sir, “the hon. member”. For those hon. members who want to move away from race discrimination, this session must surely have been a very bitter pill to swallow. I believe that those hon. members also have to admit to themselves that due to its composition and its basic ideology, the National Party is not a party of reform but only makes adjustments, and that under pressure. This tendency to give way only under strong pressure was proved during the 1976 riots. It has been proved in the field of sport and, I fear, it will also be proved when the Black man is compelled to use his economic muscle to obtain his political rights. I fear that this may happen. If this Government were to ignore that fact, the possibility of peaceful evolution in this country could be drastically reduced. I hope that hon. members on that side of the House who perceive and understand these things will make use of this recess to go back to their voters and put to them, honestly and openly, the case for judicious reform, in order by so doing to defuse the feared backlash. There is no alternative in this country to an open-hearted and open dialogue, and I fear that many of the politicians in this House have too often left that open dialogue to newspaper editors and academics. It is because they are too afraid to accept the challenge of going to speak openly with their own voters and explaining to them where South Africa is going. In fact the growth of the HNP is proof of that, and the appeal I want to make is that those hon. members should have the courage and daring to go back and speak about reform so that we can usher in a new dispensation in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, in the past we were accustomed to hearing the hon. member for Wynberg speak about agriculture, but it is interesting to note that he avoided the subject of agriculture a couple of times during this session. In part I can understand this, however, because we have a report on the meat industry here, to which I shall return later. That hon. member and like-minded persons kicked up as much of a fuss about that industry as they were trying to do here today on the homelands and the Government’s approach to ethnic relations in South Africa. At the time they touched on the same subject and spoke of “rumours” and the wrong approach of the Government.

Let us just discuss the points raised by the hon. member here. He spoke of the fact that the independent States which are to be created would not be viable. Let us accept for argument’s sake that he is correct in his standpoint that these independent States are less viable or are not going to be viable. If these States develop in other respects, how is he going to increase the viability, the economic growth and the revenue of those Black people in a different economy if he does not want to take it into consideration now in any case. One can have two economies moving parallel to each other while the respective States still remain economically interdependent although they are politically sovereign. If the one State is perhaps not as economically prosperous as the other …

Surely you know that that is not true.

That hon. member is now comparing one Black State which is becoming independent with the White State. However, one also has Black States that are interrelated and that is a further aspect, or has that not occurred to the hon. member? [Interjections.]

We accept that these independent States have a road to follow along which they will have to cause entrepreneurship to be developed and will have to cause capital to be generated so that they can help themselves. However, if it is not there, the point of departure of that hon. member and his party is that those Black people who do not have the knowledge, must forever remain dependent on White entrepreneurship and its capital. Therefore, they want to keep those States in an economically inferior position in juxtaposition to a larger prosperous White economy. That is how this party’s policy differs, for by means of the creation of opportunities within those homelands, the infusion of capital, the imparting of knowledge and all the opportunities which are there, it wants to uplift these people at a slow pace so that they can acquire these elements within their own economy.

However, he went further and pointed out how badly off these people are. He also referred to the contract workers who come here to work in White South Africa.

Surely this is one of the crucial elements of the NP’s entire policy with regard to the mutual interdependence of the economies, and also of the principle that the Black people of the independent States will sell their labour in another, more prosperous country. It is also a crucial element of the principle that they, by means of their earnings from the sale of their labour, can cause money to flow back to their own homelands.

That is how they will have to continue forever in terms of your policy.

That is the very thing the hon. member for Wynberg wants. However, we create entrepreneurship. In terms of its policy the PFP is not prepared to create entrepreneurship. They want to make those people eternally dependent on White entrepreneurship and White capital. However, the hon. member went further and tried to support his argument by quoting figures on the growth in the number of contract workers coming to White South Africa. However, what is the actual effect of this? What should one take into consideration here?

In 1978 the independent States and the self-governing States contributed 8% to the gross domestic product of South Africa. In July this year that amount had risen to 15%. Surely this is absolutely contrary to what the hon. member said. When we consider the contributions of the countries which we have ourselves created, and we consider their contributions in terms of the gross domestic product, surely it is clear that growth has taken place, albeit slowly. I agree with the hon. member in this regard. However, the principle already exists.

Now I want to touch on another aspect. Last year and the year before last, hon. members of the PFP used all kinds of vague generalizations in an effort to make propaganda and to hurl accusations at the Meat Control Board. The report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Slaughter-Stock and Meat Industries is now available. Now I want to ask whether it is not very significant that it was those hon. gentlemen who kicked up the biggest commotion about the alleged anomalies and corruption in the meat industry. They were the ones who asked for an investigation. They compelled the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to appoint a commission of inquiry. The former Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries said that he was not convinced that there were adequate reasons for such an investigation. Hon. members of the PFP rejected that view and continued to make certain allegations, until the hon. the Minister appointed the commission of inquiry. In this House he told hon. members of the PFP that he wanted to know from them if they would give evidence before that commission. What happened then? Hon. members know what happened. We know that those hon. members had had high hopes at that stage, and that they had advanced these arguments because they felt that they could embarrass the NP, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries by exposing alleged poor administration. In the process they did not give a thought to the consequences of their behaviour, or even to what impression their actions would create outside. However, let us consider what happened.

Those hon. members had a great deal to say about the tremendously high floor prices of meat, and about the tremendous increases in meat prices. In this report it is explained very clearly and comprehensively how floor prices are fixed, on what basis support prices are calculated, and also why prices as such fluctuate. The commission found that there was no conclusive evidence that either the Government or the Meat Board were involved in artificial increases in meat prices. In this regard I should like to quote from paragraph 10.3 on page 15 of the report, as follows—

On the one hand those hon. members alleged that the Government was responsible for this as a result of poor administration. On the other hand the commission’s findings were that it was in fact as a result of the increased purchasing power, which indeed is a consequence of the actions of the hon. the Minister of Finance in terms of the budget and the general financial management of the country, that the purchasing power was increased to such an extent that these things were brought about. A further interesting fact is seen in paragraph 10.10 on page 15 of the report—

Who was that?

The next paragraph reads—

Who was that?

Let us take a look at who the people were who gave evidence before the commission. There was a certain Mr. Gerrie de Jong, a politician and a farmer. There was a certain Mr. R. J. Lorimer, a politician. In the report he is referred to only as a politician; he is not even a farmer. Then there is Mr. P. A. Myburgh, also a politician, but in the report he is only referred to as a politician; he is not even a farmer. There is something else which emerges from the report. On page 16 paragraph 10.12 reads as follows—

Pursuant to representations from the S.A. Agricultural Union they go on to say—

These are people who castigated the former Ministers of Agriculture about “rumours of corruption” in the same way as they are now doing with the homelands and the independence of the Black States, but when they had to give evidence, what happened? As I have just said, with their threats they forced the hon. the Minister to appoint a commission, although the hon. the Minister had said that he could not see the necessity for it. When he appointed the commission, not all those people gave evidence. That is why I ask, to what extent should one accede to their demands?

I think if we want to criticize the administration of the country as a whole, the criticism must be aimed at benefiting the country as a whole in the long term. Then criticism must not be based on figures such as those that have now been furnished by the hon. member for Wynberg. He mentioned a certain part of the figures in respect of the contract workers but ignored the figures in respect of the total contribution to the gross domestic product, which really give an impression of the economic activity of those people. Surely they are in fact indulging in party politicking. That is why I ask: Are we in this country, in the struggle that awaits us, going to find solutions anywhere if this kind of petty party politicking is perpetrated? It will not be to the advantage of the country as a whole.

Most important of all is that it has already been proved over the years that the PFP will in any case never come into power in this country. They can perhaps do so much damage that it affects this Government, but they can never come into power.

When one comes to the end of a meal it is usually said that one brings out the liqueur. I now want to make a request to the hon. the Minister of Finance. Last year and the year before last even, there were requests in respect of the licensing of peach-brandy stills. We are still waiting for that legislation. The number of people who have these licences is diminishing by the month and therefore we cannot afford to delay this matter any further. I do not want to go into the advantages of this as they have already been thoroughly discussed in previous debates, but as far as my speech is concerned, I want to bring this out as the liqueur, namely that we must grant peach-brandy licences in order to retain this cultural heritage for our country and for the enjoyment of the community.

Mr. Speaker, we in this party believe that the most important function of Parliament is to create an atmosphere of peace and harmony in our country so that our citizens can enjoy such a standard of living that people in surrounding and other countries would wish to emulate it. However, in reading the copies of Hansard of this session and, in fact, listening to speeches in today’s debate, one cannot help but gain the impression that in the opinion of many hon. members our function is to denigrate one another and to score debating points, regardless of the damage that this does to the parliamentary system and the bitterness that this can create among the parties and the various members of this hon. House. Furthermore, I believe that it should be borne in mind that this sort of debate is rather an unedifying spectacle for the people whose interests we have to look after and who do not have the opportunity of being represented here. I feel that this is positively deplorable.

We in the NRP believe that, because of our very special position as members of this House, we have a very special responsibility. The Whites of South Africa represent in this House and make laws for all race groups and therefore we do not believe that we can afford to indulge in clever politics. We believe that we must endeavour to indulge in practical politics, and this is what we in these benches have endeavoured to do during the course of this session. As a consequence of our endeavours to involve ourselves in practical or realistic politics, we have on occasion deemed it correct, in our opinion, to support the PFP while on other occasions we supported the NP. We did so because in our deliberations we came to the conclusion that one or the other of these parties was following the correct line in a particular debate. Frankly, I personally have been a little hurt—and I suppose one should be thicker-skinned after being in public life as long as I have—when, because I have endeavoured to support the good things the Government are doing—and let us be frank about it, they do do some good things—I have been accused of “toenadering” to the Government. Fair enough, I accept that in public life one must have a thick skin, but I am afraid that sometimes it does go beyond the normal bounds of decency and I am frankly not in favour of everlasting childish barracking to no purpose.

I know that the attitude we adopt does not suit people who have extremist views, largely because they have the attitude that it must be all or nothing. So far as we are concerned, we would love nothing better than to have our own way all the time. Who on earth goes through life, however, getting his own way all the time? So as a matter of political philosophy we in the NRP work on the basis of supporting whatever we regard as being progress. We make a point of saying that we would like more and believe there should be more, but we support whatever progress has been made.

As the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition has said, there can be no doubt that during this session a considerable amount of good for South Africa has been done by the various Bills that have been introduced. We in these benches also like to think that we have been of help in encouraging the Government. We have not told the Government throughout: “Yes, you have done this, but you should have done that.” We have not consistently denigrated everything the Government has done. We as a party believe that the NP of today is a totally different party to the NP of 30 years ago.

Better or worse?

I believe it is a considerably better party.

Well, why do you not just go and join them?

That hon. member asks me why I do not just go and join them. That is a very clever question indeed, in fact the sort of question I would expect from a fanatical extremist. [Interjections.] Those hon. gentlemen cannot, of course, ever see anything in any terms except absolute Black and absolute White. [Interjections.] They do not understand that there can be shades in between. [Interjections.] I am sorry, but the answers to South Africa’s problems are not simply to be found in a black and white dichotomy.

Little grey men.

The President’s Council was brought into being by this Government in an endeavour to find certain solutions to our problems. The hon. members of the Government appreciated their limitations. I think that largely because of the NP’s record over a period of 33 years, during which a certain attitude or approach was evident, that party realized that its credibility would be in doubt no matter what the party produced. That party therefore brought into being the President’s Council, admittedly with its limitations. We in this party certainly do not accept that the President’s Council is perfect. We would certainly have liked to see Black people represented on that council. Nonetheless, in conformity with our philosophy of not demanding all or nothing, we work on the principle that there is some progress.

Hear, hear!

The President’s Council has, to a very large degree, done what many of us wanted, and that is to open up credible debate on the future of our country. Its function, amongst other things, is to provide a way for South Africans of other colours to participate meaningfully in real government. As I have said before, although the President’s Council, as structured at present, has serious limitations, I believe—in fact, all of us in this party believe—that it should be encouraged and boosted, not denigrated and insulted, as has happened to a very large extent during this particular session.

In the structure that we have in South Africa today, even if the President’s Council fails to perform as it is hoped it will, it must be made clear that radicalism will not resolve our problems. Let me go even further and say that if terrorism takes over from radicalism, that will not resolve our problems either, because terrorism can never win in this country in the long run. People are prone to equate this country with Zimbabwe—previously Rhodesia—but the situation is entirely different in South Africa. So terrorism will not win either. If the President’s Council does not succeed in its efforts, there can only be disaster and a miserable existence for all of us for many years to come. That is why I believe it to be vitally important for us to give every possible encouragement to the President’s Council.

It is with these thoughts in mind that I should like to place on record some of the beliefs of this party concerning the future Government of South Africa, some of which we have had the opportunity of implementing in the Province of Natal. Good government must start at the local government level. Whether one likes it or not, group identity at this stage in our development cannot possibly be ignored. At the same time it is not practical politics to isolate the Black, Coloured and Indian communities and expect them to carry on on their own, totally divorced from the Whites. It is not possible for them to operate in that way. Again, however, one must take cognizance, whether one likes it or not, of the realities of life which, I am sorry, some of the hon. members on this side will not take into account.

Would you have a Group Areas Act?

That hon. member is not making a speech; I am making mine.

There are certain things one has to bear in mind, whether one has the brains to understand it or not. The people in this country have certain ideas and fears.

Yes.

Yes. I can shout as loud as the next one if it comes to that. The White people, the Indian people…

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

No.

Sit down and shut up.

Hon. members must remember that there are justifiable fears in the minds not only of the White people. Hon. members of the PFP seem to forget that there are fears in the minds of the Indian community that they might be swamped. There are fears in the minds of the Coloured community that they might be swamped. Those hon. members have had no experience in dealing at a practical level with these people, which some of us have had. Therefore, at this stage it is essential that we bear these factors in mind. Furthermore, from practical experience one knows that the different communities have different priorities with regard to what they need and what they want. A further point where it is vitally important to remember that one cannot separate them and leave them on their own, is the fact that the various communities do not have the same experience, either technical or administrative, that the Whites have had the advantage of gaining over the past few years. As a consequence of this experience that we have had, we as a party therefore advocate a combination of the two in that one endeavours in the field of local government to have a certain separateness in the individual boroughs as a starting point with a metropolitan …

Such as group areas?

No, I am not talking about group areas. [Interjections.] When I was a little younger, there was something I learned which is something that some of those hon. members have obviously not learned, and that is that one learns by listening, not by yapping! We believe that the future development in the field of local government can best be served at this point in time by the local authorities being of a particular group to look after their own priorities and interests. We realize, however, that one cannot set them on their own. The infrastructures of local authorities must be handled by regional or metropolitan authorities. Those metropolitan or regional authorities can be of a multiracial nature, or a non-racial nature—whichever way one likes to express it. In other words, it should be clearly seen that at that level, where the personal interests are not involved but only the community interests as a whole, all the communities will be involved on a non-racial level on the basis of the wants being supplied according to need and not according to their financial contributions.

I should like to make this point clear because it is perhaps not quite understood by the hon. members of the PFP. This particular philosophy in local metropolitan government came into being as a result of consultation—not dictation—between the accredited leaders of the Indian and Coloured communities and the White community. I want to say here and now that the Black community did not take part in the discussions. The reason for this was very simple. It was that the consultation was done on an official basis with the provincial administration, and the provincial administration of Natal did not have authority to deal with the Black community. Their interests are controlled by Administration Boards and we did not have the authority to consult with them. However, whatever was done by way of consultation was designed to include the Black towns as well should it be considered necessary or desirable.

We believe that agreement was reached in these matters as a consequence of a maximum of consultation. There is one further point I would like to make, and I would like to make it loud and clear. I do not think either of the other parties in the House is particularly going to like what I am going to say this time. We of the NRP are a party who believe in general consultation at any and every possible opportunity. As I have said earlier in my address, we do not believe that the President’s Council should be boycotted. We believe it should be given every possible support and encouragement, not necessarily because we are going to believe in advance that what comes out of it is going to be like the law of the Medes and Persians, but because it constitutes consultation. On the other hand we also took part in the discussions on the Buthelezi Commission with the same open-minded attitude. I do not know what the final results of that Commission are, but I think it is rather a pity that the NP did not get themselves involved in those discussions in order to be able properly to find out the opinions of the kwaZulu nation. Again, from my own experience in dealing with the kwaZulu people—and I have had considerable experience in this regard over many years—I have found them to be people with whom one can talk. They are reasonable people, although I believe that they are possibly ambitious beyond their abilities at this stage—not their potential abilities, but their present abilities.

Such paternalism!

I feel that it is unfortunate that both other parties have missed out on possible opportunities of meaningful consultation in the interests of our country. So far as we of the NRP are concerned, we believe that it is important that we should have such consultation. We do not subscribe to the idea that one has to stand on one’s dignity and say: “No, for this reason I will not talk to this person” or “It does not fit in with our particular ideas at all.”

Finally, I would like to touch on just one further point before I conclude. There have been a number of rumours about the powers of the provinces being taken away or the provincial councils being abolished. I make one point which I honestly believe to be valid in this regard and that is that if one takes the provincial councils away in so far as local government and metropolitan government are concerned, then there will have to be some other level to replace them. I know that it has been suggested that they be removed with a view to having regional boards along the same line as the administration boards. I think that would be unfortunate as I do not believe that they would attract the same confidence on the part of the public as is the case with the provincial councils.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Umbilo dealt mainly with the attitude of the PFP and I do not wish to take issue with him in that respect. [Interjections.] As I say, the hon. member’s main argument was with the PFP but the PFP is becoming more and more irrelevant in South African politics in so far as that party refuses to make a positive contribution towards the handling of the internal political situation.

There is, however, one issue I should like to take up with the hon. member for Umbilo. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, if this private debate will stop, I may be able to continue. I want to refer to the question raised by the hon. member for Umbilo that he is of the opinion that the NP or the Government party should have participated in the Buthelezi Commission. I wish to join issue with him in this connection.

To a certain extent the hon. member for Umbilo should know what the implications are of someone in authority participating in official discussions with a group that raises an issue in its discussions which is beyond its mandate. If Chief Buthelezi had included in the terms of reference of the Buthelezi Commission only matters affecting the quality of life, the values and the improvement of the circumstances of his people in kwaZulu or in so far as they relate and have to do with the rest of Natal and of South Africa, it would have been possible to participate in the Buthelezi Commission. However, in so far as he extended his terms of reference to include matters over which he had no power or mandate whatsoever, he made it virtually impossible for us in the NP and the Government party to participate officially in the official discussions of the Buthelezi Commission. That is the reason. Someone who is in opposition, someone who has no authority, someone who does not have to back up in deeds what he says, can freely participate. That is why it was easy for the NRP and the PFP to participate in discussions with the Buthelezi Commission. It was also easy for numerous other organizations to participate because their participation had no stamp of authority. That is basically what is at issue.

While I am dealing with the Buthelezi Commission and matters relating thereto, I think one should also consider certain aspects affecting the whole relationship between kwaZulu and Natal and the rest of South Africa. I can quite appreciate the rather difficult circumstances under which Chief Buthelezi is trying to uphold his position. I would say, when one sees what is happening in the rest of the world, that to a certain extent one could possibly describe his attitude as being a life insurance against assassination. This is especially so when one thinks in terms of what happened to President Sadat and to leaders in other places, such as Kapuuo and other leaders in South West Africa. Anyone who is seen by the enemy of orderly development as wanting to co-operate with those in authority in Southern Africa is automatically the target of terrorists and assassins. I believe that when Chief Buthelezi addresses certain meetings and makes radical statements, such as the meeting of the South African Black Alliance which he addressed the other day in Ladysmith, he tries to hedge what he says. A Press report on that address, for example, carries the heading “It is Hard to Stay Nonviolent”. He never deliberately says that he is in favour of violence, but he also never directly opposes the actions of violent people. Now he is trying to play it both ways…

That is absolute rubbish.

… because he is trying to build up support for himself amongst radicals, and yet he is also trying to co-operate, as far as he sees possible, within the establishment. That is why I believe that, to a certain extent, one must see this as life assurance against assassination.

That is insulting nonsense.

I am positive that he has sufficient intelligence to know what is right, but then he is also in the extremely difficult situation that his whole power base—those people who give him authority—is not ripe for active participation in a normal democratic system, as is known in sophisticated societies. That is basically the problem. That is also the problem of the whole relationship issue between the peoples of Southern Africa, between peoples of colour and the Whites of Southern Africa, because of the complete variance in the norms of ordinary, everyday life. I appreciate that everybody must eat, must sleep and must have the comforts of life, but when it comes to norms of living in a society, those norms vary between the various Black peoples, between the Blacks and the Indians, between the Blacks and the Coloureds and between the Blacks and the Whites. That is why, much as we might be idealistic, by saying that we should bring the more sophisticated and developed Black leaders of Southern Africa into the political society, we must never forget one fundamental fact, and that is that it is not only a participation of those who have developed certain norms of sophistication; there is a power base which attaches to each of these groups, and that power base cannot be detatched from those leaders. That is why in Southern Africa it becomes impossible to share power in the sense of having a single political structure in which real power can be shared at all levels. That is why we in the NP believe in consultation to try to find solutions to the problems because, as I have said on numerous other occasions, there is a fundamental reservoir of goodwill among the Whites towards all the non-White peoples of goodwill in Southern Africa. We can do that as partners separate from one another in consultation, in co-operation after consultation, but not by sharing power in a single political power structure. That is why we believe that a confederation of Southern African States, a confederation of sovereign independent States which will co-operate voluntarily on all matters on which we can co-operate is the only solution. For what reason should the norms applicable to the Black peoples of Southern Africa vary fundamentally from the norms applicable to the Black peoples of the rest of Africa? For what reason should they vary substantially? Even within the self-governing national States of Southern Africa we find a tendency towards not having the normal democractic process but a massive support for the strong leaders, a massive support based traditionally on the emotional support for strong leadership, strong leadership of people belonging to the same group, having the same national values and the same norms. That is why in the Southern African situation it is virtually impossible to think in terms of a single political structure. That is why there is a fundamental difference between the approach of the PFP to this issue and the approach of the NP to this issue. The hon. member for Umbilo typified the attitude of the NRP when he said that sometimes they support the PFP and sometimes they support the NP.

Because nobody can always be right.

At some stage it becomes obvious even to them that they have no real, direct, positive alternative. For that reason there is no real future for the NRP.

But you are using our policies.

It is not for us to try to absorb them into our party. They can come over if they support the principles in which we believe. [Interjections.] There may be some of them who may go over to the PFP, as has happened in the past, and there may be some more who may come over to our party, but fundamentally I believe that the NRP has no long-term future, no viability in the political system of Southern Africa.

You will find out how wrong you are.

I would be only too happy to find out how wrong I was. I would be only too happy if the NRP would make progress among the Opposition parties in this country and become the official Opposition, because then we might get rid of these people who have no positive contribution to make in the Southern African situation. The PFP in every way they have acted in Parliament during this session have acted in a way that can make no positive contribution whatsoever to the solution of the political problems of this country. The absolute futility of their actions yesterday when time after time, clause after clause, amendment after amendment they called for divisions and made an absolute mockery of the political system in this country, will certainly not impress people who may be visitors to this country or who may even be visitors in the Gallery of this House. They made an absolute mockery of the political system. If only they had achieved something positive, I might even have understood it, but they did not achieve anything positive towards the solution of the political problems of this country. In many respects spokesmen of the PFP act as spokesmen for those elements outside South Africa who do not wish South Africa well but who would have the stable structure of Southern Africa destroyed. That is why the PFP have no positive role to play in and out of this House in the future of the Southern African situation. In fact, the PFP are divided among themselves. There is an element in the PFP which is a window-dressing element and to this element belongs the charismatic leader, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He belongs to the charismatic window-dressing element of the PFP. However, he does not represent the real power of the PFP. The real power of the PFP—and do not let him blush—is exercised by people such as the hon. member for Pinelands and other extreme radicals who think likewise. These are the people who emanate from the student campuses as well as many others who are backed by the Press. These are the people who have the backing of the real power base of the PFP. Frequently the window-dressing element comes to light with suave talk. This was again obvious in a speech here today by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he discussed the policy of the Government. He used very smooth talk but he did not explain the policy of his own party. He merely touched on it very briefly and very vaguely. He did not explain it. In a speech during the censure motion at the beginning of the session he also hardly touched upon his own party’s policy. He is charismatic and has an excellent image on television but that is his sole value. That is why I am sure that the real power base of the PFP selected him as the front, the charade of the PFP. [Interjections.] That is what is really at stake.

There is also another element in the PFP and these are the political snobs who say that they cannot support the NRP and they would not be seen dead voting Nat, but, at the same time, they pray on their knees that the Nats stay in power! However, considering what has happened in the rest of Africa, in Mozambique, Angola and Zambia and what they expect to happen in South West Africa they are now hedging their bets and supporting the PFP because of this political snobbery.

Why is that? Tell us more about it.

These are not the people who support the hon. member for Pinelands. These are the people who would prefer to do without the hon. member for Pinelands. These are the people who, coming from Natal, one would find in Kloof and in Berea and, in the Cape, here in Constantia. One will also find them in certain other places and in snob residential areas in Johannesburg. These are the people who can buy their separateness. They are the ones who have their own swimming pools and who do not have to swim in communal pools. These are the people who know that there is very little chance of their having to associate socially with lesser developed non-Whites. Those are the people who shout that we must have an integrated society. However, whenever at certain sports clubs non-Whites attend as guests they will have a friendly discussion with them by way of introduction and then turn their backs on them and will have nothing further to do with them. I have seen this ever so often and that is the hypocrisy of a large measure of the PFP support that we have in this country.

Those are the real fat cats.

I am not necessarily referring to hon. members of the PFP here in this House. Nevertheless, it is the hypocrisy that we find outside this House in ordinary everyday social life in this country…

If there are such people they are hypocrites, and I should not want to have anything to do with them.

I know that the hon. member for Bryanston is not always very happy in their company. [Interjections.] I do know that. [Interjections.]

You should go on the stage, Val.

I would come off second best if I were to go on the stage in the company of a comedian like the hon. member for Groote Schuur. The way he says things here in this House and at public meetings makes a complete comedy of the PFP.

When are you going to begin to make your contribution?

Finally, I should like to say that in the Southern African situation we must find solutions to the problems of accommodating the various group identities within the Southern African subcontinent in a way in which there will be no majority government by one group over another.

Yes, that is our policy. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it rather amuses me the way the hon. member for Johannesburg North thinks of his fourteen point plan, which has by now been scuttled by the PFP.

Now where do you get that from? [Interjections.]

The position is that in the Southern African situation …

You are really talkative when you get the opportunity, aren’t you? [Interjections.]

The position is that in the Southern African situation, if the contribution which the Whites can make towards a stable society and towards a stable economy and stable politics is harmed in any way, it will not only be South Africa that will be at stake, it will not only be the Blacks of South Africa who will suffer but the stability of the whole Western World will in fact also be adversely affected thereby. It is ironical that States like Transkei and Bophuthatswana and possibly Ciskei and others as well, are not recognized internationally, are not being assisted financially by the Western powers. They simply must realize, however, that by providing a stable society of peoples living securely side by side, without interfering in one another’s affairs, they will have found the key to the whole question of Western stability in the international battle that is being fought on extremely delicate issues at the moment in the Middle East and elsewhere. If only the West were to realize this they would hopefully adopt a more positive attitude towards South Africa. I am not referring now only to the USA. I am referring especially to those countries that are waging such an almost venomous campaign against South Africa, primarily because of their guilty conscience over their own colonial past.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klip River would normally simply be ignored in the sort of comedy speech he has made here this evening, were it not for a couple of very serious allegations he made, allegations that need to be dealt with.

One of the first things he said was that he considered that Chief Gatsha Buthelezi’s attitude was a life insurance against assassination. He then went on to talk about radical statements, and quoted Chief Buthelezi as saying it was hard to stay non-violent. What he was attempting to imply, in my opinion, was that Chief Buthelezi wanted to turn to violence. Nothing could be further from the truth. Chief Buthelezi is a very courageous man who is trying to seek a peaceful solution to the problems of his people. He has found now that he is not making the sort of progress for his people that he would like to see. So he comes with a statement of this nature. I believe it is a very clear warning to this Government that they must really seriously consider applying the sort of solutions to the South African problem that will mean real power sharing and will give the people of Chief Buthelezi, the Zulus, a say in the mainstream of South African politics. I believe that this is very important. If there are any overseas visitors in the gallery this evening, they will know, having listened to the hon. member for Klip River, that racism is not dead in South Africa. The attitude adopted by that hon. member and the hon. member for Umbilo—and I shall come to that in due course—indicates that he thinks the Zulu is not ripe for the democratic system as practised in a sophisticated society. He said that they do not have the norms of sophistication and therefore it was impossible to share power. If ever I heard a racial statement in this House, that was it, and I do not believe that this sort of statement from a member of the governing party does inter-race relationships in this country any good whatsoever. I would put that statement on a par with the statement made last year by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and I believe that it is a statement that should be denied by the hon. the Prime Minister.

I must also refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Umbilo and I merely want to point out two things. Firstly, in his speech he was extremely circumspect about attacking the NP. It was, he said, rather a pity that they did not sit on the Buthelezi Commission. It was a sort of pat on the shoulder. It was terrible. However, when it came to attacking the PFP, he did it vehemently and he thoroughly enjoyed it.

He did it viciously.

He also brought a racial connotation to his speech, very similar to that of the hon. member for Klip River, because he indicated that there were certain things beyond the ability of the Zulu people. If ever I heard a colonial or paternalistic statement, that was it. I believe that Chief Buthelezi should look at the Hansard of these two hon. members and judge them and their parties accordingly.

In this debate on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill I want to deal briefly with financial matters. At the Third Reading one obviously has to assess what the effect of the Budget is going to be. The first question that I want to ask is whether it will combat inflation. I think that the hon. the Minister of Finance is doing his best to combat inflation and to an extent, in regard to the matters over which he has direct control, he is succeeding in combating that inflation. I think his monetary control policies are good, but by themselves they are not sufficient. I believe the hon. the Minister must try to control his colleagues more than they in fact appear to be controlled, because undisciplined spending and undisciplined price rises are in fact taking place, and they are taking place more frequently than they ought to. Today, for example, we have had news that Escom will be increasing their rates in January 1982 by 14,3% weighted average. This is a tremendously high figure and I believe it could be kept a lot lower if Escom followed the recommendations of the Board of Trade and Industry and did not take so much of the tariff to pay for their capital structure and development. The hon. the Minister will know what I am talking about.

There have been increases in the prices of certain foodstuffs and not in the case of others but I want to mention basically the mealie situation where we have had a price increase despite over-production. In other countries over-production of a commodity would lead to a more stable or even a reduced price. In America they have just had a record harvest and the consumer price of their grain products has come down. However, in South Africa this does not happen. In South Africa prices are increased and thus we encourage an even larger surplus for next year. Consequently we have to export at a loss—a loss that has to be paid for by the South Africans. We are literally building a mealie mountain. All over the country we have silo’s thrusting into the sky and more are being built on a daily basis, while export facilities for mealies are being increased. This all costs money. This is all additional infrastructure. They are increasing the facilities at East London harbour and there is talk of establishing facilities at Richards Bay harbour. This all costs money, and I believe that we need a courageous Minister of Finance who will say: Whoa! Enough is enough. We must allow the market to limit production.

Take the case of milk. We have an under-production of milk. We are spending literally millions of rand on importing milk-powder and butter while our own dairy-herds are being cut down because the dairy farmer cannot make a reasonable profit.

A second question I want to pose is: Will the budget help the growth rate to stay at the desired level? During the course of this session it has been emphasized that we need a growth rate in excess of 5% annually, sustained over a long period of time, in order to provide for new entrants to the labour market. Prior to this budget there were clear indications that the growth rate was falling below the desired level, yet we have a status quo budget! In fact, in terms of fiscal drag, we do not have a status quo budget; it is actually a slightly worse budget. This may mean that by next year we will have to indulge in restimulation measures and will have created a stop-start situation which, I believe, does not do anybody any good.

What is your solution?

To start off with, my solution is that we should to a greater degree try to overcome the difference in the fiscal drag between, for instance, last year’s tax and this year’s tax. However, I will come to that in due course.

Thirdly, I believe that there is too much money spent on ideology and too little on real benefits. In my view there has been no start made in deregulating the economy to a greater degree. More of our tax money should be spent on education, health services and on pensions for the aged. In fact, the real benefits of taxing the rich should be used to pay those who are less fortunate and less should be spent on administering these and other services.

The hon. the Minister has kindly sent me a document dealing with fiscal drag which I found very interesting. He also quoted some figures that proved that over a period of three years they had coped with fiscal drag very well. The figures speak for themselves. However, I would point out to the hon. the Minister that I was talking in relation to last year’s tax compared to this year’s tax, where there has been no alteration and there has been an inflation rate of plus-minus 15%. This has created a fiscal drag between the last tax year and this tax year. That is the point I was making and I believe that we have to watch this regularly. I think the hon. the Minister implied that he was going to watch it and that he would try to overcome this in the future.

Another point I should like to make about the budget is that coming economic events have overshadowed this budget, particularly the announcements by the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to the new decentralization or deconcentration plans of the Government. Once again I must state that we must beware of the danger of creating disincentives in areas where it is easy to create jobs, resulting in those jobs not being created anywhere or at any time. I believe that we should know what the timetable is. We have waited almost two years for this plan to be produced, and I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he thinks that he will announce it before the end of this year. Sir, I repeat the question: Does the hon. the Prime Minister think that he might announce this new plan before the end of this year? There is no reply. Will he announce it at the Cape Town conference that he is having with the business leaders? Is this what he has up his sleeve for that conference in order to create excitement and interest? It will have to be a big sleeve, Sir. Maybe it will be announced at the Port Elizabeth dinner that the former member for Walmer is organizing. [Interjections.] I want to repeat what I said in a former debate. I believe that businessmen should go to the conference in Cape Town and that they should drive home to the hon. the Prime Minister what the needs of this country are.

Let me now turn to things more political by saying that I think there are three things that are noteworthy about this session. [Interjections.] The first relates to the accusations made in this House under conditions of privilege. The second relates to the fact that the NP—it was done again by the hon. member for Klip River—constantly attacks people’s patriotism. Thirdly I believe that this has been a session of unanswered questions.

First of all I want to refer to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development’s speech—Hansard, column 2379—just to prove what I have been saying. In that debate he mentioned a number of people who were involved, in his opinion, in the return of Nyanga squatters to Nyanga. He mentioned the Reverend Hall of the Border Council of Churches. He also mentioned that each squatter was given R20 pocket money. He said that people were brought back by the bus-load, and I quote (col. 2378)—

The hon. member for Green Point interjected that the R20 was to keep them alive. The hon. the Minister then said—

That was a scandalous statement made under privilege. He went on to discuss the Athlone Advice Bureau, Mrs. West of the Roman Catholic Church and a Mrs. Luckett, wife of the Reverend Luckett of the St. Josephine Church in Wynberg. He imputed all sorts of things to these people, but what has happened? Has any charge been brought in a court of law? No, and I do not think any charge will be brought.

I am surprised they were not banned.

The Government is now sending them back.

Yes, those people gave them R20 and the Government is now apparently giving them R60 each.

Three bucks a throw.

In his very first debate of the session the hon. the Prime Minister said the following (col. 48)—

Where are those names?

There are no names.

Or is this purely and simply a campaign that has been launched. There was the tirade …

The smear.

… against Bishop Tutu by the hon. the Minister of Police in a Standing Committee debate. There was the so-called protest march on Parliament. None of these things has, however, lead to any court action. I believe that to a certain degree this Government is hiding behind Parliamentary privilege. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development obviously obtained his information about all these people involved with the Nyanga squatters from the police. One must therefore question the validity of other police information to the hon. the Minister of Justice, information on the basis of which people are banned or detained. I say this because if the hon. the Minister of Cooperation and Development was given information, but no charge has been laid—as yet!—how valid is that information?

Hear, hear!

This brings me to my second point, which involves the impugning of the PFP’s patriotism. When the PFP was still a small party, up to 1977, it was perhaps a different bail-game, but today this party is the official Opposition and is growing, despite all the Government’s accusations. The Government fails to realize that the NP is not South Africa and that one can criticize the Government’s actions and still remain a loyal South African. [Interjections.] I’m glad the hon. the Prime Minister is here, because I want to tell him that this policy of attacking and impugning the patriotism of the official Opposition is an extremely dangerous policy that could create dangerous polarization amongst Whites. [Interjections.] One has to realize that 20% of White South Africa supports the official Opposition. Those Whites who cannot think for themselves stupidly believe the Ministers and members of Parliament and this creates a backlash, with increasingly dangerous results. [Interjections.] Hon. members must please allow me to complete my argument. 20% of our national servicemen are therefore probably sons of PFP voters and are victimized—I do not say “can be” but “are”—by some of their fellow soldiers because of their political views. I believe the blame for this lies squarely at the door of NP politicians. It is not the fault of the army or the national servicemen concerned. Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. I believe it will create a backlash and hatred …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. I conclude by saying I believe this will create a backlash and hatred and will cost us citizens in many ways. In the interest of South Africa I ask the hon. the Prime Minister to put a stop to this practice.

Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred to ignore such arrogance, but the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, made a few remarks which one cannot ignore. In the first place he accused the hon. member for Klip River of having impugned Chief Buthelezi with racist statements. The hon. member has a very short memory, that is if he has a memory at all. Has he forgotten what he and all those hon. members said here last week about Dr. Sebe? The hon. member for Houghton even asked: “Who is Dr. Sebe after all?”

Is that a racist statement?

We cannot argue in that way. The hon. member went further and said that all the intelligent people in the country voted for them.

Everyone who had a screw loose. [Interjections.]

He referred to “Those Whites who stupidly supported the NP. 80% of them are stupid”. I have never heard such arrogance in this House before. [Interjections.] I can understand it very well. When that hon. member enters this House with his swaggering gait, I think he must have said to his reflection in the mirror every morning: “Really, I just cannot understand why such a smart fellow as I am cannot be governing.” However, I shall leave it at that.

Here at the end of this session, I should like to take a look at Parliament and at what has happened here. At the end of this session, the NP will have been in power for 38 years, and during that period, no other people have been accused …

The Jews were in the wilderness for 40 years.

Just give me a chance. Hon. members can count back 38 years from 1948, and where does that leave them? In the year 1910. Then one sees what has been happening in this House in its true perspective. Those hon. members, as they are sitting there, had an opportunity at 11 elections to attack hon. members on this side of the House and to destroy us if they could. However, just look at them.

How do you arrive at 11 elections for this party. Surely that is nonsense.

That former brother with his 14-point plan has only one point left. [Interjections.] Now I want to tell you, Sir, where the problem lies. These 38 years were not without problems for the NP. The problem we had with the HNP was partly due to the incompetence of the party opposite.

There are too many HNP people in your own ranks.

I shall explain this. At every democratic election two things can happen.

[Inaudible.]

Never mind, that hon. member received enough of a hiding just now. He must tell us some more about meat. [Interjections.] As I have said, two things can happen at every election. Firstly, a new Government is elected. Then there is a second thing which happens in a democratic State. It happens in England, America and France. The new Government starts off with a clean slate. It is not blamed for what happened under the previous Government.

Must we then not blame you for your party’s past?

Sir, it is our problem…

It is a big problem, I admit.

This Government has to bear the blame for 38 years, and we accept this. The HNP’s complaint is based on what happened during those 38 years, because the party opposite is too incompetent to put forward an alternative policy. That is the NP’s problem. Part of the problem is also that of the PFP.

The NP which fought 11 elections.

Oh please, Sir, when is that hon. member going to give the last judgment which he should have given from the Bench? [Interjections.] Is it the judgment which the hon. member gave on TV the other night? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to reflect on the Bench?

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

Your sense of humour is getting a bit sick, do you know that?

You do not have any. [Interjections.]

You are becoming a bit of a clown. [Interjections.] It is about time you started earning your salary.

Order! The hon. member is not entitled to refer to another hon. member as a clown.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The problem with the party as they are sitting there on the opposite side—and it is part of the problem of this House—is that they have become irrelevant.

You have no respect for your seniors for a start.

They no longer make a contribution to constitutional politics in South Africa.

If we are irrelevant, why are you still talking to us?

We cannot discuss matters with you.

Very well then, sit down! [Interjections.]

Does the hon. member think that I am talking to him now? I am talking to you, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] The problem with those people is that they do not accept the reality of the situation which the electorate of South Africa accepts.

Is that a brand-new idea?

For 38 years the standpoint of this side of the House has been that South Africa has a multinational structure.

And a uninational electorate.

There is more than one nation in South Africa. The hon. members opposite speak of a unitary State. When they talk about a unitary State …

Where do we talk about that?

… then there is only one alternative.

We are talking about one State.

Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to proceed with my speech?

Order! I would be pleased if hon. members would give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to complete his speech.

Then he must not talk nonsense.

If mention is made of a unitary State, there is only one policy that can be adopted, and that is the policy of the hon. member for Houghton.

What does a unitary State in South Africa mean?

Those hon. members accept that there is only one citizenship in South Africa. Do you not accept that?

Is that your definition?

I am asking the hon. member, does he not accept it? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, if one pursues the policy which those hon. members opposite are pursuing, i.e. of wanting to convene a national convention and that that national convention should decide the future of South Africa, then you can paint it pink or gold but I maintain that one then has no policy which one could proclaim which would mean anything. [Interjections.] I want to challenge those hon. members on the opposite side. There is no law in South Africa which prohibits them from holding their national convention. I say to them: Hold it!

Will you participate in it too?

Let me tell those hon. members: Invite whatever people you wish to invite. It is the privilege of the Government to decide whether or not it wants to participate. I say: Hold it. Those hon. members are trying to bluff the people. [Interjections.] I say this, Sir, because if we allow our future to depend on a national convention then it does not matter what your standpoint is before the time. I maintain that the constitutional structure in this country can only change if this Parliament changes it.

Of course.

Very well, and if you do not agree with the convention, what then? Then Parliament changes what was proposed. [Interjections.] If you do not agree, then we have the worst example of paternalism and of oppression we have ever seen.

May I ask a question?

No. That hon. member has already interjected with 10 questions. [Interjections.] That is the situation with those people. What happens? Mr. Edward Heath, the former premier of England made a speech here. In that speech he told us that we would simply have to accept “one man, one vote”. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition reacted to that. In a report which appeared in the Argus on 2 September the hon. the Leader of the Opposition …

And the Argus never lies! [Interjections.]

… had the following to say—

Hear, hear!

The hon. member is saying “hear, hear”. The hon. the Leader went on to say—

Hear, hear!

If that is the situation, what has become of the one citizenship? How does one determine what are minorities in a country where there is only one citizenship?

They determine it themselves. [Interjections.]

One can be stupid, but … [Interjections.] … how can one make such interjections?

But surely that is self-determination. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, …

Who decided for you that you were an Afrikaner? You decided for yourself, did you not?

That hon. member is a courageous person, Sir, if he still has the courage to protect the kind of things he has behind him there. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the PFP has become irrelevant because it does not accept that situation of multi-nationalism in South Africa. For 33 years we have been speaking at cross purposes. A Parliament cannot function in this way. Even though the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central whines about this, it is true that on every occasion when there is a dispute between South Africa and a foreign power, they are on the other side.

That is a disgraceful statement.

The hon. member says it is a disgraceful statement, but I shall qualify it. I think the hon. member was here when the hon. member for Berea attacked the hon. Minister of Transport Affairs on his attitude to transportation in Zimbabwe. I still wrote down what he said. This is what he said—

That is what the hon. member for Berea said. I am sorry that he is not here this evening, but hon. members can please convey this message to him: I have never, since he returned to this House, heard him say a single word about a White person.

Nor will he.

No, nor will he. I expect he is still going to change his name from “SWart” to “Black”, so that he can look into the mirror every morning and say: “Black is beautiful.” [Interjections.] He will be wrong again.

You are a race hater of the worst kind.

I am not a race hater, never! Is it race hate if I stand up for my own people? Because you have changed your allegiance, am I a race hater? Interjections.] Now I want to say to that hon. member: On that same day, when the hon. member for Berea acted in the way he did, the South African Anti-Apartheid Movement was formed in Salisbury, with two of the Ministers of Zimbabwe as its patrons, for the purpose of organizing economic and political boycotts and military onslaughts against South Africa. These are the kind of people we are dealing with, and then that hon. member complains about what is happening in this House. In the very first debate this year, the hon. the Prime Minister accused the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of having made certain statements to Black diplomats in Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition almost blew his top the way he carried on here, but he has still not denied it. I say they have become irrelevant because when South Africa has problems with other territories, they are always on the other side.

You are accusing 20% of the voters.

I am not accusing 20% of the voters. I am accusing 26 people in this House; that is what I am doing.

And all the people who voted for them.

But you are not representing them.

I want to go further. The hon. members on that side—the hon. member for Green Point who is not here at the moment, said so in so many words—do not accept that there is a total onslaught on South Africa, but say that it is a fabrication of this Government, and now hon. members can understand why I say that those people have become irrelevant.

It is a total onslaught on apartheid.

No, it is not a total onslaught on apartheid. One of my colleagues produced in this House pamphlets that thick published every month by the ANC about their successes, and all of them are based on clippings from the South African Press.

On what happened in South Africa.

Horace, lend a hand there!

Was it not the actions of the Government that they were reporting?

No, I am coming to that. Really, I am extremely pleased the hon. member asked that question. Probably the hon. member also saw the article which appeared in The Sunday Times.

Yes.

It was an article by a senior journalist who had been out of South Africa for 15 years, and had now returned. What did he write? He wrote—

That is right.

Listen—

And now it is the National Party’s fault. In addition there was an article by Mr. Peregrine Worsthorne of the Sunday Telegraph in which he replied to the speech made by Mr. Heath, who had said that they would not be able to help us if we were in trouble. Mr. Worsthorne’s finding in this regard was that if what Mr. Heath wanted to happen here, actually did happen here, viz. “one man, one vote”, there would be nothing left in South Africa to defend.

That is the situation. Moreover, those hon. members have become irrelevant because they engage very earnestly in outside activities which are directed against this Parliament. [Interjections.] That hon. member who carried on to such an extent a moment ago because action was being taken against them, must realize that one really has to be extremely naive …

Or stupid.

One really has to be extremely naïve if one accepts that the march on Parliament was not intended as a demonstration for the very reason that it started in a church. What they did in the church, only they will know. It is not for me to question the motives of people in a church, although Die Kerkbode did do so. [Interjections.] Three hon. members then wrote to Die Burger and lodged an objection and said that they were being accused of having participated in a march on Parliament. They alleged that they had gone around the other side and had been moving through the Gardens when they happened to come upon the scene and told those people that they should rather not go into the grounds of Parliament because it was against the law. They then offered to ask the hon. the Minister of Police whether he would not accept a document from them. Can a person be so naïve? These people have become irrelevant because they engage in agitation outside in an attempt to influence this House. This will not be tolerated in South Africa.

That is completely untrue.

I can accept that there could perhaps be a few doctorates in the offing if one were to be photographed attending that kind of protest march.

What does the former brother want to do with a doctorate?

I do not know. Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention a fifth reason as to why that party, as it sits there, is so frustrated. I can understand its members being frustrated. They have been sitting there for 33 years, staring at and talking to the walls. At the same time they hear nothing, while they think they are so wonderful. In addition nothing is happening, while they simply continue to sit in the Opposition benches. All that has really happened is that they have become the official Opposition. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, who was boasting about the official Opposition a moment ago, should remember that last year he was still a member of the non-official Opposition. That is why he is boasting of the official Opposition this year. Those hon. members themselves are boycotting this Parliament and that is the most stupid conduct I have ever seen. They act with great bravado here, as was the case again today with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. As the hon. member for Klip River said, he has charisma, but his speech tends to sound like a school debate because he has been told that he should state a certain standpoint. He is no longer relevant in the constitutional development of South Africa, because they are boycotting him. [Interjections.] The dialogue on the constitutional development will henceforth take place between the Government and the President’s Council.

Outside Parliament therefore? [Interjections.]

The dialogue will take place …

Outside Parliament.

Resolutions in that regard will be taken here in this House. Hon. members of the Opposition can vote against them again. In fact, they will vote against them again.

Everything that we do, will happen here inside Parliament.

They will vote against them again.

You are undermining Parliament now. [Interjections.]

No, I am not undermining Parliament at all. I want to make it very clear that the dialogue will take place between the President’s Council and the Government. After the Government has taken decisions in that regard, this Parliament will place its final stamp of approval on them. I say that Parliament will place the final stamp of approval on them. Whatever hon. members of the Opposition may say or do, is not relevant.

The President’s Council will do as it is told to do. [Interjections.]

Whatever hon. members of the PFP say or do not say …

You are turning Parliamentarians into voting cattle.

Whether they are voting cattle or not, whatever hon. members of the PFP say will be entirely irrelevant. [Interjections.] Hon. members of the official Opposition had an opportunity to participate in this dialogue. [Interjections.] They had every opportunity, and that dialogue is now in progress, but they shall play no part in it. [Interjections.] As the hon. member for Klip River said here earlier this evening, hon. members of the PFP are making a mockery of this Parliament.

That is what you are doing now.

It is you who removed the Coloureds from the common voter’s roll. [Interjections.]

It so happened during the present session that we sometimes had to divide here for almost half an hour. For what purpose? Merely to make this Parliament look foolish. [Interjections.]

You are the biggest fool of all.

I know that the rules of Parliament …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. former brother is saying everything tonight that he has wanted to say all year. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister entitled to refer to the process of divisions in this House as a “mockery”? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister did not refer to the procedures of the House as a mockery. He made the allegation that hon. members of the official Opposition were making a mockery of the rules of this House. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to the procedure of this House as a mockery. I did say that the hon. members of the PFP were making a mockery of them. [Interjections.] No one denies them the right to vote against a Bill or measure. However, when they have voted against it once, the entire possibility exists for them to oppose every … [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the expression on the hon. the Minister’s face indicates that he is filled with self-satisfaction. We on this side of the House want to say, however, that his has been one of the most undignified performances by a Cabinet Minister that this House has witnessed for many years. [Interjections.] He made some very caustic political and personal remarks about the hon. member for Berea. I shall certainly convey those remarks to him. May I know whether the hon. the Minister applied his mind to the normal courtesy and to the conventions of this House and advised the hon. member for Berea that he was going to do so? [Interjections.]

Come on, give us a reply now!

I ask this question because Mr. Speaker recently drew the attention of hon. members of this House to a convention and said that whilst it was not a Speaker’s ruling it was a convention of the House … [Interjections.] It is disgraceful for this hon. Minister to come to this House, to play to the gallery with a lot of earthy humour and conduct himself in such a manner.

He has no conception of what manners are. [Interjections.]

What I find fascinating is the number of times that hon. Minister has said: “Die PFP is irrelevant”.

Shame!

Why should the Government then be spending so much time, so much argument, on a party which he believes is irrelevant?

A very good point.

Day after day, week after week, they are analysing this party, analysing its policy, debating its policy, and yet they keep on saying it is irrelevant. [Interjections.] The very attitude of the Government towards this party demonstrates its relevance.

We’ll show you …

The hon. the Prime Minister can also be undignified by saying “jy en jou” across the floor of the House, but I shall refer to him in the correct way, namely as the hon. the Prime Minister and I expect him to behave in the same way.

Right honourable gentleman, I say you are irrelevant.

If the hon. the Prime Minister wants to ask a question, he may do so. He should be setting an example to his Ministers and not following them.

The hon. member for Houghton sat on her own in this House for 13 years. I was outside in the political wilderness. All she heard at that time was how irrelevant she was. Then in 1974 there were seven people with her and the Government still said that they were irrelevant. In 1977 there were 17 people in this party and the Government still said that we were irrelevant. Now there are 26 elected members of the PFP and the Government still says that we are irrelevant. I want to say that this party is going to grow in numbers and in relevance as time goes by. This is not just a numerical situation.

You cannot lock us all up.

I agree that at this specific moment the Government has a substantial majority in this House, but relevance does not only relate to the numbers in this Parliament. Relevance relates to the policies, relevance relates to the arguments and to the influence of a political party.

I now wish to address myself to the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs because he referred to a speech that I made way back in 1960 when I stated in the Verwoerdian era and against the background of Dr. Verwoerd at that time that we had to try to get away from group loyalties and prejudices. Almost every policy that the hon. member for Houghton and I stood for in 1960 had to be seen against the background of a Verwoerdian policy, a policy which elevated group to the absolute pinnacle of virtue in South Africa to the extent that he would not allow his officials to shake the hand of a Black man. That was what happened under Dr. Verwoerd. [Interjections.] It is against that background that I wanted to test this relevance. Let us look at the things that have happened in order to test who is relevant and whether in fact Dr. Verwoerd was right at that time or whether we were right at that time to say that we had to play down group loyalties and prejudices. What about job reservation? [Interjections.] We debated it in 1960. The hon. the Minister was not here at that time. We debated a Bill which provided that job reservation was necessary to protect the identity and the security of the White worker. That was the argument—group security demanded job reservation. But we said no and it has gone. This House passed the Industrial Conciliation Act when the Black man was not allowed to have a trade union, but we said that he should have a trade union. Hon. Ministers on that side of the House said that in terms of their group philosophy one could not have White and Black people in one economy. That was what they said at that time and they also said that one certainly could not have them in one trade union. Who was relevant at that time, Dr. Verwoerd or we? Let us come to more modern times. Let us deal with our sports policy.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he has not heard that over the years, and also during the years he was referring to, we had at least 48 trade unions which, as in the old days, consisted of more than one group?

Legislation was passed so that Blacks could not belong to registered trade unions. The hon. the Minister knows it. He should not argue about this.

Let me now come to sport. It was necessary to segregate sport because it was relevant to the issue of White group identity. Parks, the Nico Malan theatre, other theatres, lifts, service and welfare organizations were all segregated.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he still believes in 1981 what he said then, viz. that group feeling and group loyalties should be reduced?

The hon. the Minister did not even read my quote correctly because the last phrase I used was “group prejudice”. He left out the expression “group prejudice”. [Interjections.] Those statements were made against the background of the Verwoerdanism of that time. I want to say, in terms of relevance, that every time this Government moves away from discrimination, every time it gets accolades from businessmen and every time foreign visitors come here and say that they are moving away from discrimination, they are proving the relevance of the attitude of the PFP. That is what it is all about. Every time they say that the Government is getting rid of discrimination and that they are moving away from the Verwoerdian philosophy that groups have to be kept in separate compartments, this is relevant to our philosophy which states that groups do exist but that in a free and open society groups can look after themselves. If groups can look after themselves in sporting activities, in trade unions and in churches, then we say that groups should be allowed the freedom to look after themselves without legislative restrictions. [Interjections.] Hon. members on that side and those of the NRP, indeed all of us in this House, acknowledge that there is a group factor in South Africa. Nobody can deny this. This has been the basis of our policy over the years, but the question is, how does one promote unity and common purpose in South Africa without denying the right of the groups to identify themselves to the extent they wish? Everything that this Government is doing …

By offering group security.

Today you are offering group security by abolishing job reservation, by saying that all clubs can be open and by getting rid of legislative apartheid. That is our argument, Sir.

Are you criticizing or defending us? [Interjections.]

That was not the Verwoerdian argument. In fact, the Verwoerdian argument was exactly the opposite. In terms of relevance, there is no more relevant party in South Africa than the PFP. Hon. members might argue about the details of the policy, that I will concede. However, in terms of the realities of South Africa and the direction in which this country is going, in spite of and sometimes because of the NP, we are moving in the direction of a more shared and more open society. I believe that in that open society groups will be able to play their full, vital and stimulating role, and at the same time a new unity of purpose is going to be created.

The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs says that group identity is vital. He has three things which, at the moment, seem to be his party’s sacred cows. One is the question of schools. He repeated once again that each racial community or group, or whatever it may be, must have its own schools. Yet, in the House only a few days ago, we passed a Bill in terms of which the Government can pay State money to private schools that admit pupils of different races. In terms of Nationalist philosophy of 20 years ago, that is something that was completely repugnant. In fact, the Transvaal Administrator would not allow it. What I am saying is that already that sacred cow of separate schools is starting to look less sacred than it did before.

The Government is in favour of separate residential areas, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs whether he really believes that in 10 or 20 years’ time there are still going to be laws that will compel South Africans to live in separate residential areas?

Yes! [Interjections.]

If, in fact, the price of getting the co-operation of the Coloureds in the Cape is to get rid of the Group Areas Act, is the hon. the Minister going to say to them that he would prefer not to have their co-operation and loyalty?

A separate community life is not negotiable. [Interjections.]

Just as the sacred cows of Dr. Verwoerd in 1960 have been eradicated by the logic and the relevance of the PFP, so the sacred cows of the NP and Mr. P. W. Botha are going to be eliminated by the mere march of history in South Africa.

I will take another one if you wish. There is the question of sharing political power. It is a sacred cow of the National Party that we cannot share political power. Indeed, it is in every NP manifesto and in the hon. the Prime Minister’s twelve point plan. Is the hon. the Minister sure that in two, five or ten years’ time, at least the White and Coloured people will not be sharing political power? Of course they will be sharing political power. Blacks, Whites and Coloureds are already sharing political power; granted, not in the formal institutions; but do not underestimate the impact of the collective power of Black people in South Africa today. This Parliament is not setting the pace of change in South Africa. Parliament is reacting to the forces that are evolving in our society. I want to say to the hon. the Minister and also to the hon. member for Umbilo—and I say it kindly—do not let us point fingers. We are going to change in this country, and many of the things that we say we will never accept, we know we are going to accept. [Interjections.]

When I look at this parliamentary session and the various debates that have taken place, I come to the conclusion that it has been a session of the NP Government’s three great delusions. I want to spell them out. The first delusion is that White people in South Africa by setting aside separate territories in which they say that Blacks can exercise sovereign political rights can escape the inevitability of having to share political power in South Africa. That is the greatest delusion of all, a delusion that emerged during the debate on Ciskei. It is clear that this Government believes that if White people in this all-White Parliament can gerrymander with the political boundaries of South Africa they are, in fact, going to escape the challenge of Blacks, Whites and Browns sharing political power and decision-making in this country. They know it is not going to work, however. Nevertheless they are trying to bluff the Whites. Instead of confronting them with the challenge of how to share power, they try to gerrymander the constituencies of South Africa in order to prevent power being shared. They can gerrymander the political boundaries of the country as much as they like, but no amount of such political gerrymandering can change the substance of South Africa. One can form as many Transkeis, Ciskeis, Vendas and “Kleurlingstans” as one likes, but South Africa will still be in exactly the same position as it was before, because none of those changes will solve the economic, social or housing problems. Let me therefore warn this hon. House, as we have done before, that if one creates a political system that does not solve the socio-economic problems of the people who have to live under that system, that political system is going to be swept aside by the people. It is going to be engulfed by the tide of history. That is what is happening. The first great delusion therefore is that by changing the political boundaries on the map one can avoid the challenge of the sharing of power in South Africa. There was, for a moment, a glimmer of hope when we first heard of the constellation of States. There was hope that that would bring a touch of reality back into this concept. Later, however, we heard of confederation. During the course of this session, however, we found that the constellation of States was a gimmick. We found out that it is not a constitutional concept, or even a territorial concept, but merely a concept of a kind of economic co-operation. Once it might have been grand because it could have extended up to the Zambezi, but is gradually contracting to the heartland of South Africa and the satellite States around it.

Is the confederation of the United States also a gimmick? What about confederations in other parts of the world? Are they also gimmicks?

I was talking about the constellation of States.

There were people who believed that a confederation would at least mean a bringing together of the various elements—or as the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development says “equal sovereign elements”—in some joint decision-making process.

But that is not in your policy.

I am talking to the hon. the Minister. We thought that confederation would, in fact, bring those people together in a new political entity. Those hon. Ministers have, however, gone out of their way to indicate that this is not a constitutional concept and would not have any central organizational structures, merely being a loose alliance of independent States that would be free to contract out any time they wished. That, then, has been the first great delusion of the NP this session.

The second great delusion lies in the fact that the NP says that Whites can give Blacks increasing economic power whilst at the same time denying them the right to express the political power that they are inevitably going to gain as a result of obtaining that economic power. Blacks in the heartland of South Africa—I am not talking about Blacks in the homelands, the national States or the independent States—are obtaining increasing economic power, and through this we are increasing their political power. Every time one educates a person, every time one allows his skills to be augmented, every time one increases his organizational sophistication, every time one opens a new university or gives the Black man a new trade union, one is giving him economic power which is inevitably going to lead to demands for increased political power. Nothing could be more dangerous than to embark on this course of increasing the economic power of Black people outside the homelands without facing up to the fact that that is, in fact, going to lead to increased political power for those people. So what is one going to do in the end? Is one going to give those people political power because of their numbers, their status, their bargaining power, etc., yet deny them the right to express that power by constitutional means? That is what this Government is doing. Let me tell the hon. the Minister of Manpower that this is going to politicize the whole labour movement in South Africa. The workshop is going to become the interface of Government and non-Government conflict as far as political rights are concerned. In due course it is going to lead to open confrontation on the issue of political rights. That is the second delusion. [Interjections.] I am trying to be serious, I believe that we should not delude ourselves. I believe the hon. the Minister over there does have a perception. All we are saying, is: “For heaven’s sake, if you are going to give people increased economic power that is going to lead to more political power, allow it to be expressed in a constitutional way. Do not force it to be expressed outside the constitutional structure.” We must bring these people in. This leads to all kinds of contradictions in respect of the Whites, the Coloureds etc. I do not have time to deal with them.

The third delusion that has appeared on the Government side in the course of these debates is that White people can get rid of discrimination without getting rid of apartheid. That is the new philosophy: That one can get rid of discrimination without getting rid of apartheid. [Interjections.] The Government has a continuing commitment to the philosophy of apartheid. That philosophy is a racist policy. Hon. members can say as the hon. the Minister of State Administration and of Statistics says, that it is a nationalistic concept. The hon. the Prime Minister says the Coloureds are not a nation. How then can one say that apartheid applied to the Coloureds arises from nationality or a national concept? It is straight racism and discrimination. What does the Government tell White people? This is the danger. They tell White people: “You can get rid of discrimination, but you do not have to get rid of apartheid”. It is simply not going to work. The hon. the Minister of Manpower has already seen that. For years we fought about discrimination in the work place in regard to Acts like the Mines and Works Act, the Shops and Offices Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act, and the Government said: “We can get rid of discrimination but we can still stick to apartheid.” Then the hon. the Minister of Manpower found out that this could not be done. Take the question of sport. For 11 agonizing years since 1970 the Government has been trying to get off the hook and has been trying to tell its supporters: “We can hang onto apartheid but we are going to get rid of discrimination.” The fleet-footed former Minister of Sport and Recreation, now the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, knows the antics he went through, but he also knows that in the end we had to have a Minister saying that in spite of the laws there was now no longer any legal apartheid in sport. Why did it have to take so long? In due course the same thing will happen in education. The Government can carry on saying: “We can get rid of discrimination and we can have apartheid,” but we say that in due course the Government will find out that apartheid and discrimination are one and the same thing and that one cannot have the one without the other.

You are completely wrong.

The hon. the Minister says I am completely wrong but I say this is one of the great delusions. I believe the White people of South Africa should be told: “Whether we like it or not, a commitment to get rid of discrimination is also a commitment to get rid of apartheid..” Until that is done, the White people of South Africa will continue to be led up the garden path.

Therefore, what has become quite clear during this session, are these three fundamental delusions of the NP. These delusions are being transferred to the White people at a time when all of us in the House are still looking for answers and at a time when we should all be groping for a new deal in South Africa. For heaven’s sake, let us stop bluffing ourselves that by changing political boundaries we can escape the consequences of power-sharing. Let us not bluff ourselves that we can give people economic power and yet not give them political power. Let us not bluff ourselves into believing that we can get rid of discrimination and still maintain apartheid in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, we are at present engaged in discussing the Third Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill. In the budget certain sums of money are voted to establish certain services in South Africa. After the hon. the Minister of Finance quite correctly gave certain information today in connection with the present financial position and the expected economic development in South Africa, the hon. members of the official Opposition did not react at all to what the hon. the Minister said. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stood up and made a speech that was neither here nor there. I shall come back to it a little later.

Colin did better than he did.

No, he fared much worse. I shall tell you why. He cannot do any better than Van Zyl, because they are both equally useless. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition chose the background against which the Third Reading debate must take place. The field he chose was to attack the Government. He said the Government did not do this and they did not do that. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not, however, say a single word about what he would have done if he were in the Government benches. I should like to come back to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and also the hon. member for Wynberg at a later stage. I should also very much like to react to the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central who during the past week has made the most unsavoury speeches I have ever heard in this House.

The hon. member for Sea Point said—and by now this is an old story—we even heard it in the time of the old UP—that we are actually implementing Opposition policy. This is an old refrain: “You are now implementing our policy”.

Aspects of it.

The hon. member for Sea Point said they …

We are not angry with you.

No, but the hon. member for Bryanston is angry. Just look at his face. If we are implementing their policy, in the first place I want to ask why they did not succeed in selling their policy.

We are too honest. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can make his own speech. I really do not have the time to argue with the hon. member for Bryanston. I want to make a second point. Let us suppose, for argument’s sake, that all the things the hon. member for Sea Point mentioned, take place: There is more mixed sport and we make more use of this and that. Now he says it is NP policy. If he says this, I want to tell him that he has never understood NP policy. [Interjections.] The hon. member must not be too hasty. He must just listen to what I say. Today, as a result of its policy, the NP can make adjustments without jeopardizing its people. It can do so because it ensured when it came into power in 1948 that the integration policy which was being followed, was eradicated.

And started again later …

No, Sir, the hon. member for Sea Point must listen now. If we say today that we can accommodate Black people in various fields, we are doing so against the background of the fact that on 4 December there will be four independent States. The hon. member must not sit there grinning.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said there are only two standpoints, namely his standpoint and the standpoint of the HNP Integration or partition.

No, the HNP does not believe in partition.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the one standpoint is partition and the other is the policy of the PFP. Let us not make such a terrible fuss about the policy of the PFP. The hon. member for Yeoville will be back tomorrow and then we will hear what their economic policy is. Tonight they are still standing by what was written in the past. In terms of this I want to put a question to the hon. members opposite. Whether we spend money to establish an industry in the Ciskei or to build 5 000 houses there and whether we spend that money to establish an industry or build houses in Soweto, the fact remains that one needs houses and also industries to create jobs. Whether one does so in the Ciskei or in Soweto or in any other place in the country, one needs those job opportunities and one needs that housing. It therefore does not matter where you do it. The NP stands opposed to those hon. members. In terms of their policy they recognize the Black areas and they even say that those areas must be developed, but they only want to go that far, and this is what goes against the grain as far as I—I almost said “as a Christian”, but I do not want to be so presumptuous as to say that I am a great Christian—am concerned, because these areas are to serve as a labour reservoir on the basis of their economic concept. Further than that they do not want it to go.

If we get down to the bare bones of the constitutional and political situation of the Black people—for the purposes of my argument, I shall not consider the question of the Coloureds and the Asians—there still remains this question: How is one to accommodate the situation? The NP adopts the standpoint that the political rights of the Black people must be exercised in their own territories. The standpoint of the official Opposition is that such a policy will not work. For the moment I shall not discuss the NRP; we can talk to them later. The official Opposition says that this cannot work and for this reason another formula must be found. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says the only two possibilities are partition or the opposite. However, there is a third possibility that is not taken into account.

It is very interesting to look at the history of South Africa. One notices immediately that neither of these two models, namely, absolute partition or the policy of the PFP, have ever worked in South Africa.

It has never been tried.

As a matter of fact, it has never worked anywhere in Africa.

If the NP insists on a certain degree of exclusivity in its characteristic way of dealing with the problems of Southern Africa, then it must be given recognition for this. I would be the first to say that I do not believe there are no other possibilities; as a matter of fact there can be other possibilities. However, no one has ever shown me a possibility with a better chance of working.

It can now be asked how successful we are in our programme. The hon. member for Wynberg saw fit this afternoon to quote from a speech I made in this House in 1980. I must say I was surprised at his insight after he had quoted from it, because he did show a little insight. I think the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said Ciskei’s contribution to the gross domestic product in the field of agriculture is R8 million. I do not quite remember whether it was he who said so, but in any case it was one of the hon. members in the backbenches. Nowadays one has a problem. If one wants to know what the policy of the PFP is, one need only see which hon. member in the backbenches the hon. member for Houghton goes and talks to and then one will hear what the policy of the PFP is. The other hon. members no longer count.

The point is that the hon. member sent me a note with the document from which he quoted it, but what was interesting was that he was using the figures for 1978. The hon. member is now in 1981, after all; he is no longer in 1978. The amount in 1981 is R15 million. It has doubled since 1978. I am not apologizing for this, because the Cabinet knows it; my commission told the Government that we have problems with the economic development of these Black States. However, the important point is that after we said this and other people had also said so, the Cabinet did not merely sit back and do nothing. The Cabinet took steps which even today, before many of these things have been implemented, are showing great promise. Now the Cabinet has announced certain things, and we can continue to get economic development rolling. But, Sir, the economic development we want to implement also fits into the policy of both these parties in respect of these Black areas. Now I just want to ask: If it is true that it suits the point of departure of both the parties, why did we have such negative standpoints this year from the official Opposition in particular? I want to spare the NRP a little, but I must say I am not quite satisfied with these political squatters. We will talk to them again. Why did we get such negative standpoints from the official Opposition? Those hon. members did not take the trouble to find out what the factual situation is.

We went to see what things were like there.

What is the factual situation? There are questions on the question paper to which hon. members will receive an answer. I do not intend to discuss the Ciskei this evening. In the Third Reading of the Ciskei Bill we shall discuss this. There are questions the hon. members asked and we shall answer those questions. Then those hon. members must tell us where they stand.

This evening I want to tell you, Sir, that Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda are already independent States. Those hon. members say our policy is not going to work. When the Ciskei is added, we shall have de jure figures of 7½ million people who will not be exercising political rights in the RSA. This is something which must be clear to the Opposition. We do not apologize for it. Those people’s political rights will be exercised in the Black States. [Interjections.] No, wait a moment; I do not speak to renegade Afrikaners.

Why are we today able to take the steps that the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism announced with regard to the Liquor Act? Why can we take steps to bring about the sharing of facilities; why can we take other steps in the field of sport, etc? It is very simple, and both those parties must acknowledge this, otherwise they must accept a “one man, one vote” situation. If the political sword, the fear of domination, is taken from one, one is more at ease in the process. If one can shake off the fear of domination, one is more at ease. Today I want to tell you that with the fourth State becoming independent, we are almost at the halfway mark as far as numbers are concerned. As far as I am concerned, the fear of domination is disappearing because the National Party’s policy is succeeding, and once the fear of domination has disappeared, I can be more at ease. It is as simple as that. In this way one gets closer to normalizing the situation.

There is a third point I want to touch on. It is something the hon. members do not understand properly. I have just said that as regards the constitutional aspect, once one has shaken off the fear of domination, one can move more freely. A second point which flows from this is that when one has brought about this constitutional situation for oneself and for other people, one can also move together in the constitutional field more freely. This creates an opportunity for the creation of a constellation and a confederation. I think we must interpret these concepts directly and not confuse the electorate of South Africa with the interpretation which those hon. members place on a constellation and a confederation. We must say quite simply that a constellation, and co-operation on the basis of a constellation, have an economic basis, whereas cooperation on the basis of a confederation has a political or constitutional basis. If we want to negotiate with our Black people—in this regard I am also addressing our side of this House, and the hon. the Minister of Cooperation and Development and the hon. the Prime Minister—when we speak of a constellation and a confederation, we must understand the problem which the Black people can have with these concepts. I am very serious when I say this because as far as I am concerned this lies at the heart of the future of South Africa. When we speak of a constellation and of a confederation, the Black people would like to see a fixed concept. As a matter of fact, they will want to see a symbol in the process, and it is not beyond the capability of NP thinking that there could be a symbol in this process. I think we would progress far more rapidly if this could be done. However, we then have the problem that if the NP wants to progress to the point where we know it will be easier for us to get the Black people to accept it, we have an official Opposition which takes every possible opportunity to bedevil the content we give to these concepts. People from the Ciskei were sitting upstairs here when we were debating the Ciskei Act. Rev. Xcaba told me at the time that he need not start the Opposition in the Ciskeian Parliament. All they need do is read the speeches of the official Opposition here. Then they would be able to suck enough venom to have a debate.

Now we are saddled with the problem—and this is another point I want to touch on. Why is it essential that we make these States independent? It is essential for the sake of a stable Southern Africa. All the Black States that became independent in this country, and the Ciskei which will become independent shortly, are basically anti-communist, basically pro-capitalist and less socialist than the new policy the hon. member for Yeoville has now worked out for the official Opposition. Now I just want to ask: If we can have four to six Black States in the Southern African context that will take the same sort of steps against the ANC as the Ciskeian Government is at present taking against the ANC, where can we find better allies? Even if we think that this state which will now come into existence is not economically viable, or is not viable for some other reason, for the sake of our continued existence in Southern Africa we must realize that those people can help us to continue to exist in Southern Africa. They are not ipso facto our enemies. Basically they are anti-ANC and anti-communist. The hon. the Minister of Police can inform this House under what pressure the situation in Ciskei is as regards the ANC. We know it. We have seen it. Just think back to the 1976 riots. Let us see how these Black States acted to deal with riots at schools and occurrences of this nature. After all, it is much easier for the Black people to deal with the situation in their own ranks.

They did not have stupid White inspectors.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to exchange a word with that lay preacher. It is not worthwhile. If this is so—and hon. members need not argue about this because they cannot deny it—I just want to ask if it is not in the interests of stability in Southern Africa that we make these States independent. An hon. member over there is shaking his head and one can hear it because it is making a terrible noise. In any case, he does not understand any of these things. However, I want to go further and put the question as to whether the independence of these States is not also in the interests of the economy of South Africa. Hon. members must answer me and say why they think that it is not in the economic interests of South Africa for these States to become independent. All the hon. members do is say—and then they quote me and other people—that the economy has not developed rapidly enough or that there is not sufficient economic activity in the Black States. I concede this and the Government also concedes it, and that is why the Government has taken steps. However, we must go further. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said today that 75% of South Africa’s population is urbanized and that the cities cover 4% of the surface of South Africa. He accused the NP of not taking cognizance of these facts. I investigated the accusation of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and found that as early as 1953 the NP undertook its first investigation, a few years after it came into power. Prior to that the entire question of the urbanization of the Afrikaner had been fully investigated and that investigation, which was carried out in the ’thirties, was the basis for the investigation of 1953. Before hon. members ever thought of this problem the Afrikaner in this country was faced by that problem. He was not only faced with the urbanization situation, but also with a poor white problem.

What did he do then?

The Afrikaner pulled himself together. The Afrikaner did not run away.

They became urbanized. You cannot get away from that.

I did not deny that. I said the Afrikaner conceded that.

However you do not want to allow the Black man to do that.

It is very far from the truth that the NP does not want to recognize the urbanization of the Black man.

You send them back in buses as soon as they arrive here.

The hon. member must realize that the Urban Areas Consolidation Act of 1945 is not an Act which …

You hide behind every Act, but you cannot get away from it.

That is not an Act which was passed by this party. It is not an Act passed by the NP. It is an Act passed by the old United Party. All the NP still does today … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton said she would still take up this matter with me. However, I am still waiting for the hon. member to do so. Last year in March she promised me that she would challenge me on my standpoint, but to date she has not done so and this session is almost a thing of the past. She must still approach me on this matter. That Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1945.

But not section 10. That was the brain child of Dr. Verwoerd.

Section 10 has been part of that Act since 1945. It was amended in 1952 and in 1956.

Helen, do you mean to tell me that section 10 was not part of the Act in 1945? [Interjections.]

There is no problem here. However, what is the basis of the Act of 1945? I am not speaking about section 10 of that Act now. I am speaking about the spirit of the Act itself. I should like to answer the question of the hon. member for Wynberg. In the first place the spirit of the Act made it part of a trilogy of Acts. The Urban Areas Act was aimed at putting influx control into effect and regulating the position of those people who were in White areas at that stage. In 1952 and in 1956 that Act was amended and additions were made to section 10.

Therefore, when the NP takes action against squatters nowadays in terms of that Act … Now I want to say that I feel very sorry for the hon. the Minister of Cooperation and Development because he was the one who had to take action. I think the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs should rather have acted. In any case it was people from Transkei who were involved; it was not our own Blacks (“kaffertjies”). They came here from outside, from across our borders. [Interjections.] Therefore, when we take action in terms of that Act, we are not depriving anyone of any right. All we are doing, is to protect the existing rights of people. That is all. It is as simple as that.

You are casting them into the outer darkness. That is what you are doing.

Now the hon. member for Wynberg alleges that because we moved the squatters from Nyanga, we are disregarding the entire process of urbanization of the Black people. I want to put it to the hon. member for Wynberg that if he thinks that the squatters of Nyanga are an example of urbanization, he has not yet seen what the urbanization of Black people really is; he is living in a fool’s paradise. To think that 2 000 people squatting is urbanization is naïve, to say the least. I want to invite the hon. member for Wynberg to come with me. I shall take him across the length and breadth of South Africa and show him what the process of urbanization of Black people really means. This is something we must accept. We accept it, and the Government has in fact accepted it. The Government has even gone so far as to change its policy in order to make place for the concept of urbanization. Of course the Government did not do so lightly. However, there are very good reasons for it. Why must the Government now be criticized because it adopts this standpoint, whereas in fact it is a standpoint the hon. members of the Opposition have asked the Government to adopt? Actually, we could not really accede to their requests because we had first to ensure our political security by means of the independence of the Black States. Now we can get to those things.

Hon. members of the Opposition can laugh about this. They can do whatever they like about it. The fact remains, however, that if we can make these Black States independent, this is the Government’s top priority because this is the only possible way we can prevent a system of “one man, one vote”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to refer briefly to what the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt had to say because I think predominantly he was attempting to justify the stand of the NP on independent States. We have dealt with that argument quite frequently and again very recently when we dealt with the Ciskei legislation as well. However, I should like to tell the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt that he perhaps inadvertently expressed a tremendous truism in a plural society, i.e. that a new political dispensation in South Africa can only be worked out successfully and be accepted if the fear of domination is removed from all the component parts of that plural society. Then we would agree with him completely because the substitution of majority domination in lieu of minority domination is not the answer in a plural society.

I should also just like to turn briefly to the hon. member for Sea Point and react briefly to what he had to say. He advocated quite eloquently here that South Africa required a process of change and he went to great lengths to demonstrate that there was fairly dynamic change in South Africa, the sort of change that they had been advocating over the years and that possibly they would hope that more change would occur in the future. I should like to say to the hon. member for Sea Point—and in no way should this be interpreted as justification for what the present government is doing—that any person or any group in authority can bring about change. That is relatively easy, but that is not the major criterion. One should bring about change in a stable, peaceful and prosperous environment. That is the difference. Simply to advocate change, to identify where the change should occur and then to try to preach that all the time, will in many instances have exactly the reverse effect of what is anticipated. I should also like to say to the hon. member for Sea Point that in his very own constituency he had a very good example of what happens when one brings about change without stability and peace, and that was the opening of the beaches in Sea Point. The hon. member knows the history of that change that was forced in the area. [Interjections.] But the essential criteria of peaceful and stable change …

What has happened there?

The hon. member asks what has happened there.

Tell us what has happened there.

There has been over-running of those beaches. There have been representations to the City Council to bring in policemen there, to patrol the area effectively, to introduce toll gates to control people going on to the beach and in order to control the uncontrollable, and the hon. member for Sea Point knows it.

[Inaudible.]

I should now like to refer the hon. member for Sea Point to the Zimbabwe situation. Very traumatic change was brought about in Zimbabwe. Does the hon. member for Sea Point agree with the changes that have been brought about there?

It depends upon what happens there.

The hon. member can say “yes” or “no”.

Why should he?

Does the hon. member agree with the changes that have been brought about in Zimbabwe? [Interjections.] I shall tell hon. members why the hon. member for Sea Point cannot answer. It is because he knows that the PFP hailed the changes that took place in Zimbabwe. They hailed the arrival of Mugabe. [Interjections.] Of course they did. [Interjections.]

Order!

Now they are paying the price of instability. The hon. member for Sea Point and his colleagues know that because of the absence of stability in Zimbabwe they are inevitably going to end up as a one-party State. Therefore I should like to re-emphasize to the hon. member for Sea Point that to bring about change alone has no legitimacy. It must be in the context of stability, peace and prosperity.

I should now like to take a look at the general scene in constitution-making in South Africa as it is at this moment when we are about to prorogue Parliament. I think it will generally be accepted by all hon. members that a climate has been created in South Africa for constitutional reconstruction. There is pressure for it. We have created bodies such as the President’s Council which is tangible evidence of the new initiative. In addition to that, there was the Schlebusch Commission. We also had the Lombard report, the Quail Commission in Ciskei and very recently we had the Buthelezi Commission as well. In addition to this considerable concentration of the national resource to investigate alternative constitutions in South Africa we have also had a plethora of forums, of congresses and of seminars and a multitude of articles emanating from political scientists and other academics. In fact one finds the concentration of effort on constitutional design so intensive today that nobody will deny that South Africa is now irrevocably on the road of constitutional change. The imperative need at the moment is in fact to try to develop a dispensation that will have the ingredients of success in South Africa.

Then, of course, the difficulty arises to try to determine which of these political dispensations will be able to bring about the essential changes in South Africa in a stable environment. I and my party believe that there are two major criteria by which any new political dispensation or proposal should be judged. In the first instance it must take cognizance of the realities of the legitimate aspirations of all groups in South Africa. I shall be returning to that in a moment, Sir. Secondly, it must produce, manufacture, implement and must be capable of maintaining successful conflict resolution in our plural society. I shall also come back to that in a moment.

Returning to the first point, the recognition and correct identification of the legitimate aspirations of all groups, is not as simple as one would at first believe it to be. I believe that, particularly among the liberal school of political philosophers, academics and the PFP, there is a misidentification of what is a legitimate and underlying attitude and rejection manifestation of the present situation. I believe that if one makes that cardinal error of substituting rejection manifestations for legitimate needs then it is impossible to produce a successful alternative constitutional model for South Africa. However, more important than that as well, is the ability to produce a conflict resolution mechanism in a new dispensation in a plural society that will maintain stability in order to bring about successful change. There are many examples throughout the world of where there has been a misinterpretation of the rejection manifestation of the present system and an incorrect assessment of the underlying attitudes of people; and, more important, the misapplication of a new political dispensation that could not produce a successful conflict resolution mechanism. One need only think of Cyprus, Lebanon, India and Pakistan, Northern Ireland and of the old Federation of Rhodesia to see where there has been a failure in the conflict resolution mechanism in a plural society. Therefore significant concentration of effort must be placed on the successful production of conflict resolution in a plural society, particularly in South Africa where it is more imperative that conflict resolution mechanisms should work because here we have a clash of aspirations, value systems and philosophies between the First World order and the Third World.

I should like to say to the PFP specifically that I believe that in terms of their proposals in regard to South Africa, they do not satisfy either of these two criteria. I believe that their modus operandi indicates that they are operating purely on the dissatisfaction of people with the present situation and interpreting that as the underlying needs of the various minority groups. Secondly, we are yet to hear about the conflict resolution mechanisms that they propose for a plural society.

One can articlate very eloquently, as the hon. member for Sea Point did, on what people dislike in a country, on what has to be changed and what is unacceptable. One can go on and on for 20 years as the PFP has, without producing an alternative model that can satisfy those two criteria.

There is a new intervention factor that has crept into South African politics that we must beware of and take into account. I refer to the attempts by the liberal school of political academics as well as the PFP to seek legitimacy for their alternative proposals merely through the legitimacy of pressure groups. I believe South Africa will shortly see the operation of these pressure groups on a scale never experienced before in this country. They claim legitimacy because of the support of these groups rather than adherence to the two criteria that I mentioned earlier. Those legitimacy groups will certainly be the internal and external liberal academic political scientists. We have recently seen a plethora of articles emanating from overseas and internally that are proposing political change that takes no cognizance of the reality of the situation in South Africa. In addition to the liberal academic school, there will also be pressure exercised on South Africa from the internal and external media. Again the PFP will claim legitimacy for their policy purely on the basis of support from those areas. Then there are two further areas from which there will be pressure exerted, with consequent legitimacy claimed by the PFP. International business cartels will be brought to the fore and overseas political groups, including certain Western governments, will also be brought into the fray in an attempt to give legitimacy to the standpoints of the liberal academics and political parties in South Africa. Therein lies the inherent danger for South Africa, because whatever proposal the PFP puts forward will be inadequate in terms of the conflict resolution mechanisms required in South Africa, unless one takes cognisance of the reality of the plurality of South African society.

Let me tell the hon. members of the PFP that we believe that the next step in their constitutional design is going to be to advocate, in South Africa, the consociational model. Whether it is going to be advocated at a regional level or whether it is going to be advocated at the national level, I nevertheless believe that that will be the next step in the PFP’s strategy, and they will claim legitimacy for it on the basis of pressure group support rather than on the basis of the inherent value of conflict resolution in South Africa, which consequently produces stability and which is the prerequisite for successful change in this country.

The consociational model will not come as any surprise to members of the PFP because it approximates to the policy that the PFP has found it so difficult to tell South Africa about. I want to repeat what I said earlier. Whether it is advocated at a regional level, or at a national level, it comes down to the same thing.

Is that not your model for metropolitan government in Natal?

I shall be replying to that in a moment. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Umbilo did spend quite some time on that, and I do hope the hon. member for Sea Point learned something from it. The consociational model recommends the division of the electoral area into regions whose sizes are not specified. Then it proposes proportional representation based approximately on the numbers of people living in the various areas. Then attempts are made to bring in further representation of minorities, a minority veto and also a bill of rights. That is known as the consociational model. It suffers from one inherent weakness, however, and that is that it is unable to take cognizance of the reality of the clash between First-World and Third-World value systems, practices and philosophies in South Africa. There are umpteen examples of the minority veto and the bill of rights being thrown out at the very first opportunity, because irrespective of the over-representation of a minority, the majority will still prevail. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Sea Point were to look North into Zimbabwe, he would see a preview of what is likely to happen in South Africa if PFP policy is implemented.

Do you think there is a consociational policy in Zimbabwe?

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens should listen rather than interject, because even if he himself cannot see the road ahead clearly, there are some of us who can.

You know nothing about consociational policy.

Let me ask the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens whether he would not agree that PFP policy is based on the consociational model.

Consociational?

Would he agree that it is based on proportional representation, based on the numbers in each particular group—if one could identify the groups—with a minority veto, a bill of rights and over-representation for minorities? [Interjections.] Does the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens agree with that?

It is half right and half wrong.

So it is half right and half wrong?

Yes.

Order! The hon. member can make his own speech.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am merely illustrating to the hon. members of the PFP the inherent difficulty in advocating their policy. We therefore understand why it is impossible for them to debate, in a reasonable manner across the floor of this House, the details and implications of the policy they advocate. The reason is firstly that they see dissatisfaction with the present system as identifying the legitimate needs of people. They do not recognize the reality of the plural nature of South African society or the group dynamics involved in it, and of course they will never spell out to us their concept of conflict resolution in South Africa.

What have you been reading?

I have been reading PFP policy. I should like to say that this problem which we have of the incongruence between the PFP and the reality of South Africa is bedeviling the whole political process and constitution making in this area, this claim to legitimacy when there is no legitimacy in terms of the reality, the attempt to use pressure groups to legitimize their position and the attempt to capitalize on dissatisfaction. That is what the PFP is all about. Therefore we contend that the PFP will never subject itself to cross-examination before a council such as the President’s Council. [Interjections.] They will never do it, absolutely never, because the transparency of their policy will be evident immediately.

I should like to ask the hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens or any hon. member of the PFP to tell us before the end of the session—there are still a number of hours available in this particular debate and there are still a number of speakers available on that side—and to spell out very clearly their proposals for conflict resolution in South Africa.

You must read the book. You did not read it properly.

The book is so evasive, it can have a number of different interpretations. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said the consociational model was not their philosophy.

I did not say that.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North said it was. I should like to ask the hon. members to spell out absolutely clearly what their proposals for conflict resolution in South Africa are, and then to give us the supportive information which is necessary to support the logic of their argument. They also recognize that South Africa is a plural society but, whilst they recognize this, whilst they recognize the fact that there are different groups in South Africa with different value systems, they do not accommodate them. Therein lies the fallacy of the PFP’s policy for South Africa. If they are not prepared to go to the President’s Council, at least let them tell us here what their policy is. I should like to ask the hon. member for Sea Point: Does he agree that on a regional basis in South Africa the consociational model will work? Is it adequate for conflict resolution in the South African situation? Will the hon. member for Sea Point tell us?

I am not allowed to answer.

The hon. member says he is not allowed to answer. I think he must consult the party Whip first. As he is sitting there, the hon. member for Sea Point knows, because he is a South African with many years of political experience, that it is an inadequate mechanism which was merely used by a pressure group in association with other pressure groups in order to express dissatisfaction.

And your policy leads to “one man, one vote” in a unitary system.

I want to come to the gravamen of my argument to verify the point that the only interest which the PFP, the liberal academics and those kinds of architects associated with them have, is to break down the existing structure in South Africa. That is the only focal point, the only thrust of their political input in South Africa. Once they have destroyed the existing system, they are going to throw South Africa to the wolves on a wing and a prayer that there will be good faith and that the lion and the lamb will lie down together in South Africa.

Not one of your speakers has opposed the Government tonight.

We are talking policy to policy, and the hon. members of the PFP should not shirk their responsibility to tell the House about their policy. Why keep enunciating and articulating protest upon protest in South Africa? Why do they not come out and tell us what their policy is based on and what conflict resolution mechanism they are going to introduce in South Africa? Do they agree that there is a clash between First World and Third World value systems? Do they believe that there is an equitable distribution of wealth? How are they going to control that in their proposed political dispensation?

One can only come to the final conclusion that the PFP’s performance in the House during this session has been a true example of their modus operandi. No more and no less can be expected of them in any other forum where proper constitutional debate is taking place. I challenge the hon. members of the PFP: If they will not give evidence before the President’s Council and will not serve there, they must at least tell the House what the implications of their policy will be.

Mr. Speaker, it was very entertaining to listen to the attack which the hon. member for Durban North made on the official Opposition. It is now becoming an annual institution for that hon. member to deal very effectively with the official Opposition. [Interjections.] I must congratulate the hon. member on the very well-balanced speeches which he always makes here, and on the way in which he exposed the weaknesses in the Opposition’s policy here this evening. I agree with most of the things which he said about the PFP this evening. Because I should also like to deal with the official Opposition this evening, I shall not react any further now to the hon. member for Durban North.

This evening the hon. the Leader of the Opposition reviewed the session which is now coming to an end, with the focus on the NP. I want to do the same, but my focus will be on the official Opposition.

We have come to the end of a short and very strenuous session, but at the end of this session there is a huge question-mark hanging over the official Opposition as they sit here. The hon. member for Yeoville, who is unfortunately not here this evening, sprang to his feet in indignation at the Transvaal congress of the PFP last year and cried out: “If we cannot exercise our democratic right, there is something wrong with our party”. At the end of this session, those words are more true than ever before. There is something wrong with the PFP. There is something seriously amiss in the ranks of the official Opposition. To the intelligent observer it was clear throughout this session that the tension in the PFP was building up …

Shame!

… and that it was becoming increasingly difficult for them to reconcile the positive Schwarz faction in that party with the far left Suzman-Boraine faction. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is normally not an unfriendly person, has become sullen and withdrawn this session. At times it looked as though he was a deeply worried man. How could it be otherwise?

He has been hijacked.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is being ground between the factions in his party.

We, on our part, sympathize with the hon. member for Yeoville, who is a patriotic South African. On our tours abroad we have repeatedly seen how the hon. member for Yeoville came up for South Africa. During this session much new evidence was produced of un-South African attitudes in the official Opposition. Although the hon. member for Yeoville made a particularly constructive speech on defence matters in this House, his colleagues unmistakably found his positive attitude hard to tolerate. It has been clear for a long time that the hon. member for Yeoville is at loggerheads with some people in his party because they do not wish to summarily condemn revolutionary organizations such as Swapo. This spirit in the PFP is nothing new, but it seems to have become worse and seems to have been strengthened with the infusion of new blood in their ranks from the recent election. [Interjections.] The Argus of 9 September 1978—please note, their own newspaper—tells us about the rough treatment the hon. member for Yeoville is getting in that party over his patriotism. I shall quote from a report which appeared in that newspaper—

From this one can observe what is happening in their ranks. They want to condemn Swapo, but at the same time they do not really want to condemn it either. Surely it is clearly apparent from this now what was happening in their congress. The hon. member for Yeoville was the victim in that situation, because he tried to stem the flood.$

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

I am sorry but I do not have the time to reply to a question.

One can therefore see how divided the PFP is when it comes to matters of patriotism. One can also discern the discord among those people when it comes to the condemnation of Swapo. For years a spirit has radiated from the Opposition in this House which has, to say the least, shocked patriotic South Africans.

According to all evidence South Africa is the main target of the Marxist onslaught in Southern Africa. For all who have eyes to see it is clear that there is a total onslaught on South Africa, but the Opposition continues to dismiss this as it were an imaginary onslaught of Martians, of little men from outer space. We experienced it again in this debate this evening when they did not want to agree that there was a total onslaught on South Africa. In the debate on the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information, the hon. member for Sea Point performed an egg dance around the concept of “total onslaught” and in the course of that debate he came to light with this astonishing statement—

From this one may once again discern the suspicion which is being sowed when we on this side warn against the total onslaught on South Africa. It was also the hon. member for Sea Point, who was once Leader of the Opposition, who, on his political safaris in Africa, left African leaders with the impression that he was in favour of Swapo.

The hon. member for Houghton also rejected the concept of a total onslaught. At a meeting held in Vredehoek, Cape Town, the hon. member for Houghton said there was no total onslaught on South Africa; the onslaught was on apartheid. On another occasion, according to a report in The Cape Times, she said—

One can see how the hon. member scoffs at the threat against South Africa. She scoffs at South Africa’s distress. In her eyes South Africa’s enemies are not enemies, because she is soft on South Africa’s enemies.

Tyll Eulenspieghel said: “The people beat me, but I made them do it”. If the image of the official Opposition is increasingly becoming that of a party which sides with South Africa’s opponents, surely it is its own fault and it should not complain if we reproach them for doing so.

During the Railway debate the hon. member for Berea accused the Government of applying sanctions against neighbouring States. The hon. member for Berea knows for a fact that the Government goes out of its way to help our neighbouring States and that South Africa does not bully its neighbours. Nevertheless he accused the Government of wishing to apply sanctions against its neighbouring States. With this attitude the hon. member for Berea is in fact acting as an intercessor for the Marxist Mr. Mugabe, a man who indicted South Africa at the UN and even advocated a boycott against South Africa. Does the hon. member for Berea think that the hon. the Prime Minister would be so stupid as to torpedo his own initiatives and to burn his own bridges—and do so over a few railway trucks? It is, after all, the policy of this Government to reduce the conflict potential in Southern Africa and to seek greater co-operation with its neighbours. We have said this repeatedly and spelled out what we meant.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House certainly cannot be blamed if it places ever larger question-marks against the motives of the official Opposition. It is indeed true that even Black leaders are beginning to see through the transparent cloak of the official Opposition. Black leaders have condemned them in blistering terms for their conduct during the squatter situation here in the Cape Peninsula. Chief Sebe of the Ciskei labelled the group of PFP MPs who visited his country as “hypocrites who slither like a snake in the night to poison the people”.

This is the very first time that Black leaders have condemned a White political party so sharply—a party which swaggers around abroad saying that it speaks on behalf of the Black people of South Africa. I repeat: The Black people are beginning to see through the transparent cloak of that party. They also had a fall out with Chief Buthelezi. Chief Gatsha Buthelezi dealt them a severe rebuff when his Inkatha movement suddenly withdrew from provisional talks on the holding of a convention. Chief Buthelezi said: “We do not have time for such childish political games”. What a rebuff that was for that party. But they have thick skins, Sir.

If the Opposition and its fellow travellers scatter so easily at this early stage, in the elementary preliminary stages of their much vaunted national convention, as they scattered over this issue, then one can only imagine what would happen the day all the wild people who are still going to be invited to that convention, the militants and the communistic Black organizations, the Man delas, and of course Mr. Jaap Marais, turn up. They will probably not omit Mr. Jaap Marais, especially not after they were so pally-pally with him during the last election, and co-operated with him against the National Party. Surely they cannot omit him.

Sir, I am no prophet, but I want to predict here this evening that if the Mandela people do not kick over that convention table of theirs, then Mr. Jaap Marais will.

In the previous debate I asked the official Opposition why they did not proceed with their plan to hold a national convention themselves. We see now that they were engaged in arranging such a convention through an external agency. The Black Sash was working on it. They then saw that it was not going to work out. To this day I have not yet had a reply from them to the question as to why they are not proceeding with it. They cannot proceed with it because they are already quarrelling about it among themselves. I want to predict further that we shall not receive a reply from them in this connection either.

I want to conclude by saying that we have reached a watershed with the official Opposition in this country. After this there will have to be a very clear separation between those who wish to follow the road of peace and reconciliation and those who wish to seek confrontation in this country, those who do not care two hoots whether the advocates of violence drag this country over the edge into the abyss. The moment of truth has arrived for the official Opposition, as they sit here this evening. The hon. member for Yeoville, who is not very popular in that party—surely we know this—issued a warning as long ago as 1977 when he said that the Opposition must choose whether its base is in White politics or not. Today it does not seem as though the Opposition cares very much any more for a power base in White politics.

I want to repeat: One gets the impression that the Opposition does not care very much more for a power base in White politics. That is why one gets the impression that this House that the Opposition’s heart is no longer in this democratic forum. One gets the impression throughout that their heart is clearly in extra-parliamentary activities. They live to a greater extent outside this House than they do inside this House. The hon. member for Bryanston might as well agree with me. It astonishes me that the hon. member is so quiet this evening. Hon. members know that that hon. member is known as the wild man of South African politics. It does indeed seem as though the leftist power clique in the Opposition, which the hon. member for Yeoville complained about, has not only hijacked that party, but that this power clique has also torn the White heart out of that party. That is why we had the accusation on the part of the hon. member for Bethlehem this evening that they are no longer pleading for the Whites. It does seem as though that leftist power clique is placing the official Opposition on a confrontation course. We want to warn the moderates in the ranks of the official Opposition that they must dig in their heels, because the leftist power clique in the party is placing them on a confrontation course.

In sharp contrast to the radical negativism which the official Opposition displayed during this session, the NP put up an impressive display of reform and dynamism. We came forward with one step after another.

The foundations were laid for evolutionary solutions to South Africa’s problems. Let me enumerate what has been done here during the past session. A fourth homeland is soon to become independent, and others will follow. The foundations of a confederation of States are being laid before our very eyes. The great vision of our national leaders, of a kind of commonwealth of nations, is in the process of fulfilment. We have progressed to the very gates of political self-determination for the Coloureds and the Indians. It is only a matter of time before we arrive at that. These achievements of the NP in this House during this past session are in shrill contrast to the destructive negativism of the official Opposition, which continues to shoot down and continues to boycott everything which the Government initiates. That is why they have acquired for themselves the reputation of being the boycott party.

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to try to defend the hon. member for Yeoville tonight, but I thank the hon. member for Bloemfontein North for his long speech about the hon. member for Yeoville. It is quite ironic that I should speak after this hon. member. He used strong words, and I feel that in using these words, he included me. I wonder whether he remembers what has happened since 1967 and I wonder whether he really believes that having travelled all over the world and represented our country everywhere, I was involved in what he accuses our party of. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will forgive me if I do not continue in the same vein as that in which he conducted his speech tonight. However, I have listened carefully to the debate on the Third Reading of this Bill and I was especially intrigued by the speech made by the hon. Minister of Water Affairs, Forestry and Environmental Conservation. His total inability to move away from the word “irrelevant” can only be compared to the political ideological catatonia of the NP. However, he said one thing which this House will have to think about and that is that because the PFP has become irrelevant, the future relevance of South African politics will be centred around the NP and the President’s Council. I am sorry the hon. the Minister is not here but perhaps the hon. member of the NP following me will tell this House what he really meant by that.

There he comes now.

I see that the hon. the Minister has just entered and I would like to ask him whether he meant that this House was now irrelevant. I would like to ask him what he meant when he said that the future would not be decided between the Government and the Opposition but between the NP and the President’s Council.

I was referring to the constitutional future.

I will accept that the hon. the Minister was referring to the constitutional future. In other words, this House is no longer relevant. Secondly, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he therefore believes that a one-party system should in the future be followed in the constitutional sphere in this country. He or any other hon. member can answer me.

I believe the hon. the Minister was a medical doctor once upon a time and I want him to tell me whether the statements that I am making are relevant or not because I make these statements on behalf of the PFP. The approach of the PFP is that we in South Africa should have a health policy which will ensure that our entire population, whatever their colour, enjoys good health and is in a position to make a maximum contribution to the economy of the country whilst being able to enjoy personal, family and community happiness as well as security. I think he will agree that that is a relevant statement. It is also therefore necessary to ensure not only that we have modern, well-equipped and properly staffed hospitals but also that community health services are available throughout the country to provide preventative, promotional, rehabilative, pediatric and geriatric services over a wide spectrum to the people in the comfort and security of their own community. I think we can all agree with this. Even every hon. member on the Government side, I believe, should agree with this. I should like to point out that medical services in South Africa have, over the past decade or more, been undermined as a result of the failure on the part of the Government to give adequate financial and moral support to those services. The Government’s delirium tremens-like hallucinations about separate Black, Brown and White futures have proved too costly in terms of money and manpower. The high cost of apartheid has resulted in too little money being spent on health services, with the obvious results thereof increasing.

Why didn’t you just table your speech?

Marius, who wrote your speech?

The percentage of our gross national product spent on health declined from 4,2% in 1976 to 3,4% in 1980, and the hon. the Minister of Finance should know that this has happened. This figure represents only one-third of the percentage of the gross national product spent on health services in the USA. Clearly inadequate health budgets, particularly during the 1970’s, resulted in a deterioration of the morale of medical personnel. Dissatisfaction with salaries, with conditions of service and with research facilities resulted in the resignation of many members of the medical profession, particularly senior staff members of our hospitals. Those people left in favour of more satisfactory job opportunities in other spheres, either in the private sector in South Africa or even overseas. Very little has been done to remedy this situation, and we all know that when senior staff is lost it takes a long time before junior staff can be trained to reach the same standard of efficiency as those who have left.

Poor planning has caused nearly 96% of the health budget to be spent on curative medicine, while only 4% of the budget is spent on the other three important legs of a proper health service—the preventive, promotional and rehabilitative health services. If anybody should ask me what the source of my information is, I should gleefully refer to statements made by the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions himself.

*I should like to quote from a speech made by the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions on 2 September. In that speech he said something with which I agree whole-heartedly. I must give him credit for that.

The best part of your speech is when you are quoting me.

Well, I can still achieve something worthwhile in my life. However, I do not quite know whether hon. members opposite could say the same. [Interjections.] I quote what the hon. the Minister said—

The hon. the Minister omitted to say, however, that we also had little money—

That is what the hon. the Minister himself says.

†The way in which our medical services are conducted has resulted in a concentration of the curative health services in urban areas. This is something that seems to be at the expense of the lower socioeconomic groups, those people who are living far away from excellent medical facilities. It is therefore not surprising that every second Black or Coloured child that dies in South Africa is under the age of five years.

Disgraceful.

We in the PFP believe that South Africa with its vast variety of people of different racial, ethnic and geographic backgrounds, presents a unique opportunity for medical research and development. We believe in adequate financial support by the Government of a more imaginative and extensive programme of medical research, development and training in South Africa. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that that is relevant. One has to spend enough money on medical research in order to ensure a good future in medicine. However, what is the present position in South Africa? Only 2% of South Africa’s health budget is spent on preventive medicine, whereas in the USA the figure is 19%.

No, you are talking about the wealthiest country in the world. We are a developing economy.

When I say that we are spending only 2% of our health budget on preventive medicine the hon. the Minister will see that he is accusing himself even further because we should be spending far more of our health budget on preventive medicine.

I say do not compare us with the USA.

What are we spending on drugs and pharmaceuticals? May I make a comparison again? I should like the hon. the Minister of Finance to listen to this. We are spending 21% of the health budget on drugs whereas in the USA the figure is only 8%. Therefore this is negating what the hon. the Minister of Finance was trying to say. Preventive medicine is also not receiving the planning and financial support that is required. In 1979 only 2,2% of the allocated health budget was spent on preventive medicine. This figure increased to 2,85% in 1980. This inadequacy was recognized by Dr. Johan De Beer, the Director-General of Health, Welfare and Pensions. He stated recently that this figure would gradually be increased annually until the amount spent on preventive medicine amounted to 15% of our health budget. Within days of his making this statement, a memorandum was sent to hospital superintendents and to the directors of hospital services cutting down on the preventive treatment of tuberculosis and in regard to mental and family health services. In addition, further cuts have been made more recently in preventive medicine in our health budget. Recently, the Medical Officer of Health in Cape Town made several statements in the press and some of them, I believe, were very important. He said that if the present lack of money continues medical officers of health will become a dying breed.

We in the PFP believe that all forms of racial discrimination must be removed from our country’s health services. It is no good the hon. the Minister saying that Whites must treat Whites and that Blacks must treat Blacks in this country because his own policy does not allow this. The Western Cape is a Coloured labour preference area. No Blacks are allowed to train here as nurses. They have to train in Port Elizabeth. When they come back to the Western Cape they are not allowed to nurse Blacks. So how does the statement apply that Blacks must nurse Blacks? This is not even possible in the Western Cape. If one looks at our hospitals in the Western Cape one will find that it is not only Whites who are nursing Whites and Coloureds. Coloured nurses are also nursing Whites. In the Transvaal the same thing applies to Blacks. I should like to ask hon. members on that side of the House: When is expediency more important than policy? I ask this because they are changing their policies whenever it is expedient to suit themselves, even when it is totally against what is right. Unfortunately, the inability of the Government to recognize this failure owing to apartheid, their reluctance to change, and their tendency to try sham reform rather than real reform, is not only a threat to our health services but it is also a threat to our whole nation.

Mr. Speaker, it definitely is a privilege to be called upon to deliver a speech at this time of night. This has never happened to me before. However, I cannot say that it is a great privilege to follow after the hon. member for Parktown, because he delivered more or less the same speech as the one that he delivered during the vote of the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions. He went on in the same vein and I want to advise him to read the excellent replies that he received from the hon. the Minister on that occasion once again. Then he will have answers to all his questions. The hon. member made a great fuss about the fact that more money should be spent on health, and who would not agree with him?

Money must be spent on various aspects of health.

That is correct, and the hon. member said so on a previous occasion too.

That is the only speech he can make.

It is the health of the country that is at issue.

During that debate we told the hon. member that we are a Third World country and we then asked him to show us another Third World country that is anything in comparison to us in that regard. I say once again that the hon. member simply has to read that debate once again and he will receive answers to all his questions. All the hon. member really wanted to say, was that he has already travelled abroad often, and I assume that he wants to say that he undertook those journeys in the interests of South Africa. If he was able to do something in the interests of South Africa at the time, however, he has cancelled it all out now.

This is basically a financial debate, Sir, and if we look back to the 1981 budget, there are two aspects that stand out clearly. In the first instance, the budget succeeds, without having a detrimental effect on the economy, in not destroying those elements that are necessary to cool down the overheated economy. In the second instance, the general public feels relieved, because everyone expected a stricter budget. The remark that the hon. member for Yeoville made earlier on during the session about “vote now and pay later”, was therefore completely inaccurate. To criticize a budget like this is an extremely difficult task, as the hon. member for Yeoville experienced too. That is why his most substantive criticism was aimed at inflation, because this is a continuing, serious problem. In column 1060 of Hansard, 17 August 1981 the hon. member referred to inflation and put the following interesting question—

I listened with a great deal of interest because this is a topical question, but then the hon. member just left it hanging in the air. Why? Because he knows that the Government is already doing everything in its power, without bringing the economy to a standstill, to combat inflation. The rest of the answer is not up to the Government, but chiefly up to the private sector. Why does the hon. Opposition not take the workers to task with regard to unrealistic wage demands and low productivity? Why does the hon. member also not take commerce and industry to task on the subject of exploitation and excessive profits? No, they say the Government must take action against them because the market mechanism is supposedly no longer succeeding. After all, the hon. member for Yeoville said this.

Now they do not say a word.

Now I come to an interesting point. With the introduction of the economic democracy that was announced in the Press the day before yesterday, the Opposition testified to its confidence in the market mechanism, and what is strange, is that the hon. member for Yeoville was their spokesman, a person who denied the market mechanism during the Second Reading debate.

That is not true.

He did. [Interjections.]

He is a social democrat.

Let us listen to what the hon. member himself said, and I want to quote him in English, because he spoke in English.

It is the National Government that is undermining and disrupting the market mechanism in South Africa.

With reference to the Government, he said—

I emphasize “so-called”—

[Interjections.]

†He is denouncing it. [Interjections.]

Order!

Exploitation is indeed the ugly face of capitalism, something to which the hon. the Minister has referred. The question, however, is why the hon. Opposition hides behind the Government when it should be denouncing those bodies in the most direct terms. The reason is, of course, that the official Opposition is obsessed with only one objective and that is to embarrass the Government. [Interjections.] Their entire policy and entire political conscience are subject to political expediency, even to the detriment of the country and all its people.

Showing off your English, are you?

For this reason that party has never made any positive contribution in South Africa and never will. [Interjections.] I must admit, though, that the hon. member for Yeoville proved to be an exception during the debate on the Defence Vote when he did make a positive contribution.

Oh, thank you very much!

That proves my point, however, because by doing so he was an obvious embarrassment to the rest of his party. [Interjections.]

*I see in The Cape Times of 2 October 1981 that the hon. member for Pinelands commented on the sixth Wiehahn report that dealt chiefly with the mining industry. I admit that the critical aspect of that report is the change in circumstances so that Black people may qualify for blasting certificates, and this in actual fact means doing away with job reservation. I quote from the report—

That is the report. It is a blatant attempt by the hon. member to create conflict and embarrassment for the Government. After all, it is not a group of right-wing mineworkers that is at issue; it is the stability and prosperity of the largest economic industry in South Africa that is at stake.

In the second place it is clear that the hon. member has no understanding or sympathy for the worker of South Africa, more specifically for the White worker. It is a sharp contrast to the findings of the commission, since the commission deals with the fears of the White workers. In this regard I quote briefly from the report of the commission, as follows—

The commission stated six fundamental requirements based on standards of work, proficiency, equal remuneration and protection against racial victimization. These recommendations are endorsed by the Government in the White Paper, but it is added—

As the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs said, it must of course be negotiated in the first place between the employer and the employee himself. Although the recommendations refer specifically to racial victimization, in my opinion it should be stated in clear terms, as the Government has done several times, that it will not be permitted for White mineworkers to be replaced by Black workers at a lower remuneration. The most important general reason why there is a movement away from job reservation, is the shortage of trained workers. Now the question is: What is the position in the mining industry? There are a few concrete references in the report to the supply and demand of skilled labour. On page 15 reference is made to an anticipated shortage of 500 artisans and 1 350 mineworkers at a certain stage. On page 17 reference is made to the quarterly reports by the Chamber of Mines which indicates a permanent shortage of 250 holders of blasting certificates.

On page 18 reference is made to reports from which it may be deduced that there has been a shortage of skilled labour on the mines since 1964. In addition, there is a clearly discernable tendency for fewer Whites to enter the mining industry, to such an extent that those entering the gold-mining industry can no longer replace those leaving the industry. These alleged shortages are opposed by certain miners’ interest groups who say that the shortages can be overcome by a better utilization of the skilled workers. On the short term I should like to concede to this argument to a certain extent. According to table IX on page 17 the supervision or the span of the certificated miner has increased from one for 26 underground workers in 1966 to one for 56 in 1977. This has been achieved, inter alia, by transferring more responsible supervisory functions to Blacks. However, the problem lies in the long term. If the economy grows at a higher rate than the economically active section of the White population, as is in fact the case, there will ultimately be serious shortages in the labour spheres that are reserved for Whites at the moment.

The unwritten rule that must be read in any recommendation is, firstly, that there must be order and stability in the country and secondly, that the Whites and the White workers should not be ploughed under because in doing so one would be destroying the prosperity of all other sections of the population too. Of the 28 original job reservations only four or fewer remain at the moment. The question can now be asked whether doing away with the other job reservation has not been detrimental to the position of the White worker. The reply is that the White worker in South Africa is most probably the most prosperous worker in the entire world.

A facet that gives one a great deal of cause for concern, is the fact that there are political vultures who want to abuse the issue of blasting certificates for Blacks to achieve political confrontation between the mine workers and the Government. Then they threateningly refer to the violent strike of 1922. It is true that the strike of 1922 is given a place of honour by the White mineworker. I respect this and I understand it and sympathize with it. However, what the majority of mineworkers in 1922 did not know, and what many people still do not know today, is that political vultures were also involved to a large extent in the strike of 1922.

Yes, the NP.

No, Sir, the NP uplifted the worker. [Interjections.] The report of the Martial Law Commission of Inquiry which was published after the strike, is very informative in this respect. In paragraphs 136 and 137 on page 24 it was stated that the strike was largely organized from the offices of the then Communist Party. [Interjections.] Let me mention the address so that hon. members will all know it too: Room No. 4, Trades Hall, Rissik Street, Johannesburg.

And the NP.

I shall say something else that hon. members of the Opposition are not aware of. That commission also came to the conclusion that, if the White workers had been aware of the true purpose of the strike, viz. the overthrow of the existing Government and the ultimate establishment of communist rule, they would probably not have participated in the strike. The most important difference, however, is that there was an unsympathetic Government in power in 1922 …

You took part in marches.

… whilst the present Government has a great deal of sympathy with the White worker and in this case the mineworker, and recognizes and appreciates his gigantic contribution towards the development of the mining industry. That is why I am asking the White mineworker not to allow himself to be turned into a political football. The White mineworker in South Africa is far ahead, due to his merit, skill and reliability. That is why I refuse to believe that at the same remuneration, the white mineworker is in a poorer position than every other worker. To tell the truth, I am convinced that at all times and under all circumstances he will remain a sought-after worker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Namakwaland obviously has a lot of problems, but I leave them with him.

If there is only one thing about which both sides of the House agree, I am sure it is that South Africa is in for a period of drastic change. There is a vast Black population moved by history from its traditional life and dammed up and prevented from participating fully either in the South African economy or in the body politic which will be exerting its full influence on our community in the medium term.

Contrary to the accepted Nationalist view this side of the House has a very clear view of the problems that this situation will bring about. We do not underestimate the difficulties which occur when people from vastly different cultural backgrounds meet and melt particularly when they are from very different levels of development and particularly when they have been actively conditioned not to mix by the full authority and resource of the State over many years.

In this circumstance where the fiction of multi-nationalism will be slowly replaced by the recognition of the unity of South Africa, the battle must move away from the offensive and quite ridiculous colour-coding of people to become a striving to establish and maintain acceptable standards. The degree of success achieved will establish the quality of life that we and our children and their descendants will lead in this country. The beauty of this idea is that this is a battle to which all can respond and in which all can join.

Increasingly this House must focus its attention on standards of behaviour and performance in private business and Government life and in our contact with the environment. People’s lives would be influenced for the better wherever they get together in crowds, where they work together, whether it is on beaches, football fields, factory floors, in old-age homes or in police forces. Codes of business and morality, of social conscience and good government should be matters of pride to the nation, and the Government of the day would have the responsibility, not only of living up to such codes itself, but also of setting the pattern for the rest of the country to follow. That is already a responsibility which this Government has and I include the official Opposition because it is also part of that Government. We share a responsibility to show up unacceptable behaviour wherever we come across it and the Government is going to be the trend-setter in this difficult process. I have in my hand here a document which illustrates the type of behaviour that we have to show up. This illustrates a confusion in the minds of some people as to where the line should be drawn which separates the executive responsibility of the Government from the political party which elected it. This is a line which must not be smudged. This document is signed by the hon. Theo Aronson who, I gather, is the NP fund-raiser for the Eastern Cape. It invites businessmen to take advantage of a unique opportunity “to support an exclusive publication”. It states that MP’s are conscious “that commerce and industry are eager to establish closer contact with the Government”—not with the Nationalist Party, Mr. Speaker, but with the Government. The NP organizer in the Eastern Cape has acknowledged that the profits from this publication go to the Nationalist Party. We have a totally unacceptable situation here, where you pay money to the Nationalist Party to get close to the Government. Does that satisfy members opposite?

There is a word for that in the dictionary.

The Nationalist Party is corrupt.

Order! Does the hon. member insinuate that the members of the National Party in this House are corrupt?

Far be it from me, Mr. Speaker, to insinuate that. I said that the Nationalist Party was corrupt.

I think the hon. member should contain himself. I think that is not quite parliamentary, because the members of the Government are also associated with the National Party. I think the hon. member should withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I shall say this much: I was not referring in any respect to any member on the other side of the House when I said that the Nationalist Party was corrupt.

The hon. member for Benoni may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. nominated member Mr. Aronson is a member of this House, and the whole tenor of the speech which elicited the interjection was that he is corrupt.

The person who made the speech is not the one who made the interjection.

Order! The hon. member must accept the explanation given by the hon. member for Bryanston. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, we have a totally unacceptable situation here, where you pay money to the Nationalist Party to get close to the Government—and that is taken straight from this piece of paper which I have in my hand. This Nationalist Party fund-raising campaign terminates with a banquet which will be attended by the hon. the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers. It is for this occasion that this brochure is produced. So, Mr. Speaker, we have a brochure, the profits from which go to the Nationalist Party, which is timed to coincide with a banquet, which is the grand finale of the Nationalist Party’s fund-raising campaign, and which is described as “non-political”. Does calling it “non-political” make it non-political?

Mr. Speaker, there is another very serious aspect of the matter. The hon. the Prime Minister is not only leader of the Nationalist Party; he is also my Prime Minister. I pay part of his salary too. He is my Prime Minister. He is a national figure and his office should be respected just as much as the flag, which was discussed so fervently in this House over the last few days.

No, now you are going too far!

And what has been done to him? It has been advertised that for a full page advertisement you can sit at his table and in that manner have closer contact with the Government. Can you imagine anything more likely to throw suspicion on the impartiality of that high office? One wonders if, for half a page, you can sit next to a Cabinet Minister, for a quarter page next to a Deputy Minister, and, perhaps, for putting an advert in the smalls, you could sit next to the hon. member for Benoni! [Interjections.] I am sure that this is a grave embarrassment to the hon. the Prime Minister, who could never have seen the context of the letter of invitation which was circularized in Port Elizabeth. But it has been done, and it should be undone.

When judging this fund-raising strategy, people should be aware of the local background. Port Elizabeth is an area that is struggling. It had a negative growth rate between 1971 and 1979. It has an unemployment figure of 40%. People have invested their entire capital in businesses and homes in the area. They are conscious of certain competitive disadvantages and concerned about Port Elizabeth’s place in the Government’s plan. Now they are given the opportunity to get closer to the Government by contributing to the Nationalist Party. Think what a temptation this is to somebody whose business is in a bad way and is having problems and does not know where he will fit into the Government’s plan and this thing is presented to him. One can only hope that this whole affair was nothing more than thoughtlessness on the part of some individual who failed to see these things through. [Interjections.]

If that is so and he is prepared to say so and acknowledge it, then I am quite happy to drop the whole issue, but if he does not do this, we can only assume that this action was thought out in its full implications and was approved of. Then we shall have a brand new vision of fund-raising—the more depressed, the more disadvantaged an area or a section of the population, the closer will it need to get to the Government and the more will they be prepared to pay into the Nationalist Party’s coffers for this privilege. What about East London? There they have an unemployment figure of 65%. They are much worse off. There could be profitable financial raiding to be had amongst the newly arrived and insecure ethnic groups who could probably be persuaded that they needed to get closer to the Government.

There is a dichotomy that is increasingly apparent amongst members on the opposite side of the House. At times they lay strong claim to Western standards and obviously and correctly believe that is where they belong, but at other times they state that they are of the Third World, like our friend here just did, and should be judged as a Third World nation. Can we not just agree among ourselves that in matters like this, matters of public morality, we do not only subscribe to Western standards but also to Western ideals?

Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone can take issue with the point that the hon. member for Warmer made, namely that we should subscribe to Western standards of public morality, but I cannot go into the details of his argument because I have no cognizance of the background to it.

However, what I do want to say is that the official Opposition and the HNP have certain things, have certain behaviour patterns in common which I think are dangerous to this country and to the standards of Western morality.

*I want to put it as follows: There are many things which those two parties have in common and I want to point to a few examples. The first feature which they have in common, is the disservice which they are doing South Africa by way of the image of this country which they project to the outside world. The PFP and their Press, by their utterances and statements, are projecting an image of the majority of White South Africans, White South Africans who do not belong to the PFP, of a small-minded, backward people who are oppressing other people. This is the image which that party projects of the whole of White South Africa outside of the PFP. The disservice the HNP does South Africa, is that their actions—and like the PFP they too are a minority—are seized upon by the PFP Press and the hostile foreign Press to confirm the image which the PFP projects of White South Africa.

The second feature which these two parties have in common—and this is also a disservice to South Africa—is the denial of the total onslaught against South Africa. The HNP depicts it as scaremongering by the Government in order to gain votes at elections, and the spokesmen for the PFP, with the exception of the hon. member for Yeoville, maintain that no such thing exists.

†Whatever these two parties want to pretend, the fact of the matter is that there is a total onslaught against this country. Secondly, whatever the PFP wishes to pretend I think one can contend without fear of any reasonable contradiction that this total onslaught does not intrinsically have much to do with our internal dispensation.

The internal dispensation makes the onslaught greater.

It has to do with the fact that the Soviet Union is striving for world domination. It has a strategy to achieve this, and it would use any excuse to destabilize South Africa and gain control over this part of the world for whatever reason. The onslaught is tied up with the fact that this is a minerally rich country. By a geological quirk most of the world’s strategic minerals are to be found either behind the Iron Curtain or in Southern Africa, and notably in South Africa, the only country in the world which has the capability of producing 54 different mineral commodities.

The aim of this strategy is to limit the options of the West in any future confrontation. In short, it is the intention to blackmail the West into submission at minimum expense to the Soviet Union itself. It seeks to do this by depriving the West of those commodities which are necessary for modern technology and the manufacture of the instruments of war and defence. The Soviet Union will pursue that goal regardless of the circumstances inside this country.

It is your admission.

It is not an admission; it is a fact, an absolute fact. The ultimate goal of the Soviet Union is, of course, total control of such strategic areas in the world, and it succeeds in its goal against the West by merely destabilizing these areas. In creating situations of instability in strategic areas it exploits real and imagined grievances to its own advantage. In the process it makes tools of people who in themselves are not necessarily Marxists or Marxist inclined. For instance, no-one in his right mind will accuse Col. Ghadaffi of being a Marxist, but the fact of the matter is that through his acceptance of massive Soviet military aid in pursuit of his dream of a Muslim empire in Africa he has become an unwitting tool of the Soviet Union. In the process he has alienated his country from the Western World. He saw to it that the Western bases in Libya closed down. He expelled French and Italian industrialists. He has given the Soviet Union access to his oil-fields and has contributed to the general instability of the very strategic oil-producing littoral of the Mediterranean. Furthermore, through his machinations in Morocco, Mauritania and Chad he is moving towards becoming a catalyst for instability in oil-producing Nigeria.

Consider the role of Western politicians and Western media in creating the climate which made it impossible for the Shah to continue to govern Iran. Nobody in his right mind would say that the Ayatollah Khomeini is a communist, but he has certainly become a tool in the Soviet strategy of destabilizing another important strategic area. Is it not coincidental that his dervishes received their instructions on where to hold a general strike, on which oil installations to attack, etc., via radio broadcasts from the Southern Soviet Union? Obviously, the Ayatollah cannot last very much longer, and I think it is on the cards that Iran will become a Marxist dominated State in the next phase of this revolutionary development. Obviously, from that follows that Saudi Arabia is endangered. Only the blind and those who do not wish to see will fail to observe the signals.

Similarly one can remember the role played by Western liberal politicians and by their Press in bringing about the downfall of the Government of Fulgencio Batista in Cuba, and hailing Fidel Castro at the time as the saviour of this strategic island just off the soft underbelly of the USA and its oil-fields.

Certainly, by Western standards, the Shah, Pres. Batista and King Idris II of Libya were oppressive, were possibly also corrupt, but their successors, by any standards, are far more corrupt, far more oppressive than they ever were. That is the real choice that the Western World now has in the greater part of the Third World, because almost every Government in Africa and in the Middle East today is corrupt, oppressive and violently racist. That is a fact.

Therefore, the real choice with which one is faced in this strategic situation is the choice of what is better: mildly oppressive, mildly corrupt, mildly racist pro-Western Governments or virulently racist, virulently oppressive and virulently corrupt pro-Eastern Governments. That is the choice. It is an unfortunate choice.

We are now being accused, particularly by the official Opposition and also from various quarters of the world, of being guilty of similar sins. By any standards at all, however, I deny absolutely that White South Africa is corrupt, oppressive or racist. That is not true by any standard. We are far less racist than any of the previous examples I have cited. Nonetheless, one must now consider the role of Western politicians and their media in isolating this strategic area from the West, the role they played in terminating the Simonstown Agreement, in bringing about the oil embargo against South Africa, in bringing about the arms embargo against South Africa, and in bringing about the sport boycott against South Africa, as well as their role in isolating South Africa generally, things which only further the aims of the Soviet Union in its general attempts to destabilize this country.

When one considers what the source is of this concerted campaign against South Africa, it is of course to be found in the media which are supportive of the hon. official Opposition. If one reads the parliamentary pages of The Cape Times, The Argus or the Rand Daily Mail—if one happens to be a foreigner in this country who reads those pages—one would get the impression that this country is a one-party State governed by the PFP, because the only speeches contained in those parliamentary pages are the speeches made by hon. members of the official Opposition. [Interjections.] Even important policy statements by Cabinet Ministers are given a minor secondary position compared with the appalling and irrelevant waffle with which hon. members such as the hon. member for Green Point regale this House. [Interjections.] They are the people, and those are the newspapers that make such an issue of the principle of audi alteram partem and of the right to know. [Interjections.] Is English-speaking South Africa not entitled to know what the policy statements of the Government are? [Interjections.] However, this is a very dangerous situation. I cited those other examples and the role that the media play in destabilizing a situation. Hon. members of the Opposition must know that they are playing a part through their own statements in the House and from the way their media behave in trying to destabilize this country of ours by suggesting that this is a corrupt Government, as the hon. member for Walmer tried to do. They also suggest that we are the cause of communist infiltration in Southern Africa, as the hon. member for Bryanston and the hon. member for Berea are so wont to do, and compare this Government with Nazism, as various hon. members on that side of the House are inclined to do. In addition, they plead for general civil disobedience, for illegal squatting, for the condonation of unregistered trade unions and so forth. All this contributes to the aims that the Soviet Union has in this part of the world, just as it has in the Mediterranean littoral, just as it has in Cuba, just as it has in Iran and just as it has in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and other mineral and oil producing areas of the world.

In the Defence debate I warned the official Opposition that it would profit this country nothing if they were seen through their actions to be part of the total onslaught on this country. I want to warn them further that through their own behaviour and that of their Press they are increasingly finding themselves in a position where they are being and will be seen in that role.

We are approaching the witching hour of midnight and whilst I am certainly not bewitched by any contribution of the official Opposition, which I consider to be at least a tacit partner in the total onslaught on this country, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.