Mr. Speaker, I move—

I must say that I was pleasantly surprised by the withdrawal by the hon. member for Meyerton of the motion which was in his name on the Order Paper.

What has that to do with your motion? [Interjections.]

Just listen quietly and relax. The reason why I am pleased is that obviously it is much more preferable to move a motion in the coolness of the morning rather than in the heat of the afternoon. That is the only reason why I am very grateful. I am staggered that the NP did not take the opportunity to put forward an alternative motion to make the best possible use of the time available. [Interjections.] Surely this is an opportune time for a motion which could read something like—

However, I have pleasure, in the absence of such or any similar motion, in moving my motion.

I hope we are not going to spend a great deal of time on semantics, on talking about differentiation and on what could or could not be. I hope we are going to make this a very productive discussion.

This motion was put on the Order Paper several weeks before the breakdown in the NP and therefore I hope it will not be seen as merely an attempt to play on the divisions within that party.

I recall that when a similar motion was moved by my hon. leader two years ago in this House, one hon. member on that side of the House accused us of simply trying to sow dissent. That motion called for a Select Committee of the House to be appointed to consider the incidence of discrimination and how we could best move away from it. That particular member stated (Hansard, 21 March 1980, column 3237)—

He also said (column 3240)—

Well, the hon. member in question was none other than the hon. member for Barberton, one of the 22. I do not suppose he will be taking part in the debate today.

In actual fact there is considerable common ground between the Government and the official Opposition when it comes to the question of discrimination on the grounds of race or sex. Firstly, the record makes it clear that we are agreed that discrimination is a fact of life in the South African context. Both that side of the House and this side have now acknowledged it. No longer do we have to debate whether it exists or not, and that is helpful. All of us are familiar with the famous declaration the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs made in the United Nations as far back as October 1974, eight years ago. Just to refresh the minds of hon. members present, I quote him—

It has taken a little time for that declaration to become true; nevertheless, that was the declaration and we agree with it.

Secondly, I think we are also agreed that discrimination is hurtful. I call as my witness the hon. the Prime Minister and his twelve-point plan. Point No. 6 of that plan specifically commits the Nationalist Government to the removal of unnecessary discriminatory measures which may create bad feelings.

The 12-point plan is a fairly recent plan and I assume it is still supported by all hon. members on that side.

Thirdly, we are also agreed that discrimination is not only a fact, that it is not only hurtful, but that it also creates bad feeling between race groups and therefore has within it potential for conflict.

Fourthly, we on both sides of the House agree that discrimination must go. The two quotations, one from a speech of the hon. the Prime Minister and the other from a speech of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, make this abundantly dear. I could quote from many other speeches from that side of the House supporting the idea that discrimination must go. It is important for us to note this common ground. We agree that we must reject the indefensible. We agree that we must refuse to condone the indefensible and we are agreed to move away from discrimination based on race or colour.

But there are two very important areas of disagreement. At least I think there are, and perhaps in the course of this debate we can clarify that or even find some greater consensus. Firstly, we disagree on the methods that need to be adopted so that we can put flesh on the bones of our determination to rid South Africa of race discrimination. Included in this obviously is the pace of moving away from discrimination. So how do we move away and how quickly can we or should we move away from discrimination on the grounds of race or colour? The second key disagreement, having stated the first, is: What is discrimination? This is where we have differed in the past and I hope that we shall get some clarity in the debate that takes place today.

I believe that the motion before the House will assist us enormously in resolving both these disagreements. If we were to accept this motion, clearly we would expedite the removal of discrimination and, most important of all, we would once and for all have the opportunity of finding consensus as to what discrimination really is so that we can tackle it with all deliberate speed. That is why my motion before the House calls specifically for the appointment of a multi-racial commission. Now, why have I specified that? I think all hon. members will agree that the people best suited to decide what discrimination is are the people who are discriminated against. It is one thing for us in this House to have debate after debate and to score point after point; it is another thing when one actually talks to the people who believe that they are under the yoke of apartheid, of discrimination, and experience it and are able to tell us what it is like. Then it is not so easy to say that it is not discrimination. If it is perceived and experienced by that person as such, then obviously for him it is a reality and it is no use us trying to put forward academic and nice political arguments. To have Black, Brown and Asian members on this commission together with Whites, will help us to evaluate what is really hurtful discrimination and how we can move away from this in the shortest amount of time. I think one will find that it will be made very clear there that any laws which put a man of colour at a disadvantage vis-à-vis his fellow White countrymen, will surely be defined as discriminatory. Surely, anything which loads the dice against him, anything which hurts, ridicules or attacks his dignity as a human being and his right to citizenship of his own country will be on the agenda as amongst those factors which are hurtful and even dangerous in terms of discrimination. I have no doubt whatsoever that were we to have such a commission, the following Acts will have to come under consideration for repeal or radical amendment: the Population Registration Act, the Group Areas Act, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the Black Urban Areas Consolidation Act, the Abolition of Passes and Consolidation of Documents Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, the National Education Policy Act, the Extension of University Education Act, the National States Citizens Act, the Internal Security Act, the Separate Representation of Voters Act, the Black Taxation Act, the Black Education Act, the Coloured Persons Council Act, the Electoral Act for Indians, the Indians Education Act, the South African Indian Council Act, the Asiatic Land Tenure Act and the Coloured Persons Education Act. I have mentioned only a few of the major pieces of legislation which would have to come under review. It would be an opportunity to decide and to discuss in that commission whether or not these Acts do in fact discriminate on the grounds of race, colour or sex.

To put it in another way: Discrimination exists in the social, economic and political fields, and therefore have to be tackled under these heads. Under the heading of social apartheid or discrimination one is constantly faced with the embarrassment of ordinary good people being thrown off one beach or another because their tan is a little more developed than those of some others. People are barred from amenities on the grounds of race and colour. Transport facilities are separated on the grounds of race and colour. Residential areas are strictly demarcated on the grounds of race and colour. In education we have separate departments and separate schools so that people of different colours are kept apart, notwithstanding the fact that very soon after leaving school they work side by side in shops and in the field of commerce and industry.

The second area that will have to come under consideration by such a commission would be discrimination in the economic field. Despite our commitment to the free enterprise system we pay only Up service to a central feature of the free enterprise system, namely the mobility of labour. In any debate or discussion on free enterprise, here or anywhere else in the world, one of the cardinal principles of free enterprise is the right of a person to sell his or her labour to the highest bidder. However, because of pass laws and influx control, Blacks, and in many instances Coloureds and Asians, are simply not able to sell their labour to the highest bidder. Race discrimination strikes at the very heart of a man’s existence when it interferes with his right to work and his right to have a roof over his head.

There is also a third area, perhaps the most important area, because from this will flow so many of the others. I refer to the political area. Here we must ask the Government to clarify its position. To withhold the sharing of power on the basis of race or sex is the quintessence of discrimination. This House, and indeed the people of South Africa, have the right to know where the Government stands on this central issue. Are we all agreed in the House that the sharing of power with the so-called Coloured South Africans is both desirable and inevitable? There is considerable confusion about this matter, as can be seen from just a few quotations which I want to make. I want to quote from Hansard of 21 March 1980, col. 3255, what a Nationalist MP said. It is important for us to remember that this was only two years ago next month. This is what the hon. member for Benoni had to say—

That was said by the hon. member for Benoni and he does not appear to be among those who have any objection to the recent change in affairs.

In the same debate, in col. 3262, the hon. the Minister of Police had this to say—

Only last year, in 1981, in Hansard of 26 August, a few months ago, I put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister across the floor of the House. I asked him then—and I quote here from col. 1959—

[Interjections.] No power-sharing.

In an explanatory pamphlet in 1977 dealing with proposed constitutional changes, we find the following in regard to the sharing of power—let me say this is not a PFP pamphlet; this is an NP pamphlet.

Then it must be a very good pamphlet.

I am very glad to hear that. In this pamphlet we find the following—

That hon. member says that it is a good pamphlet. So he does not agree with the sharing of power? [Interjections.] Make up your mind. Either it is a good pamphlet or a bad pamphlet. Is it a good pamphlet? [Interjections.] So you do believe in the sharing of power? [Interjections.] But the statement is very clear.

There is a specific reference … [Interjections.]

The hon. Chief Whip is desperately trying to duck and to dive. [Interjections.] I am talking about discrimination in the political sphere. It is stated here—

That is quite clear. It goes on to state—

[Interjections.] So you don’t believe in it because it is a Progfed term?—

The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development has no problem in this regard at all. In fact, he has not had any problem in regard to power-sharing for quite some time. This is what he said—

It is very difficult to those of us on this side of the House and also for people outside of this House to understand just what is going on in that party.

They do not even know themselves.

Let us assume that the 100 men faithful and true have now firmly decided that power-sharing is in and White domination is out—actually, that separate development is out. What actually does it mean to share power with Coloured South Africans?

You are setting up your own target just to shoot it down again yourself.

I want that hon. member to listen to this. What does it actually mean to share power with Coloured South Africans? Does it mean that we can look forward to direct Coloured representation in this House?

But you are setting up your own target and shooting it down yourself.

No, no, I am asking this question. [Interjections.] Does meaningful power-sharing mean that we will have Coloured representation in this House? [Interjections.] One cannot move away from discrimination unless one has genuine power-sharing, and one cannot have genuine power-sharing if one is going to decide that the Coloured people are going to be forever outside of this decision-making process. It seems to me that the route is inevitable; the decision has already been taken, and I look forward to the day when Coloured representatives represent their people in this House. We know that the Coloured community has already rejected the 1977 proposals. They have the ability to make their own decisions. [Interjections.] Does power-sharing include the Asian community? Or do we continue to discriminate against them? If power-sharing is to be meaningful, what do we have in store for them? Will they also be part of one Government in South Africa? Will they also sit in the House of Assembly? Also, if one begins to share power, one cannot omit Black South Africans, in particular those who are in permanent residence in the urban areas. So how are we going to share power with Black South Africans, or are we not going to? Do we continue to discriminate, or have we set the course for genuine powersharing in South Africa? Finally, if we share power with the Coloureds—let us confine ourselves just to this one group—can we in all conscience share power with them in the same area of making decisions and then in all conscience maintain the Group Areas Act and the Separate Amenities Act? Can we share power with them on a political basis, even in sports clubs, sports teams and in regard to Springbok jerseys and treat them as lepers when it comes to swimming pools, buses, beaches and the like?

Sir, I am convinced that the NP is like a snake that has sloughed off one skin, because having listened to the debates only of this week concerning the Johannesburg municipality, it is clear that a large section of the right wing still remains among the 100. One can only think of the disgraceful speeches made this week, where questions such as “Are you going to allow them to use swimming pools?” were asked. Who are these people that we are talking about? Are they lepers, or are they citizens of South Africa?

Race discrimination is dangerous and wrong in South Africa. We must move away from it; we must not maintain White domination continually. So I hope that every hon. member of the 100 will, like hon. members on this side will, vote for this motion.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands took the trouble to draw attention to the fact that he placed his motion on the Order Paper some weeks ago, i.e. before the present situation arose in the Government party. He emphasized that it therefore has nothing to do with the present situation. Nevertheless he gave a great deal of attention to the situation which has now arisen by devoting much of his speech to pronouncements regarding power-sharing in the past and used this as the theme of his speech. He is therefore not being honest when he says that his motion does not concern the situation that at present obtains in the NP.

The hon. member started by saying that the Government should now implement its policy of power-sharing. However, I want to tell him that if consultation and co-responsibility in the modern idiom can be seen as power-sharing, then with a view to peaceful co-existence and the maintaining of civilized standards, it is healthy power-sharing. In contrast, one man, one vote in a unitary state in accordance with the formula of the PFP is revolutionary power-sharing which will totally destroy the existing order. If the hon. member for Pinelands now says that we are supposed to have said in the past that hurtful discrimination on the basis of race and colour must be removed, I can agree with him, but only if he is honest in his motives. I have doubts about the motive on the basis of which the hon. member for Pinelands submitted this proposal here today. The hon. member emphasized a multiracial commission which must also involve Black people.

Yes.

For this reason I want to tell the hon. member that the motion in which he calls for a multiracial commission, is nothing but a leftist political trick.

You astound me.

It is an attack on the continued existence of the White Parliament.

The White Parliament?

If the hon. member for Pinelands had his way, people of colour would sit with us in this Parliament. [Interjections.] Because the PFP cannot succeed in this, the hon. member now wants to try and bring these people in by the back door, in this case by means of a multiracial commission on which Black people will also serve, and which will have to revise the laws of the White Parliament. If there is no objection to this, the next contention of the PFP will be that those people may just as well sit here in this House and pass legislation together with us. I now want to put it unequivocally to the hon. member for Pinelands that it is not the policy of the Government for Black people to be part of the legislative process of White South Africa. [Interjections.]

In a very subtle way, by means of a proposal, the PFP wants to destroy the authority, yes even the continued existence of the White Parliament in South Africa. It is nothing but a cool, calculated, cold-blooded, leftist attack on the continued existence of the White Parliament.

There are 24 of you already.

I am becoming increasingly aware of the real danger the PFP constitutes to this Parliament.

You are quite ridiculous.

Is it not significant, Mr. Speaker, that the PFP thinks of every possible way to try and destroy the prestige and the continued existence of this Parliament? Can any right-thinking person still have any reasonable doubts about the motive underlying this motion of the hon. member for Pinelands? I have absolutely no doubt about it. What the PFP cannot achieve at the polls, namely, to persuade the electorate to accept political integration, they try to achieve by sanction of this Parliament and under the signature of the State President by means of a multiracial commission, which must review the laws of the White Parliament. This review—or so I assume—includes making proposals regarding changes to the laws. Can you imagine—if such a commission were to be appointed, and allowed to review laws of the White Parliament with a view to changing them—what an untenable situation would arise if this Parliament were not prepared to consider the recommended changes?

[Inaudible.]

However, Mr. Speaker, let us now consider the practicability of such a multiracial commission which is to review the laws of the White Parliament. In my opinion there will be a veritable Babel of tongues in such a commission. Not only is there a deep-rooted difference of opinion between the NP and the PFP regarding the nature of discrimination on the basis of race or colour, but there is also a deep-rooted difference of opinion between us and people of colour regarding the same matter. Such a commission will, owing to these deep-rooted differences of opinion …

Tell us how you do these things in the President’s Council?

Mr. Speaker, I sat and listened calmly and quietly to the hon. member for Pinelands. Now he is holding discussions with other people.

I am not talking to other people; I am talking to you. [Interjections.]

Owing to these underlying differences, the multiracial commission will totally paralyse itself. However, the hon. member for Pinelands is not concerned about that, as long as he can achieve a goal of multiracialism.

That is true.

This is what is really involved. [Interjections.] I therefore contend that what that hon. member is really interested in is not so-called discriminatory measures, but his eagerness to have a multiracial commission which can be held up as an example for other purposes, for the implementating of power-sharing with the Black people and other people in this country. Then they hope that such a commission may in due course be regarded as an element of the legislative assembly for Whites in South Africa.

We call that the President’s Council.

If that hon. member does not know it, I just want to tell him that the President’s Council is not considering constitutional proposals for Black people. [Interjections.] They are not engaged in doing that.

And the Coloureds?

That hon. member is living … [Interjections.] … in a dream world. They are engaged in doing that. [Interjections.] The PFP does not want to place the emphasis on discrimination by means of this motion. I want to make it quite clear that the PFP buys its apartheid—this is obvious to anyone who has eyes to see. However, they want to place the emphasis on integration, so that those people who, unlike the PFP, cannot buy their apartheid—in the sense in which I referred to it here—have to suffer the “slings and arrows” of integration. They must do this while the PFP “fat cats” and their kindred spirits continue to live in the best conditions with their bought apartheid. They will not change this, no matter what they say in this House.

Where do you live, Willie?

The hon. Prime Minister and some of his predecessors have also said repeatedly—and this is something to which the hon. member for Pinelands has also referred—that the Government is prepared to remove hurtful discrimination based on race and colour from the Statute Book, but they added that it was not a sin or discrimination if a nation set itself apart in order to be itself.

And the Coloureds are not a nation!

It is not a sin if a nation sets itself apart for the purpose of being itself. It is not a sin, nor is it discrimination.

I see that the hon. member for Sea Point wants to ask something.

Are the Coloureds a nation in that sense?

The hon. the Prime Minister has already stated his standpoint in that connection. He has already indicated that he does not consider the Coloureds to be a nation or a nation in the making, and I abide by that. [Interjections.] In the past it was said that it is not a sin or discrimination if a nation sets itself apart in order to be itself. Every nation must have that right. For that reason there will not be mixed residential areas and mixed schools, and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act will not be abolished. These are matters concerning which there is a fundamental difference between the PFP and ourselves, because they see these measures as the worst form of discrimination based on race and colour, whereas in the view of the NP these are natural and justified measures a nation can take to be itself and preserve its own community life. This is the difference. I think the hon. member for Pinelands will understand clearly if I ask him: If this is a nation that wants to be itself, then what is wrong with that?

Never at the expense of others.

Or as I read elsewhere, if this is a nation that knows itself, what is wrong with that? A nation that knows itself by the deeds of its forefathers; the struggle that has been fought; the suffering endured; the victory gained, and even the defeats suffered; and these things have branded on our minds the consciousness that this is a nation that feels something different, that means something different, that is different? What is wrong with that? If the Chief Minister of KwaZulu says he is a Buthelezi, a chief by blood and tradition, meaning that he wants to keep it that way, and establishes Inkatha as a Zulu cultural organization—or so he says—for that purpose, it is in order and no one finds fault with it, because he is Black. I, on the other hand, am White, and if I say I am proud of my nation’s glorious past and heroic traditions— exactly the same kind of thing that Chief Minister Buthelezi says—and if I say I am also proud of my nation’s language, its religion, its morals, its traditions and its culture, and if I belong to a cultural organization aimed at expanding and maintaining these things, my name is entered in a book. I am then branded an arch-verkrampte, a racist and a discriminator.

You see, Sir, discrimination on the basis of race and colour always comes only from the side of the White man. A Black man may belong to a cultural organization and say: “I am a Zulu captain in blood and tradition and I am going to keep it that way.” However, I may not do so because then I am discriminating. Discrimination on the basis of race and colour therefore always comes only from the side of the White man and more particularly from the tradition-bound and culturally-aware Afrikaner. This is how the PFP sees it and this is how the radicals of the multiracial community also see it—and I emphasize “radicals”. That is why I say there will be total confusion within such a multiracial commission charged with the task, as the hon. member’s motion puts it, of removing discrimination based on race and colour from the Statute Book.

Even if the hon. member for Pinelands had no political motive for the motion, as I said at the beginning of my speech, then on the basis of what I have just said, his motion is still totally unacceptable. However, I still believe that the motion of the hon. member for Pinelands has a political basis. I believe that his aim is to undermine and to destroy the authority and the status of this White Parliament and has nothing to do with his so-called concern about discriminatory measures. I say this because the Government has already directed that all our laws be reviewed on an ongoing basis at administrative level to remove hurtful discrimination based on race and colour. This is an ongoing process. In the Department of Co-operation and Development among others, a section has already been created that is specifically charged with constantly going through existing legislation and regulations to ascertain whether improvements or modernization may be effected in the programme of rationalization of our legislation, specifically with a view to differentiating between race and colour. The hon. member is aware of this. What, then, is the reason for this motion, in which he is asking for something the Government is already doing and to which the Government has already committed itself, if not some obscure motive? That is why I say his motion has only one aim, which is to attack the continued existence of the White Parliament by appointing a multi-racial commission, one on which Blacks will serve and which he is seeking to introduce by the back door, to form part of the legislative process for White South Africa.

By the front door.

As I said, the Government is in favour of removing discrimination on the basis of race and colour. However, the Government is not in favour of abolishing differentiation, which has to do with the preservation of my identity, my distinctive community life, etc. I want to make it quite clear to the hon. member for Pinelands that the Government is not prepared to yield in this regard. Herein lies the great difference of opinion between the PFP and ourselves as to what really comprises discrimination based on race and colour. It is a difference of opinion that is dominated by a fundamental religious motive. I hope the hon. member for Pinelands understands this.

He does not understand those words at all.

I should like to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that this is a difference of opinion which is dominated by the fundamental religious motive which has taken possession of one’s heart and mind and which cannot be changed by frivolous ideas and ulterior political motives. This difference between the PFP and ourselves is totally unbridgeable.

So Coloureds will not come into this Parliament.

As far as we are concerned that is absolutely non-negotiable, whereas the hon. member for Pinelands and his party would exchange it for a mess of pottage. For this reason I reject the motion before this House.

Mr. Speaker, when this motion was put on the Order Paper originally and, in fact, right up until this morning, I felt that it had a great deal of merit and that it could be very solidly supported with modifications to make it a bit more practical and realistic. In fact, I have prepared an amendment which does not seek to alter the spirit of what I think is the intention but which will very definitely make that intention more practical. Unfortunately, however, although only two speeches have been made, viz. the speech of the mover and one by a member from the Government side, the debate appears to have developed into one of these sterile political debates which in the end I think will achieve very little. I cannot help but feel that there has been so much of this that we are just not making any progress. I know it has been said once or twice by hon. members on my right that I have a tendency to “toenader” with the Government, but that is not my thought or intention at all. In fact, I have fought harder and longer against the Government than most people in the benches on this side.

Don’t you believe that!

I said most people on the benches on this side.

Do not give away your age.

It is therefore not a question of “toenadering” but a question of trying to be logical and to achieve something. My own experience is that one does not persuade a person by giving him a slap around the chops, one persuades him by logic. This is the way I try to operate.

You are being very successful, I must say.

Yes, that is as may be. I have not been here as long as some of those hon. gentlemen. It may be that they will find that my way does work.

Good luck to you.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is really a call for the removal of discriminatory legislation based on race, colour, creed and sex. I should like to say here and now that discrimination has been in the hearts of humanity since the dawn of history. It is nothing new. Discrimination, however, ultimately leads to domination and domination again invariably leads to injustice to and humiliation of the people who are dominated. This, I think, any reasonable person must accept as a norm. Domination generally is based most frequently either upon the fears of one group for its culture or perhaps upon its greed to grab more of the cake than the other group, and occasionally it is based on the premise of racial superiority. At one time or another we have all known this type of domination.

Throughout history there have again always been dominant minorities who have ruled more passive majorities. Quite frankly, until fairly recently—when I say recently I mean in terms of history—this has in fact been the norm. I think it can be said without fear of contradiction that most aristocracies were built up on the basis of dominant minorities ruling other people. In fact, the British Empire and almost every other empire were built up on that same basis—a dominant minority ruling the passive majority. However, these passive majorities over the years generally were prepared to put up with it because the dominant people were hardworking, industrious, good planners and so forth. The passive majorities were usually inclined to be more laissez faire and could not be bothered. They looked upon the more dominant people as being the people who were running the show and so long as they were not too heavily discriminated against they were prepared to accept it.

I believe one must bear in mind, that we have a Western ethic of hard work. I suppose this concept of hard work being in itself something good, a virtue, is the result of the climate in the countries from which we originate. But the African generally does not look upon hard work as a virtue in itself, whereas many of we do. I think it is crazy, but none the less this is so. Therefore it is a question of a Western ethic being imposed upon other people. The dominant minority applied a Western ethic to themselves and the majority, passive people, let them get on with it. This has been the case for years until after the Second World War when the Western World, led by the Americans, got on to the bright idea of majority rule and that it must apply in the Western democratic system.

It was not the Americans; it was the gas chambers in Germany.

I am talking about the Americans and not gas chambers.

Not the American, but the gas chambers in Germany.

The position is that this ethic of Western democracy was totally foreign to most Africans, and to try to impose it upon them was really rather silly because it has not been effective. So to get down to the nitty-gritty of the matter, the question of domination and discrimination has historically been with us from, as I said earlier, the dawn of history. However, there is one difference in South Africa, and that is that it was this Government that chose to put that discrimination on the Statute Book. Much of it was regrettable; it was unfair at the time and it has been proven to be unfair subsequently because it has been amended and in some instances already removed from the Statute Book. The Government put on a mass of discriminatory legislation which was based on colour alone. It was unscientific, it ignored culture or educational achievements and discriminated against people on the grounds of a pure accident of birth. It included Chines, Japanese, Indians—who are amongst the oldest and most civilized people in the world—in addition to Africans and other groups. Also, and perhaps this is as deplorable as anything else and more so than some, it included people of mixed blood, their own mixed blood as well. Between the people whom we discriminated against it seems to work out roughly on the same population basis as in the rest of the world. 20% of the population of South Africa rule the rest of South Africa. Approximately 20% of the population of the world, I am given to understand, is White. With such legislation as we have, the consequence has been that we became the pariahs of the world. I think somewhere in some body we were referred to as polecats. And this is purely and simply because of this discriminatory legislation. A great deal of this legislation was cruel and humiliating and totally unjust. The proof of this is in the fact that much of it, as I have said earlier, has been modified or removed from the Statute Book altogether. Today the Government is seeing the folly of much of its past and it is changing this policy. Whether the new policy is to be called power-sharing or co-responsibility, I am not getting involved in the argument. However, what does make a difference is that whether one calls it the one thing or the other, the effect will be, if it is put into being, that it will restore the dignity and self-respect of our non-White citizens.

We support the principles of this motion, as I have said before, and it is for this reason that we intend moving an amendment to make it more acceptable. The original motion, as moved by the hon. member for Pinelands, is not acceptable as it stands because the commission called for emphasizes race but makes no special reference to women, and our amendment will cover that. Again, the hon. member’s motion demands the removal of all discriminatory legislation. We do not believe this to be desirable statutorily, because there is certain discrimination that in fact can be beneficial discrimination. We are therefore proposing an amendment to cover this particular point.

Give us some examples of such discrimination.

Yes, I shall give the hon. member some examples. Let there be no doubt about it that we in these benches support the principles and the obvious intentions of the hon. member’s motion as printed on the Order Paper. I believe my amendment will be more acceptable not only to ourselves, but also to the hon. members on the other side of the House, and I hope, to the hon. member for Pinelands. I now move as an amendment—

The word “plural” obviously includes the fact that we have men and women as well as people of different races in our society. As far as discrimination is concerned, I think it covers the point made by the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. member asked me to give examples of discrimination, and I shall give him two. The Black populations have their own areas and control of their homelands. Legislation which allows Blacks to have their own homeland areas and to have control over them—and, manifestly, they want these tribal areas—is discriminatory legislation. I take it the hon. member for Pinelands does not want that to be removed.

I do not believe that is discrimination.

It is discriminatory in that it does not apply to everybody. [Interjections.]

Another example is legislation which involves working conditions for men and women or conditions in prisons for men and women. There are different regulations and legislative provisions covering conditions of service and incarceration for both men and women. That is discriminatory in itself. I quoted merely two examples; there are also others.

You are just playing with words.

I am not playing with words. If one makes legislation which bans discrimination of any sort, then it is any sort. It does not confine it …

On the grounds of race, colour and sex.

That is correct, on the grounds of race, colour and sex. This is why we are suggesting an amendment to the motion to achieve more accurately and on a more practical basis what the hon. member had in mind. If the hon. member does not see that, then I am very sorry.

In so far as the general principle of removing discriminatory legislation is concerned, as I have said from the beginning, we in these benches support the concept. We definitely support the concept, but we also believe that there must be room to move. The hon. member for Parys made the point that people have pride in their own group. It may well be that certain communities would want discriminatory legislation to guard their interests. If they want it, must we as White men turn to them as masters and say: “You cannot have it”? For goodness’ sake, that is domination if ever there was domination.

[Inaudible.]

Does the hon. member say one cannot have that? The hon. member will have an opportunity, I am sure, of winding up the debate. The position is that we in these benches believe that one cannot have statutory domination in this way, because the removal of the right to have any discrimination at all will in fact produce another form of domination. We believe that to a very great extent local option can resolve many of the problems that have been caused by the laws that we have on our Statute Book today.

So does the hon. member for Constantia. He also believes that.

As far as the province of Natal is concerned we have endeavoured to implement as far as possible the very thing that is mentioned in this motion, namely, the removal of discrimination based on race, colour or sex. By degrees we have removed quite a lot of this discrimination and, strange as it may seem, the heavens have not fallen and the legislation is as a consequence much cleaner and more acceptable than it was before.

May I ask a question? Does the NRP’s concept of local option only have a geographical basis or can it also have an ethnic basis?

I am afraid I do not have the time to answer that question at this stage. [Interjections.] I want to conclude simply by saying that a commission would be a sound means of identifying and examining the justice of our racially and sexually discriminatory laws and recommending how they should be changed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umbilo moved an amendment to this motion which sought to include the female sex in this investigation. I just wish to point out to him that the emancipation of the woman in South Africa was probably one of the first movements in the Western World. South African women had the franchise as long ago as 1930, long before the women in any other Western country. The hon. member also expressed astonishment at the fact that this debate had a political flavour. I wish to tell him that it could not but have had one. If the hon. member for Pinelands, in his motivation of this motion, had ventured into the political sphere, he could certainly have prepared himself for the conducting of this debate on a political campus. Discrimination is the word which was used in this motion, and this Government and the NP must constantly suffer the accusation that we are the greatest discriminators. I should like to establish, in a few respects, whether this is in fact true.

In the first place I wish to tell you that the policy of the NP is a policy which is based on diversity. This policy is not founded on superiority, and that is why we can stage unequivocally that the policy of the NP is not preoccupied with discrimination. Human rights entail inter alia that people are equal to one another in respect of certain matters. In this regard I should like to quote from a book by J. D. van der Vyver entitled Beskerming van Menseregte in Suid-Afrika. Inter alia he has the following to say—

We cannot wish away the differences which exist between people. We cannot hold in contempt the diversity which exists between people, but this much-maligned NP, this Government, has a record. Let us examine it for a while. Let us examine its record of discrimination.

In the first place I wish to refer to education. In this country at the moment, everything possible within our economic means is being done to enhance and improve the quality of life of all groups of this population, including standards of education. If we are engaging in an evolutionary way in a process of upliftment, within a group context and with the recognition of diversities, I wish to ask whether that is discrimination. Can we continue to differ with one another over the fact that we are dealing with totally divergent and extreme forms of culture in South Africa? Is the acceptance of diversity and differences necessarily discrimination?

Throughout the entire world it is now being accepted by educationists that there is no alternative to mother-tongue education. In Africa mother-tongue education is also being offered at universities and is being accepted as one of the basic principles when it comes to education. I believe that enforced education in a foreign cultural environment is far more likely to lead to discrimination than an educational system which is culturally adapted to what a person is accustomed to.

Here one can speak of higher education for Indians on a special level in Natal.

Every teaching or educational institution has an obligation to its community. In truth, it has two obligations. Its first obligation is one of education, but its second is to return to the community which it serves, that community’s own culture. There has to be an interaction between education and the community, and such an interaction cannot take place when education is operating in an alien atmosphere. When one finds an educational institution which is alien to the cultural life in which it is operating, that interaction cannot give rise to cultural growth and progress. Although that training will have a local and international flavour as far as the problems are concerned, the interaction as far as cultural growth is concerned must very definitely be homogeneous.

I also wish to make a few remarks in respect of the economic sphere. We must accept that we in South Africa have an economy which covers virtually the entire spectrum of economic development. On the one hand we have a sophisticated economy; on the other we have economies which are still based on barter without any creation of stocks. The question is: If the Government were to protect the weaker sections within this spectrum, would that be discrimination? If we were to afford certain people opportunities, by means of protective mechanisms, so that they are able to establish an economy within their own requirements and what they are able to manage, would that be discrimination? Are we not, on the other hand, engaged in a policy of development?

What chance would the Black traders have had if they had been exposed from the beginning to competition in the overall open labour market, where they would then have had to compete with major institutions and financially powerful people? I wonder whether those among them who are millionaires today, would have made the grade. I doubt it.

Our policy, which is based on the recognition of the existence of differences, has succeeded in the economic sphere. The proof of this statement is the diversity of people from the other population groups who are financially very powerful in this sphere today and who have very difinitely made their mark.

When we were working with these people, we had a choice. We could, as I have said, have exposed them to the outside world, but we were of the opinion that they ought to be helped to develop. We were also of the opinion that they should be afforded an equal opportunity to remain standing within their own cultural communities in the face of powerful existing institutions. We were right. Is that discrimination?

I should like to quote one of South Africa’s great men, Dr. Anton Rupert. He said—

Hon. members will have to exercise a little patience, because I still want to make two or three observations in connection with this subject.

Everywhere in the world we find a tendency for the gap between the privileged and the lesser privileged to grow larger, in spite of tremendous economic attempts which are being made to narrow this gap.

In contrast with the experience in other countries, we have reversed this tendency in South Africa and we find that a narrowing of the gap between the lesser privileged and the privileged is taking place. How have we succeeded in doing this? I think there are two reasons for our success, and the one is a very bitter pill for hon. members on the opposite side of the House to swallow. The reasons are firstly that we have concentrated on self-help. We have concentrated on increasing the productivity of the labour force of our other population groups. Then, too, this Government has, with its labour legislation, brought about a new dispensation in the economic sphere, a dispensation which can make people economically free and equal. It is a dispensation which offers people equal economic opportunities.

Why are we always being indicted as being people who discriminate, although we do not do so? I should like to quote from one of the works of the progenitors of the official Opposition, their mentor, the founder of their policy, of their philosophy and ideology. I wonder whether they know who it is, Sir. However, it is time they took cognizance of their progenitor. I am referring to Hoernlé, who was at one stage chairman of the S.A. Institute of Race Relations. He once said—

Today the official Opposition is still struggling with Hoernlé’s problem, although I must admit that at least he was more honest than they are. He at least admitted that he did not know whether he was coming or going and that he wanted to accept a policy which was to his mind the best solution, but he also admitted that it was not to him an acceptable or practical policy. Do hon. members on that side know what the policy is which Hoernlé accepted? He said: “Total separation should be the liberals’ choice”. However, he admitted that this was not possible. Whither is the official Opposition therefore going? Their progenitor was at least honest. Why are they not also honest? I have their monthly publication Deurbraak here with me, and I take cognizance of their policy. Why do they not admit that their policy with their “open societies”, freedom of movement and freedom of choice, will lead to discrimination?

Let us consider what else their progenitor said. He said in his book that there would be continuing discrimination only when we did not allow Black groups to acquire their own institutions, and that discrimination would never be eliminated as long as we did not afford these people, as a large community, the opportunity to develop to the full.

The NP’s record indicates that is moving away from discrimination. In this regard we do not need investigating teams to scrutinize our policy, because our record is clean. Our record is clean in the sense that our policy is not based on discrimination and negativism towards other people. The policy of this Government is based on the principle that every individual should be able to fulfil himself as a human being, and on that principle we shall be able to create a paradise in South Africa for all who wish to co-operate and who believe in the future of a variety of cultural communities.

Mr. Speaker, the tone in which the hon. member for Springs conducted his speech was completely paternalistic. What he said was that the laws that had been made by this Government had been good for the people in this country who were not White. I wonder how many times he has asked them what they think about these laws. Then the hon. member for Springs quoted Alfred Hoernlé in an attempt to substantiate the Government’s attitude. I can also quote Alfred Hoernlé. Alfred Hoernlé described discrimination in the following terms—

I should say this is a much better quote from Alfred Hoernlé. [Interjections.] I should like to make the assumption—which, I know, is a very bold assumption indeed—that all of us in the House today agree that we should move away from racial discrimination in South Africa. I know it is a bold assumption, but the NRP claim that this is one of the principles of their policy. My assumption can also be substantiated by many quotes from hon. members of the NP.

In the present climate it is perhaps particularly relevant because many people—pie in the sky, of course, I should say—seem to be thinking that in the new situation which is unfolding itself the hon. the Prime Minister and the bulk of the NP will somehow move South Africa towards dismantling racial discrimination. Having made this broad assumption, however, I will attempt to show that whatever the other political parties may say, neither the NP nor the NRP is able to move South Africa away from racial discrimination unless both those parties make certain fundamental policy changes. Moreover, those fundamental policy changes will have to be in line with the way in which the PFP thinks. [Interjections.] Anyone on the NP side who thinks that moving away from racial discrimination is fine as long as it is not interpreted in the way in which the PFP interprets it, is living in the same cloudcuckoo land as the hon. member for Innesdal, who said here in the House the other day that power-sharing was fine as long as it was not interpreted in the way in which the PFP interpreted it.

This is an important subject and I do not have much time to talk. Therefore I should like to illustrate what I am saying by referring to one piece of discriminatory legislation. That is, of course, the Group Areas Act, in terms of which the various race groups in South Africa are residentially separated. First of all we have the NP’s attitude. As long as they consider themselves bound by their traditional policy they can never eliminate successfully racial discrimination in the field of housing. In the first place they are trapped by a tightly interlinked web of racial laws which they have passed over many years. Ideologically, residential separation in terms of the Group Areas Act, as confirmed this morning by the hon. member for Parys, is a key pillar of the policies that have been constructed by the NP. The hon. member for Pinelands has listed those key laws. The point is that if one tampers with one—if one tries to dismantle racial segregation in residential areas—one tampers with them all, thus if one has mixed living one cannot avoid mixed socializing, mixed schools, mixed entertainment, mixed dating, mixed marriages, mixed local politics and, finally, mixed government.

The NP understands that. They understand that if one tampers with one, one tampers with all. This is fine. It is in fact greatly to be desired if one accepts the PFP’s view of South Africa as an open society in which pluralism will operate voluntarily and in which association politics will govern. If one accepts, however, the NP’s view of South Africa as a multinational society in which separate racial identity and separate structures must be maintained, then no move away from the essential principles of any one of the key laws is possible and can be contemplated. The Government confirmed this when it appointed the Strydom Committee to review the Group Areas Act. That could never be a move away from race discrimination because the committee’s terms of reference are to preserve the principle of residential areas. My crucial point is that moving away from race discrimination can never mean more, for the NP, than simply an attempt to achieve “separate but equal” facilities on a more just basis, whilst retaining the network of legislated separation. [Interjections.] It could never be more than that in terms of the ideology of those hon. members. Unless they make a fundamental change in their ideology, that is all it could ever mean. The point is, however, that that cannot work either. One cannot achieve justice in South Africa by achieving “separate but equal” status. It cannot be done. The principle of “separate but equal” is conceptually impossible.

Secondly, the task of achieving a meaningful equalization of available living areas is a practical impossibility. Conceptually the idea of “separate but equal” was stated as long ago as 1934 when the Appellate Division laid down that one could provide separate amenities as long as they were substantially equal in quality. That was in 1934, but that idea died as long ago as 1953 in this House when the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act was passed, an Act which, in effect, said that no separate reservations would be invalid if not of equal quality. That was decided in 1953, despite the whole—and let me say fruitless—history of “separate but equal”, but the NP is still fiddling with this idea of moving towards the concept of “separate but equal”. The latest moves of the hon. the Minister of Community Development—I am sorry he is not in the House at the moment—are evidence of this line of thinking. On the one hand he has the Strydom Committee looking into the Group Areas Act, but he hamshackled the Strydom Committee even before it got started by tying the committee to the principle of separate living. On the other hand he is trying to implement a process of what I call group area islands, thinking that that is going to equalize the situation, thereby solving the problem. In terms of this policy of group area islands he has reaffirmed Maitland Garden Village and Kalk Bay—and in both cases I applaud this step because they are separate communities, as they stand—but now he is looking to find more ground to set aside for handing over to the Coloured community, and other sections of the population, in an attempt to equalize the situation. Whilst we on this side of the House clearly recognize the gross, in fact the vicious, inequality that exists in the Western Cape, for example, where all the desirable living space is allocated to Whites—one only needs to consider the Peninsula, the Tygerberg mountains and the Boland mountain areas to know that and to know that all the remote wasteland is largely reserved for the Coloured community—and whilst one supports the concept of trying to move away from the unequal situation, a policy of trying to do it by creating islands is ridiculous. It is like trying to feed a hungry lion with half a crumb. Let us assume that the hon. the Minister manages to find 100 ha of prime land, somewhere in the prestige areas, to rezone and hand over, and let us assume he then takes those 100 ha and divides it into 200, 300 or even 400 plots. How long would it take for those plots to be fully subscribed, and when they are fully subscribed, what will happen then? Either they would become ridiculously expensive, because of the supply and demand situation, or he would have to find another area to set aside, and he would also have to expropriate that other area. If one were to take this argument to its logical conclusion, eventually the hon. the Minister would have to expropriate 80% of the prime urban land of South Africa and rezone it, changing it from land for the White group to land for some other group, in order to achieve “separate but equal”. The whole idea, of course, is absolutely ridiculous. It is an impossibility. Even if it were attempted on a partial basis, it would prove to be out of reach, not to mention the social dislocation it would cause. That is why we in the PFP say that if one wants to move away from race discrimination in any sphere, including the residential sphere, one must start with the correct principle.

In the case of moving away from residential race discrimination, the first principle or goal is going to have to be that of scrapping the Group Areas Act entirely. That must be accepted as a goal, as a fundamental principle. Then we can by all means enter into a debate about the transition mechanism. The basic goal, however, would have to be non-negotiable. Logic allows one absolutely no escape from that conclusion once one has decided to move away from race discrimination. That is why we of the PFP agree with Dr. Erica Theron that the Group Areas Act should be repealed and that its revision alone is not enough; it cannot be tampered with or improved.

Having said this, I want to say that we in the PFP also recognize the realities of the South African political scene. Firstly, it is a reality—it is no good denying it—that not all Whites in South Africa would support a policy of the immediate scrapping of the Group Areas Act. It is to their discredit and it is to the discredit of the leaders who should have led them to a different point of view, but it is a reality which is confirmed inter alia by surveys published in the last few weeks.

Also by your referendum.

However, when we accept that reality as set out in the surveys that have recently been published, the Government side must also accept the reality that there are parts of White South Africa who would accept open areas. In the survey published in the Sunday Times it was shown that Johannesburg had a majority in favour of that. Although the same survey showed that only approximately one in three in the Cape area would be in favour of that, the Constantia referendum showed that at least part of this area would be in favour of it.

That is not true.

I am afraid one has to accept the reality that the White electorate has mixed points of view and that in some areas it would be acceptable and in others not.

The second reality one must accept—we set it out in paragraph 3.13.1 of our policy document—is the need for a transitional stage in changing South Africa. Many people “fear rapid and traumatic change”. Paragraph 3.13.3 of our policy document states—

That is a reality we accept, despite propaganda aimed at us to the contrary.

If that is what you want, why do you want to veto it?

A third reality the PFP accepts is that the principle of apartheid is totally unsaleable outside of certain sections of the White community, the White electorate. Certainly, it is unsaleable to the world at large. We also accept the reality that a unilateral programme of dismantling discrimination by Whites alone is not going to command the support of the wider community. In fact, it is going to be regarded with deep suspicion by the wider community. Because of these realities, we advocate the engagement of a multi-racial body such as a commission—if we were in power it would be a national convention—in order to gain support for and hopefully consensus on the process of systematic reform. What could be more sensible and more in line with the realities of our situation than that?

In the case of the systematic reform of the Group Areas Act, I should once again like to refer the hon. the Minister to a plea I made to him in a letter last year, i.e. that he could use section 17 of the Act effectively to create open areas on a place by place basis. I believe that he would almost certainly on a systematic step by step basis be able to command the support and co-operation of a multi-racial commission of representative leaders in the first place and of the country in the second place for such a programme. Unless the NP accepts the concept of open areas, at least as a phasing mechanism, as well as the ultimate necessity of scrapping the Group Areas Act entirely, as has been done in South West Africa, they will not be able to lead South Africa away from race discrimination in this field or in any other and they will define themselves out of the game before it even starts.

I would now like to turn briefly to the approach and policy of the NRP in respect of residential areas which is the cornerstone of their policy, namely local option. I want to say to members of the NRP that, while that policy stands, they too are not equipped to move South Africa away from race discrimination. Their leader has defined “local option” in the Financial Mail of 3 April 1981. I shall not repeat the definition. It can sound good when you first hear it: Let the local people decide whether they want group areas to apply or not. However, the crucial point is that this policy as stated by the NRP envisages local option as an end result. The policy does not stand up to analysis on that basis—they do not say how decisions are to be taken or enforced.

You have not read what it is all about.

It is not stated what would happen if one body said yes and another body said no, or what would happen if people on different sides of the street were to disagree, or if a decision in regard to an open area was agreed to this year and disagreed to the following year.

Even that is covered too.

All that is covered.

Would you open an area and then reverse the decision?

You exhibit your ignorance.

Will you reverse a decision once you have opened an area? Mr. Speaker, we get no answer. I say that it is a completely unworkable concept as far as the end result is concerned. Every metropolitan area will be a shifting patchwork quilt where people will not know where they stand. Mr. Speaker, I submit that the main reason for the NRP proposing this policy of “local option”, defined by them as an end result, is that they want to have it both ways. They want to claim opposition to race discrimination, but they want to duck the tough political question of whether they are for the Group Areas Act or against it. I believe that the NRP as a party has not displayed the guts to say either that they favour group areas as a good thing or that they oppose it as a bad thing and will abolish it. How can they say that they will abolish statutory race discrimination and yet uphold racial group areas as a local option? It is another contradiction in terms.

You did not do badly with your referendum.

Having said that, I want to make a serious point to the NRP in this regard. The present gap between the NRP and the PFP may well not be unbridgeable on this point, if the NRP can bring themselves to make one important adjustment to their policy, i.e. if, instead of talking about local option as an end result, they were to accept the concept of local reform as a systematic process of moving steadily forward, away from the residential race discrimination towards the final scrapping of the Act.

We do not necessarily see residential segregation as an evil.

That is the problem. If you say that you want to do away with racial discrimination, as is stated in your policy, you cannot possibly then also say that there can be a situation in the end where racial discrimination will be practised in parts of South Africa under an NRP Government. It is a contradiction in terms.

If that is what the local people want…

If it can be accepted that the NRP will provide leadership from our present situation to a situation in which there is no racial discrimination and no Group Areas Act, then we can start talking to them.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to support the motion as proposed by the hon. member for Pinelands. In the limited time available, I would just like to comment on what the hon. member for Parys had to say. It was particularly interesting to see that when he talked about power-sharing and the constitutional development in the debate, as introduced by the hon. member for Pinelands, he actually took the trouble to read his speech word for word, in case he might make a mistake. I thought that this was particularly interesting. He also took great pains to avoid touching on the question of Coloureds and Coloured participation in this Parliament under any circumstances. He talked about Blacks—he poured vitriol on PFP policy regarding Blacks and any idea of sharing with Blacks. Not in one single respect, however, did he enlighten this House on policy towards Coloureds. I hope the hon. the Minister will say what the policy towards Coloureds sharing-power is going to be and also towards Coloureds having race discrimination practised against them. As I have dealt with residential segregation, I want to know from the hon. the Minister, who is in charge of this matter, whether he is going to involve Coloureds in the political process and yet still keep them as lepers in a sort of kraal, specially reserved for them in terms of the Group Areas Act.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member for Constantia and he did not take a broad conspectus of the motion before the House. He really talked only about the Group Areas Act, and I do not intend following him solely along those lines. I shall take a broader view than that. The hon. member said something which I find very strange, arrogant and unacceptable. He said that it is not conceptually possible to be separate but equal, and he immediately added that the Appellate Division had already decided that this is conceptually possible because it is a decision they took.

It was proved wrong in 1953.

The hon. member says that he himself can prove the Appellate Division wrong. He spoke about the conceptuality and said it was impossible to visualize conceptually. I would say that if I had to choose between the logic of that hon. member and his ability to conceptualize and the decision of the Appellate Division I would always prefer the decision of the Appellate Division. I would suggest to him that he should please not be quite so arrogant as to think that he has all the knowledge in his possession.

*I should now like to consider the motion before this House for a while. We must examine very carefully what is actually being said in this motion. We must also observe what the hon. member for Pinelands is not saying. He is not asking for a commission of inquiry. He is asking—and he has emphasized this—for a multiracial commission. I cannot quite understand why it should in fact be multiracial. Are we to select the best people to undertake the investigation, or should the commission really be multiracial? If there are four races in South Africa, should only one man represent all the Black nations of South Africa on that commission? I do not think that is what he meant. I think that what the hon. member meant was that a number of people should serve on the commission. The hon. member cannot get his own national convention off the ground, and so he wants to turn this into a national convention. It will not work. However, the hon. member went even further than that. He said that we should appoint a multiracial commission. What is the actual policy of the PFP? Their policy is: The PFP stands for a non-racial society. They say—and hon. members must listen very carefully to this— that we should have a community in which race does not matter. Race is unimportant to them. However, the hon. member for Pinelands is elevating racism to a principle. He says we should have a multiracial commission. We do not believe in that. The first leg of this motion shows me that race preys on the hon. member’s mind. Race is the most important thing to him. It is an obsession. That is what the first part of the motion dealt with.

In the second leg of the hon. member’s motion he asked for all legislation to be reviewed. Should we, in a manner of speaking, give this commission the right to make Acts? Should this commission come to this House and tell us what we should do with certain pieces of legislation? I think it is a negation of the privilege and of the rights of this Parliament. I think it is absolutely far-reaching. If those hon. members want to govern this country, they must win an election. But we give no credence to their clever stories. We must now take note of one aspect which is particularly important. This is that the hon. member is asking us to review the present legislation. Hon. members must listen very carefully to this. We should review the legislation at present on the Statute Book with a view to eliminating all discrimination. I was always under the impression that the PFP stood for a federation. The PFP states—

However, one must remember that at present we are living in a unitary State. If we change the legislation, as it now stands, we cannot arrive at a federation. In effect the hon. member for Pinelands is now saying that we should give everyone equal franchise. He says that in a unitary State we should revise legislation so that everyone will have the franchise. Surely this is the implication of what he is saying—one man, one vote.

And that is also what he wants.

Yes, that is what he wants. However, we must now go further. If that is what the hon. member wants, it is the policy of his party. His party’s policy is after all a federation and they have assured me it is not a policy of one man, one vote. I want to tell you that this motion implies a change in the policy of the PFP. What the PFP is now advocating is a policy of one man, one vote in a unitary system.

The second logical conclusion to be drawn from this is that the Group Areas Act should be abolished, and as a result schools should be declared open. We should have no illusions about this. The National Party has adopted a clear standpoint in this regard. In my hand I have a document containing the official standpoint of the National Party, and I feel it is necessary for me to quote from it at this stage—

That is our policy.

Yes, but you people keep changing your policies.

It is not so; these are ancient facts stemming from the time before you were even born.

*This is the situation facing us. If I therefore have to draw a conclusion on what is meant with this motion, I shall say on the one hand that the PFP no longer stands by its national convention. They are no longer going to use it as an instrument of change. They have discarded it, and are no longer in favour of it. The PFP says a national convention is going to be time-consuming. In his speech today the hon. member for Pinelands said, however, that time was very limited and the Government should act as quickly as possible. This is the second reason why I say that a change in the policy of the PFP has occurred. Consequently I think it is important that the residents of Johannesburg should also know that a change occurred in the policy of the PFP today and that it now advocates a unitary State with a system of one man, one vote. What I am saying is logical and correct, because the hon. member for Pinelands has moved that the existing legislation be changed. He did not suggest that other legislation should take its place. However, if one changes the existing legislation, the logical consequence and only deduction is that one man, one vote will apply in a unitary State.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member for Pinelands does not know what he moved, he must not take it amiss of me if I know what he moved. [Interjections.] The National Party, too, must now state where it stands, and I am going to tell you where we stand.

Yes, and high time too.

I want to begin by repeating what the hon. member for Constantia said, and he in fact contradicted what the hon. member for Pinelands said. He said we could not immediately change everything. I do not want to repeat everything he said, because my time is running out. He said we should introduce a programme that would phase out discrimination systematically. This is in essence what he said. We should initiate a programme to remove discrimination systematically.

Why not?

The hon. member must not be impatient. I am coming to him in a moment. I just want to say that these processes were launched by this party a long time ago to deal with discriminatory legislation systematically. These processes are under way and I want to begin by quoting what Dr. Verwoerd said as long ago as 1961. It is important that hon. members know what Dr. Verwoerd said.

What about John Vorster?

I am coming to that. Inter alia, Dr. Verwoerd had the following to say:

As long ago as 1961 this party’s standpoint was that its ultimate goal was no discrimination and no domination. [Interjections.] We are moving rapidly towards that point. We are not standing still. Dr. Verwoerd went on to say—

You must remember, Sir, that we have believed in consultation, in negotiation since the time of Dr. Verwoerd. I say our policy is quite clear. We want to consult, we want to move away from discrimination and domination. Mr. John Vorster introduced the concept of co-responsibility. Did he not introduce the concept of co-responsibility? We therefore say that there has to be consultation and co-responsibility. In Prime Minister Vorster’s time surely it was quite clear that he said that we were moving away from discrimination on certain grounds. Surely that is our policy. Those hon. members must not tell us that we are not moving away from it. I just want to say that one cannot move further away from domination and discrimination than by making a nation independent. When you make a nation independent, that is the highest form of moving away from discrimination and domination. Do those hon. members not admit that? [Interjections.]

Tell that to the Blacks.

Does that hon. member admit it or not? Sir, it is quite obvious. In this regard—making nations independent—the NP has moved away from discrimination and domination to the culminating point foreseen by Dr. Verwoerd. [Interjections.]

As far as the Asians, the Whites and the Coloureds are concerned, it is very easy for those hon. members to want to prescribe to us what we must do, but when we initiate a process to move away from discrimination and domination systematically and to find certain solutions, those hon. members boycott it. The PFP is not prepared to take part in those processes although the hon. member for Constantia said that they were in fact trying to do so. I maintain that their act of boycotting the President’s Council negates that. It is not true that the PFP is taking part in the process. In the meantime the hon. the Prime Minister said as recently as 3 August 1981—does the hon. member know which Prime Minister I am referring to now? Must I help him? [Interjections.] Sir, I am happy to say, he knows. On 3 August the hon. the Prime Minister said the following—

This is our policy. We remain bound to those proposals because we are a democratic party. We are bound to the decisions of our congresses. We do not come to light with motions like the one moved by the hon. member for Pinelands today, which completely contradicts his policy. The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say—

There is the proof. This principle goes all the way back to 1961 and we are still following the same course. This is our method and our way of acting to move away from domination and discrimination as we have agreed to do on certain grounds. As the hon. member for Constantia conceded, however, we cannot do it overnight. For this reason I cannot support the motion of the PFP, and I cannot support the amendment of the NRP either. However, I do not have the time to say much more about this.

I want to put it as follows: The NP is systematically doing its best to put right everything that is wrong in this country. We believe we must strive for the welfare and happiness of the people. I now take hon. members back to the time of Dr. Malan. He said—

Today we still endorse this.

I endorse this today. To what Dr. Malan said the hon. the Prime Minister added that the right to self-determination of the White man would continue to remain the point of departure of the Government.

Consequently I cannot support the motion of the PFP, nor the amendments of the NRP.

Mr. Speaker, many interesting statements have been made and many interesting questions have been put by hon. members on the opposite side of this House. The hon. member for Parys, inter alia, asked what was wrong with a nation wanting to be itself.

Is there something wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that. However, if one wishes to rely on discrimination to make that self-preservation possible …

That is not true. It is a lot of nonsense.

… then one achieves the opposite. Discrimination undermines the self-preservation of the White nation, whether it is defined as the Afrikaner nation or merely as the White nation. Discrimination is undermining this self-preservation. This is the difference between statements made by Chief Buthelezi and statements which are now being made by the Government. The hon. member for Parys says that when we speak of self-preservation, the protection of our language, our religion and our traditions, everyone says “discrimination”.

Correct.

However, when Chief Buthelezi says this, they say that it is not discrimination. Chief Buthelezi does not rely on discriminatory legislation in order to preserve these things. Is it necessary to have legislation to protect one’s language?

No.

Is it necessary to have discriminatory legislation to protect one’s religion? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he agrees with the provision in the Constitution that we should have equal treatment of Afrikaans and English?

I think that is a pathetic question. Nevertheless, I agree with it. [Interjections.]

Is it necessary to have discriminatory legislation in order to protect one’s traditions?

There is no such law, man! [Interjections]

Order!

Discrimination undermines the survival of a nation, no matter how one defines it.

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

I do not have the time to reply to any further questions.

The reason and motivation for the introduction of this motion was to determine to what extent our future could be influenced by it. It is my contention that we as Whites, regardless of the party to which we belong, cannot understand how drastic the effect of discrimination is on the other races. How can we know how seriously it is going to influence our future? It is only by way of commissions (a) in which other races are represented and (b) before which evidence can be given by other races, that we can establish what the problem is. Here I am thinking of commissions such as the Erika Theron Commission and the Cillié Commission. Evidence was given before these commissions by those people who were being affected by discrimination. This is the only kind of commission which would be able to determine what the problem is. That is why the hon. member for Pinelands has proposed that there should be a commission on which all races are represented.

†The hon. member for Umbilo appears to have taken up a stance in the middle, as he has not declared himself for or against discrimination. In a way he tries to be an apologist for discrimination because he says it is unfair. If that is not an understatement, Sir, then I have not heard one. Imagine, discrimination is unfair!

The NRP must make up its mind where it stands as far as discrimination is concerned.

We know exactly where we stand.

We learnt from the hon. member for Springs that Prof. Van der Vyver is aware of the fact that a nation needs to protect its own traditions and that differences between the different race groups do exist. However, I want to ask him whether Prof. Van der Vyver came to the conclusion in his book that laws which discriminate on the grounds of race were justified. What is Prof. Van der Vyver’s view on that issue? Does he justify discrimination on the grounds of race and colour in his book? He does not. That short paragraph was quoted completely out of context. Prof. Van der Vyver would probably have supported the proposal which is at present before this House. [Interjections.]

†May I now deal with race discrimination from only one point of view, and that is the effect that it has and will have on the future prospects for peaceful existence in South Africa. Morally it cannot be justified, but I do not intend to go into that aspect. What effect does continued race discrimination have? It antagonizes, polarizes and provides an easy and ideal platform for those who advocate change through confrontation. I do not want to get involved in the moral arguments, but merely in the plain reality of the political effect of discrimination.

The findings and the evidence that was led before the commission I mentioned clearly indicated what caused the Soweto riots, and that is why, as I said earlier, a multi-racial commission is necessary. The hon. member for Pretoria West posed a rather silly question when he asked why other races have to be represented. I will not go into that any further as, in my view, the answer is obvious.

I believe that we, as Whites, have no idea of the radical polarization that is taking place because of race discrimination.

Why do you say because of it? [Interjections.]

Can I use just one example? I do not want to go through the hundreds of discriminating measures. In Natal, around Durban, a number of Black removal schemes are being planned or are being implemented. Obviously these schemes are the result of discriminatory legislation. [Interjections.] The stage has now been reached—and this might be of interest to the hon. the Minister of Police— where more and more people who are affected by these schemes are indicating that they do not want anything to do with any White organization that tries to assist them or tries to make their burden lighter.

Those are the radicals.

Of course they are radical, but why are they radical? They maintain that it is no use their hoping that discrimination will disappear. They are saying it is no use relying on statements by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that the Government is against discrimination, or relying on negotiations and interviews with Ministers, or on petitions that are organized and presented by White welfare groups. In their view the only way in which one can eventually get rid of discrimination is through a radical change in the system. That is what they are saying, and why do they say that? Because of race discrimination.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended I was referring to the drastic effects of racial discrimination on the prospects of a peaceful and stable future South Africa. I was particularly referring to one aspect, viz. mass removals, and, of course, also the fact that the type of bitterness and frustration which is being caused by just that one aspect, for example, will be permanent. One of the tragic aspects of the type of discrimination which those people have to suffer is that the fact that they are being exploited by organizations and individuals is often seen—more often than not—as the work of communists, etc.

Talk about mass removals; we all know that Lenin and Stalin were the ones who really paved the way for that sort of practice. Exactly the same is done here in South Africa. Of course, those people who are so bitter about their lot, the ones who do not see any other way out, are easily persuaded that the only alternative is violence.

We talk about peaceful co-existence, racial harmony, co-operation, etc. To me the most tragic aspect of racial discrimination is that the longer it continues and the more frustrated its victims become the more hollow these terms sound to them. The terms “peaceful co-existence” and “racial harmony” are hollow terms and will remain so—they will in fact become even more so— unless we remove the ground roots which cause the frustration amongst other races.

*There are hon. members on the opposite side who have expressed doubt as to whether it is necessary for such a multi-racial commission to be appointed to investigate the question of discrimination. If one were to examine only one specific statement of the hon. member for Parys, that statement alone would justify a commission of inquiry of this nature. The hon. member for Parys said for example, that there were profound differences of opinion among Whites and other race groups on racial discrimination. If this is so, then this alone is something which should be investigated.

Yes, that is correct.

Of course, there are differences between what Whites understand by racial discrimination and what those who suffer under it understand by that term. It is these differences which should be clarified by a commission of this nature.

That is not what you are asking for in the motion.

The effect of the motion will be that, as a result of the evidence, those who serve on that commission—the Whites as well, of course—will have a better understanding of what racial discrimination is all about and what it means precisely.

That is the point.

Mr. Speaker, we can of course not abolish race discrimination in a vacuum. It is inevitably part—or must be part—of a structural change in South Africa. To remove racial discrimination in a vacuum is not possible. It appears that at the moment the NP is trying to confront the term of power-sharing, that it is trying to analyse it in its own way. This has not, however, happened as yet—as I see it— with the term “race discrimination”. We talk about it glibly without having analysed it and its effects. I believe it has become urgent to look at racial discrimination in a realistic way. It is no use to concentrate on constitutional alternatives for the various population groups on the one hand, without tackling, on the other hand, the whole question of racial discrimination. A constitutional so-called solution or improvement cannot possibly work unless we also deal with the question of racial discrimination.

The abolition of racial discrimination is a prerequisite for a peaceful future co-existence in South Africa. We can fiddle and chop and change as much as we like when it comes to constitutions, and we can introduce the 1977 proposals for representation for the Coloured community, but that would not in any way do away with the harmful effects of race discrimination. Unless, through a commission such as the one proposed, evidence is obtained of the real effect of race discrimination, we will be jeopardizing future peaceful co-existence in our country.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Pinelands formulated and gave notice of his motion, I do not believe he thought that circumstances would subsequently develop in such a way that it would make a discussion of the subject very real and important. I should like to react in that spirit, and state the standpoint of the Government. Before I do so, however, there are a few remarks I want to make in connection with the behaviour of the hon. member for Pinelands. I have never yet found it difficult to enter into a debate with hon. members on the opposite side on their views or their philosophy, as opposed to those of my party. However, I have always believed—bearing in mind the previous occupation of the hon. member—that when one argues in this House, one does so on the basis of the correctness of the facts and not on the basis of misrepresentations. However, I wish to say that the hon. member is guilty of a misrepresentation, owing to suppression and distortion. The hon. member was kind enough to send me a copy of the pamphlet from which he quoted to try to demonstrate the standpoint of this Government on power-sharing among Whites, Coloureds and Asians. But what did the hon. member do? He omitted to mention a substantial portion of the pamphlet. [Interjections.]

Typical.

I am not looking for a fight. I did not interrupt those hon. members and they must please give me a chance to complete my speech.

And to crown it all he is a clergyman.

What did the hon. member omit? In the first place he quoted selectively, but he went further and omitted an important part of the reply to the question on power-sharing, and I maintain that he did so deliberately.

No.

But what did he omit? It dealt with the “sharing of power”.

• Question: Does the plan not amount to sharing of power?
• Reply: We do not believe in sharing of power.

†That was not, however, the complete answer to start off with. The rest was—

So why do you use it?

I quote further—

Do hon. members know what he left out? I quote—

He also left out the rest—the conclusion is inevitable—and I quote—

And then the piece goes on.

*Can that hon. member tell me: What is the sense or meaning of behaviour of such a nature that a meaningful debate is not possible?

You are struggling.

At least I am trying, but that hon. member does nothing. I wish to point out a second manifestation of the hon. member’s method of conducting a debate. He said the debate today should not degenerate into a semantic debate on what differentiation and discrimination are. However, he then proceeded to use the concepts or words “discrimination” and “differentiation” as though they were synonymous. This is the fundamental issue in the debate. Consequently it is no use dismissing these concepts lightly and then conducting a debate on the basis of a false assumption. Therefore, contrary to his expectation, I intend dealing with it, because it lies at the roots of the premises of the official Opposition as well as the hon. members on this side of the House. In fact, it represents the essence of the dividing line between the hon. members opposite and this side of the House.

I said at the outset that these were important times. I have no intention of denying that. However you will allow me, Sir, to say that I do not think there has ever, in the history of this country, been a more intense realization and appreciation of the fact that sound ethnic and group relations among the population groups in this country are a precondition to successful and peaceful organization of this society and also for social, economic and constitutional reform. I differ materially with the hon. member on the complexity of this society. His picture of the realities of society and ours differ fundamentally. The complexity of this society that has to be served by an economic and constitutional dispensation is emphasized by the high intensity of the emotional dividing lines— it is no use closing one’s eyes to this because these are the facts—which impose impediments or restrictions on peaceful progress towards a constitutional dispensation which is able to satisfy the reasonable expectations of all people. I maintain that if there is a single challenge facing the leaders of every group in this country, and all members of this House, it is that we should all be geared to seeking intergroup relations attitudes which are based on spiritual and intellectual flexibility. I wish to say today with all the earnestness at my command that no one in this House disputes or wishes to jeopardize the privileges and rights of any group in this country. The essence of the problem we are struggling with is how we can give shape to those rights and privileges without destroying any existing rights. That is the essence of the problem.

As the hon. member for Parys said, this Government has committed itself to maintaining, in an impartial way, the rights and privileges of the population groups in this country. I wish to assert that the Government’s record in this connection remains unimpaired. To ensure that we honour this undertaking the Government has been responsible, so I wish to assert, for the most historical event, constitutionally or politically speaking, in our country. I am referring to the establishment of a multiracial President’s Council which is expected to deliberate calmly, to investigate, to advise on and to formulate a way in which we can achieve this objective.

Now I ask this question: What is the essence of the hon. member’s motion? In the first place that a commission of inquiry shall be appointed, a multiracial one, and in the second place that all legislation which differentiates should be abolished. The hon. member made differentiation synonymous with discrimination. However, what did the hon. members of the Opposition do in regard to the appointment of the President’s Council, a body which is multiracial and what do we find within the scope of its powers?

It is not multiracial; where are the Blacks?

It is within the powers of the President’s Council to examine all legislation, including that which discriminates or has discriminatory effects. His party stands accused of ignoring the instruments of Parliament.

That is why I wish to make two observations in this connection: There are some people who think that the President’s Council is a dangerous institution and that it is a risky gamble. There are other people, such as the hon. members of the official Opposition, who think that it is inadequate. A third statement I wish to make in this connection is that it is an important instrument for peaceful development in our country.

The hon. member for Pinelands is recommending that we should appoint a multiracial commission, and what is relevant here is that it should review all discriminatory laws with a view to their removal. It is important that we remember that in terms of the hon. member’s definition, discrimination and differentiation are equivalents. I wish to suggest that before we can conduct a dialogue on this motion in the House, we should clarify the concept of discrimination and the meaning attached to it.

Would that commission not do justice to that?

Why should the commission do it? Are we not capable of doing it?

Why do you have a President’s Council?

The hon. member has asked a question and I wish to reply. When the hon. member for Pinelands formulated his motion, did he in fact use the term “discrimination”? Now he says that he needs a commission to tell him what it means. Surely that is absolute nonsense. I am one of the people who believe in the President’s Council; not only do I believe in it, I also work for it.

I believe that we could give far more attention to the careful definition of the concepts and words we use. I maintain that one of the greatest shortcomings in our debates is that hon. members on various sides of the House talk at cross-purposes to a greater extent than they talk to one another. It is clear that the meaning I attach to the concept of discrimination or distinguishing measures is completely different to that of the hon. member for Pinelands. Owing to the meaning which I attach to it and in order to explain it, it is necessary for us to draw a distinction which the hon. member for Pinelands wishes to avoid. We do in fact wish to draw a distinction between differentiation and discrimination.

They are words.

Very well, the hon. member says they are words, they are not concepts. This is important. If the hon. member acknowledges the pluralism of our society, and if he wishes to make it part of his future constitutional dispensation, is he discriminating or is he differentiating? He must tell me. His party subscribes to a specific standpoint, and the Leader of the Opposition endorsed it. He said that he did not believe that a constitutional model based on an unadapted Westminster model of one man, one vote could ensure peaceful coexistence in South Africa, but that it was going to lead to conflict and clashes.

What did the hon. member find? He said that the complexity of society suggested that one should differentiate. If that is not the case, what he said makes no sense.

Where did he say that? Can you give us a reference?

If the hon. member for Pinelands says that we should remove all laws which discriminate from our Statute Book …

I did not say that, and the motion does not say that.

The hon. member’s motion reads that we should appoint a multiracial commission to review, or to remove all discriminatory legislation from the Statute Book.

I said such legislation should be reviewed.

Very well, “to review”. To what purpose? Let us not play with words. [Interjections.] The inference is inevitable that the hon. member also wishes to have it in the constitutional dispensation. If he does not, he is discriminating because surely the words do not have another meaning.

The hon. member used the word “discriminate” in his motion.

Of course. In South Africa there is a diversity of laws and measures which differentiate between the various groups merely because they represent different levels of development and culture and because their exposure to the economic and democratic processes is limited. If the hon. member wishes to deny this reality, his image of the country and its problems is a false image. I concede in all fairness that there are distinguishing measures in this country which are prejudicial to people. But this Government has committed itself to removing them. To say, however, as the hon. member for Umbilo did, that this Government placed the discriminatory legislation on the Statute Book, is surely not true, and surely the hon. member knows it is not true. Surely the laws concerning representation in this country which were there before the NP came into power also discriminate between people.

Yes, but you have extended those laws enormously.

That is not the argument.

The NP made the situation worse.

I believe that such legislation which differentiates between population groups is discriminatory and should be removed. It is not only I who say this; my party also says this. The hon. member referred to discrimination on the basis of sex, but I want to ask him whether it is wrong to accord different treatment to a boy or girl under the age of 18 years. He must tell me what he thinks, because there are laws which differentiate in order to accommodate people. There are discriminatory measures which discriminate at the expense of people, and these have to be eliminated.

[Inaudible.]

I want to put a question to the hon. member for Constantia. Is he accepting the concept of local option? The hon. member held a referendum in his constituency. If the referendum had gone against him, would he have accepted it? Liberalism is like measles: The sooner one gets it, the better one’s chances of survival. It depends on how we see South Africa and its circumstances. The Government has on innumerable occasions committed itself to eliminating measures which have a discriminatory effect on specific groups. I want to say this. Surely there is a whole series of such laws which have already been eliminated, but the hon. member knows that the elimination of measures is also an emotionally charged issue. While this side of the House is constantly trying to persuade people of the benefits of reform, hon. members opposite are creating a climate in which it cannot take place. [Interjections.]

I wish to conclude with this idea. The responsibility of the Government is to adopt measures and govern the country in such a way that the general interests of the entire population are served. They must also be served in the long term. That is why the Government upholds a specific philosophy on the basis of which it formulates a policy which is geared to serving the general interests of the total population. It is necessary to do so by distinguishing what really exists in our society. The Government was returned to office on that basis. The hon. member may differ with my philosophy. He has every right to do so. The hon. member may differ with my policy, but he must realize that as long as we are in power, we shall act in accordance with the philosophy that we are responsible for the entire population. The hon. member will concede what a destabilizing effect the abolition of certain distinguishing measures could have on the interests of the population of this country. The hon. member is intelligent enough. I need not tell him what is happening in other countries which are doing what he wants us to do. In England it was necessary to appoint a Minister of Racial Affairs, who had to represent the group of non-White people in that country, and in 1974 that group comprised just over 3% of the population. I want to put this question to the hon. member: Why does he not address a plea in respect of the non-statutory discrimination in this country to the people who are able to do something about it? I have never heard the hon. member say that we should so amend the Companies Act that we are able to curtail the activities of the conglomerates which are engaged in exploiting the entire population every day. [Interjections.] The hon. member must also tell me what his standpoint is, compared to that of the hon. member for Yeoville, on a free economy. Should we, in political terms, allow free rein to these forces in the market? Then, let me tell him, we shall not succeed in the primary function which we have in this country, and that is to eliminate the conflict potential which is an inherent part of our society.

That is exactly what the hon. member for Yeoville wants.

No, Sir. The hon. member says there should be freedom in the economy as well, and the best freedom is to be able to sell your labour at the best price. Is the issue of a minimum wage not at variance with that? Surely that is also a restriction on the free economy. The hon. member knows that it is, yet he is advocating it. Do you know to whom he is advocating it? He is advocating it to the people who are the biggest employers, and they are not Nationalists. They are Prog supporters. I want to say this: The Government is committed to the elimination of measures which discriminate and have a prejudicial effect on people. The rate and the extent to which this happens is determined by the general interests of the entire population. If it will lead to destabilization, if it will lead to disorder and ineffective government, then this Government will not be prepared to eliminate such measures. The hon. member must know that.

I am asking the hon. member whether it is not possible for us to open our eyes to the realities of this country. Must we continue with irresponsible slogans which, if they were to be applied, could lead only to the very destruction of that order and stability which are preconditions for reform? That is what the hon. member is doing every day. He proceeds from the assumption that individuals and groups need only be given free rein, and that there is an invisible hand, as Locke and Adam Smith supposed, which will prevent them from harming the interests of other people, and which will ensure that there is wonderful harmony and co-operation. Surely this kind of thinking has nothing to do with reality.

I want to conclude. In our situation, complicated as it is, there is inherent in our society a multiplicity of conflicting interests. We have no choice but to adopt a diversity of distinguishing measures to reconcile those conflicting interests.

The hon. member for Pinelands wants all forms of statutory discrimination removed. I assume that this hypothesis of mine is true. I want to ask him to go and advocate for a change the removal of non-statutory discrimination of which the supporters of his party are the greatest exponents.

We in this House and political leaders outside this House must learn one thing: If we do not penalize the people who propogate radicalism in the political spectrum of this country, if we do not reward moderation in this country and if we content ourselves with simply allowing the political market forces in our political environment to determine their political point of equilibrium, political leaders would prefer to proclaim extremistic standpoints rather than to preach reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, we are now coming to the end of a debate which began nearly 2½ hours ago. I am grateful to hon. members on all side of the House who have participated. I am sorry that it is quite clear that there is a division here. Hon. members on the Government side have not tried to answer the basic assumption that those who endure discrimination every day, are in the best possible position to decide what discrimination really is. The hon. the Minister tells us now that we should not bandy words and we should understand what such words mean, but when he is given an opportunity to do just that, unfortunately he turns it away.

About two years ago my hon. leader introduced a very similar motion in this House when he suggested that a Select Committee should do just what we ask to be done in terms of the motion. The answer given by that side of the House was, how can you ask for a Select Committee which only consists of White people to make decisions about discrimination? Now we introduce a motion which asks for a multi-racial commission and they throw up their hands in horror! The hon. member for Parys, for instance, said this was a terrible thing—how dare we have a multi-racial commission to decide on what discrimination is and how it should be done away with! Yet, he is party to the President’s Council.

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