Mr Speaker, I move—

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the PFP I second the motion of the hon. the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, for the reasons we advanced on Friday we shall not be supporting this motion.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the NRP I wish to state that we identify ourselves with the motion put forward by the hon. the Prime Minister, and that we will be supporting it.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Mr Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I should like to move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

As far as I have been able to ascertain, the first motion of no confidence in the Government of the day was heard in this Parliament in 1913, and was moved by the Labour Party. As far as I was able to ascertain further, it was only from 1947 that it became a regular phenomenon that motions of no confidence were proposed annually. Apart from the one to which I have already referred, nine other motions of no confidence were debated before that time. Two were moved by the Labour Party in 1915, and after that in 1915, 1918, 1919 and 1923 by the National Party. Then, too, one was moved in 1929 by the South African Party, one in 1935 by the “Gesuiwerdes” and one in 1942 by the “Herenigdes”.

Up to and including 1948, when the present Government came to power, there had been—so it seems to me—four motions of no confidence that represented turning points in this Parliament. The first was the one moved by Colonel Cresswell in 1913, a motion that was seized upon by General Hertzog to explain why he had left General Botha’s Cabinet. He specifically accused General Botha of not being aware of the two nationalisms that were developing in South Africa, the Afrikaans nationalism and the English nationalism. Now, 70 years later, we again have a Prime Minister Botha who is trying—and with greater success—to reconcile these two nationalisms.

In 1923 it was again General Hertzog who, just before the 1924 election, accused the Smuts Government of economic neglect and of not being concerned about the poor White, of being indifferent towards the whole process of urbanization and of, in fact, being in the pocket of the powerful financial interests. These, of course, are points of dispute that are arising again, particularly now in the course of the by-election in Soutpansberg.

The 1935 motion was introduced by Dr D F Malan. He launched a very harsh attack on the Hertzog Coalition Government and ridiculed their artificial unity, and for the first time the question of race was something that caused division among the parties in this House. Dr Malan used this issue very adroitly to play off the left and right wings against one another. This of course has since become a standard phenomenon in motions of no confidence.

In 1946 it was in Dr Malan’s motion of no confidence that their colour policy, that has become the standard policy of the NP, was formulated, and since then that policy has regularly been the subject of motions of no confidence in this House.

In all probability this motion of no confidence is to be the last motion of no confidence in a Parliamentary dispensation which came into being in 1910. With all its undoubted deficiencies—and we have referred to them repeatedly—the Westminster system that came into being in 1910 was in a certain sense a constitutional miracle, given the historical circumstances that preceded it. The Anglo-Boer War had ended eight years previously, a war which had caused deep divisions among Whites and left a heritage of bitterness and hatred. Nevertheless the enemies that had opposed one another on the battlefield in bloody confrontation were able to come together to negotiate a new constitutional dispensation with the slogan “Unity is Strength”. That dispensation lasted for almost three quarters of a century, and one cannot help wondering how long the new one is going to last.

The historical circumstances in which this new dispensation is coming into being are more dramatic and more loaded with far-reaching consequences for our country than was the case in 1910. The people of South Africa are still divided, but the division is not so much within Parliament among Whites, as it is between those inside it and those outside it. Indeed, a new dispensation is deemed necessary because the old dispensation has become useless in the settlement of conflict.

Therefore, when moving a final motion of no confidence in the old dispensation before we enter the new one, what is the main theme that presents itself?

†It is said that when Einstein contemplated the enormous consequences which flowed from the discovery of the atom bomb, he concluded that the dilemma of our age was the perfection of means and the confusion of ends. The 20th century has seen scientific and technological advance beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. Also in the sphere of social administration and bureaucratic management we have improved efficiency. In all spheres of activity man’s capacity to survive and the instruments at his disposal are better, more numerous and more easily available. And yet, the perfection of these means, as Einstein said, has been matched by an increasing confusion about the ends for which they have to be applied.

Looking back on almost 75 years of a racially entrenched Westminster system of Government one realizes that the Government has managed to make this dilemma their own and also to impose it on the rest of the country. The signs of it are easy to find.

We are now entering a period where the Government has used 30 years to shape the instrument for a political goal that can no longer be realized.

Everyone agrees now that apartheid is not only bad but also not possible, yet we spend millions and millions of rands persisting with policies and measures originally designed to achieve it. It is a clear case of confusion of means and ends. Even if one listens to the arguments nowadays advanced in an effort to explain why the Immorality Act or section 16 of it still survives, one finds that it is not an explanation which tries to give one a vision of how it is going to serve some end goal; it is rather an explanation which tries to disguise the embarrassment which one feels because this is still on the Statute Book.

One can eg read Dr Wimpie de Klerk, Editor of Rapport in the edition of 15 January this year—

The underlying theme to these questions is simply that the goal—preventing Soviet expansion, eg—may be undermined by the means we adopt to achieve it. Again, a case of confusion between means and ends.

We have just come through a period where the new constitution has been shaped and presented as “a step in the right direction” and when one quite reasonably inquires about where this direction is hopefully going to lead, there is a deafening silence.

On the eve of this new dispensation the only certainty that South Africa has is that we are not sure where the Government wants to take us, but we are definitely on our way. Usually such a situation is sufficient to merit a motion of no confidence in any Government. And yet, in South Africa the very fact that the Government is beginning to experience a confusion about ends, is also a source of hope for the future.

It is a source of hope that it now appears that the Government is confused and unsure about pursuing the goals of apartheid. This confusion is preferable to the relentless certainty with which they have tried to realize these goals for more than three decades. This confusion about the goals of apartheid has caused expectations for reform to mount right throughout South Africa.

What are the signs that there is now confusion about ever achieving the goals of apartheid? Firstly, it is now accepted that even if all the homelands take independence, this will not solve the constitutional crisis for Blacks and Whites in South Africa. Secondly, it is now accepted that the homelands can never be consolidated into viable units to cope with either their de facto or de jure populations; thirdly, that we will have a permanent population of Black people in our cities that will far outnumber Whites, Coloureds and Asians and, lastly, that it is impossible to have complete social segregation and that if we are to have a viable economy increasing integration is inevitable.

In so far as these have always been the traditional goals of apartheid and/or separate development there is now confusion, if not abandonment of them. This is the source of hope. This is where the feeling for reform has its origin. Even if we are not sure where we are going or where the Government wants to take us, it is at least now no longer so certain that we are travelling towards the destination of apartheid. We must remember that for more than three decades of almost 75 years of this Parliament this Government pursued these goals, and the very fact that we are now moving away from this Parliament to a new one is indicative of the uselessness of continuing to pursue the goals of apartheid for South Africa. But if it is true that there is now confusion about the goals of apartheid, it is equally true that the Government has spent a great deal of time, energy and resources in creating the means or instruments to achieve these goals.

We cannot express a lack of confidence in the Government for wanting to abandon the goals of apartheid/separate development. In fact, to the extent that they do so, we will support them and commend them for it. But our lack of confidence is definitely warranted when the Government persists with the instruments or means for achieving the goals of apartheid whilst being confused or abandoning the goals themselves. What, for example, is the justification for persisting with the wasteful expenditure of our scarce resources in duplicating or in some cases quadruplicating bureaucracies? Why do we have to persist with outmoded and racially discriminatory measures? What is the sense in forced removals, the breaking up of family life and stricter measures of influx control if the reasons for perfecting these means are not longer valid or acceptable? This is the source of our lack of confidence. There is no clear relationship between short term strategies and long term goals on the part of the Government.

The time has come for the Government to formulate a set of new national ends or goals for South Africa in order to give our people some clarity as to the way ahead. Once the Government has done this, those existing instruments which are of no use in pursuing the new goals must be abandoned. It is dangerous and shortsighted for us to persist with apartheid instruments if we have abandoned apartheid goals. But is going to be very difficult for the Government to abandon apartheid instruments if it does not formulate new goals for South Africa. Our short-term strategies must make sense in terms of our long-term goals; otherwise we will be wasting precious time and end up running around in circles before an avalanche of change.

*There are times in the history of a country when those who are in power identify certain goals that, for a significant period, engage the will, energy and resources of the society. These goals give the people of the country the motivation to work to realize them; the willingness to make sacrifices and the hope and the strength to enter the future. I believe that the time has come for us to set new goals for South Africa, and the Government pays the greatest responsibility in this regard. When the goals are formulated, they will get us now where if they only make sense to one or a small part of our population, or if they bear no relation to the socio-economic or political reality of our country.

South Africa is an ethnically plural, culturally diverse, racially manifold country in which the central political problem is that of group domination, the central economic problem one of structural inequality among groups of people and the central social problem one of segmentation and division. In these problems is to be found the source of our possible disintegration and collapse, but also the source of the strength and the capacity to accept the challenges of the future. It is with a view to these problems that new national goals must be formulated. I have no doubt that the primary goal must be to work towards one united and strong South Africa for all its people. In any event, this is a goal which is supported by the vast majority of people, irrespective of race, colour or ethnic context. But precisely because we are a unity in diversity, we must have as our second goal in the political sphere that of full political participation for all our people, irrespective of culture, race or ethnic context, but on the basis of consensus without domination of one group by another. Domination is still the central political problem in our kind of society, and for that reason its elimination must be made national goal.

As the national economic goal we must, thirdly, work towards an economic system in which the individual’s achievement is determined purely by merit, and in which the right to negotiate for improvement of his opportunities in life, is guaranteed. Nothing promotes conflict and confrontation more than an economic system in which a small section is accorded preferential treatment on a permanent basis at the expense of the progress of the majority.

In the fourth place, our social goal must be the inalienable right of people to enjoy free association and non-discriminatory action by the State in providing essential services.

If the Government wishes to call upon South Africa to work towards these national goals, a new debate will be launched. It will not be a debate about where we are going or about confusion as to goals, but a debate as to which are the best instruments whereby to achieve these goals: about how short-term strategies are to be weighed against long-term national goals and about how best to use our scarce resources to achieve these common goals. Ultimately it becomes a debate about how we can strengthen our country in the interests of all of us, rather than a debate characterized by disagreement about contradictions and conflicting goals that weaken all of us and our country in the interests of our enemies.

Without clear national goals the country loses direction and its people start becoming divided and confused. It is to the credit of the hon Prime Minister that he aroused the hope that we are about to formulate new national goals and adopt new approaches in order to solve old and difficult problems. I want to ask him what fault he has to find with the goals I have just formulated. I do not ask this in a spirit of pettiness or mischievous politicking. After the referendum the hon the Prime Minister extended an invitation to everyone to help build the future. I believe that clarity as to national goals is a prerequisite for such a building process. Therefore I can ask, in spite of the referendum and the beating that I and my party sustained—I shall discuss that again later—what the objections of the hon the Prime Minister are to these goals that I have formulated. I believe that these are acceptable to the majority of South Africans and with these goals in mind I want to point out certain practices which are danger signals as far as the achievement of these goals is concerned.

I want to refer to the first danger sign by way of an appeal.

†This is a plea to remove the outmoded political shackles from the performance of our economy. All South Africans depend on the performance of our economy to improve the quality of life. Not all South Africans have the same kind of access to the benefits of our economy, nor do they all have the same ability to participate and perform in it. This is entirely natural and understandable, because people are not equal. All they can expect in a free-market economy is equality of opportunity to pursue their material wellbeing. When structural inequalities in our economy are directly attributable to racial restrictions emanating from political considerations then the performance of our economy becomes a sort of conflict and instability rather than one of stability. Given the demands of the future, we simply cannot afford this in South Africa. In the final analysis the performance of the economy provides us with the resources with which we can pursue the goals which can make us strong and united in South Africa. There is nothing magical about the performance of the economy or its ability to grow. If we look to the future it is clear that mining will continue to make a significant contribution, but in the absence of any new mineral deposits being discovered it is unlikely that there will be dramatic increases in the contribution from this sector. As far as agriculture is concerned we are going through a very difficult phase and all we can pray for is that we will be able to provide for our own needs. Our poor soil quality, relatively speaking, and irregular rainfall make it unlikely that we will be able to compete significantly on international markets in this sector. Therefore it seems unavoidable that we will have to concentrate more and more on manufacturing in order to maintain growth, and increasingly products from this sector will have to be exported. In other words, our recovery will have to be export led. If we are going to stand a reasonable chance of being successful in this area, then three essentially economic measures will have to be considered: How to limit inflation, otherwise we will never be able to compete in international markets; how domestic savings, investments and production can increase significantly above consumption and, thirdly, how it is possible to control wage increases whilst increasing production.

In a country such as ours, given our population composition, this is going to be very difficult to achieve, but it is going to be totally impossible to pursue a conservative financial policy if we do not get rid of artificial and politically-motivated constraints on the economy. We have no choice but to systematically dismantle influx control, group areas and any other instruments of apartheid which make it impossible for the average South Africa, irrespective of race, to help us in pursuing and achieving our new national goals. I am not saying—and I want to draw the attention of the hon the Minister of Finance to this—that if we do get rid of these outmoded political shackles everything will be solved economically. The situation is more complex than that. What I am saying is that if we persist with these outmoded political shackles and at the same time try to follow a conservative economic policy, which we must in any case do in order to stimulate growth, then we will destroy both the possibility of growth and the maintenance of a free-enterprise system in the long run. Why am I saying this? Because economic conservatism will be seen and experienced by the vast majority of people as a facade for maintaining racial privilege, and this is the difficulty. The natural political tendency, under those circumstances, will be to set in motion a counter-ideology, most likely of an utopian socialist variety focusing on the radical redistribution of wealth. One sees the signs already. Should this ever become a reality for South Africa, the old familiar cycle will reveal itself. We will have low growth, low savings, low investments and eventual economic collapse. There are some people in Government who believe that getting rid of racial discrimination will lead to this in any case. I believe the contrary, that if we do not increase free and fair competition then our persistence with the instruments of racial discrimination will definitely have economic collapse as the long-term economic consequence for South Africa.

Let me illustrate this briefly to the hon the Minister of Finance by some remarks on the manner in which general sales tax becomes controversial in South Africa. Normally speaking, manipulating general sales tax is not a popular, but a conventional way for Government to raise revenue to finance Government expenditure. From the Government’s point of view it is attractive because, as the hon the Minister said himself on television the other night, it is broad based, immediately available and not as inflationary as other measures. However, in the South African context there are definite risks involved.

Increased general sales tax is immediately felt much more by the poor, the elderly and the infirm. If, in addition to that, the racially underprivileged feel the immediate bite of it whilst the affluent and privileged seem to escape the consequences, we have a potentially volatile situation.

Is it lower elsewhere in Africa?

That is of no consequence. We have to cope with the problems of disruption here, not in the rest of Africa.

At present the average South Africa family is feeling the pinch, the average White South African family—I am not even talking about the Black South African family. In fact, with an income of R1 600 per month, if they work very, very carefully, they can save R20 per month. These people are not in a position to get the whole picture which the hon the Minister would no doubt like them to get. They simply see that, in terms of their domestic budget, since 1981 the price of white bread has increased by 47%, mealiemeal by 27%, milk by 26% and potatoes by 171%. These are basic foodstuffs on which the vast majority of the people literally depend for their physical survival.

During the weekend of 21 January we could read the following in The Argus—

[Interjections.] I am just saying that that is what they read. I quote further—

During the same weekend, that of 21 January, the Sunday Times, under the heading “Joe Soap foots the tax bill as big boys dodge”, said the following—

Before that week was out, ie the week of 21 January, the hon the Minister of Finance announced a 1% increase in general sales tax. What is the general feeling? The general feeling is that the Government does not appear to care that the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. But, in addition to that, the racially underprivileged link the economic policy to the racial and political policy of the Government. That is the danger. That is how essentially economic conservatism ends up being seen as a justification for political racism. This, I believe, is dynamite for a country such as ours.

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister: If not for compassionate reasons, then simply with a view to the political risks involved, the Government should consider exempting basic foodstuffs from general sales tax. I must admit, however, that should the Government do this, it would essentially be a short-term stop-gap approach to the problem. Fundamentally, what is needed is that all outmoded political shackles should be removed from the performance of the current economy.

What does this mean in concrete terms? I want to suggest a few concrete measures to the Government. The Government should demonstrate its commitment to free enterprise by formulating systematic plans of how it intends phasing out measures such as influx control, group areas and all other discriminatory instruments which inhibit the individual’s progress on purely racist grounds. Secondly, I want to appeal to the Government not to engage solely in economic measures that reinforce the idea that the burden of financial discipline and coping with inflation must be borne only by the poor, those with fixed incomes and the infirm. Thirdly, the Government must cut back on ideological expenditure and wasteful unnecessary bureaucracies. The De Lange Commission showed how that could be done, but that was ignored. Fourthly—and I want to make a special appeal in this regard—do not let homeland independence, South African style, become a signal to abandon financial restraint. We have seen examples of this. We have seen examples in South West Africa of what happens when money is simply made available. We have seen what kind of luxury spending goes on in some of these areas. That is money that can actually be used far more effectively than it is being used at the moment. Finally, all unnecessary restraints on the small man’s economic activities should be removed. I know that there is work being done in this regard, but it has to be speeded up. If we do not allow the informal sector to develop in leaps and bounds in our urban areas, we are going to run into grave difficulties in creating employment there. In short, if the national goal is to maintain a genuine free enterprise economy in which structural inequalities between groups will become minimized, then the Government will have to demonstrate how it is willing to remove the instruments of apartheid which have systematically been created over the years and have frustrated the achievement of this goal. Anyone who sees in this appeal of mine a plea for indiscriminate laissez faire policies, free of discipline and restraint, simply has no appreciation of the enormity of the problem that confronts us.

I make these recommendations not simply because I believe they have some moral validity, but for practical and concrete considerations. The Government has announced social and political programmes which are going to cost a great deal of additional money over and above the financing of the present programmes. For example, we have not even begun to calculate the costs of the implementation and running of the new Parliament and the running of the new bureaucracies that will have to service the new departments. We have also heard of imaginative schemes for deconcentration and decentralization, township and housing development, the expansion of educational facilities and the equalization of salaries between races. These programmes are going to make extraordinary demands on our economy. They have to be followed. However, if our economic performance is shackled by outmoded political practices, then it is not only going to be impossible to service these new programmes, but we will also have to cope with the political consequences of frustrated rising expectations.

*The second appeal I want to make to the Government in regard to a danger sign, in the light of the vital need to formulate new national goals, I want to put as follows: Preserve the correct balance among trust, information and security actions. Before motivating this appeal, I wish to clarify a few points. It has been a long time since the relationship between the USA and Russia has been as tense as it is at present. The relationship has direct consequences for regional conflict, and that goes for Southern Africa as well. Direct or indirect Russian involvement in Angola is a threat to stability in Southern Africa and has the potential to escalate. In other words, I am by no means underestimating the implications of Soviet involvement in this part of the world; on the contrary, it is for the very reason that I am aware of it that I make this appeal.

Secondly, my appeal must not be seen as criticism of diplomatic initiatives or efforts to bring about a settlement in Namibia. I am aware of the complexity and sensitivity of negotiation at this level, even though I do not have first-hand knowledge of it. I know, too, that there are no obvious and simplistic solutions to be found. However, my point is that diplomatic initiatives should be seen in the broader context of information, trust and security actions. It is a commonplace to argue that sound economic progress, to which I have just referred, cannot occur without stability and order. Ultimately, stability and order depend on two sets of factors. On the one hand they depend on the loyalty and consensus of the majority of our inhabitants with regard to the maintenance and peaceful change of the existing order and, on the other hand, on the ability of the security services—our Defence Force, Police and intelligence services—to oppose and counter threats of the radical and violent overthrow of the existing order.

It is about this second aspect that I wish to express concern at this point and I wish to caution that the correct balance between trust, information and security actions must exist, or that we must work towards it. I want to address this warning specifically to the Government. Security actions are always a thorny matter and there is always a delicate balance between secrecy and making intelligence available. Of course, the norm is at all times the possible threat to stability and order that the provision could entail. However, how is one to reconcile this norm with the present situation, in which one can read in detail in foreign media what our Defence Force is doing in Angola weeks before the average South African has the vaguest inkling of it? How does one reconcile the fact that foreign news agencies are beginning to enjoy greater credibility than some of our own official statements? Is it possible that the whole world is being misinformed by their newspapers that up to now have traditionally been regarded as reliable? How is one to reconcile the fact that a former chief of military intelligence, Lieutenant General H de V du Toit, himself complained that there was too long a delay before the public was informed and that their loyalty should not be taken for granted, and moreover that it should not be taken for granted that it would always be available?

Such a situation attests to an imbalance among trust, information and security actions. It creates an atmosphere of suspicion, doubt and false rumours. There is nothing as dangerous as a group of people who have to deal with a threat while in a state of ignorance or false information and who lack trust.

I believe that there is an acute need for factual and objective information about security matters so that there can be trust and motivation as regards security actions. I am asking for information, not for indoctrination or propaganda. I do not ask it for myself, for my party, but for the public of South Africa, because it is they who ultimately have to bear the consequences as far as the maintenance of stability and order is concerned.

Take for example the question of the Soviet threat to the RSA. Incorrect information concerning the nature, extent and intensity of this threat can be fatal to South Africa. There is obvious concern on the part of Western Sovietologists that the disparate interpretations of the Soviet threat on the part of, eg, South Africa and the USA, could in fact increase the threat rather than avert it.

A person like Prof Legvold says that Russia determines its foreign policy largely on the basis of its relations with the USA and that at the moment South Africa is not a priority. On the other hand, through ill-considered action, South Africa could make itself a priority for Russia. As Prof Hanf formulates it, at this stage the Russians have no need to bring a White Government to a fall, because due to its unpopularity among the Blacks, such a Government could only increase Soviet prestige with minimum cost and involvement. For that reason they are more interested in the situation of what he calls long-term manageable instability than in a successful revolution. However, listening to official propaganda in South Africa, one would swear that Soviet generals regard America as a minor subdivision of their foreign policy and that they spend 24 hours of every day planning how to bring South Africa to its knees tomorrow.

These disparate standpoints surely cannot all be true, and depending on which one is indeed true, various security actions will result. How is one to react to Legvold’s conclusion that our actions in Angola will inevitably lead to reprisals and an increase in the Soviet presence because they involved MPLA and the Cubans? Is that not precisely what we wish to avoid?

Prof Legvold spoke on the radio; he is also being quoted in newspapers, and I quote from what he said—

These questions do not demand information concerning secrets or State security; they are questions about intelligent policy, questions about which the majority of Western countries are apparently able to obtain better information, by way of their newspapers, than we here in South Africa are able to do.

When an imbalance begins to occur between internal and external information concerning our involvement and role in Angola and it almost seems that our potential allies may be our enemies, and they begin to see our honour as a threat to stability, then the situation is created in which crises of confidence and misinformation flourish.

Take for example the questions asked by Wimpie de Klerk in Rapport of 15 January this year. Let me quote them—

This is Wimpie de Klerk who asks these questions. I quote him further—

Then he says the following—

Once again, these questions have nothing to do with secrets. The answers to these questions form part of reports, diplomatic analyses and news bulletins that are fully available daily and it is, quite simply, dangerous to pass them off as communist propaganda.

The USA, Britain and West Germany have an equal and, indeed, an even greater interest, in checking Soviet expansionism, and this information to which I refer and for which I am asking forms part of their security efforts in this regard. Information and confidentiality go hand in hand and both are prerequisites to successful security actions. I call upon the Government to take the people of South Africa into its confidence and provide reliable information in so far as it is possible to do so with a view to security requirements.

Questions of this nature must not be answered by the Defence Force. That is not their task or their responsibility. Their task is military action, and by all reports they are performing that task exceptionally well. The whys and the how’s are questions to be answered by the Government and by politicians. They set the goals. They provide the rationale, and it is they who must be called to account.

Incidentally, a comparison of our relations in recent times with Angola and Mozambique gives rise to interesting conclusions. In one instance we have had military successes without any obvious diplomatic breakthroughs; in the other case we have had a reduction in military action and a diplomatic breakthrough. There is a feeling of progress with regard to Mozambique and a feeling of uncertainty as regards the situation in Angola. For the sake of all of us I hope that the kind of breakthrough we have experienced in Mozambique will occur in all our neighbouring states and that this will promote progress and stability in Southern Africa.

While we are discussing security matters, I want to ask a few questions about the role and function of the State Security Council. This can be seen as an internal security action which also has implications for external security actions. The need for co-ordination of security actions by every modern state is not at issue and is accepted without further ado. That is not the issue here. Once again it is a matter of information and of trust.

To an increasing extent articles by learned and—I assume—informed sources are appearing that make disturbing statements about the role, the function and the power of the State Security Council. These articles are freely available as academic publications and are used by opinion formers here and overseas in drawing up a reliable analysis of the South African situation. Let me mention just a few of the recent publications. In the first place there is The Rise of the SA Security Establishment by Kenneth W Grundy. Then, too, there is Aspects of Political Decision-making in South Africa by Deon Geldenhuys and H Kotze, as well The Process of Decision-making in Contemporary South Africa by R I Rotberg. Broadly speaking, these publications have the same framework of analysis and in general they draw the same conclusions. In the latter, for example, the following is stated, and I want to quote from it at some length because the implications of what is stated here are grave. Accordingly I request the patience and attention of the hon the Prime Minister in this regard. I quote—

And this is interesting too—

[Interjections.] I should like to have the attention of the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development in this regard—

Let me say at once that to me as a former social scientist it is a fascinating question how these people performed these analyses, but whatever the “answer” may be, there is no doubt that these and similar analyses have enjoyed wider publicity in the newspapers here and elsewhere and that certain general views have begun to take root which, to say the least, do not create a favourable impression of parliamentary tradition and government in our country.

I know that the more senior officials of the State Security Council and the Office of the Prime Minister have already discussed these matters on TV, but the correct relation between information, trust and security action in this matter must come from the hon the Prime Minister. The central question which is arousing concern is obvious: What is the status of accountable parliamentary government in relation to the decision-making power of the State Security Council and its secretariat?

The hon. the Prime Minister can only give a reassuring reply to this, because if only a part of the statements I have read are actually correct, then both the present and the future parliamentary system that we are entering are going to be an empty but extremely expensive ritual without any decision-making effect on South Africa.

†There is a third question I want to direct at the Government in this case, an issue which I regard as a danger signal, and it is an obvious one. I want to formulate this by way of the following question: How and when will the constitutional vacuum for Blacks be filled? It is in this area that the instruments of apartheid are still in full use, whilst it appears that the goals have been either abandoned or are at least in a state of confusion. I said that stability and order depend even more on the consent and loyalty of those governed. Nothing threatens stability and order more than the following actions taken against the majority of the population of South Africa—

Do we have any idea of the scope of these removals? Do we have any idea of the number of people who have been moved and shifted in this country in pursuance of a goal in which this Government no longer believes? More than 6 million people representing one fifth of the entire population of South Africa have either been moved or are under the threat of removal. [Interjections] This has not been contested. The research has been published; nobody contested it—it is accepted. Since the early 1960s 3,5 million people have been moved, 2 million are under threat of removal and more than 2 million have been convicted under influx control laws. After three years of exhaustive research field studies and interviews with victims of forced removals, the research team came to the conclusion that the Government has by no means abandoned its relocation programme. This is still part of the instruments of apartheid as we know it.

*I also note that in Rapport, Dr Willem de Klerk, in conveying his good wishes for 1984, comes back to this problem. He says—

It is the brother of the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs who writes this; not I. He said that those things would have to change if we were to establish a new constitutional policy for the Blacks.

†Forced removal and the arbitrary and indefinite detention of labour and community leaders are signs which clearly demonstrate that there is a breakdown in constitutional planning as far as Blacks are concerned, that the last resort is government by coercion and force. Government by coercion and force is the exact and fundamental opposite of government by consensus or consent. It guarantees dissent and it guarantees disloyalty.

The Government, more than anybody else, used the referendum campaign to generate expectations about a new deal for Blacks. How many times did I have to listen to influential businessmen telling me that they have “inside” information that the reason why Blacks were excluded from the new constitution was that there was to be a new deal for them after the referendum. The time to deliver has arrived. What are these plans? Even if the new constitution works 100%—there are severe difficulties in the way of it doing so—it will not have solved our central crisis of White/Black constitutional co-existence. At the end of approximately 75 years of Westminster government we have repeated the same mistake of the 1910 constitution: We have constitutionally ignored the centrality of the Black problem. I am afraid we are not going to have the luxury of another 75 years to ignore this omission again.

And now, after the referendum, we are in the process of moving towards what I call the politics of co-optive domination and towards a new constitution for the Republic. This process was given the green light by the referendum held amongst the Whites, a referendum which the Government won handsomely and has been congratulated by all and sundry, while my party took a beating. From the Government’s point of view the referendum as an exercise in political marketing, media control and campaign strategy was a complete success, and the Prime Minister can feel justifiably pleased with himself, as he no doubt appears to be. As for my party I have made no bones about the fact that the result was a disappointment and that it heralded implications for the future role of opposition and for my party, implications which we would have to look at very carefully.

However, at this time I am reminded of the words of Lord Nelson after his famous battle when he said: “There is only one thing more difficult to cope with than the consequences of defeat and that is the consequences of victory!”. All I have to try to do is to repair the damage done to my party, and in this I may be more or less successful. The Prime Minister, however, has to deliver the goods, and should he fail in that the whole country will suffer.

Whatever else may be said of the result of the referendum, the majority who voted “yes” voted in favour of reform of some kind or another. They believed that the new constitution would provide the instruments to pursue the goals of reform. Well, the Prime Minister, the Government, now has its instruments in terms of which they made such extravagant promises to the electorate, and the time has now come for them to tell us in clear and understandable language what the goals are they wish to pursue for the sake of peace, stability and consensus in South Africa.

I have already said that the new constitution represents the Government’s attempt to come to grips with the problem of domination as far as Coloureds and Asians are concerned. Technically we are moving away from what I call simple, repressive domination—which to a large extent still exists as far as the Blacks are concerned—to co-optive domination. The new constitution does not solve the problem of domination; it simply changes its style and quality, and with this change of style and quality we—all of us—will have to explore the possibilities of genuine reform.

Mr Speaker, what is the role of opposition under these circumstances? The PFP at its congress took a unanimous decision to participate as constructively as possible in the new constitution. Until then we had opposed it vigorously and had tried to highlight its shortcomings, and let me make no bones about it. I believe those shortcomings still exist. All along we drew a clear distinction between support for the new constitution as being good enough for South Africa and participation in it once it became a reality. This is a common and well established practice. Now that it is about to become reality and now that we intend participating in it, the role of opposition—by the Opposition—comes under the spotlight I believe the role and contribution of opposition will depend on three things. Firstly, what is formally possible in terms of the new constitution? At present the constitution is very unspecific as to what the rights, privileges and functions of an Opposition will be. This will become clear as new conventions develop. [Interjections.] Let me point out to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that under the present circumstances I know I can stand up here and move a motion of no confidence and that there is a likelihood that the Prime Minister will participate while other hon. members will attack me in reply and that at the end of the week we will end off the debate and vote upon the question before the House. But what will the position be under the new constitution? Will motions of no confidence be allowed? Will the Coloured House, for instance, be able to move a motion of no-confidence and, if so, a motion of no-confidence in whom? In the Cabinet in which they serve? I am just asking these questions. What is the relationship of the State President in his executive capacity going to be towards the caucus of the dominant party and the leader of the White House? Answers to these questions are not in the constitution. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, all I am doing is to state the fact that we shall still have to see what new conventions are possible under the new constitution, and that will be the determining factor as to what the role of an Opposition will be.

The second factor is what an Opposition would like to do under the circumstances. Each one of the three Opposition parties in this House now has its own ideas of what it would like to do, while the extent to which they will be successful will depend upon a number of factors, including how they fare in an election. As far as the official Opposition is concerned I hope that it would be able to play a constructive role in—

1. (i) keeping the idea of constitutional government and opposition alive;
2. (ii) preventing racial polarization and intergroup conflict;
3. (iii) fighting for civil liberties and particularly re-establishing the rule of law in our land;
4. (iv) speaking up for the underdog and the under-privileged;
5. (v) formulating viable constitutional alternatives for the dead-ends into which this Government so often leads us; and
6. (vi) keeping this Government on its toes and being a watchdog for corruption, unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy and looking after the public’s interests.

That is what I hope we will be able to do and we are going to try to do it to the best of our ability.

The third factor that will determine the role of an Opposition is what the Government does in terms of the new Constitution and how it reacts to opposition. Irrespective of electoral support the Government in power is constitutionally in an extremely powerful position. If it is intolerant of opposition, irreverent to the traditions of democratic procedure and irritated by the constraints of constitutional government, it can use this Constitution to nullify whatever role any Opposition can play and let South Africa drift toward a one party state. On the other hand, if it is not and, irrespective of the considerable shortcomings of this new Constitution, the Government wishes to pursue negotiation and consensus politics, then Opposition will be able to make a valuable contribution to finding new solutions to old and difficult problems. In short, the role of the Opposition will not only depend on the constitution or the Opposition concerned, but very much on the role of the Government itself. The choice is as much the Government’s as ours.

*To sum up, I could say that we have now come to the end of Westminster. Let me motivate this final motion of no confidence by saying briefly that over the past 30 years this Government has created means for goals that have become obsolete. We are seeking new national goals so that we can also get rid of old, outmoded means. There are danger signs that will hinder the creation of new national goals and means, namely outmoded political shackles that restrict the growth of our economy, a correct relationship between information, trust and security and a constitutional vacuum for the Black man. The referendum gave us the green light to use a new constitutional instrument to strive for reform. That is another reason why the Government must tell us what objective we should strive towards in using this instrument. The Opposition must approach its role in this new instrument experimentally. The official Opposition has the will to be constructive. This will is not sufficient to guarantee the successful role of opposition because that will depend on the Government. One thing, however, is certain and that is that not one of us will be able to surmount the problems of South Africa’s future separately and alone. Together we at least stand a chance. We have no alternative but to try that.

Mr. Speaker, if ever the Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity in this House to exert an innovatory influence on the political processes in this country in an imaginative way, then it was with the introduction of this motion. He came to this parliamentary session a defeated man. The standpoint which his party adopted was overwhelmingly defeated, more so than any standpoint adopted by any political party in South African politics during the past few decades. There was a clear and unmistakable indication from the electorate that they no longer wanted this kind of politics. The overwhelming yes majority conveyed a clear message from the electorate to all of us. This message is that the electorate is tired of sterile debate. They want to move and they want to see orderly development and they are prepared to accept reasonable change.

We have been listening to the hon the Leader of the Opposition for almost an hour now while he tried to motivate his motion of no-confidence in the Government. He said we were not good enough and that this House should reject us. However, he did not advance a single argument, except for the opinions of a few people, to demonstrate where the fault lay on this side. Instead he posed a long series of questions. He should not have introduced a motion of no-confidence and asked for the Government to be rejected. He should rather have said that the Government had been given the green light, and a mandate. What he should have asked was that we now had to do certain things in a constructive way. He would then have been availing himself of an opportunity which history had thrown into his lap, which was to shape the course of Opposition politics correctly.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition is worried about the future of the Opposition parties. We are trying hard to keep the Opposition alive here, but so help me, they commit suicide so quickly that we really have to struggle to keep them on their feet. They are constantly working towards their own downfall through a lack of imagination and a failure to participate positively in finding solutions to the real problems of South Africa. At times one feels like calling out in despair that one finds no indication whatsoever that the hon members on that side are awakening to the realities of South Africa. Not even two thirds of the electorate was able to sway them one iota from a course which the electorate itself rejected.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition complained about the lack of clearer objectives, and reveled in what he termed “confusion” in respect of long-term goals and short-term strategy on the part of the Government. He then proposed a number of goals which were neatly formulated for Press consumption, but which were merely a reformulation of Prog policy in respect of constitutional matters, the Prog policy which was rejected so crushingly at the polls. He drew a line through the long-term objectives that were so clearly spelled out in the Constitution which he opposed. In the preamble to that Constitution we formulated a series of objectives which we debated clearly and unambiguously in this House and which we also spelled out to the people in the debate during the referendum. However, they voted against those objectives, and now he is complaining because they lost and maintains that we have no goals.

I want to put it to him in a nutshell that no doubt exists about the long-term objectives of the Government. They are in the first place to preserve the security, safety and identity of every people and group in South Africa. The second objective is to create—on the foundation of the safeguarding of group identity, on the preservation of the right of every group to self-determination, to retain its identity and to cherish what is precious to it—a spirit of co-operation between the various peoples and population groups, because we perceive that there is a multitude of common interests. Our long-term objective in respect of these common interests is to build structures and create machinery which will make it possible for us to involve everyone in a meaningful way, in decision-making, on all matters affecting their lives. These are clearly formulated objectives, but the hon the Leader of the Opposition, who claims to be a social scientist and who is indeed a scientist of merit, ignores these facts, even though he knows them as well as I do. That is sterile debate.

It does not suit him to admit that these are the objectives of the Government for then he would have had no speech to make. Now he is simply using the old words once again, the words we have been hearing in this House for such a long time, so that they may once again drop wearily to the ground and sink away like water in dry sand. They mean nothing, and we achieve nothing with this kind of debate.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that we should free the economy from its political fetters and then a utopia will apparently dawn for all those who are lagging behind in South Africa. His argument is that if the Group Areas Act and influx control are abolished, the Black people will suddenly have made up their lost ground and will no longer be at a disadvantage and that an era of prosperity will then arrive for them, almost as though it would solve the housing need of Blacks if we were to throw Houghton open to them; almost as though the education problems of the Black people and the Coloured people would miraculously disappear if we were to throw open to them the very interesting colleges at which so many of those hon members studied. As though the educational problem of kwaZulu would be solved if we were to throw Michael house open to all!

Surely that is nonsense. To say something like that is not worth the paper on which it is recorded. Surely the real problems of an economic backlog and the structural economic differences in our economy are situated in a backlog in respect of training, and surely this Government is working dramatically on that problem.

One need only consider the rest of Africa. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir. In Zimbabwe the shackles have been thrown off—rich Zimbabwe with its minerals and its fantastic agricultural potential—and economically they are floundering. In the richest country in Africa, after the Republic of South Africa, Nigeria, with its oil and everything that that country has, the economy has been released from its political shackles. The members of the official Opposition can ask any of the witnesses whom they invoke against the Government, for example Half, the professor who helped them to write in The Sunday Times on Sunday, or whoever else, why Nigeria is going downhill. They will say that the political shackles have been cast off, but that corruption, poor administration and a lack of dedication have taken over because the old colonial powers that milked those countries when they were still colonial powers, liberated those people by simply removing the political shackles and giving nothing in their place.

How can the hon. member say that we are not doing anything in this connection? We are not merely removing the political shackles, we are giving economic incentives. Surely the hon. member knows the facts concerning our incentive measures to promote economic decentralization. These are not aimed at promoting White interests. They are aimed at creating employment opportunities and new prospects for the people who are Black in this country. Surely he knows about the training programmes. He knows how we are being denounced by the CP for doing too much for the Blacks. He knows that. Nevertheless he argues, with his scientific background and his exceptional brain, by advancing these tired old arguments which are worth nothing, which prove nothing and in which no one believes any more.

Surely he knows about the new labour policy. He knows how we have made negotiation available to the Black worker. He knows how we are creating opportunities, how we are encouraging industrialists and employers to train people in the negotiating process so that they can negotiate their benefits and working conditions for themselves in normal negotiation between employer and employee. However, he pretends that nothing is happening, that economically we are confining these people in political shackles so that they must remain in servitude for ever. He knows this is not true and my charge against him is that this is a political argument which cannot withstand the test of real political honesty and objectivity. This country can no longer afford our debating with one another on that level.

He had a great deal to say about security. He asked many questions and some of the information he was seeking he will receive in this debate. What was significant, however, was that all the questions he asked were based on the opinions of non-South Africans. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, as far as Willem de Klerk was concerned, he merely repeated his questions. However, it is the Hanfs and the German professors who lead him to doubt in his thought processes. Why does he not ask the hon member for Yeoville? That hon member, in his own party, has a view on security in South African he has a feeling for how this side of the House interprets the problems posed by Russia and its strategy. That hon member took the trouble to come and have a look at what we recently captured in Angola. In Angola we did not catch strategies, but we took possession of visible, tangible objects. I think it was the first time that such objects were seized by a Western power in a battle. There we had the Russians, close to our border, with the full application of their most modern technology, but the hon the leader of the Opposition says: Well, they are not really there; they are not really involved; to them it is only a minor point at the bottom of an agenda on page 12 of their total agenda.

No, Sir, there are Sovietologists, in South Africa as well, whom the hon Leader of the Opposition would do well to study. He should spend less time listening to the people who are also annoyed with President Reagan because he is establishing a security network in Europe. He should spend more time listening to those people who admit, together with President Reagan and together with this Government, that Russian expansionism in the various theatres of the world constitutes a real threat, in all the theatres involved, to those things which both of us would like to preserve.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition also kicked up a lot of dust about the Security Council. Once again he made use of a certain Prof Rotberg. Apparently Prof Rotberg knows more about the functioning of this Government than the hon the Leader of the Opposition. If he did not want to believe me he could have asked the hon members for Waterberg and Lichtenburg, for they have some experience of it. They could have given him most of the answers. In fact, they rejoiced with us when the 20 Cabinet committees were reduced to four and when greater administrative efficiency was introduced as a result.

Let me reassure the hon the Leader of the Opposition on this point. All really important decisions on all matters, including security matters, are in the final instance taken by the full Cabinet. I can testify from my own experience that the hon the Prime Minister, according to my experience and according to what is known of the previous Prime Ministers, leans over backwards and takes trouble to inform his Cabinet about the true facts on the basis of a full discussion on the one hand, and to achieve a consensus on the steps which should be taken on the other. The hon the Leader of the Opposition need not be concerned. In the sphere of security there is the Security Council. In the economic sphere there is the Economic Committee. In the constitutional sphere there is the Constitutional Committee and in the social sphere there is the Social Committee. We have orderliness, and fewer meetings, and this has enhanced our productivity. Consequently we have Cabinet government in the fullest tradition of the word and the Cabinet is not dominated by any of its committees.

It seems to me there is a fairly general consensus in South Africa on one statement, and that is that the year 1984 is going to be a political year of special significance. It is generally admitted that from a constitutional viewpoint we will experience an historic year, the transition from the old to the new, farewell and encounter, a last and a first. With a measure of nostalgia our present system will be terminated. It is a system which has served us well, but which is no longer able to satisfy the demands and needs of our complex country. With expectation we are entering a new constitutional dispensation, knowing that it is going to make heavy demands on all participants and knowing that there are going to be growing-pains. We said this during the referendum campaign. Therefore we did not make the kind of promises which the hon the Leader of the Opposition is trying to imply we did. We said there were uncertainties and that there would be growing-pains and that in addition we would constantly have to be prepared to make adaptations because we could not foresee everything at that stage. However, we said this knowing that it offered hope for the future because it was a positive step forward and because it addressed a portion of our constitutional problem effectively.

However, there are other reasons why 1984 will be a significant year. We on this side realize only too well that specific aspects of our ethnic policy (volkerebeleid) must be expanded further and developed. We are working hard and urgently on this. The same also applies to the problems surrounding Black people outside their national states. That is why 1984 also promises to be an important year in respect of the constitutional development of the Black peoples. In the economic and financial sphere we are at present sailing through fathomless waters. This is the result of many factors. All signs point to another exacting year in this sphere. We shall have to suffer hardships. Things are happening in Southern Africa. The time has come to write a new chapter, and all the states in Southern Africa are faced with important choices.

In respect of all these spheres—the new constitutional dispensation, Black constitutional development, the economy and the future of Southern Africa—we must say to one another today: 1984 is a watershed year, a year which will make heavy demands on everyone, but more specifically on those of us in this House. For us as parties and individuals there are two basic choices in our reaction to the great challenge of this watershed year, 1984. We can continue as we have been doing up to now, as the hon the Leader of the Opposition in fact began. We can continue and repeatedly debate our fundamental differences all over again from the beginning. We can debate among ourselves the PFP model of one man, one vote on a common voters’ roll, the CP’s rigoristic separation model and the NP’s realistic self-determination model, that is, self-determination for every ethnic group with provision for joint involvement in matters of common interests. We can record the predictable laughter of the hon member for Bryanston in Hansard. We can note the predictable hands-in-the-air gesture of the hon member for Pinelands in Hansard, but having done so, we have not made a single contribution to the true solution of the problems of South Africa.

The PFP can accuse the NP of negating Black aspirations and that it is merely engaged in cosmetic changes, while they know that that is not true. The CP can accuse the NP of selling out the Whites, while they know that is not true. [Interjections.] Together the PFP and the CP can continue, from two opposite comers, to cast suspicion on and denigrate every step and action and plan of the Government. I want to say to the PFP and the CP today: Continue to do so if you wish; the NP is not participating. If they wish to carry on as usual, we shall reply for your sake, Mr Speaker, and for the sake of the traditions of Parliament, but while we shall continue to conduct this sterile debate with them in this House, out of respect for the democratic system, we on this side shall continue, without their constructive co-operation, to carry out the powerful mandate of 2 November to the letter. [Interjections.] If they do not want to do this with us, we shall do it without their co-operation.

There is an alternative, however, which I hope and trust—and I am sincere when I say this—will be preferred by all parties in White politics, as well as by all responsible leaders of the other peoples and groups. This alternative is that a new approach will be developed in the light of the urgent circumstances of our times.

I am not advocating for one moment that Opposition parties should abdicate. I am not asking them to stop opposing, to stop criticising or to stop aspiring to beat the NP at the polls. I am not asking them to endorse NP policy, I am not asking them to help the NP in any way at all. We are their enemies; so they believe and we know it, and we can remain their enemies, yet still conduct a constructive debate.

What I am asking, however, and what our voters as well as our country are also asking us to do, is for everyone to adapt our style of conducting White politics in the light of two factors. The first factor is that the referendum rewrote in a decisive say the political-constitutional agenda of the Republic of South Africa. Prior to the referendum the most important item on the agenda was a choice between the basic schools of thought of the various parties represented in this House. By accepting the new constitution with a two-thirds majority, the voters themselves made a definite choice between these two fundamental schools of thought. This unescapable fact brought about, a fundamental shift as it were, in the agenda of each one of us. What we had been debating between ourselves for so long has now been disposed of. Democratically and fairly, after everyone had a chance to influence their opinions, the voters …

That did not happen on television.

… took certain decisions. Mr Speaker, I really cannot help it if the hon member for Parktown and other hon members dropped the hon member for Bryanston as they did. It is not my fault. The hon member will simply have to speak to them; not to us. They had their chance on TV, and if they made a flop of it, it is their own affair. [Interjections.]

We did not have a fair opportunity. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, of course they had a fair opportunity. [Interjections.] By casting a yes vote … [Interjections.]

Order!

By casting a yes-vote, the voters brought clarity in regard to the following fundamental matters at least. Group security—this is what the yes-vote told us—must be preserved. The yes-vote also said that each group must have its own political power base—a power base within which self-determination can flourish to its fullest extent; a power base from which cooperation and joint decision-making on matters of common interest can occur.

Put even more simply: On 2 November 1983 our voters said that they rejected integration and that they rejected rigoristic separation as a solution, and that they believed that meaningful co-operation among peoples and groups in this country was possible; but that this should in fact be done with retention of the security and the established rights of every group.

In the light of this decision—and no one will argue with me that these are not the fundamental matters with which the new constitution is concerned—surely it is pointless for the PFP to continue its resistance to every form of statutory recognition and entrenchment of group rights and group existence. It is equally pointless for the CP to continue its resistance to every form of joint say over matters of common interest. Continued resistance to these fundamental matters on the part of the two aforesaid parties is surely in fact no longer resistance to the policy of the NP. It is resistance to a two-thirds majority of the electorate. [Interjections.] Therefore…

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

Mr Speaker, I am not prepared to reply to a question from the hon member [Interjections.] I am not prepared to reply to that hon member’s questions, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the referendum demonstrated what role the CP ought in fact to play in this country, and in future we shall simply ensure that they merely continue to play that role. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, 2 November 1983 said to the Opposition: “adapt; accept the fundamental principles of the new constitution”. The question is no longer whether the new constitution ought to be implemented; the question is how it should be implemented.

Let us debate that issue. Let us thrash things out. Let us see whether we can influence one another towards better decisions in that regard, constructively and by means of incisive debate. That this is going to happen is a fact however; an irrefutable fact. It will happen. Let us therefore stop wasting time and the taxpayers’ money by conducting long, protracted debates on a referendum which has already been dealt with. [Interjections.]

The second factor which requires us all to develop a new approach is the urgent circumstances of our times. Upon clinical analysis, without emotion or ulterior party-political motives, each one of us sitting here knows—I want to say that we feel it in our bones, after intensive self-examination—that a momentum is building up—a momentum in regard to two matters in particular. The first is the final emancipation of the Black peoples and the second the acquisition of a workable understanding among the States of Southern Africa. Tension is building up around these two matters, an impatience has in fact developed, in our own ranks as well. The general feeling is that something must happen now. The following chapter must now be written, regardless of what it is. The status quo is not satisfactory. The Government is firmly resolved to take the initiative in these two central challenges facing us. If we do not succeed in doing so our hands will be clean, but then we must know that growing tension and the escalation of military activities and growing unrest and conflict are what await us.

The Opposition has the ability, in this process of addressing these two central issues, to make a constructive contribution, but then we must get away from sterile debate in these areas. Do our national interests not require us to elevate these two issues to the maximum extent above the level of ordinary party politics?

P W has not said anything yet.

I am not talking to that hon member because I have already written him off. However, there are others in his party who listen to me because they know what I am saying is true. They feel it in their bones and that is why they are prepared to examine their own consciences. [Interjections.] But we expect nothing from that hon member. [Interjections.]

Today I wish to plead for a new, constructive approach front the Opposition. Let us rise above petty politics and let us seek together constructively for positive breakthroughs in at least these two sensitive areas which I mentioned. Let the hon member for Lichtenburg join us in looking constructively at the Hartzenberg report and let us ask what we are going to do with it, rather than to take over HNP policy—as they are planning to do—and turn it into a petty political issue. [Interjections.] Let us address the problem, for whichever party is in power, the fact remains that there are 10 million Black people outside the national states. Let us address the problem because irrespective of which party is in power, the ANC will continue the struggle until Mandela is the Prime Minister of the Republic of South Africa. Whether we have a Prog regime or an NP regime will not alter Russian strategy one iota. That is why I wish to advocate that, in the spirit of the new Constitution, we should get away from the Westminster style in our party-political struggle as well.

Mr Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon the Minister. As regards his appeal that we examine the problems of South Africa, I should like to tell him that he will always find the CP ready to make a conservative contribution … [Interjections.] … or rather, a constructive contribution—yes, conservative and constructive—to solve the problems of South Africa. If they were to implement the recommendations of the Hartzenberg Report, they would be doing a very good conservative, constructive thing in the interests of South Africa [Interjections.] However, I have come to realize that the hon the Minister senses that in the times we find ourselves in, on the eve of a new dispensation, there is a predominant question deep in the hearts of the people of South Africa—one which is relevant and which deserves an answer—and that is: where is the Government taking South Africa? [Interjections] This afternoon the hon the Minister tried to give an answer to that question, but I am afraid that the hon the Minister succeeded very well in not supplying an answer. He merely came forward once again with the same vague ideas concerning group interests, prosperity and that kind of thing. He gave us no indication of how those things are going to be realized however. Here we have the phenomenon of the Government having certain allies, some of whom it acquired before the referendum and other of whom it acquired during the referendum, to the consternation of the hon the Leader of the Opposition. Now the hon the Leader of the Opposition does not know how many members of his party are allies of the Government because they voted yes. The Government has allies, and those allies are outspoken. They say that they know what South Africa should look like and where it should go. The Government also has future coalition partners, and they, too, are outspoken. They also tell us what they think South Africa should look like and where it should go. They say that they also know how the ideals of which the hon the Minister spoke should be realized.

There is absolute silence from the Government, however. All we hear is that the hon the Prime Minister says that he is busy with reform—groping around in the dark—but we know that these allies of the Government and its future partners only understand one thing under reform, and that is integration, full integration right up to its logical conclusion. We know that there are people in that party who support this. We also know that there are others who do not support it and who are filled with fear and trepidation when they hear those statements. That is why we have this silence on the part of the Government. The simple reason is that the Government is unable to give a decision since it does not know where South Africa is going to end up because it has lost control of the trend of politics in South Africa. It has lost control of the pattern of political development, as well as losing control of its tempo. [Interjections.]

I know that hon members opposite will point to the magnificent victory they gained in the referendum. It is a great victory, but a great victory does not mean that this solution is the right one for South Africa. Nor does it mean that it is going to be a lasting one.

I want to show the Government what its position is now. The Government is now in the position in which the United Party found itself in 1943. It had gained the greatest victory that had ever been gained in South Africa until that stage. It was the greatest victory ever, but five years later it was defeated. It is fascinating how many similarities there are. There are a tremendous number of similarities between the present Government and the United Party of 1943.

The United Party of 1943 placed South Africa on the road to integration and the NP Government of 1983 has done so, too. When the United Party Government gained its greatest victory, it was at its most vulnerable, but in 1943 that party was dominated by one person, viz Gen Smuts, just as the NP is dominated by one person today. However, the difference is that Gen Smuts was a man of outstanding intellect. He was a man with exceptional ability as a statesman. He was a man of international acclaim. I must say that unfortunately the present dominator of the Government does not fall into that category.

The United Party of 1943 was deeply divided internally on matters of principle. That party was indeed deeply divided, and the NP, too, is deeply divided internally today. Not only is the NP divided internally, but its coalition allies, as well as its future coalition partners also disagree with a large section of that party. Its present allies from outside, who helped it to achieve this great victory, also disagree with a large section of that party. The result is that the NP is saddled with tremendous internal conflict. The hon the Leader of the Opposition referred to this article by Dr Willem de Klerk.

Your ally in the no vote.

Not our ally. He is the NP’s mentor. Dr Willem de Klerk instructs MP’s opposite at seminars. He tells them how to conduct politics. He is their mentor. He is the great “maestro”, and they sit at his feet. I should like to read a few sentences from the article which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has already read, eg—

He is telling them that those aspects of apartheid ideology must be eradicated in 1984. I now want to ask the hon the Minister of Law and Order whether he agrees with that. Does he agree with what this mentor of the MP’s of the National Party is saying? I know that I will not get a reply out of that hon Minister. He is sitting there like a sphinx now. He will not budge. If he disagreed with him, he would jump up and say that this man is wrong. He is unable to do so, however, since he knows that there are people in the NP who agree with that man. After all, the hon member for Randburg said that certain laws should be repealed and that they must disappear, in accordance with what Dr Willem de Klerk says. He is aware that Mr Johan Vosloo said yesterday in Rapport that the most offensive questions that could ever be asked, are whether there should be a Group Areas Act and whether there should be a Mixed Marriages Act. However, this hon Minister said shortly before the referendum that he was going to take people by the scruff of their necks and throw them out of Mayfair. I maintain that there is deep-rooted division in NP ranks. There is a difference of opinion on this point in the Cabinet itself. The Government differs on these matters within the Cabinet. It differs on these matters in its caucus, whilst the rest of its party members also differ on this score. That is why they do not talk about it. They keep quiet about it. They know that if they were to say where they are going, a large section of that party would rebel and walk out. They remain silent because they are losing control. They have lost control because they have placed South Africa on the path of political integration, as well as on the path of integration. They know that they no longer have a choice. There is only one course, and they cannot afford to say where that course is going to lead, since too large a section of that party would take fright. That is why we have the phenomenon that the left wing of the National Party is making noises and saying that the question concerning where one is allowed to live, drive, go to school and where all the other things can take place is taboo and a thing of the past. In future every person must decide for himself on that score. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, who has just made such a heartrending speech, how he is going to guarantee the self-determination of groups if he is going to implement this business of “Big Brother”. How is he going to guarantee the self-determination of groups?

You are familiar with our policy on differentiation.

I am familiar with that policy. There will be nothing left of differentiation if “Big Brother” has his way. The hon the Minister knows that. If he wishes, he can tell us whether he agrees with Dr De Klerk or whether he disagrees with him. If he agrees with him, he cancels the speech he has just made.

I will give you his telephone number.

Must I go and ask him whether the hon the Minister agrees with him? Does the hon the Minister himself not know whether he agrees with him?

The Government itself is silent about the future of South Africa on the eve of a new dispensation, whilst the population of South Africa is seeking guidelines, goals and the spelling out of methods. Its allies and its future coalition partners are not silent, however. Shortly after the referendum Mr Jac Rabie said that the hon. the Prime Minister had made a mistake when he said that if the White voters say “no”, he would not go back to the drawing-board, since he was going back to the drawing-board now, because the constitution for the future is really only going to be drawn up now. Mr Rajbansi says that not only is this new constitution enabling him to get his toe into the door, but also his foot, and that with it he will kick open the door to greater integration.

Like Koos.

Perhaps the hon member for Jeppe should show the Government how to kick a door open so that they will know how to do it.

The Government made certain promises and presented certain dreams to the voters of South Africa. It said that if they voted yes, there would be economic prosperity in South Africa, and that if they voted no, there would be economic disaster in South Africa. The CP also adopted certain standpoints, and the referendum was held only three months ago. Subsequent events have furnished proof that the Government has lost control of the pattern of development in South Africa. The Government said that a yes vote would bring economic prosperity to South Africa, that there would be a Utopia. What have we experienced subsequently? As a result of the yes vote, interest rates have reached record heights in South Africa. Some of the lesser lights in that party said that if people voted no, interest rates would increase. Look at our position now as a result of the yes vote. The budget of the hon the Minister of Finance will not balance despite the yes vote. He is therefore increasing general sales tax by 1% in order to balance his budget. I ask, Sir, as a result of this yes vote, how much capital has entered the country as a result of the confidence created in South Africa? The hon the Minister is crawling on his knees to obtain money from abroad. No investor has confidence in the political instability the Government is in the process of creating. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs travelled through the country like a pilgrim and told people that if they voted yes, the enemies of South Africa would falter and the hands of its friends would be strengthened. He even used South Africa’s ambassador at the UN to make this known. He said that our enemies would falter, but what has happened subsequently? Russia has not faltered, but is, however, becoming more aggressive. Even before the referendum we told the Government that if it were to carry through the political instability incorporated in this constitution, it would not make the enemies of South Africa falter. It would make them smell blood and they would become aggressive and make more demands. I ask: What have South Africa’s friends done? Now the Government says that America and Britain left us in the lurch at the UN because they abstained when they had to adopt a standpoint. Those friends did not stand up and tell the world that we are engaged in reform, that we are making sound progress and that we should be given a chance. No, they turned against us. During the referendum the Government promised the people that if they voted yes, they would have a private community life. Today I ask what has become of that. What has become of it? Three years ago when the beaches here in the Cape were taken over by people of colour, the hon the Prime Minister said that this matter must be rectified and that there should be separate beaches so that everyone could have his own private community life. What has become of that? It has not been rectified. It has become worse. What is more, I read here that over New Year, the Durban beaches were inundated by 100 000 people because the Black people, Coloureds and Indians assumed that the beaches were open. There has been no improvement. On the contrary, more beaches have been plunged into chaos and even Beeld says that there was chaos on those beaches. I also ask what has become of the promise of the Government before the referendum, that drastic steps would be taken to secure Mayfair for the Whites. The hon the Minister of Law and Order was even there to hold the delicate little hand of the hon the Minister of Community Development. Soon after that, the hon the Minister said that he was going to build 20 street blocks and 4 000 houses in the White area. He announced a tremendous step beforehand. He even said that he would take these people by the scruff of their necks and that he did not care where they came from. I thought the hon the Minister had acted a little too harshly. One does not go about it in that way. One can be firm, but one does not go about it in that way. He feel to pieces immediately, however, since he had probably already realized then that he would not last long.

I maintain that the Government has lost control of the pattern of political development in South Africa, of its tempo, and that is why it is unable to tell us where it is going with this country, because it knows that it has placed itself on the path of political integration. There is only one course, and it can only end in one thing, and that is complete integration where only chaos will reign and there will be no prosperity for anyone in South Africa. Therefore the policy of the Conservative Party, viz a policy of full human dignity and self-determination for every people with its own fatherland, remains the only policy that can ensure peaceful co-existence in South Africa. It is also a prerequisite for peaceful co-existence. The policy of the Conservative Party is also more practical and more practicable than the policy of the Government in respect of the Black people.

I wish to go further and say that a result of this loss of control over the course of affairs in South Africa, the Government has also lost control of the administration of the country. It has lost control, and the evidence is piling up daily. We witnessed how the senior Minister in this House had to write a letter to the hon the Prime Minister—such a letter was published in the newspapers—in which he said that he was resigning and begged his forgiveness for his misdeed. This misdeed did not take place yesterday or the day before. It took place a long time ago. According to available information an extremely serious error, a disquieting error, was made. On 22 April last year the hon the Prime Minister said in this House that if there were things that had to be investigated, they would have to be investigated. He said this referring to that Minister. The hon the Prime Minister then went to Soutpansberg and said that he would defend that man regardless of the consequences. Now I want to ask the hon the Prime Minister: Is he prepared to bear the consequences? In defence of the former Minister, the Prime Minister also announced a development programme of R10 million as a carrot to get that Minister back into the House. I think that what should happen now, is that a Select Committee of Parliament should be appointed to investigate in depth the way in which the Minister concerned administered his departments so that Parliament and South Africa can be informed of what is going on. The hon the Prime Minister must then bear the consequences.

This does not only apply to that Minister. Other Ministers succeeded him. Were they totally unaware of this misdeed perpetrated by the Minister concerned? They never said a word about it.

Then there is the hon. the Minister of Defence. Last year I said he was unconscious. I now wish to suggest that the hon the Prime Minister go and look if that Minister is still alive, for last year he said that he was totally unaware that some of his soldiers had gone to carry out a coup in the Seychelles. During the course of this year it came to light that a Russian spy has been sitting in the Department of Defence for 20 years, but that hon Minister was totally unaware of that. [Interjections.] This spy was in that department during the entire term of office of the hon the Prime Minister as Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister was sitting right on top of him and living happily with him. However, attention was focused on this man as far back as then. A report appeared in Rapport of January last year—I have it here—in which it was indicated that attention had been focussed on this man’s activities and that an investigation had been requested and the report which followed, had found him innocent. They were therefore on his trail. They were hot on his trail, but they allowed him to slip through their fingers. I therefore maintain that there is something radically wrong. The Government has lost control of the administration of this country. In connection with this important aspect of security, information was received about there “being a spy”, yet he continued to undermine South Africa for a further 10 years. Now the question is: How many of his friend and comrades are not sitting in strategic places in the Republic of South Africa? [Interjections.] Yes, I said that is the question.

There is a second request the Government must give ear to. It is clear that the hon the Minister of Defence and the hon the Prime Minister are not capable of dealing with this question of security and that they need assistance. Therefore a Select Committee of Parliament must also be appointed to look at this extremely sensitive and dangerous matter for South Africa, a Select Committee that can give the necessary assistance so that the interests of South Africa can be protected.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Lichtenburg made his normal contribution today—normal since he left the Cabinet and the CP was formed. I find it astounding that the hon member could as lightly flit over serious, complex matters as he did here this afternoon, knowing as he does that these matters that he broached are not as simple as he makes them out to be. He thought fit to begin by accusing the NP of having specific allies leading the NP towards integration.

Mr Speaker, is the hon member prepared to answer a question?

No, I do not want to reply to questions now.

It is amazing that the hon member refers to allies of this side of the House, knowing as he does that that party can surely not boast of the allies it has in its struggle. Or does the hon member want to protect the AWB today? [Interjections.] Last year hon members of the CP had several opportunities to dissociate themselves from the AWB, but to date they have not done so yet. Does the hon member take pride in the AWB? Does he take pride in the Kappie-Kommando and what they are doing? Does he take pride in all those other people who stood by them in propagating a no vote during the referendum campaign?

The ANC, yes.

If the hon member wants to speak about the allies of this side of the House, the very first thing he must do is to take a heart-searching look at his own allies. He will see that he is very much worse off … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Whilst the hon member for Virginia was speaking about the allies of the CP, an hon member opposite said that the ANC was an ally of the CP. [Interjections.] Sir, I should like to ask you for a ruling in this connection.

Order! The hon member for Vryheid must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it.

The hon member for Virginia may continue.

The hon member for Lichtenburg went on to debate the question of the allies of this side of the House leading us down the road to integration. Our problem lies in the interpretation of the concept “integration”. The hon member for Lichtenburg ought to know full well that this party is least of all on the road to integration. In fact, the objectives of the new constitution specifically conflict with integration. Surely in the objectives and underlying principles of the new constitution it is a matter of the right to self-determination of peoples being protected. The quicker hon members on that side of the House therefore get away from the idea that co-operation in everyone’s interests must necessarily lead to integration, the better it will be for them and the better will they be able to formulate a policy that is also acceptable to the electorate.

The hon member thought fit—in my opinion it was poor taste—to compare the hon the Prime Minister with General Smuts by indicating that the present hon Prime Minister did not evidence any statementship and so on. I want to tell the hon member that this does not accord with what the hon member’s leader said four years ago. I want to refer the hon member for Lichtenburg to a speech that the hon member for Waterberg made at Pietersburg on 26 August 1979. About the present hon Prime Minister he said—

He went on to say—

The hon member for Lichtenburg must talk to his own leader, and I am convinced that they would not agree about what he has just said.

The hon member for Lichtenburg advances the argument that interest rates are increasing drastically as a result of the fact that the yes vote has triumphed, and also because the interest of foreign investors has now quite suddenly diminished because of the fear that supposedly now prevails. Surely the hon member cannot tell me that he wants to attribute this complicated matter involving the economy simply to the yes vote that triumphed in the referendum. He surely knows what the economic conditions are attributable to, and it is not necessary for us to waste our time debating this here today. The hon member is acquainted with the true state of affairs.

Perhaps, finally, just the following in this connection: The hon member went on about the so-called disunity on this side of the House. Let me tell him now that if there was ever disunity in the NP caucus, it was shortly before those hon members walked out of the NP. At the present moment there is no question of disunity, and that is something the hon member can take home with him. He knows that that is the true state of affairs.

On 2 November of last year the electorate had to answer a very simple question, ie: “are you in favour of the implementation of the Constitution Act, 1983, as approved by Parliament?” That was a simple, comprehensible question on which every South African citizen could vote yes or no, and every effort was made to explain the content of the Constitution to the electorate. Its basic principles, ie the preservation of the right to self-determination of population groups by way of their sole right to decide on own affairs, and hand in hand with that, joint responsibility and joint decision-making on matters of common concern, have been common knowledge for years now and have repeatedly been debated and explained in this House and also outside this House. In May 1982 the President’s Council published its recommendations, and on 30 July 1982 the hon the Prime Minister announced the guidelines for a new constitutional dispensation. The guidelines were not drawn out of thin air, being a culmination of the work of successive governments and of in-depth consultations over the years.

The efforts of the Opposition, particularly of the CP, to sow confusion and force half-truths on the voters specifically did not succeed because of the fact that these guidelines have been common knowledge for years, as the result of the referendum also indicated very clearly.

Today two questions can be asked. Firstly, why did a new Constitution have to be placed on the Statute Book? And, secondly, why did a referendum on that issue specifically have to be held now? As far as the first question is concerned, let me say that throughout the world it is a well-known fact that development takes place and that as a result of that development new demands of the times come to the fore, demands that have to be met. The NP realizes this simple truth and acts accordingly, and that is also the reason why the NP has been in power for almost 36 years. The Government accepts the realities and is prepared to adapt its policy accordingly, without relinquishing principles and basic points of view. [Interjections.] If the hon member for Jeppe would only close his mouth and keep his ears open, he would possibly learn something.

The simple truth of the matter is that the Coloureds and the Indians have developed to such an extent, and have made such a special contribution in various spheres of South Africa’s national economy, that they can rightly insist upon deciding on their own welfare and accepting joint responsibility for matters affecting everyone in this country. In brief, Mr Speaker, these two groups were and are entitled to political rights, and they therefore had to be offered an opportunity to make a joint political contribution in one Parliament.

The second question was, of course, why a referendum should specifically have been held now. The Government had a mandate to place the relevant legislation on the Statute Book and then to implement it. In the years ahead history will be referring to this fact. Reference will be made, for example, to the statesmanship, the daring, the honesty and the sincerity of the hon the Prime Minister, who decided, regardless of his mandate, to present this question to the White electorate by way of a referendum, and then eventually to the Coloureds and the Indians as well, if they so choose.

It is interesting to note the reaction of the Opposition to this referendum, particularly just after it was announced, but also during the referendum campaign. From the PFP we immediately gathered that that party was encouraging its followers to vote no. At a later stage the PFP also advised other population groups to cast a no vote in the referendum. The most important reason advanced for this by the PFP was that the Government’s apartheid policy would be entrenched in the new constitution. Strangely enough—in contrast to that, and also at one and the same time—the CP was alleging that the Whites were relinquishing their sovereignty. These two standpoints were weighed up, and it is therefore no wonder that the electorate rejected the CP and the PFP, specifically on the basis of this contradiction. Surely both allegations cannot be correct.

Secondly, the NP plan united the Black, Coloured and Asian organizations into a political opposition, in fact to a much greater extent than during any period since the ’fifties—according to the PFP. If, however, we take note of a statement by the executive of the Coloured Labour Party, that argument by the PFP appears to be completely unfounded. Let me quote the following in support of my statement—

The relevant passage goes on to state—

How on earth can one then argue that it is specifically this dispensation that is driving the respective coloured groups into one corner against the White Government?

Thirdly, the PFP advanced another argument. What they said was that people should cast a no vote because the State President would be placed above Parliament and the courts. This argument—and many others—is totally exaggerated and nothing more than false propaganda used in the referendum campaign against the new Constitution. How does this accord with the hon the Leader of the Opposition’s statements and his party’s congress resolutions after the referendum?

After the referendum that party made a complete about-face, not to mention the hon member for Sandton’s article in the column “Buurman”. How is it possible for a party which rejected the new dispensation as the entrenchment of apartheid, as a dictatorship, and as a recipe for civil war, to turn around now and, running counter to its traditional boycott policy, convey a message of constructive participation in the new constitutional dispensation? It involuntarily brings up the question of whether the PFP’s objections were really based on principles. Surely the PFP’s earlier objections were based purely and simply on political expediency. Or is the PFP perhaps afraid that the electorate has seen through their little plans and that a subsequent general election will reject that party as the official Opposition? It seems to me, Sir, as if that is milling about in the hon the Leader of the Opposition’s head. One wonders what the hon member for Sandton had in mind when, directly in conflict with what he and his party proclaimed two months previously, he called upon the Coloureds and the Indians to participate fully in the constitutional dispensation.

The hon member also went further. He presented the State President as a future dictator and now declares that in the new constitution the State President is not above party politics and that his actions are subject to criticism and comment. That is a complete reversal. Would that perhaps be because those hon members reached greater clarity during the referendum campaign, or is it perhaps that they are merely playing another game to try to get the electorate back on their side again? As far as I am concerned it is clear proof of the deception that occurred during the referendum campaign.

It was not difficult, however, to predict the CP’s standpoint. From the very beginning, directly after the announcement of the referendum, and also prior to that, it was the CP’s standpoint that the Whites were being deprived of their sovereignty. They went out of their way to jeopardize the new constitutional dispensation and, hand in hand with that, the proposed constitution. From their speeches and their actions it became evident that if the NP together with its leaders could, in the process, be denigrated and annihilated by gossip-mongering, so much the better. [Interjections.] Exactly. To what level did the hon member for Brakpan not sink in his attacks on personalities? It was his leader who claimed that we should play the ball and not the man. I just want to say that the hon member for Brakpan’s record and that of many of his colleagues do not attest to that. Hon members of the CP have made the realities completely subservient to political ideology. The Whites are boss and that is what they must continue to be. It is to that that they have enslaved themselves, and that is what they cling to. Every effort was made to indicate the possible and impossible dangers, and in the process use was made of the recipe of half-truths. In that they made their mark. Information by the CP and the CP propaganda made way for suspicion-mongering, for the denigration of personalities and for misrepresentation of the facts. All possible groups and bodies had to be included. Even the Church and the Word of God were not excluded in this process. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I ask your ruling in regard to what the hon member for Virginia has just said—that the CP even used the Word of God. [Interjections.] Is it parliamentary to say something like that?

Order! The hon member for Virginia may continue.

In his Ellis Park speech the hon the Leader of the CP referred to people who despised and rejected the sovereignty of Christ. That was not at all worthy of him, and it brought down upon him and upon his party the displeasure of many thousands of White and Coloured Christians. The hon member for Rissik, who is now making such a great fuss about that, is a man who studied theology. I want to ask him, and other hon members of his party, if they were happy with what their hon leader said at Ellis Park. Are they happy about that?

May I please put a question to you?

No, Sir, I am not prepared to answer a question.

I allege that the hon member for Water-berg, the leader of the CP, did that party, the Afrikaner people and all Christians a disservice by coming to light with a statement such as this at a public meeting. If the hon members for Rissik and Koedoespoort, as they sit their now, agree with this statement, I also direct this at them.

Do you disagree with what he said?

Of course I disagree with it.

At a later stage the leader of the CP also referred to people comprising the “66,6%” yes vote—please note, it is actually 66,3% and not 66,6%—and said he saw them as the “three sixes”. Well, to say the least of it, his is an unsavoury view. I want to leave it at that. [Interjections.]

Is it then so strange that so many voters reject the CP with its political smear campaigns, its abuse of religion and its inability to think clearly and realistically and to come to light with a workable alternative?

The hon member for Waterberg also comes along with the argument that the virtually 700 000 no votes accruing to the CP—according to his calculations—are exceptionally favourable, forming a firm foundation on which the freedom of the people can be decided. As far as I am concerned that is naive, that is ridiculous. What will bring the hon. member to his senses? If 1 360 000 voters voted yes, and they constitute 66,34% of the votes cast or 50,13% of the total number of voters, how on earth can the hon member argue that those 700 000 votes are a firm foundation, and then even a basis on which the freedom of the people “will be decided”? I am afraid that if we were to follow the road mapped out for us by the CP, there would be no freedom, not for the Whites, nor for the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks, because from the very outset confrontation would be the order of the day.

I briefly want to confine myself to the significance of the referendum result. Let me put it that a policy of reasonableness, fairness and justice to all population groups has again prevailed. Extremism and extremists have no place in South African politics, and the sooner the CP accepts that, the better. Hatred and envy lead to no constructive goal. Clear thinking and balanced judgment have again prevailed in the referendum. A workable plan is the solution. It is no use our idealizing, drifting with our heads in the clouds without our feet touching the ground, without the establishment of a plan which, to put it in simple terms, could perhaps work; in other words, which is viable. To be negative, to boycott, to come with an idealistic alternative which is not viable, is a waste of time. Reasonable people have decided not to begrudge others what they arrogate to themselves. The maintenance of civilized values and orderly development have got through to the electorate as the most important component of a happy society. That is what this result spells out for me. The electorate preferred consensus politics.

I think that a great majority of the electorate came to realize that the welfare of all these groups specifically lay in dialogue with one another. The electorate preferred the best plan for security, stability and prosperity.

The question now arises: What lies ahead? Of course there will be challenges in the new dispensation, challenges for the Whites, the Coloured, the Indian and the Black peoples. That is definite. If there is the will to meet the challenge in an attitude of goodwill and the acknowledgment of one another’s dignity, the problems will indeed be solved. It is, however, equally true—everyone must also accept this—that the Whites alone cannot make South Africa a land of peace, prosperity and security. What is needed, on the part of everyone, on the part of all the various ethnic groups, the Coloureds, the Indians and the various Black peoples, is the will to work together and, in a spirit of tolerance, to seek the best for all those living and working here. Co-operation between everyone living and working here, regardless of ethnic ties, is what is necessary. This does not mean—and I am directing this at the hon member for Rissik—that the various population groups must relinquish their identities when they co-operate and when one brings together all those who put South Africa first. At the time Pres M P Steyn of the Orange Free State, also made a plea for co-operation between all the groups in South Africa. What he said then is equally true today. He said that a denationalized Afrikaner is a sorry creature, without strength and without backbone. He is like a bat, not acknowledged by the mice and despised by the birds. This does not only apply to the Whites or the Afrikaners. It also applies to the Coloureds, the Indians and the various Black ethnic groups. In my heart of hearts I am convinced that these different groups have the same point of departure and can therefore work together without loss of their own identity. In my opinion it is not true that these population groups want to lose their identity in the process of co-operation.

What is important is that there should be co-operation in the sense of mutual assistance in preserving one’s identity and thereby continuing to exist. Greater unity in the ranks of the Afrikaner is essential. We can no longer afford the luxury of disunity in the church and cultural spheres. Stability is what is necessary, but that is difficult to achieve if people do not trust each other and, in the process, torpedo their own institutions and power bases.

Mr Speaker, I have no intention of becoming involved in a resumption of the Broeder War of the previous session. The hon member for Virginia mainly joined issue with the PFP and the CP.

†I want to deal with the issue before the House, but before I do so I want to say a few words about the recent diplomatic initiatives and developments in regard to Mozambique and Angola and the visit of Dr Crocker. In referring to them, I want to say that I do not believe that this moment is the time to debate them. However, I think it is necessary that each political party should put on record its view in regard to what is happening. The view of this party is that we welcome those initiatives. We hope that they will come to fruition and that a peaceful settlement in South West Africa/Namibia can and will be achieved. We hope that the discussions with Mozambique will lead to agreements which can bring stability on that border and that as regards both Angola and Mozambique we will be able to live a normal life with our neighbours.

Having said that, I want to say too that this party recognizes the responsibility of South Africa and the Government for the security and stability of the people of South West Africa. We and, I believe, the Government accept that we can not abandon that responsibility for a settlement which would not be in the interests either of those people or of South Africa. Furthermore, we as a party fully endorse the efforts for a solution by peaceful means and negotiation on these two issues.

I am sorry that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is not here, because I want to make one suggestion. I think it would help a little if he smiles sometimes and hope that these discussions will perhaps give him something to smile about. One sometimes wonders whether he is talking as a professional diplomat or whether he is talking as a politician. This is a danger against which we need to guard.

I would like to turn now to the motion of the hon Leader of the Opposition and I want to help him in one regard. He dealt with three aspects which would affect the role of the Opposition. He dealt with them in detail. I believe there is a fourth factor which affects the role and the effectiveness of the Opposition. That is the quality of the input of that Opposition into the political debate. If a party is not producing an input, then it cannot expect to have a role as an Opposition. If I have to judge by the speech of the hon the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, then I would say that the missing element in the role of that official Opposition is the lack of quality of its input into what should have been an important and stimulating debate today because, I must admit, at one stage today I wondered whether the hon the Leader of the Opposition was moving a vote of no confidence in the Government or in his own party. It was very difficult to gauge to whom he was talking.

Is that your input into the National Party?

I will deal with that. In this first debate of the session, Parliament faces a massive mandate from the electorate to get on with the new deal, and South Africa will watch this Parliament anxiously to see what the Government is going to do about it and how it will handle it. I listened to the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs and I welcome his enthusiasm. This Government must grasp this opportunity with both hands in a spirit of urgency and in a spirit of determination. South Africa dare not, after the referendum, allow this opportunity to be another lost opportunity. We dare not allow it to lose momentum and we dare not allow it to stall through hesitation or indecision. This session, 1984, will answer the crucial question which is before this Parliament on what we are going to do with the mandate given to us.

Let me turn, just for a moment, to the prelude to this session—the referendum which preceded it. I want to say without any equivocation that the New Republic Party is proud of its contribution to the referendum and to the constitution itself. I am particularly proud, as the only member of this House who was elected to this House for the sole and specific purpose of fighting that shameful step which led to the removal of Coloured political rights, to have seen the wheel turn full circle and to still be here to see the restoration of those rights to the Coloured people. There are others in this House who were here when we fought their removal and they now sit in those benches. [Interjections.] There are those who fought against the removal of Coloured political rights but who, in this past referendum, fought equally hard to prevent the restoration of those rights. That was the irony of the referendum. [Interjections.] I want to emphasize another aspect, a unique aspect, of the referendum which demonstrated that South Africans can differ politically, they can even differ fundamentally, but on a specific issue they can fight side by side in the interests of their country and of South Africa in the same way as people who differ politically fight side by side in the South African forces to defend this country. This is something which, to me, has been a tremendous encouragement—to see that South Africans could in fact rise above party differences and political differences without surrendering their principles and convictions. It is a lesson the leadership of the official Opposition could not learn, but their supporters did. Tens of thousands of their supporters were able to rise above party-political differences and to do what was right for South Africa. That is one of the aspects of the referendum we were pleased to note.

The official Opposition, however, seems incapable of understanding that the issue before South Africa was whether we should start the process of political change by broadening the political base to include other races in a new parliamentary system. I was struck by something said during the referendum by a person who is not a White person. He said—

That, I believe, was the view of many of those who voted for the new constitution; they saw it as the first step in a long journey.

What is the end of that journey?

I will come to the end of the journey. I shall deal with it. What has happened is that we have started on the journey.

Before I come to the direction and the end of the journey, or what we see as the correct direction, I want to deal with one other matter which has already been raised by way of interjection. I am not going to run away from it. I refer to the parrot cry from Inkatha’s second team, who sit here in the House, the old hollow-back-ridden horse which they keep on mounting, namely that this party is about to cross the floor and join the National Party. It should not be necessary to tell Inkatha’s second team, who have been saying that for so long, that they ought to know by now that that is not true. I simply want to say clearly once again, and I hope for the last time, that the interests of South Africa will not be served by this party crossing the floor to join the National Party.

Only those who ignore the facts will deny that this party has made a contribution to constitutional reform in South Africa. We will continue to work for further reform and on the road ahead we will continue to try to make a positive input whilst we differ on many other major issues. I am not going to deal with them all, but I refer to things like local option versus the Group Areas Act, things like the position of the Black South African—I will deal with that in a moment—and the many other differences between us. On the question of constitutional reform, however, we will continue, with all our differences, to try to play a positive part, a positive role. At the same time we will continue to fight over the differences we have.

I want to thank the hon the Prime Minister for his recognition of the fact that people can differ politically but work together towards a common objective. I want to thank him, too, for the compliment he paid this party after the referendum, a compliment I appreciated, because this, I think, is one of the keys to the new politics of South Africa. I refer to the ability of people who may differ politically to work together towards a common destiny, towards a better South Africa, disagreeing where they need to disagree.

I do not want to deal with it at length, but I want to read briefly from the aims and principles of this party as adopted in 1977 when we were formed. It relates to this Constitution—

That is part of the philosophy of this party.

It is part of the philosophy on which we were formed. That is why we were able to support the constitution and the referendum with conviction and enthusiasm. It reflected much of our philosophy although it stops far short of the details of our policy beliefs. We needed the least adaptation of any party, less even than the NP. The NP has had to adapt much more than we have had to adapt to the new constitution. To them it is something new. I appreciate and welcome the fact that the NP has adapted to the modern needs of South Africa. However, to us it was not something new. It was something we had fought for.

I do not know whether everyone appreciates the fact that politics will never be the same again in South Africa after the referendum. The days of paternalism are over. The days of talking for other races are past. That leaves the official Opposition out on a limb without a real contribution to make. The joining of the political process by Coloureds and Indians will inject its own adrenalin into the system and increase the forward momentum.

The last point I want to make is that we demonstrated beyond our own expectations that we were able to influence voters who were anti-government, who were anti-NP, to support the issue of the constitution and the referendum. We were able to influence supporters of the official Opposition and people outside politics. This too shows where we will be in the new politics. We will be in there trying to influence it in the direction in which we want it to go. Against the mandate of a 66% majority of the electorate I look at this motion put before the House this afternoon. We heard pious assurances that the official Opposition was going to contribute constructively to the new dispensation. We heard it all. However, at the very first opportunity it had it used the most destructive formula allowed by Parliament to oppose the Government flatly, including the new constitution and everything else that goes with it. This is evidence of the sincerity of that party’s undertaking to contribute constructively to the new dispensation! We accept the clear mandate of the electorate, as did the PFP through its own leader. He said that he accepted the mandate, that he had to accept it. The NRP cannot support total confrontation, including rejection of the constitution. We believe it is unrealistic in the circumstances. It is almost a joke. Therefore we will record our opposition by an amendment in the form of a censure motion, which we believe is more appropriate to the start of the new political era. We see the greatest challenge ahead, as the implementation of and filling in of the gaps in the new constitution. In order to put our view clearly I move as an amendment—

1. (1) its failure to establish an effective commission or similar body, including Blacks, to conduct an in-depth investigation into the needs and aspirations of Black South Africans and in particular non-homeland Blacks;
2. (2) its failure to create the broad general climate necessary for the successful implementation and acceptance of the new constitution;
3. (3) its failure to manage Government finances in such a manner as to be able to meet unforeseen needs such as drought relief by timeously adapting its expenditure programme;
4. (4) its placing of an additional tax burden on lower income groups, including pensioners and those with fixed incomes already crippled by inflation and exploding housing costs, and its failure to create conditions to ensure adequate housing for large sections of all population groups; and
5. (5) its failure to promote a more efficient and flexible administration which would avoid insensitive or arrogant attitudes and actions undermining our internal and external relations.”.

I move that amendment to indicate our attitude to the new style of politics.

In regard to non-homeland Blacks, I want to say that we welcome the Cabinet Committee as indeed we did at the time, but the pure reality of politics shows clearly that seven senior Cabinet Ministers cannot go out and consult and negotiate and come to a settlement with the Blacks. There must be a mechanism to negotiate, to do that spade work. One cannot expect Cabinet Ministers to go and talk to everybody. Many of them cannot even cope with their own departments now. They will not be able to hear all the evidence and talk to all the people necessary. We believe that there should be a body of some nature—we propose a commission like the Erika Theron Commission—with Blacks on it to do that contact work and, if necessary, to report back and make recommendations to the Cabinet Committee. We welcome the Government’s acknowledgement of the need but not its practical mechanism for implementing that need.

I want to say to the Black leaders themselves that negotiation is a two-way trade. There must be a willingness on their part to negotiate and, if they refuse negotiation, they must not afterwards complain that they have been excluded from the political process.

In our view there is one other essential: The Government must give further thought to the shape and the format of the confederation which I have no time to discuss today.

Our amendment censures the Government for its failure to create a broad, general climate. In this regard this party’s experience as the government of Natal, particularly in regard to the Natal plan for local and metropolitan government, together with our personal relationships with many leaders of the Coloured and Indian communities, are plus factors which we can add to the equation for a satisfactory solution. And hopefully, of course, in 17 days time we will have Mr Frank Martin with all his experience who will be with us, helping to make his contribution and sharing with the House that experience.

There are so many obvious examples which have to receive attention. The Prohibition of Political Interference Act must go. Local option is still not understood by the Government; we will have to give them elementary lessons in regard to what it means. Decision-making at community level and not by bureaucratic dictate is one of the essential elements, while hurtful and unnecessary discrimination has to be scrapped.

These are issues that we will debate during this session and how Parliament handles them—the Government must take note of this—will influence the course of Coloured and Indian elections, and will also to an extent determine whether we will have moderate and responsible leaders elected by those communities to enter the new dispensation because they see there is hope, or whether radicals will be elected because they are frustrated and see no indication of any intent on the part of the Government to deal with these thorny problems.

In connection with economic matters I am not going to say anything now. Other hon members of my party will refer to those. There is, however, only one point to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. The hon the Minister of Finance talks blandly about a 1% increase in GST. It is all very well for an hon Minister or an MP or a business executive to talk like that, but if one has to try to work out a budget to make ends meet on an income of R100 or R200 a month, an amount of R1 or R2 becomes a major factor because one then has to decide what one has to give up that costs R1 or R2. Part of our motivation in censuring the Government is because we condemn the attitude of this Government that when they need money they simply take it from the people without caring whether the people are able to pay or not.

I want to conclude by answering the question asked here earlier. That is the question of what our vision is. Our vision is absolutely clear. It is set out in our programme of aims and principles as a party. It is on record in Hansard. I can give it to any of those hon members of the PFP and the CP free of charge at any time. [Interjections.] It is, however, a vision of a South Africa in which all people will have rights, in which they will participate on every level on which they are governed, in which they will have access to one economy—a rich economy—in which they will have access to all the benefits offered by this country, in which human dignity will be respected, in which they will be able to make their contribution without limitations and hindrances—a South Africa in which there will be mutual trust and understanding among the races. That is the sort of South Africa we see. In our amendment we therefore express our censure of those things that do not meet this vision. We do believe, however, that in time our vision will be met. Therefore we shall continue to press—as successfully as we have until now—this constitutional issue.

Mr Speaker, yesterday evening on television the hon member for Durban Point promised us that he and his party were going to make a positive and constructive contribution during this debate and during this session. I think that in starting out here this afternoon the hon member kept his word. He tried to tone down the hon the Leader of the Opposition’s motion of no confidence by moving an amendment which amounted to a motion of censure in the Government. However, I believe he tripped himself up a little here and there.

His first argument was that he believed the Government should be censured for having neglected to establish a body which could consult Blacks on their constitutional future. I am surprised the hon member said such a thing. During the referendum campaign I frequently heard the hon member defend the Government very strongly in this regard. He said that the Government was willing to establish a body in addition to the President’s Council—a body consisting of Blacks—in which consultation of that nature could take place.

That body is not yet in existence.

Yes, but the hon member did not blame the Government for that at that stage. However, this afternoon he blames the Government for it. Time and again I have heard the hon member tell the voters that there is a Cabinet Committee and that it goes without saying that that Cabinet Committee would negotiate with Black people. [Interjections.] I see the hon member and his party have now at least appointed the Kriek Committee to consult with Black people. It seems to me as if he now has no confidence in that committee which he himself appointed and now expects the Government to appoint something else.

The hon member also said that the speech by the hon the Leader of the Opposition proved that he had “a lack of political input”. This is also what struck me about the speech of the hon the Leader of the Opposition. On Friday the hon the Leader of the Opposition raised our hopes when he told us that the motion he was going to move would be an historic one. I think it will go down in history as the speech about what other people said, from Colonel Cresswell, as long ago as 1913, right up to Wimpie de Klerk. Between those two he also referred to a host of foreigners and other people and told us what other people had said. I think this will be known as the “scissors and paste speech”. [Interjections.]

I had intended this afternoon to address the hon member for Waterberg in connection with certain statements he made during the referendum campaign, in particular statements in connection with religion. However, the hon member is not here this afternoon and I therefore hope that I shall have an opportunity, at a later date, to refer to this matter. However, I just want to mention that since the referendum campaign he has become most taciturn. From the golden beaches of the Natal South Coast and up to now all we have heard from the hon the leader of the CP is a deafening silence. We also heard that silence yesterday evening when the leaders of the other parties gave their previews of this session.

On a Sunday! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member must really not be so pious now. I can tell him what he and I did one Sunday in Gettysburg. [Interjections.] We also experienced that taciturn aspect when, in connection with various newspaper reports, the other parties put their standpoints on certain matters, for example the magazine Buurman. However, there was a great silence from the hon member for Waterberg.

May I please put a question?

No, I really do not feel like replying to the hon member’s question.

†Mr Speaker, the hon member for Durban Point referred to the PFP who said in a jocular way that we were fielding our second team against them in Pinetown. Apart from the fact that that remark is a reflection upon their own ability, it is, of course, also a question of sour grapes. I agree with the hon member for Durban Point that in 17 days’ time Mr Frank Martin will be here. I shall then have to ask them whom they have to thank, just as in the case of the clients of a certain bank. [Interjections.] I say that this is a case of sour grapes on the part of the PFP. They and the CP both urged their supporters to vote “no” during the referendum campaign but they failed to come to any agreement in regard to the rationalization of their campaign, the disastrous consequences of which we have seen.

Where is your candidate?

The hon member asked where our candidate is; I am coming to that now. This is consensus [interjections.] I want to tell the hon member for Rissik—he participated in those discussions—that both his party and the HNP gave us an object lesson, in full view of the television cameras, of how one does not reach consensus. To the embarrassment of their own supporters they indicated to us how obstinacy and self-interest can prevent people from co-operating.

Did you reach consensus with the NRP?

Yes, we reached consensus with the NRP, and that is what I am going to discuss.

In Pinetown we and the NRP gave a practical demonstration of consensus politics. We are entering an era in which consensus is going to be very demanding, but very exciting and very fruitful. I should like to make the matter of consensus politics the theme of my speech this afternoon.

†There are many policy differences between us and the NRP; that is why we are sitting on opposite sides in this House.

Name one.

Of course the hon member for Durban Point mentioned some of those differences. We differ as to the position of the Black man in this country. On the question of the urban Blacks there are serious differences between us and the NRP. There are differences on many other matters as well, but in spite of those differences we could conduct a joint campaign in the past referendum. We did not sweep our differences under the carpet; we discussed them very frankly, openly and in an adult manner. [Interjections.]

Order!

There are differences between us and the NRP, but there is also common ground. We discovered consensus on many matters. As the campaign progressed and we learned to know and understand each other better, we discovered more matters on which we could reach agreement. We discovered that their passion for South Africa is as strong as ours. We discovered that we both feel the necessity to move away from the politics of conflict and confrontation to consultation and consensus. Where changes were to be brought about, we were in agreement that they should be done in an orderly fashion, in an evolutionary and peaceful manner so as to enhance and not endanger group identities and group interests. If any of us thought that the NRP was nothing but a watered down version of the PFP, we discovered how very wrong we were. We discovered that they were as averse to the policy of the PFP as we were. The NRP pleads as strongly as we do that the policy of the PFP is inimical to the interests of South Africa—it is a blueprint for chaos. We believe with them that with the six seats which the PFP have in Natal they are represented way beyond their potential. They are alien to Natal—the PFP are carpet-baggers in Natal. They slipped in in several seats, not because they had the overall majority in those seats, but because of a divided vote. We and the NRP believe that it is a matter of the highest priority that the PFP should be cut down to size. Of course we believe that we in the NP are better placed to defeat the PFP. It is only natural if the NRP were to believe that this task would suit them admirably. We cannot have consensus on every matter, so we will agree to differ on that matter. How do we prove ourselves? What do we do? Do we fight it out with the NRP and do we prove to them that we are stronger than they are? Do we flex our muscles and in the process defeat our main objective, namely to get rid of the PFP?

We often speak so glibly about consensus, but do not always realize that it involves sacrifice. Of course the National Party had to sacrifice in this instance. No ideal can ever be attained without sacrifice. If we expect other people to yield to our demands, surely we are called upon to yield as well. It was very clear to us as the senior party that our interests must be subservient to our prime objective, namely to defeat the PFP. That is why we left the coast clear for the NRP.

*In the Pinetown situation we find the most important elements of the new consensus politics we are embarking on now. Consensus requires sacrifice. It is frequently necessary for one to take a step backwards in order to take two steps forward at a later stage, or in the Pinetown idiom, it is sometimes necessary for one to sacrifice one seat in order to win two or even many more later. Consensus calls for strength and courage to play the lesser role. Consensus makes drastic demands, for example that we push our own desires into the background. The man who is unsure of himself, the man who is self-seeking and self-assertive, cannot exercise consensus. Consensus is not a game for weaklings and can at best only be exercised from a position of power. Consensus is not always structured, or a formal decision taken at a formal meeting. As regards the matter between us and the NRP, there was no formal meeting or formal decision. I believe that our decision not to put up a candidate surprised the NRP as much as it shocked the PFP.

Whom are you bluffing?

Is the hon member honestly suggesting that I am trying to tell an untruth or that I am trying to bluff?

No. Just tell us why you do not oppose us in Pinetown.

I can assure the hon member that there were no formal discussions between the NRP and ourselves with regard to the Pinetown situation and that no formal decision was made. It was a spontaneous gesture on our side.

*We did not do any negotiating. I can give hon members the assurance that no formal negotiations took place between us.

Consensus does not mean relinquishing principles. Many people believe this. I think that most of the people who believe this, do not understand the difference between principles and mere obstinacy and stubbornness. Many people do not understand the Scriptural message that he who loves his life shall lose it. It is sometimes necessary to lose one’s life. Consensus is frequently an act of self-sacrifice, the realization that there are goals that transcend our own petty interests. If one wants to practise consensus politics, one has to be capable of self-examination, of looking objectively at oneself. One has to be clear about one’s priorities. As I read the signs, there is a growing desire among the public of South Africa today for greater seriousness in the exercising of consensus politics. The man who does not understand that is completely out of touch with public opinion. Our people have grown sick and tired of the sterile and obsolete form of debating of the past. They have grown tired of the petty bickering, fighting and quarrelling. Our people have grown tired of the exaggerated aggressiveness in our public life. Now our people want to roll up their sleeves and build. They want consensus politics and they want it because love is stronger than hate. There is more that binds us together than divides us. Nowadays our people want the centripetal forces in a people’s life to be strengthened and the centrifugal forces to be weakened. We must reach consensus because the realities of South Africa are pushing us in that direction. The storm building up against us is strengthening, among all population groups, the increasing realization of a common destiny. Fortunately the foundations for consensus politics have been laid over many years. In the rich colourfulness of our diversity there have been times when this nation has quite simply been able to transcend its limits and be strong in its unity. During the past referendum …

Sir, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question?

No, I do not want to reply to a question by the hon member now.

During the past referendum we had an example of wonderful co-operation between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people. In the more than 150 years of living together in this country this sort of thing has never happened before. In 70 years of elections English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people have never before stood shoulder to shoulder as they did in this referendum. As far as I am concerned, this was probably the most encouraging and the most heartening aspect of the entire campaign. We have buried animosities that have existed for generations. In the evolution of our nationhood we have now reached a point where we can replace the base passion of animosity with a grander, nobler and finer passion for South Africa. In parts of our country we have had the worst drought in living memory. Water was drastically rationed, and in Durban we were asked to save 55% of our normal consumption. All levels of the population made an outstanding contribution to the conservation drive. From the people in their mansions, with their swimming pools and gardens, to the poorest people who had to use a communal outside tap, there was a 55% saving of water. Now, a week after those restrictions have been relaxed, we in Durban are still saving 50% of our normal consumption. With such people and with such an attitude, consensus is not simply a figment of the imagination. In spite of the trouble and strife we have witnessed in this House, there were still times when we were simply able to transcend our limits. In our debates on foreign affairs and on defence, for example, a tradition has been maintained in which this House was shown off to best advantage. To a great extent we agree on economic and strategic matters. We agree that there has to be law and order. We agree that every man, woman and child in this country has the inalienable right to sleep in peace and safety at night. To a great extent we agree on our housing strategy. Last year we announced that home-ownership was the cornerstone of our policy, and this was enthusiastically accepted by all parties because we want a new South Africa in which every family has its own ground and its own house. We agree on the basic elements of our health policy and our approach to welfare. We agree on the infrastructure which has to be built up, on our rail and road networks, on our telecommunications system. We agree on environmental matters. We agree on the maintaining of our natural and cultural heritage.

In the past our most heated debates and our greatest differences in this House have concerned matters of relationships. Nevertheless, we also agree to a remarkable extent on the basic points of departure. We agree that ethnic diversity in this country—the hon the Leader of the Opposition spoke in very dignified language of ethnically plural and racially manifold—is simply an irrefutable fact. We agree that every population group must have maximum self-determination. We agree that no people is qualified to govern any other people. We agree that we must not begrudge others the good things we demand for ourselves. We agree that every population group can lay claim to its human dignity being respected at all times. We agree that our relationships with other people should be characterized by fairness and should meet the highest demands of morality. We agree that we are mutually dependent on one another in this country. I do not believe that the staunchest HNP member really believes in his heart of hearts that it is possible to separate all the population groups into watertight compartments so that there are no longer any points of contact between us. We agree that the real test in the future is how we handle those points of contact.

Most of us believe in the politics of negotiation, and that a modus vivendi should be worked out for all the population groups along those lines. During the past referendum we voted on a new constitution, and also for change. There is no difference of opinion amongst the various parties regarding the fact that constitutional change is essential. I think all parties agree unanimously that the status quo cannot be maintained. In actual fact, this referendum did not involve a choice between the 1983 constitution and the 1961 constitution. It was a choice between the 1983 model and the models of all the other parties, because every party had its own model which deviated from the 1961 model. We know that the models of the other parties put together only drew one-third of the votes.

I have mentioned a long list of matters on which there is consensus among our people, and I could greatly add to this list. What must still be added is an act of will; a change of attitude among our people; a really objective view, by our people, of what our priorities should actually be; a burning desire to find one another regarding matters of cardinal importance, disagreeing with one another on subordinate matters in a controlled manner; and in everything being motivated by an overwhelming love for our fatherland. If we add to this an unshakeable faith, then we are equipped to face the problems and challenges of the future fearlessly.

Mr Speaker, when the hon leader of the NRP spoke about the need for an important input that was required I actually expected him to come forward with new suggestions. Having just listened to the hon Deputy Minister of Welfare and of Community Development I actually now understand what input he was talking about. His speech was actually taken further by his colleague across the way. To us it is interesting to see that the co-operation between the NRP and the NP which started in the referendum has now been carried through to a by-election and in all possibility will be carried through to a general election. It is also interesting to see that for reasons of expediency, for reasons of moral and intellectual bankruptcy, the NP has decided not to put a candidate in Pinetown. I believe that like the Russians are using Cuban surrogates to fight their wars in Angola so the NP has decided to use the NRP to fight its war in Pinetown. I believe that like the Russians foot the bill in Angola so the NP will probably foot the bill in Pinetown. [Interjections.]

*Mr Speaker, there are indications that the public is becoming increasingly restless about military action across our borders. Questions are being asked, to which I hope the Government will furnish replies in the course of the week. We on this side of the House have already stated repeatedly that war cannot be waged in secret. Whereas the newspapers of the world are full of news about what is going on in our neighbouring states, the Government is keeping South African citizens and voters of the country in the dark. I want to issue a warning to that side of the House that only an informed community can be expected to make sacrifices. Militarily speaking, bad news is frequently better than no news, or better than a half-truth. The questions Dr De Klerk asked in Rapport—although this is nothing new—simply proved that the PFP is not alone in its argument.

I now want to get around to certain questions in connection with the South African policy of non-interference. My time is limited, but I nevertheless want to quote briefly what Mr Vorster said in 1966. He said (Hansard, Wednesday, 21 September 1966, col 2554)—

On the next page he said more or less the same thing again.

A few years later Dr Hilgard Muller said more or less the same thing after Angola and Mozambique had became independent. He said (Hansard, Tuesday, 10 September 1974, col 2592)—

While we are discussing the policy in regard to our neighbours, it is perhaps important to note that Stowell has the following to say on page 87 of International Law—

I want to ask the Government to tell us whether those principles still apply, because one would expect that that principle would only be deviated from under the most exceptional of international circumstances.

Nevertheless, at the beginning of December we crossed the Angolan border with 2 000 men without Parliament having been informed of this beforehand. Only after eight young men had died was a statement issued on 23 December in which it was announced that a “limited campaign” had been launched against Swapo. It is interesting to learn, is it not, that in this “limited campaign” a Swapo logistics base was bombarded and that some of our forces were engaged in fierce battles with an enemy equipped with Russian tanks. At Cuvelai our forces came up against superior forces armed with heavy artillery, and we were fortunate not to suffer heavy losses. In this “limited campaign” 11 tanks were destroyed, important weapons were seized and 21 of our young men were killed, while the enemy lost many men.

Whatever the original plan may have been, Askari turned into far more than a pre-emptive operation. It developed into a conventional battle which was potentially extremely dangerous to South Africa and also to our young men. According to informed sources, we could have lost many more men.

I now want to address myself to the hon the Minister of Defence. I assume that there are convincing reasons why there was a deviation from the policy of non-interference, but I also want to tell the hon the Minister that Parliament is eager to hear what those reasons are. The Minister must remember—and I am saying this with all due respect to the Defence Force because I have the greatest respect for the senior officers, with whom I am on friendly terms—that the Defence Force is subservient to Parliament and that reports have to be made on the activities of the Defence Force and on what they hope to achieve. In my opinion this is a reasonable request, and I can see that the hon the Minister will gladly react to that.

I also want to tell him that honest and meaningful communication is the only way of creating and maintaining confidence. In my opinion, shortly after 6 December the relevant Minister should have informed Parliament, through the defence and foreign affairs groups, of what was being planned and of what he hoped to achieve. He did not, however, do so. As a matter of fact, it was only shortly before Christmas Day that a senior officer told the PFP that a limited action had been launched against Swapo. Up to 12 January there was no further information, and then, only after the PFP had made a formal request, were more particulars given.

Askari, however, also has international implications. It has frequently been pointed out that South Africa is committed to solving the problem of South West Africa, and indeed in accordance with resolution 435. I believe that this Parliament would like to see the solution to this problem being implemented as soon as possible. Notwithstanding the desire for this, however, year after year increasing numbers of soldiers are moving deeper and deeper into Angola.

I want to point out that opposition to this is building up. The conflict is being internationalized and the weapons being used against our forces are becoming increasingly refined, as the Sam 9 projectile again proved to us a few days ago. The war is escalating and has, in my humble opinion, now reached the stage where it could easily turn into conventional warfare, a state of affairs which could give rise to prohibitive costs—not only financially prohibitive, but also prohibitive as far as loss of human life is concerned.

I believe the time has now come for the hon the Minister to tell us what his plans are in regards to the impasse in Namibia. If the hon the Minister of Defence does not want to deal with the matter, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs who, it just so happens, is not here at the moment, will have to do so. I want to know from the hon the Minister of Defence whether he believes that it is possible to defeat Swapo militarily; if so, how long does he think this will take. And what is his reaction to the Russian threat that they will give the MPLA further support? Thirdly I want to know from him to what extent the action by the SA Defence Force links up with the aims of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I feel that the hon the Minister should, in particular, give attention to these questions because it is so frequently said, and written, that there may be a conflict of interest between what the Department of Foreign Affairs is trying to achieve and what the Defence Force is actually doing, and that the behaviour of the one if not always to the advantage of the other. I should like the hon the Minister to give his attention to this matter.

†In conclusion, Mr Speaker, as far as this subject is concerned, I believe that the activities of the SA Defence Force need to be judged against at least five criteria.

The first one is the question of whether they contribute to or detract from the chances of a peaceful political solution of the problems in our subcontinent. This is a question which is often asked; a question which has been aired in the Press on many occasions. I believe this is a question that should now be answered very firmly.

Related to this is also the question of whether the sacrifices made by young South Africans at present will, in years to come, prevent the sacrifice of more young lives. I believe South Africans have a legitimate claim to reassurance in this respect.

Furthermore, will the activities of the SA Defence Force strengthen or strain our relations with our friends in the free world? Again so much is written and said about this aspect that I believe Parliament should give urgent attention to this matter.

Fourthly I should like to hear whether the activities of the SA Defence Force will reduce or increase the threat of Communist presence in Southern Africa. Now, Mr Speaker, why do I ask this question? When one reads what American foreign policy makers say on this subject they often express the opinion that the mere fact that we are involved in a conflict situation in Southern Africa has the result of drawing in the international powers.

That is an old, old story. [Interjections.]

It does not matter whether this is an old, old story. I should like to hear what the hon the Minister of Defence has to say about this. [Interjections.] After all, the Government is the body which makes the decisions. These are questions which are being asked, and I believe it is only fair to expect that replies be given to these questions.

†Fifthly, will the activities of the SA Defence Force internally promote the formation of a peaceful South African society, or will it retard the whole process? Again let me explain very briefly why I ask this question. It is very often said that every time we are involved in operations across the border and lives are lost, if those people happen to be Black—which more often than not is the case—that this has an impact internally within South Africa and that there is some kind of association, emotional if nothing else, between our people in this country and Blacks outside this country because they identify with them. For this reason I believe that this is a subject that we cannot simply ignore. It is something that we have to deal with.

I come now to the second point with which I wish to deal today namely the Gerhardt affair. The prominent position that the State Security Council occupies and its potential for policy formulation has given rise—my hon Leader referred to this—to deep concern on the part of those who believe in democratic, responsible government. It was, however, participated that the one positive spin-off of the reorganization which resulted in the establishment of the State Security Council would be a more effective, streamlined and sophisticated security system.

The arrest and conviction of Gerhardt has therefore come as a double shock and has raised questions that I believe the hon the Prime Minister himself as the person responsible for the portfolio should deal with. Let me come straight to the point. My information is that the new super duper security network had to inkling whatsoever that Gerhard was suspect. I understand that they had no hand at all in uncovering Gerhardt’s misdeeds or that they had anything to do with his arrest in the United States. In fact, I understand that he was uncovered by the Americans, that they set a trap, that they arrested him in the Holiday Inn in New York and that after he had been debriefed he was flown to South Africa and handed to us on a platter. I should like to ask the Government whether those facts are correct. I want to ask the hon the Prime Minister through one or other of his Cabinet colleagues how effective our security system is if this sort of thing can be allowed to happen. Did the hon the Prime Minister or any of the responsible officials ever suspect that Gerhardt was working for the Russians, that is, before he was arrested in New York and handed over to us on a plate? When Gerhardt was sent on a six-month advanced mathematics course to Syracuse University, was there any suspicion that at that time he had already been working for the Russians for longer than two decades? [Interjections.] Perhaps the hon member for Durban North has the answers but I expect those answers to come from the other side.

South Africa has a very substantial and expensive security service and I believe that virtually every student body and every trade union, every protest group and church organization has come under scrutiny. Numbers of union leaders and students have been arrested by our Security Police on the grounds of alleged subversion. Many of them have been banned and restricted to their homes without having been found guilty of a crime. Yet, while all this was taking place, there was this one man, handpicked and nurtured by some of the most influential members of the Government, who, over many years, was committing vile treachery against this country. Perhaps the responsible Minister will tell this House what level of security clearance Gerhardt had when he was arrested, when he was first cleared and what the most recent occasion was when he was, as it were, checked out. In court Gerhardt admitted that he had visited Moscow no fewer than five times between 1964 and 1980. Was the hon the Prime Minister or anybody in that department aware of these visits and, if so, how does the Government explain them?

When one of our members visited Moscow openly, we had all kinds of insinuations from that frontbench hon Minister to whom I am looking right now.

Were Gerhardt’s visits investigated or was the Government totally unaware that they had taken place? Were that the case, it would have been even more serious. Commodore Gerhardt was not only a smalltime misfit. He has been described internationally as possibly the biggest spy since Philby. He had access to the most sensitive defence secrets—especially naval information—all of which I believe he passed on to Moscow. If not all of that information, I should like to know from the Government how much of it has placed the West in jeopardy.

He was sent overseas by the South African Government on numerous occasions. He was sent to Britain, to America and possibly also elsewhere. During the years 1956-64 he attended courses in Britain at least five times, and during the final stages of his training he had access to classified information there. By leaking that information to his bosses in Moscow, he in fact even placed Britain in jeopardy. What is being done about that?

It is known that he set up radio receiving apparatus in his State-owned house in Simon’s Town. Where is the hon member for Simon’s Town? It is also known that naval technicians were actually used to do the work. Had it not been so serious, it would be an absolute laugh.

As naval attaché in Britain Gerhardt is alleged to have interviewed several hundred potential workers for positions mainly in our submarine fleet, but in doing so, he also interviewed other people whose names he passed on to his masters in Moscow, mainly the names of those persons working on the British Polaris. How do we know how many of the names he passed on have subsequently been employed as it were by Russia and by so doing caused Polaris to become vulnerable? Is it any wonder that the British are as concerned as they are about the South African produced spy?

It was said in Rapport of 2 January this year that Gerhardt’s father used his Koffiefontein contacts to get his young son into the Naval Academy at Saldanha. I am asking, was this political protection not the reason why he never came under suspicion? Why was he able to dictate his terms to the navy while he was only a fairly junior officer? It is said that he threatened to resign if he would not get a transfer on another assignment to the United Kingdom. Was that ever investigated; if so, what were the results and how was it possible that this one young man was given those opportunities, something to which even his colleagues took exception?

There are so many more questions that one can ask about the Gerhardt affair. I really believe that the Government should treat this matter seriously and that they should explain to the House what is happening in security in South Africa. I ask, how many more Gerhardts are there? Is the necessary investigation being carried out and, if so, how far has the Government got in doing so?

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Wynberg greatly surprised me today with the first part of his speech. We have come to know the hon member as a person who usually adopts a very responsible attitude with regard to defence matters. I found his attitude towards Operation Askari a curious one, however, because he did not say a word about what can be done and has in fact been done to South Africa from that territory. He merely tried to emphasize what we were doing in Angola. I believe that this represents a change of heart, a change of mind, a change of attitude on the part of the hon member. I hope the hon member for Wynberg is not going to develop into the twin brother of the MPC for Cape Town Gardens in this respect. The hon member tells us that it should be our approach and that it is recognized in international law that there should be no interference with the international affairs of another country. I recall that the present hon Prime Minister as well as former Prime Ministers have always emphasized that South Africa recognizes the sovereignty of any neighbouring state, just as we expect those people to recognize our sovereignty. That is why South Africa has repeatedly said that it is prepared to enter into non-aggression pacts with any neighbouring country. We therefore wish to maintain good relations with all our neighbouring states, irrespective of their political philosophies or internal policies. Whether their form of government is dictatorship or democracy has nothing to do with us. We are prepared to live in peace with those people.

This is not the first time that our security forces have operated in Angola. As chief spokesman on defence matters the hon member should know that for many years there have been problems with Swapo during the month of December. That is the rainy season and Swapo terrorists then infiltrate South West Africa. However, the hon member does not say a word about the atrocities that are committed and the disruption and problems that are caused. The hon member should know by this time that South Africa does not take action in order to destabilize neighbouring states, but merely to maintain law and order and to protect our own people in those areas. However, the hon member tries to create the impression that we are not conducting only a limited campaign against Swapo, but a full-scale conventional war. If this is a full-scale conventional war, it is certainly not our fault. As a military expert the hon member should know that international authorities—not the hon the Prime Minister or the hon the Minister of Defence—have been warning us for years that the Russians want to destabilize South Africa in order to achieve their own objectives. We know for a fact the extent to which the number of aircraft and tanks and the amount of extremely sophisticated weapons in our neighbouring countries have increased. Is the hon member unaware of this kind of thing? It has nothing to do with the internal policy which is being implemented in this country, but it does have to do with the fact that our neighbouring states are being used. How many times have they been warned that action will be taken against them if they allow their territory to be used to cause hostilities, destabilization and other problems within South Africa? I suggest that any Government which is worth its salt has a duty to its people to maintain proper conditions in its country, to maintain law and order and to ensure that its people are protected. After all, we have an obligation to South West Africa, and surely the hon member knows that. This has been said repeatedly. Why is the hon member now casting reflections or creating the suspicion that we are actually the ones who wish to wage a full-scale conventional war in Angola? I must say that the hon member’s attitude surprises me. I always thought that he and the hon member for Yeoville were the same kind of person. I can remember that the hon member for Yeoville once said that we were entitled to engage in hot pursuit. It was permissible for us to do that. We respect that hon member, because this is the attitude of a responsible man. I am surprised to find now that the influence of the hon member for Yeoville on the hon member for Wynberg seems to be declining. It is declining, and it seems to me that he is now being influenced by someone else. I suppose the hon member was only trying to say what the hon the Leader of the Opposition tried to say in his speech here today. He also tried to create the impression that this was what we were doing and that he would like to receive some replies. If the hon member wants replies, the hon the Minister of Defence, and very possibly the hon the Prime Minister as well, will be able to give him those replies. I am sure that they will be given, and if he says that there was inadequate information, the hon member could perhaps insist on his rights as NP in order to obtain that information. But then he must not try to create the impression, by his style of debate, that South Africa is really the one that is causing problems and trouble in our neighbouring states.

I come now to motion of no confidence moved by the hon the Leader of the Opposition. The hon the Leader of the Opposition had a wonderful opportunity today. When he gave notice of his motion the other day, he created the impression that he wished to do it in the spirit of our Parliamentary tradition. The hon member could have done it in the spirit of the tradition relating to motions of no confidence, while at the same time taking the opportunity of telling us, just as his party accepted the outcome of the referendum in its congress resolutions, that they are prepared to help the Government to make a success of this mandate which has been received from the electorate. However, the hon the Leader of the Opposition failed to do so, and he said again this afternoon, just as he did during the referendum campaign: “We are making the same mistake, the same mistake which was made in 1910 when we ignored the centrality of the main political problem in South Africa, and that was the Black problem.”

That is absolutely right.

Fine, the hon member says that is absolutely right. If that argument is right, I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Opposition and his henchman behind him, his colleague behind him, that historically speaking, even since 1910, the Black problem has surely not been ignored in South Africa. It has not been effectively solved, perhaps, but the hon member cannot say that the central problem of human relations, namely the Black man, has not received the attention it should in the 1910 Constitution and ever since. I want to tell him that step by step, the Government is giving the Black problem, or rather, Black/White relationship, the attention which it deserves. Surely the hon member is closing his eyes to reality when he fails to recognize that many Black states have attained independence, that national states have attained self-government and that they are increasingly being guided along that road.

The hon member advanced the same argument during the referendum and he made no impression on the White electorate during that campaign. After the hon the Leader of the Opposition had held a number of meetings in the Transvaal and elsewhere during the referendum, he said on his return to the Cape that a great change had taken place among the electorate. He said they had changed. According to The Argus and The Cape Times he said: “The more they see of the Government plan, the less they like it.” Of the voters, 1 300 000 did not like the policy. Even this has not taught the hon the Leader of the Opposition the lesson here today that the electorate is not interested in the alternatives presented to us by him and his party.

He has spelt them out again to us today. He said that we should “dismantle” apartheid—that was the word he used. He said that influx control had to go. “Outmoded shackles must disappear.” That is the attitude of the hon the Leader of the Opposition. I do not want to argue with him about the designation of apartheid and related matters. He prefers to call it that. What surprises me, however, is that when one recognizes the right to self-determination of groups, when one wishes to recognize their right to protect their own culture, when one wishes to recognize their right to their own education and affairs, it is always presented to the public of South Africa as a form of apartheid. In the light of this, the hon the Leader of the Opposition and his party should be frank with the electorate of South Africa and should say that they want no differentiation, they want no form of separation, they want an absolutely integrated South African society. Then he must not talk about the plural nature of the South African population composition. Then he should say that it does not exist. However, this is precisely what is recognized by this side of the House and this is what the voters of South Africa also want. They want recognition of the fact of the South African situation that there are different groups and different peoples living in this country. Until the Opposition learns this lesson, they will never be able to make a constructive contribution in this House.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition said after the referendum that if the occasion were to arise again, he would adopt exactly the same attitude and would again ask the electorate to vote against the constitution in a referendum. I should now like to ask the hon the Leader of the Opposition a question. The Asians have already asked for a referendum and it seems that they are going to get it. The Coloureds prefer to hold an election. Will the hon the Leader of the Opposition advise the Asians to reject the constitution in a referendum? If he asks them to vote no, I would like to know how sincere he is in his attitude that they are going to co-operate in terms of this constitution.

I believe he owes this House an answer. I trust that he will give the House that answer in his reply on Friday afternoon.

Mr Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the debate, I should like to deal with one of the matters raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, viz the question of the State Security Council. I regret the hon the Leader of the Opposition having raised the matter in this way. He knows that he has access to me and that I have never refused him access. In fact, I had begun to gain the impression that with regard to State security matters our dealings with each other were conducted on a different basis to that of ordinary party politics. For that reason I deeply regret the hon the Leader of the Opposition having evidently not seen his way clear to contacting me first and asking whether I did not want to explain to him personally the way in which this system operated. I regret his having chosen this way today. Now, what did he do? He did not quote proper authorities for the quotations and allegations he exploited here this afternoon. He quoted people who had indulged in flights of the imagination, who did not have the necessary information and in the circumstances had availed themselves of half-truths.

What are the facts? The facts are that the State Security Council is not an ordinary Committee of the Cabinet. The State Security Council was established by an Act of this Parliament. If I am not mistaken, the decision of this House and the then Other Place was unanimous. So, as regards the establishment and constitution of the State Security Council, there has never been any argument in South Africa. Hon members will note that Act 64 of 1972 defines the way in which the State Security Council is to be constituted. The same Act also lays down the functions of the State Security Council. We keep to those. Why does the hon Leader of the Opposition come along asking unnecessary catch questions, ones which can only give rise to suspicion, on the basis of articles by people who are not fully informed, or who indulge in flights of the imagination? Why does he put those questions here when he can consult the Act himself? This is my first question to him. He comes to this House and makes use of statistics which he helped to suck from someone’s thumb, because he comes along and tells us that 70% of the secretariat, which is a very small body, are members of the Defence Force. That is not true. The Secretary of the State Security Council clearly told the media, and stated publicly on television, that less than 12% of the members of the staff were members of the SA Defence Force. The hon the Leader of the Opposition, a man invested with responsibility in this House, propagated two misrepresentations here in the same breath, because he had not done his homework and because he had failed to utilize the channels at his disposal. That is not very nice. In fact, I think it is regrettable. I can understand the hon the Leader of the Opposition still being half stunned but he should really try to regain his senses before discussing such dangerous matters. He went on to link this, without any further ado, to the fact that there are only four Cabinet Committees at present. We have already tabled two reports in Parliament. In 1980 the head of the Department of the Prime Minister published a lengthy report on the new form of Cabinet management and in 1981 another report was published. The hon the Leader of the Opposition did not read these either. Why does he approach people who do not know what they are talking about for information, instead of utilizing the factual information which is at his disposal? Why does he do that? After all, he is not childish; indeed, he is a highly intelligent man. Or is his action attributable to childishness after all?

The number of Cabinet Committees was reduced. When I became Prime Minister there were about twenty of these committees, and it was quite impossible for members of the Cabinet to serve on all those committees. It promoted fragmentation, and I felt there should be greater rationalization and co-ordination of functions in order to promote efficiency. For these reasons the number of Cabinet Committees was reduced to enable Ministers and senior officials serving on working committees of those Cabinet Committees to devote more time to administration and other functions. What is wrong with that? Why does the hon the Leader of the Opposition raise such absurdities? Does he have nothing to say?

That is not the question I asked.

He said we did not furnish information concerning security matters, and proceeded to quote professor after professor. The closest they have ever come to the State Security Council is that they have heard about it. He quoted them here as though they were authorities and he created the impression in the eyes of the world that South Africa were engaged in something diabolical.

No.

In that case, why did you raise it?

I put the question very clearly.

Why do you ask absurd questions? Let me tell the hon the Leader of the Opposition once again—and if he wants to discuss this with me, he is welcome to see me in my office and there I shall inform him properly—that the State Security Council as a general rule meets once every 14 days, except when something serious is happening which requires it to meet sooner. As a general rule, however, the Council meets every 14 days under my chairmanship. Once the State Security Council has taken decisions they are taken to the Cabinet by the Chairman personally and he submits them to the Cabinet. The Cabinet retains the right to discuss any decision taken by the State Security Council and to override that decision if, after having discussed it, the Cabinet comes to a different conclusion.