laid upon the Table the Report of the Select Committee on the Water Amendment Bill [B 98-83], reporting that the Committee had been unable to complete its inquiry.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed.

Order! The hon member for Wynberg yesterday referred to certain aspects of the Gerhardt case. I believe it was also referred to by the hon member for Lichtenburg. I have since established that notice has been given of leave to appeal and that the application will be heard on 13 February. In the circumstances I consider the matter to be sub judice because I am of the opinion that any discussion in this House might prejudice the hearing of the case by a court of law.

Mr Speaker, may I ask you for your ruling on the question as to whether a discussion of every aspect of the matter, including aspects prior to the commencement of the court case, is being ruled out of order by you?

My ruling applies to the whole matter of the Gerhardt affair. It includes all aspects thereof. I want to point out to the hon member that the sub judice rule exists specifically in order to prevent the accused from being prejudiced in his defence until such time as final judgment has been given in a court case and this includes an appeal. Consequently no discussion of this matter can be allowed.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Government—and I take it that in this case I am also speaking on behalf of the entire House—I should like to convey our heartfelt sympathy to the Government of kwaZulu and the White communities in Northern Natal, who not only suffered great damage as a result of floods, but who also had to witness the loss of lives. I wish to give the assurance that we shall institute the necessary investigations in order to establish to what extent relief can be brought to those people.

Before I deal with any further matters to which I intend referring this afternoon, I just wish to refer to one other aspect which the hon Leader of the Opposition raised here yesterday. It is the questions of costs which may arise in connection with the new dispensation. We are working on the matter, and that aspect will most certainly be taken into consideration. We shall also try to keep those costs within limits. When democratic institutions are being expanded, however, one cannot avoid an increase in costs. Nevertheless I have interesting figures in front of me here which provide a comparative picture of our parliamentary expenditure as compared with that of other countries. I wish to refer to only a few of these. I am basing my comparison on the available figures for 1982. In the case of the Republic of South Africa the figure is R11 million. This includes all parliamentary expenditure, including the 178 hon members of this House. In the case of Britain the expenditure is $70 million; Greece, $22 million; Finland, $13 million; the Netherlands, $29 million; Denmark, $19 million; West Germany $136 million; Belgium, $35 million; Austria, $25 million and France, $178 million. Consequently I do not believe that we should now make an issue of whether an improved or expanded system will cost more than what the present expenditure amounts to. If we all cooperate we can keep that expenditure within reasonable limits too.

Mr Speaker, this afternoon I want to refrain as much as possible from recriminations or reproaches, or from finding pleasure in the embarrassment of other people. I do mot think that gets us anywhere. But perhaps someone should nevertheless, merely for the sake of the historical record, compile the interesting anthology of the statements of certain politicians and certain media with which the country has already been regaled, and with which some of them are still trying the patience of this country. It would be an interesting anthology, but I do not wish to indulge in that pastime this afternoon because I have a few other matters I wish to deal with.

I should prefer to make an appeal, an appeal which I did in fact make after the outcome of the referendum was made known. I want to make an appeal and address a plea to the two Opposition parties represented in this House that opposed us in the referendum. I do have a reason for making such a plea. In fact, there are 1 360 223 reasons for my making this plea. [Interjections.]

Furthermore there is a two-thirds majority in this House; in fact more than a two-thirds majority in this House, as well as a two-thirds majority among the voters. I hope that the hon the Leader of the Opposition will take the lead in this connection and say: “Very well, although we had certain objections, we shall now bid farewell to our negativism”. Yesterday I detected a flicker of hope in his speech. It is true that he embellished it with a host of quotations from newspapers and of what other people had said, as well as a whole lot of fairy tales which he constructed around what had been said. However, I do not take this amiss of him; he had to make a speech. [Interjections.] No, I do not take it amiss of him. I think that he succeeded surprisingly well in camouflaging everything with all the quotations and so on.

I hope that he will now act with greater firmness and say: “Look, let us put negativism aside; let us put an end to it”, that he will help to carry out the mandate of the voters and make a positive contribution in the search for solutions to burning issues. And I think he can make a contribution.

Yesterday, however, it was he himself who spoke about the beating he took. But by now he has taken so many beatings, along with his party. Learn a lesson from those beatings now and pull in the team! I am not asking them to join us. [Interjections.] I am simply asking them to display a positive attitude.

The outcome of the referendum was a victory for patriotism and for the sound judgement and strength of purpose of the South African voting public. In this connection I wish to point out that the well-known Walter Judd once had the following to say:

But what happened in this case? In the referendum we received a two-thirds majority of the votes which were cast but even if a 100% of the voters, including the dead ones, had voted, the majority would still have been strong enough for the Government to proceed with its mandate. This was one of the great moments in the history of the Republic of South Africa. After the referendum I did not try to place myself on a pedestal or be cock of the walk—nor do I wish to do so this afternoon—because it was not my victory, nor was it the victory of the hon member for Durban Point, but South Africa’s victory. We as the servants of South Africa have an obligation to turn our attention now to what the voting public want.

Until the eve of the referendum there were still no-votes, but after the referendum one no longer encounters them. [Interjections.] I do not know whether the hon the Leader of the Opposition encounters them, but I do not.

We can seize this opportunity—with the sword in the one hand and a trowel in the other, with faith in our hearts and with sound judgment—to fight, to build and to create the future of this country. It is not necessary to be frustrated. I make an appeal to the no-voters to reconsider their standpoint and if they do not feel very happy about the reason for saying yes, then merely to try to see to what extent they can co-operate.

Frustration is a strange thing. Frustration stems from what one wants to be and one’s lack of willingness to make sacrifices for what one wants to achieve. I want to say to hon members of the Opposition that they should not lapse into frustration but display a spirit which the outcome of the referendum requires from us. The Republic of South Africa and the circumstances of life in this country in future, require us to shake off our frustrations. They require teamwork from us. This is my first request to the Opposition parties that voted no.

†As far as the NRP are concerned, I have already on more than one occasion expressed appreciation for the responsible attitude they displayed in connection with the proposed new dispensation and the referendum. They, as well as we, know that there are serious matters to be dealt with in the future. Forces determined to undermine South Africa’s stability, its civilized values and constitutional progress are active. They are doing their utmost to destroy it. I hope we shall continue to co-operate as far as possible in the interest of our country. As far as I am concerned, I shall be available to help that spirit of co-operation to succeed.

Are you going to speak in Pinetown for them?

I want to suggest that the hon member for Pinelands goes there; it ought to help them. It may possibly mean a thousand votes for them. [Interjections]:

The overwhelming decision of the White South African voters is based, inter alia, on the following stand points. This how I see it; each one of us adopts a standpoint here as we see it with our weak faculties. In the first place I see that the overwhelming majority of White South African voters want to see private enterprise and effective competition promoted in this country, also in those populations and regions of the country where underdeveloped subsistence economies are conductive to inequality and poverty. I think I can say that we should like to bring about a change there. In my opinion this is the way the majority feels in South Africa. However, we do not wish to do this according to the methods and on the basis of what has been tried elsewhere in Africa.

A population as well as a community development programme has already been accepted by the Government and is already being proceeded with in a co-ordinated way in co-operation with other bodies, from the private sector as well. There are organizations which are interested in this and the matter is being taken further so that this population and community development programme will not only be launched but advanced as well.

The object of this programme is to improve the quality of life of all people as far as possible. We know that one is never able to succeed fully in this endeavour. Where in the world has this ever been accomplished? There are nevertheless the objectives which I believe ought to be a priority for us in our future approach.

That is why I wish to advocate once again that greater attention be given to the report of the Science Committee of the President’s Council—which is a very important document—and that everyone who can possibly be involved in this matter should help, in a spirit of dedication, to cause the work which arises from it to make progress.

Very closely allied to this is the regional development policy and the policy of decentralization—both endeavours of great importance for various spheres. It is gratifying that there are foreign investors among the more than 800 approved applications, comprising a capital investment of more than R864 million and employment opportunities for more than 50 000 people. Once this regional planning and development is in full spate—at this juncture it has only just been launched—it will be of enormous value in combating poverty and creating employment opportunities while at the same time playing an important role in coping with the urbanization process in South Africa.

However, it appears that there are elements in this country that do not want this planning to succeed. In this regional planning it is not only the promotion of industries which is important. Agriculture as well, but specifically the utilization of land, is important, and I am grateful that agricultural organizations in South Africa have come forward and offered their assistance in order to make a success of this process. In this connection we must remember that in the whole of Southern Africa—and I am confining myself only to Southern Africa now—the utilization of land is of primary importance because the famine and chaos which are prevailing in some states in Southern Africa, are primarily attributable to the fact that land is not being used correctly, or is not being used at all.

A gratifying development between the Republic and the TBVC countries is that multilateral co-operation is gradually moving towards joint planning and execution. There are clear signs of this happening, and that is a partial reply to what the hon member for Durban Point had to say here yesterday. He said that we should not merely talk about consultation. Of course not. Joint planning strategies should flow from consultation. Indeed, this is already happening. As testimony to this we have the Small Business Development Corporation and the Development Bank for Southern Africa, an institution which was launched on 1 September last year. Here I wish to refer to the latest statement by Dr Brand, who is the man in charge of that bank, in which he furnished a clear elucidation of the activities of the bank and what the bank was achieving.

Of course we are at present experiencing a low ebb in our economy. But surely that does not apply only to South Africa. In any event we hope that this situation will improve in the not too distant future, because all of us live in hope, including the Leader of the Opposition, and believe me he needs that hope badly! It is no use our brooding and lamenting. We cannot change the gold price, nor can we escape the consequences of the drought. As far as inflation is concerned, we are doing what we can, but there are so many forces exerting an influence that we can only cope with a portion of them.

As far as productivity is concerned, we need a team effort in this country. It is not only the Government but the entire South African society that ought to be involved. The hon the Leader of the Opposition asked me to furnish guidelines. This is the first guideline I want to mention.

The second guideline I want to refer to is the basic standpoint of the electorate, as I see it, namely that the system of one man, one vote in a unitary state has been rejected and that what should now be sought is the protection of minorities and their right to self-determination. This, then, is the second guideline with which we should move into the future. I can add that there is not one people I know of in Southern Africa that wants to or will subject its traditions, way of life and future ideals to the tyranny of a political system which set other African countries on a course that led to despair, hunger and disaster. I hold frequent talks with our neighbouring countries and not one of them proposes that course as the course of the future. In other words, this standpoint which I have stated as the second guideline is shared by many of our neighbours.

There is a constant grumbling in South Africa on the part of revolutionary elements, shallow journalists and impractical do-gooders, who either omit to mention or disparage every positive action in regard to intergroup relations. At the same time most of them prowl about in this country to sniff out abuses, and then they frequently present half-truths as being representative of what is happening in the Republic of South Africa. If these revolutionary elements and shallow journalists—I am not saying that all journalists are shallow; only some of them are—and the do-gooders were to succeed in what they are doing, they will set our country on a Gadarene course of violence, disaster and tragedy. The Government and I are not prepared to follow them along that course.

Many tourists, investors and political leaders who visit this country, depart with a better impression of the country than those presented to them in the outside world and which these despairmongers are trying to create. In most cases it is a fact that people who visit this country depart with different impressions of our country and become our champions in the outside world.

South Africa can make progress and is already doing so because responsible leaders and their followers perceive the value of certain things: Firstly, dialogue, with retention of the right of each people to self-determination and reciprocal respect and joint planning where necessary. Secondly, the rejection of the tyranny of communism. In that regard we must never adopt half-hearted standpoints. Thirdly, there is the need to strive to achieve the principle of respecting and preserving the human dignity, property and liberty of all. We have already come a long way in this connection, because we have special circumstances in South Africa, circumstances which cannot be changed in an instant. Fourthly, there is the preservation of law and order and the maintenance of the independence of the judiciary and the possibility of making it more accessible to poor people. The Government is working on this task as well.

There is a third guideline, however, which I want to mention to the hon the Leader of the Opposition, one which is equally important and in regard to which the electorate already has clarity, if I am interpreting the feeling correctly. It is that Christian values and civilized norms must be upheld and preserved.

Inherent in that standpoint of principle is freedom of religion and worship. As a matter of fact, our forefathers fought for these principles in large numbers in Europe and eventually came out to the unoccupied parts of South Africa to continue their lives. In the South African Defence Force there are more than a hundred Church denominations represented and they receive recognition and ministration. As long as the Republic of South Africa is officially prepared to preserve this precious pledge, communism will not cast its materialistic cloak of despair over us. I believe that and I was struck by the large number of political leaders in Southern Africa who share this fundamental standpoint with me. That is encouraging, and we must accept it as a basis from which we can move forward to ensure greater co-operation, with retention of what is our own and of our self-respect, and we do not only intend to do this, we are already engaged in doing so.

In the fourth place I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Opposition that there are also the guidelines of freedom and security. The South African electorate, as well as persons from our immediate neighbouring states—those who hold responsibility there—are in favour of the retention of the inviolability and freedom of our respective countries. This is demonstrated by a number of factors. It is demonstrated by the effective way in which terrorism is being resisted. We would not have been able to resist terrorism in this country as it is in fact being resisted if we had not had the co-operation of a number of our neighbouring countries. They give us that co-operation because they believe in the preservation of security. This is demonstrated by the security agreements which we have with some neighbouring states and it is also demonstrated by the outcome of the referendum in our own case.

The need for this is also demonstrated, however, by the irrefutable evidence of a military threat by the Soviet Union and its surrogate forces. The Soviet Union does not want these things. It does not suit that country to have stability in South Africa.

For that reason we dare not relax our strengthening of our intelligence family. If the hon the Leader of the Opposition does not know what the intelligence family is, I want to tell him what it is. It is those organs of state represented in the State Security Council set-up. This includes national intelligence, security actions by the police, military intelligence and certain tasks of the Department of Foreign Affairs and other departments. We must know where our enemy is trying to infiltrate and prepare himself to take action against us. If we are not forewarned, we cannot be forearmed.

We also provide other Governments with intelligence, and vice versa. Surely we cannot discuss these matters with one another across the floor of this House. That would be the height of foolishness. I want to say this afternoon that our Intelligence Service, with limited manpower, is becoming more and more effective. We cannot use just anyone to do this work. That is precisely why, in recent years, we have caught spies operating against the Republic of South Africa far more successfully than ever before, and have dealt with infiltration into our own ranks far more successfully.

If the hon the Leader of the Opposition wants an account of this matter, he can come and see me. However, I am not going to give it to him here. There are certain things which the country does not want from us in public, but they do want to know that we are dealing with them. I shall not allow myself to be misled into exposing the work of our security services for everyone to kick around like a political football.

The Republic of South Africa dare not weaken its security forces. The preparedness of our police and the SA Defence Force must constantly be improved and the means at their disposal must be modernized. We dare not maintain our diplomatic relations in a spirit of weakness. On the contrary, our diplomatic relations and co-operation with other states must be built on the principles of reciprocal respect, the maintenance of peaceful coexistence and the promotion of common interests. But peace, self-respect, are expensive. We have to work for these things, pay for them and make sacrifices for them.

Those who wish to disparage, belittle or cast suspicion on our security forces are playing into our enemies’ hands. There are some of them who are doing this wittingly, and I say they are traitors. I reject any attempt to create the impression …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: when the hon the Prime Minister spoke about traitors, an hon member of the NP, Mr Vermeulen, said that that was Dr Treurnicht. I ask for your ruling on this, please.

Order! What did the hon member say?

That is not correct, Sir.

The hon the Prime Minister may proceed.

He said “Andries”.

Oh, please. We are dealing with serious matters now. We may not allow ourselves to be distracted by this kind of pettiness.

I reject with contempt any attempt to create the impression that there is a distorted relationship between our security forces and our diplomatic instruments. I repeat: I reject with contempt attempts to create the impression that there is a distorted relationship between our security forces and Foreign Affairs’ handling of our diplomacy. It is not true; it is a lie. The gossip-mongering which we find in this sphere is the work of people with an inferiority complex. In public here today I want to thank my colleagues and the officials who are achieving so much in these spheres very sincerely for what they are doing.

I come now to the second matter I want to discuss this afternoon, and I now want to deal more directly with South West Africa and other matters affecting Southern Africa. I crave the patience of the House for this purpose.

†Throughout the protracted dispute with the international community on South West Africa, the Republic of South Africa has been guided by four basic principles: Firstly, that the territory is not and never has been part of South Africa; secondly, that the people of the territory should themselves decide on their constitutional dispensation; thirdly, that the people of the territory should have the opportunity of developing towards self-determination in circumstances of peace and security and, fourthly, that our differences with the international community over South West Africa should be resolved wherever possible by negotiation.

The Republic of South Africa has never regarded South West Africa as an integral part of its territory. This position has been adhered to by all South Africa’s Prime Ministers, including myself. During the thirties Gen J B M Hertzog as Prime Minister of the Republic of South Africa acknowledged in a letter to the then League of Nations that the Union did not possess sovereignty over the territory. For this reason in its dispute with the United Nations over the territory the Republic of South Africa has never had recourse to article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter, which specifically prohibits interference in the domestic affairs of member states. The Republic of South Africa has done everything in its power to develop South West Africa and to ensure that its people will be able to go about their daily lives in circumstances of peace and security.

During the current financial year, for example, the Republic of South Africa has made direct and indirect assistance available to the territory amounting to some R560 million. This does not include the R400 to R500 million which South Africa spent during the current financial year on the security and protection of the people of South West Africa in a broader sense than the pure military sense. Moreoever, South African guarantees for South West African loans, both internally and abroad, up to 31 March 1984, will be of the order of R690 million, which in the event of a South West African default carries the possible implication of paying interest equal to double the capital owing should investors insist upon the Republic of South Africa honouring the full investment term. The Republic of South Africa’s total assistance to South West Africa, with a population of just over one million, must surely be one of the most generous foreign aid programmes anywhere in the world. It has as its prime objective the establishment of a situation where the people of South West Africa will be able to decide their own future. However, they will not be able to realize this objective while they continue to be attacked by terrorists who cross international borders to murder, maim and intimidate, to abduct schoolchildren and to destroy the economic infrastructure of that territory.

The Republic of South Africa has accordingly done whatever has been necessary to protect South West Africans against such attacks and to act against the perpetrators wherever they may be found. Our determination to do so has exacted a heavy price in material, in international condemnation and in the lives of our young men. Nevertheless we have felt that heavy as this price has been, the sacrifice will not have been in vain if it has served to demonstrate to our enemies that we shall not bow before terrorism as a means of achieving political power, nor shall we bow before Soviet threats.

However, it goes without saying that the Republic of South Africa will not continue to bear this heavy burden if it seems that the continued presence of our forces does not enjoy the wholehearted support of the people of South West Africa. It must be clearly understood that we will not impose ourselves on others; we will not protect others who do not desire our protection.

Can it be expected from the Republic to continue to bear this burden under circumstances where we do not claim sovereignty over the territory, where we are exposed to criticism from the internal parties of South West Africa, where we are severely condemned by the West and where the United Nations is threatening us with enforcement measures?

Although the Republic of South Africa has never shied away from the use of arms when such action has been unavoidable, it has never believed that there can be any long-term military solution to the problems of Southern Africa. It is for this reason that the Republic of South Africa has patiently argued its case at the United Nations and before the International Court of Justice. It has furthermore consistently co-operated with the various initiatives which were launched by the international community to resolve this matter, including the proposal of the principal allied and associated powers in 1951, the Arden Clarke initiative of 1958, the visits of Carpio and Dé Alva in 1962, and of Dr Waldheim and Dr Alfred Escher in 1972. The fact that these efforts were not successful cannot be laid at the door of the Republic of South Africa but may be ascribed to the persistent refusal of the international community to acknowledge the reality of the South West African situation.

Similarly, the Republic of South Africa has co-operated with the initiative of the Five Nations Western Contact Group and, despite repeated disappointments and setbacks during the past seven years, the Republic of South Africa was able to announce during the Secretary-General’s visit to Cape Town last year that all the outstanding obstacles to the implementation of a settlement based on Resolution 435 had been resolved, with the exception of the continuing presence of the Cubans in Angola. The introduction and consolidation of Soviet influence in Angola clearly poses a threat, not only to the future independence of South West Africa but also to the stability of all the countries of our region. The fact that this remaining obstacle has not yet been removed, can also not be laid at the door of the Republic of South Africa.

The Republic of South Africa has done everything in its power to bring about a peaceful settlement in the border area between South West Africa and Angola. It repeatedly urged the former Secretary-General to use his good offices in order to bring about a cessation of armed attacks against South West Africa/Namibia from within Angola. Its requests were, however, ignored. On several occasions the Republic of South Africa sought to put its case to the General Assembly of the United Nations but its right to do so was simply brushed aside, obviously because the majority in the United Nations find the truth too painful to accept, and when the representatives of the people of South West Africa, who were suffering under Swapo attacks, sought to express their grievances to the United Nations the Security Council was not even prepared to give them a hearing.

Mr Speaker, having exhausted the possibilities of preventing Swapo aggression through the United Nations the Republic of South Africa attempted to resolve the problem directly with the MPLA government. It was hoped that the Cape Verde talks, in December 1982 and February 1983, would lead to the establishment of visible peace in the border areas and would make an important contribution to the settlement of the border problems of that region. These hopes were, however, dashed when it became evident that the MPLA government was not prepared to stop Swapo’s terrorist activities.

Nevertheless, the Republic of South Africa continued its efforts for peace, and on 15 December 1983 we informed the Secretary General that we were prepared to begin with a disengagement of forces on 31 January 1984, upon the understanding that this gesture would be reciprocated by the Angolan government, which would ensure that its own forces, Swapo and the Cubans would not exploit the resulting situation, in particular with regard to actions which might threaten the security of the inhabitants of South West Africa/Namibia.

On the basis of assurances received from the United States government during the latest rounds of discussions in Cape Town on 27 and 28 January this year, I wish now to confirm the Republic of South Africa’s decision to begin disengaging its forces in Angola with effect from today, 31 January 1984. The success of the disengagement of forces, and ultimately a ceasefire, depends not on one party alone but on the behaviour of all parties concerned. Necessary steps must, and indeed will, be taken to ensure that our decision is not exploited at the expense of the security of the inhabitants of South West Africa. We believe there is a possibility of achieving a climate of increased security in that area and are prepared to negotiate practical arrangements to ensure that this possibility is given every chance of success. To achieve this objective trilateral discussions between the Republic of South Africa, the United States of America and Angola are not excluded. However, the problems of South West Africa will not be resolved simply by stopping the war. The people of South West Africa must now demonstrate their willingness to produce a viable political solution.

Towards the middle of 1983 various leaders in South West Africa came together to see to what extent they could agree on the most important problems facing the territory. At the time the South African Government did not wish to comment on this development, in line with our basic approach that the people of the territory should themselves decide their future. This initiative which originated amongst the leaders of several of the parties of South West Africa created a forum for discussion, namely the Multi-Party Conference.

As hon. members are aware, they issued a statement recently, on 24 January 1984, in which they set out their objectives and mutually agreed points of view, including the desirability of peace and an internationally acceptable solution for the South West African issue. I quote from the concluding paragraphs of this statement, as follows:

They go on to say:

It should be emphasized that I have quoted from their own statement and that the South African Government therefore is entitled to accept that this is what they intend to do. Moreover, they have also personally conveyed these sentiments to Dr Chester Crocker during his visit to the Republic of South Africa at the end of last week. I also met with them in Cape Town on Thursday, 26 January 1984, and follow-up meetings were held with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs on 27 and 28 January.

During the meeting on 26 January I conveyed to them the South African Government’s views on a number of important issues. Amongst others I informed them—I wish to repeat it in the House today—that the interests of the Republic of South Africa are of paramount importance to me, and if there is to be a choice between the interests of the Republic of South Africa and the interests of South West Africa, I shall give priority to the interests of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I also said that the Republic of South Africa is no longer prepared to shoulder the tremendous financial burden of South West Africa alone. I believe that the leaders of South West Africa who came to see me are now under no illusion about my Government’s determination to resolve this matter one way or another and as soon as possible.

I therefore trust that South Africa’s position is perfectly clear. It is up to the political leaders of South West Africa to decide what they are going to do and to do so urgently.

I have this morning received the following message from the representatives of the six parties which are at present participating in the Multi-Party Conference of South West Africa. I have the telegram here. It reads:

This is an encouraging message, and I wish to express my appreciation to the leaders who subscribe to it, viz leaders of the Damara Council, the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance, the National Party of South West Africa, the Rehoboth Freedom Front, the South West Africa National Union and Swapo Democrats.

There are today in Southern Africa tentative signs that it is not only the Republic of South Africa which is prepared to make the required contribution to achieve greater security for all. I can see a possibility that we are entering a new era of realism in Southern Africa. The Republic of South Africa is prepared to do its share on the understanding that other countries in the region will also do their share. It is in this spirit that the Republic of South Africa has met and will continue to meet with its neighbours to develop mutual understanding. The Republic of South Africa is a major force in the region and has no intention of apologizing for its economic, industrial and military strength. Indeed it is the Republic’s technological and economic capacity which can and should be harnassed for the benefit of all the countries in the region.

I also believe there is a growing sense of realism in the West in general about Africa. During the visit of our Minister of Foreign Affairs to certain Western European capitals during November/December 1983 he warned those leaders with whom he had discussions to move away from their static view of developments in Africa. He pointed out to them that Africa had been partially recolonized and that some African leaders were abusing their powers in order to disguise the economic and social retrogression which had set in in their countries. In this regard it is interesting to see in an article in Time magazine of 16 January 1984 that the world’s attention was drawn to the retrogression in Africa, the same retrogression to which my colleague referred during his European visit.

At the same time we are making a genuine effort to offer our immediate neighbours and other nations in Africa reasonable opportunities for negotiated mechanisms to bridge our political differences so as to make possible mutually beneficent co-operation. The strength of the Republic is manifest and so is our determination to offer a reasonable and preferable alternative to war and destruction. All members of this House are aware of the discussions which are under way between representatives of the South African government and the government of Moçambique. These discussions involve not only security concerns but deal also with co-operation in the economic sphere. We offer treaties, full trade, knowhow and energy. We offer peace and cooperation. The Soviet Union on the other hand has brought only violence and economic exploitation to every country that has ever had the misfortune to fall under its influence. Trends to violence profits no one in Southern Africa. The only one who want it and will benefit from it is Moscow. I am not prepared to allow this to happen to our country.

It has been said before, and I repeat it on this occasion, that Southern Africa stands at the crossroads between confrontation and peace. I am acutely aware of the urgent need for the countries of Southern Africa to make their choice. In the Republic of South Africa we are fully aware of the damaging consequences which an increased level of conflict in the region will hold for us. But the time has come for our neighbours to realize the catastrophic consequences an escalation of conflict will mean for them. I believe that to ensure a better life for all the peoples of Southern Africa we have no choice other than to seek peace and stability in the region. Therefore I invite all the leaders of the countries in Southern Africa to join me in taking up this challenge.

*It is in that spirit that I made this appeal to hon members this afternoon. It is unlikely that we will ever agree on everything in life, but let us arrange our priorities correctly. Let us recognize one another’s rights and one another’s right to a future. In this spirit I ask Parliament to make a contribution in the months and years which lie ahead towards creating a better Southern Africa.

Sir, I move the following further amendment to the motion of the hon the Leader of the Opposition:

1. (a) with the implementation thereof;
2. (b) to ensure stability and security for the Republic of South Africa;
3. (c) to promote balanced economic development; and
4. (d) to strive for sound relations and peaceful co-existence in Southern Africa.”.

Mr Speaker, I am sure we all listened with great attention to what the hon the Prime Minister had to say today, but I must say that he appeared in a new guise in this House, namely that of the dove of Africa as against the hawk that we have been used to over all these years. I want to tell him that I am sure that I speak for all of us on these benches when I say that we welcome unreservedly the statement he has made about his desire for peaceful negotiations in Southern Africa, and more particularly for the resolution of the Angola/South West Africa/Namibian problem. All of us have been wanting this for many years. We want an international settlement acceptable to all and we are very pleased indeed to hear about the advances that have been made over the last few weeks. We hope very much that they will come to fruition.

The hon the Minister has given some very valid reasons for South Africa’s disengagement from Angola and for the need for a peaceful settlement in Namibia, namely the enormous financial cost involved for South Africa, the loss in human lives and material, and perhaps the most important thing of all and that is the diversion of young manpower from productive occupations in the Republic to serve for months and months in the army. We believe that if this situation can be resolved it will be of benefit to all in South Africa. The huge amount of money which would be saved as a result, could be used to improve conditions inside the Republic in line with some of the suggestions which the hon the Prime Minister has made today.

I must tell him that it is our belief that a great deal of the peaceful prospects for the future in Southern Africa depend on South Africa’s internal policies as much as anything else. Unless the new constitution and the mood of reform can be translated into reality, we do not believe that these prospects are very bright. The hon the Prime Minister has made an appeal to us to join forces in making the new constitution work. I think this was unanimously accepted at the Progressive Federal Party’s congress last November. We certainly accepted the result of the referendum. We realize that the Prime Minister has been given a mandate in this respect by the White electorate. We will co-operate in the attempt to make the new constitution work as far as possible. The operative words are “as far as possible”, because in no way does this mitigate the objections we originally had to the new constitution, namely that it excludes 70% of the population. We still do not believe that it is possible in the year 1984 to embark on new constitutional proposals that exclude 70% of the population, and we wonder when we are going to hear, perhaps from the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development, something about the “considerable progress”, referred to in the opening speech last Friday, which has been made by the Cabinet Committee considering the situation of Blacks outside the national states. I want to say at once that we on this side do not believe in this political division between Blacks in rural areas and Blacks in urban areas any more than we believe in political division between Whites in rural areas and Whites in urban areas. We believe all that is part of a rather sophisticated policy, the old imperialist policy, of divide and rule by making “insiders” and “outsiders” of the Black population, of those people who do qualify and those who do not qualify, of persons who have retained South African citizenship and of those who have been deprived of their citizenship without having had any say in the decision which was taken over them. But we want to know what progress has in fact been made. It is a full year since the Cabinet Committee was appointed and I think the hon the Minister should now be able to report some details of progress to us.

I hope, too, when he reports, that he will tell us that the Government no longer believes that the Black people of this country have been politically accommodated by virtue of the new urban councils which have been elected and by franchise in the homelands. I think the hon the Minister should take note of the results of the elections for urban governments which took place towards the end of last year. There is surely significance in the fact that we only had about a 10% poll in the largest Black city south of the equator, which is of course Soweto. In Worcester in the Cape, where a Community Council election was held, I am informed that the poll was nil. Not a single person turned up to vote, not even the candidates who allowed their names to go forward. That is surely hardly indicative of wild enthusiasm for the new plan. We are always ready to go along with progress. We welcome progress. We have done so from the very beginning and any further progress which can be reported to us, will be welcomed. However, I must tell the hon the Minister that we deprecate the policy which is being undertaken by the Government of attempting to divide Black communities, for instance in the rural removal schemes, by suborning some of the people into supporting those schemes, as has been done at Mogopa, and the practice which has been carried out in the urban areas as at, for instance, Crossroads, by deliberately dividing the community there and allowing what I can only call Mafia-like operations to continue without any attempt on the part of the police to stop them. I wonder if I can have the attention of the hon the Minister of Law and Order for a moment.

Me?

Yes, you. What does he intend to do about the Mafia-like operations which are being conducted at present in Crossroads and New Crossroads? He looks as if he knows nothing about these operations. I must tell him that I have a number of signed affidavits from people whose homes have been destroyed and who have been threatened with violence and who have reported these matters to the Guguletu police station, but no action has been taken. Is all this deliberately ignored by the police in order to create disunity in this community? I ask the hon the Minister to give assurances that he intends to do something about this important matter.

I would agree with the hon the Prime Minister when he said that people want change. We on these benches have no doubt whatever that among the considerable number of people who voted “yes” in the referendum on 2 November there were people who voted “yes” because they long for reform. They want change and felt that this was one way of giving the Government a mandate to change. However, a lot of them also have, I think, deluded themselves that there was a secret agenda, that the Government had every intention of eventually including Black people in the new set-up—I do not like to use the word “dispensation”, because it really does not mean anything in the context of proper English. These people who voted “yes” also long to live again in a country which is accepted in the Western community of nations. For these reasons thousands of people who do not go along with National Party policy, were prepared to put their trust in the Government, hoping and believing that there might be some form of hidden agenda, the so-called step in the right direction. Now I believe that those people, as the hon the Leader of the Opposition has said, are waiting for the Government to deliver the goods.

I might add that a number of Governments abroad which gave their approval to the new constitutional proposals are also waiting. Thus the Reagan Administration issued a statement via the State Department of the United States immediately after the referendum, a statement which read as follows:

The statement went on as follows:

Those are expectations which are presently held by a Government which welcomed the results of the referendum but certainly anticipates that changes will take place in the political accommodation of the Black people of South Africa.

I believe that these statements were all the more significant because they were made just after a week in which South Africa played a major part in the decisions taken by the US House of Representatives. Hon members are probably aware that strong punitive measures were actually approved by the House of Representatives towards the end of last year. The measures were amendments to the Export Administration Act. They were amendments which banned the sale of Kruger Rands in the future, which banned US commercial bank loans to South Africa except under very special circumstances, which prohibited new investment in South Africa and which reinstated control over the export of so-called sensitive commodities to South Africa. They enforced compulsory adherence to the Sullivan Code of Employment Practices, with severe penalties for non-compliance. In addition, another Bill passed was one which makes South Africa’s access to the International Monetary Fund very difficult indeed. Although these amendments have been passed by the House of Representatives they have not yet been passed by the Senate. It will be necessary for a House/Senate conference to be held before these measures actually become law. I must say I think it would be of considerable help to the pro-South African lobby if the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development could give us some definite indication of the “considerable progress” which the opening speech stated had been made by the Cabinet Committee. We want to know how far that Cabinet Committee has gone. And on the contrary, nothing could be more damaging to the pro-South African lobby than the sort of headline stories that appeared in the New York Times and the Washington Post shortly after the referendum while these very measures were having their passage through the House of Representatives, about forced removals in South Africa.

Oh!

It is no good the hon the Minister saying, “Oh”. I was there at the time. There were large banner headlines about the removal of the Bakwena people from Mogopa. A sharp editorial in the Washington Post described it as disgusting and part of “the hard, irreducible essence of the apartheid system”, which of course it is. The Mogopa people have been given a reprieve, and I have no doubt whatever that it was through a little constructive engagement of Washington that they obtained that reprieve. It is so-called “quiet diplomacy”. I must warn the hon. the Minister that thanks to the Press, thanks to the Black Sash and thanks to the efforts of certain concerned PFP members the old days of stealthy removals with police, dogs and lorries are gone. This can no longer happen. People are made aware of plans to remove Black spots. Now, of course, the Government is indulging in what I call more subtle means to get the people to move, by dividing the community, by offering a tribal dissident a piece of land in the new area. For instance, the dissident among the Bakwena people, one Jacob More, is now occupying the farm house of the White farmer whose land was bought in order to effect the removal. There are also other less subtle ways, such as stopping the payment of pensions to the people who insist on remaining, destroying their houses and schools, and also refusing to renew the labour contracts of those people who refuse to remove.

I want to tell the House from personal experience that it is no easy task to talk in, say, the United States on campuses against disinvestment, against isolation, against economic sanctions against South Africa. It is no easy task. I have done it. However, I can tell the House the task is impossible when we get the sort of stories such as the Mogopa removal. It is no good the Government placing adverts in newspapers, as it did while I was there. A large half-page advertisement appeared in the New York Times on 26 November stating that labour legislation has been enacted “to bring the country’s labour system into line with the basic principles of a free enterprise economy”. I want to ask hon members: What about restrictions on mobility of labour and what about the ludicrous Western Province Coloured labour preference policy? What about the idiotic requirement the hon the Deputy Minister of Co-operation knows all about—of a doctor’s certificate before an employer can employ and accommodate a domestic servant on flat premises? And what about job reservation on the mines? Free enterprise? My foot! This country is not under a system of free enterprise as long as those restrictions remain, and unless the hon the Minister can tell us and the world that it is the Government’s intention to remove pass laws and allow the mobility of labour, to allow the engagement by employers, of employees as they wish, obviously subject to the usual regulations about fair employment practices. As long as they do not tell the rest of the world that, all the money in the world can be spent on advertisements and nothing will help. Action is what is required.

Perhaps at this moment in time the Government can rest on its laurels, firstly, because it received a mandate at the referendum and, secondly, because now the hon the Prime Minister is no doubt, deservedly in this instance, winning the approval, I am sure, of the Western nations for the steps that he has announced he is going to take in South West Africa/Namibia and in Angola. But the Government has to realize that basically South Africa’s relations with the rest of Southern Africa, with our neighbours and with the Western world depend entirely on the internal racial policy that we follow in this country.

Mr Speaker, I am very grateful to have had the privilege of listening to the great speech by the hon the Prime Minister. I regard it as the speech of a statesman; a speech that, in years to come, will in many respects stand as a beacon on the road to the achievement of a great ideal in Southern Africa, namely peace. If, with the blessing of Providence, we are able to succeed in this goal, opportunities will be created thereby to resolve in a far better climate many of the problems which are often discussed in this House, and which were very much at issue again this afternoon.

When the history of these times is recorded, one fact will stand out and that is that the National Government had the will, the ability, the courage, the vigour and the vision to take the initiative, as we saw the hon the Prime Minister doing once again this afternoon. Thus it is probably as well to bear in mind that it has been recorded over the centuries that the world has always reserved its highest accolade for one attribute, viz initiative. Whereas the Government is introducing the new constitutional dispensation with as little delay as possible, and whereas it is the Government’s intention to effect constitutional development, development that is not limited to a new dispensation for Whites, Coloureds and Indians, the initiative with regard to Black people outside their states, and also outstanding matters relating to those states, are now high on the agenda. This was clearly stated by the hon the Prime Minister during the referendum, and the Government is attending to this matter at the present time. Thus I am replying immediately to the first point raised by the hon member for Houghton.

I wish to quote the State President, and I may say that this is an extremely important quotation, since a great deal of attention was given to its formulation. Hon members may therefore be assured that this is a fundamental goal of the Government, one formulated with the utmost circumspection. I quote:

Considerable progress has already been made in achieving this goal. The Cabinet Committee under the chairmanship of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is at present attending to the establishment of balanced and well-considered economic, social and constitutional development, as a matter of top priority.

In the above definition the link between the constitutional goal and other national goals in the security, social and other spheres is recognized. When I use those words I am referring to key concepts. The granting of a say in decision-making processes may not endanger the overall security and stability or counteract the promotion of the economic and social welfare of the population as a whole. Indeed, this ought to afford better prospects for the maintenance of internal and external security, and for an increase in the quality of life of everyone in this country. That, after all, is the endeavour which was emphasized very strongly here by the hon the Prime Minister this afternoon. In a multinational situation such as the one we have in South Africa there are several overlapping interests that may lead to conflicting demands to self-determination. Apart from that, the acquisition of power for the sake of power by individuals, groups and peoples, to the exclusion of others, is a natural political motive that has to be taken into account at all times. However, it must be recognized as a commonplace that the prospects for peace in Southern Africa are directly dependent on the degree to which the leaders, the groups, the peoples and the states of Southern Africa subordinate the powerplay amongst themselves to co-operation with a view to the improvement of the quality of life of all and the maintenance of the security of all.

Of course, the constitutional situation in Southern Africa is complicated by the differences in prosperity among the various groups of the population, and also because these largely follow group and ethnic lines. This is part of the set-up in Africa—the so-called First World and Third World. Indeed, it is a fact which must of course be taken fully into account in the search for solutions to the outstanding problems. Accordingly, in the Republic of South Africa very strong emphasis is laid on the social and economic development of all population groups, and this is undertaken by the authorities in cooperation with the private sector. Accordingly I wish to place on record here this afternoon my personal appreciation of the increasing role played by the private sector during the past two years, particularly since the Good Hope Conference, in the weal and woe of this country and of its people in cooperation with the Government sector. There is already a long list of manifestations of this. One, for example, is the regional development strategy. The figure we were given in this regard earlier this afternoon is most impressive—a figure of more than R800 million. Moreover, 50 000 employment opportunities could be created in the process. This regional development strategy indeed has tremendous potential.

Then, too, there is the national community development strategy about which we shall hear a great deal more during the next few months, and the population development programme which has been highlighted by the President’s Council report; a strategy that has been accepted by the Government. There are also the Small Business Development Corporation and the Southern African Development Bank. Participation by the communities in question in these major undertakings that have been established due to the initiatives of this Government, is of the utmost importance.

I content that a criterion for success as regards the achievement of the overall constitutional goal which this Cabinet Committee is at present concerned with, is not only to be found in participation in the decision-making processes as such—although we are now clearly stating that this is indeed one of the goals, as is also evident from the extract from the words of the State President that I quoted to this House earlier—but also in the degree in which participation within or outside the formal structures really leads to a better quality of life and better prospects. I, who have been concerned with these matters for a very long time now—indeed it has been since 1950, within the context of Government—can today, after 34 years, tell hon members in this House that one of the fine and encouraging things I personally have experienced is that so much progress has been made in this field in my lifetime, and that it was my privilege to experience it. I can also state here today in all honesty that if, rather than permitting the initiatives to founder that, due to the referendum, have been crowned with such success and that we have been building on as regards the initiatives relating to the Black people outside the national states, we co-operate to implement them successfully, then I believe I have reason to be filled with great optimism. The reason is that it is truly possible to find successful, peaceful solutions in this country by establishing structures in the political field to bring about the other objective, that of the improvement of the quality of life in the social and economic spheres. That is not achieved through words. That is something I learnt a very long time ago. It is only achieved by working hard, stone by stone, and working very hard at it. Therefore the successful implementation of these various development strategies is also of cardinal importance in the constitutional sphere. [Interjections.] I want to say this to those hon members over there whose laughter has such a hollow ring. I am in a very fortunate position and in a very privileged position, in that I am able to speak this afternoon about what has essentially been achieved by this Government and in regard to which I myself have played a modest role over a period of 30 years.

May I please ask a question?

No, I really am not prepared to answer a question by that hon. member. [Interjections.] Among these population groups a debate in connection with constitutional structures is exceptionally emotional, as can be seen. [Interjections.] Those hon members are probably the most emotional members in this entire House. They demonstrated it so clearly. That is so often the way in which the CP, the “kapot party” so often displays its inherent weaknesses. [Interjections.] Carry on doing so, with the greatest pleasure.

The purpose of these constitutional structures is to form a framework for action to promote the welfare of all and the maintenance of order and security, and in these circumstances a perspective in this regard is essential. Whereas a start was made in 1950 as regards establishing structures, it is now my privilege to observe, now that these structures have been scrutinized, to what extent those same structures have been truly successful in the fulfilment of their purpose, namely to provide better living conditions for all. This represents essential, real and positive progress. This is what I have seen and it is what hon members are experiencing too.

Ongoing and purposeful co-operation to promote the welfare of all not only has an overall depoliticizing effect but many even improve considerably the prospects of a constitutional relationship of coexistence, even when there is no consensus as to an existing constitutional structure. Due to the reality of multinationalism and the major differences in political culture among the Black people, and between them and other peoples and groups, as well as the demographic facts that we must also take into account, Black people are becoming established in their own structures and in their own territory, and common interests are being co-ordinated horizontally by way of parallel structures. What is more, this has not been unsuccessful. The overall aim with regard to Black people can be realized meaningfully, according to Cabinet decision, if the independence of Black peoples is promoted positively, but also with a very strong emphasis on the point that structures that are created must also comply meaningfully with the requirement that they really do promote and improve the quality of life of the people.

[Inaudible.]

I shall come to that later. [Interjections.] That is true and I am going to say something important about that. However long the pre-independence phase lasts, the optimum promotion of the social and economic position of a self-governing national state ought at all times to be a high priority. To penalize a state because it did not become independent would be counterproductive. Now, hon members can understand why I say that careful attention is given to the successful criterion that is set, to see whether it really succeeds in the aim as also expressed by the State President, namely the improvement of the quality of life, because after all, that is largely what is at issue.

However long the pre-independence phase may last, the optimal promotion of the social and economic position of a self-governing national state should at all times be one of the top priorities. To penalize such a state because it does not wish to become independent would be counter-productive; it could harden attitudes against independence and aggravate the influx of job seekers in the Republic of South Africa. Besides that, this would also be to the detriment of parts of the Republic of South Africa, since every self-governing national state is in a development region which also includes part of the Republic of South Africa. I therefore hope that I am also succeeding—I say this to those who want to listen, and those who do not want to listen, can do as they like—to establish in the minds of hon members and spell out clearly to them a meaningful link between this great goal that is being set by the Government, and the eight regions into which the country has been divided with regard to development, because I think that it is very important that this should be understood in this House.

At present the special Cabinet Committee is duly evaluating the various options and strategies with a view to settlement and negotiation. Some of the most important developments over the past year as well as certain difficulties and possible approaches to the solution thereof, are enjoying the attention of the special Cabinet Committee. Indeed, let me be frank this afternoon and say that I should not have been able to speak as positively as I am doing now had it not been for the work of the special Cabinet Committee and what it has already done. The hon the Prime Minister gave impetus to the special Cabinet Committee when he received the leaders of the national states in Cape Town two weeks ago.

†The Cabinet Committee which the hon the Prime Minister identified as a key structure in the negotiating process is seeking anxiously to develop constitutional structures to accommodate Black aspirations also at a national level, and it has already made and will continue to make every effort to draw as wide a range of Black leadership into the process of discussion and deliberation.

*The fact that after a year we have been able to succeed to such extent that thus far things have gone very smoothly and well, speaks volumes for all the kinds of leadership in the Republic of South Africa, White and Black, and also for the careful handling by this Cabinet Committee. It is yielding good results.

Words, words, words!

Oh, come off it! We have been encouraged by the positive response we have received from a broad spectrum of leadership which indicate their concern for the need of appropriate structures and their willingness to communicate with the Government in this regard. [Interjections.]

*On 17 January 1984 the Cabinet decided inter alia that the question of nationality and citizenship should be ironed out by the special Cabinet Committee, that consideration should be given to methods whereby to bring about closer liaison between national and independent states and their citizens in the Republic of South Africa. The concern of the TBVC states about the social and economic position of their citizens in the Republic of South Africa was clearly evident at both the meetings of the Development Council of Ministers.

The Cabinet also decided that in view of the facts I have given this House—and I am now replying to the hon member for Durban Point—no further commission of inquiry into this matter will be appointed. It is emphasized once again that the Cabinet wants to follow this path of development I have sketched, in close liaison and consultation with the leaders of the peoples and communities in question. The work of the special Cabinet Committee and the proposed negotiations with the leaders of the national and independent states and the leaders of Black communities, must be pursued with a view to achieving results as soon as possible. The Cabinet reached that decision after having considered this matter last week. The improved quality of life that derives from economic and social development inevitably leads to greater political awareness, and in order to accommodate the political demands that will arise from that it will be necessary to continue unceasingly to create constitutional structures, where it is politically feasible to do so. A situation in which it is necessary to take action on a reactive basis under pressure as far as constitutional affairs are concerned, ought to be avoided as far as possible.

I hope that I have now furnished an adequate reply to that aspect raised by the hon member for Houghton. I now come to the second matter.

†The issue of urbanization is a complex one and is receiving attention at the highest level. We realize that a positive urbanization strategy of a multi-dimensional nature is essential in order to ensure ordered growth and proper development. In this regard the Government has identified and is implementing a dynamic decentralization programme. It has embarked upon and has supported many rural development programmes, but it also recognizes the need for continued control over the rate of urbanization. We have anxiously been seeking the most humane and appropriate method of effecting such control. I want to emphasize that I am personally doing everything in my power to try and achieve that. I sincerely hope that with the assistance of the select committee which will be examining the Orderly Movement and Settlement of Black Persons Bill closely and will perhaps come forward with a new Bill, we can achieve our target in the months ahead. As hon members well know, we have been anxious to seek as much guidance and advice as possible from Black leaders, Government institutions and the private sector in order to achieve this objective. It is of course an extremely difficult objective to achieve, but I have long held the view that it can only be achieved through co-operation among as wide a spectrum of leadership as possible. I sincerely hope that I will not be proved wrong on this vitally important issue for the country.

The idea that Blacks have been left out in the cold has been deliberately fostered by radical elements in our society. I must sound an urgent note of caution that the consequences of this kind of action must be carefully weighed by the official Opposition and the Press in this country. I am very serious when I say this. The Government is clearly committed to a constructive policy of development on every front and is taking the initiative in this regard. If the irresponsible promotion of a spirit of disenchantment amongst Blacks is continued and inadequate recognition is given to the many efforts undertaken by the Government and other agencies, polarization will be facilitated and stability forfeited. I think that is what the hon the Prime Minister meant when he appealed to the hon the Leader of the Opposition to be positive. I am also appealing to him to do so. This country has never had a better opportunity in our lifetime, in this century, to act positively to resolve our problems in the interests of our children, especially after the referendum. There is not the slightest doubt about that. Had it not been for the referendum the hon the Prime Minister would not have been in a position to have delivered such a statesmanlike speech here this afternoon. Are hon members so blind that they cannot realize that? [Interjections.]

*Is that hon member for Lichtenburg so blind that he cannot see that? He came up with the ridiculous theory about interest rates that have supposedly risen to such an extent due to the yes vote. [Interjections.] Businessmen laugh at them. Yesterday I attended a dinner at which many businessmen were present. They laugh about that allegation by the hon member. Does he not see the positive results everywhere around him? [Interjections.] I think all South Africans must ponder these issues. [Interjections]

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister a question? It is an easy one.

Mr Speaker, I am not prepared to conduct a discussion with that hon member.

I think all South Africans must ponder these issues and decide whether instability is the product which they desire for themselves and for their children.

I had wanted to say something more on this occasion about the election of local authorities for Blacks. I do not have the time to do so now, however, but I should like to say something more about it on a different occasion. There are other matters, too, which I wish to discuss more positively on this occasion. However, I shall leave it at that except to say that it must be realized that when we discuss the Cabinet Committee and its work—that is of the utmost importance—we must realize that this Cabinet Committee is by no means concerned with urban Blacks only. Of the total Black population in the RSA and the independent self-governing national states, 23,7% are within the independent states. They number 5 million. 6,1 million, or 28%, are within the self-governing states; 5 million, or 24%, are within the urban areas of the RSA and 4,7 million, or 22,4%, are in the rural areas. Of the 10,1 million Black people in the RSA, 3,3 million, or 32%, are citizens of the TBVC states, and 6,8 million, or 67%, are South African citizens who hold citizenship of the self-governing states, too, by virtue of Act 26 of 1970.

I want to attest to the fact that the initiative taken with regard to the referendum and its outcome is probably one of the greatest events in my personal life. The initiative that is now being taken with regard to Black people outside their states in regard to outstanding matters relating to those states has, I believe—if I am wrong, I shall be forgiven, but I have a strong suspicion that I am not wrong—the potential to become an even greater event if it can be successfully implemented. I have no doubt whatsoever that it will indeed be successfully implemented. I realize more than anyone else that the challenges are great, but this can certainly be done. On 17 January, while we were having dinner with the Prime Minister, Prof Ntsanwisi shared this view when, on that occasion, he conveyed a message of thanks to the Prime Minister. This gives an indication of the spirit in which this challenge must be accepted and with what degree of success it can be implemented. He reminded us of the words of Columbus who, while on the way to discover America, ended his notes in his diary every day with these words: “Today we sailed on; we made progress.” Every day, on the way to the unknown, he saw, beyond the difficulties and the dangers, the one great truth: “Today we sailed on.” I believe that it is South Africa’s destination to find solutions for its population problems on the path of peace and constitutional development, to the benefit not only of South Africa alone, but of the whole of Southern Africa and even humanity as a whole and to the glory of God, Who gives this country the men and women and also the strength to achieve this for the sake of our descendants.

Mr Speaker, yesterday the hon member for Lichtenburg asked a very important and fundamental question, viz where the Government was taking the White voters of South Africa. By now we have heard a number of speakers on that side of the House, but not one of them has told the White voters of South Africa where they are taking them. I want to make a plea that in this, the last session of the White Parliament of South Africa, the Government, which represents the White voters, display the courage of its convictions by telling the voters where it is going. Yesterday the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs was jubilant about the two-thirds majority in the referendum and came forward with meaningless cliches such as “prosperity”, “stability”, “peace” and “a mandate for rewriting the constitutional agenda”. He said nothing about where we were going, however. In his explanation of what consensus politics really is, the hon the Deputy Minister of Welfare and of Community Development sounded more like he was performing the marriage rites between the National Party and the NRP on 15 February. This afternoon we listened to the Prime Minister of South Africa for more than an hour, yet we had no indication from him either as to where the Government is taking the White voters. The hon member who came closest to doing so was the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development who has just informed us that the Cabinet Committee which, inter alia, also has to deliberate and decide on the future of the urban Blacks, has decided as a matter of principle that there will be joint decision-making; joint decision-making on certain conditions, but I maintain that once the principle of joint decision-making has been accepted, one can no longer stipulate conditions, for then one decides together on the future of this country.

Yesterday there was a report by the SABC—this is very interesting—on an opinion poll carried out by their regional offices concerning what the Coloured population understands of the election which lies before them. This afternoon I want to ask the SABC to go and ask the White voters in this country what they voted for in the referendum. Hon members would be surprised to learn how many of the White voters of South Africa understand the contents of the new constitution, since the National Party neglected to inform the voters. Before the referendum last year they went around telling people that none of the entrenched rights of the Whites would be prejudiced but that they would retain their sovereignty. Who can tell us that the sovereignty of the Whites will be retained? Section 59 of the present constitution is going to be done away with. They said the National Party would continue to govern. The hon member for Randburg stated categorically that that was a myth. Who argued with him? Who called him to order? Who repudiated him? No one!

Once again we find ourselves on the eve of an election on 15 February, and I want to remind hon members of what the former hon member for Waterkloof said in his last speech on 18 February. I am now referring to the next member for Soutpansberg. [Interjections.] In the final paragraph of his speech he said (Hansard, 18 February 1983, col 1299):

That was the challenge the hon member issued then and it is the challenge this side is issuing to that party now regarding the forthcoming election. Let them tell the voters of Soutpansberg that they are no longer following the path of Dr Verwoerd and other leaders of the National Party.

What was Dr Verwoerd’s path? I want to read a few passages from the book Verwoerd aan die Woord. On the occasion of his New Year message to the people of South Africa in 1960 he said (p 403):

The following year Dr Verwoerd fearlessly stated before the South Africa Club in London, referring to the Whites:

The Prime Minister who succeeded him, the late Adv B J Vorster, said in 1971 (Hansard, vol 33, col 5110):

Listen to the assertions of the Federal Council of the NP in 1961. I quote:

It was further stated that the fundamental principle of the NP was that direct representation of Coloureds by Coloureds in White political institutions was a form of political integration. Furthermore, it was stated that the NP had adopted the standpoint that representation of Coloureds in Parliament should not be implemented either then or in the future. Ten years later, in 1971, the same Federal Council of the NP still firmly declared—

Even in the cultural sphere cultural leaders made assertions, such as those made by the present hon Minister of National Education in his well-known speech on the future of the Coloureds on 30 June 1971 before the ASB congress in which, according to page 9 of the roneoed copy, he said:

Those were the words of the hon the Minister. That was the general pattern of thought of the NP and cultural leaders from the earliest years to the end of the seventies and even the beginning of the eighties. Up until that time we believed that separate development was the policy of that party. Then there was a radical change of course, however.

The same Minister of Co-operation and Development made the categorical statement in the no-confidence debate that the Government had decided to accept the permanence of Black people in South Africa, something which had never been accepted by the NP before. Secondly, the principle that they should participate in joint decision-making in a new constitutional dispensation for South Africa was also accepted. The same former cultural leader, the present hon Minister of National Education, said in last year’s debate that Whites, Coloured and Indians are all part of the same nation. In reply to my question: What about Black South African citizens?, the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs added:

Then came the referendum at the end of last year. Suddenly, particularly in the rural areas, NP spokesmen, again started beating the drum of separate development. They said that only people of merit would be taken up in the Cabinet. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs will recall that. The emphasis was on separate areas, as in May-fair. They brought in the hon the Minister of Law and Order to give force to the words that Mayfair would remain White. What happened with Mayfair? Go and tell the voters what happened with Mayfair. What has happened subsequently? There is crowding out on an unprecedented scale. On 16 December last year 60 000 Black people crowded out Whites at a holiday resort in Johannesburg and 6 000 people of colour occupied a beach at Plettenberg Bay. More and more the Government is displaying pathological feeling of guilt towards people of colour. There are hundreds of examples of this. The traffic incident at Louis Trichardt is one such example.

Fourthly, I want to bring up a very important aspect. The leader of the Coloured Labour Party went to his congress and repeated his challenging statement of a year ago, viz that Coloureds refuse to do compulsory national service unless everyone in this country shares in the new dispensation. According to the Daily News of 4 January 1984 he put it as follows:

Surely this is an ultimatum being addressed to the Government, but thus far we have heard nothing about this from that side of the House. I ask: How long are the White voters of South Africa going to be prepared to fulfil the duty of national service alone, national service which demands sacrifices of the highest order, for example, the maiming of people, as well as financial sacrifices, everything that demands their all—how long are the Whites going to be prepared to place these sacrifices on the altar of our continued existence alone, as part of the same nation—according to the NP—which has to be defended? It is not fair, after all, and the Government must therefore adopt a standpoint on that score now. It must adopt a standpoint now, while it is still representing the Whites.

In the final instance the question is whether this country can afford to bear the economic burden which is now resting on it. The ordinary member of the public, our civil and old age pensioners, people who are finding it difficult to make ends meet, will have to pay tax to get the new dispensation in motion.

It is our contention that the voters once again have a choice on 15 February. Then they can choose between an integrationist party, a Government without credibility, and the CP, the party that stands rigidly by the policy of separate development as the only fair solution to our racial problems. The CP is a party that stands for democratic government chosen by the people, from the people, for the people, for a government that can guarantee the freedom and the right of the Afrikaner and the White nation of South Africa in its own fatherland.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Pieterburg ended his speech on a note we often heard from their side during the last Parliamentary session, viz claiming everything in South Africa for the Afrikaner alone. I should like to tell the hon member that there are Afrikaans-speaking, as well as English-speaking people in this House, and the NP will never expect the public of South Africa to become Afrikaners—not now, nor in the future, in fact, never—as the only future salvation for this country. We on this side of the House believe in national unity. We believe that we should take the English-speaking people along with us, the English-speaking people in Soutpansberg and the Far Northern Transvaal as well. Those people share in our future. I take it amiss of the hon member for Pietersburg that English-speaking South Africans, when on occasion they listen to the speeches of certain members of the CP, can rightly say to themselves that here is a lot of people with an amazing amount of Afrikaner arrogance. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, the hon member for Langlaagte will by no means scare me with whatever he has to say. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Pietersburg quoted a number of things here today, things which absolutely amazed me. He referred to Dr Verwoerd, and quoted him as well. I want to put it to him that when it comes to change, change in the light of realities, Dr Verwoerd is definitely not a man he should quote. In contrast to Dr Verwoerd’s own words in the erstwhile Other Place, Dr Verwoerd himself later said that the Black states would obtain independence. Therefore at first he said in the Other Place that this would not happen. He said afterwards, however, that the Black states could obtain full independence. Dr Verwoerd was the man who felt that granting constitutional rights to the Indians was in conflict with NP policy. That was his opinion until he recognized reality of the presence of Indians and realized that Indians should also become citizens of South Africa. That is why we as Nationalists say to hon members of the CP that in the interests of our children and in the interests of the Whites, in the interests of our country as well, we dare not run away from the factual reality with regard to the presence of Black people outside the Black national states, who will also have to be accommodated politically in accordance with a recipe on which we are working at present. If we had the final answer to this, we would have presented it to the voters of South Africa long ago.

Hon members of the CP would also be doing the people in their constituencies a favour if, together with us, they were to begin to seek solutions to the thorny problems from which we cannot escape. The NP refuses to run away from those facts because it would destroy the people.

Do you agree with the hon member for Randburg that the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act should be repealed? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I want to put it to the hon member for Jeppe that I personally believe, as I stand here today—and I have said this before on occasion in this House—that the people in my constituency do not need those laws in order to protect their identity. [Interjections.] Nor do I believe that the voters of Jeppe need those laws. [Interjections.]

Order!

There are, in fact, historical reasons for the existence of those laws. However, there is a select committee of this House that is at present investigating those laws. The hon member for Jeppe and hon members of his party would do well to go and make there contributions in that select committee so as to give us an indication of how they feel about it. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pietersburg referred here to powersharing which the NP is supposedly introducing, a process which, according to him, will result in the White civilization in South Africa being destroyed. I should like to make it clear to the hon member for Pietersburg today that the words “White civilization” are words we would do well to remove from our terminology here in Southern Africa. After all, they imply that people of colour in South Africa do not constitute part of what we regard a civilization. The hon member for Pietersburg must realize that we in the NP believe that the Brown people and the Indians, as well as the Black people, should all share in the civilized values in which we as Nationalists, the CP, and, in fact, all right thinking people in South Africa, ought to believe—civilized values and Christian standards. I am speaking about civilized values which have to do with a high level of cleanliness and neatness, with the recognition of one another’s rights as people, with self-respect and respect for one another as people. We must all go to meet the future and a new dispensation together, and since all of us find ourselves in a dilemma together, I want to put it to the hon member for Pietersburg that since we are engaged in main road politics in the history of our people, there is no time for petty little side roads. It is no use our trying to score political points off one another in this House. We would only be destroying ourselves and this country. It is my humble opinion that, in certain sense, if we are unable to see it in conjunction with total problem of White, Brown, Black and Indian, White politics in South Africa has become irrelevant at this particular juncture in our history. I want the hon member for Pietersburg to realize that if the Afrikaner were to misinterpret the history and the present realities, of the Afrikaner as a group has also become irrelevant in this country. As an Afrikaner, as a conservative Afrikaner who is proud of my language, who is proud of that which I call my own, I want to put it to the hon member for Pietersburg today that I should also like the Black people, Coloureds and Indians to respect my language, Afrikaans, just as they respect the English language. I should like the unjust skunk image of the Afrikaner that has been blazoned abroad, to be destroyed. I should like the Afrikaner to stand alongside all the Black people in South Africa in his own right in 1984 so that he can be known and seen to be someone who wants justice to be done to others. That is the spirit and essence of this new dispensation.

On a previous occasion I said that we in this country are often accused of practising apartheid. The hon the Leader of the Opposition used the word “apartheid” continually in his speech. I believe that we could successfully remove that word from our political arena in South Africa. In the international world, the word “apartheid” has acquired a stigma which is by no means related to the path this Government wishes to take. As I have already said on a previous occasion, the hounds of apartheid are barking in every country throughout the world. Whilst the hounds of apartheid are barking in the US, in other words, whilst apartheid is being practised in the US and people are quarrelling about it, whilst the hounds of apartheid are barking in Europe, in other words, whilst apartheid is being practised by Governments and the realities of apartheid are taking place there, whilst there is discrimination, whilst this kind of thing is taking place throughout the world, it is South Africa’s pup of apartheid that is being kicked. I think everyone in this House as a task. Forget about the world and forget about Africa. We have a task to prove to the Black people and other peoples inside South Africa that the image that has been created of us is a false image.

Recently my children and I listened in to the spaceshuttle Challenger on our telephone. We listened to the conversations in the spaceshuttle for a few minutes. Suddenly this made me realize that we are living in an ever-expanding universe. The American scientists return and tell us of the discovery of new planets and galaxies situated millions of light years away, and the end is not yet in sight. In this ever-expanding universe we as mere humans are living in an ever-diminishing world in South Africa. What happens in Soweto tonight, is depicted on the television screen in New York tomorrow. Tonight we see the Ayatollah’s revolution in Iran on our television screens. Everything we do and everything we say in this country on which the attention of the ever-diminishing world is focused, is of the utmost importance to us as Whites. We are the White children of Black Africa, and due to the course of history, even though we did not want it that way, bitter enmity is being heaped upon us. The leftist radical world as we see it at the United Nations and which we experience from our enemies throughout the world, has only one goal as far as the White man in South Africa is concerned, and that is his total destruction and elimination. This Government also has only one goal and that is that we should all have a future in this country together with our children, that our children should have security and that our children should experience prosperity in this country of ours. It is no use telling one another that we do not need each other. I must say this to the hon member for Pietersburg. When we speak about Black people the hon member for Pietersburg or any other hon member of his party must show us only one thing. They must show us just one man-made article in this assembly chamber or in the whole of South Africa that is not the result of White, Black and Brown hands and minds. [Interjections.] Having said this to one another, we know that there is an interdependence which we have to take into account. The hon member for Pietersburg spoke about powersharing. I want to tell the hon member for Pietersburg this today. We in South Africa share an economic power base with all these other population groups. We share the same economic resources, the same materials, the same manpower, the same entrepreneurship. We share these things with one another. We share the same security power base. The Minister of Law and Order, the hon the Minister of Defence and what they are engaged in are a security power base which is common to all peoples, all groups and all people in South Africa. I hope and believe we share the same educational base, viz that we want to uplift all people so that we can get away from the grip of poverty, since poverty is like a merry-go-round: It begins where it ends and ends where it begins. It is therefore our task as the NP, in the spirit of what the hon the Prime Minister said here today, that we bring about healthy relations and peaceful coexistence.

The hon the Prime Minister asked us to co-operate in implementing this new dispensation. I want to say to hon members of the CP that there is no better recipe and no better way of upsetting this new dispensation which holds out tremendous possibilities than to conduct the kind of politics they are conducting. The hon member for Pietersburg said today: Look at what Rev Allan Hendrickse is telling his people. To me this is one of the amazing things about hon members of the CP: They speak about separate population groups, but when the leaders of those population groups rise and speak on behalf of their people or for their people, they become afraid. Surely that cannot be true. What kind of leader would Rev Hendrickse be if he did not speak firmly and openly on behalf of his people? What kind of leader would Chief Buthelezi be if he did not stand up and state frankly how he and his people think and feel? What kind of leader would Mr Rajbansi be if he did not state frankly and clearly precisely how he and his people feel? Surely a leader works for his people and speaks on their behalf.

Does the hon member for Pietersburg want to tell me that he believes that the Coloureds, the Indians and the Black people have nothing for which they are striving? Does he want to tell me that he believes that they have no aspirations? If he says that he believes they have aspirations, I want to tell him that we in the NP are not afraid; on the contrary, I think all of us in this House can say today: Thank you, Lord, for the aspirations of people; thank you, Lord, for people who want to strive to progress. After all, it is the aspirations of people as individuals, the aspirations of peoples, it is the aspirations of leaders that are the fuel of progress in the world. What is the fuel for economic prosperity and progress in South Africa? It is initiative born out of aspirations. In the political sphere, aspirations are the fuel for meaningful discussion and consensus. Let me tell the hon member for Pietersburg today that we on this side of the House are not afraid to speak to other leaders. We are not even afraid to speak to radical leaders. In my humble opinion with the announcement of the hon the Prime Minister today we have witnessed a step, and what we have heard is characteristic of a far-sighted Government, of a Government that sees to the interests of its people, of a Government seeking peace, of a Government wanting to get away from emotions, is characteristic of a Government that knows that there must be peace in the hearts of people in South Africa.

One cannot get the right ideology in another person’s heart with an R1, a cannon, a Mirage and an Impala, and we as the Government know that, whilst wanting to keep a firm hand where we are being threatened—as the hon the Prime Minister said, we will not allow ourselves to be pushed around—in the final analysis we as Whites and South Africa will stand and fall by what lives in the hearts and attitudes of people, and this is what we should like to work on. We believe in human dignity. What we believe in can be summed up in a single sentence: Do to others as you would have them do to you. Hon members of the CP are continually harping on the concept “integration”. In a certain sense, integration in the political, economical, social and labour fields are part of the world in which we live. One cannot run away from that. The fact that the NP says that it wishes to extend the identity and structures, peoples and communities in the political sphere, does not mean that there are no other points of contact. Hon members can call it integration if they wish. It seems to me that the CP is concerned most about biological integration, but let us consider their Coloured homeland for a while. I want to ask the hon member for Pietersburg if it is their policy that they are going to prescribe to the Coloureds in those homelands what they should and should not do there. Is that their policy, or are the Coloureds going to be independent?

Would you answer a question?

No. After all, I put the question. The CP speaks of a Coloured homeland and an Indian homeland. If the CP is serious and says that those homelands are going to be sovereignly independent, we want to tell them this afternoon that in those countries the Coloureds and the Indians will be able to throw all laws, including the Mixed Marriages Act, overboard. That is the reality of the Southern Africa we live in. The policy of the NP is the policy of the retention of identity. There are people in the neighbouring independent states across the borders of South Africa who live differently to what the hon member for Langlaagte and other people in this House want them to live. We should not present the spectre of integration to people in order to try and scare them.

I want to conclude by saying that we are experiencing a time in our history now in which all of us in this House ought to be grateful for a Government of thinkers and doers. We ought to be grateful that we have a leader and a Cabinet who are thinkers and doers, people who are not afraid to display courage, people who are not afraid of the challenges all of us in this country have to face. Hon members of the CP would really be doing South Africa a favour if they would sometimes set aside petty politicking and display a little recognition, in our interests and in the interests of our children.

Mr Speaker, at the outset I would like to express our party’s appreciation of the announcement made by the hon the Prime Minister this afternoon about the de-escalation of the war situation on the Angolan border. As far as the rest of his speech and his amendment are concerned, other speakers in this party will deal with them in due course.

I believe that in a no-confidence debate such as this, one must consider whether the Government has been efficient or not. For me, if they are to be considered as being efficient, it is necessary for the Government to have performed either well or at the very least to have put in motion programmes attempting to satisfy the nation in a number of directions. In my opinion the principal areas are the security of the people, the integrity of our borders, a strong economy with sufficient and reasonably priced food for all, adequate housing for all levels of society at affordable prices and satisfaction of the reasonable political aspirations of all groups.

I believe that in respect of the first two aspects a very adequate job has been done by the Police and our military forces. Some people may feel they have done too adequate a job in that they have handled terrorists and insurgents very roughly indeed. However, I personally do not subscribe to this attitude and I believe the majority of my party does not either. Monsters who would achieve their objectives by murdering, maiming and torturing the innocent as well as—in fact, often in preference to—their security opponents, deserve no mercy whatsoever. These creatures cannot be dealt with by using kid glove tactics and I am pleased that the security forces also happen to have the same attitude.

Items 3 and 4 that I mentioned, namely a sound economy and adequate housing, are a somewhat different story. I believe that Government plans and intentions may be reasonably good in these areas, but their implementation and administration leave a lot to be desired. Inflation is still rampant, the rand is at its lowest ebb in relation to the dollar, and the cost of living increases are crippling very large sections of the community, largely the non-White communities but also social pensioners and those living on fixed incomes. Frankly, I believe that in the financial areas we are not doing well at all. It must be admitted that the Government cannot be held responsible for the drought, the fall in the gold price or the international economic situation, all of which have contributed to our poor economic showing. However, the Government could and should have acted more expeditiously to curb non-essential Government spending by taking other measures to curb our financial slide. For the lack of rapid action, we believe censure is warranted.

As regards housing, the situation is getting very bad indeed. Last year it was estimated that the backlog was 160 000 housing units. The annual gross need for South Africa is something of the order of 60 000 units and for the last three years the average number of units built by Government and private enterprise combined was more or less 38 000 per annum, thus increasing the backlog by something of the order of 12 000 units per annum. I am well aware that the Government has from time to time appointed boards, commissions and committees to investigate the housing problem, but there seems to be no real urgency to get houses on the ground. This is where they are needed. Houses that are available for sale, are beyond the means of most young couples, and I would draw the attention of hon members to the fact that a house that was costing only R25 000 five years ago, today is fetching easily R75 000, and that a flat, which a few years ago was going for only R15 000, is now selling for something of the order of R45 000 to R50 000. Pensioners are suffering, established middle-class families are suffering and young married families are also suffering because they cannot get adequate homes. I am not making specific mention at the moment of the non-White housing situation because I believe that in due course during the discussion of the Housing Vote one will be able to place greater emphasis on this particular point. Generally speaking, however, the situation there is much worse than in the White communities. I believe that because of the lack of urgency in getting houses on the ground, censure in this sphere is also justified.

As regards my fifth point, the satisfaction of the political aspirations of all groups, I believe that this Government is really trying to make progress, and I say that most sincerely. They have made more progress in the past five years than the National Party did in the previous 30 years. I believe they are trying but, as the Leader of the New Republic Party stated in his censure motion, the omission of the non-homeland Black in the present constitution from any definitive participation, was a bad error which in itself be-devilled the creation of the right atmosphere for unreserved acceptance of the new constitution by all groups in South Africa. For this also we believe that censure is justified. We cannot support the no-confidence motion of the Progressive Federal Party because the country has recently expressed a high measure of confidence in the Government on one of the most important political changes in South Africa in decades, but we feel that censure is justified in a number of specific areas, and the areas I mentioned are some of those.

I must come to the referendum, the Pine-town by-election and matters related to that in that there has been a considerable amount of talk on the NRP’s relationship with the National Party in this regard. In the first instance I must make the point that in the referendum the people of South Africa did not vote for apartheid, nor did they vote for integration. They voted for pluralism. I believe that this point must be emphasized: They voted for pluralism.

What is the difference between apartheid and pluralism?

There is a considerable difference.

The hon member for Lichtenburg—I am sorry that he is not here—in his address to the House said that the National Party and its referendum allies were integrationists. I believe that he totally misunderstands the New Republic Party at any rate. Having been a Nationalist for many years, he is better equipped to know than I am whether they are integrationists, but I can assure hon members that the New Republic Party do not believe in forced integration. We do, however, believe in a very large measure indeed of local option in this regard.

Gobbledygook!

Gobbledygook indeed!

Now I come to the attacks made on this party by the Progressive Federal Party in respect of the referendum and the Pinetown by-election. At the outset I should like to address myself to the leader of that party who in the referendum had an advertisement to the effect that it took guts to say “no”. I have here part of the advertisement; just enough to give hon members an indication. The reason why it took guts to say “no” was to the effect that this man staked his future and the future of his party on a “no” in the constitutional referendum. I concede freely that no one man, even the leader, can really stake his party’s future as has been suggested, but I submit that he can stake his own future, which in this case he has done. To me, if a man stakes something, it is a bet, amongst other things, and when a bet is lost, to me the honourable thing to do is to meet that debt of honour. Now, how does one meet this debt of honour?

What do you know about honour?

The perfidious priest knows nothing of honour.

So, I believe that, if I had taken such a gamble on my political future and lost, as a man of honour I personally would have resigned as leader of my organization. But then, of course, that is me; I like to feel that I have real honour and do not merely pay lip service to honour. As far as I am concerned, when a statement like that is made—it was made on radio and TV—staking his future political existence, then, if he fails, he only has one recourse and that is resignation. Anyway, I merely make the point. Possibly the hon member overlooked that as being the correct thing to do. In my case I would not leave my party in such an embarrassing position because in the future any such similar statements made by hon members of that party will receive very little credibility.

I now come to the hon member for Wynberg who made the unsupported allegation that the NRP and the NP had made a deal over the Pinetown by-election.

Haven’t you?

That hon member must just keep his mouth shut and learn instead of opening it and showing his ignorance. [Interjections.] The hon member for Port Natal and chairman of the NP in Natal denied this scurrilous accusation with the contempt that it deserved. As the chairman of the RP in Natal I also wish to place on record something that will nail this fabrication. I therefore herewith make the following formal statement in my capacity as chairman of the NRP in Natal [Interjections.] No deal, arrangement or commitment either officially or unofficially was made between the NRP and the NP.

What about informally?

I said informally. [Interjections.] From the beginning the NRP made it clear to the public that we would fight this seat, that we were putting in the strongest candidate possible and that we would do our utmost to win the seat. The hon member for Wynberg also scurrilously implied that the NP would be paying the NRP’s election expenses.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The previous incumbent of the Chair has ruled the word “scurrilous” out of order.

Did the hon member use the word “scurrilous” in connection with the hon member for Wynberg?

I said he had scurrilously implied. I did not say he himself was scurrilous.

I think the hon member should withdraw the word.

For these sensitive gentlemen of high integrity I will withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally, Sir.!

From the beginning the NRP made it clear to the public that we would fight this seat and we are going to. The hon member for Wynberg implied that the NP would be paying the NRP’s expenses. I consider this to be a contemptible suggestion from a contemptible and politically bankrupt party. It is the sort of desperate attack that a nest of rats would make when cornered. This is ruthless and savage. However, I do not believe it will do them any good. It will do them no good. Their end is on the scrap heap of politics. That is certain and it can only be accelerated by such desperate tactics. The NP decided not to fight Pinetown for their own political reasons. The same happened in 1981 when we decided not to fight Pinetown. We did that for our own political reasons. [Interjections.] Those hon members forget that we only lost the provincial seat by 60 votes. Does the PFP suggest that we kept out of the fight then because we had an arrangement with them? If they do then it is a lie. No such arrangement existed.

The PFP, although a relatively new party, is bagged down by confrontation politics. It is not adaptable enough to enter the new era of consensus politics. They can only fight for underdogs whilst they remain underdogs; as soon as they get anywhere they give up.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question?

No, Sir, I am sorry, I do not have the time.

The PFP has in my opinion contributed virtually nothing to the politics of South Africa, except to raise untimely expectations among our non-White South Africans. Furthermore—and this is more dangerous than anything else in so far as we in Natal are concerned—they have virtually destroyed the good relations that existed between the Zulus of kwaZulu and the people of Natal. This, I believe, is a thoroughly shameful action and, as far as the people of Natal are concerned, these actions over the past few years will not be forgotten or forgiven. In some future election the people of Natal will show what they think of the PFP.

Mr Speaker, the end of the speech of the hon member for Umbilo, who has just resumed his seat, was a delightful “in-for-all”, and we rather enjoyed it. I should like to react to some of the topics the hon member touched upon almost in telegram-style. I think we are all grateful to the NRP for their very positive attitude towards our armed forces. The hon member testified to the fact that his party was inexorably opposed to terrorism. If I understood him correctly, he said that basically terrorists were nothing but murderers. He also said that as far as he and his party was concerned, the security of South Africa came first.

Then the hon member then asked the Government to curtail its expenditure as much as possible. In the very next breath, however, he said that the Government should spend more on housing. We have to be careful here. I think we would all like to see the public sector not having to spend more than is absolutely necessary, but we should at least try to see the matter in the right perspective. We should, on the one hand, ask the public sector not to spend any money at all, while on the other hand advocating that it should, in fact, spend money. I agree with the hon member that housing should receive virtually the highest priority in South Africa. The hon the Minister of Community Development is listening attentively, because he is waiting for money that has to come from the private sector. If the hon member for Umbilo were therefore to ask the private sector for more money, I am sure he would gladden that hon Minister’s heart.

The hon member says he would rather support a motion of censure than a motion of no confidence in the Government. I do not want to pursue this matter, however, because the hon the Prime Minister has already held detailed discussions on this issue with the hon the Leader of the Opposition.

It is very interesting to hear what the hon member had to say about the hon the Leader of the Opposition, namely that the hon the Leader of the Opposition’s gambled his entire future on the result of the referendum. I do not want to be too hard on the hon the Leader of the Opposition, as the hon member for Umbilo was, and suggest that the hon the Leader of the Opposition should now resign. In my opinion we have had quite enough of by-elections. As a matter of fact, we have another one in Soutpansberg, and I think we should now settle down a little. [Interjections.] I do not want to talk about Pinetown now. Pinetown always has been and still is a sore point, having already been bandied to and fro across the floor of this House. I had a look to see whether the CP and the HNP were going to put up candidates there, but it does not seem like it to me. As far as I am concerned, we should leave the matter at that, because the farmers apparently do not want to fight in Pinetown. We must therefore leave Pinetown to the hon member for Durban Point and the hon the Leader of the Opposition. Let us wait and see who gets what.

Earlier today reference was made to the fact that General Hertzog reproached General Botha for having discovered two nationalisms in South Africa, namely an English nationalism and an Afrikaner nationalism. However, the hon the Deputy Minister of Welfare and Community Development went on to point out that the Whites—both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking—have lived and worked side by side in this country for more than 150 years without every really finding one another or getting to know one another. For that reason it was that much more of a revelation to the hon the Deputy Minister to witness the greater unanimity, the greater South Africanism, the greater and broader national orientation brought to light by the recent referendum. Of course I agree with the hon the Deputy Minister in this regard. We need not even go back 150 years to realize this. We all know, however, that up to about 1970 the party-political dividing line in South Africa was language. When a person spoke English, he was simply assumed to be a UP supporter; or, of course, later also a Prog. These people were automatically associated with movements like the Black Sash and others which, like so many organizations before and after them, have since vanished into oblivion. Of course there were also such movements among the Afrikaners.

Since 1970 I myself have also witnessed a change. In the 60 years since the advent of Union in 1910, English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people in South Africa have been drawing ever closer, and the English-speaking people have felt themselves to be increasingly at home—actually began to make a real home for themselves—within the ranks of the NP, specifically because they also accepted the NP slogan: “South Africa first.” They were cutting himself free of the apron strings of Mother England and the old British Empire.

What we are doing here today, and what we will also be doing in the weeks ahead, is working in all seriousness on the success of the new future dispensation in South Africa. This week is the last opportunity we are going to have to spend time on politicking. From next week onwards we shall have to begin working hard.

The past 60 years have shown us that Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people in South African can work together. We do not, however, have another 60 years to build bridges of co-operation between the respective population groups in South Africa. I am referring here to the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians within the borders of the Republic of South Africa. We do not have another 60 years in which to do this. That is why the Government of the day is very much in earnest—while we still have the time and the opportunity, and while we still have the goodwill of people from various quarters—to make the best of it. After this week we shall have to give incisive attention to the burning questions in South Africa, as clearly set out here by the hon the Prime Minister, and by the State President in his opening address, because as the Government of the day we realize and acknowledge that we do not have the moral right to impose obligations on more than four million people without also granting them rights and privileges. We do not have the moral right to do that. Actually I am not the one saying this today, on 31 January 1984. General Hertzog was, in fact, the one who said so 60 years ago. Sixty years ago now he said that we could not allow these people to go on living a faceless existence in South Africa. Today, however, we have a Government and an hon Prime Minister who, for the first time, have the courage—for the first time in our history since 1910—to take the bull by the horns as regards this difficult matter.

The Government does not, however, only have a moral obligation in this regard; as I see it also has a political, a politicojudicial obligation. The two-thirds majority of the White voters who in fact voted in the referendum on 2 November 1983 is not only tantamount to approval of the constitution already accepted by Parliament, and its implementation, but also imposes on us an obligation to implement the constitution which has already been accepted and approved. When reference was made on this side of the House to the constitution which had been accepted by this House and to the referendum, an hon member of the CP said “yes, but you made use of the guillotine”. That is not, however, true. After all, it was not the Government which wanted to make use of the guillotine. The Government wanted us to discuss the legislation and debate it in detail, but the two parties opposite did not want to accept that. We were prepared to debate the legislation clause by clause. [Interjections.] But what did the hon members of the PFP and the CP do? They made a mockery of parliamentary procedure by trying to exploit it for personal gain. That is what they did. They allowed as many speakers as possible to discuss each clause and allowed each of them to speak three times. [Interjections.] The hon member for Brakpan knows that what I have just said is true. That was the method they adopted to take up as much time as possible, and it was really not necessary.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member for Langlaagte say that the hon member for Roodeplaat or any other members on this side of the House are hiding behind the Chair?

Order! Did the hon member for Langlaagte mean to cast any reflection on the Chair by that remark?

Not on Mr Speaker; definitely not.

Order! I asked the hon member whether he intended that remark as a reflection on the Chair. That includes the Chairman.

Sir, I did not intend to cast any reflection on the Chairman either.

The hon member for Roodeplaat may proceed.

I believe that all political parties—I am referring here not only to White political parties—in South Africa, both those already represented in this House and those that may be represented in Parliament in the future, have a responsibility to become involved in the problems of South Africa. If they do not want to become involved, if they want to play the game from the sidelines, then we can forget about making use of them and the good brains some of them have. When it comes to involvement and the establishment of a better South Africa, however, it has to be involvement which is relevant. Every political party in South Africa must believe that it can make a contribution. When I refer to a contribution, I do not mean merely going along with everything the governing party suggests in whatever Chamber. Even criticism by an Opposition party can have a positive and objective outcome if it points out where the problem areas are and where improvements can, in fact, be made. However, simply saying “no” to everything will not get us anywhere. That will not promote participation in the legislative process either. My plea is that we see the matter in that light.

What do we not need? The hon the Leader of the Opposition saw fit to discuss his motion of no confidence mainly in the form of questions. If we wanted to, we could also ask a whole lot of questions. I could ask the hon the Leader of the Opposition whether his party is in the habit of consulting Black leaders when the interests of the Whites, Coloureds and Asians are at stake. I could ask such a question, but where would that get us? That is, however, something we have experienced in practice. I could go further. I could ask the hon the Leader of the Opposition whether he and his party members also consulted leading Coloureds and if so, what their reactions were. We did not hear that. I do, however, think there was consultation between certain members of the hon Leader’s party and the Indians or certain Indian groups, because the hon member for Grey-town—I do not see him here now—reacted in the Press and over the radio to a certain statement by an Indian leader even before it hit the streets.

I would consider it a great pity if the enfranchised members of the Indian community were to allow themselves to be taken in tow and influenced by the views of any of the no groups in the referendum.

What about the influence of the yes group?

I shall be getting round to that hon member.

There is not a single hon member on this side of the House who cannot say, in all honesty, that it was not very difficult for him, prior to 2 November, to convince our voters that the Coloureds should participate in the legislative process in South Africa. It was not very difficult. The questions which we and, probably every hon member, had to answer were questions concerning the Indians. That is why I say I would consider it a great pity if these people allowed themselves to be taken in tow in an irresponsible manner.

I could ask the hon member for Sea Point if any telephone calls have been made. I could ask him that. I could ask him whether Mondale is still available, or is it Jesse Jackson now? One can ask this sort of question. In any case, it is not difficult to ask such questions. I would have liked to ask the hon member for Houghton a question, but today she came here in a guise I was not familiar with, and for that reason I am a little hesitant about asking the hon. member for Houghton the question I would have liked to ask her. I shall not pursue this matter.

What we do not need either is for the Christian principles of those who voted yes to be questioned to find out whether or not we are being consistent or not. You can take my word for it that if there is one thing that was hurtful to Christians, English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking, of all colour groups in South Africa, it was the fact that judgment was passed on their Christian principles at a so-called day of national festivities. That is outrageous, and it is something this country does not need. We can do without it. I do not think this should happen again in South African politics.

There was once a very great artist in Norway, the greatest artist they ever produced, namely Gustav Vigeland. In Norway one finds the only park in the world which is not a park as we know it, but a park entirely of marble—eight acres of solid marble, marble statues and the like. It is said that Gustav Vigeland carved and chiselled the granite and the marble sculptures a period of more than 50 years. It is probably one of the greatest works of art in the world. Gustav Vigeland discovered one thing. After three years he had only completed one statue. He nevertheless had a vision of a park of marble and granite. He then approached the Government to assist him. In that way they worked on this large marble garden for 50 years. What we are going to need in the future is a vision such as that of Gustav Vigeland, namely to build, and cave out our own South Africa. I am convinced that the problems that we are going to face after we have implemented the new dispensation are going to be as hard as granite. We shall have to chisel at those granite-hard problems, those rock-marble problems, with faith and artfulness. Then we can exercise our creativity and create a new South Africa. The new State President will not be able to do this alone. There will have to be the will to work together, to build together and to chisel away at the problems of South Africa together. I believe that if we do that, no problem will be insurmountable. Then we can build a good and beautiful South Africa, a safe and prosperous South Africa, to the benefit of us all. Even though we disagree about certain things, let us disagree in such a way that we never discredit South Africa.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Roodeplaat will forgive me if I do not respond directly to his remarks immediately. I will be dealing with some of his comments in more general terms later on.

Before getting to the main theme of my remarks this afternoon—I do not intend to wage the Pinetown by-election during this debate—I would like to comment briefly on some of the comments made by the hon member for Umbilo this afternoon and some of the comments made by hon the Minister of Internal Affairs and the hon the Deputy Minister of Welfare and of Community Development yesterday.

I was interested to note that the hon member for Umbilo was at pains to deny that there was any deal with the Nationalist Party in regard to the Pinetown by-election. It was very interesting to see him distancing himself from his own colleague, the hon member for Durban North, at this stage in the Pinetown campaign. The hon member for Durban North, speaking in Westville only about 10 days ago, said that the NRP was happy to walk hand in hand with the Nats in South Africa. Now the NRP has to put up the hon member for Umbilo to try to rectify that situation. Whether there was a deal, overt or covert, does not really matter at this stage. I think people will draw their own conclusions. The hon the Deputy Minister was at pains to say that there were no formal discussions or formal decisions taken between the two parties. He said it was a consensus situation in which they found themselves. He went on to say that he felt that the NP would of course have done far better than the NRP in the by-election but because the main objective was to get rid of the PFP, they would allow the NRP to have a clear field. That also gave the game away because quite clearly the NP would like to get rid of the only effective Opposition in South Africa.

I want to leave that matter there and deal in more general terms with the debate that has taken place up to now. There has been a great deal of talk about the new political era which we are about to enter. It is true that politics in South Africa will never be the same again. This follows many months of talk about change and reform and it is certainly clear that among Whites there has been a commitment to reform of one kind or another. It is also true that among Coloureds and Indians there is a lively debate taking place about change, about the form it should take and about the methods which should be used to bring it about. However, it is also true, despite what the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development said this afternoon, that among Blacks there is a high degree of frustration, because for the moment at least they have been left out of the programme of change which they see and hear being discussed so freely by others around them. In general, expectations have certainly been aroused and it is going to be necessary for the Government to deliver the goods. What is vital at this stage is that change and reform should be of substance, that it should be real and material and that it should bring hope to all concerned if we are going to advance in a constructive way. No one, having regard to the background of South Africa, will demand or even expect that these changes should take place overnight, and certainly all of us would hope to see change coming about in a peaceful and orderly way. However, if this is to be achieved, there has to be clarity not only as to the road which is to be followed but as to the ultimate destination. What lies in store for all the people of South Africa in terms of the Government’s program of change and reform? This is what I ask. There is need, as we have indicated from these benches, for a clear-cut declaration of intent on this vital point.

The hon the Minister of Internal Affairs—and I am very glad that he is in the House because I indicated that I would deal with some of his remarks—described 1984, when he spoke yesterday, as the “kruispad-jaar vir Suid-Afrika”. I believe he is absolutely right in that. It is the year of crossroads for South Africa and I know he is right when he talks about the realization which all South Africans feel about the build-up of tension and about impatience, unrest and the fear of conflict. This is the situation we are in and that is why he is right to say that 1984 is certainly a year of crossroads for South Africa. The hon the Minister will also find support when he uses words like “the spirit of co-operation which needs to be fostered” and when he talks about the need to ensure that all participate in the decision-making process. Of course, with these remarks he was merely echoing some of the comments which were contained in the State President’s speech when he opened Parliament on Friday. These matters should of course be common cause among all those who know the realities of South Africa at the present time. However, words are one thing, but it is the substance which follows which is important. In this regard the hon the Minister yesterday, and others who have taken part in this debate, I believe have disappointed grievously. Once again the hon the Minister indicated in general terms that realistic and constructive change should be made. The hon the Minister has shown that he is still tied to separate development, compulsory group identity and, his alleged belief that meaningful co-operation—this is what he said yesterday—is only possible on the basis of separation in South Africa. He talked about being at the crossroads in this atmosphere of change. I want to put it to him that he and his party are certainly at the crossroads. The overwhelming stream of political traffic in South Africa is moving across him and in this situation I want to put it to him that he has three chances. Firstly, if he manages to get across that stream fortuitously, he will end up in a cul de sac of frustration and futility on the road opposite with the CP and the HNP because that is where the rigid adherence to Verwoerdian separate development will land him. His second chance—let met give him his three chances—is that if he tries to cross the road and he does not make it he will end up in the middle of the road of vacillation and indecision with the NRP and he will be smashed to pieces. His third chance is that he and his party should join the stream of traffic, the South African stream of traffic, and together with others try to fashion and guide it so that the spirit of co-operation about which he talks can become a reality and can produce the order and security which we all seek.

Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the hon member if the principles which I enunciated yesterday are not contained in the new constitution approved by the electorate in the referendum?

This is the very point. We are talking about change and a new constitution and I believe that change will not achieve the security and all the great things for which we hope in South Africa if we are going to tie ourselves down to the ideology of separate development. That is not change because there is no substance to that change. It is mere window-dressing if that is in fact going to be the Government’s approach to this issue. I have given the hon the Minister his three options in regard to the crossroads. That hon Minister knows—he is articulate, intelligent and thoughtful—that all the facts of South Africa are against the theory of separate development being applied effectively to bring lasting security for us all. It is not just a question of PFP policy or of PFP attitudes which will force us to face up to the reality of integration in South Africa and its consequences. It is not that. It is the facts of life in South Africa. It is a fact that economically we are integrated—Black, White, Asian and Coloured. It is a fact that the process of urbanization cannot be reversed and is being inexorably accelerated daily by economic and social forces. Those are not forces within our own hands; they are economic and social forces which are driving the situation in this direction.

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

No, I have just answered one and my time is limited. Government agencies and Government commissions testify to this process which is taking place. The De Lange Committee and others tell us that, unless we can come to grips with these realities of life in South Africa, the standard of living, let alone the security, of all and particularly of the Whites will be in jeopardy.

Yet the hon the Minister, while talking in sweet terms about the need for change, about the need to find and commit ourselves to a new course in 1984, in fact denies these facts. He pleads for change, for a grand new approach, but in the same breath he chided the hon the Leader of the Opposition about “klein politiek”. He was referring to the Leader of the Opposition’s reference to statutory discrimination, to influx control, to the Population Registration Act, to the Mixed Marriages Act, to the Group Areas Act, to detention without trial and to forced removals. These may be matters of “klein politiek” for the Minister or for the Government, but I want to assure him that to the masses of the people of South Africa who are affected by them they are anything but “klein politiek”. These are the issues which govern their lives. They are what reminds them forcibly, every day and every month, of the discrimination under which they suffer. These are the facts of society in South Africa which, more than anything else, threaten the security we all seek to achieve and improve and hasten the conflict we all fear and seek to avoid. This is what is happening.

If meaningful change is to become a reality, it must surely begin with these matters. It is no good having a wonderful constitutional framework, it is no good talking in fine phrases: Change has to begin with the matters which affect the lives of the people if it is to be meaningful and if we are going to find real security in South Africa. If that is not the case, this change will be strangled in the vice grip of the rigid adherence to Verwoerdian ideologies which the Minister gave evidence of yesterday.

I am glad that the hon the Minister of Cooperation and Development is here. I hope he will look a little happier. One of the most crucial and harsh examples of the Government’s slavish adherence to separate development despite talk of change and reform is the whole question of population removals. The hon the Minister did not deal with that this afternoon. He gave an optimistic overview of what was going to happen, but he did not deal with the question of population removals. Despite assurances from the Minister last year, there is still no certainty about the future as far as hundreds and thousands of South Africans are concerned. They are living under the threat of being removed from one area to another, and it is taking place. Last year the hon the Minister told us—and I quote his own words:

That is what he told us in February last year. That was against the background of research which has shown that since 1960 3,5 million people have in one way or another been subjected to such removal. If Government policy is to continue, it is estimated that a further 2 million people will be similarly affected. I want to know what the Minister meant last year when he used the words “as far as is practicable and possible”. Since the hon the Minister’s statement, there has been considerable public debate over the whole issue and there has been a highly documented report known as the “Surplus People’s Project”, inter alia presenting a massive indictment of Government policy, which has been largely ignored by the Government.

In addition, there is evidence that the policy of forced removals has certainly not been abandoned. The hon member for Houghton referred to one instance this afternoon. In Transvaal and elsewhere removals and threats of removals have continued and are continuing. In Ciskei and areas adjacent to it the issue of population removals is still a very real one.

The whole question of the corridor between Ciskei and Transkei and the people on mission land there is of vital importance. They are under threat of removal. I want to ask the hon the Minister: Is this sort of thing to be altered by the new climate of change which he, the hon the Prime Minister and his other colleagues have spoken about this afternoon when we know that these things are still taking place in the name of separate development? What is going to happen? What is the attitude of the Government to the threatened removals in the corridor between Ciskei and Transkei? These are old established mission settlements and many thousands of people are involved. There is a Presbyterian mission settlement which dates back to 1858, a Moravian mission settlement dating back to the same year, a Lutheran mission settlement dating back to the same year as well as a Methodist mission settlement dating back to 1840. There are people involved in these settlements who live under threat of removal. I want the hon the Minister or one of his colleagues to tell us what future is held out for them. What is their future? These are important aspects. One can also refer to many other parts of South Africa. There is for example Reserve No 4 in kwaZulu where tens of thousands of people live under the threat of removal.

Another aspect relating to Ciskei in particular, but to the homelands policy generally, is the recent report of the commission of inquiry into economic development of Ciskei. We still await some official Government reaction to the report of that commission. In particular there was a recommendation that Ciskei refuse to accept further repatriation of non-resident citizens unless Ciskei is further subsidized by the South African Government at the rate of R20 000 per family. The hon the Minister knows about that recommendation. I want to know: Is the Government going to agree to this? Is the Government going to agree to subsidize Ciskei to the extent of R20 000 per family at the taxpayers’ expense for the resettlement of Ciskeian families in Ciskei? Is this going to be another demand made on the taxpayer of South Africa in order to feed the ideology of the National Party? I want to know, if the Government is not going to agree to pay R20 000 per head, what its alternative is. Where is it going to continue to dump people in terms of the resettlement policies? These are questions that need to be answered.

We also want to know what the Government’s attitude is to the entire homeland concept. The hon the Minister dealt with it again this afternoon. He was quite generous when he said that those homelands which do not accept independence will not be forced into it and will not be penalized. I think that is the term he used. However, if one looks at Ciskei and at the commission’s report surely there must be some sort of rethink on the part of the Government as to its entire homeland policy. The report shows for example—this is Ciskei’s own report—that more than half of its income is earned in neighbouring White states. It shows that 80% of resident Ciskeian households subsist on than R250 per month. The commission also estimated that an immediate figure of R350 million was necessary to deal with the problem of unemployment in Ciskei, contrasting with the budget of Ciskei which itself is R320 million. They are talking about another R350 million. Is this going to be the cause of another handout from the South African Treasury in order to prop up Ciskei? Is this going to be a further price which the taxpayers of South Africa will have to pay in terms of Government ideology? This is what one needs to have answered.

These are matters which one finds difficult to reconcile with all the broad, pleasant and bright concepts sketched by the hon the Prime Minister and others as to the process of change which is taking place in South Africa. One can have the best constitutional framework which one likes but unless one is going to be able to give security to individuals, unless one is going to be able to satisfy the reasonable aspirations of individuals, one is not going to achieve the security and peaceful future which the hon the Minister tried to sketch so vividly this afternoon. I believe as long as these matters remain unanswered as we enter into the new era, despite all the high hopes, there will be fear that we will not achieve the peace and peaceful co-existence which we seek. The fact that these matters remain unanswered justifies totally the motion of no-confidence which we have moved.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Berea made a number of extraordinary statements in the course of his speech; in fact, so many that it is impossible to react to all of them in the time allotted to me. Allow me, however, Sir, to refer to only two of these extraordinary statements.

Referring to the speech of the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs, yesterday, the hon member for Berea suggested that the hon the Minister was indeed at the crossroads, because the overwhelming majority of public opinion is against him. This is what we get from a member of the official Opposition a mere two months after the referendum in which two thirds of the electorate supported the policy of the Government.

Only 10% of the population voted.

I thank the hon member for Berea for that interjection. He says only 10% of the population of South Africa voted.

That is typical.

As the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, that is typical of the hon members of the official Opposition. That shows what respect they have for the White electorate of South Africa. When the hon the Leader of the Opposition comes to the House with pious words about playing a constructive role in the politics of South Africa, the hon member for Bryanston by way of interjection says: “Yes, but it is only 10% of the population of South Africa”, and now the hon member for Berea echoes the same point of view. In other words, it is not important what the White electorate decides; that is not important. Those hon members regard as important only the views of the Black population of South Africa.

I will come in a minute to the hon the Leader of the Opposition’s speech in which he questioned the role of the Opposition in the new dispensation. However, let me say at once that if the hon members of the official Opposition wish to play a constructive role in the new dispensation, they must rid themselves of this attitude. As long as they discredit the views of the White population of this country and only pay attention to what the Black majority of South Africa wants, they will never be able to play a constructive role.

Another extraordinary statement was made by the hon member for Berea. He suggested that the new constitutional dispensation does not constitute real change but that it is merely window-dressing. During the constitutional debate last year we debated every facet of the new constitution, and if an hon member who attended those debates can come along today and suggest that all the constitutional changes we discussed are only window-dressing, then I can but come to the conclusion that such an hon member is completely out of touch with the political realities of this country. If any hon member wishes to deny that this new constitution in fact constitutes a drastic change from the old traditional type of politics in this country, I should like him to explain his viewpoint. It is completely incomprehensible to me that an hon member can suggest that this is only window-dressing.

That is why I say that the hon member for Berea made some extraordinary statements in the course of his speech.

*Mr Speaker, it is not my intention, however, to devote my entire speech solely to the hon member for Berea. I should also like to comment on the speech which the hon the Leader of the Opposition delivered yesterday in support of his motion of no confidence.

When I was still a practising attorney, I had the frequent experience of having to listen, with amazement, to the ostensibly clever arguments of my learned colleagues. I also wondered, on more than one occasion, if there was something lacking with my own legal training because I had no knowledge of many of the things they spoke about. On closer investigation, however, there appeared, time and again, to be no merit in those ostensibly clever arguments used by my colleagues. It was nothing more than mere glib talk without any legal force or relevance.

Since becoming a member of this House, I have discovered that this phenomenon also manifests itself in this House. Ostensibly clever arguments are advanced, arguments which, on closer examination, are found to be mere empty rhetoric. The hon the Leader of the Opposition’s speech yesterday was an outstanding example of this. The hon the Leader of the Opposition saw fit to move a motion of no confidence in the Government. One would then have expected him to have advanced reasons motivating the grounds on which he had moved his motion of no confidence. What, however, did he do? Instead of doing what one would have expected, he puts a number of questions which, on the face of it, may seem to be important but which, on closer examination, are found to be completely meaningless. His speech yesterday was nothing more than a piece of empty rhetoric. [Interjections.] One asks oneself how the hon the Leader of the Opposition squares this with his own conscience. How does he square with his conscience the fact that he moves a motion of no confidence without being able to find any justification for doing so or without being able to substantiate that motion in any way whatsoever? He merely puts a number of questions. A no-confidence debate is, after all, hardly the time or the place to put questions at all.

Amongst other things the hon the Leader of the Opposition asked: “What is the role of an Opposition party under these circumstances?” This was asked with reference to the new dispensation. He then went on to answer his own question by saying that the Opposition’s role and contribution depended on three things, ie—in the first place—“What is formally possible in terms of the new constitution?” After subsequently asking an additional number of questions in this regard—questions I shall be referring to again in a moment—he made a significant remark. This, as far as I am concerned, sums up the hon the Leader of the Opposition’s speech in one single sentence. He said: “I am just asking these questions.” He is therefore just asking the questions. And that from an hon Leader of the Opposition who is moving a motion of no confidence in the Government! He himself says: “I am just asking these questions.” He gave no reasons to indicate why he was asking the questions. He just said: I am simply asking questions. I repeat: A no-confidence debate is neither the time nor the place “for just asking questions”.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition complains that the new constitution does not expressly spell out the rights, privileges and functions of the Opposition. The present constitution, however, does not determine the rights, privileges and functions of the Opposition either, and the hon the Leader of the Opposition knows this. Why, then, call the new constitution into question and make it suspect? Why intimate that there is a shortcoming in the new constitution because these matters are not regulated in the new constitution? Surely the hon the Leader of the Opposition knows—or ought to know—that the rights, privileges and functions of the Opposition depend upon convention and are further defined by the Standing Rules and Orders of this House. He surely also knows—or ought to know—that section 88 of the new constitution, Act No 110 of 1983, expressly provides:

The hon the Leader of the Opposition also knows what the provisions of the constitution are with which the constitutional and parliamentary conventions must not be inconsistent.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition goes on to say that the second and third factors that will determine the role of the Opposition are the following:

And secondly:

Then he adds:

A far greater influence on the role and function of the Opposition than that exerted by the three factors mentioned by the hon the Leader of the Opposition, however, is going to be exercised by the following factors, ie firstly the quality of its leadership and, secondly, the Opposition’s ability and preparedness to acknowledge the realities of the Republic of South Africa and deal with them.

This brings me back to the speech the hon member for Berea has just made and his reaction to my speech when he indicated that the 10% White vote was not actually of importance. It is actually the vote of the 90% that should count. [Interjections.] That is part of the realities of South Africa that the official Opposition will have to learn to accept before they will be able to play a significant future role in South Africa.

The third factor that is going to determine their role and function is a positive and constructive approach to the problems of the Republic of South Africa and an eradication of the cynicism and opportunism that has characterized that party in recent times. The official Opposition’s actions in recent years are themselves the prime reason for concern about the role and function of the Opposition in the new dispensation. I hope and trust that they will not carry their cynicism, their negativism, their opportunism and their boycott spirit into the new dispensation.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition must not try to shelter behind the Government if he and his party make a farce of the Opposition’s role in this or the future dispensation.

He will be bluffing no one by doing that, least of all the South African electorate.

I also want to say a few things about the speech made by the hon member for Wynberg yesterday, because the hon member trod in his hon Leader’s footsteps by putting a number of questions whose answers he knows or ought to know. Why did the hon member do that? Was it to arouse feelings or sow suspicion? In connection with the recognized principle of no interference, the hon member quoted, amongst other things, the words of the late Mr Vorster. He did not, however, give any indication of in any way understanding that Mr Vorster was speaking about the private affairs of another country, because that is, after all, what the principle of no interference relates to, as embodied, too, in section 2(7) of the UN Charter. It concerns the domestic affairs of another state. No one needs to try teaching South Africa any lessons about non-interference in the domestic affairs of another State. Who, over the years, has been more of a victim of the disregard for this principle than specifically the Republic of South Africa? The principle of no interference in the domestic affairs of other states has always strictly been honoured by the Republic of South Africa, and still is. I find it extremely reprehensible of an hon member to suggest that the policy of non-interference is now being deviated from, as the hon member for Wynberg did yesterday. It is this kind of attitude and conduct that the official Opposition will have to get rid of if, in future, it wants to perform a meaningful function and play a constructive role in South Africa.

Since the hon member for Wynberg has, however, related this principle to Operation Askari, I also want to put a question to him and to his party. The hon member for Wynberg is not here at the moment.

Did you ask for him to be present?

This afternoon, while he was sitting with me here, I notified him that I would like him to be present here.

You should do it through the Whips.

The hon Chief Whip can sing high or low as much as he wants to; I spoke to the hon member for Wynberg himself and also sent a similar note to the hon the Leader of the Opposition, and he had the decency to remain in his eat. The fact of the matter is that the hon member for Wynberg was aware that I would be reacting to his speech because I told him so personally.

I wanted to put a question to the hon member for Wynberg, but other hon members of the official Opposition may just as well react. I particularly have in mind the hon member for Yeoville who was previously that party’s chief spokesman on defence; he can also react to this.

You did not ask me to be present here.

Surely the hon member for Yeoville knows that he should be here when I am speaking, or else miss a good speech.

The question I want to put to hon members of the official Opposition is this: Do they think that harbouring and protecting Swapo terrorists in Angola for bloodthirsty raids against South West Africa and its people is an Angolan domestic affair, yes or no? There is now a thunderous silence from amongst those people who are always so vociferous. This is the soulsearching question they must answer for themselves: Do they regard the harbouring of Swapo terrorists by Angolo as an Angolan domestic affair, yes or no? Not one of the hon members of the official Opposition, sitting there as they are, has the courage to answer “yes” or “no” to this simple question. That is characteristic of what members of the official Opposition’s approach to South Africa’s security situation is when we enter into discussions with them about this.

As the official spokesman on defence matters for his party, the hon member for Wynberg were surely fully informed about the objectives of Operation Askari. He surely knows that it was aimed at Swapo bases in Angola. He surely knows how the Defence Force repeatedly emphasized that it was not an operation aimed at Angola or its armed forces. He surely knows that the Defence Force, as far as possible, avoided confrontation and conflict with Angola and its armed forces. He also knows, does he not, that the Angolan armed forces protected the murder and terror gangs of Swapo. What kind of patriotism is it that allows a person in possession of all these facts nevertheless to accuse his own fatherland of violating the principle of no interference in the domestic affairs of another state?

Sir, is the hon member prepared to answer a question?

No, Sir. The hon member did not want to answer my question.

The hon member for Wynberg also unreservedly repeated the old allegation 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 expression of the naive conception that it is merely necessary for the free world to disarm in order to have the Marxist threat disappear.

He never said that.

Those are the exact words he used in his speech.

You are now misquoting him.

No, I am not misquoting him. The hon member may go and look it up in his speech.

The old argument is that the arming of the West merely elicits the greater arming of the Russians. A few decades ago this approach placed the security of the West in great jeopardy and gave the Russians a frightening lead as far as military striking power was concerned. Does the hon member honestly believe that the massive arms build-up, of which abundant proof was found in Angola, and the Russo-Cuban involvement and presence there, is merely the result of South Africa’s military presence and action in the operational area? If the hon member and other hon members of the official Opposition believe that, they will believe anything, and I fear that they are then so conditioned that we shall no longer be able to conduct a meaningful debate with them about this matter.

Mr Speaker, whenever the hon member for Mossel Bay is speaking, I feel worried about the fact that he always brings discredit upon the Van Rensburgs, with the result that I always have to do everything in my power to undo the harm he has done.

The hon member asked the PFP a question about terrorists who are accommodated in neighbouring states and wanted to know whether this could justifiably be described as an internal affair of those states. I want to state clearly and unambiquously on behalf of the PFP that Angola is certainly not entitled to accommodate terrorists in that territory and then to regard it as an internal affair. I may add that the PFP has repeatedly made it clear in the past that we approve of hot pursuit operations against so-called terrorists and that preventive action taken by the Defence Force against those people also has our full support. [Interjections.] If the hon member for Mossel Bay has any other questions and if they are intelligent questions, I shall answer them with pleasure.

The hon member also said that it was the standpoint of the PFP that the new constitution did not represent change. It does involve change, but the big question which still remains to be answered is whether the Government is going to ensure that it will be possible to regard this change as reform. Is it going to lead to an improvement in interracial relationships in South Africa? Is it going to bring prosperity to South Africa? Is it going to bring South Africa peace and stability or not? This is by no means certain; it is something which the future will show, and it will depend on the way in which the Government is going to implement the new constitution. On the face of it, it is not a prospect which can be taken for granted.

Tell us about Izelle Swart.

She is not my type.

Then the hon member also spoke about the role of the Opposition. We, the PFP, will create a role for ourselves under the new constitution and we shall play that role effectively in the interests of South Africa and all its people by attacking the Government relentlessly every time it fails to act in the interests of South Africa.

†Mr Speaker, I have asked the hon the Minister of National Education to be present in the House because I would like to deal with a few matters that concern his portfolio. Just before the end of November, I was asked one day by a newspaper to comment on the White Paper on the De Lange Committee report. Two weeks ago I, and I believe also the education spokesman of the CP, received a copy of that White Paper for the first time. It was sent by “spoedpos”. I, as the spokesman of my party on national education, was expected to comment on a vital and important document, while the Government did not have the courtesy to supply me with a copy of that document before they supplied it to the Press of South Africa, which caused me a large degree of embarrassment. What I want to say to the department and the Government as a whole is that it is not only discourteous not to supply the Opposition with documents before they are given to the Press. It is also a negation of the purpose and the function of Parliament. On behalf of my party I want to protest and say to the Government that I believe that that is behaviour which is not acceptable in a democratic system.

The De Lange Committee reported more than two years ago. The Government had asked them to report within 12 months. What happened? There followed one of the most magnificent efforts on the part of a large number of dedicated South Africans working very hard and with great enthusiasm to produce one of the best reports the country has every seen. They burned the midnight oil. They did not save themselves. What has happened, however? There followed two years of inexplicable and demoralizing silence on the part of the Minister and the Government. When that committee was appointed and that work was in progress, it gave rise to hope and excitement in the whole South African community amongst educationists and amongst parents that a new era of sound and effective education was on the doorstep for our country. Since then, however, there has been silence and inaction by the Government, to be followed a few weeks ago by the publication of a White Paper which is a great disappointment to everybody who had such great hopes for education in our country.

If one reads that White Paper, having studied the De Lange Committee’s report with all its very enlightened and progressive recommendations, one cannot come to any other conclusion than that the Government and the Minister have poured ice cold water over the De Lange Committee’s report. The hope for real reform is gone. It has been destroyed just like in the case of the Tomlinson Commission’s report and the Erica Theron Commission’s report. How many reports have there not been in the history of this country which created hope, expectation and excitement that progress was going to be made? What happened subsequently? The Government accepted certain recommendations, but the vital recommendations, the meaningful recommendations, the ones which would have brought progress, were totally ignored. Why were they ignored in every case? In every case, they were ignored because the Government were not prepared to carry out a single positive, constructive recommendation if it conflicted with the ideology of apartheid. The Government continued to kneel at the altar of apartheid at the cost of South Africa’s real interests. That has also happened with the De Lange Committee’s report. If one reads the White Paper on this report, one sees that the Government have made it abundantly clear that, whereas they are prepared to accept certain recommendations, as far as they are concerned apartheid must remain the foundation of education in South Africa.

What is the consequence of this apartheid structure in education in terms of the White Paper of the Government? The most important thing we need in South Africa is contact between children across racial barriers, contact to develop understanding in order to avoid conflict. Surely the Government understand that? However, in the White Paper the Government have clearly said that such contact cannot be allowed. Contact across the colour line between the children of South Africans cannot be allowed. I charge that the consequence of that will be that the Government are making a contribution to future conflict between White and Black in our country. I say that that White Paper proves one thing. It proves that the new right wing has triumphed over that Minister within the Nationalist Party. He is a man in whom we placed a lot of trust. [Interjections.] I do not have the time now, but we can come back to that.

There was, to quote a simple example, a recommendation concerning empty White schools. There are many such schools in the country, schools that were built and equipped for educational purposes, which are now standing empty because there are no White children to fill them. The Government will not allow those schools to be used for Black children. They will use them for any other purpose. They will use them as store rooms or stables but they will not allow them to be used for the education of Black children. Why? Where in the civilized world will one find another example of a Government so selfish and churlish and so ideology mad that it will not allow an empty school in or near a White area, or one which was used by White children before, to be used by pupils of another colour?

The most important and most meaningful recommendation is that there should be a single Ministry for all education in South Africa. Surely that is the most reasonable request of all. Surely that is the most meaningful recommendation. That is not to be. Instead of that we are going to be saddled with one of the biggest educational bureaucracies the world has ever seen. In so-called White South Africa there will now not be one, two, three of four Ministers but there will be five. There will be five Departments of Education. There will be a Minister for White education, one for Coloured education and one for Indian education. There will also be a Minister for Black education who will be a Minister of the so-called tricameral Parliament where Blacks will have no representation and no voice at all. In addition there will also be a “oorkoepelende Minister”. I assume the hon the Minister sitting over there will be our “oorkoepelende Minister”. Sir, can you believe it! In South Africa as a whole, when one includes the independent and non-independent homelands, there will be 15 Ministers and 19 departments. I want to say the Government is losing a golden opportunity if it wants to bring about real reform, progress, peace and stability in our society because it can use education as one of the most effective instruments.

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

No. If the NP wants to ask me a question I will speak to them but not to one of their pathetic little surrogates. [Interjections.] If the Government wants to bring about real and meaningful reform in South Africa it can do so via education. Education is one of the most powerful instruments and means of bringing about real reform. To educate one’s people means to provide for the self-realization of every one of the citizens and residents of the country. Self-realization is one of the most important aspirations and achievements of mankind.

Secondly, one can provide the qualified people that the country needs. South Africa needs qualified people. If there is an economic boom tomorrow one of the main reasons why we will not be able to exploit it to the full is that we do not have the necessary trained manpower required. We need qualified and trained people, and the foundation for this is a sound school education in order to equip and provide the manpower for the technological infrastructure in the country. If one wants to combat poverty, if one wants to increase standards of living, if one wants to satisfy the aspirations of people, then one has to create jobs and provide qualified people for the jobs. Via education the Government can achieve that, but it is not doing it.

Possibly the most important and most meaningful reform the Government can provide for via education is to provide an educational system in which children of all South Africans can come into contact with, meet with, talk to and play with one another across colour lines. By doing this race prejudice, suspicion and fear among races could be dispelled and a truly united South African nation, which is the basis of stability and peace, could be built up. I believe the Government is losing the opportunity, because of its short-sightedness and its total commitment to its ideology of apartheid, of achieving this for our country.

In the few minutes that remain, I want to say something about the no confidence debate so far. What a disappointment it has been! All that the Government speakers could do was to deny everything in a situation where we would have liked to have had answers from them in regard to the real problems facing our society. The hon Minister of Internal Affairs has just arrived.

*All I want to say to him is that if he, as Minister of Internal Affairs, does not set about introducing real reform in South Africa, he is going to need a crutch at that crossroads.

†I was touched, as Miss Wandrag said in her affidavit, by the hon the Minister’s concern about the future of our party. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister was talking about consensus. Not only do they adopt parts of our policy, they are also using our terminology. Our appeal is: Don’t adopt our policy bit by bit, rather take the whole thing. It is free, gratis, they can have it, and we will be only too happy.

Unfortunately the hon the Prime Minister is not here now, I did not, through the Whip, ask for him to be present so that I could address him. However, he can be proud and happy about his victory in the referendum but he must have the sense and the humility to understand, and always understand that that yes vote came from twothirds of less than 10% of South Africans who would otherwise have been able to vote. Hon members may laugh and carry on but let me tell them that until such time as a majority of all South Africans voluntarily and freely commit themselves to a constitution for South Africa, we will have made no progress whatsoever. What the hon the Prime Minister should really be trying to do is to find by consensus a constitutional proposal which will achieve the support of the majority of all South Africans. Then he can stand up and brag from morning to night because then he will really have something to brag about.

The Government cannot brag about what they have achieved because they did not allow the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks to vote in that referendum. It was restricted to a minority of the South African population. Apart from the scandalous way in which they exploited television, let me tell them that when they got the yes vote, half of those who voted yes did so because they believed that that was the end of reform. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs went around the country saying: “Nie ’n duim verder nie.” The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke to English-speaking businessmen and said: “Do not worry, this is merely the beginning; this is just the first step; when we get going you are going to see real reform—do not worry.” So we had half the voters voting in the belief that that was the end of reform, while the other half voted yes because they though it was the start of reform.

We are prepared to give the Government a second chance. At the end of this session we will be prepared to judge whether their new constitution was reform or not. If it is real reform they will get the wholehearted support of the PFP; If it is not real reform we will give them hell!