laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Agricultural Credit Amendment Bill (House of Assembly) [B 97—87 (HA)]—(Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply).
2. (2) Certificate by the State President in terms of section 31 of the Constitution, 1983, that the Bill deals with matters which are own affairs of the House of Assembly.

as Chairman, presented the Fifth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Agriculture and Water Affairs, relative to a Report of the Director-General: Water Affairs, dated 12 August 1987, as follows:

Report to be considered.

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs, dated 12 August 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I believe this discussion of the Vote of the hon the State President to be probably the most important discussion of this session. In order not to cover too wide a field, I want to confine myself to what I consider to be two burning questions. The first is the revolutionary onslaught, and the second the political defence, or the Government’s political reform as defence against the revolution.

If I have to begin with the revolutionary onslaught, I think I should refer immediately to the role played by the USA, which I think should be set in proper perspective. It is nevertheless a serious role, against which I believe the Government should take appropriate steps.

I do not think there is anything wrong with the criticism expressed by an American—I am referring now to the chairman of the conservative caucus there, Mr Howard Phillips—in respect of his country’s part in the revolutionary onslaught on South Africa. I quote what he said:

†Comment is obviously unnecessary. I think it is such a tragedy that a country’s government which has so much to say about freedom and about the Free World, could demand from the White nation in South Africa that we reform ourselves out of political power and out of existence. [Interjections.]

I just wish to comment briefly on the report of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group that visited South Africa last year and published a report entitled “Mission to South Africa”. The report of the EPG states:

That is what the report of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group had to say in this regard. In other words, Mr Chairman, violence and revolutionary action is justified by these people. That means aid and comfort to terrorists and murderers as long as they fight apartheid.

*I am sorry to say this, but we also have to contend with the conduct of what I regard as naïve scholars, businessmen and churchmen. There are churchmen in the country who, according to a report in Business Day of 19 February last year, say that to them it is a matter of conscience that the ANC should be recognised as a legal political group, without whose participation there can be no satisfactory political and constitutional dispensation in South Africa.

My comment is that that is shocking! It is shocking that churchmen are doing the spadework for the biggest Black front organisation of the SA Communist Party, and that those people are participating in funerals under the flag of the ANC and even that of the Communist Party. It is shocking that people who sat in this House participated in proceedings in which the ANC flag was draped over the coffin of a murder victim. I am referring to a member of Idasa’s executive. It is significant that the following words come from those ranks:

I think it is also significant that Dr Boraine said:

We have no objection to that—

These “people” have a special meaning in certain circles!

The central committee of the SA Communist Party—this is a well-known statement—said the following about the ANC in 1985:

Having quoted how the SACP referred to the ANC as freedom fighters who were fighting in the same trench as they were, I want to quote what Prof Ampie Coetzee of Newlands said. He wrote in Die Burger of 1 August of this year:

The ANC wants Blacks who co-operate with the Government to be murdered, but Prof Coetzee says the ANC does not believe in violence.

In 1985 Oliver Tambo said:

But Prof Coetzee says:

Can one condone such naivety? He said that they were at the height of their thinking and productivity. He had hardly said this, however, when these people “at the height of their thinking and productivity” deteriorated the biggest bomb blast Johannesburg has ever experienced!

I do not want to dwell on Dakar for too long—I have never been there, nor shall I ever go there—but I must say something about it. A great deal has been said and written about this safari to Dakar.

In the first place I think it is incredible that after the dangerous bomb blast in Johannesburg, a person in a very responsible position could ask what the ANC’s official attitude to violence was. In addition, the ANC adopted an official standpoint in favour of violence more than a quarter of a century ago. That is no secret. Speeches, trial transcripts and sworn statements by Bram Fischer, Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo confirm this. Instructions to use violence in South Africa were broadcast repeatedly from Addis Ababa and Lusaka and disseminated further by the BBC. Business Day of 3 August 1987 justifiably said the following:

The CP’s standpoint is that one does not conduct peaceful dialogue with an organisation which detonates landmines and limpet mines and bombs in shopping centres in order to kill people. [Interjections.] One does not hold talks with an organisation that is hand in glove with the Communist Party and which wants to make one’s country ungovernable by means of revolution.

One does not hold talks with them, not in Lusaka or in Dakar or in the Cape Verde Islands.

Or in New York.

Or in New York.

We say one can forget about defeating hardened revolutionaries with their fifth columns and underground war tactics by regarding or treating them as democrats or parliamentary types. We say that Swapo and the ANC are not democratic parties at all. We can never, for the sake of tolerance, afford to allow them to enter our Parliament and take over. We can never afford that.

I want to add that even if we condemn the objectives of a revolutionary organisation, we similarly cannot condone stature and legitimacy being granted to such an organisation by holding talks and negotiating with it. Anthony Harrigan remarked, and rightly so, that:

†He adds to that:

*Incidentally, that is why we are grateful that the Government has taken action in connection with universities that have become the breeding ground of people of this kind.

†The question now, however, is: What is the Government’s attitude? The Government knows that the ANC, Swapo and similar organisations are communist controlled and infiltrated. The Government knows the ANC’s and Swapo’s history of terror, violence and murder. The Government knows that the ANC is no parliamentary type in a democratic system. The Government knows that in 1983 Russia spent R64 million on training ANC and Swapo terrorists. The Government knows that the ANC will take part in peace talks, and at the same time plan the murder of our people.

Now we say, if the Government knows all these things, it is incomprehensible that the hon the Deputy Minister of Development Planning could say—I refer to Business Day of 26 June 1987—“he would not demand that Black leaders renounce violence before talking to them”. He even mentioned the word “radicals”.

*We say that the right of self-determination of the Whites is not negotiable. We refuse to allow ourselves to be talked out of that right in a peaceful way, or to allow ourselves to be intimidated out of that right by threats of Black violence. We are not going to negotiate our claim—our claim to our own rights and our own government and our own White fatherland—with Swapo or the ANC. We shall not negotiate this with them, whether we have such a claim or not.

We also find it inconceivable that the former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs—I am referring to Mr Ron Miller—could say in Johannesburg on 6 November 1985:

The question now is who was involved in the Government’s attempt at persuasion. Who spoke to them, and were there intermediaries and was there any personal contact? Did the Government get reports from some of the businessmen who had been in Lusaka? If so, the question is why such a big fuss is being made about the Dakar safari? I assume they, too, were merely trying to negotiate peace. One also wonders what happened to the threat made by the hon the Deputy Minister on behalf of the Government, viz that they would take action against people who went to Lusaka to indulge in chit-chat.

I repeat that our White freedom and our own fatherland are not negotiable—not with peaceful ANC members who want to get a Black government in South Africa in a peaceful way, and even less with violent ANC members who want to disrupt the country by means of a bloodbath.

I should like to devote the second part of my speech to the Government’s political defence or its political reform as a defence against the revolutionary onslaught. I should like to start by making a few statements.

We will all agree that the name of the game in politics is “power”, political power, the authority to make decisions and enforce them. That is what politics is all about.

No self-respecting people will accept a dispensation in which it has no political power, and the CP recognises the claims of the Coloured, Asian and Black peoples to political power.

In this connection I want to say in passing that we agree with the hon the State President that it is time the world accepted and recognised the independence of the TBVC countries. We are in complete agreement with him on that point.

We do not recognise the ANC’s so-called people’s power, because this is in conflict with (vloek teen)the Whites’ claim to their country and to their own government. What is more, the ANC’s idea of one Black nation does not find favour even in Black ranks. Mr John Gogotya, president of the Federal Independent Democratic Alliance, puts it frankly:

Furthermore we say it is high time full self-determination for the Whites in South Africa was recognised by all reasonable people. I am not talking about having a say somewhere or about consensus decisions; I am talking about complete self-determination, and I say that that right should be recognised—by that I mean at least the same right as the Swazis, the Sothos, the Vendas, the Tswanas and the Xhosas have. [Interjections.]

It is ironical that, according to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning’s latest announcement, Black self-governing states can become independent, something that we agree with; that with the permission of the Minister of Foreign Affairs they can conclude treaties with other governments; and that they are getting greater exclusive powers within one constitutional dispensation together with the Whites; in other words, that they can get the best of two political worlds. I am referring to what Chief Buthelezi said with reference to the latest statement made by the hon the Minister. It is reported that he—

That is what it is all about. We agree with the Government that Blacks should get powers up to the level of independence, but we are not in favour of these people getting the best of two political worlds; the second political world is the one we are part of, and the one in which there is only one recipe for us, the Whites, and that is to sacrifice our independence in a multiracial state which is on its way to Black majority rule. That is our objection. [Interjections.]

Yes, that is what Pik says.

We reject the double standards by which any other people can get independence in its own fatherland, but the right of the Whites is subject to the consensus of people who deny and oppose that right for the Whites, and are even prepared to commit necklace murders to prevent the Whites from retaining a right of their own.

We find it tragic that the Government is taking the bit between the teeth on its course of power-sharing in an undivided country, of joint decision-making up to the highest level, with vague assurances against domination and without a clear plan of preventing domination over Whites; without any such plan! [Interjections.]

I maintain this afternoon that the Government’s reform plans contain no guarantee of self-determination or any safeguard against eventual Black domination. [Interjections.] The Government has no such recipe; it does not have the answer. We want the answer, but the Government says “trust us; there will be a tree. ” [Interjections.]

As far as the CP’s tree is concerned, I can tell the hon the State President that that tree exists, and that tree is the country he and I live in. It is the tree the hon the State President was referring to when he spoke about “the rights of the White man in his own fatherland”. [Interjections.]

Let us look at the numbers. When we call the Government’s attention to the numbers—the preponderance of 20 million Blacks over 5 million Whites in the same unitary state—the defence of that side of the House is that they are not in favour of proportional representation and that they do not work with numbers. Indeed, the Government does work with numbers. The ratio Whites:Coloureds:Asians in the three Houses of Parliament and in the electoral college for the State President is 4:2:1, according to the number of inhabitants. I refer the Committee to the assurance of the hon the State President on 31 January last year:

We say that if one applies that norm to Black representation in Parliament, the electoral college and the standing committees, the Whites will be subject to a non-White majority. They will immediately have been sold out to a non-White majority.

The Government’s other magic word is “consensus”. I am afraid the Government’s appeal to consensus is meaningless and misleading. The Government does not work with consensus in the electoral college; a vote is taken. Hon members know what happened at the beginning of the year. Consensus does not apply in the President’s Council either; a vote is taken. If no decision is taken without consensus, a minority can permanently veto the majority. This will never be tolerated, and the Government did not tolerate it either.

The Government’s present way of avoiding that checkmate position is to refer matters to the President’s Council. If there are problems in Parliament, they are referred to the President’s Council, where a vote is taken! The President’s Council has the characteristics of a super-Parliament without any responsibility to a particular electorate. The fact is that they vote there!

If one were to include the representatives of 20 million Blacks there on the basis of the Government’s own norm of “equal treatment and opportunities”, how would one prevent the Whites from being humiliated into a powerless minority and being outvoted in critical decisions? The Government must answer that question.

Look at Natal’s Joint Executive Authority. According to reports, the consensus of those people will work in the following way: If there is no unanimity, the matter will be referred to Chief Buthelezi and the Administrator for a decisive answer. If they cannot reach consensus, the question is who decides then. Perhaps the matter should then be referred to the hon the State President. It was interesting to hear that Chief Buthelezi said:

The Government is playing a dangerous game. They are bringing a man who says the ANC are his “comrades” into the political structure of South Africa. He says that if Nelson Mandela is released, he can become president and he will serve under him. This is the man they are playing with. Chief Buthelezi said:

I can almost say this is too absurd for words.

I want to refer to the observations made about a fourth Chamber. The Government has said over and over again that there will be no fourth Chamber. We believe them, but I want to quote from Die Pietersburger of 17 July 1987 in which the hon the Deputy Minister of Information and of Constitutional Planning said the following in Pietersburg about the function of Parliament—

We want to know whether they will give their consent from somewhere in the air, from Soweto, or from Ulundi? Does this mean that the Black members of Parliament must provide the Black consensus? Or will they be able to exercise the Black veto? And if there is no consensus with these Black members of Parliament, will the matter be referred to the President’s Council?

The objective is also to bring the Blacks into the President’s Council. If one cannot reach consensus with them in Parliament, therefore, the matter will be referred to the President’s Council. If one works with the “equal treatment and opportunities” formula, this will become a body in which Blacks will of necessity be in the majority. If this is not the case, we would like to know how the matter should be interpreted. If there is no consensus, a vote is taken! And if a vote is taken, we shall be voted out. In that case, we say, numbers are the decisive factor.

I wish to conclude. The Government talks about joint decision-making up to the highest level, and I want to know whether this is not misleading. In certain cases the State President is the highest level of decision-making. He is the only person who can take decisions on that level.

I think there is one of two possibilities. The first is that one should acknowledge that there is no joint decision-making on that level—under section 16 of the Constitution it is the State President who decides, and not even a court can question his decision—and that in actual fact one wants to keep the final decision in the hands of one’s own man and one’s own people. We hear this assurance being made by the NP throughout the country; we hear NP speakers telling their people that they need not be concerned. The people need not be concerned, because the NP will do this or do that. We cannot deceive our people. They will not allow themselves to be taken in.

One can either say, therefore, that there is no joint decision-making on the highest level because one is retaining the decision-making in one’s own hands, or secondly, with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, that if power is shared with Blacks, it is inevitable that we shall ultimately have a Black State President. In reply we on this side of the Committee say that as long as there is still a White people with a sense of history, with self-respect, with pride in their own nationalism (volkskap), and with a will to free survival, we shall fight against this point of view.

Mr Chairman, this afternoon the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made an interesting speech. I think that in essence he touched the raw nerve of South Africa’s political future. We cannot speak about the future of this country if we do not, at one and the same time, speak about what is happening in the sphere of the revolutionary onslaught on this country on the one hand, and on the other—parallelling that—about the reforms that have to take place in this country. I think we owe the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition a vote of thanks for what he said about the revolutionary onslaught, and also for relevant quotations involving certain people. In speaking about violence and the plans being forged to bring about this country’s downfall, I think it is inappropriate for us to try to score a few political debating points by the odd petty utterance. I am sorely tempted to do so, in fact, in connection with that hon Leader and his party, particularly since they have, in the past, ridiculed certain Government standpoints, for example our warning about a total onslaught, certain statements we made during the referendum and so on. I shall not do so, however, because I think that if we can see eye to eye on this point, if the Parliament of South Africa can jointly say it is opposed to all forces which would use violence as a political instrument to bring about change in this country, we have come a long way.

As the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition indicated, I think we also owe it to this country and to one another to oppose whatever smacks of political interference in South Africa’s domestic affairs. As far as both these matters are concerned, it is important not to alienate those for whose benefit one is opposing this revolutionary onslaught. To charge into battle, trying to combat violence with violence, to act insensitively towards people whose interests one has at heart, is to alienate those in whose interests one is waging the struggle. Briefly, then, I think we disagree with each other in the sense that we on this side of the House say it is impossible to serve the interests of the Whites, in this revolutionary onslaught, if one does not do everything in one’s power to eliminate the valid grievances that exist in the Black residential areas, thus making it impossible for the revolutionaries to gain a foothold there. It is impossible to give all one’s attention to party-political matters and to say that one would fight to the very end for the rights of the Whites, while one is furtively trying to cheat the Black people when it comes to their claim to political rights.

Who is doing that? [Interjections.]

I have not accused anyone of doing so; I am stating our views on the matter. If that hon member wants to debate the issue, however, let us do so. I am in the process of thanking the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, however, and those hon members accuse me of something I am not guilty of doing. I am saying that this side of the House is, with steadfast political conviction, resolutely fighting for peace. The hope we offer is that of peace. We realise, however, that on the way towards achieving peace, we shall have to ward off violent onslaughts. That is what I am saying. I am saying that we cannot achieve that peace if we do not extend the hand of friendship to fellow South Africans, to people of colour in this country.

When it comes to interference by foreigners, when we are still prepared to debate the issues involved, we are accused of bending over backwards to meet them halfway. I think our standpoint on this is clear. We have a duty to explain and to state our case persuasively in whatever international forum we happen to be in. Ultimately, however, decisions are made within the country’s borders, and it is within the borders of this country that we shall formulate South Africa’s future.

Now, however, I want to cross swords with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. When it comes to political reform, I think our paths are so divergent that at most we can but respectfully agree to differ, for we cannot easily find common ground. I listened to how the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition very approvingly quoted Mr John Gogotya, and I find myself sympathetic to the specific passage he quoted—the rejection of the ANC’s view that there is a single manifestation of Black power in the country, which has to be mobilised. But does the hon the Leader of the Opposition agree with all the other views held by Mr John Gogotya?

No.

The hon the Leader says no. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says he does not agree with all the other views held by Mr John Gogotya. The important point is that one cannot simply quote people that selectively, just to suit oneself, without mentioning everything else. After all, Mr John Gogotya and his organisation intend to participate in this Government’s National Council. In their ranks one will find no support for the CP’s policy of partition. Those are the realities of South Africa. One cannot tell someone one likes certain of his standpoints and one wants to co-operate with him in a specific sphere, when it suits one, while at the same time neglecting to see that person’s views in their totality. Mr John Gogotya is a Black man who believes in peaceful processes of change for this country. He is someone who wants to participate in the constitutional mechanisms this Government offers him.

He also believes in a Black president!

What is more, Mr Chairman, Mr Gogotya is prepared to discuss our specific policy with us. He is not, however, prepared to discuss the CP’s policy with them.

Yes, because you people are capitulating! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, those hon members can make as much noise as they like. Their hon Leader says the Government’s standpoint is that … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must restrain himself!

… people should simply go on trusting blindly in the Government, when in point of fact it seems as if the CP is actually saying that people should not trust the Government; that they should just keep on living in fear. [Interjections.] We believe that the future lies in people in this country looking one another straight in the eye and discussing the problems of the country; in people talking to one another more than they talk about one another. We are absolutely convinced of that.

And the Government has no intention whatsoever of deceiving the people who have placed it in power to shoulder the responsibilities of this country. The Government is not insensitive to the rights and claims of Whites. The Government does, however, have a duty to explain matters to those who have placed so much confidence in the Government, to continue to explain matters to them and, what is more, Sir, to indicate to them that their survival is inextricably interlinked with that of the Black people of this country. It is for that very reason that the majority of the White electorate in this country supported the Government at the polls.

Mr Chairman, I just want to comment on one other matter. When we take note of the quibbling that takes place about the question of violence, it is tragic to see how people shy away from their responsibilities. It is a simple matter to condemn violent bomb attacks, necklace murders and so on. It is more difficult, however, to condemn the smaller, irritating aspects of violence. I think that hon members of the opposition party sitting near me over here, and their fellow-travellers, are introducing a new dimension into the game. They are on dangerous ground when they say they understand the violence, but do not condemn it; when they say they understand the circumstances giving rise to that violence; when they say that the Government is the villain of the piece; they are playing a dangerous game. Violence is not a multifaceted entity. One cannot condone violence in certain circumstances and condemn it in others. For that reason we shall increasingly require them to adopt a definite standpoint on this issue—in this debate, in this House and also in public. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, someone once said that if people did not help him to solve his problems, they were part of the problem. That is unfortunately the situation we have found ourselves in, in South African politics, as far as the opposition parties are concerned. This has happened because people have failed to help us in our search for solutions to our country’s problems. That is why the opposition has become part of the country’s problem. One of the biggest problems one could create in this country is that of solving the country’s problems on an emotional basis. It cannot be done. I listened very carefully to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, and the word “fatherland” is used in an emotional context. [Interjection.] I want to quote what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said in a previous speech:

[Interjections.] The conclusion that is drawn is that only the Whites have a fatherland. If that is the case, I want to know from him where the fatherland is of those Coloureds now living in South Africa. [Interjections.] After all, we share a fatherland with them at present; surely there is no doubt about that. We also share a fatherland with the Indians.

Order! I just want to make an appeal to hon members. We are at the beginning of a debate and there will be ample opportunity for all hon members to state their views and ask questions in the proper fashion. I cannot allow questions to be shouted out across the floor of the House. The hon member for Parow may continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. We do, after all, share a fatherland, and we are aware of the hon leader’s plans to divide up this fatherland amongst the Coloureds and Indians, but let me tell him that if he wants to do his sharing on the basis of what is contained in this little booklet of his, he is not being fair to the Coloured people. What I am telling him is that it is not possible to make a Coloured homeland or Coloured fatherland out of the 400 group areas on the basis that if they want more land, over and above what we have determined the group areas should be, they would have to purchase it. If there is anyone who is trying to pull the wool over their eyes, it is the Official Opposition.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition accuses us of making use of magic formulas. Their magic formula is “partition”. Initially it was total partition, but now it is partial partition. We shall probably hear more about that at a later stage. I want to tell you today, Sir, that trying to solve the country’s problems with magic formulas such as those involving partition will not get us anywhere.

Another very interesting question the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition asked on a previous occasion was whether the NP would allow itself to be blackmailed by Black revolutionary threats of a blood-bath. He said it was a rhetorical question and conceded that the NP and the Government would not allow itself to be blackmailed by Black threats of a blood-bath. I am grateful to him for having conceded that point. Today I also want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that this Government will not allow itself to be blackmailed by White revolutionaries either. I should like to know from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition what the CP’s standpoint is about White revolutionaries in this country of ours.

I should like to come back to a very important aspect which is manifesting itself in our country at present and which, in my view, is causing a problem in the process of negotiation, and here I am referring to the question of intimidation. We cannot deny that intimidation is taking place in our country, because in order to achieve their goal, the revolutionaries must manipulate the population. That they do by way of intimidation. There are many examples of what is, in fact, happening in this regard.

The most important aspect is that violence forms the basis of intimidation. I concede that there are varying degrees of intimidation, but ultimately we are left with the fact of violence. Anyone in this Committee who would allege that dealing with intimidation is an easy matter, is unaware of the true facts about what is happening in our country. There are tremendous problems in that connection. I do, however, believe that an answer must be found. We simply must find an answer. The reasons for that are obvious. Black people are frustrated. That impedes our economic development and, what is very important too, it has an adverse effect on the process of negotiation so vital to us at this time. Black leaders who wish to join us in our search for freedom cannot, owing to intimidation, come forward to negotiate with us.

I think there is an answer to intimidation. It is not a simplistic one and there are various aspects involved. One important factor is that those who are intimidated will have to rebel against those who are intimidating them. That simply must happen. Before I am told that I am advocating anarchy and trying to polarise people, let me acknowledge that I do want to polarise people. I do not want to polarise groups on the basis of colour, but what I do want to polarise in this country is violence and peace. Violence and peace must be split asunder and people must make a choice between the two. If that were done, we would know where people stood and then, together with those who have opted for peace, we could take action against the intimidators who are causing us so many problems.

That responsibility, however, does not rest solely with this Government. The other communities in this country also have a responsibility. The hon the State President has already proved his bona fides by stating that we would negotiate on the question of Black political participation and by already having started to do so. He has approached this with such seriousness and has regarded it in such a serious light that he has even been prepared to alienate people who have been associated with his party for many years. We know that was not an easy thing to do. Self-interest, however, has been made subservient to the interests of the country. The hon the State President took personal risks, and I think the time has come for us to ask Black leaders to do the same. They must also take risks and oppose intimidation. They must opt for peace, negotiation and democracy.

The hon the State President’s seriousness is proven by the fact that he is prepared to hold elections for the National Council among Black people. I think Black people will have to realise that elections cannot take place in an atmosphere of violence, because then violence would triumph over peace.

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

I do not have time to deal in any detail with the three hon members who have just spoken save to say that I think the House is indebted to the hon member for Krugersdorp for bringing a touch of reality back into this debate after the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I do not agree with all that the hon member for Krugersdorp said, but he did convey a sensitivity for and an understanding of the problems of South Africa, not only from the point of view of those of us who are legislators or who happen to be White but also from the point of view of those people who represent the broader South African nation. I think his comment that reform, including the reform of political rights, is fundamental to the whole question of solving revolutionary problems is quite right.

I may have misunderstood the hon member towards the end of his speech when I think he said that we in these benches were selective in our condemnation of political violence. Let me make this quite clear: I spoke in this House five or six days ago and I want to say again that we have no reservations whatsoever in condemning violence for political purposes. On the question of understanding the causes of violence I would hope that all of us would try to understand the causes of violence in this society whether it comes from the Government, from forces opposed to the Government or from outside.

For heaven’s sake let us accept that we in these benches are totally opposed to violence as a political instrument in this country. I have no reason to want to qualify that in any way whatsoever. I say this at the outset of this debate so that there can be no misunderstanding on this matter.

Frankly, I am disappointed that the hon the State President did not speak at the outset of this debate. It would have been useful if he had stated some positive steps which he proposes to take to cut through the deadlock in South Africa. In fact, there has been a deep and ominous silence on the part of the Government, and if Press reports and reactions from Ministers are correct, it appears that they have been told to steer clear of sensitive issues of a security or reform nature, pending the hon the State President’s Vote. There has been a strange silence on that side. It is almost as if the hon State President has prepared a political desert around him so that his presidential oasis can look just a little greener.

It also starts to reflect—and other hon members are going to comment on this—what I call an imperial style which is developing around the office of the hon the State President. [Interjections.] This aspect will be discussed further but I think that this point should be made at a very early stage so that if this is not the hon the State President’s intention, he should at least be made aware that this is a perception that is gaining ground among the people of South Africa.

This debate is not taking place against the background of positive policy declarations by the Government. It is taking place against the background of the hon the State President’s threats or warnings that he issued at the beginning of the session that he would consider action against universities, the trade unions, the Press and the funding of foreign organisations. Other than in respect of universities where certain action has started to be taken, South Africans at this stage are still left with no more detail than the general statement the hon the State President made earlier in the session.

So this debate cannot be about concrete, positive actions or proposals of the Government. The consequence is that at this stage—before the hon the State President has revealed his hand—it essentially concerns the failure of the Government to take various steps rather than concrete plans which the Government may have for trying to solve the problems of South Africa.

At this stage I want to raise only a few issues against this background, because this debate is going to continue for quite some time. I want very briefly to touch on the state of emergency. I do not want to get involved in its merits or otherwise, but the hon the State President said the following on the subject in his announcement of the extension of the state of emergency (Hansard: Assembly, 10 June 1987, col 1183):

I accept that for exactly what it means. It does indeed impinge upon the Press and political activity. It also conceals many of the real issues which are important as far as the politics of South Africa is concerned.

When the hon the State President deals with this matter, as I hope he will, I should like him to respond to the following questions: Are there no areas of the country in which, after nearly one and a quarter years, the situation has been normalised to the point at which the regulations could be withdrawn? Are there no aspects of the regulations which have been promulgated over this period which, from the Government’s point of view, have served their purpose to the point that they could be withdrawn?

Is the Government working in terms of a set plan in order to try to bring about the withdrawal of those regulations as early as possible? Has the Government a timetable or target dates in this regard? Is the Government intent, from its point of view, on lifting the state of emergency as soon as possible, or are we perhaps wittingly or unwittingly drifting into a situation in which the twilight type of democracy which we have under the state of emergency is going to become a permanent feature of South African legislation and practice? We should like to know from the hon the State President what his attitude is and what progress has been made.

I should like to switch to an entirely different subject. I wish merely to introduce it, as it will be dealt with in greater detail by other hon members on this side of the House. It is a matter the responsibility for which has been shifted to a large extent away from the Department of Foreign Affairs to Tuynhuys. I am referring to the issue of South West Africa/Namibia. There has been a shift as far as the principal agency for dealing with that whole situation is concerned. It is now, therefore, more directly under the control of the hon the State President. I think this is important, especially because a year ago the hon the State President set 1 August of last year as a conditional date for the implementation of Resolution 435 provided that there was agreement on the withdrawal of Cuban troops.

What is the Government’s reaction to the latest statements of the Angolan Government? They certainly indicated a shift in favour of some possible phased withdrawal of Cubans and a willingness—perhaps for the first time—from the Angolan side to see some linkage between the security situation and the withdrawal of Cuban troops on the one hand and independence for South West Africa on the other.

This issue together with the Government’s attitude towards the implementation of Resolution 435 was very important last year and is equally important today. I hope that the hon the State President will enter into a comprehensive debate on the sharp deterioration in relations which has taken place in recent months between, on the one hand, the South African Government represented by the Administrator-General and, on the other, the Cabinet of the interim government.

This is unfortunate. And it is largely because the hon the State President is insisting that some kind of apartheid-type constitutional structure should be invoked in order to deal with the protection of minorities, while the majority of the interim government Cabinet together with the majority of the people of South West Africa want to move away from the ethnic or apartheid type of structure towards a more open-ended, non-racial political structure. I hope that the hon the State President will deal with this matter. Other hon members on this side of the House will discuss it in more detail.

We could deal with a number of important issues, but none is as important as the issue which we have raised from time to time and will raise again, and that is to find out what plans this Government has to break out of the present deadlock and get real, meaningful processes of negotiation on a new constitution under way.

That is the most critical issue before all of us in South Africa and I want to say as I have said before that the greatest failure of the NP over 39 years has been its failure to address the central issue of Black political rights. It is clear when one reads the history books of Dr Verwoerd that there was no thought of it. In fact, they said there would be no rights for Blacks in the central Parliament of South Africa. That single factor is the most important cause of polarization and a major underlying factor in the violence that we are witnessing against South Africa today. I will bring evidence to show that hon members on that side of the House have conceded this. We shall wait for the debate to progress in this particular regard.

South Africans today are paying the price for the fact that the NP of a generation ago was mesmerized and misled by the disastrous philosophy of Dr Verwoerd. We are paying the price for that. The hon members of the CP have gone back to that philosophy and it would be a disaster if they came into power.

We have always been there.

We have always adhered to that policy.

They have always adhered to that policy! They are still there where they were!

*They are as caught up as they were in 1960. After making those big mistakes, they are still prepared to repeat them. [Interjections.]

†There are many important challenges that we will debate, like the closing of the gap between the economic “haves” and “have-nots” in South Africa, which is perhaps one of the most important issues; the handling of the delicate process of urbanization; and the removal of not only apartheid as a statute but also the legacy of division which apartheid has left on the people of South Africa.

Yet, in our opinion, none of these is more important than getting real negotiations under way on a new constitution that will give all South African an effective say in the central corridors of power. That is what it has to be.

To date, the Government has not only failed to come forward with a plan or a model for this, but it has actually failed to get the negotiations going. I understand there have been talks, chats and drafts of a national convention which are not now before the Committee. There have been discussions on regional, local and area problems, but no fundamental negotiations about the central problem which is the issue of power at the centre of South African politics.

It is clear that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who had previously been charged with piloting this through, unfortunately just did not deliver the goods. I do not want to blame him for that at this stage—that is another matter.

In my opinion the appointment of the hon the Deputy Minister is a hopeful move. Many of us understand the hon the Deputy Minister. He appears to have an appreciation of the many various factors which have to be taken into account. Very often these factors are unpalatable, but they are also realities. He also gives the impression of being less doctrinaire on the whole issue of negotiation and on what should be done about it. I do not want to suggest that the hon the Deputy Minister has said that he is prepared or wants to talk to people who have openly come out in favour of violence. I would be doing him a disservice if I said that.

He is remarkably flexible in his approach, as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has already indicated. He has said, for example:

That is a fairly qualified statement.

On the merit of talking and as to whether one should talk or not, he has said:

He says, therefore, he will start talking in order to eliminate the violence, and that will lead to the rectification of the problems. I am trying to indicate that that hon gentleman is much more flexible than people have been in the past.

He also draws a very distinct line between “talking” and “negotiating”. I do not wish to read all of these statements, but I have them all here. He has been quoted in Rapport as well as in other newspapers, where he draws a very distinct line between those two concepts. He sees “talking” as something very informal, while in “negotiating” one is laying it on the line and one is committing oneself. He says there is merit in “talking” whereas there may not be merit in “negotiating”. These statements indicate the various changes in philosophy.

He also says: “I am prepared to talk about talks. ” That is a very important shift of emphasis, and I applaud him for that. He has also poured scorn on the concept of having preconditions. He says:

He says that we should get rid of the “voorwaardes” and get the talking going.

I want to say this: If I take the hon the Deputy Minister seriously—and I do—and if he is given a free hand, I am much more hopeful about getting negotiations going when I follow his line of talking in contrast to the doctrinaire line we have had in the past.

I accept that there are certain things in this whole difficult process of getting negotiations going which are beyond the responsibility of the Government. There is a whole range of external factors, but there are a number of internal factors over which the Government does have control. I do not have time to dwell on all of them, but they include the political environment which apartheid has created over the years. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning conceded after what happened in 1960: “I can understand the violence of the ANC in 1960, although I do not condone it.” I would therefore say he understood the environmental factors. They are there and we have to try very hard to remove them.

I am only dealing with those factors over which I believe the Government has control. One of the factors remains, and that is that the Government gives the impression that it still remains totally committed to certain important aspects of apartheid in respect of which it is not prepared to budge. The hon the State President has said that apartheid is no longer a dogma or an ideology. [Interjections.] Well, then I will look it up, but the Government has said very clearly that apartheid is no longer a dogma or an ideology; it is now a method of trying to regulate people in the best way to see to it that there is peace in South Africa.

I want to put it to the hon State President that there are certain important areas that need attention, for example the question of schooling. Even if it is Government policy that there should be separate schooling for Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks under the control of their own organisations, if one wants to shift that from a dogma to a reality, then surely, where there are schools, parents and communities who want to share their schools, it can only be ideology and dogma which prevent the Government from acceding to their request.

Surely that is an area in which the hon the State President can say: “Yes, our policy is separate schools, but we acknowledge the right of parents and communities to have integrated schools if they so wish”. It would be an important step away from what is seen to be the dogma of apartheid.

Exactly the same applies to group areas. If there are communities which are mixed, if there are areas in which there are no vested interests of a racial kind, if there are people who want to live within one community, irrespective of colour, surely the Government should say: “We are not going to be so bound by ideology that we will not allow that to happen”.

It won’t be long in coming!

Well, I do not know if it is coming. We were hopeful last year until the hon the State President admitted that while not giving an instruction he had suggested that the President’s Council reconsider its report. I do not know what is going to happen but when the hon the State President says publicly “Yes, we will allow communities to this as they wish to do it”, he will have moved a very considerable way from the orthodox apartheid doctrinaire approach of Dr Verwoerd to which he remains partly committed. [Interjections.]

Exactly the same applies to the question of constitutional structures. If people want structures on a racial basis—although I do not think there are many people in South Africa who do—let them have it, but for heaven’s sake, where there are people and communities who do not want race as the basis of governmental structures, do not let this Government wreck the whole basis of negotiation by insisting on racial structures on a doctrinaire basis. If the Government would move away in these key areas and the hon the State President would take the lead in moving away, it would assist the negotiating process.

There are other factors and one of them which hon members touched on is the inability the Government has of bringing those millions of South Africans who rightly or wrongly give their political allegiance to the ANC, into the negotiating process. This is a dilemma, a problem, but it is a reality. We differ from the ANC on matters of policy, on a constitutional system, on sanctions and on the use of violence.

The Government also differs from them but the ANC is not the only political party among Blacks in South Africa. Yet is there anybody who believes that it can be ignored and not taken into account? I will quote in due course the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon member for Innesdal. We say that the millions of Black people who give their allegiance are an important component of the body politic in South Africa and they have to be brought into the negotiating process.

We in the PFP do not condone terrorism or violence, neither do we expect the Government to do so. We do not expect the Government to negotiate a new constitution with people who are holding a pistol to its head. We have said so time and time again.

What we do expect this Government to do is not just to soldier on stubbornly but to explore every way and means of helping this country to break out of this spiral of violence and the polarisation in which we seem to be engulfed at the moment. This may well require the rethinking on the Government’s part of both policy and strategy.

Whether they wanted to or not, the Government have admitted that they have changed on a whole number of issues. It may well involve further changes of Government policy—I have identified two or three of them to the hon the State President. It will not require negotiating with “terrorists” but it will require—as the hon the Deputy Minister has indicated—at times talking to people with whom one disagrees in a very fundamental way in order to try to break the political logjam and bring as many people as possible into the negotiating process.

There are some people who say it is too late. They say that we are being engulfed by revolution and polarisation in South Africa. We accept that it is late but we do not accept that it is too late. We accept that the situation is difficult but we do not accept that the situation is hopeless. Our reason for this view is that we believe that beyond the posturing on both sides and the hardliners on both sides, there are millions of ordinary South Africans—Black, White and Brown, rural and urban, English, Afrikaans and speaking various languages—who are simply crying out for the dawn of a new South Africa that is free from the scourges of violence and racism. I believe that can become a reality but we expect the hon the State President to announce positive measures which can make that a reality in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point dealt with the lack of political participation by Blacks and I will deal with a few matters in that regard later in my speech. I am sure that in the process of this debate some of my colleagues will deal with that point specifically.

The point that I would like to latch onto and on which I would like to have a discussion with the hon member for Sea Point is an issue that he himself raised. He made the categorical statement that his party condemns violence as a means for political change. Now I would like to say to the hon member that the Government would like to accept the bona fides of the hon member for Sea Point in that regard. However, the point that the hon member for Krugersdorp tried to convey to that hon member was that the PFP was very selective in its condemnation of violence. The hon member for Krugersdorp made the point that there is always a rider to the condemnation of violence. There is always the rider that they also condemn the Government for its “actions of violence” as well. [Interjections.] They are creating the impression that the Government is the major culprit and the major cause of violence in South Africa. That is the point that the hon member for Krugersdorp wanted to make. [Interjections.]

In observing the hon members of the PFP and the party’s present state of disarray one is tempted to take the view that one does not kick a man when he is lying down. Unfortunately, the PFP harbours some very dangerous motives, views and attitudes in its midst concerning which South Africa is entitled to obtain clarity.

We on this side of the Committee know where we stand with the Government. We know exactly where we stand with the hon the State President. However, we want to know where we stand with the PFP in regard to, for example, extra-parliamentary politics, the ANC as part of a solution in South Africa and, in particular, as far as security is concerned.

I must say that it was interesting to see what has been happening in the PFP during the past few weeks. The hon member for Yeoville has been trying desperately over many years to introduce to the PFP, and also to project to the public, an image of moderation. He has in fact failed dismally if he is so easily satisfied with a mere apology from the PFP Dakar safari trio. This apology was not for playing “footsie-footsie” with the ANC or for entering into discussions with “the ANC murder machine”—I am using the hon member for Yeoville’s own words. They did not apologise for talking to the people with—in the words of the hon member for Yeoville—“an AK-47 on the table”. Oh no, they merely apologised for the discourtesy they had displayed towards the leadership and the caucus of the PFP. It appears to me that the older the hon member for Yeoville gets the easier it is to please him.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon member to comment in that way on another hon member’s age in this House?

Order! I have never heard of anybody growing younger as time passes. [Interjections.] The hon member for Turffontein may continue.

I want to ask the hon member for Yeoville if he agrees with the final caucus statement issued by the hon member for Constantia which stated, inter alia:

I also quote as follows from Business Day:

And I quote the words of the hon member for Sea Point:

The question stands, and I ask the hon member for Yeoville and the other so-called moderates in that party whether they agree with that statement. [Interjections.] The hon member for Yeoville says he is a social democrat. He is also, I suppose, a democrat. I want to know from him whether he conforms to the caucus decision as released to the Press in that statement.

What a pathetic state of affairs this is! “A party of compromise, having to reach a truce”, says the media. “A party with a dual constituent”, says the Sunday Times. It is a party battling to retain its standing, its influence and the sympathy of everything that is on the radical left of South African politics—the ANC, the UDF, Idasa, Cosatu, and all the White radicals, in particular also the White radical students at some of our universities. However, at the same time they are battling and fighting desperately to retain some influence with the White electorate. [Interjections.] I want to tell hon members that they are failing dismally on both sides. I want to quote a very interesting example which I mentioned in private to the hon member for Yeoville here in the bench next to me the other day. We have had some interesting conversations! [Interjections.]

They have a dilemma and I want to mention the following just as an example of that dilemma. In Johannesburg there will be a municipal election. There is quite a large contingent of Wits campus students who are on the voters’ roll. I want to say to the PFP if the hon member for Yeoville’s stand on the Dakar issue is going to become PFP policy then the students of Wits are going to boycott them and they are not going to vote for them. On the other hand, if the hon member for Durban Central’s stand is going to become PFP policy, those students might decide to go and vote for the PFP. It therefore all depends on the hon member for Yeoville as to whether they are going to win or lose that election. [Interjections.]

A very interesting point is—I must not forget this—that I see that the hon member for Durban Central is now publicly referred to on a poster at the PFP student branch at Stellenbosch University as “Mnr Peter Gas trow, die PFP-LV na Dakar”. He is to talk about military service. [Interjections.]

*I think the hon member may have to apologise to his caucus again in future.

†I want to ask why the hon member for Yeoville and other so-called moderates in their party are suddenly so upset about Dakar. Hon members need only look at the historic events of the past in that party. Did not the hon member for Sea Point in 1985 accompany Dr Van Zyl Slabbert to Lusaka to go and talk to the ANC? Did not at a PFP congress more than 50% of the delegates hiss and boo the previous member for Bryanston, Mr Horace van Rensburg, when he moved an amendment to a motion—I will quote the exact words—calling upon the PFP “to dissociate itself from any strategies or methods applied by organisations which involve any violence”? Did not Mr Andrew Miller, the PFP National Youth Chairman, at a congress say “The Young Progs have accepted the principle of moving away from a capitalist economic system and … —these are the important words—“… are forging stronger links with the more radical organisations in South Africa”? Did not the hon member for Cape Town Gardens—I see he is not here this afternoon—in an interview with the Sowetan say: “The PFP would form an alliance with groups, including the ANC, which wanted an apartheid free South Africa”? [Interjections.] He added that “The PFP believed in negotiating a new constitution with the genuine leaders of South Africa in the Black community”, namely Oliver Tambo and Nelson Mandela. This is the road that the hon member for Yeoville and his so-called moderate friends has been walking with the PFP.

I want to end with this one remarkable point which the hon member for Sea Point made. He said this Government was solely responsible for the non-participation of Blacks in a political system in South Africa. He accused the Government of having done nothing to get the political participation of Blacks in South Africa. [Time expired.]

He said you had failed to do that.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Turffontein is a seasoned parliamentarian who, in a masterly fashion, again exposed the dilemma in the ranks of the PFP on the question of the Dakar safari this afternoon. We are also looking forward, in particular, to the speeches of the hon members for Durban Central and Greytown this afternoon.

Within the South African political context there are two realities that have to be taken into account. The first is that the political status quo in South Africa cannot endure. I do not think this statement is disputed by anyone in the committee. The second reality is that any political alternative to the status quo should be the result of negotiation.

With the UDF too!

Even the CP, the Official Opposition, will have to negotiate about that if it wants to implement its policy of partition. In all three instances of partition having been implemented in various parts of the world during this century, it could only be done after a process of negotiation. If the CP therefore wants to implement its policy, that party will also have to negotiate. It will have to do so, even though the hon member for Lichtenburg said the following in Somerset West in 1985:

The CP will have to negotiate, even though Mr Hoon, the former member for Kuruman, also said the following at a public meeting in Kuruman in reference to an interview he had had with Mr Lockey:

And he is speaking to Mr Lockey:

I want to reiterate that if the CP is not prepared to negotiate, too, on the implementation of its partition model, as far as partition is concerned they do not have a hope. If it is a fact that the status quo cannot be maintained, and if it is a fact that there has to be negotiation on the question of the status quo, the question that arises is: With whom must these negotiations take place? In this respect the hon the State President made a very clearly made …

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

Order! Is the hon member Dr Geldenhuys prepared to take a question from the hon member for Loskop … I mean Losberg? [Interjections.]

Yes, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, the position is such, of course, that I could now raise a point of order against the hon Chairman.

I want to know from the hon member Dr Geldenhuys whether the NP has held negotiations with the UDF and whether the NP has been in direct or indirect contact with the ANC.

Mr Chairman, I shall be coming to that in my speech. The NP does not negotiate with the ANC. The UDF representative made a contribution on the President’s Council. That is not a process of negotiation by any means. [Interjections.]

The hon the State President very clearly made the process of negotiation subject to one condition. All South African citizens who renounced violence as a method of bringing about political change, were welcome to negotiate. The Government will not negotiate with people who declare a cease-fire and, when matters do not go their way at the conference table, simply call for hostilities to proceed. In this connection—and I want to say this clearly, also in reply to the hon member for Losberg’s question—the ANC disqualifies itself when it comes to taking its seat at the conference table, because owing to the fact that the ANC leadership is being manipulated by the SACP, it is ideologically committed to violence as a method of bringing about change, with evolutionary reform nowhere in evidence on its agenda. For a Marxist-inspired revolution, every manifestation of political reform is, in fact, counter-productive. I am saying that for the CP’s benefit too.

The fact that the ANC is ideologically committed to violence as a method of bringing about change is very clearly apparent from certain demands made in the Freedom Charter. When one looks at the Freedom Charter, one is struck by the fact that many of the demands made in that Freedom Charter have already been met. Yet the violence continues. We can briefly examine this. There is the following demand:

But surely that is what the present state of affairs is all about, Sir. And that is also the case in regard to the National Council. Then there is also this demand:

Surely we have also given effect to this. A further demand is that:

And even that is already the case, is it not, Mr Chairman. They also demand the following:

That, too, is already a reality. A further demand is:

Mr Chairman, that too is already a reality. Then there is the demand that:

And surely that too, Sir, is already a reality. The South Africa of 1950 and the South Africa of 1987 are not, after all, one and the same. Yet, apart from the demands relating to the economy, which amount to flagrant socialism, many of these demands have already been met. Nevertheless the violence continues. The bomb-incident in Johannesburg recently is confirmation of this. In connection with that bomb-incident, I do just want to say a few words. After that bomb-incident, the hon the Minister of Defence commented on the incident on radio and television. Thereafter, at a Press Club gathering in Cape Town, Dr Van Zyl Slabbert said that the Minister of Defence had said that Dr Van Zyl Slabbert should answer to South Africa for the bomb-incident. Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Defence never said that. He said, and I quote him:

The Minister of Defence was merely stating a fact, which actually endorses what I am saying, and that is that the ANC is ideologically committed to violence and that they will not renounce it, even though discussions are held with them. The hon the Minister of Defence did not say that Dr Van Zyl Slabbert should answer for this.

A final remark then, Sir, about what should be negotiated. The subject of negotiation should not be surrender, and that will not be the subject of negotiation either. Nor will the subject of negotiation be a system of one man, one vote in a unitary state. Negotiations will simply be conducted on the question of self-determination in regard to own affairs and power-sharing in regard to matters of common concern. Once again the truth of the matter is that in its partitioned State the CP will not be able to get away from power-sharing. Wherever partition has thus far been implemented, one of the conditions has been that the political rights of minority groups be guaranteed. And in the CP’s White state, in which there will always be minorities from other population groups present, the CP will first have to guarantee those minority groups political rights. If it cannot do so, it will not be able to implement partition. [Interjections.]

It is very clear that the road to peaceful coexistence is one of negotiation. So I trust that everyone will accept the hon the State President’s invitation to participate in this process of negotiation and take their seats on the National Council.

Mr Chairman, it is ironic that the hon member Dr Geldenhuys, who in 1982 could not even recognise the power-sharing baby in its cradle, is now avidly claiming it for his own.

Now his eyes are open. [Interjections.]

It is also ironic how the hon member brought out the Freedom Charter of 1955 and indicated the extent to which this Government had met the demands of that Freedom Charter.

The first two NP speakers both mentioned the emotive politics of the hon the leader of this side of the House. Let me tell those hon members that no lover of his fatherland, imbued with the spirit and ideology of true nationalism, can actively engage in political activity devoid of emotion. [Interjections.]

Five years after his announcement, in 1982, of power-sharing and one government in an undivided South Africa, the hon the State President has now come to the final chapter in his reform programme, ie the inclusion of everyone—Whites, Coloureds and Blacks—in the central governmental authority of South Africa. I think the hon the State President is looking forward to realising this ideal even before his term of office expires.

Multiracial regional services councils have begun to function. Multiracial second-tier executive authorities have been in operation for some time now, and the establishment of the joint executive authority for KwaZulu-Natal was announced last Friday.

Now it is the turn of the central Government, and I hope that during the discussion of his Vote the hon the State President will put an end to the vague speculations amongst Cabinet members about the National Statutory Council, or the so-called State Council, and present us with a clear blueprint.

If one examines all the speculations amongst party leaders of the governing party in this NP power-sharing era, one sometimes actually finds it laughable. In Die Transvaler of 14 March 1983 the following was said about the NP leader in the Transvaal:

[Interjections.] Can one believe that? That is barely four years ago. No wonder that hon Minister is regarded as the leader of the right-wing faction of the NP. In the meantime he has at least caught up and climbed onto the power-sharing bandwagon.

At the beginning of last year the hon the State President announced the participation of Blacks up to the highest possible level. I quote a single sentence from the subsequent advertisement:

That caused one of the leaders of the left-wing faction of that party to surmise that the logical consequence of that announcement would unavoidably have to lead to Black participation in the Cabinet and legislative authority, and even up to the very highest level, ie the position of the State President himself.

This impetuous Minister was immediately called to order by the hon the State President on 7 February 1986, and I quote from Hansard: House of Assembly, col 409:

The hon the State President went on to say:

He was not fired. [Interjections.]

A writer for the magazine Inside South Africa put it as follows in the April issue:

[Interjections.]

Let us examine another Minister who was initially right-wing, but who is now considered to be left-wing, ie the Minister of Education and Development Aid. During the election campaign he held a meeting on 30 April and said the following, according to Beeld:

[Interjections.] So this hon Minister envisages a kind of interim transitional government.

We must read this in conjunction with numerous other recent statements by other hon Ministers sitting in the front benches here. They have all said there would not be a fourth Chamber introduced in this Parliament. If that is so, it is only logical that this tricameral Parliament is going to be downgraded to the status of a lesser body under another overall legislative and executive authority. I should like the hon the State President to spell that out for us.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Information and of Constitutional Planning said as much recently at Pietersburg. There is a report of this in Die Pietersburger of 17 July. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also issued a warning about that. I want to refer to other matters he also raised there. I quote from the report:

The newspaper goes on to report:

That hon Deputy Minister is saying, in other words, that the office of State President is in jeopardy. I think it is necessary for us to be given a definite answer on this issue. The fact remains that it is a vague, blurred picture of the constitutional dispensation the Government is planning. If we were to ask ourselves what would be acceptable to the Black people, perhaps Prof Deon Geldenhuys gave us the best answer when he in said in Rapport of 5 July 1987:

He concluded with the following paragraph:

This would result in the Afrikaner people having to be persuaded to accept an overall South African state nationalism at the expense of their own Afrikaner nationalism. I now want to ask the hon the State President frankly whether he thinks that this would be acceptable to his people and mine. Does he really think so?

No, it would not work, because Afrikaner nationalism has repeatedly moved our people to rebel against foreign oppression. That nationalism moved our people to rise up out of the ashes of a poor-White situation. It was specifically the unifying power and driving force underlying the advent of the White republic in 1961. Afrikaner nationalism is and will remain the lifeblood of the White man in Africa. It unites a people in its struggle for freedom and justice and provides the driving force, the fire and energy by which the CP will ultimately triumph throughout South Africa. True ethnic nationalism cannot and will not be subservient to a broadly based South African state nationalism.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to be able to participate in the debate on the hon the State President’s Vote this afternoon.

Following up on what the hon member for Pietersburg said, let me say that the hon member stood up and did nothing more than quote from various newspapers for the entire ten minutes. The hon member for Pietersburg has, for the umpteenth time, told the hackneyed story of what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs supposedly said about a Black State President.

Do you agree with him?

He tried to latch onto it again this afternoon and make a little political capital out of it. The problem with those hon members is that they are not prepared to accept democracy and democratic processes in this country.

Democracy? Is that what you call it?

A referendum was held in this country and there is no doubt about what that referendum was all about, and that is the new constitutional dispensation. What did hon members of the CP do? During the election they told the whole world that we, members of the NP, had said that the referendum was about peace and prosperity. Those are the stories they tell people, are they not, all kinds of embellishments being added along the way. [Interjections.]

What is more, after the election these same people say here in the House that the recent election was about national security. Surely that is an untruth. It is true that national security became part of the overall election process, as did agriculture, the economy and numerous other matters.

These people are trying to escape reality. That is their problem, because they live in a dreamworld. One of the hon members said here that one should not become part of the problem, but rather part of the solution. That is why the NP cannot come forward with all kinds of clichés. The NP has to face up to the realities of this country and seek its solutions accordingly. That is why the NP accepts the significant reality that this country of ours is composed of various peoples. We have Whites, Coloureds, Indians and also 23 million Black people in this country. More than 50% of these Black people have already been placed in independent or self-governing states. I must immediately add that these independent and self-governing states were, after all, created by the NP. The NP is still prepared to stick to that and say that it does not regard that as being a failure; it is part of the solution to our problem. On 2 February of this year, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said:

That is what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said.

One could go further by saying that the NP is still prepared to shoulder its responsibilities towards these independent and self-governing states, but is the CP prepared to do so?

Yes!

The hon member says yes. I am very glad the hon member says so, because I want to quote what that party’s chief secretary said here in Parliament. Whilst the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was speaking here on a certain occasion last year, he said:

The then hon member for Koedoespoort, Dr Frans van Staden, replied to him on that issue. He was no mere ordinary member, but the chief secretary of the CP. He said the following:

I want to say today that not a single member of the CP repudiated him. The hon member for Overvaal has just said that they would do it. Why does he not stand up and repudiate his chief secretary? No, they will not do so, because it is not good politics.

You have now scored a political point off someone! So just go on!

What are the realities? What are the facts? It is not, as the hon the leader of the CP said this afternoon, that there are 23 million Black people who have to be accommodated. There are 10 million Black people living outside the Black states in the so-called White area. These people are regarded as permanent citizens of the so-called White area and are part and parcel of the economy. We find them in our mining industry, our other industries and our agriculture. Those are the people we need to help us exploit our natural resources and minerals.

And plant potatoes.

And plant potatoes; the hon member is quite right. By doing that, all their mineworkers can be fed.

And mine gold.

Gold too. That hon member is also right. These people are part and parcel of the economy as a whole, which we cannot segment, but they are not part and parcel of the political set-up. What we in the NP are now saying is that we are also prepared to accept the responsibility of accommodating these people within the dispensation for the overall South African population and of giving them at least a joint say in matters of common concern, but a full say in regard to own affairs.

Where?

I am coming to that.

To do so, we have only two choices. The one is that of revolution, and the other that of evolution. Revolution our enemies have already chosen. We are in the throes of a revolution. Let us, however, examine the other solutions offered to us. If we examine the solution offered to us by the PFP, ie that of one man, one vote, we see that it contains the germ of a White revolution, which is precisely the same thing. [Interjections.] The PFP has a problem, because they elevate political rights to the level of a primary right—it is the ultimate right; no other rights matter, as long as one gives people political rights. All I can say is that they should just look to the north of them for a moment, to what is happening in areas where people have elevated political rights to the level a primary right. What has happened to those people? They cannot eat votes. What is more, what do these people do?

Then why do you complain when we examine the position to the north of us?

What happened to people who elevated political rights to the level of a primary right? [Interjections.] What has happened.

We examine the situation to the north of us and then you are dissatisfied.

You went too far north. [Interjections.]

On the other hand, our hon friends in the CP simply want to solve everything with the cliché of complete partition. What that means, no one would be in a position to say. At the beginning of this year, the hon the Leader of the CP made a speech in this House in which he played with words. The hon the State President has already referred to that. All he did—nowhere did he refer to partition, except in conclusion—was to conclude by saying:

What that means, only the hon the Leader of the CP would know. [Interjection.] Partition can only succeed if it takes place on a voluntary basis, because enforced partition contains the germ of revolution.

Speaking about partition, let me refer to a matter I know something about. Let me take hon members to Qwaqwa. It is, after all, CP policy to have everyone sent to the homelands. Do you know, Sir, that only one-third of the South Sotho people live in Qwaqwa? Yes, there are 400 000 South Sotho people in Botshabelo. The total population of Qwaqwa, which is at least 1,2 million, has a land area of 145 000 hectares.

If, however, we were to accept the policy of partition as the overall solution to the problem, Qwaqwa should obtain more land. We have just concluded the consolidation of 80 000 hectares of land there, and there are still at least 23 cases outstanding. Who are responsible for the major problems there? Members of the CP. They are the people who do not want to accept the proposals, but they are the ones who speak here of partition. [Interjections.] If they want to accommodate the entire Sotho population within the homelands, the whole of the Harrismith district will have to become part of Qwaqwa. That includes the Sterkfontein Dam from which the Witwatersrand obtains its entire water supply at present.

Then you build one in Lesotho! [Interjections.]

What is that hon member saying about Lesotho?

Order! I do not want to prohibit interjections, but there really are too many unnecessary interjections. I am sorry, but the hon member for Bethlehem’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bethlehem will forgive me if I do not react to his argument, because I specifically want to cross swords with the hon the State President. [Interjections.]

To begin with, I want to react to the speech made by the hon the State President at the congress of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut in Bloemfontein on 19 May.

†On that day the hon the State President, addressing the business community, said, inter alia:

It is disconcerting that that statement and the whole theme of that speech does not appear to reflect a real appreciation either of the nature of business as such or of the fact that politics and business are inextricably intertwined and that each needs the other. The Government needs the employment and the taxes that business generates and business needs a suitable political framework within which to operate.

Successful business means employing various available resources efficiently and effectively, as well as anticipating and dealing with problems as they arise. In business, problems affecting the firm are the legitimate concern of a businessman whether it be the gold price, industrial relations, the price of bricks, the prime rate or the State President’s latest speech. Anybody who witnessed the frightening plunge of the rand after the first Rubicon Speech can see the effect of politics on business.

In this light, businessmen are bound to reserve the right to criticise political actions which jeopardize their ability to conduct their business either in the short or long term, and to lobby for change. If laws requiring too many toilets or too much paperwork are a business obstacle, businessmen have the right to criticise them and, if the Group Areas Act gets in the way of business, business has every right to try to change it. To ignore the problem because tackling it would be construed as entering into the political terrain, would be as bad in business terms as ignoring the price of bricks if one is a builder. The simple fact is that a successful business has to keep in intimate touch with, and respond to, its market if it is to survive.

That is the nub of the problem between the hon the State President and the business community—they have different constituencies. They should not have different constituencies, but the apartheid policies of this Government forces them into it.

On the one hand the Government and the hon the State President are elected by a purely White electorate, while business has to earn the support and goodwill of people of all races and cannot afford to be constrained by Government policies while trying to achieve that. Quite simply, the total separation of politics from other activities of society, be they business, sport or technology, is simply not possible, and for the hon the State President to demand the contrary is fatuous because politics is very much the business of business.

Instead of the hon the State President picking silly fights with businessmen, I believe his and the Government’s efforts should be concentrated on ways and means of unifying South Africa in this time of crisis. We need integrative initiatives rather than disintegrative initiatives. This whole tricameral Constitution is one of the best examples of a disintegrative initiative. The own affairs principle itself introduces a racial tug-of-war in which ultimately the most protagonist politicians operating within each group will come to the fore in an increasingly confrontational racial polarisation. We can see it happening all the time. The rise of the CP is precise evidence to that effect.

We need initiatives that will bring us together as South Africans and not drive us further apart.

I believe we need a new South African nationalism to supplant Afrikaner nationalism, or White nationalism, or Black nationalism. We must focus on common ground, not on divisions. We need initiatives and structures to direct the flow of power to moderates and pragmatists able to draw support from a cross-section of South Africans. We need to construct a new majority coalition of all South Africans, by all South Africans, and for all South Africans.

In practical political terms, what we really need is a popularly elected state president and not an indirectly elected state president. We need a general assembly for general affairs, and geographic own affairs for all the people in an area, and not racial own affairs. [Interjections.]

All this is possible if only the Government would apply one golden key, and that key is the principle of the freedom of association.

The key to a better future for South Africa is for the NP to abandon the strict ideology of the group. That is the true Rubicon the hon the State President must lead us across. If the NP were prepared to cross that Rubicon they would be surprised how many South Africans and how most of the Western world would be prepared to help them do it. If they would abandon the doctrinaire ideology of the group, if they would demonstrate flexibility and pragmatism and some more of the old-fashioned quality of common sense, if they would take a leaf out of the book of the Chinese leader, Deng, who says he does not care if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice, then they would find so much assistance and support in the process.

The question I ask is whether the hon the State President can do it. Is the hon the State President capable of doing it? I know that an ordinary MP, whether he is a backbencher or a middlebencher, has severely limited power in this place. Even the power of Cabinet Ministers is severely circumscribed. An ordinary MP may have some influence in his constituency or on a certain subject or portfolio, but he cannot influence national direction. He can make a noise and be quoted, but his influence is little more than that of a snowflake on a glacier.

For the most part we ordinary MPs are just cogs in a relentlessly churning machine of state, some shinier and noisier than others, but we are not in control of the machine. The question I ask is, if we, as MPs, as Cabinet Ministers and as members of Houses are locked into the machine and the necessary constraints and disciplines of our party caucuses and ideologies, to what degree is the hon the State President himself just the biggest, shiniest cog in the same machine, also driven by the constraining forces in a narrow channel within an ideological tunnel of historic ideological baggage, a nervous caucus and a rampant security-military intelligence establishment? Is he actually in overall control of the machine with the real personal power to change direction, or must he just plough straight ahead? Only the hon the State President can really answer that question.

I personally cling to the hope that this hon State President, or his successor, whoever he may be—whoever occupies that office—can actually change direction, otherwise we are all locked into a dreadful historic tragedy—as Mr Clem Sunter says, the low road.

I believe that the hon State President or his successor can actually exercise a choice, but only he can exercise that choice. He has the power to call upon the “volk” and South Africa to abandon apartheid and the ideology of the group and to accept the rest of South Africa, including the Blacks, as fellowcitizens with equal rights. If he calls on Afrikaners and White South Africans to fight the ANC to the death, they will follow, but they will also follow if he crosses the Rubicon and says that we should take a new direction. He could in fact open the door to a new golden age here in South Africa.

The road back to the world lies through Africa and in partnership with our own fellow-South Africans. We can still be one of the proudest and most successful nations on the face of the globe, if only our present leader can summon up the wisdom to make the right choices at this time.

Will this hon State President go down in history merely as the father of the tricameral Constitution, or as someone much greater than that?

Mr Chairman, I could not believe my ears when I was listening to the hon member for Constantia’s speech. He said that the hon the State President should rather govern “than pick fights with businessmen”, and also that “he is not in control to change direction in South Africa”. The hon member has been a member of this House for some time now. Is he not aware of the fact that it was in fact the hon the State President who convened the Carlton Conference and the Good Hope Conference with the business sector, and was it not in fact the hon the State President who acknowledged the importance of the assistance granted by the business sector and invited them to grant him their assistance?

Does the hon member not know that far-reaching changes have taken place under the hon the State President’s leadership? The list is too long to mention here. Future negotiation will specifically take place under his leadership, and soon we shall again see how that is to be set up and given substance. At a later stage in my speech I shall again be referring to that.

The increase in the fuel price in the Northern and Eastern Transvaal is partly due to problems with imports through Maputo harbour. Those areas have been hard hit because the distribution network price system has had to be adjusted.

That has once more confirmed the necessity for inter-state co-operation. When concluding the Nkomati Accord the hon the State President laid down three principles for inter-state co-operation. The first was that states with differing political systems could live together in peace if the necessary resolve to co-operate in a positive spirit on matters of common concern was present. Secondly each state should acknowledge the autonomy of another state and, thirdly, the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states was accepted.

Only peace can create the necessary stability and the climate for economic co-operation. That still applies and is very clearly evident in the replies given in the House today to the questions posed by the hon members for Sea Point and Schweizer-Reneke, ie that South Africa has consistently tried to act in accordance with the spirit of the accord and to improve relations with Mozambique, but that its efforts were thwarted by emotional outbursts and false accusations.

There is not enough time to speak about the steps that are being taken, but it is through South Africa’s sustained efforts that high-level discussions were held on 6 August, with both parties subsequently being able to declare: “Nkomati is alive and should be rejuvenated.” It is also through South Africa’s efforts that a joint liaison committee was appointed and that discussions on security and economic questions, which the Government wished to place on the agenda—including the Homoine incident—could proceed.

The lesson that history teaches is that a common destiny necessitates negotiation, and that such negotiation has the best chance of success when it is properly structured and when the principles, which I have elucidated, are accepted. The Official Opposition holds the view—we heard that again today—that as soon as the position of the Whites is affected, that party is not prepared to negotiate with any other people, whatever its colour. That is a disregard for the common destiny of peoples and groups in South Africa. By saying that one is not willing to negotiate if and when one’s position is affected, means that one is not negotiating because one is simply making demands, and today we have again heard what those demands are. The CP’s refusal to negotiate is a negation of, or a refusal to face up to, reality, which will ultimately undermine those own interests.

Order! Hon members are not allowed to read newspapers in the Committee. The hon member for Nelspruit may continue.

As I have indicated, even the interests of various countries are interwoven, and it is to their advantage to negotiate, as the process of negotiation is to the advantage of our country too. If one merely makes demands, however, one cannot be part of any success that may result if such negotiation does, in fact, take place.

Surely the Official Opposition does acknowledge that its policy would drastically affect the position of many people of colour and that it can only be peacefully implemented after successful negotiations have been conducted. Those negotiations will, of necessity, affect the position of all the parties.

The accepted policy and rhetoric of the Official Opposition is beginning to sound increasingly like the rhetoric we hear from their AWB fellow-travellers, who show no willingness whatsoever to consider the interests of other groups and merely make demands. That is the best recipe for failure. Another way to ensure that one does not succeed is to shy at one Aunt Sally after another, as we have seen today. Out of fear of what could possibly happen, what the worst thing would be that could possibly happen—that is, of course, actually a motion of no confidence in oneself—one refuses to initiate the negotiation process and to take it further. I have previously made the point that negotiation should be properly structured. The Government is on the point of doing this, and the Official Opposition will have to decide whether it is going to co-operate within those structures. The hon members of the PFP have always adopted the standpoint—and confirmed it today—that they will not negotiate with groups advocating or practising violence.

Negotiation at a national convention creates too great a level of tension between the various parties, and for that reason the chances of success at a national convention are not very great. The only course is the one charted by the hon the State President, and the only structures are those proposed by him.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members on both sides of the House for the calm and dignified way in which they have thus far conducted the discussions. In a moment I shall try to reply to each of the hon members, but before I come to that, I first have a few announcements to make which, in my view, are of importance to the country and also to this Committee.

Firstly I want to refer to the Margo Commission.

†In his Budget Speech on 3 June 1987 the hon the Minister of Finance indicated with reference to the report of the Margo Commission on Taxation that the Government was of the view that when the report was released, it should be accompanied by some indication of the Government’s response thereto so as to avoid undue speculation.

The report recommends that on certain aspects further investigation is desirable, and parts of these investigations are already under way. The hon the Minister and the Department of Finance have since given considerable attention to the content of the report and its possible implications, and support the recommendation that certain further investigations and consultations be undertaken.

With a view to facilitating and expediting matters, it has therefore been decided to release the report immediately, unaccompanied by any official response at this stage. The report will be tabled in Parliament on Thursday, 20 August, after comprehensive media briefings. The briefings will be done by members of the commission.

The public is strongly urged to avoid action based on speculation about the Government’s eventual response to the report. After the release of the report it is proposed to complete the required further investigation and consultation as a matter of urgency. Once that has taken place, the Government will attend to the final formulation of its response to the report so that this too can then be made known to the public. In other words, we intend to approach this whole matter in a most responsible way.

The Government wishes to stress its commitment to a meaningful tax reform programme which was initiated by the appointment of the commission. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the chairman, Mr Justice Margo—I thanked him personally—the commissioners and all the officials who have given of their time and efforts to carry out this very important brief.

*That is the first matter I briefly wished to refer to. The second matter is equally important. During and since the President’s conference with business and industrial leaders on 7 November of last year, quite a few comments have been received on the Economic Advisory Council’s proposed long-term economic strategy and the Government’s provisional reaction to it. This has meanwhile been subjected to careful scrutiny. During the conference a document was also made available, to business leaders and those attending the conference, in which the Government adopted provisional standpoints on matters raised by inter alia the Economic Advisory Council. I am glad to be able to say that the comments were generally positive and that the Government has decided to accept the proposed strategy, subject to the qualifications set out in its initial reaction.

As was stated during the conference, those aspects of the strategy which are new and which do not, in terms of accepted policy, already form part of the accepted programme of action, have since the acceptance of that strategy been incorporated in programmes of action. The strategy, in point of fact, embraces all existing programmes of action, plus the new and adapted programmes of action resulting from the acceptance of that strategy. With a view to adapting the strategy to changing circumstances on a regular basis, and implementing it in a purposeful and co-ordinated fashion, the following modus operandi has been decided upon.

Firstly, the Economic Advisory Council will, from time to time, advise the Government on the desirability of adapting the strategy, and on the systematic implementation of the strategy and plans of action. Secondly, the Central Economic Advisory Service—it works in close co-operation with the Minister of Finance and has actually been slotted into his Ministry, having also co-operated with the Advisory Council on the formulation of the strategy—will be directly responsible, under the leadership of the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, Dr G Marais, and in close consultation with the National Constitutional and Economic and Social Committee, for the purposeful and co-ordinated adaption and implementation of the strategy. The Cabinet will be furnished with progress reports on a regular basis.

Thirdly, as proposed in the strategy, the Central Economic Advisory Service is at present engaged in drawing up a new economic development programme. The programme will be drawn up in close consultation with the Economic Advisory Council and the sectoral advisory committees, which have been specifically constituted for this purpose and consist of representatives of the private sector.

Fourthly, departments and bodies responsible for drawing up and implementing the programmes of action will, from time to time, hold consultations with representatives of the private sector and other interested parties with a view to ensuring the widest possible understanding and acceptance of the programmes.

Fifthly, from time to time conferences similar to the President’s conference on 7 November 1986 will be arranged. In addition the Government envisages issuing periodic statements, arranging Press conferences and/or distributing information on the progress being made with the implementation of the strategy and the concomitant plans of action. It has already been decided to hold a further economic conference on Thursday, 22 October 1987 in Pretoria.

Without deviating significantly from what I had intended to say, let me just, in the course of my speech, refer initially to the hon member for Constantia. He started in Bloemfontein, went right across Bloemspruit and the Rubicon and ultimately did not tell us anything. If he were to have a careful look at the speech, to which he referred, concerning my relationship with economic leaders, and not just quote snatches from it—it is very dangerous just to quote such odd bits from a speech, and to employ them for one’s own ends—he would see what my standpoint on the AHI congress was. I quote from my speech:

I also said:

There is no single body of any significance in the economic field in South Africa which does not have free access to me at all times. I think it is extremely irresponsible of the hon member to attempt to sow discord in such a petty fashion. Now he wants to cross swords with me. [Interjections.] I think he adopted a ridiculous stance here this afternoon. I have held no fewer than three economic conferences with leaders in all spheres of the private sector in South Africa. They have borne very fruitful results. Now the hon member comes along here, in his mean-spirited fashion, and does his petty gossip-mongering. What is he doing, and what is he hoping to achieve? I do not think that business leaders and various industrial and labour organisation leaders will owe him any vote of thanks after this effort of his, the fact being that we are holding extensive discussions and consultations with these people which are furnishing positive results. I shall leave the matter at that.

There are two further announcements I want to make. Reference was made here this afternoon to the Government’s intention to establish a National Council. I now just want to make the following brief announcement about this.

The National Council Bill was published on 23 May 1986 to serve as a basis for negotiation with Black leaders. Subsequently a wide range of discussions was conducted and there has been written response from a large number of persons and bodies. If I am not mistaken, as many as 150 memorandums were received.

In the negotiating process the Government found great unanimity in regard to the principle that a negotiating forum such as the National Council should be established. Several worthwhile proposals concerning the particulars of the Bill were also received. On the basis of this feedback, the Government decided to proceed with the Bill in its amended form and, if possible, have it dealt with during the present session.

As will be apparent when the Bill is introduced, the most important amendment involves the provision that Black communities outside the self-governing territories can also elect their representatives. Without exception, Black leaders felt strongly that Black representatives, like the other members of the council, ought to be elected, and the Government would like to comply with this.

I think that the Bill, as a negotiated Bill, will now create a suitable means, in all respects, for negotiation between all South African communities on the constitutional future of our country.

The time has come for South African leaders to accept responsibility for our common future and for us to engage in mutual discussions about this future of ours. I think that the National Council Bill represents a balanced step which will make such discussion possible. When the Bill is introduced, in due course, there will be sufficient time for deliberation and debate.

There is another matter in regard to which I wish to make an announcement. In terms of the present provisions of the Constitution, the present term of Parliament expires in 1989. This means that the House of Assembly, which has only just had a general election, will have to go to the polls again in 1989.

As a result of the present provisions, aimed at achieving concurrent terms for the Houses of Parliament, a House which holds a general election within the prescribed term of five years, cannot then complete a term of five years. That appears to be an arrangement which is firstly unfair to the governing party in a specific House which is entitled to a full term in which to implement its mandate and, secondly, to the voters of the relevant group, who are again expected to reassess the parties without having had sufficient opportunity to evaluate them.

The maximum term of five years involves a deeply-rooted parliamentary principle endorsed by every Government since Union. That is why a provision to that effect has been embodied in our constitutions from the very outset. In the present Constitution the relevant section is even entrenched. The Government envisages no deviation whatsoever from this principle.

In the light of these considerations, it is the Government’s intention to move an amendment to the Constitution to allow proper effect to be given to the principle of a maximum term of five years in the present constitutional dispensation. An amendment will consequently be introduced during the present session with a view to introducing a maximum term of five years for each House individually. The envisaged amendment does not affect the principle that the State President be elected for a term of five years, nor his right, in terms of section 39 (2) of the Constitution, to dissolve Parliament at any time. [Interjections.]

†Mr Chairman, I now wish to deal with a matter raised by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and other hon members, namely the Dakar talks.

During the past few weeks there has been widely divergent reaction to the low profile the Government has thus far maintained with regard to the Dakar safari. I would like to remind hon members that the Government has on several previous occasions—especially in my speeches on 17 April and 12 June 1986—explained its stand, on the basis of hard intelligence, with regard to safaris to meet with the ANC.

At that time I issued several warnings to those lured by curiosity, feelings of guilt, ignorance or misguidance to the ANC abroad. I also indicated further how the ANC/SACP alliance exploits these talks for propaganda purposes for furthering their own revolutionary interests and not for examining the possibility of a peaceful settlement.

The Idasa delegation that travelled to Dakar to hold talks with the ANC apparently preferred to make light of my warnings and standpoints on the ANC/SACP alliance. Let me tell hon members that the Government was aware of the planned Dakar safari before it took place. The Dakar visit was no surprise. Dr Van Zyl Slabbert and Dr Boraine, however, are adults—hon members all know them!

It was the biggest surprise to us.

That is the biggest surprise to all of us—the fact that they are adults! [Interjections.]

The Government’s standpoint in this case—as opposed to some of the other safaris—was: If the people do not want to listen, let them learn the lessons themselves. Maybe then there will be a greater understanding of the Government’s warnings. Perhaps South Africans and people abroad will then believe that the Government’s standpoints cannot merely be slated as propaganda.

Let us take a closer look at Idasa and its activities. Drs Van Zyl Slabbert and Boraine have on several occasions admitted that Idasa gets most of its funds from abroad. Upon his return from the Dakar talks on 31 July 1987 Dr Slabbert declared further that there was not “anything sinister or illegal” about the funds received by Idasa and that they had, up to that stage, laid all their cards on the table as far as the Press was concerned. This is, however, contradicted by information at the disposal of the Government.

Idasa owes it to the South African public—in accordance with its undertaking—to reveal all information, including the actual origins of its funds and the manner in which the funds are channeled to it. We often hear about coverups; let us have it in the open.

On one occasion Dr Slabbert himself described the purpose for which foreign funds were utilised by Idasa as “the most patriotic act imaginable”. The question that now arises is whether it is a patriotic act to employ foreign money for the purpose of holding talks with a communist-controlled, banned organisation responsible for so much bloodshed in the RSA. I think that Dr Slabbert, as well as certain Western governments, owes all peace-loving South Africans an answer. Actions such as these can certainly not be termed patriotic, neither do they contribute towards peace and stability in the RSA. I have information at my disposal concerning the feelings among the White electorate in this country on this matter, and I can only say that I think our people are disgusted. On all sides of this House people feel disgusted. What we have here seems rather to be an unholy alliance between strange bed-fellows for the purpose of undermining the Government’s reform initiatives together with the legitimacy and sovereignty of Government structures. I would also like to ask Dr Slabbert why he was so eager, after the Dakar talks, to report to certain Western governments on his African escapades. Was this perhaps an indication of where his patriotism lies or in whose interests or on whose instructions he has been acting?

Secondly, as to the expense aspect of the Dakar safari, just this: The entire circus cost half a million rand at the very least. This money came mainly from various Western governments and institutions. The Government could disclose the details, but has the time not come for Idasa itself to be frank with the general public of the Republic of South Africa?

A third aspect viewed by the Government in a very serious light is the interference of foreign governments and their embassy personnel in the furtherance of extra-parliamentary politics. The Government is aware of the activities of these people and of their support for such organisations as Idasa. In this process they are making use of South Africans to do their dirty work for them while at the same time they are undermining the sovereignty of the RSA—something I also seriously warned against in my speech on 17 April 1986. No self-respecting government will allow its hospitality to be abused in this way.

Prior to his departure for Dakar Dr Boraine tried to create the impression that the Idasa delegation was representative of the Afrikaner community; that there would be real eyeball-to-eyeball talking; and that their delegation did not include any push-overs.

* As children are fond of saying: “Joke!” [Interjections.]

†Furthermore, upon their return, they broadcast to the world at large how successful their talks had been and what reasonable people the ANC are. Allow me to tell hon members what actually happened.

[Inaudible.]

We know what happened. [Interjections.] For the first time in her life that hon member is right. We know what happened and she will be surprised to know who informed us! [Interjections.]

Well, tell us.

The Dakar delegation went there totally unprepared; the majority of them were not informed beforehand as to the nature of the talks or as to the level of the ANC delegation. No wonder some of the naïve, credulous Dakarites are now secretly accusing Van Zyl Slabbert of having misled them and even of selling them out.

I wish to inform the hon members that I had a look at the departure forms completed by these Dakar pilgrims, and I can assure them they make quite interesting reading. These forms are used mostly for statistical purposes. I shall return to them later. However, some clerics, especially, who went on this trip had no qualms about violating the truth, or otherwise it merely demonstrates how uninformed they were. As a matter of interest, let us consider a few of these forms. I have them here. [Interjections.]

There was case number one: Surname, Eloff; name, Theunis; occupation, clergyman; and purpose of departure, holiday, United Kingdom. [Interjections.] Case number two: Surname, Schoeman; name, Pieter Cornelius; occupation, member of the President’s Council; and purpose of departure, business visit, United Kingdom. Case number three: Surname, Gastrow; name, Peter Hans Paul; occupation, Member of Parliament; and purpose of departure, conference, United Kingdom. [Interjections.]

*Perhaps I should quote a few more. Slabbert, Frederick van Zyl; conference, Germany. Then there is Sonn, Franklin Abraham; conference, United Kingdom. The whole lot of them had completely different destinations! [Interjections.] Savage, Andrew; visit to France. Then there is a certain Mr Cronjé, Pierre Carel; conference, United Kingdom. The one is going to France, the other to Germany and a third is having a “holiday”.

And they all end up in Dakar!

Alexander Lionel Boraine;—I hope it is “Lionel” because his handwriting is so illegible—business, Great Britain.

Sir, I am merely quoting this to indicate to you that they were apparently ashamed to say where they were going. We nevertheless knew all about it by then. We simply let them go.

*#x2020; It is easy to make statements in public and to create the impression that the Idasa delegation had confronted the ANC on several matters.

The facts prove the opposite.

Rubbish!

The Idasa delegation was unable to cope with the situation. [Interjections.] They maintained divergent standpoints and were consequently extremely vulnerable.

On the other hand the ANC delegation was chosen after much deliberation. It was composed of specially selected revolutionary propagandists, cunning diplomats and several prominent SACP members, while Umkhonto leaders were deliberately excluded. It is no wonder that the ANC’s reaction to those attending the Dakar conference who made a plea “on their knees” in this regard is clear from the words of Pallo Jordan, one of the SACP spokesmen at Dakar. Hon members might remember him. He said:

[Interjections.]

*If it were not so tragic, one could keep on laughing!

†It is clear that during the Dakar conference and afterwards the ANC was mocking several of the White liberals—even though Van Zyl Slabbert objected to them being called liberals. The ANC is laughing up their sleeves at the naivety of “useful idiots” who, as Lenin puts it, can be used to further the aims of the first phase of the revolution.

These people did not go to Dakar to hold penetrative discussions with the ANC; on the contrary, they went to co-ordinate strategies and to find out what the ANC expects of “democratic patriots”.

This is apparent from Thabo Mbeki’s opening words before the conference and was confirmed in his comment on Radio Mocambique on 29 July 1987 in which he stated:

I would once again like to ask those who held talks with the ANC if they became at all wiser in the process and whether they received any satisfactory answers to cardinal questions, such as who of those in the ANC are communists and what hold the SACP has over the ANC.

As has already been proven with the Johannesburg car bomb for which the ANC claimed responsibility on their Radio Freedom on 3 August, one cannot rely upon the hollow promises of the ANC regarding the prevention of uncontrolled violence! The day after Dakar, Radio Freedom once again announced that the “struggle” should be extended to White residential areas.

Furthermore, on 28 July 1987 Oliver Tambo declared at the OAU that the armed struggle should be intensified at all costs and he appealed to the African states for increased support.

I would like to stress once again that the ANC’s revolutionary policy and strategy, despite earlier safaris and the Dakar conference, is still being carried out to the letter. For the ANC-SACP alliance, talks are only a means to an end, namely the revolutionary take-over of power. It is an instrument to divide the Whites and the “ruling class”, to gather “useful idiots” and other “progressive forces” behind itself, as well as to promote the legitimacy and bargaining power of the ANC inside the RSA and abroad.

The international community and the ANC are painfully aware of the fact that the contribution of the Whites to the solution of the South African problem is of crucial importance, and that a mandate in this regard has been placed in the hands of the Government by the White electorate themselves.

The Whites in South Africa are regarded as a problem by our enemies and by some of our so-called friends. The fact is that the Whites, and in particular the Afrikaner, constitute a greater part of the solution and, if they do not want to recognise that, no solution will come to this country and to Southern Africa.

Logic dictates that any party—and that includes the ANC—that wants to bring about change in South Africa will, for that reason, have to negotiate with the legally elected government. What is interesting in this regard, is the fact that one of the people who went to Dakar, Prof Schlemmer, made that very clear on his return in an article he wrote for the Argus group on 10 August. He stated inter alia:

That is how they present Prof Schlemmer’s articles. He states:

That is what Prof Schlemmer said. He added:

I agree with Prof Schlemmer. I have agreed with that sentiment all my life. All my life I have opposed extra-parliamentary actions and at this juncture I stand where I have always stood: Change should come through Parliament, and change should take place in such a manner that what we have built up in this country through the ages, values such as civilised standards, freedom of religion and a democratic way of life, should be retained and protected by Parliament as it is today and will be changed in future. Unless that happens, no peace can ever come to this country.

However, for the ANC, under its present SACP leadership, there is no question of negotiation as a process of consensus, settlement, compromise and give-and-take. It is striving eventually for an all-or-nothing result, although, along the way, it is making democratic promises and impressing “useful idiots” with its apparent reasonableness and flexibility.

The Government is endeavouring to bring about orderly and democratic change by means of a process of negotiation, and that takes time. In Africa it always takes time.

It failed. [Interjections.]

The hon member said it has failed. He is apparently totally convinced of that after his visit to Dakar. [Interjections.] The Government will, however, not go and sit at the negotiation table at the point of a gun, with the handing over of power to the revolutionaries as the main item on the agenda! [Interjections.] This is not only in the interests of White South Africa; it is also in the interests of Black South Africa. Most of them want peace and negotiation.

It will surely be in the best interests of everyone if the conflicting parties in the country can reach a compromise and, through this, reach consensus. However, one fact is as plain as a pikestaff: Anyone going to speak to the ANC behind the Government’s back, or who supports this organisation consciously or unconsciously in any way, is strengthening their evil intentions.

The longer clumsy politicians and other rash victims woo the ANC, the longer it will take to get the ANC—as an accountable and responsible party—so far as to join other South African interested parties around the negotiation table. Therefore Dakar did not help to solve South Africa’s complicated problems at all; it only aggravated and protracted them.

Nevertheless, I am under the impression that most reasonable South Africans accept and understand these realities. Some well-meaning advocates of dialogue have also learnt hard lessons in Dakar, while incidents like the Johannesburg car bomb are also opening the eyes of gullible people. The Government cannot think for adult citizens of the country, but it has the responsibility of warning the public of “traps” set for South Africans by foreigners and revolutionaries.

The mere fact that the Government allowed Dr Van Zyl Slabbert and company to burn their fingers in Dakar, must not be interpreted as though the Government will turn a blind eye to future talks with the ANC as a matter of course. Let Dakar be a lesson to all South Africans. If some South Africans did not want to pay attention to my earlier warnings last year outside and inside this House I want to put it in more plain English so that everyone can understand what it is about: A leopard never changes its spots and a communist never changes his attitude in his heart of hearts.

Neither does a Nationalist!

The hon member will of course not know what I am talking about now because he is, as far as this is concerned, nothing!

You are right, I am not a communist. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, do not judge by appearances. However, it is true that several forces are at work, directly and indirectly, to try to wreck South Africa’s future or to influence political events in their own self-interest. They will persist in this way, with even greater intensity and with more sophistication.

These leaders of the ANC are not a number of silly-minded bandits who travel outside South Africa, seeking a home to live in; they are tools in the hands of a major world force trying to destroy Southern Africa.

Their masters are clever and sophisticated, and the two hon members of this House who went there are not capable of dealing with those masters. [Interjections.]

Therefore the Government will have no choice but to consider taking certain steps to prevent South Africans from becoming further victims of this process. These steps will include, inter alia, the following. Firstly, the consideration of stricter control with regard to the issuing and renewal of passports for South Africans who collaborate with South Africa’s enemies. [Interjections.] A passport is not a right—a passport is a privilege.

Here it comes!

Here it comes, of course. Has that hon member ever read what is written on a passport? On this country’s passport it is stated that in the name of the State President of South Africa—not P W Botha, but the country’s State President—a person is moving beyond the country’s borders and is requesting the protection of the head of this Government and of this country.

†I say a passport is not a right but a privilege extended to South Africans who will also find protection under the guidance of the Government of this country.

God help us!

Therefore we intend to deal with it in a more strict way.

Secondly, the Government will consider amendments to legislation to restrict the flow of funds from abroad to be used for undermining the State and promoting extra-parliamentary politics. [Interjections.] The third step is the appointment of a parliamentary joint select committee of enquiry into the activities and funding of extra-parliamentary groups. [Interjections.]

I am coming to Parliament and appealing to Parliament to help me to protect South Africa and to protect itself against extra-parliamentary actions financed from abroad.

Fourthly, just as the Government of the United States of America is taking steps to bring the staff of embassies who are acting off-limits in that country under control, or to restrict their movements, so similar steps can be considered in South Africa with regard to certain members of staff of specific embassies. [Interjections.] If the United States can do it, we can also do it.

*I shall let some matters stand over until tomorrow, but there is still one about which I want to say something at this stage, and that is the policy in regard to security prisoners. As hon members are aware, since January 1985 and on several subsequent occasions, I made an offer which could have led to Mr Nelson Mandela obtaining his freedom. I did so here in the House and also on several occasions outside this House.

At various times I also referred to the fact that I felt compassion for people of advanced years who are in prison. I do not want to dodge that issue, because from my own people’s history I remember individuals like the late General De Wet, and others too, who were in prison, and I also remember the great emotional forces that were unleashed as a consequence.

The principle contained in this offer was not intended as a specific condition relating to a specific person. It applies to all of us, and I am referring of course to the renunciation of violence as a method for achieving one’s objectives, and it is accepted that all civilised countries endorse this principle. I think that is consistently so. In my discussions with heads of government in other states, this principle has been accepted.

There are well-known Western leaders today who have told me in writing that they accept the fact that I am right not to come to the negotiating table with people who commit acts of violence. History will prove that to be true when those documents are made public.

Just permit me to refresh hon members’ memories. On several occasions I dealt with this issue—on 31 January 1985, 15 February 1985, 31 January 1986 and in Durban on 12 August 1986. I therefore addressed this problem on several occasions.

Government initiatives in the constitutional sphere, and what has already been achieved with those initiatives, have led to those elements which propagate violence beginning to become increasingly irrelevant. From May 1982 to the present day, 153 security prisoners have already been released. In considering their release, all factors applicable to the consideration of the release of prisoners in general have been taken into account, together with that of renouncing violence, where applicable. Some of the security prisoners already released did renounce violence, while others, chiefly with shorter fixed-term sentences, were assessed in terms of the relevant prognosis. I am of the opinion that thus far these assessments have not been wrong. What is of importance, however, is that in certain cases in which violence has been renounced, subject to the conditions we laid down, the individuals concerned have, according to available information, nevertheless involved themselves once more in revolutionary activities directly relating to acts of violence. So in actual fact there were two consequences. Some of them kept to their undertakings and others did not.

In one instance that we are aware of, an individual remained neutral for a few years, in accordance with expectations, even acting in accordance with his declared intentions. Subsequently, however, he was again swallowed up by radical elements and actively participated in their activities.

It has consequently become necessary for me—the Government has devoted a great deal of time to this and given it very careful consideration—to reassess the relevant Government policy on the basis of what experience has thus far taught us. Hon members are aware of the fact that our policy for releasing prisoners has a scientific basis. There is the Advisory Release Board which has just published a document on the release of prisoners. The principles contained in this document agree, for the most part, with the policy adopted over the years, but emphasising the fact that the policy in regard to ordinary criminals and security prisoners should be the same. This means that renouncing violence could, like any other single positive factor, contribute to a positive prognosis, but cannot be the determining factor in its own right. What still has to be taken into consideration is, inter alia the aims of the one imposing the sentence, the interests of the community and the State, the nature of the crime and the motive underlying it, the length of the sentence, previous criminal record, the prisoner’s reaction to the sentence imposed and the overall personality and predisposition of the prisoner himself.

This also means that in the first place the State will therefore have to be guided by its advisory bodies, which include the following: Prisons have institutional committees whose activities are confined to a specific prison. There is also a Release Board, which is a statutory board in terms of section 5 of the Prisons Act, and also an Advisory Release Board, which is also a statutory body in terms of section 5B of the same Act. At present this board operates under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Kumleben and deals with those cases referred to it. That is the first aspect we shall have to bear in mind in future, ie the advice we obtain in this fashion.

Secondly the State will have to be led by considering what is in the best interests of the RS A, its institutions and also its people. We are thereby going to attempt to implement the same policy in respect of all prisoners.

One individual who has been in prison for more than 20 years is a certain Govan Mbeke. He is already 76 years old. I have requested the hon the Minister of Justice to give serious attention to his case in accordance with the aforementioned processes.

In regard to every other case, on the strength of all relevant factors, periodic consideration will be given to whether treatment is necessary in such cases or not. In other words, Government action will, to a large degree, be determined by the advice it gleans from statutory boards established by this Parliament, and other bodies which will implement that policy in accordance with the principles I have mentioned in the statement.

Mr Chairman, to obviate having to speak for too long a period tomorrow, I must now react to a few of the hon members’ speeches. I do not think I should go on taking the hon member for Constantia seriously.

The hon member for Nelspruit made a very strong point, ie that negotiation does not exclude the adoption of a standpoint, but it does exclude demands. That embodies a great truth. One can still hold certain views; one can state those views and negotiate. When, however, one starts making demands, one excludes negotiation to a large extent, for then one is seeking confrontation. I thank the hon member for that.

The hon member for Bethlehem also advocated a sensible approach, instead of a tangled web of approaches that lead nowhere.

The hon member for Pietersburg said I have now come to the final chapter of my reform plan. Let me tell the hon member, however, that this country will never, as long as civilisation exists here, come to the end of the reform process, because when one no longer has the courage to implement reform, one dies. Our forefathers carried out reform. The hon member would not have been where he is today if our forefathers had not carried out reform. They did so in other ways, but there was always renewal and adaption. President Kruger, for whom the hon member probably has a high regard, and I do not blame him, was a man for negotiation. To say, therefore, that I have come to the final chapter is complete nonsense. Every generation will have to examine South Africa’s problems anew, deal with them and, on that basis, negotiate and make adjustments if we are seeking freedom and peace. If we do not seek freedom and peace, believing only in the blood-and-thunder approach, we could finish things off in one evening. [Interjections.] Then, however, nothing at all would remain.

The hon member also said that the transference of Afrikaner nationalism could not be devoid of emotion. Of course not. There are two kinds of emotion, however, that of love and that of madness. [Interjections.] Has our history not taught us—does the hon member not read his history—that where our people have gone to excesses, we have paid dearly for it.

One of the finest descriptions of what nationalism should be, one finds in the writings of Dag Hammarskjöld. He was probably one of the greatest international figures of his time. He made a fine contribution to what nationalism is and how it should be practised, and I want to suggest that the hon member read it. Nationalism should be friendly, and nationalism should not rebuff other people, but rather convince them of its good intentions. Then it carries people with it. I do not think that the two of us disagree about the fact that we should be Afrikaners. There is, however, a big difference between us about whether we should lose our heads about our Afrikaner-hood or whether we should give expression to it with self-respect and tolerance.

As always, the hon member dr Geldenhuys made a good contribution, rightly pointing out the necessity for negotiation between peace-loving people. When all is said and done, that is what we should strive for in this country—peace. Without peace everything is laid waste. Without peace everything is destroyed. I think that the message brought to the world by the greatest Figure of all times is that of peace. Whether we shall succeed in achieving that, we as human beings do not know. I think the hon member is right when he says that negotiation between peace-loving people should be emphasised.

The hon member for Turffontein dealt very effectively with the Dakar safari, focusing on the complete inconsistencies and absurdities involved. I thank him for that.

†The hon member for Sea Point raised the question of South West Africa. I shall deal with that tomorrow. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy the hon member, although I wish to say at this stage that I hope we are still agreed on one point, and that is that the South West African situation is a delicate one, which should be treated in a delicate way.

The hon member tried the old political trick of causing division between the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Deputy Minister. Let me tell the hon member that he is trying in vain. The fact is—I want to place it on record—that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning approached me and requested me to make the services of the hon the Deputy Minister of Information available to him as well in his capacity as Deputy Minister of Constitutional Affairs.

Do not, therefore, try to divide them. Rather try to help them, because they are dealing with a very big problem in South Africa. [Interjections.]

*Let us help one another rather than create the impression that one person is better than another. That is simply drivel, to which I do not pay any attention.

†The hon member also raised the question of the state of emergency.

He wanted to know from me whether I could not lift the state of emergency in certain parts of the country.

[Inaudible.]

We did so. The hon member will remember that we only announced a state of emergency in certain parts of the country. What did our enemies and the revolutionaries in the country do, however? They went to those areas where peace was still prevailing and started to stir up feelings there. So eventually we had to extend the state of emergency to the whole country. Since then calm has returned to South Africa. Black people went back to work. Black pupils went back to school. Black people could live in their houses again. I received delegations of Black people in my office who told me that if I did not protect them, they could not sleep in their houses. They were not allowed to sleep there. One woman told me that she had not been allowed to dress for 14 days. When we announced a state of emergency throughout the whole country, we restored normal conditions in many quarters.

Will it be permanent?

That will depend on the advice the Government receives from its advisers on security matters and on the facts at our disposal. We should not try to maintain the state of emergency in one district and lift it in another. As long as the revolutionaries are trying to stir up trouble the state of emergency will remain.

That is forever!

The hon member also referred to perceptions that I was creating. I do not want to pick a quarrel with the hon member this afternoon but I think he still owes me an apology ever since the election.

He also wanted to create perceptions about me. Does the hon member remember what his party did under his leadership in connection with the release of Mandela and Mandela’s imprisonment? Does the hon member still remember what was printed in the propaganda sheets of his party?

What about your propaganda sheets?

The hon member for Berea has suddenly woken up too! [Interjections.] I want to remind the hon member for Sea Point that we have instructed our attorneys to write to his party. I then received a telegram from the Financial Mail which read as follows:

†Then the hon Minister of Foreign Affairs took the matter up with the leader of the PFP. He eventually appeared on television and there the following question was put to the hon member: “Do you agree that the State President was quoted in a wrongful way and that he had not used the words attributed to him by the PFP?” All the hon member could reply was: “Well, it might be so.”

He was then asked whether he intended to apologise to the State President, and he said no.

You see, Sir, the hon member is a master in creating perceptions. [Interjections.] I am not going to take the matter any further, but I say he still owes me an apology for the lie his party published in connection with the State President.

You owe us an apology too. [Interjections.]

They published a very serious and disgusting lie.

Why? Are you going to release Mandela? [Interjections.]

I shall deal with the question of South West Africa tomorrow and then we shall take the discussion further.

The hon member for Krugersdorp quite rightly said we should not try to score political debating points off one another when we are dealing with these major issues involving South Africa. Whilst he was talking, I thought to myself that the struggle against revolution could only be waged and won effectively in South Africa if the State’s security arm were an effective one. That is the first point. Secondly—this is equally important—the State’s social arm should also be an effective one. That necessitates the co-operation of all the State’s agencies and departments. Thirdly there should be a marshalling of the forces of peace-loving people who do not want revolution. They form the majority, because revolutionaries and trouble-makers are always in the minority. The only difference is that they are vociferous, whilst the majority is not. We should try to inculcate these three aspects in South Africans. We must keep our security forces intact and they must maintain their own effectiveness. We should also upgrade our social activities on a day-to-day basis and be self-critical, marshalling our forces to ward off revolution. Then we would achieve success and not be trying to score political debating points, as the hon member rightly said.

I now come to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He spoke about Dakar, and I think I have dealt with that aspect. He thought fit to single out America for his attack on other countries. Let me tell the hon the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition today that when we speak about America, we should be careful to draw a distinction between various organisations in America. There are forces in the American Congress bent on destroying South Africa, but there are good friends of ours in the American Congress engaged in an on-going struggle on behalf of South Africa, sticking their necks out in the process.

Secondly I cannot simply allow such a sweeping statement about America as a whole, without excluding the American President. I want to single him out by saying that President Reagan, who is virtually at the end of his career in public life, will always be remembered in South Africa for the contribution he made in proclaiming a down-to-earth policy and trying to maintain that policy towards South Africa. I know what I am talking about. There is documentary proof to support this, and I do not think we should simply write Americans off as being a hopeless lot, from whom one cannot expect anything. We have good friends in important positions in America who mean our country no harm. In so far as there are individuals who do, I agree with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that they should be condemned, but we should not regard all Americans as birds of a feather.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also said that the political game was a power-game. That cannot be true. It can only be partially true. If the ultimate political game of life were a power-game—because that is what I understood him to say—I would want nothing to do with it.

Let us now talk to each other. As compatriots we two actually share the same past. What the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is actually telling me, therefore, is that the political game being played against our people is justified. I do not think that that is what he means. I do not think his mind could work that way. I think that the political game played against the Afrikaner in the past, at times in his impotence, at times in his humiliation, but at times also in his resurgence, cannot find any justification before any seat of justice anywhere in the world. Nor must we, in our lives, regard this as a game in which power is the deciding factor. We have power—that is true—but then we must employ that power with a view to devolving it to those who also want power, so that they can also come into their own. Nothing that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and I can do, can undo the diversity of peoples in South Africa. Forces, far more powerful than we are, have willed that to be so. There are people in this country who have, throughout history, not had any power, or who have had a lesser degree of power. We must think of ways of developing that power of theirs without having them destroy our power, and that is part of what power is. [Interjections.] Hon members can say whatever they want to, but that is the sharing of power, and I want the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to give serious thought to this.

There are common interests in this country. Let us now take our own fatherland and leave Southern Africa, in its broader context, out of the picture for the moment. Let us exclude the TBVC countries and take only the rest of South Africa, with the self-governing states and the various other population groups living here. Surely we have common interests. Surely we do not lack common interests. That being so, surely we cannot employ our power as an end-game, dictating to those people what they ought to do. In the first place, surely there must be discussion, and as soon as one conducts peaceful discussions with people at the conference table, one is making one’s own contribution and the other party is making his and one arrives at joint decisions about matters of common concern. Then one has shared power. I know that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows that, because he is a man of experience and has served in the Government. He is not a “nincompoop” where that is concerned. He knows I am giving an illustration of what I mean.

The self-governing states do not have sovereignty. Certain of the sovereign powers applicable to them are vested in the powers we have. We meet annually or every six months to discuss matters of common concern, of which there are many. If one were to make a suggestion there, and those leaders were to tell one there was something they could not accept and wanted to show one the other side of the picture to illustrate how they would be prejudiced if one applied one’s own standpoint, and ultimate consensus is reached about what should be done, then one has surely been sharing power. [Interjections.]

The fact that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is sitting there tonight and I am sitting here, means that we are both sharing power.

Over whom?

Over South Africa. After all, there are numerous fields in which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition makes his contribution and this side of the House makes its contribution, and we agree on that without taking a vote and without giving each other a black eye. Are we then not sharing power?

Who decides?

Oh, please! Look, let us not be petty now. The hon member for Lichtenburg is the last one to talk, because in his day he was a great power-sharer. [Interjections.] He was a good Minister—I frankly acknowledge it—but he was a great power-sharer.

Thank you for the compliment!

Today we are still implementing certain of his suggestions about how we should deal with the Black people. [Interjections.] No, he must not utter a single word now. He has distracted me for a moment, however. The point I want to bring home to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is that we should not question one another’s loyalty to South Africa or our determination to preserve civilisation here while we are wrestling with this enormous problem, which we did not create. We are faced with this enormous problem through no choice of our own. I want to tell him, by way of a plea, that it is dangerous simply to choose some Black leader at random and drag what he said across the floor of this House. I do not do that sort of thing. There are Black leaders who vilify me and try to discredit me in public. My policy has always been not to react to that. When I meet those leaders, however, we come to grips. It is far more difficult to look a man in the eye at the conference table than to shout at him from some platform. [Interjections.] That is right! I am telling the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that he should have a balanced view of this question of power and be careful how he handles it. He must not simply arrogate it to himself.

Thirdly the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition insinuated that the Government was actually making overtures to the ANC. I hope he did not mean that. I want to put a straightforward question to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He may answer me when it suits him. Is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in any way insinuating that the Government is attempting to make overtures to the ANC, which is under communist control?

Not with them!

Then the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must not, in passing, refer to “what islands?” and to the hon the Deputy Minister. That is not true. This afternoon I have again explained the Government’s policy to hon members. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must therefore stop telling those stories of his. There could be certain people who would like to believe them, but that is all nonsense. He can believe me when I say that it is nonsense. [Interjections.]

In conclusion the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition raised the question of the State Presidency. He had great respect for the late Dr Malan, because he comes from his constituency. I also had great respect for him; he was my mentor. There was great truth in what he said about how one should deal with problems, and that was that one should not discuss, in advance, the solution one will ultimately arrive at. One should begin at the proper starting point in one’s efforts to solve problems. The State Presidency is not the present issue. We do not even have a National Council yet in which we can exchange views with one another and consider those views. So the State Presidency is not the issue at the present moment.

The State Presidency is linked to many other matters to which I have already given consideration. There is the question of one Treasury. As far as my knowledge goes, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition advocates the existence of several treasuries in this country. He also wants several defence forces. I do not want a number of defence forces and treasuries in South Africa.

How many are there now?

I want one ultimate authority as far as the Treasury is concerned. I say that quite frankly, also to hon members in the other two Houses. When all is said and done we must have one Treasury which can take the final decisions.

In regard to the security of Southern Africa there should be one authority.

Those are problems we still have to wrestle with, but we have not nearly reached that point yet, because at the moment we are, in the first instance, still wrestling with the problem of that section of the Black population groups that has remained in the urban areas and outside the self-governing national states. We are struggling to have them come into their own. We shall not manage to do so by using front-end loaders and dumping them over the fence into other states. We shall only manage to do so by adopting economic measures, by adopting social measures, by creating authoritative structures with which to negotiate and co-operate in future. For that we shall need their assistance, however. Insulting and brutish behaviour towards them, and references to some of their leaders being friends with the ANC, will not get us anywhere. [Interjections.] No, that will not get us anywhere.

[Inaudible.]

The particular leader to whom the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is now referring has said hundreds of times that he does not advocate violence.

On the domestic front or abroad.

On both the domestic front and abroad he is opposed to violence. He has said hundreds of times that he is opposed to sanctions. He has also said hundreds of times that he is in favour of negotiation. So why do we not take these positive aspects and try to move with him in that direction? I hope the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition …

Has he already decided to co-operate on the National Council?

That is his choice. The hon member has just asked me whether he has decided to co-operate on the National Council. Let us take that a little further. Let us suppose the hon member’s party comes into power and wants to implement partition. Let us also suppose that individual does not want to co-operate on the implementation of partition. What would he do? Would he force him to co-operate? [Interjections.] I do not want any hand signals from that hon member! What would he do?

He would stay where he is.

Then he would stay where he is. Then partition as a whole would be … I almost said what partition as a whole would then be! [Interjections.] Tomorrow we shall have a brief discussion on partition. I do not want to take the fight any further now. I thank the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition for having raised the question of Dakar, thus enabling me to air my views on that question. I hope I shall now be getting completely unequivocal standpoints concerning their support for Government action relating to the Dakar safari.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.