laid upon the Table the First Report of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Private Members’ Draft Bills, dated 14 August 1987, to Mr Speaker, as follows:

1. (i) The Group Areas Act Repeal Bill, submitted by Mr M Rajab;
2. (ii) and (iii)the Republic of South Africa Constitution Amendment Bill and the Republic of South Africa Constitution Second Amendment Bill, submitted by Mr F J le Roux;
3. (iv) the Freedom of Farming Bill, submitted by Mr J V Iyman; and
4. (v) the Smoking Control Bill, submitted by Dr M S Barnard,

and I am accordingly unable to recommend that these draft Bills be introduced.

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Private Members’ Draft Bills, dated 14 August 1987, as follows:

Report to be considered.

Mr Chairman, the all-important question weighing heavily on the heart of every true South African this morning is: State President, quo vadis? Yesterday afternoon the hon the State President gave us two examples of power-sharing. In the first place he said: “Negotiation is power-sharing. ” He said that my respected leader and I had been power-sharers in a big way because we had negotiated with Blacks. Now I should like to tell the hon the State President that we did negotiate with Blacks and we shall negotiate with Blacks again, but we shall never negotiate with anyone about the right of the Whites to self-determination, and we shall never negotiate with communists. We negotiated, but we did not share power. When we negotiated, we negotiated with the Blacks, but we returned to this Parliament—it was a sovereign White Parliament—and the decisions were taken here.

Now I should like to ask the hon the State President if this is the sort of power-sharing that he has in mind and which he wants to introduce in respect of the Blacks, namely that he wants to involve the Blacks but that the final decision-making function will be retained in the hands of the Whites, as is presently the case with the President’s Council. I should like to ask him if he is of the opinion that the Blacks will regard that as fair, and whether he regards it as fair. I ask him how long they will be satisfied with that, should he win them over in the first place. I also want to ask whether he will be prepared, if they become dissatisfied, to negotiate further with them in order to keep them in. The answer is: Yes, he will have to negotiate.

The hon the State President mentioned another example of power-sharing. He said that the Government and the opposition shared power. That is true; the Government and the opposition share power. He announced yesterday that he was going to change the Constitution in order to postpone the election. We are going to participate in the discussion and we are going to oppose this measure because we want an election.

The fact is that the Government has made that decision and has the majority to carry it through. I now want to predict that when the Blacks are involved, the Government’s people are going to tell the electorate that although the opposition has indeed had representation in Parliament all these years, the Government will decide how the system is to work. What is significant, however, is that we shall comprise the Government after the next election, and then we shall decide. [Interjections.]

I should now like to ask the hon the State President whether the power-sharing will be of such a kind that the roles can be reversed and the final control mechanism can change hands and fall into the hands of the Blacks. South Africa asks him where he is heading. We want to hear what the answer to that question is. I suspect that he wants to introduce a kind of negotiating mechanism in terms of which control will remain in the hands of the Whites. He will never be able to keep it intact.

The hon the State President announced that the National Council Bill would be submitted to Parliament in adapted form during the present session. This is highly significant. The Bill has not even been passed by this Parliament, but it is already being adapted. That is the Government’s fate—an endless series of adaptations and concessions. Just look at the Constitution. We adopted a new Constitution in 1983 and now a national council is going to be introduced in order to draw up yet another new constitution. The USA, on the other hand, still has the same constitution after 200 years. [Interjections.]

The national council was initially modelled on the Turnhalle Conference, namely group representation and negotiation on a new constitution. The Turnhalle was the NP’s baby, after all. But what happened to it? It foundered even before it began. It never got off the ground. The next initiative was a constitutional assembly intended to draw up a constitution for South West Africa, but in that case the voters of the various race groups were to have been consulted first. What happened then? Before those voters could blink, the constitutional assembly had become a legislative assembly, namely the National Assembly with a Ministers’ Council. It was a government with legislative and executive power, without the people having been consulted. The man who shoved it down the throats of the majority of Whites against their will was the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, who was then Administrator-General. Now this Minister says that the national council will also be an interim government. I should now like to know from the hon the State President whether he envisages converting the national council into an interim government, as was the case in South West Africa, without consulting the electorate first, because he announced that he was going to postpone the election.

The next step in South West Africa was to establish the Multi-Party Conference with the present cabinet after the National Assembly had failed. Yet the reward or prize which this Government held out to the people, namely peace, did not materialise. We now gather that Mr Justice Hiemstra has drafted a new one-man-one-vote constitution. Dirk Mudge says he hopes the Government of the RSA accepts this one-man-one-vote constitution, because a couple of seats cannot save the Whites. Group protection and group representation have been replaced by one man, one vote, and this has happened under the control of the NP of South Africa.

I should like to tell the Government that this constitution of Mr Justice Hiemstra’s will not bring peace either, because Swapo is not represented. In South West Africa, South Africa with its defence force and Administrator-General is the external stabilising factor. For South Africa, however, there is no such external stabilising factor. Zimbabwe did not have such an external stabilising factor, yet they reached an settlement with a Black majority government and a Black Prime Minister in the person of Bishop Muzorewa. That settlement lasted only two years, however—the communists took care of that, because that government was not their lackey. After only two years, the Rhodesia of Mr Ian Smith was the Zimbabwe of Mr Mugabe.

I should now like to ask the hon the State President what makes him think that matters in South Africa will take a different course from that in Zimbabwe and South West Africa. What makes him think that a settlement without the ANC will bring peace and international acceptance if even members of his party do not believe it? The hon member for Innesdal says a settlement without the ANC is not possible. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not believe it either. Nor does the hon the Deputy Minister in the State President’s Office, who negotiates on constitutional matters, believe a solution is possible without the ANC.

The hon the State President complains about the Dakarites, but who cleared the way to Dakar and Lusaka? It was the hon the State President who did so when he said that he would negotiate with the ANC if they renounced violence; when the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said in Munich that they could come and participate in the constitutional processes of South Africa; when the chairman of the constitutional committee of the President’s Council engaged in a flirtation and tried to involve the UDF, which is an ANC lackey. The hon the State President said a communist did not change his spots, but I should like to ask him whether he is going to negotiate with these people. Is he going to negotiate with them if they renounce violence?

The hon the State President should have stopped the Dakarites. He said he had the information, but why did he not expose them? He should have stopped them, because Moscow welcomes tours of this kind to Dakar, because they want to put together an external government of aliens in future.

Mr Ian Smith did not want the Zimbabwe of today. He found himself in it against his will. The hon the State President does not want an ANC government in South Africa, but if the people do not stop him, South Africa will find itself in such a position against its will. That is why we ask hon the State President today where he is heading. We know he does not want an ANC government. I want to tell him that he has cleared the way for the ANC.

It pains me deeply, but someone has to tell the hon the State President this, because the people in his party are not doing so. Nevertheless, someone has to tell the hon the State President that history will brand him as the man who chose the path which led to the ANC. [Interjections.] The hon the State President is only one step behind Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, because the hon the State President put South Africa on this road. That is a fact. The question “State President, where are you going?” rings clamorously in his ears. His people ask him where he is going and he replies: “Do not ask me such things. It is irresponsible to say what the arrangements at the finishing line will look like”.

The people of South Africa know that this path will lead to the ANC, and the question for the hon the State President to answer is whether he is aware that this path leads to the ANC. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Lichtenburg must still have been a member of this side of the House when the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa was changed twice. I should like to ask the hon member whether, in the unlikely event—as seen from our side—of the CP coming into power, whether they would not also try to change the Constitution of the Republic in any case? The hon member remains silent.

The hon member asked where this side of the Committee was heading. On the other hand I want to enquire what destination the CP has in mind. Let us examine where it is heading. One can examine the answer to one of the questions posed in the CP booklet Meet the CP on what political rights will be granted to Coloureds and Indians according to CP policy. The CP answer reads:

There is reference inter alia to the fact that at present 50% of the Coloureds and 76% of the Indians inhabit areas in their own right, areas which could form the nucleus of their own future fatherland. Let us examine these areas to which the CP is referring. As regards the Coloureds, it is indubitable that 50% of them are living in their own areas. Let us see how these Coloureds are distributed and where they live. They are distributed over no fewer than 326 group areas in the Cape Province; 26 in the Free State; 74 in the Transvaal and 50 in Natal, making a total of 476 areas. Do these represent the areas the CP advocates as the homeland and fatherland in which it wishes to amalgamate the Coloureds?

We can go even further by examining the position of the Indians where the situation is exactly the same. Although 76% of them are possibly resident in one province, they are distributed over 95 group areas in Natal. There are no fewer than 116 group areas for Indians in the Transvaal, while there are a further 33 in the Cape Province.

The CP policy of partition in respect of the Coloureds and Indians is that they want to proffer no fewer than 720 of these different areas as the fatherlands of Coloureds and Indians.

Let us examine a further aspect. What does the CP have to say about Black people? Here I am referring to an election pamphlet which it published in which the following question was put: ‘“We cannot manage without the Black people.’ What does the CP say?”

Order! I appeal to hon members who feel obliged to converse to do so quietly. The noise level in the Committee is too high. The hon member for Newcastle may proceed.

In reply they say: “It is not true that we cannot manage without the Black people.” This is the basic point of departure seized upon by that party. But what are the facts?

Out of a total of slightly more than 20 million Black people, 4,7 million are at present living in the TBVC countries and 5,3 million in the national states. There are approximately 5,3 million Black people living in White urban areas, while 4,8 million Blacks are living in the White rural areas. Is this CP answer—their saying they can manage without the Black people—also applicable to the 4,8 million Blacks in White rural areas?

Let us examine our economically active population next. The latest census of the Central Statistical Services indicates the economically active population as just over 8 million according to the 1985 count. If adjustments are made for a degree of undercounting, we can refer to a round figure of approximately 10 million comprising 65% Black people and only 22% Whites.

The South African labour market is characterised by stark contradictions. On the one hand there is an oversupply of unskilled labour, whereas serious shortages in technical and professional categories are experienced on the other. In South Africa professional and technical manpower represents about 4,5% of the economically active population of the country; the figure is 14,2% in the USA. The ratio of skilled to unskilled labour is 1:42 in South Africa whereas the corresponding American figure is 1:6; it is 1:11 in Australia and 1:15 in Japan.

The estimated economically active population is approximately 10 million—as I said before. Expectations are that there will be an increase in excess of 7 million over the next 20 years. Whites will contribute just over 8% to this, Asians just over 2% and Coloureds just over 8% whereas Blacks will contribute more than 81%.

On an annual basis the work force increases by approximately 242 000, of which only 12 out of every 100 will be Whites whereas 73% will be Blacks. In consequence the ethnic composition of the RSA labour force will change dramatically.

Numerically the Whites are unable to fill the additional executive posts required by economic growth; yet the CP says it is not true that we cannot manage without the Black people.

Let us look at urbanisation. The CP’s partition policy does not provide for the demographic reality of urbanisation either, which is not only going to change lifestyles but also influence certain processes.

At present 67% of the total White population resides in the four metropolitan areas, with 41% of them in the PWV area. Economic power is being increasingly concentrated in these areas. This phenomenon of urbanisation is not only occurring in South Africa; in fact it is expected that more than 50% of world population will be living in urban areas by the end of this century, compared with the 29% in 1950 and 39% in 1975.

Let us look at Black urbanisation. Black urbanisation in the RS A, was only about 37% in 1980, is expected to be the source of the main population problem of the next century. Compared with only 8 million Black city dwellers in 1980, these urban-dwellers could increase to between 57 million—calculated according to an assumption of low fertility—and a possible 96 million—according to an assumption of high fertility—by the year 2050.

When the CP furthermore makes the statement that every people will have preference in its own partitioned state, it does not take the reality of the Whites into account either. The reality is that the Whites do not constitute an absolute majority in any of the provinces. In the Transvaal Whites comprise 28% of the total population; 24% in the Cape; 16% in the Free State and 20% in Natal.

It is patently obvious that this policy of partition championed by the CP will prove impracticable. [Interjections.] There is only one solution and it is that advocated by this side of the Committee under the leadership of the hon the State President.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, the hon the leader of the PFP and other speakers referred to South West Africa. SWA is a very sensitive matter which must be handled with discretion and sensitivity. I should like to touch on a few aspects of that matter merely to put things in the correct perspective again.

†Before I come to that I would just like to say that on 16 or 17 July I was standing at the Kalahari Sands Hotel in Windhoek. The sky was still full of dust and one could smell something similar to the smell of gunpowder in the air. There were still pieces of concrete falling from that building where the bomb blast took place.

I was standing there in the country of my birth and thinking about people who tell us that we must just unban the ANC and talk to them, because then peace, tranquility and stability will reign in this country of ours. That is a lie!

Swapo is not banned.

Swapo is very similar, if not identical, to the ANC.

It is not banned.

That is precisely the point I want to make.

What about the UDF?

Swapo is not banned and it is a legal political party in SWA. They are doing their thing there, but what is the success of that policy? I was standing there and I could see, hear, feel and even smell the result of that policy.

The Dakar creepers and similar people tell us the answer lies in unbanning the ANC and talking to them.

The position there is that Swapo is not banned and has full rights just like any other political party. What is the result? We feel the result, we see it and we can even smell it. So I tell these Dakar creepers and people who have similar ideas …

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

Mr Chairman, I shall give the hon member an opportunity to ask me a question at the end of my speech because I do not have very much time.

*With reference to what we are seeing in South West Africa, I feel that South Africa, as a regional power, has an obligation in Southern Africa. It is an important obligation of bring about progress, stability and peace in Southern Africa. As far as South West Africa is concerned, we have a far greater obligation. I can even call it a much stronger obligation, and as a result of our strong ties with South West Africa—as I said, I was born there and grew up there—the obligation we have to South West Africa is an intimate one.

It has been said over the years that South West Africa and the people of South West will decide their future themselves. That is true. That does not mean, however, that South Africa has nothing to do with the matter; in fact, South Africa has a great deal to do with it. It is not only that it has an obligation, as I said; it is more than just an obligation.

One does not want to read quotation after quotation simply to prove a statement. I grew up in a home in South West where my father was chairman of the divisional committee, and my brother subsequently a member of the Legislative Assembly and the National Assembly for many years. I still have strong ties there. I have been there four times this year and have had discussions with many of the political leaders. Over the years I have built up a thick file of documentation about the matter. In my hand I have the Official Gazette Extraordinary of South West Africa of 1 April 1977. It contains the “Petition for the Establishment of an Interim Government”. Chapter II of this document, which was published in April 1977, explains the so-called “Protection of Fundamental Rights”. I quote from it as follows:

The various points are then given one after another, and the very first reads—

I can continue in this way. Since Pres Wilson laid down an important principle in 1919 when the mandate was at issue, inter alia the mandate of South West Africa—one could say he was talking directly about South West Africa—the question of the protection of minority rights has been a strong principle, also in South West Africa. The idea and the principle were also included in the mandate.

The hon the State President, in his former capacity as Prime Minister, himself said in a major speech he made in Upington in 1979:

Reference was made to Aktur, and I agree with the hon member that ever since Turnhalle, and as I quoted, the rights of minorities figured in an important sense. I want to quote what Pres Wilson said when he spoke specifically about the question of minority rights:

He went on to ask for the protection of minority rights.

That is why it is my standpoint that although South Africa said South West should make its own decisions about its future—we do not prescribe to South West how the minority rights should be guaranteed and we do not say it should be done in a certain way—we are involved.

Of course, second tier government is a method. It need not be of an ethnic nature, it could for example be done on a regional basis. We do not prescribe to South West Africa, therefore, exactly how those minority rights should be exercised. I have a final quotation in this connection. This Multi-Party Conference sent a telegram to the hon the State President on 26 January 1984 after saying inter alia in a report (Hansard: House of Assembly, 31 January 1984, col 122):

This Multi-Party group therefore referred once again to what the hon the State President had said in this House on 31 January 1984. The hon the State President also met these people. The hon the State President said amongst other things, and I quote (col 122):

I have said that it is the duty and obligation of South Africa to ensure that minority rights are not violated in that area. The Government then received a telegram in which the Multi-Party Conference said (col 123):

I can mention many other aspects, such as the financial aspects and the defence force aspects, but the point I want to make is that South Africa not only has the moral right to request that minority rights are not violated, but has an obligation to do so. I have great sympathy with those people, because they are part of my people. To say, however, that South Africa must interfere and want to enforce itself on those people, is not correct. South Africa must ensure progress, stability, peace, and the guarantees for minorities form part of South Africa’s obligation.

Mr Chairman, I listened with interest to what the hon member for Langlaagte had to say about the South West Africa issue, but he will forgive me if I do not follow up on that since we are awaiting a reaction from the hon the State President, after which we can debate it further.

†Although it is not a matter of great moment for the nation in its present situation the hon the State President raised an issue yesterday which I would like to deal with quickly in order to get it out of the way. That is the issue of an alleged misquotation in an advertisement which appeared on 4 May.

It is not my style, neither do I want it to be my party’s style to trade in misquotes. I must be very frank with hon members; I do not want that. I also do not want to find myself in conflict with the hon the State President on an issue like that. There are more important things we can argue about, but the fact is that the advertisement appeared. There was a lawyer’s letter from De Klerk and Van Gend on behalf of the hon the State President in his personal capacity and as leader of the party, requiring that certain action be taken. On the strength of this, certain things were done. I took it seriously. In view of the lawyer’s letter I authorized a serious investigation into what had happened and into, not just the occasion, but also the source of the original information which was used on that occasion.

The upshot was that some three weeks later I received a letter from the National Advertising Committee of the PFP addressed to me in my capacity as leader of the PFP. I will not quote all of it, but I would like to quote the following:

In the same light I extend that apology to the hon the State President. [Interjections.]

This then raises the general question of politics. It is not the question of maligning characters but I hope the hon the State President will look very seriously at the tenor of the NP advertising during the election campaign in respect of the PFP. [Interjections.] I believe it misrepresented the character, the essence, the policy and intentions of that party. I believe it was successful in preventing people from voting for us, but it was also successful in seeing to it that the CP became the Official Opposition in South Africa! [Interjections.] If anybody was responsible for the CP being the Official Opposition today I want to say it was the hon the State President as the leader of the NP and the hon the Minister of Finance as its head propagandist. The hon the State President should ponder very seriously over the quality and tenor of his party’s advertising and see whether in fact it was valid. [Interjections.]

The hon the State President raised a few issues. I want to say that I am not surprised but appalled at his proposal to change the Constitution to prevent a general election taking place in 1989.I want to tell him that we will not be prepared to assist in any way in what I see as the gerrymandering of the Constitution of South Africa to suit the whim of a party-political leader. The hon the State President must have had that intention at the time of the election. Indeed, I raised this as an issue and said that I suspected that there was going to be a gerrymandering. I was attacked by, I think, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who said that they had not even thought of anything like that. [Interjections.] Yes, it is true. No leader of a party could go into an election without anticipating its effect on 1989.

The NP deliberately withheld that information from the electorate of South Africa and in that case it was a political deception. It should at that stage have said that this was what was going to take place. However, when it was raised by the then Leader of the Official Opposition, instead of admitting it there was an evasion of this particular issue.

There was not! That is not true!

I want to say that it was the obvious consequence. It was raised, it was denied and it was withheld from the public.

The second point is that the hon the State President made great play of the principle of a five-year term for individual Houses. That is not the principle contained in the Constitution. In the Constitution it says that there should be a five-year term for Parliament as a whole. The Constitution in fact makes provision for interim elections for the individual Houses—it anticipates that there will be interim elections. It does state, however, that there will be a general election for Parliament not in excess of five-year intervals. This is a fundamental issue. Are we a Parliament or just a collection of Houses that go their own way? Is that what we are?

This is an absolutely critical issue. The election was discussed and debated ad nauseam at the time. It was an important principle that when Parliament was re-elected the three Houses should be re-elected simultaneously. After much discussion and debate it was agreed that this was a fundamental principle.

A second important principle is that in order to elect the State President the electoral college must receive a fresh mandate from the people. Now one will have an electoral college that has not received a fresh mandate from the people. It would have received a fresh mandate in respect of two of the Houses but in respect of the other House it would just be an on-going situation. We believe this is just party-political gerrymandering, and we lay it as a charge against this Government that it was not prepared to admit this course of action at the time that it went to the White voters at a general election.

The hon the State President also referred to the National Statutory Council. We wait with interest to see in what way the Bill has been amended in relation to the Bill that was published for general information early last year. We must reiterate that whatever the small type is, whatever the Bill is, the National Council will work depending on the political environment that exists in South Africa at that time. That is absolutely critical. That political environment will not be appropriate if negotiations are going to be restricted or prescribed by racial non-negotiables on the part of the Government.

One of those racial non-negotiables that must be swept to one side is that one of the options must be that the National Council can recommend the final and total scrapping of this racially segregated tricameral system.

The hon the State President also dealt with the whole question of discussions with the ANC and so on. I take his views seriously, because it is a serious subject. We accept that there are risks. We always said that there are many dangers and that as times there may even be useful idiots. However, allow me to say that that is not the prerogative only of the people who talk to the ANC.

No, indeed not.

No, we have said ad nauseam, and I say it again to this Committee: We are not in favour of talks in order to enter into a cosy relationship or joint strategies with people who have terrorism as one leg of their strategy. We reject that kind of thing. We believe that the main discussion which should be taking place, should be taking place here in South Africa between the millions of South Africans who find themselves on either side of the great political divide. That is what should be happening. However, that debate is made ever so much more difficult by the existence of the restrictions under the state of emergency.

We say once again to the hon the State President that there must be times when well-conceived and sensibly structured talks with other people externally will have to take place in a serious attempt to reduce the level of violence and to increase the prospect of negotiation. I measure my words very carefully. I believe that such talks in the end will be most fruitful if they involve the Government and/or its agents. That is a reality that the hon the State President understands. He will recall how he chastised me across the floor of this House in 1974 for going to see Pres Kaunda. He said: “He is the guest of the Government where rapists and murderers of South African women are being trained”. He chastised me across the floor of the House. Good gracious! On 10 October, four months later, there was Mr B J Vorster in a cosy discussion relationship with President Kenneth Kaunda! He went on to meet him on the bridge across the Victoria Falls. And later on the State President—who was then the Prime Minister—met him at the bush meeting on the border of Botswana.

One thinks of the discussions that have taken place with Frelimo. There were long discussions with Frelimo which is pro-Marxist and pro-ANC. These discussions were in order to reach the Nkomati Accord. I am not arguing that every discussion is valid. I am saying that one cannot exclude the concept of discussions. One thinks of Swapo—an hon member raised that point. There have been innumerable talks close at hand and at a distance with that organization. There have been proximity talks in New York. There was the contact group which was actually acting as an intermediary between the South African Government and Swapo. It was the hon the State President himself who announced that his representative Dr Willie Van Niekerk and Pres. Kenneth Kaunda had chaired a meeting in Lusaka at which Swapo and the members of the Multi-Party Conference were brought together. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point’s speech today actually confirmed why he lost his position as leader of the Official Opposition in this House. [Interjections.] He has again illustrated that he has not the slightest knowledge of propaganda, perceptions and so forth. That is what I gathered from his speech this morning. The least I expected of him was to take a clear stand on his party’s involvement, because while two hon members of the PFP in this Parliament were involved in the Dakar talks, two unsuccessful candidates—Mr Savage and Mr Moorcroft—also participated actively there. I shall come back to the propaganda side of things later in my speech.

*Yesterday we saw a display of power and leadership …

Were you here?

… by the hon the State President, delivered as it could be only by a leader who had received a clear and unambiguous mandate from the White electorate two months previously to maintain stability and order. A further important objective of that mandate was to carry out certain reforms in the political, social and economical spheres.

Normally these matters are belittled or ignored. There was the ridiculous remark of the hon member for Constantia yesterday. He made a miserable attempt to criticise the economic position. He must be unaware of the great shift in emphasis that has taken place there as far as the Government’s whole standpoint is concerned, specifically as a result of the hon the State President’s action. He is unaware of the fact that we are in favour of competition, deregulation and so on. [Interjections.] The emphasis now is on change and never has there been more consultation by the NP Government and its leader with the private sector than under the hon the State President. To cap everything, another announcement was made in this connection to the effect that further discussions would take place soon.

The PFP made a very poor show in the recent election precisely because of this party’s complete inability to convince the Whites of its desire to maintain law and order, but also because of its inability to articulate properly the feeling that there was something good one could stand for in South Africa. The voters’ condemnation was very severe, despite the statements and advertisements from that side of the Committee. Their track record was simply not good enough. The image they project is simply not acceptable to the voters, because they cannot associate themselves with it.

The latest events merely serve to emphasise what I am saying. The moment of truth has come for them. It is accepted political reality that a member of Parliament, particularly if he is a leading figure in a party, cannot take part in political activities as if he is taking part in a private matter. This has been confirmed by recent events. Attempts have been made by the hon member for Yeoville to dissociate himself, and therefore by implication the PFP, from these hon members. That is why they apologised. This did not succeed, however. The PFP will have to explain this obstinate resistance of their members in this debate today.

As a propaganda exercise, the Dakar talks benefited only two parties. The first was Idasa and the other groups that have committed themselves to extra-parliamentary action, and the second, of course, was the ANC itself, which can be satisfied with a very successful propaganda campaign. In the first place the ANC used these talks to exploit and strengthen the existence of extra-parliamentary action. The ANC was also correct in its appraisal of the group from the RSA as far as their importance and ability was concerned. That is why the ANC sent its own team to exploit this very aspect.

This group also did the ANC a big favour because they conducted these talks at a time that was very appropriate for the ANC in that they could make a show of being reasonable, with great publicity value, to counteract the increasing aversion that was building up in the West in respect of their methods of violence.

What does the West say about the Dakar talks?

At least they have seen once again how naive …

Tell us what the West says about Dakar.

Order! The hon member for Green Point must contain himself.

The two propaganda objectives that the ANC was pursuing were successfully accomplished, because immediately after receiving a mandate from the White voters on law and order and on reform, they gave international status to extra-parliamentary action, assisted by two hon members of this very Parliament!

The hon the State President referred to this yesterday as well, but I think it behoves hon members to listen once again to what he said on 17 April 1986 (Hansard: House of Assembly, col 3595):

That is what the hon the State President said last year.

The chairman of the International Research Council of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington said the following:

†In South Africa they are faced with a Government determined to stand firm against violence at any cost.

To show hon members how naive these people really are, I would like to refer to what was said by the hon member for Durban Central as quoted in the Daily News on 12 August. He said:

Sir, has anyone ever heard anything more absurd than that?

*Naturally the fact that the ANC is involved in an armed struggle with the RSA caused them to re-consider the propaganda value of these Dakar talks, and they are deriving great benefit from these talks both at home and abroad. That is what the hon the leader of the PFP fails to see, because he sees a positive contribution to the welfare of South Africa and its people in these talks. [Interjections.]

Order!

The systematic arrangement of this propaganda instrument is emphasised by the repugnant act that was committed, viz the bomb blast in Johannesburg, before these sympathisers (meepraters) had even got back home. This was a sign and a clear message to the soldiers and to the supporters of the ANC in South Africa that violence must continue, despite the talks.

Where is your little friend?

The PFP is experiencing a terrible dilemma, because they actually have only two options. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I should like to know whom he is quoting.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Only two options remain, namely that they should continue their resistance and continue to resort to radical spheres—this side of the Committee and I support the hon the State President in what he announced in this connection yesterday, viz that it will receive attention—or they must co-operate. Would it not be much better if they co-operated in this discussion that must follow in the Republic if we want peace? (Time expired.)

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon member for Uitenhage. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to pose just one question, and that is what the South Africa of today looks like.

The first question we must ask ourselves is whether we are still proud of the South Africa of today. Do we still have enough pride to associate ourselves with the South Africa of today? There are South Africans who are growing afraid of the South Africa of today and tomorrow. There are those who have already run away, and there are probably more who are going to leave South Africa. I have nothing to say to them; they are welcome to leave.

There are those in the second group who see South Africa only through dark glasses. They are the so-called pessimists. I have encountered some of them, also during the recent election. There was, for example, a handsome young man who was a true HNP. He immediately told me this and I accepted it as such during our conversation. He has his political problems. I could reason with him about that. He also has his likes and dislikes in respect of political leaders. We could differ with one another on that point. Something that bothered me during my conversation with him—I told him so too—was his absolutely negative, pessimistic and depressive state of mind with regard to the future of South Africa. He was completely pessimistic about the future path we have to travel. He no longer sees a future for the present South Africa. To him, South Africa is lost. As he himself put it, the fate of the Whites has been sealed; the Whites in this country have no future.

I had to do a lot of talking before I eventually got him to understand that if all the Whites in South Africa were to reason in that way, we would already have lost. It was only after I had explained to him that we in the NP did not believe in total abdication, but that we as the NP still had the will and the desire to survive here in South Africa, that we could get our conversation going again and could argue about solutions.

That is the point I am trying to make. We must not write off and destroy the will to survive and to continue to be part of South Africa beforehand. That is why we do not need those who flee elsewhere. That is why we do not need a negative state of mind.

The Whites still have a part to play in a future South Africa. We are not handing over or capitulating, after all We still have a leading part to play in South Africa. Why must we suddenly stop playing that part? We have not been destroyed because we are confronting a state of emergency. We have not been eliminated because the country is experiencing a protracted drought. We are not totally defenceless because the world is applying sanctions against us and disinvesting in us. The relatively poor economy of the past few years has not broken us completely. The fact that we have a new constitutional dispensation has not placed the Whites in an inferior position in comparison with earlier years. The fact that we have removed certain discriminatory measures from the Statute Book has not made us less White than we were before. We shall not lose our identity if we are prepared to have talks with other groups about a future South Africa. That South Africa is not necessarily a South Africa in which the Whites have to be the losers.

Not “necessarily”.

That is why it is essential for us to enter into discussions with each other now and in the future. The Whites will have to take the initiative in this regard. That is why I greatly appreciate the standpoint of Mr Conradie, the senior chairman of the ATKV, when he stated at the recent ATKV congress that the relevance of the Afrikaner in future discussions and negotiations would be determined by the extent to which he did justice to his own endeavours as well as the endeavours of other population groups. I agree with him completely. The Afrikaner is part of a greater South Africa.

But you agreed with us as well.

The Afrikaner is not merely the cream on top of the milk; the Afrikaner is part of the milk. If we wanted to dissociate ourselves from the rest of South Africa we would hamper and restrict ourselves. We shall and should remain part of a broader and greater South Africa. Only then can we play a comprehensive part in this southern point of Africa.

We must not eliminate ourselves to such a degree that we will be a lesser factor in future. It is true—I do not mind conceding this—that there are certain factors, some more serious than others, which contain the potential for polarisation in South Africa. I want to mention just a few.

We all feel uneasy about the increasing number of attacks on and murders of defenceless older people in South Africa. This creates uneasiness and tension among Whites as well as among people of other race groups. The utterances of a Winnie Mandela that the struggle must be carried on in White areas definitely has the potential to create conflict. Naturally, murder by means of car bombs and limpet mines in White areas increases the tension. The provocative attitude of hooligans on the street who swagger around the sidewalks, pushing and shoving, can lead to confrontation and creates bitterness. I can identify many such problem areas, but none of them should be capable of causing the Whites to form a laager and isolate themselves.

The Whites, and more specifically the Afrikaners, are bigger than that, and we accept the challenges of our time to occupy our rightful place in a future South Africa. After all, the Afrikaner is not an inferior being who capitulates under the slightest pressure. We have a relentless potential for survival. We should give vent to this potential and live our lives to the full. Let us use that potential to occupy our rightful position in a future South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I have a problem with the statement made by the hon member for Gezina in this Committee that the Afrikaner has nothing to lose in the future new dispensation, and that he will not be in an inferior position in any way. That is precisely the problem we had during the recent election. We had the problem that the voters were told “that we shall lose nothing”. They are under the blissful impression that when power is shared, when we enter a new undivided South Africa, the Whites in this country will keep on governing just as they are governing today. I do not understand how the hon member can still say that today. I do not know whether or not that hon member is a member of the Broederbond, but let me tell him how the Broederbond sees matters. The Broederbond’s own document reads:

If that is the position, does he accept it? That is the view of the majority of hon members on that side of the Committee, who are members of the Broederbond, that there will be a majority of Blacks in the future government. How the hon member can still tell people today on that basis that they are not going to lose anything and are not going to be in an inferior position in any way, is beyond my comprehension.

During the recent election we constantly heard one thing. That was the assurance given to the voters that their self-determination would be guaranteed. We should like to accept that. This was proclaimed from one platform to another and referred to own residential areas and own schools in particular. It was that part of self-determination which was to have given the Whites of this country security at all times.

A second phenomenon during the recent election was the high moral note struck by the Government. They said we should be fair and just to everyone. We were told once again in this House yesterday that we should express love. The whole matter has been placed on a moral basis, to which I have no objection.

Then why are you complaining?

The hon member must wait a moment; I shall tell him why I am complaining. [Interjections.]

Order!

We have always been told that as long as one’s cause has a moral basis, everything is fine. We accept, therefore, that when the hon the State President goes to the conference table, there is one aspect which he will not negotiate. That is the Whites’ self-determination as far as their own residential areas and own schools are concerned. That is one thing that is not negotiable. I want to know from the hon the State President whether he will keep his word on this point at all times. We and the voters in general consider this to be a very serious matter. We want a guarantee. There are hundreds and thousands of voters who voted for the NP Government on that basis. We want this assurance, however, because we are concerned. We are concerned because we know that those who are going to sit on the opposite side of the table—the Blacks—are asking for open schools and residential areas, even at this stage. The Coloureds and Indians are asking for this too. They want to be able to live where they wish and want their children to go to school there because otherwise, so they say, discrimination is being applied against them.

I now want to ask the hon the State President on what ethical basis he is going to tell the non-Whites that they cannot get this. On what basis is he going to tell them that it is fair and just? I am asking this question because the hon the State President has adopted a standpoint on this matter in the past.

When the question of the admission of Coloureds to this Parliament was raised in the House of Assembly, he assumed a moral standpoint and gave a moral reason for his standpoint. The essence of his standpoint was that if Coloureds were admitted to this Parliament to make laws with us, we would have no moral right to say that they could not attend the same schools. If they could bring their wives and children here to associate with us, what moral right would we have to say that they could not live in the same residential areas as we did? He also said that if we permitted Coloureds here, we would have to permit Indians and then Blacks.

When he took over the reins of office, however, despite this moral reasoning, he and his followers brought the Coloureds to Parliament. He took the Coloureds along with him. If he was honest in that philosophy of his, it goes without saying that he would have to implement it and this he is in fact doing. He is also including the Blacks in some or other way as part of the legislative and executive authority. This process is already taking place.

I want to ask the hon the State President how he justifies his moral standpoint now. If people of other races are here now, what about his standpoint on schools? What about his standpoint on residential areas? The hon the State President himself said it would not be moral to refuse people of other races these things once they were represented in Parliament. He himself said that. In the second place I want to know what answer he gives to those on the opposite side of the table. What does he tell them when that question is asked?

He has removed the moral grounds for self-determination. He himself did this. That is why we want to tell the hon the State President that he will have to concede. He will have no choice, because it was he who assumed this morality; it was he who said that he would adopt a standpoint on a cause only if that cause was morally right.

We feel it is clear that one cannot use laws that were meant for separation, laws that were made to effect separation, in an integrated system. That is an anomaly. It must not be allowed to remain. By doing that the hon the State President has brutally pulled the last tattered remnants of the rug the White voters of this country were standing on out from under them and as far as this aspect is concerned, they will be empty-handed when they go to the conference table. I ask this question: What will become of the promised self-determination of the Whites?

Mr Chairman, there are two aspects arising from what the hon member for Ermelo said which I should like to take up with him.

The first point is that, if he is opposed to power-sharing, I want to tell him that power-sharing originated with the assistance of the hon members of the Official Opposition. Power-sharing was not announced in 1982 as the hon member for Pietersburg said; it came into existence when the 1977 proposals were implemented by those hon members.

In the second case that hon member spoke about total partition and separation or apartheid. I want to state that that was never NP policy.

Regardless of what is being said, it is the NP that holds out a message of hope to all the population groups of this country; it accepts realities and acts accordingly. In addition the NP has a leader to be trusted and capable of giving substance to this message of hope.

This leader, the hon the State President, broadened democracy and this resulted in more people desiring to protect democracy than destroy it. Power-sharing did not destroy the status of independent and national states but provided a solution for Coloureds, Indians and Whites and the people outside these states.

The contribution of the hon the State President as the Chairman of the Cabinet Committee to investigate changes to the Westminster system cannot be overemphasised. He has not only won people but also peoples over for the future of South Africa. In referring to these proposals Mr Vorster said that they would determine how long a person would survive in this country. No one can contest this and not even the hon member for Ermelo will differ with me on the fact that control by the various population groups over affairs of common concern institutes power-sharing.

He will not be able to disagree with me either if I say that consensus politics among the various population groups bring about power-sharing in matters of common interest. This was the underlying factor of the 1977 proposals accepted by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

You don’t understand it because you were not there.

On page 6 of a publication issued by the then Department of Information, of which the hon member for Randfontein was then the Minister, the following appeared:

Surely a joint say is power-sharing, and that was accepted by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Was there a single parliament?

I shall get to the single parliament in a moment. [Interjections.] On page 10 of this booklet one finds:

As gevolg van die konsensusgrondslag hoef daar geen vrees te wees dat minder-heidsgroepe in die Raad van Kabinette uitgestem sal word nie.

Surely that is power-sharing. Consequently I say hon members of the Official Opposition were involved in its creation.

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

I am not going to reply to any questions.

On 12 April 1978 Mr Vorster said in this House (Hansard: House of Assembly, vol 73, col 4555):

If Mr Vorster said the Council of Cabinets represented Cabinet government, what is that but power-sharing? [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was part of this.

On 7 February 1979 the hon the State President said in this House (Hansard: House of Assembly, vol 79, col 247):

If the hon the State President said in 1979 that sovereignty could be shared, he was already saying in that year that this party stood for a policy of power-sharing.

Now hon members of the Official Opposition are asking whether there was one parliament. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said if the President’s Council were to decide on one parliament and the congresses accepted this, the NP would stand by it. He said it at Randfontein during the 1981 general election. I now ask those hon members why, when one parliament eventuated, they no longer upheld the congress standpoints in conjunction with the NP. If the hon member for Ermelo refers to moral justification for the present system, my reply to him is that his colleagues and his party had a part in the establishment of this system. [Interjections.]

You are talking rot! It is nonsense! [Interjections.]

No wonder the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had this to say on 7 March 1981, according to Beeld of 9 March 1981:

Does the hon member for Ermelo disagree with his leader on that standpoint? [Interjections.] The future of South Africa is too important to ignore the realities. That is why we thank the hon the State President for his realism and dedicated zeal in creating a better South Africa—for hon members of the Official Opposition too.

Nevertheless they ask where we are heading with the Black people. On 1 February 1978 the hon member for Randfontein—still the Minister of Plural Relations at the time—said ten problems had been identified after the Soweto riots (Hansard, House of Assembly, 1978, col 231):

The Black people wanted to know what was to become of their political say in South African national affairs, and the hon member for Randfontein said that that matter had to be addressed within five years so that the problem could be eliminated.

That hon member claimed that the hon the State President had now come forward with a new policy regarding Black people, whereas he had given an indication that year that we were moving towards a system of power-sharing with Black people too. [Interjections.]

The man is in a trance.

I want to make another point, which is that the Official Opposition’s policy of total partition, segregation or apartheid was never that of the NP. There has been talk of what Adv Strijdom said in this House in 1956, but 26 years earlier, in 1930, he said (Hansard, House of Assembly, 1930, col 1390):

If it was no longer possible in 1930, how much less possible will it be in 1987?

The CP is running away from that reality.

Not only Adv Strijdom said that. On 13 March 1953 Dr Malan said the following in Vredendal before the general election:

Hon members will also recall Gen Hertzog’s words about Coloureds on 13 November 1925 at Smithfield. He said the Coloured had originated in our midst, he spoke our language and had our outlook on life and should be assimilated economically, industrially and politically into the Whites. For the sake of South Africa, segregation should not be pursued as a policy in his case. Hon members will also recall what Dr Verwoerd wrote about Coloureds in a letter to Sir Robert Menzies:

The hon member for Ermelo must not accuse my leader of having introduced power-sharing into this system. Not only have hon members of the Official Opposition assisted in this, but it is a policy which has developed like a golden thread through the NP.

Wouldn’t you rather wake up?

Statements by previous Prime Ministers surely indicate in what direction it had to develop.

I shall tell the hon member for Ermelo what his problem is. He cannot sell partition to the voters and that is why the previous member for Kuruman, the Cape Leader of the CP, said at Brackenfell that he would appoint a commission to inquire into a location for the White fatherland if his party came to power. The hon member wants to proclaim a Boerestaat, but he is ashamed to say so in this Committee. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Vryburg will pardon me for not following on his speech but I shall react to one or two matters to which he referred.

Right at the outset I wish to react on behalf of the Independent Movement to a few of the announcements made by the State President yesterday.

In the first place we welcome the statement on security prisoners. This places the entire problem situation within a new framework and I think it creates room for political considerations to play a greater role. It also provides the opportunity to deal with political leaders within the framework of security prisoners as such. I only hope that, when the Government considers these matters, it will release people with a view to involving them positively in the reform process and not to destroying their leadership and credibility.

We are particularly grateful for the possible release of Mr Govan Mbeki. He is highly respected and getting on in years, as the hon the State President said. I believe this could make a positive contribution and hope it will actually take place. This could start drying out the paint with which the Government has been painting itself into a corner over the years.

The second matter I wish to broach is the envisaged amendment of the Constitution and the postponement of the election. This obviously affects us too, but it only affects one of the matters occupying us as a fixed objective. We feel this should not have been the case and that that standpoint should have been put to the voters before the election. The election was in fact conducted in terms of the Constitution, on the assumption that there would be another election in 1989 and the voters cast their votes on that basis.

They were hoodwinked!

What concerns me is that this presents an indication of an overready aptness to tamper with the Constitution and this will not be healthy. The Government almost seems intent upon proving that a Constitution in Africa is not worth the paper on which it is written. [Interjections.]

As regards the legislation itself, we shall wait until we see it on the Table but if matters actually proceed according to indications—the hon leader of the PFP has already referred to this—it is going to be a retrogressive step.

I also wish to state our standpoints on the discussion and the handling of the concept of “parliamentary” and “extra parliamentary” politics. First of all we should remember that what we are dealing with in South Africa under the parliamentary system is not a parliament in the true sense of the word because this is a concept linked to a democratic system and therefore accepted as such. Whereas parliament is therefore a democratic concept in its entirety, reference to the executive authority as parliament is only partially true. In conjunction with this—again according to the Government’s standpoint—the purpose is to institute new democratic and I assume parliamentary politics; therefore the involvement of people from all political groupings, all people at all levels of government, legislative as well as executive. The Government’s standpoint is also that this should take place through negotiation.

If this is the case, this process includes the actors to be involved, as well as the people ultimately to be incorporated in the new dispensation—all those involved in the so-called parliamentary and extraparliamentary politics. If this includes everybody, we should examine the definition of concepts because at the moment we are driving a wedge between the so-called parliamentary and extraparliamentary politics whereas the purpose is to involve the entire spectrum in parliamentary politics.

We have to draw a further distinction. We have to draw the line between people supporting peaceful and non-violent strategies and those who adopt violence as a strategy. If we draw this distinction, we arrive at a more meaningful dispensation, because extra parliamentary activities have a legitimate content. There are many people who are not involved in Parliament who are therefore obliged to engage in extra parliamentary politics, as long as they do so in a way which is neither violent nor subversive of the State and not ultimately headed for violence and a debacle.

I want to make our position very clear. The Independent Movement is a political and a party-political movement which advocates one South Africa under a constitution to be arrived at by all political groupings within the country through a process of negotiation. As such we therefore place ourselves within the total spectrum of politics and we view our activities not only within parliamentary politics but also within what is commonly referred to as extra parliamentary politics.

Against this background I should like to provide further perspective on the relationship between violence and politics. All political schools of thought should be involved in the political process, but then I am referring to political schools of thought which include the underlying politics of the ANC. This is a standpoint we adopted in the past. The ideas and political trend of the Freedom Charter form a fundamental political alignment supported by an enormous number of people in this country and we shall be ignoring the facts if we do not address this. Nevertheless I said the distinction should be drawn between violent and non-violent strategies. We also support the principle of emergency powers. One cannot deal with violence other than by also countering it with violence, but one will not succeed if one handles it exclusively with violence.

I know it forms part of the rhetoric we actually hear from all sides of the House but one will not succeed either if this does not occur according to an integrated strategy of action, security action against violence, a strategy which slots into political action and really runs on a parallel course with such action.

It is of no avail to act through security measures only and not to create and assist in creating scope for people to satisfy their political aspirations. If a man finds himself thwarted politically, finds that he cannot be involved in politics, he will turn to violence if he does not withdraw from the process. If we really wish to reach a democratic process, however, we should condition ourselves to attaining it.

The Government approach—in its propaganda during the past election too—has a polarising effect. The standpoint was adopted of “One votes for the Government; if one does not vote for the Government, one will promote the ANC cause in some way or other”. Quite a number of hon members of the Cabinet who made such statements are present. I could name them—there are quite a number of them—but this is unimportant. They even said, “If one supports the HNP or the CP, it is useless; eventually it will help only the ANC. One has to support the Government. We must take hands. Stand by us in the election.”

This is a bipolarising approach, that means driving in a wedge from the centre by means of which one creates only two forces in opposition which means by definition that there cannot be a political process; it is one of violence. The upshot of this will be that one will destroy the other. Parties speaking like this are doing the dirty work of the AWB and the PAC, if I may borrow an image from the hon the State President. What we actually should do is to isolate this extremism. We should drive in our wedges on that side and allow the political process scope to arrive at the future.

I wish to express a few last thoughts on the Afrikaner about whom various points of view were adopted. I am also one of them. Over the years, and especially over the past 50 years, the Afrikaner has been responsible for achievements in this country which are not appreciated—neither here nor overseas. We have moved from an agricultural community to nuclear technology. We have experienced various treks; there was the Great Trek and the migration to the cities.

We now require a new trek; not geopolitical, not geographic, but a trek by means of which we have to move to a future in our ideas and orientation. It is time to build a nation; that should be the goal of our trek. The Afrikaner can get there. He has the ability to adapt but he certainly also requires leadership. We do not wish to be trapped in the laager; we want to be led out. We do not want a finger pointed at us; we want to be shown the way. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is with mixed feelings that I speak to my old friend, the hon member for Randburg. I am one of the members in this House who is very sorry that my friend and erstwhile colleague, Wynand Malan, is no longer on this side of the House, because in my heart of hearts I am convinced that during the years in which he was on this side of the House he made an exciting contribution to political thought and was able to make a thought-provoking contribution. I tell him this as a friend.

When he was involving himself in the Independent movement, I told him that in my opinion they were making a mistake. I also said it subsequently. At one time I also told Dr Denis Worrall in London that I thought we would have to make many changes in South Africa, and dramatic changes too, if we wanted to succeed, but I added that I steadfastly believed that we should make those changes within the NP. [Interjections.]

I should like to state unequivocally that in my opinion there is opportunity for discussion within the ranks of the NP, and under the leadership of the present NP leaders, that there is room for change and that there is depth. The NP has reached a level of maturity that could make any intellectual political thinker proud to be part of the political thought process and changes within the NP.

I also think that the recent election will eventually result in the PFP being phased out of South African politics, in a certain sense, and I am sorry for hon members of the PFP to a certain extent. I think that a large number of their supporters will eventually join the ranks of the Independent movement or, better still, the Government, because of the conviction that the Government is on the right track. They will feel that they want to joint this Government because it is a government of change, but the kind of change that could result in stability for all of us in South Africa.

There is one matter that no one in South Africa can argue about, and that is why the CP is sitting in the benches opposite us. The reason is that the NP has fundamentally adopted a course involving change for South Africa. It is a course that can bring about stability for every person and group of people in the country. I should just like to say that in my view the Independent movement creates the impression—it is a great pity that it does—that political thinking in the NP has stagnated and that the NP is a party in which political thinkers and academics who want to feel free to join forces in thinking about and discussing political matters are not welcome. I want to state unequivocally that that is not true. It is not right; it is incorrect.

It is, in fact, true that in any governing party it is not all that easy for those who perhaps want to accelerate the pace of change, and who want to feel free to propagate that process of change, to do so. That is true of any democracy in the world, as it is true of any political party.

A short while ago I heard the hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Green Point becoming involved in an altercation about the hon member for Green Point’s remark about Dakar.

Let me say that sitting as we are in this Committee today, every political party has within itself completely divergent trends of thought on virtually every subject in South Africa. That is not wrong, nor is it strange; it is one of the most natural things imaginable. We have to live with that.

I want to come back to the hon member for Randburg’s standpoint about parliamentary government and extra-parliamentary government. I do not think we disagree with each other. I listened to the points made by the hon member for Randburg, and whilst he was speaking I continually asked myself why he was sitting there as a member of an Independent movement, which is a political party and wants to participate in elections, when so many of the points he raised essentially accord with those of the Government? [Interjections.]

Let us take, for example, the question of extra-parliamentary political activities. It has never been the NP’s standpoint that extra-parliamentary political activities, ie participation in political discussions, political symposiums and political trends of thought and the writing of articles for newspapers and magazines are not permissible. [Interjections.] That has never been our standpoint.

Our standpoint on extra-parliamentary politics simply means that we take a strong stand against those who say that this Parliament is not the instrument through which to give expression to democracy, and who say that this Parliament should not be the instrument for bringing about change in South Africa. Our standpoint is—I am glad the hon member for Sea Point said this yesterday—that this Parliament is the only instrument for constitutional change in South Africa.

Even in conjunction with the ANC?

The Government, with the hon the State President as its spokesman, has clearly and unequivocally stated that in speaking of political power-sharing, we mean political power-sharing to the very highest level. It also means political power-sharing up to the highest level as far as the Black people are concerned. When we, as a Government, speak about political power-sharing—this is another problem I have with the Independent movement—we are, in effect, speaking about people having a political say in the executive authority of the country and a political say in the present-day legislative structure.

In Parliament?

It is not for me, as an individual member of this party, to attempt to prophesy what this structure should be. All I can say is that in essence my party has expressed itself in favour of that. We must now all co-operate in that venture and oppose all those individuals who think that South Africa can obtain constitutional system by extra-parliamentary means. That is the spirit in which this party wants to steer South Africa on its course.

I have a further problem with the Independent movement.

Are you not going to join?

I want to make the point that the whole process of change in South Africa has crossed its own Rubicon. Every NP leader in our history has been an agent of change in his own time. Every Prime Minister has been an agent of change in his own time, and this has always been to the benefit of South Africa. We are not stagnating and we are not fighting for the past. We are living for the future and, as such, are fighting and working for the future.

What I am now saying is that if change has crossed its own Rubicon and if, in the political, economic and social spheres, we are in the midst of a process of changed patterns of reality in South Africa being dealt with by this Parliament, this Government and all of us on a day to day basis, why is it necessary for Dr Denis Worrall to say that he wishes to serve as a catalyst? It is no longer possible for him to act as a catalyst, because the overall process of change has already made such strides that he would have been able to make a fundamental contribution if he had stood by us and helped us, from within, to plan, think about and work on the structures that we have to implement for that South Africa we want to create for our children. People who advocate an independent trend of thought would have been able to join him in making that contribution. [Interjections.]

The NP and the Government totally reject the concept of Black majority rule. We do accept the concept of Black joint rule. We totally reject the concept of a take-over, or “seizure of power”, by anyone. At this stage in our history, when the process of change has gained its optimum momentum, let me tell all independent thinkers, those who feel that the NP can no longer be their home, that regardless of whether they are academics, journalists or members of whatever outside organisation, the NP is the place for them to join in the thinking and planning that is being done.

It is with a sense of compassion that I say this here where my friend, the hon member for Randburg, is sitting too. My friend from Randburg and I frequently held discussions in the NP. He will remember that on many occasions he told me that we should pursue this goal within the party context.

Do not reveal any secrets now!

Order!

That is true, and on that score I convey my thanks and respect to him. I am just sad and disappointed that at this stage, when their kind of thinking is more necessary to us in this country than ever before, he and Dr Denis Worrall are at odds with us. Dr Denis Worrall engaged in an election campaign against an individual leader of the NP who has, in my opinion, made a reputation for himself over many years, within the party context, of being one of the greatest of reformers. I am now asking why there is this opposition to the NP when someone actually wants to promote reform.

This brings me to the very last point. I want to ask my friends in the Independent movement whether it is with party-political motives that they have broken away to help bring about reform and to serve as catalysts, or whether they ultimately envisage a different kind of South Africa to the one envisaged by the NP. I have said that politically we do not envisage a South Africa under Black majority rule, or the take-over of the present Government. I also want to them to answer that question for us. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member for Innesdal will forgive me if I do not devote much time to him. I listened to him with interest and it seemed to me as though he was making a siren call to the Independents to rejoin the NP. That is essentially an internal matter between himself and the hon member for Randburg and I leave it at that.

Our Wynand!

I will have one or two things to say about the authority of decision-making powers of Parliament in the course of my short speech today. However, I want to make three or four observations about what the hon the State President said yesterday.

First of all I want to say—as one who has always been interested in prisons and in prisoners—that I very much welcome the new policy regarding political prisoners. I think that is an advance and I am glad that the Advisory Council’s advice that political prisoners should be considered for release on the same basis as ordinary prisoners has now been accepted by the Government. I am also pleased that the rejection of violence is no longer the decisive factor although it will play a part in the decision whether to release or not release a prisoner. I have always thought that that was an absurd precondition, because obviously if a man does commit violence—having been released from prison—the normal law of the land is soon after him and he will be back behind bars again. It was therefore really just a face-saving device of the Government and I am glad that it has at last been abandoned.

I would suggest that it would also not be a bad idea to abandon it as well as far as negotiations with the ANC are concerned, but I will come to that in a minute.

I come now to something that the hon the State President mentioned as one of the considerations which would play a part in the decision as to whether releasing a political prisoner was desirable, and that was that there should be an “assessment of the man’s personality and his approach”. He said the Advisory Council recommended that that should be one of the considerations. I think the hon the State President should make that assessment himself in the case of Nelson Mandela. I think if the hon the State President in fact had Nelson Mandela brought to talk to him or if he himself was big enough to go and talk to Mandela, he would be astonished at the moderate approach which this man maintains after 25 years in jail. There is no bitterness and he has a desire to negotiate and be part of the negotiations, while accepting the whole structure of South Africa with its many-faceted political opinions, parties and, indeed, races. I think that would be a very good thing for the hon the State President himself to weigh up “the general composition of the personality and approach” of the person himself who is being considered for release. I dare say it is pretty obvious to everybody that Mr Govan Mbeki will probably be the first person to benefit from the new policy and I think it would be a great thing for South Africa if Nelson Mandela were the next person so to benefit.

I was interested in the hon the State President’s observation on the ANC. He said that “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 negotiating table.” Surely that is an admission by the hon the State President that the ANC will have to be at the negotiating table. That is why I ask him about the initial rejection and renouncing of violence. I am obviously not talking about people arriving with AK-47s, but when people have been at war with each other they lay down their weapons, call a truce and get on with the job of negotiating. That is obviously what in the end is going to happen. It is not a question of whether it is going to happen, but just a case of when it is going to happen.

I believe that the best way—I speak here having listened to the hon member for Langlaagte earlier this morning—to turn the ANC into an accountable and responsible party would in fact be to unban it and to allow it to come in from the cold. It should be allowed to campaign as a legitimate political party, not with violence, but to put forward a policy for the country, an economic policy and a racial policy, and to see what support it then can legitimately gain. That is the only way we will ever know this. I want to point out to the hon member for Langlaagte that the ANC has been banned since 1960. That has not made it disappear from the scene; it has gone underground but it is still very active and became violent only after it had been banned.

But it did not succeed in Namibia?

I am not talking about Namibia now; I am talking about the ANC. I would like to stick to this point because I do not have much time to be diverted to other subjects, let alone other countries.

The question of the state of emergency was mentioned by the hon the State President. There is no doubt in my mind, judging from what he said in this debate and also in June 1986 when he first introduced the national state of emergency, and judging from what the hon the Minister of Defence said during the election campaign, that I for one will be very lucky if I survive long enough to see the state of emergency lifted in South Africa. I have no doubt it is going to be with us for a very long time because it is such an easy way of dealing with dissidents and of trying to settle unrest without tackling the genuine and real grievances that are the cause of this unrest.

Now you are talking nonsense.

The hon the Minister of Defence said that security, effective local government, sufficient housing and home ownership, sufficient employment and normalised schools will all have to be established first before the state of emergency can be lifted, and he said that will take a long time. I agree with him absolutely that it is going to take a very long time indeed.

I mean, effective local government today is just a joke; most formal local government structures are in total disarray in the townships. Hundreds of millions of rand, due for rents and services, are unpaid. Unemployment has reached a most alarming level, housing remains a problem of gigantic proportions and school attendance has by no means been normalised.

So I see no great prospect of the hon the State President’s objective of creating “a situation of relative normality” being achieved, despite the efforts of the hon the State President’s pet brainchild—I hope he is going to tell us a little more about it—the National Security Management system and all its little offspring. There are 350 mini-joint management centres which are beavering around in the townships trying to settle things. Some of the things they are doing I have no objection to—I only have praise for them. They are identifying certain complex situations and getting on with providing essential services—as if one needed a Joint Management Centre to tell one—we have been saying it for 30 years—that Alexandra is a disgusting slum that needs sewerage, tarred roads and electricity etc!

No one objects to anything that is going to improve the quality of life in the wretched, miserable Black ghettos of this country. However, what we do object to—and here I come back to the hon member for Innesdal—is the way in which the security system is superseding the authority of Parliament. Although I do not like the tricameral system and I voted against the Constitution at the referendum, I sit here because I have a profound respect for Parliament as an institution for change. [Interjections.] Therefore I deplore the fact that a body which is unaccountable to Parliament, which is accountable only to the hon the State President himself, is busy taking political decisions instead of Parliament taking those decisions. I want the hon the State President to tell us why, in a country that professes to respect parliamentary institutions and says that its aim is to extend democracy, we now have a system starting with a State Security System and going all the way down to these mini-joint management centres, busily making political decisions all over the country. That sort of network is more appropriate to a country behind the Iron Curtain.

There is one other good thing I will say about the management centres. Maybe they are managing to overcome the recalcitrant public service which has been programmed for all these years in the ideology of Dr Verwoerd. Maybe from that point of view it is good. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Houghton touched on a few subjects which are very close to her heart. Starting off in replying to her, I must say that referring to the state of emergency as an easy way to deal with dissidents, must be the most cynical comment I have ever heard about measures aimed at protecting the lives of innocent people; at protecting them from violence and necklace murders.

*A misconception which exists, and I think this is the one thing which is closest to the hon member’s heart, concerns the so-called “political prisoners”. A political prisoner is a person who is in prison because of what he believes. There are no political prisoners in South African prisons. When one therefore refers to political prisoners, one is referring to people who are serving a sentence according to our legal system—not only because of their thoughts, but because of the deeds they either committed or planned. When she glibly refers to Nelson Mandela as a political prisoner, I think the hon member forgets that he was sentenced by a Supreme Court on the basis of deeds he had planned and carried out, which could and did lead to many innocent people being killed and injured.

†I think that one should stop talking about political prisoners and see the people for what they are, namely people who have been found guilty in a court of law.

Like Robey Leibbrandt.

In my opinion it is only fair and right that the normal measures and requirements which would apply should apply to them when one must decide whether or not such persons should be released. I believe that we are now moving in this direction with the announcement by the hon the State President.

I think that the hon member and some other hon members as well to a certain extent actually brought into prominence the dilemma now facing South Africa, namely that both the opposition parties in this House and unfortunately the so-called Independent Movement as well, are not making any contribution towards a solution, because the policy they advocate, apart from its being unacceptable to the voters whom they have to convince, namely the White voters, is simply not feasible. The Official Opposition in particular is exacerbating the problem in that they are raising false hopes inside the country of solutions which are not feasible, and are creating distorted perceptions abroad of what is really happening in South Africa and what South Africans in general really think.

It is not possible to reduce the South African constitutional set-up to simplistic contrasts and solutions. There are too many factors which play a role. All these factors do nevertheless play a role within a broader framework of two opposing ideological poles. The poles between which the actual struggle in South Africa is being waged, is a democratic, capitalist system as opposed to a Marxist, socialist one. Which of these is going to be the eventual winner in South Africa is going to depend on which of them is going to be the most acceptable to the majority of our people. Which system is going to be acceptable to the majority of people is to a large extent going to depend on which system offers people the most. This applies not only in the constitutional, but also in the economic sphere, because the endeavour to achieve better living conditions is after all one of the most basic endeavours of every person.

Political developments have already been discussed in depth. In short, what we are concerned with here is the creation of a system which will give every person an equal say in the decisions affecting his life. The reality of the existence of groups in a heterogeneous society like ours demands that the character of the group must be well-grounded in such a political dispensation. This is where the PFP’s error in reasoning lies in that they only pay lip-service to the group character of our society, and disregard the natural and actual political exercising of power of groups. The group as a power-base from which and to a great extent regarding which politics is practised and will be practised in future, is a reality which will have to be taken into account in any political dispensation.

A political dispensation is only one part of the answer. Africa probably demonstrates best that gaining the political empire does not necessarily bring everything else with it. If we do not therefore, along with a political dispensation which affords equal rights to everyone, succeed in creating an economic dispensation which affords everyone an equal opportunity, a democratic capitalist system cannot be maintained.

It is in this regard that the Official Opposition, with its policy of total, artificial separation, is disregarding the truth. Apart from the other fatal political deficiencies they manifest and the fact that their policy is not politically feasible, the CP has come up against the fact that their policy is simply not economically feasible, because it does not want to acknowledge the basic desire of people for a better standard of living, but in fact amounts to a transparent attempt to benefit one group at the expense of other groups.

The NP has already made a great deal of progress in the introduction of a more just political dispensation. I believe that the NP has also made a great deal of progress towards introducing a better economic dispensation, which will offer equal opportunities. In the time I have left, I therefore want to concentrate on two related interdependent initiatives in this connection, namely small business development and regional development.

The SBDC was established in 1981 in equal partnership with the private sector. An analysis of the SBDC’s activities from 3 February 1981 to 25 June of this year reveals an almost astounding success story. In this period 15 246 loans totalling R380 million were granted. A total of 87 000 employment opportunities were created, while a further 70 000 employment opportunities which would otherwise have been lost, owing to insolvency and so on, were preserved. Employment opportunities were created at an average cost of only R2 400 each. When one takes into consideration that this is taking place in the high-risk lower income groups where private financing is not available, it makes this achievement even more remarkable.

The Government’s regional development programme is a similar success story. In terms of this programme 4 400 projects were approved, and 298 000 people were given jobs. To summarise, during the six years in which these initiatives have been pursued, virtually 500 000 people have been provided with employment opportunities. If one were to take as a point of departure that there are four dependants per economically active person—this figure is actually far higher—this means that this created a livelihood for almost two million people.

I was privileged to investigate similar strategies in various overseas countries during the past few years. I can state unequivocally that nowhere in the world has more been done by a government in this regard for the welfare of its people than in South Africa. We definitely still have a long way to go, but through this and other initiatives by the Government we are in the process of achieving what we have in mind, viz an economic dispensation which will afford equal opportunities to everyone. Eventually this will determine whether it will be possible to maintain a democratic system in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, firstly I should like to take this opportunity of conveying my utmost sympathy to my good friend, the hon member for Yeoville. You know, Mr Chairman, it was a truly painful experience to see how that hon member was provoked by fellow party members in the back benches this morning. [Interjections.]

Order!

After the hon member for Yeoville had apparently tried, during the past week—according to general information gleaned from the Press—to restore peace and unanimity in the ranks of his party, one saw how those young men in the back benches separately and individually provoked him this morning. [Interjections.]

But I know the hon member, Mr Chairman. He is not going to tolerate that. The only question I want to ask is how long he is still going to tolerate it. [Interjections.] If he does, in fact, do so he is no longer the man I have always known. Then he is really getting old. [Interjections.]

Order!

For that very reason, Mr Chairman, I am conveying my sympathy to the hon member and wishing him everything of the best. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I have obtained permission from the hon member for Overvaal to make the following statement here. In a discussion he and I and one of our colleagues had yesterday, the hon member for Overvaal made the statement that it was CP policy that all further land, over and above that set aside for Blacks in terms of the 1936 legislation, would have to be purchased by the Black people. Is that correct?

Yes.

Good! Thank you very much. Now I have …

Purchase or exchange!

Purchase or exchange? My immediate question—and if I am wrong, I would be glad if the hon member would react to that—is the following: Must I deduce that that same principle would perhaps also be applicable to the Coloureds and Indians? [Interjections.]

That is a fairly tricky question. [Interjections.]

Order! the hon member for Vasco should continue with his speech.

Very well, Sir. Let us confine ourselves solely to the Blacks, because that is, in any event, an illustration of a totally new concept in South African politics. You see, Sir, what we now have in party politics in South Africa is the fact that the PFP has already surrendered at Dakar—the leader just does not know it yet. He is only sure of one man’s standpoint in that party, and that is the hon member for Yeoville; he is not sure about the rest—at least not from one day to the next.

Is he certain of his own standpoint?

That is a good question. [Interjections.]

In contrast we have the CP’s policy. Now a new element has crept in, that of the sale of land. We have not yet clarified the principle; we are still only negotiating the price—I know the story.

The Van der Merwe concept. [Interjections.]

We are merely negotiating the price. I take it there will be certain built-in guarantees, amongst others things to the effect that the land should be adjacent to existing Black areas. I also take it there are going to be further built-in guarantees to the effect that the owners of the land must agree to this.

I now want to tell hon members what could happen. Perhaps I would not agree to it, whereas my neighbour—or a certain body—could perhaps purchase my land and say he would sell it for 30 pieces of silver. Then the same thing happens to a next man, and in that way the boundaries are extended, until one gets to the main street.

You do not understand it.

Nor does that hon member; that is why I am trying to explain it to him. [Interjections.]

Koos, that is really a very disparaging remark!

Order!

If that is the standpoint of that party, if that is their party policy, they must tell the general public.

It is only Koos who is such a liberal.

They must tell the general public that whilst the NP is prepared to discuss and settle these matters by consultation, by joint consultation, with various peoples and in accordance with the existing relationships between peoples, what they are prepared to do is to sell the land. Surely it would be too cheap a price, because as far as this land is concerned, there is the possibility of a total sell-out. [Interjections.]

Is that not a very cheap price? [Interjections.]

Order!

Or is that the cheapest price one can fix?

Now, however, we come to our policy. Since the hon the State President has said, on occasion, “Gee my ’n voorbeeld in Afrika om te volg”—we all agree that there is no such example in Africa—let me say that I think that Africa has taught us one lesson, highlighted one major factor for us, and that is that a lack of finance has caused democracies in Africa to go wrong, to be debilitated and to vanish from the scene.

Let us be honest: Surely we do have a shortage of money. For all we envisage, for everything which must be done and which we regard as being essential, the Government does not have the necessary money.

There is a tremendous amount of money tied up in this country of ours. In fact, the hon the Minister of Finance has said, on occasion, that there is an over-abundance of money in the country, but that the money is in the wrong people’s pockets. Each of the five major institutions in this country are constantly—8 hours out of every 24—making use of highly specialised personnel to seek investment opportunities. In reality this country, with its sound infrastructure, is intrinsically a very wealthy country.

Today I therefore want to propose to the hon the State President, who has already held the Carlton, Good Hope and Presidential conferences, and who yesterday gave us the good news about the next conference on 22 October, thereby having laid the groundwork for co-operation with the private sector, that a massive privatisation campaign be launched. I have in mind something like Eskom or, in the field of tourism, the Kruger National Park as a whole, and the South African Airways. The Government would then have that money at its disposal. If one were to do it in stages, however, it would not have the desired effect. It would have to be done on a large scale. The hon the State President is the only one who can do so because he has already set all the wheels in motion. In America, under Roosevelt, they called it a “new deal”.

We need a “new government”.

After the war they tackled a project in Europe which they called the Marshall Plan. Whether we call it the “grand design” or the “P W Botha magnum opus” would not matter. If it is done—and it has to be done—all that matters is that the general public should make the necessary adjustments so that the statue erected in honour of the hon the State President can be big enough to be worthy of what he has done for our people.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point extended a friendly apology to me this morning and I accept it unconditionally. That is the end of the matter.

He also raised the matter of the amendment of the Constitution. I should just like to say that this decision was only taken by the Cabinet last Wednesday. It is therefore a recent decision which the Government has made after thorough consideration. I want to say at once that I do not expect the opposition parties to pretend that they agree with it. I accept that they will oppose it, but I believe that in their hearts they are all only too grateful for it. [Interjections.]

Order!

We shall go ahead with it, because we consider it to be in the interests of the country. It is the Government that must take decisions of this kind, and we do not intend to shirk our responsibilities. That is what we received our mandate for, and that is why those hon members are sitting on the opposite side of the House. However, they are being protected by this motion so that they can keep on sitting there. I shall therefore leave it at that.

The hon member for Sea Point also asked me whether, in view of the Angolan government’s alleged acceptance of a Cuban withdrawal from Angola being linked to independence for South West Africa, we would enter into negotiations with the Angolan government. I take it the hon member is aware of the recent attempt by Dr Crocker, the American Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, to negotiate with the Angolan government on a Cuban withdrawal. The entire history of a proposed Cuban withdrawal is very interesting, and if the hon member would like to talk to me about it one day, I shall sketch the background for him. Dr Crocker’s reaction after holding talks in Luanda indicated that the talks had produced nothing. All he said was: “It is of no use”. I believe he really is trying to achieve something in this connection during the remainder of President Reagan’s term of office. Since then, there have been reports of Luanda supposedly wanting to negotiate directly with us, or to make further proposals to the USA. Many of those proposals have not materialised because they are merely rumours and reports.

Our standpoint is that we are still prepared, in principle, to discuss a Cuban withdrawal, because the presence of large numbers of Cubans in Angola is the greatest, if not the only obstacle to stability and peace in that part of our continent, and quite probably in Southern Africa as a whole. If the Cubans were to withdraw, Southern Africa would be facing a new situation. There is no doubt about that.

I have stated repeatedly in talks with the leaders and representatives of foreign governments that this could alter the situation in relation to the Benguela railway line, which is of extreme importance to Southern Africa, overnight. It could alter the South West African position overnight. I shall elaborate on that in a moment. I therefore hope that a Cuban withdrawal will remain high on the list of priorities of the United States of America and the West. It is regrettable that the United States does not receive more support in this regard. The Republic of South Africa is still prepared to attend a conference involving all the interested parties, one which could lead to peace in Angola and South West Africa. By this I mean that the Republic of South Africa, the MPLA government, Unita and all the parties in South West Africa should take part in it. As long as the major powers continue to make Angola their theatre of operations, negotiations will not get off the ground. That is my honest conviction, and I believe the hon member will agree with me.

I now want to say a few words about South West Africa. The Republic of South Africa recognises its international obligations in terms of Resolution 435 of the United Nations Security Council and has so far refrained from deviating from them in any way. I want to repeat something I have said before, because I believe it needs to be repeated, and that is that although I abide by, and have always abided by the decision taken by the Government in relation to Resolution 435 under the leadership of my predecessor, I personally have never been in favour of the acceptance of Resolution 435 as a mechanism to bring about independence in South West Africa. This is common knowledge. It is well-known in South Africa. I have spelled it out to every representative of a foreign government to whom I have ever spoken in my fife. I have very good reasons for this, and we could debate them if this were to become necessary.

I have never been in favour of it, because my standpoint has been the following. If the Cubans leave Angola, against whom does the UNO want to protect South West Africa with a task force? That is the simple question. If the Cubans were to leave Angola, it would not be necessary for the Republic of South Africa to maintain any security forces along the borders of Angola and South West Africa either.

Personally, I have never been in favour of this. When my predecessor called for a Cabinet decision, I stated my standpoint very clearly and forcefully. To tell the truth, there was an argument in the Cabinet about it—the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already mentioned it in this House—but subsequently, when the Cabinet decided that Resolution 435 was to be accepted, I resigned myself to that decision.

When I became Prime Minister I undertook to honour that decision and to fulfil that international obligation. I did so for the sake of South Africa because I was of the opinion that South Africa should fulfil its international obligations in this regard.

I also made an offer to certain West European and other heads of government. I told them that if they were prepared to shoulder the financial burden in respect of South West Africa and to locate a security force there, I would be prepared to immediately withdraw any South African presence in South West Africa. Not one of them was willing to take me up on my offer. One of them told me: “You have another guess coming”.

That is an offer nobody could accept.

I am now talking to the hon member for Sea Point; the hon member for Sandton should occupy himself with his own pathetic little concerns. No one in the international community is prepared to accept the obligations in regard to South West Africa. Until fairly recently—and even now—South West Africa’s community of approximately one million people was quite probably the most highly subsidised community in the world, thanks to the subsidies the South African Government contributes to the South West African budget.

Without the R200 million …

This is so even without the R200 million. My standpoint is that this amount must be deducted, as I have said, because we need money for other higher priorities within South Africa itself. I have already said in this House that whenever the interests of South Africa clash with those of South West Africa, I shall give preference to South Africa’s interests.

The Government will not, however, act in such a manner as to break those international obligations to which it has committed itself. I believe the hon member and the hon Leader of the Official Opposition will also agree with me on that score. At the same time it must also be stressed once again that the Republic of South Africa, like some other governments, can never accept that Swapo is the “sole and authentic representative” of the people of the territory. We can never accept that, because it is not true. It is an illusion because if Swapo felt so strongly that it was the sole representative, it would, as the hon member for Langlaagte has said, long ago have availed itself of the opportunity to take part in the constitutional process, since it is recognised as a political party there. What does it prefer to do, however? Its leaders prefer to remain outside and allow innocent people to be murdered along the borders of South West Africa.

The striving of the people of South West Africa for self-determination and independence is still being thwarted by external factors. The large-scale presence of Cuban troops continues. It troubles me that the Cuban numbers are growing daily and that military equipment of an extremely sophisticated nature is still flowing in large volumes from the Soviet Union to Angola. Hon members need only think of the type of helicopter which the Soviet Union has operational at the moment and which it has placed at the disposal of the Cubans.

As a result of the Cuban presence in Angola the Government has associated itself with the USA’s standpoint, namely that the application of Resolution 435 is inseparably linked to a satisfactory agreement on a Cuban withdrawal. I believe that President Reagan has given a lead in this respect which should be followed by the entire Western World.

Despite the much discussed new initiative with which Angola recently tried to re-kindle interest in the possibility of their being amenable to negotiations, American negotiators had to return to Washington disillusioned and empty-handed for the umpteenth time.

It remains the objective of the RSA to support SWA on the road to independence and to further that process. What we cannot allow to happen, however—this, too, I have said before—is that a Marxist-communist government be installed in Windhoek by means of revolutionary methods. Should SWA elect, once it becomes independent, to install a communist regime there in a democratic manner, that would be its own choice, and it would have to bear the responsibilities associated with that decision. However, as long as we have a say there—the international community says we have—we cannot allow a communist government to be brought to power in Windhoek by such means.

The Government is prepared—it has already done so—to grant as much power and self-government as possible to the people of SWA in order to support them on the road to independence. At this stage, however, it is neither possible nor desirable to hold a national election since that could jeopardise the RSA’s international obligations. At more than one conference we have held with the leaders of SWA—I have the minutes here—I have personally told them that this is not possible because it would prejudice South Africa internationally owing to certain decisions which this Government itself took in the past when it accepted Resolution 435, with the support of the opposition of the day.

However, in order to give renewed momentum to the politics of South West Africa and to the debate on constitutional matters, the Republic of South Africa has requested the transitional government to consider holding elections with a view to the restructuring of second-tier government. Such elections were last held in 1980. This not only affords an opportunity for the reconstitution of second-tier government, but will also afford the voters of South West Africa an opportunity to put forward their leaders, with whom negotiations on their constitutional development may take place. At the same time this could contribute to the promotion of talks between the duly elected leaders of parties and population groups with a view to joint action in the interests of the people of South West Africa. What is more, I can tell the hon member that I have appealed to the transitional government to broaden its base, because the most important elements and components of the population structure of South West Africa are not represented in the transitional government.

I know the view is held that either the Administrator-General of South West Africa or I am to blame for this. Let me say this here today: The Administrator-General of South West Africa is acting in accordance with the instructions of this Government. He is our representative. If he is attacked, the Republic of South Africa is also attacked. However, that is not unusual.

If he makes any blunders, they are also the blunders of this Government.

Yes, but so far he has not made any blunders. To tell the truth, he is acting with a dignity that compels our gratitude. I am more than willing to say that here in public.

I repeat, however, that this election for representation in second-tier government need not necessarily take place on an ethnic basis; in fact, I have told them this during discussions. It could take place on a second-tier regional basis, dependent on the circumstances, as long as an attempt is made to grant opportunities to the leaders of those people who are still out in the cold today.

I cannot give the hon member all the information here in public—I do not think that would be a good thing—but I must nevertheless point out the fact that South West Africa is a country of minorities. Any future plan for stability and peace will have to take that into account. Today there are leaders of population groups in South West Africa who are not members of the transitional government and who want elections for a second-tier government. It is a country of minorities. I know South West fairly well. I do not believe there is anyone in this Committee who has travelled that country more widely and who has held more talks with those leaders than I have. I know how those people feel in their hearts. I receive representations, not only from the transitional government, but also by way of letters, representations and petitions from other people in South West Africa.

There are, of course, other methods which one could use, such as the holding of a referendum, for example, as my predecessor envisaged, by means of which the will of the people could be established on a second-tier basis in order to determine whether or not they want to retain second-tier government. I want to assert that my experience of South West is that if such a referendum or election were to be held on a second-tier basis, it would serve to prove that most of the people of South West Africa did not wish to have the second-tier of government abolished. The hon member for Sea Point is smiling. The moment one begins to make these statements, he becomes cynical. What he wants, is this …

I am not smiling.

I now want to ask him frankly whether he wants us to allow the transitional government to hold a general election on a national basis, on the basis of one man, one vote, in defiance of the international community. Is that what the hon member wants?

I do not understand what your policy is.

Very well, I shall now tell him what my policy is.

In conclusion, I want to make an earnest appeal to the leaders of the territory—the hon member should listen to this—to settle those differences which still exist and to act in greater unanimity, in the interests of the territory and its people. I am prepared to allow the hon member for Sea Point to peruse the minutes of the talks I held. I am prepared to do that. He may come to my office and I shall allow him to peruse them so that he may see how I went out of my way in my efforts to bring about a greater degree of unanimity in that territory. My standpoint is that the population will suffer for as long as the present situation prevails amongst the leaders of South West Africa, and I say it is my prerogative to give them this advice owing to the fact that South Africa makes a large contribution to the maintenance of their budget, and secondly because South Africa makes a large contribution to the maintenance of peace in South West Africa. It would not get us very far if some people in South Africa were to defy the Administrator-General or myself. They must put their own house in order, and they must show that they have the sense of responsibility to prepare themselves for independence, if they are really desirous of it.

Through advice and assistance, South Africa can do nothing more than attempt to smooth the difficult path that lies ahead. The actions of the leaders of South West Africa will, as far as the future is concerned, play an important role in the determination of conditions in Southern Africa. I hope we shall leave it at that. I should not like to become involved in further debating points on South West Africa. I prefer to hold talks with those leaders from time to time, in order to point out the international circumstances to them, and to point out South Africa’s obligations and responsibilities. I cannot take it any further than that. I now say for the umpteenth time that I am not prepared to allow the Administrator-General to be used as a punching bag by those politicians who do not want to do the obvious thing in South West Africa.

The hon member for Parow raised an important point yesterday when he said that negotiations could not succeed as long as intimidation persisted. I agree with that. That is why we in the House of Assembly, as well as the other two Houses of this Parliament, must convey this message in unison. Intimidation must be eradicated in South Africa. If intimidation disappears, the responsible, peace-loving people will come forward to hold discussions—not only in the political arena, but in other areas as well. It is the intimidators who are working behind the scenes, showing people how their throats will be cut, and making gestures to people at bus-stops. It is they who are collaborating with communist agents in Dakar. It is they who are making discussions in South Africa an impossibility. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Lichtenburg raised a few interesting matters here. He also began by speaking about South West Africa. He was, of course, a member of the Cabinet when these matters were discussed and he was a member of the NP caucus when a decision was reached on Resolution 435, not so?

But it was not discussed in the caucus.

Oh yes, Mr Vorster explained it in the caucus and obtained the party’s support for it. It is the hon member’s memory that is failing him. It was discussed in the Cabinet while the hon member was still there. However, he served for a number of years under Mr Vorster after Mr Vorster had expressly stated that an election would take place in South West Africa on the basis of one man, one vote with a view to the implementation of Resolution 435.

That was once.

One man, one vote.

Once.

Once.

Yes. [Interjections.]

After one has allowed this to happen once, what then? What did the hon member do then? Did he tell Mr Vorster that he was selling out the Whites in South West Africa?

It was wrong …

Oh, but did the hon member do that? No, he sat tight under his leadership, and he even did so under my leadership. Now the hon member is playing the big shot here because he has the AWB behind him. [Interjections.]

But you are the State President!

Yes, but it was that hon member who began with his attacks. Does he want me to say “Please, Sir”? No, he knows me better than that. [Interjections.]

The hon member also said something else. He said they were opposed to negotiation with communists.

Yes.

He said they would never negotiate on self-determination for the Whites, and that they would never negotiate with communists. The hon member is not that foolish. I say again, he was a good Minister. The hon member was very, very level-headed in the Cabinet, and he knows full well that it is one thing to refuse to negotiate with communist oppressors outside Government circles and another thing altogether when one has to negotiate with one’s neighbouring states at government level. The hon member knows that. He surely knows that it is vital that negotiation take place with neighbouring states at government level.

Some of them are dictatorships and some of them are communist, but one is compelled to negotiate with them, just as we are often compelled to negotiate in South Africa’s interests. The hon member is a Transvaler. He is in fact a Western Transvaler, but I assume he also has an interest in the North-eastern Transvaal. Does he for one moment want to tell me that it is not in the interests of the North-eastern Transvaal to hold talks with the Maputo government, to hold negotiations with them and to reach agreements with them regarding the conveyance of certain products?

No, he would not say that, because he is too sensible to do so. Why is it, then, that whenever he stands up, all his common sense disappears? [Interjections.]

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

The hon member for Newcastle raised the matter of the national homelands of Black peoples, as well as the necessity for good relations between various population groups in the light of demographic developments. I shall have more to say about this on Monday, if there is any time left.

The hon member for Langlaagte spoke with insight about South West Africa, and I thank him for that. The hon member for Uitenhage made a point which we do not take enough cognisance of in this country, and that is that the result of the referendum was strongly emphasised by the results of the recent general election. I believe the opposition parties should take that into account if they really want to think democratically. They must not continue to bang their heads against the same wall as in the past. The country has spoken out indisputably—both in the referendum and in the general election—on the direction in which it wants us to move. Indisputably! The result of the latest general election has international implications. [Interjections.] Of course, that hon member from behind the Soutpansberg does not know about it. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Gezina raised the point that the major portion of the population was to an increasing extent becoming more positively disposed towards South Africa. It is interesting to look at some important opinion polls in this regard from various angles. These opinion polls are submitted to me from time to time. A positive attitude towards South Africa is prevailing at all levels of the population. Moreover, all population groups are involved in a search for solutions. The radicals represent a small minority and if they did not make use of intimidation and victimisation, they would make no progress. The only reason why they are in fact making any progress is because they are making use of these unseemly methods.

The hon member for Ermelo is at loggerheads with the Broederbond. He can be at loggerheads with the Broederbond if he likes, but I just want to remind him—because he is a young member here—that in earlier years there was a very senior member of Parliament here, the late Senator Conroy, and this hon member should take care not to attain the same notoriety in regard to the Broederbond as former Senator Conroy did. [Interjections.] After a while everyone laughed at him. The hon member should rather drop that issue if he wants to make any progress in this House. The hon member would do well to accept a little advice from me. I can in fact give him a little advice every now and then. [Interjections.]

The hon member also spoke about my so-called change of standpoint. Does the hon member, who, after all, is a learned man, mean to tell me that he is now requiring of a person that he may never change his standpoint? Is that really what he, as a representative of this country, wants to postulate here? That would mean that the hon member’s presence here was of no purpose. In that case he would have come to sit here like a tailor’s dummy. What has he come here to do?

Secondly, the point the hon member raised, and the words he quoted to me, have already been used and replied to time and again in debates here. We moved away from the Westminster system for the very reason that one could not, in terms of the Westminster system, afford the other population groups full satisfaction without running the risk of being overwhelmed. It was for that very reason that we decided to move away from the Westminster system and to introduce new structures and new systems—which we are working on at present—so that provision could be made here for every population group. The hon member should simply have his friends look up the Hansard references for him so that he can read them; then he would not repeat those statements.

The hon member for Vryburg quite rightly pointed out that our friends in the Official Opposition, the hon members of the CP, had accepted power-sharing as long ago as 1977. [Interjections.] They are merely hiding behind words now. The fact is that it was accepted …

Oh, rubbish!

Of course it is true! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was once a member of the Cabinet and repeated reference was made to the fact that we should not use the word “power-sharing” because it was open to misuse. [Interjections.] See how quickly the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition becomes upset. Does he perhaps have a guilty conscience?

That is an untruth!

The hon member for Randburg said he did not like the Constitution being tampered with. As far as I know, the new movement wants to replace the Constitution. They do not merely want to tamper with it; they want to replace it altogether. [Interjections.] He also spoke about extra-parliamentary activities. I admit that there is some good extra-parliamentary activity or extra-legislative activity in this country. However, that is not what is at issue. What is at issue, is the activity taking place outside the legislative structures with a view to undermining the country’s present stability. That is what is at issue.

The hon member for Innesdal quite rightly called the NP a party of renewal, and a party in search of team efforts to further South Africa’s best interests. He is quite correct.

†The hon member for Houghton said that the ANC is needed around the negotiating table, if I understood her correctly. Naturally, if they relinquish violence, stop living in luxury outside our borders at the expense of foreign governments, and come back to their own country and take part in the constitutional process, then they can of course share in the negotiating processes. This is not something new.

Unban them.

The hon member must not make a speech now; I am replying. [Interjections.]

However, the ANC must stop being tools of the SACP at the instructions of a foreign power.

[Inaudible.]

Which foreign power?

Who asked “Which foreign power?” [Interjections.] The hon member for Houghton also referred to the state of emergency and said that she was rather despondent because she felt it would continue for some time. By saying that she admits that the agents of destruction and revolution will keep on with their undermining of South Africa.

That is not what I said.

Of course it is. That is a logical consequence of what she said. Why would the Government try to maintain a state of emergency if there was no danger to the state? Does she really think it is pleasant for a government to have a state of emergency?

I think you like it.

The hon member should now desist from constantly walking a dangerous tight-rope between constitutional government and interceding for those people for whom she knows she ought not to intercede. [Interjections.]

The hon member for East London City said quite rightly that the hon member for Houghton had made a cynical remark about the security management system. He is one of those members of Parliament who really has an intimate knowledge of the security management systems because he represents a part of East London where problems are being experienced. He knows how vital it is that the security management systems should not take over the line-functions of other departments. This is not being done.

He knows full well that co-ordinating actions and discussions are taking place, and that these are jointly being brought to the attention of the higher échelons of those departments in order to ensure that we are able to counteract the revolutionary climate.

What is more, the hon member for Houghton ought to know that the State Security Council functions in terms of an Act of this Parliament. The opposition at the time and the Government agreed on the establishment of a State Security Council. This security management system is functioning under the auspices of the State Security Council. The State Security Council, in turn, makes regular reports to the Cabinet. In both instances the State President is Chairman. In other words, he has control of a useful instrument which enables him to take those steps in the field of security which are vital to the support of the social order and to the organisation and marshalling of forces against the revolutionary elements.

But he is not accountable to Parliament.

But I am at this moment accounting to Parliament! What more does the hon member want? Does she want me to bring out those officials and drag them here before her; for what purpose? In order to humiliate them, as was done to the security services in America until the American people later became paralysed? No, the hon member is—I almost said she was ridiculous. [Interjections.]

In the time at my disposal this afternoon, I want to refer to a matter which sometimes gives rise to certain misunderstandings in politics and one which I think should be afforded the necessary attention, particularly at this stage of South Africa’s history.

I am referring in the first instance to the Nkomati Accord. In reply to the hon member for Lichtenburg this morning, I referred to certain advantages which the continuation of the Nkomati Accord constituted for large parts of South Africa.

When we signed the Nkomati Accord and participated in the function that took place there that day, I told the late President Machel in public that there was a great deal of suspicion that would have to be removed. I also told him that there would be some misunderstandings on the road ahead and that everything would depend on how both states were prepared to implement this accord.

Despite reports in some of the media to the effect that the Nkomati Accord is foundering, particularly as a result of allegations of RSA assistance to Renamo, the opposite in fact holds true, namely that the accord is still formally in existence and that both countries consider themselves bound by it.

I just want to quote a few examples; I do not want to discuss the matter in its entirety. Since the signing of the accord, and even before that time, South Africa has furnished proof of the fact that we are in earnest about the objective of establishing peace and economic prosperity in Southern Africa. To tell the truth, I think the Nkomati Accord, just like other accords which we have since concluded with neighbouring states, represents an ideal formulation of the basis on which we in Southern Africa should cooperate with one another as neighbouring states. If we can foster an acceptance of this without foreign influences, or by excluding those influences and their consequences, we will witness a tremendous development not only of economic power, but also of prosperity for the various population groups in Southern Africa. I therefore believe that the Nkomati Accord serves as an example of what ought to materialise in any event between Southern African states. Apart from the fact that it holds advantages for the North-eastern Transvaal, as I have already mentioned, these advantages also have their ramifications in various areas throughout the rest of the RSA.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that the Republic has made a real attempt to adhere to the spirit and letter of the Nkomati Accord, there is, otherwise than in the case of Mozambique, a mood prevailing that is conducive to dissatisfaction.

Whenever talks take place, certain undertakings are given, but when those talks are over it is as if the government leaders in Mozambique go out of their way to launch one venomous attack after another on South Africa. I have some examples here in front of me—I do not want to quote them—which are disturbing. They are disturbing because they do not display the spirit in which that accord was signed.

Let me say at once that after signing that accord, I held talks not once but several times with the late President Machel, and I was given certain undertakings, in the presence of other people, which were not honoured.

I realise that any government, not only this Government, but also an Official Opposition or PFP government, would be faced with the realities of South Africa when bearing these responsibilities. They would have to try to find a way to overcome the problems and stumbling-blocks. We shall have to seek to achieve the greatest possible measure of co-operation, even if it is not perfect peace.

Since Angola became communist in 1975, politics on the sub-continent have systematically become radicalised—I referred to that this morning—with increasing Soviet involvement and instigation of violence. It is the easiest thing in the world to use certain media around the globe in the propaganda campaign against South Africa, and to say that South Africa is fostering destabilisation.

It is South Africa that is being blamed for destabilisation whilst the whole of Southern Africa is being destabilised from outside, to its detriment. After all, we all know that Southern Africa is becoming impoverished. We all know that there is famine. We all know that hundreds of thousands of refugees are streaming over our borders. We all know that some of our self-governing states are having tremendous problems in keeping out refugees who are slipping in through the Kruger National Park at night. Where do they want to go? To bad old South Africa, of course; to wretched South Africa. What are they coming to do here? They come here in search of refuge, food and health services. Political agitation and propaganda against South Africa have become a way of life for the so-called front-line states. This has become a way of life for them so that they can conceal their own inability to meet the basic needs of their own populations. Due to the radicalisation of politics, the sub-continent has at the same time become more unstable.

In the economic sphere the decline of Africa has become increasingly more apparent; to such an extent that experts have grave doubts as to whether Africa will experience any real development during this century. Let us just concentrate on the technological sphere. We are presently witnessing the expertise with which our own children are able to speak about current technological developments. They do so in a way that leaves our older generation amazed to hear all the things they talk about. When we then consider that Africa has lagged behind completely as far as technological development is concerned, we realize that the backward position which existed previously has now become aggravated. This situation is being abused by malicious forces in the world, who are exploiting it for their own ends.

We should also take note of what is happening to Africa in the field of health. If Africa is not delivered from this situation, it is going to collapse. I do not believe I am exaggerating when I say that. There are some powerful factors from which Africa, and particularly Southern Africa, will have to be freed if it is to have any chance of treading the path of civilisation. In this regard the Republic of South Africa is ready and willing to be used by the Western nations to bring new hope to Africa, because without South Africa there can be no new hope for these neighbouring states of ours.

In this regard I just want to refer to a few examples, Sir. In all spheres South Africa has become the power-house of Africa. Before the signing of the Nkomati Accord South Africa was involved in a variety of projects, for example in the sphere of industry, agriculture as well as in the humanitarian sphere. That was before the Nkomati Accord. The value of those projects amounted to approximately R16 million. That was before the signing of the accord. Since then, however, there have been some further developments. We have become involved in the development of the Maputo Harbour. This is, of course, in our own interests as well. The repair and maintenance of the railway network, the repair work to ships and power-stations, as well as the upgrading of sugar factories—to name but a few isolated examples—represent a capital value of R29 million. This is the country that is being accused of fostering destabilisation.

That, however, is not the end of our constructive involvement. Between 1979 and 1985 there were 5 800 Mozambican students attending secondary educational institutions in South Africa. In May 1986 there was a daily average of 10 000 units of SATS rolling stock on Mozambican railway lines. This is the country that is supposedly guilty of destabilisation.

Our role as a provider of employment to Mozambicans, through which foreign exchange is earned, is well-known. We render generous assistance in the way of agricultural and veterinary services. What is very clear, however, is that the Frelimo government has never really desisted from supporting and harbouring of the SACP-ANC alliance. It has not stopped doing that. That should not drive us to despondency, however. After all, we cannot simply sit back and say: “There you are, Russia, you have the cake”. I am opposed to that spirit. I am opposed to a spirit of isolation. I refuse to believe that we must simply accept that darkness has descended upon us, that all the lights have gone out, and that we must now thrash around and kick each other in the dark.

I referred earlier to the Soviet Union as an instigator of violence, and to the exportation of revolution to the RS A. I have no doubt that the Soviet Union regards Mozambique as one of its instruments in attaining its ultimate objectives in regard to the RSA, but if we want to resist this, we here in the RSA must assemble as many people as possible in a team to work together with us in opposing the objectives of the Soviet Union. We must not alienate those people who can work together with us; we must bring them together and say: Let us resist this onslaught!

There is a second statement I want to make this afternoon about attitudes, and that is that the vast majority of the Black communities in South Africa, as well as the vast majority of the Coloured and Indian communities, together with the vast majority of Whites in the country are opposed to a violent take-over by the Soviet Union; they want to resist it.

Some ANC terrorists who were in Mozambique in October 1985 and April 1986 admitted that the restrictions which the Nkomati Accord placed on the RSA, gave terrorists freedom of movement and action in Mozambique. Consequently, it is clear that the support of the Frelimo government has enabled, and is still enabling the ANC to conduct and to expand its activities in Mozambique.

This must be opposed, and we are combating it with all the expertise and knowledge at our disposal. We are being criticised for the fact that our security forces are properly organised. We have been placed in an up-to-date position by virtue of what our security forces have organised so far, because we know long beforehand about most of the moves that are made against South Africa by these people. Let me tell this Committee this afternoon that hon members would be amazed at how many of these people who plant bombs and lay mines have been thwarted before they reached the borders of South Africa.

Article 5 of the accord prohibits any acts of propaganda in the respective territories that incite a war of aggression against the other party and also prohibits acts of propaganda aimed at inciting acts of terrorism and civil war in the territory of the other party. This is a very important component of this accord.

Regretfully, I have to say that it is clear to me from what happened at the time of President Machel’s death and from subsequent events, as well as from certain speeches that have been made in this neighbouring state—the latest example is the so-called Homoine massacre—that every possible effort is being made to portray South Africa as the “bad guy”, with one purpose: South Africa is not to make any progress in Southern Africa. South Africa may not make any progress in helping to bring peace to the sub-continent. South Africa must be prevented from helping people to help themselves.

In contrast to Mozambique’s active support for the Communist-ANC alliance and the non-stop rhetorical, propagandist and aggressive attacks on the RS A, South Africa has in fact maintained an impressive record of assistance, and we intend to keep it up. Every thrust from outside must be answered with a counter-thrust from our side. We are not a superpower and our resources are limited, but we must have the faith and the will—and that message must be conveyed from this Parliament—to resist those forces.

I want to conclude by making it clear that South Africa acknowledges and respects the existence of the sovereign state of Mozambique. The transfer of power by the Portuguese government to Frelimo was recognised by the world, and that Frelimo government has been accepted. We accept it as a fact and do not want to make any changes to the sovereignty of the Mozambican state. However, the Mozambican state has neither the moral right nor the right in terms of the Nkomati Accord to allow terrorists to organise themselves within its territory and to enter South Africa from there in order to cause trouble.

That is why we have repeatedly confronted that government in terms of the accord and told it to prevent those people from misusing its territory. It is in the interests of our entire region that the Mozambican leaders should also undergo a change of attitude. As far as I am concerned they may retain their ideological convictions, but they must desist from helping to unleash the ANC on South Africa’s borders, in violation of the Nkomati Accord.

When I say that, I am not referring to an irresponsible escalation or creation of conflict. What is at issue is the fact that the basic rules for stability, peace and individual interests in Southern Africa must be spelt out in no uncertain terms, and that they must be put into effect. One of our basic rules is that we will not tolerate the exportation of revolution. We export nothing but goodwill to our neighbours. If that basic rule is violated, however, and our neighbours export revolution to us, we shall not tolerate it. Mozambique, the SACP and the ANC must understand that. South Africa reserves the right to combat revolutionary violence against it with all the means at its disposal.

Terrorists must be given short shrift wherever they find themselves. This is in line with the viewpoint that has repeatedly been adopted by Western leaders at conferences. They recently did so again. Talk about double standards; this is an example of it! Terrorism must be given short shrift wherever it is encountered, but when South Africa does so, people in the West make a song and dance about it. Those same Western leaders who met in Tokyo and in Italy and who adopted the standpoint there that terrorism represented a real danger for mankind and civilisation, nevertheless do not wish to accept that terrorism in South Africa must also be combated. I cannot adopt any other standpoint on this issue and I ask Parliament’s support for my contention that if terrorism is repugnant and it must be resisted in the rest of the world, then it should also be resisted in South Africa and in Southern Africa. That is my approach.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House should like to wish the hon the State President every success on the very important work he is doing and tell him we understand what he is doing. At the same time we want to express the hope that he will speedily return to the policy of separate development to which he has devoted his entire life.

As far as the ANC, South African’s enemies and the communists are concerned, we want to tell the hon the State President that he has the CP’s support. He need not keep glancing over his shoulder. When it comes to the neighbouring states which shelter these murderers, he should not hesitate. He should cross our borders and wipe them out before they can come to South Africa and commit their atrocities here.

I should like to refer to the amended norms which the hon the State President announced in regard to the release of security prisoners. We see this as nothing but a stage-setting for the release of Mr Mandela. Let me say that after this new stage-setting it will merely be a question of time before Mandela is released. That will be another large-scale act of capitulation on the part of the NP.

The hon the State President referred to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He warned that one should not try to score political debating points. He himself nevertheless tried to score a few big political debating points. I am not only referring to the hon the State President’s unfair accusation about my hon leader supposedly referring to America as a whole, to everyone in America, and dismissing them as being a hopeless lot. That is completely divorced from the truth. My hon leader—I want to refer to his speech—merely referred to a State department quotation. Let me tell the hon the State President that that was a big political debating point he was trying to score.

The other political debating point he tried to score was when the hon the State President told my hon leader that they should not doubt one another’s loyalty to South Africa. I want to ask that an indication be given, in my hon leader’s speech, of where he questioned anyone’s loyalty to South Africa.

The hon the State President had a great deal to say in the second speech he made. He spoke for two hours. He covered a wide range of subjects; he spoke about South West Africa, Nkomati, etc. As far as the fundamental problems of South Africa are concerned, problems for which he has been asked to give answers—answers the whole world is waiting to hear—the hon the State President did not say a word. After this approach on the part of the hon the State President, South Africa is more than ever in the dark about the precise political plans the NP has for the people of South Africa.

I want to refer to the postponement of the next election. It is obviously a panic-stricken reaction on the part of a Government that knows it is going to lose the next general election. [Interjections.] Hon members are free to laugh, but the Government’s shock at the results of 6 May when, after the hon the State President had referred to us as a splinter-group and after Mark-en Menings-opnames predicted that we would only obtain a few per cent of the votes, almost 600 000 people voted for the CP. This has the NP on the run to such an extent that the hon the State President had to throw them a lifebelt to save his drowning NP and his floundering hon Ministers. The hon the State President says that an election in 1989 would be unfair to the Government. That is, of course, untrue. It would be unfair, because the NP would lose.

The hon the State President said that, in the meantime, there would still be an election for a State President. I predict that the hon the State President will not contest that election, because he does not, after the next election, want to find himself sitting in the Opposition benches as he previously saw Genl Smuts sitting here. [Interjections.] My authority for saying so is what was written in the Sunday Star of 24 May under the heading “Treurnicht for State President”. [Interjections.] That was not said by Die Patriot, but by the Sunday Star. I quote the following:

The report goes on to state:

I want the hon member for Lydenburg to listen carefully:

[Interjections.] “Ninepins. ” They are going to fall like flies. Helderberg will, of course, be the first! We only need a swing of 20 people there, and we have a new Minister. There is also Lydenburg, Wonderboom, Potchefstroom and Vereeniging. In the next election they are going to fall, but now the hon the State President is postponing the election. I want to point out, however, that there are still by-elections, and we are going to thrash the NP in one by-election after another. [Interjection.] We are going to beat them.

I now want to issue a challenge to the hon the State President, because I now he is a great sport when it comes to such things. In October next year there is a general election at municipal level. I challenge the hon the State President to undertake to call a general election immediately if the CP does better than his party. [Interjections.]

A deathly silence!

Now he is looking the other way. If the CP’s performance is better than that of the NP on that occasion, it is the hon the State President’s duty to call a general election. He will not do so because he does not, like Genl Smuts, want to be sitting here in the Opposition benches.

There is another tendency amongst NP speakers, including the hon the State President. They pretend that power-sharing has always been NP policy. [Interjections.] The hon the State President says “yes”. He is talking nonsense when he says that. When the hon member for Vryburg says power-sharing ran through NP policy like a golden thread, he is talking nonsense. [Interjections.] I should now like to state what authoritative source I am quoting when I say that the hon the State President and the hon member for Vryburg are talking nonsense. It is the hon the State President himself, the previous Prime Minister of South Africa, who said so on 26 August, 1981. Dr Boraine, now a member of Idasa, asked (Hansard: House of Assembly, vol 94, col 1959):

The then Prime Minister replied:

He said that people would wait until doomsday before he introduced power-sharing. Now they are saying it has always been their policy and has been present like a golden thread throughout. It is a lot of nonsense. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to a particularly important subject and question the hon the State President about it. I am referring to his new undivided South Africa, in which there are only going to be groups. The NP states that in that new South Africa, in which there are only going to be groups, one group should not dominate another, and minority rights should be protected. During the general election campaign I asked, at about 40 of the meetings, how they proposed doing so. In this Parliament I have asked, on approximately 12 occasions, how they proposed doing so. There is a deathly silence. I now want to ask the hon the State President how he is going to protect the Whites and what guarantee he wants to give the Whites when, in that one undivided South Africa, they are in the minority as a group and as individuals. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs says it is impossible. He said in Witbank, on one occasion, that no Government could guarantee minority rights. I am now asking the hon the State President how he, in that one South Africa of his, proposes to protect us as a minority. How does he propose to protect the Whites there from domination by an enormous number of Blacks? [Interjections.]

There is no such protection. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is correct. There is no way in which to protect minorities. That is why the NP does not answer our question.

I now challenge the hon the State President to answer me. The hon member for Umlazi, whom I believe is going to speak after I have finished speaking, may also react to this. How does the NP propose to protect the Whites in that single South Africa in which there will be 25 million people of colour as against 5 million Whites, or 10 or 12 groups as against one? The NP’s reform plan and the hon the State President and his party’s credibility depend on the answer to this question, because according to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs they have no guarantee for that. They do, however, expect groups to enter that shadowy future.

I am asking the hon the State President to say what future the Whites have in that new South Africa of his, because we are not going into that dark future with him. We are waiting for 1989-90 when we take over the Government. Then we shall restore peace in this country, as sure as hon members are sitting here today.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Overvaal is apparently concerned because we are not going to have an election in two years’ time. He must have cause for concern. His harsh words and shouting about our supposedly being afraid to call an election are merely a way of disguising his own party’s fear because its members know that the longer it takes before an election is held again, the more their party will become an anachronism in South African politics and the greater will be this hon State President’s and his Government’s progress in the process of giving all people in South Africa a place in the sun in the constitutional sphere as well.

We are not misled by the hon member for Overvaal, but he would have been doing South Africa and this House a favour if, in his efforts to tell us how the White should be protected, he had told us a bit more about his own party’s partition policy. Over the past few weeks the hon member has become an expert on his party’s partition policy.

I should like to remind the hon member that my opposite number in his party, the hon member for Randfontein, released the CP election manifesto a few months ago. He did this by means of a Press conference and it was also televised, if I remember correctly. At the time he announced that partition was his party’s policy. To tell the truth, he said the CP regarded Southern Africa as a subcontinent—the home of 13 different peoples. In terms of his party’s policy each of those 13 peoples would have to have its own territory and its own government. That means absolute partition in my book.

We did not find it strange that the hon member for Randfontein came up with this policy; it was in fact the indictment against this side of the House that we had deviated from the policy of partition or apartheid and therefore justified those hon members’ break with the NP.

Let us state immediately that we have no objection to the idea of partition on moral grounds. We on this side of the House have always said that the development of homelands and even absolute territorial separation is the ideal solution in a heterogeneous community such as that in which we find ourselves—if it is a practicable solution.

After 35 years in power we of the NP have not found it necessary to pay lip service to partition or to pat ourselves on the back and say we are partitionists. We could point to monuments to partition which we have created over 35 years. There are four independent Black states and six self-governing areas in Southern Africa. There is not a single Black people that is not governing itself. We do not talk about this; we have done it. [Interjections.]

We of the NP do not view partition merely as an attractive mirage—we also take the stark realities partition demands of one into account. We have gradually begun to state the basic conditions for the successful application of a partition policy in stronger terms:

The enormous costs that effective partition would entail had to be taken into consideration; there had to be sufficient land available for meaningful consolidation of the partitioned states. In addition the will to make such a process succeed had to be present in South Africans of all groups. [Interjections.] It was because the NP had learnt through bitter experience that the prerequisites for successful partition did not exist everywhere that we began to be sceptical of the possibility of putting partition into operation; at least, we realised we would not be able to implement it as completely as the dreamers in the CP, the people of vision like the hon member for Randfontein, wish to do.

There was a further reason why our scepticism was converted to absolute certainty by hard reality and it was that, if one wanted to make partition succeed in South Africa and if one wished to apply it sincerely and in the interests of all people in South Africa and not only of the Whites, one could only do it in a spirit differing from that of the CP. That party projects an attitude that no persons other than Whites are entitled to a place in the sun, to say nothing of the expenditure of money or making land available to them. [Interjections.] Hon members on that side of the House can kick up a fuss if they like but we saw publication after publication of theirs before the election in which they simply shrieked to high heaven about every cent spent on Black areas or on Black education, about every inch of ground made available for Black occupation, and so it went on until one grew quite sick of it. One cannot adopt that attitude as a guideline for partition.

It may be the case that there are a few remaining idealists like the hon member for Randfontein in the CP, but this party’s pre-election publications indicated that naked racism was the main guideline of most CP leaders. Partition is nothing but a smoke screen to them behind which to conceal their naked racism.

Gradually this truth started to dawn on the CP and its leaders. They began to realise that one could not present a rosy future by means of partition to one’s people on the one hand and on the other make strenuous efforts to buy every possible White vote by casting suspicion on every cent spent on Black services. In due course that message also got through to the hon member for Overvaal. On 17 June the hon member said the following in reply to a speech by the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs:

The hon member for Overvaal then added:

[Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member we shall have to erect a monument to him in time if he carries on in this way. That statement of his exhibited the naked racism of the CP and it does not befit the hon member for Overvaal to ask here how the NP Government is going to protect the Whites. How will his party, if it should come to power, protect the Whites if it does not wish to support and apply partition in its entirety?

If one concedes that partition cannot be applied in toto, surely one is granting that a degree of intermingling and interdependence will have to continue in South Africa. Once one has acknowledged that, the rest must follow logically. As the Dutch say, if one says “a”, one has to add “b”.

This means that one will also have to create structures to give recognition to that interdependence. If there were sufficient time, I should very much have liked to refer at this point to the splendid example of the CP’s denial of its own partition policy at its recent congress at Richards Bay in Natal, where there are two separate management structures which wish to co-operate with each other but do not want to accept that elementary principle, that elementary result of partial partition. They do not want to swallow it.

There is no time for this but there is time to state here that this remark by the hon member for Overvaal makes it very clear that there are two groups of people in the CP. There are the dreamers—if we do not want to call them idealists—who believe it possible to carve out 13 states here in South Africa that are able to exist alongside each other in full independence without any contact with one another and without any negotiation whatsoever; and then there are the racists—or pragmatists as they may prefer to be called—who know this cannot work and who either wish to preserve the status quo in Southern Africa or escape to a “Boerestaat” one comprising all the best parts of South Africa which they have extracted for themselves.

A “Boerestaat” Sir? My foot! “Boerever-neukery” (skulduggery)!

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Umlazi. It is very clear that he taught the hon member for Overvaal in particular an excellent political lesson about what partition really is. [Interjections.]

What was your minority?

Mr Chairman, on 17 April 1986 the hon the State President said in his introductory speech to the discussion of his Vote, and I quote (Hansard: House of Assembly, April 1986 col 3598):

It is clear from this that reform is a comprehensive process, which affects almost every facet of one’s life. Hon members on the opposite side of the House can rant and rave as much as they please; they will not escape reform—it will be their fate in South Africa too. They will also have to reform if they want to survive in South Africa.

This is also proof of the Government’s sincerity about improving the living conditions of all inhabitants in South Africa. The reform I am talking about is not being carried out at random, however. On 1 August 1985 final shape was give to the national management system by establishing a prosperity component in addition to the security component. The prosperity component was subdivided into a political, economic and social section. The hon the State President should be praised for the vision and insight he displayed in having this important work organised and co-ordinated in the Office of the State President.

I am not underestimating the importance exercising political rights has in the development of every person’s life. It is essential and even indispensable. I agree, however, with the standpoint that is held in a publication of the Social Policy Analysis and Advisory Services in the Office of the State President. This publication describes the social policy development of the Government between 1980 and 1987. Page 1 of Volume 2 of this publication says that many people both inside and outside South Africa are of the naive and short-sighted opinion that this country will automatically change into a socioeconomic paradise, in which all inhabitants will be equal, prosperous and happy, as soon as the country’s political and constitutional problems have been resolved.

Reference was made to this aspect earlier in the debate, but it was Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana who said approximately 30 years ago that one should be concerned above all with the political kingdom, and all other things would follow—the hon member for East London City referred to this. Since this statement, more than 50 African countries have gained political independence and freedom, but almost without exception the quality of life in those countries has deteriorated, and their life expectancy has dropped dramatically.

That is what you want to do with South Africa!

What has remained in most of those countries is one-party states or military dictatorships, whereas social conditions in those countries have deteriorated shamefully. No wonder that so many African leaders have called out recently “Africa is dying”. I want to tell the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke, who has just said that that is what we want to do with South Africa, that there is a world of difference between the conditions in South Africa and those in most countries in the rest of Africa. If that hon member does not know that—I think it was the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke who interjected—it is strange, because he should know that the situation here differs widely from that in the rest of Africa. Either he is too short-sighted to recognise this, or he has too many party-political prejudices to admit it to the Government.

In addition to the purposeful constitutional reform to extend the democracy, the Government is involved in an imaginative and comprehensive social development programme. With the social section that is operating in the Office of the State President, expert staff members can make inputs about important social matters. The hon the State President, as head of the Government, formulates policy on social matters through certain Ministries and departments which will be applied to the whole population.

Dr Jannie Pieterse rightly said in a speech entitled “Die maatskaplike magsbasis van die welvaart-bestuurstelsel” that social development is not an isolated problem, but an inter-disciplinary one. It comprises the housing, education, training, welfare and health of every person in the Republic of South Africa. Within this context, development can be defined as the general improvement of the quality of every person’s life. The philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote in his autobiography: “The worth of a state in the long run is the worth of the individuals composing it.” If, therefore, we want to evaluate the value of the State properly, we must consider the quality of life of the people who live in that state, paying particular attention to the social aspect.

Over the years the Third World component in South Africa has built up a considerable backlog, if one considers the development of the First World component, for example. Naturally there are reasons for this, but I wonder whether left-wing radical elements would be at all effective in their intimidation of moderate Blacks if the quality of life of these communities was higher, not only economically, but also—and particularly—socially. Would their resistance to their intimidation not have been stronger if they had had a stronger social infrastructure? In my opinion Black parents have lost control over their children on the basis of unacceptable social conditions which the parents themselves often cannot deal with or explain. This is the kind of situation that ultimately leads to large-scale disintegration of families. Social evils and backlogs are found in the Black residential areas in particular, and are still a fertile breeding ground for the left-wing radicals to bring unrest and rebellion to a head.

In view of this, I maintain that the Social Policy Analysis and Advisory Services division in the Office of the State President has made a very timeous appearance. I also have great appreciation for the work done by the Directorate for Social Planning in the Department of Constitutional Development. I am referring specifically to a report on an investigation into the present welfare policy in South Africa and the role of the State in the financing of welfare services, as well as the report about the proposed national family programme.

Social development forms the basis of man’s development. It changes the process of dehumanisation into a process of humanising man. I hope that the Government will be capable of accelerating social development even further than is the case at present, because the degree of one’s social development often determines whether or not one is prepared and/or equipped for the ensuing political development. I trust that a secure partnership will develop between the Government and the private sector which will result in the accelerated social upliftment and development of all sections of the population. This will be a valuable investment in South Africa’s future, and it will be crucial to further reform, order and stability in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon the State President used strong language yesterday in his criticism of the Dakar talks. That is, of course, anyone’s prerogative and one cannot find fault with that. However, it is one thing to fight about Dakar, but another matter entirely to insinuate here that I am unpatriotic and that my integrity and my loyalty to my country should therefore be questioned. To my mind this is simply proof of the fact that the hon the State President prefers to conduct his debates at the lowest possible level. [Interjections.] I reject with contempt the type of insinuations that were made. [Interjections.]

No one, either in this House or outside it, will determine my patriotism for me. [Interjections.]

Order!

The irony of it all is that the hon the State President or his successors will at some or other stage have to hold their own Dakar talks with the ANC and other groups. I am sure history will prove me right on this. [Interjections.] After all, the ANC are not only to be found in London or Lusaka. There are millions of Black sympathisers in the country, and the majority of them are opposed to violence. Surely we cannot ignore that. Many Whites are aware of this fact. When the hon the State President expressed the opinion yesterday that the people of South Africa found the Dakar talks repugnant, I could only shake my head because the hon the State President would be amazed at how many of the hon members on his side of the House stop me in the passages of this building to ask me about what happened in Dakar. He would be amazed to hear how many of them have knocked on my door to find out what my opinions are. [Interjections.]

Name them!

Order!

The hon the State President also referred to the departure form which I filled in at Jan Smuts Airport. I must confess I do find it a bit petty that a head of state should use such a form to insinuate that I either lied or tried to deceive anyone. [Interjections.] I have the hon the State President’s unrevised Hansard and he said the following:

Hon members will see that he suggests here that I indicated that I was going to a conference in the United Kingdom. That is what the inference must be from what the hon the State President said. The hon the Minister of Home Affairs was kind enough to give me the form and anyone can have a look at it. It asks for the flight number as well. I had a one-way ticket from Jan Smuts to London and there are also other details. It then asks: Purpose of departure. I wrote “conference”, because it was true. The next question is: To which country? I was departing to the United Kingdom. [Interjections.]

Order!

I took the trouble to ’phone travel agencies this morning to ask them how I must complete this form. Every single one suggested that the way in which this form was completed was correct. I will do it in the same way if I have to go overseas again. It is the only way in which I could fill it in.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member on what grounds he felt that the final destination was irrelevant when completing the form? [Interjections.]

It does not state “final destination”! The travel agents will tell hon members that the only instance in which one need not fill in the word “London”, is when it is merely a transit airport, and that was not the case. [Interjections.]

†It is this sort of politics which the hon the State President loves and the flock like it as well because they can laugh.

The hon the State President posed three questions yesterday. The first one was whether we had come back any wiser. My reply is an unqualified yes. In South Africa there are two antagonists, the ANC and the Government, who feed on each other’s propaganda. During the election campaign, through advertisements and leaflets, and continuously through television, the public is presented with a caricature of Oliver Tambo. He is presented as a blood-dripping, Marxist, Moscow-dominated terrorist.

The other way round, through its Radio Freedom, and through its literature, the ANC tries to present a caricature of the hon the State President. They describe him as a fascist, racist, imperialist murderer who mows down the population in the townships. I know that is not true. I do not know him personally but I do know that is not what he is like. Why must we as politicians and the public be expected to base our analysis and debate on propaganda and not reality? I neither believe the ANC propaganda as far as the hon the State President is concerned, nor do I believe the Government’s propaganda as far as Oliver Tambo is concerned. [Interjections.] The trip to Dakar in some way gave me a greater understanding, and I could break through the propaganda somewhat. I was therefore a little wiser. In addition one was able to establish to some extent where the areas of compromise were, and where the areas of rigidity were where no compromise was possible.

As regards the communists I want to say that there are communists on the executive of the ANC but they will not tell one who they are. I have no doubt that the SACP has an influence over the ANC but I am not prepared to accept that there is a total hold over them or total control by Moscow. [Interjections.] I do not accept that.

It is a fact. [Interjections.]

Sometimes when I contemplate the future of my country I look at my nine-year-old son and I ask myself what future he will have. I say to myself that I will do everything possible to play a role, as small as it may be, to create a safe and secure future for him and for others. I will do so within the law, and without violence because I reject violence, and no one will prevent me from doing that and from striving towards that goal. I will continue to do so. Parliament is the channel which I believe should be worked through and I said that in Dakar. No one will prevent me from doing that. When the hon the State President therefore asks me whether I came back a bit wiser I can say that I am sure I did. I will not allow the hon the State President or others to intimidate me, to paint a false picture of me or to attack my integrity. I will not allow that to happen. They can try but I will do what I believe is correct and in the interests of this country and our future.

Mr Chairman, I rise to reply to the hon member for Durban Central. I can assure him that I do not do so in anger but with a great degree of sympathy and sorrow. I also do so with a sense of trepidation because he is a gentleman of distinction.

He has earned for himself during his short career as a parliamentarian certain distinctions. First of all, he is chairman of their caucus. I think that is a worthy distinction.

Party caucus.

Party caucus. Secondly, he was one of only two parliamentarians who had the privilege of setting foot on the soil of Dakar, that great democracy in Africa. [Interjections.] Thirdly, I think within a short while he will be able to claim for himself a third distinction—that of being instrumental in the destruction and demise of his party. Hon members will agree with me that these are distinctions not to be scoffed at.

I want to ask the hon member for Durban Central a question: Is he in favour of and will he support the appointment of a joint parliamentary committee to investigate extra-parliamentary actions? [Interjections.] No, I want an answer in the affirmative or in the negative. [Interjections.] This is the trouble, and this brings me to another point.

Up to now the two most senior frontbenchers of the PFP have made speeches, as did the hon member for Durban Central, and all they did was to criticize this Government for certain of its actions, while I would have thought that this was the opportune time to match policy with policy. We have heard no word, no whisper …

It is the hon the State President’s Vote, not ours. That is absolute nonsense.

… of PFP policy. [Interjections.] Not a whisper, and I think we know the reason why. I think there is such a difference on matters of policy in that party that they dare not put their policy. Instead their most recent behaviour indicates to us that they avoid policy matters like the devil avoids holy water! All they do, is criticize, and when they do criticize …

That is our job!

… they do not only point out Government mistakes, but they magnify them. They put them under a magnifying glass. A mistake is not an ordinary mistake; no, it is a blunder; or it is a perfect example of gross mismanagement! When measures on State security are taken, they are not ordinary measures, they are diabolical; they are Draconian measures.

This is the way in which they practise their brand of politics. They want to scare the voters of this country away from the NP. They are not trying to lure them to the PFP with and through its policies. They cannot afford to put their policies, because, unfortunately, they have a right wing and a left wing in that party. I have no doubt that those two groups are no longer merely left wingers and right wingers, but indeed two separate factions within that party.

The hon member for Durban Central said that no one should doubt his loyalty to this country. Let us test that loyalty. One of the duties of a minority party in any democratic system is to share responsibility for good government in that country together with the majority party. What, at the moment, is the greatest challenge facing South Africa? Is it not, first and foremost, that we should bring the people of South Africa—White and Black—together around the conference table to thrash out constitutional matters and problems.

Quite correct.

I am very glad that the hon member for Green Point is helping me.

That hon member and other hon members of that party claim that they have wide contact among the Black leaders of South Africa. Have they ever tried to persuade those leaders to sit around a conference table with the White leaders of this country?

Yes. [Interjections.]

This is a vital question, because the hon member for Durban Central admitted that most of these leaders in South Africa are peace-loving people.

Except when you put them in jail.

If he did try, how hard did he try? Instead of trying to persuade them and bring more pressure to bear upon them, he runs off to Dakar to go into conference with the powers of revolution.

Why did you reject the Indaba?

I doubt very much their sincerity in regard to talks with the African leaders of this country in trying to persuade them to come and talk to the White leaders of this country.

One can gather from the reaction to security matters, or should I say their overreaction to security matters in this country, what the attitude is of some hon members on that side of the House. Security measures are constantly being criticised by hon members on that side of the House. We also heard some of the criticism during this debate. What is worse, however, is that they put the actions of the security forces and the police under the magnifying glass. Members of the security force and police have also lost their lives and have been the victims of necklace murders.

Now, Mr Chairman, I want to know whether any hon member of the PFP has ever sent messages of condolence or of sympathy to victims of terrorism in this country or to their next of kin.

Yes! [Interjections.]

Has the hon member for Yeoville in fact done so?

Yes! [Interjections.]

I think some of those hon members have in fact done so, Sir. If they have done so, however, it is the best kept secret in the country! [Interjections.] You know, Sir, it is interesting to note what the newspapers consider worthy of publication. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Central made the very interesting statement here that the majority of the people he spoke to in Dakar—when he says that, I think he also means the majority of the ANC members—are in fact opposed to violence. Have I understood the hon member correctly?

I said that the majority of the people in this country are opposed to violence!

So judging by that hon member’s argument, he is telling me that the majority of the people he spoke to in Dakar are not opposed to violence. Is that what the hon member is telling me? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

What is the hon member telling me now, Mr Chairman? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on 11 August the hon member for Durban Central held a report-back meeting in his constituency. On that occasion he referred to a visit the hon member for Sea Point, the hon the leader of the PFP, paid to the ANC in Lusaka two years ago. I quote what he had to say about this, according to a newspaper report in the Daily News of 12 August:

He is referring to the ANC, Mr Chairman:

Remember, Sir, that it is the hon member for Durban Central saying this:

Please note, Sir, what is third on the list:

Mr Chairman … [Interjections.] That is general knowledge in South Africa, and it has, after all, been spelled out repeatedly by the hon the State President and the security people in South Africa that these people are only interested in a power take-over in South Africa by violent means. It is also the Government’s standpoint—a standpoint which is, in fact, very clear-cut—that discussions will not be held with these people about the future of South Africa until they are prepared to renounce violence.

In this House, however, the hon member for Durban Central attacked the hon the State President because the hon the State President supposedly impugned his integrity and his loyalty towards South Africa. In the same breath he equated the information emanating, via the Government and the State, from its respective information services, with the propaganda of the ANC.

Scandalous!

He conveyed a message to South Africa that the ANC’s credibility was as great as that of the South African Government.

Scandalous!

That, Sir, is by implication what the hon member for Durban Central was telling us. [Interjections.] Since he is taking up the cudgels for an organisation in which he believes the majority of the members are peace-loving individuals, people who renounce violence, I should very much like to know whether, in Dakar, before he went visiting the curd-factories, he tried to persuade them to renounce the third leg of their programme of action. Did the hon member also try to ascertain from them why they were so wholly bent on taking over power by violent means? Fourthly, did the hon member ask them why they wanted to exert diplomatic pressure on South Africa?

Of course we spoke about that!

Are these two legs of their programme of action independent of each other? This afternoon I want to tell the hon member for Durban Central that he and those who accompanied him on the safari to Dakar have strengthened the ANC in its endeavour to undermine the legitimacy of the South African Government and discredit it in the eyes of the outside world. As an hon member who took his seat in this Parliament and promised, when he made himself available for election, that he would participate in the system, this hon member went to Dakar in his capacity as a member of this Parliament, but did not defend this Parliament and put South Africa’s case there. When we examine the methods adopted by the ANC and the SA Communist Party, it is very clear to us that they are specifically trying, in the sphere of White politics, to give momentum to extra-Parliamentary action. Their object is to reduce the Government’s negotiating capability and to fragment this Government’s power base, and this hon member and the friends who accompanied him on that safari went to play this game with the ANC.

I think the hon member for Yeoville will have the courage of his convictions and at least bring his party back on the right track, in tune with the interests of South Africa. It is not good enough for us to hear that the two hon members who were in Dakar had apologised, and that the situation then just fizzles out and all is right with the world. Someone in that party will have to stand up so that we may know whether the PFP wants to be counted on the side of South Africa or not.

I want to refer to a second aspect in regard to which these people very frequently play into the hands of the forces of subversion. So frequently people yield to the temptation of elevating bona fide obstacles, such as those relating to the community and to the socioeconomic life of South Africa, to the level of political issues. We need only look at what happened recently in one of the Peninsula’s northern urban areas, in which a problem involving a bus stop was turned into a political issue. We also saw how the hon member for Losberg succeeded in dragging Suurbekom into a political debate in this House, with no other purpose but to create an emotional climate unfavourable to this Government. By doing that we are not doing South Africa a favour; we are undermining the power base of the legitimate Government of this country.

In the last two minutes available to me I, as a back-bencher in this House, want to ask a question which has been asked very frequently in this House and in public. What are our intentions and what course are we adopting as far as South Africa is concerned? I have the very real fear that we will end up in a situation—as is the case with hon members of the Official Opposition, who do this from one day to the next—in which our entire struggle and all our energies are geared to attempts to negotiate a place for ourselves in this country and that that will take up all our time.

I think the people of South Africa have enough strength to maintain their position without having to spend each day stirring up people’s emotions on that score. We have helped to develop this country; we have helped to bolster this country economically and militarily. There is no reason why we now have to crawl into our shells because we are afraid of having lost our vision of South Africa’s future. I also believe that we shall find solutions to our problems, but that we shall do so within the borders of this country and not in Dakar or any other state outside South Africa.

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a privilege for me to participate in this debate on the hon the State President’s Vote. I intend to discuss the Group Areas Act. Before doing so, however, I want to make two preliminary remarks.

To justify the amnesty arrangements in regard to prisoners, which the hon the State President announced yesterday, he used an argument—and I am saying this with respect—which he must not blame me for taking serious umbrage at. [Interjections.] As a motivating factor, he mentioned General De Wet in the same breath as Nelson Mandela. [Interjections.]

Order!

He said that just as General De Wet was in prison at a ripe old age, the same also applied to Nelson Mandela. I checked on this, and it was said in the same breath, something to which I take strong exception.

Secondly, in motivating power-sharing within a unitary state, the hon the State President said that he laid down two qualifications. Firstly—I get this from Hansard—as far as the Treasury is concerned, the final authority should be in the hands of one body. The same applies, too, to the final authority when it comes to security. In a unitary state that can only mean that the final authority is either in the hands of the Whites or in the hands of the Blacks, because we are now speaking about one authority in one country. If that is so, we want to know from the hon the State President whether this is going to be in the hands of the Blacks, because that would mean surrender, or in the hands of the Whites, because in a unitary state that would mean domination.

The hon member for Durbanville actually pre-empted me, because I want to speak about the implementation of the Group Areas Act which, according to the hon the State President, is one of the cornerstones of the right to self-determination on the part of the Whites in South Africa. Let me quote him:

I gather we should take that seriously, but if one of those cornerstones, ie the Group Areas Act, is examined—and I want to do so on the strength of a specific instance, ie that of Suurbekom in my own constituency—we see that for the hon the State President and for the NP that cornerstone no longer has any meaning. Suurbekom is a group of White smallholdings north of the Johannesburg-Potchefstroom road. The position of that residential area, after the abolition of influx control in July 1986, is such that the area is being completely swamped by Blacks. Since the abolition of influx control in July of last year there are 1 437 Blacks as against 1 100 Whites living in that White residential area. A grey area is being created. What is more, the Whites are being forced out of their own residential area. We must concede that on the basis of that cornerstone the NP obtained many votes in the election, but of course the issue is the morality underlying this.

You people must not speak about morality.

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

Sir, I do not have the time now, but I shall do so at a later stage. The hon the State President cannot say that he did not know of the position in Suurbekom. On 22 December 1986 a petition was sent to the hon the Minister of Justice. A copy of that petition was sent to the hon the State President. Because I am speaking to the head of State, it is with heartfelt sadness that I say that he did not even acknowledge receipt of that petition signed by 400 White inhabitants of Suurbekom. Copies were also sent to the hon the Minister of Law and Order and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Let me say at once that the last-mentioned hon Minister did at least acknowledge receipt.

What, however, did the departments do about the fact that a White residential area, Suurbekom, was turning into a Black area? The hon the Minister of Justice’s letter was referred to the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning on 5 January 1987. That department referred it to the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the Deputy Minister referred it to the Administrator. To date nothing has yet been done about it. The Ministry of Law and Order replied that there was a possibility that they would contact the petitioners in connection with the matter promptly. Since then nothing whatsoever has been done about this problem.

I want to focus the hon the State President’s attention on questions published in this House’s Hansard of 23 February 1987. Questions were put to quite a few Ministers. Time does not permit me to deal with each one, but I want to ask the hon the State President to look at the way in which the hon Ministers contradicted one another about the displacement of Whites at Suurbekom. I want to mention two examples.

In column 518 the hon the Minister of Justice replied “No” to a question about whether dockets had been handed to him. The hon the Minister of Law and Order was asked whether investigations would take place, and his reply to that was “Yes, in one case the Attorney-General declined to prosecute. ” How did the hon the Minister of Law and Order manage to indicate that the Attorney-General had declined to prosecute when the hon the Minister of Justice stated that no investigations had taken place?

From what are you now quoting?

I am quoting from the questions in Hansard, 23 February 1987, column 518.

The hon the Minister of Justice was asked whether complaints were being investigated, and his reply was “No”. About the same incident the hon the Minister of Law and Order said that complaints had, in fact, been investigated. The time has come for the hon the State President to have an urgent investigation instituted into these contradictions, if there is not more to them than contradictions.

The question that arises is how it was possible for Blacks to obtain land at Suurbekom. The fact is that a certain Mr Bartmann, whose son is not unknown in rugby circles, is selling land illegally to Blacks at Suurbekom. Two financial institutions are supplying the money for these illegal transactions. Does the hon the State President know what a woman told me at a meeting? She said: “Sir, we are living in fear at Suurbekom. At night the Blacks steal the corrugated iron sheets from the roofs of our houses to build kayas a few meters away.

It is with a feeling of sadness that I seriously want to ask the hon the State President whether he would have permitted this situation to continue if his daughter had lived at Suurbekom or whether he would not long since have instituted an investigation. In the final analysis he bears the responsibility. I am a new member, but I must take responsibility for what happens in my constituency, something about which nothing has been done for months now, while the numbers of Blacks are simply increasing.

In all seriousness we call upon the hon the State President to have the Commissioner of Police institute an urgent investigation into why the Group Areas Branch of the SA Police at John Vorster Square are not doing anything about the legitimate complaints of the Whites. We call for a public investigation by a judge or some other official into the validity of the transactions taking place there. Finally, we are asking for an investigation, by the hon the State President’s office, into contraventions of the Group Areas Act.

I have here a contract of sale entered into by a certain Black lady, Anna Hlongwane. For the CP it is not only a question of the protection of the rights of Whites, but also those of the Blacks. This lady bought a plot at Suurbekom for R25 000, if I am not mistaken about the amount. She has no protection whatsoever. The contract means nothing. It is completely invalid. It will not even be registered in the Deeds Office. She is at the mercy of people who exploit the Blacks in this way even when the hon the State President is aware of the fact. A petition was submitted to him. A school principal at Suurbekom sent a letter to the hon the State President, and the hon the State President told him that he would institute an investigation. On 9 February 1987 the hon the State President told the school principal that he would institute an investigation. Today it is 14 August 1987. The Blacks are still streaming in and displacing Whites in a White residential area. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is not very pleasant for me to follow the hon member for Losberg, but I suppose that is how the Committee must work. It is nevertheless a great pleasure for me to speak today in the debate on the Vote of the hon the State President.

At the outset I want to tell the hon member for Losberg that they can partition South Africa as much as they like, but every time they have partitioned it, something will still remain which will have to be addressed. In the same way that the Government is wrestling today with the problems in connection with the Group Areas Act, which is a very sensitive Act and which affects the lives of people, that party, in spite of its policy of partition, will also have to wrestle with that in future, because something will always remain no matter how much they partition.

I should like to ask the hon member how many Black people in Suurbekom are in the employ of White people, because this is very important. It is no use losing one’s head and forgetting many of the matters which gave rise to this state of affairs. I am saying this in passing, however.

I am in no way trying to suggest today that all is well in our country. On the contrary, I want to admit that we are going through a very difficult phase in our existence. Yet our country and the inhabitants of the RSA have a great deal to be grateful for. There are already indications that the economy is reviving and that matters in the agricultural sector are also looking more promising.

The Government is constantly engaged in constitutional progress. There are indications that a growing number of Black people are eagerly taking up the Government’s offer for discussions and co-operation. I have always believed—I should like to associate myself with what the hon the State President said—that the vast majority of Black South Africans are striving for the maintenance of law and order, stability and a safe future for their children.

Various reasons can be advanced why there is a growing desire for co-operation in our country in spite of intimidation and violence. One of the most important reasons for this development, which is not always noticed and estimated at its true worth, is the spirit of compassion and understanding which radiates from the hon the State President to the underprivileged and impoverished people in our country.

I can give many examples of this. We had a tremendous number of problems in Port Elizabeth. The hon the State President went to the Black residential area and saw the problems of the Black people there at Njoli Square, as they call it. He intervened to help to improve the living conditions of those people. I can carry on in this vein ad infinitum. I shall only mention the hon the State President’s visits to Moria and Sharpeville. Black hands reached out to the White State President of this country because they saw hope for the future of our country in this person.

In discussions with Black people I have become increasingly aware of the complexity of our society. At the same time I have also become increasingly aware of the respect and appreciation which exists for the hon the State President. It is he who has started to give a meaningful direction to constitutional developments in the RSA and who has courageously tackled the process of getting out of the political cul-de-sac in which we find ourselves.

One of the NP’s greatest achievements was that it had the courage of its convictions to face up to the constitutional position of the Black people outside the national and self-governing territories. Partition, about which so much has been said, appeared to be part of the answer, but not anywhere near the entire answer. The Government is committed to orderly reform and the abolition of discriminatory legislation. In this connection a very great deal has been done, particularly during the past two years. At present we are awaiting the reports of the President’s Council in connection with the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Group Areas Act. I want to tell the CP again that these are sensitive issues which will be handled with great sensitivity by the Government to create a better dispensation for everyone in this country.

In this connection I want to make it very clear that the political party which disregards group rights in the RSA, is not keeping pace with the realities of this country. The distorted image of the Government’s policy which has been labelled as “apartheid” by the international world, is unacceptable. The undermining of people’s established rights and ways of life is also unacceptable.

It is the task of the NP in these very difficult circumstances to give substance to constitutional and other reforms in the RSA, in order to obtain a meaningful Constitution in which all population groups in this country will be involved. The greatest service we can do our country in the political sphere is the maintenance of civilised standards and Christian norms and the protection of the rights of the seekers after peace, stability and justice. Nothing can survive which has not passed the test of fairness and justice.

No Constitution or dispensation can be maintained by means of force and violence. The NP is therefore committed to orderly reform and the recognition of the rights of all our population groups in the country of their birth. To cling to the past in a changed South Africa or suddenly want to cancel out the history of our country, is to disregard the fundamental realities which any government in this country will have to take thorough cognizance of. We must choose between emotional short-term interests and the long-term survival of our civilisation.

This country has so many possibilities. If we can succeed in uniting the general population by means of Christian principles into an army of men and women, we will have laid the foundation for a South Africa which can become a world leader.

In this spirit I want to ask the hon the State President today whether we cannot introduce a national day in South Africa which will involve all population groups. This must be a day of prayer and festivities, a day on which meaningful substance can be given to the new South Africa we are in the process of creating.

In conclusion I should like to pay tribute to Mrs Elize Botha who is the mother of the new South Africa, but also of the young people of all population groups in the RSA. I believe that if, in these times in which we are living, we can take each other by the hand with cool heads and warm hearts, and can give recognition to the rights and aspirations of other people, while we continue courageously to solve South Africa’s problems, we can make this country one of the strongest countries in the world, a country of the future and a fine country.

Mr Chairman, …

Order! Before the hon member for Sasolburg continues, I should like to say that there is a constant drone of voices in the Committee which we cannot allow. I must ask hon members to lower their voices. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I should like to stick to the same theme as the hon member for Newton Park, namely the economy, because I personally believe that the economic debate in South Africa is going to become as important as, if not more important than, the constitutional debate has been during the past few years. Quite a number of economic reform measures have been introduced in this country and more will be done in this regard in future.

Permit me first of all to refer to the comical phenomenon we have witnessed in this House since the general election. The hon members of the right-wing radical Official Opposition defended their links with the AWB in this House shortly after the election.

The hon member for Losberg was one of the hon members who rose to his feet and told us how good and pure and clean this organisation was, but with the passing of time it was obvious that a kind of embarrassment had set in. Prior to the election they were involved in an immoral love affair with the AWB, but they are now suddenly ashamed of this organisation. I think a tremendous amount of progress has been made. If the two hon members who went to Dakar adopt the same attitude towards the ANC, we shall progress even further.

Prior to the election the AWB was used to make sure that voters came to the polls, but now that the CP has achieved its objective of winning a few seats, the AWB is being thrown out the back door like a dirty old rag. [Interjections.] I wonder what Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche is going to say about this. Prior to the general election he was the great mediator, but now he has become an embarrassment to the right-wing radical Official Opposition. The voting public of South Africa will want to throttle this kind of hermaphroditism out of the right-wing radicals. One cannot adopt an ambivalent standpoint and be intimate with an organisation one moment and consider that organisation an embarrassment the next. [Interjections.] The voting public will want to know where that party stands with regard to the standpoint of this organisation which assisted them.

One of the important aspects on which I feel we will have to have clarity, is the standpoint of the right-wing radical Official Opposition in respect of the economic policy of the AWB, and I want to add that there is no difference between the economic policy of the AWB and that of the ANC. The same of course applies to their constitutional policy. Hon members must listen to what appears on page 18 of the manifesto of the AWB. I am quoting:

What does this mean? Let us take a look at their Programme of Principles. I am quoting article 10 (b):

I wonder what the Dakarites learned from the ANC regarding the nationalisation of industries.

They have the same policy as the AWB.

If this is the standpoint set out in the manifesto and in the Programme of Principles of the AWB, what does it really mean? In this connection I want to refer to a letter written by a member of the AWB, which was published in the Volksblad of 2 June. And he is not just any old “palooka”. He is a certain Mr Johan Schutte, a regional organiser of the AWB in Bloemfontein. He said, and I am quoting:

Not only the mining industry will have to be nationalised, but also the land and all the companies listed on the Stock Exchange. They will be nationalised and placed back in the hands of the Afrikaners, where they belong. These standpoints of the AWB are as dangerous as the socialist standpoints of the ANC. As a result of this hermaphroditism that party, however, refuses to adopt a standpoint, and the electorate will have their guts for garters because of their refusal to do so.

They are not even unisexual.

Let us state the economic policy of the NP. I think it can be defined briefly as a system of private enterprise, built on effective competition and on proprietary rights. The main objective of the economic policy of this party is in my opinion to improve the standard of living of the First World component of our society further, while at the same time raising the Third World component of our economy out of a state of relative poverty. We have already achieved a great deal with the economic policy of the NP. The Whites or, if hon members prefer, the First World component, compare with the best in the world, and the Third World component of South Africa is head and shoulders above anything Africa can offer.

Under the leadership of the hon the State President this Government will see to it that there is effective competition. This Government will ensure that the process of privatisation continues so that percentage-wise the share of the State in the economic activities of this country will decrease further. The Government will, by way of deregulation, the development of the small business sector and the development of the informal sector, ensure that those people who are not yet participating in the system of free enterprise, will also be involved, and that in this way the employment opportunities will be created through which prosperity can also be created.

The main leader of the NP, the hon the State President, has taken the lead with these economic reform processes over the past few years. Our State President will continue with this. He has announced that he will hold another economic conference later this year, where he will consider this economic reform programme along with farmers, businessmen, industrialists and other representatives from the private sector. Regular discussions will be held with the private sector to make the further adjustments necessary to ensure that those objectives we are striving for will be achieved.

We fully support the hon the State President in this connection. We are asking him to carry on with this and we thank him for what he has already done.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased that the hon member for Sasolburg raised both the subjects which he did because they give me the opportunity to deal with some matters which I want to deal with.

May I say right at the beginning that I personally listened to the leader of the AWB say that in his view the future of South Africa would be determined by a fight between the AWB and the ANC, and that all the rest of us were irrelevant in that fight. I can only tell hon members that if our future in South Africa is to be determined by a fight between the AWB and the ANC, the whole of South Africa, whether White or Black, will end up in a disaster and be lost.

I think that is really one of the things we have to be careful of, because the reality is that extreme activists tend to lead moderate, reasonable people, and the result is that moderates who are moderate by their very nature do not have the adequate mechanism to protect themselves.

I would like to take the subject that the hon member for Sasolburg touched on a little further. I will deal with two subjects in the short time I have available. The troublesome matter is that the year 2000 is but 13 years away. The new workers of the year 2000 have already been born, and there are two questions that need to be posed in this respect, and in all humility I pose them to the hon the State President. Firstly, is South Africa ready to enter the 21st century? Secondly, are there plans to meet the problems which are going to confront our country in the 21st century?

I think the scenario looks tremendously formidable. Our total population at the turn of the century is likely to be about 45 million, of whom only about 5,5 million will be White. The population growth rate has been some 1% for the White population, and about 2,7% for the Black population during the last decade. The population development programme, even if it is successful, will not substantially affect the population as we enter the next century, because the people who are going to be there at that time have already been born. In any case, the most effective element, which has been mentioned repeatedly, is of increasing living standards with which the hon the State President agrees. There is only one way of dealing with the population increase and that is to improve the living standards of the people. With an average growth rate of 3% for the rest of the century—to an extent that is somewhat optimistic—we are not going to have the economic growth to enable us to create the jobs in order to meet the problems which will confront us.

We not only have an increase in population, but we also have some further problems in regard to increased urbanisation, because by the end of the century approximately half of the Black population is going to be urbanised, bringing with it perhaps some restriction on the growth rate of the population but also bringing a variety of other problems with it.

The Black population will not only be more urbanised but also far more educated than it is now. It will be far younger in average age than the White population. The average Black person will be 20 years old by the turn of the century compared to the White person who will be an average of 40 years old by the turn of the century. This might make the hon member for Turffontein a little more respectful towards some of the older people in the House! [Interjections.]

This average age has a very important implication. There is a 10-year programme for the equalisation of the quality of education. That would already have been implemented by the year 2000 and by then we will have close to 10 million Black children at school as opposed to 1 million White children and the number of Black matriculants and Black university graduates will be much more substantial than now.

All of this has to be seen in the light of the inability of the formal sector to create the jobs that are needed to satisfy not only an increased but a better educated population. According to the projections probably only one half of the active population will find jobs in the formal sector. The rest will either have to be in subsistence agriculture, in the informal sector, under-employed or completely unemployed. This is a most serious situation for all of us.

Combined with these pressures is the increasing pressure from abroad. There is a problem in regard to the importation of technical know-how. There is a problem concerning the maldistribution of household incomes where at the moment about 50% of the household income of South Africa is received by one eighth of the population, whereas half of the population receives less than 10% of the total household income. This maldistribution will be a major factor in regard to the whole situation when we reach the year 2000. If we do not do something about this and ignore for example the political exploitation that is taking place, namely that people believe that a change in political structure will be the panacea for all evils, then the New Year 2000 will not be an occasion for celebration for South Africa.

I think the time is overdue that we threw aside petty party-political considerations and got the public and the private sector together to face reality, not to toy and tinker with problems anymore but really get to grips with them. I want to ask this question: Can constitutional theorising create wealth or jobs? Yes, I say that apartheid will have to be removed, dialogue will have to take place and a negotiated settlement will have to be found for our problems. However, no amount of politics can deal with a population greater in number, more urbanised, younger, more educated but with an inadequate number of jobs and other means of providing for themselves. Politics bakes no bread, builds no houses and puts no clothes on people’s backs. We need to beware lest while we are all playing politics we are not creating a situation where we will end up being drowned by an economic tidal wave. I regard that as the most challenging factor that faces us at the moment.

I have touched upon the question of a negotiated constitutional solution and I think it is expected of me—in view of the controversy that has raged here—to say something else about another subject.

I would like to touch briefly on what I consider to be an important feature. Everybody talks about negotiation. It takes two to tango and, as I understand it, there was a formal announcement after Dakar by a major leader of the ANC that before they would even consider negotiation there were five prerequisites which time does not allow me to list. Only then would they consider the possibility of negotiation without committing themselves.

So, whereas we can say—and I say it with due respect—that this Government should be prepared to negotiate, it takes two to tango and we have to say loud and clear to the What about your five preconditions? What about your commitment to the armed struggle? What about the reality that unless you actually now really say you want to talk, then you are not being honest in saying that you want dialogue and negotiations.

The last thing I want to say is that to me negotiation means trying to find a constitutional solution. That is why I am committed to a round table at which the representatives of South Africa, who are the real representatives, can talk in order to create a constitution which is a Western-type democratic constitution, both from a political and a social point of view under which there can be no oppression of any minority and no oppression of any individual. However, I am not prepared to regard negotiation as being a transference of power per se just to a political group. [Interjections.] That is not negotiation! Negotiation means finding a solution for all South Africans to live in a democratic system. That is what we are committed to. That is what the game is all about. Those who want to negotiate must leave their guns at home. I said this not only in this House under the Justice Vote but also during the election campaign. I said it in my own constituency. I said it in Natal and in the Cape and I said it everywhere: One cannot negotiate with guns; one must negotiate by talking and being prepared to be committed to peace. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow the hon member for Yeoville, whose speech was, in my opinion, a most responsible one at this time. I should like to continue by telling the hon member that the first problem he outlined has already been dealt with by the hon the State President. The hon the State President and the Government introduced the population development programme in order to accommodate this problem—we all regard it as a problem—up to the year 2000.

The second aspect, which I shall deal with in greater detail later in my speech, is the hon member’s reference to discussions between the Government and the private sector, and to how they should get together. I intend to deal with that later.

The hon member for Durban Central cannot get off so lightly with the attitude he adopted in his emotional speech. The hon member said here that there were Nationalists who had spoken to him and asked questions. I want to say that that is not the way to go about it; name them!

†I would like to say to the hon member that while he was in Dakar and other African countries, he was busy with the “mumble in the jungle”. Now he comes back and he is busy with the “cover-up before the PFP split-up”!

[Inaudible.]

I want to ask the hon member to deal a little more specifically with the point. He and the hon member for Greytown must tell us who financed their trip, or whether they financed their trip themselves. [Interjections.] They say they did not finance their trip. That makes the debate from this point much easier. Therefore they were not fellow-travellers either, and I think we should not keep on referring to the “Dakar safari”. After the hon the State President had finished with them, they have been more like the “Dakar thirstland trekkers”.

I wish to return to my speech and associate myself with what the hon member for Yeoville said. After all, it is the declared policy of this Government and the hon the State President that political and constitutional reform can only go hand-in-hand with economic reform. This was spelled out during the election campaign from one platform to another, and it was said repeatedly. However, it is sad to have to say here that the resultant actions are being denigrated and discredited by critics as being too little, unreasonable or something on those lines. Allow me to state it again. It is the principle of this Government, while it negotiates in order to extend democracy in the constitutional field, to introduce economic reform. This economic reform is not brought about by the Government alone.

I now wish to touch briefly on a point which has been raised here quite frequently. It is that the hon the State President is surely the person who has done the most to bring together the Government and the Cabinet on the one hand and the private sector on the other. I do not have to delve very deeply into history; I can merely confine myself to my time at Parliament, since 1981, and quote a few examples in the economic field alone. The hon the State President has also involved people widely in the constitutional, social and other fields. However, I want to confine myself to the area of economics.

If we do not pay heed to the testimony of the economy in the rest of Africa, we shall go the same way. We only have to look at the rest of Africa to see what happens when capitalism has moved out. The moment capitalism moves out, poverty, famine, and one-party dictatorships move in. We just have to look around us. I want to tell the hon member for Yeoville we just have to look at that; that is the reason for involving private enterprise in the entire development process within South Africa.

I shall continue by elaborating on this. The first example I want to refer to is the economic conferences. Then there is the Margo Commission, which consists of a group of people from the private sector, whose report is going to be tabled here next Thursday. The hon the State President and the Government have so much confidence in the general public that they have been prepared to have the future income of the State investigated by such people. These matters were submitted to these people so that they could offer their ideas about it, which will in turn be examined by the Cabinet and the hon the State President so that they can be applied within the framework of political policy. If that is not confidence and cooperation, I want to know what is.

I now wish to return to the hon member for Constantia who, in my opinion, made a rather spiteful speech yesterday. He said he was going to cross swords with the hon the State President. I think the best he could manage to cross was a bladeless pocket-knife. His speech was spiteful and, I believe, groundless. The hon the State President has indicated on many occasions how we involve the people. I get the impression that the PFP have been using spite ever since the NP slowly began to drive them into a corner. They are being driven into a corner because of, in the first place—this does not include all members of the PFP, because I want to except the hon member for Yeoville in this respect—their spinelessness concerning order in this country and, in the second place, the Dakar episode and other extra-parliamentary activities in which a great number of former members of that party participate. They also try to provoke disunity, and that is what the hon member for Constantia did yesterday. In what was, to my mind, a most irresponsible way, he quoted selective bits and pieces from a speech in an attempt to drive a wedge between the private sector and the Government.

If the cap fits, wear it!

The hon member for Constantia tried these things, but he is going to get quite a few hidings for that abortive attempt.

The Government has tried consistently to get the private sector to participate. I wish to mention only two more examples. The Small Business Development Corporation is the first, and the new Housing Trust the second organisation which is to receive R400 million for the building of houses in an attempt to solve the problem to which the hon member for Yeoville referred. These are examples of the State’s doing its part together with the private sector.

I wish to continue. It has also been said that economic activity is declining, while the hon the Minister of Finance budgeted for a 3% growth rate. The latest figures, those for the quarter which ended on 30 June, show very clearly that the Government for its part has done everything to achieve and maintain that 3%. I am concerned, however, and I wish to appeal to the private sector—they do make their contribution—to contribute a larger proportion. The 3% can be attained only if both sectors do their part.

According to the Budget and in line with planning, the State is doing its part to achieve the 3% growth rate. However, I get the impression that this is not being done in certain sectors and that we are therefore not going to be able to maintain that 3% growth rate.

Simply to say that this or that is wrong or has not been done in the economy is unfair, because we do not have a planned economy. It is not a communist economy but a free economy.

The State has done its part and now we can justifiably appeal to the others involved in the economy to help us achieve and maintain that 3% economic growth rate—economic growth is important to me and to the hon member for Yeoville—in order to create job opportunities and prosperity for everyone in this country.

I wish to return to this and say that the shift in emphasis which is now taking place in economic reform is an important one in the sense that we are moving in the direction of private enterprise and more market-oriented attitudes. It is spelled out in the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation in the RSA, which is the final result of what the hon the State President put forward last November at the Presidency in Pretoria. That report was drawn up by the State on the one hand and the private sector on the other, who made a full contribution. I hope that both sides, the State as well as the private sector, will use this report as the guideline which it is to create the prosperity for which all of us in this country are striving. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to refer briefly to the statement of the hon the State President in regard to South West Africa. I think it was relevant that that statement should have been made today, because it is quite clear that pressures are now building up in regard to South West Africa. I was pleased to hear from that statement that South Africa will not be abrogating its commitment to Resolution 435.

This country has an obligation to ensure the orderly transfer of independence to this territory. I think South Africa’s considerable input into building up South West Africa cannot lightly be set aside. The degree of South Africa’s contribution to South West Africa over many years will only become apparent to the outside world when the void, which is created by South Africa’s eventual withdrawal is revealed. That will be the time for those countries that have been critical of South Africa to put their money where their mouths are.

I feel somewhat surprised that greater mention had not been made in previous speeches of the state of emergency and the effect it is having on this country. One of the essential targets that the Government must keep in mind is the removal of that state of emergency at the earliest opportunity. Now I want to make it quite clear that I support the state of emergency as it is applied at the present time. However, the danger is that one can become used to a situation which is not in the best interests of the country. We must also be careful that we do not, as a result of the state of emergency, be lulled into a sense of false security. We must also realise that it is vitally important to remove that state of emergency as soon as practically possible because this will be the only basis on which confidence and credibility will be truly restored to this country. The state of emergency, also, is having a haemorrhaging effect on the economy and it is of paramount importance that normality be restored to this country as soon as possible.

I have difficulties in regard to the public representatives who took part in the Dakar exercise.

As far as I am concerned, they committed a serious error of judgment. Their actions not only reflected adversely on the status of Parliament, but also lent an undeserved credibility to an extra-parliamentary organisation whose main aim appears to be to undermine the present parliamentary system.

The hon the State President has stated—and I support this concept as well—that the precondition for negotiation with organisations that are committing violence, is that they should first renounce violence, because their adherence to violence merely makes a mockery of any negotiating process. Many reports have appeared in the Press regarding the Dakar affair, and several of these reports indicated that the ANC, in the course of discussion, had succeeded in achieving so-called understanding for its attitude on the use of force and violence as a means of attaining its objectives.

I was pleased to hear that the hon member for Durban Central rejects violence. I hope, however, that he expressed those views which he expressed in this House this afternoon as vociferously at Dakar as well.

Get the tape from the hon the State President.

It does give cause for concern though that the Government’s announced attempts to initiate broad-based talks with Black leaders in this country have not yet become truly evident. I trust that, in the short time that is left in this debate, a clearer indication will be given as to what progress has actually been made.

Much publicity has also been given recently to the efforts of the hon the Deputy Minister of Information and of Constitutional Planning and, while I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue, it is important that the Government give a lead in order to motivate all sectors of the community to become involved in a common movement towards and commitment to consultation and negotiation, and that that contact and understanding takes place at grassroots as well as at leadership level.

I think the hon the State President’s statement yesterday in regard to reform being an ongoing process was logical, because it is an essential requirement in any country that reform be ongoing. At this particular time one realises that the Government must give particular attention to gaining the support of moderates—the moderate-thinking people of all races. Those are the only people who will be able to find a true solution to the country’s problems. If the future of this country falls into the hands of radicals this country will be destroyed.

I also want to deal with the issue of the National Statutory Council. One awaits with interest the legislation that will be coming forward in this regard, bearing in mind that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has indicated that, as a result of discussions the Government would be prepared to amend aspects of the original Bill to meet specific requirements. I want to say that these reports convey welcome news for they reveal for the first time a more flexible approach by the Government to the concept of negotiation, and one can reasonably conclude from this that the Government no longer interprets negotiation as a means of arbitrary laying on the table decisions that have already been made.

I cannot stress sufficiently to the Government how important it is to bring the non-homeland Black into the decision-making process of government. I urge the hon the State President, in the interests of restoring stability to the country, to take active steps to expedite this process of constitutional reform. The realities of the present situation in South Africa must be faced, and these are not issues that can merely be swept under the carpet.

Allow me to point out too that the longer the delay in coming to grips with Black political aspirations the more difficult this problem will be to resolve. That is why it is necessary to seek a formula for including in the parliamentary structure those Black people who have no allegiance to national or self-governing states. One cannot escape the fact that true constitutional reform starts at that point. The Government is going to have to take bold decisions if it is to succeed in breaking the present political log-jam, and at the same time meet the aspirations of the Black people. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mooi River referred to many issues. We have come to know the hon member for Mooi River as someone who has always been very responsible in relation to major issues. Today he has again made a valuable contribution to this debate.

The hon member also referred to the Dakar affair, and I should like also to refer to that briefly, as well as to the speech of the hon member for Durban Central. The hon member for Durban Central took pains to assure this House that he was wiser after this excursion. He did not, however, tell the House in what respects he was wiser now. [Interjections.] I believe he should tell this House, Mr Chairman. Hon members of his party who support him in this should also tell this House.

He also referred to the fact that there was propaganda from both sides; propaganda from the ANC as well as from the Government side. However, we are dealing here with facts, and the facts are that we are dealing with bombs and with terrorist activities. Those are the facts; that is not propaganda. The question that should be put to him is this: How many bombs must there be before the ANC is regarded as a terrorist organisation?

I want to follow the hon member for Primrose by referring to what the hon member for Constantia said yesterday, viz that this Government does not understand the needs of business. He also referred to the book by Mr Clem Sunter, and I, too, want to call that book and Mr Clem Sunter in as an independent witness—a person who is not linked to this Government in any way. In this book Mr Sunter identifies the characteristics of a “winning nation”, and those he identifies as the following: Education; work ethic, which is dependent on limited government; low taxation; the effort to accumulate capital; dualistic economy, which makes provision for the formal and for the informal sector; social unity; and economic aggressiveness.

I would submit that when one looks at these characteristics, no reasonable person can suggest that this Government is not actively pursuing them. One need only refer to the high priority that education is being given by this Government, as are deregulation, privatisation and also taxation. [Interjection.] I would therefore suggest that his accusation is without any basis whatsoever.

*I also want to refer to a further finding of Mr Sunter. Mr Sunter analyses world trends and then comes up with the one trend or game rule that he calls “Africa, the marsh” or “the pit”.

What he means is that in the past 20 years Africa has only deteriorated. It has deteriorated badly and it does not look as though things can improve. One of the facts he mentions is that the per capita food production in Africa south of the Sahara has dropped by 15% since 1970. This happened while China and even India can now feed their populations.

One of my criticisms of this book is that it does not indicate why this is the case. After all, we are in Africa and of Africa and we must find the solutions to our problems here. Trends in other countries are not necessarily going to provide solutions here.

Another fact that must be put on record is that South Africa is already a winning country in Africa. We must be judged according to that. I do not want to refer to South Africa’s industrial and economic strength and compare it with that in the rest of Africa, because that may not be fair. In my opinion it is fair, however, to compare the rest of Africa with the TBVC states, the self-governing states and the Blacks in our midst. If one compares them constitutionally, one sees that we have had democratically elected authorities here which have regular elections and consist of elected members, for more than a decade. No such rights exist in 40 African states or among 85% of the population of Black Africa. The national states are pro-Western, anti-Communist, capitalistic and stable. There has never been a coup d’état in any of these states, whereas there are very few African states which have not had a coup d’état.

As far as education is concerned, 80% of the Black children of school-going age in South Africa go to school. That is far more than in the rest of Africa. There are more Black graduates and Black professional women in South Africa than in the whole of the rest of the continent. The per capita income is 3 to 4 times higher than in the rest of Africa. The mortality rate among Black children is 37% lower than in the rest of Africa. The number of Black nurses per population is much higher than in the rest of Africa. Only in South Africa has the Blacks’ standard of living improved in real terms over the past 25 years.

I want to suggest that if these are the facts, if Africa is weakening and deteriorating into this pit or marsh, and there is progress despite this, this Government must be doing something right. That is the only answer. I believe this is a subject that Mr Sunter can consider.

Despite South Africa’s success and the deterioration of the rest of Africa, sanctions are being applied against South Africa. We have sanctions despite this relative prosperity. I maintain that this is only because of the selfish reasons of those who want to institute sanctions against South Africa. I want to refer to the USA and the fact that the activities there are aimed at a successful president, who was prepared to come out in support of South Africa. I want to refer to Australia, which is complaining about our aggression as far as economic action is concerned. Their ambassador complained recently that as a result of our aggression, Australia has lost R800 million in coal exports in only six months.

It is necessary, therefore, to tell those who want to exert economic pressure on us, that they are going to force us to act with greater economic aggression, which can be to their detriment. We have no choice if we are to obtain capital or provide our own people with work. We must also tell our own people that they should not shy away from economic aggression against foreign countries. This is a basic characteristic of a winning or successful country.

What is at issue here is not only the promotion of exports; giving preference to our own products comes into it as well, even if we are so dependent on trade. Take Japan as an example. Japan is responsible for 13% of the world’s exports of manufactured products, but only 3% of the imports of manufactured products. Japan, with 120 million people, imports just more than Switzerland which has only 6,6 million people.

We must also tell the pessimists among us that of all the winning countries, it is only the USA which has not become a winning country as a result of economic pressure, emergencies or setbacks. One need only look at Japan, Germany, Southern Korea, and Taiwan, a country under pressure and threats which was simply discarded by the USA overnight.

I want to suggest that economic pressure on South Africa can awaken that economic aggression in us that can make a winning country out of us, not only in Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by making a few comments. The first refers to what the hon member for Ermelo advanced this morning about the methods of persuasion used by the NP to persuade people to adopt their standpoint. The hon member indicated that during the recent election campaign, the NP presented a very moral approach to the voters. He then indicated how inconsistent the NP way in putting its political principles into practise, despite the moral approach it presents.

The hon the State President replied to that and if I understood him correctly, the crux of his reply was that anyone can change his standpoint. I do not think the hon the State President would admit that his moral values had changed. That is precisely where the danger lies, and that is precisely the point the hon member for Ermelo tried to make and the point which, with all due respect, the hon the State President seems to have missed.

It is dangerous for a politician to link his political activities and, more specifically, his political standpoints, to a specific moral point of departure, and then to change his politics later. This brings the whole moral view of that person into question. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to another method of persuasion which has emerged in recent debates this session. This is the practice of the hon members of the governing party of shying at their own Aunt Sally’s, as if they were the CP policy.

In this connection I should like to refer to so-called total or absolutist apartheid—partition—or complete partition, which were raised here as concepts with which the CP was confronted. Early in these debates the hon member for Overvaal said that total partition was not CP policy, but when the Aunt Sally did not stand properly, the hon members of the governing party went on as if total partition was CP policy. They simply ignored the reply of the hon member for Overvaal.

The reason for this is very clear. When one looks at debates which were conducted in this House as early as 1956, it emerges very clearly that even then Adv Strydom dismissed the concept “total territorial apartheid” as impractical politics.

We have said that total partition is not CP policy, and we want the NP please to stop shooting down their own Aunt Sally’s, because this debases the quality of debating in this House. [Interjections.]

What about majority occupation?

Majority occupation by the Whites of their own fatherland is CP policy. [Interjections.] That is why we said total partition was not CP policy. I am pleased the hon the Minister put that question. [Interjections.]

An interesting remark has just been made about backbenchers, a remark which was made before as well. Let us be frank with one another, however: What is a backbencher? It has nothing to do with anyone’s qualities. A backbencher is someone who is taking part in active politics for the first time, and he begins in the back benches of this House; he does not begin in front. That is what a backbencher is. I am proud of being a backbencher. [Interjections.]

Another method used by hon members of the NP, is to quote from speeches of former leaders of the NP as if these speeches can still give them authority for their present policy of power-sharing. In this connection I want to refer to the hon member for Vryburg today, who quoted what Adv Strydom had said amongst other things in this House on 17 January 1956. From this the hon member for Vryburg deduced that by implication Adv Strydom had said that of necessity we would have to accept power-sharing because complete apartheid is not workable. Those are not the facts, however. What are the facts? Seldom, if ever, has a political party under the leadership of one person changed its policy as completely as the NP has under the leadership of the hon the State President.

What makes this complete political turnabout so much more amazing, is the fact that for almost 34 years the hon the State President was a member of the party which proved under the leadership of Adv Strydom, Dr Verwoerd and Adv Vorster that only partition can succeed as a political solution to South Africa’s ethnic problems. [Interjections.] Without exception, the former leaders of the NP to whom I referred came to the conclusion that separate development was the only workable solution to South Africa’s particular circumstances.

Order! Too many debates are in progress simultaneously. There can be only one debate at a time. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. As early as 17 January 1956 Adv Strydom, then Prime Minister, said in this House and I quote (Hansard, 1956, vol 90, cols 43, 44):

Order! The hon members for Green Point and Hercules must stop their conversation. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. He went on to say:

I want to stress the last part of this sentence—

The commitment to the principle of justice for all the nations of this region—White and non-White—with, as its central theme, the right of self-determination of all such nations, is clear from that statement. The CP today upholds that commitment.

Furthermore, the result of the alternative, namely the swamping of the Whites in a system of power-sharing between White and non-White in one state, was spelt out in no uncertain terms in the statement of Adv Strydom The CP still holds that same view.

*Adv Vorster, the hon the State President’s immediate predecessor, indicated the same realities in his well-known Heilbron speech on 16 August 1968, in which he said inter alia:

Incidentally, he is an NP member now.

On the same occasion Adv Vorster said:

He went on to say:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am very grateful that the hon member for Roodepoort decided to link up with the hon member for Ermelo and that he referred to the whole question of total partition and to that of White majority occupation. I should like to debate the issue with him at some considerable length.

At the outset I want to admit that the CP’s policy is not, in fact, one of total partition in the sense of including the Republic as a whole, but that it is in fact—I am going to quote references for this—merely White secession. The CP merely wants to have a White state secede and ensure White majority occupation, whilst the rest of South Africa goes its own sweet way.

Before I come to that and discuss it in detail, I just want to react to one or two other matters. On the question of power-sharing, let me say that on several occasions in this debate the CP—and specifically the hon member for Overvaal—denied, by way of interjections, that they had played any part in its development. It is very interesting that the hon member for Ermelo and the hon member for Bethal were co-authors, in 1983, of a book entitled Witman, waar is jou Tuisland?. As late as 1985 they followed up that standpoint in another book Witman, waar is jou Vryheid?, published by Oranjewerkers Promosies. In that book these two hon members adopted the standpoint that it was ridiculous to break away from the NP on the grounds of power-sharing at the legislative level, because there had always been power-sharing in the country. [Interjections.] That “ridiculous step” gave rise to the establishment of the CP, and today both those hon members are members of that party. [Interjections.]

Reference was also made, in particular by the hon member Losberg, and again by the hon member for Ermelo, to the question of group areas and the so-called “verswarting” or “Swart verdringing”. What were the views of these two hon members, who were co-authors of that book, on these two subjects. On the question of group areas they said that the Group Areas Act furnished no contribution to the solution of South Africa’s problems.

That cannot be true, Piet!

In fact, they say:

Who are you quoting there? Who is the author?

I am quoting from: Witman, waar is jou Tuisland?. It is written under the editorship of Dr Willie Lubbe, and those two hon members were contributors. Since specific parts of the book are not ascribed to specific authors, I take it that the co-authors accept full responsibility for that document. [Interjections.]

Order!

There is something that is very interesting, however, about the question of displacement by Blacks. To bring about White majority occupation in this state which has seceded, or “verblanking”, as it is called in the book, it is stated that the policy is that the existing metropolitan areas should ultimately “verswart” to an increasing extent to assist with the “verblanking” in the White state. The CP is therefore trying to scare the electorate with the idea of displacement by Blacks and encroachment, whilst it is on record that according to two of the CP’s hon members the intention is to “verswart” places like Cape Town and Durban, and also East London, which is mentioned by name, to help with the “verblanking” in the state which as seceded. [Interjections.]

There is another very interesting aspect relating to the hon member for Bethal. Not only was he one of the authors of this book Witman, waar is jou Tuisland? ; in the days of the Turnhalle Conference, which the hon member for Lichtenburg tried to drag in here earlier this afternoon, a conference which I, as a reporter, had the privilege of reporting on, he was the legal adviser of the Bushmen and the Kavangos. [Interjections.] At that time he was co-author of a working document which served as the basis for the Turnhalle Constitution.

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

No, Sir, I am sorry, but I have very little time available. [Interjections.] The hon member may request a turn to speak. I made a few enquiries to refresh my memory. It is interesting to note that he did, in fact, play a key role in compiling that working document. At a time when there was tension amongst the various groups and they could not reach consensus, he therefore played a key role in allowing them to achieve consensus.

His background is even more interesting, in fact, because in his day he was a committee member of the UP’s youth front at Tukkies under the leadership of the hon member for Berea. [Interjections.] Thereafter he was a member of the Oranje-werkersorganisasie and Aksie Wit Tuisland, and now he is a member of the CP. How do we know he will not be in Dakar next week? [Interjections.]

I want to take a further brief look at some of the views set out in this booklet Witman, waar is jou Tuisland? It is stated that it was a fallacy ever to have regarded the Blacks in White cities as a temporary phenomenon. It is stated that since 1904 South Africa has consistently become more “verswart”; that the physical presence of Blacks must result in rights being obtained for them. They say it is a lie ever to have believed that Blacks could merely settle in a White area on a temporary basis; in fact, that it is a lie for the Whites to want to believe and to chant that they have a land of their own. They say that this political lie has led to political fictitious statements and clichés.

Is their national anthem now ‘Nkosi Sikelel’i-Afrika?

They say that the whole of South Africa …

Who says that?

The hon members for Ermelo and Bethal. They have written that the whole of South Africa has always been a grey area. [Interjections.] In fact, that sounds very much like Dr Van Zyl Slabbert. They say that it is a fictitious statement that the Whites have ever been opposed to integration! “Ons het integrasie ter wille van ons eie gerief bedryf”, and I quote further: “Ons was nog nooit teen integrasie in die kombuis nie. Integrasie in die agterplaas, op die land en in die werkplaas was ook altyd aanvaarbaar. ” It would now be interesting to know how many of the hon members of the CP sitting here have brought their domestic servants with them to Acacia Park in the Cape and what the hon members say about that.

They do not say a word.

In this little booklet the two hon members also adopt the standpoint that the possible linking of Blacks to homelands, for the purposes of exercising their political rights, is a political lie. They cry to high heaven when the hon the Minister of National Education says that the linking policy has not worked, but they themselves say it is a lie; that cannot work. [Interjections.] As far as large portions of the analysis of the South African situation by those two hon members are concerned, let me say that they are correct. It would be interesting to hear what part of that analysis the Official Opposition does, in fact, agree with and what it officially disagrees with.

In conclusion I just want to say that if it is not the CP’s official policy that there should be White secession, they must tell us where they stand in regard to the “Boerestaat” idea, as expressed in the “Boerestaatbeweging” which, in its official documents, claims that it took part in the election under the CP banner. They must tell us where they stand with regard to the AWB, which supports the “Boerestaat” idea.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I just want to quote the hon members for Ermelo and Bethal again on the question of secession. In their booklet they state, and I quote:

That is on page 39; hon members should read that again.

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

Certainly.

Mr Chairman, I should like to know whether the hon member thinks that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was aware of what the hon member is now speaking about?

Mr Chairman, may I also put a question now? Apparently he now has time to reply to questions.

No, Sir, I am not prepared to answer the hon member’s question at the moment. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, the CP’s partners in the so-called “Boerestaatbeweging” are even more explicit in … [Interjections] … the June issue of Die Stem, their official journal in which they state:

Please note, Sir, “afgeskei van die RSA”. That is what they now demand. [Interjections.] I hope the Official Opposition will express an opinion on what their views are concerning this demand. [Interjections.] According to the hon members for Bethal and Ermelo it is also their policy, and I quote:

They are referring to the rest of South Africa, after they have seceded:

That is not partition or separate states, but White secession.

Mr Chairman, according to the aforementioned two hon member’s, it is the CP’s policy—or at least the policy of those two hon members—that compulsory minimum wages—please note, compulsory minimum wages—should be introduced for domestic help or domestic servants in order to force the Whites to change their attitudes towards working for themselves. This opinion we find expressed on page 72. [Interjections.] According to them the policy is also that the White homeland, and I again quote:

Cities such as Durban, Cape Town and East London, which is mentioned by name, are written off as far as the Whites are concerned. According to those two hon members, that is also the policy. [Interjections.] It is very interesting to listen to what they are saying:

This is what they call it. [Interjections.] I again want to quote, and I do this in response to what the hon member for Overvaal said about the question of separate development when he asked the hon the State President to return to that concept. I shall now quote what those two hon members said about separate development:

If there was ever any proof of the fact that it was the CP that radically changed course and not the NP, it is to be found in this statement.

Inverted partition!

Is it unfair to link this policy to the CP too? I think this is one instance in which linking does work. [Interjections.] There can be no doubt that the CP does embody this policy. In its June issue of Die Stem the “Boerestaatbeweging” declared, on the strength of the CP’s successes in the election in May of this year, that the “Volkstaat” could soon become a reality. They say:

In these circumstances we must believe and accept that the boundary lines indicated by the “Boerestaatbeweging” do reflect CP policy. [Interjections.]

In conclusion I just want to tell those hon members, and those who share these feelings with them, that although it is stated in the June issue of Die Stem:

They will find that there are true, proud young Afrikaners and other loyal South Africans who want to develop the whole of South Africa to its full potential and who would put a stop to that. We are not going to pay any attention to their political soothsaying and the romanticising of bygone days. We have work to do, and we shall do it.

Mr Chairman, in the few minutes remaining, I initially want to turn my attention to the hon member for Roodepoort. I have a surprise for that hon member, and that is that until the recent election, partition was the only policy which was propagated, without qualification, by the CP and its leaders. Now that the CP is back here in the House, having achieved some measure of success in the election—even becoming the Official Opposition—its members start telling us that total partition has never been their policy. Now that they have to account to the electorate by presenting it with a workable alternative for South Africa, they start adopting new tactics. Now they state that the NP has changed. From the time of the election up to the present day, however, the CP has changed its policy in connection with partition. [Interjections.]

That is not true! [Interjections.]

Of course it is, Sir. [Interjections.] It is a fact. Very well, Sir, let us leave the matter at that. That is how the CP, from one day to the next, goes back on its own words, its own statements and its own pronouncements in an effort to take their voters along with them.

In contrast the history of the NP and its leaders is a history of success. [Interjections.] From 1948 to the present day the history of the NP and its leaders has been one long success story.

Let us take note of what has happened in the economic sphere in South Africa since the NP came to power in this country. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let us look at what happened, Mr Chairman. The establishment and efficient functioning of Iscor, Eskom, the Sasols, the present Mossel Bay project and Armscor, the brainchild of the hon the State President, are examples of that. Then there is also Koeberg. Let us mention all this, and let us look, in addition, at what the NP also managed to do in the constitutional field after all these other successes had been achieved. In that sphere the NP has always addressed the needs of the people, their circumstances and their aspirations, and made adjustments accordingly.

Which people?

All the people in South Africa, because Whites are not the only ones living in South Africa.

Not all people.

Those hon members must break out of the cocoon in which they have encapsulated themselves and start realising what the realities of South Africa are. Only then can they start being a worthy opposition here. Until such time they no longer have either a task or a purpose.

Then why has the election been postponed?

What is now happening as a result of the way in which they conduct their political activities? They are launching campaigns of hate aimed at individuals. They vilify certain NP leaders and personally try to discredit them. [Interjections.] I could write volumes about that. Sir, I could point out to you statements that CP speakers have made from certain political platforms, personally attacking and denigrating the NP and its leaders.

You people specialise in that. [Interjections.]

That is the tragic method of settling political differences in this country. On the one hand it attests to bankruptcy when it comes to a workable alternative. On the other it plays into the hands of the communists and the enemies of South Africa. [Interjections.] That certainly is true.

You are the only ones who apparently do not play into their hands.

Order! The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis is making too many interjections.

Let us have a brief look at this hate campaign that is being waged. In one of their circulars or little newspapers—they may call it what they will—of which there are many that are published, there is the following quotation:

If that is not a sign of hatred, I should like to know what is. Let us take a further look. In this publication …

What is your source?

I shall show hon members. Here it is: It is Die Stem. [Interjections.] Hon members are laughing. Let me now issue a challenge to them: Why have they never dissociated themselves from the AWB? [Interjections.] They have never had the moral courage to dissociate themselves from the AWB, and now they laugh when I quote from the AWB publication. [Interjections.]

Let us take a further look at this hate campaign which they propagate and on which they collaborate. It is on record here that a list of names must be drawn up of people who would not be accepted in the “Boerestaat”. An invitation is also extended to people to submit names, on a monthly basis, to add to this list. They then start by saying …

That is not our stuff! Go and talk to them!

I also want to refer to the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member will have to refer to him on a later occasion, because the time has come to conclude our business for the week.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.