laid upon the Table:

Mr Chairman, just before the House adjourned on Friday afternoon, I was pointing out that the Official Opposition is waging a hate campaign against certain people, and particularly against people in positions of leadership. I also quoted from a periodical which they use to disseminate their hate campaign.

I now want to quote briefly what also appears in this periodical. It is stated here that certain people will not be allowed into the so-called “Boerestaat”, and that people must submit the names of those persons they do not want to allow into this “Boerestaat”. I read here that they have already received the names of three people who will be persona non grata in their “Boerestaat”. The first name is P W Botha, followed by Pik Botha and Chris Heunis.

Is Pikkie Maree’s name not also there by now? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, these are the people against whom this hate campaign is being waged; the people who are being personally maligned in this campaign. People who for 40 years have made South Africa economically prosperous, and have brought constitutional peace to this country, are now being attacked in this reprehensible manner.

Mr Chairman, during the recent general election, I visited an elderly woman in her home. She told me that I need not ask her where she stood; she voted for the Nationalists because under the circumstances in which South Africa now finds itself any government which could control this country without a war breaking out deserved her vote; she would vote for such a government unconditionally.

Vote for the Nationalists and pay!

The hon members of the Official Opposition do not notice these things, however. They have encased themselves in a cocoon and they do not want to take any notice of the realities.

How much was your minority? [Interjections.]

That is irrelevant. We are talking about the factual circumstances.

The hon member for Springs spelled out the involvement of those hon members here. I am sorry that the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke is not here this afternoon; he knew what was in store for him. Even that hon member is a director of a company which also has Black directors. [Interjections.] These are the facts, and we do not hold them against those hon members. We merely say to them that if they have to deal with these realities in their own circumstances, they must not try to malign people in this way. We shall not achieve anything in South Africa in this way. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not know who the hon member was addressing before he resumed his seat, particularly in regard to his reference to the “Boerestaat”, but nowhere in the constitution or Programme of Principles of the CP is there any reference to a “Boerestaat”.

What about the AWB?

He would do well to take note of that.

He cannot read. [Interjections.]

I now turn my attention to the hon the State President. Firstly I just want to make a very brief remark about the fact that the hon the State President announced that he was going to amend the Constitution with a view to extending his Government’s term in this Parliament. I just want to make two remarks to him in this connection before he finally decides on this.

The first is that in terms of the Constitution, in the election on 6 May, he only received a two-year mandate from the voters—nothing more. Secondly, one does not amend a Constitution merely as if it were a proclamation, particularly not a Constitution one has devised oneself, and specifically not after it has been ratified in a referendum.

The second brief remark concerns the fact that in the course of this debate there have been quite a few references to negotiations by members on that side of the Committee. I want to content myself with just quoting to them what one of their columnists wrote in Beeld of 23 July of this year. He wrote:

A little further on he stated:

The hon member for Umlazi made a great fuss about the fact that the NP had already granted independence to four states and had given six other Black peoples self-government. The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid said, on a certain occasion, that the one small portion of the apartheid policy that the NP retained was the fact that it was continuing to grant independence to the Black peoples. The statements of those two gentlemen are either very important or they are meaningless, depending on the context in which they are made. They are very important if they are part of the sustained philosophy of the separate development of the diversity of peoples in South Africa. They are meaningless, however, if one prides oneself on the fact and continues with the process without also giving the Whites their own geographic and political area of jurisdiction or authority where they can also, like the other peoples of Southern Africa, be free, sovereign and, in particular, continue to exist unthreatened and subject to their own political authority. That is what my hon leader meant when he said that in politics the name of the game is power.

If that gave the hon the State President the heebie-jeebies, it is merely proof of how utterly confused he is about concepts, about terminology. The hon the State President says he wants nothing to do with a political game involving power. Yet the political discussion in this country has, for more than ten years now, revolved around the words power, power-sharing and division of power. Since we are speaking about that now, let me tell the hon the State President that his statement that they had agreed in the Cabinet that what they were engaged in was power-sharing, but that that should not be made public, is a shocking admission of a conspiracy to deceive. In any other Western country this would have led to immediate impeachment. [Interjections.]

Order!

I just want to remind him of the meeting in the Synod Hall when the 1977 proposals for the Constitution were presented to the caucus. The hon member for Potchefstroom then discovered that those proposals were proposals for power-sharing. He said with great bravado that we should make that public. Those who were present will remember that with just a few words Mr Vorster wiped the floor with him. The hon the State President was the chairman of the Cabinet Committee which made those proposals. On that occasion he did not come to the hon member for Potchefstroom’s rescue.

Speaking about power-sharing and the course this Government is adopting, let me say that an interesting thing happened last week. The hon the State President made a statement on the question of nationalism. Prior to that, in the course of his speech, he referred to Dr Malan. When, at a later stage, he came to nationalism, however, he strangely enough quoted what Djag Hammarskjöld had said about it. I think that for this debate we should rather place Dr Malan’s statements on record once more. On 13 June 1915, in a sermon at Graaff-Reinet, Dr Malan said:

There is also the other, very well-known quotation of Dr Malan which we should repeat today … [Interjections.]

Order! I have already called the House to order on a few occasions, but there was no reaction. I am not prepared to continue in this vein. The hon member for Soutpansberg may continue.

On a certain occasion Dr Malan gave this advice to our people in the event of their having to make a choice:

He then mentioned a whole series of things that could be done away with, and added:

I just want to follow up this point of mine. To make a great fuss about the number of independent and self-governing states for Black peoples, without wanting to provide the same for the Whites—I emphasise “wanting to provide”—is futile and senseless and makes a farce, a tragi-comedy of everything from 1948 to 1978. [Interjections.]

The hon the State President, apparently referring to my hon leader and the Black population groups, warned against insulting and uncouth behaviour. The hon member for Umlazi said the CP should have a different attitude. Everywhere in this country people are gossiping to the Blacks about the CP. I want to make a straightforward statement to the hon the State President and his party as a whole and say that we on this side of the Committee do not take second place to anyone on that side of the Committee when it comes to our attitude and our goodwill towards any of the other population groups. We do not begrudge, to any other population group, what we demand for the Whites, ie the right to sovereignty, the right to respect as a human being, a group and a people, the right to an individual identity and respect and recognition for that fact, the right to exclusivity and every opportunity to develop and to accumulate assets.

The late Mr Vorster once said that the other population groups could also obtain what the Whites have managed to, and we also believe that. What is more, we believe that it is in the interests of our children, their children and their children’s children that we help them to do so, but that should take place on the basis of partition and in such a way that they will ultimately be able to help themselves and will be in a position to gain independence.

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.

I thank the hon the Chief Whip of the governing party.

The hon the State President said we should not always react to what the Black leaders say, because he himself did not do so, and he gave reasons to support that. Rightly or wrongly this attitude of his is regarded as a weakness and a lack of nerve, and it is being exploited, at home and abroad, to intimidate South Africa’s Whites. His approach is apparently that silence is golden, but at times silence can also mean weakness.

The Chief Minister about whom the hon the State President got so carried away, demands one man, one vote, but the hon the State President remains silent. That same Chief Minister said:

The hon the State President, however, is silent. Diplomats say that we are doing things in this country that no self-respecting government would tolerate, but the hon the State President and his ministers are as uncommunicative as the sphinx.

It is true that he issued certain warnings last week, and we support him in that, but it is altogether too late for certain courses of action and certain statements. By the way, what is his view on Dr Boesak’s statement to the Canadian Foreign Minister last week? As far as I am concerned, it is economic sabotage, it is something which is tantamount to high treason. Does the hon the State President also intend to keep silent about that?

In 1978 this hon State President inherited a South Africa which was economically sound and robust. He inherited a united NP, a united FAK and Afrikaner Broederbond, a united NG Church. I ask him—and I have difficulty asking this—what he has done with them. [Interjections.]

In conclusion let me show him what he has done with them. I have here a copy of The Sunday Star of 28 June of this year in which the main headline reads: “Last Afrikaner Bastion Crashes”.

Mr Chairman, I am sure the hon member for Soutpansberg will pardon me if I do not react directly to what he said, but I will, in fact, get round to the CP at a later stage.

Firstly I just want to mention that it is a very great honour for me to be allowed to participate in the discussion of the Vote of our hon State President. I should like to pay tribute to our hon State President and Mrs Botha for having dedicated their lives to South Africa and all its people. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Soutpansberg made a great fuss here about disunity. He also mentioned the Synod, amongst other things. I was not present at that Synod Hall; so I cannot join in the discussion.

I should now like to link up with the hon member for Lichtenburg who also devoted a portion of his speech to South West Africa. I now just want to ask hon members of the CP whether they were not involved in all the legislation about South West Africa severing its ties, about abolishing South West Africa’s representation in this House. For many years I had the privilege of representing Walvis Bay in the legislative assembly in Windhoek, and from 1970 here in Parliament as the member for Omaruru, incorporating Walvis Bay, the Great Kaokoland and Ovambo. One can now ask oneself what went wrong in South West Africa. I want to tell hon members that there was nothing wrong with the Turnhalle Alliance until the Whites in South West Africa split, until the Afrikaners in South West Africa split.

What did we find here in South Africa? The CP is not prepared to learn the lessons of history; in South Africa they are doing precisely the same thing—they are splitting the Whites, they are splitting the Afrikaners.

You always warned us against Pik Botha!

That is a party that lives and thrives on disunity. [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to refer to South West Africa, and in this connection I want to tell the hon the State President that we very greatly appreciate the fact, that in spite of provocation, he still acts with compassion towards South West Africa. If one lives with those people, as we do in Walvis Bay, one understands their problems, their innermost torment, their heartache, but I now want to refer hon members to a speech of the Minister of Finance, Mr Mudge, on 28 July during the National Convention in Windhoek. He repeatedly quoted the hon the State President, and I shall refer only to the final quotation: “All options will be open to the elected representatives. ” Thus the hon the State President was repeatedly quoted as saying, amongst other things, that the elected representatives and the people of South West Africa could decide their own future. Then Mr Mudge quotes this staggering sentence: “Hy sê van minderheidsregte en etnisiteit nie ’n woord nie. ” I agree that the hon the State President never spoke about ethnicity, but the requirement throughout was that minority rights should be protected and that there should be a broadening of the base. I also want to refer hon members to speeches which Mr Mudge made in Stellenbosch and in which he also said that the people of South West Africa themselves must decide.

I should also like to quote from the declaration of intent drawn up by the Turnhalle. Mr Mudge was the co-draftsman, and it was signed by all of them. Point 6 of the declaration reads:

They said that very clearly and unequivocally.

I should also like to refer hon members to a message from the hon the State President to the transitional government, a message he delivered in June 1986 when they commemorated its first year in office there. The hon the State President thanked them royally for the success that had been achieved and for the milestones they had reached. He made special mention of the peace that had prevailed internally during the year they had been in office. The hon the State President went on to caution them by saying:

The hon the State President also referred specifically to his speech during the establishment of that interim government on 17 June 1985. I quote:

He went on to state:

The hon the State President went on to state:

So why did the hon the State President insist on the broadening of the base? It was because the larger groups, such as the Ovambos who comprise a good 55% of the population, were not represented and that the Damaras, comprising a further 10%, and the Kavangos were not represented either. I therefore submit that that is a reasonable request on the part of the State President. Two years have passed since the hon the State President asked for a broadening of their base, and nothing has happened.

This election, which the hon the State President is asking them to hold, is not an election to replace the interim government. It is not an election to replace the Constitutional Council. It is merely an election to designate the leaders of the various population groups and to broaden the power-base so that they can carefully reflect on the future. It is therefore precisely what the Turnhalle also decided, ie that everyone in South West Africa would participate.

It is a fact that South Africa is also bound by Resolution 435, provided the Cubans withdraw from Angola. If we look at the draft constitution which has now been tabled, however, we find that it makes provision for the abolition of second-tier authorities and for the abolition of the Rehoboth government. One must now ask oneself whether it is democratically correct for a non-elec-ted body, an appointed government, to be allowed to abolish elected bodies. I think that is wrong, and I want to point out to hon members that another constitution was also tabled by the NP. I want to point out to hon members that other representations were made by South West Africa, representations requesting, for example, that the Administrator-General should again assume responsibility for the holding of elections so that second-tier authorities could be elected with a view to designating their leaders.

In conclusion I should like to make an appeal to the leaders of South West Africa: You have no other friend in the whole wide world than South Africa; it is South Africa with its defence force that assists you on the border; it is South Africa that offers you its sons; and it is South Africa that helps you to develop that country. It is in the interests of South Africa and South West Africa for those leaders to co-operate to build up a greater and more wonderful country.

Mr Chairman, I shall deal with certain aspects of the speech of the hon member for Walvis Bay later on during the course of my remarks.

I want to deal with certain aspects of the hon the State President’s addresses to this House last week. I think, in most respects, what the hon the State President had to say was predictable in general terms, but there are a number of matters of detail which require further clarification. I do not propose to say anything more about the Dakar episode; I think that matter was aired sufficiently in this House for two days during last week. [Interjections.]

However, arising out of the hon the State President’s response to the Dakar episode, there is one aspect which, I think, the hon the State President needs to clarify in greater detail. In his response to the debate on the escapade relating to Dakar the hon the State President raised the issue of the interference of foreign governments and embassy personnel in South African politics. With regard to this issue he specifically used the USA government as an example. I think there is perhaps a degree of misunderstanding in regard to what the hon the State President was getting at in his reference to the interference in South African politics by foreign governments. I should like to quote the hon the State President loosely in what he said before this House. He said that just as the government of the USA was taking steps to bring the staff of embassies who were acting off-limits in that country under control or to restrict their movements, similar steps could be considered in South Africa with regard to “certain members of staff of specific embassies”. Those were the hon the State President’s words. He then went on to say that no self-respecting government would allow its hospitality to be abused in that way.

Now, Sir, those comments, including some of the other comments made by the hon the State President, have been described in the media as an unprecedented attack on Western embassies in South Africa. It is now seen as a general threat which I believe is harmful to our diplomatic relations.

In his comments before this House—on Thursday, I think—the hon the State President referred to, and I quote again, “these people, who are making use of South Africans to do their dirty work for them while they are undermining the sovereignty of South Africa”. These are very strong words indeed, particularly when they are uttered by a person in the position of the hon the State President. If these words are justified, I think it is necessary that the hon the State President be given the opportunity to be a little more specific. I would like him to tell us—if he is able—firstly to which embassy or embassies those remarks were directed. I think it is important that we identify to whom the hon the State President was referring.

Secondly, I think we should know the specific nature of the diplomatic indiscretions committed by the embassies concerned. We should at least also know whether at this stage the hon the State President, or the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has called in representatives of the embassies concerned in order to tell them what the problem is and what the complaints are. I fear that simply a general statement of this nature could be misinterpreted. I ask the hon the State President, when he replies further to this debate, to go into this matter in greater detail and to try to be specific as to whom the allegations were levelled against. Otherwise, I believe these are generalisations which could produce resentment and do South Africa no credit.

I now want to return to the hon member for Walvis Bay, and comment briefly on the hon the State President’s statement on the South West Africa/Namibia issue. I believe the House listened with great interest to the hon the State President’s comments regarding our commitment to Resolution 435, and I think we listened particularly carefully to his reminder that in the first instance he personally had been opposed to Resolution 435. I think the hon the State President treated the House to an interesting discourse, indicating his reservations over the years regarding the correctness of Resolution 435. I think this is a very interesting situation, and we know the hon the State President is not alone in his reservations; that in both South West Africa and South Africa there are other people who have had, and possibly still have, similar reservations.

I want to say that the hon the State President is absolutely right when he says that South Africa has a commitment to Resolution 435. It would be quite fatal to our international integrity if we in any way jeopardised our situation by at this stage challenging, or suggesting reservations in regard to, Resolution 435, or in any way suggesting that South Africa was intent on backtracking on or sidestepping this resolution.

I think in that respect we in these benches certainly believe that the hon the State President is absolutely correct with regard to this country’s commitment to the implementation of Resolution 435.

I believe it is our duty to do everything possible to bring about the circumstances needed for the implementation of the provisions of Resolution 435. I think that is what the vast majority of the people of South West Africa/Namibia themselves want.

In this respect I believe it would be wrong for the South African Government to encourage or to allow a national election in Namibia at this stage, because that would clearly be seen to be sidestepping or anticipating the implementation of Resolution 435. The hon the State President has indicated that he also believes that such an election should not be held. Having said that, I want to say that one must once again question the wisdom of elections at second tier and municipal level in Namibia, in relation to the continued authority of the interim government. If it is the intention of the South African Government to continue to allow the interim government in Namibia to administer that territory, does not the hon the State President believe that elections now—at lower level, second tier and at municipal level—will put the interim government in an invidious position in respect of its authority over those lower tiers?

Will it not undermine the authority of the non-elected interim government, a body which would then sit in authority over second-tier and third-tier government which would be elected? I want to ask the hon the State President to react to that situation, which we in these benches know is of concern to the members of the interim government.

There is a second point relating to the South West Africa/Namibia situation, which, I believe, is a general issue. That relates to the extent of the Republican Government's neutrality in respect of the internal initiatives within Namibia. We in South Africa have frequently stated—the hon the State President has said this on numerous occasions as we were again reminded this afternoon by the hon member for Walvis Bay—that in the end the future of South West Africa/Namibia must be decided by its own inhabitants. I believe that is a correct attitude to adopt.

This is, however, not the impression that has been created by the initial comments of the Administrator-General to the recent draft constitutional proposals of the constitutional commission of the interim government itself. The impression which has certainly been created is that the Republican Government is opposed to those proposals and exerts influence in regard to those proposals because they do not comply with the Republican Government’s beliefs in relation to ethnic groupings as a means of minority rights protection in constitutional matters. This impression has reinforced the view that the Republican Government was in fact opposed to the method of operation of the commission and also of the publication of its findings.

Now, Sir, it does seem that if our Government is sincere in its commitment relating to the position of the maximum possible neutrality in relation to the internal affairs of the territory, then we should refrain from taking a stance on this type of initiative. The constitution is after all a draft proposal, which is not in conflict with our commitment to Resolution 435, and which may well serve as a useful model for the multiparty group or any other group in any future constitutional discussions in terms of the provisions of Resolution 435. On an issue such as this one one wonders why it is necessary to commit ourselves at this stage. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon former leader of the hon member for Bethal had the audacity to rise to his feet here this afternoon and make a speech in which he made serious representations on matters connected with South West Africa, while we are all dying to know what happened in the ranks of his own party during the past week. [Interjections.]

I am not going to leave the hon member for Berea alone just yet. I just want to link up in my speech with a remark which the hon member for Sea Point made here on Friday when he apologised to the hon the State President and said the hon the State President should give serious attention to the nature of the NP’s media campaign against the PFP during the past general election.

Yes!

Someone over there said “yes”. Interestingly enough, the hon member for Sea Point did not object to the actual contents of the NP’s campaign. The facts were after all correct. The hon member for Greytown did, for example, stand on a platform with a clenched fist. We also published the photograph which was taken of him on that occasion. It was factually correct. We did not tamper with the photograph. Hon members of the PFP want the prohibition on the South African Communist Party lifted. We also said that. What is wrong with us saying that?

On Friday we experienced the phenomenon here that the hon the leader of the PFP objected to the policy of his own party—an image which has since been strengthened by, for example, the participation of hon members of his party in the Dakar safari. The hon the leader of the PFP must therefore not complain. We cannot change the image of the PFP. There are many things the NP can do. It is however beyond our ability to change the image of the PFP. [Interjections.] If it is to be changed, they must do so themselves. [Interjections.]

Just consider what image of the PFP has been projected lately. Consider what has just happened. When I opened the newspaper first thing this morning I saw the following headline: “Jan van Eck bedank uit PFP”.

He is not even here today!

Sir, the hon member for Claremont has now also become an Independent. Before I talk specifically about this hon member, I want to reveal the following fact. I am particularly well informed about the Independents. Some time ago a little bird told me that certain hon members of the PFP are quite well-disposed towards the Independents, and specifically the hon member for Randburg. I was therefore not surprised when I heard that another independent has entered the political arena in South Africa. I did not expect it to happen this soon, however.

I want to add the following. The hon member for Randburg is not ill-disposed towards the PFP either. Two weeks ago the hon member for Randburg held a closed meeting. For some or other reason there is apparently also a little dissension in the ranks of the Independents, and I received a copy of the minutes of that meeting in my post-box. What did it say?

Another spy! [Interjections.]

It stated, inter alia, that the hon member for Randburg who, when he left the NP, said that he was actually leaving the party to give the NP a nudge in the right direction and a little help, said in reply to a question that the Independents should react towards the PFP by not considering them as a natural ally, because they also had quite a number of shortcomings. He nevertheless went on to say that when in an election, for example, the municipal election—he envisaged their participating in this—an Independent, a Prog and a member of the NP were standing, and it became apparent that both the Prog and the Independent were going to lose and the NP was going to win, he would advise his people to vote for the Progs so that the NP could be kept out. [Interjections.]

This is the hon member who left us because—this is the impression he tried to create—he was trying to help us. This is the way in which he is trying to help us. The hon members of the PFP must also take care; in the long run he will also help them out of the frying pan into the fire. [Interjections.]

Now that the hon member for Claremont has joined the ranks of the Independents I suppose their ranks have to a certain extent been strengthened. However, the heterogeneousness of that grouping has intensified. They are now even odder than they were before. Actually they are a group of people who have come together by chance and who will only stay together temporarily.

Let us get back to the hon member for Claremont. Until recently he was the chief propagandist of the PFP. He is therefore a person who is well informed about the party, and one must therefore attach importance to his words when he makes statements. He has now drawn a picture of the PFP which we will probably have occasion to use in propaganda material for the NP. What did he say? He said that the level of debate in the caucus has been so petty recently that he became ashamed of it. He drew a picture of the PFP as a petty party. In the first place the PFP is therefore a petty party.

He then went on to say that the results of the election had given the party such a fright that it became paralysed; in other words, the PFP is a paralysed party—a petty, paralysed party. He went on to say that the PFP could not move in one direction or the other; it is therefore a petrified party which cannot move.

He said that the PFP could not deny that it was in the process of disintegrating. He therefore defined the party as a disintegrating but also a disintegrated party. The party we see before us is a party made up of fragments. This is the party—I see the hon member for Constantia is leaving—which that hon member wanted to propel to great heights, using a turbine-driven system. [Interjections.] The turbine has exploded. The hon member then said that there were so many differences in the party that they could not be reconciled. It is therefore a divided party.

Today I want to predict that this is the description of a party which is on its way out, because if one takes this description by the hon member for Claremont of this party—petty, paralysed, immovable, petrified, disintegrating, divided—one sees that it has no future. The future of every hon member of that party is in the balance. [Interjections.] As regards that balance, some of the members of that party will be weighed and found wanting. I think one of these days the hon member for Sea Point will find that he does not have what it takes as regards the position he is holding. I also think that the hon member for Yeoville will not want to be weighed; I think he will try to avoid this. This is what happens when one has a party which wants to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

The hon members of the PFP want to accommodate the people who are participating in extra-parliamentary politics. However, they also want to maintain a power-base in the White ranks so that they can stay in Parliament. One cannot do both.

What has happened? The hon member for Claremont has taken a sharp turn to the left and although he is still in this Parliament, essentially he has joined the ranks of the extra-parliamentary group. I maintain that there are other members of that party too who have essentially joined the ranks of the extra-parliamentary group, like the hon member for Durban Central who is staring at me now. His heart is not here. For a long time now his heart has been outside the party and outside Parliament. [Interjections.] Parliament is irrelevant to him.

Last week the hon member made a speech here to defend his going to Dakar. He said inter alia that he did not accept that there were as many communists in the leadership cadre of the ANC as the NP Government was trying to suggest.

You did not listen, man.

He said this was propaganda. He said that he accepted that there were communists in the organisation, but that they were not as important as we were trying to suggest.

I did not say that either.

That is how the hon member was reported. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member does not accept that the ANC is controlled by communists.

It is not controlled by Moscow.

That hon member need look no further than a broadcast by Radio Freedom. Perhaps he has not yet had the opportunity to read or hear this. On 11 May 1986 the following was said on Radio Freedom:

The ANC itself said this. They not only say that they are controlled by communists but that there are only communists in their leadership cadre. This is on record. It is not NP propaganda. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, essentially I have no fault to find with the statements made by the hon member for Stellenbosch, but I should just like to tell him that his statements are very reminiscent of the NP. It is a party that is crumbling. [Interjections.] That hon Minister who is having such a good laugh is a left-wing NP member. His benchmate, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, like others, hankers to join the hon member for Randburg, because he is a member of their team. He was a member of the team. “Pik for Prime Minister”. There is great potential for a split in that party.

When the hon member spoke about the election in Stellenbosch, it reminded me of what happened in Springs. There the NP asked the Progs please not to vote for the Progs on that occasion, because then the CPs would get in. They told conservative-minded individuals, on the other hand, please not to vote for the CP, for then the Progs would get in.

And who ultimately got in? [Interjections.]

That is the method adopted by the NP. Last week South Africa laid Uys Krige to rest. I think it is also fitting for us to pay tribute to the memory of a great Afrikaans poet in this House. There is a verse in one of his poems which, with all due respect, reminds me strongly of the hon the State President. It is a verse from the poem “Ken jy die see?”, and I quote:

One moment the hon the State President, like the super-ethnic figure he is supposed to be, can quietly, almost in a statesmanlike fashion, pensively review the country’s problems, and then suddenly, the very next moment, reminiscent of one of the most pedestrian of NP backbenchers, rant about our relationship with the AWB and try to belittle that. That is an organisation consisting of Afrikanersevery bit as patriotic as those in the NP and the CP. [Interjections.] One moment he calls love a component of nationalism, and the next he is saying that it is not madness, thus insinuating a link with the CP, as if the CP’s concept of nationalism is one of madness. He conveniently forgets about the kind of language he used in the “Boerehaat” debate in April 1972.

You are being nasty, Frank!

No, I am saying this with all due respect.

Such are the contrasting elements in his make-up, but in the process he often conveniently misunderstands the arguments of hon members on this side of the House. For example, he attacked the hon member for Ermelo about a reference he had made to an AB document, interpreting that as an attack on the AB. As we have done on several occasions in the past, the hon member for Ermelo was merely asking the hon the State President whether he agreed with the contents of the AB document in which it was stated that a majority of Blacks in the RSA Government would not threaten the identity of the Afrikaner. He went on to say that a large percentage of NP members were members of the AB.

Since that is the case, and since the whole of South Africa knows that the AB is an influential organisation, it is only fair and reasonable to expect a clear, unequivocal reply from the hon the State President on his standpoint in regard to this document. Throughout the election campaign we were unable to obtain an answer to this from the NP. A few weeks ago the hon the Minister of National Education refused to adopt a standpoint, saying it was a matter this organisation itself should respond to. That is not good enough. The hon the State President owes South Africa an answer in regard to that document.

As far as the AB is concerned, just a few points. The CP has no quarrel with the Afrikaner Broederbond. [Interjections.] Our attitude to the AB is still one of respect. We are nevertheless saddened, because it can no longer be the catalyst whose role it is to reconcile, a role it has so frequently played over the years to heal any rift in the ranks of Afrikanerdom. As far as that role is concerned, it has contracted out by inexorably siding with the NP in the disastrous power-sharing course it has adopted. We await the hon the State President’s reply to this important document which has become public knowledge.

The hon the State President goes further and links the question of the hon member for Ermelo to the inept attacks of Senator Conroy who was a member of Gen Smuts’ War Cabinet. Surely there is no comparison whatsoever, but if there were, let the hon the State President reflect on the fact that the AB of 1986-87 is far from being the AB of 1943-48.

How they are “bontbroers”.

After all, one cannot compare the AB of Ivan Lombaard. Oom Commie Combrink, Henning Klopper, Theo Schumann, Wennie du Plessis and others with the 1986-87 AB of Wimpie de Klerk, Lang Dawid de Villiers en prof De Lange of RAU. [Interjections.] It was dr Piet Meyer who made this very important statement in his book Dit is nog nie die einde nie:

Our indictment against the NP is that its political course is a deviant one. It is a deviant one because fewer and fewer options are being left open to our people to extricate themselves from this dispensation which is being established.

We also say that it is a deviant course because they want the electorate to believe that there is a method of ensuring minority group interests in a unitary state and ensuring that in such a unitary state one group will not dominate another. According to the NP’s recipe it cannot happen. If it were possible, it would have warranted banner headlines in the Press throughout the country. They have no solution for their dictum which they employ in an attempt to persuade the public that there will be no domination. The only recipe is that of international boundaries in partitioned areas in which each people can have the full right to self-determination and can give full expression to that right.

In the course of the debate NP speakers tried to create the impression that the CP’s standpoint on total partition had changed. That is not true.

Why is it not true?

Look at paragraphs 7 and 8 of our Programme of Principles. Let me quote these to the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare:

1. (7) We accept the fact of economic interdependence between peoples and groups, and the necessity for cooperation, consultation and mutual assistance, with the clear understanding that this must not occur at the expense of our own political power or power-base.
2. (8) We support an equitable geographic arrangement as the basis for the separate political expression of different peoples and groups, as a guarantee of our own freedom, and as a bulwark against integration and a destructive power struggle between peoples and groups.

That is CP policy, and by that policy we stand or fall, and on the strength of that policy our party, which is only four years old, we polled more than 550 000 votes.

Is that complete partition?

We speak of territorial partition. Economic interdependence and co-operation obviously mean that we do not foresee having physically watertight compartments for the various peoples, but political power is inextricably linked to a geographic power-base. That is the territorial imperative. One can therefore never grant freedom to various peoples in the same geographic area. Nowhere has this ever been possible—and this includes Southern Africa. For the various peoples total partition, in respect of areas of jurisdiction, is therefore vital. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan has said a number of interesting things. He said that there were Afrikaners in the AWB who were just as patriotic as those on this side of the House. However, when we spoke about a “Boere-staat” a while ago the hon member for Soutpansberg did not know what we were talking about.

The hon member for Brakpan said 550 000 of them voted for that party, but the AWB lays claim to an official membership of 600 000. How many members of the CP are there in this country of ours? [Interjections.] The hon member for Brakpan referred to a by-election in Springs where we spoke to the Progs and the HNP in different languages. [Interjections.]

I am asking the hon member for Brakpan to investigate something shocking we heard from a group of visiting Frenchmen this morning. They asked us whether the Blacks in our country did not pay tax. When we made the position with regard to the paying of tax in this country clear to them, they wanted to know from us why members of the CP had told them that the Blacks did not pay tax at all. [Interjections.]

Schalk Pienaar!

If it is rumoured that we have different standpoints among our own people, allow me to say that this standpoint that people …

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

Order! Is the hon member for Brentwood prepared to reply to a question?

No, Mr Chairman, I do not speak to a deserter (weghardloper).

I censure the way in which our own people who say that they are as loyal to our country as we are, gossip to foreigners from France about their own country. [Interjections.]

Did we say that?

I think it is disgraceful. I have here in my hand the tabloid of these partners of theirs. It is very interesting that on the front page of their tabloid, Die Stem, there is a copy of the map of the “Boerestaat”.

We deny saying that to the French.

No, I am talking about the 600 000 members of whom only 550 000 voted for the CP.

The AWB! [Interjections.]

They placed a copy of the map of this “Boerestaat” of theirs on the front page of this newspaper. Here is another interesting matter because in the very first letter they address to the Rennies, the Cohens, the Blooms and the Oppenheimers, it is stated:

They then go on to say:

When one looks at the borders of this “Boerestaat” of theirs, one becomes aware of the shocking disregard of matters regarding which the Afrikaner and the White man of this country fought for a century and a half. Most shocking of all is that the entire territory south of the Orange River is being given away. I do not know where the Whites who are now living there are supposed to go and settle. There are also proviso’s for those living there, so that they will not simply be accepted north of the Orange.

Do you believe that, Johan?

I believe it, Sir. I believe it like I believe that statement of the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis when, at the meeting which he held with Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche in Durban, he said he should not only include Afrikaners in his “Boere-staat”, but also the Settlers. [Interjections.]

Let us consider what they are doing with the territory of the Settlers. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis must show a little restraint. That hon member is making too many interjections. The hon member for Brentwood may proceed.

At that meeting in Durban he told that hon gentleman, Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche, that he should also include the Settlers with the Afrikaners, but let us see what they have done with the land of the Settlers. According to this map the sanctuaries of the 1820 Settlers are being taken away from them. The buffer zone between the Ciskei and the Transkei is being removed entirely. The White man is selling out the entire sanctum of the Settlers. This is very interesting.

There is a sizable piece of history behind the separation of these two Xhosa tribes. In approximately 1836 the Voortrekkers found that the only way in which they could bring about peace between these two warring tribes was to take the Rarebe’s away and put them behind their backs, in order to separate the Rarebe’s and the Gcaleka’s. This gave rise to the Transkei and the Ciskei of today.

According to this map they are taking those two warring Xhosa groups, about which there was a very interesting television programme yesterday evening, and putting them next to each other with only the Kei River between them.

In the Transvaal they are moving everything to the west of Pietersburg, and also a section to the east of Pietersburg, the entire Lebowa group, to the area which is at present known as Koedoesrand. Then they are taking all the Tswanas, from the area to the east of Warmbaths and quite a bit further, and they are moving them to the western part of the Transvaal. The map is very small, but the relevant area must include areas like the districts of Marico and Zeerust. [Interjections.] They must move to those areas.

Whose map is this?

The AWB’s. [Interjections.]

Areas like those around Phalaborwa and Hoedspruit are also being given to the Lebowas.

As regards the Zulus in Natal the area for which Piet Retief and Andries Pretorius laid down their lives—an agreement was reached on the area north of the Tugela River—the entire area south of the Tugela is being given to the Zulus after they have moved all the Zulus living north of the Tugela southwards. [Interjections.] They are asking the Zulus to surrender their sanctuaries and the area where their royal house and Ngoma are today. This is also the tribal area of the tribe of Chief Minister Gatsha Buthelezi. Those people must move south of the Tugela River. [Interjections.]

They have taken Ingwavuma, which has never belonged to the Whites. The tribe settled there has more family on the Mozambique side of the border than on this side of the border. They have taken that area and made it part of their “Boerestaat”. The position therefore is that if Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London and Durban, with all the development on the South Coast, are being given away, one eventually only has the bulk handling harbour of Richard’s Bay for this “Boerestaat”. The tremendous fight which Paul Kruger had with Rhodes to break through to an independent harbour somewhere is being totally forgotten with this “Boerestaat” which is being established in the central areas of Southern Africa, with the single little harbour of Richard’s Bay. [Interjections.]

They are going to export via the Hartebeespoort Dam!

These are the 600 000 people of whom only 550 000 voted. These are the people who are simply throwing away everything we have fought for during the past century and a half, and are taking us back to the years of strife leading up to independence. That is all I have to say.

Mr Chairman, we in this House have become used to the habit of the hon the State President of using Government documentation and Government institutions for party-political gain, even using M-Net which has very little, if anything, to do with Government administration as such. That is why we were not surprised when the hon the State President came here on Friday with his little packet of documents, the departure forms filled in by the Dakarites before their departure to Britain. Let me say immediately that this kind of tomfoolery with the use of Government documentation and Government property is a reprehensible habit. It is a reprehensible habit, because it is a political abuse …

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

No.

It is a reprehensible practice, because it amounts to abuse. I want to ask the hon the State President whether, when he looked at these documents, he at least wondered how one fills them in. What is meant, for example, by the destination one is departing to? Is it the destination one is going to immediately, the destination one will reach after a week or the destination one will reach after two weeks? What does one fill in there? I should dearly like to know. [Interjections.]

As one could have expected, the hon the State President came along with one of the documents. It had been filled in by Rev Theuns Eloff and had a mistake on it. Let me say immediately that if one uses that kind of thing to embarrass another person politically, particularly if that person does not have the opportunity of defending himself here, one should at least make sure that it is correct. [Interjections.] It is very clear that one of the elements in this document has been crossed out. Rev Eloff filled in the purpose of his visit as “sake”, but this was crossed out and something else was written in its place. Rev Eloff’s whole document was filled in in Afrikaans, but the change was made in English, which is a further indication that there was something wrong with it and that in all probability it had been made by someone else. Instead of “sake”, “holiday United Kingdom” was filled in. [Interjections.] People will have to decide for themselves whether or not Rev Theuns Eloff was guilty of doing that kind of thing.

He should apologise!

In addition I think it is reprehensible that the hon the State President not only insinuated that these people had lied, but said so; and even worse, he included Rev Eloff in this without establishing whether such an obvious mistake was correct or not. [Interjections.] I think the hon the State President owes him an apology. [Interjections.] Vilification will get us nowhere in our politics, and I am very sorry to see to what degree it is being applied, especially in such a senior position as that which the hon the State President occupies. [Interjections.]

Perhaps the course of this debate is very disappointing in a further respect. It is a time of crisis for South Africa. We are in a country which has been tragically divided. One can almost become dramatic and say that it is being torn asunder by polarisation, misunderstanding, mutual mistrust and violence. [Interjections.]

Order! No, far too many comments are being made. The hon member must be afforded an opportunity to make his speech. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Reference was again made recently to the Johannesburg bomb blast. This is the kind of thing that disturbs and alarms any decent, right-minded person. One can understand that political leaders, like other people, will speak out against an event of this kind to reflect the aversion and alarm of their supporters, voters and the public. Nevertheless I think one should be careful in this process. I think it is quite acceptable to reflect that aversion and to talk about the ensuing dismay and fear, and to reflect this in what one says. I think it becomes a little dangerous, however, when one uses this kind of thing with terribly inflammatory language to achieve one’s own one-sided political objectives.

There is no doubt that this has often happened in this debate. There was much bluster and serious accusations were hurled from this Committee at all and sundry.

The tragedy of South Africa is that just as this happens in this Committee, it also happens at ANC meetings, at meetings in the country and at funerals. We must accept that, and the hon members on the opposite side of the Committee know that. Inflammatory language is used on the basis of acts of violence which in their view, were committed against them by the agents of the Government and this Government in particular.

If any political leaders in South Africa express their bitterness in such a way that they stir up feelings, and if in the process they make no attempt to eradicate this violence and finally bring it to an end, they are neglecting their bounden duty.

Perhaps that is the tragedy of what is happening in this debate. I do not think hon members will differ with me: The ANC cannot take over this country with violence. It is impossible to do so. I think everyone knows that. I think hon members will also agree with my second point: It is unlikely that this Government or anyone else will be able to destroy the ANC completely by violent action. The ANC has too much support for that. This process of violence which is becoming steadily worse can be eradicated only by some form of communication or other by means of which we must determine how we can co-operate to bring this situation to an end. That it is why it is tragic that the Government, and especially the hon the State President, are reacting in this way when such attempts are made. It is the hon the State President’s duty to do so. The Government has also encouraged other people to do so. As has been said, they encouraged Mr Ian Smith to speak to Mugabe. They encouraged the people in South West Africa to speak to Swapo. Until recently they made attempts to get Renamo and Frelimo together. In all three cases there was a preliminary period of violence. In all three cases, Marxism was present in the case of one of the conflicting parties. Despite that, this Government made attempts to get those people together. When it comes to violence, what distinguishes our position from that of these organisations, that do after all, represent people in this country? The only thing I am advocating, is that we should do something, and it is the duty of the Government to do something.

A further point that actually shocked me, was the sanctimoniousness on the part of the Government concerning violence. After all, this Government has no standpoint in principle on violence.

†It has been widely known for years that this Government has given financial, moral and logistical support to guerrilla organisations in our neighbouring territories.

They have admitted it. Now, what is the difference between their position and that of the ANC? All that I am saying is that they should in fact do something about that. In this regard I want to refer to the hon member for Innesdal who, towards the end of last year, made a very sincere plea that the Government should take cognizance of the fact that the ANC would have to be part of the solution in this country. Sadly, that hon member’s point of view was suppressed completely. He was subjected to party discipline, he had to withdraw what he had said, and all kinds of other things happened.

We talk about the communist theory about useful idiots. It seems to me that our Government has to contend with a useless variety, and cannot function without that type of person in its ranks. That is a very sad state of affairs, and it is not to our credit. I hope sincerely that, somewhere in the ranks of that party, someone will have the courage to reconsider this attitude, in spite of the terrible climate they created for themselves in the course of the past general election.

The hon members for Parys, Springs, Walvis Bay, Stellenbosch, Brentwoord, Pietermaritzburg North, Durbanville, Mooi River, Primrose, Sasolburg and Newton Park all replied effectively to some of the arguments used by speakers before they were called upon to speak. I thank them for their positive contributions to the debate.

The hon members for Overvaal and Losberg made contributions requiring certain comments. I shall do so during the course of my speech. The hon member for Losberg informed me that he could not be here today. He raised the question of Suurbekom. I had the matter looked into, and I find there is nothing to complain about. Suurbekom was brought to my attention, and I took up the matter immediately with the Minister concerned, who informed me that his officials were instituting an inquiry in this connection. He also referred to the Police.

The hon member for Losberg is now complaining because two hon Ministers furnished two conflicting replies to questions put to them in Parliament in connection with Suurbekom. But it now appears that they dealt with two different matters. Suurbekom is not situated in the area of the Attorney General for the Transvaal, and consequently no dossiers on this matter were presented to the Attorney General for the Transvaal, but were in fact presented to the Attorney General for the Witwatersrand, who in the one case refused to prosecute. The two replies furnished by the two hon Ministers are therefore technically quite correct, and I shall leave the matter at that.

The hon member for Losberg had another problem, which was that I had mentioned the name of the late Gen De Wet as an example of a person who was a prisoner at an advanced age. What is wrong with that? I said we must just remember, on humanitarian grounds, that we ourselves had had examples in our history of people who were imprisoned at an advanced age, and that one should take that into consideration. Now he is accusing me of comparing Gen De Wet with Mandela. Surely that is absolute nonsense. I was discussing the matter of the age of people arousing emotional feelings among their followers. The hon member is a young member; he should not talk rubbish at such an early age! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kuruman replied effectively to the speech by the hon member for Durban Central. I listened to it with relish. What was even better, though, was listening to the effective way in which the hon member for Yeoville spoke about the Dakar episode, the Dakar debacle. The hon member for Umlazi dealt more specifically with the subject of partition, about which I shall have more to say this afternoon.

The hon member for Yeoville put an important question. He asked whether we were prepared to meet the challenges of the year 2000. That is a great challenge. It does not depend only on the Government; much depends on the private sector when it comes to job-provision and job-creation, and a willingness for example to help promote the principles of regional development and with the promotion of the informal sector. The Government is doing its duty, as far as education, training, housing—in conjunction with the Housing Trust, in which we have had a major share—decentralisation and deregulation are concerned. In spite of all these measures, even though the private sector and the Government both become involved, it still depends on one other major factor, and that is whether the population which is affected is able and prepared to accept those benefits, apply them, and use them to their advantage.

Therefore I can tell the hon member that within the means and the financial capacity of this country, the State is doing everything in its power to prepare us for the new era—about which a great deal is being written—up to the year 2000 and beyond, but it is not the task of the Government only. That is why we are going out of our way to hold discussions with the private sector and to get their cooperation. Then, too, this Parliament must sound a more positive note. The media too must sound a more positive note, and if time allows I shall come back to this later. However, the hon member raised an important matter.

†The hon member for Berea asked me to which embassies I had referred. My reply to the hon member is that we will deal with these matters when the select committee is appointed. I hope he will support us in appointing the select committee. Furthermore, we will take up the matter with the governments concerned. I did not, however, refer to all embassies, and the embassies know very well the extent to which some of their members are participating in this kind of action. We need not defend them; they will be able to do so themselves.

The hon member also referred to Resolution 435 and my attitude in that regard to which I had referred. It is á well-known fact that I never accepted Resolution 435; I think it was a foolish decision on the part of the United Nations. That does not mean, however, that I am not prepared to carry out the commitments accepted by my predecessor. That is the point.

*That brings me now to the hon member for Green Point. Oh please, Sir, I do not think I need spend a long time on that hon member. He is angry because I read out Rev Eloff's passport form here. Now, Sir, between that hon member and Rapport and the Sunday Times there is so much confusion about this now that nobody knows what is going on. The fact remains, however, that whether Rev Eloff wrote “holiday” or whether he wrote “business”, he furnished incorrect information. That is the point. What is more, Rev Eloff signed this form. He signed the altered form. Besides, the amended form was altered in his presence. [Interjections.] Of course! Rev Eloff must therefore reach agreement with the hon member for Green Point and Rapport and the Sunday Times on who is correct. I am going to leave the matter at that. All that I still want to say about it is that in future, when it makes something like this the subject of banner headlines, Rapport should rather publish the form in its entirety, with the clergyman’s signature on it. It must not cut off the signature, as it did on its front page yesterday. I shall now leave the matter at that. I really do not intend to keep on sparring with Rev Eloff here this afternoon. He himself will have to explain why he did not want to admit that he was going to Dakar. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to come back to the hon member for Umlazi and other hon members who referred here to the question of partition. Quite a number of hon members referred to it; as did some members of the Official Opposition.

One of the publicity documents of the Official Opposition which, I think, was used during the general election was signed by a certain Koos Kemp. I thought for a moment it was Koos van der Merwe. [Interjections.] It is in fact a certain Koos Kemp. In this document we read the following:

It is therefore the establishment of a state, in which the Arikaner will exist as a majority group and in which there will be English-speaking people who associate themselves with the Afrikaners. It is therefore a state which is going to secede from the present Republic of South Africa. It cannot be interpreted in any other way. Or if it is not interpreted in this way, it means that the Blacks and the Coloureds and the Indians who find themselves in South Africa at present, will have to get out of this state. It cannot be interpreted in any other way.

Mr Chairman, I find this strange, because I remember a specific occasion which I think the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will also remember. We were in the Cabinet together, and one day we were discussing a place between the Sabie River and Gazan-kulu and KaNgwane. Shangaans, Zulus and Swazis live in that area. On that occasion, while we were discussing the consolidation of that region, we sent the hon member for Lichtenburg there to investigate the situation. He came back and recommended that that territory should not go to either KaNgwane or Gazankulu, but should remain part of the Republic of South Africa. That hon member was not then prepared to take partition all the way. I still remember his words. He said we should rather train those people, uplift them and use them as labourers and as workers in White South Africa.

You are adding things now!

No, I am not adding anything. It is true.

Of course you are adding things!

Of course I am not adding anything. Do not think that I do what you do, by always adding something.

Now you are adding something. The other day you told an untruth.

Surely that is not what happened.

Order!

The Leader of the Official Opposition must not move a muscle. I shall make my speech, while he listens. If he feels like it, he can then speak again. The fact remains that the hon member for Lichtenburg advised us not to incorporate those tens of thousands of Blacks at Nelspruit into Gazankulu and KanGwane. There are Cabinet members here who know that this is true.

There is a clear distinction between the partitioning of a state territory as such, and various other processes involved in the formation of a state. Let us examine this for a moment. These other processes in the formation of a state, with which partition is frequently confused, include decolonisation, secession or separation. Partition is the division of the territory of a state into two or more separate states. It takes place through a process of negotiation; it cannot take place any other way. Partition of one state into two or more independent states must be distinguished from the geographic subdivisions within a state, as in the case of states in the federal structure of the USA, as well as our own self-governing national states that are not independent.

Examples to true partition in the twentieth century are: Ireland, in 1922; British India in 1947; Vietnam, which in 1954 was divided into North and South Vietnam, and subsequently reunited. In the same way Germany, after the Second World War, was divided by means of negotiation among the victors into East and West Germany. In our part of the world the ZAR, together with the Republic of the Orange Free State, came into existence by means of partition in the 19th century, after negotiation with Great Britain.

Decolonisation takes place when a colonial or a subordinate territory, which forms part of or is separate from an already existing independent state, acquires its independence by agreement or unilaterally. We know what happened to the former Rhodesia. Examples of this include states such as the USA, more than two centuries ago, and the many states that gained independence after the Second World War. In our part of the world countries such as Lesotho, Botswana, Bophuthatswana and Transkei also came into their own under the system of decolonisation.

Is that not partition?

To a certain extent it is partition, in this sense that Transkei, which was formerly part of the State of South Africa, acquired its independence, but Lesotho and Botswana were not part of the State of Britain. They were under the British Crown, but they were subordinate colonies. The four TBVC countries, which evolved out of the RSA, are therefore examples of emancipation. I do not want to use the word decolonisation, because they were never regarded as colonies of South Africa; we were all part of a colony of the British Crown. They underwent emancipation, and partial partition after the processes involved in the consolidation. They then underwent partial partition. This also applies to the establishment of our few self-governing states which underwent consolidation, and were granted self-government.

Secession, separation and breaking away, as a means of bringing about the formation of a state, take place when certain inhabitants of the state decide to separate or break away from the state in which they are living—as part of the right-wing element in South Africa wants to do—with the object of establishing a new state or becoming part of an adjoining state. Separation is frequently a unilateral act, and sometimes a violent one, as in the case of Biafra in 1967 and the southern states of the USA in 1861. Some of the well-known examples of separation include Portugal from Spain, Norway from Sweden, Iceland from Denmark and Bangladesh from Pakistan.

The examples the CP mention in their pamphlet are therefore not examples of partitions, but of separation. This gives rise to the question as to whether the CP policy in this connection is also a policy of separation, and not a policy of partition. We must clear up this matter. I am not accusing them of doing this, but I say that we must have this matter cleared up.

If the Official Opposition is labouring under the delusion that they are going to take over the government of this country and then establish independent states for Whites, Coloureds and Indians, they will have to take into account the cost of the creation of those states, as well as the consequences involved. These include buying out and consolidation costs. Secondly, the creation of such independent states which are properly consolidated raises the question of duly making land available. Making that land available imposes heavy demands on the Exchequer. In this connection I merely want to point out that the accumulative costs in connection with the consolidation policy from 1936 more or less to the present day already amount to approximately R1 220 million, and we are still a long way from being able to say that we have done a proper job of consolidation.

Consequently my question is this: Can the taxpayers afford further amounts of this magnitude, and are they prepared to pay them? How would we effect such a large-scale consolidation of land, with the astronomical amounts of money involved, without consultation and deliberation? Hon members of the Official Opposition themselves admit that even after their policy has been put into operation people of colour will be present in their White state. Short of detaching large parts of White South Africa owned by White farmers today, let them tell me what they are going to do with the four million Black people on farms in South Africa. They must also tell me what they are going to do with the Black children born in that state inhabited by Afrikaners, of which a section of the English-speaking population may also be members. The implication is that they, as is now the case, will also have to make arrangements for other people to give expression to their rights within that state of theirs. So the hon member for Lichtenburg quite rightly recommended that Nsikazi near Nelspruit should be retained for White South Africa. He did not see his way clear to accepting the consequences of incorporating it into Gazankulu or KaNgwane.

In spite of the fact that we have spent the vast amount of R1 220 million since 1936 on the consolidation policy—calculated in present monetary terms it amounts to approximately R3 400 million, an enormous amount—and taking into consideration the priorities imposed on a state like South Africa with its obligations and the challenges confronting it, with this tremendous amount added, is one not dealing with a pipe-dream. How, in accordance with the CP’s partition policy, is provision going to be made for accommodating these people?

I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, in all fondness, whether the Official Opposition is prepared to sit down with the Government around a conference table and deliberate with Black leaders in South Africa on how such a country should be divided up, so that the various Black peoples, urban as well as rural, can be settled in their own states. The moment one proceeds to do so—for one will have to do that if one wants to bring about a drastic change in South Africa—one must negotiate. Then one must start talking and one must take joint decisions; otherwise one does not achieve any results.

If that is not the case, does the Official Opposition want to divide South Africa up without any deliberations taking place?

Unilateral decisions.

Unilateral decisions.

What about the hundreds upon thousands of Black communities, to which I referred a moment ago, living in urban residential areas and in small rural townships throughout the country, as well as the 4 million living on farms? What about them? Are they going to be incorporated into this Afrikaner state? Then, surely it is not the kind of state they are telling people it will be. It is a different kind of state. What about their political rights? They are always in the majority.

In the second place, is the Official Opposition prepared, together with the Government, to spell out the financial consequences of such a step to the electorate and to ask them to make the sacrifices required? This is a very important point. After I became Prime Minister in 1978, I stated in public that I was prepared to go further than the 1936 legislation to effect consolidation. I said this in public.

We had the greatest possible public opposition to that, precisely from those areas represented by the hon members opposite. Their people do not want to make those sacrifices, but not only their people; our people do not want to make them either. Everyone clings to his own piece of land. If, in addition, one were to place them into another state by demarcation, whilst the Whites have to stay where they are, would the hon members, in such a case, also be prepared to take the lead, to join me in advising the people that they should keep on living there; failing that, one would have to incur the financial costs, and where would one end up if one did that?

We must now clear up these questions in South African politics, because if these are mere pipe-dreams, we are doing the electorate a tremendous injustice. We have almost finished with the 1936 legislation and its consequences. With the exception of a few steps, we shall now be able to transfer that land to the national and independent states. The obligations we accepted in 1936 have therefore been met.

However, we are nowhere near a point at which we can proceed to partition; not if partition is understood correctly. If it is not understood correctly, we must tell the country now, as the hon member for Overvaal rightly said. He is now beginning to give these matters a little thought. He immediately came forward and said that they did not stand for total partition. Consequently they do not want to go any further either. He knows as well as I do that the followers of the CP are not prepared to make the sacrifices which I maintain will have to be made in order to make that partition possible.

They want to keep their labourers.

Of course they want to keep their labourers. The hon the Minister is quite right. They want to keep their labourers, and they do not want to pay this price.

Let us now tell one another, for South Africa’s sake, that total partition would only be possible if a tremendous effort were made by all parties and our country were to decide to impoverish itself in other respects in order to implement partition. If it is not prepared to do so, we must stop talking about partition and seek other solutions.

Now it is interesting—I want to dwell on this for a moment—that not so long ago the political leaders in this House were, to a large extent, unanimous about one important matter. In 1980 the Schlebusch Commission brought out an interim report of an enquiry it had carried out. This report was unanimously accepted by the representatives of the NP—some of them are now seated in the Official Opposition benches—and by the Leader of the PFP, the hon member for Sea Point. I want to quote only one paragraph. In 1980 the commission reported as follows to Parliament:

There was a large degree of unanimity about this. For example, one can look at the signatories to this report. It included people such as Dr Worrall, Mr F J le Roux and Mr Bill Sutton. There was a minority report, too, but it stated that paragraphs 7 and 8 of the report were accepted.

Who were the signatories to the minority report?

Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, Mr Eglin and other members of the PFP signed it, but in their minority report they stated that they accepted paragraphs 7 and 8.

We still stand by that.

No, I am not starting a quarrel now. I am saying that we reached unanimity on one thing, namely that the unadapted Westminster System did not serve South Africa’s purpose, because a system of one man, one vote would lead to the domination of minorities by majorities.

That is the basis of our constitutional dispensation.

Very well, but I am still not quarreling with the hon member.

Perhaps he is afraid of the quarrel that is looming. [Interjections.]

I do not know what is so strange about that. I am saying that there was unanimity. The leader of the PFP, prominent members of the present CP, and the NP agreed that the Westminster System should be changed so that majorities could not dominate minorities. Am I correct? Of course! That is the truth of the matter.

[Inaudible.]

If that is so, I should like to ask a second question before I proceed. We find that the outside world and certain leftist circles in South Africa that are co-operating with them, are trying to dominate us or to force us to adopt a specific course. I want to put a question to them.

†Why pressurise us if it is true that South Africans must solve their own problems? Why then pressurise us with sanctions and interference by foreign governments? Why pressurise us if we are supposed to solve our own problems and if it is accepted that only we can solve our own problems?

*I want to ask a third question. If the international community admits that we must solve our own problems, yet persists in exerting pressure on South Africa, what country in Africa does that commenting hold up to us as an example we can emulate? Surely these are simple questions all of us must be able to put to the outside world and in regard to which we are just as unanimous as we are when we say that the Westminster System should be adapted and changed.

As we sit here, we therefore accept the fact that we advocate the amendment of the Westminster System. We also accept that majorities should not dominate minorities, that we are opposed to pressure from abroad and that there is no example of a country in Africa that we can emulate. If anyone does not agree with what I have just said, let him raise his hand. [Interjections.] So we are reasonable and down-to-earth in our approach to our national problems.

Was that a referendum?

But now this myth exists that South Africa can become a so-called non-racial society, and can be governed as such. What is implied by this is that the group character of multicultural South Africa could disappear. Only a year or two ago other hon members on the opposite side of the House joined us in adopting the standpoint that we were not going to allow majorities to dominate minorities. That is what is stated in the Schlebusch report. Throughout the world minority groups have always been and still are a fact of life.

The question is how to deal with the matter of the recognition and protection of minorities in multicultural countries with a diversity of groups. That is the question.

Between the two world wars, the international protection of minority rights, particularly in Europe, was one of the dominant themes in international law. After the Second World War the emphasis shifted primarily from minority and group rights to the area of individual human rights. This, too, is acknowledged by everyone.

In my opinion this tendency was based on two conceptions. Firstly the supporters of the one standpoint accept that if the rights of the individual are protected in a certain state, the rights of the group are automatically protected too. That is the one view.

The second standpoint is that protection of individual rights will, in time, eliminate the existence of separate groups in a state. This is the view presented to one by the supporters of a non-racial society.

Both these standpoints consequently reject the protection of the group as such, while we, according to the Schlebusch report, were all agreed that groups existed—minority groups as well as majority groups—and that those majorities must not dominate the minorities. All of us, as we sit here, including the PFP and CP representatives of the time, as well as the Nationalists, agreed on that.

Events in many countries of the world over the past four decades have demonstrated conclusively, however, that these standpoints are based on misconceptions. Minority rights all over the world began to disappear; not only because minority rights and minority groups were not adequately protected, but also because the disappearance of democracy in many countries also affected the protection of individual rights. Their solution, however, was to resort to dictatorships that paid no heed to individual and minority rights.

It is also true that every effort is being made to make out that the protection of minority rights is not very popular subject today. That is what is said. Similarly, every effort is being made to establish the myth that the idea of a melting-pot, a non-racial society, is far more popular.

This does not take reality into account. Given the group character of our multicultural South Africa, we cannot afford to pursue a pipe-dream, and in future we must continue in that spirit of unity characterised by the Schlebusch Commission, in spite of political differences. All we have to do is make these points of departure our own.

To judge from what is happening in various countries in the world, it seems that elsewhere the same realisation is beginning to take hold on a wide front. Let us examine this for a moment.

There are relatively few countries in the world that have completely homogeneous populations. On the other hand, there are many countries that as saddled with a problem of minorities. For example there are the Berbers in Algeria, the Aborigines in Australia, the French and Indians in Canada—at present a few eminent Indians are visiting our country—the Welsh, the Scotch and the Blacks in Great Britain.

We read in the Year Book of Great Britain, which I have here before me, that special measures are being adopted for the own affairs of the Scotch and the own affairs of the Welsh, with special ministries being established for that purpose. We know about the agitation for the establishment of a separate assembly in Scotland. I see the hon member for Sea Point shaking his head, but these are facts. They are facts; he cannot deny them.

Can they move freely to any other part of the country and retain their civil rights?

That is another matter; those are individual rights. [Interjections.] Stop jabbering now! Those are individual rights. That can be done when minority groups are protected. There is no objection to that. There are the Curds in Iraq, the Arabs in Israel, the Chinese in Malaysia; the Ibos in Nigeria, the Catholics in Northern Ireland, the Basques in Spain, the Tamils in Sri Lanka, the Indians, Blacks and Spanish-speaking people in the USA, the Croats in Yugoslavia and various Indians groups in Latin America. Everywhere this question is again being asked: “What about the restoration of these minority rights?”

In the Soviet Union, besides ethnic national states which already exist, and the Tartar issue, which has now surfaced again, there are many other groups seeking greater protection, such as the Jews and various non-Russian nationalities.

So what else is the “melting-pot in a non-rational society” but a myth? There is no such thing. This Parliament could decide tomorrow that we are a non-racial society, and the day after tomorrow we would still be what we are today. It does not help us, or anyone else for that matter, to close our eyes to these realities. Minority groups exist in states, and as such they must be recognised and protected. Minority groups exist as a group of people within a state that is distinguished from other groups in the state on the grounds of one or more factors, such as physical features, language and culture, derivation, nationality and religion.

Those, like the CP—the Official Opposition—who are of the opinion that the term minority group is an inferior term, are in my opinion making a mistake. South Africa does not have a single minority group which comprises more than half of the population. All groups in South Africa are minority groups; all groups in South Africa, Black and White, are minority groups as seen against the whole. The issue is, of course, dealt with more easily in countries where one or more minorities are in fact only small minorities, such as the Red Indians in the United States; and that situation is also a dismal one. But in the USA The Black caucus is a rejection of the myth of a non-racial society. Why else does it exist? The central question still is: “How should the constitutional dispensation be arranged to accommodate the recognition, self-determination and the protection of groups?” That is the question confronting this Parliament and the leaders of South Africa. This is the question which deserves attention from all of us.

At the opening of Parliament on 19 May this year I adopted the standpoint that the guidelines for continued constitutional development must be sought and found in the realities of the group character of our multicultural society, and in the requirements this sets for the maintenance of peaceful and stable communities, and the prevention of domination.

Some time ago I granted an interview to an Australian newspaper, which widely publicised every word of it. In subsequent editorials it was stated that the West must not reject this standpoint, but should take it into consideration and deal with it. Firstly the protection of individual rights must be accompanied by the protection of minority rights. Secondly the protection of minority rights must be accompanied by the protection of minority groups. Thirdly the protection of minority groups and the prevention of domination by groups cannot occur meaningfully and in safety unless the groups enjoy constitutional recognition and the relations between the groups are regulated by constitutional means.

Are we in South Africa really unique in this connection? Not at all. Among the large number of heterogeneous countries there are many that grant some or other form of statutory recognition and protection to minority groups. Similarly, the self-determination of groups is recognised and accepted in international law.

†Let me quote a few international examples. The United Nations itself recognises this principle. Article 1 of the United Nations Charter which lists the purposes of the United Nations, states among other things that its purpose includes the goal:

At its second session in 1949 the United Nations Subcommittee on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities adopted a resolution calling for a definition and classification of minorities. In the following year the United Nations Secretary-General submitted a background memorandum to the subcommittee in that regard. That memorandum contained a list of what is termed “positive services” and “special rights” which minorities feel they must have if their equality within the state is to be real. These include the following, and I quote:

1. (a) Provision of adequate primary and secondary education for the minority in its own language and its own cultural traditions;
2. (b) provision for maintenance of the culture of the minority through the establishment and operation of schools, libraries, museums, media of information and other cultural and educational institutions;
3. (c) provision of adequate facilities to the minority for the use of its language in the legislature, before the courts and in the administration;
4. (d) provision for respect of the family, law and personal status of the minority and their religious practices; and
5. (e) provision of a certain degree of autonomy.

It is not an absurd point of view. Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights reads as follows, and I quote:

The whole issue of minority groups is therefore not one which only has relevance in South Africa, neither are we the only state to have recognition of minority groups and their rights.

Let us take a few other examples. In the United States of America there are a quite a sizeable number of laws that recognise and protect the American Indians as a minority group. In Australia the Aboriginals have since 1967 been constitutionally recognised. They have established reservations and are recognised in Australian statutes. In the United Kingdom, the Welsh and Scottish minorities not only enjoy regional recognition, but also have “own affairs Ministers ” and “administrations for own affairs”. In Belgium the Flemish and the Walloons live in two provinces and enjoy linguistic and cultural recognition. In Switzerland the various minority groups enjoy linguistic and cultural recognition and protection through the system of cantonal government.

*A few years ago, when I said that we should examine the canton system and learn from it what we could, a cry went up that I was introducing the Swiss system.

†In Spain the 1978 constitution recognises and guarantees the right to autonomy of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed. It provides for the establishment of autonomous regions of which 17 have so far been established. In 1979 the Federal Republic of Germany submitted comments to the UN Human Rights Commission on the subject of the rights of minorities. In this submission, the West German Government stated the following:

That is what the German Government has to say. There are many more examples we may quote, and from these examples it is clear that both the principle and the practice of the recognition of minority groups are accepted internationally as normal in multicultural states. In this regard South Africa is clearly on the right road.

Having mentioned the United States of America, I have noted with interest a speech made by Mr George Schultz, the Secretary of State, before the International Management and Development Institute in Washington DC, where he said, inter alia:

This is the job we have to tackle. From our point of view, the same assurance of security should be given to all groups, and that is what we intend to do.

In connection with cultural, language and religious rights, it is therefore the Government’s policy to give protection to those minorities wishing to be protected. I have been asked how these rights are to be protected. The following points should be specifically noted: The protection will be given on a non-racial basis—in other words we will not discriminate in the protection of minority rights—to protect culture, religion and language which as we all know transcend racial groups. So much for those who still accuse us of racism. One of the universally recognised minority rights is that of self-determination.

This right is recognised by the Government, and we will continue to respect the right of minorities to establish, on a voluntary basis, self-governing or independent states. I have said so on many occasions. To those Black fellow-citizens remaining outside the jurisdiction of the self-governing or independent states, whether in urban or rural areas, the fullest possible civil and minority protection must be given. The mechanisms and instruments to ensure protection must be devised to reflect the special needs of the South African situation, including the need for order and stability.

It is, however, also the Government’s policy that all significant minorities should be given participation in the government of the country in such a manner that governmental power is shared, with no one group being able to dominate the others—that was what we said when we all accepted the report of the Schlebusch Commission in 1980—with each minority commanding sufficient political power and positive institutions so as to avoid being overwhelmed in the exercise of its minority rights.

The real challenge today in South Africa is to find a harmony and equilibrium among individual human rights, the cultural, religious and language rights of all minorities and the political rights for all minority groups, and to find a system of checks and balances among all competing interests, possibly in a constitution.

Hon members are aware of the fact that the S A Law Commission has been requested to investigate precisely these questions. I have been informed that the commission has already devoted a lot of time, thought and energy to the project and that the report can be expected probably in the first half of next year. The SA Law Commission is an independent body with a proven track record of credibility and objectivity. It is the Government’s wish that the SA Law Commission should proceed with its very important task and, where necessary, that it should seek the advice and assistance of international constitutional and other experts so as to present Parliament with the widest possible range of options and alternatives, and afford Parliament the benefit of its judicious recommendations.

*I should now like to refer to another factor which is inhibiting us in our search for a solution, viz the negativism which is being fostered in many parts of our country. There are too many people who, instead of thinking positively about this problem, are moving away from the common ground we have already found, and are constantly placing obstacles in the way of every attempt to make progress. Just think, for example, of how the proposed National Council has been disparaged. Just think of the suspicion that has been aroused in connection with that proposal.

†I tried to deal with this problem. I went out of my way to take Parliament with us in an attempt to find solutions. What is more, I committed the Government in this House to striving even harder than in the past for the best possible relations with all sections of the South Africa newspaper industry.

I am being called names about actions against the Press and the media. From the very start I tried to do my share. We held frank discussions, and are still doing so. There was no shortage of goodwill on the part of the Government.

My viewpoint was and remains that the printed word is still the safest and most reliable means of communication between the authorities and the people. The Press is a vital bearer of accurate information, not only from the authorities and other public institutions to the people, but also from the people to the authorities and the community leaders. What the public obviously has the right to know, no authority should keep from it. Secrecy for the sake of secrecy, or to conceal incompetence and corruption, will not be tolerated by the Government at any level of public administration. That is why we established the position of Advocate-General—to try to guarantee proper, non-corruptive practices in public administration. I have never feared justified, well-founded criticism from the Press, be it from political friends or enemies. However, hon members will recall my warning that there are acute dangers looming which threaten relations between the authorities and the Press and between the Press and the public. My problem was, and is, that some Press organisations, and some members of the Press, disregard their obligations and responsibility to a large degree.

As far back as nine years ago, some tragic evidence of decay was visible in a section of South African political journalism. It was as if a devil of political devastation had taken hold of sections of our journalism. In recent times we have seen a repetition and an aggravation of this phenomenon. Towards the end of last year I invited the representatives of the newspaper industry and the National Press Union to my office. This meeting took place before regulations that would affect the Press during a state of emergency were issued. I attempted to reach an agreement with the National Press Union in terms of which they would voluntarily accept certain restrictions on the publication of certain reports. Before I invited the representatives of the newspaper industry to my office, I arranged for them to be informed in the greatest detail on the nature, extent and tactics of the forces of revolution that were unfolding against the country. The Government did not wish to take steps and clash with the NPU, but it had become necessary to employ special measures to combat the revolutionary onslaught.

The outcome of that discussion, and a second in December here in my office in Tuynhuys in Cape Town, was that the Press groups refused to co-operate voluntarily with the Government to avert a threat against the entire community. Rather than assisting the Government in the spirit of my commitment to increased co-operation in this House more than eight years ago, some sections of the newspaper industry in South Africa have continued as if their aim were to urge the spirit of revolution along. Through their actions, a large part of the Press has brought South Africa into disrepute.

I wish to quote to hon members a few examples of what I am referring to. It does not necessarily involve outright lies. It is often rather a case of blatant distortion and stage-setting. It finds expression in misrepresentation and the creation of negative perceptions. It is done chiefly in the following ways: Firstly, the publication of newspapers and magazines that can be classified as the so-called “alternative media”. Most of these publications unashamedly support the leftist radical groups and views in the country. They also use all four of the above techniques in practising subtle propaganda to further a revolutionary climate on the pretext of journalism.

Another phenomenon which is closely related to the above is the sudden increase in so-called alternative agencies attempting to provide a new service. This is a new development. These groups and organizations supply what they call “news reports” to existing and alternative newspapers, but which in fact amount to nothing but propaganda. The entire matter concerning alternative media and alternative news agencies will have to be investigated and dealt with.

Secondly, through the conspicuous omission of positive events or negative reporting on positive events such as, for example, bringing into disrepute Black leaders and organisations who do not follow and expound the ANC views.

Thirdly, by the repeated use of old examples and archive material of the most negative examples on record. This is particularly a popular technique on certain foreign television services.

Fourthly, by the careful selection of news events, statements and photo material which benefit leftist and radical organizations and trends and put them in a positive light.

Fifthly, the selective application of facts that are not incorrect in themselves, but which create an incomplete and distorted image as a result of their selectivity.

In the sixth place, the calculated use of editorials in an attempt to subtly violate the truth and to propagate a leftist and radical message on an almost continuous basis. I wish to read a few examples in this regard to this House. I am not going to mention the newspaper in each case. I quote from an editorial on 3 July 1987:

That is a lie. It is a deliberate, miserable lie, and yet a newspaper in South Africa is allowed to print these lies! I want to quote another example:

I say that this is another lie. It is a deliberate lie, written by a man deliberately trying to lie to the people of the country. Another example is as follows:

This is another lie.

In this regard I also wish to refer to a publication issued by the so-called Education Committee of the Black Sash. I am going to quote the stories they are spreading around the country. This organization has the nerve to allege in writing that I, when I was Minister of Defence in 1976, supposedly said: “Our education system must train people for war”. That is a deliberate lie. I never said anything of the kind.

These are a few examples of the type of reporting in certain publications which hon members have probably encountered themselves. They can probably quote their own examples.

*As long as this negativism and this spirit indicative of destruction is unleashed in South Africa, our country will not be able to deal with its problems. As long as a spirit indicative of disparagement and destruction emanates from this Parliament, we shall not succeed. [Interjection.] As long as everything that this Government attempts is presented in its most distorted from, we shall not succeed.

I now want to conclude. It is my honest conviction that the vast majority of South Africa’s population—Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians—seek peace, and I have good reason to say this. In the second place, most of the population of South Africa do not want to see communism here in South Africa. Most of South Africa’s population believes in the system of private ownership and private enterprise. Most of the population in this country would like to see order restored so that this country can develop. I see this when I visit them. I see it when I go to Port Elizabeth, as I did last year. I see it when I go to Lekoa; they inundate me with goodwill, almost trampling me underfoot. I see it when I go to Moria. Wherever I go, there is a spirit of goodwill.

There is also a spirit of goodwill among White South Africans. But what White South Africa said during the recent election was this: You must not doubt our goodwill. We are prepared to reform, but we are not prepared to abdicate, because our existence in this country is of importance to Black South Africa, as well as to the minority groups among Black South Africans. It is also important to the Coloured South Africans and the Indian South Africans.

The existence of the Whites in this country must not be further jeopardised by the West because of its meddlesomeness. The people who built up this country, who made it a great country and who uplifted others, must not be prevented from coping further with the problems of our century.

With all due respect and apologies to the late Sir Winston Churchill I should like to say: Never in the history of a country did so few do so much for so many without acknowledgment by the international community.

Mr Chairman, it is not possible within ten minutes to conduct a thorough debate on the address which the hon the State President has just given. However, I just want to refer very briefly to a few matters.

The hon the State President dealt with the question of partition, as he sees it, and mentioned that the consolidation of our Black states had since 1936 until the present cost an amount of R1 220 million, which in today’s monetary value would amount to R3 400 million. I got the impression that the hon the State President wanted to conclude from that that it would not be financially possible to divide South Africa up and consolidate it any further.

It seems as if he has lost courage.

To obtain a White majority?

An amount of R3 400 million sounds like a tremendous amount of money, but it is not even 10% of our budget for one year. Is it asking too much of the Whites in South Africa to ensure their freedom by making the necessary funds available? [Interjections.]

You have to relocate millions in order to have a majority of Whites in your state.

I did not interrupt the hon Minister. [Interjections.]

The NP has been telling us for decades that it was the policy of that party, when I was still a member, that the solution to our problem lay in separate development and the creation of separate fatherlands for all the Black peoples, and that is what all this money, to which the hon the State President has just referred, was spent on. Now the NP comes along and tells us that this is no longer the answer; it is only a partial answer. They say it is no longer possible to implement that policy. As a result of it the NP now has a new standpoint that the Blacks who are outside the national and the independent states, those who are with us, now have to be included in the political decision-making process of South Africa.

In that respect there is very little difference between the PFP and the NP. The aim is the same. The Blacks have to be included. The only difference between the PFP and the NP today is the way in which it is going to be done and the price that has to be paid for it. The only difference is that the NP says the Blacks have to be accommodated in a group context. The PFP says they have to be accommodated in an individual context.

It sounds fine when the NP tells us that the Blacks outside the national states can now be accommodated politically within a group context. My question to the NP and the hon the State President is this: Are the Blacks going to be accommodated as Blacks, or is every member of every individual Black people going to be accommodated as a member of that people on an ethnic basis? Is that possible in respect of the Blacks outside the national and independent states? Is the hon the State President, who now wants to include Blacks in the decision-making process throughout South Africa, also going to accommodate the Blacks at this level in an ethnic context?

Let me say that if ever there was a pipedream, this is it. How is one going to accommodate the Vendas outside Venda, the Tswanas, the Swazis, the Xhosas and the Zulus in a group context in the central and the highest legislative authority of South Africa? That is surely a dream! If the NP is not planning to accommodate those people outside the national states in a group context, there can surely only be one alternative, namely the accommodation of those Black people as Blacks. Then it is no longer an ethnic approach, but a purely racist approach. Under that one only differentiates between Whites, and Blacks and Coloureds and Indians. We want that answer.

Why am I arguing like this and why am I insisting that we want that answer? This Government has already introduced multiracial committees for the provinces at the second tier of government and the Blacks who serve on them do not serve on them as members of a certain ethnic group or as representatives of a minority group. This Government produced their multiracial regional services councils, and the Black towns that are going to have representation on those regional services councils will not represent specific Black ethnic groups, but Blacks will simply be represented as Blacks.

If, at the second and third tier level of government, one no longer draws that distinction with regard to the ethnic context of the various Black peoples in this country, how will one do it in another way at the highest level? That is why I am saying the Government is adopting a dangerous course. I am not for one moment going to doubt their good intentions and that they are honestly seeking a solution, but then they must also accept our word good intentions when we do not agree with them on the solution they are offering. Let us at least admit that to one another.

It is obvious that the alternative stated by the CP is in reality merely the alternative advocated by the NP all these years, and it is the alternative of the geographic division of South Africa and the establishment, as far as possible, of every separate people in its own geographic area, where it can govern itself.

[Inaudible.]

I take it the hon member for Turffontein does not know what the policy of the NP was, and I do not blame him. [Interjections.]

During that process it surely is obvious that negotiations will take place, as the Blacks were negotiated with in the past, on the establishment of an independent Transkei, Ciskei, Venda and so on. How does the NP come by the ridiculous idea that the CP will move in the bulldozers to remove excess Blacks from South Africa?

What did Jan Hoon say?

Surely, it is only a fool who will do or consider something like that. Surely it is obvious that we will enter into discussions with the leaders of the various Black groups, but then I want to add that we are not prepared to negotiate with anyone on the right of self-determination of the White man. [Interjections.] If I am asked to abdicate politically, to accept that my people are only going to be a minority group in a future South Africa, then I say no thank you to that future. The NP should not expect our co-operation for that because we are going to fight them.

These days the new slogan is that we should move out of the laager. What is in fact happening is not a movement out of the laager, but the gates of the White laager are being thrown open to everyone as long as they want to come in. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon State President for offering here today to discuss and solve a ticklish problem with the other parties. We have been struggling for the past 50 years to implement a plan so that we can solve this problem, but it is not all that easy.

We should remember that in 1936 it was decided that 6,2 million ha had to be acquired, because the State did not have the necessary land. The money that has to be obtained that the hon member for Barberton spoke about is not the only problem, and the unwillingness of people to make land available should also be taken into account, and also contributes to the delay.

The hon member has just said that the money that was spent was nothing. They said that the 1936 provisions should not have been exceeded. However, we have exceeded them by half a million ha and I now want to know from the hon member if they are going to buy more land with the money, because we have already exceeded the quota. The hon member said that we should keep to the 1936 provisions, but that will not be possible, because we have already exceeded them by half a million ha and since we are finalising matters, we shall on completion have exceeded them by a further half a million hectares.

The hon State President has now given the CP the opportunity to discuss this ticklish problem. However, these hon members said at the 1982 congress that the 1936 provisions should not be exceeded. The hon member for Lichtenburg also said that we should not be overhasty with the details. We should leave it until the CP has taken over the reins of government. The hon State President is now giving the hon members the opportunity to discuss this matter. We cannot wait for another 20 or 50 years. We must discuss the matter now.

I want to know from hon members why there was a lack of willingness in the past. Today it takes us a few years to acquire a small piece of land, because we have to collect evidence, and the tears flow when we have to take people’s land away, because virtually no one in South Africa wants to give up their land. Hon members also know who is responsible for inciting them not to give up their land.

The determination of the Government to keep its word and to implement the 1936 provisions, has cost the NP many votes in South Africa. Who wants to become a new border farmer today? Who wants to be negatively influenced by consolidation? The hon member says that the CP will spend far more than 10%. It seems to me as if the hon member is impressed by the hon member for Randfontein’s dreams of the redivision of the country. Hon members on the opposite side, such as the hon member for Soutpansberg, stated in this debate that when purchasing land they would not exceed the 1936 provisions by a single square inch. According to what they say they are going to take the land back from the homelands and we are therefore going to get land back.

The hon member speaks of confusion. Confusion is what is caused by the policy of partition and the connotations attached to it. It is on the basis of this confusion that the CP polled as many votes in the election as they did. It happened because they went to the voters and attacked the Government for spending so much on the Blacks. The hon member for Soutpansberg says there is nothing wrong with their attitude and goodwill towards Blacks, but now they can show their attitude and goodwill towards Blacks by accepting the invitation of the State President. They must not run away, but show us the nature of their attitude and goodwill. The spirit of goodwill of the CP was lacking in the past. They told people that the Government was spending too much money on Blacks, or that they were taking people’s land, and they should dig in their heels on the issue of the land. That is what they said.

They confused people. They told them that their policy was completely practical. What else has the CP told people? They said they should flee to White South Africa. What did they tell people? The hon member for Overvaal said that this country which is White, is a White country and that it must become White. It is a White country and it must become White, but the quota of the 1936 Act must not be exceeded.

The CP states that it is going to move 10 to 15 million Black people out of this country. They say they are not going to use bulldozers, but are they going to convince the Black people? Let me tell those hon members that good attitudes and goodwill and persuasion is what the hon State President showed at Lekoa. Thousands of Black people came because goodwill was shown there, so that their problems could be investigated.

I challenge the CP. Let the hon leader of the CP go to one of the Black townships and then we shall see how many Black people welcome him there. [Interjections.] We shall see how many Black people come to listen to him.

We have not once heard the policy of partition of the CP, as spelt out for the Whites by the hon members of the CP in South Africa, being willingly accepted by Black people. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Lichtenburg says that he has promised the voters that within 10 or 15 years after they have come into power, 70% of the Blacks will have moved out of the White areas into their Black homelands. This land on which the Blacks have to settle is not going to be larger; on the contrary, it is going to be smaller. Those hon members are not going to provide a larger surface area for them, but they are going to be removed from White areas.

The CP is perpetrating a swindle among the voters. It must end. The CP must now state what it means by partition. Total partition creates the expectation amongst the voters that the CP will get rid of all the Black people. Do hon members know what total partition means if only Whites remain? They say no, it is a misunderstanding; they are not going to take away the Whites’ servants or labourers. The servant that comes from Transvaal to Akasia Park now, can still come with. [Interjections.] They are now therefore telling people that there will not be total partition. The hon member for Overvaal says no, it is really partial partition. Partial partition is precisely what we have been involved with since 1913. Now the hon member comes along and says this is partial partition. He ran away from reality and he is confusing people again with this partial partition, because it is after all our policy to which he is returning. The hon member for Randburg in turn says that it is a redivision of South Africa, but a number of hon members repudiated him today.

Members of the AWB who support the CP speak of the “Boerestaat”. Let me say today that the time has now come for those hon members to tell the voters exactly what is meant by partition. How many people are going to be affected by their partition? How are they going to divide people up in a limited area of land? How are they going to obtain the co-operation of the Black people?

How are you people going to protect minorities?

The hon member will just have to keep on running.

I want to state here today that those declarations, that attitude of the hon CP members really is dangerous to South Africa, because the image—I am not speaking of the image that we have created, but of the image that those hon members have created amongst the Black people—is dangerous. We know, because we move around amongst the Black people.

The radical take over in this country, with the assistance of Moscow, can only be prevented by a joint effort of all moderates, and that includes Black people. We should take care that we do not enkindle the spirit of the CP, the polarisation that will exist between Whites and Blacks, as opposed to allaying it as the hon the State President is doing by his actions. We must try to quell that spirit.

The CP states that relocating people on a large-scale in this country is not possible. They say they will abolish influx control and not allow people of colour to move around in search of work. They say they will drive them out and close the gate behind them. It is an absolute dream that the CP will manage to achieve what it is telling the voters. The behaviour of the CP members radiates fear, mistrust and hatred of Black people. They mislead the voters into thinking that they are going to maintain the status quo. I am warning them that the irresponsible statements and behaviour of the CP could result in the polarisation of fine people of colour, who are our partners in this country, and this is very dangerous for the survival of us all in this country.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to react to the speech of the hon member for Vryheid, except for a few references to it in the course of my speech. I think the hon member will understand.

There were five points, in particular, which the hon the State President broached in the concluding portion of his speech, ie the question of partition, the protection of minority rights, the National Council, the Press and finally a few general views with which I agree, as I think do hon members on this side of the Committee, and that is that we believe that the majority of people in South Africa want peace, that they do not believe in the communist ideology, that they want to promote the private sector and that they want to develop the country so that they can obtain their rightful share and thereby improve the quality of their own lives. I agree wholeheartedly with that.

I shall speak, at a later stage, about the National Council mentioned by the hon the State President. I think he has demolished the whole illusion about partition—I think he has well and truly burst that bubble. I agree with him wholeheartedly, because to speak about partition at times and in circumstances such as these is actually a flight of fancy that cannot be realised.

I listened very attentively to the hon the State President, but of course in the few minutes at my disposal I cannot react, as I would like to, to his argument about the protection of minority rights and minority groups.

He did not say that!

Let me say at once that this standpoint is very clear—we do not believe in one group dominating another. I have a problem with the hon the State President, and I want to put it to him in all honesty for his consideration. I agree with the hon member for Barberton that we cannot speak of the multicultural or multi-ethnic nature of society when we are actually referring to its multiracial composition. That is my problem with the hon the State President. He mentioned the rights that are being protected in all the states he singled out, but those are all language, cultural and religious rights. The hon the State President could not demonstrate to me that this protection, in any of those states, was linked to colour or race.

In all honesty I want to tell the hon the State President that we cannot speak of multiethnicity and then lump the Moslems and Hindus together in one group. We cannot speak about an ethnic basis and then classify the Coloureds, who speak my language, who are members of my church and share my culture, into a separate group under the guise of the multicultural nature of society. As the hon member for Barberton rightly said, we cannot lump the Xhosas, Zulus and Tswanas together in one group.

In all humility I want to tell the hon the State President that I think we should certainly accept that there are multi-ethnic units in South Africa, and that our society is structured on a multiracial, multicultural and multi-ethnic basis. We must find a solution for living together. I now want to say, in all honesty, that we cannot confuse basic concepts here and speak about ethnicity when we actually mean race or colour. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately I have only a few minutes, but I would have liked to take this debate further and also have referred to the hon the Minister of National Education. Nowhere in the instances the hon the State President …

Can we speak of a “non-racial society”?

No, wait a moment. I have never denied the existence of various races in South Africa, as in the world at large. I have never denied the existence of ethnic groups. I really could not be that foolish.

Your policy says that we should stop that practice.

There is a great difference between saying that various cultural groups exist and saying that cultural groups should, of necessity, be the specific building blocks of a constitutional structure. That is where the problem comes in and where the fundamental point of dispute lies. In not one of the instances mentioned by the hon the State President are people not allowed to associate freely, in the political context, with members of other ethnic groups owing to their links with or membership of an ethnic group. The hon the State President did not mention one instance of someone being told, because he belonged to a certain ethnic group, that because he belonged to that specific group he was not permitted to live or own property in a certain area. The hon the State President did not mention one instance of someone being subjected to forced classification by the State, with the State having the power to tell him he was not a member of a specific group and could not move beyond the fringes of that group, whether politically, in the sphere of land ownership or whatever. Not in one of those instances is free political association prohibited. I want to tell the hon the State President that our country does have a multiplicity of cultures, ethnic groups and races, and a solution has to be found for that, but do not let us place ourselves in an untenable position by confusing ethnicity with colour or race.

The hon the State President also spoke about the Press. Press freedom is an essential component of our Western democracy and I know the hon the State President does not dispute that fact. For as long as we speak of a Western democracy in this country, however, there is one thing we cannot permit, and that is interference in the freedom of the Press. I concede that the hon the State President is right when he says we cannot have freedom and a democracy without there being elements that will abuse that freedom and democracy. That is, however, the price of freedom that we shall have to pay. That is unfortunately the way things are. We cannot restrict freedom itself owing to the fact that there are certain people who would abuse that freedom.

Are there no rules whatsoever?

No, that is not what I said. [Interjections.] The hon the State President referred to the National Council and said there was a draft Bill on the way. He also said the Blacks outside the self-governing areas would be allowed to elect their own people for the National Council. The hon the State President said we would probably have the Bill introduced during this session. That depends, however, on the primary function of the National Council. If that National Council is to serve as a means of negotiating the establishment of a new constitution, the requirements that will have to be laid down are quite different to those which would be applicable, for example, if that National Council were to participate in the executive authority or even possibly, in some way or other, directly or indirectly in the legislative process.

If this National Council is to serve as a means of negotiation, however, there are specific prerequisites that will have to be met. One of the first prerequisites is that that council should be representative of the Black population of South Africa. Its representative character would then be a prerequisite, and if that were not the case, whatever material it published would not take us one step further.

Unfortunately we have already learned our lesson with the tricameral system. We do know that the majority of Coloureds and Indians have not accepted the tricameral system. [Interjections.] I see the hon the State President shaking his head. I base my statement on the election results. We saw this again in the recent by-election in which only 16% of those people participated. I must emphasise that the representative character of the National Council is the first requirement.

Then I want to come back to the matter which is very definitely a painful one, but one we have to face up to. I am referring to the question of certain Blacks, moderate Blacks too, having said that they could not serve on that council as long as there were others who were not free to participate. As Mr Buthelezi said the other evening, if those people were to refuse, it did not mean that he would not serve on it, but he could not say behind their back that he was prepared to serve on the council while they were not free to do so. We would be making the biggest mistake under the sun if we were to proceed with the establishment of this council without making it possible for those people to serve on it as well.

My time is running short, but lastly I just want to say—the hon member for Green Point also raised this matter—that I agree with my hon leader that we reject violence of any kind. I cannot, however, argue away the fact that a large number of Blacks in South Africa—according to indications probably about 50%—are indeed ANC supporters. That is my estimation of the surveys conducted.

How do we know that is true?

It definitely would appear to be so.

Sir, I just want to say that we cannot cancel out those people in the search for a solution in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a great privilege to take part in this debate. Now that the hon the State President has spelt out so clearly the standpoints of this side of the Committee on all the existing problems, it is very difficult for me to say at this stage of the debate anything which has not been said already.

I want to come back briefly to what the hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Barberton said. When one sits in this Committee, and listens to what the hon members of those two parties are saying, one would not think we were dealing with the same matter. Their views are so very divergent, and they do not take into consideration what has been spelt out clearly. This makes one wonder whether we are really in earnest when we debate these matters with one another.

If we listened during the past three days to what the hon the State President said, and understood it, when he spelt out clearly and unambiguously what the Government’s standpoint on each facet of the problems in South Africa was, it is impossible that there can still be people who doubt the sincerity of the Government in implementing the mandate it received from the voters.

In my opinion the hon members of the opposition parties should accept that the election gave the Government a mandate and that in his speeches the hon the State President was spelling out precisely how this Government was going to implement this mandate. I do not think there can be any doubt that the Government is sincere in implementing this mandate.

There can be no doubt about two matters, viz that the problems of South Africa will be resolved within South Africa and that the attempts of people abroad, and other groups which are trying to compel the South African Government to enforce a solution other than the one that will be negotiated in this country on us will simply not be accepted. I think there is proof that the American attempts at sanctions were resisted by the Government.

Naturally the hon members of the CP will dismiss this programme that was clearly spelt out by the hon the State President as if that was not precisely the way he put it, because it does not suit their standpoint and because they have a preconceived standpoint on specific matters. To me it seems that we can explain and put our case until we are blue in the face, but they will simply not accept what we are saying because it does not fit in with the preconceived standpoints they have adopted on specific matters. The PFP also has standpoints on certain matters and they will also dismiss our standpoints and try to disparage them as if we are not in earnest about our standpoints.

That is why I can merely say that it was a pleasure to listen to this debate, and a privilege to have taken part in it. I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon the State President, who spelt out every facet clearly. I think that if all of us read about these matters in Hansard and seriously consider them once again, we shall know precisely—without any doubt—what the Government wants to do, how it wants to go about it, and what point we can eventually reach to bring about peace and prosperity for all people in this country.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 3—“Bureau for Information”:

Mr Chairman, since this is the first time I have spoken on an occasion such as this one, I want to introduce the discussion of this Vote with a few words, although I have no policy announcements to make in this connection.

The first indication that the South African Government needed an information service manifested itself 51 years ago, 26 years after Union, viz in January 1936. This need emerged when the Public Service Commission at the time approved the position of information officer in the Department of the Prime Minister. This particular information officer’s main task was however restricted to the improvement of relations with the Press.

In September 1939, during the Second World War, this question arose again. The matter was discussed in the first wartime Cabinet of Genl Smuts and an information officer was appointed. The task of this information officer was specifically to refute war propaganda. It is important therefore to note that at the time that information officer had a specific instruction to refute propaganda. In 1940 the wartime information officer became the Director of Information, and his office became known as the Bureau for Information.

Was he active in this country?

When one investigates the activities of the wartime Bureau for Information, it is clear that it had to make the public both in South Africa and in Britain aware of the South African war effort. I hope that answers the hon member’s question.

The South African Information Service grew out of this. A full-fledged Department of Information was established on 27 November 1961 in terms of Government Notice 1142 of December 1961. It had the following six functions:

1. 1. The taking over all the duties and responsibilities hitherto carried out, internally as well as externally, by the South African Information Service;
2. 2. The performance of all the functions hitherto carried out by the Information Service of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, including the furnishing of information to the Bantu of the Republic of South Africa and the territory of South West Africa, and the supply of information concerning them and their development to the citizens of South Africa and of other countries;
3. 3. The provision of an effective information service for the Coloured and Indian communities in South Africa and the distribution internally as well as externally, of data concerning them and their development;
4. 4. The co-ordination of all four State publicity services;
5. 5. The performance of all the additional services and the utilisation of such media as may be effective to supply, wherever it may be necessary or advisable, accurate information on all aspects of the way of life, activities and natural resources of South Africa and South West Africa.

The sixth function was simply to do anything else that might be decided.

After the dissolution of the Department of Information in 1978, it was decided, however, to transfer some of the tasks of the former department to the Department of Foreign Affairs. Since the primary task of the Department of Foreign Affairs was to promote South Africa’s interests abroad, the Government decided in 1985 to establish a specialised institution to bring about effective communication between the Government and the residents of the Republic.

It is clear that various South African Governments have realised the necessity of a State information service, and South Africa is not unique in this respect. Most countries in the world, to a lesser or greater extent, have a State information service to keep the public informed about government activities.

Against this background, the Bureau for Information was established in September 1985. The task of establishing the bureau was entrusted to my predecessor, Mr Louis Nel. Politically Mr Nel had a controversial career as Deputy Minister of Information.

Do not quarrel with him now!

I do not want to comment on that. I should, however, like to give recognition to him and those who assisted him and thank them for the excellent instrument they established in the form of the Bureau of Information. When I started working at the bureau in December 1986, I found a bureau which consisted of a selection of excellent people who were inspired to tackle their task with zeal, dedication and expertise. I also want to thank the chief officials and all the officials of the bureau for the way in which they received me in the bureau and the way in which they have supported me since.

The bureau has achieved a great deal in its brief existence. The nature of the bureau’s activities are such that on the one hand we do not want to suppress anything we are doing, but on the other, we do not want to proclaim what we are doing from the rooftops. The bureau’s task lies in the sphere of internal information, but because of the internationalising of South Africa’s internal politics, many South Africans find that they have to be exceptionally well-informed on our internal situation when they travel abroad. The Bureau for Information has a mine of information which is at the disposal of the South African population, as well as that of the many visitors to South Africa.

The bureau makes this information available in the form of publications, video’s and films, and it is available from the head office as well as from the Bureau’s 13 regional offices. I should like to issue an invitation to everyone who needs information on government initiatives, the country’s achievements, our plans and general information on South Africa, to approach the Bureau. The Bureau also provides visitors from abroad with information, and those who are going overseas are welcome to come to the Bureau as well.

As I said, this Bureau for Information is an excellent instrument which has been established in a very short time. During that short time it has had to endure some rather vehement attacks, but it has overcome those attacks and today it is in the service of South Africa to inform the population about what the Government is doing.

It is also a two-way communication, however, because we collect information about the population’s reaction to those Government activities, and about the needs and requests of the population, and then channel this information back to the Government so that it can take further action.

These are the last few words I want to say in this connection. I should now like to hear what the Committee has to say about this Vote.

Mr Chairman in the first place I should like to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister on his appointment to this position and wish him everything of the best in the implementation of his task. I also want to apologize to him for my absence tomorrow; we are having our congress in the Transvaal. This date was determined a long time ago and I have certain obligations there.

We have to rely on the bureau’s own publication about itself, entitled “The Bureau for Information”. It gives a general explanation of the bureau’s organisation and activities and of its publications. It is clear to us that in respect of many of its activities, the bureau is a continuation of the old Department of Information, and, as the hon the Minister said, it is even publishing some of the old Government Information Service’s publications or at least one of these—the magazine Panorama.

In the introduction, mention is made of the fact that the Bureau for Information was established on 17 September 1985 to promote effective communication between the Government and the population of the RS A. The bureau focuses primarily on domestic information, therefore. It follows that information to countries abroad is dealt with by the Department of Foreign Affairs. Yet it appears from this brochure that the bureau plays a very important part in the foreign information campaign. Foreign journalists are received by them in this country, the permanent journalists in this country are accredited, they deal with the foreign visitors, some of the bureau’s publications are directed mainly at foreign countries, viz South African Panorama, SA Digest, and The Official Yearbook of the Department of Foreign Affairs in English. I cannot see why The Official Yearbook is published on behalf of the Department of Foreign Affairs and not on behalf of another department, because it is not primarily an information publication for foreign countries. It has been in existence for a very long time and I do not think it was originally published for that purpose.

On page 17 we read that the bureau takes cognisance of television programmes about South Africa and news coverage of events in South Africa that are televised abroad. This causes the Bureau to focus to a greater extent on foreign countries.

On page 5, under the duties of the Chief Directorate: Planning, reference is made to a very important task of the bureau:

The directorate’s next important task is to conduct opinion polls which determine attitudes and views among all population groups. Nothing further is said about these opinion polls.

The most important definitions of the Bureau’s tasks are made in the preface by the Head of the Bureau. He says the Government is the constitutional authority and it is the Government’s duty to give an account of its management of national affairs to all South Africans. He also says:

The preface continues:

And then:

He also says:

It is very clear that as far as the information aspect of the bureau’s activities is concerned, the Government as such is the transmitter of the information and the public the target. We have to rely on ourselves as far as the operation of the Bureau in practice is concerned. I do not want to dwell on this for long, but we did experience the debacle of the song. I want to suggest a few titles for this song, such as “Waarom huil jy oor jou plaas? Liedjies kos net R4,3 miljoen”, or “Only R4,3 million more”, or “Marche Funèbre de Louis”.

We hope the speeches of the hon the State President—this in a lighter vein—will be published at some time or another in the form of brochures, entitled Courting the public—from Westbrooke with love.

As far as the monitored reports on the state of emergency are concerned—I have too little time to elaborate on this—one has a problem, because when does “monitoring” become “manipulation”? When does one monitor the news in such a way that one keeps so much information from the public that, in fact, there is not sufficient information for the public to adapt themselves to what is really going on in the country? I agree that it was not a good thing to report in detail the blazing cars, the burning buildings and the dancing hordes on radio and television and in the newspapers, because that news is demoralising, destructive and paralysing. On the other hand, when one arrogates this power to oneself, one gets a situation in which one has sole responsibility for this and one is asked whether one is not manipulating the news rather than monitoring it.

Before I come to my final point, I want to say very quickly that a very important aspect of the bureau is its handling of foreign guests: This is a major task and requires a great deal of organisation. I think it is being done well. We see many of these foreign guests too, and we are not asking to see more of them, but we do want to ask whether everyone who requests to see us, does see us, and whether sometimes people are selectively kept from us. We accept that most of the people who do see us are people who specifically asked to do so.

When one looks at the preface by the head of the department, and it appears that this department is oriented to the Government and the people or the public, the most important question is where information ends and where propaganda begins. A section of the preface reads as follows:

One wonders whether the aforementioned is applicable to the Bureau for Information as propagandists or as people who provide information. The sender is a one-sided mouthpiece of the Government whereas the other side of the matter should also be heard if one wants to achieve the objectives stated in the preface. Meaningful debate and meaningful decision-making must take place, otherwise it is not information but propaganda that one is feeding the public, and then one is not measuring up to the ideals one has set oneself.

Mr Chairman, with reference to what the hon member for Soutpansberg said this afternoon on the peace song and the propaganda aspect, I believe it is a pity that whenever the Bureau for Information is discussed—the hon the Deputy Minister explained the size and scope of the bureau and the importance of its activities—it is dismissed as being merely the instrument and propaganda arm of the NP and as if the only activities emanating from this department over the past number of years were the information song and a few brochures branded as propaganda.

I want to say at the outset that to my mind a very clear distinction should be drawn between what constitutes propaganda, and the right and duty of the State to keep its subjects informed. It is actually the sole function of the Bureau for Information to disseminate information on Government actions and activities—not those of the NP.

It is very important, especially at the present time when penetrating debates—constitutional ones too—are taking place, that there should be an institution to keep people who may be affected by the Government’s actions informed. As the hon the Deputy Minister said, this is not one-way traffic in that information is merely conveyed to these people, but is in fact communication in that information has to be returned in the form of feedback on how these activities in regard to such matters are received.

It therefore gives me cause for gratitude and I also wish to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister and the officials of the Bureau for Information on the fact that in the short while the Bureau has been in existence, it has definitely succeeded in giving substance to this sometimes difficult matter, in regard to which a distinction has to be drawn between the governing party’s propaganda and true government information. I want to thank them and congratulate them on their success in this regard.

When one pages through the documents of the Bureau for Information and arrives at the guidelines laid down by it in order to promote effective communication between the Government and society, the Bureau for Information’s goals are very clear to one. They indicate that the bureau is an open organisation and will not carry out any clandestine operations or administer any secret funds.

The Bureau believes communication is a two-way process; it will therefore convey the various opinions of different communities and individuals to the Government and Government standpoints back to these communities.

In addition the Bureau, according to the guidelines, is accessible to all South Africans—this includes Whites, Blacks, Asians and Coloureds—and some of these people are certainly found on the establishment.

The Bureau strives to promote communication between the Government and both local and foreign media and where necessary will make use of the expertise of consultants and the private sector to carry out its communication functions.

There is consequently a clear and frank explanation here of precisely what the Bureau for Information is engaged in doing; that no sinister or other activities are taking place, as has already been suggested; that the Bureau is the institution created by the Government to enable the Government to communicate its activities to population groups and, conversely, to receive feedback from them.

The activities of the Bureau extend far beyond this single facet. As an agent for the Department of Foreign Affairs it receives foreign guests; and it has a publications section which to my mind does not receive sufficient attention.

When one looks at the number of regional offices in every main centre of the country—Bloemfontein, Durban, George, Johannesburg, Cape Town, Nelspruit, East London, Pietermaritzburg, Pietersburg, Port Elizabeth and Pretoria—one sees that each of these regional offices is also responsible for liaison in that area with the various population groups that are present there. If one takes a further look at the statistics to see what the Bureau for Information did last year—that is from 1 January to 31 December 1986—one sees that a great deal of work has been done.

I need mention only one aspect of this, ie the number of publications issued by the Bureau. I shall refer to only a few of the larger offices. In Cape Town for instance one million regional newspapers were distributed, and more than a million in Pretoria. The Bureau for Information distributed a total of 4,7 million regional newspapers via all the regional offices. In addition almost 3 million publications are circulated so one can see very clearly that this is no propaganda arm of the NP, and that the activities of the Bureau for Information …

What appears in those newspapers?

I beg your pardon?

What appears in those newspapers?

… are not directed at this and cannot be dismissed as consisting merely of the few activities by which the bureau is frequently assessed—the so-called “Info song” and a few publications such as those containing the speeches of the hon the State President—in the light of which the bureau is then accused of propaganda activities.

The Bureau for Information also has a division which manufacturers videos and films. If one had an hour at one’s disposal, one would be able to do justice to all the important activities of this department. I wish to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister and the officials of the bureau sincerely on what they have achieved so far and to wish them the best of luck in their future task.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.