Order! I have to announce that I have called a joint sitting of the three Houses of Parliament for Monday, 4 February, at 14h15, for the delivery of Second Reading speeches on certain Bills. The relevant Bills will be indicated on the Order Paper under the heading Agenda for Joint Sittings.

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

Mr Speaker, before I begin my speech, I just want to make one or two qualifying remarks. During the discussion of a motion of no confidence, one looks at the conduct of the Government in the past; one looks at what it has done. One does not look at the promises it makes for the future. In this respect, the State President made an important speech on Friday, to which I shall come back in the course of my speech.

I also want to thank the State President for having been able to find the time to be present here. I am aware of the fact that it is sometimes not humanly possible to be in three places at the same time. Therefore I am grateful for the fact that the State President has been able to find the time to be here.

Secondly, I also want to point out that I shall be referring to a considerable number of statistics in the course of my speech. It is not my intention to mislead this House in any way. If it can be pointed out to me that my statistics are incorrect, I shall acknowledge and accept that. It is not my intention to use misleading statistics.

When we look back on the so-called post-referendum year, we are struck by the fact that at this time last year, a spirit of tremendous optimism prevailed—an almost euphoric optimism. Seldom before, I believe, had so many expectations been created and so many promises made about what was going to happen. I recall that when I was moving a similar motion in this House last year, the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning sat there grinning at me as though it were presumptuous of me to move such a motion after the referendum result. Shortly afterwards we had the Nkomati Accord. The Nkomati Accord seemed to add to the internal optimism in the external sphere, as it were.

In the third place, the then Prime Minister’s trip abroad was in fact a breakthrough for an NP Prime Minister. However, I believe he will admit—in fact, this is what we all find—that the question which one is constantly being asked abroad is this: In spite of the new constitution, in spite of the Nkomati Accord, what about your fundamental problem?

The first sign that things were beginning to go awry after the post-referendum euphoria became visible during the second half of last year. First there were the Coloured and Indian elections. It is no use complaining about intimidation, about ignorance or about apathy. In the eyes of the great majority of voters of this community, the constitution lacked credibility, and as far as they were concerned, it did not deal with the fundamental problems. This, in a nutshell, is the truth about those elections. For this reason, there is no point in examining the percentage poll and beginning to speculate about where the difficulties lag. If we went back and looked at the percentage poll in Zimbabwe just after Lancaster House, we would find that it was 94%. Now one may allege that manipulation and intimidation took place; even that misrepresentations were made. The fact remains that when people know what is at issue, they vote. Therefore, when we also consider the riots in our Black areas, it brings us to the second sign which indicates that things have begun to go awry after the optimism of last year. Those among us who have read those parts of the Van der Walt Commission’s Report which have already been released will know that it found that the root causes were related to this basic problem to which I have referred.

Finally, the third sign that things are beginning to go awry has been the steady economic decline in South Africa. I do not believe that ever before during a Christmas holiday season the news has been so dominated by the fluctuating gold price and the decline of the rand against the dollar. Every morning one woke up to the news of these two knock-out blows which were being dealt to a punch-drunk economy. We were inundated with analyses and with reasons and explanations; and this was happening only one short year after the optimism of the year before. I believe that this is also symbolised by some newspaper headlines. On 2 December, for example, we read: “steun vir die NP gaan terug na die ou vlak”. In fact, when one reads the report on this survey it appears that the only parties which have lost support are those whose supporters voted yes in the referendum. Those that have gained support are those that voted no in the referendum. I do not know what lesson is to be found in this. However, there is a lesson in it somewhere, as they say in Peanuts. [Interjections.]

The second aspect we find in yesterday’s Sunday Times. It is interesting that it should have appeared in the Sunday Times of all papers, because it was the Sunday Times that wrote in an editorial just after the referendum: “It is go, go, go for reform”. It sounded like a cheerleader at a political intervarsity. Yesterday we read in the same Sunday Times:

They proceeded to identify the “economic blows” which are known to us all. What is the reason for this new spirit after the year of optimism?

†I think it can be epitomized by the following two quotes from the two most recent Ministers of Finance of this Government. Firstly, a quote from Minister Horwood just after the referendum result:

We could have forgiven that hon Minister the flush of exuberance immediately after the referendum result, but nine months later at the Natal Congress of the NP he said the following:

That was in August last year.

When we look at the present hon Minister of Finance, however, we hear a different story. Before I remark on what the hon the Minister said, let me quote something he said which appeared very recently. It appeared in the latest Leadership South Africa. There the present hon Minister of Finance is reported to have said the following:

What is the difference between those two statements? The former Minister of Finance believed—I am sure he still does—that one can tinker around within the political framework and hope for a miracle like a high gold price to help us along. For years Mr Horwood could use an extraordinarily high gold price to disguise and smooth over the glaring inadequacies and dangers of the political framework on which we were wasting literally millions and millions of rands of the taxpayers’ money. He built up a considerable reputation for finding money which the politicians of this Government could spend. He never questioned the political framework.

The present hon Minister of Finance, however, knows that stability does not in the long run depend on one’s ability to find money to spend but on the political framework on which one spends that money. He knows that if that framework is rotten, one will end up not even finding any money at all. I know that the State President may have heard noises from some editors, maybe even some people in the private sector, asking for the scalp of the hon the Minister of Finance. I would urge the State President to ignore such requests. We are not going to change the economy of this country by firing Cabinet Ministers. It is not as simple as that. Just as we are stuck with the previous one and we did not do anything, it is not going to solve anything by getting rid of this one as quickly as possible. The hon Minister of Finance does not have the palliative of a high gold price to disguise the rottenness of the political framework. Suddenly we are all struck by a very simple fact. The major reason for the difficulties in which we find ourselves, is not a low gold price, the drought or a strong dollar. The major enduring reason is the politics of this Government over the past 37 years. The chickens have now come home to roost. There are no more balls to throw up in the air with which this Government can bemuse and bewilder us. The simple, stark message is: The politics of this Government is destroying the economy and the quality of life of all the people in this country. Either we change those politics or we all go under.

This message comes clearly to us one year after the referendum, the implementation of the new constitution, Nkomati and the overseas trip of the then Prime Minister. Gone are all the promises, the extravagant claims, the misdirected euphoria. All we have are the harsh reality of the present and the uncertainty of the future.

I say that the politics of this Government is destroying the economy and the quality of life because it is in the first place destroying confidence. It is destroying not only overseas investors’ confidence but it is destroying the confidence of ordinary South Africans in themselves and in the stability of their own country. Above all, however, it is destroying the confidence of the businessmen who not only have to keep the economy going but also have to ensure that it growns. Let we remind this Government: If the economy does not grow there will be no money with which to finance even their most modest constitutional ambitions.

The clearest and most devastating sign of loss of confidence is the collapse of the rand against the dollar. I cannot think of a more dramatic demonstration. It not only reflects changed attitudes abroad, it reflects changed attitudes at home, a loss and a decline of confidence on the part of the business community here. It is useless for the Government to blame the dollar or the drought or the resultant drop in the gold price. Of course they will have some impact, but we must keep two things in mind: The rand did not only decline against the dollar. It declinced against the other major currencies as well. Since August last year it has declined 13% against the pound sterling, and Mrs Thatcher had her problems with the mine-workers and with oil as well. The rand declined 19% against the German mark.

Secondly, the Government pushed up interest rates to a historically unprecedented level relative to the interest rates abroad. Normally, such high interest rates should have kept the exchange rate of the rand stable in difficult times. However—and this is the heart of the matter—we have not had stability in the exchange rate of the rand and we have not had the expected economic adjustment. All the Government’s hopes have been pinned on a tighter monetary policy, and the Reserve Bank has done everything in its power to help in this regard. Despite this, the economy has weakened, the balance of payments has deteriorated and the rand exchange rate slide has continued. The monetary tinkering within the political framework is not working. The old magic is gone. The will, the resolve and the optimism of the business community have been sapped and weakened by policy shifts of this Government even in the last six months of last year. I can give economic and political examples.

Let me take some economic examples. Here, in this House, in September, the disclosures about the overshooting of Government spending was far worse than anyone had previously believed. The former Minister of Finance had estimated that the increased expenditure for 1984-85 would be 11,7%. The present hon Minister of Finance told us it was 24,4% and could be brought down to 21% through the measures that he proposed. I do not think we must underestimate the impact that that disclosure had on the confidence of the business community.

Secondly, we had the premature easing of interest rates at the end of November which everybody believed was done about for political purposes. [Interjections.] Of course they believe it was done for political purposes. By-elections were held during that time. Then there was the subsequent reversal. The manner in which the Government played fast and loose with interest rates destroyed its own credibility with many businessmen.

Furthermore, the introduction of the perks tax was badly timed and was compiled and presented in a discouraging way. We all know that our tax system is in a shambles and that it should be reorganized. We all know that perks constitute income and that something has to be done about it, but surely it must be done in a manner that will create confidence and encourage businessmen to co-operate.

What about the political examples? Nothing, I believe, demonstrated the political ineptitude of this Government more than the manner in which it dealt with the Consulate Six and the Coventry Four. [Interjections.] Through his actions, the hon the Minister of Law and Order managed to achieve three things with consummate ease and bewildering efficiency. Firstly, he saved the UDF a fortune in publicity and put them on the international political map. Secondly, he plucked a British Labour Member of Parliament out of the obscurity which he so richly deserved and gave him a few sweet moments of international glory from which I am afraid he still has not recovered. Thirdly, he let that matter drag along endlessly to our shame, and eventually he resolved it in a manner in which he should have resolved it at the outset.

I had not met any of these gentlemen but on about the third or fourth day after the occupation of the consulate, I was approached by one of them who asked me whether I could find out from the hon the Minister what his plans were. I replied that I was prepared to try to do so. As the hon the Minister knows, I telephoned him and asked him whether I could tell these gentlemen what his plans were. I explained to him that I had no interest in the matter, apart from being a South African who was very concerned about the bungling of the Government. In reply the hon the Minister said: “Tell them two things: Firstly, I will not negotiate with them on the conditions of their detention and, secondly, I will not give them any publicity whatsoever.” [Interjections.] That is what the hon the Minister told me and that is exactly what I conveyed to those gentlemen.

Right at the outset the hon the Minister made a public statement, namely: “The police are not involved at this stage; we do not want to get involved.” That is totally ridiculous. Those people took refuge in that consulate because they were afraid that they were going to be detained without trial, and they had very good reason to believe this. In fact, it was only on 10 December, two months later, and only after the Commissioner of Police had said that the police had withdrawn all section 28 notices, that that matter became resolved. During the whole period while the threat of section 28 hung over those people in the consulate, no development could take place. Indeed, this is the simple point that Mrs Thatcher made to me. She said: “Cannot they understand that no British Prime Minister can afford to be seen to be assisting the police to detain people without trial?” That was the nub of the matter. However, perhaps more seriously, the Consulate Six precipitated a diplomatic retaliation in which South Africa deliberately and calculatingly broke its word of honour. [Interjections.] Surely, this in itself cannot be a confidence-builder.

Irrespective of all the melodramatic twaddle that was spoken between the hon the Minister and myself, that was the hard issue, namely that we had broken our word. That is what we have to deal with; that is the reality. Last week we read: “The UK no longer has confidence in South Africa’s word”, and this relates directly to that affair. That does not mean—and I have made this point repeatedly to the hon the Minister—that retaliation is not an accepted diplomatic manoeuvre. Obviously it is, but surely this retaliation bore no relation to the bungling and ineptitude of the Government with regard to the Consulate Six. We have no arguments to support the way in which we dealt with that matter. I put it to the Government that that in itself destroyed a great deal of confidence in our ability to deal with the internal situation.

*But, Sir, it is the Government’s handling of the riots in the Black urban areas which has contributed more than anything else, I believe, to the loss of confidence. I can come to no other conclusion than that the Government either remains unaware of or does not care about the effect which its handling of the riot situation has on confidence in this country and abroad. I speak from personal experience. While abroad, I appeared on a television panel together with three other South Africans, one of whom was a senior member of our Embassy staff in that country. We were requested to discuss South Africa’s internal problems on television during peak viewing time on a Sunday night. They said that they wanted to talk about the riots and the way they were being handled. Before we began our discussion, they said that they just wanted to provide a little background information, and they went on to show a film of about two to three minutes in length which dealt with the action being taken in those areas. We may argue that it was exceptional, that these were exceptional cases and that these things did not happen every time, and we may ask why the Press always has to concentrate on these cases, but that cuts no ice. As a South African, one finds that there is nothing one can say. One tries, one tries to say that the situation is complex, it is complicated, it is difficult. If we have to take action, is it really necessary to do it in such a way?

That is just so much nonsense.

The hon the Minister says it is just so much nonsense. I want to quote to the hon the Minister what has been written about this in a certain newspaper, and this is what people abroad are reading:

†And that is the whole story. This was an attempt to as it were gather in the revolutionaries and subversives, and for that massive exercise what could be shown? The bulk of the people arrested were arrested under our influx control laws. That is obviously good propaganda for South Africa!

What do we say to those people when they ask us these questions? Obviously every country can understand if we arrest subversives and revolutionaries, but here 7 000 people arrested 354 people, the majority of whom were influx control offenders. After that the hon the Minister of Law and Order received a deputation from Industry and Commerce who asked him: Why are you arresting these trade union leaders? We have to try to negotiate some industrial stability and peace. Why do you have to do that?

I do not have to tell the Government what concern was generated by the action with regard to these riots.

*In particular, it is the decision of the Government to use the Defence Force on a regular basis in dealing with riots in Black residential areas which has sent shock waves through this country and the outside world. I know the law provides for this. I know it has been done in the past as well. However, we have always accepted that it would only happen under exceptional circumstances, that it would not be done on a regular basis. It is against this background that the PFP’s decision about the phasing out of compulsory military service must be seen. [Interjections.] We shall be able to debate this fully. We have sounded repeated warnings about the sensitive nature of our internal political situation, and in particular, we have warned that it has the most dangerous potential to polarize White and Black.

Least of all can we afford that the Defence Force should be at the focal point of that polarization because it is regarded as the force which implements a controversial racial policy imposed by a White minority on a Black majority. Whatever one may say, this is the impression which exists and which is dangerous. If this were to become the general view, the stabilizing role of the Defence Force would be undermined, no matter how much hon members opposite may jeer and whatever they may say. This was the substance of the evidence we gave before the Geldenhuys Commission in Pretoria. This is what I told the commission. My request to the hon the Minister is that during the discussion of his Vote, we should discuss this matter fully, objectively and without getting emotional. However, I do have a bone to pick with the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence and of Law and Order. When we announced our standpoint on national service, he said that Moscow was going to laugh and that the ANC would be pleased, or something to that effect. I want to admit at once that I have not read his statement. I just want to tell the hon the Minister that nothing is more favourable to Russian expansionism or revolutionary strategy than a besieged White minority whose manpower is economically hampered because compulsory military service on a racial basis is overtaxing the productive capacity of that manpower in the combating of riots in Black residential areas. There is nothing they are more anxious to see. They want it. They are asking for it. It is their wish that there should be riots, even about military duty, so that conflicting demands may be made on the manpower situation of the White minority. It is as simple as that. I am not the one who says this. One can go and read it in any revolutionary strategy. We must bear in mind that we find ourselves at the beginning of a process of reform and that throughout history, reform has had the potential for instability. It would be very foolish of us to make our Defence Force the instrument of instability rather than the instrument of stability in a time of reform. For this reason, it should be clear to any sensible person that when the Government says that it is essential for a White minority to use its national servicemen to combat riots in Black residential areas, this cannot inspire any confidence in investors or entrepreneurs in this country or abroad. I have been asked what was going on in this country and whether we could not deal with the situation. All I was able to say was that we could in fact deal with the situation, but that stupid mistakes had once again been made. Surely this is the truth.

†It is ironic in the extreme that at the very moment when there is this crisis of confidence in South Africa, there is now for the very first time a very real possibility that an effective disinvestment campaign can take off. I find it ironic. Let me make it quite clear that disinvestment would be disastrous for South Africa. Furthermore, those who promote it and propagate it in the belief that somehow, sometime, if such a campaign is successful, the punitive effects on the White minority will in some manner be beneficial for Black South Africa, are living in a tragic fantasy of economic madness. At the same time I say to this Government that no disinvestment campaign by any individual or any group can be successful if the people have confidence in the stability and growth of this country. As the hon the Minister of Finance so eloquently put it: “They must be sure of the safety of their assets.” The sorry slide of the rand against the dollar is a clear warning that that confidence is beginning to wane. My first charge against this Government is therefore that its politics is destroying confidence.

My second charge is that the politics of this Government is destroying our economy and quality of life by wasting our money. There can be no successful policy for a country, particularly one as vulnerable to changes in world trade as South Africa, without a reinforcing fiscal policy. Put simply, the production of money must bear some relation to the spending of money. That is why we have heard such fervent pleas from the Government about fiscal discipline. The country and the consumer must tighten their belts. However, it is exactly in this respect that the Government has flagrantly disregarded what it has encouraged others to do. Because the Government has not matched its own words with its deeds, it has contributed to the lack of confidence.

The Reserve Bank which has tried to do a very good job under difficult circumstances, has had its monetary policy made to look stupid by the fiscal indiscipline of this Government. What does fiscal policy mean? It relates to the manner in which this Government spends money in order to implement its political, social and economic programmes. Let us take some examples.

Firstly, there is the rationalization of the bureaucracy. In 1979, soon after coming into office, the State President, then Prime Minister, announced the Government’s intention to streamline its administration with a view to improving efficiency and increasing the scope for expansion of the private sector relative to the public sector. What happened? Between 1980 and 1984 the State’s share of GDP rose from 22,2% to around 28%. By the way, its worst level in the 1970’s was 26,1% in 1975. The Government did not achieve any effective streamlining either. Instead, with regard to central Government, employment ballooned from 324 708 to 394 110, an increase of 21,4% compared with an increase in real GDP of only 4,4%. All this was quite apart from a 137% increase in salaries for the public sector.

The Government may argue, and I am sure it will, that despite these developments it has managed to keep its deficit before borrowing down to a reasonable percentage of the nominal GDP, and that it has also done so in a non-inflationary way. There is very little credibility in this argument. In the first place, the limiting of the size of the deficit before borrowing has only been achieved by a massive increase in the taxation imposed on the private sector. Ironically, that increase took place at a time when there was a slide in the dollar, and it meant that there was a greater tax liability on export industries.

Where is this money really being wasted? So far all this is technical economic jargon for the man in the street, baffling minds with nonsense. The wasting of money by Government can be translated into far simpler language.

The Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Peter Wronsley, at a seminar at the UCT Graduate School of Business said of the 1984-85 financial year that about R25 billion of the total R27 billion spending budget was needed in areas which would require, and I quote him, “… fundamental shifts in Government policy to change, and the electorate would not be willing to contemplate this”. Now, obviously any normal Government has to spend money, and some of this expenditure is necessary. However, what could be considered wasteful?

In 1984-85 the Department of Law and Order received R853 million. Every time a policeman has to conduct a pass law raid and arrest somebody this Government is wasting money. Every year hundreds of thousands of people are arrested. In 1984-85 the Department of Justice received R144 million. Every time a magistrate or court official has to judge an influx control contravention, this Government is wasting money. In the Langa Court, we are told, they are processed at the rate of 90 seconds a case. In 1984-85 the Department of Prisons received R339 million. Our prisons are hopelessly overcrowded with pass law offenders. Each such prisoner costs the taxpayer unnecessary money and this Government is wasting it. In 1984-85 White education received R767 million, Coloured education received R568 million, Indian education received R256 million and Black education received R651 million, a total R2,2 billion. Every time this Government unnecessarily duplicates buildings, teachers and departmental officials, it is wasting money. One has only to read the report of the De Lange Commission to appreciate the extent to which we are doing this.

*Perhaps the solution to our educational problems is to be found in George, because I see that Mr Rademeyer of Escom has a Std 8 qualification from George, and if one can go as far as he did with that qualification, I suppose we no longer need universities in South Africa.

†In 1984-85 “the consolidation of Black areas” received R122 million. A former hon Deputy Minister in charge of the Consolidation Commission stated emphatically that—

Nevertheless, we go on providing money for consolidation every year.

In 1984-85 “non-self-governing homelands” received R1,65 billion. Each time a prestigious building is erected, a new title is conferred, a luxury car is bought, or a new official is duplicated, the taxpayer gets no return on his political investment and the Government is wasting money.

In 1984-85 the TBVC states received R717 million. Each time a President builds an unnecessary airport or goes on an island jaunt where he commits his country to debt, this Government is wasting money.

In 1984-85 the decentralization policy of this Government received R324 million. Each time the Government attempts artificially to duplicate economic growth points to keep Blacks away from the existing metropolitan areas and pursues ideological objectives, it is wasting money.

In 1984-85 the department responsible for population registration and classification received R78 million. Each time an official has to spend his time allocating a racial identity to a new-born South African, this Government is wasting its money on ideological nonsense.

In 1984-85 “labour and residential regulation” received R96,5 million. Each time a squatter community is razed and harassed, the world loses confidence and the Government and South Africa lose money.

I have not even touched on Defence, involving R4,1 billion; Namibia, involving R318 million; control boards, involving R462 million in 1982-83; or the Provincial Administrations, involving R4,5 billion. I do not have to. The point is obvious, as the Financial Mail of Friday put it:

My second charge, therefore, is that the politics of this Government are destroying the economy and the quality of life of all the people in this land, not only because the Government destroys confidence, but also because it wastes our money on an unworkable political program.

Thirdly, the politics of this Government are also destroying the economy and the quality of life of all the people in this land because the Government is making more and more of our money worth less and less. Inflation is an evil in any society. It is a form of undeserved indirect taxation on individuals and business. All Governments attempt to prevent it being imported and all should try to prevent it from escalating domestically.

A Government stimulates inflation when it cannot control its own money supply in the country. There are three ways, generally speaking, in which the Government creates money in South Africa: Firstly, through the issuing of coins, notes and demand deposits, known as Ml; secondly, through medium and other short-term deposits plus Ml, which is known as M2; or, thirdly, through long-term deposits plus Ml and M2, which is known as M3. Deposits here exclude deposits of the Government in the foreign sector.

When the Government allows the rate of money supply to increase above the rate of growth of the economy, then, roughly speaking—I know there are many theories about this—one has inflation. The Government’s control of the money supply is its monetary policy. I have been arguing that the monetary policy of The Government is being destroyed because of the fiscal indiscipline of the Government. South Africa has experienced an extraordinary monetary expansion in recent years. For example, compared with a year previously, the increase in Ml since October amounted to 36%, that of M2 to 28% and that of M3 to 23%. All three aggregates are way above the current inflation rate of 13% and very much higher than the GPD. In other words, we can expect inflation to increase.

This failure in monetary policy must not, however, be blamed on the Reserve Bank. It must be blamed on the Exchequer. Monetary policy failure is essentially the result of fiscal indiscipline. Fiscal indiscipline is the result of the Government wasting money. It is wasting money on political programs which cannot work. Those who suddenly shout for intervention and control hope that some monetary thinkering within the system and the political framework will work, as if that will pull us out of our misery. They are hoping for magic, but, as I have said, there is no more magic left. The problem lies with the framework. That is where our money is being wasted; that is where our confidence is being destroyed; and that is where our money is being made worthless. A framework cannot be changed with slogans and shortcuts, but only with fundamental reform.

We are already beginning to hear the sounds of those who want to sloganize us out of our difficulties. Inevitably, we will find those who look for shortcuts and magic formulas. I believe that it is vital for this Government to realize that we must have an economy that treats the price of gold as an unreliable privilege to be exploited and not as a predictable right to be depended upon. We need a Government that does not use drought as an excuse but as an anticipated adversity with which we have to cope. That is why I urge this Government to ignore slogans such as Reaganism, Thatcherism, direct controls and interventionism. In any case, one cannot have Reaganism and apartheid; one cannot have Thatcherism and apartheid; one cannot have apartheid and then say that there must not be intervention. Apartheid itself constitutes the grossest intervention imaginable in the economy. It is easy to refer to the United States and to Great Britain, but they have a social infrastructure that can bear the brunt of economic hardship. We, however, do not have such a social infrastructure, and this is the point that we in the PFP have made time and again.

Sloganizing and shortcuts are out of the question on the economic front, they are even more so on the constitutional front. Ever since this new constitution has become a reality, there are people walking around here in the belief that all we have to do is put our hands on our hearts and say “consensus” as many times as possible, and our problems will become manageable. It almost sounds like a form of greeting as one walks through Parliament: “Consensus”, and so they go on. (Interjections.) This new constitution is part and parcel of the policy of apartheid and separate development. It is part of the framework, and it too will, and must inevitably, change. There is not one party in this Parliament—in any of the Chambers—that does not regard this constitution as temporary and inadequate. In fact, there are laws in this new constitution which themselves form the essential subject matter of fundamental reform. That is why we should not place our hope here. We can use it as a starting point and see what we can do as we go along. However, we must not say that we have gave a long way simply because we can all say “consensus” together.

We do not need slogans and shortcuts. We need fundamental reform. What does fundamental reform mean in the South African context? For this Government it can mean only two things: The Government will have to change laws, and it will have to spend money. (Interjections.) Law and money, however, are not ends in themselves. They are means at the Government’s disposal for the achievement of ends. What must be the ends of which we in South Africa must all strive? They must obviously be the achievement of the greatest degree of political, economic, and social stability by the optimum use and promotion of the physical and human resources of our land. What is preventing this at the moment and threatening us with instability? It is the existing Government laws which maintain a political framework that waste money. That is why reform means changing laws and spending money.

Which laws have to change? They are those laws which maintain useless political structures, propup and extend bureaucracies, interfere with the individual and groups pursuit of economic progress and potential, and discriminate on racial and ethnic grounds when people wish to move around freely, to live, to work and to relax. Over the past 37 years this Government has created a network of laws, statutes, regulations and proclamations that have controlled every aspect of the individual’s private and public life. We can easily compete with any society in the world as the most overmanaged and overgoverned country in the world. Reform means nothing if it does not mean changing these laws. The Government knows what these laws are. They have been told by every possible interest group in the country. I can quote enough examples of that.

However, reform also means spending money. This may sound paradoxical to hon members on the other side. I have just been complaining that the Government is spending too much money and now I plead for fundamental reform and say that this means spending money as well. There is, however, a fundamental and crucial difference. My complaint has been that this Government has spent money in a wasteful manner. It has spent money in a way that has destroyed our human and natural resources. It has spent money on structures brought about by laws which try to separate people and underline their inequality and apartness. I am saying that money should not be wasted on that but rather be spent to remove inequality in education and opportunity and to improve our human and natural resources rather than inhibit and damage them. That is why I argue that it is better to spend money on a programme of systematic urbanization than on influx control. It is better to spend money on a rational streamlined education system than on duplicated ineffective educational structures. It is better to spend money on established economic industrial growth points in our existing metropolitan area than on ideological economic decentralization in outlying areas. However, one cannot do both. This country simply does not have the money to waste and spend at the same time, unless we wish to continue paying for instability. It would be a sad day if we had to go and borrow money overseas to pay for our instability.

*Sir, the State President said the following in his speech on Friday:

He also said:

This Committee does not have far to look. It has only to refer back to every commission report of this Government. For example, there are commission reports on unrest, namely the Cillié report, the Snyman Report and the Van der Walt Report. On labour there is the Wiehahn Report. On population n matters there is the Theron Report and on land affairs there is the Van der Walt Report. All the facts cry to high Heaven! Hurtful racial discrimination, influx control, inadequate training, inadequate housing, etc.

The latest urgent appeal comes from organised commerce and industry itself. During Senator Kennedy’s visit six organisations from commerce and industry submitted a memorandum to him. However, that memorandum was also submitted to the Government. The six organisations involved were the Association of Chambers of Commerce in South Africa, the Suid-Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the Chamber of Mines, the South African Federated Chamber of Industries, the National African Federation of Chambers of Commerce, and the Steel and Engineering Industries Federation. They spelt out very clearly where the fault lay and where priorities had to be determined. We do not need any more committees or commissions. History has identified our priorities for us. What we are asking for is action. That is what those priorities require.

I now want to sound a warning about reform and the new Parliament itself. No matter how the Government wishes to view it, the new Parliament is regarded as one which includes Coloureds and Indians and which excludes Blacks. It would be counter productive and it would frustrate its purpose if the impression were also to be created that reform only benefits those who participate in this Parliament. It is a fact that there will be enormous pressure on the Coloured and Indian representatives to show that the new dispensation is working. They are faced with a controversial situation in that they have to give account to their communities. We shall have to be careful not to let the success which they achieve become a source of polarisation between Black and non-Black. One of the most difficult challenges of this new Parliament is to prove that reform is a national objective which includes all the population groups on a systematic and meaningful basis.

This brings me to the essence of the speech made by the State President. I listened very attentively to the speech and I have since read through it carefully several times. It contains statements which sound strange coming from a leader of the National Party. I want to quote from his speech because I believe that it should be placed on record. I have been sitting in Parliament for only a short period, 12 years, and I want to repeat: Those statements sound strange coming from the leader from the National Party and I want to place them on record. He said, among other things:

This had been said before, but this time the “all” was carefully underlined in the speech. All South Africans, reasonable South Africans, not population groups, but reasonable South Africans, are specifically mentioned. Further on in his speech he said:

My biology professor would have said: Very interesting! He went on to say:

Further on he said:

This is a remarkable shifting of established cornerstones of the NP. Then he said:

To me personally, this was an important statement. If there is one speech which I have made every year, it has been an appeal for attention to be given to the phasing out of influx control and a systematic urbanization policy. He went on to say:

He says that “… a non-statutory forum in which interest groups and representatives of the Government bodies will participate on an ad hoc basis and by invitation” should be established. Then he said the following:

I quote up to there.

I myself have had to take difficult political decisions and to make difficult statements on many occasions, and the Government is aware of that. I just want to say this to the State President. If the State President were to hold a referendum of all people in South Africa to ask whether his statements were at least a step in the right direction, I would encourage them to vote “yes”. Furthermore, I do not doubt that the “yes” vote would win for the right reason. [Interjections.] I say this because his statements have a direct bearing on our fundamental problems in South Africa. They have a direct bearing on them.

Fundamental reform is not going to be easy. However, it is going to be infinitely better than increasing poverty, siege and violence. I must tell my hon friends in the CP that this is my basic objection to their policies. If we are having problems with the policy of the NP, you may imagine, Sir, the poverty we would face if an attempt were made to implement their policy.

When we look ahead, I say that we shall all have to make sacrifices and to show devotion. In this respect, the Government itself will have to set the most important example of sacrifice and dedication. If the Government sets that example, in the light of the State President’s statements, I want to appeal to Black leaders and Black groups in particular not to reject these statements out of hand, but to examine them and to see whether there is not a new beginning for us all in their meaning and implementation.

†Mr Speaker, the central theme of my motion is very simple. It is that this Government cannot fix this country within the framework of apartheid or separate development. For 37 years they have had the luck of the devil in bluffing the White electorate that the impossible was simple. Now they have not only run out of steam but they have run out of money as well—our money. We and the poor are all getting poorer as a result.

The only way forward is fundamental reform—not slogans, not tricks and not shortcuts. I see the possibility of a beginning on that road in the speech of the State President, but only a beginning. No Government can go it alone on the road to reform. It needs to harness the best talent and available resources of our land. It is only then that all of us stand a chance of making reform work. Unfortunately, this Government has a poor track record when it comes to cooperating for reform. Too often it has tried to bluff, to go it alone, to prescribe take it or leave it solutions. It is for that reason that I say to this Government now: You have made noises pleasing on the ear for those who fight for fundamental reform. If your deeds begin to match your words, you can be sure, even at this late stage, that there are more people than not in this country who will work with you on that road. However, Sir, I also say to this Government: If your words, particularly now, remain just words, then our children and theirs will curse you into posterity for wasting our country’s precious resources at such a crucial stage in its history.

Mr Speaker, at the outset of my argument I should like to move the following amendment to the motion of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, viz:

I think one of the problems of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is that the most recent events have caused the suspicion-mongering of the PFP during recent months and even years, implying that the Black peoples and communities had been excluded from constitutional reform and planning, to boomerang against that Opposition. The recent announcements that were made in the historically important opening address of the State President clearly demonstrated that it was a distortion and a misrepresentation to imply that Black communities and peoples had been excluded from constitutional reform. This side of the House has repeatedly emphasized not only that reform in the case of Blacks began far earlier than it did in the case of the Coloureds and the Indians but also that in respect of Black communities outside the national states the granting of local government on an autonomous level was a meaningful beginning to further reform. Of late, however, this suspicion-mongering has been a principle factor in causing unjustified frustration and bitterness to build up among Black people outside the national states, and in giving agitators and trouble-makers an opportunity to exploit that feeling on the grounds that these Black communities have been left out in the cold or pushed to one side. The expression has even been used that they had been dealt a slap in the face through the formulation of the latest constitutional reform. This undoubtedly made a contribution to the bitter harvest of insurrection, riots, and violence.

Thanks to the initiative displayed by the hon State President in his recent opening address it is now even more apparent than ever before that these misrepresentations, which created an unfortunate, distorted impression among many Black people, was unjustifiably part of the negative boycott approach of the hon Leader of the Official Opposition and his party.

†The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to the need for fundamental reform. When he said that I could not but think of an earlier remark made by him during the initial stage of his speech with reference to the election results following the Lancaster House agreement. What was the result of the Lancaster House agreement? What is today the harvest that has been reaped in Southern Africa as a result of the Lancaster House discussions? The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South has on previous occasions tried to regale this House with references to the outcome of those election results. This is obviously the kind of thinking going on in the mind of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made two other remarkable statements. Referring to the Government’s decentralization policy he said this was a policy aimed at keeping Black people away from the urban areas. What is indeed the meaning of this decentralization policy? It is to bring urbanization to those areas that have not before enjoyed urbanization, and also to stimulate economic development. [Interjections.] Hon members may laugh but this is indeed the truth. It is from their ideological observation point that they distort this matter in this particular way, Sir. [Interjections.]

Is the basis of your policy ideologically or economically orientated? [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to react to the remarks made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I also want to refer to his statement that the problems in education could apparently be solved by “the duplicating of teachers and facilities”. Well now, I do not know of course how one “duplicates teachers” [Interjections.] In discussions in this House, however, I have frequently tried to emphasize that the answer to the problem in connection with backlogs in the education of population groups in South Africa is not to be found in integration or in the lumping together of the respective groups, but in the provision of more facilities and teachers to those population groups whose facilities are not yet adequate, and in the improvement of the standard of education for those whose standard of education is not yet adequate. We shall make no contribution whatsoever to the meaningful expansion of education opportunities through mere integration or through the mere lumping together of the respective groups.

With reference to the announcements made by the State President, which in my opinion were the introduction to one of the most momentous debates in recent history as far as constitutional matters are concerned, I should like to point out that the policy announcements made by the State President in connection with Black communities, particularly those outside the national states, give shape and expression to well-known and well-tried policy guidelines of hon members on this side of the House.

The principle of the recognition of the reality of our population diversity, the acceptance that all groups and individuals must have a say in political decision-making affecting their lives and their interests, the need for provision to be made in constitutional planning for the effective protection of minorities against domination by other groups, the need to have equilibrium in our planning between self-determination over own affairs and co-responsibility for general affairs, are the central elements at issue here.

The important point which we on this side of the House have always put forward very emphatically and which also emerged very prominently in the elucidation by the State President is that no reform which will endanger the acquired values and standards of our societies is acceptable.

In the State President’s announcement the undeniable realities of the South African situation are taken into account. After all, a responsible government must pursue a policy which is feasible; feasible in the concrete situations for which it is intended.

A few of the crucial moments, of the essential features, of the policy statement of the hon the State President emphasized these very aspects. It was strongly emphasized, and properly so, that new constitutional structures had to be developed through negotiation—hence the broadening of the basis of discussion through the hon the State President’s introduction of a new forum for negotiation. It is also clear that successful constitutional negotiation requires a basis of mutual understanding and trust across the entire spectrum of daily points of contact between the individuals, communities and peoples concerned.

Measures are therefore being created to develop attitudes and dispositions in a positive way and to improve communication. Furthermore, it is clearly emphasized that the existence of independent and self-governing national states is accepted as an incontrovertible fact. The acceptance of the permanence of large numbers of members of the Black communities who find themselves outside the national states in the RSA is also imperative. Practical experience has shown, after all, that this permanence, in spite of serious and prolonged attempts to establish the opposite, is an incontrovertible reality which must be taken into account in the policy. From this, too, follows the inevitable consequence that new constitutional structures are necessary to create instruments, from the local to the highest level, to afford these black communities outside the national states an opportunity to attain political self-determination and co-responsibility. Last but not least, it has been clearly stated that it is mere sober realism to accept that it is not practical and desirable that the same constitutional structures need necessarily be devised in respect of all population groups in the various situations.

This opening address of the State President brings a vision for the future, hope and optimism to the Black people—in particular the Black communities outside the national states—but also to us as Whites. It brings hope and optimism in regard to the safeguarding of our future as Whites through the establishment of a sound basis for peaceful, co-operative co-existence. In recent times all those who are involved in the political debate have admitted that the constitutional status quo in respect of Black people living outside the national states is untenable, that it cannot be allowed to continue unchanged. The question is what alternative exists, which realistically takes reality into account, but which also gives shape to the well-tried policies which this side of the House has always adhered to.

With reference to the keynote address of the State President, I should like to deal with more specific aspects affecting the daily lives of the people for whom my two departments are responsible: The Black peoples, the Black communities. I should like to make it clear that there are three important practical bases ore prerequisites with a view to constitutional reform for these people. In the first place a sound and viable local government system is necessary. In the second place sound attitudes and relations on the daily level of contact between the various peoples concerned are essential. Here, in particular, relations with the authorities play an important part. In the third place sound relations in the life of Black communities revolve around certain problems which have recently been discussed in depth, such as the issues of citizenship and ownership—two matters which I do not want to deal with here this afternoon—but also the issues of influx control and the resettlement of communities.

As far as local government is concerned, I am convinced that all members of this House will agree with me that a sound and viable local government system is an essential cornerstone for any political system, and forms the basis for constitutional development and reform. Sound local government brings the authorities to the people. It promotes involvement and participation by the citizenry, but it also enhances their sense of responsibility.

For that reason it is disquieting that the new Black local authorities in various urban areas have recently been subjected to severe tension owing to the unrest and street hooliganism which occurred there. I feel that I am entitled to pay tribute this afternoon, on behalf of all responsible South Africans, to the personal courage and the perseverance of scores of Black council members who continued to carry out their duties under what were sometimes difficult circumstances.

I also wish to remind this House that in 1984 the new Black local authorities completed what was in fact their first year of office under the new system in terms of the 1982 legislation. In the most favourable of conditions this would have been a difficult and exacting year of transition, with awkward adjustments. In addition it is also clear that a great lack of knowledge and understanding still exists among the Black urban inhabitants in regard to the functioning of an autonomous local authority, which is something new to them. There is also a lack of understanding of the reason for the existence for municipal service levies and for the factors which make inevitable increases in these levies essential.

For that reason one will have to admit, against this background, that the new local authorities may justifiably lay claim to patience and understanding for their difficult adjustment to their new task during this year of transition. Consequently the reckless and malevolent role of revolutionary inciters, who unscrupulously exploited this sensitive year of transition to sow disorder and stir up violence, is all the more repugnant.

The Government has in the meantime adopted special measures aimed at further reinforcing and stabilizing the system of Black local authorities. Reference has already been made to the fact that the Black local authorities are being involved on a national level in the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs and that it is also being proposed that provision be made for their involvement in the new Regional Services Councils.

I also wish to point out to this House that, in view of the increased financial viability of the Black local authorities, the announcement last year by my colleague the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is of very great importance. It dealt with the introduction of two new levies, a regional services levy and a regional settlement levy, the proceeds of which will be available inter alia for financial support for the Black local authorities as well.

I also said that it was obvious that constitutional negotiations on leadership level required a foundation in the form of the development of sound attitudes and relations on the daily contact level. This House knows that a good example was set in this connection by the relations committees which, in regard to the Coloured communities, achieved exceptional success with practical results in the identification and elimination of problem areas.

In implementing the decisions announced by the State President, I intend giving urgent attention to the establishment, on local as well as regional level, of liaison mechanisms after the example of these relations committees so as to develop better communication and sound relations between governmental bodies and Black communities and to identify and help to eliminate problem areas effecting those communities.

It is in Black education in particular that sound relations on the daily contact level are of primary importance …

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

No, Sir, I should prefer to proceed with my speech.

It is already known that my Department of Education and Training is establishing improved communication structures which, after wide-spread consultation, have been designed to make provision for representative bodies for the pupils in the schools, and also for liaison committees at secondary schools to involve all interested groups in promoting education and the schools.

I also undertook to ensure representation on a permanent basis for the organized Black teacher’s corps and for the inspectorate in all planning- and policy-making bodies of the department at the highest level, under the co-ordinating advice of the Council of Education and Training which consists of Black educationists.

In my opinion Black education, as dealt with by my Department of Education and Training, is pre-eminently one of the own affairs in respect of Black communities outside the national states for which provision can now be made in the envisaged new consitutional structures for self-determination for those Black communities in their decisionmaking on education.

I also referred to the importance of attitudes in connection with the issue of resettlement. The Government has understanding for the exceptional sensitiveness which exists in all quarters in regard to the resettlement of communities. At present the existing policy is being reviewed in depth with a view to ensuring that resettlement will be confined to only the most essential cases; furthermore, that everything possible is done to obtain the co-operation and the consent of the communities involved in regard to such resettlement; and also to ensure, through the preparation and development of the resettlement areas and the arrangements for the actual relocation, that any resettlement will be accompanied by a real improvement in the standard of life of the community concerned. In fact, there are sufficient examples of communities that have rapidly found their feet after resettlement as a stabilized and prosperous community.

There is one type of case, however, in which resettlement remains inevitable, ie in respect of unlawful squatter groups. The State cannot and will not allow farms to be unlawfully occupied by squatters, mostly without the consent of the owners of the land in question. Nor will the Government allow unlawful urban squatting, under heavily congested conditions, to take place without proper planning and without the provision of basic services. This would be a serious threat to health and security, and is also a fire hazard, not only for the squatters concerned, but also for the neighbouring inhabitants.

At present the Government is making provision on a vast scale for the orderly resettlement here in Khayelitsha, close to Cape Town, of the thousands of lawful and unlawful Black inhabitants of the Cape, who are squatting at Crossroads. I want to make an urgent appeal to the Crossroads squatters to resettle voluntarily and in an orderly way in Khayelithsa where they will be able, in far better conditions than at Crossroads, to develop a healthy and orderly urbanized community life. [Interjections.]

I also want to make an appeal to the employers of squatters to assist them with the relocation and with the acquisition of home ownership in Khayelitsha, where 99-year leasehold is already available.

Another matter I referred to was that the Government was aware of the need for the review of legislation on influx control in order to move away from the negative and discriminatory aspects of that legislation to a positive strategy of orderly urbanization. The finalization of a new Bill in this connection is being accorded high priority. In the meantime statutory amendments are also being submitted to effect greater flexibility in the acquisition and retention of section 10 rights in the case of persons moving from one prescribed area to another.

Given the demographic realities of South Africa, however, we shall have to realize that measures for the orderly resettlement of people will continue to remain necessary. In this connection the accepted recommendation of the Riekert Commission is relevant, namely that the availability of employment opportunities and of acceptable places of residence ought to apply as the criteria for resettlement.

I want to repeat here what I have already said since I accepted this portfolio, namely that I accept that the urbanization of Black people is not only inevitable, but that it is necessary and desirable. The question confronting us is not whether Black people will become urbanized, but where and how they will become urbanized. Urbanization is inevitable in all communities in order to accommodate population growth, but it is also, from an economic and social point of view, a choice or option which ought to be available in principle in an orderly way for Black people, just as for people of other population groups.

In any strategy for orderly urbanization, however, proper provision will have to be made for the overall physical planning of the areas in which the urbanization is to take place. It is the premise of the Government that priority should in particular be given to the orderly urbanization of Blacks at the decentralization and deconcentration points in terms of the policy of economic decentralization. Furthermore provision should be made in the policy for favourable urbanization factors within the national states. Last but not least, our urbanization strategy will also have to take affordable housing into account; housing which is within the means of the inhabitants and which will have to include planned township development with a view to, what I would call, controlled unconventional housing or what is sometimes popularly called controlled and orderly squatting.

With these measures which I have described in respect of assuring viable local government, the promotion of sound attitudes on the daily contact level the reconsideration of the policy and the practice of resettlement and of urbanization, I am convinced that the Government will contribute to establishing a sound basis of dialogue and negotiation on the constitutional development of the communities of South Africa.

What is a people, and what are communities?

It seems to me we shall have to have a dictionary factory here for some people.

I want to repeat that this is in my view one of the most important debates in which all hon members of the House will have an opportunity to participate in their parliamentary career. There is enthusiasm and eagerness on this side of the House about being involved in a Cabinet and a party which are coming forward with solutions for pressing problems in this country with pioneering enterprise.

The exacting practical implementation, on legislative and executive level, of a far-reaching new constitutional dispensation has just begun. Naturally one would therefore expect a measure of reserve and hestitation on the part of the Government and the Cabinet in addressing other new tasks as well. On the contrary, however, the spirit of enterprise and the energy of the Government is apparent from the readiness to initiate a new stage of the journey along the road of constitutional development, by making it clear that what we have been advocating during the past two or three years is in fact not only true in concept, but is also being realized in practice, namely that the Black communities as well, particularly those outside the national states, will be involved in the evolutionary process of responsible constitutional reform, which takes into account the principles and premises we have always built upon, and which also take into account the practical realities of the situation, and which we will in future be able to implement successfully.

Mr Speaker, before reacting to certain remarks of the hon the Minister, on behalf of this side of the House I wish to move the following further amendment to the motion of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition:

1. (1) it finds itself irrevocably on the road of integration, now in respect of the Blacks as well;
2. (2) it is incapable of taking appropriate measures to rehabilitate the agricultural industry of South Africa;
3. (3) by its financial, monetary and fiscal policies it is placing South Africa on the road to bankruptcy;
4. (4) of its failure to bring about efficient administration; and
5. (5) by its political policy it has left the White worker in the lurch.”.

In certain respects I agree with the hon the Minister who has just spoken. Firstly, there is his reference to the interesting speech of the State President with its far-reaching implications—preposterous implications, as far as we are concerned. Secondly, I agree with the hon the Minister in expressing appreciation to certain Black leaders who are offering resistance to the intimidation and attempts at sabotage threatening to take place in the Black communities.

As regards his standpoint concerning the urbanization of Black people I must tell him that there is serious concern about that aspect on this side of the House. The urbanization of Black people in the Cape Peninsula is taking place at the expense of the best interests of the local Brown community.

That is not true.

If one were to settle half a million Black people in the Cape Peninsula, with a Brown community of approximately one million people, and the Brown people express their concern about the crowding out of their people by the Blacks, we cannot agree with that.

Who are they?

The hon members will meet them later. The urbanization that is taking place in terms of the development plan for the East Rand is anything but reassuring. In fact, it is a disconcerting prospect for the White communities in that area.

As far as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is concerned, I should just like to remark that in my opinion he has a very serious problem. He should be jubilant about the announcements by the State President because the announcements are moving— and rapidly at that—in the direction of the policies adhered to by his party. On the other hand, however, he shudders at the thought that for that very reason his party is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

As regards the opening speech of the State President, particularly when he spoke about the constitutional future of the Black people, I want to say that in my opinion this is the point in the debate that will be given very urgent attention. Before coming to certain fundamental pronouncements of the State President, one could say that for a few years how certain speakers of the National Party have been clearing a path which points in the direction of the PFP’s policy. On the one hand we had people who disparaged apartheid, and members of the National Party who, for that purpose, could just as well have been members of the anti-apartheid movement somewhere in London or New York. On the one hand the National Party said through its mouthpieces and posters during by-elections: “Separate development is our policy”. In that respect they comply with a certain pronouncement of Machiavelli when he said:

Thus the old forms and the old idioms of apartheid, or separate development, are being retained, but in practice there is a movement very far away from them, and the new idiom is becoming joint decision-making. However, joint decision-making and separate development are irreconcilable.

Furthermore, we have seen a movement away from pronouncements damning powersharing as being a national disaster and as essentially endangering the future of the White man, and many pronouncements in that regard have moved towards healthy power-sharing, this has been extended further to a pronouncement by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in which he asked: “Watter geklikheid is dit dat ’n persoon nie kan deelneem aan die regering van die land waarin hy woon nie?” The implication of that statement is clear, of course.

I now want to single out more fundamental pronouncements with far-reaching implications in the speech of the State President. On page 3 he speaks of “co-operative coexistence”. He also speaks of “no domination of one population group over another”. He goes on to say: “ … which in turn requires self-determination for each group over its own affairs and joint responsibility for and co-operation on common interests”. He goes on to say: “Any further constitutional development will take place in accordance with this guideline”. This “guideline” is “joint responsibility for and co-operation on common interests”. I am just quoting for the time being, but I shall debate these points at a later stage. He went on to speak of a new era that has been entered into in which there has been a final break with the colonial past. I shall dwell on this briefly in a moment. On page 9 he says: “ … to give all the country’s people a say in decision-making that affects their interests. This applies to all the population communities of South Africa”. He then says that “ … this goal can be given practical expression in the form of constitutional structures involving the Black communities”. On page 12 he says the following:

What is the Cabinet, speaking through the State President, saying here? Firstly, it is saying that it is granting Black people outside their national states permanence in the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] That was not so long ago. This is a recent note that has just come through stronger now. Secondly, it is saying that large numbers of these people are unable to enjoy political expression through the Government structures in the national states. We would like to know how many people—it could be 10 million people—will be granted permanence outside the national states in the Republic of South Africa as a unitary state. Furthermore, it is saying that they must be given political participation and a say at higher levels than the local authority level. It is saying that structures must be developed for Black communities outside the national states in which they can themselves decide on their own affairs up to the highest level. I do not think there is any misunderstanding about that.

The next question I want to put is what this initiative of the Government means. It means first and foremost that it is making a distinction between members of a people in a national state and members of the same people in the Republic of South Africa. A political distinction is being made between members of a people in a national state in the Republic of South Africa. In other words, there is a distinction between homeland or national state Zulus, and Zulus in the Republic of South Africa or in Soweto. Furthermore, this means that the Government is advocating a dichotomous policy for Black peoples. It is a dichotomous policy. Some of the members of those people are obtaining full self-determination and can become independent, whilst another section of the members of that people are obtaining a political say in another state, viz the Republic of South Africa. They are obtaining it in a White areas. Furthermore, the dichotomous nature of that policy becomes apparent from its policy for peoples in general, viz that there are national states for Blacks in which they can enjoy full self-determination up to independence. However, there is no such state for the Whites, and the state of the Whites is common ground for Whites, Coloureds, Indians, and now also for the remainder of ethnic groups that are not being accommodated in national states.

This means that there are now millions of Black people to whom the Government is saying: We accept that you cannot participate in the government of the national states up to the highest level and that you are constitutionally cut off from the national states. Furthermore, the Government, through the State President, is saying to the Black people: We now accept you as part of the Republic of South Africa. Where else? Surely he cannot belong to a state which is called “a constellation of states”. Surely that is not a state. If he does not belong to one of the national states and cannot express himself politically through those power structures, he is in the Republic of South Africa and he must express himself within the power structures of this state. That is logic.

Furthermore, the Cabinet want to say to these people: We accept that you must participate in the government of the country in which you live. That was the challenging statement of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. What lunacy is it, he asked, that one cannot participate in the government of the country in which one lives? The Cabinet has now declared that there are millions of Black people who are permanently in White South Africa. They live here, and they participate in the government of the country.

[Interjections.] Furthermore, the NP says that there can only be one government in a country. If these people have to participate in the government of the country in which they live, they have to participate in some way in the government of the Republic of South Africa. They must be able to participate in the government structures and the decision-making that takes place in them. Now the deadly, practical logic of this standpoint is this, viz that Black people must become joint rulers of the RSA.

Furthermore, this means a new variation on the policy of divide and rule. Divide the Black peoples so that they can rule; so that they can be rulers of their national states on the one hand, and can become joint-rulers of the Republic of South Africa on the other. Hence they rule in any case. Whether or not they are divided, they rule in any case.

This means a disregard for the plea of Black leaders that their ethnic groups or peoples should not be divided into sections that constitute homeland Blacks and Republic Blacks. I am now referring to Chief Buthelezi, whose plea it was years ago not to divide the Zulu people between kwaZulu and the Republic.

Of course, this further negates the NP’s well-known linking-up policy, viz that the Black people who live outside the national states, whether they live in Soweto, or Mamelode, or wherever, remain politically linked to their fellow-countrymen, and for those fellow-countrymen there is a national state. Everyone can find their highest political expression in that national state.

Now what do these standpoints mean? I say that now, even before the new constitution has really got off the ground, it means a victory for Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi, people who advocate a unitary state. They may not accept the independent Black states, but they have progressed so far within the Republic of South Africa that the Black people outside the national states must be recognized as having a political claim to a joint say in, and joint government of, the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] One cannot get away from that. These noises we heard in the speech of the State President are meant to be the death-knell of White self-determination in South Africa. This is a radical deviation from the National Party’s historical and fundamental principle. The hon the leader of the Official Opposition is correct in that respect: It is a radical deviation.

Dr Verwoerd said on occasion—and I am aware that hon members opposite now sneer at Verwoerdianism:.

Dr Verwoerd warned:

These are well-known words. Perhaps it would be as well for us to recall them again for a moment.

The Federal Council of the National Party said only a quarter of a century ago—hon members must listen to this:

I think that the present was part of the future 25 years ago. The election manifesto of the National Party said just 11 years ago:

And now? Now we are hearing that not only are Brown people and Indians part of one constitutional unit, but that the Black people are now becoming part of one political dispensation in the Republic of South Africa.

In 1976—that was only nine years ago— the State President said:

Now it must be. Now furthering that idea, which was prohibited, is imperative. That is “vision” and that is “Statesmanship”.

I could also quote further to indicate the radical deviation from the historical and fundamental principle of the National Party. Perhaps I should give just one more quotation. In 1961, less than a quarter of a century ago, the National Party said with the greatest confidence:

That was its warning:

During the referendum the then hon Prime Minister gave the students of the University of Pretoria this assurance:

I just want to know whether Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi have become honorary Whites in the interim, since they are part of the Government of the Republic of South Africa; they are part of the Government of the White people; they are now part of the Government of those young Tukkies who applauded the State President for the assurance he gave them!

The State President spoke about a new era and said that we have broken with the colonial past. He qualified this by adding: “… wat vir soveel beperkings op politieke deelname verantwoordelik was”. As far as the colonial past is concerned I do not think that what was meant was that the history of the National Party until 1983 with the introduction of the new dispensation also falls under the “colonial past”.

No.

Very well, it does not fall under it. Then I want to say that as far back as 150 year ago the Boer nation rebelled against the colonial dispensation. The National Party’s policy and its deeds over the years have been against colonialism. Dr Verwoerd replaced colonialism, or whatever remained of it, with the idea of separate freedom in an own state—not freedom for all jointly in one multiracial state.

The basic pattern in the announcement of the State President means that millions of Black people are becoming permanent residents of the Republic of South Africa. Those Black people are not obtaining representation—the highest representation—in their national states. They are obtaining co-responsibility, joint decision-making rights, over common interests in the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] There is no country in which this can take place other than the country in which they live. They say they must be able to participate in the government in the country in which they live. Then they say there can only be one government in a country. In other words, the Blacks must participate in the government of this country in which they live.

Now I want to ask: Where does the government get the mandate to make these preposterous announcements? [Interjections.] It does not have a mandate for that. Where in the Constitution, including section 98, is the Government empowered to build joint political structures or “collective structures” for Black people together with the Government? Where is the authorization for joint decision-making up to the highest level? I maintain that the Government does not have a mandate to channel the political expression of Black people into collective structures together with the Whites. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, how do these “collective structures”, this “political participation and a say at higher levels” fit into the structure or principle of consensus government?

The hon the leader of the official Opposition quite rightly joked a little about the consensus idea, and how consensus has to be the magic key, as it were, to the future. Of course set on consensus government as a ciational model of government; it is of course set on concensus government as a principle.

Let us put it to the test. Of course, in the consociational model we are dealing with segmented autonomy. The Government is now working with the principle of segmented autonomy—the National Party prides itself on that. Now I want to ask: Must we assume that the Black people outside the national states who do not have another state through whose parliament they can be represented and who rely on this state and this state’s Parliament and its Government will constitute one comprehensive Black segment in a kind of multi-party conference like in South West Africa, or in a multi-racial conference with whom consensus will have to be reached about all matters affecting them in the Republic of South Africa? That is one of the questions.

The other question is whether one would now work out a dispensation with segmented autonomy for the members of each Black ethnic group living in the Republic of South Africa, ie outside their national states; whether one would negotiate segmented autonomy for each of those groups, for example, the Zulus of Soweto and of all the Black cities, and whether everyone, the whole lot, will have to reach consensus with the Whites.

Furthermore, the Government works with the principle of proportionality. In the composition of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa we are working with proportionality, the ratio 4:2:1. Will the Black segment of the population of South Africa, of the Republic’s permanent population—the Government has of course declared it permanent—be represented in terms of numbers in a kind of multi-party conference, or a multi-racial conference, and be able to participate in the concensus government, or do the proportions for each Black ethnic group in the Republic of South Africa have to be worked out, its proportional representation somewhere in the bargaining machinery?

The Government works with the idea of the veto principle. It is true that the State President can decide on own affairs. This is precisely one of the controversial points in the Constitution. It is true that the President’s Council can be asked for advice or a decision in controversial matters. However, the question remains: If the Black people are cut off from their ties with their national state; if that door to political expression is cut off for them and they become part of the constitutional pattern of the Republic of South Africa, will they also obtain some kind of joint say in appointing the State President? Will they be given some form of say in the composition of the President’s Council?

The appointment of the State President— this has already been said a long time ago— is one of the centres of controversy in politics in South Africa. This concerns who appoints him and who is in a position to determine to which segment of the population he should belong. These are all questions to which we are seeking replies. I hope we do not again receive the reply the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning gave us earlier. He said:

[Interjections.] I should like the hon the Minister to pay attention to his own words. [Interjections.] He said:

[Interjections.] According to that it would appear that the Black people outside the national states are not going to be served by the normal constitutional processes within the Republic of South Africa, but that they are being referred to a constellation of states. They will then obtain a say in the central constitutional system via the constellation of states. What nonsense! As if he has to qualify to become a citizen of a constellation of states and the constellation of states then qualifies to tell the central government system of the Republic of South Africa what the claim of the urban Blacks will be. What ridiculousness!

I see that my time has almost expired. I just want to state that the announcement of the State President is meant to sound the death-knell for White self-determination in any meaningful way. I wish to add: Those bells are sounding for a body or person, a national figure, whom they think will have to go under in a general South Africanism. That people is by no means dead yet. That people is at this moment rising up against any attempt to engulf it in political multiracialism. That people will seize that bell with which it will ring in the beginning of a new period in South Africa of real self-determination for White, Brown and Asian, as well as the various Black peoples.

Mr Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech of the hon the Leader of the CP. The fact that he would be rejecting the State President’s guidelines, however, was no news to me. After the State President completed his speech the other day, the hon the Leader of the CP quickly said, in public, that he rejected everything the State President had said.

Were you then listening to him?

I did not interrupt the hon member for Kuruman’s leader when he was speaking.

But you are not a leader.

To no less an extent than the hon member for Kuruman is the CP leader in the Cape. [Interjections.]

I should like to tell the hon the leader of the CP that he has really been carrying on too extravagantly today. We have heard previously in his speeches that he is the spokesman for the Whites. At the end of his speech today he did briefly take up the cudgels for the Afrikaner. He did not use the word “Afrikaner”, but merely spoke of a “people” which is going to rise up. I suspect, however, that he is referring to the Afrikaner. The hon leader of the CP thinks that he and his party have the sole right, in this country, to speak of the Afrikaner, after having made a caricature of him in the annals of this country’s history. [Interjections.] This hon leader of the CP does, after all, have a responsibility as leader of the second-largest Opposition party in the House, and having himself said that in actual fact the PFP was no longer of any relevance, he must actually be a potential leader of the Opposition, or that is how he sees himself. [Interjections.] The hon member for Lichtenburg says that a leader of an Opposition is a potential State President. [Interjections.] Even if all these things I have just said were true— which is surely impossible—when all this dust had settled, the hon leader on that side of the House would not be able to escape the fact that he would also have to deal with the current problems. It would do him no good to quote what Dr Verwoerd said in 1951, because at present his party’s policy is as far moved as ever before from that of Dr Verwoerd. Let me just mention one example, that of Dr Verwoerd having opposed a Coloured homeland, whilst this forms part of the CP’s policy. [Interjections.] The hon the leader of the CP nevertheless latches onto that, and the hon member for Kuruman finds it very funny. I think Dr Verwoerd would have found it just as funny. He would have found it funny to have encountered him in his ranks. The hon leader of the CP will not escape the urgent need to deal with these problems.

†When I listened to the hon the leader of the CP, I hear the echoing of the voices of the ghosts of the past that said this or that or the other would happen at a certain time, and that made me think of a quotation from Julius Caesar, namely:

Is he a potential president, or a potential leader of the Opposition?

*The hon member for Rissik will not let the opportunity pass. Is the hon member for Rissik not someone who is always engaged in secret meetings. I hear that even now such meetings are being held there at his home in Acacia Park. The hon leader of the CP must look behind him and look around him, but he does not have to be concerned about what is happening to his left; the hon member for Lichtenburg is not part of it too. The crown prince has a seat in the President’s Council. [Interjections.] That very crown prince, Dr Mulder, has already said many things in this country, has he not? The story about the State President having come to light with a new policy, ie about the permanence of the urban Blacks, is surely untrue. The majority of those hon members were sitting in this House when that decision was taken at the time, including that crown prince for whom those hon members are also going to vote. [Interjections.] Those hon members are also going to leave the hon leader of that side of the House standing alone when they decide who the next leader is to be. [Interjections.]

What did Dr Connie Mulder say on 14 August 1978? Hon members must listen very carefully now. I quote:

[Interjections.] What else did Dr Connie Mulder do? In 1978 the 99-year leasehold system was introduced.

What did Dr Viljoen say?

Forget about what Dr Viljoen said. I am relating what Dr Connie Mulder said. The crown prince stated that the leasehold system was being introduced. One does not have to be very clever to understand that. The hon member for Kuruman can also understand it. [Interjections.] Leasehold signifies the first step towards permanence. That had already been approved. It was not only Dr Connie Mulder, however, who told that story at a secret meeting. The former Prime Minister clearly stated that the urban Black man in Soweto would not obtain only municipal government, but more than municipal government. He went further and said that would embody his having control of his education and police force in that local state. [Interjections.] There the hon member for Soutpansberg is endorsing it now. Surely he would not confirm an untruth by nodding his head. He is surely too careful a person to do that. [Interjections.]

As far back as 1978 this crown prince of the CP said that the permanence of Blacks justified their getting more rights than those obtained by an ordinary municipality. He went even further and said that our policy would be aimed at accommodating that. On Saturday Dr Mulder said that even at this stage this entailed benefits with regard to the implementation of the homeland policy. According to him, some of the foremost Black leaders told him that in future they would more easily be associating themselves with their homelands. Because the fear that they…

Do you say that the State President is ploughing with Connie Mulder’s heifers? [Interjections.]

I think I shall ask the hon the Minister of Law and Order whether he cannot get me a razor, because it seems to me the hon member for Bryanston definitely needs one. [Interjections.]

The relevant Black leaders are alleged to have said that they had always been afraid of being sent back to the homelands. We on this side of the House, of course, are faced with the problem that as the policy developed and the party’s principles moved from one congress to the next, we found ourselves still having to live with the present and the future. We therefore cannot now say that we adhere to what Dr Verwoerd said when, in 1958, he made the following statement:

Is that what the hon leader of the CP still advocates now? It is, after all, here in his party’s programme of principles. They say that these Black cities will always be subject to White domination. [Interjections.] Yes, it stands here in their programme of principles. [Interjections.]

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

No, sit down. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Jeppe must please resume his seat.

Mr Chairman, I have been in this House quite a few years now, yet I have never heard the hon member for Jeppe asking a proper question. Normally he simply wastes one’s time. [Interjections.]

Let us just note briefly what the problems are at present.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, the hon member for Rissik also stabbed the former Prime Minister in the back. That is why he never speaks about him any more. [Interjections.] In his book “Vorster se Eenduisend Dae”, Beaumont Schoeman said the hon member for Rissik only got a sprinkling of nationalist sentiments when they held him under a shower in an initiation ceremony. [Interjections.] The hon member for Rissik cannot argue with us, certainly not about NP policy. He voted against Mr Vorster’s sports policy. The hon member has not yet admitted to this. Throughout the years, however, he sat amongst us on this side of the House because he ostensibly accepted Mr Vorster’s sports policy, just as his hon leader did too. I could quote to him what his hon leader said. He is also quoted by Beaumont Schoeman. I could quote it to the hon member here and now. Beaumont Schoeman refers specifically to Mr Vorster’s sports policy.

Do you agree with what Beaumont Schoeman writes?

No, that does not matter. It is either true or it is untrue. If the hon member for Rissik were to say he was not an old United Party member, I would accept it as such. He must therefore now tell me whether that is true or not.

Do you believe everything that PW tells you?

One cannot believe anything PW says. [Interjections.]

In his book Beaumont Schoeman says, in connection with the hon leader of the CP, that if problems were to crop up in regard to the sports policy, he feared that Dr Treurnicht would have to stand by Jaap Marais. Does the hon member mean that?

Now really! [Interjections.]

No, I want to know whether the hon member acknowledges it or not. [Interjections.] The hon leader of the CP did, of course, say other things as well. About that Beaumont Schoeman goes on to say the following: When he spoke to Dr Treurnicht about this, he writes, the latter sat for a long time staring into space. One of his …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Jeppe entitled to say, by way of an interjection, that one cannot believe anything PW says?

Order! At whom was the hon member for Jeppe’s reference to PW aimed?

Mr Chairman, I was referring to the State President.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that utterance.

No, Mr Chairman, may I address you on this? [Interjections.]

No, the hon member may not address me on this. He must merely withdraw that utterance.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I should like to quote to the hon leader of the CP what Beaumont Schoeman wrote about this. He said the following:

The hon leader gritted his teeth, however, and went on doing so up to about two years ago. Only then did he stop gritting his teeth. [Interjections.] Let us look at another aspect. [Interjections.] On another occasion the hon member for Waterberg also came to light with certain things when he asked what the policy was, and whether he, if they were to take this or that action, would stand by them. His reply was: “If the fly-half breaks free, surely the centre forward must not leave him in the lurch. He must be up there with him.” [Interjections.] The loquacious hon member for Langlaagte should rather go back to his constituency. I am talking to adults now; not children.

You are now talking to adults; that is why you should know what you are talking about.

Let us look at the kind of people who support this party. The moment the leader of the CP said he was opposed to everything the State President said, who was it who immediately followed up on what that group of people said? Azapo said that it was opposed to the State President. The UDF and its spiritual ally, Desmond Tutu, also expressed their opposition to the State President. It is strange that every time there is a scrum, they have certain supporters or fellow-travellers.

What about the ANC?

Yes, the ANC too.

Then you talk to the ANC.

That is untrue.

Last time it was the Progs and the ANC. We can also have a look at what other people are ranging themselves with the CP. Let us just do that for a moment: The AWB, the HNP, the AV and, in the last election, certain church leaders too. What does all that spell out for us? Since the hon the leader of the party took the group of members out of the ranks of the NP he has gone out of his way to ensure that those people who belong together are separated from each other. He took away a fragment of the National Party. With the aid of Prof Boshoff he tried to hijack the cultural movement, the FAK. That did not work, however, and now Dr Boshoff is forming another movement, i e the Afrikaner Volkswag. As Transvaal leader the hon member tried to hijack the party in the Transvaal, but could not succeed in doing that either.

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: May the hon the Minister continually address members on this side of the House directly instead of addressing you in the Chair?

The hon Minister may proceed.

I am sure that all the new members and young members now realize how happy we are that the hon member for Jeppe left when he did. [Interjections.] During the previous election, in church circles, there was a pamphlet published by 193 ministers. Discord was sown in church circles.

What about the 120?

At elections we had the interesting phenomenon that everyone who had something against the Government … [Interjections.] The hon member should rather keep quiet. I know too much about him. [Interjections.] We now come to an interesting point. I would appreciate it if you would give me an opportunity to take up this serious matter with the hon leader of the CP. A short while ago the Synod of the Gereformeerde Kerk passed two resolutions. The first resolution was that people of colour could attend their church services. The second resolution was that section 16 of that Act, the Immorality Act, be revised. [Interjections.] Abolished? I understood them to have said that it should be revised. No, I cannot speak in competition to the hon member for Langlaagte. If he wants to listen, he must listen, but otherwise he must keep quiet.

Order! The hon Minister has the floor. Hon members must not converse so loudly.

At one stage during the Transvaal congress the hon member for Waterberg also said that one could not completely divorce church affairs and politics, but that church leaders should not interfere in the sphere of politics. Is that not true? [Interjection.] Let me quote him:

Now my question to … [Interjections] … the hon the leader of the party—not to the leader of Qwaqwa or anyone else — is what his advice would be to his members, because what is involved here is the church, and the church and politics are the same kind of game, after all, he says. What would his advice be to the members of his party who are members of the Gereformeerde Kerk? Must they remain in his party or join another party, or must they leave their church? [Interjections.] Is it not so that the CP is opposed to conducting church services when people of colour are present? Do they want to retain the Immorality Act?

Now you are confused.

No, I am not confused. Surely that is CP policy.

If you are not confused, you are ill.

No, I do not think I am ill. I am not as mentally ill as you are. I hear “mentally ill” being mentioned here.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon the Minister refer to the hon member for Rissik as being someone who is mentally ill?

Order! I did not hear the hon the Minister use those words.

The hon the Minister said that he was not as mentally ill as that hon member.

Order! I request the hon the Minister to withdraw that utterance.

Sir, I withdraw it.

We find hon members on that side advocating separate development. Those have been the State President’s pronouncements throughout, and even in his most recent speech here he clearly said that the self-determination of the Whites would be left in their hands … [Interjections.] The hon members over there, however, do not understand the policy or what is happening, and for that reason they will not understand the State President’s pronouncements either. Our policy is still based strongly on having self-determination remain in the hands of the Whites as far as the own affairs of the Whites are concerned. We are living in a country, however, in which there are also other people living. We were not the ones who granted them permanence; leaders from an earlier period granted them their permanence. I have also indicated that it was actually one of the CP’s prominent supporters, ie Dr Mulder, who also granted it. [Interjections.]

In looking at these matters we find some interesting aspects. One of the solutions suggested by the hon the leader of the CP in Primrose was that the Black people should have their numbers “frozen” in the urban residential areas. That is not an original idea; Dr Verwoerd also said so. I want to state here that if Dr Verwoerd could not manage it, the hon the leader of the CP will certainly not manage to do so, and that is something I am convinced of. [Interjections.]

I now come to other pronouncements, and this brings me back to the church. By way of various pronouncements by hon members of the CP the church was brought into the political arena. Let me again put my question about the resolution adopted by the Gereformeerde Kerk. Do the hon leader of the CP and his followers bow to that? There are surely members of the Gereformeerde Kerk in the ranks of the CP. Does the CP acquiesce in that resolution adopted by the Gereformeerde Kerk, or do they advocate the obverse of that pronouncement, that made on 10 October when the hon the leader of the CP said:

On which side do these people range themselves?

Do you know what you are doing?

Sir, I am in the process of illustrating to the country what we are dealing with here: A speech in which an attempt is being made to imply that the NP has suddenly thought up the idea of the permanence of Blacks. That to start off with, and secondly that the NP is granting them greater powers than those that ordinary local authorities have.

Next we can look at what the hon leader of the CP said last year when he began with his speech. He said: “Die KP sal saamwerk vir goeie verhoudinge.” That is precisely what the State President also said in the guidelines he laid down. Hon members must comprehend the difference between “guidelines” and “blueprint”. Hon members are simply obsessed with blueprints—what the country looked like 50 years ago. They want to keep the country like that for the next 50 years.

The State President specifically said that certain things should happen. The whole question of the rights of urban Blacks should be examined. A committee has been designated under the chairmanship of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Here we have some of the draft resolutions to be dealt with. The hon leader of the CP, however, immediately assumed that the urban Blacks would now enter the dispensation within the ambit of this Parliament. That is the impression he is trying to create amongst members of the public. It has not been said that after obtaining a political structure those people would not have closer ties with the national states. Is that what is stated there? No, surely not. It is for that committee to work out. That is how we tackled the previous portion of the dispensation. After having travelled with us all along the way on that dispensation, those hon members are now getting off because of one or two words that are not all that clear to them. [Interjections.]

The State President has consistently said that the self-determination of the Whites is important, but that does not permit one to say that we are in the process of selling the Whites down the river and that the Black people would eventually be ruling the country. The self-determination and the freedom of the Whites in this country is very important and is at stake. The Black people must be accommodated in some other way, it is stated very clearly, and we all understand it. If we look at the Constitution, from 1910 to 1961, we find that on each occasion there have been utterances by General Botha and by General Smuts who both realized the seriousness of the Black man’s eventual destination. General Hertzog said that concerted efforts should be made in regard to the Black man’s future. It is said that the State President now stands up here without a mandate. Dr Verwoerd stood up in the House of Assembly and announced the independence of the national States without even having discussed it with the Cabinet. All those leaders did something along the way that has made it possible for us to get where we are this evening.

It is important that even when those hon members were still with us, they helped us pilot through the Black Local Authorities Act to the point where it was referred to the Select Committee. Then they broke away from us, and thereafter they were opposed to that legislation. That Act is the logical culmination of years of progress on the basis of the utterances of former Prime Ministers and of the crown prince of that era. This development took place over a period of 32 years. Residential permanence and leasehold were brought into being.

The most important decision taken by this State President was that of establishing the Cabinet Committee in February 1983, a committee in which he appointed the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning as the chairman. This committee augmented all previous decisions and published this report. The Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning also said, on other occasions, that a fourth chamber was no solution. We stand by that. New times, however, necessitate new solutions. We cannot stand still; we cannot try to “freeze” people. We are not trying to wax lyrical about the future of the people in this country. We are looking at the realities.

I ask us to discuss these matters clearly and concisely, without becoming emotional, without one accusing the other of selling the White man down the river. This side of the House has never sold the White man down the river. Up to now this side of the House has protected them, and will continue to do so in the future. Let me conclude with the words of N P van Wyk Louw: “… dat ons bestaansreg nie iets is wat veilig op onbreekbare tafels geskrywe bly nie, maar iets wat daagliks deur wil en daad geskep moet word.”

Mr Speaker, the interlude of the hon the Minister of Communications and of Public Workds has had, I think, only one practical use in this debate, and that is to demonstrate the total irrelevance, the total waste of time of trying to build the future on what other leaders said 20 and 30 years ago. We are moving into a new era, and if we are to be bound by the words, the sayings and the quibbles of yesterday, we are certainly not going to fulfil the plea of the State President in his New Year message when he appealed to South Africa to be positive, to look at the positive things, to recognize but not to dwell on the negative. It reminded me of the old song “Accentuate the positive”.

In that spirit I want to start with two positive remarks. Firstly, I want to express the appreciation of this party for the appointment of Mr Radcliffe Cadman as the Administrator of Natal. [Interjections.] I hope that he has not been appointed to preside over the dissolution of provincial government, but we appreciate that appointment.

On a personal note, I also want to express my appreciation to the Government for the honour which has been bestowed upon me. I believe these two steps indicate a new attitude towards party and political differences in this country. I welcome this because a new approach is something that we are all going to need. If ever anything showed this need, it was the speeches that we heard this afternoon. These speeches undoubtedly demonstrated how much we will need a new approach in the challenges that lie ahead of South Africa, and I am going to come to these challenges in a moment.

I also want to remind the State President of the next few words in that song, namely “Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative”. It is the duty of this Parliament to deal with the harsh realities of life in South Africa and the problems which face us. There are more than enough problems for anyone’s liking at the present time, and the hon the Minister of Finance is at the hub of the major problems that face us. The State President identified some of those negative things that must be eliminated in his opening speech, but what we should now be doing is to look positively at them. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition did, to an extent, deal with the problems that have been identified, but not the hon leader of the CP who simply went back into the old style politics that have no relevance for the future. [Interjections.] It is no use wanting me to tell the hon member for Yeoville about anything. I would rather ask him to tell me about his Defence Group and the wonderful co-operation and fellowship that exists in his party over the security of South Africa. However, I am not going to waste time because then I will be descending to the sort of debate conducted by the hon the Minister of Communication and of Public Works. [Interjections.]

I have said that we have to eliminate the negative, but there is another phrase to that song, and that is “Latch on to the affirmative and don’t go in for Mr Inbetween”. This is what many people are afraid of, that whilst we are looking to the positive, accentuating the positive—and I am not referring to those who are stressing the negative—there is the danger of latching on to the inbetween; latching on to the inbetween to pander to the fears of those who are weak in courage and faith as to the future. This is the one danger in creating expectations, namely that they are not seen through to their full conclusion. What we in this House must do during this session, is to lay the foundation not only for the identification of problems, but for dealing with them and seeing things through to a successful conclusion.

In passing, perhaps the Government would have been wiser had it listened to what we pleaded for in respect of the Constitution. That was separation of the executive from the caucuses of the legislature, because then, I think, the positive identification of problems by the State President might have been matched more closely by the positive identification of their solutions. The solutions that were given on Friday are vague and they are going to need a great deal of clarification before we can be satisfied that, in fact, they are not solutions based on “Mr In-between” but on a positive approach to the problems. I am not detracting from events last year, the new Constitution itself, Nkomati and many other positive events; but in each case only the first phase has been tackled and now this session this Parliament in its new form has to follow through the crucial implementation of the further phases. We cannot, after dealing only with the first phase, leave the follow-up hanging in the air. Neither can we wish away the consequences of 37 years of misrule particularly in the economic field, 37 years of following the wrong direction. In order to make up for that loss of time, we shall have to tackle, faster and with greater determination, the building of the new road into which we turned last year and along which we are going to progress further this year, particularly with the announcement in regard to the position of Black people.

That declaration of intent established fundamental principles and the hon member for Waterberg is correct, and I think everyone of us knows that it is correct, that the State President established certain fundamental principles on Friday, namely, the permanence of the Black people in South Africa; freehold title; their participation in decisionmaking—not through homelands but as an identity of their own—to the highest level; joint responsibility; citizenship and nationality. In this connection I believe we can have a very fruitful debate, because I see a difference between nationality and citizenship— there is a confusion of terminology. I can see a South African nationality covering South Africa, the national states, all the people of this country, as opposed to a more restricted citizenship with political applications relating to their association with the community in which they live. I can see a very fruitful debate along those lines. The other point which was established without using the term is confederation. That is something we have pressed for and followed up year after year.

I can assure the Conservative Party that I did not write that section of the State President’s speech but it did sound very familiar to me. Neither did I write the articles in Die Vaderland which last year, nearly a year ago, talked of “koppeling” and the failure of the concept that urban Blacks could find their political satisfaction and destiny through their homelands. I certainly did not write the article in Rapport which talked about a “Theron-kommissie vir Swartmense” and I did not write the reports in Rapport of 18 November—all I wrote on it at the top was “new volkstem”! That is how it reads:

We heard it from the State President, namely “the round table of negotiation.”

Then they talk about “die harde hand of flink verstand”, “… oor burgerskap en die Swartman”, and “geen einde aan die rompslomp.”

That could have been written by this party or said by anyone in this party. [Interjections.] We could have believed that once upon a time. However, there are gaps that have to be filled in.

What has happened now, is that the political lines in South Africa have been clearly drawn and there are three political directions, three groupings between which all South Africans will have to choose and in respect of which they will have to decide to which one they are going to belong. It is going to cut across the political lines of the PFP, the NP, the uncommitted South Africans and, as it has already done to some extent, the NRP. The ultimate drawing of lines in South Africa is between three groups. Firstly those who believe in co-existence with joint responsibility and joint decisionmaking, based on group security, group identity and group control over its own intimate affairs. The second delineation comprises those who believe in non-racial majority rule, not based on any political rights for groups as groups. The third delineation is those who believe in exclusive White domination over some dreamland segment of a South Africa totally partitioned. People are going to have to decide which direction they support. We have never made any bones about the philosophy of this party. It is based on the recognition of the group, control of its own intimate affairs, and joint decision-making and responsibility by and between the groups as such. However, there are many people in South Africa, particularly in the PFP, who are going to have to look at where they stand in the clear realignment of political options and whether in fact they do stand for majority rule, for all the consequences of it…

Forget it. That is an old one.

It is not an old one. It is what Bishop Tutu has been saying recently, namely that they are not interested in this deal. They say: This is our country and we want it all. I have not heard anybody in that party repudiate him. I have not heard a voice raised to condemn that. No, Mr Chairman, that party has sold out to the far left. It has sold out to the UDF. It has sold out to those who reject evolutionary progress on the basis of inter-group co-operation. There are members in that party who must know it. It has sold out on the defence and security of South Africa. It has rejected national service. The supporters of that party have to take a clear look at themselves and their relationship with that party and the three groupings into which politics has now finally moved itself. Within those groupings there can be different parties. Within those groupings there can be different organizations. However, the fundamental decision is the direction in which South Africa should move.

What this means and what the State President’s speech means is that the Black debate is effectively ended for the moment in this House. It has ended in this House because the principles have been established.

The principles have been established. What must be done now is to determine the methodology, the mechanism. That is going to be done around the negotiating table, not by this House telling Blacks what they should have; not be this House saying what we are going to kindly give them, but as has been accepted by the Government, it must be done open-ended by negotiation and debate. For the moment, therefore, we are out of the Black debate.

What we should be looking at now, and what this House should be debating is the means by which we can sell the acceptability of the new dispensation. If I may borrow the words from my successor, the dilemma of the NP is that Verwoerdian apartheid has been laid to rest. However, there are members of that party still mourning round the grave with their feet anchored in it. The CP is trying to push them out of the way to dig up the body of Verwoerdian apartheid. [Interjections.] We must be careful that the Government, in this dilemma, does not latch on to “Mr Inbetween”, because this is a make or break phase in our parliamentary evolution.

The challenge lies in the hands of the Government, and everything depends on whether the cutting of the economic cake in South Africa is seen and believed to be fair and just. The State President has put forward his ideas, he has his committees, and the hon member for Yeoville has put forward his ideas. The private sector, FCI and Assocom have all put their views. Like most of them, this party believes—and this will appear in an article by Mr Sutton shortly— in a a standing committee. However, we believe it should hold public hearings, in full public view with television cameras and the media, before which interest groups—in the private sector or any other interest group—can come and plead their cause with regard to the cutting of the cake. Then the public will be able to get an understanding of the budgetary system, not that the decision is taken by public discussion, but that there is a public input so that everyone can understand the limitations on budgeting in a democracy. We believe that the answer to that understanding and acceptance of the system is that people will see that everybody has a chance to put in his plea for what he believes his sector should have, and to say where the money is going to come from. That challenge of winning acceptability lies with the Government.

I do not want to repeat the platitudes about socio-economic reform. I only want to say that the road ahead will not be easy for many, they are going to find it difficult. However, this party will continue its role. We shall be out there ahead, scouting, pegging out the course as we have done before. [Interjections.] And we shall not be dismayed, and I am not dismayed, when many of our ideas are accepted or accepted in an adapted form. We believe it is necessary. Not only the five of us here, but the whole party. Our constitutional committee under Prof Kriek and Prof Brookes and other leading and brilliant South Africans, have for two years now been consulting with nonhomeland Blacks. We shall have a contribution to make on the road ahead, and we shall do it in the same positive spirit in which we have always done it. It is the same spirit for which the State President has appealed, a spirit of being positive, looking at what is practical and realistic, and at the same time working to eliminate what is wrong, what is negative and what must disappear from our life in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I listened very intently to the hon member for Durban Point and I took particular note of what he said regarding the vision he has for the New Republic Party in the future. I must say that his choice of quotation as far as the song was concerned may have a message in it for him which he may not have intended.

He did in the course of his speech indicate that he believed that there were three alternatives available to the White voters of South Africa and I shall come back to that shortly. He quoted from the song to indicate that one should accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative and not mess with “Mr Inbetween”. I think there is a ring of truth in that, as far as political philosophies and parties are concerned as well. One should recognize, as the hon member for Durban Point said, that there are certain inescapable realities of politics in South Africa. I believe that the polarization or the separation of philosophical input is now clearer than ever before. As the hon member himself indicated in his speech, the real choice which faces the White voters in South Africa in respect of constitutional reform and its implementation is to be found between the three groups the hon member elucidated. To use his own words, he said that the one group stood for co-existence and joint decision-making, the second was the non-racial majority-rule group, and the third were those who believed in exclusive White power.

I believe that it was significant that the hon member did not indicate a fourth possible alternative, because the reality is that between those three choices the White electorate have to decide. I think that the hon member was very realistic when he gave us those three alternatives. I think that in the light of their very policies the Progressive Federal Party, the Official Opposition in the House, will agree that they match the description given of those who stand for a non-racial majority. I do not think there is any question about that at all. The New Republic Party in fact to some extent believes that it would fit into the category of those who believe in co-existence and joint decisionmaking. I do not think there is any question about that either. Thirdly, the Conservative Party would certainly not contest the statement that their policy lies in the philosophical field of exclusive White domination. [Interjections.] Let me say to the hon member for Durban Point and those vociferous backbenchers of the Official Opposition that that is the reality of South Africa.

I believe that the negative aspect of the hon member’s speech was to be found right at the beginning when he so unfairly attacked the hon the Minister of Communications. The hon member himself has said that one of the greatest threats to the very process of successful constitutional reforms in South Africa is to be found in the philosophy and policy of the Conservative Party. That is what my hon colleague the hon the Minister of Communications was addressing himself to here today. I think that the hon member’s remarks about the hon the Minister were totally unfounded and very unjust, because that is where the threat lies. Let me quote what was said in response to what was said here by our State President on Friday. I believe that the Sunday Times was fairly lucid in the remarks it made on its leader page regarding the State President’s announcement. These words could well apply to many White politicians as well. I quote:

I think that the hon members in the House will agree that the statements made by our State President on Friday represent the single most significant challenge to moderate leadership of all population groups in this country. It has opened the debate. There is going to be negotiation about those issues which, as so many of our critics have said, are the cardinal problems in constitutional reform in South Africa. We in these benches are prepared to enter into negotiations with moderates, realistic leaders of the Black communities. Let me say immediately that I personally would like to make an appeal to those Black leaders who believe they have the genuine interests of their people at heart to come to the negotiating table and to accept the hand of friendship and negotiation which has been offered by this Government. They cannot allow, by default, this opportunity to go past. If they have a genuine interest in the welfare of their people and in creating institutions through which the Blacks and particularly the Blacks in the urban areas, can express their political aspirations they will have to show the mettle of their leadership now by accepting this challence to negotiate.

I may also say that I believe that the fundamental difference between the NRP’s philosophy and the philosophy of the National Party, the governing party, is to be found predominantly in interpretation and not in basic philosophy. I found very few people in the NRP who disagree with the fundamental principles of the NP; and I want to say to the members of the NRP who remain on that side of the House that the NRP did fulfil a historical role in the evolutionary political change in this country. I think that we all recognize its contribution during the referendum. We also recognize its contribution in the think-tank for constitutional reform. However, there comes a time in the life of all political leaders, especially those who have been given the mantle of responsibility to lead people, when they have to realize that real leadership includes doing those things which one believes are right and in the interests of South Africa, and not only those things which one believes are politically expedient for the survival of one’s party. [Interjections.] I believe that that is the position we have reached now. Moreover, I believe that the real leadership challenge to all of us in positions of political leadership is to tell our people unequivocally what is in the real interests of South Africa. [Interjections.] That is the kind of comment that one can expect to get from those hon members; and I am not going to fight with them. It is their prerogative to believe what they do, and I will never be swayed from what I believe intensely to be in the interests of South Africa. [Interjections.] In 1977 those hon members themselves did on a macro-scale what my two colleagues and I did on a micro-scale in order to make our small contribution to constitutional change in South Africa, and in order to give leadership to those people who appointed us to these positions. In 1977 the members in those benches, without consulting the voters, not only changed their constitutional approach, but changed their whole party. [Interjections.] How many of them went to the voters and asked for a mandate to change the United Party to the New Republic Party, and to change the basic philosophy? Of course they did not do so. I am not, however, fighting with them about that. [Interjections.] It was a necessary step in the process of evolutionary change.

Furthermore, I want to say to the hon members in the PFP—and we have been waiting for a long time to hear from them about my colleagues and myself—that we did not fight with them when they changed parties. I have here a list as long as my arm of hon members on that side of the House who changed parties because they believed it was right and did so without immediately going to the electorate. I can quote 1959, 1974, and also a crop in 1977. Moreover, in my very first election in Durban North, I fought against Mr Winchester, a very honourable man, who was there on a United Party ticket as a Senator although there was at that time no longer a United Party. If those hon members want to be consistent, then they should have said to Mr Winchester at that time, in 1977, that he could not fight on a United Party ticket for the Progressive Federal Party. I must say that I must give all credit to some hon members of the PFP that they did what they believed to be in the interests of their leadership role for the people who follow them. Therefore, Sir, it is sterile for us to become involved at this stage in the niceties of how one should give leadership to one’s people.

I want to come to a very important part of the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I see he is not here at the moment, but I understand that he has something else to attend to at present. We listened very intently to what he said. As has been his custom over many no-confidence debates he used a very wide net and he hoped that somewhere along the line he would catch a fish. I do want to dwell on one point, and that is a statement made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition which requires very careful analysis. I refer to his laying the blame for all the economic ills of this country at the door of this Government and saying that it is mismanagement by this Government which has caused the problems. He also said that the Government today is spending 28% of the GDP on the exercise of its administration as compared to the 1970s when the figure was 26% at its height. I want to dispel immediately an incorrect interpretation of the Budget of this country administered by this governing party. This country has the interface between the Third World and the First World. We are a high technology society with a population the majority of whom still belong to the Third World value system. Those people, if we have their interests at heart, must be provided with the education which is so necessary for them to become effective participants in our industrialized First World society. That is where their real salvation is to be found, namely to give them the means to fend for themselves within a high technology society.

When the Government has been criticized because of the size of the Budget we have been criticized unjustly. If cognizance is taken of the facts, what do we find? We find that 70% of the administrative staff in central Government and at provincial level, excluding the SATS and the Post Office, are employed in development work for the underprivileged and underdeveloped sector of this country. Must we abrogate that responsibility? Must we leave it aside? It would be highly irresponsible to do so. This Government is sensitive to and concerned about the development of those population groups. I challenge any hon member in the House to say that this Government should have eliminated, reduced or totally cut out its development programmes. I do not think hon members are aware of the fact that the greatest growth rate in administrative staff in the country has been in Black education. They do not realize that. Over the past five years the growth rate among Black teachers in colleges and schools has been 24% per annum. The greatest increase in the number of public servants is to be found among Black educators. Is there an hon member in this House who would decry that and say that that is negative? I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether, if his party were in power today, he would spend the money which this party is spending on Black education.

More.

Perhaps even more, but one cannot spend irresponsibly. Why do those hon members then complain when this government is doing in principle what they approve?

To say that this Government is essentially responsible for the rand/dollar relationship really requires careful analysis. I do not think the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition himself believes that this Government is responsible for the rand/dollar relationship. If that is true, why is the pound sterling suffering against the dollar? Why is the value of the Deutsche mark and the Swiss franc falling? Do those governments practise the same policies as this Government? Of course they do not. I think the hon member for Yeoville will be able to correct the misrepresentation which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has given this House today. We look forward to an interesting debate with the hon member for Yeoville in this respect.

I want to refer to an article in the Sunday Times of last Sunday under the heading “If ever there was a time for Pretoria to seek the help of business, that time is now”. I read the article a number of times. It was written by Mr Darryl Phillips, who is billed as a businessman. In the article he issues a challenge to the Government in similar vein to that of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He uses vague generalizations and a very wide net and blames the Government for all over economic ills. What the hon gentleman says in his article—I read his article very carefully—is that he believes that the Government should negotiate with the private sector to try to find the solutions to our economic ills. He proposes very specifically that there should be a committee of some six people, made up predominantly of businessmen and one or two from the governing sector. I wish to say to the hon gentleman, as well as to those who have the same idea, that this Government has consistently liaised, communicated and negotiated with the private sector. It is our fundamental policy—and this has been reiterated by the State President—that this Government fully supports private enterprise and capitalism as the economic system which will look after the interests of the maximum number of people in this country. We have consistently negotiated with orgnizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, FCI, the AHI and others. We are negotiating with these people on an ongoing basis. However, I believe that there is a greater challenge to the private enterprise sector in South Africa than merely to negotiate. They have a magnificent opportunity to make a tremendous contribution to the improvement in our economic situation with a co-ordinate export programme. Let the businessmen concern themselves predominantly with business problems; let them take advantage of the challenge of the devalued rand in relation to the dollar; let them concentrate on exports—the field is wide open. Never before has the climate been so positive for exporting South African goods. Interjections.] Because we all have to give to Caesar what is due to Caesar. Where else would the Government get its funds from? We have to tax people. We may argue about how much to tax them, that may be a legitimate argument, but we must tax them. The hon member for Umbilo will know—if he had been here a minute ago—that we are spending our money predominantly on the upliftment of the underdeveloped populations of South Africa. He will agree with that. Allow me to say to the business sector that they also have an input in the political arena. We recognize that. However, this Government cannot abrogate its responsibility for decisionmaking. We will accept advice from whence it comes, we will listen to the people who have a positive input to make, but we cannot abrogate our responsibility to make decisions. That would be totally irresponsible indeed, and that applies to the political arena as well.

I would like now to return very briefly to what the State President said here on Friday. I believe that we have now opened a new avenue for negotiation. The hon the Leader for the Official Opposition recognized this when he said that we were now staring the possibility of successful debate in the face. We are dealing with issues that are fundamental to the welfare of Blacks in this country. Let me add immediately that this Government does not believe in one group dominating the other. However, we do believe in the creation of a just society in which each population sector can maximize its own potential.

There is no justice in removing rights from one population group simply in order to satisfy the rights of others, as is happening today in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia. However, the vexed question of the reality of political development for Blacks in South Africa is to be found in negotiating with them on those issues which are of vital importance to them. In his speech on Friday, the State President highlighted every one of the individual and vitally important aspects which must be negotiated with responsible leaders—the question of citizenship, the question of the permanence of Blacks in this country in the urban areas, the question of influx control and the question of how they are going to participate in decision making in respect of those matters that affect them intimately as well as on a general basis. Those are the real challenges to constitutional reform in South Africa. I want to repeat my appeal to moderate leaders—in particular Black leaders— to use this opportunity to the maximum in order to find solutions to these vexed problems within the framework of the acceptable principle of no group domination but justice for all. Coming from Natal, I believe that Chief Minister Buthelezi will see the positive value of these negotiations. If there has been a misunderstanding about the creation of the recommended ad hoc forum, then I believe that we should eliminate that communications problem with Chief Minister Buthelezi. Chief Buthelezi is a moderate leader. He is a very powerful moderate leader in this country, and I believe his opinions and the opinions of the Zulu people are of paramount importance if we are to find solutions to these vexed problems. We cannot exclude any group from participating in these negotiations, provided, as the State President has emphasized before, they are leaders who do not participate in or actively support violence in this country. I believe that with the aid of this forum for discussion we will find solutions which will be acceptable to all population groups.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Durban Point, however, both referred to unrealistic expectations, and I believe we should see what is being offered in the correct perspective. We are not offering instant solutions to the problems which we have identified. What we are saying, however, is that we now have a positive instrument for negotiation and for consultation which can bring about acceptable solutions. That is the essence of what reform and negotiation with the Black population are about. Nobody in his right mind would state that we must still continue to see Blacks living in the urban areas as temporary sojourners. The acceptance of the 99 year leasehold scheme already recognizes the permanence of those people. As the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has said on a previous occasion, the 99 year leasehold scheme already implies the permanence of those people. We recognize that they have a permanent role to play, and the vexed question is the one of how they are going to participate politically with other population groups in South Africa to their satisfaction and acceptance.

That brings me full circle to the winding up of my speech. If those people are to be successful in participation within the total spectrum of the society of South Africa, then a top priority is education. If anyone can point a finger at this Government to say it has been overspending, then perhaps we have erred in overspending in that direction. That, however, is a primary function of this Government, namely to provide those people with that education. When a man tells you he is hungry, do not just give him a fish to satisfy his hunger. Teach him how to fish and he will be able to fend for himself. That is the philosophy of this Government, and that is why we have spent so much money on the development of the Blacks. I believe that the population of South Africa, irrespective of population groups, can have total confidence in this Government and in our State President and in his leadership to ensure that we create a just society which will improve the quality of life of every single citizen.

Mr Speaker, I find much difficulty in discerning the gravamen of that hon Deputy Minister’s remarks. It causes me as many problems now as it did when he was still a member of the NRP.

In his address on Friday the hon the State President said:

We agree. He informed us that “largely as a result of factors beyond our control” we were “less well off than even a year ago”. That surely must be about the kindest way of describing the worst recession South Africa has had in 50 years. It also follows from his remark that we are in a less favourable position to ensure the safety of the nation and to bring about the necessary reform.

Where we disagree of course is with the contention that this is owing to matters beyond our control. The fact that the rand has dropped from 132 US cents to about 44 US cents in approximately seven years, that our inflation rate is all set for 16%, and that our growth rate has been totally unsatisfactory cannot be put down to bad luck or to the result of the drought, or to the fact that the gold price has not rescued us from our excesses as was the case in the past. It is the inevitable result of a government which fails to appreciate the necessity of running our political economy on sound business principles and which annually pours billions into the independent Black homelands with negative returns. The economy is telling us that this is beyond our resources. However, the State President and his Cabinet still appear to cling to the hope that some financial guru working in a back room can painlessly cure our economic ills through some monetary magic. For how many years have we in this House not listened to the then Minister of Finance’s endless repetition that financial discipline was the watchword of his department, as if wishing could make it so. He had to be the “fall guy” when the economic chickens came home to roost. Maybe this was justice, because he had allowed himself to become the creature of the Cabinet which pressed ahead regardless with its policies of the creation of independent Black homelands, extravagant decentralization plans, military adventures and the creation of one of the most expensive bureaucracies to be found anywhere.

When this “rake’s progress” came to its inevitable end and Mr Barend du Plessis was appointed Minister of Finance, his position was very like that of somebody who is appointed as financial director to a big organization which is in desperate financial straits, but whose executive team remains unchanged, unrepentant, blind to their folly and committed to past policies. What chance does a man in such a position have? He can prepare a budget which everybody will ignore. He can have learned discussions with bankers on financial conservatism and establish control that will not be adhered to. However, unless the fundamental problem of policy and the administration of that particular board is tackled one can expect no progress.

Essentially there is very little difference between the economy of a country and that of a big business enterprise. Like a business a country has assets in the form of raw materials, natural resources, labour, capital and enterprise. The success of a nation thus depends on the quality and extent of these resources and the skill with which they are deployed.

A country trades both as a buyer and as a seller on world markets. It is a trading entity in cut-throat competition with other trading nations. It is neither self-sufficient nor able to withdraw within its own boundaries. Over 60% of our GNP is directly concerned with foreign trade. All the things which a business requires to make it successful apply equally well to a trading nation. We should ask ourselves how South Africa shapes against a check-list of these requisites. Firstly, a successful business needs clearly defined and quantified objectives. South Africa has no clearly defined objectives. On the contrary, our Government specializes in generalities to such a degree that half the population lives in the hope that there is some secret agenda to which it is adhering. The other half is convinced that such an agenda does not exist and that the Government is merely making a few sacrifices to keep the wolves at bay.

For years the private sector has been calling for a commitment to specific targets in respect of simple things, eg the growth in the money supply, the inflation rate and the economic growth rate of the country. Secondly, no business can prosper without proper financial discipline. This Government pays lip service to this concept, but in practice its adherence to financial discipline has become a sick joke. Three examples are sufficient: (a) The rise in State expenditure to nearly 30 per cent of the GNP this year; (b) the increase in public servants’ remuneration of over 30 per cent—and this occurred in a year in which the Government was committed to fight inflation. Unfortunately, however, it was more committed to fighting the referendum; (c) the mismanagement of the decentralization policy. In 1983 the then Prime Minister proudly announced that there had been 777 successful applications for decentralization in that year. This involved R2,5 billion and would create 65 000 job opportunities.

Eighteen months later nobody on that side of the House, including the hon the Minister responsible for industry and commerce, was able to tell us what of that had actually been realized. Nobody knew how many of those 777 applications had actually been established. What is more, they do not know today, 30 months later. This is an example of State enterprise running completely out of control. How can a simple appraisement of costs and results be done if somebody is not checking up to see what has been achieved? The chief executive of any private organization would be out on his ear if he produced results like that.

Thirdly, the factors of production by definition are scarce, and a company has to allocate these among a host of clamouring alternatives on the basis of their return. Our Government invests its scarce resources with the profligacy of a drunken sailor. The Kleu Report identifies capital as the factor of production most likely to inhibit our growth, yet year after year we hand over R2 000 million to the Black states to spend virtually at their discretion.

Here we are caught on the horns of a very embarrassing dilemma. If these independent states collapse—and they will if they do not get increasing aid from South Africa—it will cause extreme embarrassment, but how can one maintain the myth of their independence if one continues to control their Government expenditure: So Dr Sebe builds himself an airport within a stone’s throw of the East London airport without even calling for tenders. Mr Mphephu, on the other hand, is ripped off by great white sharks from Pretoria. All of this happens at the expense of the South African taxpayer.

This is what worries me about the State President’s address. He uses many of the terms which we all like to hear, terms such as that there will be no domination of one group by another and that democratic solutions which will satisfy demands for fairness and justice, but the proof of this pudding is going to have to be in the eating. The underlying theme is still that the Government is designing constitutional structures for Blacks, discussing them with Blacks of its own choice and determined as ever that independent Black states remain the cornerstone of constitutional policy.

Fourthly, the successful company must motivate its labour force. This comes through training and the creation of opportunity. It comes through recognition and reward.

How does South Africa Incorporated motivate its labour force? Eighty three per cent of our population has been so constrained and excluded from sharing in the benefits of South Africa that it is quite ready to discard the whole free enterprise system. It says it regards it as part and parcel of apartheid, and they are quite prepared to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Our White labour force, on the other hand, is frustrated by inequitable tax systems which give little incentives for extra effort. Tax and inflation make nonsense of annual increments. It is no wonder that South Africa appeared 24th out of 25 in a recent grading of various countries in terms of growth in productivity.

Fifthly, a successful company and a successful economy both depend on an environment of growth. This Government has disrupted such an environment by bedevilling it with restrictions like those on the mobility of labour, with contradictory initiatives, like the repudiation of the findings of the Competions Board, and with distortions of the optimum distribution of our productive resources in the interests of its ill prepared regional development strategy.

No single phenomenon illustrates the Government’s ineptitude more than the tragedy which is now being played out in Port Elizabeth. The paradox is that it is being played out against the backdrop of the Government’s strategy for regional development.

We are told that the motive for this regional development is not primarily ideological but that it is to avoid overconcentration and to create work opportunities more cheaply in dispersed areas at development points, as well as to create an infrastructure more cheaply there. This is the contention. As we all know, vast sums have been channelled into this strategy.

Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage was classified as one of four metropolitan areas. Despite numerous representations it was given no meaningful benefits whatsoever until such time as Ford and Amcar announced that they were having discussions concerning the joint manufacture of their products in Transvaal. The new incentive package still does not compare with the incentive package available for example in East London.

In the meantime many industries and expansions that could have taken place in Port Elizabeth have in fact taken place in other areas. There are ± 600 000 people in Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage. The unemployment rate is probably the highest in the country, and the livelihood of these people and an extended group in the rural areas is totally dependent on the economic activity of that town. In no other town does manufacture represent so large a proportion of economic activity or is it so concentrated on one industry. Approximately 65% of total manufacture is directly related to the motor industry.

There are a number of questions which the citizens of Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage require answered, and some of them we would like the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to answer. Firstly, why is unemployment in Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage of less concern to that hon Minister and his Government than elsewhere? Secondly, what possible sense can it make to establish expensive infrastructure in remote, unsuitable areas while infrastructure lies unused in Port Elizabeth? Thirdly, if the creation of jobs at the most economical cost is the Government’s concern, what possible sense can it make to have people out of employment in Port Elizabeth and to re-employ others in Transvaal when the motor industry moves to that area? Fourthly, has the Government ever carried out any analysis of the cost to the country of a possible migration of the motor industry from Port Elizabeth? We hear of the cost of its staying there but not the cost of its moving. Fifthly, when industry moves to an area there is a multiple effect on the economy. When it move away from such an area there is an opposite effect. Has any analysis ever been done of that? We need to know that these things have been looked at.

Sixthly, R200 million has belatedly, under the Rive plan, been allocated for housing in Port Elizabeth. If the type of situation which I have described takes place —and it looks very likely — how on earth is the money which has been spent on those houses to be serviced?

Seventhly, if the move to Transvaal is warranted for the motor industry, one is interested to know what will happen to all the decentralized industries that were established at 37 development points in 1982-83. When their subsidies run out in seven years’ time, will they not also want to move to Transvaal? Or is it the intention that they octain their subsidies permanently?

Finally, if the motor industry moves from Port Elizabeth, will the Government allow the thousands of trained industrial workers in Port Elizabeth to migrate to where the motor industry goes, or is it the intention to train new workers?

The State President tells us that we cannot secure the safety of the country and bring about the necessary reform without a strong economy, and he is right. The tragedy is that neither he nor his Cabinet has the vaguest idea of how to bring about and maintain such an economy. The dreadful irony is that seldom can any Government, in the name of safety, have endangered the future of its citizens more.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Walmer who is usually so pessimistic when delivering a speech in this House, always reminds me of a few years ago when I was still sitting on the Opposition side. At that stage there was a chief spokesman on finance who was just as pessimistic about the future; in fact, everybody called him a Jeremiah.

Was he right or wrong?

He was wrong, and I should like to tell the hon member for Walmer that he is also wrong. In connection with the last point that the hon member has just made, I want to point out to him that a few years ago the car manufacturing industry in Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage was extremely successful, and that was owing to the fact that South African consumers regularly bought vehicles, frequently, in fact, more than they could afford. The hon member should also know that Port Elizabeth has a very long history as far as the car industry is concerned. At one stage the components of every vehicle were imported in crates and were merely assembled in Port Elizabeth. That was the case in 1958 and even after that, but since then the car industry in South Africa has changed completely from an assembling to a manufacturing industry.

The authorities on central as well as local level warned Port Elizabeth on several occasions that the necessary adjustments should be made because the car industry had changed from an assembling to a manufacturing industry.

This side of the House has sympathy with the people of the Eastern Cape, especially with those from Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage. However, the hon member for Walmer now wants to use this opportunity to stress the temporary problems with which that area is saddled because there will soon be a by-election in Newton Park. Those are the people who hope that they will be able to stimulate major industries in Port Elizabeth and that the workers will not lose anything; all they need do is vote for the PFP and then matters in the Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage area will run smoothly again.

However, it is not the fault of the Government that the car manufacturing companies decided among themselves that they would possibly be able to practise their trade in a different area where there would be a better market for their products than in the Port Elizabeth area. That is the same party that keeps on telling us “but you must not interfere in the private sector”. [Interjections.] The hon member outlined the problems but was very cautious and did not suggest anything that the Government could do in this regard. It is, of course, easy to criticize in such a way. However, the same hon member would surely have liked to utilize all the advantages of the decentralization programme in his area.

†However, he attacked the decentralization scheme in his speech; he said: “You are throwing money into the water, you are getting no return”.

*The hon member said “No return”. Unfortunately I do not have the figures with me here, but I know that the Government grants a substantial number of concessions in respect of the decentralization programme. However, the Government also derived a tremendous advantage from it, and South Africa as well. This is that industrialists went in great numbers to those areas and spent many millions of rands there. The hon member for Walmer, however, objects to the fact that decentralization is taking place.

†In fact, he mentioned this as an example of the Government’s inefficiency. He says we are not listening. He says the Government should do it the way any private firm would do it. In the first place it should motivate and in the second place it should apply financial discipline.

*Sir, I should like to tell the hon member for Walmer that it is a very good thing that the Government, when it comes to the SATS, the Post Office and that kind of business undertaking, accepts and applies sound business principles. However, when one is dealing with sociological and educational problems in a country, how can one continue to apply business principles? Surely it is impossible? I am not saying that one should spend the money inefficiently; one should not use it incompetently.

However, there are certain essentials that the Government cannot disregard. I think that the hon member for Durban North, the hon the Deputy Minister—who, by the way, made a very good speech in his capacity as Deputy Minister, and I should like to congratulate him on it as well as on the fact that demonstrated to us that 70% of the people in our Public Service are today involved in development. A great number of people are also involved in protection, in the police force, in the defence force. About 10% are involved in regulating and administration.

Does the hon member now wish to imply that the Government should apply total retrenchment as far as these people are concerned? He should then tell us, and spell it out for us, to what extent these people should be reduced. As regards this “financial discipline”, which he also spoke about, he should tell the Government to reduce the number of officials with a certain number and still maintain the efficiency coefficient in South Africa. That, however, the hon member cannot do, because he wants people to apply business principles. Anyone engaged in a growing enterprize constantly needs more staff and must constantly incur capital expenses in order to maintain his development.

Is there then a difference in the case of the Government where the population is increasing and placing greater responsibilities on the local bodies, on the provincial authorities and on the central Government? Surely we cannot avoid it. In fact, the growth that is currently taking place in South Africa, the so-called bureaucracy, is in fact an example of how South Africa has grown as a whole. The hon member for Walmer and his friends on the other side of the house should always bear this in mind. He says “We have no objectives; there is no agenda”. How did the hon member come by that nonsense that there are no objectives in South Africa? Is it then not an objective of the Government that South Africa should develop economically in a balanced way? Is the standard of living that is being maintained by Blacks, Coloureds, Asians and Whites in South Africa today not an example of how objectives have been realized? I want to grant the hon Leader of the Official Opposition something. He also spoke today about the economic situation in South Africa. The economic slump which we experienced and the recession which we are at present experiencing, is after all, a temporary phenomenon. He can feel free to ask me, because I sat in those benches on the opposite side for almost 25 years benches on the opposite side for almost 25 years.

And you learnt nothing.

No, I learnt a lot and I shall tell the hon Leader what I learnt. I learnt that there are economic cycles. There is extensive development, which is often followed by temporary recessions, which can lead to a loss of confidence, as we had during the early ’sixties for example. Subsequently the situation improved again. However, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his colleague behind him there say that it happens “because of the policies the Government is following”. They say it is as a result of the policies which we follow.

I should like to put a question to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He will still remember the days when the gold price was fixed at $35 per fine ounce. He will also remember the days when the gold price rose to $600 and later to $800 per fine ounce. Were the same policies we are applying now not applied then too? The only difference is that the détente policy in South Africa is at present assuming dramatic proportions. So how can the hon Leader claim that the racial policy we have been applying in South Africa is the cause of the value of the rand against the dollar falling to such an extent? I note that the pound sterling is worth about $1,11 today, which represents a decline of about 50% over a period of three years. Surely Mrs Thatcher is not taking over any of our policies. The value of Swiss currency is also dropping. This country is regarded as one of the countries with the strongest economies and it is the country to which people go to open accounts. Sometimes they even do this with money which they have taken out of South Africa. The currency of the country is regarded as one of the world’s best, but its value has also decreased tremendously. However, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition tells us that it is as a result of the internal policies we are applying at present that we are experiencing this temporary recession and decline. He said “we must not blame it on the drought”. He said one should blame the Government for it.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was originally a plattelander. He knows the agricultural industry. If there have been bad harvests for three or four years running and South Africa must import maize for example, it must surely have an immense impact on our internal economy. However, he and his friends tell us that that means nothing and that it is not the drought. I just want to mention one example to him in this connection. This year we have a fair wheat harvest and we intend to export wheat. Surely that is going to be to South Africa’s advantage? If we can produce 5,5 million tons of maize this year, it will mean that South Africa need not use valuable currency to import maize. The expenditure of the Government with regard to agricultural products will then drop considerably. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition tells us that the Government is responsible for this situation.

I want to say that if one takes everything into account, “then I don’t think this Government deserves a motion of no confidence”. The NP is still retaining the initiative and the drive. New processes are constantly being developed to lead relations between groups in South Africa, which had become rigid, to a better and more relaxed atmosphere. The process of renewal in South Africa is being pursued with vision and with courage. I think the address of the State President last Friday reopened those new vistas for South Africa.

One grants the hon member for Waterberg the opportunity to take paragraph 3 on page 11 for example and to exploit it by saying that there will be a Government which includes urban Blacks in South Africa. However, I do not want to read the whole paragraph to the hon member. I only want to ask him one simple question: Why did he omit the last sentence of paragraph 3? Why? Surely it does not become him to do that if he wishes to make a great fuss of how bodies can now be created for the Blacks in the cities, and that there will be joint planning and decision-making. I shall also read the second last sentence. Why did he omit it? “Structures must therefore be developed for Black communities outside the national states, through which they can themselves decide on their affairs at the highest level.” The hon member used this quotation to create the impression that Blacks in the urban areas will now make decisions with us up to the highest level. Why did he not also read this sentence: “The same bodies can serve, at the various levels, as links for co-operation on matters of common interest with Government bodies of the Republic of South Africa, the independent former national states and the self-governing national states.”? [Interjections.]

You are confirming what he said.

No, Sir. That sentence does not say that. [Interjections.]. The necessary liaison with them will be found, but it will not mean—that hon member came to the wrong conclusion—that the Blacks, who form the majority in the urban areas, will overwhelm the Whites, and that they will take joint decision-making so far that the Whites will be made subordinate to them. They will take paragraph 3 from one platform to another, but at the same time we shall show the voters of South Africa that they are ignoring the last sentence on purpose for their own political gain. [Interjections.]

I want to say that the State President’s announcements will also have the following result: They will neutralize the revolutionaries in this country, who have violence as their weapon, the activists, the left wing and right-wing radicals who bedevil our problems, and will neutralize their actions as well. Their influence in South Africa will be restricted.

The next point of importance is that the National Party remains in full control as the Government. There is no disagreement amongst us concerning this matter, and additional support is coming from unexpected quarters, for instance from the hon members who have joined the party recently. [Interjections.] I do not know what those hon members are laughing about. They must still settle the matter between them and Mr Jaap Marais. They are not sure whether Jaap is right or whether their leader, Dr Treurnicht, is right. If I am not mistaken, the hon member for Soutpansberg said that he apologized to the outside world for the Government not returning the Coventry four to England. However, what did Mr Jaap Marais say? He said the Government had acted correctly. After that we do not know whether Dr Treurnicht agrees with Jaap or whether he agrees with Mr Tom Langley. Then they must decide whether there is disunity amongst their number. However, there is no disunity on this side of the House. That is why I say that the National Party remains in full control and is receiving additional support.

There is no acceptable or feasible alternative to what is being put forward by the National Party. What is of great importance to me in the statement of the State President, is that the process of democratization, to give each person a meaningful say in that which concerns each group, is still continuing unabated in South Africa. It is of great importance that the National Party continues to give more and more responsibility and rights to the other groups in South Africa. It is not necessary to have a unitary state. It is not necessary to have a unitary federation. It is not necessary to have everyone on common voters’ rolls. It is not necessary to eliminate all forms of differentiation in South Africa. According to the policy of the National Party one can still continue the process of democratization and give each group in South Africa its rightful place.

What is of great importance to me, is that the politics of negotiation is becoming more prominent. Politics of conflict and confrontation are fading from our dictionary. Nor is there any hon member on that side of the House who will not agree with me that it is in the interests of prosperity and peace that we avoid the politics of confrontation and conflict in South Africa and rather negotiate with each other on the grounds of what is right, just, good and in the interests of everyone in this country. This statement and speech of the State President proves clearly to me that ever greater prominence will be given to the politics of negotiation in South Africa.

Another point of great importance is that political truth and the politics of realism are prevailing. Ideological politics, which often pursues unrealistic ideals, is abating. I think all of us sitting in this House are to a great extent idealists, but if one does not keep in touch with the reality outside one can, nine times out of ten, never realize one’s ideals. Not only is the Black man’s permanent presence outside the national states being recognized, but as groups and communities they are also attaining equality. I want to agree with the hon the Minister of Communications and of Public Works when he quoted what Dr Connie Mulder once said. Dr Mulder said it was the Government’s approach to make Soweto the most beautiful city in the world. How does one make such a city the most beautiful in the world, and why must Soweto be singled out? What about New Brighton and KwaZakhele, and all those places we have? Why must not they also become the most beautiful cities here? Therefore I say that that approach is absolutely correct, because the promise is there. Those hon members of the Conservative Party would do well to follow that approach instead.

Something that is also of importance, is the fact that constitutional structures—statutory or not statutory—are continually being created for effective dialogue, and this will only lead to better co-operation. In this country we cannot create enough structures to give people the opportunity to take part in the dialogue. It is the policy of even those hon members to create a conference of states. Is it not their policy? The hon member for Rissik knows that it is their approach to create a conference of states. What else is that but to create a structure in which people can talk about common problems in South Africa? [Interjections.]

The hon members on that side of the House must know that something like that will only lead to better co-operation and no one who wants to contribute to peace and orderly development need remain on the sidelines. Dialogue and opportunities for participation must be extended, not curtailed. In my opinion the invitation extended to responsible, reasonable Blacks to participate, is dramatic and far-reaching. Decisionmaking and suggestions as to how we can coexist peacefully, become a two-way traffic. Under the present conditions in South Africa we can no longer move in only one direction. However, it is of the greatest importance that, as a result of all these steps, a positive external image of South Africa is created. Our friends—and we have friends— thus obtain more ammunition to neutralize this country’s radical enemies. If a single benefit can be derived from this, it is surely that we are creating a decent, civilized, sensible and reasonable external image of South Africa. That is why I think that this Government, under these circumstances, does not deserve a motion of no-confidence and I therefore support the amendment moved by the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development.

Mr Speaker, in his speech the hon member for De Kuilen admitted that he had spent 25 years of his political life on the left-hand side of this House. There are many other hon members in the same position. There are, for example, the hon the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs, the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism, and also the hon member for South Coast who is seated just behind him. I am sure that if one were to ask them they would say they had not really changed their standpoint or policy. In fact, they have already told me so. It is rather the NP that has changed, and that is why this afternoon, in this House, they are fighting in the front lines against the CP, as they used to fight against the old NP.

Like many other Government members, the hon member for De Kuilen ascribed the weak economic conditions to the drought and the rand/dollar exchange rate. Why is it that the value of the rand has depreciated against every other currency in the world?

Even the pula.

Yes, even the pula. What is the reason for this? It can only be sought in the uncertainty and chaos into which the Government is steering the country. Prior to the referendum those hon members boasted that after the referendum there would be an economic utopia, with peace and stability. But thus far the exact opposite has happened.

The hon member for De Kuilen attacked the hon the leader of the CP for allegedly misinterpreting paragraph three of the State President’s speech. But, Sir, here are the words in black and white. It is stated very clearly that structures will be developed to enable Black communities outside the national States to handle their own affairs up to the very highest level. How can they do this other than by obtaining full participation in the political processes of South Africa? The hon member for Randburg said, by way of an interjection, that this was a good example of healthy power-sharing. Now hon members opposite must tell me whether this is still separate development. No, as far as the NP is concerned, separate development is a thing of the past.

I want to return for a moment to what the hon the Minister of Communications and of Public Works said. He referred to the resolutions of the Synod of the Gereformeerde Kerk. But was it not that hon Minister who, in 1978, went about in the lobby saying that hon members should not vote for a Dopper in the election. [Interjections.]

That is an untruth.

Now that hon Minister is dragging the resolutions of the Gereformeerde Kerk into this House to support his liberal policy. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I was not in this House at all in 1978. I was the Administrator of the Cape. Consequently, what the hon member is proclaiming now is an untruth.

Order! Does the hon member for Pietersburg have his facts correct?

As far as I know, my facts are correct. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member has indicated that as far as he knows his facts are correct. But this is a serious allegation, and I am of the opinion that if the hon member were to ascertain that his facts were incorrect he should indicate this immediately.

Some of the members of the hon the Minister’s party made that allegation. [Interjections.] I assumed it was correct.

Order! If the hon member is saying that that allegation was made by members of the hon the Minister’s party, I ask him to withdraw the allegation against the hon the Minister.

I withdraw it.

The hon member may proceed.

Since the new dispensation has been in operation for a few months now, one is justified in asking what this Government is engaged in and where it is leading the voters of this House, the Whites of South Africa. The best description I could find of where this Government is taking the White voters, appeared in a book written by someone who has always been remarkably correct in his predictions regarding the course of events in the governing party, namely Dr Willem de Klerk. In his book Die Tweede Revolusie he writes as follows on page 43:

Sir, “Blankes … geen eie land besit nie …” and then he goes on:

A little further on he says:

That is what this mentor of the NP says. He says that is the final objective. That is how this prophet of the NP sees it. Thus far he has never been wrong.

As the hon the leader on this side of the House said, last year during the by-election in Potgietersrus those integrationists opposite still had the temerity to write on posters: “Separate development is our policy.” It makes one laugh, because on the other hand they are appeasing the liberalists by saying separate development is dead. We also heard that. We forgot about it, but now blatently, with the opening of this session, the leader of that party stated unequivocally and unambiguously that the Government had decided to bring the urban Black man of South Africa into this policial dispensation. [Interjections.]

Order!

Now hon members opposite will say: Yes, but they will be given the right to make decisions about their own affairs. But very early on in the new dispensation we discovered that there were very few own affairs. If we were to look at this pile of bills—about 35 of them on our tables—we would see that there was not a single one dealing with own affairs. In any case, all matters of fundamental importance are general affairs in regard to which this Government is now going to give joint decision-making rights to Whites, Coloureds and the urban Black people of South Africa. Consequently the United States of America saying with acclamation: South Africa is making progress with the policy they foresee for it. Now that integration party must tell us in accordance with which formula they are going to entrench the right to self-determination and the sovereignty and freedom of the Whites in this new situation. They cannot do so and they know it. Their voters outside are soon going to find themselves becoming enmeshed in a fully integrated Government, or are they still suggesting that separate development continues to be their policy?

Now, contract this with the aspirations of a people which yearned for its own freedom, with a full say and full-fledged rights, as embodied in its own republican ideal, which was eventually realized in 1961, after all the decades of strife.

The hon members would do well to take another look at this commemorative volume, Die Republiek van Suid-Afrika, compiled by a number of writers, historians and cultural leaders and published during the festivities to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the Republic in 1966. Then they would see, in the contribution by Dr G. O. Scholtz, how the roots of the idea of republican freedom should actually be sought in the Calvinistic Protestantism of the sixteenth century, since the time of the reformation.

There one would read how the Great Trek should be seen as a liberation movement by Afrikaner pioneers into the wilderness; how they preferred the desert to a Government that neglected their interests, as this Government is also doing now. We are all acquainted with the history of the two Anglo-Boer Wars, the Rebellion and the years of the depression. We also know how the idea of a republic eventually ended up in the sphere of practical politics again.

Now it is also very interesting to read the following on page 199 of this publication. Let me quote the following:

Now this is happening again. This is again the case today. [Interjections.] These words were uttered at a time, in the good old days, when the then NP was still justified in printing in its blue booklet that politically it formed the vanguard of Afrikanerdom and the White nation. That role has now passed into the hands of the CP. [Interjections.] Why? A very important reason for this is that the NP has lost touch with the people. Its congresses have degenerated into an explanatory forum for Ministers. They no longer listen to the voice of the people.

In the Pretoria News of 29 September 1983 we read the following:

In the process the policy of separate development has perished. The Government definitely does not have a mandate to continue with this policy of integration. The Government did not get that mandate. On 9 July last year the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning still said that the referendum had merely sanctioned the Government’s accommodation of Whites, Coloureds and Indians in the same institution. But a few months later—without any election—they are now suddenly sanctioning the accommodation of Blacks in the same institution as well. [Interjection.] This Government ought to resign. It should go back to its voters. It would ascertain that politically the CP now formed the vanguard of Afrikanerdom, of the White nation of South Africa. [Interjections.] Under the leadership of its hon Leader, and with its policy of separate development, a situation of freedom, with justice for every people in Southern Africa, could be created. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, having to listen to the State President’s address on Friday probably provided the members of the CP with an easy way out.

Tell us about Boupen.

Go and read about it in the newspapers. There is no fault to be found with it. [Interjections.] During this Parliamentary session the poor hon members of the CP may well have to answer for the falsehoods their Party propagated during last year’s by-elections. Had there been any truth in what they said then, we would now have had, amongst other things, integrated schools and integrated old-age homes. Just think of the case of a woman from the CP who arrived at an old-age home and asked the people there to join her in a reading of a passage from the Bible and in prayers. After that she told them it really was a pity that at the same time the next year they would not be able to have a similar opportunity at which only the White people in that old-age home would be present. On behalf of the CP this lady then announced; Look, next year everything will have been integrated. [Interjections.] We merely have to look to see who looks the guiltiest on that side. [Interjections.]

Order! I have not yet heard the hon Minister ask any of the hon members of the CP to help him make his speech. I do not believe that any such assistance is welcome at this stage, and I request hon members to give the hon the Minister an opportunity to make his speech.

The same exaggeration that has by now become part and parcel of that politically bankrupt party’s style, has manifested itself here again today. Once again one can say that the hon member for Pietersburg’s interpretation of the State President’s address is far removed from the reality of that address. In this way it…

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister an easy question?

No. I stopped answering questions of that calibre when I completed my teaching practical in Sub B. [Interjections.] When one listens to these hon members one cannot help thinking of what the hon member for Innesdal said one day: Full speed ahead into the past! They say we have lost contact with the people. I think that these hon members have individually and collectively lost contact with the present as well as the future. What kind of message, even in those days when they themselves had positions of leadership in our party, did we receive from them? When did we ever hear what we had to do about the future? We always heard what we should not do. [Interjections.]

We always heard what should not be done, and the hon member for Waterberg was a past master when it came to at conveying this message. I must say he has taught his disciples very well. I referred to exaggeration, and today we once again saw how the hon leadeer, true to form, set up clay pigeons—they are in fact a number of absurd alternatives—and then shot them to smithereens as if he were attending a party rally where the average mental age must surely be that of people who would believe the kind of deceit practised by some people in politics.

I want the hon members to consider the following: Today’s session is taking place in 1985. This is not the session of 1948 or even earlier years. Why is it so different? It is because South Africa and its entire set-up has altered drastically since 1948 as a result of the success of the NP’s policy. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Lichtenburg spoke about the petrol price; what would have happened to his struggling farmers had the petrol price being increased last year, as it should have been? At the time, however, the State President said that that must not happen. My hon colleague then planned a strategy to keep an increase in the price of petrol out of the economy at that stage. Why? To help the agriculturist, but today that insensitive hon member says we should not have done that, we should have increased the price of petrol along ago.

Finally, I have this to say to them: The changes in South Africa have excluded them irrevocably because in South Africa today it is neither possible nor logical to bus children of colour past their own schools to White schools. The NP’s policy, as a way of life and as it has been embodied in the infrastructure of South Africa, has indeed become an irrevocable way of life. For this reason South Africa has changed to such an extent that the absurd ideas, with which we are being regaled here, are really irrelevant in the political context.

A final point: To keep on berating us as integrationists, will not make integrationists of us. The more they rant at us about these things, the more it will become clear to the general public that their own tirades, their own prophecies of doom have most definitely not been proved true in recent South African politics, and they will talk themselves right out of relevant South African politics.