Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, at the adjournment of the House yesterday evening I had been dealing with some of the aspects arising out of the Opening Address by the State President last Friday. I had indicated that while we found these encouraging, much would depend on how flexible the Government intended to be in relation to its past attitudes. Much will depend too on how much courage the Government shows in respect of departing from the hardline attitudes which have characterized this administration for the past 37 years.

Yesterday I dealt specifically with the State President’s comments regarding the Government’s intentions relating to the promotion of orderly urbanization, and also the intention of the Government to eliminate what the State President described as the negative and discriminatory aspects of influx control. As far as we in these benches are concerned, influx control has always been negative and discriminatory because it applies to only one section of the population. We believe that influx control has to be phased out as quickly as possible because it is totally incompatible with the promotion of orderly urbanization in South Africa. The two do not go together. They are a contradition in terms. One cannot have orderly urbanization and influx control operating at the same time.

We believe that influx control has in fact been totally counter-productive as far as the inevitable and irreversible process of urbanization is concerned.

There are five reasons why I say this. Firstly, we know—and it is generally conceded by those who administer the pass laws and influx control—that it simply does not work. It is totally ineffective. That is the first reason why it is incompatible with urbanization. Secondly, we know that the operation of the pass laws and influx control have for decades and decades been the greatest single source of irritation as far as the Black people of South Africa are concerned. They have been a single source of irritation that has caused untold anger, hardship and misery as far as the Black population in South Africa is concerned.

A third reason why influx control is incompatible with orderly urbanization, is because it has had the effect of sending people back to impoverished areas where the rapid growth of population has caused a substantial decline in the material conditions of life of the people in those areas. This in turn has resulted in increased pressure for migration back to the metropolitan areas. Fourthly, it is incompatible with urbanization because influx control has very often had the effect of making the full impact of urbanization fall most heavily on those public authorities least able to deal with it. Here I obviously refer to the homeland administrations, since these authorities are least able to deal with the impact of urbanization.

The fifth reason why it is incompatible with urbanization is because influx control itself inhibits forward planning because no one knows how many illegal people there are in the metropolitan areas. A projection of future population statistics therefore becomes a fruitless exercise.

It is therefore clear that the Government’s attempts over the years to control urbanization by way of influx control have not only failed but have in fact been totally counterproductive. What we need instead is a vigorous programme of urban development, a vigorous urban development policy, with planning providing for jobs, housing, education and all the other aspects of life which are necessary in any urban community. It must be a policy that is based on a set of positive incentives which should seek to influence the individual’s decision to migrate, where he should settle, or whether he should urbanize or not. I should like to stress the word “influence”, since I emphatically mean “influence”. There must be no coercion. I say this because I believe history and the operation of the pass laws have shown that coercion is counter-productive. In any case, it does not work and it creates other facets of hardship. I want to emphasize that all of this calls for a change of attitude on the part of the Government. All of this needs a change of thinking on the part of the Government.

What applies to influx control applies also to other aspects that the State President touched on in his Opening Address last week. In general, if one is to hope that the encouraging sentiments expressed by the State President can be converted into reality then it is going to be necessary for this Government to show a far greater degree of willingness to rethink its old hidebound attitudes and to move with speed in a new direction which can hopefully anticipate the effects of the dangerous tensions which we see building up around South Africa at the present time. This is what is going to be needed, but it requires a dramatic change on the part of the Government when one thinks of its past attitudes in regard to these issues. Therefore, until we see evidence of this in contrast to the history and the past attitudes of the Government, we must sustain our support for the motion of no confidence moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Mr Speaker, I think we can agree with the hon member for Berea that there has in fact been a change in the approach of the Government. But we disagree with him in the sense that, in most cases, what he considers to be encouraging, we consider to be deterioration. [Interjections.]

I think we will realize, and possibly agree among ourselves, that we are in all likelihood going through the most important period in our history because the future of the Whites in South Africa has never been in the balance to the extent it is at this moment in our history. Since last year’s no-confidence debate here, dramatic changes have taken place in South Africa.

Since this time last year we have acquired a new Constitution, and that Constitution represents a total reversal in the political course of the Government. Whereas in the past full-fledged self-determination was the course of the Government, political integration is now its course, and on Friday the State President announced that political integration was going to be extended to include the Black people of South Africa as well.

Since last year’s no-confidence debate we have acquired a new State President, although he looks a great deal like the old Prime Minister we used to have. [Interjections.] We have also acquired a new Government. The old Government of the NP has been replaced by the new coalition government of the NP, the Labour Party and the National Peoples Party.

Since last year’s no-confidence debate we have also acquired a new Parliament in which the old Parliament only has one-third of the powers it used to have. What is more we have acquired a multiracial President’s Council which inter alia has powers enabling it to take final decisions.

On the one hand we have had these tremendous changes, which there is no getting away from, while on the other we have also witnessed astounding deterioration in every sphere of the national life of South Africa during the past year.

If we look at the economy, no one is denying any longer that South Africa is poorer today than it was a year ago—even the hon the Minister of Finance admitted this in this debate. As a result of the redistribution of revenue the Whites have become drastically impoverished.

In the world situation South Africa has become impoverished on an unequalled scale. On 26 January 1984 126,74 South African cents bought one US dollar. On 26 January 1985 no fewer than 229,67 South African cents bought one US dollar; in other words, 81,2% more rands were needed to buy a dollar.

Now the Government itself has said that it is only against the dollar that the value of our currency has deteriorated to such an extent, but this is not true. In January of this year 61,3% more rands were needed than were needed a year ago to purchase a German mark; 61,0% more rands were needed to purchase a French franc; 59% more rands were needed to purchase a Japanese yen; 52% more rands were needed to purchase a Swiss franc; and 44% more rands were needed to purchase a British pound. What is really significant was that in January of this year 8,1% more rands were needed than were needed a year ago to purchase a Botswanan pula; 30,7% more rands were needed to purchase a Zimbabwean dollar; and 32,5% more rands were needed to purchase a Zambian kwacha.

This unquestionably illustrates how poor South Africa has become in the world and that this Government was not as well able as the government of our neighbouring states were to maintain the value of the respective currencies. Our Government could not succeed in doing this.

It is a fact that a year ago one could purchase 1 345 lire for a rand, but in January of this year one could only purchase 845 lire for a rand. It seems to me that we are heading for a one rand = one lire situation. It also seems to me that we shall reach this stage when this Government has brought us to one man, one vote in South Africa. It is in fact precisely the task of the CP to put a stop to this. That is in fact what we were born to do.

The Government ascribes the deplorable position in which the South African economy finds itself mainly to three causes: The prevailing international recession, the prevailing low gold price and the drought. On page 33 of the December 1984 Quarterly Bulletin of the South African Reserve Bank it was stated that the highest quarterly price for gold in rand terms was achieved in the third quarter of 1984. It has been said that in South Africa we do not buy with dollars but with rands. At that stage the rand price of gold was the highest it had ever been in its history, and since then it has risen by at least another R100 or more. Consequently the gold price is not a cause.

Mention is also made of the drought and the international recession. But Australia has just experienced one of its severest droughts. And it is, after all, also subject to the international recession. I read in The Star that the petrol price in Australia had been increased by 1c a litre. This elicited such violent opposition from the public, that the Australian Government was compelled to restore the price to its former level, and some filling stations even lowered the price by 1c a litre. Now we have to ask ourselves: What would have happened in Australia if the petrol price had risen by 27c a litre? I think the chances are very good that it would have brought that Government to a fall. This illustrates the following point: South Africa has a remarkably peace-loving and responsible population to tolerate such a poor Government without a murmur. [Interjections.]

The Government promised us that, together with the changes which were going to take place, there was going to be an economic revival in South Africa. But instead of the revival we had an economic disaster, and not the promise they made. Instead of money pouring into the country, as the Government said it would, we find that internal entrepreneurs are withdrawing their money from South Africa and investing it in overseas undertakings.

The Government told us that together with these changes South Africa’s international position and the hands of our friends abroad would be strengthened. I want to ask the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Is this how the hands of our friends have been strengthened? The strengthened hands of our friends have now deteriorated into a disinvestment campaign. We told the hon the Minister that the hands of his friends would not be strengthened, but that they would demand more and more from him. On his world tour last year the State President heard that he had not gone far enough; he had to go even further. He did not hear that those states would support on the platforms of the world. He heard that he must increase the pace and go further with his programme of integration.

I want to ask the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs whether Senator Kennedy and Mr Anderson are examples of friends of South Africa whose hands have been strengthened. That man humiliated South Africa by starting his 1988 presidential election campaign here in Soweto. Furthermore that tall member of the British Labour Party almost drove that hon Minister mad during his visit to South Africa a few months ago. The hon the Minister was driven into one corner after the other. Then we saw exactly how pathetic that hon Minister could be.

I enjoyed it.

Yes, the hon the Minister says that he enjoyed it, but he was chased around like never before. There is no getting away from one thing: This Government was shown up as a Government which cannot withstand or deal with international pressure.

That hon Minister who swings his arms about and lets off steam can tell us about the demonstrations and other things, but there are certain things he cannot argue away. Why, before members of this Parliament and even members of this Cabinet knew about the prospective reforms, had Dr Crocker already put down the particulars in writing. He even said which departments were going to be formed and who the Ministers were going to be, as well as who was going to be kicked out. Before members of this Parliament knew this, he had put it down in writing. [Interjections.] Why is President Reagan now openly saying that he is quite satisfied with the progress he is making in South Africa? It has justifiably been contended that that hon Minister is merely the Deputy Minister of South Africa now, because Dr Crocker has taken over.

Together with these changes there has not been an improvement in the race relations in South Africa. While these changes were being put into operation and afterwards, the radical elements such as the UDF and others have built up more steam than ever before, precisely because of these things.

I want to tell this hon Minister that his attempts to associate the CP with the radical elements and people of that kind, are becoming hackneyed. But I want to urge him to continue doing so, so that the world and South Africa can see how bankrupt he is, because he does not have arguments to counter those we advance. [Interjections.] When he runs out of arguments, he backs into a corner and says that the CP, the PFP and the radical elements stand together. This illustrates his bankruptcy.

The Constitution did not satisfy the people for whom it was introduced, for although Rev the hon Hendrickse is a member of this Cabinet, a member of this coalition Government, at the same time he also wants to be the Opposition because he is dissatisfied with the Constitution. We saw the pathetic spectacle of Rev the hon Hendrickse saying the following:

This is now the creation of confidence, when a Minister of the Cabinet says he is going to force the country into chaos without a legitimate government. Even more pathetic was what the State President said the evening after he had announced the Cabinet. When he was asked whether there would still be collective responsibility he said no, provision would now have to be made for differences. But what kind of differences? It is the kind of difference that enables a Minister to say that he is going to leave the country in chaos. On that occasion the State President said rather laconically that he would have to learn from other coalition governments how to deal with differences of that kind. [Interjections.] Here you have powerful government, governing from a position of power and knowing how to deal with such differences, and it has to learn from other coalition governments! But the State President will not find such a government, because there is no coalition government in which a Minister is allowed to say that the country should be left in chaos.

First this Government totally undermined the confidence which there was in the political stability of South Africa and now it has gone a step further. It has also made a complete about-face as far as the Black people are concerned. Not very long ago, after the 1981 elections, the State President still said the following here in the old House of Assembly:

He then went on to say the following:

The State President went on to say that links would have to be forged.

But in his opening address last Friday the State President said that not all the Black people outside the national and self-governing states could realize their political aspirations beyond the local level via the government structures of those states. He said they could not do so, but a few years ago he said they had to do so. Now the Government says that in order to reduce and prevent fragmentation in the constitutional sphere it has decided that long-term efforts must be made to co-operate as regards common affairs within the same co-ordinating framework. It says the special Cabinet committee was appointed to make recommendations on the form of political structures which will include the Black communities. It also says that increasing co-operation with the self-governing national states will take place within collective structures.

What do we have here? In the first place this means structures for self-determination in respect of own affairs, and in the second place this means collective structures, which include Black people, for common affairs. Those structures may look different to the present structures introduced by the new Constitution. But there is no fundamental difference, because they make provision for own affairs and for common affairs and own affairs represent self-determination and common affairs integration. Sir, when this Constitution was propagated for the first time, we said that common affairs were going to be dominant and own affairs were going to be insignificant. Now that the Constitution is functioning we find that this is in fact the case. There are 24 or 25 director-generals with departments dealing with common affairs and one director-general for White affairs, one for Coloureds and one for Indians. Own affairs are minimal and meaningless.

Consequently I am now asking the hon the Minister whether there is going to be a set of common affairs differing from those applying at present, in this preview the State President has given. Is finance going to be a common affair, as it is now? Is state security and the security forces, going to be a common affair, as it is now? Are the Public Service, the Post Office and the Railways—the policy on all affairs—going to be common affairs? Sir, I am telling you that this announcement by the State President represents a total reversal from full-fledged self-determination to political integration.

Yesterday or the day before yesterday the State President still said that there could easily be a bloodbath in South Africa, but over the years his party has always said that political integration could lead to a power struggle, chaos and bloodshed. Consequently I am telling the State President: He now finds himself headed in the direction which his party has always said would lead to bloodshed in South Africa, so why is he complaining? After all, he made the turnabout. I also want to tell him that every Head of Government before him could have gone in the direction he is now going. This is not a new direction. They were pressurized by the outside world and in this country by the Official Opposition and other people to choose political integration as a course of action but they refused because they have the courage and the resistance to do so and to do what they believed was right. A few years ago that party still said that integration would lead to a bloodbath and now they are heading in that direction.

We have said, and we learned this in that party, that if a country, a party and a community find themselves heading towards integration, they cannot control the momentum, nor can they determine where it must end, because it ends with one man one vote. The Zimbabwe of today is not the Zimbabwe Mr Ian Smith planned. I want to tell the Government that what it is planning for and has in mind for South Africa is of little significance. They are heading towards integration and they will end with one man one vote, and the most radical sector, namely the ANC, will probably take over.

While we are discussing this, I want to ask the hon the Minister of Law and Order whether, now that an offer has been made to Nelson Mandela and his friend, ie that if they promise to be good boys they will be released, the men of the AWB and the Wit Kommando can expect the same offer? Can they come along and say: “We shall be good boys”, and then be released?

Of course they can adopt the same attitude …

Thank you very much.

… but after all the State President did not say that they need only be good boys. What nonsense is this?

No, the State President said he must promise to be a good boy and not continue with violence and that sort of thing. I thank the hon the Minister for having replied in the affirmative. [Interjections.]

This Government has undermined confidence because everything has gone differently in South Africa to the way it said things would go. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs and Leader of the House is reported to have said the following, and I am quoting from a newspaper report:

Within 5 months of the new Constitution coming into operation, the State President has announced that Blacks are going to be included in the same co-ordinating political structure. The Blacks are going to be included in the same collective political structures. The NP does not have a mandate to implement this. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs told me that the moment Blacks were included he would walk out. The time has consequently come for him to do so. If he is a man, he must now resign from his constituency and allow a by-election to be held there. I am prepared to do the same. But I know that he cannot decide on his own. He must now first ask his friends and colleagues whether he may do so and what his reply must be. He may tell me on Monday what his reply is and whether he is prepared to accept my challenge. Let us see whether the voters of Delmas and Lichtenburg sanction the Government to do these things. The hon the Minister is here again and may reply as soon as he has been given permission. In the interests of his and my children and their descendants I am asking him not to give his colleague sitting next to him the chance to confuse, influence and indoctrinate the people so much by means of propaganda on the radio and television that they will accept this as they accepted the new constitution, something which they would never have accepted 10 years ago. If he is a man, I am asking him please to accept this invitation so that we can go to the voters and see what happens.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Lichtenburg will excuse me if I do not follow on his particular line of argument. My party and his party do not have the same attitude towards many things.

We in these benches, as a consequence of what we have listened to in this debate, doubt very much the wisdom of continuing the traditional no-confidence debate in a period when we are trying to develop what is called consensus politics. Traditionally, in a no-confidence debate, the opposition parties concentrate on the defects of the Government. They make snide and unpleasant remarks about Ministers and the Government in general and finally exacerbate ill feelings among parties. Certainly, little or no credit is ever given where that may well be due. As far as I have been able to see so far in this debate, very little that is really constructive has emanated from it. At the end of the week all one has achieved is a bit of a boost to the odd members’ ego as a result of various speeches that have been made. We believe it would be more practical in this era of consensus government to have a debate dealing with the state of the nation. A debate on those lines would seem somewhat more appropriate. In such a debate the President would indicate what progress had been made in respect of the Government’s policies over the previous year, the difficulties that were being faced by the country at the time and what we hope to do in the ensuing year. Members would then be able to make comment and suggestions of a constructive nature. To me this would seem more beneficial than the present rather sterile type of debate we have had so far. It would seem to me that if we are talking of consensus, confrontation would negate what we are trying to achieve.

We in these benches welcome the intentions expressed by the State President in his Opening Address to Parliament as an intention of progress towards a more open society in which non-homeland Blacks will participate in decision-making and will be accepted as full South Africans, which would give them a real stake in this country of ours. Let us hope we do not suffer from the too frequent problem in our country that because we begrudge the change we do too little too late. By doing so we will lose credit for what has been done and will allow terrorists and radicals to claim the credit for the changes, or alternatively, allow the United States of America to claim the credit for the changes, judging from the pressure which seems to come from that direction. I might add that I have no wish to be a “bywoner” of the United States either, or any other country for that matter. [Interjections.]

Here I should like to make mention of a specific point raised by the State President yesterday, namely the release of Mr Nelson Mandela. We in these benches welcome the offer made by the State President.

Unconditionally?

No, not unconditionally, oh no. We welcome the offer made by the State President, but we stand as we have always stood against terrorism. The conditions that apply, are reasonable and must be accepted as such by any reasonable person or country.

It must be clear that all the ineptitude and extravagance connected with the colossally expensive policy of separate development is beginning to bring this once great country to its knees. Our friends overseas—and I might say that we have many friends—have had a bad time trying to explain away—and in fact they cannot explain away—such things as the Coventry Four, detention without trial of trade unionists and political activists, the bannings which, although they have diminished, are still considered anathema in many parts of the world, section 16 of the Immorality Act, the Mixed Marriages Act and forced removals.

I recently spent a few days in the British Parliament in Westminister, and had the opportunity of having private discussions with a number of good friends of South Africa, all of them members of Parliament. They all made the same comments in respect of these particular points. All of the people concerned know this country either through having been here or having made a study of the country, and they believe that we have problems which cannot be removed easily by simple solutions. However, they do believe that some of these things are really beyond the pale. These affairs put our integrity in question with our friends, and they raise doubts about our ideas of justice, humanity and commonsense and, I might add, with some people, even our sanity.

Our fiscal and financial policies have done an enormous amount of harm, placed us among the more substantial net debtor nations and have reduced our creditworthiness to some extent. They have certainly debased our currency to only a fraction of its previous worth, particularly, of course, against the dollar. I am aware that we have had drought and I am also aware that we have had a low gold price recently, but these are only part of the problem. They are only contributory factors to our problems; they are not the main cause. I believe the main causes have been extravagance in the wrong areas, among other things the expenses of apartheid and the past neglect—this is very important—of Black education. We have bloated bureaucracies which are costing us a fortune, and a political philosophy that makes huge expenditure on the Police and Defence Force absolutely vital and essential. I am not arguing that we do not need a Police Force, a substantial one, and similarly a Defence Force. It is, however, our policy that necessitates our having to spend so much on them.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs said in his address that it was—and I use his words—“unfair to blame the NP for the financial situation of this country”. What absolute nonsense!

That is not what I said.

Yes, he did. I have his speech here.

I said it is unfair to lay all the blame … [Interjections.]

Yes, what nonsense! The NP has been in power for 37 years. Nobody else can be held responsible, nobody else has handled the affair—unless one perhaps wants to blame God or the devil for the drought, or Reaganomics for the poor gold price. As far as I can see, however, when a Government has been in power for 37 years, there is nobody one can blame for the state of the nation but that Government. It has created the policies, it has spent the money and it has printed excess money as required. I believe it to be rather convoluted thinking to claim that the NP is not responsible and I suggest that the hon the Deputy Minister, as an industrial psychologist, should have more wisdom than to underestimate the intelligence of hon members in the Opposition benches.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether it is fair to say that this Government is responsible for the drought? [Interjections.]

Sir, one does expect better from an hon Deputy Minister.

While discussing this hon Deputy Minister’s comments, there are a couple of points I should like to touch upon. While defending his defection from the NRP to the NP, he stated that the NRP in 1977 had done on a macro-scale what he and his two colleagues had done on a micro-scale, ie not obtain the consent of the party people to change. I wish it to be placed on record that this is not correct. We held a national congress in the Ice-drome in Johannesburg—I do not know whether the hon the Deputy Minister was there—where the matter was debated and put to the vote. The vote was in favour of change which was therefore the will of the congress. How on earth the hon the Deputy Minister could make a mistake as silly as that I do not know.

However, the hon the Deputy Minister and his two colleagues who defected with him, put their case to their divisions and subsequently to a Natal congress. Upon votes being taken, their point of view was totally rejected—except, of course, by some, though not all, members of their families. By what form of convoluted thinking and logic does the hon the Deputy Minister equate the two sets of circumstances?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating: How many members of the NRP went across to the NP with those hon members? To the best of my knowledge they took no dowry with them at all, they took nobody. What a bargain!

The hon members also implied that the differences between the NRP and the NP were not on matters of policy but of interpretation. The hon the Deputy Minister knows perfectly well that that is not so. So, I am unaware of his reason for saying that. It is not the case and I will indicate the difference. [Interjections.] According to NP policy, for example, White domination will be maintained in all material areas and especially in general affairs, whereas according to NRP policy domination by any group should be avoided. Secondly, as regards the nonhomeland Blacks, they would be excluded from government—I am referring to the existing policy. According to NRP policy Black and White leaders will, on a basis of equality and in debate, decide upon the representation and it will not be by White imposition. Thirdly, according to NP policy electoral representation is based on numbers which of course virtually excludes allowing the Blacks to come in on any other than a very, very heavily loaded basis. The NRP policy would be maximum autonomy on a federal basis, and equal group representation on matters that relate to all groups.

Finally, in regard to the major points, NP party policy, as it presently exists, excludes citizenship for Blacks, whereas NRP policy allows for citizenship for Blacks. These points, together with the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, section 16 of the Immorality Act, bannings and excessive detention without trial, are policy differences, not immaterial differences. [Interjections.] I ask again, by what convoluted logic does the hon the Deputy Minister conclude that these are not differences of policy and philosophy? We must presume of course that the hon the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs now has these as part of his policy.

The hon the Deputy Minister also suggests that businessmen should concern themselves with business and resolve the Government’s financial problems by expanding markets including export markets. I heartily concur. I would like to see that, and I am sure businessmen would love to be able to do that. However, how successful can they be when this Government has created a situation in which interest rates exceed 25%, and punitive taxation precludes their being able to create their own development capital? Again, there seems to be rather muddled thinking here. I realize that the hon the Deputy Minister has to justify his new position, but I believe that he has sold his political credibility for a mess of pottage, and, regretably, his two colleagues did not even get the “husks that the swine did eat”.

I want to leave the hon the Deputy Minister now to cover a couple of important matters that should be mentioned. The building industry is at its lowest ebb for many years, and we have a shortage of hundreds of thousands of homes and also a shortage of serviced stands. So we have the men and the land which is not serviced. What is the Government doing about this? We need something in the region of a quarter of a million homes almost immediately. What is the Government doing about this issue? These are related issues because the building industry personnel are out of work; there is a lot of unemployment there. We need the homes and we have the land, but it is unserviced.

The civil engineering industry is in a similar situation. Our needs are positively enormous—road works, new contracts for roads, and infrastructure for local authorities—but the money is drying up. Yet there are millions upon millions collected in the way of taxation, import duties and petrol tax. Another couple of cents was recently added for this sort of work but it is not being done. The civil engineering industry is beginning to suffer. What plans does the Government intend initiating in this direction?

Farmers are billions of rand in the red, partly, it is true, because of the prolonged drought, but largely also because of the poor prices they have been getting. Why have they been getting poor prices? The man in the street is having to pay through the nose for everything he buys. The farmer is getting poor prices for a number of reasons, partly, the control boards, partly, the number of middlemen who seem to operate between the farmer and the man in the street and, of course, the shocking marketing system. Moreover, when we do have a surplus of anything, we allow South Africans almost to starve—mostly the Black South Africans, I say—so that we can export at a loss, the surpluses to contiguous or other countries, many of whom are in fact our bitterest enemies. Businessmen are going bankrupt at an alarming rate, and the domino effect is beginning to come into play. When I say the “domino effect” I mean that because when one, two or three businessmen go bankrupt owing other businesses money, they also force other businesses under and put them in a position where they cannot keep their heads above water. In the past these businesses have been taxed to the hilt and even now the iniquitous Croeser plan for local government financing intends to bludgeon even more from those who can survive the current depression. What does the government intend to do about that?

Government expenditure has increased from 16% of the GDP to about 30% over the past 10 years. Money has been spent on creating a massive bureaucracy, and on building palatial accommodation, and the Government has exceeded budgets by more than 20%. What is the Government going to do about that? [Interjections.]

I said at the beginning of my address that we welcome the State President’s intentions and that we hope that they can be rapidly applied and not bogged down by bureaucrats. However, there is much in regard to bread and butter politics that also has to be done. I believe the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition gave a very good appraisal of the current financial and political position as far as the Cabinet is concerned. Although we strongly welcome the speech of the State President, we are not as happy with the rest of the Cabinet as we are with him. I should like to state that we support the motion by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, but that we move the following further amendment to his motion:

Mr Chairman, before I address the House I want to refer to a matter which occurred here in the House on Monday. On Monday the hon member for Waterberg developed a particular political thesis on the basis of statements allegedly made by Government members. In this connection the hon member, according to his own Hansard, quoted me directly. I asked the hon member to kindly furnish me with the reference sources of his quotation. He informed me that he unfortunately did not have the reference sources available at that stage. I then wrote him a letter in which I asked him to deliver the references to me the following day. I received a letter from him in which he stated inter alia that with regard to the first quotation he referred me to the Afrikaans Hansard, 23 May 1984, cols 7386 and 7387. Furthermore, Sir, he wrote that with regard to his quotation at the end of his speech he had requested your permission to make a statement. In regard to the first quotation to which he referred, reference to Hansard will indicate that the speech was made by the hon member for Bryanston and not by me. He was therefore obviously referring to a quotation from what that hon member had said I had made. I want to ask the hon member now whether he now has the correct reference source for his last quotation available. [Interjections.]

(Inaudible.)

The hon member says it is general knowledge. I then want to ask him which hon members of his party drew his attention to the fact that he had not quoted me entirely correctly. [Interjections.] I am asking the question in all fairness. [Interjections.]

Make your own speech.

I am asking the hon member in all fairness—certain codes are applicable in this House—which of his party associates drew his attention to the fact that he had not quoted me absolutely correctly?

That has nothing to do with you. [Interjections.]

In the first place the hon member’s refusal proves that he did not have a source from which he quoted me. The second point is that it was not an hon member on his side who drew his attention to it, for if those facts and his version had been correct, that such a source did not exist, but that it was general knowledge, he would not have written to me: “I do not have the source available now.” The fact of the matter is that through his action the hon member has violated one of the most important unwritten rules of this House. That is why I say in all fairness that the credibility of that hon member is greatly in jeopardy, because he does not have a source. That is why his statement that he had not quoted precisely what I had said, is not true. His hon colleague could not have drawn his attention to it because there is no such a source. He must now realize that in the light of his actions all of us will know with how much respect we ought to accept his word. [Interjections.]

I think that participation in the no-confidence debate in a new political dispensation is most probably an historic experience. One would have expected that, commensurate with the new dispensation, there would have been the same kind of renewal in the conducting of the debate. I want to add immediately that these idealistic expectations were not satisfied. In all fairness I think the opposite is true, for what did we get in reality? From the side of the hon Opposition we were treated to what I should like to call futile arguments showing little relevance to the economical, social, political and international circumstances with which South Africa has to cope.

I want to appeal to the reasonable people in this House, and I believe that there are such people: In all sincerity I must say that I find the best proof of this statement in the motion moved by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. What did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition do? Nobody would begrudge him or any other hon member of the Official Opposition the privilege or opportunity of deriving short-lived political gain from the economic situation, which in turn temporarily—so I believe—favours the Opposition and prejudices the Government; especially when there is talk of by-elections—and I do believe that the hon the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me—but…

(Inaudible.)

That is why I readily concede this point to you. In particular I think that one should concede this point because the hon the Leader of the Opposition does not have a real, practical alternative political policy for this country.

Even taking into account this particular temptation, to which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition of course yielded, one would surely have expected the debate to have been relevant to the facts and reality—to have been relevant to what I would describe as the gravity of the circumstances of the country.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition dismissed the economic problems of the country—and they do exist—and the consequential or ensuing problems with what, in my opinion, were superficial and for him, unworthy and unscientific standpoints and arguments. The political policy of the Government is the cause of all the problems of our country. I want to tell the hon Leader—he will understand the spirit in which I am saying this now—that this standpoint shows little insight into the structural economic problems of South Africa. It also shows scant insight into the fact that we in South Africa are confronted with problems—also in the economic sphere—which are inherent in the South African community or situation with which any government, whichever it may be, will have to deal. Of course one makes mistakes—financially, economically and otherwise. I should like to concede that point. In fact I should like to say that one of our greatest mistakes probably was to wish to ensure too high standards for people. I readily concede that.

Let us now test the statement of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition very briefly. Is the political policy of the Government the cause of the fall in the value of the rand? What about the position of the traditionally strong pound sterling then? What about the Deutschmark and what about the currencies of the major industrial countries of the world? I am asking with all due respect if our political policy is the cause of the destructive consequences of a prolonged drought for which we paid dearly in the loss of income from export services, and which took its toll in terms of the payment for imports and the cost to the consumer in this specific regard? Surely the hon Leader knows what the costs, direct and indirect, were to the State to stabilize agriculture. I also want to ask the hon Leader whether the political policy of the Government is the cause of the rise in fuel prices? The hon Leader knows that this is not true. The fact remains that in recent years South Africa undertook phenomenal development programmes, at great expense, for the underprivileged sections and population groups of the country and—I want to concede at once—at the instigation of all hon members of this House.

South Africa incurred very heavy expenses in its striving for greater parity and benefits with regard to its population. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will know that the narrowing of the gap, or greater parity, is not always or immediately accompanied by increased production, but by higher prices and higher inflation. Why blame the political policy of the Government? Is the Government’s political policy the cause of unemployment in our country? What about the millions of unemployed in Western Europe and America, to say nothing of the large-scale underemployment in Africa? Is the political policy of the Government responsible for the expansionist aims of communism in Africa, which are taking their toll in poverty, chaos and misery? Is the political policy of the Government responsible for the heavy demands that are being made on the manpower and funds of South Africa? As a reasonable man he will know that it is not true.

I now want to make a general remark; a remark which I am making in a friendly manner. The economic analysis made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was to a great extent so superficial that I— and I do this in all humility—want to say to him that it is not worthy of him, and that it can hardly serve as his first contribution to a debate of such a serious nature as this one. In his speech the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had a great deal to say about the so-called wasting of public money on what he called expenditure of an ideological nature. I should almost say that it is presumptuous of him to accuse the Government of profligacy on account of ideological reasons, while he and his party have not produced the political alternative, so that we can calculate the costs. [Interjections.]

I put it to him that that which he calls ideological profligacy, is what we have to spend in a heterogeneous community with its separate levels of development in order to organize the community and to develop the people. I readily grant that in our circumstances the organizing process, by its very nature, requires bureaucratic systems. Furthermore I readily grant that such systems are inclined to become ineffective. I will therefore not reproach him if he argues about that. The Government is, however, continuously trying to improve its efficiency.

The fact remains, however, that the Government takes these steps in the realization that the political answers for the country also lie in the multiplicity of constitutional structures. If the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition were also to accept it as such, he would have to deal with exactly the same problems.

I believe, however, that the hon Leader’s problem actually stems from the fact that he does not understand the difference between the efficiency and practicality. The fact of the matter is furthermore that the Government spends large sums of money for practical purposes. This is necessary in a society of a nature such as ours. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition nevertheless calls that expenditure profligacy. I therefore believe that the difference between myself and the hon the Leader of the Opposition lies in the fact—and I should like to confess this— that I pursue an ideology of order and meaningful and balanced development in society, unequal as it may be, while at the same time I cannot escape from the impression that the ideology of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must inevitably lead to chaos and disorder.

Add to this the fact—and in all fairness the hon Leader, I believe, will concede this—that the hon Leader proceeds from the standpoint that his party’s strategy to change the status quo is based on a convention which has to seek consensus. Until such time as that consensus becomes a reality, no adjustment is made to the composition of the legislative authority or otherwise. If that is not truly a formula or recipe for an explosion in South Africa, I really do not know what is.

†Mr Speaker, turning now to the constitutional arena I should like to refer to the following statement made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He said that if sloganizing and shortcuts were out of the question on the economic front, they were even more so on the constitutional and political front. He went on to say—and I should like him to confirm my summary of that— and to say in a flippant way, that since the constitutional dispensation had become a reality in South Africa people were walking about—also in this House, I presume—in the belief that all we had to do was to place our hands on our hearts and to repeat as often as possible “consensus”, which would automatically cause our problems to become more manageable.

[Inaudible]

The hon member should know that that is a flippant remark. He should know that if there is one thing that this Government does not underestimate, then it is the dire need to devise and to establish constitutional structures to broaden the democratic basis of our country and to broaden the basis of participation in the process of political decision-making in South Africa. We may argue with each other whether this is adequate or otherwise but the hon the leader of the Official Opposition cannot dispute our commitment to that goal. I believe he will confirm that. Among other things, I agree with the hon leader when he says that meaningful reform implies new formulae, changing norms and the spending of money. However, we are not merely committed to that; we have in fact done so to the extent that we have been criticized for overspending. Furthermore, we have been accused that the Government’s overspending is the reason for inflation in South Africa. The hon leader knows that pretty well.

On the other hand, I believe that the hon leader will agree with me that the population structure of our South African society is such that all of us are compelled to realize our goals for a democratic community in South Africa in a novel and, as yet, only partly defined fashion, which may eventually—I concede this immediately—bear little resemblance to those constitutional structures in homogeneous societies. The question that I should like to pose—which I believe is dominant in the minds of all reasonable people— is whether we can succeed. In my opinion only a prophet can give the answer to that question without qualification. I can do no more than to say that this Government believes that the answer is in the affirmative, and that it is committed to do its utmost to achieve this goal.

I can, however, speak with more certainty about the requirements, about the prerequisites that will have to prevail, or will have to be met, or will have to be cultivated, if we are to succeed. We are going to require the goodwill of the majority of people, the trust of people, and the various communities’ involvement and their intellectual contributions.

*The matter in regard to the success of the constitutional change confronts the people of South Africa with one of the most difficult decisions in its history. As I understand it, the State President indicated that he had chosen the road of honourable peace for South Africa. This is an important choice which was made. It is true that there are other people—inside the borders of our country too—who did not make the same choice. The crucial question which, in my opinion, must be answered in this House, more so than in any other place, is whether we are of the opinion that there are enough reasonable people who wish to make the choice for peace—in contrast to growing violence and indescribable misery. I believe that the answer to this question is in the affirmative.

I have no illusions about the scope and intensity of the challenges which face us on the course which we have declared to follow. I believe that these are challenges which are going to exact a great deal from us. They are going to require spiritual and intellectual flexibility instead of inflexibility of thought from us. It will require us, as I see it, to work tirelessly to build understanding, tolerance and mutual trust.

What I am trying to say, is not a new truth, but what I want to say is that it must attain new substance in South Africa. We must not only profess to it; but also live it.

I shall be permitted to speak on my own behalf. From now on the ministerial responsibility for the general constitutional development of the country is mine. In this regard I want to pledge that for as long as this is the case, as long as it is within my ability to make a contribution to the forum of discussion which the State President envisaged, this attitude will dominate my approach, and if I cannot do so, I shall be the first who will be prepared to relinquish it.

†Having said this, I should like to turn to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition once more and address myself also to all other hon members. I shall seek, in fact, I shall go further—I shall plead for his and their co-operation in this regard. I cannot command the words which underline the urgency of the South African circumstances and the needs for collective action.

I believe the hon leader and I know that we share the same democratic ideal for South Africa. We both know that the realities of the South African society dictate that the constitutional and political road that we have to travel in the future to the attainment of that ideal of necessity differs substantially from the road that has been followed in more homogeneous countries and societies of the world.

These are no longer issues for debate in this country; these are facts. They are part of the reality with which we have to deal, and in no way can we escape this reality.

We both know that the realization of the democratic ideal in South Africa is a much more complex exercise, so complex that many political scientists are of the opinion that it is unattainable. We in this House, in this institution which we call Parliament, would have to disprove this statement, we would have to give the lie to this perception.

That we differ about the methods to be employed in attaining that ideal, to attain the ideal of peace, of democracy and of prosperity must from now—I should like to stress this word and this concept—of necessity become less of a priority, less of an obstacle to finding solutions.

I should like to appeal to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, having identified himself with the goals which the hon the State President has identified, and to all other hon members in this regard. We are going to need goodwill. I am even prepared to say that many things have occurred in the past for which some of us must now ask forgiveness. We must be prepared to forgive if we are to succeed. We require trust. We require the acceptance of the bona fides of the members of this House. We require the intellectual and sincere contributions of all hon members in this House.

I appeal to all the leaders of all the parties in this House to speak in the constituencies where they have influence, and to persuade them, if persuasion is at all necessary, to accommodate the Government in this respect, knowing, as the hon members must do, that we are committed to face the challenge that the State President has identified in a spirit of goodwill, forgiveness, trust and tolerance.

*The hon Leader of the Official Opposition often asks us to divest ourselves of what he calls obsolete standpoints and prejudices. I also have a request; namely that he divests himself of the cynicism demonstrated in his speech, as well as the intolerance and distrust which is often demonstrated by the behaviour of the hon members of his party towards hon members of the Government.

I want to ask something else of him: To leave the politics of escapism and the attachment to political models which have no connection with the reality of South African circumstances behind. He must make his contribution as best he can, namely on a scientific and intellectual level. I am advocating—and I also commit myself to it—that he make a contribution to convincing people that necessary reform implies that all of us, not only in the material sense of the word, will have to scale down our expectations and all of us will have to increase and elevate our contributions. Let all of us in this House unequivocally place ourselves on the side of moderate and reasonable South Africans. I am asking for acceptance of the fact that for the foreseeable future, this Government will remain in power. I ask for this be accepted as a fact. I ask acceptance of the fact that we want to practise our politics in this country sincerely and that we should like to safeguard this country.

†Let me conclude by saying—and I should like to stress this—that I am not speaking of trade-offs that resemble opportunistic political deals of dubious content and objectives. Personally I would welcome the contributions that the hon the Leader and other hon members can make to the solution of the problems of South Africa.

We need to build these bridges. I believe we need to swallow our prejudices. We need to rid ourselves of fear and mistrust, if there are fears.

It was Elliot who said the strongest principle of growth lay in the human choice. Perhaps it is also true that when people have much to win and much to lose, that they fear the choice.

Mr Speaker, I shall, of course, return in the course of my reply to the hon the Minister’s speech, especially to the pleas which he has made, and to which I intend to respond.

At the end of this debate, courtesy requires that I reply to all the hon members who responded to the motion which I moved. However, I am afraid that circumstances will make it impossible for me to respond to all the speeches which were specifically applicable to me. However, I shall try to respond to at least those speeches which were representative of the hon members’ contributions.

To start with I can say that this no-confidence debate, the first no-confidence debate of the new Parliament, will probably go down in history as one of the most meaningful no-confidence debates we have conducted. Stands have been taken on cardinal matters, which, I believe, are going to dominate the political debate in South Africa for the foreseeable future, and I should like to return to those points.

I believe that one can also say that in this debate we heard old sounds recurring, while new sounds, too, could be heard. I should like to refer to some of those “old sounds” and, naturally, I should like to end with a few remarks on the “new sounds”.

†Before I do so, it is proper for me to respond to the contribution of the hon the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs, who has been elevated to this position which he now occupies. I should like to congratulate him on his extraordinary good luck. I think we in this House know what a lucky man that gentleman is, because he has managed to do two things. He has managed to overcome the difficulties of being an absentee landlord, and he has also managed to overcome the necessity of having to walk along an old, well-trodden path in politics, and now finds himself in the position of a Deputy Minister.

In regard to being an absentee landlord, we all know that owing to circumstances, may be beyond the hon the Deputy Minister’s control, he was not resident in his constituency. In fact, when we circulated a petition in that constituency in which we asked that he should resign his seat and fight a by-election in order to bring some booty to the NP as proof, the one question that we came across more often than not was: Who is Ron Miller and what has he done? This is a rather curious phenomenon, especially when one looks at what has happened in the past. Ambassador Marais Steyn brought Turffontein as booty. The present hon member for Turffontein went across and brought Turffontein again. The hon member for De Kuilen brought De Kuilen, and the hon the Minister for Environmental Affairs and Tourism brought Simon’s Town. There is therefore an interesting political phenomenon in the elevation of the present Deputy Minister of Home Affairs. I nevertheless wish him everything of the best with his extraordinary good luck. I listened to his speech, and I must say that he spoke with a new-found conviction and commitment that would actually make Saul of Damascus look like a second-hand car salesman. [Interjections.] He was really committed to what he was saying. He believed in everything he said. However, I think he will do well in his present position. His command of sock-speak and hi-tech cliches will cover up many a moment when competence and ability are needed. I am sure, however, that the hon the Deputy Minister will do well, and, in lighter vein, I wish him all the best consensus in his new position.

*However, I now want to return to the “old sounds”, to speeches which are significant more because of their nostalgic value than due to any particular meaning relating to their content. In this respect I call to mind for example the hon member for De Kuilen. He has political arrows in his quiver which by now are almost collectors’ items. [Interjections.] Each year we hear the same old story. This hon member reminds me of those clockwork dolls one gets. You wind them up, you aim them in a certain direction and then they just say “haba, haba, haba”. When I listen to the hon member, he reminds me of that kind of clockwork doll. He talks until his little spring slackens, and then he sits down. [Interjections.] That hon member says he has sat here in the front benches for 25 years and now he is on that side, also in the front benches. That makes me think of those lovely round riverstones one sometimes comes across in the veld. You look at them and wonder if you should tread on them to get through the ford, but you know from experience that if you do, you are going to slip and come a cropper. For that reason the hon member stays where he is. While on the subject of riverstones, I am also reminded of the hon member for Standerton. That, too, was an “old sound”. The hon member for Standerton, just like the hon member for De Kuilen, questioned my patriotism. The hon member for Standerton has a particular style of delivery. He always looks for the melodious consonants and alliterations and so on, but if one reads carefully what he says, now and then it also contains a barb. I listened to what the hon member said about what I was purported to have said in West Germany. He asked me why I did not telephone the Defence Force headquarters before I took part in the television debate, to ask what the point of view was. The hon member must know that that is not how it works. There have been occasions on which I spoke at seminars overseas, when I was able to rectify matters. I have in mind for example, the North Western University where they screened The Last Grave at Dimbaza, and I was able to respond to it. I was able to rectify errors and say where in my opinion there was exaggeration, and I could say what the context was in which one must understand the whole problem of rural poverty.

However, in the case in question I arrived there after I had been requested at five o’clock in the afternoon to take part in the programme at nine o’clock that night. I did not know what they would ask me nor what they would screen. The first I saw was when they screened this thing, and I had to respond to it there and then. After all, I could not say: “Wait a minute, I must go and phone Gen Constand Viljoen quickly”. I had to respond there and then. All I am trying to say is that I could not rectify within three or four minutes what had just been screened. What I also tried to say, was that to rectify what had happened there by means of information campaigns would require endless funds from any government in the world, and I think that that could be prevented in advance.

There are certain matters I wish to set straight as far as the “old sounds” are concerned. There were also aspects of the speech of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning which I would describe as part of the “old sounds”. When the hon the Minister appeals to us to get away from the vituperation of the past, I want to agree with him heartily and also ask the hon member for De Kuilen and the hon member for Standerton: Let us get away from this approach, viz of questioning one another’s bona fides and trying to make a point by taking the other man to pieces. [Interjections.] It serves no purpose.

You did the same with Ron Miller. [Interjections.]

Order!

No, Sir, there was a very good reason for that and the hon member knows exactly why it happened. Let us get away from that.

Let me come, then, to the question of rectifications, beginnings with the hon the Minister of Finance. The hon the Minister of Finance resented my supposedly having said that the interest rates had been lowered as a result of political considerations.

†The hon the Minister of Finance also made the point that very often in the economy the perceptions that people have of a certain situation determine the reactions of the market. I want to say to the hon the Minister, whether he likes it or not, that this was a very, very strong perception in the market. As the hon the Minister knows, when people perceive things as real they sometimes become real in their consequences. This is what happened here, and I quote for the hon the Minister’s edification from the Financial Mail:

That was the perception and that perception influenced the reactions of the actors in the market place. Let me also make the point that I never said—and here I come back to the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—that the drought bore no relationship to our present economic hardships. I never said that the low gold price had nothing to do with our problems. I never said that the low rand/dollar price had nothing to do with it. I am saying that taking that into account the policies of the Government aggravated that beyond all measure. The policies of the Government made it difficult, if not impossible, to cope with these problems. That is the main thrust of my argument. Hon members can go back to my speech. I said so quite clearly in my speech.

*I come now to the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and of National Education. I concede here and now—and what is more I told him this personally—that I made a mistake. It was 7,8 and not 78. I made the mistake in good faith and I thank him for pointing it out to me. I think, however, that the hon the Minister completely missed the point I made. He said that the whole question of classification, the census, etc, especially where it concerns races, comprises only R94 000 per year. However, he is plainly not aware of the fact that the Population Registration Act, and specifically that section which is applicable to race classification, is fundamental to the whole structure of discriminatory legislation which has been built up in South Africa through the years. Without that Act one cannot really apply the Group Areas Act. Without that Act one cannot apply the Separate Amenities Act. Without that Act one cannot even determine who the members of the separate Houses of Parliament are to be. Therefore it does not help to say that it comprises only R94 000. What it really means, is that that is the cost of getting the whole process of racial discriminatory legislation under way.

Since the hon the Minister has responded to my speech, I should like to mention that I received a letter this week which relates to this matter. I shall not furnish the person’s name, but the letter reads as follows:

This is the consequence of that kind of legislation. We can get rid of this type of thing if in the new dispensation we truly …

Even without that we still need a population register.

I have never denied that. The hon the Minister must go back to my speech and read what I said. I quoted in it what Mr Wronsley said, namely that R25 billion of the R27 billion is spent on aspects of State policy which are going to involve fundamental policy changes if there is to be a cutback. Mr Wronsley goes on to say that this would not be accepted easily by the voters. I said immediately after that that it stands to reason that there are many aspects of State spending that are essential, but that would be seen as non-essential and wasteful State spending. I went on to say that as far as the government department of the hon the Minister is concerned, that aspect which relates to race classification, constitutes wasteful State spending.

It is only R94 000.

Yes. In the same way I referred to the departments of the hon the Minister of Justice and the hon the Minister of Law and Order. That was the essence of my argument. The same applies to the hon the Minister of Trade and Industries. When I spoke of ideological decentralization, he became angry and said that we say that all decentralization is ideological. However, we never said that. We said that decentralization which is aimed purely at achieving political objectives and which disregards market forces, is ideological decentralization and a waste of money. There is such decentralization, and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning admitted it. He said that there is ideological decentralization.

Of course there is.

Why, then, does the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry not say that there is? That is exactly what we say, and the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry can hear now that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning says that there is ideological decentralization. In fact that is the point we made.

I come now to the hon the Minister of Law and Order. He became angry with me and entered into an argument with me about what I said about what he had purportedly said. However, what was the essence of my argument? The essence of my argument was that the measure which makes provision for detention without trial, lay at the heart of our diplomatic embarrassment and the way in which the whole matter was handled.

†That is the essence of it. A situation was reached where the people in the consulate were not prepared to go out. They could have been the best propagandists in the world or they could have been communists or they could have been anything, but they were not going to go out. Why? Because they could legitimately claim that waiting for them outside were the Police and the hon the Minister of Law and Order who threatened them with detention without trial. The moment that threat was removed, that whole problem resolved itself. [Interjections.] That is exactly what happened. The Commissioner of Police said that section 28 would no longer apply, not only to those people but others as well. The moment that happened, the situation was resolved. [Interjections.]

*Therefore—it is no use arguing about it now—we were faced with a situation which could not resolve itself at a diplomatic level. That was the entire crux of the problem, that was the dilemma that we had overseas, and that is the dilemma that we had internally in South Africa.

I shall now return to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. At this point I do not wish to enter into debate with the hon the Minister but his whole discourse has overlooked that point, the whole question of the Coventry Four.

†In social science they say it is considered plagiarism when one consults only one source and does not acknowledge it, but that when one consults many sources and does not acknowledge them, it is called research. The hon the Minister gave us his sources, he referred to all the international experts, the academics and so on. I do not question their ability and competence. They obviously have a very good point, and I am even prepared to accept this. I have said all along that I accept the principle of retaliation. However, that was not the issue.

The issue was the way in which the South African Government retaliated by means of this hon Minister. Was that politically prudent? Was that diplomatically wise? Was it morally defensible? The answer to all three issues must be no.

It was essential! [Interjections.]

No, that is a point of view, and that is a point of view on which the hon the Minister and I will continue to differ.

*I am grateful that the hon the Minister of Justice reacted sensitively to this entire accusation because it shows that there is sensitivity on the part of the Government about the whole question of influx control. I think, however, that the hon the Minister will agree with me. I speak under correction but since 1979 statistics are no longer published on the size of the percentage of people jailed in consequence of infringement of influx control measures. Such statistics no longer exist; I searched for them but I could not find them. What I did find—and I offer this for the edification of the hon the Minister— is the following quotation from the Hoexter Report to which the hon the Minister referred. I shall read it in support of my point of view. Page 581 reads as follows:

†That was what the Hoexter Commission reported, and the hon the Minister got up yesterday and said: “We took note of that, and we changed the situation.”

We gave you the latest statistics on this issue.

Yes, and I am grateful to the hon the Minister for giving them to me. However, the source of my material lies in the questions that we tabled in this House last year—at that stage the latest statistics were not available to me—and my source says that the number of persons arrested for offences relating to reference books and influx control was 206 000 in 1982 and 262 000 in 1983, in other words, an increase in 1983. Those were the people arrested. The number of persons convicted for these offences in each year—which involves the hon the Minister’s department—was 98 000 in 1982 and 142 000 in 1983. [Interjections.] That is 40 000 more people.

How many were in jail? That was your issue.

That is the whole point; I made two points. [Interjections.] I said that the courts, or some court officials, were involved. Secondly, I said that the overcrowding was being aggravated by convictions of this kind as well. Then, on the question of overcrowding, I indicated that the following information was at my disposal: The average daily unit cost per prisoner in 1983 was 805 cent; the capacity of South Africa’s prisons is 74 000 prisoners, but in December 1983 the daily average population of the prisons was 105 000 prisoners; this is an average daily cost of R849 000.

*That was merely the background. I said that we were wasting money whenever we jailed such a prisoner. That was the crux of my argument.

So much for setting matters straight. I now turn to what I call the new sounds emanating from this no-confidence debate, which relate especially to the initiatives of the State President. Speakers who discussed these were the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development, the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs and, most recently, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I either listened carefully to all three gentlemen’s speeches, or else I read them. The hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development delivered a low-key speech. He merely confirmed what the State President had said. He said it was the dawn of a new era, etc.

The speech of the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs was interesting because one encountered in it a certain nervousness. The reason for this is interesting. I can understand it. The hon the Minister is the National Party leader in the Transvaal. I do not wish to make a lot of political capital out of this. I merely wish to establish a very important fact. I regard the State President’s initiatives and guidelines as very important. In fact, I consider them as so important that I do not believe that we should create any confusion among ourselves as to their precise meaning: They either point in a certain direction or they do not. Now the hon the Minister has attempted to offer a little resistance in respect of one or two matters. One is the so-called permanence of the Black man outside the national states. The hon the Minister used distinctions such as those between “accept” and “grant”, and between “can” and “must”. By referring to the hon the Minister’s speech I shall illustrate the confusion this can create.

I first just wish to make the point that the success of the State President’s initiatives will not depend on us. We may hone them a little or flesh them out. However, as the State President said yesterday their success will depend on the interaction there is going to be between the Government and the Blacks. That is what it will depend on.

Not only on the Government, but on all of us.

I agree with that, too, and I should like to return to that point. In any case, that is the crux of the matter.

Now the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs has told us (Hansard, 30 January):

The hon the Minister of Internal Affairs went on to say:

This does not make sense. If you accept that they are permanent, you grant the fact that they are permanent. They are permanent. We must not attempt to shift in this respect now. [Interjections.] That has put the cat among the pigeons. I know that that is where it is. That is where the cat is. [Interjections.]

I do not want there to be unnecessary confusion about this. The second point the hon the Minister raised was the matter of linkage. The hon the Minister said linkage remained the policy, but there, too, one may read that linkage is no longer the policy. I do not wish to pursue the matter further, however.

I wish to deal with the State President’s address yesterday. Let me say here and now that I think the State President’s address yesterday was of cardinal importance to the future of South Africa. Firstly, there is the attitude he adopted regarding the release of Nelson Mandela and other prisoners in the same category. I believe that this should be welcomed as an important initiative in détente politics. It is an important initiative because I believe that, bearing in mind the dilemma or problem from which we are attempting to escape, we wish to emerge from the cycle of violence. I believe that the State President’s offer is a genuine attempt to break that cycle. It is an attempt to say: “Here is an opportunity. React to it.” I believe, too, that we should consider the possibility of extending this offer not only to individuals, but also to organizations. I say we should consider it. I do not wish to make too much of this, but I believe that we should state that any organization willing to renounce violence, willing to negotiate and bargain peacefully, may function in South Africa. That is why I say that this may be as great a coup for this entire policy and climate of détente which the hon the State President has initiated. Therefore I ask that the hon the State President should consider our launching this initiative from this Parliament as well.

I pledge my full co-operation to the State President and the Government with regard to the State President’s appeal on disinvestment. I believe that disinvestment is not in the interests of South Africa—and I include all South Africans. I also believe that, regardless of all its other shortcomings, disinvestment creates false expectations. Among some people here in South Africa it creates expectations that salvation and solution await them outside South Africa, and that that solution will manifest itself by way of disinvestment. This is an illusion, and I believe that we aggressively bring home to people that it is an illusion, that it will not work and that in fact it will be to the detriment of all of us in the long run.

The hon the State President called on us to be prepared to make sacrifices. If I interpreted his speech correctly, he meant it in the context of Government expenditure; that we should be prepared to make sacrifices in that respect. I say to the hon the State President that my party and I will commit ourselves to supporting him and the Government in the pruning of unnecessary Government expenditure wherever possible. We shall do this because I believe that we in Parliament should set the example, if we are to expect a similar reaction to come from the private sector at all. We cannot continue making appeals to the private sector in this respect while we ourselves are guilty of overexpenditure.

The hon the State President also called for co-operation in the whole matter of development, decentralization and solving the problem of migrant labour. Once again we are quite prepared to help, subject to the qualifications we have set. We shall of course accept decentralization where it can take place on an economic basis, but not at the expense of the established growth points. The single important point to remember is that a process of systematic urbanization will necessarily mean that people will increasingly move to established growth points. Naturally one may be saddled with problems of overurbanization, and this must be given consideration.

May I put a question?

Yes, but it will have to be quick.

I wish to ask the hon member whether he agrees with me that, regarding the advantages inherent in concentration in established areas, the cost benefits not reflected by an entrepeneur in his balance sheet should be recoverable.

I should like to give some thought to what the hon the Minister has said there, but we can take it up again on a later occasion. I merely wish to say that we should not hamstring private initiative in established areas by means of measures aimed at forcing people to go to the decentralized areas.

Finally I turn to the hon the State President’s guidelines in general.

†I believe that there are two major political problems that all of us in South Africa— regardless of which government is in power—have to resolve. For want of time, and for purposes of brevity, I refer to them as racial discrimination on the one hand, and political domination on the other hand. These we can graphically present as two axes: The problem of domination intersects the problem of discrimination. At the point of intersection, where political domination becomes an example of racial discrimination, we have the most difficult problem to resolve in South Africa. I want to say immediately to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that there are no models. There are no external foreign models that can be brought here to solve our problems. I have said that many times in the past, and I want to make the point again now: We cannot expect foreigners to come and tell us how to resolve that problem. There are, however, societies with similar difficulties, and we can learn a great deal from them. Here I think of Syria, Libya, Sri Lanka, the Sudan, Cyprus and Northern Ireland, all of whom are burdened with the problems of discrimination and domination. There is a great deal that we can learn from them. There are no formulas that we can impose to solve the problem of domination. We will have to negotiate ourselves out of that difficulty. That is why I welcome the State President’s initiative in this respect in that he is committing us to a process of negotiation. He is not only committing us to a process of negotiation, but, as far as I can understand, he is also trying to make it as open-ended as possible. We will obviously test this commitment because I believe this is the kind of contribution that an opposition party can make. It is not to say “yes, yes” to everything which is said but to say “we understand but we want to understand better what exactly is meant”. We want to test the commitment of Government.

Do you recommend participation in the forum then?

I have already done so.

Secondly, on the question of discrimination, I said one did not need negotiation to get rid of discrimination. One needs legislation. Discrimination was created because of legislation. We can legislate ourselves out of that. In fact, to the extent that the Government legislates discrimination off our Statute Book it creates a climate conducive to negotiating the problem of domination. However, to the extent that the Government insists that every step towards getting rid of discrimination has to be negotiated, argued and debated, the argument moves away from the central problem of political domination and concentrates on the problem of discrimination. I do not mind challenging the rest of the world or any academic or university overseas in arguing the case of domination. Nobody can say that it is correct to substitute one form of domination with another. Nobody can come with simple slogans such as, for example “the consent of the Government”. It is like saying “a happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year”. The intention is good but it does not solve anything. Nobody can say that to us. We can take on the world if we want to on the question of domination, but where we are defenceless is on the question of racial discrimination. We have no argument on that. That is why I urge this Government, if it really wants to set negotiations going, to make a declaration of intent committing our country to negotiating a political system in which people can enjoy the rights of citizenship without racial domination.

Secondly, the Government should spell out in that declaration of intent a timetable by which it wants to move away from discriminatory practices and say that it wishes, on the basis of that, to negotiate a formula whereby a constitutional solution for the country can be found which is not based on domination and which is not discriminatory. In doing so the Government should make it clear that it does not say that it has the answer but that it is willing to negotiate. Nobody can fault us if we do that. To the extent that the Government is prepared to commit this country to that, we will support it. For that I will give my co-operation. However, at the same time I also want to point out that it is not the function of the Official Opposition simply to sit here and say: “Yes”, “Nice” or “Good”. It is the function of the Official Opposition to participate constructively and critically. If that is what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning means we should do, then we commit ourselves to doing that.

Finally, the path that we have set ourselves on is not going to be an easy one. There is going to be a great deal of patience required from all of us. More often than not the Government will have to accept that its advances may be cast aside precisely because it creates confusion and uncertainty, but there must be time for reflection and, particularly on the part of the Government, there must be a commitment to demonstrate good faith. We have a history, as the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning so often says, of prejudice and suspicion. It behoves us in this House to create a climate in which that suspicion and prejudice can disappear. If it does not disappear no negotiation is possible and we will not be able to create a climate in which we can bargain with each other for the future of our children.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the question,

Mr Speaker, on a point of order, would you please indicate on which side of the House the hon member for Queenstown and the hon member for Maraisburg should be counted?

As far as I can see the two hon members have crossed the floor.

Sir, there is no clear line of division between the two parties. There must be a clear set of benches between the parties. The rules are clear on that issue.

Order! My decision is that the two hon members who did not vacate the row of benches should be counted with those on my left. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.