Mr Chairman, at the outset I should like to mention an issue that I do not think is controversial. When I raise this issue I am aware that it can in fact be profitably discussed by the Standing Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. I know, incidentally, that a subcommittee of that standing committee is investigating this matter.

I should also, however, like to take this opportunity to address a specific request to the State President. The nature of my request is such that I believe all hon members will be affected by it. It is, namely, the relationship between the new parliamentary system and the discussion of Votes. I think that with the system of standing committees we now have, there is far more time available for hon members to go into the discussion of legislation more carefully. In my opinion, it is therefore not necessary for us to spend so much time demonstrating agreement with reference to a legal measures, particularly with reference to consensus measures.

Indeed, Mr Chairman, I think that because of this innovation far more time should be made available for the discussion of Votes. I can hardly imagine a more pressing time in our country’s history than right now, when there is such a real need for profound and thorough debating of the separate Votes of the respective Ministers. They are intimately affected by new constitutional initiatives. In fact, this indeed applies to the Vote of every hon Minister. I think, therefore, that far more time ought to be set aside for the discussion of these aspects, especially here, across the floor of the House. As far as the State President’s Vote is concerned, I think there are very few cases that are more valid.

The State President holds an executive position in which there is far-reaching leadership with reference to a wide network of matters affecting all population groups in South Africa. I therefore want to ask the State President whether he would not consider this request of mine favourably so that we may discuss the possibility of what I have just raised on that standing committee. This is why it is not possible for me, in the limited time at my disposal, to do justice to the discussion of the State President’s Vote.

Perhaps I could just raise a couple of issues at the outset and, I hope, return later in greater detail to the speech the State President is going to deliver here, because it is clear from the Press and the radio that an interesting speech awaits us. In my opinion it would be better for me to use the time available to react to that speech in the more meaningful manner of which I am capable, rather than stand here and anticipate what is perhaps not even going to happen. I should therefore, at the outset, like to touch briefly upon one or two issues. The one issue deals with short-term and the other with long-term politics.

We are occupied with a by-election in Newton Park. Of course, a by-election is also being fought in Harrismith, but my party is involved in the Newton Park by-election. Right at the outset I want to tell the Government, and particularly the State President, that one cannot fight an election in a “verkramp” way and try to govern in a “verlig” way, because that would create an electorate that is not prepared for the changes one is trying to implement. It does not help to go and play Black peril politics in Newton Park for short-term political gain, and afterwards try to come forward with “verligte” initiatives in order to find a constitutional answer to the Black problems in our country. I want to say this because, at the moment, we in this White House are being watched very closely. White politics is no longer a parlour game for a privileged minority. The standpoints we adopt, here, the language we use and the way we discuss our constitutional initiatives, have a direct impact on inter-group relations in South Africa.

In this connection I want to come back to a speech made by the hon member for Kimberley South in which he attacked the integrity of one of the hon members on my side of the House in regard to how he was said to have interfered with Votes. I would not have minded if there had indeed been a reason for this, but in this particular case it was mere political pettiness again. The hon member himself is aware of this now, I hope, if he has looked at the newspapers from which it became apparent that what he had said this hon member had done was in fact not the case, and in which it was also pointed out, by means of sworn statements by the couple concerned, that the so-called sworn statement prepared by the NP was based on incorrect information. That information was brought to their attention. I do not think that attacking one another in this way does us any credit and I think the hon member for Walmer in particular deserves an apology in this respect.

I am now, however, coming to long-term politics. I was in Newton Park recently, and in Uitenhage, too. I paid a visit to the Kannemeyer Commission of Inquiry and observed the procedure that was being adopted there. I also spoke to some of those Black community leaders or personalities who live in that community, and who are deeply involved in the unrest situation and very concerned about it. I came away from there feeling truly disheartened. One thing that struck me was the total lack of communication between the inhabitants and the police, and between the inhabitants and the White section of the population. The other thing that struck me was that these two communities—the Blacks and the Whites—really live in totally different worlds. They may just as well be living on different continents. There are tremendous misconceptions on both sides. But I also left there with the conviction that these problems could be solved, and convinced that sufficient good faith exists on both sides to bridge this communication gap.

This brings me, then, to the State President’s Vote and to the guidelines sketched at the opening of this parliamentary session at the beginning of the year. I said at that time that those guidelines could be the beginning of a new debate and I stressed the word “could” because the guidelines in themselves, as they were formulated in that speech, raised quite a number of questions without giving any answers. Enough was said to give one hope, but too little to show us precisely where we were going. With reference to all the points raised in the State President’s speech, we can pose either a negative or a positive question. On the issue of citizenship, on the new forum that was referred to, on the whole question of influx control, there were new sounds which raised quite a number of questions.

The point is simply this: The nature of the questions is such that they all point to matters of principle. They are not questions dealing with details or specific information; they deal with principles and objectives, and it is essential for us to obtain clarity on those objectives.

One can read in the Press or in periodicals about prominent Cabinet Ministers who make statements and adopt standpoints that are directly traceable to the initiatives of the State President, without being able to gain clarity on what those principles are. Allow me to point out an example. The hon the Minister of Co-operation, Development and Education was interviewed in depth by the editor of the periodical Leadership. The hon the Minister was asked:

The hon the Minister replied:

The forum can therefore lead to something which has a constitutional base in terms of the revised Constitution, but what does this mean? What are the implications? The second question that was posed there was this:

To which the hon the Minister replied:

Once again, what exactly does “as part of the constitutional law of the country” mean? The following question was also asked:

To which the hon the Minister replied:

This was with reference to the Blacks.

At this point one can then ask: Is one common constitutional framework what they have in mind? A policy decision must be given—one common constitutional framework, part of the constitutional structure of South Africa, in which a possibility for power sharing exists. Is this the case or is it not? We cannot hope to solve the short-term problems of, say, the constitutional development of Black local communities if we have not cleared up these long-term policy matters, because what course does one tell the people we are following, and where is it headed? That is why I come back to simple questions of principle.

If these things are true, as I infer—I do not want to put words in the mouths of the hon the Minister or the State President—we cannot get away from the fact that, in one way or another, a common citizenship structure must be created. That does not mean “one man, one vote” or a unitary state, but in terms of that common citizenship we must then negotiate a constitution. It is not a “yes” or “no” standpoint that must be adopted, and at this stage it is only the State President that can give us this guidance. Once we have that guidance there can be meaningful debate, but until such time as we do, we are going to be stuck with this rhetoric we have been unable to escape from the past week or two, of asking one another questions and counter-questions, without any meaningful debate being possible. This is why I am waiting with great interest for the State President’s contribution so that we can see what kind of debate there can be in the discussion of this vote.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I hoped that there would be a message of hope for the people of South Africa in his speech but I am afraid that what he had to say only contributed to a negative spirit which I think is abroad in this country of ours.

In the past few weeks we have seen that opinion polls were conducted which indicated that, with the exception of the Japanese, South Africans had the greatest spirit of despondency. At the Rand Easter Show, the State President said, too, that we were talking ourselves into despair. We on this side of the House admit immediately that there are many things in South Africa that cause us concern and to which urgent attention must be given, but we must not lose our equilibrium, either. In these times when there are things that worry us we must not look only on the dark side. It does not become us as descendants of a nation of pioneers who braved tremendous dangers and ran risks, and still opened up this country for us, to display a negative disposition. It is a symptom of ingratitude for what those who went before us did for us.

There is not enough time in these few minutes to go into all the various lamentations but I should like to refer to a few just in passing. And then I want to return to the official opposition and their approach to matters.

Over the past year we have heard a great deal about the hardships farmers are suffering. It is true that our country went through a terribly severe drought that lasted for years. To say, however, that the farmers are suffering hardships is only half of the truth. There are certain segments of the fanning community that have experienced particularly good times in recent months and years. In fact, I saw in yesterday’s Star that the South African Agricultural Union pointed out that potato farmers have been particularly fortunate over the past two years, and that the same applied to wheat farmers.

That is not all. We had a sympathetic Government during the time that a large section of our farming community was suffering hardships. The hon the Minister of Finance mentioned last week the tremendous assistance that had been given to farmers over the past couple of years. The figures that he mentioned indicated that the total amount of taxes paid by taxpayers of two cities such as Durban and Cape Town was used to assist farmers. To put it another way, if the total amount given to farmers over the past year were divided by the average tax that South African families pay, the Government last year gave up to the approximately 70 000 agricultural units—that is approximately 60 000 farmers—the total production of two additional families for every farmer in South Africa. This did not cost any individual farmer a cent in wages or accommodation.

We hear that the prices of food are high. This may be the case if they are compared with the food prices of previous years, but our food is still cheap in world terms. That is not all. We have food in abundance; we are an exporter of food while millions of people in Africa are dying of hunger.

Our people are complaining about high interest rates. Does it ever occur to us that, apart from economic considerations, these high interest rates are a blessing to thousands of investors? In the main high interest rates have a detrimental effect on those who have to pay bank loans because they live above their means, and those who buy houses that are too expensive or too luxurious, and struggle to make their house payments. At the same time, do we bear in mind that our housing standards are among the highest in the Western world? Do we bear in mind that the Government expressly encourages home ownership and enables young people to acquire their own homes? High interest rates obviously affect people who have hire-purchase debts on cars, but do we think that we in South Africa have one car for each 12 members of the population, and that three-quarters of all motor vehicles in Africa are in our country?

Let us consider aircraft. Nowadays seats on aircraft are fully booked a week in advance, but our trains are empty. Our people are quick to complain about exchange rates, particularly our businessmen, but does it occur to them that the exchange rate is a blessing for our exporters and that the low exchange rate of the rand has created export opportunities as never before and at the same time has held the rand price of gold exceptionally high this year?

Perhaps the most important reason for the degree of despondency we find among our people is that over the past month we have seen examples of Black unrest in various parts of our country. The Government sympathizes with the problems of Black people, especially with those that stem from unemployment, as is the case in the Eastern Cape at present. The Government not only has sympathy for the problems Black people are experiencing as a result of unemployment; it is precisely for this reason that it has not followed the example of countries such as the USA and Britain and simply allowed unemployment to run rampant so that we could bring down the inflation rate. It is true that agitators and anarchists are exploiting these problems among Black people. It is illuminating that it is in fact the moderate Black people, those who participate in Black forms of administration on the third tier, who have to bear the brunt. The encouraging aspect of this is that it probably would not have been worth while for these agitators and anarchists to make the moderate leaders the target of their attacks if they had not constituted a threat to them, in other words, if the new forms of administration had not succeeded.

What is the reaction of the Official Opposition? The Official Opposition in this House gave in to the agitators and the anarchists. As soon as there is unrest in the Black communities they look—one hears nothing else from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—for scapegoats. Who are the scapegoats they find? In the first place, they find scapegoats among the police and, through the police, in the Government. [Interjections.] Until now there has not been a single appeal by the Official Opposition for the Black troublemakers to cease their activities. They have made no appeal for an end to the violence. Is it not a disgrace that a leader such as Bishop Tutu should be ahead of them?

The Official Opposition in this House is not helping to eliminate the feeling of despondency among our population; they are fuelling it. We on this side of the House know that South Africa is experiencing problems, but we are not at our wits’ end because of those problems. We are not despondent; we know that the problems must be tackled. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the second half-hour.

The hon Leader of the Opposition did not make use of his half-hour for understandable reasons. I know why he did not make a fairly long speech. I personally would have liked us to be able to listen to announcements or standpoints of the State President, but until such time as we have listened to him, I should like to mention a few matters.

As far as the hon member for Umlazi is concerned, I do not want to enlarge too extensively on what he said, except to say I agreed with him that the country should not receive a message of despondency from this House. We may roundly criticize each other and the Government and certain steps taken by the Government, but over and above all that, I think one should not talk one’s own future out of existence and envelop the future of the whole country and its people in pessimism.

I want to refer in one sentence to a remark of the hon Leader of the Official Opposition. After a visit to the Eastern Cape he gave his impressions and said, in so many words, that we were dealing with two worlds. That is most certainly the case. I think it is almost a cliché to say we do not have a homogeneous population in South Africa and that in ethnic terms we are dealing with various communities.

We have what some politicologists (politikoloë) would call a very deeply divided population or body politic. There are politicologists, and they are not necessarily to be found on this side of the House, who have pointed out that increasing conflict is generated as soon as one tries to force together a deeply divided population in a unitary system or single community.

The factors which have brought about these deep divisions in the South African population are obvious. We have First-World people; we have Third-World people. We have people who differ, not only on the basis of colour, but also in regard to background, psychological disposition, culture, history and future aspirations. To try to accommodate these people in a politically united community would mean actually endangering one’s objective. The forcing together of heterogeneous groups is tyranny! It would create mounting conflict if one were to force them together.

I should like to refer to certain resonances in the State President’s message that have reverberated through the whole of the South African population. We want to support certain of these messages, although our support is certainly not unqualified. In principle we are completely in agreement with the State President’s call for calmness, co-operation and the avoidance of confrontation. I think, however, that we shall also be in agreement with the principle that we do not seek these aims by making concessions to radical Black power elements and those who transgress the law. A message should also be sent from this House to those people about the fact that we do not seek confrontation, but that if they seek confrontation and wish to plunge the country into a state of chaos, the Government will have to exercise its legitimate powers to maintain law and order and to protect the rights of particular communities against the far-fetched demands of certain radical elements.

We agree with the call to seek to maintain good relations, also with foreign powers. This side of the House most certainly does not seek salvation in isolation as such. Although there is an old Dutch expression: “In onze isolement ligt onze kracht,” it is not a statement one can simply allow to pass unqualified.

We do, however, want to point out something. It is obvious that although the President of the USA projects a much more sympathetic image here in South Africa than his predecessor, there is still no doubt that President Reagan does not care for the Whites as a communal segment of the population in South Africa in the same way as a person who understands the realities of South Africa would care for the specific rights, freedoms and aspirations of the Whites in this country. He is interested in desegregation. He is interested in an open society. He is interested in one man, one vote and in a multiracial democracy. I think there should be agreement about our attitude and response to such an approach to South Africa. We should say: We are prepared to listen to the strongest power in the Western World. We regard it as indispensable to the Western World, but this is not unqualified either. We who are here have a right. South Africa as a country has a right and the peoples in South Africa also have their own rights that have to be protected vis-à-vis each other.

We also want to state our support for the action on the part of the Government to maintain law and order. We have stated publicly that as far as the steps taken by the Minister of Law and Order are concerned, we support him in the maintenance of law and order. We do not want to say we necessarily approve of the behaviour of every policeman in the country. I do not think anyone would want to make such a claim. It would, however, be a fateful day—and I do not think there is any difference of opinion on this—if we were to expose the Police Force as such to disrepute or to being presented as a bunch of people who are simply trigger-happy.

†The standpoint we adopt is that the Police are there to maintain law and order; they have to do so in a self-controlled and responsible manner; but we accept that under specific circumstances the Police are also entitled to use force. I do not think anyone could find fault with that.

Our esteemed State President also called upon moderate, reasonable people to love rather than hate. No one will argue that point with him. I think, however, hon members will also agree that being moderate does not mean being colourless. Being moderate does not mean the other person is always right. Nor does being moderate mean one is without strong convictions. Being moderate is not the largest common denominator between “verlig” and “verkramp”. It is not the largest common denominator between separate development and integration or between conservatism and liberalism, or between nationalism and Marxism, or between faith and lack of faith. It is not the largest common denominator between loyalty to one’s people and disregard for one’s people, and it most certainly does not lie in the termination or renouncement of one’s own rights. If we were to ignore the subjects of particular rights in South Africa—I am now speaking of peoples as being the subjects of particular rights—then I would not regard it as being moderate. I do not regard being moderate as an acceptance of multiracialism or of a new Babel-like unity in South Africa, a kind of internationalism or the liberalist ideology of equality.

Reconciliation and the love of one’s fellow-man was a second theme we came to hear about. I once again want to say that we do not fault these concepts and their underlying principles. Reconciliation and love for one’s fellow-man, according to those of us who subscribe to this, does, however—and we want to place this on record—mean recognition of people’s human dignity and of people created in God’s image, the recognition of a people’s ethnic dignity. It means the recognition of their claim to their own corporate ethnic right (korporatiewe volkereg) and it means acknowledging the claim to that right, the right to private ownership and the right to corporate ownership as well.

If we subscribe to the right to corporate ownership it means that we also claim it on behalf of the Whites in South Africa, just as we do for the specific Black peoples. As far as love for one’s fellow-man and justice are concerned, I just want to say, perhaps superfluously, that the same Creator who gave the command to love one’s neighbour is also the Creator who created separate nations and brought all the nations forth from one source to inhabit the four corners of the earth at specific times and within specific boundaries.

I should like to comment on the joint responsibility of the Government. Our esteemed State President—as any government would—surely accepts the principle of co-responsibility although it has been made subject to a qualification: A Cabinet member does not have to resign after a difference of opinion. I now want to apply this to a specific aspect—and I am not referring to the Leader of the Labour Party in his capacity as leader of the Labour Party and a member of one of the other Houses, but as a member of the Government. Rev Hendrickse has adopted certain standpoints. On one occasion, referring to Mandela in a speech, he said:

By that he means the Coloured people:

At his congress he spoke about a “non-racial federation” which his party advocated. He not only discussed it in committee in his own congress, but he also announced it publicly as the standpoint of his party, knowing full well that he was, at one and the same time, a member of the Government of South Africa.

He also speaks about socializing. The Labour Party, with its leader as its spokesman, uses very strong language when it comes to rejecting separate schools, residential areas amenities and race classification. Furthermore, a few weeks ago he made a flagrant demand for the resignation of the hon Minister of Law and Order. We in the CP do not share those sentiments. By that I do not mean that we owe the hon the Minister anything. He would not like an opposition party to be on too friendly terms with him either. In his position, however, he is responsible for the maintenance of law and order; and we support him in that task.

But we read the following in The Cape Times of 27 March 1985:

He carries on in this vein and I shall continue to quote what he said:

I think this casts very serious doubts on the image the Government of South Africa projects to the outside world. I am not even speaking here of us as an Opposition, but of the public. When the Government, which is charged with the responsibility of governing the country, has amongst its members two colleagues who demand that a particular Minister has to resign, it reflects very poorly on the public image of the Government. As I was saying, this may suit the purpose of an opposition party but, as far as South Africa’s external image is concerned, such views are most certainly not to our advantage, and most certainly do not contribute to greater overseas confidence in South Africa.

There is another small point I should like to touch on, and we would be pleased if the State President could provide us with more information in this regard. This point is in connection with the decentralization policy. What progress has been made with the decentralization of the Black masses from metropolitan areas to, for example, areas like Bronkhorstspruit, etc? The idea was not only to create job opportunities for Black people in the surrounding areas, but also to draw the overflow from urban areas such as Soweto, amongst others. One would like to ask if the stranglehold—and I do not think one can deny it exists—of vast numbers of Black people on White residential areas, business areas and amenities is in the process of easing. Our impression is that it has rather been moving in the opposite direction. Our impression is that with the creation of a large Black residential area such as Khayelitsha within the vicinity of the Cape Peninsula, this problem is growing worse, but not only as far the Peninsula is concerned, because it also flows over to the White areas of the Peninsula and surrounding boland towns.

I should like to ask a relevant question. My question hinges around certain basic premises contained in the State President’s opening address to Parliament. Let me phrase my question in the following terms: If approximately 10 million Black people—if we subtract the 13% who did, in fact, accept citizenship of the Black states, it still amounts to approximately 8,7 to 9 million—outside the national states are given rights of permanence in the RSA equivalent to those of the Whites, that is if they became a permanent part of the Republic’s population, just as the Whites are; if they could not give expression to their needs at a level higher than the local level via the political structures of the national states—in other words, it would have to be done here—and if they were given a say in the decision-making processes that affect their interests here; and also, if they were entitled to political participation and entitled to have a say at a higher level—I am now referring to page 7 of the published speech of the State President…

On own affairs.

… if they themselves could make decisions concerning their own affairs—and this goes a little further than what the hon member has just said—and also, if the structures created for them were not be inferior or less effective, then we ask: What political structures could they be given by the Government that would first of all not be inferior or less effective than this Parliament and the coalition Cabinet we have at present? What structures can there be that are not inferior or less effective than this sovereign Parliament and its highest executive body, the Cabinet? How can they themselves make decisions on their own affairs at the highest level if it is not at a parliamentary level and that of the executive authority?

If these structures are not at parliamentary and Cabinet level, we should like to be informed about that. In political terms the highest level, in my humble opinion, is Parliament and the Cabinet. If it is at the highest level, the parliamentary and Cabinet level, it should not be inferior or less effective. It could not be a second sovereign Parliament. It could not be a parallel second Cabinet of South Africa either. After taking everything into account, our question is: How would the Government exclude them from this Parliament, notwithstanding the existence of a fourth Chamber, and how could they be excluded from a coalition Cabinet? If they were not to be excluded from this Parliament and the coalition Cabinet, how could a Black majority government and Black domination—majority rule—in terms of numbers be prevented throughout the whole of South Africa?

We made our point on a previous occasion. As far as the inclusion of other groups within the decision-making process is concerned, the formula of 4:2:1 in regard to Whites, Coloureds and Indians is more or less accepted. We contend that if Black people could take decisions on their own affairs at the highest level—which would be neither inferior nor less effective—this would imply some kind of accommodation within this structure. If this were done on a numerical basis, as has been accepted in principle by the other three groups, and if we were to have three Indian and six Coloured Ministers—that is, after all, what Rev Hendrickse has demanded for the long-term—and if we were to have 12 White Ministers, there would have to be 24 Black Ministers.

This is not practical politics at the moment. If, however, one laid a foundation by way of fundamental statements, one should realize that one would eventually be asked to pay up. If one were to include the Black people along with the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians in a unitary structure, the price one would have to pay in the end would of course be Black majority rule.

Let it suffice for me to show how we interpret this picture, this standpoint. If the same procedure is going to be adopted as was adopted in regard to joint decision-making and co-responsibility by the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, one would not be able to stop before one found oneself having to foot the bill in regard to a Black majority government for South Africa!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Waterberg said many positive things about a number of matters. We are very grateful to him for this. I am referring inter alia to his observations about our relations with foreign countries, particularly with America. He also gave us to understand that his party supported the efforts to maintain law and order. Actually it has been a long time since we last heard such a moderate speech from the hon member. I think, too, that he set a good example for some hon members of his party on how one ought to debate.

To a certain extent the hon member blew hot and cold in his speech—it was a question of “yes, but”. However, he let a golden opportunity go by to spell out clearly his party’s model for the solution to South Africa’s problem, instead of putting questions to us. I am pleased the hon member said that he did not think we should allow a spirit of pessimism to emanate from this House. I would suggest that he give the same advice to his political ally—I am referring to a remark made by Eugene Terre’Blanche of the AWB. He said, with reference to the new constitutional dispensation:

He is very pessimistic about the future. The hon member should go and give his ally a little advice.

We on this side of the House have every reason to have faith in the future of our country. Why do we say this? I think that on most levels progress has been made. This afternoon I want to confine myself to the political level.

We are now almost three months into the first working session of the new Parliament and I think, in the short time available, one ought to weigh up the new dispensation and arrive at to a verdict. In the past we often quoted to one another Bismarck’s well-known, pragmatic definition of politics, namely that politics is the art of the possible. Under the leadership of the hon the State President, however, there has been a radical change in that approach because today the Government and the administration of the country are based on a much purer precept, which incidentally will also bear examination in the light of the Scriptures, namely the principle of combining the maximum amount of justice with the maximum amount of order. As proof of that I would like to refer to two statements by the hon the State President in this connection. At the opening of Parliament on 25 January this year the hon the State President said the following:

That is the one element. The element of justice. During the joint sitting of Parliament on 27 March 1985 the hon the State President, in his statement on the security situation, said that he and the Government were determined to maintain law and order in the country and to ensure orderly administration of the country.

Both of the main elements of the principle to which I referred were therefore strongly emphasized by the hon the State President. These two elements form the foundation of our new constitutional dispensation because it is an honest attempt to move away from the old partnership concept in which the other two population groups that were involved in the dispensation were regarded as minors, to a new situation in which the Government implemented active and responsible participation in the decision-making process by the other two groups, in an orderly and fair manner.

The question is whether it has been successful so far. I say “yes” because the participation of the other two groups is being taken seriously by the hon the State President and his Government and has thus become significant. I say “yes” because a dispensation is being sought in which injustice and the denial of the rights and privileges of fellow citizens is being moved away from.

Why is the exercise of civil justice so important? I would say that only when people and ethnic groups treat one another fairly can there be a possibility of real peace. As far as peace is concerned, the hon the State President stated his opinion very clearly. On 7 April 1985 he addressed a powerful message of “kgotso” (peace) to the crowd at Moria and said that lasting peace would come to South Africa only when each person in this country learn to trust his fellow man, Whites and Blacks. Trust springs from knowledge, however, knowledge of one another’s needs and aspirations and that knowledge can be gained only if people speak to one another. The State President referred to this, too, at Moria. He stressed that the various population groups must speak to one another but much more seriously than in the past. Such conversation would be futile if it were purely one way. These talks must be meaningful so that they lead to practical and concrete results, otherwise it is no use talking. Some citizens may begin to think that those in authority will react only to the language of violence. That will be a sad day for South Africa, for we shall be playing right into the hands of our enemies.

If the State President can continue to depend on the support of everyone in South Africa for his and the Government’s honest endeavours, and in striving for justice, order and peace becomes a common endeavour of all the inhabitants of this country, surely there is no reason for the pessimism indicated in the survey to which the hon member for Umlazi referred. Then South Africa would remain a land of hope for everyone.

It is, however, not enough merely to say this. This carries with it a very great responsibility for all the citizens of this country. In this connection I should like to associate myself with what the hon member for Waterberg said, namely that a message must go out to the country from this Parliament and this House. I therefore appeal to all hon members in the House, and particularly to hon members on the other side, to renounce pettiness and, in spite of differences in viewpoint and policy, to identify positively and actively with the ideals of our head of state. In doing so we shall set an example to the rest of the citizens in really being of service to our fatherland.

Mr Chairman, I also want to use the scales of the hon member for Ermelo this afternoon. I agree with him that six months ago—even three months ago—the scales were heavily tipped in South Africa’s favour.

†I want to weigh on the scale which history may use to judge us, the period from the Opening Address of the State President at the start of this Parliament up to this moment where we are discussing his vote.

I think the State President will have to agree that when one takes the bad news and the good news over the past three months and places them on the scale, the scale comes down with one almighty crash on the wrong side. I am afraid that one would find half of the Cabinet sitting in a huddle around the good news trying to camouflage it instead of putting it on the scale to balance it in our favour; trying to camouflage the good news so that many of their own members and the hon members of the CP will not see what they are putting onto the scale.

It is bad enough when South Africa is attacked and criticized for her faults and for the things that she does wrong but it is unforgivable that we should be criticized and attacked because of our own default in putting forward our own case to those who are attacking us.

Six months ago we had the European tour of the then Prime Minister, now State President, when new doors were opened to South Africa in respect of channels of communication, and when new bridges were built. We had the Nkomati Accord and we had all sorts of things going for South Africa. However, there seems to be a pathological urge on the part of the Government standing behind the State President to mishandle everything it works with and to make a mess of everything it touches. If they cannot find anything to make a mess of, they will create an incident that they can make a mess of. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Law and Order should not open his mouth when we talk about creating things to make a mess of, but we will leave that to another Vote. [Interjections.] I do not intend going through the long, sad list of things that have counted against South Africa in this session of Parliament during the past 2½ months, which need never have happened. Those things have been mentioned here; the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is particularly fond of doing that, but I do not have the time in the few minutes at my disposal to do so. It would be too long a list and it would be repetitive, but it seems that at times the Government consciously sets out to harm South Africa and to harm our image.

My heart bleeds particularly for one department of State. I saw the hon the Minister a few minutes ago when he was sitting next to the State President, namely the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. That is the department I feel most sorry for. I think South Africa can be grateful that we have such loyal and dedicated personnel in that department, people who represent South Africa with total and complete dedication, but whose task this Government seems set on making more and more impossible of fulfilling. Every time we seem to be making a breakthrough, some members of this Government or some department or some official of a department, without being checked by his own Minister, does or says something that undoes all the good work of our diplomats and our friends overseas. This is sad. For any of us who meet a lot of overseas visitors or who have friends and relatives overseas, the one recurrent comment one hears from friends of South Africa—not our enemies—is that the public relations of South Africa are an absolute disaster and that our information services are counterproductive.

What this Government seems to be trying to sell is the policies of the Nationalist Party. Admittedly that is also the policy of the Government. What they are trying to defend are the very things we are trying to get away from in South Africa. These are unsaleable, and the State President knows they are unsaleable, otherwise he would not have come out with a declaration of intent as he did on 25 January this year. He would not have made that declaration of intent had the policies of the past been adequate and right for South Africa. The very fact that we are moving away from them shows that we, including the State President, recognize the fact that they are unsaleable in South Africa and outside it. Until we start selling the realities of South Africa, the intricacies and the realities of the problems of South Africa, we will not have success. Until we start selling the potential and not the past, we will not have success in achieving our objectives.

The State President has a mandate from the electorate to get on with reform, and I accept and I believe completely that he has committed himself to carrying out that mandate, to carrying out the intent which he set out in that speech earlier this year. However, I want to tell the State President that he is being neutralized and undermined by things that are happening in his own Government, by things that are said and done by some of his own Ministers who try to minimize the changes that are taking place, who, when the Government does something right, try to minimize it and say: “Nothing has changed. Everything is as before.”

All this pretending that nothing has changed is to no avail. We saw an excellent example of this again earlier this week when the repeal of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and of section 16 of the Immorality Act was discussed here in the House. The Government was on the defensive all the time. It was almost apologetic, trying to convince the people that nothing was really going to be different. We should be holding up that brave action like a banner for the world and for our own people to see. We should be using it as a sword with which to fight the cause of South Africa. It should be used as proof of our moving forward towards a new future. That is what we should be doing instead of trying to hide in a foxhole.

What happens is that the Government and hon Ministers get into their trenches leaving the Conservative Party the opportunity to make the bayonet charge. The Government should be fixing its own bayonets and charging instead of leaving that to a party which can never govern South Africa …

That is what you think!

… and whose coming to power would be a disaster for this country. By default, however, the State President is allowing them to be taken seriously as a political party and as a threat, instead of standing up and telling them they are irrelevant; instead of telling his own people: “Let us get on with the job; let us stop hiding behind the past.” [Interjections.]

I said during the Second Reading debate—the State President was not in the House then—that the time had come for him to take his own party by the throat and shake some sense into it. [Interjections.] He should prevent it from allowing South Africa to drift into uncertainty. His own party—one can listen to them every day—are drifting into confusion and uncertainty. South Africa is drifting into uncertainty. [Interjections.] There is a restlessness abroad, and the State President is the only man who can stop that restlessness, both in the other Houses and among the public of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Point has just advised the State President but I obviously hope he does not follow that advice because the hon member for Durban Point has already shed all the members of his party from its ranks. He is left with almost nobody. [Interjections.]

We are in the process of an interesting debate here. I believe I have listened today to the most peculiar opposition speeches I have ever heard in this House. One speech after the other from opposition ranks was totally meaningless; they could at least have spoken on their own party policy; they could have told us something about it. [Interjections.]

I should like to congratulate the State President on his appearance at Moria. That action was a revelation to the Western world and a disillusionment to radicals. We wish to request him to continue in this way—South Africa is proud of him; he is a credit and an honour to this country.

Hear, hear!

There are two movements in South Africa today—that of reform and that of transformation. Supported by two thirds of the White voters of the country the State President is the chief architect of peaceful reform. This is not a process initiated today; the State President is only the motive force. This process began in 1972, however, when his predecessor appointed the Erika Theron Commission. It has continued since then and is now in full swing. I wish to congratulate the State President on that as well. This thing is going to work. It has to succeed as there is no alternative; neither does a single opposition party offer an alternative. [Interjections.] That is why it will succeed. The NP is a party of reform; it has been bringing about reform in this country since 1948 but it did not start there. In 1924 the National Party under Gen Hertzog instituted radical reform in South Africa—the NP is known as a party of reform.

Nevertheless we also have the transformers. In the first place there are the leftist radicals seeking war and blood. They are murdering moderate Black leaders. Sir, the PFP operates on the fringes of those radicals. I find it interesting that the hon member for Houghton in particular always appears on the scene shortly after the outbreak of a riot situation. [Interjections.] I should like to know who their informants are as they appear to have a type of bush telegraph system.

No, the SABC radio service.

The PFP wants to transform the Blacks. It wants to break up nations and weld them into one people in order to attain its ideal of one man, one vote. It in no way recognizes ethnicity and regards mention of this as racism. [Interjections.]

The rightist radicals are transforming the Afrikaner and the CP is taking the lead. Let us pause for a moment and examine what they have already transformed and are attempting to transform: There is the “Broederbond”, the “Ruiterwag”, the “Rapportryers” and the “Voortrekkers” and they are also attempting to transform the churches. There is not a single Afrikaner organization they are not attempting to transform. [Interjections.]

The “Kappiekommando” wears the Voortrekker bonnet for which we have a great deal of respect. It has deep roots in the Afrikaner’s culture but what are members doing with it? They are equating the bonnet with the Black Sash. Do hon members know how the Black Sash originated in the early fifties? Followers appeared everywhere to demonstrate, to launch boycotts, and they marched. In those bygone days they stood about this Parliament draped in black sashes like a group of “stokstertmeerkatte” sunning themselves. [Interjections.] The “Kappiekommando” is bringing that honourable bonnet to the level of the Black Sash.

Recently there has been a move taking place especially in the ranks of the CP. They are using statements of former chief leaders of the NP and reading them to us here. In so doing they want to prove how we have deviated and are on the wrong road.

I knew all those leaders; I served them all personally and faithfully. [Interjections.] They were giants of their time. I wish to warn hon members of the CP who nowadays often use Dr Malan’s pronouncements. Dr Malan also said: No nation can permit itself to be governed by the dead hand of the past.

Does a nation not have a history?

That quotation is one the hon member for Rissik would do well to remember.

I believe this new dispensation will succeed. The people sitting in other Houses are indicating their willingness to co-operate. [Interjections.]

Order!

If we are prepared to act sensibly from our side, all will go well.

There are two matters of importance in the life of every nation—rights and privileges. One earns rights and we, especially the Afrikaner, earned those rights through tribulation. I do not believe there is anyone prepared—I certainly am not—to sacrifice hard-earned rights.

It is true we Whites have all the privileges, however, and I think we should shed our selfishness and surrender some of them—South Africa will fare much better in consequence. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, from the nature of the case I agree with the last sentiments expressed by the hon member Mr Van Staden on the necessity, if we wish to progress in South Africa, of sacrificing some of our privileges.

The hon member’s reference to our policy of welding the people into one nation, as it were, proves to me that the hon member has no concept of what should be understood by the expression “nation”. I shall leave it there.

Before I speak on citizenship arising from the State President’s statements in his opening address to Parliament, I wish to say I reject with the utmost contempt imaginable that accusation levelled at the PFP by the hon member for Umlazi. I think it shameful and unjustified and I can honestly not conceive on what grounds he based it.

We have stated it time and again that this party is opposed to any form of violence, be it White against White, White against Black, Black against White or Black against Black—we stand by that.

We have often said the police have an unenviable task. It is untrue to say we perpetually accuse the police in general but we have warned and are warning against such action by the police or whoever which damages the interests of this country when it becomes our duty to speak out regardless of what the hon members have to say about the hon member for Houghton or anybody else.

I listened with great interest to the hon member for Waterberg’s speech. I do not have time to reply to many of the hypothetical and semi-philosophical questions he put, but we agree with his last statement of principle and that is if we use the concept “co-responsibility” as regards Blacks, it is essential for our Black population to receive representation in the highest legislative body.

We differ from him entirely in his resultant deduction that this must necessarily lead to Black domination. This is the spectre he has raised here. Arising from his reference to confrontation, I wish to add with every respect that surely nobody in this country desires confrontation. At the same time I can tell him I cannot think of a policy which will create confrontation in South Africa more easily and more rapidly than the very policy of the hon member and his party. I shall let the matter rest there.

I should very much like to speak on the question of citizenship. I am sure everyone knows today that the compulsory loss of South African citizenship which attended the assumption of independence by the four states created intense dissatisfaction and bitterness among a large number of Black people. The Government will agree with me that this is one of the contributory causes of frustration and resistance on the side of the Black people in, but especially outside, those states.

It is a fact that section 6 of each of the Status Acts in terms of which those states became independent protects the rights and privileges of those people who were permanently resident in South Africa at the date of the assumption of independence. Nevertheless this does not deny the fact that what happened in principle was that we deprived those people of their citizenship through no fault of theirs and without their consent. I cannot imagine how we could have been so foolish as to do this to people and to expect no reaction. I do not believe we can entertain any doubt that it is one of the great sources of resistance and dissatisfaction.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs said very clearly the other day that serious representations on the matter of citizenship had been received from at least two of the presidents of those states, Mr Matanzima and Mr Mangope. In fact the State President conceded this by implication in his opening address which“! shall reach in a short while.

I now wish to repeat the question I put last time: Was there an agreement or an understanding or was an undertaking given by the then Prime Minister, Mr Vorster, to President Mangope as regards the matter of citizenship? I should like to repeat this question. I last asked it during the Budget debate but received no reply. I should like to know from the State President whether there was such an agreement or not and what was done or not done in that respect.

In connection with citizenship the State President said inter alia in his opening address and I quote from Hansard, 1985, col 15:

I wish to repeat here what the hon Leader of the Official Opposition said in his speech. In all honesty I do not know the meaning of the words “the problems of terminology and content that surround the question of citizenship”.

Let me repeat what I said last week. I am not referring to Black people living in the four states but to Black people who by definition are citizens of those states and whom we deprived of their South African citizenship by legislation. I said the only way to rectify this was to give those Black people permanently resident in the Republic the opportunity of choosing at this stage whether they wished to become citizens of those four states or to remain citizens of South Africa. The removal of their South African citizenship resulted in great implications for those peoples but unfortunately time does not permit me to go into this.

I wish to put it very clearly to the State President that we cannot resolve this problem by confusing citizenship with nationality. We cannot seek a solution to the problems of citizenship by bringing in the concept of nationality; in so doing we shall confuse ouselves and not solve the problem of principle.

I wish to add that we cannot speak on the one hand of the permanence of our Black people for example in the city areas and on the other say they should receive representation at the highest level and in the highest legislative bodies and then continue denying these people their right to citizenship. It obviously also means that if we accept them as citizens, this of necessity has to result in certain rights of citizenship. The State President conceded this in saying other forms and structures would have to be created for these people who were permanently resident in our urban areas; in other words, that the linking-up policy no longer worked.

In this connection I should like to revert to a matter discussed earlier this week and something the State President also dealt with in his interview with Mr Koppel, namely the question of identity documents and reference books. I wish to state it very clearly that if one speaks purely of the identity document within the framework of the Population Registration Act, I have little fault to find with the reply of the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and the State President but that is not the problem. The comparison to be drawn is between the identity document which we as Whites have to carry in terms of the Population Registration Act and the reference book a Black is required to have under the Blacks (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act because there are fundamental differences. In this sense the reply of the hon the Minister of Home Affairs actually created the wrong impression. If we examine the differences point by point between the identity document in terms of the Population Registration Act and the reference book under the other Act, they are like day and night. I regret not having time to go into this in greater detail but one need only think that a Black has to provide his fingerprints for a reference book. It is a criminal offence for a Black not to have a reference book whereas that is not the case for a White. It is a fact that a Black has to produce his reference book on demand. As regards the hon the Minister of Home Affairs, it is true that in the case of an identity document a peace officer can deal with the inquiry, but if one looks at the definition one cannot sustain the comparison. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member Prof Olivier is most certainly correct in saying that nobody wants to grant anybody in South Africa an inferior form of citizenship. I do not want to differ with him on that score. I think he made it very clear that he welcomed the fact that the Cabinet Committee would investigate the matter of citizenship. I want to leave the matter at that.

I find it strange that the hon member and his party continually want to discuss the matter of citizenship, not only from the point of view of bringing about equality in South Africa, but also insist that there should be a form of citizenship enabling one to apply it precisely in that form within the political dispensation. That is actually the hon member’s objective. This side of the House has said repeatedly and it is probably necessary for one to repeat it once again, that various peoples and groups exist in this country. Hon members on the other side will be making a terrible mistake if they do not realize that one can no longer stem the tide in the year 1985. These steps were taken over a long period of time and have the approval of the White electorate as well as a large section of the non-Whites. It has been recognized that there is a diversity of peoples and groups in South Africa. If hon member do not want to recognize this truth we can never have a meaningful debate. They are the people who are forever talking about a meaningful debate.

We on this side of the House also find it strange that the hon member Prof Olivier, who is a great exponent of the idea of a national convention, did not take the opportunity to spell out to us the necessity of a national convention in South Africa. He does after all believe in it? From time to time they say that they want a national convention, but they do not spell it out to us.

†On a previous occasion I indicated that a national convention could never replace the existing constitutional structures and those that are in the process of being built in South Africa. It cannot supplement or supersede the structures we already have. We have the necessary constitutional vehicles in South Africa and we are putting more constitutional vehicles on the road. As far as I am concerned, a national convention is out. A national convention has formed part of PFP policy since its inauguration in 1959. They themselves tested it in 1961, in 1966, in 1970, in 1974, in 1977 and again in the general election of 1981, and of course also in the referendum of 1983.

*At every by-election they make this point: We want a national convention! In total they have tested the idea in no less than seven general elections, apart from the 1953 election of which I spoke. At every by-election in which they tested the idea, the voters said to them that they were not interested. There is no significant support for the idea of a national convention amongst the Whites.

Like Pinetown.

Like Stellenbosch, like George, in the referendum and in every general election we have had since they started with this idea.

*They are now going to test it again in Newton Park. The reason why the White voter is not interested in it is firstly because he knows what he has. In the second instance the national convention is an ill-conceived idea. It is a loophole for establishing Black majority rule. That is all it is.

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

No. That is the way in which they want to give so-called legitimacy to a Black majority rule. Hon members on that side cannot say that that is not their objective. At one stage the hon member for Greytown was the chairman of a committee which had to investigate this matter and he made it very clear that the PFP policy would lead to Black majority rule. The hon member for Houghton said that Blacks wanted it and that they deserved it. Now I want to know why they want a national convention if that is their objective? The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that it should serve as a loophole to lend legitimacy to bringing about Black majority rule in South Africa.

Another reason why the White voter is not interested in this matter, is because it has never been clearly stated who would attend this convention and what it would do. I remember that Chief Buthelezi was asked on one occasion: “But what has happened now? Why are you also no longer in favour of a national convention?” He answered that the member for Houghton had spoilt the whole matter of a national convention. If Mr Buthelezi is not going to attend the national convention, I want to know which other Black leaders are going to be there.

One should ask oneself: What must then be done at this national convention if the Leader of the Official Opposition, the member for Houghton and the member for Greytown have already decided in advance what was going to happen there? This is precisely where I want to differ with the hon Leader of the Official Opposition. Today he put certain questions to the State President—and I am sure that the State President will have a good answer for him. However, if one wants a national convention or if one wants to create an open forum as we now want to do, you do not say to the people beforehand: These are the things we want. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to refer to regions where one is led to believe it is warmer today than here in Cape Town. I wish to take up one point in particular with the State President and, if possible, a second. The Pretoria News of 29 March of this year reports:

A little further the report runs:

In the penultimate paragraph we read:

In the photostat of a report telexed to the SABC I read the following:

In the Weekend Argus of 16 March …

All the English newspapers!

That does not matter Those are newspapers giving these matters reasonably good cover. In the Weekend Argus of 16 March one reads that Mr R F Botha, the Minister of Foreign Affairs—

This all points to one thing, namely the confirmation of the standpoint of the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs that determined support is being given to Frelimo, to Mozambique, to President Machel’s Marxist Government.

But that is not all. The following formed part of an SABC news report of, I think, last Monday evening:

Consequently there is a total of 21 500 foreign troops, communist troops, to support Mozambique. They are obviously inadequate to curb Renamo. If President Machel were to ask now and if the West were to support his request—and according to reports there have already been suggestions from the West that South Africa should help him—South Africa will have to honour its undertaking. I wish to say to the State President I find it disquieting because in so doing the Government will place South African soldiers in a position where they will come into contact and perhaps even have to take joint action with communist soldiers against an anti-communist group, the MNR.

That is not my only cause for concern, however. Oh, I see the State President is amused at my naïveté. [Interjections.] Let it be. I am talking to him; I am conducting a conversation with him. I am saying it to him and I shall say it tomorrow night from the platform at Tzaneen as well. We have already reached the stage of humiliation in this flirting of South Africa with Frelimo. [Interjections.] I shall read again from the Weekend Argus:

Mr Botha …

That is the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs:

I read further:

He would simply fire her. In other words, we now have a situation in which that Marxist puppet Government of Machel’s, which a year ago could not even feed its own people, is now not only dictating to South Africa who it should include in its delegations, but also, in fact, telling South Africa what troops to station on its border and what not to do there! What was the hon the Minister of Defence’s reply? “I’ll have them removed.” What did he say of the interpreter? He said: “I’ll have her removed from her post.” In other words he said he would have here removed from her position. That is what is happening. [Interjections.] If the Russians and the Americans were to hold a conference with each other in Geneva or wherever, could hon members imagine their telling each other who would be permitted to be stationed or placed where? That is my question to the State President and he can laugh about it if he likes. [Interjections.]

I wish to inform the State President further that there is great concern among many people in South Africa and many people abroad that what is happening in the former Portuguese province in Eastern Mozambique will also take place in the west in Angola, another former Portuguese province. They fear that there will be a similar about turn and that Dr Savimbi and Unita will be dealt with in precisely the same way as with Renamo in the east. I wish to say to the State President there is great concern about this and I should like him to make a statement as regards this matter. [Interjections.] I am putting this question in the light of the facts of what is happening in Mozambique.

I do not know when the State President will reply to this—if it should please him to do so. Unfortunately I shall not be present tomorrow and want to tell him now in advance … [Interjections.] … I am going to give his party a hard time of it in my electoral division.

If we were to revert to the lessons of 1973 and 1975 when South Africa made a very strong showing in Africa, when the idea of constellation was brought to the fore, we would find that certain incidents had occurred which had dealt a blow to that image of South Africa in the eyes of the world but especially in Africa. How does the Government of South Africa show up today ten years after those incidents? Today it is a predominantly White government—no longer a pure White government. How does the image of this Government show up in the world today and especially in Africa?

The primary basis or ideal of the proposed constellation of states which was much discussed at one stage—I accept it remains an ideal to be striven for—was a bulwark of Southern African states which would keep the Russians and communism out of Africa. In view of the fact that we are now lending determined assistance—I am quoting the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs—to a Marxist state, what is our image in the eyes of the rest of Africa? Many of these states look to us for protection against the communist onslaught. How do they regard our image? If our image is no longer strong in the eyes of Africa, how long will it take before those states which are not communistic yet will ultimately decide that it will suit them better to fall in with the communists?

The second matter I wish to broach is what I shall call the visible hand of the USA in internal South African politics. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to assure the hon member for Soutpansberg that he will receive replies to his questions.

This Government and the State President respect the accord of Nkomati. A further extension of this is the institution of certain air space between the two countries concerned as a declared buffer zone. In consequence of the action of our Defence Force, an aircraft was recently forced to land for violating our air space. It was established from the passengers that it was a flight undertaken with no other purpose but to fly to another base. There was also a sports team on board. The people were received courteously and permitted to travel on. This action of ours is in direct contrast to that of the Russians who summarily shot down an aircraft from Korean territory. I think this action of our Defence Force made a positive impression on the rest of the world but I shall leave the hon member for Soutpansberg there.

In lighter vein but also in some seriousness I wish to refer to a certain pamphlet. At present there is a by-election in the Free State again and naturally brochures are also being distributed again. On 18 May 1938 there was an election as well and on that occasion a pamphlet was distributed too. I am referring to this in consequence of reproaches that parties have supposedly deviated from their policy and standpoints and renounced their principles. This pamphlet was signed by the candidate himself. Its title is “Naturelpolitiek” and it reads as follows:

That would be the hon member for Rissik’s father and his ilk, the old UP men …

The State President’s father too.

I read the following in the pamphlet:

That same Jim Fouché later became our President. I do not know precisely what and where the old UP left off and what and where the new NP took up. The NP called for votes for Jim Fouché and promised to stop the purchase of land for natives. Sir, my father’s land was the first to be bought for Bophuthatswana and the native at the time. That is nearly fifty years ago now and still we have not finished with Bophuthatswana—negotiations and discussions continue on that process. Those same old UP men who said: “Buy land for the native” while the Nationalists said: “No, we are going to put a stop to it” say in this priceless pamphlet, however—Sir, it could just as well have been today’s issue:

The same old UP men of old who refused to introduce this legislation are now voting against its abolition. That is how things have changed. The fact of the matter is that a party ruling responsibly should undertake its task in the full realization of conditions prevailing in the specific era in which it carries out its responsibilities on instruction of its electoral corps.

The hon member for Umlazi and other speakers also referred to the opinion poll which brought to the fore a depression and pessimism among our people. The hon member for Soutpansberg also mentioned it in a previous speech but he insinuated that the policy of the State President and the Government was giving rise to pessimism among our youth. I wish to say, however, that our young people with their many motor cars on university campuses should not complain too much.

In contrast the PFP spokesman, the hon member for Pinelands, said that all race laws should merely be deleted and pessimism would cease, insurrection would end and the whole world would smile again. I shall return to the hon members of the CP, but I wish to read the hon member for Pinelands a quotation from a speech by Mr E Pavitt, the president of the SA Foundation. He is a respected businessman, a prominent industrialist. I do not know whether he belongs to our party but he is definitely not in the Government. Let us read what this man says in his article. This article is written analytically and critically and sharp criticism is expressed. Nevertheless I want to read the hon Leader of the Official Opposition—I am pleased he is listening—what he says:

I want to repeat this sentence:

I wish to emphasize the following:

So says Mr Pavitt, a businessman who is critical of the Government. He notes that Russia is regarding this country with covetous eyes and states it unequivocally. That is why this Government brings hope to our youth and lights the torch in the darkness because this Government is addressing the current problem. This emerges clearly from that article. We are not yet aware who the conductors are of the orchestra in the riot areas but here it is set out very clearly for us.

The hon member for Waterberg could do well to listen to me. He asks how successful the deconcentration and the decentralization at Ekangala, amongst other places, is but those same people reproach the State President and his Cabinet for flirting with Big Business. They bruit this abroad in their own newspapers with cartoons of the Hochenheimers etc.

But it is so!

Without private initiative and without the contribution of the business sector regarding capital and entrepreneurships those developments could not take place.

They are dictating your actions to you!

No, this Government does not allow itself to be dictated to—it is a Government acting in its own right. [Interjections.] In 1978 the State President was not even the Prime Minister or State President. At that time President Lucas Mangope said deconcentration of industries was a total failure because in fact it had no vigour—it was merely the task of a number of tired public servants.

To give impetus to this matter, this Government proceeded with the Carlton and the Good Hope conferences to obtain the co-operation of the private sector and to enter into a mutual undertaking with it, not only for ideological reasons, but for the practical one of the distribution and deconcentration of industries etc. Because we involve the private sector like Mr Pavitt and others, however, the CP says we are flirting with the Hochenheimers!

Mr Chairman, since time immemorial it has been accepted as the duty of all loyal participants in Government to advise the head of State from time to time as to matters which they feel will be to the benefit of the State and ensure its more efficient running. We in the NRP consider ourselves loyal South Africans and, as such, would like to make certain points to the State President.

The first point I would make with some diffidence. It is rather a unique situation for me to address the head of State directly and advise him as to my party’s opinion. I believe it is unique in the history of South Africa that we are having this debate today. The first point I would like to make is that it is somewhat difficult for all people to have the same loyalty to a head of State who is also the head of a political party, as they would to a head of State who is not the head of a political party. From time to time this has presented us with situations which could have been positively embarrassing. For example, from the time of the commencement of the Republic there has been the toast to the State President. I have noticed that on more than one occasion, when there has been a toast to the State President, people have declined to rise. The toast has been changed to a toast to South Africa.

Who are those people?

This I accept … I am not arguing as to who it is, but that is the situation, and most of us have been brought up in an era where one does toast the constitutional head of State, either in the form of royalty as in the past or, latterly, the State President. I believe that there is some merit in the Head of State not being the head of a political party. I am not suggesting for one moment though that the Head of State should not be the Executive State President. I believe that once having become the Executive State President, particularly in a country such as ours, in which the National Party has been looked upon as, should we say, not exactly friendly towards certain elements of our community—it may become a dividing factor if the Head of State remains the head of a political party. We believe it is desirable to give this matter some thought.

Another point I should like to raise is in connection with the question of Black participation in the central Government. I am referring of course to the non-homeland Blacks at this stage, though I must unequivocally state too that we must not forget the legitimate claims and aspirations of non-independent homelands that are in fact still part of South Africa.

The Conservative Party, being quite blunt and honest about their policy, say that there will be no Blacks in any White South African Government. We believe their policy is impractical but I do not intend to argue that issue now.

The PFP calls for a convention of the true leaders of all races. This sounds fine, but who are those leaders? Are they those who have subjected themselves to the various ballot-boxes—who are sometimes referred to as Uncle Toms—or those who are in jail for sabotage and treason, or the self-appointed leaders of the UDF and the ANC etc, or politically motivated churchmen, White, Brown or Black? It sounds fine, as I say, to call this convention of the true leaders. I am afraid, however, that there are too many of these so-called leaders, and I believe the …

Like the NRP—all leaders and no followers!

Please, let me finish my speech. I thank you for the opportunity; it is awfully courteous of you! You are being almost too kind! [Interjections.]

There are, as I say, too many of these so-called leaders, and the differences are such that to choose them arbitrarily would be considered unreasonable. Therefore I do not believe such a convention is a practical proposition at all.

I believe the National Party has the same idea that we have in this regard; that is that the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians have the appropriate facilities to choose their leaders. We can—all of us—choose our leaders through this Parliament. Where we do differ with the National Party, however, is in respect of how to establish Black leaders who truly represent Blacks, and bring them into the Government structure. The National Party seems to be supporting a forum consensus—a forum separate from this Parliament and composed of people whom they would choose. These people may not necessarily be those whom the Blacks would choose. We believe that no matter what emanates from such a forum, the Black discontent would continue because these people would not be members of this Parliament; they would be a parallel and possibly even a competitive body to this Parliament, if they were given any real power.

If they were not given any real power they would not accept that they were indeed truly a part of Government. Therefore we in the NRP believe that this concept of a forum on a parallel basis to Parliament is neither desirable nor practical. Our proposals are quite different from those of any other party in that we believe that the true leadership of the Blacks must be established by the normal democratic process, and that those leaders should sit in a fourth Chamber of this Parliament, subject to the laws and the rules of this Parliament, and also subject to the discipline of Mr Speaker. The numbers to be elected at this stage are not of vital importance for the sake of my argument, as long as there are sufficient numbers to be considered a true and comprehensive cross-section of that community’s leadership. I do not know what the numbers are that we are talking about. It should at least be between 50 and 70—something of that order. However, we believe that this Chamber, the fourth one, and the composition thereof, would be of an interim nature to establish an appropriate and a proven group of leaders to represent Black views and to argue their case for further constitutional change.

I can see that these proposals will not appeal to the radical groups or to many of their self-appointed leaders who would be nervous about the establishment of their true leadership status. However, by fairminded people—Black or White and inside or outside of South Africa—it will be seen as an honest, fairminded and practical attempt. At least to us in the NRP this appears to be the only way to continue peacefully with the progression towards a just society.

Finally, I should like to raise one further point and that is in respect of our relations with the United States of America. While we appreciate the goodwill of that country and indeed of all countries, we are beginning to resent and reject the efforts on the part of that country to interfere persistently in the internal affairs of our country. The impression is being created that we no longer control this country of ours and that we have to jump at the crack of the American whip as if we were a 53rd state of that country. I believe this is damaging to our status and national pride and will ultimately be damaging to our country. Internal affairs are our affairs. Changes must surely be made, but they must be the right changes to suit South Africa and the just things to do. Changes must not be made because Big Brother in the USA says we must make them. From experience one finds that appeasement without conviction merely feeds the demands of those arrogant people who would wish to impose their will upon us. Furthermore, this will stimulate the unrest created by terrorists and other radical elements. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I had no intention of attacking any particular party today, but there is no doubt in my mind that one minute the hon member for Umbilo, who has just resumed his seat, was in direct agreement with the hon members of the CP in certain respects and reflecting the direction in which they were thinking, but the next he was presenting the idea of a fourth Chamber despite the fact that the party on this side of the House had already made it very clear that it was not in favour of such a Chamber. If one were therefore to be consistent in that regard one would have to create seven more chambers in order to fulfil the ideals of all the other peoples in South Africa and to accommodate their aspirations and their nationalism. That is why the forum to be created by the State President offers every reasonable and moderate leader in South Africa the opportunity to deliberate and to make suggestions at grass-roots level in order to ensure that the Black man’s future position is determined and that all their aspirations may be fulfilled.

I must add with all due respect that it appears to me as if the hon member for Umbilo has been absent for a long time if he believes that the State President permits the USA or the people of that country to prescribe to him. Our leader has already made it absolutely clear that we will not allow other countries to prescribe to us. We shall do what is right in this country according to our Christian and sincere beliefs and the responsibilities which we bear. If one had watched Mr Koppel’s interview with the State President for example, it would have been very clear how strongly he expressed his opinions on this matter. His attitude towards America was clear as well as his conviction that this country was a strong, independent Western country which would not permit any other country to prescribe to it.

We do not, however, live in isolation on an island. We exist as part of a bigger world. We must therefore take note of what the other countries, the major Western powers are doing. We cannot omit completely to do that. Even a powerful country such as the USA and a number of the other great Western countries have to take note of what their allies and other people in this world are doing.

I should have liked to have delivered my prepared speech, but it does not seem as if I am going to have much of a chance to do that. I should like to make a few observations about the propaganda campaign which is being waged against the Republic of South Africa, and has been for some time, and I want to contrast it with the principle of a positive nationalism and the conditions for ensuring such a positive nationalism in South Africa.

The propaganda campaign against South Africa has been gaining momentum ever since Mrs Gandhi attacked our internal policy at UNO in 1947. From then onwards it developed from a small, simple sports boycott into the arms embargo imposed by UNO in 1963. This was followed by Resolutions 418 to 421 which endorsed the arms embargo in far more serious terms. There were also matters such as the oil embargo, the efforts to stop Koeberg and the present disinvestment campaign.

We must take note of all these matters even if we do not always agree with them. We must take note of the fact that the West is not in all respects willing to oblige us.

Our friends in the West must bear one thing clearly in mind with regard to this disinvestment campaign. What is actually at stake here is the principle of a free Western economic system. One of the basic principles of that system is that actions such as boycotts and disinvestment are completely counterproductive and cannot work.

A second facet of this enormous campaign which was set in motion against us, is the armed conflict in South West Africa which has escalated since the ’sixties and has led to the enormous defence expenditure which the Government has had to incur annually. If one compares the present expenditure with that of ten years ago, one realizes that it is alarming. If one considers what could have been achieved by such expenditure on a positive level if one had been living in a perfect world, one finds that it could have been considerable.

If one looks at the terrorist onslaught, the onslaught by the ANC, the PAC, the UDF linked to the OAU and their synchronization in this regard, if one looks at the recent conference of the ANC during which they declared that they were entering the final phase of the take-over of South Africa and the present order in this country, then one realizes that these are factors of which we have to take very thorough cognizance.

When one considers the steps taken by the trade unions during 1984, one realizes that the increased tempo of such steps and of the activities of those bodies in co-operation with other organizations to destroy the existing order are clearly discernible.

When one looks at the campaigns by the World Council of Churches, the Tutus and the Boesaks and considers the political activism which has been mounted against this country under cover of the church, then one realizes only too well that the war being waged against us is probably only 20% conventional, and 80% unconventional and propagandistic. In the past it has been called the terrorism of the word and we have a great task in that regard to try to reverse what has been systematically set in motion against this country since 1948.

I am therefore of the opinion that we should take more steps and allocate more funds in order to achieve our objectives with our promotional campaigns to acquaint people with the positive things that the Government is doing.

Subtle attacks are being made on every body in this country which supports law and order. Dispute and disrespect is being brought into our courts, our judiciary, our churches, the State and the Police. Every leader of stature is being attacked and undermined. The attacks by many sections of our Press often give one the impression that their aims border on disloyalty and high treason. I want to put it clearly today that we must guard against such attacks.

If one takes all that I have mentioned into consideration, it is no wonder that some of our people out there are becoming discouraged. We must, however, not allow these incidents to discourage us or the enemies of this country to threaten us. We must defend ourselves with everything we have. Mr Crozier said: “A society that does not defend itself is doomed. The system that remains passive in the face of attack deserves to go under.” The people of this country will fight for the survival of the existing order.

I furthermore want to state clearly that this Government has indicated through the initiative taken by the State President on 25 January, that it is very much aware of the fact that we have to talk to and co-operate with the moderate Black leaders in South Africa. Every step should be taken to talk to any leader of repute in South Africa without destroying the existing order in South Africa. They must become involved in the general front which is being formed against the enemies of South Africa. The only counteroffensive for the campaign which is being waged against us, is the positive nationalism to which I have referred and which I would have liked to illustrate further if I had had the time. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in certain respects I agree with the hon member for Roodepoort. We are living in a difficult country and in a difficult world, and I think it is true that some of our people are losing heart. I just want to tell him, however, that positive nationalism means nothing; it is like mother love. [Interjections.] What we need is a positive attempt to remove race discrimination at a statutory level. We would still have problems, but it would be easier for our friends to support us. Our enemies will not support us anyway.

I find it disquieting that a senior hon member such as the hon member for De Kuilen should be so ignorant of the policy of this party, even though he does not agree with it. It seems to me that he has no idea of what we mean by the national convention as a means of bringing about proper constitutional reform in South Africa. I must say I am disappointed. I feel that that hon member should at least have spent some time reading our pamphlets and policy documents. Even though he does not agree with it, he does not have to argue about our policy of a national convention while remaining in ignorance as to its meaning. [Interjections.]

†I want to direct my remarks to the State President in his position of what we might call in Black terms the Paramount Chief in South Africa. He himself has said that he is going to take a careful interest in Black affairs.

I believe one of the most exciting things to have happened in South Africa in the past two weeks was what happened at Khayelitsha/Crossroads. We saw a situation where people were being shot, where there were roadblocks and burning tyres, and where people were dying. This situation which the hon member for Roodepoort regarded as “’n bron van moedeloosheid”, in a very short time changed to a situation of hope, orderly change and the possibility of a real future for people. I think the way in which the Khayelitsha/Crossroads situation has been defused in the past two weeks, and the style of operation that has gone on there, should be an example to us all.

No matter who the individual is who is State President in South Africa, there are going to be two major problems that we will have to face over the next 25 years, regardless of our political affiliations. The one is urbanization and the other a reduction in population growth. The two are interlinked. Whites, Coloureds and Indians have largely urbanized. Certainly almost all the White people who are going to move to the cities and towns have done so. The same is true for Indians, and academics and researchers tell us that there is a relatively small proportion of Coloured people that has still to move in. The real urbanization is going to he Black urbanization, and the same is true as regards population growth. Development and population growth are linked.

We have to appreciate that there are three vital aspects to urbanization. The first is that it is inevitable—“dit is onvermydelik”. It is, secondly, a desirable development process, and, thirdly, we in this country can adequately manage and use it. Each of these aspects of urbanization has a clear implication which demands the swift abolition of influx control.

Urbanization is inevitable, just as influx control is futile, because it is an international phenomenon, a phenomenon of developing Third World countries. In fact, the State President as a small boy in the Free State probably learnt the English London cry of “Cockles and mussels alive alive-o”. That is what is known as the informal sector. In London, when it was urbanizing, most of the squatters or urbanizing population bought their food and supplies from petty traders in the streets. It is exactly that historical fact that cannot be avoided. No city in Europe or the world has developed without urbanization problems and without a transitional phase when people moved into those cities.

Important studies have been done by independent groups on the effects of influx control and have shown that it has not stopped migration. In Djakarta in Indonesia there was an attempt to make that city a closed city by stopping the urban flow, but it failed miserably, just as influx control has failed miserably in this country since Dr Verwoerd tried to enforce it vigorously. The studies show that if influx control were abolished there would in fact not be an enormous flood of people coming to our cities. That is one of the myths of South African life but unfortunately I do not have time to go into it now. It is estimated that by the year 2000 there are going to be 10,5 million people urbanizing whereas, if we get rid of influx control, it will probably be 12,5 million.

The second point about urbanization is that it is desirable. It is an engine for development and is the cheapest and most effective way of developing our society and raising our standard of living. As the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development pointed out, it will promote rural development. How can we protect the water resources of the Tugela without urbanizing and taking the excess population out of that catchment area? It is the only decent and sensible way to do it. It will also bring development and a higher standard of living. It will give us cheaper per capita costs for services and is a highly cost effective means of development.

Many people see urbanization in South Africa as a great problem. The most pessimistic view of urbanization is that in the next 20 years 16 million Blacks will come to our cities. In Sao Paulo, for example, in the 25 years until the year 2 000, 15 million people will urbanize. In Mexico City 19 million people were urbanized. That is in one single city. We are looking at the whole of South Africa, including the homelands in terms of urbanization. We can do it with the skills at our disposal. Just think what has happened at Khayelitsha and at Onverwacht in the Free State where there has been an explosion of people into the town just south-east of Bloemfontein. There will soon be 300 000 people there. We have handled this sort of thing. It has been unpleasant at times and it has been difficult for those people, but Onverwacht is a living example of an urbanized Black city. We can handle urbanization in South Africa.

If this Government was prepared to say to the mining industry: We shall give you certain tax benefits; you have lots of experience in housing and we want you to provide family accommodation for the 400 000-plus migrant workers that you draw out of our impoverished rural areas, this Government could urbanize in an orderly way at least 2 million people in South Africa, without it necessarily costing the Government anything at all.

I believe we in this House should pursue urbanization as a desirable, achievable, exciting opportunity to develop South Africa. We should see it in that way, and not as a threat to our very existence. I believe that this ties in with our population development programme.

I do not believe there is anybody in South Africa who is not concerned about our growing population, and the objective of the programme is a population of 80 million for South Africa. The emphasis in that population development programme is on development, because no society has controlled its birthrate without raising its standard of living. Here again, I believe the population development programme ties in with the whole urbanization programme because that is the way to bring development in South Africa. If the State President is serious about the population development programme …

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, let him at least finish his sentence.

I am trying to accommodate hon members as much as possible, but they take undue advantage of it.

Mr Chairman, it is in the nature of a debate of this kind that it is not possible for me to give a detailed reply to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, but he started his speech by addressing the hon member for De Kuilen and telling him the hon member did not know what he was talking about when he referred to the proposed national convention of the PFP. He also said the hon member did not know what the aim of the convention was. I am planning to return to the topic of the national convention in the course of my speech, and to associate myself with the hon member for De Kuilen.

For the purpose of providing a background and a context for my speech I want to say the discussion of the State President’s vote is pre-eminently an opportunity for the political parties in the House, that are vying to govern the country, to weigh their alternatives one against the other. Although the South African situation remains complex, the questions that have to be dealt with have never been defined more clearly than on this particular day. It is consequently also easier to assess the various parties’ models with reference to these issues.

The clear picture we now have of our present situation is partly due to the greater immediacy of our problems. We have, as it were, moved closer to our problems. This is also the result, however, of the progress made along the road of constitutional development. This progress in itself has, in turn, contributed to the immediacy of the remaining problems. Whatever the case, we have gained valuable experience along the route that brought us to this point. In future this could help us a great deal, by enabling us at least to see the stumbling blocks in time and to avoid them.

The experience I am now referring to is not the exclusive property of the Government. It is available to everyone who wants to learn from it. I think it is a fact that all the parties in this House believe that peaceful change is necessary in South Africa and that it is only possible through negotiation. We do, however, differ on the method of negotiation. We differ for the simple reason that the Government has learned from its experience. This lesson is, firstly, that negotiations should take place quietly, unobtrusively and without much publicity; and secondly, that one party should not confront another party with a model or blueprint that has been drawn up in advance. Such a blueprint becomes a rock upon which, to coin a phrase, the vessel of negotiation would soon founder.

I contend that this is a lesson the Government has learned. This brings me to a second vast difference between the Government and the Opposition parties. The Government learns from its experience, it bases a change in its strategies on these experiences and adapts its actions to changing circumstances. The Opposition parties apparently find it difficult to do this. No one can deny that this Government, in the little more than five years since 1979, has made tremendous strides in the process of broadening the scope of democracy in South Africa within the bounds of possibility. The Government has been able to do this because it has kept pace with the changing realities of our country through continuous self-renewal.

The governing party is unfortunately the only one to undergo renewal and change. The PFP, to mention an example, has been stagnant since at least 1978. Let us go into this matter a little further. Assuming the PFP had come into power in 1979 in some way, what would have happened after that? Probably nothing, nothing that could have been regarded as real progress. According to their constitutional policy—I have it with me—they would indeed immediately have taken steps to call a national convention. This is stated in their policy document. Now, this may sound easy, but it would not have been so simple because you see, they say and believe that every meaningful political grouping in South Africa should be represented at the national convention.

This is where they would have encountered their first stumbling block. After all, they believe that the ANC is a significant political grouping in South Africa. According to them the ANC would surely have had to be present. However the PFP would not have been able to invite them because in their policy document it states that no political group that advocates or resorts to violence or subversion is going to be invited. In that case they would still not be able to invite the ANC today. They could still not invite Nelson Mandela to their convention today, even if they were to free him unconditionally, as they would like to.

The PFP could, it is true, have decided to start the convention without the ANC, although it would then go against their guidelines as published by them, but this is exactly where they would have hit further problems because they say:

the participants—

If the participants were free to negotiate that set of principles, this could still be feasible, but what is the case now? They say:

This then is the problem. What are the people negotiate about? On what must they agree? On what must they try to reach consensus? In effect the PFP is telling people: Here are our toys and if they are not good enough for you we shall not play with you. I am certain some people would not have played with them in the past and would not play with them today either. I am certain that groups such as the CP would not participate, and if they did not participate, another meaningful political grouping would be excluded from the process, unless of course the PFP were to reason that such groups are not politically significant. If that were the case, however, the PFP itself would not be meaningful. The initiators of the national convention would then not be able to participate in the national convention either. What would happen then? I could continue to deal with various impractical and unworkable aspects of the PFP’s convention ideas in this manner. However, I do not have time for that now. If I have time at the end I shall return to it.

The fact remains that if they had come into power in 1979, the national convention would probably not even have started to work yet. It would not have been worked due to inherent structural faults—I could almost call them its factory faults. There would still not have been a single Coloured or Indian member of Parliament in South Africa today. Ciskei and Venda would not have been independent. In this policy document of the PFP they state that they are opposed in principle to independence as such. In other words, the people of South Africa would still have found themselves, constitutionally speaking, at the same stage now, in 1985, as they were in in 1979.

Meanwhile, while struggling to get this convention going the PFP would have been actively involved, as stated in this document, in systematically eliminating discrimination, inequality and other points of conflict. Separate residential areas would, I take it, have been abolished and schools would have been opened to all, but the convention might not have started working yet. In any case it would not have yielded any results yet. While schools and residential areas would have been opened, no Coloured or Indian would have had any say in any of these matters. It would have caused chaos.

We have learned a number of lessons. We have learned that no reform can take place in isolation. Social development should go hand in hand with political reform and economic growth. The one is inseparable from the other. I mention this to illustrate the unrealistic approach adopted by the PFP. I am also mentioning it to show that the PFP is not keeping pace with changing circumstances and that their policy is of no real importance to South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr J W van Staden referred today to the State President. I want to say to the hon member that we on this side of the House have considerable regard for him as an old established member of this House with many years of political experience, and I personally always listen with great pleasure when he tells us stories from the past.

In any event, the hon member Mr Van Staden referred to the State President as the great reformer in South Africa today. He then elaborated on that statement by saying that essentially this reform programme originated with the appearance of the report of the Theron Commission. Did I understand the hon member Mr Van Staden correctly?

He agrees.

He agrees. I want to say to the hon member that from the first year that I came here—because I, too, as an academic, took an interest in the problems in connection with the population of South Africa—I joined the NP’s study group on Coloured Affairs. I was a member of that group over the years until the study group was dissolved. I was also among the members who attended a meeting at that time—after having been notified by the present Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—to discuss the report of the Theron Commission. I therefore acquired a very wide knowledge of that matter.

The following is very interesting. The State President—our then Prime Minister—is speaking:

Now listen to the first one:

What year was that?

It does not matter what year it was. The hon member said that the reform arose from the report of the Erica Theron Commission. I have just quoted what the standpoint of the hon member’s leader was as far as that report was concerned. [Interjections.] Subsequently the Government’s standpoint was substantiated by Prime Minister P W Botha. Certain statements are made, and at the end he lays down certain guidelines, viz:

What were those guidelines?

Does the hon member still stand by that? [Interjections.]

Do you stand by that?

Of course, yes! I have not changed. My standpoint on the principle is still exactly the same. [Interjections.] To tell the truth, I was kicked out of the NP because I stood by the principle of separate development.

You deserted!

The hon member Dr Vilonel says that I deserted. I did not desert. I received a telegram informing me that I had been deprived of my membership of the NP. The hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development did not even permit me to address my own divisional committee. In fact I did not even end up at the congress. Now the hon member says that I deserted. [Interjections.]

The second guideline for the Cabinet is:

[Interjections.]

I was kicked out of the NP because I said that there was no such thing as healthy power-sharing. [Interjections.] Now the hon member Mr Van Staden says that the reform that is taking place today under the great reformer, President Botha, is to be found in the standpoints on principles adopted in respect of the Erica Theron Commission’s report. [Interjections.] I have already quoted two of the guidelines. Now I am beginning to look for the threads with which I can tie down the NP and with which I can indicate why they ran away from the principles of separate development. I now quote the third guideline:

When law and order at at issue, I should really tell the Rev Hendrickse about this decision.

I believe that at that time integration was incorporated in the present dispensation under the cloak of NP principles because in the following guideline there are already signs of integration. However, we as conservatives and as loyal Nationalists, at that time trusted the leaders in regard to statements made by the former Prime Minister P W Botha himself. The fourth guideline reads:

This final point cannot relate to section 16 of the Immorality Act or the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act because in his first sentence the State President said that these measures should not only remain on the Statute Book, but should also be introduced for the Coloured people so that they need not be exposed to miscegenation with the Black people. I now want to say to the State President that his biggest problem in South Africa today is that as far as the Afrikaners and the Whites are concerned, his credibility is declining steadily. I have no doubt on that score. I do not know what the outcome is going to be in Harrismith and at Newton Park on 1 May, but I want to tell him one thing and that is that there is only one party that is going to show growth on 1 May and that is the CP. [Interjections.] Hon members can laugh if they want to but we shall laugh last. In politics one should not lightly play the prophet, but we shall see what happens on 1 May. [Interjections.]

Order!

I wish to furnish a few reasons as to why I say these things. I want to furnish a few reasons as to why the State President’s credibility among his own power base, among his historical power base, is diminishing, and why this will eventually lead to his downfall in the Republic of South Africa, like the downfall of General Smuts and Mr Jan Hofmeyr.

Over the past few years I have scrutinized the NP’s programme of principles far more carefully than ever. I have not departed from those principles. On 29 April 1982 the State President, without the approval of his congresses—apparently his caucus had become merely a lot of applauders—reduced the NP’s unshakeable principles. This is the people to which the State President and I belong—I, too, have relations with the surname of Botha, just as the State President quite probably has relations with the surname Van der Merwe—but after 300 years of struggle, and after we had won in South Africa and were winning in the world as far as our standpoint was concerned, the State President comes here and reduces the NP’s principles to the following two things:

I want to ask hon members whether that is still true. [Interjections.] If hon members tell me that it is true, then they no longer have an understanding of what is truth and what is a lie. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I shall reply tomorrow in regard to some of the other matters raised by hon members.

†I want to inform the House of the response of the South African Government to the Multi-Party Conference proposals in regard to South West Africa. Before doing so, I wish to refer to two other matters in connection with South West Africa.

Hon members will have taken note of the statement issued by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on 15 April this year, concerning the disengagement of the South African forces in the area in question from Southern Angola. South Africa has taken this action despite Swapo’s continuing terrorist activities, but in the hope that its decision will enhance the prospects for peace in the region and will, in particular, be conducive to the withdrawal of the Cubans from Angola. However, this action will not materially diminish the ability of the security forces of South Africa to protect the people of South West Africa/Namibia. On the contrary, it places the burden for ensuring that cross-border violence does not escalate, squarely on the shoulders of the Angolan Government. It is for them to determine what course events along the border will take. South Africa is willing to hold ministerial discussions with the Angolans on the maintenance of peace and stability in the region and on other questions of regional importance. The Angolans must accordingly decide whether they wish to proceed along the road of peace and dialogue or whether they wish to return to the cycle of escalating violence which characterized the situation before the Lusaka Agreement.

The second question I wish to refer to before dealing with the Multi-Party Conference, is an aspect which might interest hon members in connection with the command structure of certain police units. Certain police units in South West Africa will soon be transferred from the SAP to the Administrator-General of South West Africa/Namibia. When this occurs all police functions in South West Africa/Namibia will be exercised by the Police Force of South West Africa/ Namibia. This is in keeping with the Government’s view that wherever possible, administrative functions affecting the territory should be in the hands of South West Africa. The Minister of Law and Order will furnish more details in due course.

Now I wish to address the proposals which the Multi-Party Conference of South West Africa/Namibia presented to me on 25 March 1985.

The Multi-Party Conference requests the establishment of an internal government, which would promote national reconciliation, national welfare and a nationally acceptable and internationally recognized independence. These proposals include a Constitutional Council which would be responsible for constitutional questions, and in particular for the drafting of a constitution, which would ultimately be submitted to the electorate for approval.

In considering the Multi-Party Conference’s proposals the South Africa Government has borne in mind the long period which has elapsed since South Africa accepted the Western proposal for the independence of South West Africa in April 1978. In terms of that proposal the territory should have become independent by the end of 1978. However, independence was repeatedly delayed because of deviation by the United Nations and Swapo from the original Contact Group proposals, because of the bias of the United Nations in favour of Swapo, and because of the continuing threat posed by the presence of Cuban forces in Angola.

In the meantime, the people of South West Africa have to wait for seven years and are still unable to exercise their right to self-determination. The last countrywide election took place in December 1978 and led to an overwhelming victory for the DTA at that time, as it was then composed. Major responsibilities for the internal administration of the territory were subsequently entrusted to a National Assembly and a Council of Ministers. This governmental structure was not recognized by the international community. By the end of 1982, however, the original term of office of the National Assembly had already expired and had been extended by decree. After the passage of four years, during which time defections from the ruling party took place and dissent among the leaders was mounting, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers resigned in January 1983. The Council of Ministers was accordingly disbanded, and on 19 January 1983 the National Assembly was dissolved. All the powers which it and the Council had previously exercised reverted to the Administrator-General. It was stressed at the time that this was purely an interim arrangement.

With a view to ensuring the continuation of internal institutions in South West Africa, I announced on 20 November 1982 that the South African Government would decide, in the light of the situation prevailing at the end of February 1983, whether another general election should be held in the territory, and, if so, on what basis.

At the end of February 1983 it was decided not to proceed with an election; on various grounds, which I can mention at a later stage. Instead, the Administrator-General held consultations with the South West African parties, and in April 1983 he proposed the establishment of a State Council, which would advise him on political matters. The parties of the territory preferred, however, to organize their own forum for discussion, which took the form of the Multi-Party Conference.

During my speech in Parliament on 31 January 1984 I said that it was up to the leaders of South West Africa to decide what they were going to do, and to do so urgently. The Multi-Party Conference responded positively to this appeal.

On 24 February 1984 it issued a Declaration of Basic Principles. On 18 April 1984 it reached agreement on a Charter of Fundamental Rights and Objectives. It decided, inter alia, that the people of South West Africa/Namibia desired independence, free from external domination and prescription. It further agreed that the basic rights of all South West Africans should be guaranteed.

The Multi-Party Conference has never claimed to be the sole representative of the people of South West Africa/Namibia. It has proved that it was willing to discuss the future of South West Africa/Namibia with other political parties, including Swapo. From 11 to 13 May 1984 it held discussions with Swapo in Lusaka under the co-chairmanship of President Kaunda and the Administrator-General, Dr W van Niekerk. At this meeting the parties managed to reach consensus on a number of important points. The hosts of the conference were hopeful that all the parties present would sign a compromise joint communiqué. However, immediately before the final session, the leader of Swapo met with a foreign diplomat in Lusaka, who evidently persuaded him to change his attitude. Instead of signing the communiqué, Swapo launched a vitriolic attack against certain members of the Multi Party Conference.

In its statement of 31 October 1984 the Multi-Party Conference once again invited Swapo and the other parties of the territory to join it in discussions on the future of South West Africa/Namibia. Swapo ignored its invitation and the Multi-Party Conference accordingly decided to proceed on its own. That Swapo’s views and the views of other South West African political parties are not included in the Multi-Party Conference’s proposals is owing solely to their own decision. Eventually, on 25 March 1985, the Multi-Party Conference presented its proposals to me.

It would have been preferable if the Multi-Party Conference had a clear mandate from the people of South West Africa/Namibia. I want to make it clear here today that the Multi-Party Conference has committed itself to have any future consitutional plan tested by the country as a whole. However, a national election at this time would complicate current efforts to achieve an internationally acceptable independence for South West Africa/Namibia. The Multi-Party Conference has, beyond dispute, done everything in its power to involve all the parties of South West Africa/Namibia in its deliberations, and will continue to do so.

In considering the proposals of the Multi-Party Conference the South African Government has taken the following points into account: Firstly, direct rule by the Administrator-General was intended to be an interim arrangement. Secondly, the leaders of the territory must themselves work out their constitutional future. Thirdly, the leaders of the territory must accept greater responsibility for the administration of South West Africa/Namibia. Fourthly, the South African Government cannot consult the leaders of the territory on an ad hoc basis; it needs to consult them in some institutionalized form.

Legislative and executive authorities for South West Africa will accordingly be reinstituted and will be empowered to promulgate a bill of rights and to establish a Constitutional Court and a Constitutional Council. At the same time the South African Government wishes to emphasize that for as long as there is a possibility that the present international negotiations hold any realistic prospects of bringing about the genuine withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola, the South African Government will not act in a manner irreconcilable with the international settlement plan.

Consequently, the South African Government will retain all those powers in respect of South West Africa/Namibia which are vested in it at this stage, including foreign relations and defence. All laws of the legislature will require the signature of the Administrator-General. Furthermore, South Africa will continue negotiating with the United Nations and the international community to achieve internationally recognized independence for South West Africa. It will continue to consult with and be guided by the leaders of South West Africa and will try to involve them in discussions with the international community. While the current negotiations hold any possibility of bringing about the genuine withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola, South Africa will regard any draft constitution produced by the Constitutional Council as a basis for future discussion or as a proposal which could be submitted to the Constituent Assembly envisaged in the international settlement plan.

The proposed arrangement in South West Africa/Namibia should accordingly be seen as an interim mechanism for the internal administration of the territory pending agreement on an internationally acceptable independence for South West Africa.

The granting of more representative administration to South West Africa, as was the case in 1979, does not violate the South African Government’s international commitments. However, as I told Parliament on 27 April 1984, the people of South West Africa/Namibia, including Swapo, cannot wait indefinitely for a breakthrough regarding the withdrawal of the Cubans from Angola. Should it eventually become evident, after all avenues have been thoroughly explored, that there is no realistic prospect of attaining these goals, all the parties most intimately affected by the present negotiations will obviously have to reconsider how internationally acceptable independence may best be attained in the light of prevailing circumstances.

In the meantime South Africa will continue to work for an internationally acceptable independence for South West Africa.

It will continue to search for a reasonable formula for genuine Cuban withdrawal from Angola.

It will continue to strive for stability and peace in the region by encouraging all the parties, including Swapo and Angola, to resolve their differences around a conference table instead of by violence.

As has already been announced, South Africa has completed the withdrawal of its forces from Southern Angola. The MPLA Government will have to ensure that Swapo does not step up its violence against the people of South West Africa/Namibia or face the possibility of a reversion to the situation which prevailed before the Lusaka Agreement.

South Africa will continue to encourage dialogue among all the South West African parties in the hope that they will find a basis for a still broader consensus in respect of the future of the territory. If the parties of South West Africa/Namibia cannot achieve a modus vivendi at this stage, then the prospects for the success of independence, however it comes about, are limited. The parties must understand that no single group will be able to dictate what the future of the country will be.

South Africa will continue to insist that all the South West African parties be treated equally and impartially. If the United Nations wishes to play a role in the future of South West Africa/Namibia, it will consequently have to demonstrate that it will be able to carry out its functions impartially.

On these understandings we consider that the implementation of the proposals of the Multi-Party Conference can make a significant contribution to the goals of national reconciliation, national welfare and eventually the peaceable attainment of a nationally acceptable and internationally recognized independence.

So far the statement on South West Africa/Namibia.

*I should like to make another announcement to the Committee relating to the Economic Advisory Council. I do so because in recent times there have been extensive discussions about co-operation between the Government, the State and leaders in the economic sphere.

The State is in earnest in its endeavour to find a formula whereby the government and private sectors may act jointly to ensure the prosperity of the country and its people in general. This was illustrated in practical terms when the Carlton and Good Hope Conferences were launched towards the end of the seventies and in the early eighties.

I do not believe there is anyone who will deny that both of those meetings, the Carlton and the Good Hope Conferences, were of crucial importance for South Africa, because they, too, yielded positive results. Apparently this was not enough, because I find that certain people still feel that the results that have materialized have not been sufficient to establish satisfactorily the relationship between the Government and private sectors. It is therefore essential to continue seeking ways to establish that relationship on a basis that will lead to the achievement of results satisfactory to both sectors.

In the course of seeking a solution I instituted inquiries about various peoples’ perception of the effectiveness of the Economic Advisory Council. Among other things, objections were raised that the say of the government sector is greater than it ought to be and also that decisions of the Advisory Council are not reflected in the results that are aimed for with a view to managing the South Africa economy in such a way that all parties are involved, and it is generally felt that satisfactory results are not being achieved.

In the light of several discussions that I have held personally with business leaders, academics and senior public servants relating to the function and operation of the Advisory Council it has become clear to me that it is time to give the matter serious consideration, and that restructuring of the Economic Advisory Council has become essential.

The point of departure was adopted that the contribution in terms of the gross domestic product of the government sector and the private sector was to be used to determine the extent of representation to be aimed at so as to afford each sector its rightful place in the Advisory Council. In terms of the gross domestic product the public sector contributes approximately 24% and the private sector 76% to economic activity, and generally speaking, the partnership has been restructured in accordance with those inputs. With that as the background, the main groups in accordance with which the gross domestic product is calculated were used as a guideline in establishing the composition of the Advisory Council.

Thus the composition of the Economic Advisory Council will in future be as follows: A Chairman. As far as the chairman is concerned, allow me just to say the following: I consulted the Advisory Council as to whether they wanted to choose their own chairman or whether they preferred him to be appointed by the Head of Government. They recommended to me that the chairman of the Advisory Council be appointed by the Head of Government. For the rest there are five members from the manufacturing sector, three from the mining industry, three from private commerce, three from the world of finance, three from the Government sector, three from the agricultural sector, two from the construction industry, two from the motor industry, two representing public transport, electricity and communication, and ten members who, in the opinion of the State President, are indispensable to the administration of the overall economic system. Details in regard to the members of the new Advisory Council, including the Chairman, will be announced by me at a later stage. The tenure of the present Council expires at the end of June.

The secretariat of the Advisory Council will in future fall under the office of the State President in order to ensure the necessary co-ordination and liaison. Inputs of the Advisory Council will be processed by the secretariat in close co-operation with the Economic Advisory Service of the ministries of Planning, Finance, Trade and Industry and others, to be considered by the Cabinet and the various Cabinet committees, and will ultimately play an active role in the implementation of Government policy by the various State departments. Progress in practical implementation of any inputs will be dealt with on an ongoing basis during meetings of the Economic Advisory Council. In order to ensure that the contribution of the private sector is really meaningful it is also necessary to keep in regular contact with members of the Advisory Council. In future, therefore—ie after June—meetings will be held on a regular quarterly basis and if contentious points come up, special meetings may be held at a shorter frequency at my request or the request of members of the Advisory Council. The Advisory Council will also have the right to establish special committees in connection with important tasks and may co-opt experts in various spheres.

I trust that this step will bring us closer to the formula in terms of which the private sector and Government sector accept joint responsibility for the course of events in the South African economy. Moreover the Government is in earnest in seeking a meaningful basis of co-operation with the private sector. I am looking forward to the practical contribution which the Economic Advisory Council will make in its new form.

I have another brief announcement to make before beginning to reply to the arguments of hon members. It is the custom to honour a retired or deceased State President in the year after his death or retirement by having his effigy depicted on all coins for that year. For practical reasons, however, the Cabinet decided in 1984 that in future this would be done by having the former State President depicted on the nickel R1 coin only. There are very good reasons for this.

It is therefore my special privilege to announce that the effigy of the honoured last occupant of the office of State President under the former constitutional dispensation, the hon Marais Viljoen, will be depicted on the nickel R1 coin for 1985. The South African Mint is in the process of producing this coin and the new coins will be placed in circulation as soon as possible.

The Cabinet has also decided to mint special coins in silver and gold in 1985 to commemorate the 75th anniversary of Parliament.

I should now like to come back to the debate conducted here thus far. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition raised the point that less time ought to be spent in telling one another how much we agree about measures on which consensus has been achieved. I can assure him that if he cannot speak for all of us in other spheres, he is speaking for all of us as far as that is concerned. It is wearisome in the extreme to hear in this House people agree with one another about matters they have already debated. I am not speaking about other ways of agreeing on national affairs. I agree with the hon Leader of the Official Opposition and I shall exercise the influence I have in this regard. The committee in question must consider the matter.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also referred to long-term politics. I shall discuss that tomorrow morning; I do not think that this is the appropriate time to do so and I shall accordingly leave it at that for the moment.

The hon member for Waterberg contributed a reasonable speech which contrasted strongly, in fact, with that of the hon member for Rissik. I want to thank him for the spirit in which he made it. When the hon member for Rissik rises in this House he tries to be as offensive as possible. I shall leave it at that. I do not intend dealing with his offensive statements. In any event, he cannot humiliate me; I do not think he has it in him, and I shall simply leave him at that.

The hon member for Waterberg said that in our endeavour to achieve peace in this country, and while taking into account the specific structure of our country, we should of course not yield to radical elements. I agree with him on that score. I do not think that any sensible member of this House would want a Government to yield to radical elements—whether left-wing or far right-wing. However tomorrow I shall have something more to say about security, too.

The hon member also referred to America. I am one of those who has a considerable regard for President Reagan. I think that he is a statesman of calibre. One does not always agree with him, but we cannot dispute the fact that he is one of America’s greates presidents.

The hon member for Umbilo dealt with the same theme. The speech of the hon member for Umbilo was, strangely enough, in cruel contrast to that of his former leader, the hon member for Durban Point. I want to thank the hon member for Umbilo for having kept the debate at a high level. I am amazed that something suddenly came over the hon member for Durban Point. No one knows what it is. [Interjections.] Yes, possibly the hon member for Umbilo did not have time to polish him up a little in advance. Both referred to an ailment one finds in America at the moment. I agree about that. It is true that nowadays one hears very few speeches by American statesmen that contain no reference to South Africa. It is clear to me that they are not really speaking against or about South Africa, but are rather fighting their own political battle in America, on South African soil. They are Americanising South Africa, as if we were an extra American state. We are not an extra state of America, nor are we a crown colony of America. I think—and I do not say this to be unfriendly—that the Americans suffer from the same ailment that all great nations suffer from, and that is that at a certain stage in their history they begin to think that they can set the rest of the world straight. Now, a few evenings ago the Foreign Minister of America also discussed South Africa. He said good things about South Africa but he also said a few crass things about South Africa. One was that “South Africa is not a just society”. I inferred from that that he was speaking on behalf of a just society.

If one goes into the position a little, one finds that there are several Black organizations in America that devote their energies to furthering the rights of Black people. There is a Black caucus, a National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, an Urban League, a Black Mayors’ Conference, a People United to Save Humanity and a Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Then too there is a Black caucus in many of the American cities whereby they have in the past succeeded in winning two mayoralties. The Black caucus of the American House of Representatives is not a formal institution, but it is well known and consists of 18 to 26 members, depending on the kind of legislation introduced. Now I ask: Is America such a just society that it can preach to this unjust society on the southern tip of Africa? Why, then, do they have these Black caucuses?

They at least have Blacks in the Congress.

There we have a mediator; he is apparently one of the members of the Black caucus in America. That is strange, Sir: There are some people who cannot abide anyone defending South Africa. They simply cannot abide it, but they are so quick to show their longing.

Then the hon member for Soutpansberg spoke. He said that he would not be here tomorrow. Accordingly I want to answer him in his presence. Let me say that I found his speech regrettable in the extreme. I think it was a petty speech. I think it was a small-minded speech. Moreover, I think it is the kind of speech that a member of this Parliament ought not to make. I want to reply to him by quoting a man who spoke here about Mozambique and Angola on 27 January 1976. It was one of the Ministers of the NP Government. He referred to what one of the hon members had mentioned here and said (Hansard, 27 January 1976, col 132):

This is in connection with Mozambique and Angola:

Does the hon member know who this Minister was? It was Dr Connie Mulder.

Oh!

Oh! Then Dr Connie Mulder had better give that hon member advice, because that is the crux of the matter. We deal with Mozambique, whose government we recognize. My predecessor recognized it too.

[Inaudible.]

That hon member must keep quiet now; I did not interrupt him. He must not make his small-minded remarks now.

Dr Connie Mulder outlined the crux of the matter, viz that the previous Government under Mr Vorster recognized Frelimo as an official government whereas this was not so in the case of the MPLA government. In fact, there are several states that have not yet recognized the MPLA government. The two instances are poles apart. That is the first point I want to make.

The second is that we want peace on our eastern front, and we shall persist in striving to achieve this, because it is in the interests of the people in the Northern and Eastern Transvaal—it is of the utmost importance—as regards the marketing and export of their products. How can they export their products through Mozambique and Maputo if we are hostile to that state?

Moreover we are dependent on Cahora Bassa for 10% of our energy. This, too, is of the utmost importance for the Northern and Eastern Transvaal. We have a direct interest in the matter; South African capital is invested there. Then the hon member gets up here and makes cheap propaganda about our having tried to improve relations with Mozambique.

In the third place we concluded a peace agreement with Mozambique at which he himself was present. [Interjections.] We concluded that peace agreement because we believe that it was in the interests of South Africa. I deliberated with President Machel. That is the difference between that hon member and myself; he gets up and gesticulates and expostulates, but I speak to these people. I do not betray South Africa when I speak to these people. I hold discussions with these people and I state the South African standpoint. There is a big difference between carrying on like a windmill, and stating one’s standpoint to people when one is sitting at the same table with them.

Go on; go ahead.

I am replying to that hon member, and he is going to take his medicine now. [Interjections.] I am dealing with him now; tomorrow he wants to run away again. Therefore I am dealing with him now. [Interjections.]

My standpoint is further—and I shall repeat it in this House—that if we are asked by the West to furnish assistance or to try to bring about order in Mozambique we shall consider the matter on merit. If President Machel asks us, we shall also consider the matter on merit. However, what has this hon member done? He has created the impression here that I said that we would go in there at their request.

There is another aspect that we must also consider, viz the securing of the power lines. Those power lines must be secured in the interests of South Africa. If, therefore, steps are taken, with the assistance of Mozambique, to protect those power lines, why should we not do that? [Interjections.] Then, too, there is the question of the securing of the railway lines on which our rolling stock must move. Then there is the harbour from which our goods must be exported. Must we not, then, take steps to help ensure that South Africa’s interests are looked after there? What nonsense is the hon member talking?

As far as the airspace is concerned, there are certain misunderstandings. Moreover, a mistaken impression has been created that South African aircraft are illegally overflying Mozambican territory. We investigated this. What South Africa did was to take steps, for the sake of its own good name, to ensure that that airspace is controlled in such a way that aircraft cannot fly there illegally. What is wrong with that? However, the hon member is going to make a tremendous statement at Tzaneen tomorrow night. He is going to make a world-shaking statement! The whole world is going to be shaken by it! No really, Sir, the hon member should abandon his pettiness. He should abandon his pettiness and concern himself in this House with the affairs of grownups. [Interjections.]

Oh shame! [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Waterberg made another point. He wanted to know what my standpoint was with regard to Ministers demanding the resignation of other Ministers. He went on to refer here to the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives. I put it to the hon member that I have never received a demand from Minister Hendrickse for the resignation of the hon the Minister of Law and Order. He sits in the same Cabinet as the hon the Minister of Law and Order. He never made that demand there, either. Indeed, he has never conveyed such a demand to me. If he had done so, I should have told him what his duty was. I should have put it to him that in any government there is only one person who can decide abouf the membership or otherwise of a member of that government, and that is the head of that particular government. I do not accept instructions from others as to who should resign from my Cabinet and who should not. I do not accept such instructions from newspapers nor do I accept them from anyone else. I, and I alone, will decide what Minister will serve in my Cabinet or not. I believe that that is the answer I should like to give to the hon member.

The hon member also referred to the issue of the permanence of Black people. The permanence of Black people in South Africa was surely recognized by the hon member—together with me—when we were in the same party. After all, this is nothing new. We as a party decided jointly that Blacks could acquire leasehold rights of 99 years. Ninety nine years! Is that not permanence? We decided on that together. All that we have done now is to go further and say that people who are entitled to leasehold rights of 99 years are also entitled to obtain the right of ownership of that land. The two are more or less the same thing. I think that we have a lease of 99 years on South Africa House in London. No one has ever thought that we were only there temporarily.

Tomorrow I shall deal with the issue of relations between Black and White people and among communities within the Black population. I do not wish to discuss the matter further on this occasion.

The hon member Prof Olivier raised the issue of citizenship. He also put a question to me in that regard. I shall have more to say about citizenship as well tomorrow. However, the hon member asked me whether my predecessor had given an undertaking to President Mangope in regard to citizenship. I have no knowledge of it. If such an undertaking was given, then this was done either verbally or by letter. If it was done by letter I should like to see it. However, I am unaware of any verbal assurances or of letters to that effect. If the hon member could give me further information in that regard I should appreciate it.

†The hon member for Umbilo raised the question of loyalty to the Head of State when toasting the Head of State. Let me tell the hon member that I really do not care whether people toast me or not. That reminds me of the story that was told of a previous State President, the late Mr C R Swart. He once used these words: “Ladies and gentlemen, the State President having been drunk, you may now smoke”. I do not want to appear cynical but I want to tell the hon member that most of the time I think the toast is used to enable people like the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Home Affairs to start smoking. [Interjections.] It is of course the custom in South Africa to drink a toast to the Head of State and I think we should leave it at that. I do not think we should prescribe to people to drink a toast to South Africa or to the State President. That is a voluntary matter and we as a Government have already decided that we will not prescribe to the country on this matter. That is my reply to him. I think all reasonable South Africans will know how to behave when a toast is proposed to the Head of the State.

The hon member then raised the matter of a fourth chamber. I shall deal with that later.

*The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North said something that I cannot allow to pass unchallenged. In reply to one of the other hon members he said that positive nationalism meant nothing; it was like mother love. Does the hon member realize what he said? I do not believe that the hon member realizes what he said. I do not believe that the hon member himself understood what he said, viz: It means nothing, it is something like mother love. I think that the hon member should really go and think about it again. I cannot take it amiss of him if he does not want to be nationalist, but I can take it amiss of him if he makes a statement like that about mother love. I think he ought to be ashamed of himself.

I now wish to dwell for a moment on the hon member for Durban Point. Over the past few years that hon member has really made positive contributions in this House. One had begun to think that as a person who has been sitting in this House for many years, he has developed a feeling that he should at all times make a positive contribution and see a little further than party politics. In total contrast to the spirit of the debate that was begun by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, in contrast even to the spirit of the debate conducted by the hon member for Waterberg, he stood up here and wanted to break and destroy everything before him. He dealt out blows right, left and centre among the members of the Government. Surely that is not true. The hon member makes the statement that anything good that is done by any member of the Government or any official, is immediately demigrated. Surely that is not true. If the hon member goes and think about it for a moment he will realize what an unreasonable and unwise speech he made here. There are forces seeking to destroy every positive step taken in South Africa. That is true. There are forces that abuse the slightest error or human shortcoming that may sometimes be revealed. That is true; but surely those forces are not all combined in this Government, as if we are simply out to create confusion. Good heavens, the hon member knows what difficult circumstances prevail in the entire Western world at the moment, and that there is an onslaught on the entire Western world. That does not apply to South Africa alone. The onslaught is aimed at the entire free world and one of the spearheads in that struggle is aimed at South Africa. The hon member knows that from experience, because he is better informed than he gave out this afternoon. He should have said this afternoon, speaking from experience, that insofar as this House can make a contribution—and he, with his knowledge, can make a contribution—he would help the Government resist those forces of destruction, confusion and destabilization. However, he puts all the blame on the Government. What is his aim in doing so? Whose cause does he seek to further thereby? He cannot even further the cause of his own party in that way.

It is a warning to you that reform entails danger.

No, no, the hon member is adopting a totally wrong approach. He is a senior member of this House and his speech is publicized abroad. Even the American Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was very critical of South Africa, said that evening that tremendous progress have been made in South Africa during the past five years with regard to reform. He admitted it, and he was critical towards South Africa. Now a front-bencher of my own Parliament comes along and puts all the blame for what goes wrong on the Government. I do not think that that is right. I think that after due consideration the hon member will think differently about the matter.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.