announced that Mr Speaker had called a joint sitting of the three Houses of Parliament for Monday, 10 February, at 14h15 for the delivering of Second Reading speeches on certain bills.

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on the Family Court Bill and the Divorce Amendment Bill, dated 20 January 1986, as follows:

Mr Chairman, I should just like to draw the attention of hon members to the fact that the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition celebrates his birthday today. On behalf of everyone present here, we want to wish him everything of the best.

It is true that provision is not made for such an incidental matter in the rules. However, I think it is a good thing that we should all congratulate the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition sincerely on his birthday, as the Leader of the House has just done.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I appreciate it sincerely.

Mr Chairman, yesterday we witnessed a very interesting debate in this House—to a certain extent, however, it was a non-debate. What was particularly remarkable was that an hon Government Whip saw fit to give the floor to a phalanx of old, erstwhile verkrampte United Party members for the purpose of trying to sell the National Party. [Interjections.]

They made a bad job of it!

Mr Chairman, we should very much like to enter into debate with the hon member for Randburg, the hon member for Helderkruin and perhaps even the hon member for Innesdal too—the so-called new, young prophets of the National Party. [Interjections.] Perhaps it may yet happen.

The National Party has now finally accepted not only healthy power-sharing, but total power-sharing, in South Africa in so far as all groups, Blacks included, are concerned. I think we should realise that there can be no such thing as partial integration in South Africa. Once one has begun to share one’s political power with another numerically strong people, one has irrevocably relinquished control over the situation. [Interjections.] These are not even my own words. It just so happens that they are the very words of a respected hon member of this House, the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid. [Interjections.]

Goodness me! [Interjections.]

We should consequently now like to hear from the Government whether at present that statement is still valid. If it is still the case, has the Government then decided that it is prepared to give up its control over the situation? If, however, this is not the case, we should very much like to hear from the Government what could possibly have happened in the interim to negate this statement of the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid. Sir, the problem I have with the National Party stems from the fact that what it regarded as heresy in the past has become today’s gospel, and what was gospel for them in the past has now become heresy.

Good, Cas! [Interjections.]

That really is the case! It is absolutely amazing.

We do not, after all, still use oxen to do our ploughing.

The hon member said they no longer plough with oxen. That is true.

The National Party now ploughs with clay oxen!

No, nowadays they plough with the CP!

The hon member for Waterberg has rightly brought into question the issue of whether this Government still has a mandate—particularly from the White voters of South Africa—as far as its new policy regarding Blacks is concerned. Let me tell you, Sir, why the Government really no longer possesses such a mandate. We conducted a lengthy debate in this House on the new constitutional dispensation. The persistent objection from the PFP, amongst other things, was that the new dispensation could not succeed because it did not make provision for Black people.

Our objection was quite correct of course.

When the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning spoke during that particular debate he even asked, amongst other things, why the Black nations were not included in the Bill under discussion. He replied to that question himself by saying Black constitutional development was surging strongly in the direction of different and separate structures for the Black nations. With proper consideration for the effective and unavoidable co-ordination of community interests, he then argued, the Government was by no means intending to deviate from this path.

Who said that?

Chris Heunis. He went on to say that due to the multi-ethnic nature and the ethnic diversity amongst the Black peoples themselves, the Government remained convinced that it had to continue in this direction. That, Sir, is what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said in May 1983! When we on this side of the House argued that the new constitutional dispensation for Coloured and Indians which the Government was busy with then was the first instalment and that the Black people would of necessity follow, our words were denigrated as being snippets of CP gossip. [Interjections.] From one platform to another during the referendum campaign, it was denigrated as gossip emanating from the CP. [Interjections.] What has happened to the credibility of the National Party?

It was washed down the Rubicon!

In May 1983 the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said the National Party would continue with its policy regarding Black people—the policy of separate freedoms; the policy of separate structures. In May 1983 he was still saying Black people were not going to be brought into the new constitutional dispensation. Three years later, however, we now suddenly find ourselves at the Rubicon. [Interjections.] Last year the State President said he was putting his foot down as far as the groups areas were concerned. How long will this still remain the policy of the National Party?

Until Chris takes over! [Interjections.]

Sir, yesterday the hon Deputy Minister of Information attempted to reply to the question, put by the hon member for Waterberg, about whether the Government had a mandate regarding its new policy. What were we then told? What did that hon Deputy Minister then tell us? He contended that they did have a mandate because during the past years the Government bound itself to negotiating with Black people. Good heavens, Sir, which leader of the National Party did not negotiate with Black people in the past? They all did! They all negotiated with Black people, but on one single basis—on the basis of separate freedoms. The National Party won elections time after time on the basis of separate freedoms, on the basis of apartheid. Now they come along, without any mandate, and while having a directive from the White voters of South Africa to establish separate freedoms in South Africa, they ignore that mandate and do quite the opposite. That is why they could draw erstwhile verkrampte United Party members into the debate because they could speak in the way they always did when they were still members of the old United Party. They could simply repeat the speeches they made from 1949 to 1950 and thereafter. [Interjections.] I think the hon member for Turffontein should rather, as was said in the Beeld, stick to the under-15 league. [Interjections.]

This Government should realize that if it is to carry out its new aims, it would only be able to do so over the political corpse of Afrikanerdom. I say this seriously. They are going to do so over the political corpse of Afrikanerdom. They should realize that the Afrikaner in particular, and Whites in general, will fight them to the bitter end on this disastrous course they have taken. [Interjections.]

In the few minutes still available to me I just want to say something about the releasing of Mandela. I cannot believe that the hon the Minister of Law and Order made a recommendation to the State President—this is the latest decision—that consideration be given to unconditionally releasing Mandela on so-called humanitarian grounds. I cannot believe that the hon the Minister of Law and Order, or his advisers, could have made such a recommendation to the State President. I maintain that whoever made that recommendation is the Alger Hiss of South African public life. This is the most dangerous step this Government could possibly take in our present situation. In his opening address the State President spoke about the unrest in our country. He spoke in the past tense—of unrest that had taken place. I therefore have to conclude that the State President is not informed on what is happening in one Black town after another in my constituency, for example. I assume the hon the Minister of Law and Order has been informed about it.

In conclusion let me say that last year I asked that our Police Force be permitted to strongly enforce the laws of our country. I was then reproached for being a radical. I want to put this question to the NP today: Have they not seen enough corpses during the past year? When is firm action going to be taken against lawless gangs of youths that have, in many cases, completely taken over control in Black townships?

Mr Chairman, in some of his concluding sentences the hon member for Barberton was beating the drum of Afrikanerdom. He took over the drumstick the hon member for Sasolburg was using yesterday. As an Afrikaner, I want to tell him and his party that their voice is not the true voice of Afrikanerdom. [Interjections.] Their voice is the voice of a minority group, among the ranks of the Afrikaners, too, that does not have the courage to accept the real challenges of South Africa and to face up to the realities of South Africa. [Interjections.] As there have always been Afrikaners who had to be dragged along towards the solutions of these problems, so we shall also drag them along towards the solutions for South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon member was guilty—and I shall come back to a few of the statements he made—of the same offence in this debate of which many other hon members were guilty.

This debate, which is still in its gossipmongering (skinderskoene) stages today … [Interjections.] I wanted to say in its initial stages (kinderskoene), but after having listened to the hon member for Barberton, I think gossip-mongering is just as appropriate. In its initial stages this debate already displays the same deficiency as most of the similar debates we have conducted here in recent years.

The hon members of the Opposition manipulate Government statements in order to fit their arguments, and then set up their own straw dolls, which bear little relationship to the truth. With nimble footwork they then knock those straw dolls down.

I want to enumerate a few examples. Yesterday the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—it made me feel rather heart-sore—rattled off reams of figures, almost as though it gave him pleasure to do so, indicating how people had been killed, how many buses had been gutted by fire, how many homes had been burnt down, how many incidents had occurred. He came to this conclusion:

In the same speech he bragged about how widely he had travelled. Did he ask President Machel why so many deaths had occurred in Mozambique, where there is no NP with a policy of protecting minority groups? Did he perhaps touch on at Harare and ask the Prime Minister there why so many deaths had occurred in a free Zimbabwe, in which all differentiation measures had been thrown overboard, why so many houses were being razed to the ground by bulldozers? In England, did he enquire about the deaths and arson and the buses that were being burnt out in the streets of London? After all, they have an open society there, with complete freedom of association.

No, he set up the straw doll: It is the Government which is responsible for everything that goes wrong in this country. He did so without any truly analytical examination, and without analysing the structural problems of South Africa in the knowledge that there is tremendous potential for conflict in our whole structure. That is why it was a straw doll that was knocked down.

Hon members of the CP were guilty of the same thing. The hon member for Waterberg—let me enumerate a few examples—said that the Government was a coalition government. That is a straw doll.

But Andre Fourie also said so.

He did not only say that; he qualified it.

A coalition government comes into existence when more than one party agree to a compromise programme of principles as long as the coalition lasts. The participating parties therefore relinquish their own policy and commit themselves to a joint policy.

Today I want to make the following categorical statement: No such agreement whatsoever exists between the NP and any other party. The NP’s policy, and only the NP’s policy, is the guideline for what we on this side are doing.

And the Labour Party?

The Labour Party has its own policy, and so too does the majority party in the House of Delegates. Just as the hon the Leader of the Labour Party has the right—and he does so from time to time—to state his party’s standpoint on matters, and just as Mr Rajbansi has the right to state his party’s standpoint on matters, so the leaders of this party have the right to state this party’s policy on matters, and I shall also do so today. In my capacity as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly, I shall from time to time state the standpoint of the NP clearly and plainly, with the full support of the entire party.

What is in fact true is that we, together with the majority parties in the other Houses, are co-operating constructively in this dispensation, in the best interests of South Africa. But in that process of constructive co-operation, which has so far succeeded well, everyone acts on every level according to his own convictions and his own conscience.

I want to mention a second example of straw dolls. The hon member for Waterberg, and a while ago, too, the hon member for Barberton, said that the Government did not have a mandate for reform, and then proceeded to knock that straw doll down. The State President is on record as having said that no substantial amendments will be effected to the Constitution of this country before the voters have been fully consulted, in one way or another. With regard to what was said at the congresses, the hon members quote only those things which suit them, and omit to mention what does not suit them. They do so in order to have their trivial arguments properly recorded in print for their next pamphlet. All this is just another straw doll. The truth, the reality of what the State President said, demonstrates the falsity of the charge.

The hon member for Barberton accused us of wishing to destroy the independence of already independent states. He based his argument on the proposed restoration of South African citizenship. That is also a straw doll. Restoration of South African citizenship is not synonymous with the loss of Transkeian, Vendan, Bophuthatswanan or Ciskeian citizenship. Nor is it synonymous with the termination of the independence of those four countries. Dual citizenship is in fact the issue here. I want to say in this House today that voluntary independence remains part of the solution to South Africa’s problems, but then—and this is the essence of the announcement—it is independence without inevitable loss of South African citizenship. Why does the hon member for Barberton, when he alleges that the NP has abandoned the ethnic concept (volkerekonsep), ignore the following passage from the State President’s address:

He then states, inter alia, the following point:

If we abandon the ethnic concept, why do we say that we are going to introduce legislation to extend the powers of those states, which exist on an ethnic basis at present?

All these things are straw dolls, and so I can continue. Their recipe is the wilful misinterpretation of Government announcements. The result is a distorted debate which completed misses the essence of what we ought to be discussing. The best example of this technique is the game they have been playing with the State President’s statement:

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, and the hon member for Waterberg, tried to play a lovely little game in this regard. Let us take that game a little further. I want to ask the hon member for Waterberg the following question: Is it any concern of his party that the NP has become an integration party?

Yes.

Yes, he says it is his concern. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, on the other hand, stated in clear and unmistakable terms that in his opinion this party was still an apartheid party. He said:

He is therefore saying that this party still adheres to the basis of apartheid. So what do we have in regard to one statement by the State President? Here we have two respectable leaders of political parties, learned doctors who obtained their doctors’ degrees at the feet of the same great masters, the one in theology, the other in sociology, with more than a smattering of theology. [Interjections.] From these respectable people we have two completely divergent conclusions from the same statement. [Interjections.]

Order! There is too much running commentary. Hon members must limit their commentary. The hon the Minister may proceed.

We therefore have two completely divergent conclusions. The one says that we are a long way from being there and the other says that we are surrendering the Whites completely to domination, because we are no longer on that road.

I want to ask the hon member for Waterberg, is the policy of his party apartheid? [Interjections.] Yes, he says his policy is apartheid. Anyone following the political debate in this country will know that the rift between the NP and the CP is so deep and so definite that if their policy is apartheid then, believe me, apartheid is no longer the policy of this party. [Interjections.] It is a play on words. [Interjections.] Yes, I am also playing this game with these hon members for a while to demonstrate how absurd it is. [Interjections.]

What conclusion should the objective observer, who is listening to all these things, arrive at? He can arrive at only one fair conclusion, and that is that the time we have been granted to find constructive solutions to our problems, and constructive, workable answers to our challenges in this House is being shamefully wasted by the members of the opposition parties. [Interjections.]

I do not want to indulge in the same dubious technique of playing with words. The essence of the debate so far, stripped of nimble footwork and of distorted interpretations, is the following: Firstly, can the NP say that apartheid is an obsolete concept as long as measures such as the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act are still on the Statute Book? Secondly, has the NP relinquished its conviction that group context must play a key role in the ordering of our society? [Interjections.] I shall also get round to compulsory group membership in a moment.

I should like to deal with these crucial questions in full. When I do so, my point of departure is the unconditional acceptance of the framework for the future, as expressed in the State President’s Opening Address. This entire party is enthusiastic about the prospects held out by the State President in his Opening Address. [Interjections.] This is so because the realities of South Africa leave no room for any other workable alternative. The pure theory of separation, as advocated by the CP, is simply not attainable. I want to advance only one argument to indicate why it is not attainable. The hon member for Waterberg waxed lyrical in his speech about how strongly they felt about the self-determination of all peoples in South Africa—whether they are peoples or not, but in any event this includes the Coloureds and even the Indians. The way he put it was that all peoples in South Africa had to have full self-determination, as well as their own sovereignty in their own territory.

In the PWV area this is not attainable, and he has already conceded this point to me in previous arguments. It is not attainable to separate Whites and Blacks on such a basis that each will form part of a separate independant country, with its own sovereignty.

Now you are setting up a straw doll again!

The hon the Leader of the CP has already conceded to me that it is not attainable. I am not setting up a straw doll; I am confronting hon members with the reality in respect of which they are deceiving the voters because they are running away from it. [Interjections.] That is the truth. It is not attainable!

Now I wish to ask the hon the Leader of the CP who, of the several million Blacks and the several million Whites in that area, should in future live there without full self-determination? In terms of their concept, someone simply has to fall short, in spite of the fact that he terms the policy workable. Consequently I say it is not attainable to try to untangle the interwoven communities of South Africa, and isolate each of them in a watertight compartment. Because that is the case, there will have to be a mutual interaction by means of co-operation. Systems will have to be developed which will make it possible for everyone to enjoy full-fledged freedom, in a way in which none dominate the others. I want to deal with this matter now.

I want to add, however, that the PFP utopia of one community, with the harmonious, voluntary association of group, is not attainable either. Why does the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition not listen to the message of Moutse? The conflict between Zulus and Pondos, the attacks on the Indians in Natal, the war cries of the AWB, the drum-beating of the hon member for Sasolburg yesterday—surely that is clear evidence of one thing, and that is the diversity of South Africa as a reality. No group will allow itself to be silenced, or will silently and harmoniously give up its own identity and become part of a great utopian whole. [Interjections.] That is why there is only one alternative, which is that we must accept that diversity and base our plans on it, because it is as much of a reality as the common destiny of all of us, which I am not dismissing either, and which we on this side do not deny. That is why there is only one alternative and that is the one spelt out by the State President, an alternative based on a balanced view of reality; an alternative which makes provision, yes, for power-sharing, but which also makes provision for the separation of power; an alternative which makes provision for collectivity on the one hand, but also for effective maintenance of group interests on the other; an alternative which makes provision for the elimination of discrimination, but which at the same time says that group security must be preserved. Sir, precisely those parts of the State President’s address which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition questioned as being unclear, as being those parts which he still found a little murky, in his perception of the State President’s address, Sir, those very passages underline the equilibrium, the trueness to reality, of the State President’s address.

Listen, Sir, to what the State President said:

What about the separation of power?

Are you two in the same party?

I am quoting the State President to you. [Interjections.] I am quoting that part of the State President’s speech which you choose to ignore, with a view to raise false expectations, to create the wrong impression of what the State President really said. That again is part of your technique of not debating the issues as they stand but only picking out the eyes of what has been said and losing the total image of what has really been said.

*Sir, the State President went on to say:

He then defined the second level as follows:

What does what I have just read mean in practical terms and in the context in which it was said? It means—and I am now going to reply to the crucial questions that have been asked so far—that the NP believes the following:

Firstly, the recognition of the importance of group existence is not discriminatory per se; in fact, it is a condition for peaceful coexistence. Throughout the world there are examples of working systems which successfully apply this premise.

Secondly, there are certain fundamental matters which are inextricably attached to group security. The most important of these is that each nation, each group, should have a community life of its own. [Interjections.] This entails residential areas of its own, schools of its own, institutions and systems of its own within which the group is able to preserve its own character and look after its group interests. [Interjections.]

Order!

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

No. That is what it means in the first place. Secondly, Sir, it means that there should also be certainty in regard to the definition of each group, and I am coming back to this point. Moreover it means that each group must have a powerbase of its own, a power-base within which the group is able to take care of its own affairs by itself, and from which its leaders cooperate, share power, make joint decisions with the leaders of other groups on matters of common interest. How these fundamental matters are going to be ensured in practice, is a practical question. The NP is not wedded to specific methods and to specific laws with specific names and numbers, but the NP is bound to the principle of group security. The NP is bound to the effective protection of minority rights and also to the prevention of group domination. The NP considers own political institutions, schools and residential areas to be important fundamental means of achieving these very objectives. That is why they remain part of NP policy.

Thirdly, to equate the measures aimed at group security with the simplistic concept of apartheid is an opportunistic and false argument. Every party in this House stands for some form of differentiation or other. Let us gauge the truth of this statement against the unlikeliest candidate, the PFP. I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—and I know what his answer is—whether he believes in one man, one vote in a unitary system.

But you know what the answer is.

The answer is “no”. Is the answer “no”?

Yes.

No, he does not believe in that. [Interjections.] Let us ask why. The answer to this is obvious. They do not believe in one man, one vote in a unitary state because they advocate a policy of differentiation for the sake of group security. [Interjections.] Either they do not care about one man, one vote, or they wish to protect groups. I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether a group veto still forms part of their policy. Is a group veto still part of their policy?

A minority veto.

Yes, a minority veto is still part of their policy.

A political minority veto.

Is a minority veto a form of differentiation? The hon member for Greytown is asking what a minority veto means. He should find out in his own caucus.

I said a political minority veto!

The PFP wants a minority veto because they recognize the risk of group domination and wish to find answers to this by means of differentiation. [Interjections.] If that is the case, the PFP is guilty of apartheid, because they are continually telling their voters during their meetings that they are going to excise their federal states in such a way that there will be sufficient security against Black domination. Surely that is what they tell the voters when they hold meetings. [Interjections.] Of course they say that, we can prove it.

Not on a racial basis.

Differentiation is inevitable if we wish to prevent chaos and escalating violence in South Africa. We must offer each group such a measure of certainty and security that it will accept the risk of co-operating in common structures. However, a group will only co-operate if it realizes that its co-operation here will not mean its own death sentence and will also not mean that it will in this way find itself on a slippery slope which will reduce it in its country to a minority overwhelmed and dominated by others.

That is why I should like to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to stop doing this. We differ fundamentally on how we should ensure peaceful co-existence in South Africa, but we do not differ on the point of departure, namely that groups do exist and that those groups can lay claim to effective protection against domination by others. They must therefore cease to disparage practical measures which we put forward in order to achieve this objective.

That is where we differ.

They must then come forward with better proposals as to how this can be done effectively. But they have not yet put forward a single proposal in this House concerning effective protection of groups, except for one sentence in their programme of principles, namely that there will be a minority veto. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader maintains that to him the major difference lies in voluntary association—he has just said so again by way of an interjection. He says it is a good thing now to have groups, but there must be absolutely voluntary membership of groups. Groups can be recognized, so I understood him to say, can be protected, but every individual must be able to decide with which group he wishes to side. He must be able to decide in what residential area he wishes to establish himself, where he wishes to attend school, and on which voters’ list his name should be registered. This is voluntary association, I take it, and a correct definition.

However wonderful this theory may sound, I believe that in South Africa with its specific circumstances, such an approach will result in chaos and great friction. Surely there are two parties involved in every choice of this nature. The individual who wishes to become a member, and the group of which he wishes to become a member. There are always two matters involved, namely the need of the individual and acceptance by the group.

All that I want to say about that today is that I am convinced that some kind of permanent arrangement is essential to ensure meaningful association of a specific individual with a specific group.

If anyone questions the existing method of group definition, I invite him to come forward with a better proposal as to how we can ensure tranquility and calm in regard to group definition, and prevent chaos and confusion.

We cannot adopt the policy of the NRP, namely one in which a person in one town may be a member of one group, but in the case of a transfer the same person may not be a member of the same group in another town. We must have a permanent arrangement which applies countrywide and which creates order. The hon members do not like our way of doing things. The agenda is open and they are welcome to table a better proposal, and we shall look at it objectively.

I have just said why the individual’s mere need and his desire which he expresses cannot be the only decisive factor. One must bring the two factors together, and this requires some kind of procedure, some kind of permanent arrangement. The hon members may come forward with a better arrangement if they have a better arrangement than the one we have.

Before I reply to the hon member for Bryanston, I just want to say this. This new dispensation and the dispensation on which work is now in progress, requires a levelheaded approach from everyone in South Africa. There must be level-headedness on every side, a level-headedness which is not being evinced by the PFP or the CP. What these two divergent parties are advocating here, I maintain today, is not what the majority of the Whites want.

The majority of the Whites realize that their salvation cannot be based on continued discrimination. They know in their bones that the old dream of complete separate self-determination within separate sovereign states for each nation and group is not attainable. That is why they are prepared to accept substantial reforms, under the leadership of the State President. That is why they reject the negative attitude of the CP towards people of colour. They know in their heart of hearts that only in interaction, and also in co-operation with members of other population groups, can the salvation of everyone in this country, including the Whites, be ensured.

Together with the NP the majority of Whites, too, are not prepared to place themselves on a slippery slope leading to domination by others. That is why I do not want to touch the PFP with a barge-pole. They say “together with other peoples and groups”—to that we say “yes”. But under anyone else, to that we say “no”. There is, among the majority of Whites, as expressed by the NP, a quiet determination, a determination to remain in this country, to preserve their values here. I am pleased I kept that hon member awake. [Interjections.]

Order!

Determination to remain in this country, to preserve their values here. [Interjections.]

Order! We cannot have two speeches at the same time. The hon the Minister is speaking.

Mr Chairman, it is my special privilege to have caused such a unique interjection in respect of such a unique opportunity to be recorded in Hansard.

You are despicable!

Order! Did the hon member for Brakpan say: “You are despicable”?

Yes, Mr Chairman.

Did it refer to the hon the Minister?

Yes, Mr Chairman, but I withdraw it.

Order! The hon member must also apologize.

I apologize, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, thank you for your protection, but in the dictionary of the CP the word “despicable” is a compliment if it is applicable to me.

Your conduct is despicable.

Order! The hon member for Kuruman said that the hon the Minister’s conduct was despicable. The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I am very sorry, but his conduct is despicable, and I refuse to withdraw that remark.

In that case the hon member, having disregarded the authority of the Chair, must withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

[Whereupon the hon member withdrew.]

Believe me, a party which does not have a policy, and does not have a sense of humour either, can never govern this country.

There is a determination among the Whites to remain in this country, to preserve their values here, to preserve their freedom here and to ensure a safe future for their descendants here—to retain their identity in this country. However, there is as great a determination to help ensure that a fair dispensation for all South Africans is created here and to find a modus vivendi which will offer everyone full participation and opportunity. All leaders in South Africa and in the outside world should take cognizance of this determination.

In conclusion I want to point out that level-headedness cannot come only from the Whites; level-headedness must also come from the Blacks. The fundamental requirements which the Whites of South Africa postulate are just as important as the fundamental requirements of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians on the negotiation agenda. There cannot be peace if the fair requirements of balanced Black leaders are not met. The NP accepts that. Nor can there be peace if the fair requirements of the majority of Whites are not also satisfactorily fulfilled. I have attempted to sum up these requirements succinctly. It is time Black leaders also gave attention to these requirements in their own minds and in their planning. Success, peace, prosperity, stability—everything which all reasonable people in this country long for, can only be assured if an equilibrium is established between the demands and aspirations of all groups. This equilibrium can only be found if everyone is prepared to scale down their demands for the sake of achieving a permanent understanding among one another. “Give and take”, the State President said on occasion. “Give and take” is the only recipe for success. For that there is sufficient reasonableness in South Africa, and that is why we are going forward to meet the future with confidence.

I shall reply to the hon member for Bryanston in full at a later stage, when there will soon be another similar opportunity. Unfortunately my time has expired. I am sorry that I spoke for too long about other matters.

Mr Chairman, there are, of course, two debates taking place in this House. The one is between the NP on the one hand and the CP and the HNP on the other; and the other is between the NP and our party. One thing I should like to make very clear, however, is that in my opinion the CP and the HNP should forget about a road back to 1948. There is no such road. There is no chance that we could return to 1948. The reality of our time is that a choice now has to be made on which road we are going to take to meet the future and at what speed we must proceed along that road. But there is no chance of returning to 1948. There is no such a possibility.

We shall meet again.

Yes, I am sure we shall meet again. The hon member is making a big mistake if he thinks that anyone anywhere in the world can go back …

We shall not ask you or anybody else where we should go or what we should say.

I am very glad that they are not going to ask me because the reply that I shall give them will not please them at all. As far as I am concerned the only purpose of the CP in this House at present is to amuse. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Rissik must make fewer interjections. The hon member for Yeoville may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I must tell the hon the Minister of National Education that I very much preferred the State President’s version of his own speech to the version that he has just given us. I am a little upset from the point of view of the projection of what the State President said internally and abroad that the hon Minister has actually deliberately sought to destroy the impact of that speech. I think this is very significant. He knows and I know and everybody else in this House knows that one cannot defend apartheid overseas. It is impossible to defend it. I believe that one of the reasons why the State President said what he said was to make it easier to deal with the overseas situation. The State President said that we are on the way towards dismantling apartheid. What the hon the Minister has done today is—and I say it with great respect—a disservice to the cause of those who are trying to defend South Africa abroad. I am very sorry that he did it.

He also does not appear to understand that there is a fundamental difference between people deciding in accordance with their own volition with whom they should associate—what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has said is freedom of association—and restrictions upon that freedom imposed by law. That is the whole point. There is nowhere in the world that I am aware of—the hon the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—where there is a law which prevents a man from associating with whom he wants to associate. The only place where it exists is in South Africa. What I find so remarkable is that hon members on that side of the House were prepared to agree to repeal a law which prohibited an association of the most intimate nature that can exist. They repealed that law and there can be nothing more intimate than that association. However, when it comes to lesser degrees of association they dig in their heels. That is utterly illogical. There the CP is absolutely right because if one is prepared to repeal the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act which has to do with the most intimate association known, then one cannot say that other kinds of association are not allowed.

As far as the question of the minority veto is concerned one must get the position quite clear. As I have understood the policy of the party—and I think all in this group agree with me …

Which group?

The PFP … there is no question of any race group having a veto in our constitution. That is a veto that can be exercised by a number of people voting together who could constitute a group of any race. It is a minority veto not based upon race and not based upon a group veto. I wish the hon the Minister would read the PFP’s policy in order to see that that is so and not misquote it in the House. He is well above that and to suggest that is not for him to do. I am very disappointed that he has done so.

If a group organizes itself on a racial basis then it is a racial group. [Interjections.]

Order!

He has actually just proved my point. That is a voluntary association and there is nothing wrong with it. [Interjections.]

Order! We may all sing together but we cannot all speak together.

Sir, if they had to listen to me sing they might all leave! That’s the problem. There is nothing in our proposals for the constitution to prevent any people voluntarily binding together on any basis whatsoever they choose. They can all be capitalists, they can all be socialists, or Blacks, or Whites, or all people who are bald or any other people one cares to choose. [Interjections.] The point is that there is no restriction on any of these things. It is voluntary association. That is why there is this fundamental fallacy in what the hon the Minister said and which lies at the very root of his argument. There is nowhere, I repeat, nowhere in the world where this is entrenched by law. That is one of the things, I believe—I think I am right and I hope to enlarge on that now—the hon the State President actually meant when he spoke to us at the opening of Parliament.

I want to choose three phrases from that speech. The first of these is:

In my opinion that is significant because, until now, every single time we have spoken about the subject, it has been a case of “If apartheid means so-and-so, then I agree with it; if it means something else, then I do not agree with it.” This is the first time, I repeat, the first time that a leader of the NP or the leader of the State in South Africa has been prepared to say that he in fact rejects apartheid. That is, after all, what has taken place. That cannot therefore be underestimated—neither in the light of the attitudes prevailing in the Western World outside of South Africa nor in the light of those prevailing inside South Africa. That is why I am sorry that the hon the Minister tried to water it down.

The mere mention of that word has resulted in action against South Africa being taken all over the place. That word alone has been the trigger mechanism, and the disinvestment campaign proved it. The disinvestment campaign was based entirely upon the word “apartheid”. The word “apartheid” was the trigger mechanism that did it. Perhaps now there is a chance that the nature of the debate will change—provided, naturally, that the rejection of apartheid in principle is followed by the abolition of apartheid in practice.

It is at this point that the second phrase I want to select becomes material, namely:

The hon the State President then went on to list certain proposed legislation. If I interpret this correctly—and I should like to be corrected if I am wrong—then the intention is to put into practice the commitment that apartheid is no longer the policy of this Government and that the practical process of dismantling it has begun.

Nobody expects South Africa to change overnight. There is, however, a suggestion I should like to make and also a fear I feel I must express. Firstly, if we are correct that apartheid is no longer Government policy and is to be dismantled, then I believe we should not have a long, agonizing process in order to give effect to its dismantling. Let it also not be seen that these actions are tardy or reluctant because of pressure from outside or because of internal unrest; but rather let it be seen that our actions to repeal it represent a genuine reassessment of policy on the part of the Government and a new approach to plans for co-existence in South Africa. Once the commitment is made, as it has now been made by the State President, the end of apartheid should be regarded as inevitable. If, however, the process is reluctant, hesitant or slow, even heavier pressure will be brought to bear upon us to accelerate the process to which the Government is, in fact, committed pressure which will harm South Africa and which is both undesirable and unnecessary.

I ask therefore whether now is not the time—and I pose the question pertinently—to agree to a complete review of all the laws and practices with a view to the systematic removal of racially discriminatory provisions from them. I want to appeal to the State President to take steps to ensure that a select committee of Parliament is appointed to review all such laws and remove from them those provisions which are of a racially discriminatory nature.

The fear I want to express is that, with pressure from the right—especially if one considers the type of debate we have had from the CP and the new HNP representative—and in view of electoral considerations, some of the measures might initially be perceived as being merely milder versions of the old laws. If this is so, there will be even greater disappointment because the State President’s speech has without doubt raised expectations with regard to the removal of apartheid. The Government has to face the reality that the White community is not going to accept this unanimously. It must realise that the loss of a few more seats like Sasolburg is not important measured against the gain for South Africa as a whole. The Government must face these facts and realise that the reward for removing apartheid will be a very important one.

I wish to touch on another extract from the State President’s speech. He said that South Africans would “participate in institutions to be negotiated collectively”. Here again the issue is whether negotiation with real leadership is possible in South Africa. Real leadership is not self-created, media-created or individually projected. This question has to be addressed because if one does not negotiate with real leaders one might as well not negotiate at all. The issues of outbidding, competition, manoeuvring for position and credibility are going to be fundamental. My appeal is therefore that when we negotiate we must negotiate with those who speak for people, not those who merely project themselves as speaking for people or those who are created purely for the purpose of negotiation.

I construe the State President’s speech as the beginning of the end of the first phase of change in South Africa; that is, the period of the removal of apartheid. The second phase has, however, begun before the first has even ended. By “second phase” I mean the debate about the nature of the post-apartheid society. I am not simply referring to a society without apartheid, but to a society with human rights and basic freedoms. There is little logic in removing an unacceptable system and replacing it with a new one which merely substitutes new ills for old.

To my mind the major struggle which lies ahead concerns the nature of the post-apartheid society. This will involve both the exercise of political power and the redistribution of wealth. It will decide whether the values of a post-apartheid society are the values of the Free World or those of societies whose political and economic ideologies are the very antithesis of those of the Free World.

In the campaign against apartheid, people in the Western World and many within South Africa pay inadequate attention to the post-apartheid issue. There is such opposition to apartheid that there is a failure to appreciate that the method of change, whether evolutionary or revolutionary, will affect the end result. In the fight against apartheid, many forces have the same immediate object but quite different long-term plans. Members of widely divergent ideological camps are bed-fellows in the anti-apartheid campaign.

Apartheid is definitely going; there is no question about that. Whether the hon the Minister of National Education and the CP want it or not the disappearance of apartheid is a reality. The question is: what is going to come after apartheid? This struggle for the hearts and minds of the people of South Africa by various competing ideologies is what is going to occupy us all in future.

I now have to deal with what I believe to be one of the worst things ever to have happened to South Africa. Reform has been fundamentally undermined by economic mismanagement. I must say here that I am indebted to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and to the SABC, because if one listens to the 08h00 news on our new commercial radio service, one will hear an advertisement asking: “Are you worried about the financial position?” We certainly all should be! Every morning, by courtesy of the SABC, the South African public is reminded of the financial mess that has been created.

The tragedy for the people of South Africa has been the complete undermining of the peaceful political reform movement by economic failure. Whatever blame is attached to the drought or the external forces to which the State President referred and over which no one had control, the reality is that many if not most of the economic ills of South Africa have been caused by a combination of economic mismanagement and the application of philosophies which are inappropriate to South African conditions.

At the very time when economic growth and prosperity were needed to show that the application of the economic principles of the free world produced results, the very opposite occurred. Not only did this consequently provide fuel for the advocates of alternative systems but it also provided fertile ground in which political dissatisfaction could readily evolve into unrest. Unrest has thrived as a result of the economic mismanagement which has taken place in South Africa. Every reform effort has in fact been sabotaged by the kind of economic policies that have been applied.

No one can argue—and I do not intend to do so—that the pressure for change in South Africa is entirely due to economic conditions. However, anyone who has studied revolutionary history must know that an unacceptable political system combined with poverty and unemployment lead to instability and unrest and that, if the causes are not removed, it will lead to violence and revolution. The question can be posed: Does our political leadership really understand and appreciate the impact of economics on our society?

Allow me to interpose here with an apocryphal story. It is said that once when there was a Cabinet meeting there was a presentation in regard to the disputes between Friedman and Keynes and that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs thought that it was a partnership dispute in a clothing firm in the Delmas constituency! I use this apocryphal story to demonstrate the level of appreciation of economics in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Did and still do those who determine economic policy have any real appreciation of politics and its impact on economic conditions? I refer to a presentation by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. He has suddenly discovered that politics has an impact on economics. They have suddenly realised that politics has a fundamental impact on our whole position in Southern Africa. If that discovery had to be made, surely it could have been made a little earlier so that we would not have had the disaster in which we now find ourselves as a result of that discovery.

If I had the time I could list the errors that have been made by this Government. In any other country the people concerned would have taken some action. In Germany they would have been removed from office, in England they would have resigned and in Japan they might have done something more serious. What is going to be done by those who have led us into this economic disaster in South Africa? I would like to recommend the Japanese example! [Interjections.]

I would like to suggest that the scars that have been left on the economy of South Africa are irreparable. Future generations will have to pay the price for the mistakes that have been made in our economy. All of us in South Africa have paid that price and, unfortunately, future generations will have to continue paying the price for the economic mismanagement and incorrect policies that have been applied in our country.

Mr Chairman, I listened with interest to the hon member for Yeoville. There are other hon members on this side of the House who would like to parley with him with regard to the two subjects he discussed, viz politics and finance.

I actually wish to discuss the subject of security, since the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made such a fuss about it yesterday. While I am going to speak about security today, I want to say that the hon member for Yeoville is one of the hon members on that side of the House whom I regard as a very good patriot and South African.

I want to begin by referring to certain parts of the State President’s speech from the throne which he delivered here on Friday, 31 January. [Interjections.] He spoke about joint action. Hon members had better excuse that party. They have not read it yet and consequently have no idea what this is about.

Why do you speak about the State President’s speech from the throne? Is he the king? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I shall take no further notice of the hon member for Jeppe. [Interjections.] They spoke about joint action between ourselves and our neighbouring states. I shall also tell you, Sir, why they did not listen to that. You will have heard that the hon the leader of that party, when he had to discuss a security committee, referred to a military treaty. Why did the chief defence spokesman of that party not correct his hon leader at that point? However he is constantly sitting there making frivolous comments in this House when we are speaking about serious matters.

My name is not Magnus Malan! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I wish to discuss a serious matter here. It concerns cooperation among neighbouring states on this subcontinent, and I believe it affects every hon member of this House. In this regard I want to refer to what the State President had to say. He points out that there can be no peace and stability in our region as long as countries knowingly harbour terrorists who plan acts of terror in neighbouring states and execute such acts against other neighbouring states. The State President added that the Republic of South Africa extended the hand of friendship to its neighbouring states in this subcontinent. The hand we extend, Sir, is the hand of friendship, peace and co-operation. However, we do so in circumstances within which certain acceptable rules will apply.

The State President went on to request that there be an agreement, that there be an interaction among the various states in this region. He said that such an agreement should also be in accordance with a certain set of rules regulating the conduct towards one another of the various neighbouring states.

The State President went on to refer to four such rules. In the first place, he said, there would have to be a set of rules of conduct, rules that would have to be honoured by all civilized nations. I think his reason for saying that is obvious. In the second place he said that the foreign forces present in this subcontinent will have to be withdrawn. In the third place, according to the State President, a way will have to be found to settle disputes in a peaceful way. Last but not least, he added that there would have to be a ban on support for violence against neighbouring states across national boundaries. I believe that these conditions, this set of rules propounded by the State President is absolutely correct. If we want to experience peace, prosperity and progress in this subcontinent which is so troubled at the moment, it is imperative that the conditions mentioned be complied with.

Moreover the State President proposed that urgent consideration be given to the creation of a permanent joint mechanism for dealing with matters of security. I am of the opinion that these proposals made by the State President are very constructive and positive and indeed, I believe that this will be in the interests of all the countries in this part of the world in which we live. However, Mr Chairman, I want to appeal to our neighbouring states not to ignore this offer, not to reject this offer summarily. If they were to do so, this Government and our security forces would have no alternative but to undertake once again, just as in the past, necessary—due to reasons of self-defence and self-protection—and effective cross-border operations against the enemies of South Africa, wherever they may be in our neighbouring states in this subcontinent. The present intolerable actions of the enemies of South Africa in that they act against us from neighbouring countries, across international borders, take place under the leadership and instigation of Russia, through the South African Communist Party. Their marionettes, their pawns, are the ANC, that permit these contemptible acts of terror.

The ANC, as we know full well, is a marxist-controlled terrorist organization. It acts against us across international borders—against all our inhabitants indiscriminately, blindly and regardless of age, sex or colour. Accordingly I wish to give this House the assurance that this Government will not permit these murderous gangs to complete their planning, training and preparation in the security and protection of neighbouring states and from there act against South Africa. The security forces will hammer them, wherever they find them. What I am saying is the policy of the Government. We cannot permit these terrorist organizations to decide at what place, at what time and when they will commit these contemptible acts within or outside the Republic of South Africa. I therefore warn the states of this subcontinent that the security forces that are responsible for the safety, protection and security of the Republic of South Africa and all its inhabitants, will act against our enemies across the borders. We shall not sit here with hands folded waiting for them to cross the borders. We shall carry out ongoing surveillance. We shall determine the correct targets and we shall settle the hash of those terrorists, their fellow-travellers and those who help them. This proactive action will take place precisely as in the past when, among other things, we sent a reconnoitring team to Cabinda to spy on terrorist bases there. At that time this step we took was criticised by hon members of the opposition parties. Even though we had to endure that negative criticism we are still prepared to take proactive steps of this nature.

I want to deal with another example, viz that of Maputo. Hon members will recall that the Church Street bomb exploded in May 1983. A few days later the South African Air Force identified and destroyed seven targets. Hon members will also recall that the propagandists in Mozambique issued certain Press statements, inter alia to the effect that we had blown up jam factories and shot pregnant women. However, after the Nko-mati Accord, when we held discussions at leisure in Maputo, some of those Frelimo leaders spoke to me informally. They asked me how we had known that they were ANC targets, because we were right on target. That is how our security forces will act if these countries do not take heed of this.

I confirm once again that it must at all times be borne in mind that it is this Government’s aim to achieve peace, economic progress and prosperity in this subcontinent. There is not a single country in which the Republic of South Africa wishes to cause hardship. We do not aim at the destabilisation of any country in the world. However, there are two reasons why some of our neighbouring states are being destabilised, and they themselves are the cause. The first reason is that they permit major foreign powers to enter their country with a vast quantity of sophisticated arms. What are those foreign powers doing there? Why do they not ask those foreign powers to bring about economic progress in their countries? In the second instance, these countries permit their territories to be used for acts of terror against neighbouring states. I say that this is the second reason why destabilisation takes place in those countries. That is why the situation is as it stands at present in this subcontinent.

I propose that this Parliament expresses itself positively with regard to the State President’s offer to co-operate with our neighbouring states on a friendly basis in the future, provided they play their part by indicating to us that they are prepared to enter into such an agreement.

I now wish to deal with the accusations made here yesterday by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. In the first instance I want to deal with the accusations he levelled at the Government and at me personally, as reported in The Star of 30 September 1985. In that report the hon the Leader referred to the alleged destabilization of Angola and Mozambique by the South African Defence Force. I also want to refer to the comments and allegations he made here yesterday regarding the role of the South African Defence Force in Mozambique. I should like to ask the hon member on whose behalf he asked these questions. Did he ask these questions on behalf of the voters of South Africa, did he ask these questions on behalf of his party or did he ask these questions on behalf of the government of Mozambique?

I asked them with reference to the Nkomati Accord.

But that is remarkable, and I shall state why I say this. In Mozambique and in Swaziland he asks the questions in advance. In fact, I find it incredible. If I am at home and there are problems at home or certain things about which I am not clear, I do not run to my neighbour and begin asking questions there. [Interjections.] I ask the questions here in my country.

When did you speak to me about that?

I shall come to that. In fact I am already dealing with that. I should like to know from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether he uttered these words in Swaziland, and I quote from The Sunday Times of 5 January 1986:

Reference is made to the diaries:

Absolutely!

Did the hon Leader say that?

Yes.

I ask whether that looks like a proof of patriotism.

What do you know about it?

Abroad, and not in this parliamentary institution, he asks such questions. Why does he not ask such questions here? I accuse him of denying his country as well as the SA Defence Force, because if not, he would have come and done so here. [Interjections.] I am still going to reply to the questions he asked, and I shall also bring to the fore certain other aspects, because I think that those aspects also require an explanation in Parliament.

I want to ask him where he tried to obtain information for the first time about these so-called diaries relating to the recent situation.

I read about them in the newspapers.

I want to put it like this: The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is invited to Pretoria for briefing, at which this whole issue relating to Renamo and the notorious diaries was discussed. [Interjections.] It was not a privileged briefing. On 4 October an invitation was addressed to the Leader of the Official Opposition as the chief spokesman on defence of his party to address a briefing session. The hon member for Wynberg and the hon member for Eden-vale were also invited because I see to it that the department keeps the various parties abreast of affairs in the recess.

What happened? On 7 October the hon member for Edenvale arrived there and said that he was the representative of the PFP. At 13h30 he was briefed. I have with me the questions he asked about the diaries. I also have with me the answers we gave him in connection with the diaries.

The hon Leader alleges that I am not acquainted with the parliamentary system. I, in turn, say that he does not know what is going on here. That is his dilemma. He accuses me of not wanting to trust his party, but I say that that is an infamous lie. It is an untruth. As far as I am concerned his credibility is at stake. I went further, because I have a great deal of esteem and respect for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I said that if perhaps this did not apply in 1985 …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I understand that the hon the Minister said that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition told an “infame leuen”.

No, I did not quite understand him to say that. I understood the hon the Minister to say that the statement was an “infame leuen”.

But that is exactly the same because the statement was made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

No, it is not the same thing.

Mr Chairman, I do not wish to cross swords with the hon the Leader, and I am prepared to withdraw that statement.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: Cannot the hon the Minister be asked what he implied by that remark?

Order! The matter has been resolved as the hon the Minister is prepared to withdraw that remark.

We on this side are too quick for the hon members opposite.

Order! Does the hon the Minister withdraw that remark unconditionally?

Yes, Sir, I withdraw it unconditionally.

I looked at the history of the matter because the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition states that his party is not briefed. He says that I am arrogant and that I ignore them. Those are the statements he made.

I had a look at 1984. I want to mention what happened. In 1985 that party was officially briefed twice. In 1984 the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was also briefed. To tell the truth, I went much further than that. I took several of the members of that party to the Black unrest areas in a helicopter to show them exactly what was taking place there.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does not have control over his party. That is his big problem. He does not have communication with his party. He does not know what information his party has at its disposal; otherwise he would have come, or he would have told the hon member for Edenvale to come, because after all he runs after everyone, and then he would have found out about these diaries and he would have been fully acquainted with the facts.

I want to elaborate further on this point. I want to say that he is neglecting the system because I had all the hon members of this House informed in writing that if they had a problem in connection with Defence at any time, my doors would always be open to them. He did not approach me. These newspaper reports I referred to appeared on 7 October. Three months after that, in January, he approached the Mozambican government to find out what took place there. Why did he not simply telephone me during those three months? If he had asked me for the information, I should have given it to him. I am telling him now that he has “dropped” the Defence Force. I am very sorry.

Let us take this point a little further. After 7 October, Gen Viljoen held a news conference and he subsequently also gave a television interview. If the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had seen fit to do so, he would have obtained that information here. He would not have approached his neighbouring states to find out what was going on. I want to tell that hon Leader that that sounds to me so “viva la” patriotistic. [Interjections.]

I want to go further. Last year in Parliament the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition accused me of telling untruths here. The issue was the support that the Defence Force had given earlier to Renamo. I challenge him to produce the evidence in that regard. I shall tell hon members what he does—and he did it again yesterday: As soon as that left wing and that right wing of his get at each other’s throats he performs an egg-dance to draw attention away from the PFP. That is what he is doing.

I have in my office a full transcription of Gen Viljoen’s news conference as well as his television interview in regard to those diaries. I am prepared to give them to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. If he wants his members to have them as well, I shall give one to each member too. And then I just want to put one request to him. I ask him to take that transcription to Maputo by military aircraft, and go and discuss it with the Mozambican government. Then he adopts the standpoint that he is championing the cause of the SA Defence Force, while he is abroad. However, he sits there without knowing anything while the SA Defence Force is fiercely attached.

I regret having spoken so bluntly to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, but he addressed me with equal bluntness yesterday. He made just as personal an attack. He always says that I play games with that left and right wing of his. Hon members will recall that I did mention it during the discussion of the Defence Vote. I want to put it like this: I see that his left and right wings are now beginning to play games on television, and that hon Leader should rather remain in the country to see what is going on here. He should rather stay at home to find out what information is available here and what disputes there are within his party. If he does so, he will remain in touch with what is going on.

There is another standpoint I should like to put forward. The Defence Force is a nonpolitical organisation which, as an instrument of the South African State, has never served any cause other than South Africa’s. It is unthinkable to place a cloud over members of the Defence Force and the SA Defence Force. These leaders of the Defence Force are honourable, loyal people who are always prepared to do everything for their country and their people.

I just want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether he addressed a meeting when he was in Munich last year and whether, in reply to a question concerning the security situation in Southern Africa, he said that he did not know what was going on there, because he did not trust the generals of the Defence Force.

No, I did not say that.

Thank you, I accept his word.

I want to be more specific with regard to Gen Viljoen, the former Chief of the SA Defence Force. I want to say that neither he nor any of his generals carried out any instructions or committed any act relating to the Nkomati issue which did not enjoy the full support of every member of this Government. The so-called technical infringements which the SA Defence Force or the Deputy Minister of Information supposedly committed were specifically aimed at achieving reconciliation between the combatant parties, in support of the Nkomati Accord. The most important point—this never saw the light—is that all these technical infringements originated in requests initiated by the Frelimo Government. If they had not initiated them, they would not have taken place. Neither of these two parties were accorded any kind of preferential treatment by the South African Defence Force after the Nkomati Accord. I do not have time to go into all the nuances of the matter in detail but I just want to say that the Frelimo Government decided that the Defence Force should bring the Renamo leaders to the Republic from Mozambique. President Samora Machel himself said that he was not interested in any technicalities. He said that he wanted the task performed and he gave approval for the South African Defence Force to carry it out. When the combatant parties held discussions indirectly in Pretoria after some of these members of the Defence Force had been in danger of their lives while removing the Renamo leaders from Mozambique, an agreement was almost reached. I contend that if influence from Portugal had not filtered through, we should have solved the problem. We could then have reached a settlement, and I should like to know what hon members in this House would have said then. If the Defence Force had played the role of achieving a settlement, the Defence Force would have had to be praised. However, the Defence Force was still the instrument, and it acted as such for one reason only. It was to bring stability and peace to Southern Africa in accordance with the Accord of Nkomati.

After that rupture had occurred in Pretoria, the Deputy Minister was appointed chairman of the committee. His task was then to try and bring about peace in Mozambique. For the task he performed there, he bore no responsibility to me. It was not necessary for him to report anything to me. I want to say that this Parliament can be proud of the way in which the former Chief of the South African Defence Force acted in a supportive role after the Accord of Nkomati. Parliament can also be proud of the way in which the Deputy Minister of Information carried out his task, despite the personal danger to himself.

I want to put it to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that he must not go and seek information abroad if it is available within his own party. If he is not aware of it, he must come to me. I shall make it available to him at any time and he knows that; we have that understanding. Actually, I just want to say to him that he can be proud of the Defence Force, because it is his defence force too. He must guard against sowing suspicion with regard to Government bodies and the security forces. This may mean that the ANC will consider giving him a medal.

I should now like to turn to the hon member for Waterberg. During his contribution to the debate yesterday afternoon it seemed initially as if he had a very good understanding of the situation in Northern Transvaal. Later, however, he referred inter alia to a military council or a military accord. He appears to be of the opinion that that is what the State President proposed. I urge him to take another look at it, because reference was in fact made to a security committee. The hon member went on to make some remarks here which in my opinion could have cast a reflection on senior officers of the Defence Force in the Northern Transvaal. It appeared to me as if he was creating the impression that the officers were not in possession of information which, according to him, should have been at their disposal. I want to say to the hon member that I do not believe that he is much of an expert on miliatry affairs. I understand that; I am not very angry about it. [Interjections.] I just want to give him the right to approach my office at any time if he wishes to discuss information concerning defence matters. There is a rule which applied when we served together in the Cabinet and that is that the Defence Force does not convey sensitive information to any outsiders. Therefore they are not able to give the hon member an indication concerning these matters.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I explained to the hon member why I did that. I want to tell the hon member once again that my door stands open to him. I sincerely believe that we should not make a political issue of sensitive security matters. We must guard against doing so because that will be to the detriment of this country. Those are delicate aspects. I should like to say to the hon member that this Government must act responsibly. The Government must always ensure that it does not cause innocent people to suffer; it must ensure that when it applies measures, they are the appropriate measures at the correct time. The Government must always take the timing of its actions into account, and it will act to combat this evil, but it will do so if the interests of the Republic of South Africa are always put first on such occasions.

I want to tell you that when we were still colleagues, the hon member often came to speak to me about defence matters, security matters. He can do so again at any time. There is a difference between military defence and security. They are not synonymous. Unfortunately that hon member does not have the best adviser with regard to military matters in his party. [Interjections.]

I now turn to the ANC and I want to deal very briefly with the ANC. [Interjections.] With regard to this ANC and its Moscow links that we are aware of; in view of this objective of theirs to establish a Marxist dictatorship; in view of this violent onslaught in which many innocent South Africans have died; in view of the reign of terror in our towns and cities, the sabotage attacks, the murders committed, eg Church Street, Northern Transvaal and Amanzimtoti, Sir, this Government and I object violently to discussions being conducted with the ANC—the ANC that does not wish to foreswear violence. I object to those who have no responsibility with regard to security or the administration of the country, going to speak to the ANC. These discussions with the ANC give the ANC credibility. Its prestige increases far beyond its true position. Internationally an image of the ANC is created as a result of this discussion and the misconception is created that the ANC is an essential factor in any negotiations on the future of the Republic of South Africa.

This discussion denies the evolutionary, the reform, the democratic, the parliamentary processes. It plays directly into the hands of the revolutionaries. It encourages them to increase the intensity of the violence. Can you see what people are doing? They are increasing the intensity of violence by discussion. At the national and international levels this creates the impression that the ANC is a possible alternative Government. Finally, the masses, the moderates, do not want them.

This brings me to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He plays directly into the hands of the enemies of South Africa by going to speak to the ANC. He is building an image. The British refused to speak to the ANC but he went to speak to them and now the British have no further reason. The British have said that they must first foreswear violence. Now you saw today that a Deputy Minister went to speak to them. Why? Because the hon the Leader went in January, or whenever it was. Sir, he goes to Lusaka, he runs after the enemies of South Africa. I think that that is a totally incorrect concept, and that after having said the following a few weeks previously in this House (Hansard: 19 April 1985, col 3867):

Where is the credibility of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition?

Mr Speaker, I just want to tell the hon the Minister that the CP is very concerned about the whole question of the security of the State, of our Republic, including the security of all its inhabitants and their personal possessions. Let me also tell the hon the Minister that we shall also, when the occasion presents itself, like to have a look at the relationship between the hon the Deputy Minister of Information and the hon the Minister himself as far as their relationship to the State President is concerned.

Thirdly I want to tell the hon the Minister that we in the CP are very grateful, both to our men in the Defence Force and the Police who, under very difficult circumstances indeed, have to do a very great job of work, having to do so under the leadership of a Cabinet with a left-wing element which really makes it very difficult for both the Defence Force and the Police to carry out their responsibilities. [Interjections.]

To the hon the Minister who referred to one of my colleagues, I want to say … [Interjections.] … that out there he might perhaps have been a general, but in politics he is a corporal. [Interjections.] On 11 April of last year I put the following question to the following question to the hon the Minister of National Education (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1985, col 3269):

The hon the Minister replied to me as follows:

I went further and asked the hon the Minister just to answer the question. He then said:

The dilemma of the NP Government is that it cannot simply say “yes” or “no” in regard to what its policy is. If the NP Government says “yes” it is perhaps “no”; and if it says “no”, it is perhaps “yes”, because usually it is “yes and no”. The NP has become the most unreliable party in the history of South Africa, and this hon Minister has become the least illustrious leader the Transvaal has ever had. [Interjections.] To tell the truth, this hon Minister is simply the pawn, the representative of the Cape NP in the Transvaal. It is pathetic to see how the NP’s left wing is making use of this hon member.

Although the hon the Minister does not like being reminded of what he said yesterday or the day before, I should like to mention a few things to him today. We fought the 1981 election, basing our fight on the NP manifesto. Each of us sitting here in the CP did his best for that cause. It was in the Transvaal that the NP had its best results at the time. This hon Minister also said the following, signed by the Cape Leader, State President P W Botha—he must listen carefully now:

We went on to say:

That is his mandate.

As my hon colleague says, that was the mandate in accordance with which this country held the previous election five years ago. This hon Minister is therefore condemning himself and the NP in his own words, because today they have placed integration, conflict and the swallowing up of the Whites on the agenda. They have placed it on the agenda, and in due course I shall again be reminding the hon the Minister of that.

So, not only has the NP swerved to the left, as far as its policy is concerned, but it has also radically rejected the established principles of the old NP. What is most shocking of all, is that it is this hon Minister, more than any other person, who is trying to gloss over this radical change in principle. This lends a pathetic aspect to his leadership in the Transvaal and makes his Transvaal leadership most radically subject to doubt. The NP is requesting a right-wing mandate, but it is left-wing in the execution of its policy. [Interjections.] Yes, I know they say it is correct, that is true. Shortly after the split in the NP, after they had kicked us out, at a meeting the hon the Minister addressed the Tukkies and spoke about them as the country’s young people, about their future and about the CP. As Transvaal leader he said the following:

He then went on to say:

And the hon the Minister must listen carefully now—

Can you imagine that? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister laughs it off. He said there would be no power-sharing at all—and I was only asking about the urban Black man. We know, do we not, what the recent announcement was. The hon the Minister gives assurances to the youth of our people, telling them that their survival is assured in South Africa by virtue of a specific course that has been adopted. Anyone disagreeing with him he regards as someone setting up straw dolls or being ill-disposed towards him.

What was written in Big Brother Willem’s—Willempie’s—Rapport last Sunday? The front page stated: “Magsdeling skop apartheid uit.” What I am saying is that today, under the leadership of the State President, South Africa is recklessly and methodically being turned topsy-turvy. The NP is now where Japie Basson is. Apartheid is being kicked out and integration and abdication are being embraced. The Afrikaner Broederbond has become the “bont broeders”. For the Afrikaners the FAK has now become the KAF.

Previous NP leaders engendered so much confidence in the electorate that NP supporters would even have voted for a broomstick if the broomstick were an NP candidate. Today the NP caucus is full of broomsticks. Here it is a case of scratching here, scratching there and darting into a corner. The hon the Minister scratches here and scratches there, but when one looks for him, he is in a corner. He then just sits in the corner waiting for the instructions that come from the Cape NP.

That is indeed a profound reply.

It is profound, because I am speaking about him. That just shows how profound he is. [Interjections.]

In this House last Friday—after my having sat here for 20 years and the Afrikaner having struggled for many more years—we heard the State President say:

How theatrical can the State President be! How arrogant when speaking about the future of the Whites! How shameless are the actions of that State President of ours! We have not only outgrown colonialism in this country. Getting rid of the imperialist forces, forcing them out, driving them from this country, went hand in hand with a long, hard, relentless struggle characterized by sacrifice. It was not all that easy. Wars were fought for the freedom of the Afrikaner. What I now want to ask is this: How much understanding does the State President show for the freedom struggle of the Afrikaner? He shows less of an understanding of it than Lord Kitchener, Read, Philip or Van der Kemp. [Interjections.]

All that has remained of the NP is its name. I am telling the hon the Minister—who is, in any event, on his way out; he is a member of the right wing—that if he is an honourable man, politically speaking, let him change the NP’s name, because he is trading on the NP’s name amongst tens of thousands of our compatriots who believe in the NP. [Interjections.] He says he rejects apartheid. What did the late Dr Malan say about apartheid? It was at Stellenbosch on 4 March 1953. He said, amongst other things, that apartheid, as evidenced in all manner of things, was no policy of oppression, neither in principle, in its historic development or in its present proposed implementation. It did impose mutual restrictions on both sides, but at the same time it served as an efficient form of protection against people encroaching on one another’s rights. That is also the best guarantee of friendship and mutual assistance.

Let me ask the men of the cloth, the theologians on that side, whether apartheid if a sin. This Government has become part of the anti-apartheid chorus, and in rejecting apartheid it has rejected the existence, the history and the future of its people. I want to tell the hon the Minister, who has an appointment now, that they have now bought a little boat for the State President. With that little boat the State President is going to zigzag over the Rubicon. He sails from right to left, with the poor Transvaal leader, the NP representative in the Cape, swimming in his wake. He cuts a pathetic figure. For this reason let us tell those hon members sitting there today: The struggle for the survival of a people is at stake. If hon members think that in this country a bunch of softies in the establishment, the Cape liberals of Keerom Street, and all the other factions that have popped up, will get their hands on Afrikanerdom, they are making a very big mistake. The hon member for Sasolburg sits here as proof of that. I want to welcome him. To an ever-increasing extent all the conservatives and all the right-wingers will, in the future, unite in one political organisation. We are striving for that. The NP is on the way out. While the NP continues to adopt a course involving the partial maintenance of the apartheid structure on the one hand, whilst bringing about integration on the other, it will fade away and die, as is the case with the NRP.

Let me ask the hon the Minister of National Education and the leader of the NP in the Transvaal, in his absence, whether separate primary and secondary education is non-negotiable as far as the NP is concerned. The same applies to the question of group areas and separate voters’ rolls. Let me also ask the hon the Minister whether, if there is separate primary and secondary education, this implies apartheid in primary and secondary education? Is the NP retaining that form of apartheid so as to continue to persuade our compatriots out there to vote for them, and will they return to this House in two or three years’ time and say that separate primary and secondary education is outdated?

In its new guise, the NP’s time is up. It is finished. In White politics in South Africa there are two streams: A truly liberal stream whose supporters sincerely intend to accommodate people as far as power-sharing is concerned, and on the other hand that stream of people endorsing a full-fledged and sincere policy of separation, as stated by Dr Malan and all his predecessors, including all his successors. The CP will be opposing the NP with all its might from Dan to Beersheba, 24 hours of every day.

Mr Chairman, we have listened to the speech of the hon member for Rissik and I want to point out to him that South Africa’s present-day politics is not so simple that one can simply answer yes or no to a question. We saw a demonstration of this fact in this debate when the hon the leader of the CP was asked whether he supported a policy of apartheid. He was not prepared to say yes or no. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Rissik referred contemptuously to the cultural organizations of the Afrikaner. It is those very organizations which have always contributed to preventing the Whites from being swallowed up. The hon member read widely from the speeches of others and once again from newspapers. Why did the hon member not tell us about his party’s negotiations with Coloureds? Those are the things that interest us. I remember that in 1982 their congress instructed their leader to negotiate with Coloureds as a matter of urgency. Four years later nothing has happened. Why not? Because there is nothing to negotiate and no one to negotiate with. The hon member accuses us of saying one thing and doing another. He himself is a classic example of someone who says one thing and does another. He can ask the hon member for Sasolburg how he went along with them while trying to support the NP with his actions. I shall say nothing further about the hon member, but shall refer to the CP again later.

I† also wish to refer to the speech of the hon member for Yeoville. He referred to negotiation and participation in the proposed National Statutory Council and he suggested that we should negotiate with the real leaders. The problem I have with the PFP is that no one is prepared to define the real leaders.

If you have an electoral process the real leaders will be determined.

I want to remind the hon member about what he himself has said. I refer to a report in The Citizen of 7 November 1985 in which the hon member is reported to have said:

Who is that? The ANC! The hon member will be doing South Africa a favour if he tells that to his leader—not to negotiate with those who are furthest away from what we want.

May I ask you a question?

No, I do not have the time now.

Order! If the hon member for Yeoville wishes to put a question, he must do so in the proper way.

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

No, Sir, except if I have time left at the end of my speech.

The hon member surprised me completely today when he was talking about the economics of the country. He accused us of mismanagement and said we had piled up errors one upon the other. However, just as I was preparing myself to listen to the hon member telling us all about these errors and the mismanagement, he sat down. [Interjections.]

Order! I am under the impression that the hon member for Yeoville has had his turn to speak. I am not going to allow him to conduct a running commentary on what the hon the Minister is now saying. The hon member for Yeoville must please contain himself.

Mr Chairman, I am not the one who is not containing himself. I am asking you a question and I think I am entitled to ask you.

The hon member may put the question if he so wishes.

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

Order! The hon the Minister has already indicated that he does not want to be interrupted at this stage. The hon the Minister may continue.

The hon member made a poor show today and that is not how I know him. I should have liked to have replied to the accusations he made against the administration of this country’s economy, but he merely made vague statements and did not elaborate upon what he had said. Could it be that the hon member …

Why don’t you tell him what he wanted to say?

The hon member could have said all these things, but it would not have suited his party. He could have said, for example, that business confidence has been growing, even since November last year, that there is not a single economist who does not forecast a positive growth rate for this year, that there is an export surplus of between R6 billion and R7 billion this year, that the economy has responded excellently to the measures we have had to take, that the spending pattern has changed and been curtailed, that the monetary supply is under control, that wages have reached a turning point, and that the surplus that has been built up is also large enough to allow room for growth. [Interjections.] In addition, personal savings are a positive 7,5% for individuals again, and the interest rates are down. There is registered unemployment of 70 000 among Coloureds, Whites and Indians, but 3,4 million people from these groups are in service.

The fact of the matter is that the hon member made these broad references only because he knows that any specific argument he has will hardly hold water. [Interjections.]

On 31 January 1986 the State President expressed in words what all of us in this House already know. I repeat what he said:

I wonder how many more people are going to quote that line.

It is worth quoting. [Interjections.]

Anyone who denies this statement, does so in an opportunistic way to gain political advantage to the detriment of the Government. [Interjections.] With the system of apartheid, this country has developed into a country which, despite its shortcomings, stands head and shoulders above all other countries on this continent in the spheres of economy, education and general welfare! [Interjections.]

The fact remains, however, the system contained hurtful elements on the basis of colour and race, and that caused the positive elements to be completely overshadowed or distorted by the negative elements.

What are the positive elements?

A situation in which people are dependent upon one another’s goodwill for peaceful coexistence is an intolerable one.

What is the essence of apartheid? As far as I am concerned, it is the making of laws which regulate other people’s lives without their having a share or a say in the accomplishment thereof. [Interjections.] In truth the concept of apartheid became obsolete the moment we decided that Whites could no longer decide alone about the future of the country and the actions of its people. [Interjections.]

Even the hon the leader of the CP admitted this in an unguarded moment during the Vryburg by-election in Mafikeng. He referred to his party’s intention to change the present Parliament into three separate parliaments. He said that to do that, there would have to be negotiation and mutual agreement if it were to go through. That is what the hon the leader of the CP said. In other words, what did he concede in that unguarded moment? He said he realised he could not decide alone. Consequently he realises apartheid is obsolete.

The subject of joint decision-making will therefore be whether laws will be placed in the Statute Book, whether they will be changed and in what way they may be changed. The self-determination and cultural freedom of groups is of the very greatest importance in this connection, as is the delegation of power to communities to let them make their own decisions as far as possible.

There are people who will cling to the obsolete concept of apartheid for future solutions. In the same way there are other people who will cling to the other obsolete concept of paternalism. Both groups render South Africa a disservice, and make the attainment of peaceful co-existence extremely difficult, if not impossible.

†During the short period of time during which I have been working in close association with the office of the State President, it has become exceedingly clear to me that there is sufficient common ground for the Government and Black people to work out a formula for co-existence. There are, in fact, four aspects in particular which the Blacks and the Afrikaner have in common. In the first place, both are very politically minded and, to a certain extent, resourceful. In the second place, both place a high premium on the education of their children and can even become emotional about it. In the third place, both groups have an intimate knowledge and history of poverty. In a conversation, a Black man supplied the fourth common aspect. He said that both groups have experience of oppression.

Whether this last point is true or not is immaterial. We had a perception of oppression regarding the British, and the Blacks have that same perception regarding us. My reply to this Black man was the following: “We had to take up arms against the British, but to you we extend the hand of friendship. Let all reasonable people come together and work out a formula for co-existence.”

Why then is it so difficult to get together around a negotiating table? The main reason is that highhanded White paternalists stand in our way. This group comprises leftists and radical politicians—some of whom sit in the benches opposite—journalists and especially certain White church leaders. I discussed this phenomenon with a very influential Black leader who is not part of the so-called system, and he acknowledged the fact, saying that those paternalists would forever intervene on behalf of Blacks because, and I quote his words, “they want to impress on us how much they do for us.” This is the worst form of humiliation, and the Blacks can do this country a favour by getting those degrading White burdens off their backs.

*While the NP, with the utmost effort, is trying to work out and accommodate the political emancipation of people, the opposition parties are responding with nothing but naivety. The CP say they will work out a dispensation for the Indians and Coloureds without the permission of those people. If that is their mental attitude towards Coloureds and Indians, surely they will do the same in respect of Blacks. Can they deny that? It is naive to think one can create a dispensation for those people without their permission. [Interjections.]

The HNP—I am sorry the hon member for Sasolburg is not here at present—says they will send the Indians back to India and Ceylon. In the meantime the hon member has been singing the praises of Dr Verwoerd, the same late Dr Verwoerd who admitted the permanence of those people here in South Africa.

Both these parties say they will decide about people one-sidedly. It is naive to think that and to say that one can decide on the future of others oneself, as those parties are saying. It is unctuous piety to say in 1986 as they do, that one must grant the other man what one claims for oneself, but then within his area.

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

No, Sir, he can put a question when I have finished.

It is unctuous piety to say that and then decide oneself what his area will look like. Both these parties delight in the fact that the statement “apartheid is obsolete” was made. They are already counting the votes and seats they are going to win. I want to warn them: In the final instance the concern is not with votes and seats, but with South Africa.

The hon member for Sasolburg intimated here that the Whites of the then Rhodesia were sold down the river by the late Mr Vorster.

Ask him.

He is not here, but he has the hon member for a soulmate.

It is not true that Mr Vorster sold the Whites of Rhodesia down the river. I shall tell the House what sold the Whites out. I discussed the matter with a very influential Zimbabwean who was here recently and who is successful in the Zimbabwe of today.

You have all the answers.

Yes. He said Mr Ian Smith’s rigid attitude was the death sentence when he said with reference to a Black government: “Not in my lifetime. As far as that is concerned, not in a thousand years.” That was the death sentence he signed over the Whites of the then Rhodesia. This met with an immense response among the Whites in that country. Hon members will remember that at one stage Mr Ian Smith had all the White seats in Parliament, until it was dissolved.

The CP and the HNP are displaying the same rigid attitude and superiority at present. This attitude towards people of a different colour will sell the Whites in South Africa down the river. [Interjections.]

The PFP as a party—there are exceptions in that party—has not advocated evolutionary change in this country for a long time. [Interjections.] That is why they say the ANC should be legalised and that violent organisation should be drawn into negotiations. Who will sit around the table then? There will be oppressors instead of reasonable people, organisations controlled by Moscow instead of by our own people and organisations.

I watched a television programme overseas. In that programme one Elizabeth Malekhe of the London office of the ANC said the following inter alia:

That is what Mandela says too!

Sir, they are interested only in the transfer of power, and it is naive to think that by talking to them, one will make them good little boys. This is in keeping with what Mr Howard Barrows said in the Cape Times on 23 January this year. He said we could speak to the ANC, but, and I quote:

Eli, do you say, as Ian Smith did, that you will never talk to them?

Order!

Oh, Sir, the poor fellow! If only he could make a decent remark, I would enjoy it. But, he merely sits there making a noise. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister must refer to hon members as hon members.

I apologise, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

As I said, Mr Chairman, those people want to talk only about one thing. That is the transfer of power, the handing over of power. As far as the ANC is concerned, the PFP is trying to catch a crocodile with a fishhook. [Interjections.] Yes, I am talking about a hook one uses to catch fish. But they are trying to catch crocodiles, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.] The PFP is playing right into the hands of the ANC. I see Mr Alistair Sparks, the representative of the Washington Post, says that one thing became clear after the meeting between the ANC and senior members of the PFP. He said the following:

The action of the ANC towards and together with the PFP is therefore the very factor that gives those people validity. The PFP is being abused by the ANC. The PFP is granting credibility to a revolutionary organisation which has committed itself to violence. That is why I put it to that party and to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that they are no longer interested in evolutionary change. [Interjections.] I say that for certain good reasons, Mr Chairman. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says that this Parliament, as a structure of apartheid, must be destroyed before we can negotiate. If he were interested in evolutionary change in this country, he would be forced to accept this Parliament, as it is composed at present. Which other evolutionary step can one follow?

Eli, do you understand what you are saying?

No, and neither does he say what he does understand! [Interjections.]

I have never heard of a sensible man giving up his stand and then trying to negotiate from a vacuum. That compels me to believe that the PFP is interested in surrendering to a leftist, revolutionary power.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary for an hon member of this House to say another hon member believes in surrendering to leftist, revolutionary powers? [Interjections.]

I did not hear the exact words used by the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, those were his exact words. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon the Minister please repeat his exact words?

He has the text of his speech in front of him. He can merely read it again.

Mr Chairman, I said the PFP was interested in surrendering to a leftist, revolutionary power.

Order! The hon member may proceed with his speech.

Mr Chairman, earlier the hon member for Yeoville referred here to something he described as important, a point on which I agree with him. This is that it is important that the economical and political reforms go hand in hand.

I say it is important that politics and economical reforms should go hand in hand. The difference between the two, however, is that the economical reforms are infinitely easier than the political reforms. That is why it is important that we progress quickly with the economical reforms, for then the political argument need not be so fierce. I concede that no political formula in this country can succeed unless all levels of the population can be involved in the South African economy and can take part in the country’s progress.

In effect this means that millions of poor people have to be established in housing, in agriculture, in business interests, but also in a Third World way. With this as a basis, one must move ahead with the momentum of each of those communities and the help of both the State and the private sector.

The Act to which the State President referred will facilitate entry into and participation in the economy. To that purpose I request the gracious co-operation of all authorities.

The State President of the Republic of South Africa made his greatest and bravest political contribution last Friday, supported by half a century of knowledge and experience.

Mr Speaker, during the course of my speech I shall deal with a number of the issues that have been raised by the hon the Minister who has just sat down.

I should like to tell hon members in this House about a situation of which they may not be completely aware.

The other day I was invited to attend a briefing by the East Cape Development Board in Port Elizabeth on the situation prevailing in the vast area for which that board is responsible. The spokesmen at that meeting were the director and two of his senior officials. They were speaking to some 50 or 60 mayors, town clerks and public representatives, and their presentation was most impressive. They spoke with conviction in that they were people from the place where things were really happening. They spoke with firsthand knowledge, and it was dramatic because these people were standing knee-deep among the wreckage of a system that simply had not worked. The people in the audience were probably 90% Nationalist, and they were able to see the results of a policy which they had followed for some 20 or 30 years lying in ashes at their feet.

We were told that the development boards had approached the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and had asked him to have them disbanded. They said that they had made the request because their purpose could not be fulfilled. They said there was no way in which they could carry on as they had been doing.

This is the situation they described. I am referring here to an area which includes Port Elizabeth and East London and in which millions of people are involved. We were told that rentals and service charges are R12 million in arrears; there is no machinery for the collection of rents and the police, quite rightly, say that this is not their job; accumulated debts are estimated at nearly R20 million by the end of 1986; White staff is exhausted; Black staff is effectively neutralised and can only do internal work; of 45 community councils only 17 are still functioning; of the four Black local authorities two are no longer functioning, and in the case of one other, there are only 10 out of 21 councillors who still sometimes attend meetings; for the six years from 1979 to 1985 the accumulated deficit is R18 million which is the equivalent of R195 per site—not per house—in the Port Elizabeth area; transfers from the Capital Development Fund to finance Black local authorities have increased over five years from R2,4 million to R23,2 million; and accumulated interest and redemption on capital expenditure is equivalent to R25 per site per month in the board’s total area.

Black townships, under an iniquitous system, used to finance themselves largely from liquor sales. Profits from liquor sales are today approximately one sixth of what they were three or four years ago. Nothing angers me more than the way in which this Government abuses and demoralises good employees who try to implement its stupid policies. For 15 years those officials have worked within the system and developed skills and a level of competence that is valuable to the economy. Now they are going to be dispersed like poppy seeds. If the system had been worthwhile, if they had worked within an integrated system together with Blacks, if there had been equality of opportunity, those skills would have been retained and the confrontational situation that now exists would have been avoided.

The tragedy is that this Government appears unable to analyse and learn from its own mistakes. It has not addressed the reasons for the breakdown in administration that affects millions of people. At the root of the problem lies imposed government. Government can never have legitimacy, and escalating violence is inescapable if it is imposed. Evidence of this may be seen in the way that the forces of law and order have laid an iron hand on Port Elizabeth townships with no appreciation of the long-term damage that they are doing to human relations.

With what does the hon the Minister intend to fill the gap that has been created in this respect? Does he think he will do it with regional services councils or with Black local authorities which are totally rejected by Blacks? Alternatively, will he try to persuade White municipalities to take Black townships under their wing once again and advance to the situation that prevailed 15 years ago?

The State President has learnt the language of reform. He and Saatchi and Saatchi have done a good marketing job, as they did in the referendum. What they have not realised, is that if one sells a bad product, one cannot create goodwill. How can Black communities accept structures of government that have not been negotiated with them? Would the hon the Minister do that? The question arises as to why the Government is not prepared to involve itself in such negotiation. The answer is that the Government talks to puppets because authentic Black leaders will not accept legislated ethnic groups as the basis for political rights, and this concept is a Nationalist non-negotiable. Blacks correctly see this as the very essence of apartheid. Inherent in such a system is the division of the South African cake among groups, and inevitable conflict. It is interesting to note that the desperate development board officials whom we met informed us that they had been instructed by the hon the Minister of Defence and the hon the Minister of Law and Order not to discuss the problems at hand with the real leaders in the townships such as the Boycott Committee.

The development of puppets has now become a major Government policy. The inescapable logic of the facts is that the Government is responsible for the violence in its townships. Until one moves away from attaching political rights to ethnic groups, one will not be able to move away from imposed government, escalating violence and the erosion of civilised values.

The pattern of events unfolds with an awful predictability and should be clear to anyone who is prepared to go there and examine the situation at first hand. The Government relies on policemen and public servants—ordinary people trying to do their job—to do its dirty work for it. It certainly is dirty work. It insists on implementing an unjust system and ends up governing in such a way that the worst elements of all groups are afforded maximum latitude. That is the final indictment that can be made of any government.

That is why I attended the funeral of Ntombekaya Mgubase, a 13-year old girl killed by a canister whilst on her way to the shop. It is also the reason why Mrs Mwinti Williams from Fort Beaufort, aged 68, was arrested at 1 am and released after quite some time without being charged. Moreover, it is also why America Qeqe has been sitting in jail since July 22 last year. What is his crime? He owns a shop, a fact which might facilitate the implementation of a boycott initiative. That is why someone mentions quite casually in a letter to me, which I received yesterday, that her friend spent the previous morning at Livingstone Hospital “where her maid’s old mother was sitting up in bloodstained clothes, shot in the chest and head”. She mentioned that it would apparently be necessary to remove one eye.

That is also why a girl of 14 who was arrested in Oudtshoorn with other children signs an affidavit to the effect that while awaiting trial her case was remanded seven times. They decided that she and other children were making too much noise in the cells and so the police just lobbed a gas canister into the cell where they were. [Interjections.]

The paradox is that the State President and his Government is doing more to imperil the future of Whites, whom they purport to protect, than any Black resistance leader has ever done. [Interjections.] No matter how his policy is packaged in the rhetoric of reform and no matter how long he discusses it with puppet Black leaders of his choice, it will be rejected if it is based on political rights that are attached to compulsory ethnic groups. In that case violence will become the way of life in our country.

Mr Chairman, having listened to the motions of no confidence of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, the hon member for Waterberg and others, I should like to move the following amendment:

1. (1) endorses the steps which have been taken and are still being applied by the Government to order and to stabilise the body politic;
2. (2) in addition, endorses the steps taken by the Government to bring about orderly constitutional reform within the reality of the South African society and on the basis of negotiation;
3. (3) affirms the action taken by the Government to maintain and develop international relations without prejudicing our country’s independence of decision-making;
4. (4) supports the steps taken to restore economic growth and development; and
5. (5) faces the future with realistic optimism.”.

I shall be returning to the content of this amendment. [Interjections.]

Allow me to confine myself, for just a moment, to the speech made by the hon member for Walmer, who has just resumed his seat. He chiefly emphasised the problem areas in certain parts of the unrest areas. For him the problem fundamentally revolves around the Government holding discussions with “puppets”. He regards these members as elected leaders who do not truly form the leadership corps of those communities. He emphasised this in the following sentence: “This Government is guilty of a development of puppets.” He himself is therefore not using the term in quotation marks or as a point of reference. He is using it as an accusation. I think I have interpreted him correctly. I now want to tell that hon member that he has given certain important Black leaders who have done a tremendous amount of work in the interests of all the communities—also in the interests of those of us sitting here today—a slap in the face. Let me also ask the hon member please to take part in round-table discussions with a leader such as the chief minister of kwaZulu. Let him go and enjoy the experience of doing so. He has not yet done so, but he calls those leaders “puppets”. In the light of his calling such a leader a puppet, let me ask him to comply with my request.

Apart from that, let me just tell the hon member for Walmer that as soon as any leader, which he would like to see as a leader, feels himself at liberty to begin negotiations and discussions with our Government or the instruments of our Government, he is immediately earmarked as another “puppet”. He is then immediately singled out, reviled and labelled a “puppet”. Then he is no longer a true leader. Let me therefore, Mr Chairman, tell the hon member—with great seriousness—that this Government, in cooperation with the public sector, the businessmen, is continually conducting in-depth discussions to restore peace to those areas, because we all have a serious interest in restoring order in those areas.

I want to return to another minor theme, that of giving a little information about our military action in the Northern Transvaal. Hon members also referred to that. There are other hon members here who live in that area, who represent those areas and have an on-going knowledge of the military involvement of those areas and the military action there.

I think it is only right for me to take the opportunity to inform this House of exactly what is taking place there. It is with great appreciation that we must bear witness to the military action we are engaged in there. A few years ago the framework of our military planning already incorporated the fact that two major theatres should be opened up in regard to our national security and defence services. The first important sphere that was identified was the Eastern Transvaal. After reviewing all aspects, the Northern Transvaal theatre, the far Northern Transvaal, in particular, was regarded as being the most important, and all the action and activities swung from the Eastern Transvaal to the far Northern Transvaal area. Then our ministry, in co-operation with our Defence Force’s command structure, used specially chosen men to man the posts and also the key posts in that area’s military unit. If I may mention a name, let me mention that of General Charlie Lloyd who is General Officer Commanding of the Far North Command. He was General Officer Commanding of the South West Africa Territorial Force, and a more experienced man our Defence Force could not have put in command. These are specially selected men. In conjunction with that the Soutpansberg Military Area was declared. The deployment of the forces took place there long before the events that so tragically affected our people recently.

What is also important is that in our discussions and in our handling of the situation all the other departments of our machine of state became involved and made their contributions towards safeguarding that area.

I want to mention a few examples to you. As far as telephone and communications services are concerned, the Post Office administration gives preference to that area above any other area. Our education authorities have deviated from the existing formula in connection with the teacher-pupil ratio and the allocation of posts to schools. A teacher is not transferred. Even though numbers at schools, for argument’s sake, decrease to a certain level, a teacher is not transferred.

The protection of hearth and home: When children travel to their hostels and return from their hostels, they are accompanied by military vehicles or they are transported in buses equipped with radio communication apparatus, etc. Tarred roads have been built in that area, wherever possible. All assistance in that specific area is similar to that which is being provided in the South West Africa operational area.

There is something I want to tell the House—the hon the Minister would not say this himself—and that is that the hon the Minister has, in particular, made himself available for talks with leaders in that area. Prior to these events, this hon Minister held nine meetings, speaking to leaders at all levels of society, in order to orientate them towards preparedness in the sphere of security. As recently as 21 January of this year he paid a visit to that area. There are things that members of the general public and we as laymen do not know—that it is probably true—but our intervention ought to be fair and just. There is nothing wrong with our interest in becoming involved, but we should not, by our actions, embarrass the Defence Force and, what is more, put our enemies on the other side on their guard so that they are able to move away from targets that have already been identified. These people are attuned to receiving information from the public, and we must guard against that.

I want to come back to the amendment I moved. It was with confidence that I moved the amendment because we have such good reason to do so. [Interjections.] As I stand here, I am truly just as representative and as responsible for my community as any of the hon members sitting there—including the hon member for Jeppe. It is with the greatest confidence that I wish to give the voters the assurance that we are not depriving them of anything, but the Government merely wishes, with increased responsibility, to review the present realities and set a course.

Because of the limited time available, I can only dwell on three of these realities. Firstly, our overall economy and all our activities have been internationalised. We cannot get away from that. The last man to want to do that became an HNP. Dr Albert Hertzog wanted to keep television out the country. Our economy as a whole is internationalised by virtue of the media. We cannot escape the limelight of foreign attention focussed on us, even if we wanted to. Even if the CP came into power, which is impossible, they would experience this. [Interjections.]

Secondly, as a developing power there are so many development tasks ahead of us. Those of us who are working with those instruments, with the areas and who come into contact with the people, are continually being made aware of the need for development. Wherever we enter into discussions with the people, in kwaZulu or in KaNgwane, the people are calling for development. They are asking for development aid. Oh, we can forget about the other bigger ideals, because development aid is the gist of the matter. It is as a point of departure that they request such aid. The Eastern Cape is looking for job opportunities. What is the Minister of Education in kwaNdebele, a small little state which is still taking shape, asking for? [Interjections.] He is not a “puppet”. For seven years he was a professor in America. He is a cultured individual, and his request is: Give my people development opportunities.

This small country of ours, however, with its limited capability as a generator of capital, is not able to do this. I am glad the hon the Minister of Administration and Economic Advisory Services in the Office of the State President said that the personal savings quotient was now 7,5%. Until very recently it was still 0. A decade or so ago, it was 25%. We should like to see—I am just saying this in passing—that quotient increase, and then I want to make a friendly request to our Ministers to take another look, in the future, at the small man’s savings.

Then we must look at the component of insurance. The premiums of those who buy insurance policies, even the cheap, simplest of policies, are monthly savings. That is the accumulation of funds and the creation of financial means.

Alone we are not able to generate the ability to develop the country. So where must we get help? We must get help abroad, both financial help and expertise for the development of those regions. It is logical. It is a reality. It is a reality that we are dependent on overseas countries for funds and expertise. There is a dependency, not only in these terms, but also in regard to markets for our exports, which we would like to promote. If we return cases of apples and deciduous fruit, which has not been offloaded, to South Africa, we have a problem.

If the Eastern Transvaal is going to have a fine maize crop this year, which is a possibility, but we are not able to export, then it is a problem. Then we are saddled with riches in this country which are not riches at all. That is an obvious truth.

The next reality is this Government’s great level-headedness and vigilance. [Interjections.] That engenders such enthusiasm in one, almost as much as in the case of Clive Rice whose team is going to bowl that touring team out again on Wednesday. I wish we could have had a few cricket balls here, but that would probably not be allowed.

The reality is one of level-headedness, of vigilance, of zeal and of the enthusiasm of the Government and of this party. In these times of troubled waters and an overcast sky we are still going to help these people. [Interjections.] If circumstances are oppressive then all we need, like the ships at sea, is a storm-compass. This small piece of apparatus in my hand is not a hand-grenade, but a small compass. It is very simple. The Government and the State President are the compass for our whole country in these troubled times. Even though we roll around, to the left and to the right, and then far to the left and far to the right, and even though these hon friends of mine, right here on my side, roll around to such an extent that they do not know where they are, this compass dictates our course.

If I take my sighting on the hon member for De Kuilen, look at the compass needle and take a reading, it points straight to the north, to the leader of our party, to the leader of this Government, to our State President. We have a compass that dictates the course we should adopt. That is why we support the State President’s initiatives and the policy of the Government.

Mr Chairman, I do not wish to make too much reference to the speech of the hon member for Standerton, but I do not think any one of us could not have been impressed with the compassion that he expressed here this evening.

The one point I do want to take up with him, in which he showed a particularly good line of thought, is that he made it quite clear that the development of this country was dependent very materially on foreign investment. As long as we keep that in mind our equilibrium and our attitude towards those countries that have financial investment in this country can possibly be safeguarded.

The hon member for Yeoville also made a very pertinent point when he made it quite clear that the clock cannot be turned back to 1948. What we are saying therefore to approach it from a more practical point of view is that there is no way that people will be seen driving around happily in a 1948 vehicle in these times.

Having listened intently to this debate which is well into its second day, one cannot help but feel a sense of frustration in the way that so much time is being wasted on scoring petty political points, rather than getting down to the nitty-gritty of the crisis situation that we are faced with in this country. For that reason I should like to stress at the outset that I have no doubt as to the sincerity that was portrayed in the speech of the State President. What one must realize too, however, is that the anticipated changes that were triggered off by the introduction of the new constitution have not kept pace with the requirements of the time. Opportunities have been missed. One such opportunity that was missed, was not bringing Blacks onto the President’s Council at the beginning. What happened as a result? We find that some of the positions on the President’s Council were filled instead by old political hacks.

We have heard a great deal from the Government during the course of this debate regarding the concept of bringing Blacks into the negotiating and decision-making process of government. Although this sounds good, I should like to point out that it is not as easy as it may appear initially. Those who stubbornly pressed ahead with ideological philosophies, over the years, were ill-informed in that they were completely oblivious of the effect that their decisions were having on other race groups, neither did they care in the least as to what these effects were. It is not surprising therefore that many people have been humiliated and have felt insulted over the years. The attention of the Government must be drawn to the fact that the removal of apartheid legislation must be accompanied by a genuine philosophy and conviction towards change, because no purpose will be served by removing aspects of apartheid legislation unless the spirit in doing so is compatible with the actions that are taken. The removal of apartheid legislation must be spontaneous. It goes without saying that the Government has taken over much of the policy of the NRP and is now running with the NRP ball. However, what is surprising—or is it surprising?—is the fact that the Government does not appear now to know how to run with this ball.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs referred yesterday to the question of Government credibility. It is a tragedy indeed that South Africa’s reputation should have reached such a low ebb, not only here but overseas as well. We have often been referred to as the polecat of the world. One hesitates to ask oneself into what category we are now being slotted. The Government can say what it likes but one cannot get away from the fact that the NP, which is the party in power, must take sole responsibility for the state of affairs that exists in this country today. There can be no backing away from that. For those irresponsible loyalists who so often claim that outside criticism need not be heeded, let it now be a lesson since the fateful Rubicon speech in August that external pressures on this country are issues which cannot lightly be cast aside or ignored.

The first essential therefore is that the country’s credibility must be restored not only within the borders of this country but also in the eyes of the outside world. We have numerous friends overseas who are being subjected to warped propaganda and are being denied the true facts of the overall situation in this country. We must look to these people to stand by us in these difficult times. The question of restoring credibility with the Black leaders is a priority in that the climate must be created to make it possible for them to feel that they will not be subjected to pressure from radicals if they are seen participating in discussions around the negotiating table. The big question on everybody’s lips is whether the Government can rise to the occasion. Is the Government big enough to rise to the occasion?

It is arrogant enough.

That could be correct. Is the Government going to be big enough to give effect to the utterances of the State President by abolishing, for a start, all hurtful discrimination? Let us not lose sight of the fact that the abolition of so much of existing apartheid legislation would have little or no effect on the day to day life of the man in the street.

It is quite clear at the present time that the path to the negotiation table is being blocked by apartheid measures which have impaired both the dignity and self-respect of many an individual. The future stability of the country rests on equal opportunity being accorded to all citizens irrespective of colour, creed or race. This must be accompanied by the realisation that each and every individual has a stake in this country and as such would have something to lose if the stability of the country became threatened. If one has nothing to lose one can easily be tempted into acts of irresponsibility. I repeat that time is of the essence and the Government must act ruthlessly against those who attempt in any way to delay the process of reform. While I appreciate at the same time that the tangled mess of apartheid legislation cannot be unscrambled overnight, the pace of doing so must be speeded up.

It appears to me, too, that there are members in the Government benches who interpret—quite erroneously—the scrapping of apartheid legislation as true constitutional reform. Anyone with these philosophies is doing little more than bluffing himself, as the removal of apartheid can only be regarded as a first step in a very much more complex and far-reaching exercise. [Interjections.]

The Government has a massive task on its hands, and I am doubtful whether it has the ability to restore the country’s internal and external credibility on its own. Like the hon member for Durban Point, I consider that a new governmental device will have to be found to incorporate a new vision of moderate thinking people before the confidence of both the people in this country and people overseas is again restored. [Interjections.]

The danger we are faced with at the present time is one of events overtaking the orderly process of reform, and this must not be ignored. Ad hoc decisions at the expense of a properly planned and negotiated constitutional future for all South Africans must not become the order of the day. Moderates are still in the majority, but the longer the delay in finding solutions to the country’s problems, the easier it becomes for the radicals to press their unrealistic demands. The Government must not, therefore, lose the initiative. At the same time, however, it must be aware of the fact that it is easier to negotiate in a stable environment than to have to do so under pressure from extremists.

We in these benches appreciate that when it comes to the maintenance of law and order the responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of Government. Horrendous reports of violence being met by violence do little to ease the mind of the man in the street or the public overseas. The latter have been brainwashed considerably over recent months with a lie factor that is out of context with the overall situation in the country. I would add that the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Information should seek further ways and means to convey more vociferously the other side of the South African story to overseas audiences at every possible opportunity. I raised this matter last year during this very debate and was shouted down as talking absolute nonsense. I submit now that if a little more heed had been paid to the references I made in this regard, our image in many countries overseas would perhaps have been very much better than it is at present. [Interjections.]

The announcement in the State President’s speech regarding the formation of a National Statutory Council is to be welcomed as a positive attempt to bring Black leaders to participate in negotiations on constitutional issues. This council could be analogised, possibly, with the top rung of a ladder. Other rungs have to be climbed before there is ascendancy to the top level; and it is in the process of climbing the lower rungs that much groundwork will have to be done to encourage those Black leaders to proceed to the top of the proverbial ladder. The confidence of Black leaders must be won if the State President’s initiatives are to meet with any success. No longer can lip service be paid to promises; they must be implemented. The fact that the Government does not honour promises it has made in the past has been responsible for the destruction of the credibility of many moderate Black leaders. Government must also ensure that decisions affecting Black people are arrived at in consultation with them. They must not simply be informed after decisions have been made. How much more acceptable, for example, the recommendations of the Commission for Co-operation and Development regarding the consolidation of Natal would have been if the proposals had been discussed and agreed upon by the kwaZulu government. As matters stand at the moment, there appears to be an impasse with the kwaZulu government because it has dissociated itself from the recent proposals. The fate of certain settlements in sensitive ecological areas, therefore, remains unresolved.

If one looks at these consolidation proposals in general terms, one is tempted to ask what they are all about. I accept that it may be necessary to round off certain areas but one remains mystified as to the reasons for pressing ahead with proposals of this magnitude when the land commitment as designated in the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936 has already been fulfilled. Is it an attempt to encourage the kwaZulu government to accept independence? Let us be honest. The only hope for a stable future in Natal lies in agreement being reached in the negotiations now taking place between the Executive Committee of the Natal Provincial Administration and the kwaZulu government.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mooi River mentioned the restoration of credibility, and I waited for him to come to light with concrete proposals—these did not materialise. He also referred to consolidation which I do not wish to discuss as I assume this subject will be discussed further at a later stage of the debate.

I should like to raise a few thoughts on the opportunities created by reform, but especially also on the many dangerous pitfalls one should avoid once one has launched oneself on the road to reform, as this party and Government has done.

One of the greatest pitfalls ahead of any reform action is the unbridled expectations aroused among many. It is only human to argue that the Government has discarded apartheid; now the way is open for it to pursue our policy. Any government permitting different experiments of this nature, in various spheres, would run the risk that absolute chaos would ensue. Reform does not mean that any political group can apply its own experiments indiscriminately.

The hon member for Mooi River referred to negotiations between Natal and kwaZulu, the so-called kwaZulu/Natal option. It is common knowledge that negotiations between Natal and kwaZulu have been pursued over the past few years and that a measure of agreement has already been reached between the provincial authorities of Natal and the government of kwaZulu. Consequently mention is often made in Natal of the so-called Natal/kwaZulu option. Since a kwaZulu commission some years ago recommended that a form of joint political control be instituted for Natal and kwaZulu, one hears about this possible experiment from time to time.

It is a fact that Natalians are aware that a large measure of economic interdependence exists between Natal and the territory of kwaZulu. It is therefore very easy to mislead Natalians into the belief that the same degree of political interconnectedness is unavoidable between Natal and kwaZulu.

We on this side of the House agree that there should be a very great degree of administrative co-operation between these two areas. Nevertheless the political structures proposed by the Buthelezi Commission leave minority groups in Natal without any effective protection. We do not object to negotiations on closer liaison in the administrative and executive field between Natal and kwaZulu. If people refer to the so-called Natal/kwaZulu option as the possibility of a separate political dispensation and a separate legislative structure which could be applied experimentally in Natal because Natal is supposed to be “different”, we cannot subscribe to that.

The idea of those who advocate this concept—there are prominent people in Natal doing this—is that, if such an experiment should succeed, it could form a pattern for the whole of South Africa. Nonetheless there is very seldom any reference to the possibility of such an experiment perhaps not succeeding and of this Government and Parliament, and not Natal, then being left holding the baby. They would then have to cope with the entire disaster.

The idea of Natal as a guinea pig is not the only objection we have to this joint political control in the province. The idea of those who advocate a joint political structure in Natal is also that not only provincial matters should be dealt with by such joint authority structures but also various current powers of Parliament. If that is to be the case, what is easily overlooked is that the two parties to this negotiation—that is the NRP-controlled Natal Provincial Administration and the government of kwaZulu—are by far not the only interest groups in Natal which should be consulted. If structures are considered which would have to exercise authority in spheres other than merely the provincial, it should be borne in mind that the NRP represents only four of the 20 seats in that field.

I do not wish to pursue this Natal/kwaZulu option any further, other than to say that experimentation can hardly be regarded as being included when one speaks of a course of reform one is adopting.

But the State President spoke of power-sharing.

Yes, the State President spoke of power-sharing as regards the Government of this country, but not of fragmented power-sharing, with Natal adopting a different course from the rest of the country. [Interjections.]

It is not only the NRP which began experimenting. Over the past months we have also seen the total failure of the darling idea of the PFP of a national convention. Over the past six months the Official Opposition has been so carried away, by the support received from Inkatha for the idea of a national convention, that in September last year the PFP and Inkatha created, to the accompaniment of much fanfare, a so-called “convention alliance”. They were prepared to pursue this overall idea of a national convention themselves and not await Government reaction to it.

But what happened then? Not only did the National Party, the Government of the country, and all the other parties in this House of Assembly, as well as the parties represented in the other Houses of Parliament, not come forward, but the PFP’s own stablemate, the UDF, refused to serve in that “alliance”. In consequence, hardly a month later, on 30 October, the PFP and Inkatha were forced to withdraw from the “convention alliance” and it had to be rechristened a “convention movement” as this would supposedly give the UDF and others more confidence to participate in that attempt at a convention.

Mr Chairman, it is bad enough for the PFP to participate so cheerfully in casting aspersions on our existing constitutional instruments, as we have already heard in the course of this debate. They do this by according exaggerated status to extra-parliamentary organisations such as the UDF and the Black Sash, Fosatu and even the ANC. The recent visit of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to Lusaka was only a single example of this. I say it is already bad enough for them to cast suspicion on the existing institutions of our country, but when a recognised political party makes a clown of itself to boot, as has in fact happened here, the position really becomes very critical.

How can the extra-parliamentary groups in this country respect the so-called system when one of the chief elements of the system, the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, could make such a spectacle of itself, as happened here? In effect this means that the Official Opposition is announcing to extra-parliamentary groups in the country that it has doubts about the effectiveness of the parliamentary system. It then proceeds so clumsily and ineptly in promoting its solution to the problem, namely the creation of a national convention, that the entire idea of a convention would never be able to get under way. What remains? We have already seen this here this week. Nothing remains but an absolute surrender to the leftist forces in this country.

When the Official Opposition establishes a convention alliance and withdraws from it a month later to furnish other parties with an opportunity for participating, the Official Opposition should explain to the country how it believes it to be possible to convene a comprehensive national convention on such a basis. When the PFP, Inkatha and the UDF, which represent only three groups in this country, cannot even serve together in the publicity committee of the national convention, what earthly hope is there that they and other organisations will serve together in the later agenda committee? Let alone the general meeting of such a national convention! That is to say, of course, if it ever meets one day.

Mr Chairman, what are we actually left with here. In the political sphere we have only the same movement as the old well-known drawing-room game—better known as “musical chairs”. Surely we all know it. It is a game in which an ever-decreasing number of chairs is available to the players, while the music continues. While the music goes on, those who can capture a chair can continue the game, but those who fail to obtain a seat, fall out. In effect this is the example the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition gives us because he says there are bodies in this country which are not in favour of the convention idea. He will therefore now take a back seat so that they may join in. Then certain decisions are taken in consequence of which the options or the chairs are decreased and only certain remaining organisations can participate in further consultation. In this way the idea of a national convention, as approached by the Official Opposition, will give rise to a situation in which one’s option to retain a chair will ultimately be reflected in the degree of one’s radicalism.

They always have a chair.

They always have a chair. The tame leftists, including the UDF, withdrew from the convention movement. Subsequently—I almost forgot this—after the PFP and Inkatha withdrew from the convention movement, the worst blow of all fell. In spite of the fact that they had withdrawn, Nusas, one of their own tribe, decided early in December that it wanted nothing to do with this convention movement. If, in the process of convening a national convention, the Official Opposition cannot even collect all its tame followers, not even get the tame leftists, to work together, how on earth does it consider it possible to involve the extreme leftists and activists, such as the ANC, in such a national convention?

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition tells us that we should have an open agenda, that we should not set any prerequisites or conditions. His own approach to his idea of a national convention appears very clearly from the statement of Mr Browde, the director of the convention movement, however. I quote:

He said this on 30 October. Then he uttered these very illuminating words:

When all pre-conditions have been met. Whose pre-conditions, Mr Chairman? Those of the extreme leftist organisations not even prepared to speak to the Official Opposition at the preliminary discussions.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is therefore saying in advance that the Government should set no pre-conditions or pre-requisites. According to that hon leader the Government has to forego its demand that those who wish to be involved in consultation should renounce violence. Nonetheless he is, in advance, giving those whom he wishes to admit to his national convention an opportunity to set similar prior conditions.

If we wish to work out a future in South Africa, it is essential that all of us in this House, all in the existing acknowledged parliamentary parties, endorse this invitation from the State President. The only way in which we will be able to obtain the credibility—the hon member for Mooi River referred inter alia to this—and recognition for the system will be if all parties endorse this invitation from the State President. I wish to say that the State President’s invitation makes it possible for all parties to endorse it. The Official Opposition’s own effort in this regard have obviously failed. If the Official Opposition in this House really wishes to see peaceful evolution in South Africa, had it better not relinquish its obsession with militant leftist activists and start showing greater appreciation for the balanced leaders of all population groups in our country?

Mr Speaker, I want to say three things to the hon member for Umlazi. Firstly, I do not want to get involved in the Natal option argument between himself and the hon member for Mooi River. They are both banana boys, Sir, and I am not. However, I would recommend to them that they should look at the recommendations of the Buthelezi Commission because in the report of that commission one can find the seeds of a solution.

Secondly, with regard to the national convention alliance or movements, the hon member mentioned the UDF, Inkatha and the PFP. I want to say to him that if those three organisations were to sit around a table together, they would be representative of more people—more South Africans—than the NP had ever dreamt of representing in its whole history.

Thirdly, the hon member talks about the expectations that have been raised by the State President’s speech. I agree with him that expectations have been raised, particularly by the phrase that apartheid is an outmoded policy. However, I am grateful to the hon the Minister of National Education who spoke earlier this afternoon. He did make a contribution to the debate. I believe he took the debate a stage further, and I want to clarify certain aspects with him. I think I understood him to say that the fact that apartheid is regarded as being “outmoded” did not mean that separate institutions would disappear. We would still have schools on a racially separate basis. Is that correct? [Interjections.]

With one central department. [Interjections.]

Right, there will be one central department but separate education for the separate race groups. We will still have separate group areas. Is that right? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs nods his head. [Interjections.] We will thus still have separate group areas based on racial colour.

Furthermore, universal franchise is now stated to be the policy of the NP. Does this mean universal franchise on separate voters’ rolls based on skin colour? [Interjections.]

For own institutions.

For own institutions. Now Sir, that is the dilemma that we are faced with because to us apartheid means racial separation—separation on the basis of the skin. There can be equal opportunities but when those equal opportunities are in separate institutions, then it is still apartheid. [Interjections.] It thus appears to me that what my fellow members in this party and I understand, and what the world understands, is different to what the State President meant when he said apartheid is outmoded. That, for South Africa, is tragic. [Interjections.]

During the Anglo-Boer War, because of roaming bands of Boers who would raid and disappear—only to reappear somewhere else and sow destruction in the name of their cause—the British set up concentration camps. They put into those camps wives and children of the Boers who they believed were providing sustenance to those roaming bands. Conditions in those camps were bad to start with, and they deteriorated. Many, tragically, who went into those camps did not come out again. This, I am sure, was not the intent, and neither was it known for the large part by the legislators in Britain which was, after all, 6 000 miles away. It was done by uncaring officials and security forces that were on the spot.

Into all this came a woman from the very people who were fighting the Boers. She was a woman with deep sympathy and great courage, and she fought her own people tirelessly on behalf of those unfortunates in the concentration camps. Her name was Emily Hobhouse. Rightly she is revered and honoured and remembered to this very day. Tragically last year a woman who I believe was in the same mould died in an accident. She too had great courage and great sympathy. She fought her fight for people who were oppressed, she fought uncaring officials, she fought security people. Fifteen thousand came to her funeral and I believe that in time statues will be erected to her and she too will be remembered by history. We have an airport in Port Elizabeth which is named for an archetypal apartheid Prime Minister whose policies are today discredited. Perhaps one day that airport will be renamed the Molly Blackburn Airport. I hope so. [Interjections.]

I think there are two major lessons—and this is why I brought this in—that she teaches us. She teaches this to us as legislators. Do we, like the English parliamentarians at the turn of the century, not know what is going on? Do we all know what is happening in our townships? Do we know of the oppression and of the difficulty and of the tragedy that is enacted there every day? We have no excuse for not knowing because we are on the spot. Molly knew; we must also.

The second lesson is that we must build bridges of communication. The problems of this beautiful land of ours will only be solved by talking around the conference table. For decades we have applied greater degrees of force to the local situation. Have we cured it? Of course we have not. We have progressively stepped up the involvement of the Army. Two years of National Service, two years of camps, dad’s army. On the police side we have an escalation in numbers and we had more people detained without trial in 1985 than ever before. We have a declared state of emergency and, despite all this, can we honestly say that the situation is getting better? I do not believe we can. 1985 was the worst year yet. We are not containing the violence by our current methods. This violence is spawned by the hatreds within our society. In fact, what the State did in 1985 created more hatred and more violence. I cannot forgive the NP for the almost 40 years of apartheid which has turned my country, of which I was so proud, into a land racked by hatred and by violence. [Interjections.] I am deeply ashamed of what happens in my land today. We are now paying the price, and it is not only a political price but it is an economic price. We are all aware that our economy is in a parlous state. Let us look at some facts.

Inflation is at 18% and rising where our major trading partners average 5%—and this in a fiscal year in which the Government dedicated itself to fighting inflation. In 1981 when the misguided and misled White population re-elected the NP, a loaf of bread cost 35.5 cents—that was white bread. Today it costs 68 cents, a rise of 91%. Petrol has risen by 70%, from 57,4 cents to 97,5 cents and over less than five years. Mealie-meal has risen from 81 cents to 152 cents, milk from 45 cents to 83 cents, and soap, the cost of cleanliness, is 153% up. This is what the NP has done. They have not fought inflation, they have created it.

Unemployment is a tragic reality right around the country. In Port Elizabeth it is a well-known fact that there is a minimum of 56% of unemployment in the Black townships. It is probably a lot more. One can find queues outside St John’s Methodist Church in Port Elizabeth seeking food, and the tragedy is that inevitably the food runs out before the people have been fed. This is true of every community from all race groups. There is no social security in South Africa. If one lacks food, one starves. In this regard I want to talk about the recent actions of the hon the Minister of Finance which must rank as one of the most autocratic and selfish misuses of Government powers in many years. He tells two private sector companies that in effect they will recover from the State 90% of any funds they spend on promoting the current rebel cricket tour from Australia. He does not have parliamentary sanction for this, and without that sanction he cannot do it. He degrades every single member of Parliament to the status of a rubber stamp. However, that is not the worst of it. Do you realise, Mr Chairman, that if those same companies donated money to feed the starving Blacks of this country—or the White or the Coloureds—they could not deduct one cent from their tax payments? Ninety per cent goes for cricket, but there is not one cent for starvation. [Interjections.] How much could those companies deduct from their tax if they donated R100 000 to Operation Hunger?

Not a penny.

Not one penny, and that is the point I am making. We spend taxpayers’ money to pander to the leisure activities of the White population in order to persuade those same Whites that everything is normal so that they will vote for the NP once again, while in the townships the Blacks starve. Can one wonder that I have no confidence in this Government?

We must ask the question as to why we are in this position. The reasons are twofold, namely political reasons and economic reasons. The economic mismanagement will be dealt with in budget debates, but the major reason is the political reason. No one who witnessed the massive devaluation of the rand in the weeks following the State President’s speech in Durban in August can possibly doubt the truth of that statement. I do not believe that any South African ever did by one speech, more damage to South Africa than the State President did in August. That is a fine sort of patriotism! In any normal democracy he and his party would have been thrown out of government forthwith. However, we are not a normal democracy—only the votes of the Whites count.

Let us look at some of the other political actions, Mr Chairman. The declaration of the state of emergency by the State President has cost us dearly. What has been the result? Certain banks decided not to renew short-term loans to South Africa and overnight we were up an international monetary gum tree. This in turn led to foreign debt freezes, and so we destroyed a proud tradition of international monetary reliability which grew over 70 years.

This brings me to the next point, namely the credibility of this Government. Our Government is no longer believed. We have told too many lies and have broken our word too often. There were, for instance, B J Vorster’s “give us six months” speech, the Angolan invasion, our involvement with Renamo, our promise to the British courts to return the Coventry Four for trial and our foreign debt freeze. The latest indication of this is that the Government spends R300 000 of the taxpayers’ money on Press advertisements to persuade the public that the State President was telling the truth on Friday. The hon the Minister of National Education has in fact given us a different picture altogether, and that has destroyed that R300 000’s worth of advertising. [Interjections.] Can we believe him when he says apartheid is gone?

In this very House today a number of Labour MP’s came into the parliamentary dining room, as they did yesterday, and they were refused service. They sat in that dining room for more than half an hour, and they were not served by the waitress. That is an instruction from on high. The reaction was, in fact, foreseeable. I am told that the hon leader of the CP said: “This is not your place.” That is his policy. We tried to make them welcome. We offered to share our food with them, and some of us did not eat our food because they were not served. What is the NP’s attitude? Do they believe that that should happen? Is that apartheid or is that not apartheid? Until those questions can be answered, nobody is going to believe that the State President told the truth on Friday.

Mr Chairman, I support the vote of no confidence in this Cabinet.

Mr Chairman, I listened very attentively to what the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central had to say. In fact as usual, he went to great lengths to prove how wicked a Government we have in South Africa. We would like to say to that hon member that his action with regard to certain parliamentary privileges showed us as members of this Parliament what he thinks of his colleagues. In a sense, what he has said about this Government is not strange to me and neither is it strange to me that he is not interested in the effect his words have on South Africa, on this Parliament and have on us as members of Parliament in South Africa.

He referred to certain events which took place in this Parliament, and I am very tempted to say how I feel. I will restrict myself to a few words only, namely that I think it is tragic that in South Africa, in the age in which we live, things should happen which could create the impression that in South Africa we are following a policy of discrimination.

I would like to say that it is not for me to pre-empt the arguments with regard to this specific issue. Parliament will deal with this in due course. We are busy with the no-confidence debate.

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central as well as the Official Opposition have tried to show how incompetent this Government is with regard to all matters concerning Government. I would like to say to the hon members that if ever there was a stage in the history of South Africa where we as members of this Parliament had the opportunity—a fascinating opportunity—to stand together to prove to the world, and all the people of South Africa, the Black people, the Coloured people and all the other people of South Africa, that we were really involved in the process of change, that we were busy with real fundamental change in the interests of all of us in South Africa, we have the opportunity now to show everybody that we really mean business.

After listening to the State President’s speech, I am really so sorry that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central and so many other members of this House, failed to grasp the opportunity to show where we really are and the fields in which we are actually engaged in promoting progress in South Africa.

*We are living in a wonderful time of change in South Africa. As politicians, as perfectly ordinary people, in the course of our lives we are all frequently tempted to try to be important people. I think if one looks at the Challenger space-shuttle disaster, if one looks at the wonderful technological world in which we live, if one looks at how small this world is, this planet of ours, as politicians it behoves us also to see our era in this Parliament as a transitory era in a world that will last for all eternity. It is in that spirit that I would like to practise politics with my own voters in my own constituency. I am certainly not important. I am so insignificant and so transitory that I do not even have an opportunity to make a proper input in the world in which we are living.

Consequently, if we look with humility at all the big problems of the world in which we live, then we can really try to make a contribution in this Parliament in the serious times through which our country is living. Then I am astounded that yesterday we listened to a debate from my hon friends of the CP, which again filled me with great sadness. When are we in South Africa going to realise that one cannot and one dare not take the lead on the road leading back to the past? When are we going to realise that we are living in a world that is becoming steadily smaller? In a world which is becoming smaller one must try to think on a larger scale. I am asking my freinds in the CP: Let us be realistic and tell ourselves that in this world which is becoming steadily smaller everything that happens today in South Africa is part of the perception of the people in America, Europe and throughout the world.

Every White South African saw the actions of Lech Walensa in Poland, the uprising, the opposition, the resistance, in his own sittingroom. Sir, let us now be honest. Everyone in South Africa, every single person in South Africa, sided with Lech Walensa when he rebelled against what he saw as injustice in his country. I specifically chose this example to indicate that in our statements and in our judgment of policy directions we as South Africans must not live in a dream world or world of illusion.

Everything that happens here, everything that is said here, evokes a response throughout the entire world. There is no country in the world today—even the powerful America or the powerful Russia—which can do as it pleases with regard to big problems. There is an interaction between countries—an interdependence with regard to what is done and said. Over and above that all matters pertaining to justice in the world are foremost in the hearts and in the minds of people.

Throughout the world a revolution of racial emotion is raging. Every single country in the world—France, West Germany, the USA; take your pick—is wrestling with the problem of racial tension; wherever people of different racial groups must live together. Precisely because they are wrestling with this problem and because they also know that they cannot solve this problem, seeing that they know that the potential for conflict always exists, all countries in the world are watching South Africa more attentively than ever before. Every technological development—particularly as far as communication, television and the media are concerned—places South Africa more strongly under the magnifying glass.

Sir, I am surprised that many of our people are worried about this. Actually this is a wonderful challenge. I had occasion to speak to somebody about Australian politics and he said to me: “Do you know, you have such a wonderful country. In Australia we fight about the bread price for six weeks on end.”

As regards one of the greatest problems in the modern world, viz the racial question and the potential for conflict connected with it, South Africa as a country and we as a White community—also we as a Parliament and as a Government—have wonderful opportunities to demonstrate by word and deed that we support justice, that we can look the world straight in the face. This Government is not changing because pressure is being brought to bear on it either, it is not changing because other people are prescribing to it. We in the National Party say very positively that we forget the world. When I say that we forget the world I am of course speaking figuratively.

No, you said that you forget the world. You just said so!

But I said I was speaking figuratively. [Interjections.] Sir, I say let us forget the world. Let those of us in South Africa talk to each other. After all we have no doubts about that either; there is simply no way in which Whites and Blacks in South Africa can speak to each other any further as long as we still have apartheid in our midst. Let us have no doubts about that. I am not afraid to say so either. After all, we are a democratic party, and in this party I am under the leadership of very competent leaders. We are living in a country in which interesting and exciting discussions are taking place, and we speak to our voters …

[Inaudible.]

Never mind, Sir, I shall react to what the hon member for Rissik said in a moment. [Interjections.] I must just say that I am grateful for what the State President said. It is a fact that every time apartheid loses, the White man wins.

Then integration wins!

No, Sir, then the White man wins. [Interjections.] I want to put it to the hon member for Rissik that in the South Africa of tomorrow those people who are obsessed with what they are, will still be able to be precisely what they are. I always say that a man who must constantly say what he is, is not what he says he is.

What are you, Albert? [Interjections.]

Sir, why does a White man need to say from the morning to the night that he is a White man? Why is it necessary for a White man to say from the morning to the night that he is proud to be a White man? Why is it necessary for an Afrikaner to say from the morning to the night that he is an Afrikaner? I tell my children that if you do not live in such a way that people can see what you are, you must not try to tell people what you are either, because no one will believe you. [Interjections.] Sir, I want to state categorically that I do not want to pass judgment on the people who find themselves in the ranks of the Conservative Party. As people I respect them all. But I disagree fundamentally and radically with them as far as their political standpoints are concerned. [Interjections.]

Sir, let us look at the essence of the struggle in South Africa. I am a person who would like us to progress more rapidly with changes in South Africa. I also say this in my constituency.

In which direction do you want to change?

To the hon member for Rissik I can, for example, say that in the NP I am striving towards our abolishing the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act in its entirety.

That is not all, Albert. What else?

Let us look at the essence of the struggle in South Africa. I got hold of a book and I want to show this book to the hon members of the House. It is some of the most depressing literature you can hope to find The name of the book is None but Ourselves. It was written by Julie Frederikse. This book deals with the entire terrorist struggle in Rhodesia. It indicates how people who thought that one could win the struggle in Rhodesia by means of violence only, had to sit and watch themselves lose the support of the people, the masses, in the midst of their armed conflict. There is no doubt that one can and one must shoot the terrorist, the violent criminal, with an R1.

Tell Magnus Malan that.

Order!

But in the long run it is what is living in the hearts of the people which is going to determine whether we stand or fall. Although essentially I am actually totally opposed to violence and killing, I can understand that one must act when one’s wife, one’s child, one’s uncle or one’s father, one’s people, are being shot or burnt. After all, one does not have a choice. A man who wants to take other people’s lives, must bear the consequences of his deeds, and I can understand that. When we look at the essence of the struggle in South Africa, we must ask ourselves what Black people say. I am not a person who says what the Black people are saying without listening to what they themselves are saying.

For interest’s sake I want to mention that the CP will see 90% of the political philosophies they are adopting identified in this book in a way that will make them shudder. [Interjections.]

The real objective of the Black man’s struggle is to gain freedom. The Black leaders talk of a “freedom struggle”. They say: “We have suffered long enough; a little more would not worry us”. This is their struggle. To a certain extent Oliver Tambo—I am not a person who thinks that we must blow up the ANC in this House with unnecessary publicity—passed a judgment on our Parliament which we cannot get away from. He said: “We do not want to share power; we want to seize power”. I will fight with him or anyone else if they say that they have the right to seize power in this country by means of force. But we must change in this country to such an extent that we can take the freedom struggle of people totally into account. For as long as the great masses of Black people in this country are saying …

They are saying: “Long live Botha!”

… that they are fighting for liberty and are speaking of a “freedom struggle”, and as long as what they experience in the political, economic and social spheres appear to them to be a restriction of their freedom, we will have problems. For that reason we must do everything in our power …

To surrender.

… to be able to look Black people in the face, so that we can tell them that we who were the first freedom fighters in South Africa, associate and identify ourselves with the total freedom struggle of the Black people because it is not in conflict with our ideas on human dignity. It is not in conflict with our feeling for justice. That is why the NP says that we are travelling with the Black people on the road to power-sharing. We in this party, who serve the interests of our White voters, are not ashamed to say this. I have never been ashamed to say to any Black man that if he wants to seize power from us by means of violence, we will retaliate with violence.

Now you are simply giving it away!

The hon member for Barberton is a man who is very fond of emotional politics.

Listen who is talking now.

I just want to ask him to take note of the interesting parallel between the extreme left in Black politics and the extreme right in White politics. This is extremely important. Both those groups say that violence is actually inevitable. [Interjections.] The ANC says that in the long run only violence can work. Similarly the far right wing says that violence is actually inevitable.

The far left, the left wing radicals, and the right wing reactionaries also say exactly the same thing about power sharing, namely that they do not want to share power, but that they want to retain all the power themselves for all time. Now that is a parallel!

Both groups are also living in the past. The ANC, the PAC, in actual fact, the entire crowd of radicals—Azapo, Azano, Azaso—are fighting with us about the past. The fact that the hon member Mr Van Staden, the State President and the hon member for Houghton are the only members in this House who historically took part in the introduction of many of these apartheid measures, does not matter to them. Consequently if we now say in this House that we want to change it does not bother them. They are living in the past. They say that they hate the measures and the system of the past, and they say that we want to maintain this system of the past just as it is. [Interjections.]

Just for interest’s sake I can mention that the word “Azania”, was a word used by Greek cartographers with reference to the Africa of old, south of Ethiopia. It refers to the past, when all the land belonged to Black people only. When White people were not there and had no rights. By the way, it is also interesting how many of the radical organisations’ names derive from that word. Let us take a quick look: Azano, Azapo, Azaso, Azazim, and so on. All the land therefore belongs to the Black people.

On the other hand we can look at the standpoint of the AWB, namely the reestablishment of the old Boer Republics. It is interesting that both these groups, the left wing radicals and the right wing reactionaries—I do not want to insult them; I mean they are reactionaries only in the sense that they react to everything that is said and done—say that South African belongs to them. The Blacks say that South Africa belongs only to them, while the Whites say that South Africa belongs only to them. [Interjections.] There is an absolute parallel.

There is also another very interesting parallel. The right wing reactionaries say: “I know a Black man”. Those are wonderful words. This book, None but Ourselves, contains a wonderful chapter, “We know the Blacks”. If we listen to what these people say, we can …

Do you know the White people?

Oh dear, that hon member for Rissik! I should like to tell him, that I, as I stand here, am not obsessed by what I am. I am definitely not going to tell him how I feel about what I am, and I am not going to tell him how I feel about what my children are either. He is at liberty to denigrate, crush and fling mud at me, if he so wishes. But I am not going to do that to him; I can assure him of that.

Another interesting parallel is that both these groups say that the other is temporary. As far as the left wing radical Blacks are concerned, the Whites are actually only temporary, secondary. The Whites do not count. They are actually just a passing phase. On the other hand, the right wing reactionaries say that the Blacks are only temporarily here with us in White South Africa and that they actually belong in their Black states. [Interjections.]

Let us look at another parallel. The left wing radical Black people say that South Africa is a rich and powerful country, and they say that they want the riches of this country for themselves. On the other hand, the right wing reactionaries say that South Africa is a powerful, rich country, and that the riches of this country actually belong to the Whites. In reality, generally speaking, South Africa is actually a very poor country. The richness of this country lies in its people and in the abilities of its people. But by polarising matters in this way we will never be able to enjoy those riches of our people.

A while ago the hon member for Rissik appeared on television with my colleague, the hon member for Turffontein, who totally annihilated him. The debate dealt with politics in 1986. The hon member for Rissik said that the main objective of the CP in 1986 was going to be to get rid of this Government. He said nothing about the big problems facing the country; only petty politics concerned him.

One further parallel is interesting. The right wing reactionaries want to free South Africa from the P W Botha Government.

Yes.

The hon member for Barberton says “yes”. I find it fantastic that the left wing radical Black forces have exactly the same idea: Free South Africa from P W Botha!

My time has almost expired. In conclusion I want to say one more thing. We in this country must ask ourselves: Why does Africa hate its White children? The Government under the leadership of its State President wants to work on a South Africa where all Black people both inside and outside the country will not hate Africa’s White children, but where we can build together on a great future.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Innesdal is quite exhausted after his speech. As far as his speech is concerned I want to ask the hon the Minister of Law and Order a question seeing that the hon the Leader of the NP in the Transvaal is not here. Does he agree with everything that hon member said?

He may not speak now.

The hon the Minister and the NP owe us that answer. Is there room in the NP for that hon member? He began by saying: “I want to show that I mean business”. I said to him: “Prove it. Join the PFP”. That hon member says he is politically totally honest. I want to ask him whether he considers the Group Areas Act to be negotiable.

Mr Chairman, the principle of the Group Areas Act is sensible, but a great deal will have to …

Order! We cannot have two speeches at the same time.

The hon the Minister of Defence is not here at the moment; he had another appointment. His contribution today was yet again totally predictable. He jumped up and down like a turkey and ranted and raved and in the end said absolutely nothing. I only want to say one thing about the hon the Minister of Defence. The best testimonial for him as Minister of Defence is that he whose name is “Magnus”, has become so powerless (“magteloos”) that the region’s security matters have to be handled by the Department of Foreign Affairs. That is what the Cabinet thinks of the hon the Minister of Defence: “Bombardier” Pik Botha must do “General” Malan’s work for him.

The hon the Minister of National Education, who is not here at the moment, really let the cat out of the bag. The NP is using the Huntington formula again: Confuse the voters regarding your actual plans for reform. The facts, ie the abolition of apartheid and the introduction of power sharing, are deliberately being interpreted in two different ways, so that the NP can gain the support of the PFP, the CP and the NP. To the PFP supporters they say that they are honest about reform; they are even going to go further, in other words by abolishing the Group Areas Act and so on. On the other hand, in order to keep the support of their own supporters, they tell them that the apartheid that they are abolishing is only the caricature of apartheid, as Dr Piet Koornhof put it. The power sharing they are introducing is only “healthy” power sharing, not the PFP’s power sharing. I want to tell the hon members of the NP: “They can’t fool all the people all the time.” They are going to be devoured from two sides. This is already happening.

I want to refer briefly to the speech of the hon runner-up Dr Odendaal. He is absolutely obsessed with the word “radical”. To him the CP is a radical party. We have laughed up our sleeves at this hon member for long enough now. After the terrific beating he got, I want to do him a favour. He would be well advised to get hold of a good Free State publication, namely the Joernaal vir Eietydse Geskiedenis, Vol X, No 2 of August 1985. I want to read out to the hon member what appears on page 119, but before I do that, I want to remind him that the CP, which he calls a radical party, is a right wing party. On page 119 it is stated: “Radikaal dui slegs op links.” [Interjections.]

The important consequence of the State President’s opening address on Friday is that it put an end to the dispute regarding who the political liars were. Who are the political liars: The CP or the NP? The CP has been saying for four years now that the Government is in the process of abolishing separate development and replacing it with power sharing. For four years now the Government has said that the CP are a bunch of liars. Now the State President has resolved that dispute. The Sunday newspaper Rapport puts it like this: “Magsdeling skop apartheid uit.” After four years the CP has now been proved right. The CP were not the liars; the NP were. From now on the CP will be the party with the credibility and the NP will be the party which has also crossed its Rubicon of credibility.

If the present Government were ever placed in the scales only one reading would appear: “Mené, mené, tekél ufarsin.” The Government is trying in vain to hide its great failures behind a large-scale advertising campaign. The important point is that the Government has lost complete control of the affairs of South Africa. In particular I blame the Government for losing control of the security position, and to such an extent that the Government can no longer ensure the security of the inhabitants of South Africa.

There will now unavoidably be a new orientation in politics. The CP are now going to be the champions of separate development, no matter how tragic that may sound, and the NP are going to be the champions against separate development.

The unenviable task now awaits the hon NP members of opposing separate development among the voters. The FWde Klerks, the Louis le Granges have fought for separate development and against power sharing all their lives. They have always sworn that separate development is Biblically justifiable, morally correct and the only solution to our problems. They who have sworn that the enemy’s policy of power sharing will destroy the White people, must now go and tell the Whites that they have abolished separate development without a mandate and they have now accepted the enemy’s policy of power sharing. That is the dilemma of the NP. An impossible task awaits them.

I should like to single out a few differences between the State President and his predecessors. The important difference is that his worthy NP predecessors had control over South Africa’s affairs and the present State President has lost control. What is more the late Mr Vorster was a very good chess player, whereas the State President does not even know what to do with the Black bishop. [Interjections.] The people who crucified the State President’s predecessors, today worship the State President and greet him with cries of “hosanna”. The State President’s own people, his own compatriots reject him. The only thing the State President can still lay claim to is that he can compete with Mike Schutte and I to become the national joke. [Interjections.] Perhaps the State President should ask his people to sing him a song and he would be well advised to begin practising that song. That song starts with the words: “Wish me luck as you wave me goodbye.”

The Government’s big problem is lying in wait for it: White resistance or the White backlash. It is going to destroy the State President. No one, not even the new Oppenheimer friends of the State President, is going to shed a single tear when he is no longer there.

I should now like to motivate why we accuse the Government of no longer being able to ensure the security of the country’s inhabitants. In the first place, if one looks at the extent of the damage and the riots, it is in conflict with the Government’s cosmetic assurance that the security position is fine. We have heard of 952 deaths and more than 10 000 political prisoners in detention. This makes one wonder what has become of the referendum’s promises of peace, prosperity and stability. Large-scale destruction and damage have been caused to 920 schools, 33 churches, 17 clinics, 639 shops, 286 liquor stores, 2 528 private homes, 5 054 buses and 5 338 private vehicles. This happened because we voted “yes”.

The second shocking piece of evidence I want to mention is the support there is for the ANC. Do hon members realise that, according to Rev Nico Smit of Mamelodi, a Government survey indicates that 79,5% of the Blacks support the ANC. The hon the Minister can tell us whether or not he accepts these survey.

In the third place it is alleged that the ANC has taken over control of Black townships in South Africa. I mentioned this fact in public last year and the Government did not refute it. It is alleged that in the Eastern Cape alone there are 27 Black towns being controlled by the ANC and the UDF. They control freedom of movement …

[Inaudible.]

The hon the Minister will get his turn.

The ANC and the UDF levy taxes in those areas and allocate houses.

You are now speaking the biggest load of rubbish and nonsense!

It is not the biggest load of rubbish—I know what my source is. [Interjections.]

In this alarming situation boycotters are in control elsewhere in South Africa. I hear they are in fact in control in Randfontein. We will not allow ourselves to be terrorised by the hon the Minister’s big mouth and not attack him on this point. I shall tell the hon the Minister confidentially where I heard these facts.

[Inaudible.]

Today the CP wants to express support for the policemen. In some Black residential areas Black policemen have been driven out of their homes. Hundreds of them are living in tents and other temporary dwelling units. Policemen are being insulted, assaulted and murdered. We demand that policemen no longer be subjected to such humiliation. We demand that policemen be equipped with proper weapons to defend themselves and when they are in danger of being murdered they are not only equipped with rubber bullets and bird-shot.

A very clear indication that the Government is losing control is the fact that vigilante groups are being established in the country. In Natal the Zulu organisation Inkatha restored law and order. Even parents’ associations are restoring law and order. I hear that even thousands of members of the AWB are forming homeguards. The reason for this is that the Government is not maintaining law and order.

I hear that President Mangope of Bophuthatswana recently told someone that he wanted to appoint a Minister of the Navy. The South African asked him how he could do that seeing that his country did not have a coastline. President Mangope replied: “But you have a Minister of Law and Order!” [Interjections.]

This brings me to the hon the Minister of Defence. He is so powerless that he cannot even prevent his own colleagues in the Cabinet from gadding about, going on hunting trips and attending NP meetings in Army helicopters at Government expense. That hon Minister has degenerated into one who deals in threats. We have lost count of the number of times he has threatened to take action against the ANC. I have yet another example here, in the form of banner headlines in a newspaper: “Suid-Afrika gaan die ANC nou terugslaan—Magnus Malan”. Powerless (Magteloos) Malan. Today he again issued threats here. He has issued threats so often now—we do not even know how many times he has done so. Now I am warning him and the Government that a government which does not protect its people becomes jointly responsible for the consequences of its neglect. It is no wonder that hon Minister’s name has been changed from Magnus Malan to Powerless (Magteloos) Malan. We accuse him …

Order! Hon members in the House may not be given nicknames. The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw the nickname.

In conclusion I want to point out that a government which cannot assure the security of its country’s inhabitants must transfer that task to another government. Consequently this Government must do the honourable thing and resign in the interests of the security in South Africa.

The Government expects the Whites to be swallowed up in a multiracial nationhood. That is what they expect of us, namely eventually to accept a Black majority government. The reply of the conservatives to that is very clear. In the words of Sir Winston Churchill, who won a name for himself during the Second World War, we say: “Never give in! Never! Never! Never!”