announced that the State President had assented to the following Bills:

1. (i) Carriage of Goods by Sea Bill—Act No 1 of 1986;
2. (ii) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships Bill—Act No 2 of 1986;
3. (iii) Universities and Technikons for Blacks, Tertiary Education (Education and Training) and Education and Training Amendment Bill—Act No 3 of 1986;
4. (iv) Convention on Agency in the International Sale of Goods Bill—Act No 4 of 1986;
5. (v) Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Amendment Bill—Act No 5 of 1986;
6. (vi) Part Appropriation Bill—Act No 6 of 1986.

announced that in terms of Rule 23(4) he had referred the following draft Bill which had been submitted to him, together with the memorandum thereon, to the Standing Committee on Private Members’ Draft Bills:

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, once again we have reached the end of the debate on the Transport Services Appropriation Bill, and once again the hon the Minister has succeeded in his skilful egg-dance. He has not really answered any questions that we have put to him. The three themes which we chose for our amendment were firstly deregulation, secondly privatisation, and thirdly the question of apartheid in the SA Transport Services.

I cannot honestly say that I believe that anything has been achieved by the debate, and that, Sir, I believe, is sad for Parliament.

You are just like Van Zyl Slabbert! [Interjections.]

We have been fobbed off with answers such as—and I quote the hon the Minister’s words—“Who built the road from Cape Town to New Orleans?”

Well, it is a very good road. You have probably never seen it!

Now, Mr Speaker, the question I posed was indeed a very good question. The answer given by the hon the Minister, however, honestly represents a fobbing-off. It was not a genuine answer, Sir. It was a mere fobbing-off. It is answers such as this which cause problems, Sir. I believe hon members on this side of the House have sought to suggest positive solutions, and that in general their contributions have been thoughtful.

Nobody in South Africa believes, Mr Speaker, that the SA Transport Services’ tariff increases are not inflationary. They are! We pay through the nose for a State transport system run by the public sector. Administered prices—and that includes the SA Transport Services—are the major factor in our staggering inflation rate.

We are a country dedicated to privatisation, apparently. We even have an hon Minister whose responsibility it is. One of the national goals in our Constitution is to encourage private initiative and competition. I honestly do not believe that this hon Minister is doing anything about it at all. He believes it is a marvellous set of words, as long as the SA Transport Services are allowed to continue as a State monopoly which stifles free enterprise and competition.

As I pointed out during the Committee Stage, even the Director General of the SA Transport Services, Mr Adriaan Eksteen, has seen fit to launch into print to appeal to the SA Transport Services to stop their disruption through the legal process of preventing competition in respect of road sector business. Even Adriaan Eksteen has done that.

I do not really believe that the hon the Minister knows what “privatise” means. In his Second Reading reply speech he actually said that allowing the SATS buses and private enterprise buses to compete on bus routes was privatisation. To privatise means to transfer something that has been done by the State to the private sector, not then to allow the State to continue to compete.

When one looks at the bus services that have been introduced there is a very excellent private sector bus service between Durban and Johannesburg. Why are there not similar bus services in the rest of the country? I want to appeal to the hon the Minister about Port Elizabeth. It takes more than 33 hours to travel from Port Elizabeth to Cape Town by train. That is what the train service from Port Elizabeth to Cape Town is like. If one wants to fly, paying the new tariffs, it costs one a small fortune. We need a reasonable service from Port Elizabeth to Cape Town, and to East London. I know it is the objective of the Government to give licences to do this, but when is it going to happen? Do hon members know that it costs R45 to travel from Durban to Johannesburg on one of the private sector luxury buses? One travels in air-conditioned comfort and can watch video shows while travelling. That is one third of the cost of a ticket of SAA. I believe the same thing could be done from Port Elizabeth to Cape Town. For one third of the Airways’ ticket we could travel from Port Elizabeth to Cape Town in air-conditioned comfort with videos, and I appeal to the hon the Minister to see that that sort of bus service is allowed to happen with permits being given as soon as possible.

The hon the Minister is only paying lip service to the word “privatisation”. I have no doubt that there are aspects of the SATS that can be privatised. What are we doing to identify those aspects? What is the hon the Minister doing to identify them? It is no good asking the SATS to do it. They have an empire that they will defend tooth and nail. They have private interests and vested interests to protect.

What we need is an investigation done by persons appointed by the hon the Minister to make recommendations as to what aspects can be privatised. I do not expect him to accept it when I suggest that the pipeline or the SAA should be privatised, but if he appointed a body of experts to advise him on this subject, I believe he could get some realistic answers. He could then go ahead with the implementation.

My second point this afternoon relates to the racial employment practices issue. This is also a leg of our amendment. We know that about R106 million is to be saved this year because of the appreciation of the rand and the reduction of the petrol price. We know that the hon the Minister will not reduce fares. I therefore want to suggest that he implements phase 3 of the racial equality programme now. There is the money to do it and according to the document of the SATS the total additional expenditure on phase 3 will amount to R93 million. There will therefore even be change left over from the R106 million if phase 3 is implemented now. I believe this is a wonderful opportunity for the hon the Minister to put right a wrong. The money is available to implement it and I call on him to do it this year.

Phase 3 would mean total salary parity for all grades of non-Whites with their White counterparts. That will cost R60 million. It will mean more equality in annuities and cash commutations for the SATS employees. I call on the hon the Minister to do it now.

Finally, I want to suggest that phase 2 was missed last year. It should have happened last year but it is only happening this year. Why cannot phase 2 and phase 3 be introduced together?

I want now to turn to Port Elizabeth. When one looks at the commuters in Port Elizabeth one sees that they are at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the country. In the Vaal Triangle we spent R290 million subsidising rail commuters; in Cape Town, R143 million; in Durban, R125 million; and in Port Elizabeth, only R9 million. That means we do not have a commuter service worth calling by that name. The need for the service does exist. We need to have a line to the northern areas; in other words, to New Brighton, kwaZekele, Zwide, and the Coloured areas through to Bethalsdorp. We also need a commuter service to the fast-developing Motherwell area. For that area, Sir, not even a line is necessary. There is a line going very close to Motherwell, anyway. All we need is a feeder bus service.

Khayelitsha is having a brand-new railway line built at enormous expense—and I welcome that. Why, however, does Port Elizabeth continually have to be so disadvantaged compared with the rest of the country? The hon the Minister has the opportunity to put this right, and I call on him to do so.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central told us that they had a three-pronged attack on privatisation, on apartheid, which is ostensibly still being applied, particularly when it comes to the appointment of employees, and one other matter. [Interjections.]

Consequently in this Third Reading the hon member again created the impression that the SATS must be totally dismantled again by the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs—he is now also the Minister of Transport. We on this side of the House are not opposed to proper competition taking place in South Africa, as regards the transport market. We are not at all opposed to that.

But there is one aspect which the hon member must bear in mind. I must point out to him again, although this has been pointed out to him repeatedly, that the SATS is also at a tremendous disadvantage. They must provide their own infrastructure and are consequently also responsible for their tremendous number of socio-economic services. No one else supplies these services. The Transport Services must supply them.

The hon member is repeating the parrot call of privatisation.

Are you saying privatisation is a parrot call?

Yes, I do say it is a parrot call. [Interjections.]

Do you believe in it?

No.

Is the Minister nothing more than a parrot?

The hon member knows about the National Transport Policy Study. Moreover, the hon the Minister pointed out to him in this debate that sooner or later we are going to have a clear-cut policy as regards the respective fields of operation of the private sector and the SATS. However, the SATS have already stated quite clearly the conditions under which they would be prepared to accept privatisation.

*I do not know why the hon member is balking at that.

Who is in control of it?

Why must the hon member balk against the fact that the private haulier is also making a better contribution to the infrastructure in this way—as the SATS is doing—and that in this way the SATS will not be responsible on its own for the socio-economic services which it supplies. If this were to happen—if there were only proper compensation for the socioeconomic services of the SATS—then the SATS would not have a loss. In such a situation it would quite possibly not be necessary to increase tariffs either. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central will get a chance to state his opinion. This side of the House is not opposed to privatisation. As a matter of fact, I think there are few institutions in South Africa which do as much for the private sector as the SA Transport Services does. How many of the contracts of the SATS, how much of its capital expenditure in respect of the building of carriages, etc, does not go to the private sector? How many of our engineers and people in the building industry have not in fact been harmed by the fact that this year the capital expenditure of the SATS will be lower than last year? To whom is that money going? Is it all going to the SATS? The hon member ought to know that it is going to the private sector. Who is the private sector? The private sector is after all the clients of the SATS. Why would they want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?

It is very easy to say: “Privatise, privatise”, but when the hon the Minister asked the hon member to give examples of what should still be done, the hon member sat there tongue-tied. Then he had nothing to say. That is why I say that the hon member’s constant exhortation to introduce privatisation is merely a parrot call.

Another allegation which the hon member made was that too much apartheid was still being applied when people were appointed. I do not want to refer the hon member to the general manager’s report, because it appears in this document. In his latest report the General Manager wrote that the process in terms of which Coloureds, Indians and Blacks were being appointed to posts which were previously filled by Whites, continued during the year. The hon member is now asking that we implement phase 3 of the five phases at once. But the hon member knows just as well as I do that this 5 phase procedure was not only agreed to by the management of the SATS, but that it was to take place with the concurrence of all the trade unions.

Do you believe that the trade unions would not agree to the third phase now?

I am certain that everybody would appreciate it if we could complete the whole five-phase scheme now. The hon member is, however, against the raising of tariffs and fares.

*The SATS cannot implement this scheme without bearing the economic situation in mind and doing so by easy stages. I want to refer the hon member again to the booklet on staff information which I have in front of me. Here the entire situation is set out beautifully and neatly.

There is still discrimination.

The booklet explains how SATS is looking after all its employees and bringing about parity between Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians, on condition that they have the same training and responsibility and do the same work.

Is there discrimination now?

Of course there is. We have acknowledged that it is there and that the SATS wants to move away from it and gradually implement a policy of complete parity in every respect. The hon member knows that is so.

I say speed it up.

We have admitted that it will cost something like R400 million over a period of years.

R389 million.

The figure I gave was near enough.

He knows that.

Yes, he knows it. We accept that this will be done and that we are committed to this. The trade unions accept it because they accept the bona fides of the hon the Minister and the management. What more do the hon members of the Official Opposition want? If he had said that he was totally opposed to it, he would have had an argument. But one cannot get blood out of a stone if the economic situation is such that this cannot be done. I hope the hon member will be satisfied with this.

In this debate we were also told that the SATS must not play such a philanthropic role on the subcontinent of Africa, but that we must catch the states agitating against us by their throats. This is what the hon member for Sasolburg said, and I should like to say a few things about this.

In spite of the boycotts others are applying against us and in spite of all the attacks against our country, it has always been the accepted policy of the country that we would not boycott others and that we would not apply sanctions against others. It is and always has been our approach that we would not interfere in the domestic policies of other countries, even if we did not agree with them, because there were spheres of common interest in which we could co-operate.

Our transport services form a very important link with countries near us and to the north of us. This is two-way traffic which has not been detrimental to us yet. This merely confirms the principle of interdependence.

Important exports of our neighbouring states are transported by us and exported through our harbours. But we are paid for this. The trucks and locomotives are also rented out and we make a considerable profit on this. I have here, for example, a report which appeared in the Sunday Times in June last year. It says the following: “Transport diplomacy wins African friends”.

I really cannot see how we can do ourselves an injury by doing this. I cannot see how one can say that we must catch these people by their throats, that we must bring pressure to bear on them, and that we ostensibly no longer want to make use of those services.

I believe that there has been no change in our attitude that the Republic will remain a strong regional power. Other countries are dependent on us for their survival and growth. That is why we want to continue with our approach of being of service to those people who are near to us. If the hon member wants to single out countries why is he only singling out countries around us? After all there are many other countries in the world which discriminate against us for politico-ideological reasons.

The SAA is constantly concluding contracts with other airways. We supply a service for those people, and this is a wonderful example of how we co-operate with other countries. That is why I say it would be an evil day if we were to play into the hands of our enemies, and were to participate in those very boycotts and sanctions. I think the SATS is doing the right thing.

Mr Speaker, the opportunity now presents itself to consider among other things, the effect this budget is going to have. Listening to the comments on the budget it seems to me that the effect of the January 1986 increases is not being taken into consideration. I am referring specifically to goods traffic, in regard to which the expected revenue for the 1986-87 financial year is estimated at R3 267,7 million, as opposed to the R2 676,5 million of the preceding financial year.

Taking the 2,5% traffic increase into consideration these figures indicate an increase of nearly 20% in the goods traffic account of the railway user. The goods traffic account of the railway user will therefore show an increase of almost 20%. I think that this would be a source of concern to any businessman or industrialist as well as for the farmer. The price increases for agricultural products are not available to us now but the production costs and the means of production are in any case all affected by the increase in goods tariffs and this will inevitably have a deleterious effect on agriculture too.

I think this state of affairs is partly due to the matter which I discussed in the Second Reading debate. The matter I discussed was that of the burden incurred over a certain period a year which is always carried over from one year to the next. It is a situation in which losses are not dealt with; they are simply handed on and on. That is why SATS is to a large extent contributing to further increases in the consumer prices and the accompanying inflation rate. I do not think our country can afford to have this situation in the SA Transport Services while attempts are being made to curb the rising inflation rate.

I want to discuss another matter. The hon the Minister replied as follows after I had referred in the Second Reading debate to letters which I had received:

The factual situation is that I had far more letters than that, but I referred to two letters. The hon the Minister then went on to say:

That is correct. I said that Whites were being discriminated against. I am now going to read more extensively from these letters so that the contents can be included in Hansard. The hon the Minister said that he would like to have those letters …

Yes.

The hon the Minister said that he would like to have those letters because the management said they knew nothing about them. I am not prepared to jeopardise the careers of people in the service of the SA Transport Services by giving the hon the Minister confidential information that I acquired because I have already had to deal with a situation in which a person who had a discussion with me was called in the next day, certain allegations were made about him and a game of bluff was played against him.

It was not I. [Interjections.]

The first letter from which I want to quote comes from the SATS office. In the top left-hand corner the words “SAR PRINT” appeared. I therefore assume that this letter was processed in the office.

What was the date of the letter?

I have the date here as well. It was in 1986, but for reasons of which I am aware, I am not giving the exact day because one can check how many letters went out on the same day. The hon the Minister can take it from me that the letter was not sent from his office but rather from the office of one of his most senior officials in the SATS. He can also accept that it was sent in 1986.

Where did you get the letter?

The letter was handed to me. The point that I want to make to the hon member for Swellendam is that I am not able to divulge the name of the person because of the intimidation that took place before.

The person with whom this letter is concerned has been in the service of SATS for a number of years. I do not want to read everything but in the letter it is explained to him that as a result of the recession in the economy the SATS finds itself in the unenviable position that certain members of its personnel can no longer be used. Furthermore, it is stated that the person’s services can no longer be used. I quote:

Was that because he was a CP supporter?

Yes, that is probably what happened.

It is wonderful how certain people … Perhaps it would be better if I said nothing more, otherwise I might use unparliamentary language. I quote further:

At the end of the letter he is told that he must indicate in writing within 14 days upon receipt of the letter whether he chooses to accept the abovementioned conditions. In other words he is faced with the choice of either walking out on 1 May 1986, or SATS will appoint him to another position but, with an accompanying change in grade and reduction in wage.

Who signed that letter?

I told the representative of the hon the Minister from whose office this letter originated. I told him on the day the hon the Minister delivered his budget speech and when people kept on ’phoning me in utter dismay until after ten o’clock that night. But if the hon the Minister wants me to expose the official concerned by divulging his name then I shall do it. I should not like to do this at all because the official concerned is only acting upon the orders of the hon the Minister and of the Government.

On my orders?

Yes, of course! Is the hon the Minister not governing? [Interjections.]

Hendrik, who is the Minister then?

Yes, who is the Minister now?

Or was it perhaps the Rev Allan Hendrickse who wrote the letter? [Interjections.]

Sir, I have another letter in my possession as well. This letter also originates from the same office and was written during the same month as the previous letter—February 1986.

Sheer blackmail!

This letter reads inter alia as follows:

The writer of the letter goes on to say that when employees become redundant for one reason or another and when no provision can be made for their continued service in a position of equal grade, such employees may be appointed to other positions, but in the same geographical area. The White man does not even have the assurance that he will not be transferred when he accepts that inferior job. The Coloured, Indian and Black worker, however, receives the categorical assurance that he will be able to remain in the same geographical area and—yes, now hon members must listen carefully—with retention of their official designation, salary and annual pay increase. With retention of their official designation, salary and annual increase, Sir! There is absolutely no question here of “take it or leave it”. There is absolutely no question here of “either you accept the inferior job or you leave on 1 May 1986”. No, these people can stay on in another position, in the same geographical area and with retention of their official designation, salary and their annual increase.

Yes, that is Hendrik’s railways for you!

Very well, Sir.

Hendrik, do you approve of that?

He also says…

I do not believe that letter in any case! [Interjections.]

He also says…

Will you resign if it is true? Will you return your cheque …

The hon the Minister must be very careful now. I do not want to threaten him but I think he must not say too much about this matter. [Interjections.] I could mention further examples to the hon the Minister, but because my time is limited, I shall proceed.

Hear, hear!

The hon member can say “hear, hear!” because this letter hurts. The hon members sit at the back there as part of a gang of hired applauders and are not interested in the Whites of South Africa at all. They have become intercessors for the Blacks. [Interjections.] The hon members in the NP have become the real “kaffirboeties” of 1986.

I shall continue to deal with the letter. The applicable bonus percentages, according to the bonus scales, based on the increased salary, are therefore going to be paid. For the non-White employee therefore, his applicable bonus percentage according to the bonus scales based on the increased salary, is what is being paid to him.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it decent Parliamentary language to use the word “kafferboetie”?

The Nats did not mind!

I do not think so. I have been considering that but I was not certain in what context he was using the word. The hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, unfortunately my time has almost expired because there is an arrangement amongst the Whips that I may not use the full 15 minutes. I shall therefore content myself by telling the hon the Minister that there are also other letters from another office—after all, the hon the Minister said he did not believe it—in which employees are at least being given fairer treatment than this man. I am pleased about that.

There is the case of a man earning a salary of R13 800 whose services are also no longer required. At least he has been offered a choice. A whole list of possible positions were presented to him. What is very interesting, though, is that this man, who is earning R13 800 in his present position is also presented with a choice of accepting other positions but the possible salary ranges from R8 000 and R12 000. It is his choice.

It is discrimination against the Whites!

Mr Speaker, the hon member for De Aar attempted to create intrigue concerning the letters he supposedly had in his possession. He wishes to pose as the great champion of the Whites here but the emotion and the way in which the hon member handled it does not make it worthwhile to pay it any attention. The NP has always cared for the interests of the White and all the other people in South Africa as well and will continue to do so in future. [Interjections.] We are a responsible Government and shall serve the interests of all in this country; it is in the interest of South Africa that we do this. Time does not permit me to reply to the hon member for De Aar in more detail.

I should like to raise a point which I was unable to do in the Second Reading debate owing to lack of time. I wish to refer to the SA Airways again. A number of hon members on this side and on the other side of the House referred to SAA and privatisation and deregulation were raised regularly. I think the hon member for De Kuilen put the entire matter of privatisation very clearly and I do not wish to go into this.

The other day I put the point briefly and the hon the Minister has already reacted to it so positively that I wish to thank him for this. I now wish to take the point a little further to indicate to the hon the Minister that we did not merely make haphazard statements and appeals in the past.

I was closely involved with aviation in our country for 28 years and I think I can speak authoritatively on it. It is a fact that at this stage second-level aviation has a very slight chance of survival in our country. I wish to put it very clearly this afternoon that SAA has to remain our national haulier. I am not saying it should be privatised—this is not what I want.

We should also be careful as regards deregulation. In the USA deregulation did not prove to be the answer to all aviation problems. What I am appealing for—this is also a point for further debate—is that deregulation should take place to the degree recommended by the Margo Commission and as accepted by the Government in its White Paper. I think deregulation can gain momentum in this way in future.

We should merely guard against excessive protection of our national haulier. If this were to persist, we would deal our second-level aviation an irreversible blow. I appeal today for a greater degree of co-operation between SA Airways and our private hauliers. In saying this, I immediately wish to add that existing understanding and co-operation is very sound; in fact, it is very good but I believe it is not altogether adequate.

As regards the quality of their service, rates and air safety, private hauliers in our country can furnish the public with excellent service. They can also assist SA Airways considerably as regards higher-density passenger numbers so that it may become altogether unnecessary for SA Airways to carry lower-density traffic and in consequence incur losses.

I therefore wish to appeal to the Minister to launch a thorough investigation into the cost effectiveness of certain routes served by SA Airways and to ensure that our international service does not subsidise its domestic counterpart. If that were the case, we would be doing our private hauliers a great disservice and this could have disastrous consequences for our entire aviation industry.

We should always bear in mind too that our second-level aviation in this country contributes endlessly—from own funds—to the creation of infrastructure especially in country districts as well as making people more aware of flying and training pilots in the ab initio stage. On examining the costs of pilot training today, it appears almost impossible to the man in the street to finance his own advanced flying training. These people therefore provide an important and essential service in this way as well.

I hope the hon the Minister will accept my plea in the spirit in which it is addressed and that he will pay active attention to this situation.

Mr Speaker, I cannot quite agree with the hon member for Kroonstad. I believe much more should be done to give private airlines a greater opportunity of participating in the transport of passengers. This can be done in competition with our national airline. I want to return to that, because I want to relate it to other aspects.

†In dealing with the question of privatisation, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central also touched on the question of buses. They tie in with the position of the private airlines and I support the hon member’s plea for a thorough investigation into this whole matter. I believe that the term of the De Villiers Commission has been extended and that the hon the Minister will not receive the report until about the end of May.

The information I have received to date, however, indicates that 90% of Mr De Villiers’ consultations have been with senior staff of the SATS and that he has not sought to gain the views of outside organisations on a major scale. He may well have gathered such evidence here and there. However, I am told that he has not been gathering evidence from the general public or from the trade itself—from transport organisations. So far, he has apparently based his analysis by and large on the views of the SATS itself. If that is so I think it is wrong. If my information is incorrect, then I welcome the fact, it is no use, however, having an investigation which is simply going to bolster the views of the hon the Minister’s own organisation. We want to hear the views of other organisations as well.

This also relates to bus services. The hon member appealed for a bus service from Port Elizabeth. Just in passing he asked for buses that are equipped with video machines. I assume that the purpose of video machines is to keep people from watching the scenery on the Garden Route, in case the scenery distracted them. I would suggest that the Garden Route itself is sufficient attraction. [Interjections.]

What I wanted to draw attention to is that on the Durban-Johannesburg route one carrier has just carried its 50 000th passenger. The private enterprise bus service is not only a huge success but it is also making profits. It is popular, it has reduced its travelling time from some nine hours to 7½ hours, and it is working. Yet the SATS works at a loss. They used two special trains on the Johannesburg-Durban route on a trial basis and that special service lost them money. Yet they could hire out the train to a private organisation which would not only pay to hire the train but could also bring passengers to their destinations at a nominal fee and still make a profit.

There must be something wrong in the SATS if it is possible to make those profits through private enterprise. Why is it that another firm that does not enjoy any of the benefits that the SATS enjoy such as tax benefits is able to make a profit nevertheless, while the SATS show losses on those services? I believe that this is something that should be investigated very carefully as far as both air traffic and road transport are concerned. I can understand that the Airways do not want to run uneconomic services. I am dealing with Durban because it has always been the Cinderella airport, judging from the volume of traffic flying in and out. There are no longer any direct flights between Durban and Cape Town, either way, whereas there used to be as many as three flights on certain days. This makes a tremendous difference which is aggravated by the fact that many one-stop flights are now two-stop flights. Travelling from Durban to Cape Town now takes three hours and 35 minutes. This is hopeless for a businessman wanting to fly to Cape Town and back on the same day, as one can from Cape Town to Johannesburg. One can fly to Johannesburg, do a day’s business and come back. If a journey takes three and a half hours each way, seven hours of one’s working day is wasted. The earliest flight is at 07h00, arriving at 10h30. The morning has almost gone by the time one gets into town.

If the SAA cannot make a profit on that route, why do they not allow private air companies to compete? According to the latest time-table, there is a period of five hours during which there is no flight between Durban and Cape Town. Let the private companies offer flights during that time. If they do not make a profit, then I shall not blame the SAA for not making one. If, however, private enterprise can make a profit, something must be wrong.

Durban has always been the Cinderella, even with regard to the telephone exchange which was removed from Uitenhage when it became obsolete and then installed in Durban as a “modern exchange.” The exchange was removed from where it was considered obsolete and installed in Durban where it is now apparently modern and satisfactory. That is the sort of service Durban gets.

Is this true?

Yes, it is true. Not only is it inconvenient to passengers but there does not seem to be much concern for the welfare of passengers these days. All sorts of services have been taken from them. One can take the Rotunda in Johannesburg as an example. They have closed the catering service, but they have given a private caterer a concession—without tender—in a building two or three blocks away. Trays of foods are sent down and travellers as well as the staff of the Rotunda go out and queue up to buy from this private caterer because there is no service provided in that Rotunda. They could let that to private enterprise if they cannot run it at a profit. Unfortunately I do not have time to give other examples. However, there is a saying that if one looks after the pennies, the pounds will look after themselves.

I have a whole series of items which I cannot go through in detail, but losses on uncollected fares on the commuter services must run into millions of rand. We have heard no more of the barrier system, but somehow we should be gathering that revenue which is due to the SATS but which it cannot collect. When one looks at South West Africa one can see what a little efficiency does. They have cut their losses from R80 million to R40 million in one year, and the hon the Minister says it is because they do not have to pay interest on their assets. However, the assets are R144 million and 10% or 12% of that is R14 or R15 million. Where does the other R36 million come from? The hon the Minister just shrugs his shoulders airily and says: “That is interest,” but the interest is not a quarter of the savings in one year from a loss of R80 million to R40 million. This loss is still being subsidised by SATS. So I could continue, but I want to deal with our service to neighbouring states.

I want to say that I disagree with the hon member for Sasolburg’s approach. However, I do believe we should make better use of and protect our investments in the neighbouring states. It seems that it is a one way deal in which there is all give and no take. I also believe we should upgrade the level of contact. At the moment an Assistant General Manager goes there almost every month but I believe contact should take place on ministerial level so that there would be a quid pro quo. My time has run out and I will not be able to take the matter any further.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Durban Point always makes a positive contribution to these SATS debates. [Interjections.] I must say, as a member from the Durban area, that I agree with him—and I want to say this to the hon the Minister—that to have to take a flight to Durban with two stops on the way is a bit too much. Three hours and a half on an aircraft is no fun at all! [Interjections.] I prefer the direct flights which are under two hours and I ask the hon the Minister to try to do something about it. [Interjections.]

The hon member made some other good points. I agree with him, for example, that Mr De Villiers should take cognisance of outside opinion as far as transport is concerned, and I sincerely hope that the hon the Minister will take note of that.

We are nearing the end of this debate. I listened very carefully to the debate Second Reading and also to much of the debate during the Committee Stage. This is my twelfth year of participation in these debates and I regret to say that I detect a rather ominous trend that is developing within the ranks of the two major opposition parties and also on the part of the lone HNP member for Sasolburg. In my opinion it is a trend which if it is not checked will cause serious harm not only to South Africa but also to the SATS and certainly to the employees of the SATS.

The SATS is South Africa’s largest single undertaking, with over 228 000 employees and an annual budget approaching R9,5 billion per annum. When one looks at the SATS with its vast rail, road, and air networks, at its various modern and efficient harbours, at its great pipeline network, and at the personnel and their dedication and their record of competent service over many years, I believe that one can indeed, as a South African, be truly proud of the SATS.

However, at the same time let us make no bones about it, one must also recognise the fact that the personnel of the SATS have been very, very well looked after. Their conditions of service today are excellent. Their fringe benefits, such as their housing allowances, are envied by many in the private sector. In this regard I agree with the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. [Interjections.] I mention this not as a criticism but rather as a word of caution and also as a reminder that in these difficult times it would be wise not only for the employees of the SATS but also for all of us here, especially in this House, to count our blessings and to reflect for a moment on the past difficult times of the SATS, especially the difficult times which many less fortunate South Africans than ourselves are experiencing at this particular time.

Having said this, I believe that we who sit in this House at a time, as I have said, when great responsibilities have been placed on our shoulders, at such a time I believe we must recognise the danger which is presented by the mischief which both the PFP and the CP—and also to a far lesser degree as far as numbers are concerned but no less vehemently by the hon member for Sasolburg—have been causing in this particular debate, mischief which, if allowed to go unchecked can, as I have said, cause great harm to South Africa, to the SATS and to the employees of the SATS.

I accuse both of those major opposition parties of using the SATS as a political football, simply in order to try to achieve their own radical political objectives, rather than using this debate as a forum for improving transportation in general in South Africa and for the betterment of the peoples of South Africa. The PFP has used this debate to try to force the policy of integration down the throats of the people of South Africa. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said again this afternoon that he was calling for the immediate phasing in of the parity programme.

Of phase three.

Phase three? Someone over there said the whole programme, Sir. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central also objects to the increased tariffs. Yet, Sir, he is quite happy to suggest the phasing in of this programme even if it will place yet another R389 million on Transport Services’ operating costs.

On the other hand the hon members of the Conservative Party have used this debate as a vehicle to try to herd the employees of the SATS into their political camp. In so doing they have used the fear tactics of blatant racism, as the hon member for Sasolburg has also done. In relation to the use of the word “kafferboetie”, Sir, all I should like to say is that I do not believe it should be part of the vocabulary of a member of Parliament. [Interjections.] That is my personal view, Sir. [Interjections.] This is a dangerous game, Sir …

[Inaudible.]

I do not mind who said it. I say to the hon member for De Aar—and I say it as a National Party member—that the use of the word “kaffir” or “kafferboetie” should not be resorted to by a member of Parliament. [Interjections.] This is a dangerous game which both those parties are playing—dangerous not only in the sense that it can exacerbate existing racial tensions in South Africa but also because it can possibly result in serious economic damage being done, not only to the SATS but to South Africa as a whole. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I can refer to a similar experience in our history, in the year 1922, when similar forces were pitted against each other in the mining industry. We all know what was the outcome of that sad and unhappy episode in our history.

South Africa is going through a major period of change, Sir. Major political change is taking place, as well as major social change and also major economic change. Transportation in South Africa is an important and vital component of our economy. This I believe we all must accept. However, it has been argued that transportation with its ever-rising costs is becoming an economic burden upon our economy. I know the hon the Minister accepts this. We have heard much about these matters in this debate and I do not intend to go into the subject further than just mentioning it. All these problems have to be addressed. To try to avoid or ignore them is no longer an option open to us.

This fact, I submit, has to a degree already been acknowledged by the hon the Minister. He has appointed the De Villiers Committee to look into this matter. We also know that other study groups are looking into the entire transportation set-up in South Africa. We have to search for a solution to these problems, and this can best be done in an atmosphere of stability and calm and not in the atmosphere of the rabble-rousing which we have heard from some hon members in this debate during the past few days. The answer to these problems lies in facing up to certain basic economic realities, to consider the various options available and then to rationalise services in the correct manner. We must face the reality that the role of rail transportation has changed radically since the advent of heavy-duty road vehicles and privately owned motor-cars. We must face the reality that with our very mobile population and with our modern and sophisticated industrial and commercial sectors, transportation today of both goods and people has got to be economic, it has got to be efficient and speedy and, probably ever-increasingly, it has got to be flexible.

Other nations such as the United States, the UK and other European nations have had to face these problems and these realities with drastic results to existing systems and services. It was not easy for them at the best of times. Fortunately, however, they did not have the complicated factors of a multi-ethnic and multinational society as we have here in South Africa. Ours is therefore a far greater task than theirs, and it therefore behoves all of us in this hon Chamber to act in a manner which does not exacerbate the problems we are facing.

One can recall a period of great rationalisation of the rail services of North America and Europe. Many uneconomic branch lines were closed down because of economic necessity. It is all very well to argue—as has been argued—that such closures will adversely affect some towns and villages but the question which has to be asked is: Can the nation afford to subsidise such uneconomic services?

I believe the hon the Minister and his management have taken major steps in this regard. He has done this in the interests of the economy, and I believe we should all support him. He has already closed down uneconomic lines and services.

Sishen-Saldanha is still there!

He has reduced his staff complement by some 53 000 employees. I want to tell him to keep this up. I was also pleased to see that his capital expenditure has been cut back in the Budget. With a capital investment standing at the present time at over R16 billion I believe there should be a greater emphasis on the utilisation of existing assets, especially in these times when a serious capital squeeze is being exerted on South Africa. I believe that these are positive actions and that the SATS and its employees should be congratulated.

On the other hand I believe they should also be informed of what their counterparts in other parts of the world had to go through when their transport industries had to change to keep up with modem times. I would therefore like to go back to the magazine Time of 30 March 1981 which I found in my files. One of the articles had the headline: “Rumbling towards Ruin. America’s mass transit is a shambles, and no help is in sight”.

This article tells of motorcars piled up for ten miles or more because of the density of the traffic because the transit operations and commuter services had broken down. There was a variety of reasons for this—strikes, a lack of money to pay workers or because the equipment was outdated and incapable of operating efficiently. I would like to quote from this article. It states:

Mr Speaker, I am merely a farmer so I have to look up the word “pusillanimous.” It means “lacking in courage and strength of mind; fainthearted; mean-spirited; cowardly.” How many pusillanimous politicians do we have sitting in this House when that hon Minister increases the fares in order to prevent the SATS from going down the drain? [Interjections.]

The second point, and I quote:

That was the second point. The third and final point was, and I quote:

I think we can learn from that, although it happened in the USA five years ago.

Now let us look at an article about Eastern Air Lines in Time of February 3, 1986. The article says, and I quote:

That was in the article in Time of February 3. The article goes on to say that the airline’s union had accepted this because it realised that high labour costs, lack of efficiency and lack of competitiveness was forcing the company into bankruptcy.

I believe, therefore, that we have to take cognisance of what has happened elsewhere in the world. As the SATS adjust themselves to these new demands and challenges, I believe we should encourage them. Certainly we should always be critical, but we should also always be positive. We should definitely not be destructive, and we should not resort to party-political quibbling over racial matters such as we have seen taking place in this debate in the past few days.

It is because of what the SATS have achieved in reducing their labour force, in cutting back on capital and in economising in other ways that I have pleasure in supporting the hon the Minister with this particular Bill today.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Amanzimtoti referred to the welfare of the personnel of the SATS and to all the benefits they receive. Permit me to tell the hon the Minister on his behalf that when he has his meeting on Monday next and he gives them the industrial council they are seeking, that will make them the happiest group of people in South Africa.

As one who has been privileged to be a member of the Standing Committee on Transport Affairs, I am indeed grateful to the hon the Minister and to the administration for the privilege of visiting many areas of the SATS activity in various parts of South Africa. To be truthful, I am confounded by the complexity of this business. As I look forward to the 21st century which is only 14 short years ahead, I wonder how we are going to meet the needs of the years ahead, whether we have developed and considered our strategies correctly and whether we have the structures—particularly the management structures—to do justice to the needs. To my mind, the top structure above the General Manager leaves much to be desired. The burden and onus devolves too much on one man, the General Manager, together with his deputies. Although there have been many amendments since 1912 to the powers of the South African Transport Services—previously known as South African Railways and Harbours—little change, if any, has taken place in regard to the SATS board and its functions. Let us take a look at what is in the Act.

In terms of Act 65 of 1981, the South African Transport Services are empowered to do a large number of things. They control, manage, maintain and exploit railways, harbours, road transport services and air services. They exercise powers in respect of those. The SATS is administered under the control and authority of the State President. It should be remembered that the SATS falls under the State President’s control. Such control and authority shall be exercised through the hon the Minister, who in turn is to be advised by the South African Transport Services Board. The management of the South African Transport Services on the other hand shall be subject to the control of the hon the Minister and shall be carried out by the General Manager. As in any other business, the General Manager is naturally empowered to delegate.

The Act also makes provision for the SATS Board which shall consist of three commissioners appointed by the State President, together with the hon the Minister who is the chairman. One of the powers and functions of this particular board is that the hon the Minister may consult the board upon, and it shall be the duty of the board to deal with and advise the Minister upon, all matters of policy concerning the administration and working of the SATS. There are a large number of matters laid down in the Act the board should advise the Minister on, including the general policy of the SATS, any substantial alteration in the tariffs of rates and fares, the capital and working budgets which are from time to time to be submitted to Parliament, any substantial alterations in the scales of salaries or hours of employment of the employees of the SATS, any investigation of construction schemes in the public interest which include the building of new railway lines, and, most important of all, the administration of moneys which the SATS receive.

Nevertheless, two things are very clear. The SATS are administered under the control and authority of the State President and the hon the Minister is merely his agent, and is advised by the board.

What is the policy laid down which must be followed? The SATS shall be administered on business principles with due regard to the economic interests and total transport needs of the Republic. That is a totally different policy to the one that was laid down in 1912. Furthermore, the total earnings shall not be more than are sufficient to meet the necessary outlays for exploitation, capital costs and contributions to a revenue reserve.

I believe that it is absolutely impossible to administer the SATS on business principles with the organisation as is now envisaged in the Act. This top management structure is completely outdated and therefore incapable of meeting the challenges of tomorrow.

Normally the commissioners have been ex-members of Parliament who have been rewarded for services rendered. However, this does not derogate from the excellent work that many have done within the terms of reference of this Act. However, I want to say to the hon members of this House that they will probably be the first to admit that they do not have the technical or business training to cope with the hurly-burly of a modern-day organisation. In most cases, that is what has been the case, although there has been one or two exceptions.

Instead of the existing board, the board should consist of a proper board of directors with both inside and outside directors who are professionally qualified in the necessary disciplines to assist in decision-making. That should be the object of the board. In addition, they should be in a position to provide the General Manager and his top staff with professional guidance and moral support. As the Act is now constituted, it seems as if everything is submitted to them for their approval and then simply returned, and people know the answers before the board has even given them.

Consideration should be given to at least one member of the board being a representative of the employees of the SATS, preferably a trade unionist, because this would follow the German system where the trade unions have the right by law to nominate a certain number of directors to any board of a company of the size of the SATS.

Whether the SATS remain a State body, becomes a State corporation or a utility company, or is even privatised, the whole management structure should be reviewed at this moment in time. This becomes even more necessary as one looks to the future. The French poet Halevy says: “The future is not what it used to be”. That is what we should remember as we approach an urbanised South Africa with its many problems, when the SATS will be faced with more and more challenges which will require a highly developed board of directors to resolve.

For that reason I would seriously like to recommend to the hon the Minister that a firm of management consultants with overseas transport business experience be called in to help the hon the Minister to plan the strategy and the structures to meet the challenges as we enter the next century. If this suggestion is followed, never will it be said of the SATS that it is an untapped reservoir of inefficiency.

Mr Speaker, I shall refer to the speech of the hon member for Bezuidenhout later. I should first like to refer to the presence here, which the hon member for Amanzimtoti mentioned, of some people from the United State of America, Japan and Europe. Japan is a small country and its railway system enjoys the advantages of advanced technical know-how and a board of directors. Despite this, it receives a subsidy of $34 million a day from the central government.

It is a public sector business. It is not a private sector business.

That is right; one can see the losses. Whatever one calls it, a public sector company or a utility company, it is also a complete mess in the United States. According to the debate so far, the best run railways are in South Africa. I shall refer to that later.

I want to break off at this point to discuss another matter. Yesterday I treated the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North badly. I want to apologise because I was too sharp. I believe that if one slings mud, one loses ground. I admit that I was too sharp towards the hon member and I am glad to see that he is smiling again. I want to apologise for what I said.

Good show!

The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has been arguing for three days, and he came to the conclusion that he did not receive a reply concerning deregulation. I told him what we are doing about deregulation. I commissioned a national transport policy study, and we expect a report by the end of May. What more does the hon member want? The study is costing us R7 million. Everybody, including the CSIR and all the universities, was invited to give evidence.

The hon member asked about privatisation. We appointed Wim De Villiers, the third point on whose agenda is privatisation. What can we privatise?

The last of the three points which the hon member mentioned was apartheid. I said that we were going to implement parity in five stages. The first cost R63 million and the present one is costing over R71 million. Completing the programme will cost approximately R480 million.

R396 million.

Yes, but now we are granting a 10% salary increase and there might be another one of 10% to 15% next year.

But you have a smaller staff.

That is true, but the total expenditure on salaries is greater despite this because of the 10% increase.

The hon member asked us to conduct certain investigations. We are, in fact, investigating all the things he mentioned. He said that people were paying through their noses for transport in South Africa. I said that anybody may have a lorry without a permit from next year, provided he pays for the road. There will be certain regulations and rules, but we are going to abolish the permit system. However, I want to emphasise the fact that even now any agricultural product may be transported without a permit, so one need not pay through one’s nose by transporting it on the railways. At the moment we are only transporting 42% of the total. Why blame SATS only if private enterprise is doing most of the transport in South Africa? He says I give silly answers.

*The hon member said that it cost just as much to travel from Kimberley to Cape Town as from here to New Orleans by ship. All I say is this, and he can go and ask the Americans if he does not believe me: We have to build a railway line to Kimberley through the Hex River mountains. Who built that ship’s road to New Orleans? It did not cost a cent. That is why it is cheaper today. But he said I gave him a silly answer. I must use those terms so that he can understand me, but I think it is still too complicated for him.

What about phase 3? Put phase 3 into operation.

We cannot do it now.

Why not?

I cannot even use the R40 million that we are getting by saving on fuel, because we have an accumulated loss of R630 million.

Oh, he does not mind if you go bankrupt!

Now the hon member says we are paying through our noses, but he asks for a feeder service between Braelyn and Markman. Why does he come to me if he pays through his nose? He can go to private enterprise. He can have bus permits to start that feeder service he wants. Why come to me?

*Surely that is not the right thing to do. First he tears strips off me and then he asks me for a bus.

But you are good enough to be of service to them.

Yes, I do not understand it. [Interjections.]

†He asks why I do not build a railway line in his constituency, but have built one in Khayelitsha. Why should I build a railway line in his constituency? To make him pay through his nose again?

*It does not work like that. But I do not want to quarrel with the hon member.

The hon member for De Kuilen referred to our neighbouring states and replied well to the hon member for Sasolburg, who kicked up such a fuss because we were transporting freight to Zambia, Zaire, Zimbabwe and other African countries. We convey more than 6 million tons to and from these countries annually—for cash and at a profit. I agree with the hon member for De Kuilen and I want to add that if one listens to these arguments, one should not allow a ship or an aircraft to travel to Holland either. Which country in the world gives us a harder time than Holland? Not Zimbabwe or Malawi. Must we become an island, starving and stagnating without any cash? [Interjections.] The hon member for De Kuilen has practical knowledge of these things.

He is an old UP man!

He is an old UP man, but if I should be run over by a bus, he can become Minister straight away! He is a fine fellow. [Interjections.] Our neighbouring states are very important, and the hon member emphasised this.

The hon member for De Aar referred to the January increases. He added the tariff increases of 15%, 16% or 18% to the increase in traffic, and arrived at a total of 20%. But one cannot work it out like that. The increase in traffic cannot be added to the tariff increases, because it is a completely different item which has nothing to do with tariff increases. However, he lumped the two things together and arrived at a total of 20%. Perhaps sums can work out like that in De Aar, but not here in Cape Town. His calculation was quite wrong.

I took that into account, and the total increase is 20%.

It is not 20%.

The hon member also quoted from two letters, but refused to tell me who have signed the letters. [Interjections.] I cannot investigate the matter if I do not know who wrote that letter. The day after the hon member spoke, we made umpteen telephone calls to find out. That is why I am so annoyed. How can we allow the hon member to rise to his feet here today and say those ugly things to us?

What ugly things?

Must I tell you?

For years the Nationalists said that was what the Progs were.

Mr Chairman, did you hear what the hon member said? It is a word I am too ashamed to repeat. He said that we on this side of the House were “kafferboeties”. I am too ashamed to use that word. That is how we are reviled to one another in the political sphere. While we are dealing with transport matters, we drag these things in every time, blow for blow. Now I want to ask him whether it bothers him if we speak about discrimination against the Whites. According to him we are discriminating against the Whites every time. Does he want us to achieve parity in salaries? He does not answer me, but the trade unions are asking for it. The hon member talks about discrimination, but is he satisfied that if two people do the same work …

It has nothing to do with parity; it has to do with discrimination.

Very well then. We wrote and told that person he would get the same designation for his work. If he is a White person, we call him a stoker, and if he is a Black person, he says we call him a coalman. Why? A shunter is a shunter if he is a White person, but a train marshaller if he is a Black. Is that the right way to do things, Sir? [Interjections.] If one considers these things point by point, one sees that these people want to turn this matter into a political issue.

Where do the letters fit in?

For the second time, now, the hon member came forward with two letters with which he wanted to prove that we were deliberately discriminating against a White person in this organisation. [Interjections.] That is what the hon members in that party were insinuating. We were ostensibly discriminating against Whites in this organisation.

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

Sir, that hon member insults me every time.

Yes, and now I am going to do so again!

The hon member insults me; he does not have the courtesy to speak to me in a decent way! On the other hand I do not insult anyone; I merely state facts. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister will not reply to a question now.

He is discriminating against the Whites, and he knows it! Will you resign if we give you that letter? Will you resign if you see the letter?

It is strange—these people cannot oust me in an election, they want me to resign. I say they must oust me in an election!

I shall come and stand against you. [Interjections.]

Order!

What I want to tell hon members—this is the tragedy of this whole business—is that when that party left the NP, I told the other hon members that that party would soon be sitting side-by-side with the HNPs. [Interjections.] Today they are on the side of the AWBs and the Kappiekommandos. All those who hate this side of the House are together, and they are using this SATS debate and every other possible debate for their own gain. No longer is a realistic argument being conducted on the revenue and expenditure of a department. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kroonstad referred to the deregulation of the SAA, and expressed himself in favour of a greater measure of co-operation between the SAA and the private carriers. That is also what I am striving for. It is essential that we get Magnum, Comair and other similar companies to establish feeder services to the SAA main routes, because we need one another. I repeat that if we hurt the small aircraft industry in South Africa, we shall have problems in future. We need those pilots very much, particularly in times of problems and emergencies.

†The hon member for Durban Point referred to private buses. We do have private buses but the hon member must remember that the transport buses of the SATS form a very small minority of the buses in South Africa. Putco has over 3 000 buses, and there are also companies such as Blue Line and Greyhound. I wrote down a few names while the hon member was speaking. Did the hon member notice what subsidies these companies get? The hon member wants to privatise the bus service but has he noticed what subsidies these bus companies get from the central Government?

And from local authorities.

[Inaudible.]

Subsidies on buses in South Africa amount to R155 million.

No, but that is Putco, not tourist buses.

The hon member must remember that if one does not get a subsidy one cannot run these commuter services economically. It is impossible to make a profit.

The hon member for Durban Point said that there should be a direct flight from Cape Town to Durban, and the hon member for Amanzimtoti agreed. If we could have a flight that was 70% full, we could introduce such a flight. It will not show a profit but if we could have a flight that was 70% full—I am not speaking of a big aircraft; I am referring to a Boeing 737—hon members could have that direct flight. There cannot be a direct flight if there is not an occupancy of 70%. However, I should like to help hon members. [Interjections.] You can stop over at George, Port Elizabeth and East London and still make it a profitable undertaking.

With regard to the occupancy of direct flights from Cape Town to Durban and Durban to Cape Town, has the hon the Minister any recent figures in regard to the occupancies of those flights?

I can give the hon member the figures, but I maintain that it is not a profitable undertaking to run flights with an occupancy of less than 65%. As soon as the hon member brings us the passengers I will be only too glad to provide a direct flight from Durban to Cape Town.

It has also been said that private enterprise should compete. The other day I asked how South Africa with its four million passengers per year can possibly be compared with the United States of America’s more than 800 million passengers per year. How can one compare the two countries? How is it possible to privatise the airline of a small country with so few flights and so few passengers?

The hon member also referred to South-West Africa. I cannot understand that. After July South-West Africa decided not to carry any more passengers by rail but only by bus because the service was running at a complete loss. These are the facts. The previous annual loss of R80 million was recorded before the transfer of the assets. As these assets were transferred free of charge, the decrease is due to the fact that no interest and no additional depreciation was payable by them. This resulted in the loss being R41 million, of which 30% will be borne by SATS. SATS is still operating the entire service in South-West Africa. It has been said that the transport services in South-West Africa are now showing a profit, but we are still managing it for South-West Africa.

How much is the interest on R144 million?

It is not R144 million. That was the amount we sold it for.

That is the asset value, the book value.

That is the amount we sold it for.

The hon member for Amanzimtoti also referred to the situation in the United States of America and the hon member for Bezuidenhout said it was impossible to run this business on sound business principles. Why cannot we run it on sound business principles? That hon member referred to the commissioners. Those commissioners, since 1910, have mostly been political appointments. Some of the present commissioners are well educated; one of them holds a B Com degree and the other two are also very well educated. Give me the names of people to be appointed as commissioners. I say I do not want anybody other than these three commissioners, I do not want anybody else. I am completely satisfied with them. The hon member for Bezuidenhout said they must be appointed directors, that they should be directors. All right, call them directors if you like.

I mean directors in the normal sense, such as a director of a company.

Like the directors of Escom? That is the same story; there is no difference.

Like the directors of Anglo American.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout says we should privatise the SA Transport Services entirely.

I said whether it is a State corporation or whether it is a top organisation. I did not tell the hon the Minister to privatise the whole of SATS.

I have said that we cannot find anybody to take over the whole of this business together with the commuters and the passengers. I cannot find any normal person who would do that, and I have said that time and again. I cannot find any normal person to do it.

*I cannot find any normal person, a person who is right in his head, to take over the conveyance of passengers. I cannot find anyone anywhere in the world. No one is prepared to convey passengers by train at a profit, because he cannot do it.

†We are told to get overseas business consultants. We have had various such consultants and I am completely happy with the way it is being managed at the moment.

*Mr Speaker, this debate has been a revelation to me—in exactly the same way as last year’s debate was. I believe that under the management of Dr Grové and his top men and with the commissioners and the transport study group of ours—and even with those members of the opposition parties who accompanied us on the tour—great possibilities exist for the SA Transport Services. I am particularly grateful for all the productive and stimulating ideas we are able to exchange. I am delighted that the hon member for Bezuidenhout referred to this, and also expressed his thanks. I want to thank everyone who participated in this debate sincerely. It was a fruitful discussion, and I believe that in future, particularly with an exchange rate of just over 50 cents to the American dollar, we can accomplish great things.

Before I resume my seat, however, I should like to give the hon member for Langlaagte an opportunity to put the question which he wanted to put to me earlier on.

Mr Speaker, can the hon the Minister give us the assurance that apprentices of the SA Transport Services, when they have completed their apprenticeship, will in fact be given jobs? Can this year’s group all be given jobs somewhere? Have certain apprentices been notified that they must seek employment elsewhere?

Mr Speaker, I am glad the hon member is asking me that question. I am also glad that he did so in such a courteous way.

I am a courteous fellow. Are you going to give me a courteous answer?

We have made facilities for the training of apprentices available, and we are subsidising those facilities. We realised during the course of the year, while we were proceeding with their training—and some apprentices undergo training for four years—that the freight which the SA Transport Services has to carry was not increasing. There is simply no freight available. Hon members need only take a look at what is happening in Table Bay harbour. We also noticed that our losses were increasing all the time. We thereupon wrote to the apprentices and notified them that we would not hold those of them who completed their apprenticeship to their service contract. We put it to them that if they were able to find work elsewhere with the certificate which they obtained, we would welcome that. We made it clear, however, that we would try to keep them in the service of the SA Transport Services if conditions improved, but that we would also try to find work for them elsewhere. We do not want to leave those people in the lurch because they came to us in good faith. When an apprentice has completed his training, however, and we cannot find a job for him, what on earth must we do? We are now trying to establish whether we can use them somewhere, perhaps even in a different kind of work than that for which they have been trained.

The hon member for Langlaagte is of course himself a businessman. If he has finished training a person and has no work for him, is it not a good thing to tell him that work is going to be sought for him elsewhere—at Union Carriage or at General Electric or somewhere? The hon member will also agree that it is correct to put it to the apprentice concerned that if he is able to find work elsewhere himself, he will not be held to his existing contract. He must, however, receive his certificate of training. It must not be withheld from him.

Mr Speaker, on the early morning flight at 07h30 tomorrow to Durban there is a waiting list of 20 people for seats in the economy class, while there are still approximately 10 seats available in the business class. Can the hon the Minister tell us when that screen is going to be moved forward? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, no such demand exists. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister referred to the question of apprentices. One of the basic problems regards the following question, however. Why has he reduced his capital requirements from about R1,6 billion two years ago to R1,04 now? That has been the cause why so little or no work has been provided for these apprentices and for other people as well. Can the hon the Minister not increase the capital requirements of the SATS?

Mr Speaker, you see now what kind of businessman the hon member for Bezuidenhout is! We have, for instance, to invest in the building of railway carriages and trucks because we have to keep people in our employ. How can we justify that if there is not enough freight to transport?

*When the hon member for Bezuidenhout was still a director and owner of Melrose, and I was the Minister of Agriculture—when I made him rich—he did not talk such nonsense. [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

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

Mr Speaker, the debate about apartheid, I think, has shifted substantially in South Africa and I believe now consists of, if I may use the term, “three streams”. Firstly there are those who want to maintain apartheid openly and regard it as the basis of their political philosophy. Secondly there are those who wish to remove it and want a society free of discrimination based upon race or colour. Thirdly there are those who are conscious of the need to do something about apartheid but are hesitant, either because of uncertainty about the consequences of their actions, or because of old prejudices which they find difficult to overcome.

Inherent in all three approaches, however, is the problem of definition. I would ask, or if one may use the word “challenge”, the speakers of the parties who are represented in this House, including the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, to give their definitions of apartheid. There are now five parties in this House so we should get five definitions, interestingly enough. Each party must give a definition of what it sees apartheid in fact to mean. It is important that we should all know what we mean by that term. I would ask, therefore, that the speakers speaking for all the parties should actually define what they mean by apartheid. Having given that definition they must then tell us what is accepted should be abolished insofar as apartheid is concerned; secondly what they regard as negotiable; and thirdly what they regard as non-negotiable. I hope the hon the Minister is going to deal with that.

As I have issued the challenge I think it is fair that I should also give my own definition. To me apartheid means a political and economic system which discriminates on the grounds of race or colour, which creates privilege for one group and disadvantage for another, imposes compulsory group membership and separation where deemed necessary or desirable as opposed to freedom of association, and then uses the law in order to enforce such a policy. That is how I would define apartheid. I would ask the hon the Minister to tell me where he differs with me in that definition, if at all.

Do you agree, Chris?

I have not seen the word “apartheid” in your motion.

Apartheid is a very important feature of the motion and if the hon the Minister has not realised that by now, he is going to discover it before the debate finishes.

Opposition to apartheid does not mean that those who wish to associate freely cannot choose to do so if they wish. In other words, it is a fallacy to suggest that because one is opposed to apartheid people cannot freely associate in groups or in communities as they themselves would want to do. It also does not mean a pretence that there are not people of different races or colour because that is a reality of South Africa.

Do you accept that?

However, it does mean that there is no disadvantage by reason of race or colour. The hon member asks me whether I accept that and I ask him the same question.

No, you must explain to us how a White man can live under a Black government.

I am coming to that very point because the reality which the hon member for Rissik would not accept and which he is going to have to accept is that apartheid will not survive in South Africa.

That will be the day!

That is a reality. There will be those who will cling to it. There will be those who will mourn its passing. There will be those who will resist its disappearance …

Hear, hear!

… but go it will. That is the reality of South Africa. The issue is not so much whether apartheid will or will not survive in South Africa because it will not survive, but what will follow apartheid. What will follow it is vital for the peaceful co-existence of all peoples in South Africa. It is vital to decide whether in fact South Africa is going to be part of the free world, whether the very human rights that we who sit in these benches have struggled for so many years are going to exist after apartheid—that is becoming increasingly a vital issue for all South Africans.

To achieve the kind of society we want, we believe the way in which apartheid will go will become a fundamental factor. Will apartheid and discrimination based on colour and race go because of pressure internally or from abroad, will it go because of the fear of the consequences if it does not go, or will it go because there is an appreciation that discrimination is wrong and morally unjustifiable and that if a new society which is stable and secure is to be created, apartheid can form no part of such dispensation? Discrimination based upon race or colour can form no part of any new dispensation in South Africa.

I believe there is a new appreciation of this whole issue in South Africa. In fairness one must say that the State President’s speech at the opening of Parliament is indicative of this, though I must also state that the phraseology which he used is of such a nature that it is unfortunately open to a number of interpretations. I hope the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will to some extent tell us what precisely was meant by the words of the State President in regard to the outmoded concept of apartheid. What did he actually seek to convey?

I feel that one factor is clear and that is the desire—one may call it a determination—that some degree of change should come about in South Africa. The question which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has to answer this afternoon is: Where is the line going to be drawn by him, if at all? How far is the Government prepared to go? Here we enter some rather grey areas. The public is uncertain as to what the Government’s intentions are and where the Government seeks to draw the line or does not seek to draw the line.

I am sure that the hon the Minister will give us a list of the discriminatory provisions in laws which have already been repealed or amended in order to have the changes made. There are others which will come on the Order Paper during this session of Parliament to remove discriminatory provisions. We applaud the hon the Minister for that and we welcome and support it.

However, there is little doubt that it is the entrenchment by law of discrimination based upon race and colour which has created the major problem not only in the eyes of the outside world but also in race relations in South Africa which is more vital than the eyes of the outside world. I believe there are few if any societies that can claim to be free of discrimination but I ask anybody in this House to tell me of another country in the world where there is discrimination based upon race or colour which is entrenched in law. I do not believe there is such a country and, if there is one, I certainly would not like to have anything to do with it.

The reality is—the hon the Minister must appreciate this—that it is Parliament which has enacted discriminatory laws. Parliament did it and it is for Parliament now to do away with those laws by repealing them.

I should like to suggest to the Government that the impact of Parliament appointing a committee to review the statutes of this country—I am referring to those red books that are here on the shelves of this very House, on either side—in order to identify in each case the provisions which discriminate on the grounds of race and colour, will be considerable. Reviewing these and recommending their removal would be a major weapon to use in what will be to my mind the argument and the issue which will face us outside, namely the issue between reform and revolution. Those are the choices which exist in South Africa.

Is this all going to disappear as a result of reform or are people going to believe that they have to turn to violence to remove it? I do not have to tell the hon the Minister where my party and I stand in regard to violence and reform because we are committed to peaceful change and peaceful reform. If, however, we are going to convince our own people in South Africa and people abroad that there is real reform on the way, and if, moreover, we are going to convince all moderate South Africans of every creed and colour that there is a real prospect of reform by a peaceful process, then I can think of nothing better than for Parliament to sit down and go through the laws one by one removing the provisions which discriminate on the grounds of race or colour.

It may well be argued that this is already being done. In fact, I anticipate that the hon the Minister is going to say that the Government is already doing it, that we should look at the laws to which I have just referred, and that we should consider what the Government is doing in respect of the laws pertaining to the Indians in the Orange Free State and in Northern Natal.

I will even tell you to look at the laws of Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland? Well, Sir, fortunately I am not required to deal with the laws of Northern Ireland. I have enough trouble here, as it is; and if I may give the hon the Minister some advice, he too should not worry about the laws of Northern Ireland.

Well, would you not like to give the same advice to the other countries to which you refer?

Yes, indeed. I have no problem with that because I do not believe in double standards.

I can also cite other examples. The hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs is sitting there quietly writing something or other. I hope he is not changing his mind about the petrol price.

He can reduce it.

He can reduce it again.

You never know.

Quite so, one never knows. Let us take, for example, the job that hon Minister has in regard to the mines where it is very important that he removes the last vestages of job reservation. In the eyes of the world those should be seen to have disappeared. [Interjections.] I believe he is busy doing so, and I hope he will meet with success in his endeavours. [Interjections.]

The answer is not to deal with this matter in piecemeal fashion. The answer does not lie in dealing with isolated laws, one at a time. The truth is that, although one welcomes the fact that certain laws have been changed and repealed, there is a need to repeal all—and I stress the word “all”—the laws which discriminate. There is a need for Parliament to take the initiative. The impact on the people of South Africa and on our international image of an express intention translated into reality by the removal of all discriminatory provisions cannot be underestimated.

Of course, the question arises: What is in fact a discriminatory provision in a law? What provisions are discriminatory? What provisions should be removed? A further question arises in respect of the so-called non-negotiables about which everybody is talking. In my view, the answers to these questions rest on the following premises: Firstly, once the review process is started, there will be many provisions which everybody will agree must actually be removed. There will be no dispute about the removal of those provisions. Let us repeal all those laws. Then, at the end, there will only be a relatively small number left on which the real debate can actually take place.

Secondly, I venture to suggest that once the process has started it will be remarkable how little difference of opinion will remain in the end. I believe that people will find each other and will have much more common ground than many people in South Africa presently believe. I really believe we will find that common ground in order to do away with discrimination.

There is another issue I want to raise. It is perhaps a delicate issue, but I think it needs to be raised. In the other two Houses of this Parliament there are members who do not have it as easy in their constituencies as we in this House have it in our constituencies. I believe they have to demonstrate to their own people why they are participating in the system. They have to produce benefits to show their people what benefits can flow from their participation in the system. They need to show that they are catalysts for change, and they need to produce results. I believe that they want to participate in a negotiating process to remove discrimination. The hon the Minister knows that himself because he has appeared in one of the other Houses in order to debate a similar motion. The point I want to make to the hon the Minister—and I make it in all sincerity—is that it is not only executive action that is required to introduce laws to remove discrimination. The Cabinet is not the only body that should appear to come forward and say: “Let us remove the discriminatory laws.” It has to come from the people. It has to come from the representatives of the Coloured, Indian and Black people who engage in negotiations. They must be able to go to their own people and say: “We did it. We achieved this. We produced this.” Very often, however, by its very actions in seeking to remove provisions, the Government is in fact preventing those people from going back to their own constituencies and saying: “This is what we have achieved.”

I would like to appeal to the hon the Minister to afford those people a greater opportunity to return to their constituents after an election and say: “I moved this. I achieved this. This is what I did for my constituents and this is what I achieved in this battle.”

The entire process of negotiation should be of such a nature that if people engage in the process of peaceful negotiation, they must be able to demonstrate the fruits of it to their own people. Sometimes by seeking to do it for them, we are actually depriving them of the fruits of those negotiations.

Are they not in the Cabinet?

They are only two people in the Cabinet, Sir. They are Ministers without portfolio. It is the ordinary MP who needs to be a part of this process, and I direct this appeal to the governing party because, in actual fact, they owe it to those people whom they brought into this Parliament to allow them to go back to their constituents and say: “This is what we in fact have achieved through our participation.”

To my mind the issue of discrimination entrenched in law is the vital one. Once we have done away with all the discriminatory provisions in the laws on our Statute Book, then all the other regulations and rules will fall away because they will no longer have the foundation of discrimination to rest on.

It is often said—and no doubt the hon the Minister will argue in the same way—that this entire system of discriminatory laws is not a product solely of his time or of his Government. I concede, for example, that the legislation in respect of mines goes back many, many years. It is not something new. It is not even as recent as 1948. Whatever the timetable, however, the reality is that it is statute law that discriminates. The common law of South Africa is not discriminatory. This is something that I feel needs to be stressed. The common law of South Africa did not allow unjust discrimination. It is not part of Roman Dutch law. I want to mention just three cases namely those of Rasool, Abduraman and Lockhart. It was held in respect of all three cases that where facilities were not completely equal and were there was discrimination on the grounds of race, administrative or regulatory provisions in the absence of express statutory provisions were unenforceable. That is why statutory provisions were introduced to provide for separate but unequal amenities and so to enable unequal and separate treatment to be meted out. Our statutes therefore run directly contrary to the fundamental principles of our Roman Dutch law.

When the Group Areas Act was first argued before the Appellate Division, it was said that separate areas would not mean unequal treatment. That was the case that was argued and upheld. I wonder, however, whether anyone would have the audacity today to argue before the Appellate Division that the Group Areas Act does not in fact mete out unequal treatment. I do not think anyone would have the audacity to do that.

Without that legislation there would not have been the “Whites only” boards and the restrictions and the discriminatory provisions and the disabling factors that have existed in South Africa. It is the statute law that lies at the root of it all. That is why until such time as we do away with apartheid and with discrimination based on colour as entrenched in statute law, we will not have a just society in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I listened to the argument of the hon member for Yeoville very carefully, and if I heard him correctly, I gained the impression that he dwelt much more on the question of discrimination than on the method by which to remove it which would involve a select committee to form a joint committee in order to investigate all laws with a view to scrapping all those laws that are found to be discriminatory. He referred to the red books on the shelves. I have no idea how many laws there are on the Statute Book.

Thousands!

Thousands? Yes, I think that is a fair comment, yet not an estimate. How many thousands there are, I do not know. We can count them. However, in terms of the Interpretation Act, every ordinance, regulation or anything that has the force of law is also regarded to be law. I presume that those measures are included in those referred to in the motion of the hon member for Yeoville.

Once one repeals the statute, the regulations are nullified.

There may be statutes which are not discriminatory, but certain regulations which are discriminatory. That means that everything will have to be looked at. [Interjections.] Be that as it may, I do not think it is necessary that this House or a combined committee of all the Houses of Parliament should go into that matter. We know what the issues really are in terms of what is found to be discriminatory. If the hon member for Yeoville really wants to make a contribution he could do that on the basis of bringing before this House a specific issue rather than a general motion of this kind. I am not against his approach to the matter, and no one on this side of the House opposes the repealing of discriminatory measures.

Is the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act discriminatory?

The hon member for Kuruman is referring to the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. This Act is presently the subject of investigation by the President’s Council. They are due to report shortly …

Is that Act discriminatory or not?

Yes, of course it is discriminatory! In terms of the Act it is discriminatory. That Act lays down that separate amenities need not be equal, and therefore it is discriminatory. Let us accept that. Does the hon member for Kuruman say it is not discriminatory? [Interjections.] The hon member will not give me an answer. [Interjections.]

I really do not want to dwell for too long on this subject, but I cannot see how it is possible for members of this House or the other Houses to investigate the matter in depth as is proposed by the hon member for Yeoville. We will never find the time and I do not believe we have the infrastructure to do it properly on that basis. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Yeoville said we had to choose between reform and revolution. He also said that reform was related to discriminatory legislation. I daresay that reform as such is not the main issue any more but that the exercise of political power has become the real issue, and that has to be dealt with.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I am not arguing against reform or against the scrapping of discriminatory measures. I simply want to state that it is of overriding importance for us to find some way of negotiation and, through negotiation, a constitution according to which everybody can exercise an effective say in decision-making. That is what I am really saying.

I think it is obvious, and it should be obvious at least to all in this House, that there is a clear commitment on the part of the Government to get rid of discriminatory measures.

When?

The hon member wants to know when that will happen. Everybody on that side of the House will agree with me that the repeal of any statute is a process, and therefore we are dealing with a process. It is really very difficult to achieve anything by way of repealing discriminatory measures against the background of an apartheid society. It is no good simply repealing legislation because we will not get very far if there is not a new vision, a new structure into which the alternatives can be built or in which discriminatory legislation can simply be scrapped. What I am trying to say is that it is no good creating a vacuum. One has to build something new and the process has to build into something new.

*I do not want there to be any illusions: Everything that is discriminatory must be removed. We must have no illusions about this. If something is discriminatory, it is not acceptable. Then it is a matter of a definition of what is discriminatory. In certain cases it is aspects of legislation that are discriminatory, which in my opinion one can get rid of. In other cases the whole piece of legislation is discriminatory; it should then be abolished. There are examples in very recent history when this was done by this side of the House.

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

No, Sir. I really have only eight minutes in which to speak. I hope the hon member will forgive me.

The Government has systematically rid itself of discriminatory aspects and of discriminatory legislation as a whole. It is an ongoing process and one to which the Government is committed. I think the hon member for Yeoville will agree with me in that he, too, foresees a process, and not a day on which everything will suddenly be in order. Even his motion entails a process. I want to argue again that we should focus on specific details rather than think we could really appoint a committee of Members of Parliament to go through all the Acts with a view to the recommendations he has in mind.

Incidentally, in 1982 Dr Henning gave evidence before the Select Committee on the Constitution. If I remember correctly he made inquiries at one of the administration boards regarding which Acts affected them. It took their legal advisers more than a month to be able to say that they had already identified 700 Acts, but they did not know whether those were all. I ask again: When and how should the hon Members of Parliament do this? What infrastructure is really at their disposal? Each of us can look at things, bring them to the attention of the Government and debate them in the House.

Nevertheless, I should like to address myself to the hon the Minister in respect of one aspect regarding which there is certainly at least a perception that it is discriminatory. This is the question of group areas. This, too, is the subject of an investigation by the President’s Council. I do not want to preempt this in any way, but the one absolutely essential requirement is the provision of land for housing purposes. In terms of the present procedure, Black people do not fall under the Group Areas Act. One cannot therefore identify land under that Act. In other words, this requires executive action. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to make a real effort to accelerate such action. Eight years ago, when I came into this House for the first time, it had already been said that by the end of the century, that is within 23 years, we would have to build 10 cities as big as Soweto. I have already been here for eight years. More than a third of that time has passed and not one of those cities is here yet. The need has grown, not diminished. I really want to appeal to the hon the Minister to give very urgent attention to this matter.

In conclusion I simply want to say that no one has problems with the substance of the hon member for Yeoville’s motion in respect of the removal of discriminatory legislation. There are many things that people in this House do not regard as discriminatory, but the perception does exist among others outside that they are indeed discriminatory. I contend that if the perception exists, the legislation or provisions require attention. We must be prepared to enter into discussions with them on all these matters. We cannot get away from it by saying they are not discriminatory and that we are not prepared to discuss them. I want to make a genuine appeal to everyone here, and it does not matter to which party we belong. Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche often announces that he is prepared to negotiate, but we do not hear from the CP that they, too, are prepared to discuss these problems. [Interjections.] He has spoken to the CP now and I hope that he exerted a positive influence on them.

Has he spoken to you yet?

I have spoken to him on occasion. The hon member Mr Theunissen could also make use of the opportunity; perhaps he could learn something positive from talking to Mr Terre’Blanche. I thank the hon member for Yeoville for the motion that he tabled.

Mr Chairman, I agree with many things the hon member for Randburg said, for example the question of land, the fact that perception should take place from outside a determining element and so on. I do, however, want to express my deep disappointment at his in fact having rejected the motion of the hon member for Yeoville on the grounds of two factors which he mentioned, namely time and infrastructure. I should like to make an appeal to the hon member for Randburg and the hon the Minister that, for the very reason which he outlined, namely the necessity of having a new constitution, we should begin to implement the hon member for Yeoville’s motion.

The State President in his address during the joint sitting the other day, firstly made an urgent appeal to all those who wanted a peaceful dispensation in South Africa to come and deliberate with the Government. Secondly he said that the Government was determined to eliminate some of the existing problems and grievances. Naturally I want to associate myself with both those aspects, namely the appeal that people should come and deliberate with the Government, and the Government’s undertaking to eliminate grievances.

In my opinion there is an essential interconnection between these two aspects. The question is: Which comes first? Should the deliberations come first, or should the grievances first be eliminated? It seems to me that we have reached an impasse because I get the impression that the Government says consultation must first take place about the grievances that have to be eliminated. At the same time other people say that they do not want to deliberate, because they do not want to discuss the removal of apartheid. If apartheid were removed many of them would be prepared to deliberate. According to my observation of Black leaders that is the impasse we have reached at this stage.

The hard fact of the matter—whether we want to admit it or not, whether we want to hear it or not is—that there is an overwhelming feeling of suspicion among the majority of the non-Whites in South Africa concerning the good intentions and the good faith of the Government. This is so whether we want to know it or not. The first requirement which there must be, therefore, is that the Government must convince those people of its goodwill and intentions. I do not want to imply that the Government has so far done nothing. That I am not saying, but if we really want to draw those people into deliberations then I say a climate has to be created which is conducive to those deliberations. If we are unable to create that climate then those consultations will not get off the ground.

It is my sincere conviction that an important element or step towards the creation of a favourable climate for deliberations in fact lies in this motion of the hon member for Yeoville. We shall therefore have to convince those people that we are prepared to give very serious consideration to the removal of all forms of discrimination—and as the hon member has indicated by means of members of this Parliament with the help of Blacks outside Parliament. If we want to succeed in creating an image of willingness to create a more favourable climate, I think we have no other choice but to accept the hon member for Yeoville’s motion.

I want to assure the hon the Minister that if we really want to create a better climate—in the spirit in which I have indicated—then he should have no doubt about the advisability of accepting this motion.

The hon member for Randburg said he had no objection to the motion; he merely had problems with the factors of time and infrastructure. To my mind, however, this is not a strong enough motive for not accepting the motion.

Let us be honest. There are three reasons why suspicion surrounds the Government’s intentions. The first is its policy and its past record. The hon member for Yeoville indicated the laws which are still on our Statute Books as well as those which have already been removed. They form part of a background of discrimination and we cannot deny its existence. Fine, we are trying to move away from it and I appreciate the steps that the Government is taking. That background, however, is to a very great extent responsible for the enmity, the suspicion and the mistrust which exists, as well as for the unwillingness to accept the goodwill of the Government in this regard.

The second reason is the inability of the Government to do things in time, even those things the Government undertook to do. In this connection I should like to mention four examples. Last year the State President announced that legislation would be introduced and that steps would be taken in connection with the abolition of influx control, uniform identity documents, property rights for Blacks and citizenship. This year the State President repeated this. Indeed we know that the promise has been made to introduce legislation in this regard during the present Parliamentary session.

It has been more than a year now since the prospect of this development was held out. It is no use our telling the Blacks that it takes time to set this process in motion. It is no use explaining to them that it takes time to prepare legislation and that the Parliamentary process is slow, for they say that in the days when the Government wanted to introduce apartheid—discrimination—there was no question of a long Parliamentary process nor problems in getting the laws drawn up. That is what these people say.

The issue is not merely the so-called lack of time and the slow pace at which these things can be brought about. Time becomes important because it is time which brings about people’s heightened aspirations and demands. The longer we delay, the greater the expectations and the greater the demands become. Many of the things that have been done recently would have had a big impact if they had occurred earlier. What comes to mind, for example, is the deletion of section 16 of the Immorality Act and the abolition of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. Had this been done five or six years ago, it would have had an impact. Now it no longer has any impact. I am afraid the time factor is as important as the abolition of the measures themselves.

I want to return to the question of mistrusting the intentions of the Government and as an example of this I refer again to influx control. The Blacks say they do not believe that the Government is really going to abolish the control that it has over their freedom of movement. They say the Government might eliminate the conventional influx control measures but they do not believe that the Government is really prepared to relinquish control over their freedom of movement. [Interjections.]

The same applies to the removal of passbooks. They accept that the system of passbooks is going to be abolished, but they want to know whether one’s race ie White, Coloured, Indian and Black is still going to be indicated on those identity documents which are going to be issued uniformly to everybody. Secondly they want to know whether one’s tribal or ethnic origins are going to be indicated in these books, ie whether one is a Zulu or a Xhosa for example. [Interjections.] If this is the case, is it also going to apply to the Whites? Is that document also going to indicate whether a White is Afrikaans-, German- or Portuguese-speaking, or whatever the case may be? The Black people have also asked whether that document is going to have precisely the same function and is going to be used for the same purpose as the identity documents of the Whites. Will a policeman or another official have the right to demand to see it at any time? Will it be a criminal offence not to produce the document?

I am not putting these questions; I am simply saying that those are the kind of questions which are being asked because there is no confidence in the good intentions of the Government. I can ask the same kind of thing concerning other aspects to which I referred—the questions of property rights and citizenship. I could ask for example to whom citizenship is going to be restored. Time unfortunately does not permit me to elaborate on this.

I want to turn to the third reason why the intentions of the Government continue to be mistrusted. Many Blacks believe that the Government is divided about the removal of discrimination and apartheid. They referred to members of the Cabinet and other Government leaders. They say yes. I am repeating it here because it is being said every day. There are people who according to their statements wish to imply that they do in fact want to abolish discrimination. I am referring to people such as the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. However, there is also the hon the Minister of National Education, the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture and certain other hon members of this House such as the hon members for Bloemfontein East, Klipriver and others who would do everything in their power to prevent apartheid being properly abolished. [Interjections.] The perceptions may be wrong but those perceptions about the Government being divided do exist among Blacks.

You people are advertising it too.

Let us take the hon the Minister for Transport Affairs for example. Recently—I am sorry that he is not here—he used two arguments to support apartheid. The one was the argument concerning overcrowding. The hon the Minister said he had to take steps to prevent Whites from being overcrowded because Whites have the rights to exclusivity. They have the right to their own things. Therefore in order to prevent overcrowding, apartheid must be maintained. The hon the Minister of National Education himself used the argument.

We cannot deny the hard fact of South Africa and that fact is that the non-Whites are by far in the majority. We have no right, neither morally, nor in any other way, to want to deny that fact as far as public facilities are concerned.

If there are Whites, CPs or whatever, that are planning a Morgenzon of their own, or that want to establish a separate Republic, let them have their own way. But then they must pay for their own services. They must pay for the little republic that has been established there and the like. They do not have the right to use public facilities for their own purposes.

I want to tell the hon the Minister of National Education and the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs that we cannot use the argument of overcrowding in so far as public facilities are concerned to in fact maintain apartheid and discrimination.

The second argument that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs used, to my great shock—and it was not the first time either—was the one he used this week in the House of Representatives. He said (Hansard: House of Delegates, 3 March 1986):

That was how the hon the Minister carried on about the old story of the Progs in Houghton. Why one should pick on Houghton is a mystery to me. The hon the Minister for-Transport Affairs is doing this House and the Government an injustice when he uses this sort of argument because what he is doing is to use the potential racial feelings of one group at the expense of another group in order to justify apartheid. If we do that we are playing with dynamite.

Mr Chairman, it was with great interest and attention that I listened to the speech of the hon member Prof Olivier. He made quite a few interesting observations, some of which I can also associate myself with. I, too, believe that it is important to shorten as much as possible the time-lapse between announcements of measures such as the removal of influx control and their implementation.

I was less happy with other aspects of the hon member’s speech, and I wondered at times whether he was trying to promote or in fact impede a change in climate here.

I want to point out that when the hon member spoke about the time factor which, he said, was just as important as the removal of the measures themselves, he also said that Blacks did not believe that the Government really wanted to remove the restrictions on freedom of movement. That, I think, is a negative statement, even if it is from the mouth of a Black himself, as was in fact implied. However, what I find important is, that when the hon member said it, the hon member for Greytown remarked by way of an interjection: “They are right”. If that was in fact a constructive remark then I do not know what a negative remark is supposed to be. But I shall leave the hon member at that.

To start with today I should like to say that I stand here as the descendant of forbears who fought for their freedom—the freedom which is now my freedom and which I certainly do not begrudge to others.

You have become a quitter (hensopper)!

I am proud that I am also a member of a party, a political party that in many respects played a decisive part in the achievement of that freedom. I am also proud that my political party is today still committed to its programme of political principles, and I quote:

My party is therefore a party which is in touch with reality, Sir. My party is a party that wants to promote the freedom and the opportunities and potential of all the people of our country by using visible, existing realities. We are not running away from what we can see, from what we cannot avoid or cannot change. Therein lies the difference between ourselves and the PFP, that wishes to ignore reality, that refuses to use the possibilities of the unchangeable for the well-being of the people of our land that wishes to break down everything in the hope that the ruins that remain will again offer us a home. For that reason the PFP have already published a pamphlet, a copy of which I have here in my hand, entitled “Help breek die stelsel af". In this pamphlet they consequently say that the PFP rejects the tricameral system. That, Sir, is the system which has made it possible for this debate to take place. They reject it. It is for the destruction of this system that they are recruiting people outside this Parliament. It is also this system that the hon member for Yeoville wants to use in order to remove discrimination—the same system that they are so very keen to destroy.

The CP/HNP alliance is estranged from reality in as far as their approach and behaviour in this regard is concerned. They do not want to discriminate against anyone—so they say. They say that they do not begrudge any people their freedom and self-determination and autonomy. Those are wonderful and beautiful ideals. They represent praiseworthy aims. Yet they have one problem, Sir. The means with which they want to arrive at that aim are unattainable. The reality of our country’s population structure and distribution, of the economic intertwinement and interdependence of its peoples, cries out against this ideal of complete territorial separation.

The PFP wants to destroy; they want to try to destroy reality and base their hopes on the ruined remains. The CP on the other hand wants to erect a structure on foundations which do not exist. Meanwhile the National Party does not primarily wish to break down; the National Party wishes to build on what is known, existing and real and therefore the National Party is the only party in this House that can make a real contribution to building a new South Africa in which rights and justice will have a real chance to flourish and prosper. Because the National Party wants to move into the future from a position of a secure reality, while remaining committed to that reality, it is only that party which is truly capable of moving away from a system of discrimination on the basis of race and colour without the danger of other forms of discrimination taking its place. Therefore the National Party is also committed to the removal of discrimination and that is why I support my party in its commitment. I do so because in the first place I know that I shall still be able to preserve what is my own—my language, my culture, my religion, my lifestyle, my self-determination—but in the second place that this will not have to be done at the expense of that which belongs to other people.

I ventured into politics because I wanted to make a contribution to the creation of a better and a more just South Africa. I did this through the National Party because my common sense told me that that was the only way in which I would be able to realise my ideal. The National Party is committed to the removal of discrimination and is already doing so systematically. Only a week or two ago all the discriminatory measures were removed from the Liquor Bill. There are a great many other previous examples. We have a comprehensive ongoing programme for the road ahead. We do not need a committee to help us do what is obvious. Nor do we need a committee to help us on the road into the future. We are steadfastly following that course. Besides, I have a suspicion that the hon member for Yeoville wants to use such a committee as an instrument to dismantle the system and especially the Constitution which forms part of the system. I am not in favour of that, at least not without knowing what will replace it. Therefore I support the Government’s positive initiatives and consider the kind of committee which the hon member for Yeoville is suggesting to be unnecessary.

Mr Chairman, an interesting spectacle took place here this afternoon. In the first place there was the motion of the hon member for Yeoville who asked for a special committee to be appointed to investigate all so-called discriminatory measures on the Statute Book. What I found particularly interesting, however—and I expected it—was the reaction from the governing party. The governing party no longer has any fault to find with what the hon member for Yeoville and the PFP are planning for South Africa; in fact the NP agrees with it. It was very clear. The hon member for Randburg said that he had sympathy with the hon member for Yeoville—his problem was that we did not have the infrastructure and time to make the necessary investigation.

Do you want to keep discrimination?

I shall come back to that. But what does the hon member for Randburg say? He says—and I know it to be his honest opinion—that everyone in this country must have an effective say in decisionmaking which affects them.

Surely you also say that.

The hon member went on to say that if we wanted to abolish these apartheid measures we would also have to put something else in the place of the apartheid society which exists today.

That is correct; that is what I say.

I hope I understood the hon member correctly. He said that if we wanted to abolish these discriminatory measures we would have to put something else in the place of the apartheid society which exists today. I am sorry, though, that the hon member did not continue—perhaps he did not have the time—to spell out to us and the voters of South Africa what that society would look like. The hon member for Yeoville asked what would come in the place of apartheid if it were to disappear. What is coming in its place? That is the answer we should like to have. We do not just want the answer from the Government but also from the PFP. I should like to come back to the PFP. They say that all discriminating measures must be removed. The one measure that they have on the brain is the Population Registration Act. They must tell me whether this is so. They say this measure must be removed.

There are many others as well.

In the same breath the PFP says that the political rights of minority groups must be protected. Now with tears in my eyes and in all fondness I should like to ask the PFP how is one going to protect the rights of so-called minority groups if one cannot legally define that minority group? It can only be legally defined by means of the provisions of the Population Registration Act.

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

No, Sir, my time is limited. [Interjections.] I hope the hon member will be fair to me since I did not waste his time when he was speaking. [Interjections.]

Do not get excited, Harry.

This debate—and this is not the first debate we have held in this House about this matter—can only be held meaningfully if we have clarity concerning the goal for South Africa’s future. I think that is a premise. Previously a debate was also held in this House—not so many years ago—when the then Leader of the Official Opposition, Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, moved a very similar motion to the one which the hon member for Yeoville moved today. At the time he asked for a committee to look into the possibilities of transforming South Africa into a society free of discrimination based on race or colour. That was in 1980 when I was still a member of the NP. It is interesting to see who the speakers were at that time. On the NP side it happened to be the member for Benoni—and I hope he will participate in the debate this afternoon—Dr P J van B Viljoen who was then the member for Newcastle, and myself. It is interesting to see the standpoints which we adopted at the time on behalf of the NP. As far as I know not one of us was reprimanded inside or outside the caucus on the standpoints we adopted; on the contrary, I got the impression at the time that the standpoint we had adopted was in fact the standpoint of the NP.

What did the hon member for Benoni say at the time? The matter in issue was a possible new political dispensation for South Africa. The hon member for Benoni said (Hansard, 21 March 1980, col 3252):

[Interjections.]

Read the whole sentence.

I shall read the whole sentence!

[Interjections.] If I look around me it seems to me as though the mixture has been predominant in South Africa for a considerable time now and as though it has for the present been taken over by the NP. NP have all the say. After all, we did have healthy power-sharing, then complete—no, it was not quite complete—self-determination for own affairs and joint responsibility for general affairs. Then it became joint decisionmaking on general affairs and now it is complete power-sharing. I want to repeat: One can only debate meaningfully if one knows where one wants to go with one’s country and its people.

The hon member for Benoni said in that speech that the NP rejected power-sharing. He said that the PFP wanted to introduce power-sharing in South Africa by stealth, but the Government was not going to fall for it. [Interjections.] In the same debate the hon the Minister of Law and Order said in reply to a question from the hon member for Bryanston that power-sharing was not NP policy. It is recorded in Hansard.

Now we have an hon Minister of Foreign Affairs who for a moment revealed to us not a new aspect but the true nature of his character. I want to quote from what Beeld of 26 February reported the hon Minister as having said to us when he tried to lend a hand in fighting a municipal by-election. I trust that Beeld would have quoted the hon the Minister correctly. The hon the Minister said:

I assume that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is putting all those who accept power-sharing and who want apartheid removed together in one camp. In my opinion he was right … [Interjections.] … because in that group one finds not only the NP but also the PFP and the NRP.

The UDF as well!

The UDF—I don’t know about that, we must at least be reasonable.

The ANC as well!

The hon the Minister went on to state that the only alternative to this were those who wanted to grab all the power for themselves. If this was a reference to the ANC or to the Communist Party then it could in fact be true. If it was a reference to us, however, then it is untrue; and I think the hon the Minister should know it.

Since we are speaking about the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs now, and since the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is going to reply to this debate, there is a matter which I would like to broach. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs spelt out to the world the logical consequence, the logical development of the new policy of the NP, namely the likelihood of a Black State President in future. [Interjections.] Surely that is logical! If the Government is going to remove all discrimination based on race and colour and is going to give everyone in this country exactly the same opportunity for having decision-making powers on matters which affect them, on what grounds can they claim to be prepared to share power with the Blacks on condition that they keep the power in their own hands. Surely such a government is not honest. Surely the hon Minister for Foreign Affairs was being honest when he spelt out the logical consequence. [Interjections.] Does the hon Minister for Constitutional Development and Planning, as an honest person, admit it as well? Will he this afternoon spell out to us what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said was in fact the logical terminating point of the direction in which the NP is presently moving? He must tell us “yes” or “no”. [Interjections.] If this is not the logical consequence, would the hon the Minister please spell out to us what the … Well, perhaps he should give us his personal opinion on the matter. [Interjections.] We know at least that for the present it is not the official NP policy as spelt out in Die Burger, “Pik’s timing wasn’t quite correct”. [Interjections.]

How do we view South Africa? It seems to me that the NP, exactly like the PFP, sees a future South Africa which is the opposite of the Government’s policy of the past. Then we worked and strove for the establishment of independent, separate political structures for each people in South Africa. Now the NP have turned in their tracks. Now they see South Africa as one political community. [Interjections.] If I am wrong I would appreciate it if the NP would indicate to me in what respect I am wrong. Now there is talk of one South African nation. That is the political concept. Yet it was the policy of the NP—and the hon the Minister in front of me here knows it—that when Transkei, Venda and those other countries became independent we negotiated an agreement with those people that their citizens who had remained behind in South Africa would lose their South African citizenship and accept political citizenship together with the citizens who lived in their own countries. Now, after all the strife of those years the NP comes forward—unasked, I believe, by the leaders of Transkei, Venda or Bophuthatswana—and announces that the so-called citizenship of people who were no longer citizens of South Africa be restored to them. [Interjections.] We now expect of the NP since they are acting in the spirit of the PFP, since they are under the same sphere of influence as that party …

Are you in the HNP’s sphere of influence?

I am not ashamed to be in the sphere of influence as the HNP. The HNP stands, as we do, for the preservation of a White Afrikaner people in South Africa. [Interjections.] I am not ashamed to be in the sphere of influence of those people. I have never been. [Interjections.] We do not see the future South Africa as one political community, because if one accepts that one has to accept its full consequences—as the PFP is apparently prepared to do.

We see South Africa as a subcontinent inhabited by separate peoples which are distinguishable from one another. It is our ideal that every people in this southern land will be geographically established to the fullest extent possible in its own fatherland, with its own government, where it can work out its own future. [Interjections.] That is the only way. For 30 years we advocated and worked for this, in the NP itself. [Interjections.] The hon member Dr Vilonel says that is correct.

Then this very same party without a mandate from the voters of South Africa, went and betrayed the policy upon which it was put into power, election after election, by the people of South Africa. [Interjections.] We stand by the policy of separateness.

Are you not ashamed of yourselves?

I am not ashamed to say it and I say it candidly: If discrimination is necessary to uphold, maintain and perpetuate the people to which I belong, then I do not hesitate to adopt the necessary measures. [Interjections.] I make no apology for this just as the NP of old never once made any apology for it. [Interjections.] Finally there is only one real method of escaping real discrimination in South Africa, especially in the constitutional sphere, and that is to carry the concept and the policy of separate development to its logical conclusion, which will ensure the freedom of every people in this southern land.

Is it not remarkable that a leader such as Mr Matanzima who, upon retiring as President, expressed his thanks to the Government of 1948 in his farewell message to his people? This is what he said. He expressed his thanks to the apartheid policy of that Government “who liberated my people”. That very same NP which liberated four Black countries in Southern Africa with its policy of apartheid, is now running away. Now they are running away from the same policy and they are now apologising …

Many more are still going to become independent! [Interjections.]

Today the NP is apologising for having followed a policy of apartheid in South Africa for 30 years. Every so-called reform measure and every break-through which is announced is nothing but the undoing of the handiwork of the NP of the past. Yet it is now being presented as statesmanship. [Interjections.]

Are you talking about the Boerevolk state now …

I think the hon member for Boksburg should be given an opportunity to speak so that we can debate this matter.

The hon member for Yeoville asked what the post-apartheid era has in store for us. The hon member for Randburg said that the apartheid society, as he called it, would have to be replaced by another society. There can only be one consequence for South Africa to the collapse and dismantling of apartheid and that is the annihilation of the White man in Southern Africa.

Mr Chairman, I do not propose to become involved in an argument between the new NP and the old NP. It is a regular performance. [Interjections.]

There is one interesting aspect to this debate which the hon member for Barberton raised and that was the question of how one can protect minorities if one cannot define them. That is a valid question, of course. I believe that those people who are screaming for the abolition of the population register are being unreasonable. I say this not because I like the way the population register is being used but because there is nothing wrong with the population register per se. It merely indicates that a person was born at a certain time in a certain place and that he or she is of a certain racial origin. There is nothing wrong with that. [Interjections.] Other countries do exactly the same sort of thing.

No they don’t.

Well, that is your opinion. I happened to make some inquiries, however, and they do. [Interjections.]

Which ones?

What about the Welsh, Irish and Scots?

Please, you make your speeches in your own time. The point is that there is nothing wrong with the population register per se. It is the way in which it has been used over the years that has been to the detriment of certain people.

Let us get back to the issue under debate which is the question of the removal of discrimination. I have something of a problem in this respect because once again I feel that people are confusing discrimination with apartheid. They are not the same thing. Apartheid and discrimination are two entirely different things. One can remove discrimination entirely and still have apartheid. [Interjections.] Of course one can, by voluntary association. That is the difference. That is why we are having difficulties in respect of this matter. Those difficulties do not pertain to the removal of discrimination because I do not think there is anyone in this House who can object to the removal of discrimination, where the definition of that word has the connotation of being unfair or detrimental or whatever the definition given by the hon member for Yeoville. I do not believe any hon member in this House—whether he be CP, HNP, NP or whatever—could object to the removal of discrimination which is grossly unfair and detrimental to anybody. I do not believe they could object to that. I have yet to hear even hon members of the CP say that they object to that aspect of the removal of discrimination. As far as that is concerned, therefore, my party could quite easily support this resolution.

When it comes to the question of apartheid, however, that is a somewhat different aspect because, as I said earlier, one can remove discrimination. This Parliament placed discrimination on the Statute Book and therefore, as has already been indicated by a previous speaker, this Parliament is the only body that can remove it.

Incidentally, with regard to this type of adverse discrimination, I want to point out that it is not possible to discriminate against an individual in isolation. There must be at least two parties involved for discrimination to take place and, in any case, discrimination against one party automatically leads to reverse discrimination against the other. For example, if one legislates that a White person is not allowed to travel on a Black bus, it automatically means that a Black person may not travel on a White bus. I am making a very simple definition here. This type of discrimination is obviously quite ridiculous and should be removed from the Statute Book. It is unnecessary and serves no useful purpose.

We live in a country which for many years has practised apartheid. I am not referring to discrimination alone. This country has practised apartheid, and discrimination as such has been built into legislation.

Will you please define apartheid for me?

I will come to that in a moment. This discrimination has been built into our legislation and although I am loath to use the word “indoctrinated” it is true to say that people have been brought up to believe that separate development or apartheid—call it what you will—is a highly desirable thing and that it is not a good thing for Blacks, Coloureds, Asiatics and Whites to mix. It is therefore not going to be easy to change people’s attitudes, to change their minds. It is relatively easy to change the law. The NP has a handsome majority in this House.

Not for long.

Well, they have it at the moment. Any party with that sort of majority can very easily change the law. They would also have the support of a fair percentage of the opposition for the changing of this sort of legislation. When it comes to the changing of the hearts and minds of the people, however, one has another problem. For 30 or 40 years not only have South Africans been taught that apartheid is the good and right thing but in many instances it has also almost become a religion. This has been one of the problems in South Africa. Apartheid has come to be regarded almost as a question of righteousness. The Immorality Act and Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act have, of course, reinforced that particular viewpoint and attitude. For many years, clerics have been preaching against the mixing of communities. Now it would seem that the NP itself, the initiators of the legislation which enshrines this apartheid discrimination in law, has changed its mind. They are very happy to get rid of such legislation. I say that we will help the Government. Every reasonable person who opposes the concept of racial discrimination and forced segregation or integration should also support them. We believe, however, that because of the long period of indoctrination it is not going to be merely a matter of changing laws. I believe nevertheless that the Government must get all apartheid legislation off its back as quickly as possible. They should get rid not only of discriminatory legislation but apartheid legislation. The Government should, however, introduce as much legislation as possible enabling local districts to choose what they themselves would like to do. Over a long period the NRP has referred to local option. I know people laugh and sneer at it. It may not be idealistic, but it is realistic. Realism has always to be borne in mind. If the people of a place like Vryheid want to do this, that or the other, they should be allowed to do it.

No, they are not allowed to do so.

A place like Durban, which is supposed to be more liberal than Vryheid, should be allowed to have a different way of approaching their problems.

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

No, Sir, I cannot answer a question as I only have one minute left. We would be very happy to see all this discriminatory legislation, which is against everybody’s best interests, removed. As I have said in this House before, however, there is certain discriminatory legislation which is to the advantage of one community and which is not to the disadvantage of another. Where those circumstances prevail, I think it is rather silly to say that that legislation must be removed.

Mr Chairman, I should like to say to the hon members for Umbilo and Yeoville and the hon member Prof Olivier: I think the most conclusive proof that the Government in the first instance has irrevocably embarked upon the repeal of all provisions discriminating on grounds of race or colour and in the second instance that it has dedicated itself unambiguously to the broadening of democracy is the fact that hon members of the CP are sitting on the other side.

On the other hand I should like to refer to the hon member for Barberton; I always listen to him with pleasure. One point struck me very clearly in his quotation from a speech which the hon member for Benoni made in 1980. Incidentally, it is a pity the hon member for Barberton did not quote himself. This proved that the hon member and his party stagnated in or before 1980 in contrast with the hon member for Sasolburg who had stagnated ten years previously. This is a party which takes no cognisance whatsoever of the realities of the day. I should very much like to return in a while to certain of the impressions retained by the hon member for Barberton.

The burning question in South Africa today is the tempo and application of reform. If it proceeds too quickly, the country is plunged into chaos but, if it goes too slowly, it is plunged into revolution. I have a very interesting document with me regarding a speech made in the American Senate last year. It explains the communist plan drawn up in 1919 and it appears that David Jones, the founder of the Communist Party, said as early as 1921 that the road to communist domination of the world ran through South Africa. This can happen if one’s tempo is too slow. CP members want no tempo at all! They want stagnation and that is precisely the desire of Russian imperialism too in order to bring chaos to the country. [Interjections.]

The process of reform in South Africa can only succeed—and we will retain a civilised country—if we are able to take a few steps. I wish to enumerate them quickly: We should apply and maintain peace and order; we should ensure that it is worthwhile for each person in this country to be a happy South African and we should make it possible for each person to possess something. This morning I attended a meeting in my constituency where there is a shortage of 3 500 houses for Coloured families. This applies to most constituencies in this country and I am not even including Blacks. [Interjections.]

Order! The running commentary will cease now.

We must guarantee religious freedom. We have to accept, appreciate and deal justly with our heterogeneous society—and this the CP cannot realise. We have to aid our people to lead a decent life of human dignity and simultaneously ensure that all communities have participation to the highest tier.

One is often asked what one’s bottom line is for South Africa. Possible answers to this would be very interesting as there would be radical differences across the entire political spectrum of this country. Against the background of the factors I have listed, the crux to me is the maintenance in South Africa of civilised, decent, Christian standards of peace and order, giving every person and group the opportunity of utter fulfilment with due consideration of the needs and endeavours of others.

It should always be borne in mind that we do not begrudge any person and group in this country an existence in human dignity and this can never be separated from total statecraft and constitutional development in the country. These basic principles have to form the foundation in planning a new constitutional dispensation for South Africa. Now we are faced with the problem, however—we may as well admit it to one another—that we have no example elsewhere in the world to follow but there are many we cannot follow.

On this occasion the hon member for Barberton referred to certain options—as have many other hon members on other occasions.

I think there are many options which South Africa could but should not exercise. Let us examine these possible options. I think there is nobody in this country—except the UDF, the ANC, the South African Communist Party and Moscow itself—who is in favour of the system of one-man-one-vote in a unitary state. I do not believe the PFP or Chief Buthelezi advocates this either. [Interjections.]

The system of a qualified franchise has just as little chance of success in this country; people who are disenfranchised revolt. It is ironic that people who have the vote—there are many of these in South Africa—do not use it. There are too many examples in the world in which the system of a qualified franchise simply did not work and where it ultimately led to revolution.

There is a third option—the one with which hon members of the CP are coming to the fore more frequently—namely partition but how does one divide South Africa? In 1913 there were five million people in the country of whom 40% were Black. Today there are 30 million in the country of whom 22 million are Black. In the year 2000 Blacks will form 85% of the population of this country. How does one divide a country among these groups?

A fourth possibility is the granting of geographic independence to people. That is our homeland policy—a fine one. I hope there are more of the peoples in our country who will make use of this but actually it is only half the solution.

A geographic federation—that is the PFP policy—has the same drawback as the first possibility, which is the system of one-man-one-vote in a unitary state.

I wish to raise a last thought. Surely this country does not belong exclusively to the Whites. Nevertheless this beautiful country in which we are privileged to live does not belong only to the Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks of the country. We are not the masters of this country; we are only the custodians of this splendid land. We shall have to work hard in order to fulfil our stewardship positively in South Africa by means of the elimination of unjust measures and the search for effective, practical solutions.

Mr Chairman, at the beginning of his speech the hon member for Paarl said that the NP was irretrievably committed to reform. I wish he could have been with me on the Monday after the State President made his Opening Address in this House, in which he declared that apartheid was an outmoded policy. On that Sunday the advertisement also appeared saying that the reality was that this Government was going to do away with apartheid. On that Monday I was approached by a young Coloured man who said to me that he had heard the speech and had seen the advertisement and that he was very excited—apartheid was going to go. Yet, in the morning when he had to come in from Mitchells Plain, there were still apartheid signs on the trains. [Interjections.] He had to wake up in a separate group area. [Interjections.] In other words, for that young man apartheid did not die when the State President made his speech, it did not die in the week after the speech, it has still not died and it is going to be a long time in dying. [Interjections.]

That young man still has to live under the Population Registration Act, he has to live under the new Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, the Group Areas Act, the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act of 1945, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, the four provincial education ordinances, the Indians Education Act, the Coloured Persons Education Act, the Education and Training Act, the Extension of University Education Act, legislation with regard to ethnic universities, the technical colleges legislation, the Black Administration Act, the Land Acts of 1913 and 1936, the constitutions of the Black states, legislation with regard to Black citizenship, the Blacks (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act, the Internal Security Act, the Separate Representation of Voters Act, the Taxation of Blacks Act, the Asiatic Land Tenure Amendment Act, the Mines and Works Act.

It is a long list. To do away with apartheid means one has to do away with such laws. What is the effect of doing away with the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act which the hon member for Randburg makes a great deal of suggesting that we are on the path of reform? How many South Africans are affected by that change? One can count them in tens or hundreds. Until the Government changes something fundamental such as the Group Areas Act which affects the lives of millions, we have not begun seriously to move away from discrimination. That is why we have called for a joint committee to identify the laws that must be abolished, to identify a programme as to how they must be abolished and, by its very formation, as the hon member prof Olivier said, to signal the earnestness of an intention to abolish apartheid.

The major assertion I want to make this afternoon in this debate is that the public outside, even the White public that this Government claims to represent, is ripe for reform and is getting riper for reform. This Government has in fact fallen behind the mood of South Africa in not going further and not going faster than it is prepared to go.

*I want to contend that even the White electorate has been ripe for real reform a long time and is getting increasingly ripe for it.

As in Sasolburg.

What about Umhlanga?

I agree as far as Sasolburg is concerned but those who support this right-wing party represent a mere 12,5% of the electorate.

What I want to contend is that the general movement of the White electorate is in the direction of reform.

As in Springs.

In this regard the Government has fallen behind considerably and is increasingly losing touch with the views of the majority of Whites. I am referring to an opinion survey conducted by Rapport a few weeks ago.

Not even Sanlam was prepared to accept their survey.

That is the death-knell for you people. According to Rapport the market and opinion survey of 16 February 1986 indicates that there has been a gradual increase in the acceptability of certain changes. In 1984 there was an unexpected decrease, but in September 1985 a dramatic increase. Let us look at a few examples: “Sal u onder ’n Nieblanke werk as hy op meriete bevorder word?” Today 68% of the White voters say yes to this as against 63% in 1981 and only 49% in 1976, ten years ago.

Pik is also prepared to work under a Black man.

It is now 4,3:1 in favour of no race discrimination at the work place. Secondly, in 1976 the opening of theatres to all races was accepted by 53%, but now 74% accept this. Only 18% do not accept it. This Government could have opened theatres as early as 1976, but they waited until this year, until support for this has become absolutely overwhelming. In my opinion they do not have the courage to take the lead in this regard. The opening of churches is now supported by 70% as against 55% in 1976. The abolition of passes, with the proviso that everybody, including Blacks, should carry the same identity document, receives the strongest support; about 86% say yes. The opening of all restaurants and public eating-houses to all races is now accepted by 66%, as against 24% who refuse, and 10% who are in doubt. The opening of transport services to all also received a firm yes vote of 63%.

Free land tenure for all races—the great idea and one that affects one of the cornerstones of apartheid, viz the Group Areas Act—did meet with opposition in the past. We concede that. In 1984 only 44%—that was in general—were prepared to accept that. However, according to Rapport this figure has now suddenly increased and at the moment the support for this idea is 58%.

One can never believe Rapport. Rapport is the biggest liar in the country!

So, the hon member does not want to believe what is a proper scientific survey?

Of course not! It is completely false! [Interjections.]

Sir, Rapport did, however, make the point that 58% of those interviewed were generally in favour of open areas for all races. In the Orange Free State, however—the poor Free State!—people were found still to be way behind the times with only 43% of the people in that province in favour of this.

It just proves how false it was!

You see, Sir, that is the reality of South Africa! The reality of South Africa is that although there is a 58% overall attitude in favour of open areas, in certain places there are still people who are behind the times, such as in Sasolburg and in other places we can mention. There are, however, other areas in which people are ahead of the times; way ahead of the average. This is an important point to consider in the process of policy making. In many specific areas the majority in favour of the abolition of the Group Areas Act and of allowing free ownership of land is far greater than that 58%. We know this from experience. We know it, for example, from the experience of 1981 in my own constituency. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is well aware of that. In 1981 the property owners of Constantia were asked to vote and 83,4% of them, in an approximately 60% poll, said they were in favour of an open residential area. I said at the time that South Africa was ready in many enlightened areas for a progressive move away from the Group Areas Act and away from this Government’s policies. What it amounted to, in other words, was a progressive move towards freedom of association.

The Government at that time would not accept it, and they will not accept it now because this Government insists on forcing its policies down the peoples’ throats against their will.

Why do you not apply the principle of local option in Constantia?

I will come to that.

Now we have a situation, Sir, in which people in many other places have expressed the same sentiments. We have among them official bodies’ leading spokesmen talking about open areas, or so-called grey areas, the phasing out of group areas etc. We even have a situation in which a local council—the East London City Council—has voted in favour of the whole of East London being thrown open, something which, I must say, came even as a surprise to me. [Interjections.] Furthermore, Sir, in The Argus of 5 March this year it was reported that the Durban City Council voted in favour of a racially mixed area on a stretch of land adjacent to the Greyville race course. One of the councillors, Mrs Margaret Ambler, said that this Government was paralysed with fear, and that the onus was on them as the Durban City Council to say what they wanted done in Durban.

No city councillor can afford to defend the Group Areas Act. The resolution of the Durban City Council was passed by 22 votes to five, with one abstention. In other words, it is absolutely as plain as a pikestaff that this Government is resisting the expressed opinion of the White electorate in certain sections, and in many cases overall—opinions expressed in surveys, many of which they must themselves be aware of.

I should therefore like to take the opportunity this afternoon of repeating the plea which I submitted to the then Minister of Community Development in November 1981, viz that the Government must immediately use section 17 of the Group Areas Act effectively to create open areas—which they can do even with the Group Areas Act in operation—to create the basis for a systematic programme of reform.

I want to say publicly that I repeat my offer that Constantia would be willing—in fact, proud and honoured—to be part of such a programme. Unless this Government accepts, inter alia, the concept of open residential areas, at least as a phasing out mechanism, as well as the ultimate necessity of actually scrapping the Group Areas Act, they will not be able to lead South Africa away from apartheid.

In the minute or so still left to me, Sir, I should like briefly to respond to the local option story of the NRP.

It is a dead duck!

It is an absolutely dead duck. I will tell hon members why. [Interjections.] In terms of NRP policy it is seen by that party as an end result.

No, as an interim result! [Interjections.]

Local reform is acceptable, but the NRP’s local option as an end result which allows for change backwards and forwards, is unacceptable. [Interjections.]

That is completely unacceptable! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, my problem as regards the PFP—and I am saying this specifically in consequence of the hon member for Constantia’s speech—is that the PFP requires a specific view or concept of apartheid in order to exist as a party. This is a dangerous tendency.

All right, abolish apartheid and obliterate us. We shall then be prepared to go.

If one derives one’s existence from an aspect to which one is opposed and this falls away, one’s raison d’être is also pulled from under one’s feet. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Yeoville stated that nowhere in the world was there a country with discriminatory laws on the Statute Book. I repeat: The hon member for Yeoville remarked that nowhere in the world was there a country with discriminatory laws and that they were found only in South Africa.

On the grounds of race and colour.

Yes, on grounds of race and colour. In Business Day of 22 October 1985 we find:

Obviously it has not been repealed.

Do you know that that decision was reversed on appeal?

I was not aware of that but one should not make such statements in general either. [Interjections.]

We use concepts without providing them with content. In this way the PFP uses the concept of “discrimination” indiscriminately. On the other hand, the CP uses the concept of “integration” indiscriminately without ever providing it with content. For the sake of this debate I think one should furnish the concept of “discrimination” with content in particular. “Discrimination” is derived from the Greek word “krino” which simply means to distinguish, to differentiate. Distinction and differentiation per se are not wrong even in the political sphere. When one differentiates, however, and negative favouring of one group above another ensues on the grounds on that differentiation, it is no longer in order. Nevertheless since 1981 the National Party has declared its willingness to move away from that form of discrimination—negative favouring. I shall read you paragraph 2B of section 1 of the NP Programme of Principles as it appeared together with the Programme of Action in the Manifesto of the National Party in 1981:

[Interjections.] It is stale news that the NP has bound itself to discard this form of differentiation which is related to negative favouring. In his speech to the Cape Congress of the NP the State President specifically expressed his views on this aspect. It is this negative connotation of favouring, which is linked to differentiation, which is actually known as apartheid.

Nobody in Randfontein will understand you.

They will all understand me because they are all reasonably intelligent.

Which is why they will reject you.

People said that in 1979 and 1981 as well.

Are you prepared to resign and fight Connie?

Koos, keep quiet!

Order!

It is this negative connotation of favouring linked to differentiation which is known as apartheid. The State President said very clearly that we would move away from this concept of apartheid. He qualified this and said that, if differentiation in a negative sense …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The Speaker decided that no hon member was permitted to say “Hok toe” to another hon member. The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare has just disobeyed the Speaker’s decision in deliberately saying “Hok toe” to me. I now request your protection and action against him. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if there is such a decision, I withdraw the words, but only if there is.

Very well, the hon member may proceed.

There is a specific negative view of differentiation from which the NP is prepared to move. The State President indicated this and said that, if negative differentiation meant political domination of any group by another, the NP was prepared to move away from it. The NP is prepared to move away from the exclusion of any group from the decision-making processes as a negative form of differentiation. If inequality of opportunity in certain matters exists, the NP is prepared to move away from that. When people’s privileges were encroached upon merely on the ground of colour, the State President said the NP was prepared to move away from that.

Having said that, it does not mean that all forms of differentiation are simply being deleted. I wish to refer to the State President’s pronouncement in his interview with the previous Leader of the Official Opposition which was conceded by that leader. The State President said:

The previous Leader of the Official Opposition conceded this to the State President.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Randfontein spoke about the meaning of the concept of discrimination, and I hope to deal with that during the course of my speech.

At the opening of the current session of Parliament on 31 January of this year the State President said, and I quote: “We have outgrown the outdated colonial system of paternalism as well as the outdated concept of apartheid.” I had hoped he meant that we had outgrown apartheid, the policy of apartheid, the practice of apartheid and the entire concept of apartheid and not simply the negative image he believed the world had of the policy.

During the course of that address the State President also said: “We believe that a democratic system of government, which must accommodate all legitimate political aspirations of all the South African communities must be negotiated.” Fine words indeed and one hopes that it will not be too long before a substantial quantity of flesh is provided to cover those bones. A final quote from that speech is: “We accept one citizenship for all South Africans, implying equal treatment and opportunities.”

Following that speech an advertisement signed by the State President appeared in the weekend press and in almost every other newspaper in the country. It emphasised the Government’s commitment to equal opportunity, equal treatment and equal justice for all. The State President also promised that the hated pass system “will be scrapped by July 1 this year.”

Today I want to ignore the subsequent “verkrampte” interpretations put on the speech and advertisement by many of the hon members of the Cabinet. I want to take the State President’s words at face value.

The Oxford Dictionary defines discrimination as follows: “To make a distinction, to give unfair treatment, especially because of prejudice.” There is no doubt that the policy of apartheid was designed to give one section of the population “unfair treatment” at the expense of the rest of the community. It was designed to “make a distinction” especially with regard to the Whites and not only “because of prejudice.”

I suppose, to be fair, one should not blame White greed for the situation that has developed in South Africa but rather White ignorance and indifference. For 38 years Whites have been shielded by apartheid from the reality of the suffering of the Black people of this country. They have been unaware of or indifferent to the position of disadvantage Blacks have been forced into by the policies of the NP Government.

All that is changing now, though. Almost daily reports and surveys appear which indicate the desire of the overwhelming majority of the population to destroy discrimination as soon as possible. One of the most devastating was the HSRC investigation into inter-group relations. The report—it was compiled by a Government-financed body and in no way influenced by starry-eyed liberals—showed that apartheid fueled racial friction and violence, and it called for drastic changes in the political, social and economic order. The report singled out entrenched separation, population registration, a racially bound legal system, unequal education and economic and job restrictions as contributing to mistrust and resentment. It described apartheid as a failure and advocated a new approach to group relations.

Surely the new approach required is the elimination of discrimination, discrimination which leads to violence, as was shown in the report. Only last night on the television news we saw Dame Sheila Roberts, a British visitor, say that the scenes of South African violence shown on TV screens around the world were an affront to public conscience.

Discrimination is a system which is imposed by one group upon another. By its very nature it is a condition which is not only imposed but also endured under duress. It cannot be a condition voluntarily accepted by those who are discriminated against. It is a condition despised by those at whom it is aimed and which, if it is not eliminated, may lead to a system of tyranny. As an example of the forms that tyranny could take, I would point to the gangs of thugs who roam townships and have nothing to lose.

I wonder how many hon members in this House have visited Black townships of late and witnessed the conditions of misery and despair under which many of those desperately poor, unfortunate people exist. The incidence of overcrowding, lack of facilities and scenes of abject poverty are too appalling for words. Gangs of youths, some of whom have never worked and for whom the prospect of a job is a remote possibility, roam the streets causing all sorts of chaos and disturbances.

The tyranny I refer to is not only perpetrated by those who are known as “comrades”. In spite of denials by the hon the Minister of Law and Order, there is evidence of a veritable reign of terror in the townships by the security forces.

Those who suffer at the hands of discrimination find that it comes at them from all directions. They become desperate and long for an end to the despised system under which they exist and pray for a cessation of the endless and senseless round of violence. Discrimination breeds poverty, poverty breeds discontent, and discontent breeds violence.

What, then, are we to do? Fine-sounding words by the State President have to be matched with deeds. It is no use talking about equal treatment and opportunities, or saying that we have outgrown the outdated concept of apartheid, that we need a democratic system of government to accommodate all the legitimate political aspirations of all South African communities, and then saying at the same time that there will be separate residential areas for Whites, separate schools for Whites and separate political structures for Whites. Those three “non-negotiables”, as they are known, are nothing more and nothing less than discrimination and simply cannot be defended or sustained.

The State President has promised to scrap the pass system by July 1. I believe he should go further and scrap the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, and the Population Registration Act before the end of this session, that is before July 1. That, I believe, will be a positive reaction to the report of the HSRC.

If meaning is to be given to the commitment to end discrimination, then I believe dramatic moves and iniatives are needed. If we are to survive at the tip of the African continent, we have to show that we are sincere in our intention to abandon apartheid. Non-negotiables which entrench White privilege are simply not acceptable.

To scrap the three Acts I have mentioned would be regarded as such a bold gesture on the part of the State President that it could sweep away the spiral of violence, restore normality to the country and produce a wave of confidence which will provide a cascade of investment and development in this country such as we have not seen since the Nationalists came to power.

That would only be the beginning, however. As my colleague the hon member for Yeoville has indicated, all the discriminatory legislation we find produced in those rows of red books behind Mr Speaker, are laws which were enacted by Parliament, and it is Parliament that should repeal them. I therefore support the motion that a joint select committee be appointed to review all legislation with a view to repealing any and all provisions which provide for discrimination.

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin by making certain general observations by way of introduction. I believe I will meet the request of the hon member for Yeoville in this regard.

We usually speak of the concept of discrimination as opposed to differentiation, thereby implying that the one concept is something evil and objectionable, whilst the other concept—that of differentiation—is not objectionable, but is in fact acceptable.

Purely as a matter of interest, I have done what other hon members have indicated they too have done. I consulted a dictionary to find a definition of the word “discrimination”. I agree that we should be clear as regards our terminology in the discussion of these issues. I came across the following definition: To discriminate can mean, on the one hand, to act on the basis of a difference between or to make a distinction between. On the other hand, it can also mean to select for unfavourable treatment or to act prejudicially.

I think it is common cause that when we speak of discrimination, we have in mind the objectionable and evil concept. Whether that is to be found in the wording of the statutes or in the hearts, minds and deeds of men, it is equally objectionable.

As I see it, not only is the latter an immoral concept but it is also unchristian. It is therefore the sacred duty of all people who profess moral and Christian values not only to refrain from discrimination but also to oppose everything that is discriminatory in content or application. I would like to make myself perfectly clear on that score. If one professes and believes that all men are created equal, then I believe it is axiomatic that wherever there is discrimination of the kind I have just described, it is wrong. This is not only my personal belief. It is also the belief of all members of the Government. Since this is the case, we are committed not only to removing discrimination from the Statute Book but also to persuading those to whom we have access to live in accordance with the fundamental principle I have just defined.

There is another general statement that, although it has been repeated often, requires to be made again. It is this: The fact of the existence of various groups, of peoples in the South African context, must of necessity be taken into consideration when we endeavour to address, constitutionally or otherwise, the socio-economic and political problems of the South African society. When I speak of peoples in this regard I speak of them in the sense used in the Charter of the UNO, the two United Nations Covenants on Human Rights and various other UNO resolutions where it is used—and I wish to stress this—most frequently in the context of the legal right to self-determination of peoples.

I want to stress that the word “people” in the sense that it is used in these instruments denotes a cultural entity as distinct from a political entity, for example, or a voluntary association of a number of people. There can be no doubt about that whatsoever.

Whether there exists, in the legal sense of the word, a right to self-determination in international law, or whether it is merely a political principle applicable when circumstances will allow, is purely academic.

The important point I should like to make is that internationally it is considered apposite, to put it mildly, that peoples should be entitled to self-determination either in separate geopolitical entities or by exercising some degree of authority over themselves as groups. For instance, the whole political concept of a consociational system is, according to all the authorities, predicated on the existence of groups which should be entitled to a measure of segmental autonomy. To say that a policy which seeks to realise the notion of self-determination of peoples, albeit to varying degrees, is per se discriminatory and consequently evil, is so much nonsense. I wish, however, to make it perfectly clear that this does not mean that I hold the view that only cultural groups are politically relevant. Of course they are not. Religious groups can be more relevant in certain cases. Ireland is the best example of this.

My third general observation is that laws are made to accommodate society’s needs and perceptions at a particular point in time. That at any given point in time the needs may be selfish, I concede. That the perceptions may be misconceived, I also concede. The point, however, is that laws are not made for all time. They are the servants of the community and if they are found to be unjust—and that, in my view, means discriminatory—or obsolete, then they must go or be adapted. If we profess an aversion to discrimination, it is our clear duty to see that they are changed or go. The Government is committed to this. To this end, one must add that if and when attitudes and needs change, existing laws have to be adapted to reflect these changes.

Having said this, I have to reiterate that there would be little consolation in having statutes containing no discrimination if we do not also endeavour to win the hearts and minds of people for the cause of justice, freedom and democracy. That cannot be done in terms of laws alone; it has to be attempted in faith.

*That, then, brings me to the motion of the hon member for Yeoville. I thank all the hon members on this side of the House who participated in the debate, particularly since they have already reacted to certain points. The Government is committed to the protection of the individual and to the promotion of individual interests. The promotion of the happiness, the spiritual and material well-being of all, as well as the protection of human dignity, of life and of the freedom and property of all are, after all, national objectives which are set out and defined in the Preamble to the Constitution. Everything that interferes with these objectives should, therefore, be avoided and opposed.

It is because of this commitment that the Government rejects every form of discrimination, whether it be on the grounds of race, culture, religion or sex. For the same reason the Government is committed to the repeal of legislation and the discriminatory provisions contained in it which are in conflict with this concept.

I hope I shall have enough time to respond to the hon member for Barberton. In my opinion there are certain other matters we should take into account.

At the same time it is a reality that the South African society is made up of a diversity of groups and that this has to be taken into account in every political system that has to eliminate the domination of one group over another. I think the hon member for Yeoville will agree with me on this since the former leader of the PFP did. In a similar debate in this House last year, he conceded—and this is the essence of the debate—that there is a diversity of groups in South Africa, viz cultural groups, ethnic groups and race groups.

He went further and said the existence of those groups would have to serve as a point of departure for any future political participation. I understood his policy and his words—if they have meaning. When he referred to minorities which demand protection, he referred to the ethnic, cultural and race groups that exist. [Interjections.] He said so himself, Sir. Please, I should not like to debate with the hon member now; I did not interrupt any of the hon members while they were speaking.

As a matter of fact, the PFP makes reference to the protection of minority rights. The former leader of the party defined this and referred to the ethnic, cultural and racial division in society.

Let us go further. I should like to quote from the PFP’s constitution:

There is only one qualification:

If this is still the policy of the Official Opposition, surely the Government and the Official Opposition agree that the rights of the individual, as well as the rights of groups, should be protected. I use the word “if" deliberately, because in the no-confidence debate one could detect a very clear shift in standpoint which took place this year. As I pointed out, the realities of the existence of groups in society on a racial, ethnic and cultural basis were recognised previously. The point on which we did differ, was how these groups should be defined, whether they should be defined statutorily or on the basis of voluntary association. There was no argument, however, that the dividing component should be “racial, ethnic and cultural”. We agreed that this component would have to be accommodated in any new constitutional dispensation.

The Official Opposition must express their views on this issue. The former Leader of the Official Opposition spoke about it again on 3 February this year and asked whether the Government was prepared to restore freedom of choice to all South African citizens on a non-racial or non-ethnic basis.

What constituted the components of society and embraced the definition of groups last year, has now lapsed. In its place we have the group as a political unit, a political association. We are therefore no longer arguing with one another about the protection of minorities, but are in fact giving a political party, even a small one such as the Official Opposition, a right of veto on the decisions of other people. That is what it means.

They also said the capitalists can be a group.

I want to go further and say it remains the Government’s basic approach—I do not apologise for that—that the ethnic group basis of this South African society should be taken into account in the execution of both its administrative task and peaceful co-existence to ensure that everyone’s interests can be protected.

I want to warn the hon member that if we do not do this, minority rights will be destroyed by majority rights. Recognition of groups also contributes to the development of certain groups in accordance with their needs, aspirations and possibilities. I want to repeat today, however, that the group basis may not be stressed at the expense of the individual or applied at the expense of the groups. The differences as well as the similarities between people in the communities must be taken into account. That is why group differentiation in South Africa is not an objective in itself, but a method—I want to stress this—or a mechanism for the protection of groups in a heterogeneous society.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the model the hon member for Yeoville is presenting to us has had no viability in any society structured in the same way as our own. [Interjections.] There is not a single one. If such a differentiation injures the human dignity of some people, and leads to discrimination and friction, separation—instead of preventing this—does not serve the purpose of peaceful coexistence and group protection or minority protection, and the relevant measures should be adapted or abolished. For this reason the Government does not intend to enforce the association of groups rigidly on only an ethnic basis, but also to accept other forms of association and grouping for the promotion of sound intergroup relations.

The Government’s commitment to and concern with—in all fairness—this approach can be seen clearly in the abolition of measures in various walks of life. In the labour sphere the Department of Manpower no longer administers any measure which discriminates on the grounds of race. This also applies to the legislation in the legal sphere. Adjustments have been made to the Criminal Procedure Act and other Acts to remove discrimination. Then there are the announcements concerning the questions of right of ownership, citizenship and identification which have to be defined in legislation this year. I make no apology for this legislation which we shall submit this year.

We must talk to one another about these important issues, but when we debate, let us at least be realistic in looking at South Africa as it really is, and not as we should like it to be. I am afraid the absolutisation of concepts by the Official Opposition and the CP is no way of finding the answers since on the one hand we want to deny the community life and accept the community as an absolute, and on the other hand want to indicate only the diversity, but not the community in the diversity. Neither of these standpoints can apply.

During the past few years—I do not have the time to make an exhaustive list at the moment—considerable progress has been made in the dismantling of inequalities and that of the benefiting of one group at the expense of another. As far as the legislation is concerned, a number of amendments have been introduced to abolish discriminatory measures.

I now want to refer to the hon member for Barberton. [Interjections.] Hon members must please not interrupt me.

Begin with the pitch-black President.

Let me begin with the hon member. I want to tell the hon member for Barberton one must be careful of using the word “treason”, particularly if one’s presence in the House is based on that concept. [Interjections.] I want to read to the hon member what he committed himself to in 1981. He is committed to, and I quote:

The hon member is committed to that under the signature of his leader.

Read everything!

I shall read everything. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I did not interrupt anyone.

Order!

I have another complaint against the hon member for Barberton in his selective quote from the debate of 1980. I should like to quote the hon member from Hansard, 21 March 1980, col 3237. The hon member says the following about a similar motion:

[Interjections.] Wait, the hon members must please give me a chance. That hon member continued to say:

Hon members must listen to why he says it is unnecessary. He says it is unnecessary—

We must note that he said “has already created”. He continues:

Discriminatory measures are therefore included. [Interjections.] No, wait, the hon members must please give me a chance. The hon member for Barberton continued (col 3238):

The hon member must listen well now because he said—

“Could be abolished”, he says, Sir. [Interjections.] I want to quote more of what the hon member said.

Order! Certain hon members seem to like the quotations of the hon the Minister, and others seem not to like them. In any case, hon members must give the hon the Minister the opportunity to make his speech. The hon the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.]

Then I shall continue to quote the hon member, Sir. He says (col 3239):

[Interjections.] Let us compare the hon member’s statements here, Sir, with the criticism he is levelling at the motion and the amendment. He is not criticising the substance thereof, but only the mechanism. He says he does not need mechanisms. [Interjections.] The Government is already creating them. It has already created the machinery and the instruments to make it possible to give shape to what is being requested in the hon member for Yeoville’s motion. [Interjections.]

Let us take it a bit further. With reference to the commitment to remove hurtful measures, I say the hon member should be careful when he uses the word “betray”. [Interjections.] The Government has not merely paid lip-service to the concept of equal opportunities for all people. The Government has taken positive steps to give shape to this.

I now want to come to the hon members of the Opposition. They say—listen well—we must abolish all the laws that differentiate. The hon member for Johannesburg North said we must abolish the Population Registration Act. He wants to do it immediately. This means that of necessity we shall have to abolish the electoral laws. It also means we shall have to abolish the Constitution Act without the hon member’s having any alternative. Then the hon member for Yeoville and his supporters said Parliament should fulfil that function since Parliament is the instrument of reform. Now I want to ask how an instrument, which has been destroyed by the abolition of the legislation that created it, can be an instrument for reform. [Interjections.] A terribly important change in standpoint has therefore taken place. That change in standpoint, which we should look at critically, is as follows. There was a time when hon members of the Official Opposition took the stand that the Government had to issue a declaration of intent about certain principles in order to create a favourable climate for negotiation. That declaration of intent would then create the basis for launching the process of negotiation. In the speeches made here this afternoon, I find nothing that differs from the standpoint of the previous leader of the Official Opposition who is no longer here, viz that Parliament is not an instrument for reform.

Who said that?

The former leader of the Official Opposition said we should abolish all these laws before we can negotiate.

You said someone had said so today.

If the hon leader ever spoke on behalf of the hon member, it implied that he meant the abolition of Parliament. If, before the end of this session, I abolish the legislation the hon member maintains I should abolish, this institution will no longer exist. [Interjections.] Words have meaning. [Interjections.] That is very interesting since the fact remains that two prominent members of that party have left Parliament because they accepted the inefficacy of Parliament as an instrument for reform. [Interjections.] It is very interesting that they are now turning to action outside Parliament to bring about reform. Look at the company those two members of the PFP are keeping. Their membership of the PFP has not been terminated. They are simply no longer present in Parliament. They are still members of the PFP. One of them says the only thing that stands in the way of his membership of the UDF is whether or not they will accept him. He is still a member of the PFP.

That is your friend Boraine.

That is a member of the party of the hon member for Yeoville.

I should like to speak about this, and I want to know the standpoint of the hon member for Yeoville on this. Last year his standpoint was that one could not negotiate with people who have chosen violence as a method. The former leader of the Official Opposition put as his standpoint that there are elements in the ANC which are not militant, and that he was going to negotiate with them. I want to know whether the ANC has become more or less militant since then, and what the hon member for Yeoville’s standpoint in connection with negotiations with the ANC is. [Interjections.] If it is his standpoint that they are going to negotiate with the ANC despite the violence they commit, I want to know from him what has happened since last year to make him change his standpoint in that way. I make no apology for putting our conditions very clearly.

I want to make a last remark in connection with our quest for a fair society, since I think it is important. It is the Government’s standpoint that groups should be seen as groups in the politics of the country and that they should take part in it on the basis of differentiation. When differentiation means prejudice, it is neither morally nor politically justified. If legislation is discriminatory, it should be reconsidered. There is no point, however, in ignoring the necessity of differentiation in many South African situations. If we do so, as the hon member wishes us to, we shall promote discrimination in that minority groups will have no defence at all against domination by majority groups.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank those hon members who participated in this debate, in particular those in these benches who supported the motion, but also those in other parties. I do so, however, with a degree of sadness. If the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had been listening carefully when I introduced the motion, as I am sure he was, he would probably have found in it absolutely nothing to which he could take offence. What then developed, however, was that instead of our deciding that we would try to find each other in order to solve what is a real problem in South Africa, we indulged in something which has been the classic bedevilment of South African politics. Instead of listening to one another to see whether we could actually find some substance in the arguments of our hon colleagues, we were listening in order to see whether we could find some flaw of which we could take advantage. This is a tragedy, and I am sorry to say that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning proved himself one of the biggest offenders in this regard when, at the end of his speech, he tried to make a cheap political point in relation to association with other people. [Interjections.] I want to say it, so that there should be no misunderstanding on his part or anybody else’s: Membership of the PFP is inconsistent with membership of any body that is wedded to violence in regard to change in South Africa. Is that clear to the hon the Minister and to every other hon member on the NP benches? [Interjections.] However, the real tragedy is that although the hon the Minister and the hon member for Randburg made it very clear that this Government was committed to the removal of all discriminatory legislation, the hon the Minister then went on to destroy the image he had created by that very phrase. If one is really committed to the removal of discriminatory legislation, then one must be prepared to discuss logically what is discriminatory, what we can do without, and what can be done away with right away. The issue is what, when and how.

I do not believe that it is in the interests of South Africa that South Africans should wait to see what the Government is prepared to introduce into the House in order to remove discriminatory legislation. The parliamentarians should go ahead and do it. I have no quarrel with the hon member for Randburg in regard to what he said, except when he said: “Well, you know, there are so many laws and so many things, how can we do it all?” Those red books comprise 27 volumes. Is it beyond the capacity of Parliament to go through 27 volumes? If that is beyond the capacity of Parliament there is a very simple way to do it. In a Bill one can actually insert one clause dealing with the removal of discrimination based upon race or colour, and such stipulation would be applicable if one inserted it in a General Law Amendment Bill. However, I do not think we should do that. I think we should examine every statute and deal with it separately.

The argument is that we have to deal with thousands of regulations. However, all those regulations will become invalid on the day when the statute under which they were made, is repealed or altered in order to take that power away. You do not have to take my word for it, Mr Chairman. You know the Appellate Division cases which, in fact, provide the proof that all one has to do is to remove the enabling statute which allows one to discriminate, and then it all falls away. [Interjections.]

My appeal to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning as a Minister who has a high responsibility in regard to this matter is that we must not leave this matter until it is too late. There is still a moment of time in which we can put this right. I appeal to the hon the Minister to take advantage of this opportunity before it is too late for all of us and for our children.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 30 and motion lapsed.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.