Mr Speaker, yesterday we listened for a few hours to debates on the Second Reading of the Post Office Appropriation Bill, and I should like to thank the hon members who participated for having taken the trouble to participate, to a greater or lesser extent, in the debate. In most cases they made a contribution. The hon members for Hillbrow, Umlazi, Nigel, Boksburg, Umhlanga, Overvaal, Sasolburg, Hercules, Greytown, Vryheid, Sunnyside, Rosettenville, Germiston District and Alberton all participated on behalf of their respective parties.

Three amendments were introduced, respectively by the main speakers of the PFP, the CP and the NRP. I just want to say that all three amendments were basically concerned with the same thing, namely that tariffs should not have been increased. Each amendment, with the exception of the NRP’s, also contained a bit of politics, to which I shall not react. If one considers the three amendments, there is nothing positive in them about a department which can be regarded as one of the strongest undertakings in this country. It is a department with an annual turnover of more than R10 000 million; it is a department with more than 90 000 workers; it is a department which is renewing the entire Posts and Telecommunications network of this country, and it is a department which a few weeks ago installed the four millionth telephone in South Africa. The hon member for Rosettenville referred to this. It took a hundred years to install the first two million telephones, but the third million was installed within six years. The four millionth telephone was installed four years later, and we are planning the five millionth telephone in three years.

Hear, hear!

The Jeremiahs need not complain. I can quote numerous examples to hon members from letters from the public to indicate what they think of this service these people are rendering. It is an exceptional personnel that is working there. I shall deal with the hon member for Sasolburg later for what he said yesterday about my Post Office staff.

Not about the staff, about the organisation! [Interjections.]

No, where does one find an organisation which is disloyal? Who are the disloyal people in the Post Office? If a person talks about the organisation, surely the people in it must be my staff. What right does that hon member have to speak about disloyalty? [Interjections.] The hon member for Sasolburg thinks he can insult people, but he is no longer outside this House; he is now a member of this House. I shall deal with the hon member in an appropriate way in a moment. [Interjections.]

I want to begin by referring to a few remarks made by hon members, and then I want to deal with one or two general subjects.

†The hon member for Hillbrow has taken part in a few debates on Budgets that I have presented to this House. In 1984 he said that his reaction to that Budget was one of shock and disappointment.

He said that last year!

Yes, he did say that last year but he said so in 1984 as well. [Interjections.] In 1985 he said:

[Interjections.]

*The hon member is not even original in what he says, because the morning after my Budget Speech, he told the Cape Times: “I am shocked and I am disappointed”. [Interjections.]

The hon member then went on to talk about golden years, and said we were inaccurate in regard to the statements we made. [Interjections.] He said this was the third year I had introduced the Post Office budget. In that regard, too, he was wrong, because this is the fourth one I am introducing. [Interjections.] He went even further and said there was a flourishing period of five years in the Post Office, during which no tariffs were increased. Again he was wrong, because there were no increases for only four years—not five years.

If we want to talk about accuracy, we must at least be on the way to it. I take it amiss of the hon member for having dragged the name of a former Postmaster General into this debate, a man who did a great deal for Posts in this country and a man who, together with the previous hon colleagues, who were the Ministers, even set in motion the developments which are now taking place. It is unfair to say now that because he did not ask for any tariff increases for four years, we should do the same.

What happened to tariffs? By way of a few analyses: In the ten years from 1970 to 1980 the Post Office tariffs rose by 66%. In the past four years in which, as I have said, the number of telephones increased by one million, and in fact by two million during the past ten years, the tariffs rose by altogether 53,4%. Surely one cannot compare the tariffs of 10 or 20 years ago, while we are now, in the electronic age, engaged in the installation of the digital network, the new development, the optical fibre which hon colleagues discussed, and while we are now the carriers of the lines of communication between our major cities. Surely this cannot be compared with the time, during the past 50 years or so, when we were installing only the analogue and the electromechanical exchanges.

Modernisation should cause the tariffs to fall.

I do not think the hon member for Bryanston really understands what is happening.

Mention was made of the four golden years during which no tariffs were increased, but during the two preceding years and the two years after that, the postal tariffs increased by 51,1%. During these last four years, during which I have been Minister, the increase was 53,4%. In the period before this and after this the tariff increases were the same as those of the present four years.

The hon member for Nigel at first spoke positively about the Post Office staff, but he spoke so negatively about the economy of the entire country and the future of this country that it sounded almost like a jeremiad. He was only outdone by the hon member for Hillbrow, and to a certain extent by the new star, the hon member for Greytown. [Interjections.]

If we look at those four years when tariffs were not increased, and at the staff training which is taking place at present, I must point out that we are in the process of producing 7 000 highly-trained staff members. The hon member for Greytown said that we had not cut back, as the private sector had done.

I want to furnish him with an interesting fact. During the last few months we have lost 600 of our best trained technical staff members to the private sector. These are the people who are ostensibly cutting back, as the hon member put it. The private sector has virtually ceased all training. We are training people because we are optimistic about the future, and because we also know there is going to be another resurgence in the economy of this country. Surely it is not difficult to predict that.

In the years which lie ahead the Post Office will continue to initiate vast expansions. This does not include luxuries, though. The hon member for Germiston District said we should not concentrate on luxuries. Could the hon member perhaps indicate to us what those luxuries are? We have just designed a new telephone. It is a very effective telephone, designed by the Post Office in co-operation with its suppliers, a telephone which is aimed at preventing everyone having to use the same model as all business firms. We can produce that telephone far more cheaply, and a start will soon be made on installing this new telephone for new subscribers. It will also be made available to people who might wish to exchange their old telephone for this new one.

When we take note of all these things, surely it is clear that money is needed for them.

†The hon member for Umhlanga said we were obviously not reading the signs of the times very well. He said we should apply other methods. He admitted quite readily that the Post Office needed money in order to continue with its extensions and our new types of equipment. He said we should find the necessary money somewhere else. Where else do we have to find it? The hon member for Umlazi gave the answer to that question by stating that that extra money was to be derived from increased tariffs. The Post Office receives no subsidies. Does the hon member for Umhlanga perhaps want us to revert to the situation of long ago, when we had to go down on our knees begging for subsidies from the taxpayers’ money? Should we do that instead of receiving money from people who are paying for services rendered very efficiently and promptly by the Post Office staff?

*When we take note of these things, and also of what hon members said in their speeches during this debate, it is clear that there are two facets in particular which emerge time and again. In their speeches several hon members mentioned the question of privatisation. Among them was the hon member for Hillbrow, as well as the hon members for Alberton, Nigel, Boksburg, Overvaal and Alberton. Then, too, quite a number of hon members also spoke about productivity. Among them were the hon members for Hillbrow, Umlazi and Boksburg. Let us pause for a moment to consider this matter.

†Let us have a look at the whole question of privatisation for a few moments. There is so much confusion about this in the minds of many people. They think that once one has privatised one will be walking on another planet. There are going to be cheap telephones and no tariffs, but also no development and nothing else; in fact we will be right back in the bush from where we started a few hundred years ago!

Let me say immediately that the privatisation of State-controlled services has of late become a major topic of discussion and is receiving the active attention of the Government.

*The Government appointed the hon the Minister for Administration and Economic Advisory Services to go into the whole matter of privatisation. We were all asked to submit memoranda. There was an investigation, and officials have already been sent overseas to go into the whole question of privatisation.

†When one looks at the Post Office as a State business undertaking it is by virtue of the fact that it not only spends funds but also generates its own revenue. That is an important point. It is one of the organisations which has very easily and superficially been identified by all and sundry as ripe for privatisation. Perhaps it is not commonly known that the Post Office has already made good progress with the transfer of certain of its activities to private enterprise.

Before elaborating on this I should perhaps explain that there are two words commonly used in this connection. The words are “liberalisation” and “privatisation”. Because there is much confusion about the meaning of these two words one must, I think, draw a clear distinction between them. Liberalisation is the term used to describe a situation where the monopolistic tendencies of say the telecommunications administration are relaxed to allow increased participation of private industry in the supply of telecommunications products. It also means that the administration does not necessarily withdraw from the supply of products but could market these in competition with the private sector. Privatisation refers to the conversion of all or part of the Government organisation into a private one which allows also for non-Government shareholders. I think that should be quite clear. An example of this is British Telecom which liberalised the provision of telecommunications services with the introduction of the Telecommunications Act of 1981. This meant that they relinquished their sole right to provide certain services and that private companies could compete with them to provide these. Subsequently, however, in 1985, they were privatised and 51% of their shares went to private enterprise.

In a developing country where postal and telecommunications services often have to be provided regardless of economic considerations in the pursuance of national growth, the sensible way of going about this is to liberalise products and services where possible in the national interest.

This is what has been done. I could list an impressive array of liberalised products and services but it would take too much time. Instead I will quote only a few examples. Firstly, there is the supply and the maintenance of private automatic branch exchanges. There are telephone attachments such as the telephone answering equipment, facsimile machines, data modems, private radio and communication equipment and Beltel terminals. These have all been liberalised and handed over to the private sector to control.

Secondly, we contract out work in connection with the laying of cables, optical fibre routes, the installation of telephone exchanges, the erection of microwave towers, buildings and access roads, the planning and erection of post office buildings and telephone exchange buildings, the hiring of office blocks for the use of Post Office officials and the repair and maintenance of vehicles.

I could continue with this long list of liberalised products. These have been farmed out to private enterprise. This was done of our own accord and long before the question of privatisation arose. I could quote examples of future possibilities but I will rather leave that for a more opportune moment.

As I have said, we are committed to liberalisation but we must also recognise that everything is not as simple as it seems to the unenlightened at times.

It is for example absolutely essential that liberalisation should not jeopardise the strategically important local electronics industry which was mentioned very adequately by one of the hon members.

*South Africa is a developing country with national objectives such as regional development, decentralisation and the creation of employment. Added to that is the advancement of an electronic industry, which can serve as a hedge against sanctions and disinvestment.

A valid question which is regularly asked is why the postal industry in countries—here I could mention West Germany, Belgium and Switzerland—other than Britain has not been privatised. Major investigations are at present being carried out in West Germany, Switzerland and Belgium, and I hope at an opportune moment in future to hold talks with these people once their reports have been published. After we have held talks with them, we shall also make our contribution to the Minister concerned and submit certain things to him. I think people who talk so lightly about the privatisation of the communications industry must in fact take cognisance of this, and think hard about the matter again.

*Let us look at privatisation, especially at the privatisation of British Telecom. It is interesting to note that with an inflation rate in Britain of 4,6% in 1983 and 5,5% in 1985, British Telecom found it necessary to raise its tariffs.

For instance, the tariff for domestic rentals was raised in 1983 by 18% and in 1985 by 16%. The rental tariff for businesses was raised in 1983 by 31,4% and in 1985 by 16,4%. The telephone unit cost was raised by 10% in 1983 and by 13,6% in 1985. I believe further tariff increases have been asked for. However, we do not have the details in respect of this particular year.

This is what actually happens in private enterprise. We are committed by law to not making a profit. We have to take all the profit we make and put it back into infrastructure. Would private enterprise do that? Would private enterprise allow the postal services to run at a loss of R123 million? Will private enterprise put as much as R5 400 million into infrastructure every year? Will private enterprise do that?

At least it would be more efficient.

I do not know why the hon member is arguing with me now. Yesterday he did not want to speak in the debate. He had plenty of opportunity, but they then called upon the services of the hon member for Greytown, and his was in fact a poor performance.

You ask a question and then when I answer it, you complain.

We can even see what our friends in the newspapers have to say.

*Gerhard Burger wrote the following in Die Vaderland:

He goes on for a while and then, referring to the fact that he had applied for an additional jack in his house, he said:

At least you have a sheep in the Postal Services!

I shall quote further:

He then concludes by saying:

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Langlaagte entitled to refer to the hon the Minister as a “sheep”?

Mr Speaker, I did not refer to the hon the Minister as a sheep. [Interjections.]

Yes, you did!

Oh please, the hon the Minister must please listen. I know he is impatient. I said at least the Railways had a sheep. It was meant figuratively. [Interjections.] I did not say the hon the Minister was a sheep. I said he had a sheep, but I was not referring to him at all. I am fond of the hon the Minister. I would never say a thing like that. [Interjections.] I did not say the hon the Minister was a sheep.

Is the hon member saying that he said at least the Railways had a sheep? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I had the Post Office in mind. I meant to say that at least the Post Office had a sheep, but it was not applicable to the hon the Minister.

I just want to understand the sense of the remark correctly. If the hon member said that at least the Post Office had a sheep, could he tell me what his intention was by saying that?

Mr Speaker, I did not in any way refer in an animal sense to the person of the hon the Minister as a sheep.

But a sheep is an animal. The hon member said that at least the Post Office had a sheep. Could he just explain to me what he meant by that.

Mr Speaker, I shall have to see the statement I made in writing. I shall apologise if it in any way appears to be applicable to the hon the Minister.

The hon member need not apologise. I think he must withdraw what he said about the hon the Minister.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker, but in any case I did not mean it to refer to the hon the Minister.

The hon the Minister may proceed.

When we conduct another debate, the hon member should perhaps participate, so that we can get to grips with one another properly.

†The hon member for Hillbrow raised the question concerning our banking loans and the reaction to Dr Leutwiler’s arrangement with the banks. The hon member knows the conditions Dr Leutwiler received from the banks. I do not have to go into that. The arrangement was that 95% of the main amounts would be delayed until March 1987, while 5% of the main amounts of those loans would be met in April 1986. The rest would be met on 31 March 1987. There are also loans that will become repayable during this time, and they will be paid to the Treasury. There is a technical committee which has been appointed by the banks. They will deal with the question of our repayment, and we expect them to have reached an agreement by about 25 March 1986. Between now and 31 March 1987 an amount of R424,6 million will fall due. At the present exchange rate, that is equivalent to R694 million at the moment. Five per cent of this amount is equivalent to R37,9 million, which is all that we have to repay at this stage. There is another loan amounting to R75,4 million which we have repaid into the Special Account. We are therefore not very severely affected by this, but we are complying with the request made by the hon the Minister. Our own loans with overseas banks have also been taken into account as far as the repayment of loans is concerned.

I want to refer to the speech of the hon member for Umhlanga for a few moments, but before I do so, I would like to thank the hon member for Umlazi for having very effectively dealt with the hon member for Hill-brow yesterday. The hon member made some very interesting points. I will not repeat his comparison between the price of a newspaper and postal tariffs today, but I am sure that if one uses the telephone even at today’s tariffs, one will receive better service than one would get from reading a newspaper which costs 40 cents. That kind of service will cost 14 cents at the Post Office.

*If one considers what the hon member for Umlazi said, one finds that he spoke about productivity and praised the Post Office in this connection. He did so very effectively. There were other hon members who also discussed this subject. The hon member for Greytown also tried to venture into that sphere. But let us just take a look at some of the developments of the past years as far as increased productivity is concerned.

A system was put into operation by means of which 900 post offices with Dentex facilities can now communicate directly with the central computer in Pretoria to confirm the balances on savings accounts in order to dispose of payments to clients more rapidly. The budgeting system of the department is now being fully computerised. In the interests of effective financial control the department’s complete loan portfolio, which includes internal and external loans, exchange transactions, cash flow projections and primary and secondary stock issues, is being completely computerised. The computerised telephone directory inquiry system was improved to such an extent that the time per inquiry was cut down by between 10 and 15 seconds. The system eliminates the use of telephone directories.

Merit assessment is carried out annually, and between 15 000 and 20 000 personnel members are involved. In the past this work was done by hand, but good progress has already been made with the computerisation of this merit procedure.

In co-operation with the National Productivity Institute, good progress is being made with the introduction of quality circles, which are aimed at monitoring efficiency and productivity in small work groups.

Computer-assisted training will be put into operation shortly. A comprehensive scientific system for the measuring of productivity is at present being put into operation in cooperation with the National Productivity Institute. Without an efficacious measuring instrument it is not possible to monitor productivity meaningfully.

All these measures are being adopted by the Post Office in co-operation with the National Productivity Institute to ensure that the compliment we received from them last year, ie that our productivity was the highest in the country, was justified by keeping our productivity at the level on which it ought to be. Nevertheless we were attacked in Opposition members’ speeches as though our productivity were poor.

We have our own information section, and I should like to show hon members a few examples of the posters which we circulate in our post offices every month: “Werk fluks en flink—dit maak jou toekoms blink”; “Die Poskantoor gee om vir jou”; “You look after your productivity and the Post Office will look after you.” “Think about it—we care about you”. I even feel like handing some of these to the hon members of the Opposition. The Post Office does care for them as long as they use the telephone. “It pays to be productive”; “Take pride in your work and reap the reward. We care for you”; “Werk fluks en slim om hoër te kan klim.”; “Doen elke dag jou bes, dan sorg ons vir die res”.

Have you ever wondered why they sent them to you, Lapa?

They did not send them to me, I sent those suggestions to them. That is just where the hon member is making another mistake now. He must not interrupt so often and make mistakes.

†I should like to refer to the speech of the hon member for Umhlanga for a moment. He put his case very effectively and calmly as he usually does, but I think I have to cross swords with him on a few matters. If we had left the tariff completely unchanged we would have had a loss of R511 million, and we expect our loss for the current financial year to be R163 million. If we were to obtain more revenue simply by increasing our volume, we would have to find R674 million worth of extra work. If we take the total number of telephone and telex calls for the present year to be 1 800 million and that of mail item to be 321 million, we find that in order to obtain that R674 million we would have to increase the telephone and telex volume by approximately 30% and the postal traffic by about 40%. On the basis of my experience I can tell the hon member that it is totally impossible to increase one’s telephone traffic by 30% and in the same year to increase one’s postal traffic by 40%. Our increases range up to 10% at the very most. There is therefore no question of being able to generate such a volume, so I think the hon member’s argument falls away. I presume he wanted no tariff increase at all because he was very sad about the fact that we did actually raise tariffs.

Let us look at the work volume and find out what has actually happened. Let us look at the number of telephones installed. In 1984-85 there were 3 800 000 telephones in South Africa, and for 1985-86 the figure is 4 013 000. That is an increase of 3,2%. There were 2 297 000 exchange connections in 1984-85, and the figure for 1985-86 is 2 374 000. This is an increase in volume of 3,3%. We had an 8% increase in exchange lines; a 1% increase in index services; a 13% increase in data services; a 14% increase in the volume of data modems; an 8% increase in teletypers; a 6% increase in foreign calls; a 6,1% increase in deposits and a 15% increase in withdrawals from our savings bank, and an increase of approximately 4,4% in postage. That is what I want to point out to the hon member.

When one looks at what we have done, one sees that we have achieved all these increases with only a 0,9% increase in staff. Perhaps the hon member for Greytown will appreciate this. If one has an average growth of 3,2%, but a staff increase of only 0,9% it must mean proper productivity and an improvement in productivity. However, according to these figures one certainly cannot achieve the volumes that the hon member suggests. That is why the hon member for Umlazi put it very plainly that there is only one way in which one can find the money—unless one wants to keep borrowing—and that is to raise tariffs.

When I took over, I promised that I would rather announce small yearly increases than wait a few years and announce a 50% or 60% increase. We are at a stage where the demand calls for greater spending despite the economy. We have a demand for more than 200 000 telephones. Last year, as I have already said, we installed more than 300 000 and the year before that more than 200 000. Once more we have a waiting list of more than 200 000 telephones which shows that there is a demand for the commodity we are actually selling. It would be a very strange manager and top executive of a company who would try to cut down on production if the demand can actually be met. Every demand that is met, brings in more money.

The hon member also talked about the agencies, and I can tell him that every State department pays exactly the same tariffs for its letters and telephone service as the people outside. We have a very good organisation that tries to measure the volume of mail going through very accurately, and we receive our full payment. We are at present looking into the matter of television licences and our agencies. However, we do make a small profit, and we are providing a good service to the other departments. Built into the expenditure we have our salaries—for instance so many salary hours for a clerk’s work etc. So the money we get in actually pays for the amount of work those people do. We are not losing; we are not making a small profit whilst paying for everything else out of own pocket. I think the hon member can be satisfied that we are looking at that particular part of our income.

*The hon member for Nigel discussed the inflation rate. I want to thank the hon member for his fine words about the Postmaster-General who is here for the first time today for the reply to the debate. He has also been with me in the other Houses. The hon member for Nigel also raised the Leutwiler question, to which I have already replied. I said we were benefiting from the negotiations which took place, but they did not affect us on a very large scale.

The hon member’s statement about the 0,5% increase in the inflation rate was incorrect, because according to the calculations, which were made by very reliable people, the direct effect of this increase as from 1 April will only bring about an increase of 0,15% on the consumer price index. A further indirect effect which will eventually filter through, is estimated at 0,05%. This means that the total increases in the long term will only be 0,2%. Now we must decide whether we will allow that 0,2% increase to go through during a difficult period, or whether we are going to cut back to such an extent that we cannot continue with our programme. Will we have to cut back to such an extent that we have to dismiss staff and so that our suppliers, who employ thousands of excellent workers, will also have to dismiss people? If we do that, we will be a year or two behind by the time another boom is in progress and we are again able to place orders. These are the matters we have to take into consideration when it comes to dealing with this type of case. The hon member was correct when he said that we should guard against privatisation. I have dealt with this matter, and I agree with him. We shall have to be very careful in this connection.

I looked in Hansard at the speech made by the hon member for Sasolburg. I found it interesting that he quoted only a small portion of the letter which he received from the Postmaster-General. He did not read the entire letter. In order to have this placed on record, I now wish to quote the entire letter:

But the hon member did not read this last portion. He did not say that we were bound by legislation in this connection. He has been away from this House for too long, and is now making the fatal mistake of quoting an old court case here, and saying that the “Posterye” were tapping telephones. We do not listen in on anyone’s telephone conversations, and have never done so.

The hon member can read up the Post Office Act, and if he cannot find it, my staff can help him. Section 118A of the Act deals with the interception of mail matter, telegrams or communications per telephone in the interests of State security—not in the interest of the NP or the Post Office. If the hon member for Sasolburg is therefore of the opinion that his offices, wherever they may be, are meddling with State security, there is a chance that listening in is taking place. If he does not do so, there will be no listening-in. That is how easy it is. The hon member will simply have to decide for himself into what category he falls.

The direction for the interception of such postal articles, telegrammes or communications is deemed to authorise the making available to the person making the request in question of facilities to listen in to or to examine the communications in question. [Interjections.] Section 118A(2)(a) reads as follows:

lt reads further:

1. (b) Such person shall make the request only if he believes that the interception in question is necessary for the maintenance of the security of the Republic, and such request shall state—
   1. (i) the grounds on which such a person believes that such interception is necessary for the maintenance of the security of the Republic;
   2. (ii) where applicable, the period in respect of which such interception is required; and
   3. (iii) sufficient particulars to identify any postal article or communication involved, including particulars relating to the name and when known, the address of the person, body or organisation concerned, and any number …

and so it continues. What it actually means is that it is done only for specific reasons, and at the request of certain people who served for example in the Department of Defence, who are involved in State Security or who are members of the Police Force. There is consequently an official who will give specific attention to the matter.

I delegated the power, because I would not be able to deal with all these requests myself if they were to come in. This does not, however, mean that I am evading my responsibility. The official who is appointed, investigates the matter thoroughly. It is our policy, if a person writes to us and asks whether his telephone is being tapped, not to give him a yes or no answer. It would be meaningless to give everyone who writes a lot of answers.

Oh, so he does not receive a “yes” or “no”, is that it! [Interjections.]

The hon member must simply read the Act again, and stay away from things which meddle with state security, then nothing will go wrong.

I cannot, however, allow what the hon member for Sasolburg said at the end of his speech, to remain unanswered. He said:

I was referring to the Government! I was referring to the Post Office, controlled by the NP; I was not referring to the staff … [Interjections.]

No, the hon member must not jump around now. He insulted my Post Office officials terribly. [Interjections.] He spoke here about an incompetent, hopeless and disloyal post office. How can a Post Office be disloyal. [Interjections.] The hon member can be certain of one thing, and that is that he will not get one vote …

Because you do not have a case, you do not read the Hansards properly!

Order!

I would appreciate it if the hon member would keep quiet; I never interrupted him. The hon member must learn that he is no longer standing on a platform out there, where he can wave his finger about. [Interjections.] He is in the House now, and he has to give an account of what stands in his Hansard, and not simply read half a letter and regard my officials as disloyal. There are no people more disloyal than certain people I could point out here. I also served on the national executive when the hon member for Sasolburg made his first slip. The hon member then undertook not to do it again, but a few days later he did it again. Besides, we heard yesterday that the hon member had phoned the hon the Leader of the CP out of the caucus and told him what had happened in the caucus. [Interjections.] And then the hon member talks about disloyalty! I think the hon member should confine himself to the things he know something about. [Interjections.]

Order!

I do not know where they have been keeping the hon member for Greytown all these years. The hon member for Bezuidenhout, is retiring and that resourceful party hauls him off the veranda and makes him second speaker in the post office debate. He produced the wonderful story which appeared in the Cape Times this morning. I want to tell the Cape Times today that these figures are completely irresponsible and erroneous. He is now referring to the budget but, Sir, do you know what this financial guru did?

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon the Minister allowed to quote from a newspaper report of a current debate?

Mr Speaker, I was not quoting. I said that totally erroneous information appeared on the front page of the Cape Times. The Post Office people are not receiving a salary increase of 21%. That hon member cited the budget, but he took last year’s total staff expenditure and the total number of staff we had and divided that number by the expenditure which gave him an average of approximately R7 000. The hon member then took this year’s expenditure and divided it by the staff figure. He said it was now R9 000. He then said there was a difference of 21%.

†The hon member arrived at this percentage. I just mentioned how he did it. In this context the figures concerning the total staff are completely unrealistic. Since the staff expenditure is made up of such items as overtime, leave gratuities, housing subsidies, territorial allowances and subsistence allowances, how on earth can one take an average of all these people? [Interjections.]

Last year we had no increase in salaries at all and the money spent on staff increased by 7% because in all one’s grades of staff one gets a natural increase of a notch every year. [Interjections.] That is not the point at all. The hon member talked about the increase this year. The increase this year is the ordinary increase we all agreed on of 10%. We have people on a fixed scale and we have people who have reached the maximum of their scale who do not get the notch increase. The hon member should know that.

He also referred to the lower income groups and the extent to which they will benefit from the general review in salaries. The gap in salaries between White and non-White workers is continuously being narrowed. The difference in salaries between Coloureds, Whites and Asians is being wiped out this particular year. The hon member must realise that most of our staff—43% of them—will benefit substantially. The Black staff will benefit by more than 10%. The hon member asked me whether only the Whites at the top of the scale would get the increase? The most substantial increase will be for people in the lower income groups so as to try to bring about a measure of parity. In 1975 the Post Office employed 39% non-Whites. In 1985 this percentage had grown to 46%. The Black technical staff increased from 12 000 to 21 000 and during this period the Coloured staff increased from 3 000 to 7 000. Instead of being proud of a department that is run on these lines this hon member speaks of a number of things that he calls bureaucratic jargon.

I will tell the hon member something about the bureaucratic jargon to which he referred. On 1 January 1984 there was a 12% salary increase for staff members of the Post Office. In addition differentiation allowances of between 10% and 14% were also paid. These were added to the staff members’ salaries in the form of allowances. They were not consolidated into their salaries. I have since decided that those allowances are to be consolidated into their salaries. After all, they do receive that money. It does not imply that Post Office staff will be receiving anything extra beyond the salary increase of 10%. Once the 10% increase has been added to their salaries the salary scales will be adjusted accordingly so that we will not be saddled again with the payment of various additional allowances being paid to our staff.

The hon member should be more careful when he does his calculations. In the standing committee he had every opportunity of discussing all the relevant figures and of asking any questions he might have. After he had taken part in the deliberations of the standing committee he nevertheless came into this House and, despite the advice given him, still used his own discretion which, I am sure, caused him a considerable degree of trouble. [Interjections.]

*Last but not least, Sir, I just want to react to what the hon member said in connection with building societies. After all, he alleged that our housing scheme, and that of the State, had caused such tremendous increases in house prices. He was actually referring to the subsidies we were paying. Does the hon member not know that 70% of all building societies clients received subsidised loans? Of those clients only between 1% and 2% are staff members of the Post Office. Then how can the Post Office be contributing to the increase in property prices? In any event the subsidies only pay up to a maximum of R50 000. The hon member alleged that it was R60 000. Of course it is only R50 000. After that the purchaser pays the full additional amount.

Apparently the hon member for Greytown is very fond of averages. He referred to the average amount of R18 000 per official. Some of the officials involved, however, have been in the service of the Post Office for 30 years. The hon member really likes averages. I put it to him, however, that there are very few places where one can buy a house of R60 000 for an officer in the service of the Post Office.

The one or two things to which I should still like to refer, I may perhaps raise during the Third Reading. I thank hon members very much for their contributions to the debate. If necessary I shall speak to the hon member for Greytown again during the Third Reading. The impression which has now arisen that the staff of the Post Office are receiving a 21% increase in their salaries, I now want to label completely untrue here. They are only receiving their 10%, although the introduction of full parity may possibly bring about that people on lower scales will receive an increase of more than 10%. However, there is no question of a salary increase of 21% in the Post Office.

I did not say that at all!

If the hon member did not say that, why is it stated in the newspaper? Is the newspaper wrong? Perhaps the hon member has not read the newspaper yet? [Interjections.]

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

Upon which the House divided:

Mr Chairman, it is with great pleasure and in all sincerity that I move the motion as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

To a certain extent it is very painful for me to move this motion, for I know that when this motion is put to the vote today, it will be voted down by the NP.

We have heard that in August of this year the NP will hold a federal congress in Durban, to be followed by provincial congresses. We assume that the aim is to compel ratification of the State President’s standpoint he has expressed recently, namely one undivided South Africa, full citizenship for all and universal franchise. In our idiom: Power-sharing, with the Blacks as well, which will inevitably lead to Black domination. That means the capitulation of the Whites and, as Hans Strijdom put it, the annihilation of the White race.

After that congress a referendum will be held, possibly in November, or perhaps later. The Government often speaks about being reasonable. I now want to ask the Government to be reasonable. Let us first give the people a chance to decide honestly about the alternatives after having been informed objectively of the issues. Let there a referendum then be held. Let that referendum take place as it did in 1960 on the basis of constituencies and voters’ lists because we have our doubts about the 1983 procedure. [Interjections.]

What we have been witnessing the last two or three years in South Africa, has not been pleasant. The dominating feature has been the destabilisation of the internal situation. The country has been plunged into unrest and violence, the Red flag is flying in residential areas and Mandela is quoted freely and with impunity.

In the border areas landmines are exploding and from the scenes of those explosions murderers are returning unpunished to where they came from while the authorities content themselves with warnings and appeals to those who shelter them. In Africa they are ridiculing South Africa.

There is stagnation in the economic sphere and financial collapse. There are strikes, factories are closing down and the legal notices are brimful of liquidations and sequestrations. There is unemployment accompanied by famine. We have disinvestment. There has been a deterioration of the rand from the traditional $1,25 to $0,33—so much so that ecstasy reigns now that the rand is being traded at $0,50! [Interjections.] In addition there is the disgrace of the rescheduling of our short-term foreign investments. There is pessimism, hopelessness and despair among the general public. Young people see no future for themselves here. People are leaving the country. Money is being smuggled out and it has become a profitable business to sell little pamphlets on how to acquire foreign passports and on how to transfer one’s assets abroad. [Interjections.]

There is interference from every Tom, Dick and Harry at home and from anybody who wants to abroad. Even the hon member for Standerton says that South Africa’s problems have been internationalised. Everyone comes here and tells us what must be done in South Africa. Chief Minister Buthelezi and Frank Martin speak about a “KwaNatal”. Apparently they want to establish a new republic there. The Chamber of Commerce presents its own charter. East London and Durban are going to declare open residential areas (practically speaking it is already a fact). The Commonwealth sends an Eminent Persons Group; President Reagan sends a monitoring group. The public is given the impression that the demands suggestions and threats of all and sundry have to be met, otherwise it is all over. Indeed it would be all over if we were to pay heed to any of this.

I am afraid—and I say it clinically—that if the State President and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—who is the State President’s top advisor—must bear the full responsibility for the mess in which South Africa finds itself. [Interjections.] Their initiatives and reforms are the direct cause of it. All these problems can be traced back to two main causes. The first cause is the visible internal instability and the accompanying lack of confidence on the part of overseas investors in the safety of their investments here. That is one reason for the situation being what it is. Dr Verwoerd told of a Swiss banker who came to visit him when he was Minister of Native Affairs. Mr Havenga sent the Swiss banker to him, and that gentleman asked him what his native policy was. Dr Verwoerd rapidly told him about it. The Swiss banker then said:

Dr Verwoerd then asked him:

He replied:

[Interjections.]

The second cause is the inability of the Government to preserve law and order and to discipline the rioters, especially students and school children, and its inability to protect law abiding citizens and community leaders against the rioters. [Interjections.]

I am afraid that the image which exist today, is that the Government has already lost control of the situation. What is more, the master plan which the Government presented to the world and South Africa in 1983 for a South African utopia has failed. In 1983 the Government went to the country with this blue pamphlet entitled Grondwetlike riglyne: ’n Nuwe bedding vir Blankes, Kleurlinge en Indiërs. This the Government presented as being sacrosanct.

That is not true.

It is true! Anyway, in 1985, exactly two years later, the Government invited so-called “moderates” from all political parties to help find a solution to South Africas problems. That is the greatest admission and proof of the fact that the utopian 1983 plan has failed.

I always secretly hoped that the Government had a master-plan. Now I am convinced they do not have one. I want to tell the PFP and the NRP that they can relax.

The Government has no plan for preserving apartheid. There has been an unplanned retreat from its positions by the Government, and it is all over for them. One speculative but very strong possibility is that they believe they still have a trump card in the form of a military dictatorship. [Interjections.] This is purely speculative. It would be catastrophic. Nevertheless I should like to hear what the hon the Minister has to say on this point today. [Interjections.]

It is against this background that we are introducing our motion for partition today. In our sense of the word, partition means the political accommodation of South Africa’s various peoples within determined geographical borders, with full independence. [Interjections.]

I know that hon members are going to say: What about the concentrations of people outside the borders of the states of which they are citizens? We say there are practical methods of dealing with this problem and we are not elaborating on that at this stage. [Interjections.] Underlying this point of view is the realisation and the admission that the period of domination by a specific group, whether it is a minority group dominating a majority group or vice versa, is over.

Today’s trouble spots in the world are in fact those places where minorities are rebelling against majorities. Take for example the Basques, the Irish Catholics and the Kurds. The world is being shaken by the acts of terrorism of such minority groups, as happened again recently in Sweden. We do not want to dominate the Coloureds, the Indians, the Zulus, the Shangaans or the Basuto. We do not begrudge any other peoples in South Africa what we demand for ourselves, namely freedom and justice. Recipes for power-sharing have yet not been found. At least, the Government has not yet come forward with one.

Even in Lebanon, where people are ethnically undiversified, the sharing of the positions of head of state and head of government between Christian and Moslem ended in a fiasco.

Hon members ask me where partition does in fact work. It works in India and Pakistan. It works there after that huge territory had to be partitioned into two countries, namely India and Pakistan, and after millions of people had shed their blood. In Pakistan and Bangladesh partition brought peace. In Cyprus partition has also brought peace and development between Greeks and Turks. The Central African Federation, after a short trial period, was again partitioned into Zambia, Malawi and Rhodesia. After Charlemagne had established one holy empire in Europe it was again partitioned into separate states over a period of centuries. Ireland has been partitioned into Eire and Northern Ireland and yet the minority groups there are still in turmoil.

Whites! Both Whites.

Hon members may say that partition is not practical politics? That is a hollow argument. [Interjections.] Were the four independent TBVC countries not practical politics? If they were not practical politics why does the Government persist in the establishment of kwaNdebele?

Was the 1977 plan for a separate Parliament for the Coloureds and Indians—the brain-child of Mr P W Botha—not practical politics? [Interjections.] According to that plan there would be Coloured and Indian areas—largely contiguous but like Bophuthatswana having non-contiguous areas—which together would form the components of one geographical area over which that parliament would have authority. Practical politics means the art of the possible.

Order! There are members who are continually making remarks. This must stop. It contributes nothing to the debate. The hon member may proceed.

Practical politics is what can be done if there is a will to do. Norman Vincent Peale says: “You can if you think you can.” [Interjections.] The hon Minister may tell us today that it is simply too expensive. I must agree that it has become expensive. It is a pity that in the past important problems were not resolved. I myself have always bought when it was too expensive to buy and yet a few years later it turned out that I had bought cheaply.

So you are responsible for inflation! [Interjections.]

In any case, this Government is not giving the impression that there is a shortage of money. It is R600 million here and R1 000 million there that is being spent. All the decorating that is being done outside does not give the impression that austerity measures are necessary. Have the costs of the present dispensation been considered, and what the second Botha dispensation is going to cost the few White taxpayers in this country? Whatever the case may be, the hon the Minister for Finance says it is a good thing we have such a weak exchange rate because money is coming into the country. We get many rands for a few dollars and so we have a lot of money in the country. But it is not always how much money one has available that is important but how one uses the available money.

Furthermore it must be asked what partition implies for South Africa. In the ’forties the NP appointed a committee, under the chairmanship of Mr Paul Sauer, to investigate the colour problem in South Africa. The report of that commission became the 1948 manifesto of the NP. The opening paragraph of that report more or less stated that the choice for South Africa lay between integration and segregation. We had to choose one or the other, not a part of one and a part of the other.

The Sauer Commission recommended segregation. It was motivated and the guidelines laid down, and the NP accepted it. We all know that the evolution of that policy was a battle from trench to trench. The battle was generated internally, in this place, as well as from inside the country to the outside world—fanned by embittered anti-Afrikaner politicians. In all these battles, a South Africa Prime Minister stated on one occasion or another what partition or his policy implied. Dr Malan said:

Adv Vorster said:

Adv Strijdom said:

Dr Verwoerd said:

Generals Hertzog and Smuts expressed opinions on this policy before the NP Prime Ministers. General Hertzog said:

I am not going to quote General Smuts’s exact words because he uses an outdated word when he refers to the Blacks but he says that the only solution lies in the establishment of Black Councils, thereby enabling the Blacks to deal with their own problems within their own areas. [Interjections.]

The development of the NP’s policy culminated in the speech made by Dr Verwoerd on 20 May 1959 when he participated in a debate on the Promotion of Bantu Self-government Bill. In that speech he spelt out the implications of the policy of separate development and foresaw eventual and total independence for the Black peoples, when they were equal to it.

We have had a golden era of 30 years in this country, a period during which industrial development and the agricultural and financial sectors flourished, in which the universities burst out of their seams, in which Black peoples developed to such an extent that in no area did they have to take second place to any other in the world. I do believe, however, that the most important testimonial that can be given to a policy of separation of peoples is the fact that unrest and other problems exist in White South Africa, while discipline, order, peace and quiet reign in the four states which have become independent. We want to tell the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians that what we demand for ourself in our part of South Africa we do not begrudge to them in their own states. [Interjections.] What is more, we shall help them to obtain it.

Does it matter what they say?

We shall co-exist in peace with them in Southern Africa. If we are pleading for anything today then it is a plea for our children. We want to bequeath to them a safe, prosperous and peaceful haven in this country, in which they will not have to bow down to anyone except God Himself; a place where they can live, as I have said, by the grace of God alone and where they will be: Before the whole world free.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Soutpansberg said very little about partition itself and its implications. Anyhow, let us analyse what partition can in fact imply. As the hon member for Soutpansberg indicated we have four independent states, the so-called TBVC countries, within the original geographical area of South Africa. The hon member knows, however, that less than half of the people which we consider to be citizens of those countries in fact live in those countries and exercise their right to work there.

What percentage of Israelis live in Israel? [Interjections.]

I shall come back to Israel, but at the moment we are speaking about the independent states in Southern Africa. [Interjections.] At present the position is that we have nine development regions in South Africa but the statistics which I have relate to eight regions because the ninth one has only recently been established. I should like to refer to those eight regions. In one of them, the PWV area, the Whites constitute 32,7% of the total population. It is interesting to note that in the Northern Transvaal region—the G region—the Whites constitute 4,2% of the population. That is the region the hon member for Soutpansberg comes from.

That is now Tom and his people.

The Blacks constitute 95% of the population in that development region.

Does that include the Black states?

That is correct. It does include the Black states but even if I were to exclude Venda, Gazankulu and Lebowa, Blacks still make up more than 50% of the region’s inhabitants.

That makes a big difference.

Yes, 50% does make a big difference. The hon member is quite correct—50% or more does make a considerable difference.

In his motion the hon member referred to partition as a possible model “which ensures political self-determination, financial stability, economic well-being and State and individual security.” He then referred to Israel, Ireland and Cyprus. Where in Israel did partition bring about security? Israel has been embroiled in war since its independence. There has not been a month of peace since it became independent in 1948.

He was not speaking of Israel! You are setting up a straw doll.

He referred to partition and whether he mentioned Israel or not, Israel is a country in which partition was brought about.

Another country in which partition has been introduced is Cyprus. Where in Cyprus did partition bring about peace? Up to this stage United Nations troops are still required to keep the peace in Cyprus. There is neither peace nor economic stability nor any of these things which he advocated in his motion, having ostensibly been brought about by partition. All these things are absent in Cyprus. He also referred to Pakistan, Bangladesh and India, but did he notice that war and instability accompanied partition in every country in which it had been instituted? [Interjections.] There is also no economic prosperity in any of these countries—least of all in Ireland. If the hon member wants to present partition as a model to bring about peace, self-determination and security then at least he must not say that the examples of partition in the international situation have brought about peace and economic stability. It is certainly not the case.

Let us return to the situation in Southern Africa. We had a policy of consolidation of Black areas with the idea that political partition at least, could, be established. On television the other day the outgoing president of the Transkei expressed his appreciation to the NP Government.

Of 1948, yes!

He expressed his appreciation that the NP Government had worked out a system—he used the word apartheid—which was able to lead the Transkei to independence. The Transkei does have political independence but it remains a fact that it is not able to realise its independence in the real sense of the word.

Independence means labour independence, economic independence or, in any case, the possibility of making important decisions about it. However, there is not a single area, development region or magisterial district in South Africa in which one can speak of labour independence for Whites.

Not in Lesotho either.

Not in Lesotho either. That is quite correct. None of the African countries which have obtained their independence since the ’fifties have experienced anything but the semblance of independence. Independence only has value if it can be exercised internationally. The African countries found it necessary to establish the Organisation for African Unity in order to give political substance to the exercise of power of a certain kind. [Interjections.] I would appreciate it if the CP made fewer interjections.

Order! I see there are members of the CP who are still going to participate in the debate. Would they please convey to their speakers the points they are making by means of interjections. Hon members must listen to the hon member for Klip River without making so many interjections. The hon member for Klip River may proceed.

A former Minister of Plural Relations, Dr Connie Mulder put forward the idea that we would reach a stage in which there would be no Black South African citizens in the so-called area of White authority.

You were one of his supporters then.

You voted for it.

Order! [Interjections.]

The underlying hope or dream of Dr Connie Mulder when he expressed that idea was, that all Blacks who would in fact be within the area of White authority would be citizens of other independent states. So he, too, accepted that there would be no physical relocation that would take place in the application of that approach.

Dr Verwoerd adopted the standpoint that he was not prepared to abolish Black rights in terms of section 10. His proceeded from the standpoint that Black persons who had acquired rights in terms of section 10 could remain within the White area of authority and therefore enjoy the permanence of living and working there. He did not imply that the solution was to be found in physical partition, for that would have meant that at least the majority of the population would have to find their home outside the area designated to them.

Dr Connie Mulder’s point of departure was therefore not one of physical relocation. Dr Verwoerd did not approach the problem in terms of physical relocation necessarily providing the solution. They both accepted that South Africa’s economy is so inextricably intermingled that a physical interdependence exists. While there is physical interdependence, certain consequences will ensue. That meant that at one stage or another attention would also have to be given to the political consequences.

It was the former Prime Minister, Mr John Vorster, who implied that he was prepared to give extended rights to Black local authorities. Local authorities are concerned with political rights in White areas. Political rights, albeit on the third tier of government, imply links with political rights on second and first tier government.

The point of departure of all previous Prime Ministers of the NP and of Ministers in this country was therefore that a physical presence was something which could not be denied. There was the acceptance that the Blacks would also have numerical superiority in White areas and that there would have to be political interaction on a political level. For that reason it is simply not practicable to try to find a solution within the concept of partition in the normal international sense of the word. In any case partition does not necessarily lead to the averting of conflict. Wherever it has been applied, partition has in many cases in fact exacerbated conflict situations.

Utter nonsense!

What about Ciskei, Transkei, Venda and Bophuthatswana?

Order!

I also want to refer briefly to an interjection made by the hon member for Sasolburg. As far as interdependence of labour is concerned even the hon member’s leader accepts that Blacks and Whites are interdependent as far as labour is concerned. I think he will be able to give more particulars about Mr Jaap Marais’ being fined because he illegally accommodated Blacks on his property who had to work for him. Perhaps the hon member for Sasolburg would be able to furnish more information in this regard.

Partition cannot work in the Southern African context—it is a dream, a fiction. The solution lies in our building up a better understanding between the various population groups in South Africa, and realising this in a responsible manner.

Mr Chairman, I had hoped that the hon member who moved this motion would discuss it on its merits and that this debate would not deteriorate into the usual scoring of debating points which is so characteristic of our debates in this House.

Since I want to make my contribution to what I consider to be a serious debate—I shall also indicate why I disagree with the hon member for Soutpansberg—I also want to give notice of an amendment which will clearly indicate the difference in approach between this party and the hon member’s party who moved this motion on its behalf. Consequently I move as an amendment:

In his motion the hon member for Soutpansberg employs two further concepts, namely partition and political self-determination. If we want to use the word partition then I think that if one means that word to be used seriously, and does not merely use it as a party political slogan, then partition means that the parties concerned must reach agreement. An agreement must be reached between the people concerned as to how the territory should be divided, as to how the natural resources, the natural wealth and the existing infrastructure should be divided.

The essence of the concept of partition is that it must be acceptable to both parties, otherwise we cannot speak of partition. I should like to tell the hon member for Soutpansberg I assume that he will grant me this fundamental point—namely that it must be acceptable to both parties. Therefore we cannot use the concept of partition as such if one group unilaterally decides how that partition must be effected, for such unilateral decision-making will never be acceptable to the other group. If my statement is correct the question which inevitably arises is what would the situation be if the other party should refuse and if an agreement therefore cannot be reached. What would happen if the two parties were not able to achieve a result acceptable to both? I shall come back to that in due course. Let me say at once that partition entails other problems as well. What would happen if only one part of a group were to decide to accept the division in terms of partition, while the others refused? What would the position of these other parts then be? In this regard the hon member for Klip River illustrated the problem clearly, namely that there are large numbers of Blacks in South Africa, despite the existence of Bophuthatswana and other independent Black states. The problem we are in fact struggling with at this stage is …

What about the Cape Peninsula!

… how to accommodate politically with us and among us and under us the Blacks who live here permanently—despite the reality of independent Black states.

In this debate, Sir, I want to make it clear right from the start that we cannot use physical planning (ruimtelike ordening)—a term which, although not yet used here today, has frequently been heard in this context—which exists in terms of the Group Areas Act for Coloured and Indians as a basis for partition. In the first place we cannot use it for this purpose because that division took place, not with the consent of the people concerned, but against their wishes and despite their opposition. Surely there is not a single member in this House—even if he believed in the concept of group areas—who would not admit today that the way in which that policy was implemented and the result achieved by it, represents one of the worst forms of discrimination and victimisation in the history of our country.

If we are now to accept the principle that a unilateral decision in this regard can be justified, I want to put the following simple question to my friends in the Conservative Party. If it were the Blacks who were to decide how South Africa, its territory and its natural resources should be divided—if the Blacks were to decide this—would hon members of the Conservative Party be prepared to accept that decision?

Yes, if you do not exert an evil influence on them! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, once again I should like to ask the hon members of the Conservative Party the following question. If the Blacks had to decide how South Africa was to be partitioned, how would those hon members react? I tell you, Sir, there is not the slightest possibility that hon members of the Conservative Party would accept that decision of the Blacks. [Interjections.] Underlying this line of reasoning the assumption is that it would be the Whites that would carry out this partition and, furthermore, the assumption that the Whites have the right to carry out the final partition. That is the implied assumption!

That is after all what partition means to most Whites.

For that very reason, Sir, I want to make it quite clear that it is in this respect that we differ fundamentally with the hon members of the Conservative Party. We believe after all that South Africa belongs to all its peoples not to the Whites only. The territory of South Africa, and all its natural resources, we think, belongs to all the people of this country. The view that South Africa belongs to the Whites and that the Whites have the sole right to decide arbitrarily which parts of South Africa they are going to make available to the other groups is obsolete, Mr Chairman. In fact it grieves me to have to say that even the National Party still does not realise that this is an obsolete concept, for if it did, it would no longer persist in the unilateral declaration of group areas, the incorporation of Moutse and many other similar actions. Allow me to repeat that the concept that the land in South Africa belongs to the Whites and that the Whites therefore have the sole right to decide about its disposal, is no longer attainable.

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

Mr Chairman, I am afraid that I do not have the time to reply to any questions now.

Another concept which of course is also used is political self-determination. I want to say at once that the use of this concept by the hon member for Soutpansberg means that he accepts that a policy of political domination in South Africa is not feasible, for if a system of political supremacy were feasible we would not need partition in order to exercise the right of White political self-determination.

If it were true that political domination is no longer possible I want to ask the hon members of the Conservative Party what political alternative can we and they offer South Africa today? There are only two possible alternatives. They are either the continuation of political supremacy or a form of political power-sharing. That is the simple choice.

When we consider the fundamental situation in South Africa—it makes no difference to me whether it is called the reality or fact—no one in his right mind could believe that partition, as I have formulated it, can be feasible in South Africa.

Lesotho does not work; must Lesotho come to an end?

I do not know why the hon member is referring to Lesotho, since we are talking about South Africa.

All the facts in the situation—the demographic facts to which the hon member for Klip River referred, the economic inseparability of South Africa and the opposition from the Blacks—indicate that partition in South Africa is nothing but a pipedream.

One can see he is a product of Stellenbosch.

I heard the hon member for Soutpansberg speak about the “golden era”. Good heavens, I cannot understand how someone like him can use the term “golden era” to dismiss the years of Black resistance in South Africa. When and where did a “golden era” exist?

Seen in the light of these facts the PFP considers partition to be a pipedream. Instead of constituting an advantage for us, partition will have precisely the opposite effect. Any attempt at partition—partition is not attainable—would bring about a conflict situation in this country which would be incomparable with anything we have experienced in the past.

Mr Chairman, this has been a rather unusual debate in that we have had three people thus far who were heavily involved with apartheid in its heyday. There is an ex-Nationalist, a new Nationalist and of course the motion was moved by an old Nationalist. [Interjections.] So now, for the first time, there is somebody who consistently has been opposed to the policies of separate development.

That is being consistent.

Oh yes, but it is not only consistent. It is right as well!

The hon member for Soutpansberg, when he started his address, made a number of assertions as to the terrible state in which the country was as a consequence of the removal of apartheid. I am sorry but I really do think this is a total misinterpretation of the situation. I am not denying that the country is in a terrible mess—this is perfectly true because it is. However, I do not believe it is because of the removal of separate development and the apartheid policies. It is because for so long we have operated under that system and, now that it is being changed, we are having to pay for the privilege we have had for such a very long time. That is basically the cause of the trouble. Development was held up because under separate development I do not believe that sufficient was spent on other communities. Now, in a big rush, it has to be spent.

I would like to come directly to the motion which is before us on the Order Paper. The hon member’s motion states that partition in South Africa will achieve the following four objectives, and I repeat them because they are worth repeating: “Political self-determination, financial stability, economic welfare … and individual security”. That is what the motion states. At the outset I think we should look at the practicability and possibility of partition. Is it for example practical in this modern day and age? Can it be achieved on a basis that will be acceptable to all of our peoples? Is it possible to achieve total separation with this political and economic independence that has been mentioned?

Have we the wealth to ensure that all of the component parts would enjoy a standard of living that the hon member who introduced this motion would accept for his own community? Do we believe that the overwhelming proportion or the majority of our population—I naturally exclude the already independent homelands—would want or would peacefully accept partition?

If the answer to any of these questions is “no” then I believe the concept of separation as mooted by the hon member is flawed before we start. Without total economic viability and accepted divisions of our land, true political self-determination is quite impossible. The poorer segments would be at the mercy of the more affluent segments and thus have self-determination in name only and would in fact be slaves to the more affluent sectors.

The second point of the motion is financial stability. Does the hon member really believe that each segment can be divided in such a way as to ensure financial stability for all—financial stability created by mines, towns, harbours, agricultural industries etcetera; we must start with what we have, right?—and that cultural and educational experience will ensure financial stability for all our groups? If the hon member really believes that such a division can be made then I am sorry to say I think he believes in a pipedream. In no time at all—if such a division were to take place—certain areas would be living in abject poverty while others would be living on a very much higher scale. As is usually the case, the have-nots are in the overwhelming majority and the haves—as is again almost always the case—in relatively small numbers. For humanity’s sake as well as for safety the affluent would have to rescue the poverty-stricken masses. Under those circumstances we would be back to square one with no financial stability which would be tragic.

Point three which is economic welfare, is largely tied up with point two but it also accommodates health and a healthy hygienic environment. Remember that disease has no respect for man-made boundaries. A certain amount of social welfare would have to be taken into account to prevent starvation. Would the hon member’s Christian conscience—I know him to be a good Christian man—allow him to enjoy his economic welfare whilst his neighbours had little or nothing?

Not at all!

Of course not, I believe the hon member would not want that.

Point three again seems to be another dream. One would have to pump in massive aid to help them out.

Point four again ties up with point three in that without the necessities to sustain a reasonable living standard the have-nots would become desperate because they have little or nothing to lose. There will then be very little security for the haves.

I believe the partitioning of our land would not achieve the objectives stated even if partition were possible and acceptable. For nearly 40 years the NP lived with this dream and tried to put it into effect with only a very small modicum of success.

Admittedly there are four independent homelands that have accepted political independence but in almost every other way they are still dependent upon Big Brother South Africa. This great social experiment has been an extremely costly exercise which has brought South Africa from being a popular, prosperous, low-taxed country to a heavily-taxed country which the whole world loves to hate and, where to pay for the idealistic dream, the White man has a lower standard of living than he has ever had.

The original experiment, in our opinion, was cruel, costly and unjust. However, to repeat it now that the Government is in the process of abandoning it, would, I believe, be downright madness. We have already seen that it cannot work.

I am sorry, but I cannot agree with the hon members on my right. I think them really nice people and I like them.

Hear, hear!

I agree with the hon member for Jeppe when he says: “Hear, hear!”; and this is one of the few times I agree with something he says! [Interjections.]

As Christians, however, we cannot support the motion. As a businessman I believe it would be financial suicide—everybody knows what is happening in the rest of the world as far as we are concerned—and as a South African I believe that it would destroy our country irrevocably. I cannot support this motion.

Mr Chairman, we in this House are today experiencing the tragic situation in which the governing party is taking a stand against the policy of partition and of separate development. This is a policy which for decades has been responsible for stability and prosperity in this country.

This afternoon it is indeed significant that the hon member for Soutpansberg—who in 1982 refused to accept the concept of power-sharing and of one government in one country—should have felt the need to approach this House today with the request that the policy of partition be accepted as the only guarantee for political self-determination as well as financial stability, economic prosperity and security. The hon member was even challenged by the most senior Minister of the Cabinet of that time to abide by the decision of the voters of Northern Transvaal; a decision which was categorically in favour of partition and individual liberty for the separate peoples on the African subcontinent. [Interjections.] That was, and still is, the only realistic solution to the problems of Southern Africa. Partition has been used successfully over the centuries to resolve tension between peoples. The hon member for Soutpansberg quoted many examples of how partition has resolved tensions throughout the world.

Likewise, we too believe that the policies of liberty with justice, of separation, of partition and of separate development, offer the only guarantee in respect of self-determination for all the peoples in Southern Africa. [Interjections.] On 23 January 1962, Dr H F Verwoerd made the following statement in this House about the policy of integration. I am now quoting from the book Verwoerd aan die Woord page 618:

According to Die Transvaler of 31 July 1980, even the current President—who was Prime Minister of South Africa in 1978—still maintained the following:

It was no doubt with some dismay that hon members of the governing party opposite and members of its Press listened to the hon member for Barberton when, during the discussion of a motion in this House, he said the following:

[Interjections.]

If hon members of the NP listened to that with dismay, then I should like to remind them of what the present State President said in this House as recently as 1980: (Hansard: 6 February 1980, col 222):

That, of course, is partition. At that stage, the State President and the hon member for Barberton were still on the same wavelength. Just look at where they stand today. It is almost unbelievable, particularly when one pages through this book; this ammunition compiled by G P D Terblanche. [Interjections.]

I should now like to quote from another section of this booklet where the author states: “Hier is die feite”. After all, so many false statements are made. The heading reads: “Nasionale Party koersvas vir 60 jaar”. The writer goes on to say that the following statements are sometimes made:

The writer comments on the aforementioned statement as follows:

He goes on to say:

[Interjections.] He continues as follows:

The following statement then appears in large, bold letters: “Stadswartes het geen sê nie”. He then goes on to say:

Mr Chairman, this borders on the absurd. A party like that can only come unstuck in the eyes of the public. [Interjections.] What is more, it is happening.

Take for example a recent edition of the Graaff-Reinet Advertiser, namely that of Thursday 6 February. In that issue, two letters appear in the letters column under the heading: “Nasionale Party het vir die volk gejok”. One of the letters comes from a matric pupil in Cradock. The other is from a writer in Middelburg who says the following in his closing paragraph:

It is quite clear that the libertarian aspirations and ideals of various peoples cannot be satisfied in the same geographical territory. Show me one example of that in the history of the entire world. There is no such thing.

The hon member for Soutpansberg quoted the example of Charlemagne. Look at the example of Greater Austria in the past. It, too, had to partition itself into a smaller area of jurisdiction for the Austrians. Dr Verwoerd echoed this when he said:

We in this country have only two choices. On the one hand there is total power-sharing at every level of society and government. In that instance, one would be creating a complete unitary state for Whites, Blacks and Coloureds. Everyone would share the same fatherland with a common citizenship and with equal franchise in respect of a common government, regardless of race, colour or creed. [Interjections.] In other words, it would be the Pik Botha or the PFP model, with a Black State President. There is no doubt about that. There is no middle course. There may well be a yearning to retain a little power here and there, in such bastions of own affairs as a private dining room in the House of Assembly, or the odd private school or residential area—matters which the hon the Minister of National Education stressed so forcibly. However, I want to tell the hon the Minister in the words of “Ouboet” Willem: “Forget it”. [Interjections.]

Once one has opted for power-sharing, then one has to take it, together with the related economic implications. There will have to be parity in respect of the per capita expenditure on schoolchildren. As a matter of fact, that is the Government’s declared reform objective. The State President says it will cost billions. Then there will also have to be parity in respect of social pensions for all citizens of the RSA, ie White, Black and Coloured. [Interjections.] That is, in fact, the policy of that party. This means that a population group which numbers only 4,8 million but whose taxpayers generate almost 80% of State funds, must be prepared to provide on an equal basis for the requirements of the children and the aged of a population of 25 million. Those are the consequences. One will not be able to do so without drastically lowering the standard of living of the White population and reducing the South African economy to the level of that of a Third World country.

In contrast, there is the policy of partition, of separate development, which hon members on this side of the House support. That policy has been responsible for the political self-determination of various peoples. In this regard, hon members may feel free to question President Matanzima, who made that statement in as many words. Separate development has been responsible for peace, stability and economic prosperity to the benefit of everyone on the Southern African subcontinent. This policy entails complete retention of power over own affairs—from the level of local authority, the regional level, right up to the central level—without domination by one population group over others.

I want to tell the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning this afternoon that if it is his contention that our party associates on the local authority level disagree with us on this matter, then he is trifling recklessly with the truth. During the discussion of another motion, the hon the Minister said in his speech:

That is not true. [Interjections.] I have here a newspaper report on a city council meeting which took place on 24 February and at which councillors categorically stated that they were not in favour of it, but that the hon the Minister was forcing it on them. The hon the Minister knows full well that he announced last year that 44 areas were to be opened and that Pietersburg was to be one of them. In reality, the situation is analogous to that of a big bully telling a little chap that he is going to hit him. The little chap can choose whether he wants to be punched in the eye, on the nose or on the chest. Those are the only choices he has. [Interjections.]

In conclusion, I should just like to say that when we trace the origins of the policies of segregation, partition or separate development, we find that they were not born out of racial hatred or the fears of Whites. We find their origins in the Calvinistic interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. The urge toward individual liberty arises out of the profound faith of a people that accepts the order of creation as being good and just. It arises out of a profound obedience to the first commandment of God Almighty in respect of the horizontal relationship between one person and another, namely:

In other words, the preservation of a father-land is directly related to trust and respect for one’s nation and language. [Interjections.] Hon members may laugh if they wish.

That is why a man like Totius, one of the spiritual fathers of our people, once told a peoples’ congress the following with reference to the Great Trek and its significance:

This implies, then, that the Afrikaner nation has a right to be here and to claim a father-land for itself in this geographical location in Southern Africa. It is also the standpoint of hon members on this side of the House. We are still a nation on the road to liberty in a dearly bought fatherland.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to previous speakers and at this stage I wish to state one point categorically. I think in our search for solutions for South Africa’s great problems we should guard against one matter and that is to doubt the religious side of people in our search for solutions. We should not claim that we have the monopoly and that our standpoint is illustrated in the Bible. The second aspect we should examine is that in reference to past happenings we should not select and cite only those quotations under which a decision had already been taken and by means of which we wish to justify it. [Interjections.] There have been a considerable number of quotations from Dr Verwoerd and the NP referring to matters on which views have changed in the course of time. [Interjections.] When the hon member for Rissik belonged to the UP …

And you are now a Prog!

… the NP had a regulation in its constitution that a Jew was not permitted to be a party member.

You are a born fusionist (“smelter”).

That may be.

The second aspect I wish to mention is that they said in that constitution that the NP advocated only one language which was Afrikaans.

When was that?

One should see quotations in their sequence and be aware that certain changes occur.

Do explain that to us!

I shall do so with pleasure.

You little scoundrel (skobbejak).

Order! Did the hon member for Langlaagte use the word “skobbejak”?

I did, Sir.

In reference to whom did he use it?

I withdraw it, Sir.

Africa is unique and will have to provide its own solutions as time passes. Colonial forms of government which prevailed in Africa in the past were discarded one by one in the process of development. The reason for this lies in the paternalistic method of decision-making for and on behalf of another. [Interjections.] The one characteristic all the peoples of Africa had in common was that they did not accept this and revolted against it.

Yet another lesson we have learnt as regards solutions offered to African problems is that a unitary state with a system of one-man-one-vote is no solution. [Interjections.] This leads only to a dictatorship in which a small part of a population is favoured to the detriment of the majority.

You mean just like South Africa.

The other aspect which emerges is the principle of partition, as proposed here. One has to ask whether one can accomplish partition in its absolute form; one should not deal in shades of meaning of words on partition or separate development on the one hand and self-determination on the other. One cannot use all these terms as synonymous with one another.

Synonymous according to your policy!

I am getting to that and shall explain it very clearly. The principle of partition is that own living spaces have to be created in which each group is economically independent in the demographically fixed unit over which it holds sway. If partition cannot do that, it is not viable economically.

Like Lesotho!

If it is not economically viable, there is a problem. I wish to take the specific problem cited by the hon member for Rissik as well as the other states to which hon members of the CP referred. They mentioned that the self-governing and independent states of South Africa would have to comply with those requirements.

I should now like to ask this House to what degree the self-governing states are economically dependent on the RSA and to what degree they are economically independent of this country. I accept the principle that the institution of absolute partition would give the RSA the right to cut off finance appropriated for such areas with certain constitutional and economic consequences to the inhabitants of those areas. If one examines this in toto, one finds that 66,4% of the total income of all six the national states which covers 66% of their expenditure is derived from South Africa whereas only 26,8% of their income is generated from own sources.

In saying this, I have to accept that such an area has to provide an economic living space for its own population as well as employment opportunities for new entrants into its labour force. Independence as regards current state expenditure also has to be financed from that. In saying this, we accept this principle. I believe that even those hon members will not argue that economic and financial considerations have to form a cardinal component of the practical application of the general constitutional policy of such states. Economic independence is of cardinal importance in the constitutional formation of such a state. If one looks at the absolute partition proposed by those hon members, one asks to what degree the self-governing national states and the independent states will be able to exist within a system of absolute partition.

The next point to emerge is that the population for whom partition is intended will have to accept the proposed constitutional system. The hon member Prof Olivier also pointed this out as it is inevitable that each such constitutional form cannot be instituted before the people involved accept it.

On the other hand, the proposed system will also have to function within the constitutional and economic capabilities of the reality of the RSA. We cannot create systems which our economy cannot afford. Nevertheless this is only one component of the whole. Black people who do not fall within this geographical area and have to sell their labour in the RSA also have to be taken into account. But it is this section of which the hon member for Soutpansberg so ligthly said he would deliver no further comment on it. That is the problem being wished away for party political purposes but it is the essence of our great problem in South Africa. The NP and the Government accept the self-governing national states and the independent states as part of their policy and of the solution but realise it is no total solution.

As regards the urban Black, there are certain requirements to be complied with. I now wish to ask hon members of the Conservative Party what Dr Verwoerd had to say about it, however. Why do they not quote him on this? [Interjections.] At some stage Dr Verwoerd said these people should be moved in toto and no longer permitted to be in the RSA—they should be moved out and take up residence in the national states. [Interjections.] Now I ask whether those are practical politics. Are those practical realities and can one justify them in the statecraft of a country? In addition can one hold them up to the public as an image of South Africa offering a future to their descendants? No, that is impossible—they are unrealistic about this.

The matter does not revolve only around the Black man selling his labour in the RSA; there is yet another component, the industrialisation of South Africa. South African industries require the labour of these people; it is their labour which enables factories and companies to make profits on which tax is levied, ultimately to land in the RSA Treasury. There is still another aspect which emerges. To what extent can these people generate an income—in the living space in which they find themselves—from dwelling houses? Surely we know that no city council can be economically independent without industries. [Interjections.]

Still a further point emerges. Under the NP Government of the time, which that hon member so often quotes, those people had no property rights and no rights in terms of the 99-year leasehold system. It was the Government’s responsibility to provide their housing needs, to furnish them with a total infrastructure and to shoulder the entire economic burden of the people in those areas. But what is the position now? It is a change for the better that we are granting them property rights to enable them to build up capital within their own living space and it also removes a burden from the Treasury. Nevertheless the vote is not linked to property rights.

They may vote.

No, the hon member would do well to realise this. [Interjections.]

There is a further prominent aspect in this regard. The question arises whether the entire living space of Black people selling their labour is adequate within the White areas. I contend that, if we examine the concept of consolidation as a whole under which we want to consolidate large quantities of land in country areas, we shall have to pay thorough attention in future to the question of urban living space for these people. We shall have to accommodate people within the existing framework of industrialisation. In the consolidation process we shall also have to create infrastructure in future so that the people may be able to develop themselves. They should have the right to own property; they should be able to build up capital for constructing their own houses so that the White economy may be relieved of that burden. In this way a better structure can be created. [Interjections.]

Yet another aspect emerges pertinently. The ideal in any community is absolute partition. In South Africa, however, circumstances are such that even the CP says there is an economic interdependence between groups. [Interjections.] That is something we have to accept. If we do so, we do not have the right to deny accommodation to these people in their own living space. We are then obliged to seek solutions but I do not think total partition is a solution; neither is a system of one-man-one-vote in a unitary state. The solution lies in a combination of a variety of systems and should be acceptable to all people.

As regards this acceptability, even the hon member for Lichtenburg accepted the principle of a submission to him by the department as regards the handling of Black urban areas within the White area. [Interjections.] He granted that, although we could accept the broad precepts of a certain principle, it was practicable only if we could obtain the co-operation of the people for whom it was intended. We therefore have to consult with them and mould it to a practicable form with them. [Interjections.]

That is the basis on which we are working. We advocate co-operation with these groups and are working on solutions to this problem lying in the combination of a number of factors but to be practicable and acceptable in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the CP policy of partition involves not only partition between Black and White but also partition into sovereign states for Coloureds and Indians. The hon member for Soutpansberg went right back to the time of Genl Smuts—with quotations—to try to suggest that Smuts, Hertzog, Verwoerd and other Prime Ministers had already supported the concept of partition. However, as I see it, the CP policy of partition is, in fact, the first concept of partition which involves a sovereign state for Coloureds and Indians. No other statesman or Prime Minister before has ever suggested that as an alternative. In fact, as recently as 1977 prof Boshoff suggested a partition plan for South Africa which at that stage did not suggest that Coloureds and Indians should receive their own homelands. I agree with the hon the Deputy Minister that selective quotations are dangerous in the context of a debate like this, but I find it interesting to find one passage from dr Malan where he deals with partition—and I agree that it is selective—but it is nevertheless interesting. [Interjections.] He said—this was in 1954:

He went on to say:

Even at that stage there was the clear desire to divide between Black and White, but there was no clear-cut, hard, “stoere” following of partition by dr Malan. Only once Verwoerd came in—and he is the disciple whom we are always hearing about from the CP—did it crystallise into a clear partition policy.

Our hon colleague prof Olivier has given reasons why a policy of partition in South Africa must result in bloodshed. There is in fact one possibility in which I can envisage partition coming about in South Africa and that is the socalled last resort option in a no-win situation where there has been massacre and where there has been a war. That is the only possibility that I can envisage that partition can become a reality.

There are individuals and movements on the right wing fringe of White South African politics who, in my view, actually hope that that day will arrive soon where, as a result of bloodshed, we find ourselves in the situation where partition is the only option.

You are talking utter nonsense!

There are those who are trigger-happy and who believe that, as in the past, one can get onto a horse with a hat and a “roer” and actually deal with the Black problem through bullets. Wishful thinking! They are there. [Interjections.]

You are talking absolute nonsense!

The hon member for Soutpansberg referred to Pakistan as an example where partition had been successful. He mentioned in a very nonchalant, almost gleeful way, that this had been after a couple of million people had been killed. [Interjections.] The CP approach appears to be one of partition come hell or high water, it does not matter whether we ruin the place, we will have partition over the bodies of thousands, maybe millions of South Africans.

I have yet to come across an explanation from the CP as to how they will actually arrive at partition. They know that the Blacks, Coloureds and Indians in toto reject it out of hand. [Interjections.] When one asks the CP what they would do in the face of this total rejection—would they use force, they say: Yes, we would use force. They would use force to implement it.

*I agree with the hon member for Soutpansberg that we are in a mess. However, he believes that our position would improve if we have partition. He states, for example, that if partition were implemented we would have greater stability internally. How this could be possible if it were implemented by force is beyond my comprehension. It is simply impossible! If partition were enforced by means of violence—which has to happen of course if it was to be implemented by the Conservative Party—it would only mean greater domestic destabilisation. This would mean a greater degree of disinvestment and total isolation by the outside world. It does not only mean that we would be ridiculed by the countries in Africa, but we would also be enemy number one and we would be totally excluded from the international community. It could even mean that liquidations and sequestrations would ruin us as never before. [Interjections.] It would also mean that unemployment would become uncontrollable. Therefore the partition model of the Conservative Party is a model of violence.

An invitation to disaster!

That is not true at all!

The Conservative Party advocates a model of partition, Mr Chairman, that could only be enforced by means of violence. [Interjections.] The explanation of the hon member for Soutpansberg regarding the urban Blacks is something that I find extremely difficult to understand. Because he clearly indicated that the Conservative Party really does not have a policy and that according to their partition policy the urban Blacks have not yet been accommodated. He stated that there were practical ways of dealing with the matter, but at this stage he does not elaborate on it. This is exactly the same problem the National Party struggled with, and is still struggling with—the problem of how one can bring that part of the Black population into a constitutional dispensation.

For the hon members of the Conservative Party the solution seems very easy. They have a model. They keep it to themselves. At some or other stage they are going to comment on it. Of course this is typical of a bankrupt situation, Mr Chairman. As you know one cannot have a fruitful debate about partition or the model of the Conservative Party if you do not know, for example, what is going to happen to the urban Blacks. This is the position in which we find ourselves at the moment.

I support the alternative mentioned by the hon member Prof Olivier because we all live in one South Africa. We have the same destiny. We must work it out together. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, our standpoint—that of the HNP and that of the CP which, after all, coincide to a great degree—is that there simply is a diversity of peoples in South Africa and that all should ultimately—that is the endeavour, that is the ideal—wield all political power over themselves in an own fatherland or homeland; that is the purpose and endeavour of the HNP and has naturally also been the purpose and endeavour of the National Party over the years. Neither has this policy failed, as emerged clearly from the pronouncement of Kaiser Matanzima on his retirement as the President of the Transkei. In addition, Mr Chairman, Prof Piet Cillié—yes, none other, wrote an article in Die Suid-Afrikaan a while back in which he contended that people of the National Party should not say that everything done by Malan, Strijdom and Verwoerd was in vain and a failure. In that article—and Prof Cillié speaks with authority, Mr Chairman, in the inner circles of the National Party—he wrote that the establishment of the independent Black states was permanent. Who would attempt undoing this today in any case? If the National Party now has to take its policy further, when it has to reach what it actually has in mind, is it summarily going to relieve the Black states which have already become independent as well as those which became independent on the British withdrawal—I am now referring to Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana—of their independence and draw them into South Africa?

Naturally not! What put that idea into your head?

Never! They will not do it! In any case those Black states would not permit it so what is the position now, Mr Chairman? Do hon members of the National Party—and especially the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—want to tell me that the development of the entire civilisation in South Africa up to this point is going to result in a situation in which there are seven independent Black peoples within South Africa while the Whites, who have provided the entire thrust, the entire course of civilisation in South Africa, are going to be plunged, pressed and concreted into an overall, multiracial, power-sharing dispensation. [Interjections.] Surely that is criminal. It is absolutely criminal! I refuse to believe that South Africa has come to that pass. Consequently the HNP says the policy we advocate, the policy of a Malan, Strijdom and Verwoerd, has not failed but has been betrayed by the NP. Now the NP says that the Whites—and I understand from them that other peoples, Blacks, Coloureds and so on—have never had an own White fatherland. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said according to Beeld of 7 May 1985 that there had never been a White South Africa. The hon the Minister, who has lived comfortably in South Africa, says we and he—the Whites—have never had a fatherland. There has never been a White South Africa! [Interjections.] With respect, he is disseminating an absolute untruth. In Beeld of Wednesday 8 May 1985 one finds—I shall read the first sentence: “Daar was nog nooit ’n Blanke Suid-Afrika nie.” This was said by the hon Minister Chris Heunis, alias Chris Hofmeyr.

I wish to go further in saying that Government policy, its new approach, is that all, including Blacks, rule over everyone to the highest tier—thus jettisoning the policy of a Malan, Strijdom and Verwoerd. That is the core of power-sharing because otherwise it is said one discriminates. Otherwise it is “objectionable and evil” according to this hon Minister. Nevertheless this hon Minister—we used to know each other very well—said at the Natal Congress of the NP in August 1962 that, if Black people became part of the envisaged new constitutional dispensation, South Africa would be destroyed because the protection of minorities would disappear. He went further by saying it was not negotiable. Negotiation on this was not even possible. Meanwhile it has become his, his leader’s and his party’s policy to pursue this process of constitutional development until Blacks are involved in this new dispensation at the highest tier—as the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already indicated to us. This means the ploughing under of the White people and the HNP and I now say to them, to the PFP and to the world: The Afrikaner people will never relinquish its sovereign political independence—never, even if we subsequently have to join battle by other means! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, after one has listened to hon members of the Government party, a number of important matters crystallise. The first was put very well by the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning; he has now jettisoned the foundations, the guidelines and the strength of his people and the Whites over the years.

All the hon member for Klip River needed to do was to reach a final conclusion; it remained for him only to say Black majority rule should come to South Africa—that is all. He merely had to reach that conclusion. That hon member denigrated partition, separatism and segregation more effectively than the old UP and the Progs ever did in the past. During the 1981 election that hon member appealed with the same conviction for those matters he has now shot down. The hon NP members do not have a mandate to sit here; the mandate they requested was to accomplish the exact opposite they are advocating here now. That is why the Government owes one thing to the people of South Africa. Its members will have to go to the electorate because they do not have a mandate for what they are planning and envisaging here.

The hon members told us that partition had not worked anywhere in the world; they said themselves that bloodletting was the order of the day in Pakistan and India. Over centuries that has always been the case until partition is a fait accompli and then it has been terminated. Surely that was the case in Europe and in all other parts of the world where people could not put an end to wars. The only way in which they could accomplish this was by partition. The hon the Deputy Minister referred to the Black people in the White part of South Africa. I now wish to tell the NP that partition, like any other constitutional policy one follows, does not end abruptly nor is it a process which can take place in a day. It is a continuous process. When the NP embarked upon the policy of separate development in 1951, 66% of Black people were outside their states in White areas. In 1978 there were as many as 52% within their states in consequence of the success of the policy—that was not even 30 years later. That process should be pursued as the CP intends doing; it will continue that process. It will take steps to carry that process to its logical conclusion.

The hon the Deputy Minister says that because 66% of the budgets of the four TBVC countries are derived from the Republic of South Africa, partition cannot work. That means no state in Africa and no state in the Third World ought to be independent. It is a fact that on average 66% of the budgets are derived from South Africa but in a country like Bophuthatswana more than 90% of its budget is self-generated. The contribution of the Republic is constantly decreasing; that is the positive side and that process should be granted the opportunity to continue.

If we wished to compare partition or separate development with integration in the past, we had to examine other examples in the world. We had to look at what happened in Zimbabwe after power-sharing had been applied there; we also had to investigate other places in the world which had been plunged into chaos. We need no longer look at other places in the world; we need look only at South Africa.

From 1910 to 1982 we had apartheid in South Africa to a greater or lesser degree under all the governments of this country. Since 1982 we have had power-sharing and we have not reached the main course yet. We are still at the entrée which is power-sharing between Whites, Coloureds and Indians. The main course lies ahead; the State President announced that he would serve it to South Africa.

Now we have to ask ourselves how the South Africa of 1986 compares with that of 1980 and 1982 when we still had apartheid. How does the country appear after four years of power-sharing? I wish to draw this comparison according to one standard, that of safety.

In the days of apartheid there were sustained onslaughts from the early twenties when the SA Communist Party was established in South Africa to overthrow the existing order violently and to replace it with a Black Marxist government. This started in the labour sphere where the Black trade union leader Kadalie played an important part in the twenties. This continued from then on and there were attempts to overthrow this government which constantly failed.

What is the position today? In the past, forms of administration and government were maintained in the Black residential areas by moderate Blacks through all the years of apartheid. What is happening now? I saw in the City Press:

The existing structures are being destroyed in those areas. Other structures are appearing in their stead. In the Weekly Mail this report appeared:

“Prayer meeting”.

Yes, “prayer meeting”. I quote further:

Sir, the report says, “By five elected members”. This “M” plan of Nelson Mandela’s was developed when we still had apartheid but it failed and Mandela received a bloody nose. Now Nelson Mandela’s “M plan” is being implemented in these towns. Cartoons appear, the caption of the one I am exhibiting here runs: “G-plan: Taking it to the streets.” Now it is called the “G plan” and all kinds of other “plans”. In the Weekly Mail they continue:

That is the name of the organisation in Cradock—

An organisation has therefore appeared there.

I now refer to an article in the Sowetan. There is a large photograph of Oliver Tambo next to it. I think the publication of this photo is unlawful. The article was written by an American journalist. It was headlined: “Vietnam all over again …?” I quote from it:

Sir, these are everyday headlines appearing in newspapers for Blacks in South Africa. The ANC broadcasts these instructions daily over Radio Freedom; that is how they give people their instructions on what action to take. Some areas say they have already been liberated. Parks are being built; hon members will have seen this in the papers—the Nelson Mandela Park, the Biko Park, the Oliver Tambo Park. I have a cutting here about a school. The headline reads:

There is a photo of the wall of the school. The caption under the photo reads:

The name of the school was removed and “Oliver Tambo High” was written on the wall.

The SPCC which was established held discussions with the ANC in Lusaka last year. On their return they held a conference on 28 December 1985 at the University of the Witwatersrand, attended by 350 delegates. The following resolutions were adopted:

The most disquieting aspect is that they succeed, not in attending school, but in undergoing this “Education for people’s power”.

After this a meeting took place at Meadowlands High School. There they adopted the following resolution:

From Radio Freedom, Sir, Oliver Tambo said:

On 2 February 1986 Oliver Tambo said over Radio Freedom:

In the Eastern Cape Ernest Malgas said that on 1 April a situation was to begin in South Africa which would make the French Revolution look like a Sunday School picnic.

Existing structures have been destroyed by radicals by means of intimidation, death and destruction. In their stead their revolutionary structures have been brought about. This is also being extended to White areas by means of consumer boycotts and strikes. It emerges clearly from all these facts that it has to result in a bloody revolution. Dates mentioned in this regard are 1 April, 1 May and 16 June. This is what we have after four years of power-sharing. This is where South Africa stands after four years of power-sharing. These actions have been tried before by the same people. The Marxists behind them attempted these things and after four years they are carrying them out.

Now the State President has lifted the state of emergency. One may well ask why he has done so. Is it in a desperate effort to persuade a few moderate Black people to sit on his National Statutory Council? In that case I wish to tell him the moderate Black man has already been knocked out by the revolutionary in South Africa. Just like Gerrie Coetzee, they are lying with their torsos through the ropes; the revolutionaries are standing in the ring. [Interjections.]

Has he lifted the state of emergency to placate moderates? Two days after its lifting, Chief Buthelezi was putting new demands. He was putting new demands and saying he would not serve on that statutory council before his new demands were complied with.

Has he lifted the state of emergency in order to keep the SPCC and pupils at school after 1 April? I wish to tell him he will not succeed because those people are revolutionaries; they have smelt blood and they seek only one object—namely revolution. [Interjections.]

I now wish to tell the State President roundly that the first step South Africa should take is to cease making concessions.

Hear, hear!

It should stop making concessions because concessions promote revolution. [Interjections.] In the second instance—it is a great pity and very difficult to say this—the Government has allowed this situation to develop hopelessly too far. It has permitted this to develop hopelessly too far. In 1984 when everything started developing, the hon the Minister of Education and Training had breakfast with the ringleaders at his ministerial residence instead of administering discipline. If that had been done instead, a few of the ringleaders might have bitten the dust but not thousands of innocent people as at present. [Interjections.] He allowed matters to go too far, however, and he cannot speak about constitutional changes in a revolutionary climate. Only a weak government does that. Consequently the Government will have to mobilise the full capabilities of South Africa against these Marxist agents in order to demolish them. It will have to demolish them. [Interjections.]

Thirdly, South Africa will have to revert to a policy of partition. It will have to revert to the policy of partition for which President Matanzima at the end of his career praised the Government of 1948—not that of 1986. He praised it for apartheid and not for power-sharing. He said that was what had liberated his people; it had liberated them and permitted them to develop. South Africa will have to revert to that, otherwise this country will face great problems.

I have received 11 000 signatures from an action committee in Krugersdorp consisting of nine members. It comes from the people living next to Munsieville, people who have seen revolution festering next to them. These are people disappointed in their negotiations with the Government. They said they were sending these signatures to the CP to submit to the State President. They have no confidence in the MP as he has made them too many promises which have not been fulfilled. They do not have confidence in certain Deputy Ministers who handled the case there and for that reason they decided to request us to hand this document bearing 11 000 signatures to the State President. In this document they describe their problems, grievances and concern as they see what is happening on their doorstep. That is why they have asked the CP to submit their representations and the document with 11 000 signatures. I shall take pleasure in delivering this document to the State President’s office tomorrow morning. It will make him realise what is happening in South Africa and that this Government with its concessions and surrender is permitting this type of action to become out of hand and it is nurturing a revolutionary climate in South Africa as has never been the case before.

Mr Chairman, arising from the insulting remarks by the hon member for Sasolburg, I wish to mention one point which is that I did not address the 1962 Natal congress as he alleged. [Interjections.] I wish to tell the hon member something else. The only difference between his standpoint and method of maintaining power and the method of Mr Tambo of seizing it can be measured in degrees. There is no difference in principle between the two methods.

I wish to say to the hon member for Pietersburg that, if anyone alleges that I forced a declared open trading area on the city council of Pietersburg, he is a liar. [Interjections.] I further wish to point out that, according to information I have received, he was present on 24 May this year when the city council decided to apply for a central business district in terms of the new section 19. If my information is faulty, he may correct me.

It was against their will!

The hon member says the city council took a decision against its will. Does this make any sense in truth? [Interjections.]

You are thrusting integration down our throats.

Mr Chairman, I did not interrupt one of those members while they were making their speeches and I expect at least the same courtesy from all. [Interjections.] The hon member for Pietersburg knows it is difficult for him to keep to facts; he proved this again today. I therefore think it is impossible to conduct a debate with him.

I welcomed the motion of the hon member for Soutpansberg as I regarded it important that we debated alternatives in this House which is why I welcome the opportunity of debating with hon members in this specific regard. In order to do so, however, it is essential for the hon member for Soutpansberg to keep to the truth. He alleged that in 1983, when the referendum was held and the new Constitution adopted, we claimed it was the final constitution for South Africa. The hon member knows—or ought to know—that, when we conducted the debate on the new constitutional proposals in 1983, the Prime Minister announced the institution of a special Cabinet Committee to investigate and report on the further constitutional development of the Black communities. Facts therefore contradict the hon member’s statement in this respect.

The hon member for Soutpansberg appealed for and predicted a referendum to be held on the same basis as that of 1960. I wish to put only one question to him: Did we count constituencies in 1960 or the total number of votes for purposes of a decision on South Africa’s assumption of a Republic?

Constituencies.

The hon member knows we used the total number of votes to decide whether to become a Republic or not.

I wish to return to the debate on partition, however, as I was under the impression that we were to discuss this with one another today. This is also what I should like to discuss in the time at my disposal. I think we shall be unable to debate meaningfully on this if we are not prepared to examine the actual source of conflict potential in South Africa. The core of the problem we are debating with one another arises form the heterogeneousness or the diversity of the South African population in terms of its composition; in terms of the geographic distribution; in terms of differences in levels of development and also in terms of the absence of a generally accepted set of common values which is a central element of efforts to find political solutions for South Africa.

If we had had a homogeneous population, I could have argued that we had no need to debate today on our search for solutions according to which the endeavours and aspirations of the different population elements could be accommodated within a constitutional or political model. In reflecting on different formulae or alternatives, we have to say that South Africa is not faced with a unique problem in this regard. Undoubtedly the problem in South Africa differs quantitatively from that of many other countries in the world but there is not qualitative difference.

In various countries throughout the world there is an increasing awareness of this specific problem because there is a heightened realisation that there are actually few countries in the world in which homogeneous societies or populations exist. Consequently the concept of a non-ethnic state is one of the crucial problems of modem politics—not one of us can deny this.

Different countries have used different methods in finding solutions to crucial problems which I contend have dominated the political scene in South Africa since its foundation. It is true that methods have been used which come down to the melting-pot idea of total integration in which the individual is definitive regarding the constitutional model for those countries. In other cases—let us admit it to one another today—genocide was a method of dealing with the problem of diversity. In this regard we may examine Nazi Germany and we know what that brought on Germany and the world. There was Nigeria, Burundi and Cambodia where one specific method, namely genocide, was used to escape the central problem of diversity in population composition.

Totalitarian systems—especially behind the Iron Curtain—and military or civilian dictatorships in countries such as South America also looked like easy ways of escaping the conflict potential locked into a society comprising a diversity of population groups.

Let us discuss the policy of partition. This policy, which is spatial division in respect of area or territory, has been followed in other countries; this I do not deny. It has been followed for example, in the case of India, Pakistan, North and South Korea and Israel after the Second World War. I am attempting to illustrate that different countries have applied different methods to escape this specific problem. What does partition really comprise as such a method? What appears crucial in the hon member for Soutpansberg’s motion is not that he appealed for partition as part of a solution but that his view represented partition as the only element of a solution in South Africa as absolute.

What does this comprise now? Partition comprises the division of the territory of a single state, such as South Africa was, into two or more geographic units capable of existing and acting as separate, autonomous and independent states or entities. Its objective is the division of a heterogeneous society into more homogeneous units or components. We have to test this objective against the degree in which partition appears viable as an element of a solution in South African society as it now appears and not as we should like to have it.

Partition implies still more. It also implies a division of the natural resources and economic capabilities of each new unit to enable it to take and retain its place in the international community. Hon members cite the success of the TBVC states as examples in their argument. These are the same members, however, who go from place to place saying we are using South African financial and economic capability by transferring it to the separate independent states. Let us not argue with one another over this—it is the truth.

Partition rests on the assumption that dividing lines in society—I shall refer to them presently—are so clearly defined that values and interests of different communities are altogether fundamentally irreconcilable and that total geographic division is the only solution for the country concerned. In order not only to advocate but to carry out partition successfully, certain essential requirements have to be complied with. This also applies to other alternatives.

The first requirement is that partition be practicable in terms of the different aspects of the realities of society. In all fairness, what did the hon member for Soutpansberg do as regards the feasibility test? He said they had certain practical proposals but they were not going to enlarge on them today. In other words, the hon member was avoiding the central requirement which is fundamental to our arguments by not explaining to the House his concept of partition as the only policy.

Secondly, I wish to put it to the hon member that partition as the only possibility can be carried out only if all those involved accept it as the only remaining alternative. The hon member Prof Olivier also raised this specific point. As I understand it, partition should also be the result of negotiations between the different interest groups as the obvious method of defusing the conflict situation. Partition cannot succeed if one party wishes to force it on the other or if outsiders wish to thrust it on those involved. I am now referring to the hon member for Lichtenburg who is not present at the moment and who may actually be regarded as the best mouthpiece for perpetrators of violence I have ever heard in this House. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon the Minister permitted to say the hon member for Lichtenburg is a mouthpiece for perpetrators of violence?

Order! I understood the hon Minister to say—he should correct me if I am wrong—that the hon member for Lichtenburg was the best mouthpiece for perpetrators of violence he had ever heard in this House. Is that verbatim what he said?

Yes, Mr Chairman.

I have problems with those words …

Mr Chairman, then I withdraw them as I do not wish to take up more time with this.

I wish to tell the hon member that the statements he made lend publicity to the standpoints of the revolutionary forces out there. [Interjections.] The hon member has obviously forgotten that, when the State President and others warned that South Africa was the target for revolutionary forces wishing to destroy it, they said we were using this as an electioneering or referendum tactic to mobilise the people behind us. [Interjections.] Today he came and said the forces of revolution were intent upon destruction. The destruction of what? Of separate State institutions. They are the target.

Partition deals further with the division of physical commodities, namely land and riches, which is why territorial demarcation precedes all other phases in the development of partition. This means that one of the essential elements of partition, the drawing of lines on the map, has to be decided in the process of negotiation itself instead of our merely debating its final results.

What did the hon member do: He spoke about the final result of partition without telling us how he would negotiate on the physical division in the process of partition itself.

From the conditions I set for partition, it appears that partition, like any alternative, provides no instant solution to our problems but that it also has to include a process which cannot be eliminated for convenience’ sake by emphasising only the final product.

I regard it as a crime in the times in which we live to go out and appeal to people to support one on the basis of this evasion of reality.

Let us examine the feasibility of the hon member for Soutpansberg’s motion as regards the conditions we set partition, namely that they be practicable. In my opinion the hon member and his party’s appeal for territorial division in South Africa does not hold water for the fundamental reason that it is the only solution presented for a complex situation. In this the concept of partition is absolutised as a panacea for all the problems of this complex society.

The following is far worse: In order to accomplish this, the realities of the South African population, both as regards composition and distribution, are being totally oversimplified and distorted. I say with respect that not only is it an oversimplified approach which totally invalidates the solution on which it is based but, by evading these realities, we forfeit the right and the apologists of partition forfeit the right to assist in finding meaningful solutions to our problems.

What are the realities of the South Africa scene which necessarily have to reduce partition to one of the instruments of policy and that not even a total instrument? According to the 1980 census statistics 10,1 million Black people are resident within the so-called “White South Africa” of which the hon member for Sasolburg spoke. Of these 10,1 million people 5,3 million live in urban areas and 4,8 million in country districts. They represent more than half the total Black population of Southern Africa. What does the hon member for Soutpansberg’s parition action propose for these 10 million people resident here? [Interjections.] There are 304 Black towns and cities in this area, at least 12 of which have in excess of 50 000 residents each. What is the hon member going to do with this part of the South African reality?

Is the hon member aware that there are only six magisterial districts in the whole of South Africa in which Whites form a majority? They are all in cities or metropolitan areas. What is the hon member going to do with this presence and these facts in the light of his motion for partition?

The hon member’s party says the Coloured community lives mainly in the Western Cape; that is their heartland; that is their independent state. Nevertheless 228 000 Coloureds live in the Transvaal. What is the hon member and his party going to do with this part of the South African reality?

The hon member says the heartland of the Indian community is in Natal but 116 000 live in the Transvaal. What does the hon member propose for them? Surely we have to take cognisance of this part of the factual reality.

If one looks further, one finds a reasonably unequal distribution of Whites over the entire Republic of South Africa. There are 2,3 million Whites in the Transvaal, 1,2 million in the Cape Province, 562 000 in Natal and 362 000 in the Free State. What does the hon member propose doing with the White presence in those various areas? There is not one province, not one development region in which the White population forms the majority. [Interjections.] In the Transvaal, Whites form 28%, Blacks 67%, Brown people 3% and Asians 1% of the total population. Statistics for the Cape Province indicate that Whites comprise 25%, Blacks 31%, Brown people 43% and Asians 1% of the population.

How are the hon member and his party going to absorb and reconcile these realities with partition as the only solution?

Statistics also indicate an enormous population movement of all population groups to the Transvaal so that almost 50% of the entire population of the country is in the Transvaal as against 24% of the population in 1904. This occurs for one reason only which we cannot argue away and that is that migration will naturally take place to better employment opportunities so that people may improve their quality of life. This is inevitable. I wish to ask the hon member how he will deal with this fact of South Africa. How will he reconcile it in partition?

I referred to the heterogeneousness of the four metropolitan areas which are the heartbeat of the South African economy. The PWV area in particular offers a refuge to millions of people of each population group. What are the hon member and his party going to do with the PWV area in terms of their partition policy?

That is very easy! [Interjections.]

Oh, very easy? I wish to cite a last statistic to the hon member. According to 1980 statistics, 89% of Whites, 91% of the Indian community, 77% of Brown communities and 38% of Black communities are urbanised and therefore concentrated in a heterogeneous environment in which they are geographically intertwined and economically interdependent. I ask in all fairness: How is the hon member for Soutpansberg going to deal with this reality in terms of his concept of totality of partition as the only solution? It is simply unpractical, simply impracticable and it would be impossible to draw boundaries in this way to enable homogeneous populations to live in separate states.

It is a fact that, if partition is used as the only method, there will always be heterogeneous populations in the divided states. The national problem will therefore be multiplied by the total number of states to be created. There will be no areas inhabited by only one group; there will be minority and majority groups in each area. I ask the hon member how decision-making is to take place in those areas.

The second condition for successful partition is that there should be a degree of unanimity or consensus. I think hon members agree with this—or perhaps not. Perhaps the truth lies in what the hon member for Barberton said. Hon members of the CP are prepared, if necessary, to use force and discrimination to maintain domination.

There is no domination.

When did I say that?

You did say so!

The hon member said that, if it demanded discrimination, it was necessary. As regards violence, I am not referring only to what he said but also to the other hon members who spoke today. That is all in order.

Who spoke about domination?

I said there was no domination.

I wish to ask the hon member whether they intend implementing their partition policy in consequence of negotiations? If he replies in the affirmative, I ask with whom they propose negotiating. I have the suspicion—and I think it is true—that the CP wishes to force its partition policy on all communities. [Interjections.] I wish to contend that conflict will not be decreased by this but rather aggravated.

Did the Coloureds and Indians have a referendum? [Interjections.]

I should like to reply to the hon member for Brakpan if he would just stop his noise. It was offered to leaders of the groups and they rejected it.

Oh, yes? [Interjections.]

That is a poor answer!

I should like to conclude. I did not interrupt one of the hon members. [Interjections.] I wish to point out that many countries found that partition as a method of regulating conflict did not succeed very well even in spite of massive population movements. What a ludicrous interjection the hon member for Sasolburg made on this! He asked: “How many Jews live in Israel?” It is a fact, however, that Jews not resident in Israel have the franchise in the countries in which they live. Surely that is relevant. [Interjections.]

Order! There are too many inane interjections.

The sustained conflict and violence in Israel and Northern Ireland and the recent tension between North and South Korea after the division of these areas also emphasises the limitations of the practical feasibility of partition as a total concept.

The fourth condition for partition is that concrete and specific plans for the division of the territory and the riches should emerge from negotiation. If it is true that the hon member has practical proposals on which he does not wish to enlarge today, we should like to give him the opportunity of expounding on the practical value of his proposals. If the CP wishes to negotiate, in any case we have to ask which proposals for division it is going to lay on the negotiating table. Does Prof Boshoff's massive plan feature? Is it SABRA’s plan which advocates partition on a vast scale? Or is that not what the hon member wishes to achieve? [Interjections.]

In conclusion, I wish to request that, when we debate our motions in this House, we should not turn it into a theoretical debate and say that we will discuss our practical methods later. I suspect hon members of the CP are not prepared to admit to what degree they really wish to apply their partition as regards the division of land and wealth in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, at this stage I should like to thank all hon members who participated in this debate. I also wish to thank the hon the Minister for the way in which he entered the debate. He did not like what I said as little as I liked what he said but that forms part of our debating system in this House.

I think the most important point to emerge from this debate was, that if I had closed my eyes today, I might just as well … [Interjections.] I might just as well have been sitting on the NP benches while the hon Minister and the hon member for Klip River spoke from the PFP benches. I think it must be a happy day for the hon member for Houghton—for whom I have the greatest regard—to be able today to taste the fruits of her conversion of this NP over the years. [Interjections.]

Yes! [Interjections.]

I think it is accurate to say the PFP’s raison d’être has been absorbed by the NP. [Interjections.]

I wish to illustrate a few matters briefly in points to the hon member Prof Olivier. He contends that partition should be acceptable to all otherwise it will not work. If integration is not acceptable to all, however, what then? [Interjections.]

I wish to tell the hon the Minister I did not say his plan was a final one; I said it was his master plan for a utopia. [Interjections.] In this plan, according to the Government’s blue book, the constitutional development of Whites, Coloureds and Indians had followed a different route from that of the Blacks. In addition the Government’s attitude throughout was that the Coloureds and Indians ought not to develop along the same lines as the different Black peoples. [Interjections.] As regards the Black peoples, the Government continued, there had been success in placing them on a specific road to development during the fifties and sixties. [Interjections.]

I still say so.

The hon the Minister still says so. He is involving them in the same dispensation as the Whites. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

According to Die Burger of 21 August 1982 the hon the Minister said the participation of Blacks in the new dispensation would destroy South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister questions the practicability of our policy. It is exactly as practicable as it was when they turned their backs on it in 1982. When the CP comes to power it will take up the reins where they were dropped by the NP and proceed from there—in the interest of all South Africans. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister replied to me in the undisguised language of the Progressive Federal Party. I wish to close with a question to the hon member Prof Olivier, the hon member for Umbilo and the hon the Minister and his speakers. They reject partition. If one were to remove the Whites from South Africa overnight with a magic wand, what do they think is to prevent the Zulus, the Shangaans, the Xhosas and the Sothos all from grabbing one another by the throat tomorrow for the position of power in South Africa? Ask any other Black nationalist whether he accepts Gatsha as his leader. The hon the Minister knows what the reply will be. Ask a Zulu whether he accepts Matanzima as a leader and listen to his reply. [Interjections.]

It appears to me the hon the Minister is developing independent states in South Africa for the Black peoples and leaving nothing for the Whites. [Interjections.]

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