Mr. Speaker, I have deemed it necessary to make a short statement on the tragedy which has struck our people in parts of the Karoo and in parts of the Southern Cape. Everything possible is being done on the part of the authorities to render the maximum assistance as quickly as possible to the disaster-stricken areas in the Karoo and parts of the Southern Cape. The damage in Laingsburg is devastating, and plus-minus 100 people were missing this morning. The hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions and the hon. the Minister of Defence left by helicopter this morning for the stricken areas, while the Civil Defence organizations in the disaster areas have been activated. The Administrator of the Cape is rendering assistance wherever necessary. The hon. the Minister of Police has summoned all available members of the S.A. Police Force in the surrounding areas, and from Pretoria, to Laingsburg. A Frelon helicopter has been sent to Laingsburg, and another one to Montagu, while two Alouette helicopters are rendering assistance at Touws River. Additional helicopter assistance has been requested from Pretoria, Durban and Port Elizabeth. This morning an Alouette helicopter was sent to Wolseley to pick up ten mountain climbers who were marooned in the mountains. At a later stage helicopters will also render assistance at Laingsburg.

This morning I was informed by telephone by the hon. member for Beaufort West, who is on the spot, that critical conditions have arisen as a result of what happened. Four additional Alouette helicopters are on their way from Bloemfontein to help in the rescue attempt. In the Southern Cape a private helicopter company assisted the Air Force. The Southern Cape Command at Oudtshoorn has already dispatched emergency supplies and equipment, which include 75 tents, 450 beds, food rations for two days, a mobile kitchen, lighting equipment, medical supplies and sanitary facilities, to Laingsburg. This equipment and supplies are expected to reach the town by 15h00 this afternoon.

In addition to the two hon. Ministers who are carrying out an on-the-spot investigation, the commanding officer of the Western Cape Command has already left by helicopter for the Worcester-Montagu area in order to co-ordinate the rendering of assistance. The commanding officer of the Southern Cape Command is on his way to Laingsburg and the surrounding areas. In the meantime the Department of Health, Welfare and Pensions is waiting for the channels of communication to be restored in order to establish, with the help of the local representatives in the disaster area, which medical assistance should be accorded priority, in co-operation with the Cape Provincial Administration. The Cape Town Regional Office for Welfare Services has been placed on stand by to render assistance as soon as it is possible to move into the area. The latest information this morning indicated that plusminus 100 people were missing in the vicinity of Laingsburg. At that stage two-thirds of the town was still under water. The towns along the flooded Buffels River, in the Laingsburg district, have already been warned and most of the houses adjoining the river have already been evacuated.

The Government wishes to express its profound sympathy with all who have been afflicted by loss of life, and other flood damage. Everything possible will be done to render assistance to them on a co-ordinated basis.

announced that he had appointed the following members to constitute with him the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders: The Prime Minister, the Minister of Manpower Utilization, the Minister of Co-operation and Development, the Minister of Transport Affairs, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, the Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, the Chief Government Whip, the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, Mr. C. W. Eglin, Mr. B. W. B. Page and Mr. W. V. Raw.

Order! With reference to section 86 of the Constitution, I have to inform the House that the Secretary to Parliament has received a letter dated 6 November 1980 from the Administrator of Natal in the following terms:

1. “1. That it be recommended to Parliament that appropriate legislation be introduced to prohibit Local Government Officials from accepting nomination as Members of the House of Assembly and the Provincial Councils.
2. 2. That this Motion be forwarded to the Honourable the Administrator for onward transmission to the Secretary to Parliament.”.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Before discussing this motion, I wish to refer to the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister. We on these benches should like to identify ourselves whole-heartedly with his expressions of condolence with those who have suffered losses, personal and material, in consequence of the disaster which took place after the heavy rains. We are glad to learn that the authorities at all levels are making every attempt to aid these people. I hope they will soon recover from the losses they have suffered.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, before discussing this motion in detail, I just wish to mention the fact that the composition of this House has changed drastically since we last met here. As a result of this, new members, as well as new members of the Cabinet, are present here today. I should like to congratulate them and to wish them every success in the careers they are to follow in this House.

Coming to the motion, I think it is fitting, under the circumstances, that we should first look at South Africa in the international context and try to put this context into perspective, especially in the light of the events over the past year. Naturally, it is impossible to discuss in detail all the developments that have taken place, but I should like to sum up some main impressions in this connection.

In recent times, since we were last gathered here, there have been some positive as well as some negative developments. On the positive side I may refer to our economic position in the international sphere. It is one of greater strength. The strength of our position was clear from the State President’s speech. In fact, there is considerable economic optimism concerning our international position.

The second important development of a positive nature, especially from the Government’s point of view, is of course the American presidential election. I believe it would be dangerous to overestimate the possible positive consequences of the election for our internal situation, but I think it is correct to say that the election has opened up new possibilities for the Government in the diplomatic as well as the political spheres.

On the negative side, I just want to point out that as a result of my own personal visits to Europe and Britain, I have become aware of the fact that there is increasing pessimism, especially among people who are well acquainted with the situation in South Africa and who are basically well disposed towards South Africa, concerning the possibility of a non-violent solution being found in South Africa.

The second impression I have gained—as a result of a visit to the UN at the invitation of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and in the company of a parliamentary deputation, for which I am grateful, as I have already written to his department—is that we in South Africa are now closer to some form of sanctions than before. One gains the impression that at the UN in particular there is greater sophistication regarding the way in which it is proposed that sanctions may be implemented.

Briefly, then, the general impression I get from the international situation is that the screws are being tightened a little for us. What is ironical is that the more attempts are made by the international world to isolate South Africa, the more we become involved in international politics. It is almost as though the attempts at increasing the isolation of South Africa are focusing more and more attention on South Africa. In my opinion, this tendency is nowhere better illustrated than with regard to the South West Africa/Namibia problem.

I certainly do not intend to make an issue of this delicate problem in this House. The office of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is aware of attempts I have repeatedly made over the past few months to discuss this problem with the hon. the Minister, but because of the very nature of the problem and the latest developments, and also, I understand, of the hon. the Minister’s work schedule, it has not been possible. All I want to say, therefore, is that what I am going to say about the problem now is not intended to stir up controversy. I want to say quite sincerely that I have made attempts to avoid any possible misunderstanding that could arise.

I believe that in contemplating this problem, we should have one basic approach. This is that every time there is a death in the operational area, we in this House in particular should ask ourselves what we can do to prevent this from happening again. It is against this background that I believe that certain guiding principles are emerging with regard to the Namibia/South West Africa problem. A settlement is going to take place in accordance with these guiding principles, whether we like it or not. These are principles which depend not only on our attitude or our attempts, but on all the parties involved.

I wish to spell out briefly five of the guiding principles. Firstly, I do not believe that stability in that territory or in Southern Africa is possible without an internationally acceptable solution. I do not believe that we have a choice between stability on the one hand and an internationally acceptable solution on the other hand. It seems to me, whether I like it or not, that the only choice we have is between semi-permanent instability and an internationally acceptable solution. By instability in this context I mean an escalation of the war on the border, growing status and international aid to Swapo from the African countries and especially from the East, which means that we would have to increase our commitments in respect of defence. In other words, it seems to me that these are the options we are faced with.

Secondly, whatever the nature of the settlement, it is going to entail diplomatic and political risks for South Africa. By this I only mean that it does not seem to me that we can find a risk-free solution to the South West Africa/Namibia situation for South Africa.

Thirdly, the longer it takes to arrive at such a settlement, the more limited South Africa’s options are going to become in this connection. One of the powers which, I am sure, are not keen to see a speedy settlement in that territory is Russia, for example, as well as East Germany, for if a settlement is indeed achieved under the present dispensation, no matter how imperfect and no matter how difficult we may find it to achieve such a settlement, it would mean that the West would in fact have to bear a greater responsibility than the East for ensuring that this settlement works. That is why I think they are not anxious for a speedy settlement in this connection.

Fourthly, a settlement after sanctions is immeasurably worse than a settlement before sanctions, for the simple reason that a settlement after sanctions will be attributed to the efficacy of the sanctions and that sanctions will then be used more and more frequently as an instrument for forcing South Africa to follow certain lines of action.

Fifthly, I believe that we shall probably be able to survive sanctions, but I do not think we should under-estimate the consequences of these for our own domestic situation.

Within the context of these guiding principles, we on this side of the House would like to assist in looking for a solution. These are not principles we ourselves have wished for; they are principles which are emerging as a result of the inter-action between all the parties involved in the Namibia/South West Africa problem. However, there are two questions by which I believe we should be guided in seeking a settlement. These are what would best serve the interests of South Africa and how it would strengthen us in our own struggle for survival. This, briefly, is what I wanted to say about the international situation.

I think the House will agree with me that no matter how important external developments may be, they are overshadowed by our internal vulnerability. Internally in South Africa there is a total onslaught on the status quo. This onslaught is of a revolutionary as well as an evolutionary nature. The Government itself is playing a role in it. New dispensations and good intentions are now being announced almost every week. For this reason, one may say that a motion of no confidence, as formulated, does not question noble motives; a motion of no confidence does not question good intentions, but is concerned with measures and actions, and in this connection there is one central question in the light of which we should judge such a motion. I should like to put it as follows: In the light of our internal vulnerability, the demands of the times and the dangers of revolutionary chaos which are implicit in our conflict situation, are the measures that have been taken and announced by the Government appropriate or adequate for ensuring evolutionary change and counteracting revolutionary forces and aspirations? What are the obstructions and problems preventing the Government from taking adequate measures? Answers to these questions should indicate whether this House, and, in fact, all the inhabitants of our country, should have confidence in the Government or not. My motion says that this House should have no such confidence.

One may also ask what the reason is for a motion of no confidence at this specific moment. There is a sence of cautious optimism, a belief that matters are improving, just as there was before the 1980 session. It is being said that the Government is dynamic and not static. Reference is being made to thorough-going and drastic changes which are being made at the constitutional level, such as the President’s Council. In the economic sphere, people are talking about a new labour dispensation, and on the community level about a new dispensation for the urban Blacks. This new climate of expectation, of being on the threshold, of cautious optimism, is due solely to the style of leadership of the present Prime Minister. During the 28 months he has held that office, the hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly changed the political temperature in the country by his conduct. There has been a feeling that something new is going to happen, that outdated practices are going to be done away with, that there is even going to be a moving out of the narrow confines of NP politics and that some of the sacred cows of the NP are going to be slaughtered. Looking at these changes now, we have to ask ourselves: Is there nothing positive in what the Prime Minister has said? Of course there is. The Prime Minister speaks of “love of one’s neighbour”, of “a place in the sun for everyone” and of “a fair deal for everyone in South Africa”. These are all values which every right-thinking person can subscribe to and agree with, as I certainly do, but history does not deal with the good intentions of politicians, but with their conduct and the measures they took to put their good intentions into practice. It often happens—this is obvious—that unsystematic, ill-considered, unco-ordinated change may often be more dangerous than no change at all. In the light of this I should like to take a brief look at some changes which have taken place under the regime of the present Prime Minister in particular.

†The first I want to refer to is the President’s Council, which is seen by some as the start of a new era and by others as a symbol of their constitutional rejection in South Africa. The most positive aspect of the President’s Council came to the fore before its creation, and I refer specifically to the consensus reached on the Commission of Inquiry on the Constitution. There it was agreed that the widest possible consultation and negotiation were necessary to bring about acceptable constitutional change; secondly, that effective leadership had to be involved in such negotiations and, thirdly, that no one group could impose a constitution on any other group. This consensus I regard as a constitutional break-through. Under this Prime Minister for the first time the NP conceded that it could not one-sidedly impose constitutional solutions on the rest of the country. An admirable confession! The very instrument created to give effect to the consensus, however, was a flagrant contradiction of the areas of agreement. The President’s Council is a nominated body which, by law, cannot have Blacks serving on it. I would have thought that a basic minimum would have been to have Blacks on it on the same basis as in the case of anybody else. The PFP never attacked any personalities. In fact, I have never attacked any person on the President’s Council, nor have I questioned the motives or the consensus, but because we pointed out the inadequacy of this mechanism—and only this—as a constitutional vehicle, we were subjected to the most hysterical campaign of vilification that I think anybody has ever seen in this country. [Interjections.] Daily our motives were questioned. Innuendo and character assassination we could read about everyday in the newspapers. [Interjections.] In fact, we were called boycotters and are still being called boycotters. [Interjections.] But why? We were called boycotters, not because we wanted to keep people out—something the Government wants to do—but because we wanted to get people in. [Interjections.]

Order!

What is more, this strategy is not only amusing—and I can see that hon. gentlemen on the other side find it amusing—but is also very stupid. It is amusing because, on the one hand, we are typecast as being irrelevant, whilst on the other hand, in the same breath, it is implied that if we gave our blessing to the President’s Council it would work. It is ridiculous. The effectiveness of that body is not going to depend on the support or non-support of the official Opposition, and that the Government has found out to be very much the case in the past. Secondly, however, it is also very stupid. Everytime the Government calls us “boycotters”, it is also calling David Curry a boycotter, it is calling Hendrickse a boycotter, it is calling Middleton a boycotter and it is also calling Buthelezi, Ntsanwisi and Pathudi boycotters. It is calling them all boycotters. In fact, if one comes to think of it, the only people who are not boycotters in this country appears to be members of the Government. Everybody else seem to be boycotters. Why? Because they simply all point to the same fundamental shortcoming of this body.

We have, however, heard another argument. Some people say that the present composition of the President’s Council is only a first step. The Prime Minister, it is said, has internal problems in his party and this is to be a temporary compromise. [Interjections.] No, I say some commentators say this.

What do you say about that?

I am going to ask the Prime Minister a few questions just to clarify this possible area of confusion. Two simple questions can establish whether, in fact, this is so. The first question is: Will the Prime Minister accept a President’s Council recommendation that Blacks serve on the same basis on the President’s Council as anybody else?

The reply is “no”.

The hon. the Prime Minister says “no”. In that case he precludes, by himself, any kind of constitutional debate for the President’s Council. Why bother about a President’s Council to discuss constitutional alternatives if the hon. the Prime Minister decides by himself what they are allowed to talk about? I know that the hon. the Prime Minister is facing insurmountable obstacles. The second question that I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister is whether he believes in a separate constitutional dispensation for Whites, Coloureds and Asians to that of Blacks.

Yes.

That is the second question to which the hon. the Prime Minister has replied in the affirmative and once again the hon. the Prime Minister has chopped down an area of possible constitutional debate for the President’s Council. [Interjections.]

Order!

What we have seen here is that the hon. the Prime Minister, despite the creation of this prestige constitutional body, will decide what they may talk about and what they may not talk about. The hon. the Prime Minister said: “Do not waste your time talking about Black membership, because if you made such a recommendation, I would refuse to accept it.” [Interjections.] He has just said so.

Secondly, the hon. the Prime Minister said that they should not look at constitutional alternatives which include the Blacks, because the Blacks must have a separate constitutional solution to the one for Coloureds, Asians and Whites. This is what I honestly understood the hon. the Prime Minister to have meant right from the start. I wish that the political commentators would take note of the hon. the Prime Minister’s reply and not confuse the public debate, because I want to say that if the hon. the Prime Minister does believe in this, I want to warn him that the President’s Council will be seen as a symbol of Black rejection and because of that the President’s Council will then be seen as an instrument of Black-White polarization.

It is dangerous to try to give full citizenship to the Coloureds and the Asians at the cost of full citizenship for the Blacks in South Africa. Surveys of White agreement on this aspect are far less important than the intensity of Black rejection of this idea, because in the intensity of such rejection lies the potential for revolutionary instability in our country.

I should like to refer to two related issues. In the first place, I do hope—and I mean this sincerely—that, however important the deliberations of the President’s Council may be and however serious the issues that they may debate, the President’s Council as such will not be used by this Assembly, by the Government or by the Cabinet as a delaying mechanism to bring about important changes that have to take place in any case. In other words, what I am suggesting is that we do not need a President’s Council to tell us that section 16 of the Immorality Act must go. A number of people have already done that. The Dutch Reformed Church, Afrikaner academics, the Black Sash and the Institute of Race Relations have all done that. We do not need any body to tell us that it has to go. The Government has the power through this House to bring about that change if it wants to do so.

Finally, with regard to this particular topic: The hon. the Prime Minister himself has referred to the fact—and I quote from his Ladismith speech—that he would use a referendum as a means of decision-making in South Africa. I wish to ask again in order to clarify any possible confusion what exactly the hon. the Prime Minister means by the use of a referendum. How does it relate on the one hand to the caucus and the provincial congresses of the NP and on the other to this House?

*In this connection I should like to quote from a report which appeared in Die Burger of 1 December 1980 and in which the hon. the Prime Minister said the following—

At the same time he warned that he would not allow any Tom, Dick and Harry to push him around. Should he come a cropper in his own ranks, he would go to the people and execute the will of the people. All I wish to ask in this regard is: What is the relationship between matters of principle and drastic changes? It seems to me that drastic changes can often affect matters of principle. Further to what the hon. the Prime Minister said, it would seem to me that if recommendations were to be drastic he would not go to his congresses. For the sake of all of us I should just like to get clarity on this score. It would be of help to us in the debate.

†The debate, developments and questions concerning the President’s Council are a classic illustration of the discrepancy between good intentions and adequate measures to give effect to them. Yet I think all of us still pray for a miracle, pray that something will happen, despite what the hon. the Prime Minister is now saying. We all want to avoid confrontation; we all want to have constitutional mechanisms which can lead to effective debate.

The second change which has taken place under the present Prime Minister’s stewardship relates to what I should like to call the tension between his commitments to the free market concept, to free enterprise, on the one hand, and separate development on the other. Particularly in this respect—and I think the hon. the Minister of Finance will agree with me—one could question the wisdom of a motion of no confidence if one looks at the present economic climate. In The Cape Times of the last day of last year we read—

All this is very imposing, and I want to say immediately that the hon. the Minister of Finance and his able officials are to be congratulated on how they have managed our financial affairs within the existing political constraints.

I think it is fair to say that from this Prime Minister, more than in the case of any of his predecessors, we have had the clearest commitment to free enterprise. I refer for example to the Carlton conference and the Small Businesses Development Corporation which was created towards the end of last year. Both were declarations of intent which grabbed the imagination and fanned expectations.

But amidst the euphoria and the positive role of free enterprise serious and disturbing social and economic conditions have plagued our country. In The Argus of 3 January this year we read under the heading “Year of the rand and of starvation”—

Surely there must be something wrong. How can one have a phenomenal growth rate and at the same time an increase in starvation and poverty? Are the rich not simply getting richer and the poor poorer? Is the way in which we protect and encourage free enterprise not to the advantage of Whites and to the disadvantage of Blacks? The real test question is the following: What constraints or restrictions imposed by Government policy make it more difficult for a Black or a Coloured person to pursue his or her economic interests than it is for a White person? If there is but one, then no amount of waxing eloquent about the magic of the free market mechanism and about the need for minimum Government intervention is going to persuade the majority of the people that the benefits of the free enterprise system are as accessible to Blacks as to Whites.

The Government must realize one thing, and that is that it is a fallacy to believe that the free market can make right what politicians have done wrong. The Government must correct the constraints and restrictions which result from its policy and which inhibits the working of the market and contribute to poverty and unemployment. The private sector can try its utmost in the spheres of labour and management to pull Blacks into the free market economy, but if there are political restrictions which prohibit this, then it is the Government’s responsibility to get rid of these restrictions.

I want to give an illustration. Land is seen as one of the factors of production in a free market economy. It is often said that the extent to which land can be bought or sold almost determines the degree of freedom of the market. In South Africa over the last 30 years land has been meticulously allocated by law on a racial basis to achieve the objectives of a political ideology. The Population Registration Act determines one’s relationship to land and the Group Areas Act determines where and for what purpose that land is allocated. Once a person has been classified it is fairly easy to predict where he will live, what schools will be available, how far he will have to travel to his work, etc. Both these Acts are political restrictions that not only affront human dignity, but also flagrantly contradict the essence of a free market economy. It is possible in a free market economy that the State expropriates land to protect the underprivileged and the poor, or to conserve the environment or create public facilities for the use of all, but no free market economy worth its name can approve or tolerate a system whereby people are confined to certain land areas on a racial basis specifically by Government decree. I want to warn that if the free enterprise system is seen by Blacks as meaning that Whites are free to pursue their economic interests at the expense of Blacks, our very attempt to promote free enterprise will contribute to a revolutionary situation. In this respect I wish to ask the hon. the Prime Minister what he has decided. Is he halfheartedly toying with free enterprise economics, or is he going flat-out for it? Is he for example willing to choose between the Group Areas Act and free enterprise and between free enterprise and influx control? The hon. the Prime Minister, the Government, cannot have their cake and eat it. The hon. the Prime Minister cannot expect the private sector to assist him in the promotion of the free enterprise ideology while he still clings to the policy of separate development. If he does that we will have free enterprise for Whites and separate development for Blacks, and that is a recipe for revolution. If the constraints and restrictions of the market do not apply to all irrespective of skin colour or ethnicity, the Government’s brand of free marketeering could very well play into the hands of the Marxists. The Government cannot base its planning on a paradox and hope to avoid conflict. In this respect I want to quote someone who I believe has now become the prophet of free marketeering in Government circles. They even show him regularly on television. I refer to Milton Friedman and his book Free to Choose. On page 163 of the paper back edition of this book he says the following—

He goes on to say—

I want to repeat that if all the restrictions and constraints of the free market economy do not apply to all individuals, irrespective of colour, then the Government’s plan of free marketeering is going to play into the hands of the Marxists. Why do I say this? I say this because conventional Marxist analyses have already indicated that the urban Black areas are simply dormitory townships which have to service White capitalist communities. This can be read in any Marxist analysis. What are the homelands according to Marxist analysts? It says that they are simply reservoirs of surplus labour which can be tapped whenever there are fluctuations in the metropolitan economy. That is what the Marxists are saying.

That is nonsense.

If this ideology becomes conventional wisdom amongst the average Black because of restrictions placed on them by the Government, this country will be lost to free enterprise.

It is not.

The hon. the Minister says it is not. I shall deal with him specifically in a moment.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. Leader of the Opposition saying, to take a local example, that Blacks should have an unlimited and free right to purchase land wherever they like, for residential purposes as well, in a place like Sea Point? [Interjections.]

That is exactly what I am saying. What I am saying is whether the hon. the Minister agrees with me when I say that any political restrictions that apply to Blacks should apply to Whites if we are going to have a free market economy . . .

[Inaudible.]

That is what I am saying. If the hon. the Minister of Finance, of all Ministers, is willing to justify political restrictions on the market, restrictions that have to do with race . . .

[Inaudible.]

No. They should be treated on the same basis as everybody else, irrespective of race. I have said it about ten times. [Interjections.]

Thus far I have illustrated that in the constitutional and economic spheres there is a fundamental contradiction between what the Government claims it wants to achieve and the steps taken to achieve those objectives. My question to the hon. the Prime Minister is: Is the hon. the Prime Minister aware of this contradiction and, if so, what does he intend to do about it? If the hon. the Prime Minister is not aware of this contradiction, we are in far bigger trouble than I ever thought we were.

*This brings me to the third change I should like to mention here. This I would describe as the abandonment of key premises underlying the NP’s policy on homelands. Let me illustrate this point. I think this best illustrates the discrepancy between intentions and actions in the Government’s present standpoint. There are two fundamental standpoints which the Government has abandoned under the regime of the present hon. Prime Minister. In the first place, it is recognized that maximum separation in all possible spheres on the basis of race or ethnicity is no longer possible. That is accepted without question. Separation is no longer a solution. Secondly, it has also been accepted that our political problems cannot be finally solved by the creation of independent homelands. These I believe are two important shifts which have taken place under the regime of the present hon. Prime Minister. As far as the first is concerned, we need only consider, for example, hotels, beaches, restaurants, the Public Service, the Defence Force, for it to be clear that the principle of separation does not even exist any longer at the level of what one could call petty apartheid. However, this is also clear when we look at so-called grand apartheid. With reference to the report by Benbo, the following appeared in Die Burger of 18 August 1980 under the heading “Full Separation Not the Solution” with regard to the homeland policy—

With regard to the homeland policy I also want to refer to two additional changes which have taken place. These, too, have taken place under the regime of the present hon. Prime Minister. It has been admitted— this is in essence what the Van der Walt Commission says—that the consolidation in terms of the legislation of 1913 and 1936 is insufficient for a satisfactory homeland policy. The old consolidation formula is too expensive, and it is now also accepted that Whites may own land in homelands. In this regard we need only look at Port St. Johns, Mafekeng and what may happen in regard to King William’s Town, for this to be clear to us.

Secondly—and this is also important—is that it is accepted that the stated economic objectives of the homeland policy cannot be realized. The stated objectives can no longer be realized. Indeed, the hon. the Prime Minister has said so himself. He is reported as follows in Die Burger of 2 September 1980—

Then the hon. the Prime Minister goes on to say—

Now there is talk of greater economic integration between White and Black. The cornerstone of the old homeland policy was that economic integration—I can remember it almost like a refrain in my head—leads to social integration which in turn leads to political integration. We were told that time and time again.

Who taught you that chorus?

What is being said today? What is the Government’s attitude in this connection? The abandonment of these standpoints by the Government is a good thing for South Africa. It represents positive progress. However, the question now is: What positive measures accompany this new change, this shift? Is it being said: “We must think again”? No, Sir, once again it is a “natural unfolding of policy”. After a fundamental shift, the policy is again “unfolding naturally” and the bankruptcy of the homeland idea and race separation is being concealed behind concepts such as “constellation” and “twelve point plans”. Mr. Speaker, I believe the average Nationalist does not know what the word “constellation” means. He looks up at the stars every time the term is used. And, Sir, I swear he cannot mention more than three of the 12 points. He does not know what the twelve point plan is about. Those twelve points are so broadly formulated that one could drive an ox-wagon through them. But, Sir, behind all this talk it remains the basic aim of the Government to persist with the political objectives of the homeland policy, although they have already abandoned the social and economic objectives. What are the political consequences of the homeland policy going to be? That is crystal clear, even in analyses by Benbo and the Africa Institute. They tell us that the political consequences of the homeland policy are going to be rural over-population and impoverishment, which in turn will cause urban migration. In other words, the homeland policy is going to encourage, not prevent, urban over-population. The most important political conflicts are going to take place in our cities and on the platteland. Nevertheless the Government is persisting with ruralbased political institutions in an effort to deal with urban-based problems. This paradox is going to give rise to an incalculable degree of tension in the urban areas. The question is: “What is the Government going to do?” Because there is no answer.

This now brings me to the next point I want to mention, which is the whole issue of a new dispensation for urban Blacks. Sir, this present Prime Minister is the first Prime Minister of South Africa who has visited Soweto. His predecessors behaved as if there were only Blacks in the homelands. The Prime Minister’s visit to Soweto gripped the imagination. We know what the reaction was.

Why then do you still distrust him?

I shall tell you in a moment. The hon. the Minister should not be so hasty, Sir. It was also under that Prime Minister’s régime that it finally became clear that the NP recognized the urban Blacks without question as a permanent part of the urban population. The NP has eventually caught up with the rest of South Africa in this regard. It is true that under this Prime Minister more incisive attention is being given to the material and community welfare of urban Blacks, but the critical problems are still those of labour relations and influx control. With regard to these two problems, three important developments have taken place over the past 28 months. We have had the Wiehahn report; we have had the Riekert report; and recently we had the Bills of the hon. Minister of Co-operation and Development concerning the new dispensation for urban Blacks. I want to dwell for a time on these Bills. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development has what I believe to be the most difficult task of any Minister as regards the reconciliation of good intentions and actions. He has inherited a department which over the years has developed into one of the mightiest bureaucracies in our Public Service. It governs virtually every aspect of the life of the urban Black man. It is no exaggeration to say that the implementation of these functions by the hon. the Minister’s department has to an increasing extent become one of the most important obstacles to good relations in our urban areas. The hon. the Minister is aware of this, as are a number of his officials.

†Mr. Speaker, let us consider one of the functions of this particular department, namely the control over the entry into, residence and employment in urban areas of Blacks. At present the control mechanism has the following main characteristics, and this is taken directly from legislation—

1. (a) No Black person, unless he is exempted in terms of section 10(1)(a), (b) or (c) of Act No. 25 of 1945, is allowed to be in a prescribed area for more than 72 hours without a permit.
2. (b) No person shall introduce into a prescribed area a Black who in terms of section 10 is prohibited from remaining in that area or induce or assist such a Black to enter or remain in such an area.
3. (c) No person shall take any Black into his employment in a prescribed area or have such a Black in his employment unless permission has been granted.

The penalties are then spelt out. These are R100 or three months for a Black who does this. Such a person can of course also be deported to other areas. Employers can be fined R500 or given imprisonment. This is what the pass laws are all about, and they apply to Blacks; not to Whites. I point this out for the benefit of the hon. the Minister of Finance who is very convinced about the necessity of the free-market mechanism. These measures are political measures— once again I should like to remind the hon. the Minister of Finance—that are inspired by political motives and as far as I can make out from Mr. Milton Freedman, they have nothing at all to do with the free-market system.

These pass laws are the most hated daily experiences of Blacks. They are degrading, discriminating and humiliating in the extreme. Therefore it was understandable that when the hon. the Minister announced a new deal in respect of these laws, people got excited. There was only one simple question that a Black man wanted answered: Could he move around like a White man looking for a job or not? The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development is quoted in The Cape Times of 31 October 1980—

“Intended” is the operative word—

No wonder these pieces of draft legislation were eagerly seized upon. I want to say to the hon. the Minister, whatever his intention, if that original draft legislation becomes law none of these good intentions will be realized. He knows that. This is the conclusion of responsible bodies who made an analysis of it. I refer to the Urban Foundation, the Black Sash . . . [Interjections.] They analysed these pieces of draft legislation very carefully. I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question—he must not try to duck away from it by making a lot of noise, but must answer the question. He reacted very angrily and personally to Prof. Olivier when he gave a systematic and objective analysis. The hon. the Minister never referred to what his analysis was, but to persons. It was made clear that these draft pieces of legislation were not adequate and were not living up to the hon. the Minister’s statement that Blacks would be able to move around in the same way as Whites.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister four questions based on that legislation, and not on what the new deal is going to be.

If you rely on Nic Olivier, you will not get far.

Is it not so that in this Bill all the contraventions of Act 25 of 1945 have been retained and that the penalties have in some instances been increased as far as they relate to the control over the entry, residence and employment of Blacks in urban areas? That is the first question. The second question is: Is it not so that in this Bill or the new deal the most important mechanism of control is the Group Areas Act? It is true and the hon. the Minister knows it. [Interjections.] The third question is: Is it not so that in terms of the draft legislation no new person can qualify for section 10 rights and therefore in principle any person can in future be endorsed out of that area? The hon. the Minister knows it is true. The fourth question is: Is it not so that a man can be prosecuted for giving another man a job? I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Finance: “One cheer for free enterprise.” One can get prosecuted if one gives another man a job!

If this is so, what is so new in this new deal the hon. the Minister has referred to? In what way can Blacks move around just like Whites move around? Is the hon. the Minister aware of what the aspirations are that he fans when he makes a statement like that?

I know them better than you.

Well, why then does he make a statement like that?

Because I am dealing with Bills in this Parliament which you have not seen yet.

Sir, I object. The hon. the Minister made those Bills public and he asked people to comment on them. [Interjections.] I am commenting on the Bills.

No, you are giving the comment of other people.

I am giving my comment as well. [Interjections.] Or does the hon. the Minister say that I am not allowed to comment on the Bill? The hon. the Minister invited comment, and now that he is getting comment he must accept it. I concede, however, that the hon. the Minister has said that this new deal is not final, that matters are still flexible, and in that sense one has to suspend judgment.

I now wish to focus attention on a few problem areas as far as the urban Black man is concerned when any new deal is considered. In the first place, urban Blacks and rural Blacks are equally dependent on the same economy. It is dangerous to create insiders in the urban areas and outsiders in the rural areas. In other words, it is dangerous to create a metropolitan Black labour aristocracy whilst allowing rural impoverishment and unemployment. That is the first point for any new deal. Secondly, it is a fallacy to believe that an urban Black middle class in itself will be a stabilizing factor politically. It will not. To ignore the political aspirations of the urban Black middle class whilst improving their socio-economic position is to contribute to a revolutionary situation. It has been like that throughout history. Thirdly, urban infrastructural improvement together with rural neglect, intensifies urban migration. We know that in the whole of the Third World, and therefore I want to say to the hon. the Minister that no legislative curtain that is thrown around the metropolitan areas will stop the unemployed, the hungry and the poor from moving to the urban areas. They are going to come whatever terms the Government makes to impose influx control.

Finally, we must accept urban migration as a fact and use our resources accordingly. If we do not do so now, we shall have much more serious problems of over-urbanization to cope with later on. As far as I am concerned, any new deal that ignores these realities will contribute to instability and conflict in the future rather than to peace.

*The latest illustration of change under the present Prime Minister to which I wish to refer is the problem of the removal of discriminatory measures. Here, too, the hon. the Prime Minister has created a new climate. More than any of his predecessors he has made his intentions clear in this regard. He wishes that “unnecessary and hurtful discriminatory measures” should disappear, and he welcomes recommendations in this connection. One may perhaps differ with the hon. the Prime Minister with regard to the qualification, and I do indeed differ with him concerning what is hurtful discrimination, but we must study his intentions with unprejudiced attention. I want to say here and now that the issue of discrimination is an emotional one which can easily be exploited in our White politics. Therefore when the hon. the Prime Minister calls for recommendations, it may be assumed that he will not accept just any recommendations in this connection. For example, I know from experience that the hon. the Prime Minister does not really listen to the recommendations of the official Opposition concerning the removal of discriminatory measures. However, we are now in the position that recommendations have been made since September last year in a very specific sphere and from a quarter which ought undoubtedly to be acceptable to the hon. the Prime Minister. I refer to the report of the legal committee on legislation bearing on the normalization of sport relations in the Republic of South Africa. It is a sub-committee of an investigation under the chairmanship of Dr. G. J. L. Scholtz and was carried out at the instance of the then Minister of Sport and Recreation, Mr. Punt Janson, in November 1979, and is under the aegis of the Human Sciences Research Council. Before quoting the recommendations, I want to say that progress has indeed been made in the field of sport under the present Prime Minister. For example, we have had an overseas touring team, about which I was initially very sceptical. This did happen, but I think that all hon. members in this House will agree with me that at the present stage our international sport situation is balanced on a knife edge. What we need is imaginative action on the part of the Government and on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister in particular. Fortunately, this report affords the hon. the Prime Minister such an opportunity. For the purpose of its investigation the HSRC appointed 15 working committees. The legal committee is one, and it comprised seven members. I studied the names carefully. There was not a single PFP member on that committee. Indeed, one of them could not be, because he was Black. However, they are jurists of stature. They made a careful, objective and scientific study of legislation affecting the normalization of sport. On page 126 of the report they state expressly that they do not want the report to become a political football because sport would be the loser. [Interjections.] No. The last thing I want to do is to make a political football of the report. I am therefore going to quote directly from the report and not give my interpretation of it. The committee puts forward three principles on the basis of which they examine legislation. The first one they state under point four—

1. 4. Diskriminasie van owerheidsweë by die uitoefening van die reg op deelname, kom neer op ’n onverantwoordbare uit-breiding van owerheidsgesag op ’n prinsi-pieel nie-staatlike terrein.
2. 5. Diskriminasie op sportgebied bestaan daarin dat sportlui, sportorganiseerders, ampsdraers, afrigters en toeskouers op grond van irrelevante faktore, byvoor-beeld ras, ongelyk behandel word.

Then point 6—

I have gone to some trouble to quote extracts, because I do not want to give my definition but that of the committee, so that they can make recommendations in accordance with their own logic. These, then, are the principles on the basis of which they examined four Acts in particular, the Group Areas Act, the Liquor Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. I do not wish to go into all of them in detail. However I do just want to deal with one of them, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. Here I should like to ask specifically for the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister. The committee states—

They also state—

Then they make this extremely interesting remark—

Accordingly the committee recommends—

In the past I have expressed myself in very strong terms with regard to discrimination. Hon. members are aware that I submitted a private member’s motion here in which I stated unambiguously how discriminatory laws should be done away with. As far as I am concerned the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act should be summarily repealed. But I am not going to call for that now. There is just one thing I should like to say to the hon. the Prime Minister. On the basis of this report, is he prepared to reconsider the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act so that not only in the field of sport, but also at all levels of our society, it is no longer hurtful and unnecessarily discriminatory? We can no longer get away from discrimination by way of permits granting exceptions. Let us have an imaginative act in this field of discrimination, too, which is in line with the good intentions spelt out. Let us take a look at the four areas of change to which I have referred. What is the overwhelming impression one gains of the past 28 months? To me one word sums it up, and that is “half-hearted”. It is a question of half-hearted leadership. I can put it no better than did Wimpie de Klerk himself in Rapport of 4 January—

There you have it, Mr. Speaker. I want to remind the hon. the Prime Minister of a Biblical saying to the effect that once one has set one’s hand to the plough, one should not look over one’s shoulder. If changes are to be made, they must be made properly. Some people are going to be angry in any event. I know who they are. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to make them properly angry. [Interjections.] However, he must not anger those whom he hopes to win over by way of his changes, because then no one will be satisfied. If, therefore, there are people who want to become angry, let them become angry. If the Government seeks to negotiate . . . [Interjections.] Over there there is another hon. Minister who is going to become angry. However, I want to say that if the Government wants to negotiate about a new political dispensation, it must negotiate with all political interest groups that seek peaceful constitutional change. Negotiations must not be conducted solely with people that they choose themselves, but with everyone who seeks peaceful constitutional change. If the Government really wants to stimulate a free market, it must not cling to practices which restrict the market economy. If sport is to be normalized— whatever that may mean—it must be stated clearly and unambiguously. Multiracial sport must not be approached stealthily by way of permits and embarrassing incidents. To change half-heartedly is to reap the worst of all possible worlds. Unsystematic and uncoordinated change is, to put it flatly, dangerous. Not only does it cause ingratitude towards the Government, but aspirations that are aroused are constantly frustrated.

The hon. member for Pinetown wrote an article in Rapport of 11 January 1981 entitled “Blaaskans vir Suid-Afrika? . . . Ja, ons moet dit goed benut!” Thus far the predominant impression gained from the 28 months of the hon. the Prime Minister’s leadership is that there have been fine promises—yes, those we do have—but that inadequate steps have been taken to realize them. In other words, it has been a case of half-hearted government and half-hearted leadership— always a bit too little too late. The important question is: “Why?” Why do we have this half-hearted leadership?

In this regard I wish to put three reasons to the hon. the Prime Minister and this House. Why has there been half-hearted leadership in view of the urgent demands of the times? Firstly, the NP has lost its ideological certainty and self-confidence. That is the first reason. They no longer know where they are going. They have lost their ideological self-assurance. Five to ten years ago, if one asked a Nationalist what was going to happen in South Africa in the future, one had the same reaction as when one put a sixpence in a juke-box. They would have spoken about sovereign independent states and full separation in urban areas. Blacks would never live permanently in urban areas. There might perhaps be a homeland for Coloureds, etc. It was enough to make one’s ears ring. However, if one asks them today, they no longer know. For two and a half decades this Government gripped the country by the throat and dragged it with it in order to realize this ideological vision. However, one thing eventually became clear to the NP, and that was that it was not going to work. They know it. [Interjections.] There is a crisis in the direction, and no longer direction in the crisis. They no longer know where they are going.

Hon. members who are interested in reading it, know that it is there.

One can look at what has been done over the past five years by Afrikaner academics, politicians and columnists. Increasingly, models are being constructed which move away from separate development. Every second week another academic bids farewell to apartheid, until one wonders who ever welcomed it in the first place. This is probably the only country in the world in which progress is measured by the decline if the Government’s policy. [Interjections.] That is so. Every time another fundamental cornerstone of apartheid crumbles, there is talk of the so-called “enlightened initiatives” of the hon. the Prime Minister. We know this is so, and we need not bluff one another in this House. If in ten years’ time we are where we were forty years ago in the field of race, it will be said that it was the result of the “phenomenal leadership” of the hon. the Prime Minister. We know this, because all those things are changing.

This ideological uncertainty concerning separate development is in my opinion a good thing for South Africa. It opens up new possibilities and puts an end to unacceptable practices. However, it also gives rise to half-hearted and wavering Government. One could take last year’s session as an example. Two bodies were created, namely the Coloured Council and the Black Advisory Council. We heaped abuse on one another in this House concerning the advantages and disadvantages of these two bodies. Within eight weeks from the start of the parliamentary recess, however, it was announced, without further ado, that those bodies no longer existed. The matters were not referred back to this Parliament. All the fine constitutional justifications disappeared overnight like mist before the sun. It was decided that they were no longer necessary. What is going on with the Coloured Council and the Black Advisory Council? There is no direction. We do not know where we stand. Due to this ideological uncertainty the top men in the NP are sitting peeping at one another like crows on a kraal wall. They want to know who is going to fly first.

You are sitting on an ash-heap.

It does not matter where I am sitting. I feel better than the hon. the Minister feels. This brings me to the second reason for this half-hearted leadership.

†I like to call the second reason “the game of internal National Party power play”. Is a split in the NP imminent? I think eventually it is inevitable. But some English-speaking editors and columnists have written so many splits into the NP over the years that one cannot see the cracks for the crevices. Yet this extraordinary political phenomenon keeps on blundering into the destiny of us all in this land. What those who love to write about splits must understand is that the difference between the NP and an ordinary political party is the same as the difference between a family concern and a public company. That is to say, the controlling shares are held in the family. The only real problem is to decide which favourite son will become the managing director. That is all that is important in the party opposite. Not to realize this is to confuse splits with cracks and peel-offs.

The rules of the game are simple. Firstly, get control of the machine. Secondly, get rid, diplomatically if possible, of your opponent. Thirdly, let the dissatisfied slowly peel off from the party. We know from experience that they will not do it, because they recognize a gravy train once they are on it.

What does one do when one’s opponents do not want to leave and the undesirables sit there like scabs on old wounds that do not want to heal?

You should know. Look behind you.

Then one has to devote more time and energy to the power play. In fact, one must involve the whole country and the media if necessary. This power play is one of the most popular parlour games in White politics in South Africa. In other countries they play Monopoly or Diplomacy, but here in South Africa we play “Power, Peel-offs, Cracks and Splits in the NP”. That is our parlour game. It is easy to start this game. All one has to do is ask certain questions, such as: “Is Andries going to move?” If one does not like that, one can ask another question: “How angry is Lourens?” Alternatively, one asks: “What is John up to now?”

*I must warn that when one asks that final question, the game may continue into the early hours. This game takes precedence over any systematic and co-ordinated change in South Africa. This is another reason why there is half-hearted leadership.

We have recently had a typical example of this. I am referring to reports which were leaked to the newspapers concerning the report of the Erasmus Commission and the Prime Minister. It became quite distasteful. In his speech at Ladismith, the Prime Minister had to exclaim—I quote from Die Burger of 1 December—

This is what the hon. the Prime Minister has to say to South Africa.

By the Rand Daily Mail.

It does not matter by what. All the newspapers reported what the hon. the Prime Minister has said. However, the hon. the Prime Minister knows as well as I do that that man is not sitting in the official Opposition. Anyway, there are no cowards in the official Opposition. [Interjections.] The hon. the Prime Minister’s leadership is being undermined from his own ranks, and the hon. the Prime Minister knows it. The official Opposition has kept out of this family feud and intends to stay out of it.

It comes from the Rand Daily Mail.

That is the messenger. Just as they have done with the other newspapers, they keep killing the messenger instead of the man who sent the message. That report was the best indication of the fact that the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister is being undermined from his own ranks. This undermining is paralysing the Government. It is responsible for halfhearted leadership. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister why the Information ghost refuses to be laid in NP ranks.

You keep resurrecting it.

No, the hon. members really cannot say that. We have not resurrected it. Why does the hon. the Prime Minister not want to lay that ghost?

But you . . .

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister in all sincerity to lay that ghost in this House so that we may forget about it and proceed to deal with the real problems of the country.

This brings me to the third reason why there is half-hearted leadership. It does not matter whether the NP has lost its ideological certainty. It does not matter how intense the power game is within the NP ranks. Unity for the sake of political control remains the most important objective of the NP, outweighing all other considerations. This is the most important reason for halfhearted leadership. If a choice has to be made—and hon. members know what I am talking about—between consistent and systematic change in the constitutional, social and economic spheres in South Africa, and the possible threat this may pose to NP unity, NP unity will be victorious every time. That is why there are no Blacks on the President’s Council. That is why they are clinging to the Group Areas Act and why they want a free market economy and that is why the Government deserves a motion of no confidence throughout the country. [Interjections.] These three reasons I referred to lie at the core of White politics in South Africa. That is why I say that if we are to survive peacefully in South Africa, we have to break out of the confines of these petty White politics.

†Mr. Speaker, we dare not confine the debate about our future to issues of conflict among Nationalists, Afrikaner leaders or even White electoral politics. To do so is to play the proverbial fiddle while our country burns. It is equally important to realize that if we wish to break out of sectional White politics it is not enough to extend patronage to a few privileged non-Whites so they can sit and observe us Whites carry on with our disputes and differences. To break out means to look earnestly for equal and effective debating partners and not to solicit grateful customers. It means taking calculated risks and not to hedge one’s bets. It demands courage and statesmanship; it does not ask for petty politicking and sleight of hand. To break out means to involve all the people of this land in trying to find agreed upon solutions to our incredible social, economic and political problems. It means that we must realize that no one final solution or plan can be fabricated and imposed by any one group on any other group. It is to the credit of the hon. the Prime Minister that he has raised expectations about this possibility, but the increasing improbability of this break-out taking place under this Government is the main reason for our motion of no-confidence. Yet I would be guilty of a falsehood if I did not admit that I and my colleagues, and the vast majority of South Africans of all races fervently wish that the hon. the Prime Minister would lead such a break-out. Despite the threat of our increasing international isolation and internal instability I do believe that the tide is running in favour of such a break-out. There are, inside and outside this country, reservoirs of untapped support waiting to be galvanized into action; more so now than ever before in recent years. The hon. the Prime Minister has the unique historical opportunity to begin a stable and peaceful future for us all rather than to keep us trapped in the dreadful legacies of our past. Should he give that lead—I want to say this quite clearly—I can assure him that I and the vast majority of South Africans will follow him and support him with all our energy and enthusiasm.

*I know there are those among us who have fallen victim to nihilism and cynicism. They say that no matter what the White man does, it will not be accepted. They say that the only thing that will be accepted is White subjection and Black domination, and therefore the only solution is White domination as long as this is possible. With such an approach we are all doomed, for as surely as day follows night, Black domination will follow continued White domination. I say the actions of the White man, and specifically of this Government under the hon. the Prime Minister, certainly will make a difference.

I want to outline briefly a strategy which I believe will not only bring about a dramatic change for the better in the present internal and international climate, but will cause all South Africans to work together with enthusiasm for peaceful and evolutionary change to bring about a future they can believe in. One could call it a strategy which could mobilize the onslaught on the status quo and channel it into a peaceful and stable direction.

Firstly, the hon. the Prime Minister should produce a declaration of intent. He should address the entire population of South Africa and make the following clear statement: Although South Africa consists of a diversity of races, cultural and ethnic groups, and we share a history that is characterized by conflict, discrimination and domination, we all, irrespective of race or colour, have a desire for equal and full citizenship in a common destiny. That must be said. Arising from this, the hon. the Prime Minister should say that we must work for a political structure which will have the following features: It should provide equal citizenship for every person in this country, whether he be White or Black. It should contain no statutory or formal race discrimination of whatever nature, and in that political structure a constitutional dispensation should be brought about in the social, economic and political spheres which should be the outcome of the negotiation, co-operation and consent of the representatives of all our population groups.

I cannot imagine any more dramatic event than for the Prime Minister of South Africa, the leader of the NP, to produce such a declaration of intent. Its impact would send shock waves throughout the country and the word. Just think of it. Such a declaration would not cost the authorities one cent, but what could it mean to everyone in South Africa?

In the first place, it would formulate an ultimate goal with which every potentially friendly Western power could identify itself and on the basis of which they could justify to anyone their support and aid to us in our difficult struggle. Secondly, and this is much more important, such a declaration would pull the rug from under the feet of the militants—White or Black—and would enable moderate leaders to justify their co-operation on the strength of an ultimate goal which their followers believe in and are prepared to work for. The Government would be amazed at the support and co-operation it would receive if it were to set up such an ultimate goal in all seriousness for the people of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Why am I so convinced of this? Not because it contains any fine-sounding words and values. I am able to say this on the basis of my personal conversations and experiences and on the basis of what I read in the newspapers about political leaders inside and outside South Africa. Such a declaration would contain three things that are of fundamental importance to evolutionary and stable change. After all, we are all interested in evolutionary and stable change. There are three things that are of fundamental importance to such a change. In the first place, it is important that citizenship is not negotiable in any new dispensation. I have said this repeatedly in this House and I am saying it again. Citizenship is not negotiable in any new dispensation. If anyone told me as a White South African that I was not entitled to full citizenship in the land of my birth, I would join battle with him, to the death if necessary. What applies to me applies equally to any other man, White or Black. That is why any tampering with a person’s citizenship is a source of conflict in our country. That is why I am pleading with the Government to accept that all South Africans, White, Brown or Black, are entitled to full citizenship. Ask them to co-operate in achieving this.

At the moment, the opposite is happening. The Government is telling the Black man: “I am sorry, but you cannot be a citizen like I am, but in spite of that I am going to make it as comfortable as possible for you under difficult circumstances.” What the Government should actually be saying is: “I accept that you are entitled to full citizenship. Help me to tackle the difficult task of achieving this.” At the moment the Government is still able, from a position of strength, to invite moderate leaders to co-operate. It will be a sorry day when the Whites have to negotiate from a position of weakness with whoever has the upper hand.

The second fundamental feature of such a declaration is that it should state unequivocally that every form of race discrimination must disappear. It should not be qualified by using words such as “hurtful” or “necessary” discrimination. In a multi-racial country like South Africa, the use of such words is like a red rag to a bull. There is a simple, universal test which will show whether a measure is discriminatory or not. If it has the effect of favouring me at the expense of someone else, how would I feel if the situation were reversed? If I would not feel happy, I may be sure that the other man will not feel happy either. Therefore I want to repeat that we in this House should decide together. The Government alone cannot decide unilaterally what is discriminatory and what is not. Establish an antidiscrimination advisory council which is representative of all population groups. Then examine discriminatory legislation and get rid of it.

This brings me to the third feature of such a declaration. It would recognize the fact that the ultimate goal cannot be achieved overnight, and what is much more important, that people will have to co-operate in several spheres of our political structure— economically, socially and politically—to bring about such a new dispensation. When I say “co-operate” I mean just that, not concerning, for on behalf of someone, but with him. People co-operate because they believe that what they are working for is worthwhile. I do not have the slightest doubt that Brown and Black people will co-operate with enthusiasm when it comes to the removal of race discrimination and the achievement of full citizenship for all.

As part of such a strategy, such a declaration of intent would be a first step, but it would be an important first step, because it would be a symbolic gesture on the part of the Government, an act of reconciliation by the Government towards those who are governed, saying that it is prepared to work for a peaceful dispensation. It would also be the first step aimed at introducing the second phase of such a strategy, and the second phase is the creation of a social, economic and political climate in which full justice could be done to such a declaration of intent.

†Years of White supremacy and domination, of compulsory segregation and racial isolation, have contributed to an atmosphere in South Africa which, to say the least, is not conducive to co-operation and acceptance of one another’s bona fides, particularly in the process of evolutionary change. Whites have the power and responsibility to demonstrate their sincerity of commitment towards implementing the declaration of intent by creating a climate that is conducive to evolutionary change. I do not have much time to illustrate this, Mr. Speaker, but I shall attempt to do so very briefly.

If we look at the social context, what does such a climate entail? In the social area, what is important? In the social context things that are important are education, housing, social control, community development, health, etc. For historical and political reasons the provision of these facilities by the State has been on a racially inequitable basis, which has led to the present structural inequality between White and Black. That is a fact. This is a massive problem to overcome and not even a revolution is going to solve this problem, despite what the revolutionaries say. Yet this is also the area where the most extraordinary expectations are raised and the most impossibly naive demands are made. It is the area where subversives and demagogues thrive and exploit the gullibility of the frustrated and the under-privileged. That is why a demonstration of goodwill by the Government is vitally important, particularly in this sphere. For example, at a time when the Government has committed itself actively towards compulsory education for Blacks, what are young Blacks asking? They are asking: Education for what? For separate homelands? For group areas? For influx control? If so, then compulsory and equal education will qualify young Blacks to better understand the nature of their inequality in other social spheres of life. In terms of the declaration of intent, the Government’s answer should be: Compulsory and equal education so that you are better trained to work towards your full citizenship in a discrimination-free South Africa. With this kind of response the Government can set up five and ten year plans to improve housing, equalize educational facilities and develop community life, and confidently expect Blacks to co-operate on joint bodies to achieve these goals.

Another crucial aspect of the social sphere concerns the independence of the judiciary and the maintenance of security. I have consistently said that a society going through evolutionary change needs strict security laws, but no matter how strict they are they can never lead to a person being held indefinitely without trial, or in communica-do, or without any access to legal resources whatsoever. Arbitrary bannings and house arrests contribute to a climate of fear and suspicion, not to co-operation, and bring the whole problem of maintaining security during a period of transition into partisan politics. It is in this sphere particularly that a demonstration of good faith by the Government is not only sorely needed, but long overdue.

In the economic context I have already referred to a number of problems in respect of which I think the Government can introduce changes. I do not want to dwell on this too long, but in November 1979 a conference was held in Grahamstown on free enterprise and the individual. There it became abundantly clear that one cannot confine economic change to the narrow economic sphere, but that there is a web of social and political laws in our country which affect the economic activities of the ordinary person and inhibit his performance, and that those laws have to disappear before one can have a conducive economic climate.

It is in the political sphere especially, however, where we need a demonstration of good faith. How can we create a conducive climate politically? There are a number of statutes and regulations which inhibit freedom of assembly, speech and association. They will have to be reviewed. They will have to be amended or scrapped wherever necessary. In this respect I want to say it was a tragedy that struck the country last week when those two newspapers were banned. It was a tragedy because it destroyed a climate conducive to evolutionary change. I believe there are other ways in which the Government can get at individuals. If the Government believes it has a case, it can bring them to court. Hundreds of thousands of people who depend on a newspaper . . . [Interjections.] If I were to take those hon. members’ newspapers away, what would they do? Why do these people have to suffer because of that? I say that the Government has wiped out many of the good things that have been done under the direction of the hon. the present Prime Minister.

The Government must relax restrictions so that Black communities can themselves form political associations and demonstrate who their community leaders are. Above all, the Government should repeal the Improper Political Interference Act. If political organizations are non-subversive and constitutional, they should be allowed to operate, particularly if they can contribute towards effective negotiation. The Government must stop trying to force people to use outmoded ideologically constructed bodies. They do not help us relieve the situation. If people are prepared to work constitutionally and non-subversively, they should be allowed to form their own political associations and, if they are the real leaders, the Government should enter into negotiations with them. Only in this way can genuine co-operation take place.

The central point I am making is that on all these levels—politically, socially and economically—there must be co-ordinated and systematic change because these levels are interdependent. The major point I have made against the Government is that in these areas we have had ad hoc, eclectic, unsystematic change from the Government. This contributes to a climate of frustration and revolution. This is the lesson that the Shah of Iran never learned—the degree of interdependence among these areas in a society. One cannot bring about change economically and socially and at the same time try to keep the political situation intact by force. In these areas we need coordinated change.

*This brings me to the third and final step for such a strategy: The holding of a constitutional conference or, as I call it, a national convention. Some form of representative constitutional conference or national convention is ultimately—and I wish to emphasize this—the only way to bring about evolutionary and acceptable constitutional change in South Africa. Recent history in Zambia and Namibia tells us all in the clearest language: Either the Government calls such a constitutional conference from a position of strength and prosperity, and chooses its time and place, or the historical circumstances will ultimately compel it to attend such a conference in far less favourable circumstances. Rowan Cronjé came to tell the NP that in their own caucus chamber. He told them not to bluff themselves that with regard to this problem they did not have the same difficulties. We in South Africa can learn from the lessons of our neighbouring States and avoid their mistakes.

The Government is strong. The economy is sound. There is still enough goodwill for the Government to create a favourable climate which would make the holding of a successful constitutional conference possible.

I want to avail myself of this occasion to clear up once again, and in the clearest possible terms, a few misunderstandings about such a constitutional conference. In the first place, it is only the Government of the day that can convene such a conference. Opposition groups, White or Black, that think they can simulate or even hold such a convention, do the idea of such a conference more harm than good. It is one thing for opposition groups to demonstrate their support for the idea of a convention—and I believe this is essential because it indicates how many people are still prepared to work for peaceful constitutional change, but ultimately it is the Government of the day that has to convene such a convention.

It is just as well that you replaced Colin, because he wanted to hold the convention.

In the second place, it ought to be clear, against the background of what I have said thus far, that a convention that is convened out of the blue, in isolation, has little chance of success. It must be preceded by a clear statement of intent on the part of the Government, and by systematic and planned change in the social, economic and political spheres. This would create a favourable climate for the holding of such a conference. The conference is not a miracle recipe or magic formula. It is the combination of the process of change in which the inhabitants of the Republic, through their representatives, seek a peaceful constitutional solution for all our difficult problems. Such a constitutional conference is a demonstrable proof that our people, White and Black, say they prefer to talk rather than to fight.

Finally, and this is the most widespread misconception concerning the convention: It does not replace the sovereignty of the Government of the day. The Government does not surrender its estate by convening a convention. It does not sacrifice its self-determination or identity. It continues to govern. The essence of evolutionary constitutional change is that the Government initiates it voluntarily and monitors the constitutional change. Accordingly the Government of the day must ultimately decide whether it accepts the recommendations of such a constitutional conference. Those are the basic elements.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: If he were in power and that national convention were to recommend a system of Black majority government, what would he do?

If the hon. the Prime Minister had taken the trouble to read my party’s policy, he would, with regard to the fundamental . . .

Answer the question.

If hon. members kick up such a fuss about something they know nothing about, I wonder what kind of fuss they would kick up if they did know something. Sir, it is very clearly stated that this party does not accept majority government as a solution for South Africa.

In other words, you would reject it?

Of course I should reject it!

Why then do you take it amiss of me if I reject something that the President’s Council may recommend?

There is a big difference. The function of the President’s Council is to seek a solution. I assume that is the case when I look at the areas of consensus. The hon. the Prime Minister is shifting the argument completely. The areas of consensus for the President’s Council state specifically that all the members . . .

Sit down, man!

If the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North could only err like a normal person, I could still forgive him, but his limited intelligence does not even allow him to do that. The hon. the Prime Minister asked me a direct question concerning the national convention. My reply to the hon. the Prime Minister was equally direct. Now I again ask the hon. the Prime Minister: Is it true that the areas of consensus achieved in the constitutional commission are such that all population groups must be involved in constitutional negotiation? It is so. It is stated in Hansard. Is it true that the representatives of all population groups must be involved? Now I ask the hon. the Prime Minister: In terms of that consensus, in regard to which there is already a contradiction in the President’s Council, if the President’s Council puts forward a recommendation whereby to give effect to those areas of consensus about which we have agreed here, does the hon. the Prime Minister say that he will not accept it? That is what the hon. the Prime Minister is saying there. That is an entirely different situation from the one I delineated.

Those, then, as I have said, are the basic elements of the strategy I propose, and I believe that there is foreign and domestic support for such a strategy. I believe that we could obtain that support because there are leaders overseas and at home who wish to avoid confrontation. Now, I know that there are those in this House who say that such a strategy is naïve, that it is based on illusions and that it cannot work. But this strategy takes due account of national and international political trends in South Africa. It takes account of all the difficult demands set us in our struggle for survival. What is indeed true is that over the past 30 years this country has been dragged along in terms of an ideology which everyone today recognizes as having been based on illusions and the most naïve assumptions. Indeed, it is even argued that it is dangerous to carry on like this. Development studies of Southern Africa are systematically expounded in the Benbo report and they represent the most profound and devastating criticism of the policy of separate development I could recommend to any hon. member opposite.

This session could be one of great historic significance for our country. I believe there have been times in history when the Prime Ministers of South Africa have had to take difficult decisions and I believe, too, that the present hon. Prime Minister will have to take one of the most difficult decisions. Is the hon. the Prime Minister, through his leadership, going to limit the debate on our future to the pettinesses of White politics, or is he going to break out of the cocoon and lead us into the dangerous and difficult debate with our other fellow-countrymen who are not represented in this House? His actions will determine whether we in this House are going to deride and taunt one another about the absurdities and prejudices we are so fond of exploiting for the sake of short-term political advantage, or whether we are going to give serious and penetrating attention to the problems of survival politics. As never before in the political history of our country, all its people are waiting for a statesman and waiting to see whether we have a statesman at the helm of affairs or whether we have only yet another leader of the National Party. In the future, in view of the demands of the times, yet another leader of the NP will be less and less tolerated.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin with the remark that I have never before in my political career heard a speech which was so totally divorced from the reality of the South African circumstances as that of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today. Listening to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, one could never have imagined that this society of ours has many deep divisions; one would never have dreamed of thinking that the population groups living in this country manifest fundamental differences. Listening to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition one would have said that the population of this country represents a homogeneous group of people. One would have been able to argue that no separate nations exist in this country. One would have been able to argue that no people with different traditions exist here, and one would have had to accept that the population of this country does not include people who are on varying levels of development. One would have had to draw those conclusions, because the formulae which the hon. member presented have doomed societies more homogeneous than ours to failure. So I am surprised that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition displayed the naivety of proposing a model or a plan for South Africa which does not offer any solution, but which implies the abdication of the rights of the White population of this country. But what is more. Implicitly it must lead to civilized standards and norms being destroyed. Let us have no doubts about this. The fact remains that the standard of development of a country such as ours, and its ability to render assistance to those parts of the population which are still lagging behind as far as their stage of development is concerned, is dependent on the feeling of security among the Whites and also on the leadership of the Whites. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition need not go far to see the results of what he is propagating for South Africa. He need only look northwards. His model has reduced Whites to a tiny minority in the midst of Black domination. However, he comes here in his naivety, and what he propagates for South Africa is nothing but the addition of South Africa to a series of failed models similar to the one he is propagating. There is something I should like to say to him now. The Government has no intention of following his advice.

I can understand why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is so sensitive to the criticism of his and his party’s actions in connection with the President’s Council, and I intend to deal with the matter in greater detail later.

In the first place I should just like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition why Mr. Japie Basson left his party, and also why Advocate Neser left his party. I also want to ask him why Mr. Wiese left his party and why some of his members who were still sitting here when we adjourned last year are no longer sitting here now. Were they not people, from the ranks of his own party, who accused him of allowing instruments which could have been used in our negotiation politics to be boycotted by his party? Why is it a fact that even newspapers which initially supported the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party in this connection, are now advocating shifts of emphasis and participation? I wish to put another question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I hope he will reply to it. Is he advocating the same rights within the same State structure for the entire population of the country? The hon. the Prime Minister treated him decently and replied to his question; that is why I now expect the same treatment from him. Is that what he is advocating?

You shall hear on Friday.

No, Sir, he cannot reply to the question. He must first go back and hold consultations, as he had to do in regard to participation in the President’s Council. [Interjections.] I also wish to put a second question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and he must reply to it. He said he objected to statutory control of ownership and utilization of land.

On a racial basis.

I wish to ask him whether he is advocating that the land reserved for Black people under the 1936 and 1975 legislation should be sold to them on an individual basis according to the means of those people. Surely that is implied in his argument. Consequently he must give us a reply to this question.

Secondly, I wish to ask him whether he is a supporter of the Friedman concept of free market economy. If he says “yes”, he must tell me what he is going to do with the hon. member for Yeoville, who advocates a “social democracy” for the country. I also wish to ask him whether he wants to abolish the instruments which were created for the lesser developed people who cannot compete in our society, because that would then mean intervention in the market system. Does he wish the instruments created by the Government for the development and participation of these people, who have not yet had an opportunity of being exposed to the market mechanism, to be destroyed? After all, that is what he is advocating when he speaks of absolute freedom in the economy. It seems to me it is only he who believes in that concept.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition put subtle questions about a referendum to the hon. the Prime Minister. Legislation will be introduced in this House and we will then be able to debate it. However, I wish to ask him whether he does not think it is worthwhile supporting such a concept, particularly if such legislation were to make provision for consultation of population groups who are not represented in this House. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is seeking leadership, but does not display the necessary qualities of character.

He is not even a good follower.

If the strategy for South Africa of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition succeeds, I maintain that it is irreconcilable and in conflict with a report which he himself helped to compile and to which he appended his approval, because he said that the principle of “one man, one vote” in a dispensation such as ours had to lead to violence and confrontation. I now wish to ask him how he can say that absolutely no distinction may be drawn between the citizens in an undivided State, and is then still able to say that it is not “one man, one vote” which he is advocating. How are the two to be reconciled with one another? Surely it is absolute nonsense.

The customary no-confidence debate is most probably one of the interesting discussions which take place from time to time in the House of Assembly. I maintain that it is a good tradition, because I think it creates an opportunity for all the parties to state and debate their various standpoints, and to deliberate with one another on them. However, if one looks beyond this tradition for just a moment, then what is happening today is a powerful irony. I should now like to deal with this. What distinctions have the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party earned here and outside this House? In the first place the party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has earned for itself the special distinction that it suffers from political withdrawal disease. The truth of this statement lies in the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party have isolated themselves from the institution and the processes which have to work at and build on a future constitutional dispensation by way of investigation, consultation, negotiation and advice. Other people have not displayed the same symptoms. Consequently it is paradoxical, and the height of political division, for such a party to move a motion of no-confidence in a Government and a party which is the exponent of these processes and these institutions. For a political party which has built up for itself the image of total irrelevance in South African politics—and this afternoon we have had the most tangible manifestation of its total unimportance in South African political life because it has no concept of the society which the political model which it propagates has to serve—for such a party to move a motion of no-confidence in a party and a Government which, more than any other Government before it, has elevated negotiation politics to a practical mode of operation in South Africa, is in my opinion absolute temerity. Let me indicate what it is that I cannot understand. We are not quarrelling with one another on the principle of negotiation. Is it not in our own interests, even if we did not agree on the methods, to accept the principle as the hon. the Leader of the NRP has in fact done?

What is the sum total of the contribution made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party to political thought and political development in South Africa? We all tell one another that this country is an amalgamation of the First World and the Third World. Why is it that every model which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition propagates, is a model for the First World only? Why is the hon. the Leader and his party not capable of introducing new constitutional thinking for this country, thinking which is not vested in or based on European systems which developed after they were rich enough to afford it? I am not saying this in a spirit of criticism; I am simply asking what image the party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition presents to the outside world. It is a party which is identified with those who oppose the steps which the Government is taking to maintain the safety of this country, to preserve the security of this country and to free this country from subversion and revolution. It sounds strange to the ear that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should, under these circumstances, come here and move a motion of no-confidence in the Government.

Half your caucus have no confidence in your Government.

I believe that in contrast to what is expected in a political dispensation such as ours, it is the Government which is taking the initiative in the country, and not the Opposition. It is the Government which is coming forward with new plans and strategies for the complex problems of our country. I think there is a specific reason why this is so. What is the essence of this debate? It concerns the concept of confidence, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will concede that confidence is a rare commodity, something which is difficult to earn and even more difficult to sell. There can be no confidence in a political party on the basis of what it says, but there can be on the basis of what it is, on the basis of the experience which other people who have negotiated with it have had of that party. This explains to the country why that which is known about the Government and that which is known about the official Opposition, creates confidence in the Government and a lack of confidence in the Opposition. This debate would have been more meaningful if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had been able to understand this.

There are various reasons why there is confidence in the Government. I want to say at once that I do not think that the Government is perfect, nor do I think that any hon. member sitting here is perfect. However, I can say that no one can question the efforts and the good faith of the Government, in a world filled with tension and strife, with insecurity and conflict, to lead this country along a course of evolutionary development. The concepts of fairness and Christianity are, as far as the NP are concerned, not an innovation based on recent experience. It has been written into our constitution for more than 60 years. It is also written that it seeks the welfare of every group of the population of this country. The NP also stands for the impartial preservation of the rights and privileges of each population group. Yet that does not imply the abdication of the rights and privileges of that sector of the population which has led the development over a period of 300 years.

Why is there confidence in this country? Why is there confidence in the Government? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to some of the reasons. In the economic sphere we are experiencing an unprecedented period of prosperity. What makes this progressive phase so important, so impressive, is the fact that it is occurring at a time when developed countries of the Western World are struggling with economic stagnation and negative growth rates. Surely this high growth rate in South Africa is indicative of internal confidence in the Government and in its economic and political goals and achievements. I state without a qualification that there has never been a greater awareness in South Africa of the complementariness and interdependence of the public and private sectors. Never before has the co-operation between both these sectors been utilized with such excellent results for the development of the entire country and all its people. This is the initiative which was taken by the hon. the Prime Minister, the Government.

But this high growth rate is not solely attributable to internal support and confidence. It also testifies to the support of foreign investors, importers and exporters and their confidence in the stability of South Africa. Not only do they have confidence in South Africa’s economic stability, but also in its political stability. I am asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in his reply, to show me in all honesty a comparable country, a country with the same profound and intense divisions which exist in South Africa, with the same high resulting degree of emotionalism, in which the same measure of stability exists as does in his own country, even with the models which he is propagating. This foreign confidence in South Africa is even more remarkable because we are achieving it in spite of a campaign of hatred which is being waged against this country— in overseas countries, here in this country, and from here to countries abroad. I have hoped so fervently that we would still see the day when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would rise and adopt a standpoint against those people who vilify South Africa. I have never yet heard him do so in this House.

There is widespread confidence in the Government because it has, in a judicious way and over many years, built up and improved the welfare and the quality of life of all its people. Of course there is still poverty in South Africa. Of course there are still people living under defective living conditions. The mighty America, the model of liberty, has never succeeded in eliminating poverty and defective living conditions I from its society. However, when we compare the welfare and the quality of life of the I people of the entire population of our country with those of the rest of the world we have reason to be proud and grateful. I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition why millions of people of all colours wish to come to South Africa, if we are oppressing them as he said we were doing. Why is it necessary for us to take steps to put a stop to illegal immigration to South Africa? In his speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition projected an image of an unjust society and of people who wish to keep it unjust. And then he asked why there was criticism of South Africa. Sir, there is confidence in this Government because it maintains law and order and because it has built up a military capacity, in spite of an arms embargo, which enables it to safeguard its borders and to help other people in other territories to safeguard theirs. If we take note of the conflicts and the hostage dramas in the world, then we know that we are living in an unsafe and dangerous world. Then I say, Sir: Why does the Opposition not stand up for a change and thank the Government for ensuring internal security and stability under such circumstances, in a world which is the way it is?

There is a fifth reason why there is confidence in the Government and that is because it is bringing about important processes of social and economic reform in the country, and causing these to evolve in an orderly way. On the basis of the Theron, Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions, unprecedented processes of reform, social and economic, are in progress in the country, and as a result the standards of living of many people have been raised.

But, Sir, the most important reason why there is confidence in the Government is that it has taken constitutional initiatives, which have placed it on the road to orderly development. Because the responsibility for the constitutional development also falls largely under my department, I should like to say something about it. In his speech, if I understood him correctly, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition based his motion of no confidence, inter alia, on the lack of meaningful constitutional development in our country and a lack of meaningful mechanisms and procedures and methods. However, I wish to contend that he created a distorted image of the constitutional situation of the country. I wish to contend that he presented an incorrect image of the population of the country, and I wish to contend that he measures it against distorted standards. Of course it is true that sustained constitutional development is and ought to be a natural process in a developing and modernizing country such as South Africa. I foresee that this will continue to be the case for decades to come. But, Sir, there are people outside South Africa and there are people within the borders of our country who do not have the patience or the wisdom for a gradual and parliamentary process of constitutional development. They wish to solve the political problems of the country with a “big bang”. They wish to take one gigantic step from the present dispensation to a kind of “one man, one vote” dispensation. I wish to say, in spite of the profession made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this connection, that his party are exponents of those methods and that direction. They are not interested in gradual and parliamentary processes. If they were, they would have used the institution of Parliament, as faulty as it may be in their estimation. They are not interested in the mechanisms and instruments created by this Parliament. They reject them. They have advised other people to reject them as well. Sir, in time they will reject Parliament.

That is not true.

You can dispute it when you speak. The other peoples of the country are making use of the processes created by this Government, although they are not always satisfied with them. There is not one national State in the country which does not find itself in some stage or other of constiutional development in terms of the Government’s policy. But, Sir, let us consider what has happened during the past five years in the sphere of constitutional development.

The Theron Commission found that the political rights of the Brown people were inadequate to give them a say or even an opportunity to have a say, and recommended that a committee of experts be appointed to investigate the matter. The Government accepted that recommendation. It also accepted that the Westminster model did not lend itself to solutions to this problem. On that ground legislation was introduced in the House of Assembly in 1979 which sought to make material changes to the constitutional dispensation of South Africa. I am not asking the hon. for Sea Point to agree with this; I am asking him to bring me a model which can measure against it.

But it was withdrawn.

No, it was not withdrawn; it is before the commission as evidence.

It was withdrawn.

By whom?

By the Government.

What the hon. member is talking there is—well, it is unparliamentary to say what it is. [Interjections.]

To give effect to the recommendations of the Theron Commission which were accepted, mechanisms were proposed last year to bring about the widest possible consultation and deliberation between and with all groups, for the sake of the constitutional development of the country. The complaint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this connection is that the legislation omitted specific population groups from the process of consultation, but surely that is not true.

Only 70% of the population was left out.

What did in fact happen was that the recommendation was—and consequently the Government accepted it— that various instruments should be used for the consultation. The hon. the Leader and his party not only rejected the President’s Council; they also rejected the Black council.

It was an apartheid advisory council.

There was a packet of measures. The hon. member takes his seat in Parliament. There are no Black people here; why does he take his seat here? [Interjections.]

Order!

With what votes was the hon. member Prof. Olivier elected? With Black or Brown votes, or was it with the White votes?

The creation of a President’s Council was an important event, because it meant that Whites, Coloureds, Asiatics and Chinese could deliberate within the same council on a constitutional dispensation and everything which that implies for the future. There was a packet of proposals, and the other part of the packet affected the Black people. It confirmed that the Government was prepared to have a committee of the President’s Council deliberate with committees of a Black council on our future development. The Government did not exclude the Black people from the dialogue on the constitutional development of the country. Who excluded them? The hon. the leader and his party, together with the people who support him.

There are many of them.

I can say without fear of contradiction that this packet would probably have been one of the most important breakthroughs to take place in White politics in recent years. It is important because it would have been a breakthrough in White politics. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself subscribed to the standpoint that if constitutional development in the country was to be orderly and evolutionary, it had to be accepted by this Parliament. To make it acceptable to this Parliament, it had to be acceptable to the people who constitute Parliament. I now wish to ask what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did to help us to break down the existing resistance. If we fail to understand that persuading the people who elect Parliament to accept evolutionary progress is essential, we are living in a fool’s paradise. I wish to state today that the Whites in the country are not opposed to adaptations. The Whites in the country are not opposed to constitutional development. The Whites of the country are not opposed to the demands of other people for a say in matters affecting them. But if one wants revolution in this country, one must question the right to self-determination of the White people. If one wants revolution in this country, one must jeopardize the say of this population group. What is more, if one wants a breakdown in the economy, if one wants regression, then one must question the security of this population group. It is in the interest of the Black people of this country, and also in the interests of the Coloured and other sectors of the population of this country, that the position of the Whites should not be assailed. When I say this, I am not for a moment suggesting that this should happen at the expense of the rights of others. But make no mistake, the fact that the Government has adopted a course of negotiation politics in this country, does not mean that it will avoid confrontation through the abdication of the Whites and civilized standards. There should be no doubt about that.

Why did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party find this institution and processes unacceptable? Why were they so irresponsible? I think it is essential that we should receive an answer on what the causes are of the endemic ailment which has befallen the soul of the Opposition, that is if it has one! This disease which has conquered the constitution of the party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—and he should listen to this—developed the day he decided, or came to the conclusion, that he could be nothing more in South African politics than an Opposition leader. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself, as well as his party, said that their role in this Parliament was that of an effective Opposition. For once they were right. No one thinks that they can ever be anything else; and they do not think so either. Within the system as we know it, and also as it applies here, there can be no question of orderly and organized constructive politics if the Opposition does not try or profess to be an alternative Government, and as long as it professes to be that, it has to be sensitive to the thinking and desires of the White voters. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party have in this connection embarked on a dangerous course, and also a very hazardous one. And so they have, as one could have expected, slithered and fallen by the wayside. With their rejection of the instruments created by Parliament for constitutional development, they by implication finally relinquished their sensitivity to the White electorate. I wish to assert, and I am not saying this because I rejoice at it, that this approach has become a dangerous factor in South African politics, for they are no longer seeking the support of the White voters, but have another constituency which consists of Blacks and Coloureds and certain circles in the outside world.

The game which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is playing is a dangerous one, not only for the Whites, but also for the Black and Brown people in this country. It is dangerous for a system within which democratic rights can be preserved. On the one hand he is driving the White and Black groups away from each other and radicalising South African politics. On the other hand the official Opposition is driving White voters into the arms of small extremistic far-right groups in South Africa. It is also arousing suspicion—as it also did today— and distrust among Black and Brown people of the political initiatives which the Government took earlier, and again last year. The process of deliberation between Whites and the Black groups can only take place on a basis of trust. But what is the party of the hon. the Leader doing? Day in and day out it is sowing suspicion among the Black and Brown groups, and also in foreign circles— the hon. member for Sea Point will recall this—of the Government and where the Government wishes to go. [Interjections.] The party of the hon. Leader had to gain the support of its new “constituency” by boycotting instruments for order, and then it is sensitive about this and states that we are the people who are responsible for the fact that an image of him and his party exists that they are people who are boycotting instruments. Such an Opposition is a dangerous Opposition, and I do not think South Africa can afford it.

On the other hand there are many Brown and Black people, as well as other population groups in the country, who do not allow themselves to be influenced or intimidated by this boycott mentality, this politics of hatred. There are many Black people who have confidence in the Government. I wish to make a statement today which my colleague, the Minister of Co-operation and Development, will confirm. There are Black leaders in the country who do not necessarily agree with the Government, but who thank God for the fact that this Government exists and is keeping this country as safe as possible, and they say this too.

Who are they?

What is more, these people are participating in the mechanisms. They are part of the processes of consultation. What are the facts? When the Black Council was brought into existance, my colleague and other colleagues convened around a conference table—and for what purpose? To negotiate other forms of consultation with the Black leaders of the National States. The spirit in the country is a spirit of consultation and negotiation. But what does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition come forward with? What is the sum total of his contribution to constitutional thinking in this country? It is a national convention which represents the building material for White and non-White confrontation. That is the sum total of the initiatives of the official Opposition.

I said at the outset that there were sound reasons for the country and this House to have confidence in the Government. To sum up, I should like to emphasize that this confidence is primarily due to the initiatives which the Government has taken, and is still taking, to bring about a comprehensive and complete process of social, economic and constitutional reform in South Africa. Thanks to the initiatives of the Prime Minister, the Government and this party, the outstanding feature of this country is the fact that it is a country which is undergoing a transformation. The only difference is that this one is orderly and evolutionary, and for that reason it is not being presented in a sensational way, although the results of the process are in truth sensational for South Africa and its people. We have committed ourselves to negotiation and consultation, firstly with all the population groups of South Africa, secondly with countries in Africa, and thirdly with Western countries that wish to preserve the values in which we believe. This process of negotiation and consultation with these groups will be continued on the basis of certain values and certain procedures and their acceptance. These values are the recognized Western values and civilized values which the Government will never surrender and does not wish under any circumstances to endanger. These procedures are those of orderly deliberation for the sake of gradual change, with the preservation of the rights of minorities.

Mr. Speaker, I should like firstly to associate the NRP with the words of the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to the Laingsburg disaster, and also to associate this party with his expressions of sympathy to the victims and families of victims of that disaster. I want to express appreciation for the steps that have been taken and which I believe are all that could be expected and as much as could be done. I hope that the loss of life and property will be limited to the minimum.

Before dealing with the debate I should like to take this opportunity—I am sure you will permit me to do so, Mr. Speaker—to welcome back to this House my colleague, the hon. member for East London North. He is the first of many more who will be following him. They will be following him because of the growing public disillusionment with the confrontation, double talk and stalemate that have developed in politics and, without reflecting on the abilities of the persons concerned, have been demonstrated in this debate today, the stalemate of two parties talking past each other, the stalemate of confrontation, of selfrighteousness, and the attitude that everything is all right, that “we know what we are doing, leave us alone”.

The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs made much of security, of control of the situation and stability being one of the reasons for the confidence of the people in the Government. I want to say that some strange things are happening under this Government. One of them happened last night. In our democracy we find the reaction to a political issue being expressed by one of my NRP MEC’s having his business premises alongside his house blown up by a bomb by the Wit Kommando last night.

Now really, who said it was them?

They have written a letter in which they claim responsibility. When the hon. the Minister of Police seeks to defend the Wit Kommando, he is showing where he stands in regard to the maintenance of the right of a person in a democratic South Africa to his own political views. This happened because the NRP Natal Provincial Administration insisted that money to be made available for beach development at Richards Bay should be used in the interests of all races and not only in the interests of the White inhabitants. Those involved have said that this is the reason why they have blown up the premises of a member of the executive of, and of the governing system in, a province of South Africa.

But nobody approves of that action.

The hon. the Minister of Police gets excited when I say it is the action of the Wit Kommando and that they have claimed as much. What I say is that what is happening in South Africa is that there is an atmosphere of confrontation developing. This atmosphere of confrontation is not only one of confrontation between political parties but it is also becoming one of confrontation outside the legitimate political field. This is the point I want to make. It is that the political atmosphere is tending to move beyond the normal legally acceptable political limits. I believe there rests a tremendous responsibility on the Government to change that situation very rapidly.

Turning to the motion, I want to adopt a different approach to this debate because I believe that South Africa, standing as it is on the threshold of becoming a new Republic and waiting only for a new constitution to become that new Republic, is living in a time of unparalleled opportunity. Change is in the air. It is being talked about here and abroad. There is talk of renewal. We had it in the State President’s Address. This session will show whether that change is going to be real or just talk. I want first to spend a moment looking at this opportunity which presents itself to South Africa.

I spoke last year of the possibility of change in politics abroad. We had seen the Thatcher Government coming into power and I asked: “would America perhaps follow?” I welcome the signs of a greater understanding to which these two changes have led and I hope it will mean a full normalization of relations. I believe it will give South Africa a breathing space, an opportunity to get down to sorting out our own problems by ourselves in this country without being under pressure from abroad. I am, however, disturbed—and I believe the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information is as disturbed as I am—at the apparent euphoria in some Government circles that because of those changes of Government everything is now going to be rosy for us. I want to warn that we must not imagine for one moment that either Britain or the USA will change one iota its rejection and condemnation of statutory racial discrimination or of the exclusion of citizens from the political process. The only difference is that they will not try to dictate “how” we should change and will, I believe, give us an opportunity to get on with the job ourselves.

Not only in Europe has there been change. In Africa itself there are isolated signs of greater pragmatism, for instance, in regard to trade with South Africa, and of a realism with regard to sanctions. Again, let us not bluff ourselves. We can expect that, in the case of the countries that are showing pragmatism in regard to trade with us, major efforts will be made and major assistance given to reduce their dependence on South Africa.

So what we have at the moment is a breathing space, an opportunity to move. I believe there is growing disillusionment in most countries with the terrorist forces they are hosting and with their wars. Who would have believed a year ago that we could have had a Geneva Conference, with Swapo sipping cocktails with representatives of the DTA, Aktur and the South African Government—it would have been unthinkable—and with the internal parties themselves talking for South West Africa? I believe this is a major breakthrough for South Africa and, I hope, the taking-off point for a final, acceptable solution. This, plus the outrage in America over the treatment of the Iranian hostages epitomized the recent “Young Republican” resolution against Swapo, may herald and, in fact, I believe will herald a hardening of attitudes towards terrorism.

So, I say it is a time of opportunity abroad and a time for action here, not for relaxing, crawling into our little island of smug security and plugging along in the same old way, waiting for a crisis or waiting for pressures to force us to move but it is a time for us to take the opportunity and to get on with the job.

*In South Africa it is also a time of opportunity. Change is flourishing in Afrikaner circles and thinking and in churches, cultural organizations, academic circles and the national newspaper community. There are even a few bubbles within the ranks of the NP itself. When Die Vaderland gives prominence to an article praising the policy of the NRP and a Rapport columnist virtually expresses longing for pre-1948 South Africa and reference is made to the isolated world of the children of apartheid who do not know any other world with which to draw comparisons, it proves that miracles are not impossible. When we consider that businessmen supported the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Finance and that R50 million was collected over a very short period for small business enterprises, that the Riekert and Wiehahn reports were submitted and that plans were made for Soweto which at once jettisoned 32 years of NP rule, and that a President’s Council was created which will now negotiate to find a new constitutional dispensation, then we know that things are really on the move in South Africa. It is therefore undeniable that South Africa’s moment of opportunity is here. But the question is whether, in the light of South Africa’s urgent needs, these opportunities are being utilized and my reply to this is “no”. That is what I want to discuss in the short time available to me this afternoon.

†I believe that the Government has missed the boat. There have been positive developments and ad hoc changes. We have welcomed and supported them and we give full credit for them, but the Government’s initiatives and its exploitation of the opportunity it has had have lost so much momentum, have stalled so often, that credibility in the Government’s proclaimed intentions has been undermined, if not totally destroyed. Hopes have been so frustrated that they will be almost impossible to revive. The opportunities themselves have not been destroyed. They are still there for South Africa. But they have become more difficult to use—to exploit. They have been given a shorter time-fuse, but the opportunities are still there. It is only the Government that has lost its chance to exploit them because whatever it says and does now is viewed with doubt and suspicion. What is needed is a new instrument to give new momentum to the exploitation of our opportunities.

I think of these oft-quoted words of the Bard—

Most people stop there but he went on to say—

The hon. the Prime Minister saw the tide coming and he prepared South Africa to take it “at the flood” with his total strategy, Carlton Conference and multiple commissions. Name a problem and a commission was appointed. In fact, it has been a time of constant commissions, all to build up and prepare South Africa to take the tide at the flood. It was blazoned to the world with trumpets and brass bands and presented with all the skills of expert public relations people. They captured the public imagination. The hon. the Prime Minister became “Top of the Pops”. There is no doubt that he blew the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs right off the charts.

But not off the “Box”!

He was right on top. He should have known, however, that real change is not possible without risk and without trauma, without a price to pay, because every tidal wave has a backwash. It is just part of the risk. At the crucial moment for South Africa the hon. the Prime Minister felt the tug of the backwash, and tragically, with the tide running his way at full flood, he faltered and chose instead to wallow “in the shallows”, the shallows which lead to misery—in a stop-go, yes-no, maybe some time application of the initiatives that had so caught the imagination of South Africa and of the world. The hon. the Prime Minister let the tide pass by. He let the waves of expectation crash against the rocks of apartheid, which his party had placed there. He was not prepared to pay the price—the trauma of jettisoning the incurable addicts of that apartheid within the NP, addicts “hooked” on three decades of propaganda and still living in the world of yesterday.

I want to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that a man is judged by his achievements, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said. He is judged by his achievements and not by his intentions, however good they may be. South Africa needed to take its opportunity at the flood, and the hon. the Prime Minister cannot complain that the NRP did not try to encourage him. I offered the help of my party. I offered support in any positive action he took. In fact I offered him so much . . .

In Simonstown.

I hear the chirrups! [Interjections.] I offered it so much encouragement that I have been accused of being a fellow-traveller. I am quite content to leave my 32-year record of fighting the hon. the Prime Minister and his party on every possible front to speak for itself. [Interjections.] I fought them in everything except the sovereignty of South Africa, the security of South Africa and the defence of South Africa. In those fields I will not try to compete with the official Opposition. [Interjections.] At this moment we are fighting three by-elections against the NP. [Interjections.] I do not know what the official Opposition are so sensitive about. When we fought Edenvale we were accused of splitting the vote. Then we were the greatest sinners. When we do not take part in an election we are accused of helping the NP. Then we are also the sinners. One cannot win! [Interjections.] If one fights one is accused of splitting the vote. If one does not fight I do not know what one is splitting, but either way one cannot satisfy the official Opposition.

*The result of the hon. the Prime Minister’s vacillation was not only that he brought upon himself the antagonism of the verkramptes but also that a growing tide of doubt and criticism came from people who, across political party lines were prepared to assist with the renewal, and which now allege that they have been misled, abused and hoodwinked. Among them we find businessmen and responsible Brown and Black leaders who have risked their own credibility with regard to the actual creation of a new future in South Africa. The only people who are happy, are the radicals, radicals who can now say: “We told you; it was a big bluff”. In the meantime, and as a result of this, positive even spectacular steps, like the Soweto plan, are being discredited because so many misgivings, excuses and explanations are being appended to them in order to set the minds of the doubtful at rest, that the credibility of the whole initiative is being marred.

†There are two underlying reasons for the neutralization of the initiative. Firstly, there is the vagueness of its declaration of intent. I am not going to try to compete with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who set his own declaration of intent, but the hon. the Prime Minister’s is open to such widely different interpretations that it can satisfy both the hon. the Minister over there and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

No.

Yes, he himself said: “It is almost wide enough to satisfy me.” It is as equivocal, in fact, Mr. Speaker, as Prog policy itself, if one really wants to look at it carefully. But there are also missing links in the fundamental philosophy of the Government which prevent the initiative taking off. I do not have time to deal with them at length, but I am going to summarize them.

The NRP sees Blacks as South African citizens with a common destiny, with a joint claim on the natural resources and riches of South Africa, and joint responsibility for the welfare of South Africa. The NP sees them only as citizens of totally independent States.

The NRP believes that non-homeland Blacks must be accommodated in a structure for the common area they occupy with White, Coloured and Asian. It sees the only practical way as a corporate federation with control over intimate affairs vested at community level and co-ordination at the federal level. The NP rejects federation. It excludes all Blacks. It was interesting to note an article only last week, written by a prominent Nationalist political academic, under the heading “Die Nasionale Party se dilemma— federalisme en konfederalisme”, virtually pleading for the policy of the NRP. Nevertheless the Government sets its face against that because it comes from an opposition party.

That is Nic Rhoodie.

Yes, it was Nic Rhoodie.

The NRP sees this corporate federation as one of the States within a confederation with the homelands and neighbouring and independent States that may wish to apply and be accepted, with a common citizenship and a single economy and with joint responsibility in agreed fields of common interest. I do not know what the Government’s answer is with its constellation, but I do know that it is confined solely to consultation and to economic co-operation, and just possibly a vague hint of some form of dual associate citizenship.

The NRP believes in local option, the right of every community at the lowest level of authority to determine the character of its own area, open or exclusive, and to control its own intimate community affairs and services. The NP believes in dictating from Pretoria who shall live where and with whom.

The NRP believes, lastly, that no power should be exercised at a higher level of authority if it can properly be exercised at a lower level of authority. The NP believes that all power should be at the top and that it can be delegated downwards at its own will and whim—the unitary concept of thinking.

These issues, Mr. Speaker, are before the President’s Council. I am not going to take them further. I do, however, want to deal for a moment with the incredible stupidity of this Government, apart from policy. They say: Whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad. The latest stupidity is the question of the nominated members of this House. We opposed this in principle but it is now the law. The sole justification was that it would bring “kundigheid”, skills and special knowledge, into this House. What an admission to start with, but the NP made a mockery of its own argument. It brought in by the back door a bunch of retreaded ex-Senator organizers.

Order! The hon. member may not reflect on hon. members of this House.

Well, that was before they became members of this House.

Order! They are members of this House.

I shall not reflect upon them. I shall do as Die Transvaler did and say: “’n Misoes sal ’n mens dit nou nie noem nie . . .”

Order! The hon. member may not reflect upon hon. members of this House by reading extracts from newspapers.

I am saying “kan dit nie noem nie”. Die Transvaler goes on to say: “. . . maar waaragtig tog niks opwindend nie”.

Order! The hon. member may not reflect in the negative.

I shall not reflect at all, Mr. Speaker.

The other recent total stupidity is the stupidity of the hon. the Minister of Justice in his banning of two newspapers. He has become a good follower of Mugabe. If you do not like a newspaper, ban it or take it over. The only difference is that Mugabe is paying for his. The hon. the Minister just closes them down. A Press Commission is sitting and security laws are under review. Does he really suggest that a revolution would have broken out before they had reported? It is this sort of ham-handed action to which I am referring. There are everlasting incidents, for example, the handling of King William’s Town. If he had only followed NRP policy, namely consultation and local option, they would not have been in the mess they are in. The final contempt for Parliament of the King William’s Town issue is the refusal of the hon. appointed member, Mr. Van der Walt, to allow a member of this House to appear on behalf of his own voters to give evidence on their behalf before a committee appointed by the Government and to restrict him to talking only in caucus where he can be shut up by the authority of the party. I think that that is a reflection on the status and the authority of an MP. To refuse to allow him to appear and to speak for his own electorate is disgusting!

There are endless examples. I wish to conclude by referring simply to what I believe is in itself sufficient reason to have no confidence in the Government. Notwithstanding a R10 billion gold bonanza, the State’s own share of which was enough to pay for oil imports for many years, enough to build five Koeberg’s or ten of the world’s biggest power stations, it was not enough to give even interim relief to vital public services plunged into crisis. There are hospital wards without nurses, classrooms without teachers and crime is rampant. However, there were enough police to raid Sandy Bay! I do not know whether that can be classified as duty, entertainment or fringe benefits! [Interjections.] Maybe it is a recreational fringe benefit. These men are serving their country with dedication and the thanks they receive is: “Wait until April”! This is what they get from a Government with this vast amount of money, with its coffers overflowing but with an utter contempt for the people who are serving in these crisis areas of our administration. In Israel the Government fell because of teachers’ salaries. Then there are the pensioners, the people with fixed incomes and the lower income groups who are staggering under the 16% inflation. These are issues which I believe we must bring to the attention of this House to try somehow to inject some sympathy, some human feeling, into the heartless and ruthless approach of members of the Government, an approach in which only race politics are important. I am not ashamed to speak up for White South Africans and to deal with their problems as well. That is something to which this House has to give more attention.

There are other things but my time is running out. South Africa cannot go on much longer like this with the NP, two parties under one name, paralysed and unable to get on with the job. They are held together only by patronage and Afrikaner sentiment. Then there is an official Opposition which has opted out of the political mainstream. After two years of planning a secret national convention, they are upset now because their planning for their own national convention with the SACC, the Committee of Ten, the Black Sash—you name them—leaked to the Press. That, however, is their business. The way in which they act is the reason why they are being increasingly rejected by the people of South Africa.

In this situation the role of the NRP as a catalyst becomes more and more vital and the need for a new political dispensation to help shape the new Republic more urgent. We are small in numbers by a historical accident . . . [Interjections.] . . . but we drew in the eight by-elections that we fought 33% of the total votes cast, 4% more than the PFP with 29%, while the HNP was only 2% behind them with 27%. We represent a true cross-section of the South African electorate, not dominated by any one group—economic, Press or otherwise. We have a role to play in a vital sector of South African politics because we act as a barrier to a one-party State and an anchor of stability between the extremes of politics in South Africa. We have no confidence in the Government.

Mr. Speaker, I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for Durban Point in one respect and this is that South Africa is definitely entering a period of tremendous opportunities. I also agree with him that things in South Africa are really on the move, and that the NP is largely to be thanked for this.

As the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, Forestry and Environmental Conservation has put it very succinctly on occasion, today South Africa and its people are seeking solutions to the problems of today using the instruments of today and the leaders of today. The challenge is a great one and it requires tremendous qualities of will-power, courage, perseverance, of dedicated, hard work and of profound faith. Listening to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today and thinking about the tremendous problems with which South Africa is faced, I truly thought in all modesty that the two of us together, he and I, are more stupid than I am on my own. [Interjections.] In my modest opinion, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating a unitary State the entire afternoon. He advocates equality on all levels, but as sure as the sun rose this morning, this means nothing but total domination of minority groups. The hon. the Leader and his party may do what they wish, these are the hard realities and the facts with which they are faced.

Tell us about your thesis. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did two things in particular which I feel I should set right at once. In my modest opinion, he has been engaging in very superficial politics. Oh, where are the days of “Super Van!” I say he was engaged in superficial politics, because he alleges that the hon. the Prime Minister is the first Prime Minister who has really given attention to the urban Blacks.

I find the fact that he said that most reprehensible. What sort of cheap politicking is that? What, however, are the facts of the matter? The late Dr. Verwoerd built more houses for Black people in this country than anybody else had done, and this made a considerable difference to the weal and woe of all the people in this country at that time. Another example is the Riekert Commission, which was appointed during the regime of the predecessor of the hon. the Prime Minister to consider the issue of the urban Blacks and other matters which are being discussed at great length, such as the new dispensation, etc. Therefore, surely it was not a fair statement for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to have made, being in the responsible position that he is and doing so at the start of such an important session. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition did exactly the same with regard to sport. He alleged that progress in the sphere of sport, as he referred to it, has been made under the present hon. the Prime Minister only. The truth of the matter is, however, that a new sports policy was accepted by the NP in 1976 under his predecessor, Mr. Vorster, long before the present hon. Prime Minister came into power. That is why I am very keen to set the matter straight.

The PFP’s policy of one man, one vote, in a federal context—and I think I am putting it correctly—can lead to one thing only and that is . . .

Progress and Prosperity.

. . . total domination of Whites and all other minority groups in South Africa. It cannot but lead to confrontation and profound misery, for instance economic enslavement, etc. I should like to associate myself with my colleague the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs at once. The Whites in this country—and this is not the only minority group in this country—have gained their freedom fairly recently after a prolonged struggle and they will not forfeit it for anything on earth. The PFP is not exactly noted for maintaining this freedom, and after his speech this afternoon, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will be even less noted for it. On the contrary, they have been branded as those who want to give this freedom away. As early as 530 years before Christ, Pericles wrote the following—

I want to say loud and clear here this afternoon that the Government has the will and the courage to defend this freedom to the last in this country of minority groups.

But you think it applies to you alone.

I should like to teach the hon. member a lesson. Our own C. Louis Leipoldt put it very well—but the PFP understands nothing of this—when he said in a single sentence: “Ons onthou—meer was die vryheid as kind of as vrou.” Then the hon. the Leader comes up with this cheap political prattle this afternoon, with South Africa in difficult circumstances and at the start of an important debate.

If one looks at this against the backdrop of profound questions and truths, such as those that I have just mentioned, then the PFP reminds one very much of the saying: “The most popular place is the cemetery—people are dying to get there.” And that is where they are heading. To use the hon. the Leader’s own words, the PFP policy is in fact more dead than alive. The White people of this country and—I want to emphasize this because I truly believe it, as a result of my practical experience—most of the Black people from Black minority groups are not in favour of it either. This is a fact that the PFP is not aware of. More than one prominent Black leader has told me very recently that if the Government cannot guarantee the rights of their peoples as minority groups, they will have to seek this elsewhere. They place a tremendously high premium on this.

I just want to raise a second point with regard to the PFP, further to what my hon. colleague has said. I believe it is true that the PFP has become irrelevant. I want to refer to two points only in this regard. For years they were broadcasting the fact here that they were speaking on behalf of the Black people. I want to put a simple question to them: On behalf of which Black people are they speaking? I now want to tell them categorically that the Black people are speaking to us on behalf of themselves and in their own right. They are speaking frankly. Therefore, if that party says that they are speaking on behalf of the Black people, I deny it emphatically. I now want to quote what Chief Buthelezi said in Ulundi in March last year—

He went on to say—

He goes on to tell them a thing or two.

What does he say about your party?

Then he reaches the following conclusion—

That is why I say that they are not speaking on behalf of the Black people. I shall mention some other examples. The other day, Dr. Sebe told me that he was invited to speak to the PFP. They had only been speaking for a few minutes, when he said to them—

He asked the members of the PFP whether they would not help him financially to achieve this. He said that they were so flabbergasted that this was the last time that they had asked him and the last time that he held discussions with them. Therefore, the PFP are not speaking on behalf of the Black people.

They also alleged that they are speaking on behalf of the Coloureds. However, they are not speaking on behalf of the Coloureds either. The Coloured leaders speak in their own right, and they speak to us. I have a report here entitled: “Slabbert weet weinig van Bruin politiek.” The report reads—

He added the following—

Nor are the PFP speaking on behalf of the Indians. I could quote statements here which prove that the Indian leaders are adopting exactly the same attitude, and I am in contact with the Indians and Indian leaders myself. Therefore they are not speaking on behalf of the Indians either.

Are they perhaps speaking on behalf of the Whites of this country? One simply has to look at what happened in Simonstown this recess. Barlow is out for a duck, and Mr. Wiley hit the PFP for ten sixes, and now he is sitting there as our man on this side of the House. What happened then? In East London North the NRP hit them so hard that they heard bells ringing in their ears—and there Mr. Bell is sitting—and the bells are going to continue ringing for them for a long time to come.

Now I want to ask them on behalf of whom they are speaking if they are not speaking on behalf of the Blacks, the Indians, the Coloureds or the Whites. They are speaking on behalf of a small group of people, a clique that advocates certain things for reasons of economic interest, about which the PFP adopts the stance that it does. The PFP is in the process of deteriorating, but in spite of that it has a great deal to say here. If they want to be a responsible Opposition in this country, they must do exactly what is expected of a responsible Opposition. I find it very striking that during the past six months the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has progressed from “Super Van” to “Boycott Van”.

“Delivery Van.”

He has also been called the “Wrecker Van” already, and in a short while nothing will be left of the “Van”. However, I just want to remind hon. members of how the English-language Sunday newspapers were full to overflowing of “Super Van” the day before the no-confidence debate last year. Now one simply has to see what appeared in the English-language newspapers yesterday.

Go back to Oxford for another degree.

However, in all modesty I want to say that much more was said about me in yesterday’s Sunday Times and other newspapers than about the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. [Interjections.]

The time has come for us to adopt a serious attitude towards these matters and for the PFP to cease making misrepresentations to their voters and officials with regard to the position and mandate of the President’s Council. Allow me to illustrate this by means of one example only. The level of negotiations with Prof. Ntsanwisi, the Chief Minister of Gazankulu, a highly respected Black leader in the country, is between Government and Government. The negotiations between he and the hon. the Prime Minister and between himself and myself as the representative of the hon. the Prime Minister in this regard, are direct and do not take place via an advisory body of the White Parliament.

The official Opposition is always trying, either implicitly or explicitly, to bring the level of debating down to a level that is not appropriate to the priorities and realities of the day and the demands of the foreseeable future, viz. a dialogue revolving around the subject of having or not having centralized government for the total Black, White, Coloured and Asian populations within the traditional borders of the Republic of South Africa. Similarly, they are now trying once again to make an issue of the participation of the Black people in the President’s Council. They are not promoting good relations between Black and White in that way. By adopting that type of attitude, they are making themselves even more irrelevant.

Tell us about your new deal.

In contrast to that— and I want to put it very clearly to hon. members—the Government is using the instruments at its disposal in a style that is appropriate to the demands of the practical situation in order to make it possible for individuals and communities to enjoy maximum stability and economic prosperity in a well stratified model of co-operation in South Africa.

I do not have the time now to elaborate further on this model of co-operation, but the Government has taken important new initiatives with regard to the model, based on self determination and the sovereignties and freedoms of the various national States and peoples in the country. I refer to the following: Closer co-operation between the Government sector and the private sector; the Carlton Conference; the Small Business Development Corporation and the Development Bank. Dr. De Kock’s constellation committee; Rationalization of administration and development corporations; free participation in economic development; the Wiehahn and Riekert Reports; the deconcentration and decentralization of economic activity from specific metropolises and the planned creation of balanced poles of growth and growth points regarding which a great deal more will be said in the House in due course; the establishment of a programme advisory board as supportive financing for practical training of entrepreneurs by universities and by means of other bodies.

I already said on occasion last year, and I want to put it very clearly once again, that as soon as the principle of non-negotiable sovereignty and self-determination has been complied with, a constitutional system can arise concurrently which can comply with all the constitutional and other requirements of the various Black peoples on the one hand and the White, Coloured and Asian populations on the other, on the basis of a confederation and constellation. These are the logical consequences of the NP policy as it has been followed by the Government over the past 30 years. [Interjections.] This is absolutely true.

The system of separate sovereignties has already been accepted by several Black nations and has been given expression in political self-determination and independence. Therefore, the time is ripe for further co-operation which will culminate in a confederal State Council on which the various sovereign peoples can serve together and work out a modus operandi with regard to their common interests that can be acceptable to all and that will lead to greater general prosperity without their having to sacrifice their political self-determination. Do not make a mistake: The Black leaders must be aware of these things, but the Opposition must be aware of them too. The Government is making excellent progress in the interests of this country and all its people along this path. They may laugh about it as much as they like and criticize it as much as they wish, but as the responsible Minister dealing with Black affairs, I know what I am talking about. All I am asking, is that if the PFP does what it wants to do and if it engages in politics, it should refrain from putting so many spokes in the wheels of this important development which is in the interests of our children and of us all, which could cause it to miscarry in consequence.

These Black leaders have three main priorities. Firstly they are asking for the elimination of hurtful discrimination whilst maintaining their own identity and their own lebensraum. This is what we are doing. Secondly, they are asking for the maintenance of a broad South African context within the idea of a confederation/constellation. We are also making excellent progress there. Thirdly they are asking for meaningful participation in the Southern African economy. We are making excellent progress there too. During the course of this session we shall give a great deal of attention to all three aspects, but particularly to the elimination of hurtful discrimination.

I want to conclude this point by saying that it is therefore a very convenient time for the Governments of national States and Black leaders to take the initiative themselves in all of the many spheres which the Government has established for them through the co-operation of all. I could have mentioned many examples in this regard. I could have referred to the Ciskei, kwaN-debele or Lebowa which has just launched an enquiry into the practical implications of co-operation in the regional-economic context. They took the initiative to launch an inquiry regarding these new initiatives which the Government has established, because they want to be the first to implement them. Surely this is brilliant progress.

I now come to the so-called urban Blacks. With regard to the three laws, I want to put it very clearly that I had them published for public edification and comment. During his opening address the State President said the following, amongst other things—

I find it strange that most of the media that support the Opposition, have overlooked this sentence completely, and I wonder why? I want to put it clearly that the Government is determined to create a new dispensation for Black people. We have stated our objectives clearly viz. to try to do away with hurtful discrimination and at the same time to ensure that order is maintained, that the quality of life of all population groups is improved and that proper control will be exercised over the process of urbanization by means of effective measures of influx control so that squatting and an excessive influx of people who cannot find a place to work or live, will be combated in a humanitarian manner as far as this is capable of being implemented in practice. We must do away with some hurtful measures and replace them with positive legislation regarding community development, as has been recommended by the Riekert report and been accepted by the Government.

We have received a considerable amount of comment from the various population groups and this has been processed as speedily as possible. This led to various discussions with interested parties, which in turn meant that important amendments were made to published legislation and are still being made. In this regard I may mention that clause 31 of the Community Development Bill was rewritten in order to implement the existing objectives more effectively and in addition to make it more positive in content. For what other reason was this legislation published but to obtain hints and comment for the improvement thereof and the elimination of problems?

We received a good deal of comment and I have now submitted this to a few experts, including Dr. P. J. Riekert, Dr. P. J. van der Merwe, Prof. Nic Wiehahn, Adv. Fanie Cilliers and Mr. Justice Jan Steyn, and have requested them to consult with me here as a group, together with the hon. the Deputy Minister concerned, the Director-General of Co-operation and Development as well as other senior officials on 5 February this year. I then propose to discuss it immediately with a few other interested parties, after which the Bills will be submitted to the Cabinet and then to the NP caucus. The aim is to present this legislation to Parliament as soon as possible this session, provided that nothing unforseen occurs. We are working at the greatest possible speed. These are the facts regarding this matter.

Consequently, the end result will differ from the published legislation in many important respects, and unnecessary negative speculation in this regard serves no useful purpose and complicates an important, intricate task, viz. to create a meaningful new dispensation which, if these objectives are successful, will have a positive interest and meaning for South Africa and its people.

All I ask is that I should not be expected to react to the newly nominated hon. member, Prof. Olivier. If I were to do so, I would lose the thread of my speech completely, because I am so unhappy and dissatisfied about the absolutely negative statements that he has made and as a result of which this country has suffered unnecessary, incalculable damage, [Interjections.] I do not view this as engaging in politics in a responsible manner. [Interjections.] If he had had that comment available, he could have submitted it to me. We called for comment. We did not call for shabby politicking.

I now want to illustrate by means of the following quotation what I want to state very clearly with regard to this legislation—

Allow me to add that the following remains true in any event—

This is what hon. members opposite are forever doing. [Interjections.]

I wanted to say a great deal about the so called urban Black people, but unfortunately my time is somewhat limited. However, I want to point out that the six regional committees that were nominated, on which these Black communities in White areas are very well represented, have aired their views on the needs, the aspirations and the development of the Black people in urban areas. During March 1980, several hundreds of the recommendations made by these urban Black people were studied by the committees, and since most of the recommendations already formed part of practical policy at that stage, positive decisions regarding the implementation thereof and the final investigation and rounding off with a view to implementing them, could be made. I could mention several things, but allow me simply to mention one important fact. During the parliamentary recess, attention was given to the 121 matters remaining, and after the 121 recommendations had been studied finally during December 1980, a total of only six matters remains with regard to which a final decision has not yet been made. This comes from the ranks of the Black people in the White areas, who made more than 500 recommendations. We have dealt with all of them except six. Two of them are matters which are receiving the attention of the central Government, for instance property rights and the Immorality Act. The remaining recommendations can be completely or partially applied after negotiations with the bodies concerned. In view of the excellent work which these regional committees carried out and of the positive progress that has already been made with regard to implementing the recommendations, I propose to convene these regional committees once again in the near future.

I could also have referred to the welfare boards that we established during the past year. I can also refer to the direct attention that we have given the housing problems; with a great deal of success. I should have liked to make announcements in regard to the Black residential areas of Queenstown and Stutterheim, which I shall do later by means of statements.

Allow me to elucidate a few examples here, because whilst hon. members of the Opposition have such a great deal to say about the urban Black people, I want to point out that in general there is trust between us and the urban Black leaders, trust for which one can never be sufficiently grateful. Those people come to cry on my shoulder. They come to speak to me from time to time. There is a relationship between us that is of the best which one could hope for under difficult circumstances, in the interest of the White people of this country. I refer to a few examples of the phenomenal progress which has been made. I refer to the development of greater Soweto, to the electrification projects to the tune of R190 million, in which 102 000 dwellings are involved. Then there is also the project for the upgrading of services in Soweto at an approximate cost of R150 million. I also refer to the electrification projects which are being undertaken for Black people on the East Rand at the moment. Then there is also the replanning and improvement schemes for Atteridgeville and Mamelodi, in Pretoria, which have already been announced. I also refer to the liaison committees of Alexandria, and the development that is taking place there, of which hon. members are already aware. I also refer to the development at Fingo Town, near Grahamstown, as well as the planning and development actions which the administration boards and community councils undertake in general, in the normal course of events. As an example of this I can refer to Crossroads, where R13,9 million is being spent on 1 731 dwellings, with the necessary infrastructure. 122 of those dwellings have already been completed and 1 028 people have been resettled there. Phase 2 of Crossroads, which involves approximately 1 000 additional dwelling units, has also been approved already. Similarly, we are also making excellent progress with the important planning of the leasehold system. I shall provide the figures in this regard in due course.

I am not saying that there are no problems. Of course there are problems. However, in my modest opinion, anyone who wants to make allegations regarding this matter by means of a motion of no confidence in the Government, is stupid and should have his head examined. [Interjections.]

I have an unshakeable faith in the youth of our nation and in our nation and in our ability to survive and to overcome.

First and foremost, the Government is at the service of the White voters. If hon. members had listened to the address of the State President, they would realize what sort of picture can be held out in prospect with regard to the welfare of all population groups in our country under the NP regime.

The Whites have already proved what they are made of and that they can grow, live and overcome even in the most difficult circumstances. Therefore, allow me to give an example of where they will triumph, together with the other population and minority groups, viz. to establish a new constitutional dispensation here on the southern tip of Africa which will yet serve as an example for the rest of the world. The Government, under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister, is making brilliant progress in this direction.

Our struggle against the PFP reminds me of the words of D. J. Opperman when he discusses “donsige skimmel en vosse”. In this regard the following poem of his is quite appropriate—

of this debate and in this decisive and fateful Parliamentary session of 1981.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of his speech, the hon. the Minister referred to lights and candles. I wonder whether it was significant that while he was talking the lights went out in this Chamber.

During the course of my speech I will be referring to research that has been done into the attitudes of urban Blacks in South Africa. However, there is one point I should like to make now and that is that if I were sitting on those benches I would not become too excited about a few election results. I do not think that side of the House has ever achieved the election successes that Mr. Ian Smith achieved in Rhodesia. If my memory serves me correctly, he won every seat on two or three occasions, and look at Mr. Ian Smith now!

Recently much attention has been given to the free enterprise system as a means of solving South Africa’s economic problems. Indeed, it would seem at times as if the free enterprise system is meant to be the panacea of all our economic, social and political problems. Let me say at the outset that I am entirely in favour of free enterprise in South Africa. I therefore welcome the new interest in the concept which until recently had fallen upon stony ground in South Africa. I welcome steps that will take away power from the public sector and put it in the hands of the private sector, for I believe that a free enterprise system has many advantages, particularly in the case of South Africa.

It is a truism that any economy is always in a state of flux. Let us consider the changes that have taken place in the area of computer technology in the past few years. Today it is possible for a few thousand rand to buy a mini-computer which has the same capacity as its great big brother of 10 years ago. This is merely one example of the changes taking place in the economy.

In South Africa it would be true to say that we are going to encounter a great deal of change whether we like it or not. Because of this constant state of change an efficient economic system must be able to adapt to the changes that inevitably occur in any economy. It must be flexible enough to take note of these changes and to recognize that changing circumstances require a different pattern of allocating the resources of a society.

This is not only true of changes in economic conditions but also of changes in political and social conditions. Hayek, the renowned philosopher and economist, has pointed out that a planned system is extremely badly suited to making the necessary adjustments timeously because of the difficulty planners have in obtaining the necessary information. In a centrally planned economy one has to pool a vast amount of information. To obtain it is difficult; to digest it, process it and act upon it is time-consuming.

I believe that this is the very problem encountered by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development when he speaks with such feeling about the speed at which bureaucrats move. And the tragedy is that when those same bureaucrats eventually bestir themselves, conditions have changed so much that they are then solving the wrong problems. In contrast, the free enterprise system, because it decentralizes decisionmaking, uses information quicker and more efficiently. Moreover, instead of planning and implementation being in the hands of a few all-powerful bureaucrats, it is placed in the hands of thousands of individuals. This helps to spread the risks involved in decision-making. If power is concentrated in the hands of a few and they judge the situation incorrectly, the results can be disastrous. For these reasons one is glad to hear of the Government’s new-found interest in the free enterprise system. One hopes that it will spread from economics to other areas of our lives. However, I fear that what many Government speakers mean when they speak of a free enterprise system is far removed from what economists mean by that term. In an excellent article which appeared recently in Barclays Bank’s Business Brief of October 1980, Mr. Mark Addleson, a lecturer in economics at the University of the Witwatersrand, said—

In such a system consumers are free to choose to purchase the goods they want to, while producers are free to produce such goods at a maximum profit to themselves.

In a free enterprise system the function of the Government is limited to establishing the legal framework within which the institutions of the market could function most effectively, creating laws which foster the development of markets and ensuring that these laws are enforced. It is important that those who are so keen to embrace the concept of the free enterprise system should be aware of the implications that arise from such an acceptance. Those who espouse the free enterprise economic system argue that it promotes an “open society”. The free enterprise system, as readers of Hayek will know, places a premium on individual liberty. It believes that people should be given the opportunity to use their skill, initiative and judgment for the benefit of society as a whole in order to obtain personal reward for their efforts. It is clear that apartheid and a free enterprise economic system are fundamentally incompatible. A free enterprise economic system accepts that people should be free to work where there is employment and that they should be able to move about freely so that they can sell their labour at the greatest advantage to themselves. These rights apply to all of those who participate in the economic process, irrespective of their race, colour or creed. A free enterprise economic system is blind to considerations of race, colour or creed.

It is therefore obvious that any meaningful and sincere attempt to promote a free enterprise economic system will have to be accompanied by the systematic destruction of the legislative framework of apartheid. Without this commitment, free enterprise will never take root properly in South Africa. Indeed, if one looks at South Africa, one is immediately aware of how much remains to be done to introduce a free enterprise economic system, although the Government professes to practise this system. As Mr. Addleson, whom I referred to earlier, points out—

Consider, for example, that nearly half of the laws enacted by Parliament since 1910— so the economists tell me—are contrary to the spirit of free enterprise and militate against open competition in some way or another. Bear in mind that many of these laws are a direct consequence of the policy of apartheid. It is this policy which forces the economic, political and social segregation of racial groups. It is this very policy which brings one to the inevitable conclusion that in South Africa political and economic rights are complementary and that they cannot be separated. Consider also the dominant position played in the economy by bodies such as the S.A. Airways, the S.A. Railways, the Post Office, Escom, Iscor, Armscor and Fishcor. Also in South Africa the State is heavily involved in many industries, for example, basic iron and steel, petroleum refineries, transport, arms, fishing and in a multitude of manufacturing sectors by the IDC. Indeed, it is interesting to note that monopoly in South Africa is found mainly in the public utilities with telephones, postal services, railways and electricity as the major examples. Consider also the way in which the role of the private sector in the South African economy has been eroded. In 1950 general Government consumption expenditure was equivalent to 9,2% of the GDP. By 1979 it had increased to 14,4%. In 1950 private business enterprises accounted for two-thirds of the gross fixed investment in South Africa. In 1979 they accounted for less than half. Consider the various controls that are imposed upon the economy and the people of the RSA. Successive Governments have passed laws which deny freedom of enterprise to the majority of the population. Individuals are denied access to certain jobs, not on the grounds of merit, aptitude or skill but on the grounds of colour. The situation is reinforced by restrictions placed on certain groups in getting access to open educational facilities. Consider that the Black population is all but excluded from owning private property on a freehold basis. They are barred from establishing businesses where they choose. They are prevented from choosing where they wish to live and also from moving freely from area to area. These restrictions impede the mobility of one of the most important factors of production, namely labour. It is the concept of the mobility of labour which is essential to the efficient working of any free enterprise economic system. Moreover these restrictions narrow competition between skilled and unskilled labour. When one considers these factors can one be surprised that so many urban Blacks are against the free enterprise system? Last year, research was conducted among urban Blacks by Bates Wells Rostron, B.P. Southern Africa and the Graduate School of the University of Cape Town. This research made use of the technique called “focus groups” and covered the age group 18 to 40 in most of the major Black urban areas of South Africa. As the report pointed out—today we have heard a lot said about what Blacks think—“some of the opinions they expressed are quite horrifying and the almost complete lack of understanding and communication between Black and White which emerged is appalling”. These are problems which must be faced. There is no sense in hiding our heads in the sand. This report found that the matter of greatest concern to those surveyed was that of better education. Also of importance were the removal of pass laws, equal employment opportunities, a greater say in politics and job equality. Of somewhat lower priority overall were a fair share in the economy, free movement throughout South Africa, the opportunity to live where they choose, improved economic conditions and home-ownership.

None of these was completely unimportant. Interestingly enough, mixed sport was not considered a priority by these groups. What is interesting to note is that what these groups wanted was what a free-enterprise economic system normally provides, viz. freedom to obtain any employment for which one has the skill and the aptitude, wherever one can. Yet these same people associated capitalism with greed, selfishness and exploitation. They felt that even if capitalism might offer some benefits, these were for the Whites only. The few respondents who expressed a preference for the capitalistic system, did so with the proviso that all groups should have equal opportunities to practise it. What is frightening is that to them communism seemed pretty attractive. They tended to think of it in utopian terms as a system in which everyone would be equal and everything would be shared equally. The tragedy in South Africa is that the free-enterprise system has been brought into disrepute with 80% of the population of this country by the policy of legislated race discrimination. The Blacks of South Africa believe, incorrectly, that what is practised in South Africa, as far as they are concerned, is free enterprise. This is, however, clearly not so. Indeed, as far as the Blacks of South Africa are concerned, the opposite is true. In his article Mr. Addleson said—

That sounds to me very much like the way in which the urban Black of South Africa is ruled. If we want to win over the Black population to the side of free enterprise— and I believe that it is critical to the future of this country that we do so—we must allow them to participate as full partners in the economic system of South Africa. We need to improve communications and to involve all the people of South Africa in decisionmaking.

In the survey I have referred to, respondents felt that part of the problem in the sphere of education was a lack of Black involvement in planning Black education. I wonder whether Blacks, if more greatly involved in the administration of their affairs, would have the same priorities as White administrators. I wonder whether they would be placing money on deposit in financial intermediaries in order to build up a nest-egg for the future, when there is a critical shortage now of vital services such as housing and schools. Indeed, the time has come for the Government of South Africa to get off the backs of the people of South Africa. Already too large a percentage of the labour force, particularly the skilled labour force, is involved in bureaucratic rather than productive pursuits, and too many bureaucrats have forgotten that the Government exists for the benefit of the people and not vice versa.

The time has come when the example of Sasol should be extended to other similar bodies. I know that historically the State has intervened in many areas because of the reluctance of the private sector to become involved, but that is now history. If we are going to talk about a free-enterprise economic system in South Africa, let us start implementing it now. In future let us do as they do in Brazil. When they want the private sector to undertake essential schemes, companies are relieved of paying up to half of their company tax, provided the money is invested in an approved scheme. In South Africa approved schemes could cover areas such as housing, fuel research, the development of rural areas and agricultural development in certain areas.

In calling for a greater degree of free enterprise in South Africa, I am not suggesting that everything should be handled by the private sector. What I am suggesting, however, is that every State activity should be carefully scrutinized, the question to be asked being whether it could not be handled by the private sector. In South Africa, particularly in the transition from our present economic system to a free-enterprise system, we shall have to spend money on items such as education so that eventually all will compete on an equal footing. Naturally we shall continue to have a mixed economy with essential services of a public nature being provided by the Government.

The political system in South Africa has brought the economic system of free enterprise into disrepute with the majority of the South African population. Moreover, it has hampered our rate of economic growth. Dr. Joel Stern, a respected and frequent visitor to South Africa, has said that had it not been for the policy of apartheid, the growth rate of South Africa would have been double that actually achieved. The noted South African businessman, Mr. Len Abrahamse, estimated in 1976 that apartheid had cost South Africa R13 000 million. When people come to write the history of South Africa, they will say that the economy of South Africa grew, not because of the NP Government but in spite of it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edenvale read his speech in a very monotonous and disjointed fashion, with the result that it was difficult to follow him. Next time he should take the trouble to table his speech so that we can all go and read it quietly at home, in Hansard.

This afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition behaved as if it were he who enjoyed the confidence of the public. He acted as if it were he who was worthy of the respect of the public. Indeed, he acted as if it were he who had the support of the voters. Mr. Speaker, I now want to ask you whether it is not totally disrespectful to this respected House and to you as a respected gentleman that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should come and create such a false impression here. For less serious reasons than those which I can advance here against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the Sunday Times of 25 February 1973, which I have before me and which I have preserved in full because it is such an interesting newspaper, demanded under the heading “13 reasons why Graaff should go”, the resignation of that respected person and former prominent leader of the Opposition. Most of those 13 reasons advanced by the Sunday Times in its demand that Sir De Villiers Graaff should resign can today be applied virtually without alteration to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I now wish to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that Sir De Villiers Graaff did, in time, resign. Apart from the 13 reasons advanced by the Sunday Times in its demand that Sir De Villiers Graaff should resign and which can be applied virtually without alteration to the present hon. Leader of the Opposition, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also has the distinction of having created his own 13 reasons as to why he should reconsider his position as leader of the Opposition. If the Sunday Times were consistent, it would perceive this and would become just as hysterical about this as it formerly became about Sir De Villiers Graaff, and would devote its energies to freeing the PFP of the leadership of Dr. Van Zyl Slabbert, the hon. present Leader of the Opposition.

There are more than 13 reasons.

There are more than 13 reasons. If the Sunday Times does not do it, then it has become totally inconsistent. By failing to do so it is displaying a lack of good judgment and has forfeited its reliability as an objective news medium, because the political blunders of the present hon. Leader of the Opposition are far worse than those of Sir De Villiers Graaff, whose resignation was demanded by the Sunday Times. I do not want to repeat a single one of the 13 reasons at this point, because time does not permit me to do so, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would do well to take the trouble to read them, because they were published before he began his political career and perhaps he did not take much note of them at the time. It would even be to the Sunday Times’ advantage to refresh its own memory on the matter.

The time has now come for the hon. Leader of the Opposition to scrutinize carefully the consequences of his policy and actions. He has now been leader in that post for more than a year, since the hon. member for Sea Point was removed from it in a less than friendly fashion.

He hijacked Eglin.

It was also as a result of certain errors of political judgment and the embarrassment to his party which arose therefrom. Not only is the period of time normally granted to a Leader of the Opposition to find his feet now over, but it is impossible to escape the impression that under his leadership the Opposition has conducted what has for the most part been a negative campaign against the Government. It has always been easier for the hon. Leader of the Opposition to follow the path of least resistance and join a campaign of undermining. When last has there been any political initiative under the leadership of that hon. leader? There has been none. There has been absolutely nothing. All the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has wasted his time on thus far has been to pacify the leftist radical elements within his party, of whom the hon. member for Yeoville is a crippled victim. Was the hon. member for Yeoville not bitten last year during the PFP congress in Transvaal by a nest of hissing snakes? What has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition done to restore the honour of that crippled victim? What has he done to combat the unparalleled hatred and lack of discipline within his party? Will the hon. member for Yeoville stand up and tell us what his leader has done? Or is it not expected of the leader on that side of the House to oppose reprehensible conduct of this nature within his party?

I have said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has created his own 13 reasons as to why he ought to reconsider his position as leader. Unfortunately I cannot mention all 13, but I can single out a few.

Could they not perhaps give you more time?

The hon. member would be sorry if I were given more time. The most important of them was mentioned by the hon. Leader himself when he decided that attack was the best form of defence and began without further ado to attack the Government on all fronts concerning the fact that the PFP is boycotting the President’s Council. After all, it is an irrefutable fact that the PFP does reject and boycott the President’s Council. This is how it is regarded even in the English language Press. In an editorial on 7 September 1980 the Sunday Times had the following to say on this score—

This afternoon the hon. Leader again tried to ignore this image which is to their detriment. Let me just say to the hon. Leader that the President’s Council is purely an instrument by means of which constitutional development is to be guided through an evolutionary development phase towards its final form. Therefore the instrument cannot be more important than the aim. Through his refusal, the ultimate aim, which is of the greatest importance, is frustrated. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is guilty of this and the history books reflect that. It will soon be clear to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the PFP will be excluded even sooner than has been predicted. Because the PFP was unable to think creatively about the possibilities afforded by the President’s Council and about taking part in its activities while opportunity knocked, it will have to accept that in the future it will not be able to make any meaningful, significant contribution to the constitutional development of the country. The PFP will exclude itself from doing so. With regard to this matter the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can no longer rely on the undivided and loyal support of the English-language Press. In passing, that was one of the reasons advanced by the Sunday Times when it demanded the resignation of Sir De Villiers Graaff, namely that he longer enjoyed the undivided and loyal support of the English-language Press. The Cape Times tried hard, it did its very best to convince the PFP that they were on the wrong path. Failing this, The Cape Times blatantly stated in a front page report on 23 September 1980 that the PFP attitude posed a danger to the country. I want to ask whether it is right that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, whose policy, according to the English Press, poses a threat to the country, has the moral right to remain in that capacity on the other side of this House? The PFP rejects and boycotts the President’s Council. While he was acting as Leader of the official Opposition, the hon. member for Sea Point demanded that the proceedings of the President’s Council—and now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must listen carefully, because he was not present—should take place in public. How can one on the one hand reject and boycott the President’s Council, and on the other make demands about how it should function? Was there perhaps a difference of opinion between those two hon. members concerning the fact that the PFP is boycotting the President’s Council? Will the hon. member for Sea Point tell the House whether there is unanimity between his leader and himself concerning the fact that the PFP is boycotting the President’s Council? The hon. member for Sea Point does not reply to me. I therefore wish to state categorically that there is indeed a difference of opinion between his leader and himself concerning the fact that the PFP is boycotting the President’s Council. [Interjections.] Not only is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a boycotter and a “spoiler” with regard to the President’s Council. The PFP has created for itself the image of a boycotter and a “spoiler”. He is also a political intriguer.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. The hon. Leader of the Opposition attends meetings of people who would not hesitate for a moment to make use of extra-parliamentary methods to overthrow the existing order and system of government in South Africa by violent means.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I understood the hon. member for Parys to have stated explicitly that the official Opposition are prepared to undertake extra-parliamentary work in order to subvert the existing order.

Order! The hon. member said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was the leader of people who wanted to make use of extra-parliamentary methods, and he must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition attended meetings of people who would not hesitate to make use of extra-parliamentary methods. I did not accuse the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of such an act as the hon. member for Groote Schuur alleges. After all, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition attended a meeting of people described by the Rand Daily Mail as “leaders who joined forces in convention planning”. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware—and he himself referred to it this afternoon—that a national convention with a view to power sharing and eventual Black majority government will not be convened through parliamentary channels. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that a national convention with power to negotiate can only be convened by the Government. Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition afford such a meeting status by his presence—even though it be a doubtful status? Notwithstanding the fact that The Cape Times, which has traditionally been a strong supporter of the PFP, addressed a warning to the PFP on 23 September last year to the effect that it was increasingly acquiring the image of association with Black radical elements, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition attends the talks about a national convention and thereby creates expectations among radical elements which, in the spirit, atmosphere and mood of Africa, carry with them the spirit of revolution. I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the Sunday Times was never able to find such a strong reason to use against Sir De Villiers Graaff. The Sunday Times was unable to find words, accusations and insinuations of this nature because, due to the disposition of that newspaper, it would have used them if it could but have found them. And yet the accusations I am levelling at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at the moment, the reason I maintain he ought to reconsider his position, are being levelled at him by the English language Press virtually unaltered. Nevertheless he is still sitting in that same position on the other side of the House.

I should like to quote a few more reasons as to why he should reconsider his position. He is on the wrong track politically, like someone stumbling forward in the dark and trying to find his way with a stick—and what is more, it is a crooked stick. He lacks any direction of course or initiative. When last did the official Opposition make a constructive contribution to the politics of South Africa? All he concerns himself with is talk about a national convention and about power sharing, things which cost him the byelections in Simonstown and East London North. On 7 September 1980 the Sunday Times said of the by-election in Simonstown, with a sob and a tear and a bitter reproach against the PFP—

†Then the Sunday Times came to the following very significant conclusion—

Allow me to interrupt myself in order to point out that the Sunday Times and the public considered the performance of the hon. the Prime Minister to be forceful. The hon. Leader of the Opposition, however, is today proposing a motion of no confidence in the Government and in the hon. the Prime Minister, allegedly on account of their lack of performance. The hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to it as “halfhartige leiding”. I think that is absolutely ridiculous. [Interjections.] Let me return to my quote, however—

*Without necessarily associating myself with what the Sunday Times has to say, I want to warn the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to listen carefully to what the Sunday Times wants to tell him. This is that he should follow the example of the hon. the Prime Minister and tackle his left wing. His voters may like it. Apart from the other reasons I have mentioned, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is also a political dreamer. He and his left wing have never been able to assess in depth the reality of the South African situation, viz. that powersharing between radically different population groups is an unrealistic dream. Even Simon’s Town and East London North were unable to waken the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his left wing from this dreamworld of theirs. Power-sharing will totally destroy this highly developed country, as the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development rightly said earlier. This is a fact which is supported by the developments in Zimbabwe. Nevertheless, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his left wing remain totally blind to the realities of South Africa. The PFP’s proposed constitutional development, with power-sharing as an important component thereof, and their collaborating with the idea of a national convention, according to the English language Press itself, poses definite dangers for South Africa. The public, too, realizes this. That is why I was able to say at the beginning of my speech that the official Opposition is creating a false impression by intimating that they enjoy the respect, the trust and the support of the voters.

Finally, I want to mention one last reason why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should reconsider his position. It is that during the period in which he has served in his present capacity, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not been able to grow in stature in comparison with when he was an ordinary hon. member. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not developed any leadership stature. I want to say in all humility that I do not believe it will happen. He simply does not possess the potential. These are some of the reasons on which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has placed his exclusive stamp and as a result of which he ought to reconsider his position. I say this without it’s being necessary for me to advance any of the reasons used by the Sunday Times with regard to Sir de Villiers Graaff. None of the reasons I have mentioned apply to Sir de Villiers Graaff, but the reasons mentioned by the Sunday Times apply, virtually without exception, to the present hon. Leader of the Opposition. Nevertheless the hon. Leader opposite is still in that position. This proves that the Sunday Times has lost its consistency. It has forfeited its trustworthiness as a political observer. It also proves that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition lacks any political vision. What is more, he has no policy. He has no political instinct. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were to show any sensitivity as regards the interests of his party, he would resign. I think he ought to give it serious consideration. I accordingly reject with the necessary contempt the motion of no-confidence in this side of the House moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parys and other hon. members on this side of the House have, in dealing with the boycott campaign of the PFP in so far as the President’s Council is concerned, already exposed the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party in a very effective way. So in this connection it is only necessary for me to dot a few i’s. It seems to me as if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has really painted himself into a corner as far as this matter is concerned. The reason they advance for refusing to participate in the activities of the President’s Council, a reason on which no real difference of opinion exists—we all know what it is—is according to them that the President’s Council will not be fully representative. If Black people were to serve on it, so that it would resemble their national convention, they would participate in the activities of this Council. It is interesting if one compares this reaction of theirs in respect of the President’s Council with their reaction in respect of what is now being called the “Buthelezi Commission”. If one places these two matters side by side, one would justifiably be able to conclude that in the first place the PFP is prepared to serve on a commission, the terms of reference of which fall outside the constitutional competence of the constituting body, but are not prepared to allow its members to participate in the activities of an advisory council and a deliberating body created in terms of the authority of this Parliament. Secondly, they find the absence of Black people on the President’s Council repugnant, but the possible presence of the terroristic ANC on the Buthelezi Commission is acceptable to them, despite their assurance in their propaganda organs that they do not want groups at their convention which advocate or use violence or subversion. However, we are accustomed to this kind of tenuous logic on their part. Thirdly, the absence of Inkatha on the President’s Council is an insurmountable obstacle for the PFP, but the absence of by far the largest White political party on the Buthelezi Commission does not present them with any problems. If we were also to add here the search of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for co-operation with Inkatha—during 1980 he proposed a stealing committee— then it becomes very clear that the PFP is not interested in functioning within the structures of authority created by this House.

You are talking rubbish.

No, it is only selectively interested in those structures of negotiation and co-operation which exists and function outside Parliament and which are committed to “one man, one vote” on a common voters’ roll. If that is not the point of departure of a deliberating body, they do not wish to serve on it.