Mr. Speaker, with regard to the business of the House I should like to announce that the part appropriation of the Central Government will be introduced on Monday, 16 February. The debate on this measure will commence on the same day. The additional appropriation of the Railways will be introduced on Wednesday, 18 February, and the additional appropriation of the Central Government on Thursday, 19 February. The part appropriation of the Railways will be introduced on Monday, 23 February, and the debate on this measure will commence on the same day.

The part appropriation of the Post Office will be introduced on Wednesday, 25 February, and the debate on this measure will commence on the same day.

As from Monday, 2 February, the House will proceed to deal with the items on the Order Paper, as printed.

Mr. Speaker, before moving the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, I wish to point out that the motion was prepared according to the pattern which has been followed over the years whenever we had two sessions. However, representations were made to me today to make an exception as far as the Select Committees on Public Accounts and Pensions are concerned. If the House agrees to it, I intend omitting the words “Public Accounts” and “Pensions” which appear in the motion printed on the Order Paper. Therefore, with leave, I move the following amended motion—

• Internal Arrangements
• Co-operation and Development
• Railway Accounts
• Parliamentary Catering
• Posts and Telecommunications
• Irrigation Matters
• Library of Parliament
• State-owned Land

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House made the representations to ensure that the Select Committee on Public Accounts would sit. I think, however, that it is necessary to say something about this procedure because the hon. the Leader of the House cannot merely say that it is customary to do this kind of thing when we have two sessions. In reality the only reason for the motion is that an election has been called for the current year. We who sit in these benches have come here to do our job. [Interjections.] We have come here to do our job, which is more than can be said for many of the hon. members sitting on that side. As a result of the hon. the Prime Minister’s announcement that there is going to be an election, we are now going to be deprived of an opportunity during this part of the year of actually doing the job for which we travelled down to Cape Town. What is important for the public to know is that the election could have been held just as easily after the conclusion of this session of Parliament; in other words, it could have been held without any difficulty or inconvenience during the latter part of the year after June. For utter ulterior political motives, however, the taxpayers of South Africa are going to have to pay a very large sum of money for the convenience of the political problems of the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

Order!

The reality is that there are hundreds of public servants and hundreds of other people connected with Parliament, numerous people who have been brought down to Cape Town in the belief that they are going to spend the first part of the year here at considerable inconvenience and expense, but who are now going to find themselves having to come down twice this year. On top of it the reality is that if one looks at the expense of Parliament to the country itself, one realizes that it is an enormous expense which is being incurred.

Order! The hon. member is going too wide in his discussion of the motion.

Sir, I am coming to the specific Select Committee.

The reality is that if this political convenience was not being indulged in, these Select Committees could have continued to do their work, but it is now a fact that during this session none of them, perhaps with the exception of the Select Committees on Public Accounts and Pensions, will meet. This means that there is now going to be essential public work which will not get done.

We ask specifically that the Select Committee on Public Accounts be excluded. Perhaps I should motivate this request, because I want to move formally the omission of the words “Public Accounts” and “Pensions”. The reality is that there is an auditor’s report which has to be presented to Parliament and considered by the House. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the House that an opportunity be given during this session, before the election, for the Select Committee on Public Accounts to consider the auditor’s report and also for the House to see that report. This will enable us before the election to see what is contained in that report so that we will not have a duplication of what happened in 1977. Then the Select Committee on Public Accounts could only meet at the beginning of 1978, and only then could we start our investigations into the Information debacle. We therefore demand that the auditor’s report for last year be made available before the election and that we be given an opportunity to deal with it. I therefore move as an amendment—

As it has been indicated that that will be agreed to, I move accordingly.

I wish to point out that the motion as it stands does not include those words and therefore it is not necessary to move an amendment to exclude them.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In terms of the Rules it is not possible for a mover of a motion to amend his motion unless he does so in writing and unless he complies with the formalities prescribed by the House. As the hon. the Leader of the House merely gave an indication that he would agree to the deletion, it is actually necessary to have a formal amendment in writing before you, Sir, and that is why I have moved the amendment.

I understand the hon. member’s point of order, but the hon. the Leader of the House, when moving his motion, at the same time amended it. To that there was no objection.

Mr. Speaker, we abide by your ruling in so far as the hon. the Leader of the House’s motion is concerned, which he has now amended. We obviously support the amendment in regard to the Select Committee on Public Accounts moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. We do however hope and trust that the Select Committee on Pensions will be given the opportunity during this session to complete very important work. For example, there are civil and social pensioners and past members of the House who will be affected by this. There are 15 petitions which stood over from last year and two new petitions that have to be dealt with. These petitions affect the lives and income of pensioners. I trust therefore that the hon. the Leader of the House will agree to this work being done as expeditiously as possible. The hon. member for Yeoville has motivated his request in regard to Public Accounts and this is the motivation which I place before the House in so far as the Select Committee on Pensions are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, this attempt to make a cheap political speech here as a prelude to the election will get hon. members nowhere. In fact, the thrashing they are going to receive will only be made worse. The hon. member is making a very big mistake when he says I made the concession because he asked me to do so. He did not ask me to do so. I did it on request of the hon. the Minister of Finance. [Interjections.] Moreover I wish to say that we have frequently held elections in this country during the first part of the year and had two sessions as a result. It is therefore a perfectly normal pattern which has been followed over the years. I do not wish to take advantage of the situation, but I could just inform the hon. member that I consulted his leader—I did not wish to consult the hon. member; I think his leader has greater authority than he does—and his leader agreed with me and accepted my explanation. There was no argument between us. He appreciated my informing him. He accepted the position. The Committee on Public Accounts met during the recess. That is a new practice.

On the old report, not the new report.

The committee met during the recess and I was informed that as far as its work is concerned, the committee made excellent progress. I accept that. The hon. member for Yeoville therefore has no need to give me instructions across the floor of this House or tell me what should be printed on the Order Paper. Any further reports will be dealt with here according to the procedure of this House. The hon. member will have to be content with that now. I have nothing more to say in this connection. The intention was merely to help the hon. the Minister of Finance, and if that is the attitude the hon. member adopts in this case, I shall perhaps, when he comes to me with representations of this kind in future, regard them in that light.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, right at the outset I should like to thank the Whips for the opportunity I have been afforded of informing hon. members briefly of the state of affairs in the flood-stricken areas. Firstly, I wish to convey my special thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Prime Minister and Mrs. Botha for undertaking a comprehensive tour of the areas concerned yesterday. I can assure hon. members that the communities greatly appreciated the fact that our hon. Prime Minister and his wife visited them personally under these circumstances.

The reaction to the flood disaster on the part of the South African public makes one feel proud to be a South African. Not only is an increasing stream of financial contributions being received, but contributions of food, clothes and other household articles have become so large that storage space has become an acute problem. For this reason, we have had to ask that contributions of this kind should not be delivered for the time being, but should only be offered. My department will then be able to request the articles offered systematically and as the need arises. I wish to assure the contributing public, business enterprises and organizations that we greatly appreciate their compassion and demonstrations of involvement.

The area which has been worst hit is the town of Laingsburg. The White population was approximately 950, about 100 of whom are still missing. Only 16 bodies have been found up to now. The Coloured population has not suffered any damage, because of the way their township is situated. However, a few of them are also missing.

It is estimated that there were approximately 350 White dwellings in Laingsburg, 75% of which have been destroyed or rendered uninhabitable. There were 25 business enterprises, 20 of which have been destroyed. In addition, the cemetery has been destroyed, to such an extent that the dead cannot be buried there. A new disaster cemetery will be demarcated shortly.

Amid these tragic circumstances, the people there are now beginning to re-unite their broken community with determination and confidence in the future, and with the desire to rebuild. This is the way we know the Karoo people, and our task is to assist them.

The State machine has been put into top gear in an attempt to normalize life there again as soon as possible with the aid of the Provincial Administration, local authorities and the private sector. The following things have already been achieved or have been set as targets: (1) Railway connections to the north will be open by Monday, (2) The national road is partly open for emergency or light traffic: (3) Telephone connections have been established and repairs are continuing every day; (4) Sufficient food is being provided; (5) Water supplies are being conveyed by road and full attention is being given to the repair of boreholes and water purification works; (6) Clothing Supplies are adequate, and all the people concerned are being accommodated by friends or family or in temporary accommodation provided by the Army; (7) Caravans and mobile homes are being mobilized and will soon be conveyed to the town, as soon as suitable grounds are available for placing them; (8) The silt and mud, which covers the central part of the town up to a depth of three or four metres, are now being removed by heavy machinery; (9) A welfare office has been established and staffed and disaster victims are receiving spiritual and material assistance. Many people are literally without a cent, or any proof of possessing any money whatsoever. Financial assistance in the form of cash is being provided by responsible officials; (10) A number of health inspectors are constantly on duty to guard against epidemic diseases and they are supervising water purification, sanitation and general hygiene; (11) The school will be closed for approximately two weeks. However, children are reporting for morning prayers and extra-mural activities such as physical education. The hospital is still functioning and medical services are adequate; (12) A committee has been established, consisting of community leaders and officials from several Government departments, which is to undertake the reconstruction of the community. The municipality has begun to function again, so the civil administration should gradually take over, as from next week, the authority which is now vested in the S.A. Police and the Defence Force; (13) Excavations are still continuing in selected areas in an attempt to find bodies, but the chances of finding any more bodies in the silt, which is several metres deep and covers an area of 10 or more square kilometres, are becoming extremely remote. Therefore this task will be continued, but because of the impossible amount of excavation work that has to be done by hand at the moment, the task will have to be discontinued on Saturday. Mechanical equipment will continue to be used for the clearing up operations. We sincerely sympathize with survivors whose family, friends or acquaintances are still missing, but I am sure they will understand this decision. Funeral arrangements are now receiving attention and are regarded as one of the top priorities by our officials and the local community committee; (14) I wish to record once again the Government’s great appreciation for the excellent services rendered there by the S.A. Defence Force, the S.A. Police and other officials. I am proud of them, and the community of Laingsburg will never forget them; (15) The Government is now having comprehensive surveys made through the Cabinet Committee and a working group of the damage done and the needs that are being experienced there. The Department of Water Affairs is conducting a comprehensive hydrological study of the course of the river, heights, etc. This will be considered together with the report by the Department of Community Development concerning the whole town area. The Government will then appropriate the necessary funds for providing new housing, rebuilding the infrastructure of the town and enabling the community to become self-supporting again.

At Montagu, five White people and nine Coloured people are missing or dead. The civil defence action has been operating smoothly and effectively, so much so that water and sanitation systems are functioning effectively and roads are open in most directions, even if only for emergency vehicles at some places. The electricity supply will probably be restored by the end of the week. The warm baths and caravan park have been swept away and a few houses were flooded. The community is virtually self-supporting and is devoting all its energies to repairs and rebuilding. Once again, the S.A. Defence Force rendered an extremely valuable service here when the communication and transport systems of the community were cut off.

At Robertson, there was no loss of life. Once again the civil defence service functioned smoothly and the S.A. Defence Force co-operated effectively in providing its assistance. This community, too, is to a large extent self-supporting, and is working hard to clear up and rebuild. Road transportation is still a problem, but roads will also be open to emergency vehicles within a few days. Special attention is being given to transport routes for agricultural products.

The Coloured township of Zoar has suffered considerable damage. Thirty to forty houses have collapsed. All the families involved are now being cared for and there is no shortage of food or clothes. A new economic housing scheme is being planned there shortly to relieve the housing shortage. Transport routes are being re-opened.

At Ashton, a few houses were damaged, and a shop and a factory were flooded. There was no loss of life, no one is missing and transport routes are being opened.

Further reports have been received from varying damage in smaller communities, but with no or just a few cases of loss of life. All the communities have been visited, mainly by helicopter, and the assurance has been given that there is no lack of food or clothes.

For the rest, the worst damage has been done in the agricultural field. Many farms have suffered and the fields on certain farms are almost completely destroyed. Losses of livestock also seem to be high in certain areas. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and his department are working on comprehensive surveys at the moment and will submit the necessary proposals for rendering assistance. Once again, the Government has committed itself to assisting our farming community in every possible way. Although roads are not open to all farms, the assurance has been given that they are being visited by helicopters in order to provide the necessary supplies or special items. I wish to assure hon. members that there is the very best co-operation between all the authorities, and with the co-operation of the private sector—which is contributing an enormous amount and is making supplies available every day—and the communities concerned, we hope that we shall eventually be able to heal the wounds of the flood disaster.

I want to make an urgent appeal to the public not to travel to these areas merely in order to satisfy their curiosity. Motor traffic hinders the work of repairing the roads and the temporary roads cannot carry the traffic. In any case, there are enough problems in the towns concerned, especially in Laingsburg, and these will just be aggravated by an influx of outsiders or curious onlookers. The traffic department of the Cape Provincial Administration has been instructed to keep unnecessary traffic off the roads. We trust that the public will heed this appeal.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for giving this hon. House a very comprehensive report on not only the damage and the loss of life, but also on the tremendous work that is being done to alleviate the suffering of those who suffered this enormous loss. Our thoughts are with those who are involved and we sincerely hope that they will have much success in their efforts.

Sir, this no-confidence debate is drawing to a close. Much has been said during the past few days, and I could no doubt in summing up for my party, have attacked the Government on many fronts. Time does not permit this, however, and I am going to limit myself to constitutional matters. I do this because it is only through a new constitutional dispensation that South Africa can eventually achieve the peace and harmony between the various groups in this country. To me this matter of constitutional development is the all important issue in South Africa today. Just a few months ago this country was abuzz with excitement and expectation. The hon. the Prime Minister was making what has been termed “exciting noises” about changes to come in South Africa, details of which have been repeatedly referred to during this debate, and I do not therefore intend to go into them at this stage. This session was heralded as one that would bring great changes for the better. There were going to be changes to certain laws on our Statute Book. There was going to be a start towards a new Republic of South Africa. But what is the position today? There will be no new legislation of this kind before the House this session. We now hear a deathly silence as far as a new deal is concerned, and all we know is that during the next three months, South Africa is going to be turned upside-down in the whirlwind of a general election. The question I now ask myself is: “Why?” What has happened during the last few weeks? I have examined the possibilities of various reasons for this, and I find that I can come up with only two that are valid. The first one is that during 33 years of power the NP has succeeded in indoctrinating its members and may I say in duping many South Africans and voters into believing that they had the answers to South Africa’s complex human and racial problems. But it is now generally accepted within the NP caucus itself that the Government has failed. The NP has failed in its efforts and its policies to find a form of government which can accommodate the aspirations of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians who occupy a common homeland in South Africa. This is the truth of the matter. I want to ask the hon. member for Von Brandis whether he disagrees with me on this. Will he agree that the NP has failed?

No, of course not.

He says he does not. I have it on very good authority that the NP has failed. I am pleased that the hon. the Prime Minister is here, because he is my authority. When the hon. the Prime Minister spoke in Ladismith last year, he said—and I quote from the Sunday Times of 30 November—

The hon. the Prime Minister himself made this statement. It is interesting to note that, according to the same report, on page 2, the hon. the Minister of National Education, who is also present this afternoon, confirmed this failure when he addressed a meeting at Rustenburg. I quote again from the newspaper—

What admissions of failure! I see that the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of National Education are not even paying attention to what I am saying. I honestly believe that they do not want to admit to the fact that they made these statements. Where could one find more prestigious people than these two gentlemen to cite as proof that the NP has failed? I submit, therefore, that the first reason for calling a general election is the general acceptance within the NP that its policies of separate development have failed. How can anyone then have confidence in the Government?

The second reason is the total inability of the NP caucus to reach consensus on an alternative dispensation which will herald in the new Republic, because the NP has no alternative. This is the truth of the matter. For the next three months the country will have to steel itself for the election campaign and I believe the NP will go back to its old verkrampte ways. There can be no doubt about that.

I sincerely hope that during the coming election we politicians are going to come clean with our fellow South Africans. I sincerely hope that we are going to put the realities of South Africa to them. I sincerely hope that we are going to present to the voters in a clear and unequivocal manner the political alternatives, the political principles and policies, of the three parties represented in the House. My hon. leader was, I believe, correct when he said earlier this week that the Government and the official Opposition are talking past each other. No matter how hard we may try to debate, we cannot evade the political consequences resulting from the philosophy and the principles which are the very soul of our respective political parties. To try to do this is to be politically dishonest.

In South Africa today politicians are either segregationists, integrationists or pluralists. The NP has preached apartheid for 33 years, that is to say separatism or segregation. Until they have the guts, as a party, to say to the people of South Africa that they have been wrong, that they have failed, as the hon. the Prime Minister has admitted, too—and, indeed, many members of the NP caucus realize that today—and that they now believe in a new philosophy, the philosophy of pluralism, let us say, they will have to accept carrying that decaying albatross around their necks and they will have to continue to defend their position as South Africa’s apartheid party. I believe the PFP, likewise, must come clean with the public of South Africa. They must say that they stand for total integration of all races at all levels and in all spheres. They must state that they give no recognition to entrenched group rights through a political power base in the constitution which they propose for South Africa. They must say that they believe in a common voters’ roll which we all logically realize must eventually lead to Black rule at all levels of government in South Africa. We, in the NRP, are South Africa’s true pluralists. We stand for a political system which will give a political power base to each group which will guarantee its freedom and self-respect and which will guarantee its freedom from political domination by any other group.

Unfortunately the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development is not present in the House, but I want him to know that we agreed with him when he said earlier in the debate that Whites would not give up their freedom for anything on earth. I want to assure the people of South Africa that we, in the NRP, will defend the freedoms which the Whites of South Africa presently enjoy, and we shall do so to our last ounce of breath. However, unlike the hon. the Minister and his colleagues, we recognize not only the will, but also the right, of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians to fight for the freedom which is still to be theirs, but which the Government, because of its history and its consequent lack of insight into the future of the new Republic of South Africa, persists in denying them. As an English-speaking South African born in Natal, I can understand what the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs—unfortunately he is not in the House either—meant when he said earlier this week that one cannot mix the Zulus and the Tswanas. As a farmer in Natal I understand what he meant, because I have worked shoulder-to-shoulder with Zulus in the fields on my farm. I also know from discussions I have had with Xhosas who work on my farm, as well as with very highly placed Xhosas in the national governments of the Ciskei and the Transkei, that one cannot mix Ciskeians and Transkeians politically, despite the fact that they are both Black groups and despite the fact that they both speak the Xhosa language. So, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, and we who sit in these benches, do have some common understanding of these matters. However, I am firmly of the opinion that we have a far greater understanding, and a far more suitable attitude when it comes to conflict resolution and matters involving constitutional development in South Africa. I say this because either the hon. the Minister did not hear correctly or he just could not grasp what my colleague, the hon. member for Durban Central, meant when he stated on Tuesday that in conflict situations—such as existed in Zimbabwe, in the Turnhalle discussions on South West Africa and also such as existed in what we call the Natal Indaba where the NRP executive committee met the leaders of the Coloured and Indian communities in their province—peace, harmony and co-operation was achieved through the recognition of group rights. That is what the hon. member for Durban Central said, but the hon. the Minister came back and said that Zimbabwe is no example for South Africa because it is going to end up as a one-party State. I am prepared to concede that the hon. the Minister may have been correct, but that is not what my hon. colleague said. What he said—and I repeat it—is that in such conflict situations peace was brought about through the recognition of group rights. I am sure that the hon. the Minister—if he were here—would agree with me in these sentiments. In fact, I am sure that all hon. members in the Government benches must agree with us in this regard, but they will only agree with these sentiments up to the point that the creation of an equitable political dispensation is required in order to resolve the conflict situation. This is the major flow in the character of the NP. This is the reason why the hon. member for Durban Central said that the NP is selfish. This is the reason why the hon. the Prime Minister is now drawing back into the laager. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs talked about one of the stated objectives of the NP being a fair deal for all groups. Again the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development said in all sincerity, and I must say with much enthusiasm, that the NP has the will and determination to fight for minority group freedom. This Government’s actions, however, and other hon. Ministers’ statements—for example those of the hon. the Minister of Tourism, who spoke yesterday—completely contradict these attitudes and sentiments. If I may, let me put this statement to the test. If it is the stated objective of the NP to give a fair deal to all groups, if it is their objective to fight for minority group feeling, may I then ask hon. members opposite—and especially the hon. the Minister of Tourism—whether the NP would be prepared to accept Coloured and Indian people in one Parliamentary institution? Would they? [Interjections.] Would they?

Would they what?

Nobody is listening to what you are saying.

Would the NP be prepared to accept Coloured and Indian people in one Parliamentary institution? Once again, Mr. Speaker, the NP is “tjoep-stil”.

Not a peep out of them.

That is the only way in which fairness could be exercised and political freedom be given to these people. I should like to put this question to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, if he is not too busy talking with his hon. Deputy. I should like the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs to answer me.

He is not paying attention.

Would the NP be prepared to accept Coloured and Indian people in one Parliamentary institution? Would they? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs is sitting there with a glazed look.

I want to know from hon. members of the NP whether they would accept urbanized Blacks in one Parliamentary institution, and by that I mean those Blacks who wish to divorce themselves from the value systems of the homelands and to opt rather for those values in which we believe in the Western-orientated, free enterprise value system.

Would you allow that?

This is exactly what the hon. member for Durban North mentioned earlier. [Interjections.] Would the NP accept those people.

Would you allow that?

I shall come to that. I shall come to what the NRP will do. Hon. members opposite, especially hon. Ministers, go around the country and talk about fairness to people, about granting freedom, about protecting minorities, but they baulk at giving these sentiments substance. They baulk when it comes to giving up the political power which they at present use to dominate these minorities.

George, you are enlightening them.

I believe it was the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs who, during this debate, rejected the idea of Blacks participating in the federal dispensation based on group affiliation within White South Africa because, he said, they outnumber Whites. That was the reason given by the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. They reject the Blacks because they outnumber the Whites. Surely, if this is the attitude of the NP, it must logically follow that the Coloureds and the Indians must likewise reject any NP proposal for group representation, because Whites outnumber Coloureds and Indians.

That is right.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the thinking of the NP is completely flawed. Things just do not add up. That is why the NP had developed this wide credibility gap, why it is so divided today, why the NP will never lead South Africa into the new Republic which is so urgently needed and why I believe the NP can be called the party of lost opportunities. [Interjections.] That is also why the NP can be called the party of diminishing options for Whites and why I believe the NP today offers no security to a future of Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.]

You are a racist. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Von Brandis wants to know what about the NRP. The NRP is unequivocal on these issues. It is the only party in Parliament today that is unequivocal on this issue, on its principles of constitutional development. We stand for the protection of minorities against political domination by the group. We stand for the freedom and self-respect of groups of people working together in mutual respect and harmony under the provisions of the constitution of a new republic.

How?

How? This can only be achieved by entrenching in the Constitution political rights which create political power bases for every group. We stand for the promotion of a common loyalty to a united South Africa, through the medium of a federal assembly comprising representatives from these political power bases—to answer that hon. member’s question.

These principles and proposals are well-known to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. Our representatives appeared before the Schlebusch Commission, something which the official Opposition has never yet done, and they were grilled for hours by the hon. members and Ministers on that side. And through all this our principles and policies withstood the onslaught of the questions and the intense examination of those hon. members. That is why certain hon. Ministers on that side are now talking about things which really emanate from this party, such as a common loyalty.

You will be shocked if the evidence is published.

The other area in which the NP policy is flawed is that of independent homelands, and the question as to whether there should be a common citizenship for all, and a political link between the self-governing homelands and the so-called non-homelands or White South Africa, in what we in the NRP prefer to call a confederation. The NP rejects such a common citizenship. They reject the concept of a confederal Republic. They refer to a loose “constellation of States”, the only purpose of which is to establish loose economic ties. I want to put it to hon. members on that side: Will the national States accept such a proposal? Will kwaZulu? Will the Ciskei? Has not Chief Minister Sebe already stated that his acceptance of the so-called independence, which we prefer to call self-government, will be dependent upon a common citizenship for all South Africans on a confederal basis, and is this not what the NRP proposes? Hon. members are aware of our proposals. We presented our views to the Quail Commission on the independence of Ciskei. We answered the self same questionaire which that commission put to the NP. They also sent such a questionaire to us. My ex-colleague, Mr. Bill Sutton, who is now a member of the President’s Council, and I presented our replies to the commission. I should like to challenge the NP and the PFP to show the public of South Africa the replies to those questions of the Quail Commission, replies which I hold in my hand right here and now. If they should do so, then it would be possible for the people in their own time and in their own wisdom to judge which party has the best principles and policies.

In conclusion, this raises the question of how the election campaign is going to be fought. I believe we have already had a taste of what is to come. Simultaneously with the announcement of the election, the hon. the Prime Minister suddenly pulled a KGB/spy out of his hat. I want to ask: Just how long have the Security Police known of the existence of this man? Just how long has he been detained? I ask these questions because to me, it is too much of a coincidence to see front page headlines throughout South Africa, announcing an election, together with a photograph of a new bogey man, a Russian spy. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, during the 1977 election, which was a phoney election—just as the 1981 election will be a phoney election—the then Prime Minister appeared on television regularly, two or three times a week, to tell the people that they must be afraid of the American bogey man, and that the United States were determined to drive South Africa into the ground and that they must trust him to protect them. That is what the hon. the Prime Minister of that time said. What happened, Sir? All the gullible people in South Africa were swept into the NP fold, and that party won the biggest majority it had ever had. And what has happened, Mr. Speaker? Over three years the NP have achieved absolutely nothing. Now we are going to have a repeat performance, except now the Americans are our friends and the bogey-man is to be a KGB spy. We are also going to get the untruths, Sir. We are going to have certain people misleading the people, like the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs tried to do the other day, when he said that the NRP’s policy would lead to Black domination, as would the PFP’s policy. He tried to categorize us with the PFP whose policy we know will lead to Black domination in South Africa. Either the hon. the Minister . . .

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member said that the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs was misleading the people. . . [Interjections.] Is that permissible?

Order! The hon. member did not say that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister should know better. Either he is ignorant of what political parties in this House represent—in which case he should not be a Minister of State—or else he is misleading the people of South Africa, just as much as the official Opposition misled the people during the by-election in East London North. Our party found voter after voter in the poorer areas whom the PFP had misled into making out postal votes. In the affluent area of East London, where people should know better, I found voters saying that the PFP still proposes a qualified franchise. One of these gentlemen is an architect whom I have known for years and he was astounded when I told him that that was not the case. Sir, the time has come for political parties to come clean with the public of South Africa. The time has come for political parties to stand up and say what they really believe in, in an unequivocal manner. They must be prepared to stand up for the consequences of the soul of their political policies. The NP’s soul is apartheid. [Interjections.] Sir, that is the reason why I call upon all the media in South Africa today, who are always crying about the need for the protection of their freedom, to now give South Africa the truth as far as political parties’ policies and the consequences of those policies are concerned. The right to truth is one of man’s greatest freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the end of an interesting debate. It was interesting because of what was said in the debate, but also because of what was not said—and because this is the last session before we come to the next election. Therefore hon. members will agree with me that this debate prefigured this coming election. It prefigured the election and not only because the hon. the Prime Minister announced the election. From the very outset this debate prefigured an election. In fact the whole of South Africa expected an election at some time or other. Under the circumstances hon. members will therefore agree with me that at this stage it is very important to spend some time looking back at what has happened since Monday and the present and asking ourselves: “What course has the debate taken up to now?”

We observed a few things. There were things which were striking. I think hon. members will agree with me that the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech stood out in this debate as a major event, one for which this House and the country outside were waiting. I think all of us are greatly indebted to him for the clarity with which he stated certain matters here. We are indebted to him for unequivocally clarifying matters which are of major importance to us at this stage. I think hon. members will also agree with me that the hon. the Prime Minister probably had the feeling, and ought to have had, that while he was speaking and after he had spoken this side of the House was with him and, judging from the feed-back, the country was with him as well. We can say that through his conduct here, his clear vision, his confidence in the future and through the way in which he clarified matters which we wanted clarified, the hon. the Prime Minister gave the assurance that he knew where he was going, viz. that he was on his way to a future of peace, to a future of prosperity and of co-operation among the people of the Republic of South Africa. That is why we are going to support him, and for that very reason it is important to know how this country is going to react when we come to the election. Thus, as far as this side of the House is concerned, I think we can say that his conduct was interesting and inspiring to us. If the hon. the Prime Minister had cast a quick glance behind him while he was speaking he would have seen people here who support him and who are with him. He would have known that on the fundamental matters he stated here, there were no doubts or disagreement on this side of the House. Consequently we on this side of the House agree with him on all the fundamental issues he raised.

Having said that, I should also like to point out something else which struck me. What also struck me was that everything was not at all as it should be on the opposite side. Two things emerged clearly from this debate, two fundamental matters which will be at issue during this election, but two fundamental matters which are not at all as they should be on the opposite side of the House. [Interjections.] The hon. member will hear what I have to say in a moment.

All of us in this country are deeply conscious of one thing, and that is that South Africa is under heavy pressure as far as its security is concerned. We must have no doubt about that. Not only is it we in South Africa who agree with one another on that score. The outside world also agrees with us. It is not only we who know and say that; it is being written and said and has been said by no less a person than the new Foreign Secretary of the United States when he was still head of the Nato forces and had to examine the situation from that point of view. No one can doubt the implications of the safeguarding of South Africa as an important factor in international strategy. No one in this country will doubt that the situation is serious, particularly if we consider how much South Africa has to spend annually on its security. This is already in the region of R2 billion, and is constantly increasing. I have great appreciation for the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on this very important question of South Africa’s security. I have appreciation for his view, which I am now going to quote to hon. members. I had the feeling that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, while he was speaking, spoke as a South African as far as this matter is concerned, as a person who shares our concern. I give him full marks for that. Listen to what he said (Hansard, 26 January, cols. 26, 27)—

This is what we on this side of the House say as well. He said—

I agree with him. This is what the hon. the Prime Minister also says. Then the important words follow—

Then the hon. the Leader went on to say—

In other words, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, firstly, that he believed, along with this side of the House that there was a total onslaught on South Africa.

On the status quo.

A total onslaught on the status quo, of course! What else? Are we not part of the status quo?

You are the status quo!

This onslaught, remember, is of a revolutionary as well as an evolutionary nature. What the hon. the Leader said is meaningful. He must not try to evade it, because it is true. I have been in this House for 23 years now and I have never yet seen a leader of a party being repudiated on such a fundamental issue by a person occupying a relatively junior position. [Interjections.] They can giggle as much as they like, but what struck me as being very interesting when the hon. leader was speaking about that issue, was that it was very clear that the hon. members behind him did not agree with him at all. Not only did they not agree with him, they rejected what he said, because they differ from him fundamentally.

You have a very fertile imagination.

Solve the problems in your own party and stop inventing problems in ours.

What is at issue is security. Let us examine what the hon. member for Sandton said within a day after his hon. leader had spoken. I quote (Hansard, 27 January)—

Then he continues—

[Interjections.] But what are the facts? [Interjections.]

Order!

We are on the eve of an election. We are engaged in a struggle to the death to maintain the security of this country. We are spending a major proportion of our total State revenue on it. We are in a situation in which we constantly have to see to South Africa’s security both internally and externally. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he admitted that our view was correct. He supported the Government on this issue. However, he is being repudiated by someone from his backbenches. That is why I say that when it comes to one of the two fundamental issues nothing is as it should be on that side of the House. We shall convey this fact to the public in the coming election. [Interjections.] But I want to go further.

Come to Sandton.

There is a second matter of fundamental importance to us and that is the security of the Whites in this country.

You are in danger.

What is at issue is who is going to govern this country in future. That is the question. Who must and will govern South Africa? As far as this matter is concerned it is of great importance to us, for there are two views in this country. There is the one view which says we should have a dispensation—and the Government is working on it—which affords each of the various population groups in this country its rightful position so that each one can make inputs for the future in his own way on the path we are seeking, the path we are already following. Then there are those who refer to Black majority rule, i.e. the Zimbabwe situation, the situation in the rest of Africa. I now want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that there was also appreciation for his reaction when the hon. the Prime Minister asked him for it and just for the sake of what was said I wish to quote to this House the hon. the Prime Minister’s question and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s reply. It revolved around majority rule, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition reacted to a question asked by the Prime Minister. That question was: “In other words, you will reject it?” Hon. members will recall what the hon. the Prime Minister asked him. He asked: “If you receive advice from a national convention in favour of majority rule, are you going to accept or reject it?” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated unequivocally: “I shall reject it”. However, the hon. members on that side of the House do not agree with him. There are members on that side of the House who do not reject it, but who want it. There are members on that side of the House who do not say outside but in this House that they want it. It was said in this Parliament. I am going to quote it now, and hon. members must bear in mind that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he would reject anything of that nature. I am now going to refer to a debate which took place in the Other Place.

When?

Does it matter whether it was now or 10 years ago?

Yes.

Oh it does, does it? It is a very good thing that the hon. member has said so. But listen to this. In the Other Place no lesser person than the Chief Whip of that party, the hon. member for Groote Schuur, became involved in a debate with Senator Loock. On that occasion he was asked whether, in the first place, it was PRP policy that a Black man should be placed on a common voters’ roll. His reply was “yes”. In the second place he was asked whether it was PRP policy that there could be a Black Prime Minister of South Africa and the reply was once again “yes”. There you have it, Sir. This was also said in Durban North. The third question was: Can there consequently be Black majority rule? The reply was once again “yes”. Now those hon. members are doing an about-face and say that this speech was made a few years ago, but what is interesting is that the hon. member for Pinelands, the hon. member for Houghton, the hon. member for Groote Schuur and the hon. member for Sea Point have not subsequently rejected this in public or in this House.

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

Once I have made my point the hon. member can put all his questions.

The second fundamental point which is and will be at issue is whether that party can be trusted, not with South Africa’s future, for no one will trust them with that, but in what they say.

Look who’s talking!

If two important people in a party such as this, viz. the Leader of the party and his Chief Whip, differ on this matter so fundamentally, we in this country have every reason to believe that they are blowing hot and cold and that they are not to be trusted behind the facade which they are putting up. Since the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to go to the people during the ensuing days, weeks and months, it would be a good thing if he were to consult someone in advance and I want to suggest that he consult the hon. member for Yeoville. That hon. member has specific standpoints in this regard as well, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will probably receive support for his standpoint from that quarter. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that some people in his party, the people who are seated beside and behind him, do not agree with him. I want to tell him that to the best of my knowledge no party leader in this House has in recent years been so utterly rejected in this House as he has been on matters of cardinal importance.

However, our people have a very pressing need for security in a changing situation and a changing world, and the security which our people are seeking is security in respect of what will become of minority groups in future. This is the security we are seeking, for we must know that we find ourselves in a situation in which things are moving rapidly. Under the initiatives of the hon. the Prime Minister as well, South Africa is building up momentum. This is happening in various spheres. I want to mention one. It is specifically in the work sphere that the people of South Africa are asking, 5½ million of them, to what extent the communities will be protected from one another. I am making this specific point because I know that there is a malicious whisper going around that the White man of South Africa is being sold out by the Government. It is being said by the same kind of people to whom the Prime Minister referred when he said that he knew people who were always trigger-happy. There are such people. There are people who believe that the solution to the problems of this country in this sphere as well is to confront people with violence. Because this is a very sensitive sphere I want to say that as far as the protection of the Whites, including the White workers, of South Africa is concerned, it is the standpoint of this Government that the White workers will have self-determination in their interest group, that they will be autonomous in the creation of their own trade unions, that the mechanisms of protection must be stabilized and that since the competition against them is continually increasing, they will be protected against exploitation.

I am afraid that there are two groups with the same ideas in this sphere. The Marxists believe that one must preserve peace through the barrel of a gun. There are also people in this country who, like the Marxists, believe that peace must be preserved through the barrel of a gun. When there were trade union problems in our urban areas a while ago it was these people who said in a threatening way that we should use the gun. As the Minister who deals with this I want to say that that is not the solution. When one is in such a situation one creates opportunities for negotiation—one does not shoot. I want to say that this is a dangerous game and dangerous language.

Since there is an election in the offing I want to tell the workers of South Africa that as for the legislation which is already on the Statute Book and the legislation which is still to be placed on the Statute Book, irrespective of whether it affects the mining industry, other industries or the administrative sphere, our people need not be afraid that the Government will create a situation which will give rise to their feeling threatened. Mechanisms will be created for everyone in this country so that we may continue to work in peace.

Having said that, I want to say a few words to the Prime Minister. As we approach this election the party and the people of South Africa who are being led by him will, after 33 years, be able to look back on years of achievement. I do not believe there can be a greater confidence than that which one has after having seen a person work, live and do well in times of danger and under pressure. To be returned to Parliament, as the NP will be, after having served South Africa for 33 years, will not only be a feather in the cap for the party, but also a compliment to and an encouragement for the leader of that party. I hope and trust that when we meet one another in the election on the political battlefield of South Africa, we will act in the spirit of “only the best for our fatherland”. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I do not know how he can be capable of looking South Africa in the eyes while he has a divided party and while he knows that some of his people differ from him fundamentally on certain fundamental issues. However, this is a matter which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will have to decide for himself.

Mr. Speaker, I have always regarded the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization as a compelling speaker. Today, however, he tried to flog what was really a dead horse. Basically, the hon. the Minister directed two points of attack against me personally. One of them concerned the question of a total onslaught on the status quo which I referred to, and the other was the question of the majority principle, or rather the reverse, the protection of minorities in the country. I shall return to the second point. I definitely do not wish to ignore it. Firstly, however, I wish to dwell for a moment on the first point the hon. the Minister made against me, namely the question of the status quo; the point I tried to make in this regard was that there was indeed a total onslaught on the status quo in South Africa. For that reason I made it clear that our greatest vulnerability was not so much in external onslaughts, but that our vulnerability originated from within. There is a total onslaught on the status quo within our borders. There are many examples of this. Why did the schools boycott take place? The answer is that it is an onslaught on the existing order. Why are strikes occurring? It is because there is an onslaught on the existing order. Why does the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development announce a new dispensation for the urban Blacks? It is because there is an onslaught on the status quo. I said that this internal onslaught could be of a revolutionary or of an evolutionary nature, and for that reason one has to consider what the Government is doing to ensure that revolutionary forces are not stimulated within the country, but that evolutionary changes are actually effected. I therefore think the hon. the Minister was somewhat wide of the mark; I shall come to the nature and scope of the external onslaught later in my speech.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker, I have very little time at my disposal, but I shall afford the hon. the Deputy Minister an opportunity of putting a question later on. Now that we are approaching the end of this debate, I can say immediately that it is impossible for me to react to all the speakers opposite. Some of them attacked me on a more personal level, and I do not think it is appropriate for me to respond to that type of attack. Of course, it gives pleasure to those hon. members who do so, and I can appreciate that that is their way of finding pleasure. However, I do not intend reacting to their attacks. The speeches of other hon. members, however, showed a recurring theme. Here I have in mind, for example, the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs as well as the hon. the Minister of State Administration and of Statistics and the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. There was one central theme which recurred and which was also seized upon by the hon. the Prime Minister himself, namely the question of the protection of minorities in South Africa and the concomitant constitutional, social and economic problems. I shall return to this point in more detail later on.

There were, of course, a few “lows” in the debate, lows that managed to outweigh the highlights of the debate. I wish to refer to two of them. The first was the reply by the hon. the Minister of Justice to the charge by the hon. member for Sandton with regard to the newspapers which are no longer in existence, namely Post and Sunday Post. The way in which the hon. the Minister referred to that was, in my view, an excercise in sophistical cynicism. Really, who is going to accept the credibility of a statement that it was not the Government that closed those newspapers, but the newspapers themselves, after it had been clearly stated by the hon. the Minister himself, in association with the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, that if the newspapers were to reregister, the Government would ban them in any event. What callousness is this in respect of the negative image of South Africa that is being created? Can this serve any good purpose? The hon. the Minister has stated that one of the reasons for the banning was that terrorists had been meeting in the offices of the newspapers.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. Leader of the Opposition?

The hon. the Minister may put his question later on if the opportunity presents itself. The hon. the Minister knows about the existence of terrorists, but instead of having the terrorists caught, he closes the newspapers. [Interjections.] Why, then, does he close the newspapers? If he is aware of the presence of those people, why does he not act against them? Why should action be taken against the newspapers as such? I wonder whether the hon. the Minister really considered the immeasurable harm that has been done to the image of South Africa, not only abroad, but also internally, in respect of good race relations?

You ought to know that we did take action against those people.

Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace that it should have happened in that way.

What was the reason for it?

The second low which I regard as qualifying . . .

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. the Minister of Justice please contain himself a little? If he wants to shout, he can leave the House and go and shout as loudly as he likes outside. After all, I also want the opportunity of speaking now. [Interjections.]

Order!

I did not sit here bawling while the hon. the Minister was speaking.

The second low which, in my view, deserves first prize, was undoubtedly the speech by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Yes, that is quite correct. [Interjections.]

His was an extraordinary performance. Once again the hon. the Minister is not present. I have tried to get hold of him a number of times, but he is still not present. I asked him to be here. [Interjections.]

He is performing on television again.

I should like to recap briefly. I began to talk about the South West Africa issue by stating that the hon. member for Constantia and I had repeatedly tried to get an appointment with the hon. the Minister in order to discuss with him the question of South West Africa before this debate started. His office is very well aware of that. In fact, when we gathered here for the election of the Vice President of South Africa, I phoned the hon. the Minister in Pretoria and asked him whether there was a possibility of seeing him—even for only half an hour—while he was in Cape Town because I wanted to discuss certain issues with him. He said he would come and see me when he came to Cape Town. I have still not heard from him. In other words, the first opportunity the official Opposition had of discussing the question of South West Africa and what had happened in Geneva was here in this House. I should like to put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that we did it in the most restrained fashion possible. I did not try to raise emotions. I did not begin to shout and gesticulate like the hon. the Minister did. I did not try to whip up emotions. I tried to say to him: These are the issues as I see them; these are the issues which, I believe, should be discussed rationally. The hon. member for Constantia followed me and did exactly the same. He tried to spell out what he considered to be problems and how we had to confront these problems. I shall give you one example, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Constantia said it was a fact—and I have read his speech—that Swapo was externally dominated by communists and was receiving support from the communists. He mentioned the possibility, however, and said: It had also been stated by Kremlinologists and others that Swapo might not be under communist influence internally. Therefore, he said, if that was the case, one should not naturally assume that a Swapo force of 20 000 people outside the country would necessarily dominate the country internally.

I am delighted to see the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has put in an appearance in the House now.

It is high time. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is not as though the hon. member merely sucked this out of his thumb. Two days before the hon. member for Constantia spoke, the hon. the Prime Minister made a speech here in the House in which he announced that a Soviet spy, a Major Kozlov, had been arrested in the country. If we read the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister, what did he say? I quote from his speech (Hansard, 28 January 1981)—

Then we come to the most important point—

that is Kozlov,

The support referred to here is not support for communists inside South West Africa, but no visible support for Swapo in the areas of South West Africa visited by him. So, at least, it is reasonable to infer that it was a legitimate question which was raised by the hon. member for Constantia. The hon. member, however, . . .

So you believe the communist?

Does the hon. the Prime Minister believe the communist? So why does he put questions to him?

†The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs charged, after the hon. member for Constantia had spoken, into the debate like a bull that had run out of china shops. [Interjections.] He shouted and carried on . . . [Interjections.] I should like to recommend to the hon. the Minister that he should go and watch a new movie which is believed to be in the running for an Oscar. The title of that movie is The Raging Bull. It is a movie about the life of Jake La Motta, a boxer. Robert de Niro plays the part of the boxer. Ultimately La Motta became so punch-drunk that he began to fight when his wife rang the dinner bell. I am beginning to get the impression that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs is becoming just like that. It seems as though he is not interested in a debate, not interested in discussing foreign affairs with us. He is interested in abusing his opportunity in this House in order to make small political capital because he knows there is an election in the offing. [Interjections.] I watched his performance here yesterday. He flung the copy of his speech onto the desk in front of him and suddenly raised his eyes and, in the best ham actor fashion, began to talk to the gallery, not to us. [Interjections.] He did not respond to what the hon. member for Constantia had said. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs that if that is the way in which he wants to treat us on matters in connection with foreign matters, he must say so quite clearly. Why does he feign interest when I seek an appointment with him? Why does he say he will try to see me and then never contact me again? Why does he not say then that he does not want to talk with us? Why does he not put it quite clearly to everybody so that they can know where they stand? He should not abuse his opportunities here in the House. That is ridiculous. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the hon. Leader of the Opposition whether he will agree with me when I say that my secretary told him I could see him in Cape Town, and that our offices then agreed that he would contact me after the beginning of the parliamentary session, but that he never did? Will he agree with that?

That is absolutely ridiculous, and the hon. the Minister knows it. Before the short session of Parliament to elect the Vice-President I telephoned him and asked him whether it would be possible for me to speak to him for about half an hour that morning. He said that there would be time to do so because he was coming down and that he would contact me. Did he contact me? He did not contact me at all.

May I ask you another question?

No, I am not prepared to answer any more of your questions.

[Inaudible.]

I have a number of times, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Minister was not here but I said that the first opportunity to debate this matter would be here in this House. This we tried to do in a restrained and responsible fashion and then we had the hysterical performance yesterday from that hon. Minister. All I have to say to him is that if he is prepared to drag the whole South West Africa/Namibian issue into the gutter politics of a general election, we in the official Opposition are not prepared to do so. I say this for the simple reason that people are dying on the border and we are not prepared to make petty political capital out of such a matter. [Interjections.]

*I am not even going to react to what the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs said because in any event, he was not addressing us, but a figment of his own imagination.

In all decency, I wish to return to the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister’s style was dispassionate and he addressed us calmly. He reacted to the points we raised, and it is my intention to react to him in the same spirit. There are a few points he raised which I should like to return to. The first of these concerns the fact that he said in his speech— this was also in response to a question I had put to him—that he believed that a separate constitutional dispensation should be created for Coloureds, Whites, Asians and Chinese on the one hand, and for Black people on the other hand. The standpoint I adopt in this connection is that such an approach will lead to polarization between Black and White; that such an approach will create the impression that Blacks are rejected because of the fact that they do not form part of a constitutional dispensation. After that, we were attacked by the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs as well as by the hon. the Prime Minister, for supposedly championing a unitary state in which there would be domination. In this connection, let me here and now single out a cardinal difference between the PFP on the one hand and the Government on the other. The Government believes in compulsory minorities and in compulsory ethnicity. The official Opposition, on the other hand, believes in voluntary minorities and in voluntary ethnicity. [Interjections.] That is the cardinal difference between us in this connection. I just wish to mention that various hon. Ministers have repeatedly quoted from the book I wrote in association with Welsh. I also wish to quote from page 4 of the book. This is a quotation which I think the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs could conveniently have used if he had wanted to state my standpoint fully. The following is written there—

What am I saying there? I am saying that as a result of a measure such as the Population Registration Act, which compels people to belong to minority groups in a situation where there is White domination, there would be a natural reaction among the Black minority groups to stand together in their opposition to White domination. That is the point I am making, and for that reason I am saying that compulsory ethnicity such as the Government advocates, is a contradiction in terms that leads to conflict and tension in South Africa. That, too is why the piety with which the Government says it is concerned about the position and the rights of minorities in South Africa, has a hollow ring. I just wish to illustrate this briefly. The Government says that since minorities have conflicting objectives, since they have different cultures, since they have different outlooks on life and different points of approach, they cannot be accommodated within the same Body Politic. That has been said repeatedly in this debate and it is repeatedly brought to our attention. But what is the difference between the Southern Sothos and the Coloureds as minority groups? There is actually no difference at all between these two minority groups as such or, for example, between the Southern Sothos and the Asians or the Afrikaners, the Germans or the English-speaking people. All of them are minority groups. There is no difference.

The Progs are also a minority group.

I shall come to that difference just now. The Government sees its way clear to accommodating the two minority groups, the Coloureds and the Asians, in a separate body politic, a unitary Body Politic. Remember, this is a unitary dispensation. They can be accommodated separately, but not so the Black minority groups. Why not? Because the Black minority groups have one thing in common: They are all Black. [Interjections.] That is the reason. Behind the ostensible concern of the Government about so-called Black minority groups, there is an acceptance of the reality of what they regard as a Black majority.

But do you not know about their Legislative Assemblies?

Why is a law necessary to compel them to have a different dispensation, seeing that there are Legislative Assemblies? Why do the Coloureds, the Afrikaners or the Germans not have a separate dispensation? The hon. members know that they are in difficulties in terms of the logic of that argument, and for that reason the Government’s obsession with minority groups is regarded as deception. And it is not I who say this. Hon. members can go and read what anthropologists are saying in this regard.

You are “wobbling” now.

The hon. the Minister is the very last person to talk about “wobbling”. When he talks, there are such “speed wobbles” that nobody can make out what he is talking about. He only talks about “new deals”, which he keeps changing. He is quicker at changing “new deals” that have become stale than anybody I have ever encountered.

The first point I make is, therefore: The longer the Government argues that Blacks cannot be accommodated in the same Body Politic or Unitary Community, whereas Coloured and Indians can be, the longer the President’s Council and similar institutions are going to be regarded as instruments of polarization.

Now I wish to pose another question. We know that in the year 2000 and thereafter, there are going to be more Coloureds than Whites in South Africa. We know that. If they are in the same Body Politic, is the Government still going to need the Group Areas Act? Are they still going to need the Population Registration Act? Are they still going to insist on separate voters’ rolls? What is going to be the relationship between those groups if we have to operate on the basis of equality in the same Body Politic? Hon. members will not have a single word to say about that, because they know in their hearts that they intend maintaining their dominant position in that separate Body Politic as well. They know it; it is the truth. This so-called concern about minority groups is therefore absolute nonsense; nobody believes or accepts it.

†The second point the hon. the Prime Minister made with regard to this issue of constitutional development was that Blacks could not serve on the President’s Council. He made this quite clear. We are indebted to the hon. the Prime Minister for making this clear, because for weeks and months we have been inundated with analyses by well-meaning pundits, who said: “Don’t worry, this is the first step”. They were talking about “Poovalingham options”. There are members of the President’s Council saying: “Wag maar, oor ’n jaar is alles reg; dan sal ons Swartes ook hê”. I know this because they spoke to me. In this way they generated an atmosphere of expectation, a feeling that things will develop.

Who said that?

I can give the hon. the member the names of the members of the President’s Council who said so, but I will do so in private as I do not want to embarrass them in public. Those people accepted appointment to the President’s Council under a false impression. They thought that something was going to happen. They, through self-deception, thought so, and not because of what the hon. the Prime Minister had said. I will credit the hon. the Prime Minister with one thing: From the start he was quite honest on this issue. He never bluffed anybody. From the start he said there would not be Blacks on the President’s Council. In fact, I remember very well a television interview in which the hon. the Prime Minister said that for him this was an insurmountable problem, but he would not accept Blacks on the President’s Council. That is why I say that this must be made quite clear. It also means that those individuals who thought so initially and accepted appointment to the President’s Council under that misapprehension, must now re-examine their consciences and decide whether they can in all good conscience still serve on that body. [Interjections.] With regard to the exclusion of Blacks from the President’s Council, I want to make it quite clear that the hon. the Prime Minister has killed the President’s Council stone dead as far as Black representation is concerned. We must accept that and realize that we must get rid of that as one of the issues of debate in public.

However, the hon. the Prime Minister made an interjection to which the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilisation also referred. This interjection was immediately grabbed by Die Burger as one of those rare moments in the political history of a country when the Prime Minister devastates an opponent with an interjection, so much so that his political career is ruined. What did the hon. the Prime Minister say? He said: “If you refuse to accept a recommendation from a convention concerning Black majority rule, why can I not reject a recommendation from the President’s Council recommending Black membership?” That was the question the hon. the Prime Minister put to me. There are a number of non sequiturs that compete with one another for attention in this question. In this regard I should like to raise a number of points with the hon. the Prime Minister. Firstly, does the hon. the Prime Minister equate a national convention with the President’s Council? Alternatively, is the President’s Council the NP’s equivalent of a convention? I do not think so, but that is implied in the question. I do not think so because a convention consists of representative groups in the country as a whole, and it also consists of effective leaders of those groups negotiating a new constitutional dispensation, whereas the President’s Council is a nominated body and consists of non-representative individuals, some of whom are experts, giving their advice to the President on the matters which they have been appointed to consider. No White political party, as far as I am concerned, is in favour of Black majority rule. I shall come back to that in a moment.

Except your Chief Whip.

Order!

I want to repeat: No White political party is in favour of Black majority rule, but in terms of the logic of a convention all White political parties represented in the House of Assembly will have representation on a convention. A convention operates on the basis of consensus. The likelihood that a convention is going to make a recommendation for Black majority rule almost certainly does not arise.

Coming to my party’s policy, the major difference between the Government and the Opposition in this respect is that we are prepared to talk to all groups on the nature of a new constitution, and we are prepared to do so in terms of the representativeness of those groups and their effective leaders. We are prepared to bargain with them and to negotiate with them. The hon. the Prime Minister, in terms of his position adopted during this debate, says that even if his own nominated body recommends to him that Blacks should serve on that council and that they should have discussions with him, he is not prepared to do that. That is the major difference. Therefore that attitude adopted by the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government excludes any possibility of meaningful constitutional debate in South Africa.

I believe that, as regards the position we have adopted with regard to the President’s Council, our position has been more than vindicated since this no-confidence debate began. More and more it has become clear that what we feared, as we stated it initially, is now becoming accepted as the truth, and the hon. the Prime Minister himself has made it clear that this in fact is the case.

*Simply as final clarification of the question of the majority principle in politics, I want to refer to our policy—because this is what is at issue. This party operates on the basis of a policy just as the hon. the Prime Minister said his party did. In our policy statement we say—

And then we proceed—

Then, finally—

We are saying, in other words, that all political groupings should participate in decision-making in the Government of the country. Not one of them should be excluded on that basis. If the Government persists in compelling people by the artificial means of population registration to remain outside the effective decision-making process, then the reaction that is going to be generated as a result of that standpoint is ultimately going to catch up with all of us and lead to confrontation and bloodshed in this country.

Another matter which the hon. the Prime Minister referred to and in respect of which he has also cleared up any possible ambiguity, is the question of the referendum that has been referred to, particularly after the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech at Ladismith. Once again there were those who were quick to seize on that as an attempt by the hon. the Prime Minister to circumvent the NP, to get past the congresses. They said: “Now, there is a clever Prime Minister for you! He knows he has stumbling-blocks when it comes to NP congresses, and he knows he has stumbling-blocks when it comes to his own caucus, so he simply announces a referendum and so circumvents the whole lot of them.” That is what was said. [Interjections.] It was in newspaper reports, and it was said there, too. [Interjections.] Now the hon. the Prime Minister has laid that spectre, too, to rest.

On 29 April we are going to lay to rest yet another spectre.

That may well be, but I think quite a few spectres are going to arise before 29 April. We shall see what is going to happen. That speech by the hon. the Prime Minister at Ladismith was indeed open to misinterpretation. I went and reread it. The hon. the Prime Minister has now made it clear that there is not the slightest possibility that he or the Government will call a referendum before he has consulted all the congresses and has obtained their support. However, I wish to put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister. Assuming he obtains that support for a constitutional dispensation affecting the position of the Coloureds, the Indians, the Chinese and the Whites, is that referendum only going to be applicable to the Whites? If the new dispensation is also going to create a constitution for the Coloureds, the Indians and the Chinese, then surely they, too, are entitled to a referendum and they, too, are entitled to the right to say whether or not they are going to participate, whether or not they are going to agree, whether they are going to be satisfied with the new dispensation? Has the Government perhaps thought of that? Or is this exclusively a White referendum to decide what constitutional dispensation there will be for the Coloureds, the Indians and the Chinese? It is an important issue, since it is concerned least of all with the co-operation of Whites alone as regards such a new dispensation. It concerns the co-operation of Indians, Chinese and Coloureds. They also have to say whether they agree to that. [Interjections.]

I now come to the final point the hon. the Prime Minister raised, and this is of course the general election that has been announced. I listened attentively, because there had been rumours circulating that the hon. the Prime Minister was going to make the announcement on that specific afternoon. One question that kept recurring in my thoughts was: Why? What reason would the hon. the Prime Minister advance? Then, at the end of his speech, the hon. the Prime Minister told us—

I accept that the fact that a large number of by-elections have to take place simultaneously is sufficient reason, but the hon. the Prime Minister surely knew about this long before this session. [Interjections.] We have known about it for a long time. The Delimitation Commission decided long ago and the appointments to the President’s Council were made long ago too. The hon. the Prime Minister would not have derogated from the element of surprise if he had called an election last November; alternatively, he could have done it afterwards.

What about the voters’ roll?

The voters’ roll may have been a problem, but then he could have called the election after this session, and it would still have been just as much of a surprise. It would have remained a surprise, since only the hon. the Prime Minister would have known exactly when he wanted to call an election. Parliament is now being summoned, public servants are being sent here, children have to be put into new schools, houses are being rented and the leases on other houses cancelled, and all this just to keep us together here for eight weeks. Thereafter, the business of Parliament will be suspended so that a general election can be held. I think that statement is unworthy of the hon. the Prime Minister. I do not believe we should use that reason that was advanced, for the calling of a general election.

Do you feel like an election?

Absolutely! Very definitely! Is the general election in consequence of certain announcements the hon. the Prime Minister himself has made? Is it in consequence of the new standpoint the hon. the Prime Minister has adopted in relation to consolidation of the homelands? In reading the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech, we notice that he says he is not going to tell the people what the recommendations are. Is it in consequence of new announcements the hon. the Prime Minister has made with reference to the elimination of racial discrimination, for example? If we read the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech, we notice that he says he is not going to tell the people now, since they are giving attention to the matter on an on-going basis, and year after year, attention is continually being given to the elimination of racial discrimination. Has the hon. the Prime Minister said anything about a new dispensation for the Coloureds and the Asians? No, the President’s Council still has to decide on that. We do not know what is going to happen. Everything is covered up under commissions and fine-sounding promises, and in the meanwhile the nation of South Africa has not the faintest idea of what is in the offing.

But surely, this is the same speech you made in Simonstown.

I make the same speech, because the hon. the Prime Minister never supplies the answers. I ask questions every time, and everytime the hon. the Prime Minister sits . . . [Interjections.] There is still going to be opportunity for fighting. A man who knows how to fight, gives a good account of himself; he fights again.

Has the general election been called as a result of a total onslaught? I now come back to the point made by the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization. I wish to say immediately that I am not belittling the fact that a spy has been arrested. The Security Service deserves credit for taking effective action against espionage of this nature. We in these benches need not take second place to anyone in respect of our opposition to a communist dictatorship. [Interjections.] But is it sheer coincidence that the hon. the Prime Minister makes the announcement on this arrest, which took place last year, on the same day as he announces a general election? Why does he do it at this particular point in time? Is the Government going to utilize the election to frighten the Whites with onslaughts from abroad into the laager to such an extent that they will not even notice the threats from within? Considering the election of 1977, we notice that the USA and Britain were then more hostile towards South Africa than they are now. Now that new initiatives are opening up for us abroad, the Government comes forward with a “total onslaught election”. Is America part of the total onslaught from abroad? Is Britain, West Germany or France part of it? I would say that the international climate is improving somewhat, notwithstanding what is taking place at the UN.

Let us consider the election of 1977 in comparison with the one that is to be held in 1981. What happened in 1977? The electorate was then approached with a specific mandate. It was said that the White electorate of South Africa should clearly indicate that they reject any foreign intervention, and that was of course a specific reference to the Carter administration. It was also said that we had a new constitutional dispensation which had been accepted at all the congresses of the NP. Accordingly, the electorate had to say whether or not they wanted to accept that constitutional dispensation. It was also said that the Opposition should decide who would, from then on, be the official Opposition, and we then decided that it should be the PFP.

Those were the three reasons at the time. After all, they were clear questions put to the electorate. What is now being asked? By 1980, the mandate obtained in 1977 had not even been given effect to yet. Those constitutional proposals of 1977 are gathering dust. Up to now, all that is ready is the President’s Council. The rest is still lying on the bottom shelf. That mandate has not been carried out yet, and now the hon. the Prime Minister is going to the electorate, before the previous mandate has been given effect to, and he is not saying exactly what it is all about. He is not saying what we are going to hold at election about. He is merely saying: “Give me a carte blanche. I shall tell you later; the Commission of Inquiry into the Constitution will say later on; the President’s Council will say later on; our committee on discrimination will tell us later on. I do not wish to talk now.” There are obvious reasons why the hon. the Prime Minister does not wish to talk now and why he prefers to give attention to a number of problems on an on-going basis.

†That is why the PFP will fight this election with everything it has got. [Interjections.] The Government has a majority that is the biggest in any parliamentary democracy anywhere in the world—the official Opposition have 17 seats and the NRP also have a few—but for all that, it cannot govern. It needs a fatter mandate. We will tell the voters that such a Government does not deserve support. We will tell the voters that a Government that rides rough-shod over the rights of people, that bans newspapers and individuals and that arrests people arbitrarily, deserves to be opposed. We will tell the voters. We will tell them that a Government which does not care about the impact of inflation and the rising cost of living on the lives of the poor, the elderly and the less privileged cannot be trusted by the people of South Africa because the Government have grown fat in their arrogance. We will say that the Government which, by means of commissions, keeps the people in the dark about questions such as land consolidation, urban Blacks, the Coloureds and the removal of race discrimination, is not worthy of consideration.

I want to predict that in this election the Government is going to try everything in its power, by fair means or foul, to destroy the official Opposition, any opposition, in Parliament. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already set the tone with his speech yesterday. Why will it do this? The Government will do it because, despite its majority and its power, it cannot tolerate dissent, even if it comes from the smallest quarter. This Government cannot tolerate being confronted with its own inadequacies and shortcomings. Because it cannot tolerate such dissent, it will try to squash any dissent or try to force it into its own approved little structures. This is what the Government is trying to do. Whatever the outcome of this election, I want to say that the official Opposition will leave this short session in the knowledge that no greater compliment can be paid to a motion of no-confidence than for the Government to call out a general election instead of replying to the attacks from the official Opposition.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—