announced that a vacancy had occurred in the representation in this House of the electoral division of Piketberg owing to the resignation with effect from 1 August 1981 of Dr. D. A. Kotzé.

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, 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. W. V. Raw, Mr. C. W. Eglin and Mr. B. W. B. Page.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, before I move my motion, permit me to place on record my congratulations on your election to the high office of Speaker. I wish you the greatest wisdom and I assure you of my wholehearted co-operation at all times.

I now move the motion as printed in my name—

1. (a) because it is obviously incapable of combating the ever increasing cost of living;
2. (b) because, in spite of its promises, it fails to take effective steps to remove discrimination on the ground of race or colour;
3. (c) because the Prime Minister, despite the fact that he called a general election, failed both during and after the election to indicate the policies for which he sought a mandate;
4. (d) because, in the face of increasing social, economic and political pressure, the Government displays a total inability to accommodate this pressure satisfactorily, other than by suppressing allegedly subversive opposition; and
5. (e) because the Prime Minister’s political leadership is hesitant and uncertain as a result of the priority accorded to the interests of the National Party over those of the country as a whole.

In these circumstances one could indulge in petty politics. One could say: “It is the Prime Minister’s prerogative to call an election whenever he wishes—and obviously he will do so whenever it is to his party’s advantage. He did call an election, and he has come back with a bigger official Opposition! What now? [Interjections.]

Order!

That is petty, tit-for-tat mocking politics and has become characteristic of traditional White politics. However, I am not interested in taking part in that kind of politicking.

It is more important to ask: Why did the hon. the Prime Minister hold an election at all? What did he seek to achieve? What mandate did he seek? On what road did he want to lead South Africa?

Most disturbing of all is that we are back in Parliament after the election and we still have no real answers to these questions. We are still simply blundering along in our common confusion. [Interjections.] I recall that just after the hon. the Prime Minister called the election, I was asked to write an article for a newspaper concerning the hon. the Prime Minister’s real reasons for calling the election, since they were clearly not evident from what had been said up to that point. I wrote the following—

Last week the bread price was increased by almost 30%! [Interjections.] I need not dwell on that. Some of my colleagues are going to discuss the matter in depth.

Looking at the election itself, we learnt nothing from the conduct of the election itself by the National Party. It was one of the National Party’s poorest showings in history.

Contradictions and equivocation were the order of the day. I do not think I could illustrate this better than by quoting two pamphlets issued during the election by the National Party. One was entitled: “Is dit waar?” Clearly it was aimed at that section of the support of the National Party that was in the course of breaking away towards the HNP. [Interjections.] It sought to show what was being done for the Whites in comparison with what was being done for the Blacks. Then another one was issued, and that was in English—obviously aimed at a different market for the purposes of the election. It was entitled—

However, we have also had contradictory statements from members of the party themselves. We had the example of the hon. member for Randburg, who did say that the Group Areas Act had something to do with the free market mechanism and that this Act had a restrictive effect on the free market economy. We also have on record the hon. the Prime Minister, who in turn stated that the Group Areas Act had nothing whatever to do with the free market economy. We also had the example of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, who said on television that a Portuguese could start a business in Adderley Street and could go and live there if he wanted to, but a Coloured could not. At the same time the hon. the Minister of Community Development said that the Group Areas Act would never under any circumstances be changed. What does this make clear to us? What was the average voter to think of this? The reason why this could not happen is of course clear. The legislation in question prevented it.

Seen through foreign eyes, the overwhelming impression created by the election was negative and to South Africa’s detriment. It is very easy to quote examples in this regard. Let us take the comment on the election by Time and Newsweek. Newsweek, for example, states—

This was written about the very same pamphlet which I have just shown the House. Time states—

This was also written with reference to the election pamphlet. That is the negative impression created.

Whenever an effort was occasionally made to issue a positive election message, reliance was placed on the generalities and vague statements of the 12-point plan. Let me refer to just one of those points to illustrate this. The first two points of the 12-point plan concern, in the first place, the recognition and acceptance of multinationalism and minorities in South Africa and, secondly, the acceptance of vertical differentiation with the inherent principle of self-determination at as many levels as possible. What does this mean? It could be interpreted either—if one wants to use that concept—in a “verkrampte” sense or in a “verligte” sense, depending on how the NP spokesman in question presents himself on stage. On the one hand, vertical differentiation could quite simply refer to the natural phenomenon that groups seek to maintain their identities because they are groups; but on the other hand it could be interpreted as enforced separation: The necessity to keep laws on the Statute Book which intentionally compel people to be separate.

However, as regards the real questions, such as the issues of constitutional development, the future of urban Blacks and the issue of consolidation—a burning issue in the election—little clarity was provided.

The election is over and the overriding questions now are: What did it prove? What direction did it indicate? Where does the Prime Minister want to go now? The best proof that nothing happened during the election is what has happened since then. Three months have passed since the election, and it is as if South Africa is marking time and waiting for an order. Nothing new has happened.

What has in fact happened has become characteristic of the NP Government. We have had strongarm action by way of arrests, bannings and the imposition of house arrest. I do not wish to discuss this at length; some of my colleagues will be discussing the matter. However, I could not adopt a better standpoint on this aspect of Government action than did the hon. member for Innes dal in Rapport of 21 June 1981. I wish to state clearly that that hon. member and I hold diametrically opposed political views. I have appreciation for his integrity and for the way in which he puts his case and we have often contrasted our respective standpoints in this House. Accordingly it is not my intention to involve him or contaminate him in any way here … [Interjections.] … I merely refer to this as an example. Concerning the question of arrests, bannings etc. the hon. member states—

These are the words of the hon. member for Innesdal.

A second post-election phenomenon has of course been the internecine struggles in the NP. I need not discuss that because the Afrikaans newspapers refer to it more nowadays than even the English newspapers. That is a fact. For example there is the case of the Minister of Manpower, who crossed swords with the Minister of State Administration. The latter says—

To that the Minister of Manpower replied as follows—

Then the Prime Minister told us that there was no real difference of principle between the two Ministers. However, in Beeld of Tuesday, 7 July, we find the following heading: “Dr. T. is Paulus se nuwe hoop ná spanning.” Mr. Arrie Paulus said he had fresh hope after the tensions in the NP. These are reports which have appeared in the newspapers, and everything points to the fact that there is tension in the ranks of the NP.

Above all, however, we have not yet had any clear indication as to the direction the hon. the Prime Minister wishes to move. Businessmen and academics have repeatedly asked me: “What do you think the NP wants to do now, after the election, under the leadership of the Prime Minister?” I pointed out to them that the Prime Minister had already broached the idea of a constellation of States and there was also the small businesses development project and the development bank. Their reaction to this was: “Yes, but what political directions are we going to be following in South Africa?”

†Mr. Speaker, this is not simply a rhetorical question. It has special significance within the present context in South Africa. Pressures are beginning to build up. Not overt, sensational, dramatic pressures such as external intervention, explosions or riots, but pressures that are accumulating over a wide front of everyday life in South Africa. I can give you many examples, Sir, but I will only quote two straightforward ones in our economy and in regard to the supply of labour, something to which the Minister of Manpower has often referred to. Indeed, I got most of my information from him. It has been calculated that an over-supply of labour can only decrease if the growth rate in the economy is 5% per annum. If the growth rate is 4,5% per annum unemployment figures will double, and with a growth rate of 3,5% per annum it will increase fivefold. In order to maintain a growth rate of 5% per annum, we will need approximately 6 million skilled labourers by the turn of the century, and it has been calculated that by that time 430 000 people will be entering the labour market annually. Of those 430 000, 83,7% will be Black and only 4,4% White. On the labour front it is thus quite apparent that the vast majority of labourers, both in the public and the private sector, will be Black. That is a fact that we have to anticipate politically.

In regard to housing it has been calculated that it would cost approximately R80 billion to provide in the country’s housing needs. Syncom says we must talk of 40 new cities, of which 20 should be the size of Soweto, and that a total of 6,1 million units will have to be built, of which only 600 000 will be for affluent Blacks, and by affluent Blacks they mean those who earn R6 000 and more per annum. The rest will have to be economic and sub-economic housing. The hon. the Minister of Community Development knows that these are facts.

These examples illustrate the interdependence of our social, political and economic life. All these pressures, which are on the increase, point to the urgent necessity of political leadership. We can have the best brains to advise us on social and economic problems, but in the final analysis the framework to cope with these pressures has to be created by the Government. The leadership must come from the Government and from this Parliament.

The question that presents itself to one is: Can the NP, as the governing party, respond rationally to these pressures that are beginning to build up? Let me take one simple example. There is the phenomenon of urbanization, the move of people from the rural to the metropolitan areas. It is a phenomenon that has taken place throughout the world and is taking place with increased momentum in Africa, particularly in South Africa. We know that whatever the Government does, as far as influx control is concerned, demographers have calculated that by the year 2000 75% of the Black people in this country will be urbanized, i.e. will be in the urban centres, either in the existing metropolitan areas or in those new cities I referred to. Let us assume, as has been calculated, that there will be 27 million Black people in the urban areas. If we divide them up into say 27 cities of 1 million inhabitants each, this will mean that one would need 27 000 doctors or 1 per 1 000, 250 000 teachers and 18 000 pharmacists. All in all this means that 800 000 people with higher education will be required to run the cities. It is now that we have to start developing the infrastructure to cope with those problems.

I can recommend an excellent study on urbanization by gentlemen who are supporters of the NP and not of my party. I am referring to two gentlemen named Smit and Booysen.

*They work for the HSRC. Dr. Smit is Deputy Director of the HSRC. The title of this study is “Swart verstedeliking—proses, patroon en strategie”. From this study it becomes clear what the rate of urbanization is going to be. From this study it will become clear to all of us, upon reading the book, that the real political and economic problems are going to be solved in our cities and not in the rural areas. What is the reaction of the NP to this process of urbanization, bearing these realities in mind? At the time of the election I read the following under the heading “Mothers jailed, children taken”—

†Since then hundreds of people have been arrested right here in the Western Cape. That is the way in which this Government is coping with the problem of urbanization. It blindly ignores the fact that this urbanization is taking place right here in the Western Cape. It persists with a policy which it calls the Western Cape Coloured Labour Preference Policy, a policy which has been shown by experts and research institutions, one after another, to be irrational and against the interests of this area, but the Government still carries on with it. And when, as a result of this policy, there are actions such as those we have seen over the last few weeks, let me put it to the House that our friends, our allies, our sympathizers and our sportsmen stand defenceless before the world. People from my caucus have gone out there and have seen what has happened. The authorities have even removed every vestige of cover, e.g. from shrubs and bushes, that those people could use. Is there any conceivable interpretation of the Christian faith that can condone actions such as that? [Interjections.] I cannot see it. How do we explain to people what we are trying to do when we are confronted with these facts about urbanization? Let me also ask the Government whether it is going to persist with that policy. Is there any sign that the Government will reconsider it? Not a word do I hear. They simply carry on blindly with this policy of Coloured labour preference.

*I should like to quote from the work of Dr. Smit on the question of urbanization. He carried out a long and systematic analysis and in his final chapter he makes the following statement—

It is not we who say this. It is being said by people who are sympathetic towards the NP and who are still members of that party. They say that there is no urbanization policy on the part of the NP, except that which is aimed at sending people back, and where to? In the constitutional sphere we are simply ignoring this phenomenon of urbanization. What do we have so far? It is being said that a separate constitutional dispensation must be devised for the Coloureds, Asians and Whites, but for the Blacks there is the idea of a constellation of States. Sir, if one examines the rate of urbanization, 75% of the Black people will be in urban areas by the time that constellation has been established. What structures are going to be created to meet this problem?

Now the question arises—and I ask myself this in all fairness: Why is the NP unable to react rationally to these forms of pressure? There are two reasons, and they are very closely related. The first is that there really is a philosophical difference in principal between the ideologists on the one hand and the pragmatists on the other. I do not want to bore this House with endless examples, but it is a fact that there is division between ideologists—and by that I mean those who stick to the old Verwoerdian concept of separate development and/or apartheid—and the pragmatists. The pragmatists are those who speak of an “open-ended policy”, those who say: “Let us see. Do not close the doors now or effect total separation; there must be togetherness in separateness”. The pragmatists use all those formulae. On the other hand there are the ideologists who say that separation is the sole solution. Sir, this is a real division, a division which is found in the Opposition here in Parliament, and that division can be found in the NP as well. That division ultimately means that one accepts the inevitability either of power-sharing, or of the division of power. However, one cannot waver between these two possibilities, for one then confuses the people. This division is found in the NP. There is a large group in the NP which has not taken sides and I call them the people who say: “Just keep the lid on the kettle. Do not do anything; just keep the lid on the kettle, for as long as you are able to do so, you are boss”. That group does not care; they merely wait and see. The actual division is between those who are ideologists on the one hand, and, on the other, those who maintain that a more pragmatic policy must be followed.

The second reason relating to this matter is the question of political leadership. In this regard I want to react at once to a report which appeared in The Cape Times this morning. Political leadership has nothing to do with personalities; it can be judged on a completely objective and independent basis. I do not have to like Muldoon or even to think he is handsome to be able to say that as a political leader, he acted with great skill. It is clear from my record that I have never slighted any hon. member of this House, nor do I intend to do so. But when one examines the problems I have just sketched, it is essential to consider the phenomenon of political leadership. The hon. the Prime Minister can do one of three things in an objective political game: He could either side with the ideologists and adhere to that direction clearly—and this would bring great clarity into politics—or he could side with the pragmatists and lay down guidelines for us and say: “This is the direction in which we are moving and we are now confronting the ideologists among us”, or—this is a third possibility—the hon. the Prime Minister could reach compromises. I can understand why compromises must be reached between these two groups, for what is at stake here is exactly the same as we had earlier this year during the no-confidence debate, when the hon. the Prime Minister said that he had worked on that party for 40 years and was going to have no part in the division in the party. I can understand this. But then we must be clear as to which of the possibilities are being chosen. Then the pragmatists or the ideologists must not dream dreams, for, since the hon. the Prime Minister has adopted this attitude of compromise, there is at this moment a political vacuum in South Africa. I have no doubt whatsoever that the conflicting factions in the NP each has its own secret agendas as to how to fill the political vacuum. I know this. It is so. While this struggle is in progress in South Africa, we all have to sit and wait. The image this conjures up is that of two little boys playing marbles in front of a dam wall which has burst. They simply carry on with the game. Now the whole of South Africa has to wait until clear guidelines are given and this game in the NP has run its course.

I may be wrong. There are a few simple questions which may be put. I want to refer once again to the article in Rapport by the hon. member for Innesdal. In it he said the following—

Do hon. members agree with this? Let me read further—

Is this true? The hon. member for Innesdal said this, i.e. that in effect a constellation means a common Southern African citizenship. Is this true or not? The general public are entitled to know. I go on to read—

Who concurs with these myths? Who regards them as myths and who does not? One must know this, for the future of South Africa depends on clear answers to these questions.

I could put these questions more simply to the hon. the Prime Minister or to any hon. member opposite who wants to reply to them. Is citizenship for Blacks in South Africa different to citizenship for Coloureds, Asians and Whites? Secondly, if there is no discrimination in respect of Black citizenship, why may the President’s Council make proposals on White, Coloured and Indian citizenship, but not on Black citizenship? Who is going to make recommendations on the constitutional development of the urban Blacks? Is there going to be power sharing or division of power among White, Coloured and Asian? This is a crucial question, given the Government’s own standpoint. I repeat: Is there going to be power sharing or division of power among White, Coloured and Asian? There is no clear answer to that. I could quote speeches by Cabinet members which indicate that conflicting standpoints are adopted on this question. This matter must be cleared up, otherwise the commissions are unable to do their work and the President’s Council, too, is unable to do its work, even though it wants to. Guidance of this nature must emanate from the political arena itself. It must come from Parliament. Then there is a further question: Are laws necessary to maintain people’s identities or group consciousness? “Yes” or “no”? If the answer is “yes”, the concept of vertical differentiation means that some will differentiate vertically more easily and conveniently than others. It is as simple as that. This is what it means. As I have said, replies to this must come from Parliament. There is no point in appointing commissions with frames of reference which sound reasonable if these political problems are not solved, if they are not spelled out. The commissions must take their lead from the authorities, from the Government, from Parliament. The President’s Council can sit until it is blue in the face, but if it does not know whether we are moving in the direction of power sharing or division of power, it cannot come forward with proposals because it does not know within which framework it is to work.

In asking these questions I want to add in all honesty that I appreciate the difficult position in which the hon. the Prime Minister finds himself. He inherited a traditional party which has to meet modern demands. This is true. This is happening in politics throughout the world and this is the dilemma in which South Africa, too, is finding itself. The hon. the Prime Minister is faced with the necessity of taking the lead in the new direction and at the same time, keeping the party together. This is understandable, and I do not take pleasure in his dilemma.

Why do you not help him?

I shall come to that in a moment. I do not take pleasure in that dilemma, for the possibility of peaceful development in South Africa is going to depend on decisions taken in this Parliament within the next 18 months. We are going to contribute towards either peaceful development or confrontation. What do we in South Africa know from the experience in our neighbouring States in the recent past? We know it is futile for a threatened White minority to rely solely on suppression to solve problems. We know it is shortsighted not to create opportunities in good time so that recognized and representative leaders may come to the fore in order that political negotiations may commence. We know this from the experience of our neighbouring States. It is also stupid to shun the hand of co-operation of moderate leaders when they come to the fore, and to try to make them out to be hotheads. It is folly to indulge in military sabre-rattling while social and economic disintegration gains momentum. It is foolish in the extreme to create a climate of euphoric ignorance by means of the media while in point of fact circumstances are deteriorating.

We must prepare the voter. We must tell him what challenges and problems there are. We know all these things. The question is: What is this Government doing to prevent this from happening here? Permit me to illustrate the point by way of a simple question, a question which perhaps sounds out of context. However it is not. With whom are we negotiating about Soweto? How are we going to get that community to co-operate with us? With whom do we speak? What structures are there? We just do not have answers to these questions. This is simply a reflection of the dilemma in which we find ourselves.

The twelve-point plan cannot furnish us with any answers to these problems. It is the hon. Prime Minister who will have to make difficult decisions, decisions which will strike at the heart of the National Party. It is not I who say so. The hon. the Prime Minister’s own advisers tell him so. If one studies the economic development program one is faced with three scenarios. The first scenario assumes that there will be no change in Government policy. The second scenario assumes that there will be certain changes. Once again, however, they tell us that if we are to combat our social, labour and other problems, it is preferable to have scenario two.

Let us take another example—the question of national security or safety. I have before me an article written by Mr. Mike Hough, in which he actually quotes the former Chief of the Defence Force. It was included in a publication entitled National Security in the Republic of South Africa (University of Pretoria, publication No. 9). In this article Mr. Hough writes as follows—

Please note—

He sets out a long argument, and eventually says the following—

Then follows this important sentence—

If we are to survive, we will have to develop a unified system here in South Africa to combat these social and constitutional problems. What does this tell us? Simply that one cannot promise political separation and promote economic integration. They are conflicting goals. One cannot do away with discrimination and maintain compulsory segregation. It cannot be done. One cannot encourage labour organization and inhibit or prohibit political organization. Notice has been given of a number of pieces of legislation affecting the labour field. One at least has appreciation for what exists thus far. However, to think that one can organize at the labour level, can allow people to increase their bargaining power, while no concurrent political process is taking place, is stupid. This simply means that the labour field will become a political battlefield if we do not allow that political process to take place. This will happen. One cannot do the one and ignore the other. This is what the Shah of Iran discovered too late.

In addition, one cannot create equal education opportunities and at the same time perpetuate unequal communities. If one is to develop those communities, the question immediately arises as to what the political consequences of such an improvement are. What are the political consequences of such a development of these urban communities? We cannot avoid these political questions. We must choose one side or the other, and the guidelines must be laid down in the political sphere; not on the other side. We cannot hope that a laissez faire attitude with regard to economic development will solve our political problems. That is not going to happen. History has taught us that that is not possible.

The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs wanted to know what the attitude of the official Opposition is. The official Opposition is not seeking confrontation and senseless quarrelling. We do not seek it. There is no time for it. If there are to be reforms and movement we stand ready to help. We shall do so. I have said this repeatedly. We cannot, however, connive at sham reforms or a pretence at reforms. If the hon. Prime Minister confronts ideologists in his own ranks we shall support him. If he laboriously tries to move away from discriminating measures we shall help him. He need not keep glancing over his shoulder at us if he wishes to reform. [Interjections.] No, I mean this for what it is worth, Sir. Hon. members can laugh if they wish. The point is that so many of the hon. members on that side have been glancing over their shoulders at their different fronts that it has become a habit. I am only trying to tell them they need not glance over their shoulders at us; we shall help if there is reform.

We know how difficult it is; we know how difficult, almost super-human, the demands are that are made of us. For this reason we as the official Opposition will react vehemently when time is wasted. And I believe that for relatively peaceful constitutional development in South Africa there are four basic guidelines which must immediately be laid down and used as points of departure. The first I have stated repeatedly, and I shall state it again; ultimately, a constitution for the Republic of South Africa will only work if it is the result of negotiation between all the interested parties. It is as simple as that. The moment a specific political interest group is excluded from the negotiation process, one makes conflict inherent in the South African dispensation. It is as simple as that. We cannot bluff ourselves in this regard.

In the second place, such a constitution has to make provision for common citizenship. I do not say this because it is an attractive and liberal idea. Common citizenship in South Africa for Black, White and Brown is not negotiable. It is recognized as a right by all groups in this country. If we accept this, we can perhaps still argue about various forms of constitutional structures, how to combat the misuse of power and how to prevent domination. We can argue about these things. But if we do not accept this, there will be conflict. There will be confrontation. For this reason, the question of citizenship is fundamental. As far as the question of citizenship is concerned, we cannot blow hot and cold. We must speak clearly. Is what the hon. member for Innes dal says, true—viz. that even the constellation idea takes account of a common South African citizenship? Is this so or not?

Sometimes you are as naïve as a child.

The hon. the Minister says I am naïve. I would suggest that he takes a look at what has happened around us where the same type of judgements were passed as that which the hon. the Minister has just passed on me. “Never in a thousand years.” And similar remarks. We know about them. I want to make an appeal that we should use our rational abilities here and in sufficient time to assess these various problems in advance and take the necessary steps in good time.

The third prerequisite is that no formal or statutory discrimination can be tolerated. Once again, we on this side of the House have understanding of the problems of de facto inequality, the fact that there is this wide gap in the field of education, labour and community development. We understand this and are prepared to help where this gap is bridged by measures taken by the Government, but this House has one responsibility which it cannot evade. That is that it must state categorically that statutory legal discrimination must disappear from the Statute Book. If we do not take that lead, we are only going to cause trouble for ourselves.

Let me give a simple illustration. We can spend a great deal of time and energy to provide equal educational opportunities in South Africa and we can spend a great deal of money to, say, give the Coloureds education equal to that of the Whites. If we do this and we retain discriminatory measures on the Statute Book, Mr. Speaker, we shall only be educating them to understand more fully the nature of the discrimination to which they are subject. This is the problem, and for this reason we cannot tolerate statutory or formal discrimination in South Africa. This is a gesture which must come from the White Parliament, that we wish to move away from this type of discrimination in a systematic and orderly way.

The fourth prerequisite is that an independent judiciary must be the final arbiter between the individual and the Government. This is an important requirement. If the ordinary man in the street, whether he be White, Black or Coloured, gains the impression that the laws of this Parliament are unfair, are unjust, that the laws of this Parliament form part of a system of oppression, then the judiciary is called into question and there is then no arbiter between the individual and the Government. I know there is a tremendous temptation, especially in Africa—because I do not exclude us from Africa—always to justify the undermining of the judiciary in terms of national security or in terms of some or other attractive-sounding social value.

Surely not the undermining of the judiciary?

That hon. member knows exactly what I am talking about. In the final instance the test is what defence, what legal representation the average individual has when legal proceedings are instituted against him by the State, the Government, or anyone else.

Anything done by the Government to give effect to these four points will be supported by the official Opposition. I repeat that we are not seeking a spirit of confrontation, nor the yapping in Parliament to which we are already so accustomed, in that motives of the other person are called into question. The sand in the hour-glass is rapidly running out and our children are watching us and wanting to know what we are doing in this House to utilize our time to safeguard their future, in view of the tremendous problems facing us.

Mr. Speaker, as is customary after every general election, this session of Parliament is a continuation of the business of the first session and is concerned primarily with disposing of the budget. This is history in South Africa, and need not be debated because it is clear to anyone who uses his common sense that the short session in the second half of the year is concerned primarily with financial matters, as well as with that essential legislation which cannot stand over any longer.

The general election has been held, and the Government asked for a mandate from the electorate. The Government has been unequivocally granted that mandate by the electorate. That mandate is there for anyone to read in the form of an election manifesto which was issued and distributed by the thousands throughout the country, and which appeared in all newspapers. It spelt out clearly the guidelines within which the Government wishes to move forward to meet the future. In spite of the untrue allegations which are being made that this was not a proper verdict and that it was still being asked why an election had been held, I just wish to say that at the beginning of the year it was very clearly explained why the Government thought it should go to the country. I do not wish to debate this matter again, but merely wish to refer briefly to certain aspects.

In the first place we had had a new delimitation and a drastic change in the basis on which Parliament is constituted. In addition the accusation had been levelled at me for two and a half years that I was a Prime Minister who was sitting here without a mandate. The assertion had been made by certain persons, including hon. members in this House, that I would not remain Prime Minister for three months. Someone even said that I would be out of office before the end of 1978. So the uproar continued for two and a half years, and then we called the election. What happened? The Government was returned with a majority of more than two thirds. As far as the number of voters are concerned, it is clear that the Government polled 56% of the votes cast, and in terms of any civilized country I do not think there can be any better or more conclusive mandate than the one which the Government received. [Interjections.]

If there are any doubts, and if I am in fact displaying such hesitant leadership—as is apparent from the motion before this house —and also allegedly did so during the election, I ask in my turn: How does one explain that the electorate voted the hesitant man into office and that the man who is so straightforward and so strong and so clear-headed, is occupying the position he occupies? [Interjections.] Then we must have people in this country who like hesitant leadership!

This afternoon I wish to deal with certain facets of that mandate as succintly as possible. It is true that the possibility of misunderstanding and conflict is implicit in the Republic of South Africa, as well as in the broader spectrum of Southern Africa. However this is a possibility which is not confined to our country only; it is a possibility which is these days to be found in virtually every civilized country. On this side of the Iron Curtain it is to be found on a large scale in every conceivable country where the forces of conflict and collision are encouraged internally and externally by revolutionary forces, because a large-scale effort is being made to overthrow the Western World. An effort is being made to overthrow stability and to subject the Western World to revolution and to the forces of destabilization. That is why this is something which is not confined to South Africa only. I need not even explain what has happened in Britain during recent months, nor what the powerful America has experienced internally. I need not even mention that even a country such as Switzerland—surely this was preeminently a stable country—is today struggling with elements which wish to destabilize and sow discord in that country. Consequently those elements of conflict and struggle do exist in our country, but they do not exist in our country only; they also exist in other countries for reasons which are very clear: There are forces in the world that wish to overthrow the West, that wish to destabilize the Free World and wish to appropriate it for the forces of revolution and dictatorship.

No Government, therefore, can afford to ignore this potential danger to which I have referred. This means, inter alia, that any policy which is to succeed cannot afford to ignore or try to wish away the multinationalism of the Republic of South Africa and the existence of minority groups. As soon as one proceeds from the standpoint that there is no multinationalism in our country, that there is not more than one minority group, one is in fact encouraging those forces which wish to cause conflict and strife.

As far as the non-White population groups in our country are concerned, we are not merely dealing with tribal differences. Frequently one hears references abroad—and even in some of our local media as well—to “tribal difficulties”, to “tribalized South Africa”. Sir, we are not dealing with tribal differences. These do occur, but they are subordinate differences. What we are dealing with are differences of ethnic diversity, where each group has its own traditions, needs, past and future dreams. And that is what South Africa must try to satisfy, viz. the urge towards diversity among peoples, the fulfilment of inborn rights, traditions and ways of life.

There are schools of thought that wish to ignore these basic facts and which advocate for the Republic of South Africa a new dispensation according their own norms. I wish to refer briefly to a few of these schools of thought. In the first place there is the communist system which is proposed for our country, i.e. government by the proletariat which, if it were to be applied, would create untold misery for South Africa, with bloodshed and a cruel destruction of civilized standards of living. That is why I think there is no difference of opinion among us in this House on this score, at least I hope not. The communist mode of thought, applied to Southern Africa, to South Africa, would lead to the greatest blood-bath history has ever known.

Just as disastrous as apartheid.

Sir, even a front-bench cannot improve the manners of some people. I said that it would lead to the greatest blood-bath, because a large section of our population will never voluntarily accept communism. The nation, the people whom I represent, are determined. We shall fight communism, and everything that goes with it, at all costs, to the bitter end.

Hear, hear!

In the second place there is the liberalistic school of thought which advocates an open community system in which virtually only the individual will receive recognition. They emphasize a South African unitary community, with mere occasional lip-service to the protection of minorities. This direction serves merely as a precursor to the extreme radicals, whose half-baked theories prepare the way for communism.

Let there be no doubt about this, once one has ventured onto the slippery slope of a unitary community, the next step is that one must make concessions to the radicals, because they will not be stopped. The radicals, and the communist forces behind them, will not be stopped; they want to go all the way, and if one ventures upon that slippery slope, one is indeed preparing the way for them. It is no use building up clichés around words such as “civil rights”, “change” and “human rights” and hurling them about, clichés which sometimes form the subject of speculative articles in the newspapers, particularly on Sundays.

Rapport of course.

No. I am referring of course to both our Sunday newspapers. As far as I am concerned, they have both become irrelevant in the South African community. [Interjections.] I should like to say this here, for they are contributing only to breaking down and not to building up. It is time someone in this country opposed this, and I am opposing it. [Interjections.]

Are you going to ban them?

I shall fight them as I am fighting that hon. member, and with the same measure of success. [Interjections.]

Then their circulation will go up.

The Government bears the responsibility of ensuring orderly government and of causing the State machine to function properly so that these “pearls of wisdom” may also be tolerated, for many of these pearls of wisdom which are dished up to us every day, many of these “liberties” which are proclaimed, can only be proclaimed within the order created by a Government which preserves stability. However, if they were to get their own way, they would create circumstances under which they would not be able to express an adverse opinion for one day. [Interjections.]

Thirdly there is another radical school of thought which theorizes in the name of conservatism that the existence and aspirations of other groups can be rationalized away by the exclusive government of only one specific nation.

That is Andries now.

This direction as well entails the greatest danger to peace, justice and stability. What is more, it is un-Afrikaans, because the Afrikaner nation, which it purports to serve, is not such an intolerant nation. [Interjections.]

It is only Kowie who was.

Consequently I do not think that that school of thought can make any progress in South Africa. It may perhaps flicker up for a time, but cannot make any progress in South Africa because it goes against the grain of the levelheadedness of the people who are governing this country.

Opposed to these schools of thought, the NP and the Government advocate a policy which takes into account the basic principle and the truth of multinationalism and the existence of minority groups, with consequences which have to be carried into effect, a multinationalism which has its substance in the cultural and spiritual characteristics of the various peoples. Whoever wishes to ignore this in South Africa, is ignoring reality. In this connection there are civilized value systems and standards which have to be preserved for the sake of the entire Republic of South Africa, and also out of loyalty to our sense of calling.

I wish to mention only a few of them. Firstly, there is religious freedom. Is there a country in the world, is there a country in Africa, where more is being done to make religious freedom possible than in South Africa? Secondly, there is the impartiality of our judiciary. Is there a country in Africa which can boast to a greater extent that it has an impartial judiciary than the Republic of South Africa? Thirdly, there is the right of private ownership of land and property, as well as respect for our native soil. Is there a country which does more to preserve these things, in spite of very difficult circumstances? There is, furthermore, the preservation of family life, and the life of the community. [Interjections.] Do not single out for me, among 20 million people, the few thousand who enter a city illegally. Nor must we forget that the economic powers which are sometimes behind that party are to a great extent responsible for migrant labour. [Interjections.] Consequently there is also the preservation of family life and the life of the community, which includes mother tongue education, one’s own community schools and residential areas, from which in turn flows one’s own cultural life. It is frequently asked, with reference to these things: “What is not negotiable?” I am speaking on behalf of this side of the House when I say that these things, as far as we are concerned, are not negotiable.

Andries, you have won, haven’t you?

Sir, if the various population groups of South Africa do not grant one another these things, there can be no righteousness which can serve as a guideline for our country. These things are the things which we must grant one another and go out of our way to give one another, otherwise there can be no path of righteousness for this country.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred here to discriminatory measures. Surely the hon. the Leader knows that the Government has consistently gone out of its way, while retaining that which is not negotiable, to alleviate and improve those things which can be changed. Hon. members must not ask me for examples; the hon. the Leader himself referred to examples …

International hotels.

… such as, inter alia, the changes which we have effected in the sphere of labour for the sake of the economy and the security of all workers.

Thirdly, the State as well as the other patriotic institutions must, in the cultural and economic spheres, take the right of selfdetermination of national groups into consideration. Owing to the multinational structure of our country as well as the different levels of development, which are real, it is not possible to give effect to these things overnight. It must instead be an ongoing process which takes place in an orderly and evolutionary manner.

Sir, 14 days ago I had a conversation with a very prominent foreigner who had had the privilege of living in this country for three years, but who had left the country two years ago. He had now returned, and he said to me: “It is an experience to return to this country and to see what tremendous progress is being made in respect of human relations, in the economic sphere and in respect of the upliftment of people and their enhanced standards of living.” I am prepared to divulge the name of this person to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in confidence; I do not wish to disclose his name here, across the floor of the House. He went on to tell me: “It was not only an experience, but it was also an encouragement to me to return to South Africa, because it is a country which is undergoing progress and displaying tangible signs of it.”

Sir, during the past 33 years the National Party has done more to implement this than all the Governments from 1910 to 1948. Why are these things being suppressed, by our opponents as well, if they wish to be honest? Why do they not admit that these changes, these improvements, these innovations, the creation of conditions which lead to a happier life, are the work of a regime which has acted consistently and positively since 1948? It was in fact during the regime of the NP that there was a moving away on a large scale from colonial structures and systems. The history of the National Party with its various governments is a history of constitutional and economic renewal and development which has in one way or another been to the good of all the people of South Africa. That is why the Republic of South Africa is placed among the first 13 countries in the world by experts. How does one explain that, if everything in the country is supposedly so wrong? If everything in the country is supposedly so objectionable, if everything must be subjected to negative criticism, how does one explain that South Africa has succeeded in causing the investors of the world to say: “We have tested you, and we place you among the first 13 in the world”?

For investment?

Surely the investors are also looking for security and progress. Surely the investors will not pour money into a country which they place among the tailenders in the world.

If it were not for the Nationalist Party, we would be number one.

Fourthly, the National Party and the Government want to move away from the Westminster system of a unitary state and of universal franchise, whether in a unitary or federal form, and they want, instead, to promote the concept of co-operating democracies. That is all I said in the election. I said we wanted to move away from the Westminster system of a unitary state with universal franchise, whether unitary or federal, and we wanted to promote the concept of co-operating democratic states in Southern Africa. What is wrong with that? Why is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition attacking me on that score? In that way the concept of self-determination is being promoted, while common interests can at the same time be served, as I shall indicate in a moment.

The National Party believes that in this way potential levels of conflict are gradually being eliminated and stability and security are being sought. The fact that the Republic of South Africa is a country of hope in a tottering world demonstrates the truth of this statement. Of course obstacles are constantly being placed in our path. Politics of provocation are being waged against us, both internally and externally. We must have no illusions about that. In the name of Christianity and in the name of liberty, Satan is prowling around in the shape of Whites, to encourage other population groups, as well as idealistic youth groups, to do the work of the devil.

[Inaudible.]

I did not in any way offend the hon. member for Houghton with what I have just said. Consequently I do not know why she is trying to take up the cudgels for these people.

I find you funnier every year.

I referred to Satan who is prowling around in White garb. Consequently I do not know why she is so upset at all. Behind almost every attempt to sabotage sound relations between population groups you will find one or more Whites with ulterior motives. My experience after years of public service is that if an obstacle is placed in the way, if distrust arises, there is some White person or other who appeared on the scene …

Usually a Minister.

It is some White person or other who is behind these attempts to sabotage sound relations. It seems to me it is time we began to disclose the names of these people. [Interjections.] We shall have to begin to unmask these people. They cannot walk about here like angels of light and at the same time undermine and subvert every possible effort that is being made. We shall have to give serious consideration to disclosing their names from time to time.

Because there are such attempts to disrupt law and order and sound relations, the Government is being called upon to continue to preserve law and order. This, too, is not something which is confined to South Africa, but is a phenomenon which presents itself throughout the Free World. It is happening with greater frequency that Governments have to step forward to preserve law and order because the forces of chaos are trying to destroy that law and order. I do not wish to elaborate any further on this today, except to point out that our resolution and our determination to do our duty in this connection must not be underestimated.

Since we are talking about security measures, surely it is a fact that this Government did have the courage, after I became Prime Minister, to refer all our security legislation to a judicial commission. We are still awaiting the report of that commission, and we shall publish it. Parliament can then deliberate on that report. However, we had the courage to submit our own measures to a judge of appeal and his commission for thorough examination. Does that not demonstrate that we have nothing to hide?

However, allow me to add that no pious and civilized person would really like to make use of extreme powers. They are not easy and pleasant things to deal with. But we have a duty, a duty towards civilized standards and ways of life in this country, and we intend to discharge that duty. Even if it falls on deaf ears I nevertheless wish to make an appeal today to public speakers and to our media, including the television and radio services, to take into consideration the effect of sensational reporting and exorbitant comment. I wish to ask them to take into consideration the greatest desire of saboteurs and underminers, viz. to receive publicity for their deeds and their actions. If we do not want to understand this, we cannot make a contribution to serve the Free World and the concept of civilization in South Africa. We are living in times of high tension. In order to ensure orderly government and civilized ways of life in this country, discipline and equilibrium is required from each one of us.

I do not wish to talk about myself. However, allow me to refer in passing to allegations from certain circles identifying the National Party and my leadership with a so-called “middle-of-the-road policy”. I reject that completely. I am not a weakling who tries to satisfy everyone. I am no jelly-fish who can be pushed around by everyone. I am leading the National Party and the country to the best of my ability, however good or poor it may be, on a course of peace, security, prosperity and freedom, with retention of self-respect and equilibrium. However, I am no “middle-of-the-road man.” I have my own way of thinking and my own pattern of conduct in South Africa. And even if it costs me my political future, I shall pursue that course in accordance with my convictions. No blabbermouth or gossipmonger will determine my behaviour. I am prepared to deliberate with leaders of other countries. We are constantly being admonished: “South Africa, you must know that your time is running out now and you must get a move on because the world does not have much more time for you.” But let me say this: I am prepared to deliberate with leaders of other countries, whoever they may be, but I am not prepared to take instructions from them. Their counsel and advice will be considered, on merit, but as far as the Government is concerned, South Africa’s interests will always come first. We may fail in our judgment, but not in our willingness to serve the interests of this country.

I have tried to sketch this background, and I now wish to proceed more specifically to indicating the guidelines for the future as I see them. Against this background the Government is adopting its future course:

Firstly, through the creation of vertical structures for the various population groups within which the groups can co-operate with one another as equals for the arrangement and promotion of matters of common interest and the resolving of conflict situations. Secondly, the Government places a high premium on the decentralization and devolution of powers within the Republic of South Africa. As far as our neighbouring States are concerned, we do not dictate to them in respect of their structures. Thirdly, the Government is prepared to seek ongoing consultation and negotiation with a view to further development, but we reject the idea of a national convention. It is unpractical; it is dangerous; it is time-consuming, and it is a waste of energy and money, which must lead only to greater chaos. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition experienced his first setback in this connection earlier this year.

We are independent country and this Parliament has the final say. We are not in the position of South West Africa or of the former Southern Rhodesia. They had a responsibility towards other powers which stood above them, and are still doing so in the case of South West Africa. We are an independent country with a sovereign Parliament and we need not subject ourselves to a national convention in order to do our duty. A national convention presupposes that Parliament is not able to deal with the problems of the country, is not able to call instruments for its own use into existence.

It is not representative of all the people.

Why the President’s Council then?

But surely the President’s Council is not a national convention. Surely it is an instrument of this Parliament.

Is a national convention an instrument of this Parliament?

Order!

I shall come to the policy of that hon. member in a moment. Just wait a while; do not be so hasty. I am coming to it, particularly to that hon. member and his kindred spirit.

Good, I am pleased.

The Government believes that regular formal and informal discussions with leaders of groups, and by bodies created by Parliament, such as the Cabinet and the President’s Council, is a better procedure to adopt.

What are the salient features of this future dispensation? It is a future dispensation which is based on a constitutional strategy which is being processed and which presupposes that people and national groups must co-operate voluntarily. That is why we ordered a probing and expert inquiry in connection with the consolidation of land, with the 1936 legislation as point of departure, and as contained in the 1975 proposals. The proposals in that connection which were submitted to the Van der Walt Commission will be discussed with the bodies and governments concerned, and the Government will then bring proposals to Parliament for final decision, and this is where they will be disposed of. If some of those proposals have to be deviated from, this, too, will have to be decided by Parliament. We have released the chairman of the Commission of Co-operation from his electoral division obligations so as to enable him to spend more time on these matters.

Positive steps have also been taken to initiate activities by the private sector so that it will be possible to leave far more economic growth and development to the private sector. I am referring here to the establishment of the Small Business Development Corporation, as well as to the Council for the Promotion of Small Businesses. Prior to and subsequent to the Carlton Conference I have been advocating co-operation within a constellation of Southern African States, and I referred to progress made in this connection prior to the Carlton Conference and subsequently. I should like to tabulate the following examples in this connection. Long before the Carlton Conference the Southern African Customs Union was established; secondly, there is the Rand Monetary Union; thirdly, the South African Regional Commission for the Conservation and Utilization of the Soil; fourthly, the Regional Tourism Board for Southern Africa; fifthly, the Regional Health Organization of Southern Africa and, sixthly, the role of the South African Railways in Southern Africa. In the seventh place there is the rapidly expanding trade between South Africa and the other States of Southern Africa which in 1980 amounted to R1 000 million. If one looks at a figure like this, does that appear to be retrogression? In the eighth place …

Those are old things.

But they remain true nevertheless! [Interjections.] The hon. member is also old, Sir, and he is growing older. His thinking process too, are deteriorating.

Just call it a constellation and it is a solution.

In the eighth place there is the expert assistance of the SABS and the CSIR in the sphere of industry and technology, to African countries.

I have mentioned these things, Sir, to prove that we already have the basis, that we already have the means for the concept of a constellation of States in Southern Africa, which in practice is bearing fruit. Early in 1980 it was decided that an interim secretariat should be established in the Department of Foreign Affairs … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, it is becoming very difficult to make a speech, if hon. members keep up such a running commentary.

Order!

Early in 1980 it was decided that an interim secretariat should be established in the Department of Foreign Affairs to make multilateral negotiations on all kinds of co-operative projects possible and to encourage such negotiations. Since then the following multilateral committees have been created: Firstly, the Post and Telecommunications Consultative Committee; secondly, an Agricultural Liaison Committee with three working groups—forestry, nature and game preservation; thirdly, an Education and Training Committee. Other committees, too, were established. The concept “constellation of States” consequently presupposes more than co-operation with our immediate neighbours. That is the point I wish to make. It presupposes more than the concept of co-operation with our immediate neighbours. At the same time, however, it is not an idea which implies a super State. It is aimed primarily at patterns of co-operation in matters of common and economic interest.

At the same time we use the concept of “confederation”, which points to a more limited context. In the more limited context we envisage a confederal concept of confederal co-operation between the Republic of South Africa and those countries that gain their independence with our co-operation. Consequently these are the countries which are being led towards independence through actions on their own part, as well as through actions on the part of Parliament.

Are you bringing them back?

This development takes into consideration the concept of self-determination and autonomous Governments. Nor does it presuppose that independent Black States co-operating in this way can be economically colonized. The Republic of South Africa does not believe in such practices. A confederation comes into existence when two or more independent States create interstate structures by treaty in order to promote co-ordinated actions for the realization of common goals.

The Government has already held talks in this connection with interested Governments, and it has been decided that further negotiations will be conducted on the initiation of such a process. Some of the Governments are reacting very positively; others are still studying certain of our proposals.

In our opinion the following principles will have to apply: Firstly, the sovereignty of member States may not be affected. Secondly, equal status for member States must be guaranteed and a member State must have the right to withdraw from certain spheres of co-operation if it wishes to do so.

Thirdly, the existence of such a confederation does not prevent member States from liaising with one another bilaterally. Fourthly, a member State is not prevented from withdrawing from the confederation in its own interests if doing so should suit its purpose.

Next I should like to say something about Black communities outside the national States in the Republic of South Africa. We do not only have urban Black communities in the Republic of South Africa; we also have rural Black communities. The development of full-fledged local governments in the urban areas with, in some respects, more powers than those of municipal authorities, are being envisaged for Black communities in the territory of the Republic of South Africa. We have stated this repeatedly and this year we are going to take legislative steps so that these matters can be dealt with. In some respects we shall take these communities further, according to their ability, to develop towards a status higher even than municipal status to enable them to look after their own interests, but also so as to enable them to deliberate on matters of common interest in the sphere of local government.

The exercising of political rights beyond the local level and on a regional coordinating level will have to be done by means of independent and national States. At present urgent attention is being given to and negotiations are being conducted on ways in which the constitutional ties between the relevant States and their citizens can be improved in such a way that Blacks outside the States will be able to have effective political participation.

Just a few words now on the question of citizenship and nationality. With the gaining of independence the citizens of national States lose their South African citizenship and acquire the citizenship of the new independent State, but in the independence agreements for example comprehensive arrangements are made to anticipate problems with regard to passports, which arise from the non-recognition by other countries of such States, and provision is made for the retention of certain social and economic advantages in the Republic of South Africa by citizens of the new States.

I do not wish to draw any unnecessary comparisons today, for that is not always advisable. Nevertheless it is interesting that EEC countries are apparently also giving attention at present to the problems of passports which will possibly be known as passports for the European Community. Therefore we are not all that far off the mark if experts in our Public Service, in consultation with the other Governments concerned, are also giving attention to this problem.

Hon. members will recall that after the Carlton Conference the Government appointed a special constellation committee under the co-ordinating chairmanship of Dr. Gerhard de Kock. This committee is assisted by five working groups of senior officials and persons and bodies in the public sector. As a result it was possible for a series of concrete proposals to be submitted to the Government by the Office of the Prime Minister. A few days ago Dr. Gerhard de Kock wrote to me as follows in a letter—

I wish to add, Sir, that the Government of the Republic of South Africa is at present considering the possibility of transferring a portion of the present responsibility of certain Government departments in respect of economic development aid to such a bank. It is a question which is at present being examined.

The letter continues—

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank Dr. Gerhard de Kock and the other experts for the enormous task which they have accomplished and I should like to mention a few names because these people do not always receive recognition for the many hours of painstaking research and toil which they accomplish. Inter alia, there are Dr. G. P. C. de Kock, chairman; Prof. J. H. Lombaard, vice-chairman; Dr. S. Brand, Chief: Financial Policy, in the Department of Finance; Mr. J. G. H. Botha, Chief Director: Labour Relations, in the Department of Manpower; Mr. G. P. Croeser, Chief Director, in the Department of Finance; Dr. J. H. de Loor, Director-general of Finance; Mr. J. P. Dreyer, Chief: Economic Planning, in the Office of the Prime Minister; Dr. W. P. Groenewald, Adviser, S.A. Reserve Bank; Dr. S. J. Klue, chairman of the Board of Trades and Industry; Mr. G. J. Richter, Chief: Division of Economic Co-operation and Development, in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and Dr. P. J. van der Merwe, Deputy Director-general in the Department of Manpower. They were assisted by many persons, but the abovementioned individuals played a major part, and today I am thanking them sincerely in public for the work they have done.

In future the Cabinet Committee for Economic Affairs, in co-operation with the branches Economic Planning and Physical Planning of the Office of the Prime Minister, will render additional co-ordinating services without in any way hampering executive departments in any way in their task. Negotiations are being conducted on the level of officials, as well as on ministerial level, with several other Governments of our neighbouring States, and these negotiations will continue.

†I want now to deal more specifically, albeit briefly, with economic development resulting from this approach by the Government. The main objectives, which continue to be sound ones for South Africa, are to ensure a more balanced spread of economic activity within the Republic of South Africa and to promote economic growth in or near independent Black States and national States. At present there is an excessive concentration of economic activity in the four big metropolitan areas, namely the Vaal Triangle, the Cape Peninsula, the Durban-Pinetown area and the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area. For example, about three-quarters of the net returns realized from and employment offered by industry is concentrated in these areas. The total net industrial production amounts to R7 892 million per annum while the production in these four metropolitan areas amounts to R6 116 million. The figure for employment by industry is in the region of 1 273 000, that for the four metropolitan areas being 983 000. This is an unsound state of affairs and I think we all accept that. What is more, the dominance of the PWV area means that even areas like East London and certain parts of the Western Cape are lagging behind. Consequently, industrial decentralization must be improved. Moreover only 13% of the total income of Blacks in the national States is self-generated at present. In the case of the independent Black States the figure is about 18%. In addition, only 28% of the growth in the labour supply in the national and the independent States is being absorbed in these areas. What is important is that when it comes to our dependent and national Black States we must not repeat the mistakes that have been made elsewhere in Africa. In this connection I wish to quote from an article in one of the most recent issues of Africa Insight of the Africa Institute. It is stated that—

We all know that this is a fact. Africa is dying, in spite of all the financial aid.

We must not repeat those mistakes. We must take into account that there is an economic interdependence of territories and States in Southern Africa. Secondly, the development resources of States can supplement one another. Thirdly, where possible, there should be rationalization of the development process in order to prevent duplication of action and to utilize infrastructure. This is why we advocate, firstly, co-operation between States on a regional basis; secondly, promotion of the system of free enterprise; thirdly, the involvement of local communities in the process and, fourthly, limiting the role of government as far as possible to the provision of collective services and infrastructure and creating the right climate for the private sector. The Government will provide conventional forms of development aid, e.g. technical and financial assistance, customs agreements, coordination and development of economic policy and assistance to the private sector through development agencies. The Southern African Development Bank will, for example, fulfil an important function. The programme of land consolidation in respect of the national and independent States will continue within the framework of the process of regional economic development programmes and in this connection the co-operation of all parties will be sought to ensure the proper utilization of land. There are positive examples that some leaders are appreciative of this necessity.

The Government feels very strongly about industrial development in decentralized areas, although it is realized that existing metropolitan areas must also develop. Industrial development in decentralized areas will be promoted by means of financial and other incentives and guarantees which may vary in nature and extent from region to region. In this connection the following will be taken into account: Firstly, the advantages that large-scale industrial development offers in the decentralization context as well; secondly, the potential for other forms of industrial development that are geared more to local resources, needs and establishment advantages; and thirdly, the development needs of the White, Coloured and Asian communities outside metropolitan areas in the Republic.

Sir, another alternative also exists. Possible co-operation projects can be identified and then promoted by concluding bilateral and multilateral agreements, e.g. the joint utilization of water resources in specific areas by various States. The Special Constellation Committee has also put specific proposals to the Cabinet regarding increased incentives to industrial establishment and other development actions at carefully selected deconcentration points, growth points, growth poles as well as principal towns. These proposed incentives, on which the Cabinet has not yet taken any decision, on the one hand involve appreciable increases in the level of existing incentives that are at present available to industrialists who have established themselves in decentralization areas and, on the other hand, certain new kinds and forms of incentives. What is important, is that some of the recommendations are aimed at making good the permanent disadvantages experienced by industrialists in the development areas chosen, owing to their distance from the main markets or resources.

Among these are, for example, increases in the existing railage rebates on goods transported out of such areas and the more automatic application of rebates, the further lifting of restrictions on road motor transport for such areas, subsidies to equalize the cost of electricity with that in the PWV area, and the provision of adequate training facilities to make up for the lack of a pool of trained workers in such areas. The recommendations also include the possibility of providing certain assistance measures for certain essential industrial services and locality-bound industries in the development areas chosen. Some of the other recommendations are aimed at helping to overcome the liquidity problems that new industrialists experience temporarily in the development areas, for example the extension of loan and leasing facilities in respect of land and buildings and a surcharge on the relocation expenses for which the industrialist who moves to such an area is reimbursed in order to provide for unqualified relocation costs.

Other proposals involved are replacing the existing tax rebate and the initial allowances on plant in decentralized industries with a single tax rebate on the value of buildings, plant and housing in the year in which the investment was made, and the raising and regular revision of the investment limit below which the incentives automatically apply. The level of the various kinds of incentives that are to apply in the different kinds of development areas is still to be decided upon, but the recommendations of the special constellation committee are that all the proposed incentives and the maximum levels will apply in the balancing growth poles chosen, while only some of these, and usually at considerably lower levels, will apply in the deconcentration areas. Growth points and principal towns will be dealt with between these two extremes as regards the availability and level of the incentives. No final decisions have as yet been taken by the Cabinet in this regard, but I have directed that the necessary negotiations with the authorities in the Republic and the national States be initiated without delay so that the Cabinet can give a final decision in this connection before December 1981. So, before the end of the year we hope to have concluded our work in this regard.

While I do not wish to anticipate the Government’s standpoint on the eventual choice of balancing growth poles, growth points, deconcentration points and principal towns or the incentive instruments and levels that have to be provided for regional development, it is clear that two main decisions will have to be taken: Firstly, it will be necessary to offer considerably stronger inducements for regional development. This will cost money in the form of contributions by the general tax-payer by direct allocation of funds or the relinquishment of revenues that would otherwise have accrued to the Exchequer; and, secondly, in the main metropolitan areas it will now be necessary to move very definitely towards coming as close as possible to full cost allocation for all services and investments that are at present directly or indirectly subsidized, including transport, housing and other infrastructural services. We are not likely to benefit much by positively encouraging regional development unless at the same time we also counteract the natural magnetic force of the bigger metropolitan areas by gradually switching from subsidized tariffs for services and facilities to full cost allocations. Only in this way will our regional development strategy be able to evolve along meaningful economic lines.

A while ago a very interesting article was written by one of our prominent business managers in South Africa, a former president of the Chamber of Mines. I wish to quote him today because I believe it is right to do so. He said—

In other words, I speak with confidence of the future of our country.

*Now I wish to refer more specifically, albeit briefly, to the position of the Coloured people and the Asiatics in South Africa. It is an indisputable fact that these communities have experienced great progress and development in the socio-economic field over the past decade. In the field of education, housing, vocations and average growth of income they have made positive progress. Between 1960 and 1980, their number of teachers increased from 9 600 to 26 000. Housing provided by the State alone—I am not even referring to other housing now—has produced 24 000 units in the two years since 1979. In clerical occupations, their numbers rose from 78 000 to 128 900 between 1973 and 1980. The number of artisans among them increased from 6 000 to approximately 41 000 and the number of semi-skilled workers increased from about 32 000 to 385 000. The personal income—at current prices—of Coloured people in the Western Cape rose from R337 million to R1 500 million in 1980. This proves that they have made enormous progress in the fields I have just mentioned.

With regard to their political participation and structures for consultation, however, a vacuum has remained. This requires the urgent attention of us all. That vacuum is attributable in part to their refusal properly to utilize and develop the instruments created for them. Partly, too, it was caused by irresponsible people, especially by Whites who kept feelings running high and helped to destroy every effort of the Government. After years of consultation, the Erica Theron Commission was unable to propose a solution, except for saying that an attempt should be made to find a structure other than the Westminster system. The Government responded to that and produced proposals, proposals by a Cabinet Committee, which were submitted to the Schlebusch Commission. During the time when my predecessor was still Prime Minister—this happened under his premiership—I said in this House on his behalf that when those proposals by the Cabinet were being considered, they would first be referred to a joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament because we wanted to subject them to the greatest possible …

Delay.

… scrutiny, in order to obtain the greatest possible co-operation. The Schlebusch Commission then deliberated, heard evidence and passed a unanimous resolution of all parties sitting on that Commission, i.e. the NP, the PFP, the old SAP and the NRP. The unanimous recommendation was that the Westminister system of government did not, without adaptation, offer a solution to constitutional problems of the Republic and that under the present constitutional dispensation, the so-called one man, one vote system would probably lead to the domination of minorities by majorities and to serious conflict between population groups in the Republic, with disastrous consequences for all people in the Republic, and that it did not provide a framework within which peaceful coexistence was possible, i.e. Parliament as it was then constituted. All parties held the view that the Westminister system, with a one man, one vote system, could produce serious conflict, with disastrous consequences for all people in the Republic. That is why the same Schlebusch Commission passed a resolution, albeit not unanimously, to the effect that a President’s Council should be established to conduct further investigations.

Allow me to say further—because I want to make myself quite clear—that I do not believe in a common voter’s roll. It did not work—I have stated my standpoint in this connection on several occasions in this House —and it will not work. My party knows that as long as I am the leader I shall not agree to a common voter’s roll. All our troubles concerning the relations between Coloured people and Whites in this country have their origins in a common voter’s roll. [Interjections.]

Nonsense!

I do not want a repetition of the lengthy debates which have taken place here, but it is a fact that even an esteemed editor of one of the daily newspapers of Cape Town wrote that “the Coloured vote is surreptitiously up for sale during election time”. After all, those troubles date from the days of the common voter’s roll. It was a bluff, and we know how, in the municipal field, the Cape Town City Council schemed to ensure that the Coloured people on the common voter’s roll were able to get in only one or two representatives, and how they schemed and connived among themselves to render the Coloured people powerless as voters. We know exactly what happened. Why then this sudden display of hypocrisy? I am tired of this hypocrisy. Meanwhile, the Government remains committed to the proposals referred to the President’s Council along with the evidence. [Interjections.] Of course! Until there are changes, we must surely remain committed to our proposals. We are the only party that has gone to the President’s Council with our proposals in the form of legislation and has subjected it to their scrutiny.

Does that still mean three Parliaments?

I am coming to that. We have been prepared to have our proposals subjected to thorough scrutiny. What did those proposals imply? Firstly, the acceptance that South Africans—Whites,

Coloureds and Asiatics—shall be accommodated within one State. It is contained in this form in our published party policy, and was submitted to the voters and party congresses even before the 1977 election.

Secondly, they entailed the creation of an electoral college on a specific basis for the election of a State President with greater executive power than at present. This was also submitted to the party congresses, and to the nation as well by way of the 1977 election. [Interjections.]

Thirdly, they entailed the establishment of a President’s Council, on a specific basis of election. The present President’s Council is a commission of inquiry, constituted by means of nomination. In our proposals a President’s Council is being advocated which will be constituted on a specific basis of election. On this body Coloureds and Asiatics will also have representation. This was approved by the electorate.

Fourthly, they entailed a Council of Cabinets in which Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics would be represented. In other words, there will be consultation on matters of common interest.

Fifthly, they entailed three distinct parliamentary councils. On matters of common interest the principle of consultation and co-responsibility has been accepted and if they should fail or threaten to fail, systems have been built in to prevent this.

Do you still believe in creating three separate Parliaments? [Interjections.]

Order!

I would be very pleased if the hon. member, when he wishes to put a question to me, would get up on his hind legs.

Order! The hon. member must first address the Chair. Is the hon. the Prime Minister prepared to reply to a question?

Yes, I shall reply to the hon. member’s question.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he still believes in a system of three Parliaments or whether he is prepared to consider having one Parliament for each of those three population groups?

As the chairman of that Cabinet Committee, I was responsible for introducing those proposals. Immediately after we had put forward those proposals, that was the one point on which very serious criticism emanated from the ranks of the Whites as well as the Coloureds. That was one of the reasons why we decided to have it subjected to further scrutiny. However, I did not in that way say that I was in favour of a Parliament constituted on the basis which the hon. member now has in mind. That is what he has in mind now. He now has something at the back of his little mind. [Interjections.] In South Africa one cannot touch this question unless one changes the Westminster system of government, and one cannot change it properly unless one introduces the principle of land and property ownership, otherwise one brings in irresponsible people who will dominate one’s electoral lists and create difficulties for the proper, effective government of this country. That is why I maintain that it is for the President’s Council to come to us with proposals. We shall consider them. With us the decisive question will be: Do the Whites retain their right to self-determination, yes or no? [Interjections.]

I am prepared to give the President’s Council a fair chance to complete its activities.

The longer, the better. [Interjections.]

Is that hon. member also here? I was not aware that he had won his seat again. [Interjections.] What could possibly have happened to his voters that they could elect such people? As I have said, I am prepared to give the President’s Council a fair chance to complete its activities, and I think that until November or December of this year will be a fair period of time for that purpose.

What is going to happen to those what I assume are permanent residences for the Chairmen of Committees of the President’s Council, on Westbrooke Estate, if they are to report in November or December of this year?

But did the hon. member not listen to what I have been saying throughout my speech? [Interjections.]

Order!

I said that constitution changing and constitutional change is a process. If the President’s Council reaches a decision on matters of this kind, it does not mean to say that the Council is going to dissolve. A part of the proposals is in fact that there shall be a President’s Council in another form. Once again the hon. member was not listening. He was not like this in his younger days. I do not know what has happened to him. [Interjections.] When he stood against me in the past, he was far more sensible; he now finds himself in the wrong company.

My information is that sub-committees of the President’s Council are working very hard and I think they should try to finish before the end of the year.

And if they do not?

Then we shall give them a little more time to enable them to finish. However, I shall give the hon. member no time at all, because he cannot think, even if one gives him a year.

If the President’s Council should come forward with drastic departures from declared Government policy, the Cabinet and I shall first have to submit them to our party congresses, after the Cabinet has adopted a standpoint in regard to them. We shall consequently give the congresses the lead which we think they ought to follow. Even if the congresses accept them, a referendum will nevertheless be held in regard to the matter …

For the Coloureds as well?

… because there must be stability in regard to these matters when a decision is taken concerning them. I have no doubt that the congresses of the National Party will follow a sensible lead. I have no doubt at all about that. I shall have the courage to look them in the face and tell them what my standpoints are.

I am also prepared to address a request to the President’s Council to try to bring out an interim report, if it is in any way possible, dealing with local government and regional authorities, for although constitutional change can only be the result of a process if it is to be lasting, I am personally of the opinion that that process should not unnecessarily delay the third level of government. I think that is important.

I wish to emphasize that the Government is endeavouring to arrive at a proper understanding and a constitutional arrangement with the Coloured and Asiatic population, but we are not prepared to concede to exorbitant demands which jeopardize effective decision-making and efficient government. I hope that a positive attitude will also be displayed on the part of Coloured leaders. There are some of them who hold talks with me from time to time and in whose actions I discern these signs of levelheadedness and common sense, and I welcome that, because I should personally like to help the Coloured population in a positive way to obtain a say over their own affairs.

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

No, the hon. member must give me a chance to complete my speech. In any event my Vote comes up for discussion soon, and then he can ask all the questions that he wishes to put to me.

The official Opposition advocates a policy of abdication for White South Africa. I wish to make it clear that we as Whites are not merely colonists who should be tolerated here. White South Africans—Afrikaans-and English-speaking White South Africans—are not here with temporary permits from some power or other; we are here as a source of strength for civilized standards, and the sooner political splenetics realize this, the better for them.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude, and I now come more specifically to the Leader of the Opposition.

It is about time.

I replied to all his questions and I leave it to him to judge. In any event the judgment of the hon. member for Houghton is distorted.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred recently to my credibility. In his motion he spoke of “hesitant” leadership. Once again I put this question: If his leadership is supposedly so credible and without hesitancy, why is he still sitting there, and I over here? How does he explain that my “hesitant” leadership enjoys a two-thirds majority? How does he explain that 56% of the votes were cast in favour of this side of the House and that he was not even able to obtain a majority of votes in one of the provinces? He fared poorly even in Natal.

He came third.

Yes, a bad third. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that my credibility was at stake. He saw fit to sound a personal note in his motion, and therefore he must endure it when I pay him back in kind. The Leader of the Opposition frequently puts me in mind of a schoolboy whose beard is beginning to grow; he admires himself in the mirror, is proud of the fuzzy hairs on his chin and is surprised that other people have not noticed them as well. And now he is talking of credibility! That is the same Leader of the Opposition who has not yet replied to my question, when I reminded him of what he had said on 26 September 1980 in London, viz.—

That is the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition. He goes and creates this image of his country abroad. He does so while other people are saying: “We have confidence in the future of South Africa.”, precisely as a result of the improvements and the developments which are taking place here, and while foreigners come to this country and say: “What an astonishing development”. Is this not a false image of South Africa which is being created by a person who has such a lot to say about the credibility of others? Is this not the same person who, while his country, the Republic of South Africa, was organizing a festival to commemorate its twentieth anniversary, suddenly found very important work that he had to go and do abroad? Why did he run away from the Republic festival? Was he really afraid to remain here? After all, everything went off peacefully. Or did he go to do other things which I shall refer to in a moment?

You can do better than that.

He discussed my credibility, and now I am discussing his. Surely we are now discussing credibility, are we not? The hon. the Leader must not feel hurt now. I kept quiet when he was discussing my credibility; consequently the hon. members must also keep quiet now.

Is that not the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who made a certain statement on 25 May this year in Bonn? He appeared before the Friedrich Ebert Stifting, and on the cover of the distributed speech these words appear: “Not for quotation or publication”. Does the hon. member wish to see it? Here it is: “Not for quotation or publication”. Is this a copy of the document which you made available?

I cannot read it from here.

“Friedrich Ebert Stifting—conflicts in South Africa—International strategies and internal change —Problems of a parliamentary Opposition”. This is what he said in Bonn—

It is a contradictio in terminis. [Interjections.]

Order!

I shall tell hon. members what that means. It means that in the first place, he is deviating from the principle which he himself endorsed on the Schlebusch Commission. [Interjections.] Secondly, it means that he said abroad that he was going to establish a geographic federation in which the principle of one man, one vote would apply. However, he knows that if South Africa were constituted in that way, there would be domination by a Black majority. He knows, then, that he would only be engaged in a repetition of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and where is that Federation today?

You are talking nonsence.

It is a repetition of old, outdated concepts. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is conjuring up these things for the outside world while he should rather have attended the Republic Festival celebrations to hear what his people are thinking. [Interjections.] This is the same Leader of the Opposition who used the following words at Grahamstown during the general election—

Of course. He is a citizen of South Africa.

Let us clarify the issue. We are being told to draw lines, after all. I am now drawing the lines. He stands for a unitary State with one man, one vote. [Interjections.] Of course he stands for a unitary state with one man, one vote, and he admits that in that unitary state, a Black man could become Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Prime Minister a chance to complete his speech. Hon. members will each have a chance to speak. I am reluctant to take disciplinary steps during this debate. Therefore I appeal to hon. members to give the hon. the Prime Minister a chance to address this House in silence. This was done with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Would the hon. the Prime Minister please proceed?

Mr. Speaker, what about special protection?

Order! The hon. member knows the ruling about special protection, the ruling given by Speaker Loots. I uphold that ruling.

Our Leader does not need it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Would you please state what that special protection was?

It was withdrawn.

Order! This was a ruling given on Monday, 5 March 1979.

*I am referring to Hansard, col. 1757. Under the heading of “Maintenance of order in debate” the Speaker said—

These words are open to misinterpretation and I should like to put them in their proper perspective.

It is a fundamental principle of the democratic parliamentary system that all hon. members, be they back-benchers or senior members, or sit on the Government or Opposition sides, are equal. They are entitled to the same protection by the Speaker and they have the same duty to the Chair. I want to reiterate that this is also one of the basic principles of our procedure.

I therefore wish to make it clear that I did not intend to convey that I propose to accord the hon. members to whom I referred in my statement more favoured treatment than other hon. members of the House.

Within the framework of our system there are, however, certain positions of leadership and authority, such as those of particularly the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, which are treated with respect by hon. members. In general the holders of these offices deal with policy and other important public affairs.

On such occasions I do feel that it is in keeping with the best traditions of Parliament that they should, by virtue of the positions they hold, be accorded special consideration by the House.

It is of the utmost importance that the decorum of this House be maintained and that the necessary respect be shown by all members towards one another. If, however, the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition are thwarted by interjections from stating their case, I shall not hesitate to take the necessary action.

Needless to say, the same protection will also be afforded to Ministers, leaders and senior members of other parties, as well as to all other members.

By this I do not mean that interjections may not be made while these members are addressing the House, but that they should be given the opportunity to make important statements on behalf of the Government and their parties, for the information of the House and the country, with a minimum of interruption.

I may remind hon. members that interjections have been described by Speaker Jansen as “the salt of debate”. I agree with this sentiment, but I do appeal to hon. members at all times to exercise restraint in making interjections, which are very often not relevant and can only lead to the disruption of debate. Such restraint will greatly assist the Chair in maintaining order and upholding the dignity of this House, which is after all the joint responsibility of all hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you for reminding the House of that ruling. However, I rise on a point of order to question whether any hon. member of the House enjoys any special protection because that is the phrase that you used and I think it ought to be reconsidered. I do not think that phrase actually appears in the ruling.

I have given my ruling which is in line with what Speaker Loots said before me, and that is to protect these two leaders and the leaders of any other party when they are making important speeches in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you can elaborate further on that ruling because, as I understood it, it relates only to the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when they are making important statements dealing with their own party’s policy or that of the Government. Does it also relate to an occasion when the hon. the Prime Minister, as an ordinary member of the House makes an attack on the “geloofwaardigheid” of one of the members on this side of the House? It seems that the ruling is restricted to important statements and not to the rough and tumble of party political debate such as the hon. the Prime Minister is now indulging in.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw attention to the fact that after Speaker Loots had given the original ruling, his attention was drawn to authorities which go back in history to the effect that all people in this House are equal and are to be treated equally. He then gave the ruling which you have read out, Sir. The tenor of that ruling by those old authorities is that the equal treatment of all members of the House, whether they are back benchers, whether it is the Prime Minister or anybody else, is a fundamental parliamentary tradition. That is inherent in what he said. All that the Speaker ruled and all that you read out, Sir, is that he appealed to hon. members of the House when an important statement was being made to give the member making the statement a chance. There was never any suggestion in the ruling of special treatment for anybody in the House. All hon. members in the House are equal.

Order! When I am of the opinion that there are superfluous interjections, I will follow this line of action. I protected the hon. the Leader of the Opposition by allowing a minimum of interjections. He also made a political speech. Thus I stand to my ruling. The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I have almost done. We have just had a breathing-space, as it were! I am dealing with a part of the motion before the House. The motion reflects on my leadership. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition introduced it with a public statement in a newspaper which said—

I just want to tell him that if my credibility is at issue, surely I have the right to ask him to clarify certain matters to me as well.

Yes.

Very well. That is all I am doing. I am saying that he stands for a unitary society in a State in which there will be one man, one vote. He is therefore on the road of the Rhodesia-Nyasaland federation. [Interjections.]

That is not true.

Sir, he can sing high or low, just as he likes, and he can call in other voices that are usually not important, but he will not be able to escape this accusation. He is engaged in dangerous activities.

I want to ask him a further question. While he was making such important speeches abroad during the Republic Festival, did he have discussions with a representative of an African country at the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, after delivering his speech? My information is that he held discussions with a representative of an African country concerning South West and changes which have to be made in South Africa.

Is that from another informer?

I shall not tell the hon. member where I got that from. I did not get it from South Africa, but from Europe. According to the report he said—

I do not know what you are talking about.

Of course not. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can deny it if he likes. I ask: Does he dissociate himself from this?

I shall reply to that.

He has only to say: “Yes, I dissociate myself from that,” or “I do not dissociate myself from that.” If he says he dissociates himself from this, I shall accept his integrity and his credibility. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition talks about credibility. What did he do during the election? He had advertisements placed in the major daily newspapers, in his own handwriting, with his own signature underneath, advertisements in which he made allegations concerning the price of maize, among other things. In these advertisements, he said that there would be an increase in the price of maize. Allow me to read it—

He did not say “I understand this is going to happen.” He did not say “I hear this is going to happen.” He said—

This was a statement by a responsible leader of the Opposition in which he told the country that the mealie price would go up by 20%, and he put his signature beneath it. However, it went up by 9%. Is this credibility?

We kept the price down.

Order!

Is this credibility? If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wishes to talk about other people’s credibility or hesitancy, he should first face his own fuzzy beard in the mirror.

What became of your deluge?

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must contain himself.

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

Mr. Speaker, I refuse on principle to answer any questions by the hon. member for Bryanston. [Interjections.]

You cannot answer it. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Bryanston say that the hon. the Prime Minister could not answer the question?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Why?

It is unparliamentary. The hon. member must withdraw that interjection.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: What is …

Order! I order the hon. member for Bryanston to withdraw that interjection, namely that the hon. the Prime Minister is afraid to answer the question.

Mr. Speaker, could I address you on this matter? [Interjections.] I should like to address you on this point, Mr. Speaker.

Harry, you are going to get hurt. Rather sit down.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to address you on the question of whether it is parliamentary or not for one hon. member to say that another hon. member cannot answer a question. It is my contention that it is in no way unparliamentary.

Order! Did the hon. member for Bryanston not say that the hon. the Prime Minister was afraid to answer the question?

No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member said that the hon. the Prime Minister could not answer the question.

The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I say that I refuse on principle to answer questions by the hon. member for Bryanston.

I now move as an amendment to the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—

1. (a) requests the Government to carry out in a determined manner the mandate given in the general election as embodied in the election manifesto of the National Party;
2. (b) expresses its strong condemnation of the objectionable methods of the Leader of the Opposition and his Party, which only serve as obstacles to placing the Republic on a road of orderly development; and
3. (c) appeals to all patriotic South Africans to strengthen with dedication the hands of the Government in the interests of security and prosperity.”.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with attention and care, for nearly three hours, to this debate which was going to bring light to South Africa. It was going to be a debate in which all the questions would be answered, in which the Government would be criticized and after which South Africa would know where it was going. I regret to say, however, that, after nearly three hours—with the exception of one or two points made by the hon. the Prime Minister—South Africa is as much in the dark this afternoon as it was before the debate started.

The hon. the Prime Minister says that he asked for his mandate in his manifesto. Yet his own party, his own party members and his own newspapers have pleaded week after week and month after month for clarity because of the vagueness, the uncertainty, the lack of dear direction in that manifesto. His own newspapers have written articles and his own party members have made speeches saying the hon. the Prime Minister will give us the answers. One of his own newspapers said only this morning that the answers would be given. I refer to his party’s official newspaper here in Cape Town. What answers have we had? All we have had are the same old vague generalizations, the same old phrases that can be interpreted to the equal satisfaction of the hon. the Minister of State Administration and Statistics and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information.

I shall come back later to the few points of clarity we have got from the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon. This applies equally to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. This was going to be a debate when IOU’s would have to be paid, a debate when the IOU’s which the Government and the official Opposition had signed in favour of the electorate which had voted for them would have to be settled. However, no IOU’s have been settled by the official Opposition, no IOU’s at all. Only four points of positive policy were made during the whole speech of 40 minutes by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The rest of it was a catalogue of the problems, of what other people thought of the problems, of what other people said about the problems and, at the end, just four points on what the Opposition thought about the problems. The four points were as follows. Firstly, “onderhandeling deur alle belangegroepe”. That is common cause and I shall deal with it. Secondly, “gemeenskap-like burgerskap”; thirdly, “geen formele of statutêre diskriminasie”; and fourthly, “’n onafhanklike Regbank”. That was the sum total of the direction indicated, the alternative the official Opposition has to offer South Africa.

What more do you want?

This is as vague or even vaguer than the hon. the Prime Minister’s manifesto. I am going to come back to it because the election euphoria is over now. When the election was called I said that it would solve no problems in South Africa, least of all those of the NP itself. That was the real reason why an election was held. That proved true. It has solved no problems and only the hon. the Prime Minister will know whether it was a massive miscalculation on his part, a gamble which went wrong, or whether it was an attempt to pre-empt even worse to come, because the one thing the election revealed was a powerful anti-P.W. feeling from both the left and from the right in South Africa. It was an election that swept the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism out of his seat. There was a backlash, a reaction all over the country. The reason was that both the Government and the official Opposition participated in a “duck and dive” election when it came to policy.

Who won Cape Town Gardens?

They ducked and they dived and now the time has come for them to pay their debt, to come here to this House and pay their debt to the voters who voted for them. The hon. member for Yeoville asks: Who won Cape Town Gardens? His party did.

Thank you.

But they won it, not because they put an alternative policy but because of the protest vote against the Government. Only the NRP has no political IOU’s to pay because we fought openly and unashamedly on our own policy and on our own philosophy.

Nobody will give you any credit!

I remind the hon. member for Yeoville that there is another NRP in the world. It only won six seats in an election—held after ours—but it is now part of that Government. Better watch out; it is not always the numbers; it is the quality of their input that matters. In the province where people would be affected in practice by NRP policy they gave us an overwhelming vote of confidence compared with that given to the hon. the Prime Minister. 70% of the seats in Natal were won by this party. That was where our policy directly affected people. There is an important message in this: Where peoples lives were going to be affected in a choice involving the NRP, they voted for the NRP. Everybody knew that the Government was not going to change and when it came to central Government they voted for the most radical party they could think of as a protest against the Government. Progs. voted for the HNP and members of the HNP, Nats and the “Kappiekommando” all voted for the PFP. [Interjections.] They voted for the PFP and they said so.

Shame! Nobody voted for you.

Enough voters voted for us. Mr. Speaker, I want to make this point again and it is a point which cannot be overlooked: When people were interested in an alternative to Nationalist policy, they voted NRP. When they were interested in protesting, they voted for the most radical party.

I was wrong in one respect. I said that nothing was settled by this election. There was one thing that was settled beyond any doubt and that was the Government’s total inability to control inflation and the economic situation. What is worse than that, however, is the total contempt of the Government for the suffering of millions of South Africans—pensioners, the disabled, the unemployed and people on fixed incomes. I am not going to detail it all—the increase in the price of bread and, in fact, the price of all foodstuffs, and the cost of housing because of increasing rentals. There sits the Minister of Community Development. His department puts up controlled rentals by as much as 50% and 60% in one wallop.

And more.

And more. Then, Mr. Speaker, they talk of caring about people! They who are responsible for the control of rentals are also responsible for putting them up by as much as 50% and 60% and more. Food and housing are the two essentials for survival, and relief is crucial, not the 9% or 10% due in October but that relief is crucial now, next week when the budget is announced.

I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that he has lots of IOU’s to pay in this field alone.

I am not as bankrupt as your party is.

These are not only due in respect of pensioners but in respect of his own public service as well, the people in the employ of the State, where department upon department is in a crisis. It would take me too long to list them all but ask the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions—I sympathize with him in his illness and I wish him well on his recovery.

Give him R20.

Mr. Speaker, may I have the attention of the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions for a moment? The hon. the Minister understands the nursing problem that exists in the hospitals—I wished him well on his recovery and I hope it will continue. But I must warn him that there are some diets which one has to be very careful about because they can have adverse effects.

Some people can forget about eating altogether.

The hon. the Minister of Police also has a problem. Department after department is facing a crisis. There is also the hon. the Minister of Finance. I have had complaints from customs officers who have been in the service for 30 years and who take home R380 odd a month although they handle millions of rands of the Government’s revenue. The only hon. Minister who sits there with a smile like a sphinx is the hon. the Minister of State Administration because every time there is a grouse or a complaint he thinks: “Daar is nog ’n stem vir die HNP”.

Vause, may I go now?

No, I just want to return to one point.

But then you must stop joking.

I am through and now I want to be serious again.

†These are some of the IOU’s that have to be paid. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the PFP, said: “Vote for the party that will put things right.” He has an IOU; let him tell the people how he is going to “put things right”.

He said we would fight to put things right.

Let us see how he fights, how he wants to put things right. He, in fact, has an IOU in favour of the people.

I want to come back to the broader issues which affect the future of South Africa and all her people and I want to do so through the medium of the option which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition gave South Africa recently. He called for a realignment of those who stand for negotiation against those who stand for violence. This is the latest exercise in political simplistics, as simplistic as the NP’s option of separate or integrate, as though those are the only two choices. Equally false is the option of negotiation or violence. We are long past that stage in South African politics; even the Government is committed to negotiation, even the Prime Minister is committed to negotiation. The issue is no longer “whether” we negotiate; the issue is “how” and “what” we negotiate for the sort of South Africa we hope to see. If the end objective is simply a camouflage of the status quo, if it seeks either to cast the Blacks of South Africa into limbo in order to escape reality or merely to exchange White domination for Black dictatorship, then either of these alternatives is as certain a recipe for conflict and violence as no negotiation at all.

The cornerstone of this party’s philosophy is negotiation. We have set out our objectives and direction clearly, what is more, we have translated them into practice. In the province where we were re-elected to power we negotiated an agreement with the Coloured and Indian peoples—I do not have to spell it out again. The key to this was the accommodation of the pluralism of our society in a system which links different communities in joint decision-making without destroying or endangering the right of any community to maintain its identity and to control its own affairs without dictation or domination by others.

The hon. the Prime Minister devoted the major portion of his speech this afternoon to saying what he was not going to do. He emphasized pluralism, the devolution of power, the division of power, vertical separation and vertical differentiation. He emphasized over and over again only the one aspect of differences, but nowhere, except loosely and in passing, did he deal with the other aspect. To recognize pluralism is easy. To accommodate it, one must also provide a system in which the different communities can co-operate and work together.

In Natal we achieved this at local government level. The Government vetoed it and today it is in jeopardy as the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs will know. In vetoing it, the Government has set back that process but we achieved that agreement on the basis of the recognition and accommodation of pluralism. For that reason alone this party has a relevance in politics.

We are also the only political party participating at this time in both the President’s Council and in the Buthelezi Commission. The hon. the Prime Minister’s party participates in the White body but not in the Black.

Surely you know that we are having talks with the Black governments; what nonsense are you talking now!

But the Government is not represented on that Buthelezi Commission.

We need not be represented in the Commission; we are having talks with Chief Buthelezi himself.

The PFP is represented on the Black body but not on the White body.

Surely you do know why.

Here we have the dichotomy: The one refuses to participate in a Black body negotiating to find new answers and the other refuses to participate in a White body.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he accepts the authority of the Buthelezi Commission over the whole of Natal?

No, I accept its right to seek agreement through a form of negotiation in regard to the mutual interests of the people who live in juxtaposition to one another—to seek forms of co-operation with the Natal Provincial Administration and with other communities. I do not accept their jurisdiction over Natal but I accept their co-operation and co-existence with the rest of Natal. That is what we are looking for. We are looking for forms of co-operation and co-existence. This Government is afraid that any form of co-operation will be seen as inviting integration.

Obviously our policy is not acceptable to everyone otherwise we would not have to negotiate. But the hon. the Prime Minister has committed himself to negotiation. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition accused him of failing to state his objectives. That is correct, but if ever there was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, this was the finest example I have seen—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who never once gave his own clear alternatives, accusing the hon. the Prime Minister, who gave vague generalizations, of evading policy! We believe that if we can get clarity from both sides today we will have done South Africa a service. I want therefore to move the following further amendment—

1. (1) which will eliminate domination or discrimination by or against any community;
2. (2) which will ensure the right of any group to preserve its own character and to control its own intimate affairs; and
3. (3) to decide together on common interests in a confederation of South Africa.”.

I want to put to the hon. the Prime Minister certain specific questions in regard to the confederation he outlined. The hon. the Prime Minister dealt with the question of confederation and I now want to ask him specifically whether his concept of a confederation includes joint responsibility and decision-making on defined and agreed matters of common interest.

As far as independent states’ participation is concerned, yes, but no super states.

No super states. I ask whether there will be joint responsibility and decision-making on agreed matters.

Yes, on agreed matters. I dealt with that this afternoon.

No, the hon. the Prime Minister avoided the question of joint decision-making. He said what confederation would not do. He said it would not interfere with sovereignty or reduce the powers of any state. He did not say how it would work.

But surely in a confederation every party … [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister will get a turn to speak. He can also answer the questions; we might get a different answer! Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether his confederation includes a common economy in which all will share equally.

I dealt with the whole situation. Did you not listen?

No, the hon. the Prime Minister again evaded the key issue of access to a common economy …

Free movement.

… the movement of workers from one of the members of the confederation to participate in the economy in another member State. This remains a grey area. When the hon. the Prime Minister dealt with citizenship he talked of citizenship in relation to travel documents. We believe, however, that there must be a common citizenship with a common loyalty in a confederation.

Then it is not a confederation.

Oh yes, it is. There are confederations that have a common citizenship.

Give us an example.

As I was saying, there are confederations which have a common citizenship and a common loyalty.

Which one, for example?

Switzerland. [Interjections.] Well, that is called a federation but … [Interjections.] There is the confederation in Australia. [Interjections.] No, it is a confederation. There is also Canada.

Australia is a commonwealth.

A commonwealth of Australia and a confederation of Canada.

Vause, now you are getting confused.

This is the line of development along which Europe is moving. The European Economic Community has done away with the internal control of movement. My question is whether the hon. the Prime Minister excludes access to and movement from one area to the other based on a common citizenship and a common loyalty. If one leaves that out, one is moving back to the concept of a constellation with a few trimmings added to it. My next question is whether his confederation includes a body —whether it be called a confederal assembly, chamber or something else—a place where everyone will come together to debate matters of common interest and common concern on which they will decide jointly. Or is this to be achieved in the form of agreements and bilateral arrangements rather than through the medium of an official, formal, structured body?

But we are getting together already.

Bilaterally, occasionally trilaterally, but this is something on which we have to have clarity.

We are getting together already and discussing matters of common interest.

Is it going to be a formal body with a formal structure in which there will be joint debating and joint decision-making, or will it merely be a consultative body? This is another point which was repeatedly raised by the hon. the Prime Minister. He repeatedly mentioned consultation and he used other terms as well. However, not once in his speech did he use the term “joint decision-making”. Not once did he refer to “joint decision-making” or give any indication that there would be any body or place for the process of joint decision-making which is essential for the future.

†If the answer to this is “no”, as it is in the case of citizenship, and as it apparently is in the case of an official body, an assembly or a formal meeting point this is not going to be a solution to our problems. When Ciskei said it would accept independence, it specifically referred to common citizenship in a confederation. Now the hon. the Prime Minister says there will be no common citizenship. When Bophuthatswana broke away, the condition was a confederal membership in which they could be part of a greater South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister has not cleared up this issue beyond doubt. He has gone part of the way. He has moved from his constellation idea towards that of a confederation. But if he is to come clean with the people of South Africa, he must spell out more details, the structure and the commitment involved in a common future in South Africa.

Lastly, he has excluded the non-homeland Blacks, whom he referred to, from the common structure. I want to make an appeal to him by way of a proposal. Let me concede him one point, which I think is valid. I do not believe that his party, the PFP or the NRP—in fact any White party—can identify either the composition or the aspirations of non-homeland Blacks. I therefore urge him to ask or instruct the President’s Council, through the State President, to initiate an in-depth inquiry in which homeland and non-homeland Blacks will participate with the specific purpose of identifying what is clearly a new element in our pluralism—the element of the urban or non-homeland Black who has broken his homeland connections. I ask him to use the President’s Council for this purpose because it is not an arm of Government, of the executive or of the department that controls Blacks. It will also give credibility and stature to the President’s Council itself. The time has now come for positive action. We cannot talk about the non-homeland Blacks as though we know who they are and what they want. Our task and the task of the Government is to establish who is in fact a non-homelander and who is simply a migrant homelander and to establish what their respective aspirations are. I believe that this step alone would render a tremendous service to South Africa.

Finally, I want to place on record that the PFP—and I want to be corrected if I am wrong—rejects the right of any community to any exclusive areas, Black or White, or exclusive amenities. In other words, neighbourhoods, amenities and schools must all be open by law and no community may have the option to keep them exclusive. I must accept that this is correct because it is not denied. In fact, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this at Queenstown. Secondly, he and his party reject group or ethnic identity as a basis for any form of political representation at any level of government. The hon. the Prime Minister has already dealt with this and I shall not take it further. Sir, if that is the starting point for negotiation, what is left to negotiate? If one starts one’s negotiations with a common voters’ roll and an open society, what is left to negotiate except mere constitutional safeguards and individual rights? Then one has capitulated before one has started. And when one’s leaders participate in Freedom Charter Day, all-night vigils during which clenched fists are waved and freedom songs are sung—Amandla and the rest—and when the third most senior member of that party acts as a co-speaker with Bishop Tutu on that occasion, in that atmosphere, what in fact is one negotiating for? One has then sold the pass before one has started because one is accepting and becoming part of an end result which I believe 95% of the people in South Africa reject. Therefore the realignment we are aiming for is one of moderates to negotiate with other moderates to bring people together and build a new Republic in this country.

Mr. Speaker, today it is my privilege to speak in this House after three leaders have spoken.

Tell us a joke.

The hon. member says: “Tell us a joke”. The latest political joke I have heard has just been elected in Amanzimtoti, Natal!

Oh, have I?

Sir, today a great deal has been said about political leadership and we have listened to three different political leaders. It is interesting to look at these leaders and to see how they performed here today. In the first place I feel we were priviliged to hear the hon. the Prime Minister, because today he gave us in this House and South Africa a vision of what was to be done. He gave us an ideal to work for. But the hon. the Prime Minister did not only point out these horizons; he also showed us the road to be followed to reach those horizons. He also dealt in detail with certain of the plans he had in this regard to achieve those ideals.

Where were you when the Prime Minister was speaking?

We can understand your gratitude.

Today the hon. the Prime Minister showed South Africa and this House that he was of the political fibre to lead the country in the direction in which it must be led in the best interests of all its people.

On the other hand we had the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said he did not wish to become personal and I do not wish to become personal about him either because he is a “nice guy”, but one thing we can look at today is the political leadership showed by him. As he resumed his seat, it struck me that this House was surprised at his doing so. Everyone looked up and thought that the introduction was over. We thought the gist of the message was still to come. He had already resumed his seat and the hon. the Prime Minister was already speaking before some of the hon. members on that side first realized that their Leader had stopped talking. They did not even say “hear, hear” to him. Those of the hon. members behind him who did say “hear, hear” did so hesitantly or quietly. Today the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was the epitome—and I say this with all due respect —of hesitant leadership. There was nothing to his speech. If ever there was a leader of an opposition who stood up and uttered generalizations and platitudes, if ever there was a leader of an opposition who, as regards the content of his speech, said nothing new or cogent, it was the Leader of the Opposition today. What also struck us was that what he did say he said with noticeably less fervour than in the past. Today we missed the subtlety, agility and clarity with which he set out things in the past. Why is this so? It is because the recent election has left him punch-drunk. He has returned to the House of Assembly punch-drunk? I want to tell him that today he heard the bell go and went through the motions but did not actually land a single blow. Today the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was but a shadow of what he was before the election. One cannot even write “Kilroy was here” after his name, because this afternoon he was not even here. I wish to tell the hon. the Leader of the NRP—although it is not saying much and I am not paying him a great compliment—that he fared better than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had done.

If we take a look today at the policy of the political parties and what we have had up to now, we ask ourselves, if we must be specific: What guidance did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition give us in the social field? What did he tell us about what his party wanted to do in respect of the problems in the social field with which South Africa is undoubtedly struggling? We are living in a country with different national groups and a variety of identities. We are living in an era in which everyone wishes to be part of a specific identity. We are living in an era in which people are becoming ever prouder of their identity and want to live their lives accordingly. They say they have the right to do so. However, what did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have to say to us in these times about identity and the desire which each person has to enjoy his own identity? Above all, what did he tell us about his own identity and how he sees it and wishes to maintain it in the years ahead?

What did the PFP give us by way of economic policy? What are they going to do which the Government is not doing? We did not hear anything in this regard. What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tell us about his party’s policy in the political field?

He said nothing. He said absolutely nothing new. He said there would be a national convention. However, he said very little about it. He also said there must be an independent judiciary, etc.—a few vague generalizations.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition submitted a motion to this House, in which he stated that this House must decide that it was of the opinion that the Government was deserving of censure because—and I should like to concentrate on paragraph (d) of the motion—in the face of increasing social, economic and political pressure, the Government displayed an inability to accommodate this pressure satisfactorily. We are immediately struck by the words “to accommodate the pressure”. Does this mean that when a man experiences pressure in the political arena it is his duty to accommodate such pressure? Does there not come a time in the life of a leader when he must say that he resists the pressure? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition maintained that the Government had neglected to accommodate this pressure satisfactorily, other than by “suppressing allegedly subversive opposition”. We must now discuss this matter.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition speaks of social, economic and political pressure, and I want to accept that he is speaking of justified or legitimate social, economic and political pressure. I take it that when the hon. the Leader speaks of the pressure to be accommodated, he is speaking of justified or legitimate social, economic and political pressure. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tells the world, however, that the legitimate requests of the Blacks in this country are met in one way only, and that is by branding them as subversion. Surely this is an extremely irresponsible statement to make. Surely it is irresponsible to say in this House that when people come forward with legitimate demands, the Government brands those legitimate demands as subversion. For this is what the hon. the Leader’s motion amounts to.

I want to put it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that his motion, as it is worded here, is a mean political ploy. It is mean not only to the Government, but also to South Africa. How can a public figure in the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa stand up and broadcast to the world that the answer to the Black people of South Africa is that they are considered subversive elements in South Africa? How can a man do such a thing? How can a man say that this is actually the situation in South Africa? This is not true. Nor is it true in the light of what the hon. the Prime Minister announced to us and clearly outlined for us here today. It is simply not true.

I want to put it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that we take this extremely amiss of him. However, there is also something else happening here. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is calumniating the total security action of the South African Government. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is, however, doing even more than that. Not only is he calumniating the security action and questioning the integrity of the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Minister of Police, as well as the integrity of every policeman in South Africa, but in addition he is trying to create the impression that no subversive activities occur in South Africa. In his motion he speaks of “allegedly subversive opposition”. According to him there is therefore no subversion in South Africa. Where was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when bombs exploded at Sasolburg? Where was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when people were killed in the Silverton bank siege? Where was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when bombs exploded in Durban? Is it therefore not true to say that subversive activities do in fact occur in South Africa? [Interjections.] Is it also not true to claim that this Government has both a right and a duty to protect South Africa and its people? Is it patriotic to throw suspicion on the entire security apparatus of South Africa in this way? Is it patriotic to claim that the reaction to justified social, economic and political pressure in South Africa is to treat it as alleged subversion?

I want to put it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the Whites of South Africa know, they can feel it in their bones, that subversion is taking place, that there are violent forces at large, not only in South Africa but also beyond our borders, that wish to plough the White man under—not the Government, but the White man. For this reason he will not be entrusted with the survival, with the interests of the White people of South Africa, now or in the future.

Today when we look at the problems facing South Africa and the road we must follow, we must in the first place reconcile ourselves to the realities in South Africa. We must reconcile ourselves to them. We cannot resist the realities in South Africa. The first reality is that this country is a multinational country. The second reality is that a large part of the population of South Africa does not have a long, liberal parliamentary tradition. The third reality is that the potential for a power struggle is inherent in a country like South Africa.

When we look at these facts, we must see them in relation to the history of Africa which teaches us that when there is pluralism in a specific country, when there are different peoples and ethnic groups in a specific country and when those population groups do not have a long parliamentary tradition, the power struggle cannot be solved by allowing everyone to share power in a single power structure. Throughout Africa attempts have been made to share power, and even in federations with the finest charter of human rights built into their constitution, with all the things the Opposition wants—even the sovereignty of the courts was built into them—and in all the countries in which such heterogeneity exists, the power struggle could not be resolved democratically and the power struggle in Africa was resolved in one of two ways. It was resolved either by military Governments or by one-party States. It was, however, not resolved democratically, and no one in the Opposition can tell us where, either in Africa or elsewhere in the world, people without a long parliamentary tradition could resolve their power struggle democratically in a heterogeneous population.

In Africa there are, however, democracies. There is a democracy in Botswana. Why does it have a democracy? Because Botswana has a homogenous society.

What we in South Africa are busy doing is resolving the power struggle between people politically, to the advantage and peace of South Africa and all of us. For this reason the hon. the Prime Minister was so right in saying: In South Africa we want to create vertical power structures which can negotiate with one another as equals. For this reason I want to say today that the ideal which the hon. the Prime Minister gave to South Africa is an ideal in which everyone can share. It is an ideal with which every Black man in South Africa can identify. It is an ideal with which every White man can identify. It is an ideal in which the Coloureds and the Asians, everyone living in South Africa, can share.

To be able to realize this ideal there are, however, a few absolutely essential prerequisites which must be met. The first prerequisite is that there must be good relations between Whites and Blacks. This is an absolute prerequisite. The second prerequisite for our ideals to be realized, is that the Whites, the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Asians in South Africa must have mutual confidence in one another. We must trust one another. It is my duty to trust the Black citizen of South Africa as well as the Coloured and the Asian. It is also the duty of the Black people, the Coloureds and the Asians to trust the Whites. It is also our duty to have particular confidence in one another’s integrity and good intentions.

When we look at the political situation and the role played by the Opposition in this connection, we can see that the PFP plays an important role. The role of the Opposition, together with its Press, is to break down the confidence between Whites and Blacks. On every platform in South Africa and on every platform throughout the world to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues have access, they create distrust in this Government. They create distrust in the intentions of the Government, in the integrity of the Government and also in the bona fides of the Government. We cannot build a future for South Africa in this way.

For this reason I should like to make an appeal today. From my side I should like to say that it is of cardinal importance to all of us that there must be very good relations between Whites, Blacks and other people of colour. The outside world and the other people of South Africa must know that when we act in this Parliament or elsewhere, we as Whites, the people sitting here, are, in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, practising friendly nationalism. We are stretching out a hand of friendship to these people, Sir. Today I want to tell the hon. the Leader and the other members of the Opposition: What they are doing and the distrust they are creating, what they are doing and the way in which they are handling the problems of South Africa and the way in which they are trying to outbid the Blacks in their search for political freedom, the way in which they are outbidding the Whites, the Government, are all creating an inherent distrust in South Africa which makes it impossible for any party, under any circumstances, actually to effect a successful solution in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, today it was a privilege for me to listen to the hon. the Prime Minister. It was a privilege for me to hear the details; it was a privilege for me to realize that my Leader is grappling with South Africa’s problems. It was also a privilege for me to realize that we are part of a movement to solve the problems of South Africa. It was, however, also unpleasant to realize that the PFP, the official Opposition, has such a hatred for the Government that in the process it will harm and hamper South Africa in the achievement of a great ideal which is within our grasp.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria Central objected to the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not speak for a long time. He objected to the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not hold Parliament up for a long time here. However, the hon. member ought to realize that the contribution that an hon. member makes in this Parliament, has nothing to do with the amount of time that one wastes or spends here. Perhaps this is a message that we should bring very pointedly to the attention of the hon. member because he spoke like a person who was having difficulty in believing in himself. The quality of his tone of voice and his enthusiasm was of the soapbox variety and he had difficulty in being convincing about what he himself said here.

The hon. member made a number of outrageous allegations here and amongst other things he said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had supposedly cast a reflection upon the integrity of the Minister of Justice and of the Minister of Police because he spoke about detention without trial and the type of security action that this Government is taking on the pretext of maintaining order. Everything that that hon. member said, is in direct contrast to the background which the hon. member ought to have as a lawyer. The hon. member showed no respect for the institution of the courts and for the independence of the courts; to tell the truth, in his entire argument he gave no indication of being aware of the role that should be played by an independent court of law in a community, particularly in South Africa. He gave no indication of this at all.

I should like to turn to a situation that applies more specifically to the Western Cape at this stage, and in connection with which I am afraid that there has been no hope or indication thus far of any change or any solution. I am speaking here about the position of Blacks in the Western Cape. Over the past few weeks, government bodies have taken action against Black people in the outskirts of Cape Town which has created a new peak of tension. I am afraid that we must have no doubt about this. It has created a new peak of racial tension in the Western Cape. Action was taken against Black people, action which I do not believe measures up to the standards of civilization which the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned here. In many respects this action followed the old pattern, a pattern of Black people who, due to the scarcity of accommodation move into vacant compounds and other Black people who, due to a lack of employment opportunities, a lack of finance and a lack of food, move away from the homeland areas to urban areas such as the Western Cape. However, in this situation, a greater intensity could be detected in the action of the Administration Board and the authorities, in fact it was a greater insensitivity to the fate of the Black people concerned, because there were evictions and arrests on a massive scale in the midst of the worst weather conditions that the Cape can produce. People were deprived of their shelters in weather conditions which caused others to shiver in their homes. Men, women and children, yes even babies found themselves under the bare sky in pouring rain and icy wind. The arrests were conducted in such a manner that Black family members lost contact with one another, and had to spend days walking from one prison to the other later on in order to try to find one another. There is no place for this type of situation in a civilized country. One wonders how many hon. members on the opposite side are aware of this situation in the Cape Peninsula.

An indication of the new intensity of the action of the authorities is the fact that the existing court accommodation has been found to be hopelessly inadequate and new courts had to be found in order to be able to try the large numbers of accused. Higher fines were imposed than in the past and people who already find it difficult to make ends meet, often have to use their last cent to pay for their freedom even though it may be a painful freedom. Sometimes money has to be borrowed for this purpose.

A new desperation can also be detected in the reaction to the action of the authorities. It is clear that the Black people who are affected by this action, were in such a position that they prefer to suffer this indescribable humiliation and misery rather than to be sent back to their homes in order to confront the misery that awaits them there. As far as the actions of the authorities is concerned, this desperation can also be detected by the fact that when the Black people sought shelter in hastily-erected structures, these structures were destroyed whilst the material from which tents and shacks were made, was confiscated. Even plastic bags and, according to some allegations, blankets were confiscated. What a terrible situation! The situation became so ludicrous that when some of these people had to seek shelter under trees, the authorities, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has already pointed out, chopped down trees and bushes on a large scale. Bushes were chopped off at ground level and as a result that entire area is now bare. This is how one behaves when one is exterminating vermin. The behaviour of the authorities in this case reminds one of the conditions in concentration camps during the Anglo-Boer War. I am sure that if an Emily Hobhouse were to observe these conditions today, she would think with sorrow of the ancestors of the Whites in South Africa for whom she did so much at the time.

†One of the most disturbing aspects of the present treatment of Black people in the Western Cape—the pass raids, the prosecutions, the harassment and the exposure to rain, cold and hunger—is that in terms of Government policy, thinking and ideology, there is no improvement in the offing whatsoever. Indeed, up to this stage we have heard nothing to indicate that there is any possibility of an improvement.

In terms of the ideology of separate development, the miserable existence of these people will remain a permanent condition. The areas from which these people emanate—most of them obviously emanate from Transkei and Ciskei—have reached their ultimate destiny in terms of the NP’s grand plan. Transkei has been independent for a couple of years now while Ciskei is about to become independent.

In terms of NP thinking this is again the final ideal of the separate development policy, and yet, for these miserable people who have to suffer at the hands of the authorities, independence is a totally meaningless event, except that their problems can now be swept under the carpet of a “foreign government”. It endows them with political rights in a state where they do not reside, where there are no jobs for them and where there is no food for them. Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister talks about a constellation of states—we heard a great deal about this again this afternoon—but what possible value can this concept have for these people who have to break the law in order to remain alive? What possible significance can a constellation of states or any details that the hon. the Minister has given in this regard this afternoon have for these poor people?

We are now at the beginning of a new session of Parliament but there is no indication of legislation to alleviate the present situation. There is no sign whatsoever of new thinking in regard to the lot of the Black man living in and around Cape Town. Is the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development satisfied—I am asking this in all sincerity—that the happenings of the past few weeks in Cape Town remain a permanent feature of political life in South Africa? Do we have to accept that we have to live with this kind of agony forever? Has the hon. the Minister reconciled himself to the fact that his department follow a policy of harassment—that it cannot achieve its political ends without exposing human beings to this most unspeakable suffering? Sir, I ask these questions because I see no solution to the situation as long as the Government persists in enforcing the present legislation and in not changing its present attitude at all. Surely the hon. the Minister accepts that most of the Blacks who come to the Western Cape illegally do so because of two important reasons, firstly, to find employment and secondly, to keep their families together? Surely the hon. the Minister does not dispute the fact that these are the main reasons for these people coming to the Western Cape? If he does not believe that this is so, I would appreciate it if he would tell the House this but then also tell us what, in his opinion, is the real reason for their coming to the Western Cape. However, I have little doubt that the hon. the Minister will agree with me in this regard. And if he accepts this, does he and do other hon. members not think that these are the most compelling reasons imaginable why people leave their homelands and move to urban areas such as the Western Cape? If these are compelling reasons, why is nothing being done about the position? Why in heaven’s name is nothing being done about the present legal position? How can we have legislation which is impossible to comply with unless one is prepared to suffer starvation? How can we continue to have legislation on the statute books of this country with which people cannot possibly comply without risking their lives? Sir, we cannot continue along these lines. However much we may differ in regard to political ideologies and political rights, surely we cannot have legislation on the statute books which causes so much suffering, which forces people to live on the wrong side of the law? The relevant legislation does not take cognizance of the availability of employment in the homelands. The present legislation does not mention the availability of employment elsewhere. It does not take cognizance of this at all and it takes very little cognizance of the natural desire of husband, wife and children to live together.

If the law remains as it is, these concentration camp conditions will remain with us, and there is every indication that they could become worse. The damage that is done to general stability, and family life in particular, by the present system of influx control and pass laws, is too terrible. We are creating a situation in which the Blacks living in our urban areas have absolutely nothing to lose. I do not have to tell the hon. the Minister, or other hon. members on that side of the House, that a single man, with his family living far away, without a home of his own, without possessions of his own and without permanency—a man on the run from the law merely because he needs a job—is the best recruit for insurrection one can find anywhere in the world.

*The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development is aware of these things. He is aware of these conditions. He knows how dangerous this racial obsession is when it is applied to urban Blacks [Interjections.] He is aware of it, because he wrote about it in his doctoral thesis at the University of Oxford. In that thesis he issued a warning against the approach that he himself is advocating today as a member of this Government. In all honesty, I should like to put a question on this matter once again and I hope to receive a reply to it. Does the Government believe today—as a previous Deputy Minister, Mr. Sampie Froneman, alleged elsewhere—that the family circle is not as important to the Black man as it is to the White, or as he put it, “the ordinary Christian”? Or does the Government rather believe, as the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development indicated in his thesis at the time, that the fact that Black men in these areas are without their families will lead to the fragmentation of families and total instability? In all sincerity I must say that these are questions that those hon. members must answer for themselves, because these are aspects that affect our survival, and all the financial details, all the new banks that are being established and all the fine words that we have had to listen to during the course of the day, will be completely worthless if we cannot solve this problem at its source.

I am afraid that the hon. the Prime Minister shed no light on this matter for us. Nor did the hon. member for Pretoria Central, but one does not expect that of him. However, one would have at least expected the hon. the Prime Minister to take cognizance of this situation. The matters about which the hon. the Prime Minister spoke were so far removed from the pressing problems of South Africa—and I say this with all respect—that he could have delivered the speech that he delivered in this House this afternoon in any other Parliament.

Now you are talking nonsense.

The hon. the Prime Minister spoke about the importance of family life and said that if we do not grant ourselves normal family togetherness, we will have no guidelines for justice in South Africa. I agree with him wholeheartedly. All I want to say to hon. members opposite is: “Practise what you preach”. Then they will not be able to talk about people who come to the Western Cape illegally and are an exception to the rule merely because they are illegal. These circumstances must be taken into account. An investigation must be carried out in order to establish whether we can continue to live with this type of legislation in the times in which we are living. I believe it is very clear that we can no longer live with it. One wonders to what extent the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development believes in his existing system of influx control? In all honesty, I sometimes wonder about this. If the system of influx control were to be abolished completely, how many more people would flock to the Western Cape than those that are already here illegally? [Interjections.] I should like to know. It would be very interesting to hear what the responsible Minister has to say about that. Percentage wise, how many more people would settle in the Western Cape—and how many more would really come to live here—than those that are already here illegally? These things are not merely determined by the legislation to which those hon. members cling so rigidly. They are determined by economic necessity and destitution. This is the reason why such an enormous number of people are present here illegally, in spite of the misery to which they are subjected at the hands of the Government. I am pleased to support the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred here to certain pamphlets and statements issued by the NP in connection with the election. I, too, could refer to certain actions and statements by the Opposition in connection with the election. During the election and also shortly afterwards, particularly during the Republic festival, it was the duty of all parties represented in this House, and those who tried to obtain representation by way of the election, to promote good race relations with a view to continued law and order, the maintenance of a stable society and enduring peace, so as to neutralize a possible potential for revolution. The fact is, however, that in all the history of modern politics, race relations have never been more severely damaged than they were by the joint action of the PFP and the HNP with its fellow-travellers, the Wit Kommando, the Afrikaner weerstandsbeweging and others. In passing, I want to add—and I say this from conviction—that the HNP has become a security risk for the country. One need only consider the announcement in Windhoek by Mr. Jaap Marais of the Cabinet’s visit to the operational area in South West Africa. The HNP with its many fronts is not a political party in the true sense of the word. It is a whim, a mere whim followed by those who suffer from some or other form of political frustration. It is a mere whim which gives satisfaction to every “poltergeist”, and as such it is accompanied by many obscure figures trying to form a force wherewith to overthrow the existing order in this country by the destruction of good race relations. It is common cause that good race relations form the basis for the survival of the existing order and are the guarantee of continued peace in our country.

However, the fact is that the HNP is filled with hate, and its hate is greater than its love for its fatherland. That is why it will rather permit the country to be destroyed by its relations policy than follow a policy of reconciliation and peaceful coexistence. As far as these aspects are concerned, the PFP is not far behind its election partner, the HNP. After all, during the election the PFP allowed the HNP to try to destroy the country with its politics of hate, and indeed supported it. The PFP and the HNP colluded, in contrast to what one would have expected, which was that the two extreme poles in South African politics, that are diametrically opposed, would have bitterly attacked one another and that the most leftist, radical elements would have been involved in a fight to the death with the most rightwing, eccentric fanatics, because these two political parties live in two entirely different worlds and the policy of each poses the greatest danger to the policy of the other. But instead of that they become partners …

I hear you are a jolly lot over there in Parys.

… and bedfellows in their struggle against the creative strength of the National Party which continues unceasingly to serve the best interests of South Africa under all circumstances.

Since the hon. member referred to Parys, I should like to say to him that the PFP and the HNP are sleeping a very restless sleep under the same blanket, and with their gropings are breeding the unholy basilisks which they are ceaselessly bringing forth and mercilessly letting loose on the community. This was a clever and calculated pairing, because the Government constantly had its hands full trying to exorcise this brood which burst forth left and right, instead of being able to attend to creative work in accordance with a variety of initiatives by the hon. Prime Minister aimed at a finer, greater and safer future for South Africa and all its people. It is difficult to describe who were partners in this pairing, but basilisks with indisputable characteristics and features of people such as the hon. member for Houghton, the Rev. Hurley of the Roman Catholic Church, Mr. Jaap Marais, Bishop Tutu, even the hon. member for Sea Point, de secrators of the flag and riotous Coloured school children began to writhe like adders.

Order! Is the hon. member implying that those hon. members associated themselves with the desecrators of the flag?

No, Sir, I said that they were elements that came to the fore, and I want to say that they began to writhe like adders in the night with one aim and one aim only, and that is to bruise the bearer of law and order in the heel.

Let me say a few words about some of them.

What about Vause Raw?

Then you can judge for yourself, Sir, whether the official Opposition has the moral right to move a motion of censure of the Government here. These angels of ill omen symbolized by the official Opposition are those that spread this propaganda of unrest, these techniques of revolution and politics of hate, against which the Government must struggle in an effort to govern the country in such a way that it will become a secure, a prosperous and a good home for all its people. It is easy to destroy the country. You know that. A fool can do it. Even Jaap Marais can do it. Just look at the television, Sir, and you will see how matters stand in Ireland at the moment. There it is White against White, but it is such a slaughter of human lives and destruction of property that eventually one cannot bear to watch any more. How do you think matters would stand in South Africa if it were White against Black under the policy of the party opposite? That is a situation which is possible, but it is a situation this Government must prevent. What is more, that is what you, Mr. Speaker, expect of it. Therefore that is its calling, and this Government will continue to do so and will persist despite all the basilisks lurking around in the dark like the plague.

Just consider the contribution of the hon. member for Houghton in this connection. She incites the Black people of South Africa to strike by putting forward the example of the Poles … [Interjections.] The Polish trade union … [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Parys say that the hon. member for Houghton was inciting the Black people of South Africa?

Mr. Speaker, I did say so. I shall withdraw it. However, the hon. member for Houghton did make certain references to the Polish trade union and the strikes in Poland and she linked to them certain actions which she wanted Black people in South Africa to emulate.

Shame! [Interjections.]

Is that not an objectionable and unpatriotic act by a person who has sworn loyalty to this country and its institutions of Government? If that, in the spirit of the times we are living in, is not a call to revolution, then I do not know what such a call looks like.

The hon. member for Houghton is the most decorated fellow-traveller I know on the road of unrest in South Africa. [Interjections.] How else … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have listened carefully to the hon. member for Parys for the last few minutes. Whatever each phrase of his might mean individually, accumulatively his words are indicating quite clearly that the hon. member for Houghton is participating in some kind of campaign against law and order in South Africa. The last five or six sentences, taken together, are clearly contrary to the ruling that was given by Mr. Speaker in 1976 that any form of unpatriotism may not be levelled against an hon. member in this House. [Interjections.]

Order! A short time ago I expressly asked the hon. member for Parys whether he was implying that the hon. member for Houghton had anything to do with the incitement of unrest. He denied that that was his intention, and I accept his word for it. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker …

Say it again. Come on, say it again. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I said that the hon. member for Houghton …

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I should ask you to give your ruling, particularly with regard to the phrase in which the hon. member for Parys referred to the hon. member for Houghton as the most decorated “meeloper op Suid-Afrika se onruspad”. I request you to rule that that is unparliamentary. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Parys say those words?

Mr. Speaker, I said that the hon. member for Houghton is the most decorated fellow-traveller I know on South Africa’s road of unrest.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw them, but can you tell me why the hon. member …

Order! The hon. member for Parys must withdraw those words unconditionally.

I withdraw them, Mr. Speaker. Now I just wonder to myself … [Interjections.] … why the hon. member for Houghton had all her foreign decorations conferred on her. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: By saying that he now wonders why the hon. member for Houghton received these decorations, the hon. member for Parys is in fact implying something identical to what you instructed him to withdraw. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Parys may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, let me rather, then, point out an indisputable fact that even the hon. member for Yeoville will not be able to deny.

Without wondering.

This is that the labour sphere is that sphere in which coordinated unrest can be most easily incited, and the hon. member for Houghton knows this.

You know it too. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out another fact. This is that in the long term, the labour problems in South Africa cannot be separated from the economic, the political and the relations problems. The hon. member for Houghton knows this too.

In a completely unprecedented and unheard-of manner, Archbishop D. Hurley in a so-called pastoral letter and under the cloak of his priesthood, called for revolution rather than support of the Republic Festival. The time at my disposal does not allow me to go into this in detail. Therefore I just want to furnish him with a reply by way of a single paragraph of a letter that appeared in Die Volksblad on 7 May 1981. I quote—

Mr. Speaker, … [Interjections.] It is incitement of this kind by Dennis Hurley and others that resulted in Nusas acting in a way that exceeded the limits of ordinary student activities by far when they organized the resistance to and boycott of the Republic festival. No one was obliged to participate in the Republic festival. Consequently this was totally unnecessary and unprecedented. However, this indicates that an opportunity was sought to create a spirit of revolution, as was in fact proved by the burning of our country’s flag. Furthermore, this behaviour proved that some of our universities have become a meeting place for radicals and revolutionaries. However, by burning our country’s flag they have gone too far. It was an act motivated by revolution and a repudiation of the sovereignty of our country, because in the final instance, it is the symbolism of our country’s flag.

Now—and the hon. the Prime Minister referred to this—it is a great pity that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was abroad on Republic Day. Surely he knew well in advance that we were going to celebrate Republic Day in a special way, but he did not make arrangements for remaining here. In fact, it seems to me as if he was looking for a reason to leave. This reinforces the boycott image that the official Opposition already has. To say the least, it gave the impression that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not care about Republic Day, nor about the fact that it is boycotted. In fact, this is the encouragement for which the revolutionary desecrators of our flag and boycotters were waiting. I am not the only one to say so. The young, dynamic editor of Die Volksblad, Mr. Hennie van Deventer, said that he was also of this opinion in a leader on 1 June 1981—

I do not have time to quote everything because my time has almost expired, but he goes on to say—

And he was right. But what did the Opposition say about that? In the Sunday Times of 7 June 1981 the following was stated—

As acting Leader of the Opposition he does not condemn these deeds of arson and destruction and plunder. No, he chooses to condemn the police. Those people who must indemnify the country against arson and destruction and revolution, are condemned. Then surely Mr. Van Deventer of Die Volksblad is correct in saying in his leader—

Listen to what the Sunday Times of 7 June had to say in a leader—

If this is not an appeal to the Coloured people to make them feel excluded from the Republic, then I do not know what such an appeal would look like. The article goes on to say—