Mr. Speaker, I really hoped that since last night I would have been able to rid myself of the indignation aroused in me by having had to listen to certain priests of Baal in this House. Unfortunately I was unable to do so because the allegations which were made were of such a serious and calumnious nature that I consider it my duty once again to reject them with the utmost contempt, coming as they do from that hon. member.

Sir, I was illustrating what we were trying to do to normalize the situation in Langa and Guguletu on the initiative of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. However, we were thwarted in our efforts, and when I consider the reply which the hon. the Minister of Community Development furnished to a question this afternoon, it seems to me that we are dealing here, too, with the same agitators, i.e. the same persons who incite the inhabitants of Langa and Guguletu are also inciting the Coloureds. As the hon. the Prime Minister justifiably said recently, and with justification, the time has come for us to mention names, for us to expose these people, these people who attempt to bedevil relations between the Government and the Black people.

On the initiative of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development we are constantly trying to reach an accord with the inhabitants of Langa and Guguletu. Last night I said that when we had started to clear up the singles quarters and convert them into dwelling units for families, between 250 and 300 persons were originally directed to vacate the hostels, and this was done after they had been given notice to do so 2½ years previously. Now it appears that no fewer than 1 164 people are defying us. These are people who, due to the incitement of others, joined those who had to leave the hostels, and I have a suspicion that Opposition circles know what the source of that incitement is. These people are quite simply, presumptuous.

It comes from the Progs.

Mr. Speaker, on the authority of the hon. the Prime Minister, the Progs are the agitators, for we are experiencing this in this House as well. Instead of their promoting Christianity, we find that the Christianity of other people is being questioned. [Interjections.] It would be unparliamentary for me to use the expressions of some of my colleagues, but it just goes to show how strongly my colleagues feel about this matter. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I would embarrass you if I were to voice some of these remarks. I am very tempted to do so, but I shall leave the matter at that. So you need not look at me in that way! [Interjections.] We have information to the effect that the staff of the existing aid centre are trying to instil a clearer perception of the situation in those people. If we examine this matter in a balanced way—and of course that excludes the whole PFP—it may be expected that if efforts are made to instil a clearer perception in those people they will not act in that way. We do not want to drive out the people there for ideological considerations. We are not driving them out of there because we hate them. In fact, we are acting in a very Christian way towards them. It has come to our attention that even the staff of the existing aid centre have tried to persuade those people and talk to them, but their attitude to the officials and the Administration Board, indeed, the whole system, gives cause for concern and ought to receive attention. They are defiant and do not want to obey the laws of the land. Again I say that we know whence this defiance comes, this incitement of the people to adopt this attitude of defiance.

The conclusion may be drawn that the attitude of not wanting to co-operate and to be fair and reasonable is deliberately aimed at trying to legalize those who are here illegally, and since there are 20 000 unemployed Blacks in this area legally, we cannot allow this. It would be an outrageous injustice if we were to allow those illegal residents to be legalized. We are trying to co-operate with the responsible bodies and persons. We are constantly having talks. The hon. the Minister is constantly making appointments with those people in an effort to instil in them a clearer understanding of the matter, but time and again we are rebuffed. Consequently one cannot escape the impression that certain elements are inciting these people. The whole idea is that their presence here must become legal. They want influx control to collapse in ruins. Even the Press is trying to compel us to remove this measure from the Statute Book. At this point I should like to appeal to the Press and the Official Opposition. I know that there is a considerable number of new members in that party. I prefer not to mention their names as they have not yet spoken in this House. In a certain area where there is also a serious housing shortage, I asked that we should not exploit the misery of those people for political gain. Only political vultures try to gain political support for themselves in that way. I made an appeal that we should consider rationally, and remove from the political arena, the whole question of the housing of Black people, the control of the influx into the cities, for we cannot solve that problem solely on the political level. Whether he be a Prog or a member of the NRP or whoever, if we do not have the co-operation of the private sector, if they do not assist us, we are not going to solve this problem. The only effect of speeches such as the one made here yesterday by the hon. member for Pinelands is to incite these people in their evil intent. Then there are the do-gooders, those people who are constantly taking them food parcels. Sir, we acted as fairly as we could in respect of these people. We provided them with food. The first group consisted of just over 50 people who came out of the bush at Hout Bay. We tried to provide them with work. We did so contrary to our better judgment, for in that way we stabbed in the back 20 000 Black labourers who are entitled to be here. However, humanitarian considerations compelled us to do so.

Sir, our credibility is being questioned. But I also want to refer to certain statements made by leaders of groups in the Opposition. That hon. lady who is sitting staring at me was one of those who, according to Die Burger of 26 March, said that in terms of their plan, the PFP could give no guarantee to the Whites. It states here—

What manner of Christianity is being displayed when the leader of that party, as well as their constitution, tell one that the White minorities will receive guarantees, and then that hon. member comes and says this will not be the case?

We have strange phenomena. I have before me a clipping from the Sunday Times of 8 January 1979, a report which was, therefore, also written after the plan of the hon. Leader of the Opposition had been announced. I think the writer of this report was confused as to his function at the Sunday Times. Originally he was the editor and dictator of policy for the PFP, and subsequently he confined himself to writing “The Passing Show”. I am of course referring to Mr. Joel Mervis. I think that when he wrote this article, “The Plain Man’s Guide to the PFP Plan”, he thought he was writing “The Passing Show”. I just want to quote a few passages, and I promise not to take them out of context. I quote—

Even before the convention has begun they have already thrown in the towel and said: “If you disagree with what we want to give Whites, we shall not do it.” It is stated here. I did not see this in the plan of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

It is a majority veto.

The article goes on to say—

Then the article goes on—

†I should think so—

*Sir, could one imagine a more ludicrous statement—coming as it does from a leading clown of the PFP—i.e. saying that this plan simply has to work? The only piece of sense in this whole article is this—

Do you see, Sir, we must first do that; then they want to take over. The only other meaningful passage in this whole article is the following—

Now the whole truth has emerged.

Let us go on to test their integrity and credibility by their statements. Just before the end of the recent short session the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs quoted here what a certain Mr. Dalling had to say about sport. It indicated that Mr. Dalling had advocated that our Springbok team ought not to go overseas. What was the reaction of the hon. member for Yeoville to this? In Die Volksblad of 19 March—not very long ago—one reads—

How is one to reconcile these two standpoints? One of the hon. members is a front-bencher and the other fancies himself to be one. I go on to read—

Here, then, we have two PFP frontbenchers, two high priests who advocate the leftist-liberal ideology, and, would you believe it, they are blowing hot and cold as regards this matter. I have already said that the hon. member for Houghton as well as the hon. member for Pinelands advocate that Mandela, too, must participate in the convention. Let me quote once again—

We have no doubt as to what he means. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, there are, I think, a few things the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation mentioned which cannot be allowed to go by unanswered. Firstly, I want to refer to the insinuations that were started by the hon. the Prime Minister and persued by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation. There is some kind of threat on their part to name the people who are alleged to be behind certain agitation. I challenge the hon. the Prime Minister to get up in the House and say who those people are. Let us hear it here. Otherwise we are confronted with a cloak of insinuations.

It might become necessary.

It is not a question of “might become necessary”. It is essential that it should be done. One cannot go around smearing the world and think that one can get away with it. If one has an allegation to make against anybody, one must be a man and stand up and make that allegation and allow the people concerned to face it.

Since when are you a man?

I do not know about the Prime Minister, but I can prove that I am a man! [Interjections.]

No wonder they call you “Flash” Harry. [Interjections.]

I cannot detect it in your voice, Harry. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, there is a second point which was raised by the hon. the Deputy Minister. He referred at some length to the whole question of the problems which are presently experienced in the Western Cape. My colleagues have dealt with it at considerable length, and others will still deal with it too. I should like, however, to put just one simple thing to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Humanity and understanding of the problems of other people, and understanding of people who are down and out and destitute is perhaps the true sense in which one understands civilization and human behaviour between man and man. I may not belong to the same religion as the hon. the Deputy Minister, but both of our religions teach us that we are judged by how we behave towards our fellow man, not towards our fellow man who is our senior, not our fellow man who is in authority over us, but our fellow man who is downtrodden and who should be uplifted by us. That is what I am taught, and I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister is taught the same.

We are also taught to obey law and order.

Whatever the law is, humanity is never out of place, and understanding and kindness and charity are also never out of place.

That is something they on the opposite side know nothing about.

There is no nation that has done more for other people than the one to which I belong.

I am not making any allegations against a nation.

You are slandering and maligning us.

We are talking about the Government; not about a nation.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. the Prime Minister is so sensitive all of a sudden. I made no mention of a nation. I was talking about what was in fact my religious …

We are sick and tired of being slandered by you.

No, who is slandering the hon. the Prime Minister? [Interjections.]

Order!

Who is slandering the hon. the Prime Minister? [Interjections.]

Boraine!

Order!

We are talking about important matters in this country. We are talking about our faith. We are talking about the faith of people sitting in this House.

You and Boraine are forever slandering us.

No, I am not slandering anybody, and the hon. member for Kuruman knows that. This is merely a distortion of the facts …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: There is a continuous barrage of interjections from the other side. Are you, Mr. Speaker, or are you not going to act against that barrage of interjections? [Interjections.]

I do not mind that. Brian, it does not matter. Do not worry. [Interjections.] I am quite happy. Mr. Speaker, you know what happens in this House? When one makes a point, it automatically happens that somebody twists it around and tries to allege that one is attacking Afrikanerdom. [Interjections.]

Order!

Anybody who says that is a liar! [Interjections.] He is a liar because it has never been said.

Order!

Such a thing has never been suggested. That issue has never arisen. It has never been implied. Who has implied it? [Interjections.]

Order!

All I said … [Interjections.]

Order!

All I said was that humanity was not out of place anywhere. It is not out of place in my religion. It is not out of place in the religion of the hon. the Deputy Minister. Is that correct? That is all I am saying. Both the hon. the Deputy Minister and I believe in the same things, and we should both practise them. Now hon. members opposite try to twist it around into another racist, “Boerehaat” kind of campaign. [Interjections.] It is my contention that the hon. the Prime Minister should be ashamed of himself, because the reality is that in this time, with the problems facing South Africa, that hon. Prime Minister should be uniting South Africa. He should be bringing people together instead of coming with this monstrous nonsense of bringing back old things which should remain buried in history.

I assure you that I shall act against saboteurs.

Now, who are the saboteurs?

All those who make it impossible to maintain order in this country. [Interjections.]

Order!

Just give me time, and if you are prepared to hear me out, Mr. Speaker, you will see how concerned we are about orderliness. [Interjections.]

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

No, sit down. I do not reply to your questions. Leave me alone. I shall have nothing to do with you. I shall get round to you later. [Interjections.]

†I now come to a third point. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation again found it necessary to quote to portray this party’s policy wrongly, because there are certain fundamentals in regard to this party’s policy which are clearly not negotiable under any circumstances and are not subject to any veto or any jokes of majority vetoes, as the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs has suggested. What is fundamental is that the minority rights of people of South Africa must be protected, and in any negotiation that is non-negotiable for us. It is not open to negotiation. [Interjections.] I shall quote articles just now.

I was quoting from this article of Joel Mervis.

Please do not talk nonsense. I can quote from a dozen articles about the NP which the hon. the Deputy Minister will repudiate in two minutes. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister want one example? I shall quote an example. We had an answer, and I was coming to it shortly, from the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs in which he said that he was going to employ Black hostesses. There sits the hon. member for Sunnyside, who wanted to ask me a question just now, and there sits his leader in the Transvaal. They do not agree with it. I can quote for hon. members’ articles from newspapers as to what their attitude is. [Interjections.]

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

No.

What is remarkable is that this debate has been hallmarked by what in fact has been a strange situation. There has been generality after generality and old policies have been announced, but the real issues of the day have only been raised by this side of the House, with very limited exceptions. I will say that the hon. the Minister of National Education did deal with his portfolio and the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism tried in part to deal with his. However, what is remarkable is that the most pressing issues of the day were left alone by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. He spent his time in this House with a mass of generalities, but he did not tell us about the Administration Boards and the problems that exist in regard to them. He also did not tell us about the 72-hour curfew experiment, nor about this wonderful thing that “Koornhof declares war on the pass laws” and that he was going to remove the pass system from South Africa. He never told us a word about it. However, what he did do was that he rushed off, after Parliament adjourned, he did not have the courage to stand up and face us here, and issued a statement to the newspapers about “Verdringing só uit te skakel”. He did not have the courage to come here and face the reality of talking about this “verdringing”. [Interjections.] I withdraw the words that “He did not have the courage”.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member use the words: “He did not have the courage.”

Order! No. The hon. member must withdraw it.

I have already done so and I shall now do so again.

†However, the hon. the Minister did not do it. Why did he not do it here in this House? Why does he go and issue two statements to Die Burger on matters which are of fundamental importance to this House and come and waste our time here with a bunch of generalities that we have heard 101 times from him before? Why did he do it?

Let me take the matter further. As regards this debate as such, the hon. the Prime Minister also spent most of his time on generalities. Most of his time he spoke about things that he has said 100 times before, which we have heard from him before. South Africa has had an election and we thought that we were now going to be told the blueprint for the future, how the future of South Africa was going to be secured, but when the hon. the Prime Minister sat down at the end of his speech, nobody was any the wiser. [Interjections.] I want to deal with a few specific matters that the hon. the Prime Minister touched on.

Tell us how you worked Lorimer out. [Interjections.]

You should be ashamed of yourself. [Interjections.]

Will you tell us how you got Connie Mulder out? Will you tell us how you dealt with President Vorster? You must tell us those things because they are far more important. [Interjections.]

You are the last man to refer to President Vorster. You dealt with him in a scandalous way.

I dealt with nobody in a scandalous way. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, if we are talking about experts in working people out, I take second place to the hon. the Prime Minister every time! [Interjections.]

Be careful I do not work you out too.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister has the power in South Africa to work me out. He is absolutely correct. He even has the power to lock me up. He has the power to throw me out. He has all those powers, Sir. [Interjections.] Let him use them; however, he will not keep me quiet whatever else he tries to do. I promise him that. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must show respect for this House and display a little more dignity. I ask them to remain calm.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with a few matters which were mentioned by the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech. I want to deal with them quietly and coolly and I hope to obtain some answers from the hon. the Prime Minister because he is also cooling down.

In the first instance, I want, through you, Mr. Speaker, to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that if he actually believes that he can solve the problems of relationships between the Coloured people and the Indian people on the one hand, and the Whites on the other by creating a structure which is not one Parliament but which is three Parliaments, then I believe he is wrong and that he is going to do the country tremendous harm. I say in all seriousness that I believe that he has been put on the wrong course by the wrong people, namely the people on his right. I say this to him in all seriousness because I think that this is a matter which he must very seriously consider.

The second matter that I wish to discuss with him is the question of decentralization. Sir, we favour the decentralization of industry. However, the question we have to ask ourselves today is: Is it not of paramount importance that we create jobs and that we deal with unemployment? Is it not of vital importance that jobs be created at the cheapest possible cost per job? If we are going to have ideological expenditure which is going to make the creation of jobs more expensive, then on the one hand we have to weigh the advantages of decentralization against on the other hand the disadvantages of unemployment.

I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that the threat and the spectre of unemployment is so serious in South Africa, bearing in mind the number of work-seekers that come on to the market daily, that in these circumstances the cost per job is fundamental in arriving at a decision. The hon. the Prime Minister made, I think, a very important statement when he said that the cost of decentralization had to be paid by someone. There is no doubt, Sir, that the costs of this sort of decentralization are going to be heavy. The hon. the Prime Minister said that these costs would have to be paid by the taxpayer directly or indirectly. I want to put this question to the hon. the Prime Minister: Does he have in mind that these costs will be paid by means of an increase in the general sales tax? If they are to be paid in this way, then I want to tell him now that we sitting in these benches are opposed to any increase in general sales tax for this purpose or for any other purpose. I want to make this clear.

Why?

Because it will in fact have an inflationary effect; it will make the lot of the lower income groups in South Africa even more difficult in an inflationary period such as we are experiencing at the moment. The argument could well be different at a time when we do not have this inflationary impact. However, under circumstances as they are at present, there can be no argument.

I also want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that one of the problems we have in South Africa which does this country tremendous harm is what I call the racist statements that are made from time to time. These are made by various people and I want to quote a number of them. I want to put it to the hon. the Prime Minister that he should be the first to repudiate these statements. His party should be the first to repudiate them and not leave it to the Opposition always to be the party to repudiate these racist statements. Let me give a few examples to demonstrate and to show quite clearly how I see this situation and what the Government should be doing. There was, for example, a statement made in regard to why the liquor laws were being eased. The following was said—

I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development whether they would have said a thing like that. I now specifically ask the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development whether he would have said a thing like that.

I am so annoyed with you because of what you did just now that I do not want to answer you at all. [Interjections.]

It is a most remarkable thing that an hon. Minister is now allowing his personal animosities to affect the execution of his job.

I say that anybody who says this should be repudiated, because if it was said of any other people that they were now becoming more sophisticated and more acceptable and therefore there could now be a relaxation of the liquor laws, the people who would be affected would be the first to object to it. That person was the former Minister of Community Development, the present ambassador to London, Mr. Marais Steyn. I must point out that by that statement he has done more harm to South Africa than any other 10 people could have done during the same period.

There are other people who make similar statements. Let us take for example what I think is a laudable effort and that is the electrification of the Black townships of South Africa. It is a laudable effort, but it was spoilt because that effort caused somebody to say that if those townships were to have electric light, there would be less Black births. It is about the worst thing that anybody could possibly say. I say that somebody on the side of the NP should have repudiated that statement, but it never happened. The person who said that, was a NP candidate and he stood against the leader of the NRP. Yet, there is dead silence from the NP benches.

Let me go one further. I wonder, Sir, what you would say if you were part of a people and in the same country there were other people who said that they have to do the thinking for you. I want to read what somebody else has said—

That must be Hennie Smit.

Sir, would you say a thing like that? I may just as well direct this question to the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, because he, in fact, said it. [Interjections.]

Yes, I said it and shall say it again.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs that to say to people in South Africa that another group has to do the thinking for them because they have all the brains, is something which I think does a tremendous amount of harm. [Interjections.] We already have a Mr. Flinkdink and now we have Mr. Alleendink too. [Interjections.] This gentleman uses a very picturesque language. Let me give another one of his quotations—

He said that too, did he not?

Yes.

Then he added—

[Interjections.]

Order!

Then there is the hon. member for Sunnyside and his reaction to Black stewardesses. He goes into print with his right-wing views against the Government. He in fact challenges the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. Where are we going with all of this, Sir?

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

No. I do not have time to reply to questions. Sir, I want to refer to this one thing. A certain gentleman who was Consul-General in Chicago could not take this any more and so wrote a letter because he saw what the situation was in regard to, for instance, a magistrate in the western Cape area who uttered certain words, and I have not heard the hon. the Minister repudiate or condemn them. This gentleman from Chicago wrote the following—

The tragedy is that the racist statements that are made are not condemned or dealt with by the Government, and that is why, when the Opposition condemns it, hon. members opposite become “fyngevoelig” and get worked up about it. The truth is, Sir, that it is the duty of the Government to repudiate such racist statements for the country’s sake.

Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. member for Yeoville I have come to the conclusion that the Opposition’s attack here in the Parliament has fallen flat. A motion of censure of the Government is at present under discussion but so far not a single word has been said about the economy or the financial policy of the Government.

Have you not heard that we will have a budget next week?

Today we have heard the Opposition’s chief spokesman on finance uttering all manner of inanities, but he did not say a single word about finance. In my opinion the Opposition has, in their motion of censure, failed utterly to criticize the Government. I think that party is so divided, they are guilty of so much double-talk, and they are so out of touch with the realities in South Africa, that they no longer have the courage to attack the Government constructively.

The hon. member referred to the Government and racism. I should like to make this point in this House today: The real racists in this House are those people in that Opposition party, the Progs. They cannot make a speech or criticize the Government without dragging in the issue of racism. In every statement made by the Government they try to see something racistic. The reason for this is that that party does not have a policy based on good, sound, fundamental principles. Wherever there is a heterogeneous population, in Africa or elsewhere in the world, the Governments concerned find themselves in a dilemma, and no one can deny this or escape from it. The point of departure of the NP, of this Government, is that our policy rests on an ethnic basis. This is the only sound basis on which one can solve the problems of a heterogeneous population. When members on the Government side, on the side of the NP, advocate these principles—the ethnic concept, the retention of the identity of each nation—it is said that we are being racistic. The preservation of a nation’s identity is, however, its inalienable, indisputable and God-given birthright.

And then the hon. member for Yeoville becomes angry when I call him an ape.

Order! Did the hon. the Minister say the hon. member was an ape?

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that.

Sir, I would rather be an ape than be him.

Order!

I want to go further. The right to preserve their sovereignty and their right to self-determination is also the God-given birthright of every nation. If one listens in this House to the fundamental standpoints of that side, one gains the impression that they have long abandoned all claims of the White population of this country, all claims to the preservation of its self-determination, its identity and its sovereignty. The colour policy of that party amounts solely to deciding on the size of the payments they wish to make from South Africa’s estate which they wish to sell out. [Interjections.] That is what the entire standpoint of the Opposition amounts to and they cannot get away from it.

As I have already said, we are faced with a delicate population structure, with a heterogeneous population. Under the leadership of our hon. Prime Minister the Government has made an honest and serious attempt to initiate dialogue, to reach consensus, to try to bring about an orderly dispensation in South Africa in which everyone can live together in peace, prosperity and safety.

That is not what you said in Greytown.

That is why the President’s Council was established, i.e. as a forum for discussion. Nevertheless the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has seen fit to introduce a motion of censure. He has said that he will make his contribution and will co-operate. He has said that he and his party will contribute their share here in South Africa. However when they had an opportunity to do so, when the forum and the opportunity for discussion was created, a place where consensus could be reached, he refused to participate. That party then refused to make its contribution. They refused to participate in a process of seeking peaceful solutions in South Africa. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition allowed an historic opportunity to pass when he and his party refused to participate in the President’s Council. I should like to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition once again that I believe that history will pass a cruel judgment on him and his party because they did not make their contribution, because “the man who refuses to participate is the man who murders his nation”.

I should now like to refer to another matter, a matter which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition brought up in his much vaunted speech in Germany. As the hon. the Prime Minister has already said, the speech is marked: “Not for quotation or publication”.

And it was distributed to all the newspapers.

It is strange to me that it is said that a speech is not for publication but that it is nevertheless distributed to the newspapers. [Interjections.] I think that that hon. member, or perhaps some other hon. member, probably had something to do with the distribution of that speech. [Interjections.] In that speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made what I consider to be an extremely serious allegation and accusation; something for which, in my opinion, he owes us an explanation and an apology. He referred to the Public Service and said—

The hon. leader is alleging here that the Public Service which has been built up over the last 33 years is a stumbling block to change in South Africa. In other words, the Leader of the Opposition is laying a serious charge against the Public Service in this country. By implication he is alleging that the officials will sabotage any attempts at change and adjustment in South Africa, because he says they are a stumbling block to change. I think it is absolutely unfair to say this about our Public Service. We have a Public Service with a good, irreproachable and loyal record, but here the hon. member has alleged that the Public Service is in fact a stumbling block to any significant change in South Africa. He says this behind their backs. I think the hon. member must stand up here in Parliament and tell us if this is still his view on the Public Service in South Africa. Personally I think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition owes our Public Service, which has given so many years of good service to South Africa, an apology.

Today I want to make a further allegation. The hon. Opposition comes here and criticizes the Government and makes all manner of allegations about what the Government policy is actually supposed to mean. They claim that theirs is the only policy which is morally defensible. They are actually suggesting that they have a monopoly of morality. The policy of the Government is based on three fundamental principles. The first of these is that we are striving for freedom for all the nations of South Africa, and not only are we striving for this, we are also implementing that policy in practice. If one examines the record of the Government it is a government which has given millions of people in South Africa their freedom and independence without a single shot having been fired. The Government is endeavouring to bring prosperity to all population groups in South Africa. We are endeavouring to give everyone in South Africa a place in the sun and to ensure that everyone in this country, leads a good life. We do not have a policy which amounts to us wishing to deny the other colour groups in this country the good things in South Africa. What is more, we advocate a policy of order in South Africa, because there cannot be prosperity, confidence, economic growth or development in a country if there is no confidence in the government of that country. Now the Opposition alleges that they have a monopoly of morality, of a policy which is defensible here in South Africa. We listened here to the hon. member for Pinelands and to various other hon. members of the Opposition who criticized influx control. They criticized the actions of the Government, for removing persons who had moved illegally into certain areas. Whose interests are that hon. member, that party, serving if they wish to allow a free influx of people to the urban complexes in South Africa? I shall tell the hon. members what will happen. Do the hon. members know who would suffer? It is the Black people living in the urban complexes who would suffer if all influx control and all control over the movement of people in this country were to be abolished. As regards the standpoint that people can flock to our cities freely and that squatting may ostensibly be freely allowed, I sometimes wonder whether the motive of the planners behind that standpoint might not perhaps be to obtain cheaper labour in our metropolitan areas in this way.

That is the question.

Is it in the interests of the Black people living in our cities for us to allow an uncontrolled influx of people to those urban complexes?

A bunch of “fat cats”.

Even in certain African states there are measures to try to control and prevent the influx of persons to the cities.

It is not a question of “fat cats” but of “fat rats”.

As soon as we want to do this in South Africa, however, for the sake of good order and of the welfare of the people who are already there …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Prime Minister allowed to refer to members on this side of the House as “fat rats”?

Mr. Speaker, I said it was not a question of “fat cats” but a question of “fat rats”. If the hon. member wants to take this remark personally he may do so.

Sir, I did not say the hon. the Prime Minister referred to me, but that he referred to members on this side of the House.

Are you not a member on that side?

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I put to you the context in which the hon. the Prime Minister used those words? What happened was that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs interjected by saying “fat cats”, referring to the hon. members here.

How do you know that?

Oh yes, he was. The hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries was then referring to the hon. members on this side of the House. Then the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs interjected and said “fat cats”. I think he should be the first one to be asked whom he was referring to.

Let us weigh one another. [Interjections.]

Then the hon. the Prime Minister said “fat rats”. Sir, I ask you to rule that the hon. the Prime Minister was referring to hon. members here and then to ask him to withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this matter? I am sorry to interrupt my hon. colleague in his speech. The hon. Minister said he wondered whether the people behind the incitement, who lure unemployed people to the cities, are not doing so with the idea of obtaining cheaper labour. Whereupon the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs said “fat cats”. Then I said it was not a question of “fat cats”, but of “fat rats”.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs not only used those words, but in fact pointed at the hon. members on this side of the House. [Interjections.] Let us get at the facts. Then, when the hon. the Prime Minister heard and saw that, he made his interjection. There ought therefore to be no doubt at all about what the hon. the Prime Minister was trying to do or say. For him now to try to escape from that is, with great respect, not correct.

Order! I have given my ruling and that is that the hon. the Minister may proceed.

“Fat rats” is therefore now acceptable.

Is it your ruling, Sir, that “fat rats” is parliamentary? Is “dirty rats” also parliamentary?

Order! There has definitely been no suggestion that hon. members of the House are “fat rats”. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I am merely asking: What is the motive of the persons advocating the free movement and influx of Black people into the metropolitan area? What is the motive behind this viewpoint? Surely it cannot be in the interests of the people living there.

That is what you think!

Nor can it be in the interests of the people flocking to those areas. I should like to reiterate that it is my honest opinion that the motive behind this is to obtain abundant cheap labour in the metropolitan areas.

Since we are talking about “fat cats” …

“Dirty rats”.

The hon. member must not put words into my mouth. In the Rand Daily Mail of 21 July this year I came across a very interesting letter. I shall quote from it—

It is the letter-writer who says this—

[Interjections.] For the sake of clarity I shall repeat this, Mr. Speaker. This is what the letter-writer says—

The letter-writer goes on. I shall return to the question of who these “fat cats” could possibly be in a moment. The letter-writer goes on to say—

The letter-writer says they gave these seats to “fat cats”, people who have never fought an election. If we consider the safe Johannesburg seats now, I really do not know what to think. I see here the name of Maj. R. Sive.

Stand up!

[Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

What is eating you, Harry?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I understand that it is a long-standing parliamentary practice that the names of hon. members who have not yet made their maiden speeches are not mentioned, because they cannot interject or reply. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is aware of it. I believe he is because the same rule applied in the provincial council where we both sat for many years. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you would draw the hon. Minister’s attention to that rule. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I mentioned the hon. member by name. I apologize. He need not stand up therefore. [Interjections.] Another name which we encounter here is that of the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He did not get a safe seat. The letter-writer is referring here to those members who had never fought an election.

Are you referring to the ex-Broeder?

Yes. [Interjections.] Then I also see here the name of the hon. member for Parktown. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. the Minister tell us what the majority in Parktown was? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I understand it was a fat majority. [Interjections.]

Order! I should like to point out to the hon. member for Parktown that when he rises to address the Chair he must make it clear whether he wishes to raise a point of order or ask a question. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the hon. member for not knowing the difference between a question and a point of order. [Interjections.] But the question is: Who are the “fat cats” who got the Johannesburg seats? I should rather leave it at that now.

I should like to raise another serious point here this afternoon.

High time, too.

Paragraph (e) of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s motion reads—

Now I should like to talk about hesitant leadership and at the same time I should like to bring in the question of credibility. On 22 April, before the election therefore, an advertisement signed by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was published under banner headlines. In it he stated—

What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said there was not true. It was untrue. Then he went on to say—

Let us examine the circumstances. I do not mind if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to take over my job but he must at least consult me beforehand. He must first ensure that his facts are correct. On 22 April, a few days before the election, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition advertised in a newspaper, in public therefore, as a fact, that the price of mealies was going to rise by 20%. He also said that the price of meat had risen by 52% in three weeks. Then, a day or so later, when the mealie price was in fact announced, the increase was 9,5%. This was still before the election. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was guilty of seriously misleading the public of South Africa. His credibility is therefore in question here. I call his credibility in question because he said a few days before the election that the price of mealies would rise by 20%. He also told the public, as a fact, and under his signature that the price of certain types of meat had risen by 52% in three weeks. This is also misleading the voting public of South Africa. Therefore the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is in question.

How much has the price of bread gone up?

The hon. member must leave bread out of this.

Why?

The hon. member can use the bread price in any way he wishes, but I wish to repeat that I feel that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition owes South Africa an apology because he misled the voting public a few days before the election. The Opposition must not call my credibility as Minister in question now. Everyone can believe what the hon. the Prime Minister says. In any case he does not mislead the public a few days before the election in a newspaper advertisement. I think this is an extremely serious charge against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I think he must reconsider his position. I think he owes South Africa an apology and instead of introducing a motion here concerning the so-called hesitant leadership of the Prime Minister, that party must look closely at the type of leadership it has. I gain the impression that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is under great pressure. I gain the impression that there are two poles in that party: The one to the left and the other near the hon. member for Yeoville. Those two poles are placing the hon. leader under great pressure. [Interjections.]

I wish to conclude by saying that I hope that, at a later stage in this debate, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will clear up for us the credibility crisis in which he has placed himself.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I want to point out that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries covered a very wide field, but it would have been interesting if he could have told the population of South Africa and the voters today that due to the surpluses of the crops that he has in mind, the prices of certain commodities were about to be decreased. It is actually a pity that the hon. the Minister did not avail himself of this opportunity to give us this good news too. However, this is the type of thing that happens in politics, particularly in the type of debate that we are conducting this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member, as a representative from Natal, whether in view of the large sugar surplus, we should decrease the price of sugar.

The hon. the Minister has raised a very interesting factor. Of course, a special fund has been set up with a view to good and bad years. If matters were to develop in such a way that we should have a surplus on a regular basis, I am sure that the sugar industry would consider something of this kind.

In the meantime, I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries that it is in fact in his power to make policy changes from time to time—I am saying this with the former Minister of Agriculture in mind—so that when there is a surplus, there is no price increase. Let us leave this aspect at that for the moment.

I think the hon. the Minister raised another very interesting matter here when he referred to the influx of Blacks to the urban areas. We are being faced with a very serious situation. The most recent estimates indicate that in the year 2000, 70% of the Black population of South Africa will reside outside the homelands. Based on the figures that we have in front of us, this means that approximately 25 million people will be living in the non-homelands.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that it is being envisaged that a decentralization of industry will take place and, of course, in addition to that, that agricultural industries will be launched and factories will be constructed outside the traditional central production areas. The question that we must in fact ask, is what costs will be incurred by the South African Exchequer in the process of building up such an infrastructure on a decentralized basis.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether, in spite of the cost involved, something of this nature would not be extremely beneficial for the country?

Of course it would. The hon. the Prime Minister is quite correct in saying that. One must create employment opportunities, but when one tries to channel the stream back to its source at a certain cost, the ultimate cost of infrastructure for the country will be higher than it would have been if one could have provided those people with employment where they were.

I now want to mention the case of territories like KwaZulu in Natal where it is impossible to establish an industry that can compete on the open market with its products. Therefore, we had to persuade various bodies to spend money on that type of production on a decentralized basis. Thus far it appears to be impossible to persuade the private sector to spend money there, for the very reason that the costs are so high. However, it is interesting to note that this question of the flow of people from the rural areas to the cities is a common occurrence throughout the world, and one wonders what the cost involved in decentralization is going to be. That deals with the questions which the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries raised.

I should like to put the following question to the hon. the Minister and to hon. members on that side of the House: Did the outcome of the 1981 election promote or retard political development in South Africa? In the present climate, this is the crucial question in any analysis of the election. Besides that, one must also ask whether the mandate that was granted to the hon. the Prime Minister by the voters, brought about a considerable improvement in the likelihood of a generally acceptable settlement.

Yes.

It is interesting that the hon. the Minister of Police says “yes”. However, we must also take note of the consequences of the election, some of which have brought new phenomena in South African politics to the fore. Here I am referring in particular to a very interesting phenomenon, viz. the radicalization of the White voter. At the moment, he is more radical than he has ever been before in South African political history.

In what respect?

I am coming to that. Let us draw a comparison between the situation before and after the election. At the moment we find a stronger, better articulated right and left wing amongst the White voters of South Africa. This is a new phenomenon in the politics of South Africa. These radical wings and their allies, including certain elements of the media, are flourishing on the Government’s uncertain actions and uncertain policies, and I contend that this new development is going to be yet another great burden upon South Africa. These wings are now in a position to promote emotional exploitation on a larger, more successful scale, whilst the process of radicalization affects other population groups too. In this respect I feel we must ask ourselves whether the consequences of the election promote or retard this process.

We have listened very carefully to the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech as well as to those of the other hon. members on the opposite side, and what struck one particularly, is that the hon. the Prime Minister has fallen back on a political model almost like the one of 1979. We in these benches consider this a substantial example of the pressure that the radical wings are already exerting upon the thought processes of the Government. The hon. the Prime Minister’s proposed vertical structure for Indians, Coloureds and Whites, regardless of the merits of the case, is now in danger of being grasped and discredited by the radical wings, i.e. the left and right wings amongst the Whites, for the very reason that the hon. the Prime Minister is attempting to prescribe to the President’s Council. The radical elements are going to make every possible attempt to discredit the Whites, Indians and Coloureds on the President’s Council. Therefore, I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister and other Cabinet members that anticipating the President’s Council will undoubtedly cause the seed of discredit to fall on very fertile ground. We believe that a political structure prescribed by Whites, which eliminates consultation with the elected leaders of the other population groups, will not succeed. And I am not referring to the elected leaders of the Whites, Coloureds and Indians only, but also to the elected leaders of those Black people who do not live in the homelands of South Africa. We wonder whether it will be possible under the prevailing circumstances in South Africa to reach a settlement that is accepted by the elected leaders of the Coloureds and the Indians without involving the urban Black leaders. To complicate the matter further, there is the question of international acceptance, particularly by the well disposed Western powers. I believe this is extremely important. The radical wings of all population groups in South Africa, left and right, and the opinion of the elected leaders is going to be a very important factor in that process, and whether the Western countries that are favourably disposed towards us will in fact grant their support to any settlement in South Africa will depend on this. Without that approval we will have a long and difficult road ahead of us. I say this particularly when one thinks of the recent history of Africa, of Southern Africa, the history of Rhodesia—now Zimbabwe—which is still fresh in our memories. It may in fact be said—and it is often said—that circumstances in South Africa differ considerably from those that prevailed in the former Rhodesia and one must, in fact, say that this is the case to a certain extent. However, there are also similarities that cannot easily be denied, particularly if one sees what remains after the process of change—that the equilibrium of control can easily shift from positive initiatives by the controlling group to a reactive strategy by the authorities, which will simply lead to a constitutional deadlock as we saw in Rhodesia and Zimbabwe. That equilibrium is taken out of the hands of the authorities. If one looks at the rest of Africa, where these shifts of equilibrium have taken place, we see all the tremendous economic and social consequences that emanate from such a shift in equilibrium. Therefore, it is extremely important that one should pose the question: What has this election contributed towards political progress in South Africa? Has it been to our detriment or to our benefit? The hon. the Minister of Police replied to this question in the affirmative, i.e. that it was beneficial and we are looking forward to his speech in this debate.

There are tremendous benefits.

Mr. Speaker, analysing Government speeches in this debate proves all too clearly that the Government’s room for political manoeuvring has already dwindled. We believe that this is largely due to the fact that the Government is not prepared to distantiate itself from the lightest radical mode of thought. This is a fact. If one goes back to the 1977 model, that vertical structure, to bring about a “special deal” for Indians and Coloureds, then we know that there has been very little progress in the Government’s direction of thought in this respect. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. members opposite that the price of a failed new political dispensation in South Africa will be much higher than the price of dissociating themselves from the radical points of reference in South Africa.

The recent election has in fact proved that the ranks of moderate voters are still greater at this moment than those of the radicals and of the leftist and rightist wings, regardless of the fact that some parties have in fact increased their representation in this House.

It is not a question of numbers; the number of representatives in the political building process does not count, but what does count is the acceptability of a party’s political policy to the majority of Whites, Blacks, Indians and Coloureds in South Africa. The number of representatives has nothing to do with that acceptability.

†This brings me now to ask where the PFP finds itself today. We believe that it has painted itself right out of the process of constitution-making at first-tier government level. They are no longer part of the constitution-building programme in South Africa. Why do I say this? I say this because the official Opposition has consistently refused to participate in the President’s Council. Furthermore, it refused to put its policy clearly to the electorate in the general election. Thirdly it has refused to debate its policies in this House. The PFP now finds itself in the position of being forced to abandon its role in first-tier government constitution-building. The PFP has decided to hijack the system at municipal and regional level because it has found itself in the impossible position of not being able to make any significant or positive contribution to constitutional change at the national level. It has embarked, we believe, on a strategy of hoodwinking the public with emotionally charged rhetoric, without at any instant offering a single workable or acceptable alternative. [Interjections.] I should like to draw attention to what I said about the radical and leftist forces and certain aspects of the media and the emotionally charged rhetoric they tend to unleash on the public. The present hon. member for Berea, the erstwhile hon. member for Musgrave, has in fact given us an insight into the strategy of the PFP. He did so in the debate of 6 February 1980. When I first read the present hon. member for Berea’s speech, in which he spoke about turning Natal into an experimental area, I wondered what he had in mind. I should just like to quote one or two examples of what he said, because the game is now far clearer than it was then. The then hon. member for Musgrave said (Hansard, 6 February 1980, column 291)—

Speaking of apartheid, he goes on to say—

Further on he says that his party—

with the other race groups in South Africa. He said that in a debate in which he asked this House to consider declaring Natal an open area as an experiment. In the light of their refusal to participate in constitution-building at first-tier government level, one wondered what they had in mind. It is now very clear to us indeed what they had in mind. I should therefore like to ask the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Sea Point whether they would tell the House today, or during the course of this debate, whether they agree to a settlement, on a regional basis in South Africa, which will isolate that region from the rest of South Africa when it comes to constitution-making. Are they prepared to endorse a settlement which will not be part of the constitutional settlement that affects the whole of South Africa? I understand that the PFP have their eye on Natal. We have seen them being rejected there quite conclusively at provincial council level.

Six to seven?

The hon. member did not listen to what I said. I said that they were rejected significantly at provincial council level. Only because their party members were born out of printing presses were they able to bring back six seats. [Interjections.] There was no conviction about, or support for, their policy, because nobody really knew what their policy was. I want to tell hon. members on my right, the PFP, that an open society is not a just society for South Africa.

I prefer your old leader, really.

The open mouth of the hon. member for Bryanston is not a very pretty sight either. I want to tell the hon. members of the PFP that as long as they have opted out of constitution-making at first-tier government level, there will be no credibility for them at second and third-tier government levels. I want to repeat my request to the hon. members for Berea and Sea Point to tell us in this debate whether they are prepared to accept a regional constitutional settlement in South Africa which means the isolation of such an area from constitution-making for the rest of South Africa.

As far as the PFP is concerned, I should also like to say that because of the fact that they are not prepared to accept or accommodate the pluralism of South African society, they are going to find themselves becoming irrelevant very rapidly. [Interjections.] That party is committed to a geographic federation. Hon. members on that side of the House went hammer and tongs at the PFP yesterday, but I believe they miscalculated by accusing the official Opposition of standing for a unitary system. They do not stand for a unitary system. They do not stand for “one man, one vote” in a unitary system. They stand for “one man, one vote” in a geographic federation. In each of those geographic States, as my hon. colleague from Amanzimtoti indicated yesterday, there will be “one man, one vote” on a common voters’ roll.

Is your party also not giving everybody the vote?

I shall come back to our policy in a moment. [Interjections.] As I have said, that party stands for “one man, one vote” on a common voter’s roll in a geographic federation of South Africa, and the majority party …

You will have to do a lot better if you want to be the leader.

… will rule in that particular State although there will be proportional representation at the federal parliamentary level. I want to ask the hon. members for Bryanston and Yeoville, who are so talkative this afternoon, whether they will tell the House where they are going to draw the boundaries of the States and how many of those States will have a White majority.

Not a single one.

Not a single one Sir. I should like to hear from these hon. members where those boundaries will be drawn. [Interjections.] I also want to know from the hon. members of the PFP …

Order!

[Inaudible.]

Order!

… what they are going to do about imposing a constitution which, in their own words, must be democratic throughout South Africa. I want to know what they are going to do with those areas of South Africa which have a totally different value system to other areas. I want to ask the hon. member for Bryanston, because he is not a city slicker; he knows a lot about the rural areas of South Africa …

I have always misunderstood you.

… to tell the House, preferably during this debate, or to get one of his colleagues to tell us because he has spoken already, whether he will insist that the land tenure system of an area such as KwaZulu should be changed overnight by constitutional means in order to allow freehold title in the whole of that homeland area. I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville, who is the spokesman on economic matters for the PFP, whether he insists that when they apply PFP policies to the homeland areas of South Africa, there should be freehold title over all those areas …

It is our policy that they can choose.

If one wishes to standardize and wishes to make things equal for everybody, then you must have equal with equal. One cannot have qualifications and reservations so that in the end one ends up accommodating pluralism while in fact one rejects pluralism.

You are going to lose our support against Vause if you carry on like that.

The hon. member for Bryanston has an awful lot to say, but we get absolutely no answers from him.

[Inaudible.]

These are the tactics: emotive rhetoric from the radicals of South Africa. I want to say to them—and I say this quite openly here—that, were it not for certain elements of the media in South Africa, they probably would not be sitting there. They got their full co-operation. That party was born out of a printing-press rather than through some constitutional formula.

In the few minutes available to me I should like to tell hon. members the reasons why we have moved an amendment to the motion of censure. We stand very clearly for—and my hon. leader has called for this—an alliance of White moderates to negotiate a new dispensation with other groups in South Africa.

Give us the definition of a “moderate”.

It excludes the PFP.

Yes, it certainly excludes many members of the PFP.

Define a “Moderate”.

In our party we allow the people to define themselves, also through group acceptance. I can see where the hon. member for Yeoville has been accepted. He has obviously defined himself very well in that respect. [Interjections.] We in the NRP believe that to achieve success internationally and locally within this country it is imperative that we should have an alliance of White moderates to negotiate a new dispensation with all other groups and that that negotiated settlement should eliminate domination by, or discrimination against, any community. It should ensure the right of any group to preserve its own character and to control its own intimate affairs. There must be a joint decision on common interests in a confederation of South Africa.

I want to say to the people of Natal, where the majority of voters supported us, that this party fully subscribes to those principles. We will not change them, irrespective of their popularity or unpopularity in certain quarters, because this is the essence of constitutional reform in a plural society. We have only to look at the history of Africa north of the Limpopo to see that “one man, one vote” leads to a one-party State. The very destruction of a particular cultural fabric by forced integration is a greater injustice and, in my opinion, more un Christian than many of the so-called atrocities perpetrated in other countries. To destroy a man’s culture is to make him a stateless and wandering soul. If one want’s to do that, one must tell him what one is going to put in its place. If one is not prepared to say what one is going to substitute for what he has at the moment, then one in fact has no credibility in the process of constitutional design in South Africa. We in this party are and will remain in favour of co-operation with moderates of all the race groups throughout South Africa to find a new constitutional deal. While we admit it will not guarantee the pigment of a man’s skin, it will guarantee the survival of the democratic system and private enterprise in parallel with a traditional political system and a communal economic system, which in fact is preferred by more than two-thirds of the total South African population. That is our guarantee and our commitment. We cannot ensure the survival of skin pigment. That is not important. The important thing is to ensure the survival of democracy and private free enterprise on the southern tip of Africa, and not at the expense of raping another man’s culture or his economic system, because that is a violation of the very first principle of the dignity of man and woman on this earth.

Mr. Speaker, I found the speech of the hon. member for Durban Point exceptionally interesting and I think that judging by the occasions I have listened to him from the public gallery, he has always made a valuable contribution in this House. I think that he has again made a valuable contribution today. But I must say that certain points he made in his speech were rather difficult to understand. He attacked the hon. members of the PFP for not wanting to accept the plurality of the South African population structure. The hon. member for Durban Point is, therefore, speaking on behalf of his party and implying that they do accept the plurality of our South African population structure.

That is the basis of our policy.

Very well then, if that is the basis of the NRP’s policy, the first question to which they must reply is the following: Surely they must in that case be prepared to support hon. members on this side of the House in the NP’s policy of granting each population group in South Africa, in the first place, its own self-determination, the highest form of administration, the highest form of self-government. As the successors of the old United Party, as they call themselves, surely they must also be prepared for the same to be granted to those Black States to whom the promise was made that they could obtain independence if they were to ask for it. Consequently they must surely also be prepared to support the fundamental approach of the NP. To me it is obvious that one cannot expect the NP to have to do the fundamental things in South Africa and then, in addition, to express itself in favour of a confederation, in which every individual can obtain his right of self-determination and the highest form of administrative participation, without its being possible to infer that hon. members of the NRP have to support the NP’s fundamental approach before being able to implement their own policy—if they were ever to come into power. This is the only approach in the hon. member’s speech which I cannot follow. He still wants to oppose the National Party. Why? Now they say that they want an “alliance of moderates” in South Africa.

†That is exactly what the hon. the Prime Minister said during the general election. He said that he was prepared to bring the moderates in South Africa together.

*He also wanted the sensible people to be together.

In that case what are you doing there, Myburgh?

He is numbered among the sensible people. [Interjections.]

Consequently, since the hon. the Prime Minister has now invited everyone in South Africa—the sensible, the reasonable and the fair—to try to achieve that consensus, why are the hon. member for Durban North and his party colleagues not prepared to go along with that as well? The hon. member for Durban Point, who is the leader of that party, must realize one thing. Just as I was faced with that choice, to decide whether I wish to recognize the right of self-determination of the various population groups in South Africa and whether, as a fair and reasonable person, I wanted to assist in solving the colour issues in South Africa—however difficult it may be to take that decision—the hon. member for Durban Point and hon. members of his party will have to take the same decision. If not, they will disappear. Allow me to add that I am not a man who apologizes easily for what I have done, nor for what I have thought I had to do in my life. However, for one thing I shall never apologize in my life, and that is for joining the NP. [Interjections.] I shall never apologize for that because I believe that the NP affords South Africa as a whole the opportunity to co-operate.

Do you see how I am uniting the country, Harry?

[Inaudible.]

There is so much talk about consensus. In 1977, when he was not yet Prime Minister, the party of the hon. the Prime Minister had already obtained a mandate to implement its constitutional plan.

It is impossible to implement.

In terms of that plan a President’s Council would be at the very top. But what did the hon. the Prime Minister do? He accepted the recommendation that a President’s Council be established as a first step and invited all groups in South Africa, all political parties concerned with the Coloureds, the Asians and the Whites, to participate in that body. Who has tried to seek consensus more assiduously than the present the hon. Prime Minister in this respect?

I want to compliment the hon. the Prime Minister today by saying that I think there has seldom if ever in the history of South Africa been a political leader who realizes so fully the gravity of the situation and who has extended invitations of this nature, even to the hon. member for Yeoville. He too—all of them were invited to participate in this and they refused their participation.

It is these people who come here today and speak of hesitant leadership. It is these people who are saying there is a lack of statesmanship in South Africa—that party interests are accorded a higher priority than national interests. It is these people opposite who say there is a lack of Christian principles. It is they who say there is a lack of respect for the realities in South Africa. However, the man who took these positive steps and the man who initiated this and took the lead is the present hon. Prime Minister. Unless hon. members on that side of the House recognize these truths, South Africa and history are going to pass them by. That is my greatest problem with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The NP—it is unnecessary to say this; it has already been said in this regard—has been in power for more than three decades. A very clear pattern has been followed by the White South African electorate during these three decades. The electorate has said that every population group has a right to exist in this country. Every population group ought to exercise its own self-determination. Since 1959, when the late Dr. Verwoerd announced in this Parliament his idea of separate political structures in South Africa, this philosophy has been given further effect to.

In that case, when did you change?

An hon. member opposite is asking when I changed, but the whole of the United Party changed at that time. It was changed in 1972. It was changed in 1973. Mr. Mike Mitchell was the chairman of a constitutional committee. I have just mentioned to the hon. member that it was decided at the time that the promise of separate independent states for those who wanted them would be implemented. Now hon. members are asking me why I changed. From that day on, increasing moral content has been afforded the policy of separate freedoms and separate political structures in South Africa. But the official Opposition maintains that the policy being followed in South Africa is one of White domination.

Quite right.

Just listen to that.

Now for the first time you are correct.

Since Venda, Bophuthatswana and Transkei already have independence, and Ciskei will have one of these days, it is absolute nonsense to describe it as a policy of political or white domination. Their attitude is simply to embarrass South Africa in the eyes of the outside world. It does nothing but instil doubt in the mind of the Black man, among people of colour, as to the credibility and the bona fides and good intentions of the Whites in South Africa. That is what hon. members on the opposite side of this House are engaged in doing. When they call the policy of separate freedoms, self-determination, constellation or confederation—call it what you will—White domination, then I say they are sabotaging South Africa’s good name in the outside world and making the position of the Whites in South Africa increasingly difficult.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is a nice fellow—everyone knows that—and who was undoubtedly a sound lecturer in his day, an interesting lecturer, must follow this advice of mine. Unless he displays sufficient political insight to accept the truth that one must accept the inevitable; one must accept that a policy of decentralization of power and authority in South Africa to the various population groups is inevitable, the modicum of success of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition among the voters will be of a temporary nature. That he can say that there is hesitant leadership on this side of the House and that there is strong leadership on that side of the House is a negation of what is really happening in South Africa. Nobody wants to destroy the Opposition in South Africa, but after all, they too have a duty and a responsibility, and that is that they must accept the diversity of our South African population. It will be to no avail for them to pay lip service to the concept that we are a plural country. They want to create the impression that they are the only people who are advocating the politics of negotiation in South Africa. But, Sir, surely the politics of negotiation in South Africa has been going on for a long time. The creation of the President’s Council is a very good example of the politics of negotiation which is taking place all the time. However, because those hon. members are unable to create a good impression among the voters, what do we find? We find them resorting to histrionic language here, as the hon. member for Pinelands did yesterday. They want to create the impression that what is being done here is a sin before the eyes of God. The hon. member for Pinelands told us last night that he was going to introduce legislation to eliminate all forms of discrimination. However, I recall very clearly that it was that very hon. member who once wrote a letter to the Pinelands Town Council to ask them to close certain gates and fences. The Bantu may not walk through the white areas of Pinelands. [Interjections.] This is the same hon. member who does not utter a word when decent housing for the Coloured labourers on the Constantia Estate is proposed. In that case that party objects, but the hon. member for Pinelands did not say a word. I want to tell the hon. member for Parktown that he at least intimated that he does not understand the Prog policy at the moment. [Interjections.]

This then is the PFP’s policy, viz. that everything must be thrown open. How, then, is one to explain the objection to housing for the Coloureds on the Constantia Estate? Surely this is the acid test. But do you know what they tell the House? They say that their policy is that statutory discrimination must be done away with. What about all the other forms of discrimination which exist, even conventional discrimination? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that they want to wipe out statutory discrimination, but he must tell me this: What then about conventional discrimination?

It must also go.

Oh, it must also go. The hon. member says he is not in favour of forced integration …

Give us an example and then we shall explain it in simple terms.

If the hon. member does not know what conventional discrimination in South Africa is, one will never be able to explain it to him. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must state clearly to us that it, too, must disappear, for if conventional differentiation—let us call it that—is to disappear in South Africa, surely it is clear that the official Opposition is in favour of forced integration in South Africa. [Interjections.] That is the only reasonable conclusion one can draw from their approach. It is absolutely logical. At this stage it will not help the PFP to maintain that it is in favour of neither enforced integration nor the opposite, viz. enforced separation. After all, they also want to do away with conventional separation.

The hon. gentlemen tell us that their approach is that we must convene a national convention. The first election I fought was that of 1953 …

That is a long time ago.

Yes, it is a very long time ago. … and we fought it on that very basis, viz. that a national convention should be held. It was on that basis that the United Party fought that election.

The “Bill of Rights” election?

No, the “Bill of Rights” election was the next election. [Interjections.] We did it step by step.

In 1953 it was the policy of the United Party that there should be a national convention. Do you know what happened in that election? That was at the time when the great struggle concerning the Coloured vote on the common roll was still in progress. Mr. Strauss, the leader of the United Party at the time, held a meeting in Paarl. The hon. member Mr. Van Staden, my friend next to me here, also attended the meeting and asked Mr. Strauss a question. He asked him: “But, Mr. Strauss, if this national convention of yours were to say that the Coloureds could be on a separate voters’ roll, what would you say then?” Mr. Strauss replied: “Look, in that case I do not accept it.” Then the idea of a national convention fell flat.

After that election the United Party dropped the concept of a national convention like a hot potato because one did not know whom one could ask to attend the national convention. Even today hon. members opposite are faced with the same problem: They do not know whom they can invite to the convention and whom they should omit, but those same policies which the old United Party dropped, are still being fought for now by the Progs. Absolutely ridiculous.

In 1958 the UP fought an election on its Senate plan and the “Bill of Rights”. Once again this is now the PFP’s policy: The national convention of 1953, and the Senate plan, checks and balances and the idea of the “Bill of Rights” of 1958.

Absolutely “verkramp”.

Exactly! They have not yet learned a single lesson. Even the old United Party learned lessons, but its leftist liberal element that split off has not yet learned a single lesson in South African politics. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must learn these truths … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville should be the last person to talk, for he was in favour of Coloureds on a separate voters’ roll. [Interjections.]

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

No, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member refuses to reply to a question and consequently the hon. member for Yeoville must resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville need not feel unhappy, because the hon. member seated next to him was also in favour of it.

You are lying!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Bryanston say that the hon. member is lying?

But he is lying!

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words: “He is lying” and I say he is telling a blatant untruth.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “blatant” as well.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words “that he is telling a blatant untruth” and I say he is telling an ordinary, plain, straight untruth.

The hon. member for De Kuilen may proceed.

Why are you telling an untruth?

It is not an untruth. In 1974 an election manifesto was issued by the United Party and an election was fought on that. It was the federal concept, and the idea was that the Coloureds would have their own representation on a separate voters roll. The hon. member knows that that was the case.

You forced it upon us! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, nothing was forced upon them. But I shall tell you what was forced upon that hon. member. When he joined the PFP, not even Coloureds on a separate voters roll subject to qualifications was forced upon him, but then the “one man, one vote” concept was forced upon him and “adult franchise”, i.e. “franchise for every adult person in South Africa”, and on common voters’ rolls, what is more. The hon. member spoke of change; that is what happened to that party, and they make no impression … [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon. member for Yeoville say?

Mr. Speaker, I told the hon. the Prime Minister that the hon. member for De Kuilen is telling untruths and the Prime Minister knows that he is telling untruths.

The hon. member for De Kuilen may proceed.

It is for that reason that the official Opposition is not going to play, and is incapable of playing, any part in, firstly, bringing about a better dispensation in South Africa and, secondly, in ensuring peaceful co-existence in South Africa. That is why it is a proud moment for me to support the hon. the Prime Minister and his amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the hon. member for De Kuilen, and it is really quite sad to hear a man, who was for so many years a member of the United Party—in fact, I think he was the Cape chairman of that party—mocking it in this House today. I can, of course, understand that, because he is now in a new home and has to establish himself there. [Interjections.] That hon. member also waxed lyrical about the hon. the Prime Minister. I can understand his doing that too. I certainly will not, but I can understand his doing so. He must also do so for the very same reason.

I just want to make one point about what he discussed because most of the time, as I have said, he was attacking the old United Party and waxing lyrical about the hon. the Prime Minister. He really did not say very much, but he did talk about besmirching the good name of South Africa overseas. Now that that hon. member is in the NP, he is making the same old mistake. He thinks that the NP represents the good name of South Africa. That, however, is a mistake. We on this side of the House will criticize the NP as much as we think fit and on every occasion that we consider it to be appropriate, and that is not besmirching the good name of South Africa.

In the past four years, since I was last in this House, I have been, from my farm in the midlands of Natal, a comparatively remote observer of the activities in this House.

You should have stayed there.

Yes, from that hon. member’s point of view, perhaps I ought to have stayed there. During my absence of four years this Government has warned the general public of South Africa of the dangerously deteriorating situation in the country. It now talks of the total onslaught upon South Africa. These are the things I have heard whilst away from this House. During my absence the second of my five sons has been called into the South African Army, and the others will no doubt follow.

Are you proud?

I have listened to the hon. the Minister of Defence and all his generals telling us repeatedly that we have to win the hearts and minds of all the people in South Africa if we are going to win this war. The hon. the Prime Minister, as has been pointed out so often, said in Upington that if we do not adapt, if we do not change, we die. It goes without saying that this is an important matter. Nothing is more important, after all, than life and death. I therefore came to this House to hear what the hon. the Prime Minister would say, in this debate, about how he was going to change the situation in South Africa. I listened very carefully to find out if there was anything new at all. I think it was Pliny who, some 2 000 years ago, said: “Ex Africa semper aliquid novi”, or “From Africa always something new.” The NP, however, has managed to remain immune to Africa, because nothing new whatsoever came out of the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech. It was full of vague generalities. [Interjections.] I listened very carefully to hear what it was that was going to win the hearts and minds of the Black people, the Coloured people and the Indian people in South Africa, but I heard nothing. Instead, there was the same tired, hackneyed old argument from the hon. the Prime Minister which went something like this: There are revolutionary forces everywhere in the world, even in Switzerland, and they are also here in South Africa, but here in South Africa we shall fight communism to the bitter end. He also said that one should not use clichés like human rights, that there are one or two Whites behind every act of sabotage and that we would expose them and catch them. That is the argument of the hon. the Prime Minister. That is such a superficial, easy and fallacious argument. It is in fact the argument that the hon. member for Innesdal referred to when he said it is the argument of: “Vat huile vas, slaan hulle, verban hulle, skiet dood.”

Leave Albert alone, man.

That is precisely what the Government is doing. It arrests, detains, bans and restricts people but only for the purpose of taking people’s minds off the real problems of South Africa.

I should like to take one of the examples of restrictions and bannings in this country and I should like to deal with it in the House. The case I am taking—and I take it only as an example—is the case of the son of one of the hon. members on this side of the House, Mr. Andrew Boraine. Mr. Andrew Boraine was detained in solitary confinement in 1980, inter alia, under the Terrorism Act. He was detained again this year, inter alia, under section 22 of the General Law Amendment Act, Act No. 62 of 1966. Those Acts only give the power to detain, in the first instance, for terrorism and, in the second instance, for terrorism, sabotage or communistic training. These are the only powers granted by those Acts. It was said in this House that these Acts were intended for terrorists on the borders of South Africa. Mr. Andrew Boraine was not only held in prison but he was held in prison under conditions and circumstances in which our Police are not even allowed to hold the most ghastly criminals in our society. He was held in circumstances under which the most terrifying sex-fiends, callous murderers and gang rapists may not by law be held. This is laid down by law because it is considered that those conditions of detention are too savage and too barbarous for a civilized society.

What is the source of your information?

I am sorry, I could not hear the hon. member.

What is the source of your information?

I am talking about the terms of the Terrorism Act and I am talking about the terms of the General Law Amendment Act.

I am talking about the conditions in which he was held. What is the source of your information?

Haven’t you heard about solitary confinement, you fool?

Let me just make the following point as well. At the Biko inquest it was revealed by the S.A. Police that there are no regulations in respect of people held under the Terrorism Act. If there are regulations, it is quite clear that the Security Police do not know about them.

Mr. Andrew Boraine was held under those Acts. Under those Acts no judge in South Africa is allowed to see the detainee. No lawyer is allowed to represent, visit, consult with or to advise him. This is an absolutely fundamental right in a civilized society. No detainee is allowed to write to his family or to any other person. No member of his family may even know where he is and for some considerable time the family of Andrew Boraine did not know where he was. He was held in solitary confinement in a very small cell.

How do you know?

Just take it as a fact. [Interjections.] No word of his condition may be passed to anybody and eventually, under this legislation he is released without one word of explanation, without a charge of any kind, without one second’s appearance in any court of the land and without the hon. the Minister having to account to any judge for one single aspect of his action.

As I have said, this is not permissible even for the worst killers in our society. It is only permissible for terrorists and saboteurs because, as was the reasoning of the House when that legislation was passed, when a detainee is so dangerous that the very existence of the State is threatened, such savage measures are justifiable.

I now want to put certain questions to the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Minister of Defence. The full range of these measures were used against Andrew Boraine. Why? Is Andrew Boraine a terrorist, is he a saboteur, because if he is, why does the hon. the Minister of Defence call him up for national service? Why did he call up a terrorist into his army for national service in June this year?

Is the hon. the Minister of Defence playing fast and loose with our security in South Africa, allowing terrorists or saboteurs in his army, or is the hon. the Minister of Justice playing fast and loose with our security laws in South Africa? I want an answer to that. I want to know whether Mr. Andrew Boraine is an honourable member of the Armed Forces or whether in fact he is some kind of subverter. Of course he is not a subverter. Of course the hon. the Minister of Defence knows very well that Mr. Andrew Boraine is not a terrorist. That is why he takes no steps to have him thrown out of the Army. That is why he has taken no steps to have him court-martialled.

I want to know whether the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Minister of Police have communicated the facts about Mr. Andrew Boraine to the hon. Minister of Defence. Have they said to him: “This man is a dangerous man”? If so, when did they do that? I suggest they clearly have not. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Defence: Is Mr. Andrew Boraine a security risk? Secondly, has he ever been a security risk? I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice: Is Andrew Boraine a security risk? Has he ever been a security risk? Thirdly, has the hon. the Minister of Justice ever communicated that risk to the hon. the Minister of Defence and, if so, when? Has Mr. Andrew Boraine ever done anything to endanger the security of the State and, if so, why has he not been charged?

Even after Andrew Boraine was released —and he is just one example, the one I happen to know about and know about pretty well—he was not charged with any offence, not even a minor offence like a parking offence—nothing whatsoever. The trouble is that, if one has laws like this and one applies them like this, the people of South Africa are fully entitled to say these laws are not here to eliminate terrorism but to create terror; these laws are not here to use on terrorists but to use on students who oppose the Government.

You are disgusting.

The public of South Africa is quite entitled to say that these laws are not being used to create peace but to do violence. They are the bullying methods of an arrogant régime.

You will swallow your arguments yet.

In his speech the hon. the Prime Minister used the glib phrase that we in South Africa have an unbiased Bench, an unbiased judiciary. I accept that, but the question I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister is: Why then does the Government not use it? Why does it not use that judiciary?

They cannot stand impartiality.

Why then does the Government not see to it that these terrorists and saboteurs and those who advance the aims of communism are tried by judges? Why are our judges treated with contempt by the Government?

That is not true.

Why, whenever young opponents of the Government’s policy are to be punished, do we put our judiciary on ice? Why, whenever young people who are opponents of the Government are to be punished, do we put our Supreme Court in mothballs? Why does the Government refuse to use the Supreme Court when it has to punish young Andrew Boraine and others? I shall tell you why, Sir. It is because the Government’s case would be laughed out of court. In fact, our judges would probably chastise the relevant Minister just as Judge Goldstone did two weeks ago when he asked that his displeasure be communicated to the Minister. So, rather than make a fool of oneself before a fair court, it is much easier to impose one’s own punishment on a young man for opposing the Government.

Do you lose all your cases?

I see that the hon. the Minister of Justice has passed judgment on another Durban sociologist, Fatima Meer, and imposed another restriction order of five years on her, without trial, without notice and without giving her the opportunity of defending herself. Mrs. Meer is not an enemy of South Africa. She is a very concerned South African and she herself has at her home been subjected to violence for which certain left-wingers were charged. The same applies, as I have said, to Andrew Boraine and to the President of the SRC at Wits University. Judgment was passed on them too by the hon. the Minister of Justice, and the judiciary, again, was contemptuously by-passed. No doubt, cases against them would also have been laughed out of court. What is the use of an unbiased judiciary if one does not use it?

I also wish to deal with something the hon. the Prime Minister said although it has also been mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. the Prime Minister said that there were Whites who were behind all the acts of sabotage, and the hon. member for Yeoville dealt with the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister said that he was going to begin to expose them. What contempt again for the judiciary! According to the hon. the Prime Minister, the Government knows the names of the people behind the acts of sabotage. The Government knows who is behind the acts of sabotage, yet it does not charge them. It does not want to bring them before the courts. Why has the Government not exposed these people? Are the public of South Africa not entitled to know who is sabotaging the State? Why are these things hidden from us? Is it not the hon. the Prime Minister’s duty to expose those people? It is the hon. the Prime Minister’s duty as a patriotic South African to have those people arraigned before an independent judiciary. Until he does so and until we do so in South Africa, until we return to justice before the courts, we on this side of the House will continue to censure the Government.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinetown lived in obscurity for the past couple of years.

He should have remained so.

Yes, I think he should have remained obscure.

But he is no less obscure now.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the hon. member has made himself guilty of a number of inaccuracies while conducting his campaign. I could have forgiven him for those inaccuracies but for the fact that he has now attacked the administration of certain Acts for which I am responsible. I think I should mention one particular inaccuracy which not only harmed this country, but also created an atmosphere in which a terrorist movement could use that inaccuracy against this country. That hon. member saw fit to tell the world that Mr. Nelson Mandela was suffering from cancer on Robben Island and inferred that it was as a result of maltreatment or that it was not being treated at all.

Rubbish!

The inference was there.

Where did you get that from?

The inference was there, because the daughter of Mr. Mandela saw fit to rebuke the hon. member. Does he admit that?

Certainly. [Interjections.]

So I have to respond to an hon. member who has committed an inaccuracy which has armed the African National Congress with propaganda against our administration despite the fact that it is without any foundation and quite untrue, because Mr. Mandela is not suffering from cancer. I had him examined by a specialist immediately after that. In the circumstances do you, Mr. Speaker, want me to respond in detail to accusations coming from that hon. member who has harmed his country with inaccuracies of such a nature?

*I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the original detention of Mr. Andrew Boraine, based on properly evaluated information, was considered to be in the best interest of the security of this country and of the maintenance of public order.

Why was he not charged in a court of law?

You did not give him a chance to defend himself. [Interjections.]

We shall still come to that. I shall deal with the philosophy here again, although I will never be able to convert the hon. member for Houghton in any event. Therefore, I shall not even try. Furthermore, we were of the opinion that it was in the best interest of public order and of the security of South Africa that Mr. Andrew Boraine be given the opportunity to cool off. In a moment I shall deal with the policy and the considerations in that regard. [Interjections.]

That is the most callous thing I have heard in this House. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker …

You are not worthy of being a Minister. You will live to regret what you have said here today.

Mr. Speaker …

Hon. members opposite have been here in the House for too short a while. They are forgetting about their history with the Nusas students.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Groote Schuur say that the hon. the Minister of Justice “is not fit to be a Minister”?

I said he was not worthy of being a Minister.

Mr. Speaker, may the hon. member insult the hon. the Minister in the first place and threaten him in the second place?

The hon. the Minister of Justice may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, as far as hon. members in this House are concerned, the considerations which applied in this case, have already been dealt with here in detail. The philosophy underlying the application of these measures as preventive measures was debated in this House when the legislation concerned was passed in 1950, when the Act was amended in 1976, and on several other occasions besides.

You misled us as to the way in which it would be put to use.

Mr. Speaker, I want to put it to the hon. member for Green Point that he should ask the hon. member for Pinelands whether I acted in a “callous” way in this case—to put it in the words of the hon. member for Groote Schuur. I am not going to tell him what I did. I am not going to tell him today what I did to make it as easy as possible, not only for Mr. Andrew Boraine, but for his family too. I am not prepared to tell that to this hon. member.

Is that true, Boraine?

I am not going to spell it out. However, I put it clearly that this accusation against me is quite unfounded. I consider the hon. member for Pinelands a gentleman because, in his capacity as a member of Parliament, he is entitled to be considered as one. I am convinced that he will support me in this case.

Why do you not stand up and say something, Boraine?

I think it is necessary for me to give a brief explanation as to why a preventive measure is much more desirable in some cases than other stricter measures are. When we take action in a preventive fashion in the interests of the security of the country, we must ask ourselves what the consequences would be should we act otherwise. Then, if the answer is that the consequences would be more serious if we were not to act in this way, this determines the action that we take. Allow me to illustrate this. This applies in particular, for instance, to subversives who act in such a way that their misdemeanours are not crimes in strictly legal terms. There are many ways of overthrowing the State and there are many ways of planning to do so. One can do all the preparatory work and then wait until the last moment before taking action. One can build up an entire organization and make sure that one’s people are in key positions. One can even obtain weapons and explosives by legal means and only then take the first wrong step that makes one liable for prosecution. At that stage it is already too late. This is so because no one can charge you for your ideas and for what you are planning and because your guilt can usually be proved only when one takes action.

In our country there are examples of restrictions that are based on the following actions: Anyone who incites groups of students to take action that may have violent consequences; anyone who plans action and intends taking action which may result in essential services being disrupted, with the intention of whipping up Black and Coloured emotions and inciting them to violence; anyone who acts as an agent or intermediary for a hostile foreign institution; anyone who promotes boycotts and damage public property by scholars and in so doing acts in a way that is to the detriment of the scholars and the taxpayers; anyone who collaborates with terrorist groups; anyone who infiltrates the management of statutory organizations or newspapers with the intention of taking over the organization or the newspaper on behalf of a subversive body.

But we must leave them alone and allow them to make trouble!

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member at once that as far as the particular subject of Mr. Andrew Boraine is concerned, his national service and such, if he is then alleging that under the circumstances Mr. Andrew Boraine is not suitable for national service, then we should most probably take note of that.

You are saying it.

I am not suggesting for one moment, Sir, that we want to cause anyone to escape his national service merely by accusing him of such activities. [Interjections.] If this were the case, you could imagine what a climate we would be creating with regard to the evasion of national service. [Interjections.] In any event, this is a situation that can best be dealt with by my hon. friend the Minister of Defence. I am speaking for myself according to the information that I have at my disposal.

As regards the entire philosophy of restrictions, preventive measures etc. and of rights, which are the issue here, I think it is very important to note what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in Bonn. This testifies to an approach to security matters by the Opposition, to the rights that every citizen supposedly has in this country or which are supposedly threatened. He says the following, inter alia—

†Mr. Speaker the imputation is clearly directed against the Government, namely that although a parliamentary Opposition in this country does not suffer all the infringements of an extra-parliamentary Opposition, it is subject to severe restrictions in terms of security measures. That imputation is very clear. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has, however, with these utterings compounded his lamentable absence from his fatherland during the Republic festivities. He owes it to the House to spell out in detail in what way South Africa’s security measures, all adopted in this House, inhibit his party from fulfilling its role as a parliamentary opposition. It applies to the hon. member of Pinetown as well. [Interjections.] The PFP is at liberty—it applies to all political parties—to criticize the Government fairly or unfairly, and it does so. The PFP is at liberty to fight the Government at the polls, and it does that. The PFP is at liberty to hold public and private meetings and to canvass votes. The party does that too, and it can do it with or without the help of Big Brother’s millions. The members of that party are at liberty to propagate their philosophies and policies, if they have any. They are at liberty to be happy-go-lucky, and they are even at liberty to make fools of themselves as did the hon. member for Pinetown. However, no true citizen anywhere, be he a preacher or a pedlar, a student or a lawyer, a town councillor or a member of Parliament, is at liberty to incite hatred between peoples, manipulate trade unions for the cause of international criminals, stoke the fires of revolution or make common cause with the enemy …

You are doing it with every law.

No politician, be he inside or outside Parliament, must call upon this Government for these liberties, and I am convinced that no one will do so—or am I?

You am! [Interjections.]

For that very reason it is so sad that even people from within this House at times say things here and abroad which give the impression of sympathy with a revolutionary cause.

*The noise that I hear coming from the Chamber of Horace, makes me think so.

†It is possible, however, that when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was making these noises, he, being a learned man, became very confused. Perhaps he had in mind situations for instance in, shall we say, Brazil. I think it happened in that country—perhaps it is necessary to remind him of that if he compares liberties—that the Leader of the Opposition was stripped of all political rights for a period of ten years and that simply for criticizing the Government. In this country he should count his blessings. What is more, the Opposition there is limited to only one hour’s TV time.

You will do well in the Kremlin, very well.

Let me add at once that we on this side are jealous of and will continue to watch over the rights of the Opposition so that within a constitutional context, they can strive for change and adaptation in accordance with their view. We shall protect the parliamentary Opposition. However, I very much doubt whether this is the general feeling, particularly from that side of the House.

I do not want to accuse the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of anything for which he is not responsible, but I just want to say the following with regard to this feeling for the parliamentary Opposition and its role: In a pamphlet which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had published during the general election, he refers people to the Expropriation Act. When that legislation was before the House, he was a member of the Select Committee that was investigating it. He supported the legislation. What is more: He supported each clause that dealt with the institution of courts. He did not submit a minority report. In the absence of the hon. member for Rondebosch—this was the constituency of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at the time—Mr. Rupert Lorimer said in the House that they supported it. What is stated in that pamphlet? I quote—

As if one does this every day—

Sir, the fact is that there is a right of appeal to the Appeal Court. Objections can be raised if the prescribed procedure is not followed. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is associating himself with a pamphlet in which it is alleged that the NP Government is taking away these rights. In spite of that he served on a Select Committee and he and his party supported it, but nevertheless he presents this type of story to his voters. In the same paragraph of the pamphlet, he describes how he had to watch helplessly whilst children were taken away from their parents. How can this hon. member, with such an unreliable interpretation of his own role, with this unreliable view of the responsibility of the Opposition, support legislation and then afterwards present a blatant, sickly misrepresentation of it to the public? How can the hon. member tell the world that children are taken away from their parents without any reasons? The credibility of the hon. member is being called into question by every one of those points.

As far as my own approach is concerned, I implement preventive legislation to the best of my ability, and do so only on the basis of reliable information that has been interpreted correctly. It is also my policy, when circumstances warrant it, to review each case properly. As recently as last week, I lifted the restriction on 24 people after their cases had been reviewed. Two or three weeks before that, there were two more cases. The hon. member is aware of them. When do I consider lifting the restriction on anyone? I consider doing so when the original consideration or motivation has fallen away. In the second place, I consider doing so when circumstances have changed to such an extent that the restriction of a person is no longer justified. For instance, the State’s action in regard to certain reforms in the labour sphere were successful and the person concerned can no longer bedevil them. Furthermore, we can consider putting an end to the restriction of a person if he no longer has any followers, or no longer has any influence, or if he has switched his loyalty, for instance if he has joined the PFP.

Mr. Speaker, as in every other country where developing population groups must be taken into account, people whose aspirations must be fulfilled and whose leaders insist upon this, one must take measures in order to allow such leadership to come to full maturation. One must enable them to maintain themselves in a protected position in view of the fact that those who are opposed to orderly reform, do not make allowances for orderly leadership, regardless of to which race or nation they belong.

Therefore, in our country there are these reasons why we cannot forfeit the security system as we know it today, as far as preventive measures are concerned. If we were to do so, we would not be creating the opportunity for orderly leadership and reform to develop in such a way that it would be to the benefit of all population groups in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice a straight question which I hope he will be able to answer across the floor of the House: Was Andrew Boraine, in the two periods of his detention, kept in solitary confinement? [Interjections.] I have asked that hon. Minister a question and he need only nod his head.

Go on with your speech.

Was he kept in solitary confinement? [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister licks his lips, but he does not nod and does not seem able to give an answer. Perhaps he does not know what goes on in terms of the security legislation that governs this country. [Interjections.] That young gentleman, and very possibly nearly all of the other …

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

No, I am asking him a question. He may ask me one at the end of my speech, if he so wishes. Does he know that nearly all of the people detained in the past few months have been kept in solitary confinement? There is one point I want to tax him on. In his speech he said he would ask the hon. member for Pinelands whether he had behaved callously towards that young man. He suggested that he did not behave in a callous manner, but the law, and banning and detention in themselves, are in fact callous. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister: How does one consign a young man to solitary confinement in a humane way? The hon. the Minister is not even interested. So interested is he in the debate that he continues a conversation with the hon. Minister next to him when, in fact, he is being taxed with questions.

The hon. member for Pinetown raised certain questions about the bannings. He asked why these people were detained. He also asked why, when the young man was detained, he was also called up for the Army. He asked for reasons, for conditions of the man’s imprisonment. What did we get, however, from that hon. Minister? He said that he had received information which had been properly evaluated by the most competent sources in the country. Was that evaluated information ever available for cross-examination? Did the people who compiled that information and put it before the hon. the Minister ever put the information to the people who were suffering under those banning or detention orders? Have those people ever been given any opportunity at all to refute the allegations that hon. Minister has before him? The hon. the Minister is again unable to answer. He is unable even to state …

You know the answer.

The hon. the Minister then made what I consider to be one of the most astounding statements I have ever heard from someone who professes to be a lawyer. [Interjections.] He, the Minister of Justice, said that that man and certain other people were detained in order to be “cooled off”. In what system of law, whether it be Roman-Dutch law or English law, is the Government given an arbitrary right to put people in prison, without the opportunity to refute any allegations against them, so that they might “cool off’? [Interjections.] Can the hon. the Minister tell me under what system of law? He is unable to answer that.

British law in Northern Ireland.

British law in Northern Ireland is not like this.

I believe that the actions of this Government on the question of the detention and banning of students, media workers, trade unionists and churchmen, particularly over the past few months, can only be described as a gross abuse of judicial executive authority. I believe that the hon. the Minister did, in his speech today, try to state some of the reasons why he would consider banning people. He said that if they were guilty of subversive activities or incitement he would consider banning them. Those reasons in themselves, however, are offences in terms of the criminal code of this country. Why are those people not charged with those offences of incitement, subversion, a form of terrorism or sabotage, whether it be economic or otherwise? Why are those people not allowed a fair trial and a place in which to defend themselves?

[Inaudible.]

No, while cases such as those discussed today cannot be justified by the hon. the Minister, not only do we know that the law is bad but we also have the strongest doubts that it is being impartially applied.

I now want to move from the hon. the Minister and talk about what has been discussed in this debate over the past few days. The concept of constitutional reform has run like a thread right throughout the debate this whole week. We have heard a great deal from the hon. the Prime Minister and from other speakers about constitution-making, its prerequisites, its guidelines and the framework within which the NP will allow such a constitution to be formulated and implemented. There are at least elements of consensus on this subject, consensus which has been noted in the House. There is, for instance, consensus that the status quo must, in fact, give way to a new dispensation and that a new constitution, in order to achieve maximum acceptability, must be negotiated and not imposed upon the population. There is also consensus that all those communities affected must, through their leaders, participate in that negotiation. That is all very well but even given those criteria there is no guarantee that negotiation and consultation, at whatever level and with whomever, will succeed and end in an acceptable solution for this country. It is because of this very fear that the Government rejects the concept of a national convention in whatever form. However, whether it be a national convention or any other form of negotiation, one of the basic dilemmas of this Government is how to reach consensus or consent, or at the very least a state of non-belligerency with popular leaders who are widely divergent in their views and their degrees of animosity and militancy. This is a major reservation which, I believe, has justification. This is a fear which is well-founded, particularly in the atmosphere prevailing in South Africa today. Let us face up to that atmosphere, that state of mind, which exists to a greater or lesser extent among the peoples of the Republic.

Allow me to mention at random just some of the elements which are present and which contribute to that atmosphere. Thousands of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians are without homes and have little prospect of acquiring homes in the near future. That is a fact. There is a degree of unemployment and starvation and, as the resulting drift to the cities gathers momentum, so the rigid apartheid laws are applied to send those miserable migrants back to whence they came from. South Africa has the highest proportionate prison population in the Free World. It is, in fact, higher than in many countries behind the Iron Curtain. The Press is under constant threat and the Black Press has already suffered the bite of summary closure. Race discrimination in the form of statutes and in the form of practices still permeates almost every sector of human endeavour from job availability to education and family life and right down to the use of public facilities. Many leaders, some less or more popular than others, are either imprisoned or banned or are in exile. There are no forums through which the vast majority of South African citizens can seek and obtain redress. Finally, the process of alienation has reached such proportions that a growing number of people and organizations, some with ulterior ideological motives, have abandoned consultation and negotiation as a means and are resorting more and more to the politics of disruption, to the politics of violence. No wonder many in Government fear a true and open-ended negotiation for they know, as I know and as the hon. the Prime Minister knows, that in an atmosphere of revolution amid violence, in the face of internal and external antipathy, in a climate of bitterness, in a climate of frustration and deprivation, negotiation will be no more than a dog-fight ending in stalemate and a further escalation of militancy. There are many examples to the north of us to bear out this conclusion.

In the welter of rhetoric which has characterized this debate my colleague the hon. member for Pinelands made several vital and very important remarks. He said that a prerequisite to developing a new constitution was the building of a climate of goodwill. He argued further that reform would have to come before a new constitution. The problem is, of course, that statements of intent are no longer enough. They no longer have validity. In past years we have had statements of intent by the score: That of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development at Palm Springs; that of the hon. the Prime Minister at Upington, in the Carlton Hotel and on several occasions in the House and in the Senate of days gone by. Those statements of intent have, however, led to very little change that is fundamental and the frustration level is higher than ever before.

So, Sir, if I am to make more than a negative or shall I say a positive contribution to this debate and to the overall welfare of the country, free of rancour and recrimination, there is one strategic and imperative word of advice I believe we should give from this side of the House to the Government, and we must give it now. We believe that the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government should this day start working urgently on creating a climate in which consultation, negotiation and constitutional discussion can take place in a forum or forums where an atmosphere of goodwill prevails, where there prevails a mutual desire to achieve success, where past animosities are shelved and out of which forums plans can evolve which will enjoy the support and the trust of at least a majority of South Africans of all colours and groupings.

What are you doing to create such a climate?

What does this advice in reality mean, if it is accepted? It means going beyond good intentions. It means the conscious abandonment of ad hoc government, the government of reaction. Too often in recent years reform has been brought about only as a result of pressure, as a result of serious labour unrest, as a result of boycotts, as a result even of violence. This very style of changing, this begrudging progress, this slow yielding in the face of pressure, gives encouragement to those who perceive in violence and disruption the tools with which to force change.

In these brief minutes at my disposal it is obviously not possible for me to spell out a complete programme designed to restructure the political climate of South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

It is possible, however, … What did that hon. member say?

Ignore him. He is not important.

It is possible, however, to outline several examples of what should be done and what should be done quickly. The first thing is that the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet should stop abdicating their leadership to commissions, to councils of inquiry and to other investigatory bodies.

It is just sheer laziness.

The Government should stop hiding behind those faceless, unelected, appointed bodies and should exercise the leadership for which they have been elected to power. Why is it necessary, for instance, in the face of mounting public bitterness, to await the advice of the President’s Council to be given, perhaps after a whole year’s consideration, on such subjects as the future of District Six and Pageview, in Johannesburg? Why is it necessary to await that advice? Is not the inherent injustice in Government actions in these two areas plain for all to see? Why cannot a decision be taken immediately? Is there anybody who can say why a decision cannot be taken immediately?

They are all afraid of Andries.

Why is the hon. the Prime Minister too weak, too vacillating to act in these particular instances I have mentioned? Why do hon. members of the NP …

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

A little later, please. If I have time towards the end of my speech I shall answer the hon. member’s question. I am going by the clock, however. Why do those hon. members of the NP …

Such as Piet Koornhof.

… who label themselves verligtes, not have the courage to say publicly on this issue what they so often say to foreign visitors and in private? I want to talk for a moment to that very tiny band—and they will know who they are—that very tiny band of people who call themselves the young verligtes in the NP. [Interjections.] I want to ask them the following question.

[Inaudible.]

I must say that I want to exclude immediately the hon. member for Pretoria Central. He is not included in this group. [Interjections.] Are the members of that little band of much celebrated verligtes in the Government really serious about promoting orderly change? Are they? Are they serious about creating a climate for peace and a just society or is their contribution limited to the cocktail circuit, to the lunch and dinner party scene and to the quiet golf course chats with foreign diplomats? Is that the extent of their involvement in South Africa? Hon. members will know to whom I am referring. Are they really interested? The hon. member for Florida has just resumed his seat. Are he and his hon. group of verligtes in the NP interested in real change or is it the next invitation to Washington, to Bonn, to Athens which turns them on? Is that what it is all about? In short, are they verligtes or are they “verlamdes”? That is the question I want to ask.

It is my contention that in order to work towards a climate of goodwill those laws which attack the dignity of human beings, which render people inferior, must be abrogated, shelved and repealed. I ask the hon. the Prime Minister or any other hon. Minister who might care to answer, whether it is beyond their wit to know what the right thing is to do, for instance, with section 16 of the Immorality Act, this Act which contradicts all that is Christian, which has caused misery, suicides and untimely deaths, which has brought this Parliament into disrepute throughout the entire world? Do the people of South Africa really need this odious form of statutory protection?

Finally, is it essential that a myriad councils, commissions and congresses must deliberate for years on these matters before leadership is exercised and the obvious done? There are many laws which fall into this category. I could mention, for instance, the Separate Amenities Act, the Group Areas Act, the Mixed Marriages Act and, of course, also the Population Registration Act. I wonder—and I put another question to these hon. verligte members—how many hon. members have taken the trouble to discover what havoc this Act, which enforces group membership, has wrought on hundreds of families, on thousands of children whose births remain unregistered, who remain non-persons for fear of being classified differently from their parents. It is people who are divested of their dignity by these kinds of laws who provide cannon-fodder for the revolutionaries in the present-day climate in South Africa. Working towards a new climate for peaceful negotiation and change; however, means much more than just changing or repealing a few statutes. It means a rationalization of the education system of this country, both financially and in terms of the overall system. It means an about-face on the problems of urbanization. It means material help, not persecution and purgatory for squatters, such as is being visited upon them by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. It means home-ownership for Blacks, not the socialistic concept of leasehold. It means not stuffing the prisons annually with hundreds of thousands of technical offenders. It means allowing the Police Force to perform its true function, that of crime prevention and the maintenance of law and order, as opposed to being the agent of suppression, the primary enforcer of apartheid legislation. It will definitely mean showing a greater tolerance towards opposition and dissent. South Africa cannot detain and ban its troubles away. Every arbitrary act such as detention, imprisonment without trial, banning, forcing into exile, whether the name concerned is a Sisulu, a Jardine, an Adelman, a Botha or even an Andrew Boraine, creates a new circle of ill-will, of alienation, a further stiffening of antipathy, of confrontation.

Here I have another question for the hon. the Minister of Justice. I have no confidence that he will be able to answer it, but I nevertheless have a question for him. The hon. the Minister listened to the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development when he spoke about Mr. Adelman, and he heard him deride Mr. Adelman with approval. He heard him say that he was a pipsqueak and that he did nothing. He quoted Chief Minister Buthelezi.

I never said anything like that.

He quoted Chief Minister Buthelezi.

That is right.

He quoted it with obvious delight and approval, and he must not try to deny it. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, will that hon. the Minister just zip his lips for a little while? When he spoke I did not interrupt him all the time. He derided Mr. Adelman by saying Buthelezi said he made speeches and sat on his backside in his office and did nothing. I ask the hon. the Minister of Justice whether he agrees with those quotations by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. I ask him again: Does he agree with those quotations?

I am not going to assist you in your argument.

The hon. the Minister of Justice does not know whether he agrees with the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development or not. In fact, he is sitting there absolutely transfixed, absolutely petrified that he might say something that will be reported and that somebody is going to say that he was wrong in saying it. Perhaps that hon. the Minister needs a cooling-off period. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice the following: If what has been stated of Mr. Adelman is true, is he then not obviously harmless in his actions against the State? Why does he then ban the man? Why does he put him, as he puts it, in cold storage for five years? Why does he do it and thus push away from him the whole body politic, a whole student community? No, to build an amenable political climate means using every facility possible to eliminate the welling-up of frustration in communities, and there is a great deal of frustration. Even today we had a wrong answer given by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. He said that 50 houses had been built in Alexandra Township. I do not have the time to quote it but I shall give the hon. the Minister a copy of this memorandum. I have a memorandum only a few weeks old, given to me personally by the Alexandra Liaison Committee after a visit to Alexandra Township, to say that they are frustrated beyond belief at what is happening at the hands of that hon. Minister’s department. I telephoned them today because I was there a few weeks ago and I certainly did not see 50 houses. I telephoned them today and spoke to a spokesman who says that in total only nine houses have been completed, none have been occupied and one further house is in the process of being built. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister: What sort of information is he trying to push out to the Press if that is the information that he gives? Why cannot he check his information before he gives answers to this House? However, he can answer this on another occasion. Let me say this: Unless his department starts cutting through the red tape, starts delivering on its promises, starts dealing directly with the real problem of housing in the Black area of Alexandra there is going to be a blow-up in that township such as we have never seen before.

We have some mountain tortoises doing the work.

Is it any wonder that Dr. Buti said to me a few weeks ago: “We are ready to march.” He meant it rhetorically, of course, but what he also meant was that he was frustrated beyond belief. Sometimes, when I look at what is happening here in South Africa, I ask myself this question: If South African legislators were arrested for being Christians, do you think there would be enough evidence to obtain a conviction? I am not sure! And now, Sir. the hon. the Prime Minister says that he is going to name publicly people who in his view are too strident in their attitudes. Does he wonder that whole communities are non-co-operative and hostile? Would any self-respecting leader who wishes to continue enjoying the support of his followers sit down with this Government in a spirit of harmony while this atmosphere prevails? No, Sir! If the hon. the Prime Minister and hon. members on that side call for lowered voices, if they call for more reasonable opposition, then the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government should learn to listen to what is being said when those voices are lowered and to act upon what those voices say.

Sir, since you have now taken the Chair, I want to begin by saying that I am not aware of anyone having congratulated you on your appointment to the office of Deputy Speaker. Allow me the privilege of doing so now, and allow me to wish you every success and to express the hope that on the whole you will have a very peaceful assembly to deal with.

Mr. Speaker, I should now like to react to a few of the speakers who have appealed to other speakers to answer their questions. The hon. member for Pinetown referred to both the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Minister of Police. I am not going to put myself in the position of these esteemed colleagues of mine; the hon. member has already received a reply from the hon. the Minister of Justice and the hon. the Minister of Police has already indicated that he will be glad to reply in detail tomorrow to certain of the questions which have been asked here.

The hon. member for Pinetown reproached the hon. the Prime Minister for not really having said anything to indicate that change is in the offing. But, Mr. Speaker, are people blind in South Africa? Or is it a question of people presenting a certain direction of change as the only direction which they will recognize as change? [Interjections.] However, the historic deeds and decisions of the implementation of the policy of the NP, are not accepted as change; they are regarded as being contrary to change in South Africa. Surely the NP has done many things, introduced many laws, placed them on the Statute Boole and implemented them, and all this is proof of constructive change in South Africa. At the moment, we are involved in one of the most important chapters of change in the constitutional history of South Africa. We are working on it; the ball has been set rolling; the machinery has been set in motion. The President’s Council has been established, on the basis of a recommendation made by this side of the House. These are drastic changes, but they are not the kind of changes which that side of the House recognizes as change. Changes are coming, but as far as we are concerned, these will be in a certain direction, a direction which is in accordance with certain basic philosophies, the basic principles and policies which the NP stands for. These include orderly government in South Africa, of course.

This brings me to certain remarks made by certain speakers, and now I wish to refer in particular to the hon. member for Sandton, who presented us with a whole potpourri in his speech. He referred in his speech to the hon. the Minister of Police, the hon. the Minister of Community Development, the hon. the Minister of Justice—to all of them.

He spoke, among other things, about housing. It would be a very good thing if the hon. member could see some statistics with regard to housing provided by the State for all population groups—hundreds of thousands of houses in recent years. However, I do not want to steal my hon. colleague’s thunder; he will be able to reply to that very effectively. Nor do we hear an appeal being made by that side of the House to the private sector and especially to the employers who make use of the labour of hundreds of thousands, of millions of these people, and who do not fulfil their responsibilities regarding the housing of those people they are using and perhaps in some respects abusing.

The hon. member referred to migrant labourers. But these are matters we have already discussed at length and this House is aware of the problems connected with that facet of our society. Do these hon. members really want everyone who is looking for work elsewhere in the country to be allowed to go there freely, irrespective of whether there is work and accommodation for him there? The previous Prime Minister—I believe the present Prime Minister will endorse this—asked leaders of Black States: If there are a limited number of jobs in a particular area, say 20 000, and 30 000 people flock to avail themselves of that limited number of jobs, do you want us to allow them in unhindered, or should we impose certain restrictions on their entry? Matters of this kind are serious matters in our society and the hon. member should not discuss them in such a frivolous way simply for the sake of a little political expediency. It is only for the sake of a little political expediency that this matter is being dealt with in such a way by hon. members on the other side.

Then there is the continual nagging about discrimination. This side of the House is taking positive steps to remove harmful discrimination, but that side of the House creates the impression that when they talk about discrimination and about the removal of discrimination, they are talking about the removal of all dividing lines, of all differentiation and of the right of communities to protect their own community life from being invaded by others. The hon. members create the impression that everything is simply to be thrown open. However, that kind of openess in South Africa would be fatal to healthy community life and to sound relations in this country.

The hon. member even dragged in the Immorality Act. I should like to ask him whether the Act is bothering him. [Interjections.] There are people here who have a great deal to say about the Act and about all the suffering it is supposed to cause. I want to ask: What kind of person is ashamed of a measure which seeks to prevent people from doing wrong and causing trouble in South Africa? What kind of person takes exception to such measures? [Interjections.]

The hon. member made a plea for a climate of goodwill. We are 100% in favour of the greatest possible goodwill in South Africa between the various communities, but surely we all know—including that side of the House—that we are not only dealing with 24 million individuals in South Africa. We are not only dealing with individual human rights. This side of the House does not deny the right of the individual to be recognized as a person, as a human being, but surely in South Africa we are concerned with more than that. We are not only dealing with a lot of individuals; we are also dealing with communities. If one is at all prepared to take the trouble of making a study of the characteristics of a particular culture and a particular community, one knows that within such a community, one of the rules that apply is this: That to a significant extent—please note, I do not say absolutely—it maintains the right to exclusiveness to make its own choices in order to unite its own people in a feeling of solidarity. One cannot deny that right; and that applies to South Africa as well.

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

The hon. member should please afford me the opportunity of continuing.

The hon. members, including the hon. members of the NRP, often talk about pluralism, and in doing so they seem to imply that in talking about it, one has solved all South Africa’s problems with one abracadabra. However, the fact is—this has been said before in this House—that when one talks about pluralism in South Africa, one is not just talking about a plural society, but about a plurality of societies or communities in South Africa, each of which has the right to self-preservation and self-determination. This is the basic philosophy of this side of the House and it is a basic truth which is recognized by that side of the House as well. However, the problem is this: When one comes to the implications, including the political implications, of this diversity of communities in South Africa, the political implications of the fact of multinationalism in this country and of the presence of a whole number of minority groups in South Africa, the magic words, in which our salvation lies, are to be “consensus” and “negotiation”!

Of course we are also heading for consensus. Of course we want to find agreement, and of course negotiations are taking place. In fact, I do not think there are any examples in history where there has been more negotiation with the various groups on the part of a Government than have taken place under the leadership of the previous Prime Minister and especially of the present Prime Minister. So one can negotiate and achieve consensus, and if there is unanimity, there is no problem. But if unanimity cannot be achieved, if there are conflicting interests, and, as in South Africa, conflicting nationalisms, one is faced with a serious problem. The question then arises how political content can be given to the national aspirations of a specific people while at the same time maintaining a balance with the national aspirations of other groups and peoples within the same broad geographic territory. One is struck by the way they shy away from nationalism, from ethnicity or from ethnic consciousness and the desire for self-determination. And then it is that party, led by the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition, which says that we should deny and minimize all appeals to ethnic and racial identity. We should deny and minimize them. Surely one cannot deal in that way with the politics of South Africa, with the political aspirations of the various population groups in South Africa. One recognizes the existence of the ethnic groups; one recognizes the existence of peoples, but when it comes to the implication of nationhood, the political implications of leading a national life, one must tell the various population groups to relax, saying to them, “Wait a minute, chaps, do not overemphasize this; this should be underplayed as far as possible.” Sir, that is the consensus politics they are trying to practise in America. They are trying to find the greatest common factor for everything that people are agreed about, but the real differences, i.e. differences of identity and differences with respect to political aspirations, are to be swept under the carpet. Surely this is political blindness, a lack of realism. One cannot behave like this in a country such as South Africa.

In this connection, one could raise several matters, but the point I want to make to the hon. member for Sandton is that when we talk about fostering a spirit of goodwill, this is in fact what we are trying to do, but not at the expense of the self-respect of individuals or of ethnic groups, because it is not only individuals who demand recognition of their human dignity. There are also groups of people in the South African population as a whole who demand recognition of their nationhood, of their national identity and of the political aspirations connected with that identity.

Hon. members on that side of the House have no reply to this, while the hon. members of the NRP come fairly close to this, because they do recognize ethnicity. They say they do not believe that we can do justice to the legitimate demands of people in an open society. But as the hon. member for De Kuilen rightly indicated, in order to arrive at the NRP’s ultimate ideal of a confederation—and it seems to me that they have not yet decided what a confederation is, i.e. a confederation of independent States co-operating in a certain association according to a specific programme—one first has to support the steps envisaged by this side of the House, i.e. one first has to identify those communities, peoples or governments between which there can be free association. In other words, before one can arrive at a confederation, there has to be support for the steps taken by this side of the House on the road towards that confederation.

I should like to interrupt myself for a moment. I asked the hon. member for Amanzimtoti yesterday whether he had taken cognisance of the fact that Switzerland, which is now being presented as a confederation, changed its constitution to that of a federation in 1848—after it had been known as a confederation since 1291. [Interjections.] Even a Swiss writer such as Hans Huber—and I am not saying this in order to score points over the hon. the Leader of the NRP—speaks of the Swiss confederation, but with a federal constitution. One must not confuse these two things, even though superficially there is a lot of “federation” in a confederation. I should like to quote a definition of “confederation” given by the writer Joseph Dunner—

Then, however, one is not creating a kind of association of which the elements seem to form part of a super state, as though they were provinces of a super state. A confederation is an association of independent States. I quote further—

That is one kind; there are other kinds as well.

That hon. member would do well to look up the many definitions of a confederation. Most definitions of a confederation indicate that it exists of independent States.

That is not the only definition.

Perhaps the hon. member is only confirming the confusion which exists on that side of the House. As the hon. the Prime Minister said, when we on this side of the House talk about a confederation, we subscribe to this definition of it, i.e. the free association of independent States. The hon. member has only to look behind him, for there a lawyer is sitting who has just nodded. I think he agrees with my definition.

[Inaudible.]

When we talk about confederation, we do try to reach agreement about the definition of the concept. It seems to me that a proper distinction is not being drawn between the federation and confederation of that hon. member opposite.

There is a great deal of confederation in a constellation.

I now wish to deal with remarks made by an hon. member on the other side, remarks which I believe deserve to be carefully examined. I am referring to the remarks—perhaps they were allegations —of the hon. member for Pinelands. He joined the chorus of speakers, especially in the religious sphere, who cannot find terms that are strong enough to condemn the policy of separate development, the policy advocated by this side of the House. There are people who appropriate to themselves the right to use the words “Christian” and “unchristian” in a very arrogant manner. I do not wish to repeat what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation said. I am only reacting to this because there are many people in South Africa who are affected by the question: Can a particular policy—of whatever party, but specifically of the governing party—be justified on moral or Christian grounds, or is it immoral and anti-Christian? I think the hon. member for Pinelands made his sentiments quite clear here by saying that our policy was an unchristian one. [Interjections.] I see he is nodding his head. Allow me to make a few remarks in this connection. In the first place, I want to say that a specific church, a specific clergyman or a specific ex-clergyman—I am one myself—does not have a monopoly on morality or Christianity. None of us has the right to get up one fine day and to pose as the absolute norm for morality or Christianity.

The Word is clear.

If the hon. member would like to read the Word. I should like to study it with him, and I think he would get even redder than he sometimes is in that front bench.

In the second place, there is a particular Christian virtue which is highly esteemed everywhere, and that is the virtue of humility. I know that that side of the House and some people in the country accuse this side of the House and the Government of being arrogant. Supposing that this were true in certain respects, we are not too proud to say that we may have been guilty of this on occasion. We are not too proud to say that, but I do want to say, with reference to the tax-collector and the Pharisee, that it would have been the crudest form of Phariseeism if the tax-collector had said, “I thank you that I am not as arrogant as the Pharisee.”

In the third place, there is no compelling Christian requirement that all people should be forced into a unitary society. The hon. member can reflect about this if he can find a Biblical text proving the opposite. People who get so worked up about the Christian virtue of resistance to separate development should ask themselves whether they are not simply trying to hide a philosophy of integration behind a cloak of Christianity. I am not a person to condemn humanism out of hand, but one cannot simply identify pure humanism with Christian demands and a Christian view of life.

I want to ask a further question. Was it a Christian constitutional dispensation in Nigeria which lead to civil war and to the death of some millions of people, where an attempt was made to create a political unitary society over the dead bodies of a few million people? Is that a Christian model?

What is the hon. member’s Christian recipe for a country such as Lebanon? What is his Christian recipe for Belgium, for Cyprus or for India and Pakistan? Is it Christian to tell different peoples who because of their character, their background and their aspirations—even their national aspirations—do not wish to be forced into the same political and social straitjacket, that they have to be bound together, irrespective of what the consequences may be?

Some time ago the name of a place in the Eastern Cape, Dimbaza, was often mentioned in this House. We saw it in one photograph after another. One of the churches recognized the need that existed there and took steps to see whether job opportunities could not be created at Dimbaza. I think that was a laudable attempt. Is it not perhaps more in accordance with Christian charity to try to provide job opportunities for people where they are living and where their own people are—within the context of their own community, therefore—rather than to take them to an area where they are not assured of work and accommodation and where they are left stranded in the middle of winter?

But you put them in Dimbaza in the first place.

Talking about Christianity, let us ask what lies behind this. Can it simply be regarded as Christian? Is it Christian to encourage people in the cold of winter to flock to a particular area where there is no accommodation? I also want to ask whether the achievement of independence by Transkei, for example, was an unchristian action in the political sphere. What happened there was that a particular people chose a particular political constitutional road, i.e. the road to their own freedom, separate constitutional freedom. Is that unchristian?

To deprive people of their citizenship is unchristian.

Perhaps my questions are merely rhetorical, because I am actually using them to make statements. Is the provision of separate residential areas for the various ethnic groups unchristian? I say it is not unchristian.

I say you are wrong.

What certainly is open to discussion is the question of whether those residential areas and facilities which are provided for certain communities, for people within the context of their own communities, are decent, acceptable and equal. But surely one does not judge the policy of separate development only where its implementation still falls short of the ideal. One also judges it by its positive intention as well as by its objectives. If those hon. members opposite who have so much to say about Christianity and about people who are acting in an unchristian manner would only show a little more humility in their remarks, I would do the same.

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

I have only a few minutes left. Rather allow me to finish my speech.

That really is unchristian.

In conclusion, I want to refer to the Department of State Administration and to the question of what we are doing about the provision of staff in the Public Service. The fact is that we are not attracting a satisfactory proportion of the skilled manpower for the Public Service. Quite a lot has been written about this matter recently. During the recruitment season of November 1979 to March 1980, for example, the nett gain in staff in the administrative, clerical, professional, technical and general sections was only 921. In the corresponding period of November 1980 to March 1981, the recruitment season showed a nett loss of 1 010, and the total loss for the past year has been 2 600. I say this with deep regret.

This is only to indicate that we are aware of the problems at this level. We are investigating them in depth. The question is what we are doing in this connection. Allow me to point briefly to a few steps we have taken.

Firstly, we are investigating the utilization of the manpower available. Then we are also prepared to employ women, not only of a part-time basis, but full-time as well. So those women are no longer working on a part-time basis only, but form an integral part of our labour force. In certain facets of the service they constitute more than 50% of the establishment. As far as women are concerned, there are no longer any discriminatory measures in most sections of the Public Service. Secondly, I may refer to employment on a part-time basis. In the case of the Department of Statistics, for example, almost 700 ladies are used on a part-time basis to help with the population census.

Then people are forever insisting that more non-Whites should be employed in the Public Service. Allow me to make a few remarks in this connection in an attempt to put the matter in perspective. More than half the posts in the Public Service have already been identified for the employment of non-Whites. If my figures are correct, 26 000 new posts were introduced over the past year, 25 000 of which were destined for non-Whites, and of these, if my information is correct, 24 000 were for the Department of Education and Training. I mention this because people keep saying that we should appoint non-Whites in the Public Service. It is in fact being done. Generally speaking, the policy is to appoint non-Whites in the first place for the provision of services to their own population groups.

Now people may be under the impression that there is a queue stretching from here down to the harbour, consisting of applicants waiting to be employed. The fact of the matter is that there are not enough people—Brown, Asian and Black—who are qualified to fill the posts identified for them. Furthermore, a large number of Whites are still required to fill those posts in the Public Service.

We also make use of casual workers, housewives, students and officials who work after hours to keep essential services going. Then there are certain benefits which we offer public servants. The Commission for Administration has given attention to this and is conducting a comprehensive inquiry into the housing problems of officials. That inquiry should be completed before the end of the year.

Furthermore, the Cabinet has approved certain interim improvements. The first of these is that the rentals for official quarters will remain unchanged after the salary improvements of 1981. I believe this is a good idea. In the second place, the existing housing subsidy is being improved in several respects as from 1 October 1981. For example, the loan limit for subsidy purposes is being raised from R20 000 to R40 000.

In addition, the commission and the Public Service are trying to achieve higher productivity by improving the organization of the State machine, by simplifying work, eliminating unnecessary work, and investigating the establishments of departments with a view to suitable posts for specific work levels. Work norms are being laid down. Performance systems are being introduced, with the result that at a specific level, at which about 200 incentive schemes are already operating, it has become possible to have the work normally done by 14 000 employees performed by 9 500 workers.

Mr. Speaker, when one returns to this House after an election to begin a new term of five years—as the NP is again doing this session—one may accept that this House and the country are entitled to expect both sides of a matter to be stated in this House. Because the Opposition also took part in the election, one would expect them to have the same duty towards the country as the Government to state their case. However, when one looks at the motion introduced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, when one notes the number of points he raised, one gains the impression that he has raised a few points in this House and then sat back, expecting hon. members on the Government side to conduct the debate on their own. That is in fact what has happened.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked to be excused a few minutes ago. He unfortunately had to leave the House. We understand why he had to, and since we have almost come to the end of the day’s proceedings, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.