Mr. Speaker, just before the adjournment of the debate yesterday I said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also had a duty, when we returned to this House after an election, to state his side of the matter and to tell this House and the country exactly where he was heading. I do not wish to discuss the hon. the Leader of the Opposition any further at this stage, except to add that he does have this obligation, an obligation which I hope he will discharge tomorrow in his reply to the debate.

Let us leave it at that, however. I wish to return to the motion before this House, the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In his motion he made the allegation—which is incorrect—that the hon. the Prime Minister, despite the fact that he called a general election, failed both during and after the election to indicate the policies for which he sought a mandate. Surely this is not correct. It is incorrect to allege this. In addition the hon. Leader also made an allegation in his speech which I will return to later. The first remark is an indication that the hon. Leader does not know, whereas the second creates the impression that the hon. Leader does not understand.

After he had said that the hon. Leader continued with his speech and pointed out two areas as the particular areas in which little had happened, in which the hon. the Prime Minister had not followed up on his mandate. One of these areas happens to be the one in which I am involved, namely manpower. Hon. members will recall that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted a whole series of figures. Not all his figures were entirely correct. However this is not the matter at issue because what is incorrect can always be rectified later. This is not the point at issue. What is important is the fact that the hon. Leader quoted a number of figures and then, in passing, announced that great pressure was building up in South Africa. For the moment I will let that pass and I put it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the point which he made that the labour situation is important is a valid point, a point I can endorse. It is a valid point.

In addition I feel it is a sign of the times in South Africa—as well as outside South Africa of course—that the labour field is slowly but surely becoming the focal point of the political situation. Indeed this is the case throughout the world. If we look at Australia for example it is not necessary to know much to realize that that country has actually come to a standstill owing to improper interference by millions of workers in the labour field. I do not have to explain to hon. members what is happening in Europe. In Africa and here in our country it is also becoming increasingly important. And precisely for this reason it is extremely important that the Government should take note of it. Now I should like to make it clear that the Government has in fact done so.

I should also like to make it clear here in this House that if the hon. Leader alleges that the hon. the Prime Minister has not followed up on his mandate, I can point out that in this specific field during the past few years—and following the last parliamentary session as well—all the signs indicated what a great sense of responsibility was in fact being displayed and how much recognition there was of the importance of this aspect. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would only look at the Order Paper in front of him on his desk he would observe that the first four draft Bills are in fact measures dealing with the crux and the heart of what we have just been discussing. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s concept is what he revealed it to be here I put it to him that he has an entirely incorrect concept.

But I wish to go further. When we look at the political context of South Africa, and see what is happening in this country, who is interfering and what is emerging and if we also look at outside pressure on South Africa and note who is exerting the severest pressure —the severest pressure is of course being exerted by the world’s trade unions—and if we also look at the stranglehold they are trying to gain on our economy as well and if we look at the entire circumstances of South Africa’s economic development programme—those very things which the hon. the Prime Minister set in motion and with which we must occupy ourselves during this session and also later in the year—we find ourselves with the concepts which we must put into effect in order to bring about the development of millions of people who must be incorporated in the labour situation. Against this background it is true to say that the political situation is being emphasized to an ever increasing extent by the position of labour in South Africa. In the industries of South Africa alone 5½ million people are involved in this. A further 4 million will still be added to this figure. Having said this I do not think it is possible to see any stability in the development on the road ahead unless two cardinal things happen. The first is that if a government is involved in this, that government cannot guarantee any future stability and cannot bring about any future development unless it has the confidence of the country’s workers. May I mention in passing that if it were not for this fact, this Government would not be in office as it now is.

The second important requirement to be met is that the Government will have to ensure that the total potential of all the country’s workers is developed to its full potential by means of education and training. In future South Africa’s stability will depend on this, and in future the Government’s greatest achievement will probably lie in this field; as a matter of fact, during the weeks and months ahead some of the most important decisions which this country must take will in fact be decisions in this field. What has happened during the past few years? What happened during the last election which can serve as a basis for the motion of censure of the hon. Leader. During the election we told the workers of South Africa one thing, namely that they can trust the Government to help with this great development. What is the mandate which the Government actually asked for in this sphere? It asked for a very simple thing. It asked the country to trust it and help it to develop labour potential to the full—development, protection, utilization and preservation—in South Africa. This is what it asked for and this is what it is engaged in doing. Draft legislation is already lying on the desks of hon. members. If this is therefore the point of departure of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, then it is part of what he does not know. He need only look again and he will see.

In addition the Government could not have had the confidence if the workers did not trust it absolutely. And who are the workers? I shall tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who the workers of South Africa are. The workers of South Africa are the most informed people in this country when it comes to the realities of their circumstances. You cannot bluff them. You cannot bluff workers elsewhere in the world and you cannot bluff them in South Africa either. The workers of South Africa are probably the people who are the most informed about any threat which comes their way. They are the most sensitive and are the people with the greatest potential for conflict if they feel threatened. It is the workers of South Africa, our people, who are part of the electorate. As I said, they are people who are very sensitive and who watch a government with very critical eyes. They can be ruthless with a government the moment they no longer trust it. Having said this I wish to point out that the NP Government came into office in 1948 because the workers of the country trusted it. In 1981 the Government was again elected to office with a large and overwhelming majority because the workers, probably more than any other sector of the electorate, once again trusted the Government.

What about the HNP?

The HNP has no representation here. Since the hon. member has mentioned the HNP, to provoke me, I wish to say that the contrast between that party, the PFP, and this party, the NP, is that on that side of this House there is not a single man who can say that he is a representative of a real workers’ constituency. Where are they? The representatives of the constituencies of Maitland to Bellville in the Peninsula are on this side not on that side of the House. The hon. member for Newcastle is not sitting on that side of this House; he is sitting on this side. The hon. members who represent the industrial complex of Port Elizabeth are on this side not on that side of the House. The representatives for the East Rand and West Rand are on this side of this House. The hon. member for Pretoria West is on this side not on that side of this House. The representatives of the workers of South Africa are therefore sitting on this side of this House, not on that side of this House. [Interjections.] The workers of this country have confidence in the Government and for this reason they gave the Government this mandate. Nothing the hon. members on the other side can say can detract one iota from this mandate. I wish to go further. I also say that very difficult circumstances, when South Africa was really in a difficult position and workers felt threatened because they were hearing daily about millions of people joining the labour force, because they were already sensitive about their position, these workers nevertheless trusted the Government when the Government had to come forward with very important legislation. The Government told the workers of South Africa: The method of protection which used to exist is no longer effective. We are going to give you a better one. When the Government told the workers that, they trusted it.

I wish to refer to statutory job reservation. That was part of the mandate the Government asked for—to proceed with it. It is part of the recent action. The Government said a number of things to the workers of South Africa. In the first place the Government spelled out clearly to the workers for the first time exactly what their rights are. There is not a single person in this country who does not know what the rights of the workers are. This information was given in writing to tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of workers in South Africa. I can tell the hon. members now that over 600 000 written documents are still going to be distributed amongst the workers of South Africa this year to spell out their rights for them even further. What are those rights? I should quickly like to mention a few here. In the first place there is the right to be able to work. There is not a worker in South Africa who does not know that the Government protects that right of his. In the second place it was spelt out to the workers that they have the right to have access to training and retraining. In the third place workers have a right to take part in discussions. In the fourth place workers have a right to belong to a trade union; and in the fifth place workers have the right to physical protection—health hazards which may exist in his occupation and so on. All these rights and others as well, have been spelled out to the workers.

The Government went even further. The Government not only spelled out these rights to the worker but also gave him the instruments. All those instruments were created. [Interjections.] It is of no use for that hon. member to sneer; he must read the draft Bill in front of him and then he will know what is still to come. These are instruments to explain to the worker the protection which he can enjoy in future. This was also spelled out recently. That is why the workers voted for the NP.

I now wish to come to the second point which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked: If we have development in the economic sphere and especially in the labour field, as we have had, and if we give the workers rights, as we have done, how do these link up with political constitutional rights? But the guidelines have been set out repeatedly, to indicate exactly how we think and how we feel about the future as regards these people and their rights.

The first all-embracing principle is the principle of self-protection of the interest groups within the context of the labour situation. This has been spelled out and a number of guidelines have been laid down.

This has brought peace in recent times and has also gained the confidence of the millions of workers in South Africa. The first guideline is laid down with reference to the question: What is going to happen now in the new South Africa, the South Africa of the future where so many millions of people must enter the labour market and where we have the situation that there will be shortages in every field, that in every field further training will have to be given and where people who were not part of the labour field in the past will have to be incorporated into it.

The feeling of being threatened experienced by many workers in this field is therefore our next problem. Who must decide in this new situation who will work where? One can understand that the workers in our country are concerned, because if the situation were to be conducive to their really feeling threatened, they have every reason to be concerned about their position and then they could turn against the Government and say that the Government is not protecting them. The guideline has however been quite clearly set out and also accepted to such an extent that the Government, this side of the House, is able to be here in such numbers. The guideline is that the mechanisms are created so that employers, employees and the Government together accept responsibility for the process of restructuring. This is already happening. I can mention examples where this has recently been done with remarkable success in the Vaal Triangle, where tens of thousands of workers were involved. I had the opportunity to see for myself how this works in practice. I found that everyone was satisfied and that it worked.

In the second place there is another very important question. It concerns the following aspect. As regards the possibility and the insistence throughout the world and also the insistence in South Africa that trade unions be used as instruments and that there should be no protection in trade unions—what this amounts to, therefore, is that an existing dispensation must be done away with—and that trade unions should not be able to decide how they will be constituted and what their position in respect of their membership will be in future, after careful consideration the Government has decided that the allembracing principle which will apply in South Africa will be the principle of absolute trade union autonomy.

What does this mean? Trade union autonomy is simultaneously concerned with quite a number of things. In the first place it involves the right of a worker to be able to choose his own trade union and therefore to determine what his own position will be so that he can build up his future for himself. It involves the right of groups of workers to be able to establish their own trade unions. It also involves the right of such trade unions to be able to decide for themselves who will belong to them, how they will be constituted, what kind of management they will have, etc. It therefore involves the autonomy to afford both the individual and the larger group an opportunity to find their own place in the labour field.

This was taken a step further in that it was said that it was also being extended to the constitutional sphere so that the Government could enter into agreements with other States and tell them that there would be inter-state agreements between South Africa, the independent as well as the dependent homelands. This is an agreement in regard to labour relations that we incorporate and have been occupied with during the past weeks and months.

As regards the position of the individual in the labour field, as regards his group position in relation to his trade and as regards his national or constitutional position, the line has been drawn extended through to this sphere, exactly as the Government also intends to do in future in the constitutional sphere.

Consequently I cannot understand how the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can say that he does not know how this system is going to work in future, because in future we shall move in one direction in the economic sphere and labour sphere but in another direction in the constitutional sphere. Look, all these things go together. If the hon. leader were just to look a little further he will see that the line is being extended in this way.

In addition there is of course the other demand which can be made. There is not only a demand which workers can make, but a country also makes its demands as regards the workers. If the country goes out of its way to create machinery and opportunities, the worker has a duty to make himself available for work if it is offered to him. I think cognizance should also be taken of this by many people who think they can continue to live in this country on the fat of the land without doing their share. In the second place we demand that the workers be available for the opportunity South Africa is creating for training and retraining. In the third place the worker must at least be prepared to have the will power to occupy his own position within his own content.

In spite of what I have just said we know—we all know—that recently serious pressure has been exerted on South Africa by elements which are trying to create disorder in the country. We are going out of our way to create machinery and opportunities in such a way that we are able to preserve order. But the Government has never said that it guarantees that it will preserve order. All it can say …

[Interjection from the public gallery.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and also for that person, one of his voters.

You need not feel sorry for me. [Interjections.]

It is someone from Marble Hall.

The last point I wish to make before I conclude is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition created the impression that he wishes to have helpful discussions in this sphere. Nevertheless he committed an injustice by accusing the hon. the Prime Minister of not following up on his mandate or planning programmes of action for the future. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party members took a little more interest in what the Government is contemplating for the future, we would very soon understand one another better.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Manpower, who has just resumed his seat, began his speech by suggesting that it would be a good thing if in a debate of this kind the points of view of both sides could be put so that the House could consider them. The hon. the Minister must know that the hon. leader of this party has frequently put the policy and the attitudes of the PFP in very great detail both in and outside the House. The hon. the Minister should also know that this debate is in fact a debate on a motion of censure of the Government; so it is the Government on whom the spotlight is shining, not on the Opposition. We are here to look at the Government’s record in the light of the last election and in the light of its administration of the country.

Sir, the hon. the Minister of Manpower criticized the hon. Leader of the Opposition because, according to him, the hon. leader did not take into account the progress which has been made by this hon. Minister and his department in the labour sphere. This is of course not so, because we on this side of the House have conceded that perhaps the one exception is that there is a degree of progress being made in the labour sphere, for which the hon. the Minister is responsible. We also know, and we are with him when he says it, that the whole question of manpower and labour relations is a fundamental question in any country and particularly so in South Africa. We appreciate the difficulties that the hon. the Minister shoulders and we also appreciate some of the problems which he has to contend with, even from members within his own party.

The hon. the Minister said that no Government could ensure stability and progress in the labour field unless it enjoyed the trust and confidence of the workers. That is an acceptable point of view, but I hope that when the hon. the Minister says that, he means the trust and confidence of all the workers in South Africa, irrespective of their race, because we are dealing with the general labour force. I hope also that the hon. the Minister is not going to allow the most right-wing section among White workers in South Africa to be the regulators of the pace of change in the field of labour in this country, or, for that matter, the most right-wing members of his own party or the most right-wing members of the Cabinet.

The hon. the Minister has challenged our claim on this side of the House to talk on behalf of workers. The hon. the Minister has taken it upon himself to say that all the workers live in seats held by the NP. I wonder if the hon. the Minister is serious about that. Does the hon. the Minister really think that there are no workers living in Woodstock, Wynberg, in the Gardens or in Port Elizabeth City, in Port Elizabeth Central or in Pinelands? How on earth can a Minister make a claim of that nature? As I have already said, we recognize the problems of the hon. the Minister; we sympathize with him in many ways because we are aware of the difficulties he has within his own party, and we do concede that in some spheres he is at least trying to take a realistic view of the labour situation in South Africa. But, generally, when one looks at the speeches that have been made in this debate over the past three or four days, from the hon. the Prime Minister down, one finds that Government members have shown that they are far more at home when they are defending the Verwoerdian policies of the 1960s than they are in signposting the meaningful and realistic policies which are so essential in South Africa in the 1980s. As I listen to their speeches, I find that when they talk about changes—if there are to be changes—they are tentative and very often confused changes, and nowhere does one find any deep conviction that there has to be basic change if peaceful co-existence in this country is to become a reality. Throughout the last few days there has been emphasis on separatism, there has been an over-emphasis on ethnicity and there has been the belief that we should bow to the traditional and historical factors in South Africa that divide, and that we should even reinforce and sometimes manufacture them, rather than accept and adapt those things that can unite and make a viable nation in this country.

We have listened, in this debate, to the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, the hon. the Minister of State Administration and of Statistics, the hon. the Minister of National Education and the hon. the Minister of Manpower, each of them at times speaking with great sincerity, but each of them showing so clearly that even in their realization that there has to be change in South Africa, they are totally enslaved, in their political thinking, by the basic ideology of apartheid. It has been a sad and thoroughly depressing spectacle that we have had to witness in speech after speech in the three or four days of this debate. They know that there has to be change in South Africa, that the sands of time are running out, that there is division and tension in the country and that the very security of our society is at risk. They even know that what they are doing in places like Nyanga, for example, and in countless other removal and resettlement projects, is, to say the very least, unpleasant and harsh, but they defend these things basically by saying that the end justifies the means. That was really what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation was saying here today, i.e. that it was the law and that we therefore had to do these things. In other words, they are enslaved by the very system that they have created over three decades in South Africa. This is their dilemma: To change and yet not to change, to adapt because they know they have to adapt, but to adapt within a system, a philosophy, which more and more allows only shrinking opportunities for adaptation. This dilemma has not only been in evidence in this debate, but also very much so throughout the recent election campaign. That is why there was so much confusion and double-talking by leading members of the Cabinet and Government during that campaign, because on the one hand, in different ways and varying degrees, we had the Opposition parties and others, in the interests of the economy and security of the country, pleading for a movement away from the system, whilst on the other hand we had the hard-line NP traditionalists, the slaves of the Verwoerdian era, saying that we should not budge from the system at any cost. The Government, and the Cabinet in particular, floundered hopelessly between these two schools of thought. I must say that I found the Cabinet’s performance, in facing this challenge during the election campaign, particularly lamentable. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is so interested in political traditions and who says that we in the PFP have none, might also be interested in looking at this performance in relation to the performance of some of his predecessors. I first came to this House in 1953 as a 25-year-old. I think that only the hon. the Prime Minister, who had then I believe been here for five years, and the hon. member for Houghton who came to this House at the same time I did, are still in this House at the present time. [Interjections.]

Where were you then?

Never mind where I was. [Interjections.] It is interesting to think back on those days, because in those days the NP boasted that it had a Cabinet of many talents. That was the phrase it used, and perhaps with some justification. However much one might have disagreed with them, there certainly were people like Malan, Strydom, Dönges, A. J. Stals, Eric Louw, Paul Sauer, Verwoerd and others. Although one may have disagreed with them, these were men dedicated to an ideal, men who seemed certain about their beliefs and who at least talked with one voice. What has happened to the Cabinet of many talents of the present time? Where is the Cabinet of many talents today and what was their contribution during the election campaign? I have kept a record of some of the contributions made by individual Cabinet Ministers and I should like to deal with some of them this afternoon. First of all, we have the hon. the Prime Minister, who, for his own reasons, called an early election and fought the election, and allowed his party to fight the election, largely on the basis of his own personality. Here was the man of the hour, the man of the moment, the man of vision. That is what the whole election was fought on and that was how the NP propaganda was projected. What was the result of this? The result was that the governing party lost seats to the Opposition parties in the Cape Province and Natal and in addition lost tens of thousands of votes to the right-wing parties in the Transvaal and in the Orange Free State. This is hardly surprising when one looks at the performance of members of his own Cabinet during the campaign.

There was the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions, who made his peculiar contribution to the campaign as a renowned pedlar of Spartan diets and who became the darling of nurses and pensioners around South Africa. Then there was the “Flinkdink” Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, who has already notched up his claim to notoriety long before the election. Then we had the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, who, on at least one occasion, got so carried away when addressing a right-wing audience that he made a virtue out of discrimination and boasted to his audience that not only was the Government not spending too much money on Blacks, but was in fact spending 12 times as much money on the education of a White child in comparison to the education of a Black child. That was one of the contributions made by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. We also had the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, who left people in doubt as to whether he believed that a Coloured should be excluded from the operation of the Group Areas Act or whether Portuguese immigrants should be included within its operations. [Interjections.] Then there was the hapless hon. Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, who was sold a dummy in the Cape Town Gardens constituency on his own try-line, a disaster to his own party and to himself. There was also the hon. the Minister of State Administration and of Statistics, who kept taking off his hat to “verkramptes”, particularly on the issue of whether Coloured school-children should be allowed to participate in the Craven Week for schools. Now I come back to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, the hero of the Feather Market Hall, the great crowd-puller, but, alas, the nation will never know what words of wisdom were going to flow from his lips when he was going to speak to that non-existent audience in Port Elizabeth.

Looking again at this Cabinet of many talents and their election performance, one cannot, of course, overlook the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information, who moved around the country in typical earnestness, trying to meet the challenge of the extreme right at the hustings while at the same time attempting to present an enlightened image to the world outside. One gem which came to my notice the other day was a glossy piece of fiction put out by his department. It was called Dynamic Change in South Africa. I want to quote from one portion of this publication, the portion dealing with the situation in the Ciskei. It reads—

He is here giving a history of the great developments—

Then he goes on to say—

This was then apparently a fait accompli. This publication was sent out for overseas consumption to show just how generous the Government is. This, of course, brings me immediately to the most promising Minister of them all, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, the hero of the retreat from King William’s Town and the current hero of the evacuation from Nyanga.

I was just beginning to think you were going to omit me.

While his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, was boasting to the world of the incorporation of the White town of King William’s Town in Ciskei, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development was involved in a massive retreating operation in the face of strong internal pressure.

Now I must come to the hon. the Minister’s bench-mate, another great performer in this Cabinet of many talents. I refer to the hon. the Minister of Finance, the leader of the NP in Natal …

I was really worried that you were going to leave me out.

… who like the Duke of Plaza Toro led his troups in Natal from behind to immediate disaster. That is what happened. Before the election we in Natal were told that the Nats were going to take over Natal. They were going to fight on the widest front ever. They were going to show for once and for all that the people of Natal supported their policies. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what happened to that boast that they were going to take over Natal. They ended up with six parliamentary seats and five provincial seats.

Seven. You cannot count.

Seven then; I shall give you one. The fact is that their campaign fell apart at the seams. They produced a lack-lustre bunch of candidates. They had a leader who once again was not prepared to face the electorate in the province he purports to lead and they spoke with two voices on all the fundamental issues of the day. I shall come back to that. [Interjections.] The result was that they were rejected by the overwhelming majority of voters in the constituencies in which they stood. They were rejected because the voters simply did not trust them. They were rejected because the voters are sick and tired of the arrogance of the NP. They were rejected because their race policies are seen to be divisive and a threat to our security in South Africa. They were also rejected because voters wanted change towards meaningful co-operation and peaceful coexistence in the province. The mood of the people of Natal is reflected in the fact that the voters opted in large numbers for a rejection of race discrimination, for power-sharing and for real negotiation with all sections of the population for a new dispensation. That reflects the mood of the people of Natal at the present time.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance what he, as leader of his party in Natal, is going to do now. His party and his policies have been rejected by the Whites of Natal just as they have been rejected by the Zulus and the Indian community of Natal. What is he going to do now?

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

No, my time is very limited. The hon. the Minister and the Government claim to respect the right of people to self determination. What is the Government’s attitude towards the people of Natal, Black, White and Brown, who have clearly said that they want nothing to do with the fragmentation of their province, either geographically or politically, and that they want a new dispensation, arrived at by joint negotiation?

You are trying to fragment Natal, not we.

No, I am not the one who is advocating the fragmentation of Natal, consolidation, separate independent States or anything of that kind. That is the policy of the NP.

Here I want to join issue with the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development on the attitude of Chief Buthelezi and the kwaZulu Government to a national convention and to the question of ethnicity. When that hon. Minister spoke in the House the other day, he left the impression that the Chief and his people are opposed to the concept of a national convention, because Chief Buthelezi made some critical comments about a current convention movement. The hon. the Minister further left the impression that the Chief saw his political future along ethnic lines. I have the hon. the Minister’s Hansard and this was certainly the impression he created in his speech.

I quoted that and we hammered you and we shall hammer you again.

The hon. the Minister knows that this is simply not true. The hon. the Minister knows the attitude of kwaZulu, the attitude of Inkatha and the attitude of Chief Buthelezi, both on the question of a national convention and on the whole question of ethnicity. In case the hon. the Minister has not read other speeches and does not know of this, I want to quote from the evidence given by Inkatha to the Schlebusch Commission of Inquiry into the Constitution, evidence which was very decisive on these issues—

They went on to say—

It goes on to say—

It goes on to say—

That is the attitude of Chief Buthelezi, of the kwaZulu Government, and the Inkatha movement. The hon. the Minister, knowing that, should not simply use an argument for the purpose of this debate indicating that the idea of a national convention is now in trouble because Chief Buthelezi has indicated that he does not want to have anything to do with a national convention. [Interjections.] The concept of a national convention has always been accepted by the kwaZulu Government, by Inkatha, and by a number of other Black organizations, and has also always been accepted by us in the PFP as the prerequisite to the necessary changes which have to take place in South Africa.

We stand by that point, and we believe very firmly indeed that notwithstanding the opposition of the Government to this concept, the Government will be obliged in time to realize that only a national convention can resolve the problems of South Africa. It is this total lack of realism on the part of the Government to turn their minds against any other ideas, to commit themselves so totally and absolutely to the narrow doctrine of apartheid, of separation, of enforced ethnicity, which result in a motion of this kind indicating our concern for the path that is being followed by the Government in South Africa, is this that justifies our motion of censure in the Government this time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very convivial this afternoon. I have just been informed that, while we are seated here in a House of which we are proud, the gentleman who made the interjection from the public gallery was a guest of the hon. member for Sea Point. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order! Is the hon. the Minister allowed to tell a lie in this House?

I am merely speaking on the basis of the information I have received …

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. the Minister allowed to tell a lie about another hon. member in this House? [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs please tell us where he obtained his information?

Mr. Speaker, I was informed of it a moment ago, before I rose to speak. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon. the Minister is unsure of the truth of his information, he must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I heard about it here. However, I shall withdraw it. But we shall go into …

From whom did you hear it? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister has withdrawn his remark. He must now proceed with his speech.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: If you are satisfied from what you heard that the hon. the Minister took no steps at all—certainly no steps of a reasonable nature—to substantiate that allegation, I ask you whether he should not be asked to apologize formally.

He ought to leave the House. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I maintain that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is entitled to say that according to his information, the person in question was a guest of the hon. member for Sea Point.

Who is the source of his information? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must please contain himself.

Mr. Speaker, we must forgive him. He does not know any better. I maintain that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is entitled to say that according to his information, the person in question was a guest of the hon. member for Sea Point. The hon. member for Sea Point is also fully entitled to say that that is not true. It is then the hon. the Minister’s duty to accept the hon. member’s word.

Order! I have ruled that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs must withdraw those words, and he has done so. He added that that was the information at his disposal. Most probably he did not check his information. The hon. the Minister may proceed with his speech.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I ask you to decide whether—and I raise this at the earliest possible opportunity—it would not be proper, in view of the fact that the rights and privileges of an hon. member have been abused, a Select Committee should not be appointed forthwith. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I raise this matter at the earliest possible opportunity because it is an infringement of the rights and privileges of an hon. member. I ask you whether it is not proper that you give notice that a Select Committee will be appointed, with terms that you will decide upon, to inquire into the conduct of the hon. the Minister in making the accusation that he did.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the information I received from the control office was that the person in question was in fact a guest of the hon. member for Sea Point and that the form was signed by his secretary. I want to ask you to point out to the Chief Whip of the official Opposition that he is wasting the hon. the Minister’s time and that, consequently, he must resume his seat. If he wants action of that nature, he must move a substantive motion in this House.

Mr. Speaker, with reference to the hon. Chief Whip opposite, and because I have good reason to believe that the hon. the Minister’s allegation is correct, I want to support his request. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on two points of order? The first is that as you have a request for the appointment of a Select Committee, a request which is supported by both sides of the House, would you please therefore appoint a Select Committee forthwith? Secondly, I think it is incumbent upon the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs to tel! you, Sir, now, who the source of his information is. [Interjections.] Let me finish. There is a more significant aspect. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs may well be a rather innocent tool of a person who is a real liar here. And we should find out who that is. That is why the hon. the Minister should tell us from where that source of information comes.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Yeoville alleged that a member of this House was a liar.

Yes.

He says that is true. Should he not withdraw that?

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville said that if such a person is identified he is a liar. However, the person has not yet been identified. I shall give the matter my consideration and tomorrow …

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

I shall give my ruling tomorrow on the appointment of a Select Committee as requested by both the Chief Whip of the official Opposition and the Government Chief Whip.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea is quite pleased about the results of the recent election as far as the official Opposition is concerned. In Natal the NP maintained its majority and also attracted more votes. In the Transvaal the NP gained an extra seat. I should like to sketch for the hon. member for Berea the circumstances in which we fought the election. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition introduced a motion of censure here and tried to create the impression that their party is now growing. Whom did we fight against in the election? Against the opposition parties who are seated there, against “Aksie Eie Toekoms”, against the HNP and …

The KWV. [Interjections.]

There was a general action against the Government and we fought the election on that. There was a general feeling that the NP had to be hurt. In my constituency a member of the HNP and a Prog stood against me. The Prog lost his deposit. In the early morning hours, while we were counting votes, the Prog and HNP candidates, accompanied by their officials were present, and when the result in the Cape Town Gardens constituency was announced I saw with my own eyes those two men embracing each other. [Interjections.] Both of them were so pleased that the NP had been hurt. This was the trend throughout the country. People voted against the Government because they were disappointed as a result of the Information problem and other difficulties. Everything was in favour of the Opposition parties. Let me tell hon. members opposite if I were to participate in an election with all those things in my favour I would gain a resounding victory. Let me tell them, too, that if we were to have an election now in the normal way, they would not have the slightest chance of ever coming into power. [Interjections.] They cannot stand in Piketberg, Sir, for one does not make a fool of oneself publicly.

I now want to turn to the things they have against us. The hon. member for Yeoville stood up yesterday and told me I was a racist, and the hon. member for Houghton said “scandalous”. I said that we were saddled with a group of people in this country who were concerned about their conditions of employment. These are people who have kept the wheels rolling, but I have stated repeatedly in public that we in this country cannot expect 4 million Whites alone to provide the initiative, the driving force, the brain power for 25 million people. We are too few. We shall have to start accommodating the Black people.

That is not what you said.

Who would know better than I what I said?

Read your own newspaper. They state it clearly.

Sir, I said that we simply must make use of people of colour. [Interjections.] I shall elaborate on this in a moment. The hon. member for Yeoville called me a racist, but after I have said what I am going to say now, he is going to blame me again and call me a racist again? How was I brought up? I am the only one in this House, including Houghton, who was taught—these were the circumstances in our part of the world and in our household—that one calls an older person “oom”. Three of the people I have in mind are still alive, and they were elderly people at that time, Black people whom I called “oom”. “Oom Dick” and “Oom Willem” are still alive and hon. members can go and ascertain from them that this is the case.

And “Oom” Harry.

That was the attitude that prevailed among us. [Interjections.] We also had one whose name was Harry, but we called him “Outa”! [Interjections.] I never speak about myself, but my father was the first man who built a school for Blacks. He was the first chairman of the Bantu Investment Corporation. I work with the Blacks every weekend. I have contact with them. In 1966 we asked the hon. member for Houghton in this House: “What do you pay the Blacks who work in your Union Hotel in Pretoria?” It was a disgraceful wage!

Nonsense. [Interjections.]

What happened about the investigation concerning Michael Scott in the Eastern Transvaal? Who was investigated in the Eastern Transvaal in 1960? Who locked away the Black man’s clothes this evening and gave him a bag to cover himself with because he—the Black man’s employer—was afraid that the Black man would leave? I farmed in those circumstances in the Eastern Transvaal and to call me as a racist—well, then you are making a grave mistake, old chap!

But why do you use those words?

I am going to give the hon. member further information. I was told to attend classes in order to learn to speak Zulu, for I had to maintain contact with the Black man by being able to speak his language. Today I serve in a government which is being reproached for being a bunch of racists. I have never regarded a Black man as an enemy. The Blacks working for me refer to “our farm”. That is the attitude there, and I am just pointing this out just to illustrate that I have nothing against a Black man.

Harry says the farmers wear skins.

That is also untrue. Do you want to lay a bet that that is untrue? [Interjections.] You are a decent member …

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

Sir, there is nothing wrong with being a hawker of hides. [Interjections.] I know people who have hawked with hides and who got ahead in life and reached the top. I do not want to hurt anyone or be derogatory. If I slighted the hon. member for Sea Point just now, I shall apologize to him in public. It is not in my nature to quarrel. I think I am the only one in this House who has never been in a court in my life. I have never even given evidence in a court. [Interjections.] I pay my speeding fines. [Interjections.]

Am I now a racist? The hon. member for Langlaagte was present at a conference with me. There are a number of men wanting transport permits to Africa. I am now summarily to abolish all discrimination, but the people who undertake transport work in Africa tell the hon. member for Langlaagte and me that we must not stipulate that they are to transport their loads in containers, for with regard to the independent African country to which those goods must go—I shall not mention names; it has been independent for a long time now—the European exporters say that such containers never come back since the people of that Black State use the containers as dwellings. I talk about civilization, but when I mention these things it is said that I am being derogatory towards the Black man. The hon. members opposite want everyone to be made equal in a flash.

Reference has been made to my statement that 4 million people cannot always do the thinking and planning for the masses. Why is this the case? Since 1910 a Black man has never been prevented from buying shares on the Stock Exchange. Why is there no Black man on the board of Anglo American? [Interjections.]

But there is. [Interjections.] But I agree with you, for there are companies on whose boards no Black people are serving.

Am I a racist when I talk to a number of people at a factory who tell me: “Look, we work in this factory and there are 3 000 Blacks here and only 300 Whites. The overseas owner of the factory has told us to equalize the restaurant; all we ask you is to let us have a simple place to eat. Give the fine, large dining hall to the Blacks, just give us Whites the right to eat in a small, simple room alone.” Is that wrong? Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition condemn that?

The Government says it does not want to discriminate, but if the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development says that he does not advocate the oppression of minorities, he is hauled over the coals. [Interjections.] It comes to the same thing; there is no difference.

I think there are approximately 2,5 million people in our country who pay income tax. Is it wrong if the Government insists that everyone should contribute his share in the form of sales tax? How often has the Opposition not made a fuss about this aspect. How can we expect 2½ million people to have to pay R230 million next year as a subsidy on bread? Surely that is unthinkable. When I was appointed Minister 12 years ago the bread subsidy was R22 million. Surely we had no other choice but to increase the bread price. Next year the subsidy will amount to R150 million—where does this come from? From the pockets of the 2½ million people. I say, let everyone contribute his share and stipulate a sales tax which is fair to everyone.

Are you saying that Blacks do not pay tax?

No, that is not what I said. [Interjections.]

For the past 33 years now the PFP and its supporters have lived in a country in which they have become rich. There is a free economy in which they have become rich. There is a free economy and the Press has never been curbed. There is freedom of the Press here in South Africa. The news media may attack any person at will—they may even quote what I am saying. I do not know where the report came from which the hon. member quoted yesterday.

Yesterday you admitted …

I admitted that I said that with regard to brain power, 41/2 million people cannot always …

No, you admitted exactly what I quoted …

Let us appoint another committee.

Why must the hon. the Leader of the Opposition condemn me when the Government wants to govern in an orderly way? Why must his party condemn me when I say: “Let us follow a system in accordance with which it is possible to encourage birth control among the people of colour in this country?” Not one of the hon. members opposite has ever said: “Here is a solution to the problem.” On each occasion they criticize the idea of birth control and allege that it is aimed at oppression of the Blacks.

Never!

What were the results of the guidance campaign? [Interjections.] After all, I know what the agents are saying, because I have contact with the people. I repeat my question: Why does the Opposition not support us when we want to uplift the Black man? [Interjections.] Is it wrong for me to say: Give the Black man a far larger salary, but then stop subsidizing his housing and let him build his own house? What has my experience been? I know hon. members opposite are going to say I am a racist. I know of a firm that packs citrus fruit which increased the salaries of the citrus packers—Black women—to R8 and three meals per day. The following Monday, 40 of them failed to come to work, and when the employers inquired into the matter their reply was: “We earned so much money last week that we skipped this week.” I am not lying, Sir. These are facts. Have I now denigrated the Black man? Am I now a racist? I say to the Black man: “Come and work overtime and build yourself a decent house in your own homeland.” The firm to which I referred farms on the border of the homeland. But when one raises such ideas one receives no support from that side of the House. They condemn you and you are called a racist.

The hon. member who has now gone to look for a newspaper, alleged yesterday that I had said “elke aap op sy krans” (“every baboon on his own rock”). I said my policy is “one man, one vote” because I know the Black man. The hon. member for Berea can quote at length from what Mr. Buthelezi has said, but speak to the Venda, speak to the Black man, to the Sotho, with whom I have weekly contact. They will tell you that they will not serve under a Zulu. They are not prepared to do so. Consequently, if we do not allow this policy to succeed in this country, there will be a ghastly bloodbath. These groups will revolt against one another. I say this here and now. One cannot expect all these people to fall under the same dispensation. Our problem is that the outside world does not take cognizance of this. People in the outside world think that there are only Blacks in general here. But there are ethnic groups here who traditionally have their own customs, tribal customs, and want to live separately.

Why are you worried about Black majority rule then?

Mr. Speaker, may I, with your permission, ask the hon. the Minister, whether he would, for his own sake, correct or otherwise confirm the report which I should now like to quote? It reads—

That is the report. Did he or did he not say that?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it or is it not the case that the rules of this House do not permit a member to furnish an explanation while another member is speaking, but that the Speaker may afford him an opportunity once the member who is speaking has finished?

Order! For the information of the hon. the Minister I just want to say that if a member who is speaking permits it, any member may raise a point of explanation. If the member who is speaking does not agree to that, the explanation may be given after the member who is speaking has completed his speech. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I just want to reply briefly to the hon. member for Yeoville. I just want to explain how my mind was working. I do not know how the newspaper interpreted it, but what I said was that we cannot continue to expect 4½ million Whites to have to do the thinking and planning for the masses. That is what I meant and if the hon. member does not want to accept that, he can leave it.

Unfortunately I now have to conclude. The hon. the leader of the Opposition is so obsessed with the idea of the Western world which does not understand South Africa’s circumstances of political freedoms. What does political freedom mean, and what is happening in Africa? Political freedom in Africa has resulted in dictatorships, oppression, famine and economic decline. One cannot introduce civilization overnight. One can give a person university training, but even then he is not yet sufficiently civilized to be left on his own. Just look at what has happened. We can name countless examples. Where political independence has been introduced it has led to dictatorship. I am thinking of Black people whom I know, the masses, and not just the few with whom that hon. member has contact. The Black masses in South Africa want stability and employment opportunities. They want food to eat. That is what they seek. They do not have the faintest idea about these political rights we are referring to. As they develop they may be given the necessary opportunities, but today they are not yet ripe for them. The overseas visitors with whom I have travelled in this country, who are antagonistic when they arrive here, perceive the realities I show them. If I let them make contact with the Black man and they speak to him, in all his childlike innocence where he lives, surrounded by nature—and that is where the masses live—they tell me: “Well, I cannot believe it. We overseas never got the message that you have a specific problem in this country.” Surely this is not oppression. On Durban station, for example, one sees 10 000 people on one day who have to catch trains, but usually only about 500 of them are Whites. If a little old lady complains that her handbag is stolen and asks for a small, separate place where she can wait for a train, we must afford her the necessary protection. There must be protection for minorities. Consequently I give the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development full marks when he says that he does not want to oppress or supplant anyone, but we must extend our hand and assist the small number of people who are dependent upon protection. This is not racism.

Mr. Speaker, I have neither the time nor the inclination to get involved in the private argument between the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Yeoville about whether the hon. the Minister is a racist or not. They can fight that out between themselves.

But I do want to say two things. The hon. the Minister has a tendency—he is a bit of a smart-aleck—to make off-the-cuff remarks which are sometimes quite amusing but which also very often have a racist content. That is why he is getting this reputation. As a matter of fact, I do not think he is a racist but he must watch what he says because people are inclined to chafe at what he says and take it as being racist talk. And I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if the Government would stop wasting hundreds of millions of rands every year on their crazy apartheid plan, they would perhaps be able to afford a higher subsidy on bread and thus keep the price down.

The other thing I want to tell the hon. the Minister—and here too he does not seem to have the sensitivity to understand this—is that one cannot simply talk about birth control for Black people in South Africa without also talking about the necessity for birth control for other races in South Africa, otherwise it immediately has a political content. The hon. the Minister does not understand that if one talks about birth control for Blacks only, it immediately becomes a political issue. Therefore one either supports the idea of family planning and birth control for all races in the country or one shuts up entirely about it. I just wanted to give the hon. the Minister these words of advice.

I am very sorry that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation is unable to be in the House this afternoon. I understand he is ill and I am sorry to hear it. I wish he had been here because I do not like to tackle the man in his absence.

Now you want to tackle me!

The hon. the Minister is going to get it as well. Meanwhile the hon. the Minister can pass the message on to his deputy. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that I was not in the least impressed with the figures he tossed about in the House on Tuesday afternoon about the progress being made in providing housing in the Peninsula. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister not know that for at least ten years not a single family house was built for Blacks in the Western Cape due to the Government’s ludicrous Eiselen-line policy? Does the hon. the Deputy Minister not know that 66% of the men living in the so-called bachelor quarters in Langa are, in fact, married men? The Government creates conditions for squatter camps and it further impoverishes the already impoverished Black rural areas of South Africa by resettling—dumping is the correct word—hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of Black people over the years, whether it be by Black spot removal or whether it be by the so-called relocation of Black urban areas or whether it be by the removal of people from the so-called White areas of South Africa. It creates the very conditions that make it essential for people to come to the Western Cape and to the other metropolitan areas seeking work. They have no option, or rather, they have an option but that option is to starve in the homelands. The Government is responsible for the enormous shortfall in housing for Blacks in every single urban area in the country. It is responsible for the vast bottleneck in skilled labour because it has prevented the proper education and training of Blacks over all these years. Now that it is taking a few tentative steps in the right direction to correct the appalling situation the Government itself has created over all these years, we are all expected to break into paeans of praise. That is the message we got from the hon. the Prime Minister who was aggrieved that we were not giving the Government credit for what it was doing. But it is the Government who created the appalling situation and we are not about to break into cheers because it is finally, at long last, beginning to realize its mistakes.

I wish to state at once and very briefly that I was never among the optimists who were expecting any real changes in race relations this session, who were expecting any real measures in that direction this session. I am afraid my expectations have been raised too often and then nothing has been forthcoming. We have had rousing speeches about reform, there have been banner headlines about the thousands of houses that are going to be built for Blacks, about the millions of rands that are going to be spent on Blacks, only to be followed, as the months go on, by little or nothing of any practical value.

So I believe this Session of Parliament will end as it began—in a state of suspended animation. I say this because I am convinced that now, more than ever before—if I may borrow one of the hon. the Prime Minister’s most favourite election slogans—the priority that takes precedence over all others, as far as the hon. the Prime Minister is concerned, is the maintenance of whatever unity still exists in the NP. That is the No. 1 priority. I believe that all other considerations will take second place to that. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister places this above the interests of South Africa. He is not, I might mention, acting out of character. I am not going to go into any details about past episodes, such as that he allowed Dr. Connie Mulder to stand for the premiership of this country although he knew about Dr. Mulder’s involvement in the Info scandal and the scandal involving The Citizen. Neither am I going to enter into details about the incident of Craven Week in which instance he gave way before the onslaught of the hon. the Minister of State Administration.

I believe that, once again, that was for the same reason, viz. to maintain the unity of the NP. I believe this consideration is going to take priority even when it comes to issues which affect our relations with the rest of the world, such as trying to settle the Namibia issue, as well as taking priority over considerations that govern our internal affairs. The Government seems to think that it now has all the time in the world. It has been lulled into a sense of false security because of the less abrasive attitude of Mrs. Thatcher in Britain and the Reagan government in America.

That is a dirty point. It is not true.

The Government completely forgets that that friendlier tone is not unconditional and that some quid pro quo is expected, failing which, I can tell the Government, that goodwill is rapidly going to be eroded.

You are harming your country.

Because the Government thinks it has all the time in the world, because it no longer really cares about the reactions, because it is in fact utterly insensitive, it completely ignores reaction to the things it does and it continues to do the sort of things that disgust civilized people. I mean things like arresting hundreds of Blacks in the Western Cape in dawn raids with police, guns and teargas, like forced removals of hapless Blacks, like ripping down the shelters over the heads of wretched women and children and leaving them exposed to the rain and freezing weather. The hon. the Deputy Minister said they are here illegally. I may say that the cases of many of them have not yet come up in court and many of them who have been defended in court have been found not to be here illegally. The hon. the Minister talks about inciters bringing people to the Cape but he quite ignores the fact that very many of the people who have been arrested have been here for years and years. No inciters brought them here: hunger brought them here, starvation brought them here or a desire to live a family life with their husbands.

While all these things were going on, where was the hon. the Minister of Health, Dr. Munnik, and where was the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation, Dr. Morrison—I emphasize that both these gentlemen are members of the medical profession, if I am not much mistaken. What about the Hippocratic oath? Have they forgotten the Hippocratic oath they took?

Long ago.

What explanation are they going to give when the first child dies of pneumonia?

Order! Did the hon. member say: “He has forgotten his Hippocratic oath?”

No, Sir, I asked if the hon. members, who are members of the medical profession, had forgotten that they took the Hippocratic oath when they became doctors.

What has that got to do with you?

I am asking, because I am interested.

You should see a psychiatrist.

Order! Did the hon. member for Sandton say: “Long ago?”

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

What explanations are these medical men going to give when the first child dies of pneumonia as a result of exposure on the Nyanga Flats and South Africa once again becomes engulfed in a catastrophe which will equal that of the Biko disaster? That is why I want to know that from the hon. the Minister. I want to point out to him that already the plight of the people of Nyanga is hitting the headlines of all the major newspapers abroad. The hon. the Prime Minister in his speech on Monday pleaded with the media not to publish sensational reports, and I plead with the Government not to provide material for sensational reports by removing people from the Flats, by banning people and by detaining students and trade unionists.

Plead with them to co-operate. That is what you must do.

As long as these things continue here, the Prime Minister’s assertion that the Whites are here “as a source of civilized standards”, to use his own words, is rejected out of hand. Some Whites may be, but certainly not the Government.

When all these things were taking place in the Western Cape, where was the man who had declared war on the dompass? He was having one of his rushes of blood to the head.

No, I declared war on it and I shall continue to wage war against it.

He says he has his …

What sort of war? A cold war? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister has this symptom quite frequently. But what happens then? He utters ridiculous statements. That is what he does. I was in this House when the hon. the Minister was still the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education. I remember he had a rush of blood to the head in 1969 when he told the House he was going to introduce an amendment which was going to stop Black telephonists and Black counter-hands as well as Black typists from labour integration. He said it was the intention of the proposed provision to prevent labour integration, and therefore also integration, and to bring about the improvement of race relations and the elimination of racial friction and embarrassment for both White and Bantu by stopping Blacks from becoming telephonists, counter-hands and receptionists. He said the aim of the Government was “to stop up small cracks which were appearing in the wall”. All I can say is that he has been less successful than the young man who put his thumb in the dyke wall. [Interjections.]

What is the ridiculous statement that he made this time? He talked about “verdringing” and he talked about Whites being crowded out by Blacks in the urban areas. He said this had become a serious headache and that a special Cabinet sub-committee had been given the priority task of looking at the swamping problem. I should like him to know that his subsequent explanation in Die Burger made things even worse, not better. I can only tell him that a great, big horse laugh greeted this idiotic statement, especially in Soweto, when people read further that the hon. the Minister had also said—and do listen to this one!—that, “in all fairness, Blacks could be told that their parks in Soweto were not overrun by Whites.” [Interjections.]

Now, here I must say that the hon. the Minister is absolutely correct. I do not believe the parks in Soweto are overrun by Whites. I do not think they quite compare with the Zoo Lake, and I do not think there are waiting lists of Whites who want to bus their children to schools in Soweto, because it is possible that the amenities of the Orlando High School do not really compare with the amenities at King Edward School or at Helpmekaar.

Did you really say that, Piet? You did not say that. You could not have said it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, what possesses the hon. the Minister to make these ludricrous statements, especially at a time when his own department is facing fierce criticism from all quarters …

It is because he is a political cynic.

… regarding a number of burning issues? There are, for instance, the financial administration of the Boards, allegations of shocking irregularities in the commissioners’ courts as given to the Hoexter Mission—scandalous comments by the two magistrates in the Western Cape Commissioner’s Court. I want to know what has happened to those two gentlemen?

I disapproved of their conduct and I ordered an investigation.

What has happened to them? Have they been promoted? [Interjections.]

Do not talk nonsense.

I just want to know what has happened to them. Have they been promoted? Now the hon. the Minister tells me I am talking nonsense.

What has happened to them? The hon. the Minister must tell us.

I have already said an investigation has been ordered.

We know about the complaints, about road blocks and body searches in Soweto, which are infuriating the residents of Soweto and of all the Rand townships where similar actions are undertaken on the instructions of the hon. the Minister of Police. These men are probably assisted by the Administration Board officials. We know about the paralysis in providing crash housing programmes for Blacks. Then the hon. the Minister comes along with his nonsense about crowding out and “verdringing”. Really, he makes such a stupid man of himself at times! [Interjections.]

I am glad he told us—because I was going to ask him about it during this debate—about the Grosskopf Commission and whether we were going to get sight of those three Bills. I sincerely hope that they are going to be a much improved version of the three original Bills which he had to withdraw, because something must be done, and it must be done urgently, about the pass laws. Again I have to tell the hon. the Minister that the pass laws are the single most important cause of racial friction in South Africa. He knows that.

I know that.

Does he also remember that during the years 1979 and 1980 more than 350 000 people were arrested under the pass laws, turned into statutory criminals because of the pass laws?

Now I come to a very important point, and I am really very sorry that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation is not here. However, since the hon. the Minister, I am sure, keeps his eye on everything that is going on in his department, he will certainly be able to tell me what this is about. Will the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister explain to us why his official tortoises have been allowed to flout the law in the implementation of influx control, thus denying Blacks the few rights they have? Last year there was the Komani judgment in the Appeal Court which laid down that the wives … Are you listening to me, please?

I am listening with both ears.

Well then, listen with both ears, and with your mouth shut. There was the Komani judgement in the Appeal Court and it laid down that the wives of men legally resident in the urban areas were allowed to join them, under section 10(1)(c). We all know that that is the case. Notwithstanding this decision, officials of Administration Boards continued to refuse permission in many cases to such qualified wives and, no doubt also, to the unmarried daughters, and to the sons under the age of 18 who also qualify.

Last week there was another case, the Mhlongo case in Johannesburg, and the judge there had to express his disapproval of the need to come to court once again to re-establish this right. However, what interests me is that on 18 February this year I asked a question in this House. I asked what had been done to draw the attention of the officials to the Komani judgment. The answer that I received from the hon. the Deputy Minister was that a Circular Minute had been sent to all Chief Commissioners and Administration Boards on 26 August 1980.

That is true.

Yet, a year later, the Director of WRAB is quoted in the Financial Mail as saying: “Now his officials are aware of the court’s decision and are carrying it out.” This was a year later. Why is that? What was in the circular? Did the circular tell the officials to ignore the Appeal Court’s findings? I want to see what is in that circular.

You can have it.

I want to see what is in that circular because there is utter confusion and I cannot understand why only a year later the officials are “aware” of the content of that circular. That is civil disobedience of the very worst kind, and by the man who is so keen on law and order, the Deputy Minister of Co-operation. I want to know in fact how many women and children were refused permission during that whole year when the officials either did not know or received the wrong instruction from Pretoria. I must tell hon. members that I have the deepest suspicion that Pretoria was at fault.

I want to end up by reading extracts of a letter that I came across the other day. It reads as follows—

Hon. members might think that was a letter written by an educated Nyanga father and husband to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. In fact it is not. It is an open letter written by the Russian dissident, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, to the Minister of the Interior of the Soviet Union in 1973. I think I have made my point that it is only in countries behind the Iron Curtain that one gets the sort authoritarian control that does not allow a father to live with his children and a husband to live with his wife, as of right and not by permit.

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here for the past few days and listening to the speeches from the other side and I wonder what the Opposition would have spoken about if it were not for the conditions prevailing in Langa and Nyanga at the moment, and if it were not for the speech that was made by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development in Johannesburg recently?

Perhaps the bread price.

This afternoon we had the example of the hon. member for Berea, an experienced front-bencher in this House, delivering a speech in which he was able to make 26 points that had a bearing on the 20 members of the Cabinet and the six Deputy Ministers. This is what he devoted his half-hour to, and he spent approximately 20 minutes on it. This is the standard of the front-bench speeches that this House has been experiencing for the past week. Our introduction was the speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. When we thought that he had concluded his introduction, the hon. the Leader resumed his seat. Honestly! In all seriousness, the hon. the leader knows that over the years I have always listened when he made a speech. I listened to him when he was still a back-bencher and I still listen to him today as leader of that party. Besides that, we owe it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to try to listen to him when he makes a speech. However, I have honestly never experienced a display like that one in this House over the past 16 years.

If it were not for the conditions prevailing in the Cape at the moment, I also wonder what the hon. member for Houghton would have spoken about to us today. Unfortunately, I cannot dwell on the hon. member for very long because this is not what I have prepared myself to talk about. I have prepared myself to talk about matters relating to security and that is what I want to discuss. I just want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that in her case too, there used to be days when the hon. member for Houghton made hon. members in this House sit up straight to listen to her speeches. However, there was really no substance in it today. The few questions that she put to my hon. colleague, will be answered in due course.

That is why, with all due respect towards the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I want to deal with three aspects that have a bearing on the official Opposition. They are related to the security situation in South Africa. In the first instance, there is the attitude of the official Opposition with regard to preventive legislation; in the second instance, para, (d) of the motion of censure of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition; and in the third instance, the circumstances surrounding the Boraine case which was brought to our attention here in the House yesterday. It was done by the hon. member for Pinetown.

Yesterday we had the experience of the hon. the Minister of Justice being laughed to scorn by hon. members on the opposite side while he was very seriously giving the House an idea of the legal provisions and the circumstances that must be taken into account with regard to preventing certain situations.

Laughing jack-asses.

Real laughing jackasses. And the voters are asking themselves questions. They are asking themselves: How is it possible for the official Opposition to laugh the Minister of Justice to scorn when he is speaking about a serious matter such as the prevention of riot conditions by means of legislation? I put this question to the official Opposition yesterday: What do you want under the circumstances? Do you want young leaders and other leaders, trouble-makers and radicals, to be allowed to make trouble without any action being taken against them? …

Charge them and bring them to court.

Wait a moment; give me a chance to qualify that … without any action being taken against them whilst one is faced with the problem that one does not immediately have that evidence required for arresting them and charging them in court, although one has adequate evidence that a situation of riot and unrest is being incited here? Now must one, as a responsible Government or as the department responsible for the security situation in South Africa, simply close one’s eyes to this? Is this what the official Opposition wants? Does the official Opposition want us to allow those elements in South Africa simply to move around as they wish? Did they want us to allow the Coloured community here in the Western Cape to be incited the way they were to cause situations of riot and unrest last year, or should we have removed those inciters from that community?

Are you saying that that is the case with Andrew Boraine?

I shall come to the Andrew Boraine case in a moment. The hon. member must not become as emotional with me as he did yesterday because he is going to regret it today as soon as I have dealt with that case. I am asking the official Opposition whether we should have allowed the situation with regard to the Black schools, which in the past has dragged on for months, well into this year, to continue any longer. I am referring to the Eastern Cape, Kimberley, Bloemfontein and Cape Town. Hon. members do not want us to take steps. They do not want us to remove those leaders from the community so that the community can have the opportunity of reaching a less-tense situation in their absence. They do not want the community to be given the opportunity of cooling off without them. What is more: They do not want us to take steps to take those same people, those same inciters and put them in a place where they too can cool off. The official Opposition laughs the hon. the Minister of Justice to scorn when he explains these circumstances.

Must we allow the incitement by radical elements in the labour sphere to continue unchecked in Port Elizabeth, in other places in the Eastern Cape, in Cape Town and on the Witwatersrand? We are a responsible Government and we are not prepared to let the laughing jackasses prescribe to us when we should take someone in and keep them in safe-keeping. However, this is what the official Opposition wants. Now the hon. members of the official Opposition can ask themselves why the voting public is concerned about the official Opposition stand on the security of South Africa. It is as a result of the attitude that the hon. members are adopting.

There is something else that the hon. members of the official Opposition must ask themselves. Where are those people when stones are thrown, this type of inciter that they are protecting in the House to such an extent, this type of trouble-maker that they are protecting in the House to such an extent by means of the attitude that they are adopting here?

What court has judged them to be inciters?

They are not there when the stones are being thrown. Nor are they there when the petrol bombs are being thrown. One simply has to take a look at what is happening when the stones are being thrown. In those situations, who is stoned? It is not these leaders towards whom the hon. members are so sympathetic, not these inciters, but it is the policemen who are stoned. The policemen have petrol bombs thrown at them. I want to say something in the House today that I have also said outside before. In any event, it is a serious crime to raise one’s hand to a member of the S.A. Police when he is doing his duty within the law. There are people who assault the S.A. Police by way of stone-throwing and such during conditions in which the police must take action. We know how we must take action in those situations. They are serious situations and we know how to protect ourselves in those situations and also how we should deal with such situations. I want to put it clearly here in the House that if there is anyone in South Africa who has the idea that he is going to throw a petrol bomb at the police, he will not be given a second opportunity to throw a petrol bomb. [Interjections.]

I now want to come to the hon. member for Pinetown who is so excited. He was this excited yesterday already and this amazes me, because my information is that the hon. member is an experienced lawyer. He has in fact told us now that he has been sitting on his farm for the past few years—meditating and philosophizing and studying politics from a distance—but the hon. member is not uninformed on security matters. Seven, eight or 10 years ago the hon. member was involved in a busy practice in which, amongst other things, he was also particularly active in defending people who were charged in terms of security legislation. Therefore, he is very well informed in this regard.

What are the facts in connection with the Boraine case? I find it a great pity that we have to discuss this case in the House. I find it a pity for several reasons.

It is exactly where it should be discussed.

One of the reasons is that most of us sitting here, are parents of children of that age. Most of us sitting here, are fathers and none of us feels inclined to point a finger at anyone else without reason. There is a second reason why I am sorry that the matter is being discussed in the House. This is that the hon. member for Pinelands is a parliamentary colleague. That is why I say that the hon. member for Pinetown could have taken another example if he was intent on using an example in connection with security legislation. The hon. member for Pinetown is now forcing me to deal with a specific case because the public of South Africa is entitled to answers, because what the hon. member for Pinetown said, cannot go unanswered. How far are those standpoints that he raised yesterday going to spread? Probably those standpoints are on the front pages of newspapers in London today. Those standpoints are thrown back at us by Amnesty International from many countries in the world, because a senior member of the official Opposition in South Africa says that this is so, a senior member of the Bench in South Africa says it is so. Therefore, surely it must be taken seriously. I shall prove that four or five of the statements and/or allegations that the hon. member made, are untrue. That is why I say that the hon. member has not done the House or the hon. member for Pinelands a favour by dealing with this matter in such a way yesterday. I am not going to stand back and take it now. The hon. members for Pinetown and Pinelands must take what they are going to get. The fact of the matter is that I, as the responsible Minister, have not received a single serious complaint in connection with detainees under security legislation for the past two years and perhaps longer. As hon. members know, the Act provides that two former magistrates are appointed as commissioners by the Minister of Justice, and I have received only a few minor complaints from them. In this regard I also want to say that if there is one person who is intensely interested in the circumstances of people detained by the Police in terms of security legislation, it is the hon. the Minister of Justice, because he has serious obligations as a result and he has to decide whether he wants to comply with them or not. I repeat that not a single serious problem has been brought to my attention, and this speaks volumes for the behaviour of the S.A. Police with regard to people who are detained under security legislation.

I personally have also visited quite a number of these people in various places and have kept myself informed of the circumstances under which we are carrying out our duties.

This young man was detained last year from 17 to 29 June in accordance with section 22(1) of the General Law Amendment Act. Following that, he was detained from 30 June to 13 August in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act. This year he was detained from 27 May to 9 June in terms of section 22(1) of the General Law Amendment Act and from 10 July to 29 July he was confined in the Central Prison in Pretoria in terms of section 10 of the Internal Security Act.

In solitary …

I shall come to that too. Once again the hon. member is using that word deliberately and I shall indicate that he is using it deliberately.

The places where the young man was detained this year, are both modern complexes in Cape Town and Pretoria.

Five star.

Yesterday, the hon. member for Pinetown said the following in this regard (Hansard, 5 August)—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows much better than that. Why is he misleading the House? Why is the hon. member, a senior member of the Bench, misleading the House by making a statement like this? The hon. member knows very well what the provisions of the General Law Amendment Act and the Terrorism Act are and that they do in fact have a much wider scope than he indicated here. Unfortunately, my time is limited, otherwise I could have quoted the relevant provisions. Should I have the time later on, and he challenges me, I shall quote them in order to support this.

Now he is laughing!

Yes, he is laughing nervously. The hon. member went on to say—

Mr. Speaker, this is a gross untruth that the hon. member is stating here. The hon. member will not be able to contradict me inside or outside the House if I say that it is in fact a gross untruth that he stated.

Order! The hon. the Minister may not use the words “gross untruth”.

I shall withdraw the word “gross”, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member goes on—

Was he allowed to have a lawyer?

The hon. member goes on—

But it is not to be found in any law or regulation and it is not stated in Hansard that this is the aim of this Act. Why does the hon. member say this? He says it for one reason only: for foreign consumption and nothing else. He goes on—

Why does the hon. member simply refer to a judge? After all, the hon. member knows what the facts are. Surely the hon. member knows that in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act, a magistrate must visit a detainee at least once every 14 days.

Not a judge.

Why does the hon. member not say that here in the House? [Interjections.] Why does he not say—after all he knows it is true—that a controller of detainees also visits these detainees from time to time? Why does he not tell that here to the House so that it can become general knowledge? Why must we always tell it to the House? Why does he not say that senior regional magistrates are the controllers of detainees? They are people with a great deal of legal experience. Why does he not tell the House that in the past two years I have received no more than four minor complaints from those controllers? Why does the hon. member not also tell the House that medical practitioners can visit a detainee immediately at his request, and as often as he wants them to visit him? If that hon. member would simply make inquiries from me, I shall give him the details of every single reason why a person has undergone a medical examination in the past two years. [Interjections.] Not in a single one of those cases, which comprise two folio sheets, was there a single charge of assault against any of the people. Surely that hon. member is aware of these things.

What about Biko?

Why does he not also say in public that the regulations of the charge office provide that the charge office sergeant should visit those people every hour and that he does in fact do so? He can look this up in the records. Why does he not also say that the station commander visits those people every day? Why does he not also say that the district commandant and the regional commissioner visit those people? But, that positive side must not be mentioned. However, that hon. member had more to say. I quote—

That is basically correct.

That is true.

Of course, I said so. I did not say it was not correct.

Do you think it is right?

I shall come to that hon. member in a moment and to the University Christian Movement. He must just remain quiet for a while. I shall still show this House all the things that he introduced to the country. He must just please remain quiet now. [Interjections.] What I am going to say now, I am saying for the information of the public too. We do not withhold from him the ordinary, private things that such a person needs. The family can contact the Police at once and members of the family can bring him clothes and other private necessities. These are then handed to the person at once. However, we do not at once say where the person is being detained. We do not make that information known, and there are very good reasons for this. One of the reasons is that if we were to tell a father or mother that their son was being detained in Parow—after all a family is a family—surely it is logical that the father and mother would go to Parow with the best of intentions and ask to see their son, and in the circumstances with which we are working, with complicated problems related to security matters, this is not always desirable. I do not say we like doing this. I am simply saying it is not always desirable. All I can say, is that in this case every contribution that came from the family, was given to the young man.

However, there is another matter that I am going to raise. The hon. member goes on to say—

I have just given a list of senior and other officials, even a senior magistrate, who are in contact with this person every hour. Nevertheless such things are still being said, deliberately too.

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

No, my time is very limited. I am still coming to that hon. member. The hon. member for Pinetown asks: “Is Boraine a security risk?”

†The answer is “yes”.

Which one?

Both.

Answer the question. Which one?

In answer to the question … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is an hon. member allowed to reply “Both” in answer to the question “Is Boraine a security risk?”, implying that the hon. member for Pinelands is a security risk?

Order! Which hon. member said “both”?

I said it. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, have you ruled that the other hon. members who also made the same remark, must withdraw it? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs withdrew that remark. Some other hon. members also withdrew that remark. Did the hon. member not hear it?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: There were at least 10 or 15 members who stood up and admitted that they had made that remark. As far as I am aware, those hon. members have not withdrawn that remark.

I am still dealing with the point. Are there other hon. members who made that remark?

Yes, I said so too.

I said so too. [Interjections.]

Order! All hon. members who said so, must rise to their feet and withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. the Minister of Police may proceed.

The hon. member for Yeoville is wasting time in the House by means of points of order.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister is saying that the point of order, which you upheld, was a waste of time. Is that not a reflection on the Chair? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

In reply to the question of the hon. member for Pinelands, viz. “Which one?”, I am referring to his son at the moment. The hon. member for Pinetown went on to ask: “Has he ever been a security risk?”

†My answer to that is also “yes”.

I could not hear you.

The hon. member also asked the hon. the Minister of Justice, the hon. the Minister of Defence and me: “Has he ever been a security risk?” My answer to that is “yes”.

So he will not be able to serve in the national Army.

The hon. member also asked whether the Minister of Defence had been informed by the Minister of Justice or by myself.

*My reply to this is that the hon. the Minister has not yet been informed by me. It is my task to inform him and he will be informed by me within the next few days in connection with the Boraine Junior case.

I reminded you to do so, obviously.

The hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition has also referred once or twice already to the question: “Was he held in solitary confinement?”. Once again the words “solitary confinement” are being used deliberately. The hon. member is a senior advocate, one of the most senior advocates on the Cape Bench. The hon. member for Sandton is an experienced attorney. Therefore, those hon. members are both senior lawyers, but nevertheless they asked in a calculating fashion, whether the man was kept in solitary confinement. What is the connotation of solitary confinement? Solitary confinement is a sentence that is imposed on criminals. I shall quote section 80 of the Prisons Act, Act No. 8 of 1959. It deals with—

It reads—

1. (1) As often and for as long as it is urgently and absolutely necessary to secure or restrain any prisoner—
   1. (a) who has displayed or is threatening violence; or
   2. (b) who has been recaptured after escape or who there is good reason to believe is contemplating escape,
      the member of the Prisons Service in charge of the prison may order that prisoner to be confined in an isolation cell, and, in addition or in the alternative, if necessary, to be placed in irons or subjected to some other approved means of mechanical restraint for such period as may be considered absolutely necessary, but not exceeding one month.

Surely this is what “solitary confinement” is, and the hon. members know this. Nevertheless they continue to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice or myself in a calculating fashion whether the man was detained in solitary confinement.

“Yes” or “no”?

The connotation that they want to spread outside, is that the man is being treated like a criminal whilst they know that this is not the case. If a man is locked in a cell on his own, it is called solitary confinement. All the senior detainees on Robben Island have a cell of their own. Why do they not complain about that? After all, they know that this is not solitary confinement.

That is solitary confinement.

Surely they know that in every prison, provision is made for prisoners to be confined in a cell of their own. However, when the Minister of Justice, who is also in control of prisons, is decent enough to detain Breyten Breytenbach separately in a cell that is so large that under normal circumstances 20 prisoners could probably be detained in it, not a word is said about it. This man is also alone in a cell, but after all, this is not solitary confinement. If the young Boraine is alone in a cell, surely it is not “solitary confinement” in the sense that is meant in the Act, and the hon. members know this.

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

No. My time has almost expired.

I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that there is also a great deal upon which he can reflect with regard to the security situation in South Africa. He knows what his involvement was in the years 1967-’69 in the establishment of the University Christian Movement in South Africa.

Exactly the same as it is today.

The hon. member knows that I was chairman of a commission of enquiry of this House, and the reports of the commission are available. I have the relevant report here, but time does not allow me to quote from it. [Interjections.]

That commission was a witch-hunt.

The hon. member knows what his contribution was in bringing Black Power to South Africa from the USA Black Power which is creating problems for us today as a result of which, amongst other things, his son had to be locked up, his son who opened every meeting with “Amandla!” holding his right fist in the air, after which the audience followed suit.

Disgraceful!

The hon. member knows what his share was in introducing Black theology to South Africa with all the problems emanating from it. Surely he knows this.

No, I do not.

Surely he knows what his share was in introducing Black socialism …

I deny everything you say.

… to South Africa. He knows it. Surely he is aware of the conference at Stutterheim. Surely he is aware of the formation of the Black Caucus. Surely he knows how the Saso organization ultimately developed from the Black Caucus. Surely he knows how all this developed. After all, he and I have exchanged ideas on many of these things, although it was in a different sphere. The hon. member must not sit there so piously now and the hon. member for Pinetown must not drag these emotional circumstances concerning another member across the floor of the House and think we are going to remain quiet and protect him. This cannot happen. The hon. member knows how the Minister of Justice reacted to him.

That is a very unsatisfactory reply.

The hon. member knows—I shall not elaborate upon it—that on occasion I have also spoken to the hon. member as a colleague regarding another subject that also had a bearing upon him. I am just mentioning it. Now the hon. member must not reproach me if I tell the public that there are also a few people here who, together with others a few years ago, introduced certain influences to South Africa, of which we are picking the bitter fruits today. [Interjections.]

That is absolute rubbish. Those are absolute lies.

The hon. member for Pinelands must have that on his conscience now.

Order! Did the hon. member say “those are absolute lies”?

They are absolute lies, Mr. Speaker.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw that, Sir. But it is absolutely untrue.

I have here written evidence of what I am talking about. It is a parliamentary document that anyone can read. All the evidence is there.

It is fiction.

It was a witch-hunt.

Order! Did the hon. member say “It was a witch-hunt”?

Yes, I said that.

I said it long ago.

I have said it about 10 times.

Are you saying the commission’s work was a witch-hunt?

Of course it was a witch-hunt.

The hon. member must withdraw that. It was a parliamentary body.

It was nothing else but a witch-hunt.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, with great respect to you, I cannot withdraw that. It was nothing but a witch-hunt in a kangaroo court. [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to the hon. member for Pinelands to withdraw that remark. He is actually referring to a committee of this House and is alleging that that committee conducted a witch-hunt. I cannot allow that allegation to stand. I therefore appeal to the hon. member to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot possibly withdraw it.

Then I regret that I must ask the hon. member to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

(Whereupon the hon. member for Pine-lands withdrew.)

Mr. Speaker, … [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear, from the noise made by hon. members, that I have not been forgotten in this Place. [Interjections.] Let me also add that this debate today, and specifically the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Police, marks a sad day in the history of South Africa. [Interjections.] I do not know from my own knowledge whether this was the case, but if the speech of the hon. member for Pinetown was reported in the overseas Press yesterday with bad results for South Africa, then the speech delivered today by the hon. the Minister of Police will be even more prominently reported with even worse results for the good name of South Africa throughout the world. [Interjections.]

Let me point out immediately that the difference between the cases referred to by the hon. the Minister and the case of young Andrew Boraine is the very real fact that criminals are tried before a court of law and that they are convicted. There has been no trial in the case of Andrew Boraine and neither has he even been charged. Yet, for 58 days this year, this young man was kept in solitary confinement … [Interjections.] I challenge the hon. the Minister of Justice to confirm or deny that statement. Once again he is silent.

It was not solitary confinement in terms of the Act. [Interjections.]

Whatever sort of solitary confinement it was, solitary confinement is visited upon criminals—as the hon. the Minister of Police read out—for certain specific reasons. I confess that I find it hard to believe that young Andrew Boraine could have been put into solitary confinement for any of those reasons mentioned, and I should point out once again that that young man is not and was not a criminal.

Do you say that of your own knowledge?

We now have a very urgent plea by the hon. the Minister of Police. He is going to protect his policemen. He is going to make sure that the policemen do not have stones thrown at them. Does that then make it an excuse for by-passing the courts of law of South Africa and to have a young man judged by the hon. the Minister of Justice? I do not believe that this can be an excuse, that it can even be intended seriously by the hon. the Minister as an excuse. Let us also remember that a criminal, when he is put into gaol, has access to his lawyer, access to a priest and access to his family. Yet, in this particular case, his family did not even know where the young man was. Then the hon. member for Pine-town is attacked for saying things about murderers and for saying young Andrew Boraine had been treated in a way in which even murderers are not treated. It is the truth. It has been so demonstrated.

I now come to the speech that I had intended to make. [Interjections.] First of all, like the hon. member for Waterberg, I should like to congratulate you, Sir, from this side of the House on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I should also like to congratulate hon. members of this House who have been re-elected and to commiserate with hon. members of the NP who find themselves in a ship on a stormy sea, a ship without a rudder and with a captain and a pilot who are both giving conflicting orders.

One of the sad things about this performance in the censure debate is that in all probability a number of the new members of the NP sitting in this House have never heard any speeches made by members of this party, particularly not in a public debate. Therefore I want to tell them that the policy they have heard described in this House by the hon. the Prime Minister and by various Cabinet Ministers on the opposite side, and also by hon. members of the NRP during the tea breaks in this House, is simply not the true policy of the PFP. To suggest that “one man, one vote” in a unitary state, as is said by the hon. the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers, is the policy of this party, is simply not the case. I shall not call it a deliberate lie only because you, Mr. Speaker, will not allow it. Certainly their statements are deliberate, they are premeditated, they are probably jointly planned and they are certainly a fiction. The truth is certainly very different.

Give us the truth.

I shall. I shall certainly give hon. members the truth.

I shall also tell the new members at the back of the House what the four basic principles of the PFP are in terms of a new constitution for South Africa. The very first basic principle is sharing of power, not the perpetuation of White minority rule or the imposition of Black majority rule, but a genuine sharing of power.

How do you prevent Black majority rule?

The second principle is the protection of minorities. The NP’s plans are not designed to protect minorities. That is the last thing they are designed for. The plans of the NP are designed for one thing and one thing only, that is the perpetuation of White minority rule over the major portion of what used to be the Republic of South Africa and its economic and mineral wealth. The fiction of separate sovereignties and independent states is simply a device to try to make the Black population disappear. The former Minister of Co-operation and Development, Connie Mulder, said this clearly in this House, and I did not notice at the time that he said it that this was refuted by his own party.

Finally, to allocate 70% of the population 13% of the land is blatantly absurd as a solution to our problems, as absurd as providing a retirement home for members of Parliament, refusing 70% of the population representation and then calling it the body to present solutions to South African constitutional problems.

The third basic point that we in these benches believe in, is the removal of statutory and administrative discrimination, an open society if you like, as mentioned by the hon. member for Durban North, the removal of all discrimination from the Statute Books, and not only unjust and harmful discrimination; we believe in the removal of all discrimination. Cabinet Ministers are fond of making anti-discriminatory statements, and allow me to quote to you, Mr. Speaker, from Keesings Contemporary Archives what the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs said on 24 October 1974. He said—

Yet he sits in a party that discriminates on the grounds of the colour of a man’s skin every day of the week. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs made a plea that he is not a racist. Oh no, he said, he used to call Black men “oom”. Mr. Speaker, I ask you does he support influx control? Does he support the Group Areas Act? Does he support the Immorality Act? Does he support the Mixed Marriages Act? If he does support this legislation he stands self-convicted as a racist.

Other hon. Ministers have talked about hurtful discrimination. What about the influx control laws? What hurts the Blacks more than not being allowed to seek jobs in high employment areas? Is that not hurtful discrimination? Does this not hurt their pockets and affect the amount of food they can put in their children’s mouths? And the hon. the Minister sits there and laughs! Unfortunately he is not in the House at present but I should like to put these questions to the hon. the Minister who continually talks about getting rid of harmful discrimination. He is the very man who is responsible for enforcing these horrific laws and, Sir, enforcing them in the winter.

The hon. the Prime Minister made it clear in his speech that racialism and discrimination will continue during his premiership in South Africa. This he did on Monday. He told us that separate voters’ rolls are non-negotiable as far as he is concerned. This can only mean one thing. It can only mean the continuation of race classification and if that is not a discriminatory measure then I do not know what is.

I want to say that the fourth thing that this party believes in is that every South African must have full citizenship. This is the old hearts and minds story of the hon. the Minister of Defence. Can this happen when some members are more equal than others? In his speech the hon. the Prime Minister referred to a common citizenship in a constellation of South African states. He also referred to a situation in which the European Community is considering a common passport. However, what he did not tell this House was what the difference was between the situation as it exists there and the situation as it exists here. In Europe, Mr. Speaker, nobody was deprived of his citizenship. Nobody, having been a citizen of a particular country, suddenly found himself a citizen of another country although he had never seen that country.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

If I have time at the end of my speech to do so, I shall answer the hon. member’s question. These are the four non-negotiables as far as we are concerned. The first of these is the sharing of power; the second is the protection of minorities; the third is no discrimination; the fourth is full citizenship for all South Africans, not the fiction that this Government propounds—that this party believes in one man, one vote in a unitary system. That is not the case. [Interjections.]

I want to go further. Apart from the fiction of one man, one vote there has been another feature of this debate and that has been the deliberate campaign of smear and of innuendo that has been initiated in this House by the hon. the Prime Minister who is a pastmaster at this sort of tactic. Who will forget his performance in the early hours of the morning of Saturday 9 December 1978 in winding up the special Information debate and his attack, Sir, on that occasion upon the Chief Whip of this party which shocked many members including members in his own party?

The patriotism of this party is often called into question. When will this Government learn to distinguish between the state of South Africa, its land and its people and the NP? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is attacked for attending an international forum in West Germany. Then the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries gets to his feet and attacks our leader for a statement he made relative to the mealie price. Thank goodness, Sir, he made that statement! If he had not made it the price would probably have gone up by 20%. I wish that on that occasion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had suggested that the price of brown bread might go up 40%. If he had suggested this perhaps we would not have had the increase that we have today. Further, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries attacked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition because he described the bureaucracy that exists as an important stumbling-block to reform. He said—

May I remind that hon. Minister who is not present of what the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development called that same bureaucracy. He referred to a tortoise and, what is more, that hon. Minister went on to say—

That is how the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development described the same bureaucracy. Now, who has to apologize to whom in these circumstances?

I believe that in this day and age the South African electorate is increasingly seeing through the fictions perpetrated by the NP, fictions of leftist liberal radicalism, fictions of a lack of patriotism, fictions of un-South Africanism. Increasingly the electorate is voting for the official Opposition, and afterwards they are boasting that they did so. South Africa is aware that compared with the last election in 1977, the PFP has been the only party to increase its representation in this House, and this was done mainly at the expense of NP members. The hon. the Prime Minister has led his party back into this House with fewer members than his predecessor did in 1977. Why did this happen? The dilemma of the NP is quite clear and it became visible in their posters during the course of the election. What did these posters say? One that struck my eye said—

What on earth does that mean? Now more than ever what? More bad government? More civil servants? More inflation? More apartheid? More Press restrictions? More Information affairs, perhaps? More funds missing? More bad investments by Government bodies like the investments of Administration Boards in Rondalla Bank? Today the answers to that “now more than ever” are beginning to emerge and the answers are tragic to thousands and thousands of South Africans.

Let us look at the bread price once again. There has been a 40% increase in the price of brown bread, one of the staple foods of our population—a 40% increase with the rate of inflation at approximately 15%! Yet, the hon. the Minister of Finance in conjunction with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries sees fit to increase the price of brown bread by 40%, and this after we have had 18 months of virtually unprecedented growth in this country! The hon. the Minister of Finance should know that the tax receipts by his exchequer have been higher in the past 18 months than in any previous 18 month period in South Africa’s history and yet he cannot afford the R71 million, that is needed to keep the bread price stable. Now, more than ever, we are paying.

We are paying premium prices for fuel in a situation of surplus. Why? When the value of the rand appreciated against the dollar, did we have a decrease in the price of fuel? No, we did not, but now that the value of the rand has dropped against the price of the dollar, it is given as an excuse for increasing the price of fuel. What is the truth regarding the fuel price? Where does the money go? Let that hon. Minister deny that more than 50% of the price which the motorist pays for fuel today goes into the pocket of the Government.

That is untrue.

I believe that that hon. Minister must give us the true figures. He has said it is untrue, but will he then tell us what the truth is? I can quote him some figures previous to the last increase in the retail price. At that stage the Government was taking 29,1c out of every litre of fuel and that included sales tax. Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to be told that what I have said is untrue. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us the true facts. I hope he will tell us exactly what the Government takes in terms of tax on the price of one litre of fuel. For two years the hon. the Minister has collected this fantastic fee and now they have added another six cents. The diesel price to the farmer has gone up by more than 15%. The farmer uses a tremendous quantity of diesel in his production. This additional six cents on diesel fuel is the harbinger of price increases next year. The mealie farmer uses a tremendous quantity of diesel, as does the wheat and dairy farmer—particularly the dairy farmers without Escom. They rely heavily on diesel and six cents on to their price is going to mean an increase in the price of basic foodstuffs within the next 12 months. The first answer therefore that we have on this case is that now more than ever we will have inflation directly due to Government policy.

The second answer is highly visible in the Western Cape. The fact has already been referred to in this debate and the human tragedy is visible every day in the Commissioner’s court. The situation of many Blacks is clear—stay in the homelands and starve or take your chances in the densely populated centres and become a so-called illegal person. Talking of the homelands, let me quote briefly what the Quail Commission’s report says. [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation and Development said they kindly put the “illegals” in a bus and took them back to the Kei Bridge. Let us see what happens in the Ciskei. The report says—

And this, Mr. Speaker, is where the hon. the Minister is returning the so-called illegal persons from the Western Cape—to a place where they have no option but to turn around and come straight back again so that they can feed their children.

The much vaunted wind of reform of the hon. the Prime Minister that was meant to be blowing into the South African Government, that was meant to improve our lot in South Africa, has turned out to be nothing but the wind of flatulence.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, who has just resumed his seat, and I have crossed swords on a number of previous occasions. I have no intention of wasting time by replying to an idle repetition of vague policies that we have had in this debate and that have already been replied to. We are in the fourth day of the debate and for the first time since the start, mention is being made of the first leg of the motion of censure moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I think that is the poorest planning on the part of the Opposition, as far as the motion of censure is concerned, that I have ever encountered. The usual pattern is for the attack to be launched by the other side of the House in a no-confidence debate when a censure motion is being debated, and the Government is then on the defence. However, what is happening now? The Opposition is on the defensive and the Government side is on the attack. There has been a complete turnabout in the debate, Sir!

I was amazed when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition moved his motion of censure. I was amazed that he did not use his time to put his motion to the House properly. What he did was to make an introductory speech and then move his motion, and that is all that we have to react to.

Something else that amazes me is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked the hon. the Prime Minister why an election was held. I had assumed that any Opposition leader at any time would welcome an opportunity to fight an election. I had thought that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would have stood up and thanked the hon. the Prime Minister for the opportunity to fight an election. But he asks why an election is held.

Then, too, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he was no wiser after the election. I did learn something from the election, and I think that this side of the House also learned something from the election, and that is that the majority of the voters in this country still have confidence in the NP. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition maintains that he learned nothing from the election.

He thinks he won.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says in his motion, for example—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition states in his motion—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must surely have become aware at some stage that the NP published an election manifesto and he must surely have become aware of the content of that election manifesto. However, the hon. the Leader maintains that he is unaware of the hon. the Prime Minister’s message to the people. If I had had time, I should have liked to quote it to him.

No, please don’t.

However, I urge him to read it—if he is at all capable of understanding it—because it is very clearly written. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition paints a picture of the future for us. He tells us what the challenges of the future are, and he is frightened to death of those challenges of the future. However we are not afraid of the challenges of the future. Twenty years ago the achievements of 1981 seemed just as impossible as the challenges we are faced with now. However, the NP did not take fright at the challenges it was faced with then, nor are we afraid of the challenges we are faced with now. Politics is the science of the possible, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must surely know that. The initiatives of the hon. the Prime Minister are aimed at meeting these very challenges of the future, and we are not afraid of them. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, however, is paralysed. When he considers the challenges of the future, he has no plan or advice to offer.

In the past election the voters of this country had to choose among certain parties. They had to vote for a party which, in their opinion, had the highest potential to deal with the questions of South Africa in the most realistic way so that the future of this country and all its people, and the future of Western Christian norms of civilization, would be ensured. That is what the voters had to do in this election. They had to make a choice among parties, and they chose this party to govern the country. Why did they choose this party? When one has to judge whether a party has the necessary potential to lead a country, what does one have to j look for? In the first place it is important for the voter to know what the principles are on which the policy of that party are based. In the second instance, the voter will consider the quality of its leaders, and in the third instance the voters will consider the record, the past deeds, of that party. Therefore they will look at the party’s achievements.

At this point I just wish to refer briefly to the principles of the NP. They are closely bound up with the party’s motto: South Africa first. When, in the final sentence of his motion, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition maintains that the interests of the NP are accorded priority over those of the country, he is telling an untruth, and I urge him to reread the manifesto of the NP, particularly the undertakings given by the NP to achieve its targets. I said that the nation weighed up the leaders of the parties against one another, and they found the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wanting. The voters of the country decided that they wanted a positive man as a leader; not a negative man. They wanted someone who was prepared to grasp the opportunities offered and help to build the future of the country. They want a realist as their leader. They want a man who has committed him-self to clean administration, a champion of the system of free enterprise, a patriot, a person who has faith in South Africa and a person who cannot be frightened by the challenges he is faced with. They want someone who is not afraid of the future of South Africa but who has a solution for South Africa’s problems. Such a man they want as leader of this country, and such a man we have in the hon. the Prime Minister.

Hear, hear!

In the third place, I told you that the potential or the acceptability of a party is judged on its record and its past achievements. What party in this country has had more opportunity to earn the disfavour of the voters than this party? The NP has been in power for 33 years now. That is a long time to be in power. That is a long time for any party to make mistakes and a long time for the electorate to condemn it. Over a period of 33 years the NP has proved that it can be entrusted with the future of the country. The electorate has decided that the NP is still the most acceptable party to be trusted with the future of the Republic of South Africa, because over the years the NP has ensured peace and order for the country and brought it prosperity. When I drove here from Paarl this morning, I looked at the beautiful freeway I was travelling on, at the industries that had sprung up, at the well-tended farmland and the decent housing. Great strides have been made in innumerable fields in the country. The electorate is not ignorant. They are not blind; they see these things. The NP has also brought peace and order to the country and seen to the security of the State. Frank Knox, a former Secretary of the Fleet in the Cabinet of President Franklin Roosevelt, once said—

He went on to say—

South Africa has been placed by the NP in this position of strength as a result of which we need not show our strength, because the public at large know that their future is secure. In the course of 33 years the NP has placed our fatherland in a sound economic position. According to UN reports, 15 million children died of hunger during 1979. Most of the countries in which famine prevails are in Africa, where the per capita food production is still dropping. The only exception in Africa is the Republic of South Africa, where the percentage increase in food production still exceeds the percentage increase in the population. It is expected that the total population of the Republic will be approximately 49 million in 19 years. These people will consume between 3 million and 4 million tons of wheat per annum. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central should just listen to this. Between 3 million and 4 million tons of wheat will be consumed by the people. I wonder whether the hon. member knows what the present wheat production of South Africa is. He is so fond of speaking about the bread price. [Interjections.]

Tell me. What is it?

No, I am asking the hon. member. What is the total wheat production of South Africa. He does not know, but he has a lot to say about the price of bread. Can the hon. member tell me how much wheat we had to import this year?

How many cars are produced in South Africa each year? Answer that.

He speaks of matters about which he knows nothing.

He is a second-hand dealer.

If time permits, I could give the hon. member a comprehensive exposition—I happen to have it at my disposal—of how the bread price is made up. I can spell it out cent for cent. If he wants to know what the value of the wheat in a loaf is, I can tell him. It is 13,7683c per loaf. I can tell him what the railage factor is in the bread price. The fact is that for years South Africa has eaten bread that has been too cheap, that bread has been wasted in this country. Bread is still being wasted, and we cannot afford to waste bread in this country.

The situation with regard to our food prices has been explained to the Opposition ad nauseam. Our food is among the cheapest in the world, however one calculates it—one can calculate it in terms of man hours spent to obtain the food, in terms of money, or however one prefers. Since we have a growing population, we must constantly support our agriculture and ensure that we have a sound agricultural industry. If not, we shall encounter problems in the future. We must not deliver our food to the population at too low a price or with too high a subsidy, because heavy demands are being made on the total financial capacity of the country.

There is a bone I should just like to pick with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, if he would grant me his attention for just a moment. On Friday, 20 February this year he made a statement about inflation. It was therefore a public statement. It was also used in the election by the HNP. It was an incorrect statement and I wish to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today to apologize to the House for having made this incorrect statement. He said (Hansard, col. 1983)—

He went on to say—

He is therefore accusing the Government of using the printing press, as Idi Amin did, to obtain money. What are the facts? In 1973, coins and banknotes, expressed as a percentage of the total money and quasi-money supply in the country, comprised 12,5%. In coins and banknotes this represented R747 million. In 1979 it was 11,4%, or R1 460 million. In September 1980 it was 11,5%, or R1 728 million. The total number of coins and banknotes as a percentage of the total amount of money in circulation has therefore remained relatively constant since 1973. In fact, it has dropped by approximately 8%. Apart from this, it forms a very small percentage of the total quantity of money. Nevertheless the hon. the Leader of the Opposition maintains that the Government caused inflation because it used the printing press. I believe that it would be a very serious charge against any Government if it were to use the printing press to place money in circulation. Surely that is a totally incorrect statement which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made, and this incorrect statement of his was used in the election campaign, not only by members of his party but also by the HNP.

Van Zyl, did Harry work that out for you?

Mr. Louis Stofberg announced from political platforms, with much posturing, that the Government must be accused of creating inflation by printing notes. Where does he get his information? He gets it from the speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made here. I honestly believe that when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition replies he ought to say that he is sorry that he based his arguments on faulty information. I want to recommend to him that since he now has people with better economic training …

Who are they?

… he should rather make use of the knowledge of those people when he wishes to make speeches on the economy rather than to try to handle that part of his speech himself.

It is true that we in South Africa have problems with inflation. What country does not have an inflation problem? I challenge hon. members of the Opposition to show me which country does not have a problem with inflation. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central must please tell us what country does not have a problem with inflation at the moment.

Russia. [Interjections.]

How do you know that?

Would the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central like to have the Russian system introduced here in South Africa?

We already have it in many ways.

Every country in the world has a problem with inflation now-a days, and when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition states that he accuses the Government of being obviously incapable of combating the ever-increasing cost of living, my reply to him is that it is not the South African government that is incapable of combating the cost of living. It is my contention that there are few countries in the world where so much is done to relieve the pressure of inflation on the population than in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Permit me just to quote an extract from the German Tribune of 19 July 1981. It is an extract from an article taken over from the Stuttgarter Zeitung. I quote as follows—

This, then, is the model state that has been held up to us all these years. When we had difficulties with our growth rate, a finger was pointed at us and we were told to look at what was happening in West Germany. Here, then, we have the model state, and what is the news from this model state? The news is that they are struggling. The same article goes on—

Therefore this model state is at least better off than many other countries. We could name our trading partners, one after the other. Each has its problems. Our problems arise out of the problems of our trading partners. To a very great extent the problems we are experiencing with inflation are problems arising out of the position that our trading partners abroad find themselves in. It is important that we in this country make the correct choices. A great fuss has been made; it is very popular to discuss the high cost of living, bread prices and so on, but we are faced with the situation that the gold price is dropping. We are faced with the situation that we are struggling to limit the money supply. Accordingly we must take care that the steps we take to limit inflation do not also restrict our growth. I have before me an article from one of the newspapers, in which nine experts give their opinion on the economy, but there are nine different opinions. It is very difficult to make a choice nowadays. We must be careful. I think that it is for the Opposition, too, to be responsible in their criticism with regard to economic affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the speech by the hon. member for Malmesbury. I should like to tell him how glad I am that good rains have fallen in the Swartland. I hope that as a result the price of bread will drop in the near future. At the beginning of his speech he said that he was surprised, but I am not surprised that he was surprised. I also agree with him that we should not waste bread, because I am certain that the hon. member is just as aware as I am of the fact that there are many people in our country who do not have enough bread and other food every day. So I support him in that statement.

Since this debate has become so heated I thought … [Interjections] … that I should begin by tossing a tranquillizer into the debate. Therefore I should like to make a statement with which I think hon. members will agree. I do not think the hon. member for Helderkruin will understand it, but he will nevertheless agree that the health of the people of a country is of vital importance. When we speak of health in a country we first of all have the individual in mind. I am like the NP: I tell people what to do; I do not always do what I must. Secondly, health is of importance to the family and thirdly, it is of importance to the community. Finally, it is of importance to the country as a whole.

We all know of the anguish, the disruption and the expense which the illness of, say, a child in the family involves. I have seen people sell everything and travel thousands of miles to perform a duty, to bring a loved one to a doctor and medical services. We also understand the problem of the community when an epidemic, cholera for example, breaks out, and we are aware of the disruption it causes in the community. We also know of the cost to the State it involves.

We know, too, how vitally important it is that a person, a citizen of a country, should be able to carry out his job in good health, because we also know what it could cost the State if this is not the case. Therefore it is vital that everybody should take care of his health and that the State should afford one the opportunity to do so in order that one may perform one’s duty as a citizen in good health. It is not only when one is ill that the State should have a role to play. When one is ill, the State should ensure adequate medical services to allow one to recover as soon as possible in optimum circumstances. So far, I think, everybody will agree with me.

I should like to say something else about which I am sure everybody will agree with me, and that is that there is a Cabinet Minister sitting in that Cabinet who is hiding himself or who is being hidden. He is hiding or being hidden. Possibly—to use the expression of the hon. the Minister of Police—he is cooling off after his blunder during the past election. He was quite a swaggerer in his young days. At intervarsity he would wave his arms about and carry on, and he was also a very good MEC in charge of health. I am praising you, Mr. Minister! He was rather a good Administrator too. However, there is no doubt that as Minister of Health he is a failure.

†This hon. the Minister of Health has proved wrong the saying that things cannot get worse because since he became Minister of Health things have become worse and worse. In fact, in the Press and elsewhere these days words like “crisis” are being used in his case. It is time that hon. the Minister was flushed out of his hiding-place. He did not speak during the last no-confidence debate and he has not participated in this debate up to the present. It is time for him to come out from his hiding-place and it is time for him to state clearly to the nation what he intends doing to correct his mistakes, to correct his lack of caring and to correct his incompetence. The whole nation is waiting for his answer. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I shall give the hon. the Minister every opportunity to reply to me without interruption. I am discussing a very serious matter and I sincerely trust that hon. members opposite will also treat it as a very serious matter because their lives may depend on it. As I said, Sir, the whole nation is waiting for his answers; the whole of the medical profession is waiting for his answers; the nurses are waiting and, what is even more important, the patients are waiting—infants, children, fathers and mothers, the aged, the pensioners, Whites, Coloureds and Blacks. All these people are waiting to hear from the hon. the Minister exactly what he intends doing. In case there is anybody who still does not know to whom I am referring, I am referring to the hon. the Minister of Health.

The health of a nation, Sir, depends not only on hospitals and drugs or on doctors and nurses; it also depends on food, housing, job opportunities, adequate salaries, a good family life, education and recreational facilities. Because of their failure to provide these essentials for the health of our nation, Mr. Speaker, this Government in general and the hon. the Minister in particular are deserving of the severest censure. I want to make the following statement as a doctor who is still in daily active practice, who is daily in contact with doctors, nurses and patients. Everywhere one goes the message comes through loud and clear that the whole question of public health in relation to hospitals, nursing staff, doctors and everything else connected with this matter, is in a state of crisis. This Government is to be censured, first of all for its neglect of the health of the people of South Africa. Here I refer specially to pensioners, the elderly and the Black people. Secondly, it must be censured for its neglect of the guardians of the health of our nation. It is, however, not too late for the hon. the Minister to correct his mistakes. In the short time available to me, I should like to ask him a few questions and I hope that he will answer me, the medical profession and the people in the near future.

This is the first question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister: How long is he going to remain Minister of Health? [Interjections.] I ask this because his silence in the past and his lack of reaction to the problems concerning our health make me wonder if he is waiting for another person to take over his duties. [Interjections.]

He is not running away from his job.

Sir, I find it amazing that the hon. members in the Government benches cannot take anything seriously. Even a matter as important as health is a joke to them. No wonder they ban people! No wonder they keep people in solitary confinement! No wonder they separate members of families! No wonder it is possible in this country for husbands and wives to live illegally with each other! Nothing to them is serious. Everything is a joke! We on this side, however, will continue to treat the question of medicine in South Africa as a serious matter. We will give our full co-operation if the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet do something about it.

In the second instance I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied that there are enough doctors in South Africa. The most recent statistics indicate that there are 10 975 White doctors, 250

Coloured doctors, 1 266 Asian doctors and only 167 Black doctors in South Africa. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister why there are so few Black doctors in South Africa and whether anything he can do about the situation. Let us discuss the ratio between doctors and population. In the White urban areas there is one doctor for every 600 persons. In some Black rural areas there is one doctor for every 50 000 or 100 000 persons. Let the hon. members opposite laugh about that!

Why did you not go and work there? [Interjections.]

Can one consider it a satisfactory state of affairs if one doctor has to look after so many potential patients? I should like to quote from a report of a hospital in South Africa. This hospital is situated 25 km from the centre of Johannesburg.

Why do you not resign to return to hospital service?

Am I worrying you? Are you frightened of me? I can even diagnose you as you sit there. It is important for me to diagnose you, and you have borborygmi of the brain. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

Sir, I must apologize, but I do get a bit worried by the statements of that hon. member.

The hospital to which I am referring is a 900 bed hospital and it does 900 surgical procedures. Hon. members should laugh once again because this is also a joke! A hospital with 900 beds doing 900 surgical procedures daily. Do hon. members know how many full-time anaesthetists this hospital, 25 km from Johannesburg, has? Not one! For four years not one trained anaesthetist has given anaesthetics in this hospital. Of course, it is a hospital for Blacks and therefore it is not very important, but in the teaching hospital there are 70 or 80 anaesthetists in the department of anaesthetics and even they are complaining. They are complaining that they are short of staff.

The next question is a very important one. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether there is a shortage of trained nursing staff and nursing staff under training in South Africa. Here in the Cape there seems to be some confusion about it. No less a person than the Professor of Medicine says there is a shortage. None other than the Professors of Paediatrics, Radiology, Cardiology—you asked me what Chris Barnard said—and Cardiac Surgery at Groote Schuur Hospital say there is a shortage of nursing staff. In addition, many of these people suggest that there is an increase in the mortality rate and—laugh again—this means that percentage-wise more patients are dying. Let hon. members laugh about this too! [Interjections.] Patients as well as nurses maintain that this is so. The MEC and the Director of Hospital Services in the Cape say there is no shortage of nursing staff or, if there is a shortage, it is not serious. Will the hon. the Minister tell me whether this is true? What is his answer? From the Transvaal, however, the message is loud and clear. Everybody says that in Johannesburg and Pretoria there is a serious shortage of nurses. Hon. members only have to look at their newspapers to see that this is the case.

I should like to put another question to the hon. the Minister. Are hospital wards in South Africa being closed? Superintendents of hospitals in the Cape are not allowed to speak about these things but in the Transvaal they have not yet been cooled off. The superintendents there can talk about the situation. Only last week Dr. Neville Howes, Chief Superintendent of the New Johannesburg Hospital, stated that only 1 023 of a potential 2 000 beds were in use. That means that approximately half of the beds in this hospital were not being used, and this is a modern hospital with modern facilities.

The hon. the Minister knows that this is not the only hospital where all available beds are not being used and where wards are being closed. Is the hon. the Minister satisfied with this state of affairs? Does he believe that these beds and wards will again be utilized in the near future? Or will more and more wards have to be closed? South Africa demands a reply from the hon. the Minister on these questions.

As apartheid is dead, is the hon. the Minister going to remove all forms of racial discrimination in the field of health? Does he agree that practising apartheid in regard to health is immoral, that it is very expensive to do so and that it is one of the main reasons for the crisis in our health services? As a medical doctor and as a person who took the Hippocratic oath, the hon. the Minister must tell us what is most important to him—the health of a person or the colour of his skin? [Interjections.] Is it more important for a person to belong to a group or is it more important for him to die? Is ethnicity more important than life? [Interjections.]

*It hurts because it is the truth. Everything I am saying here is the truth. Until now I have said nothing which is not the truth and I can see that it hurts. [Interjections.]

†During the last session the hon. the Minister said “no”, but I plead with him to reconsider this statement very carefully, because in many hospitals in South Africa Black, White and Coloured nurses are today caring for Black, White and Coloured patients. It is happening, and I can give him examples. The hon. the Minister, however, will not learn and the Government will not learn either. When we started using Coloured nurses in our cardiac unit in Groote Schuur hospital—forgive me if I am not absolutely clear on this point—it was either the hon. the Minister or one of his officials at the time who, asked if this was happening, said: “Over my dead body”. The hon. the Minister is free to go to Groote Schuur hospital today and visit the ICU’s. Let him go into the wards and see how many Coloured nurses are looking after White patients. Strange to say, the patients are still getting better. That is the amazing thing! [Interjections.] Nobody has died because of this, not one patient! There some of the most skilled Coloured nurses are taking their rightful place in our society. What I say now I want to state clearly, without any fear of ever being proved wrong. Black nurses will be attending White patients in the South Africa of the future. In some hospitals, as I have said, it is already happening. It will happen, of necessity, because for various reasons—and those I can debate later—it will be impossible to provide enough White nurses for the White South Africa of the future. A great cry goes up that it is immoral to use Black sisters to look after White patients when there is already a shortage of Black sisters to look after members of the Black population group. It is not said, however, that it is immoral to discriminate against Black nurses when it comes to salaries. It is not said that for Blacks nursing is still a vocation of great prestige, and it is not said that thousands of Blacks who want to train as nurses cannot do so because of the limited training facilities available to Black nurses. Let me suggest that the nursing shortage can easily be remedied by providing enough schools for Blacks, removing racial discrimination in the nursing profession and providing enough training facilities for Blacks, paying the nurses adequate salaries and giving nurses their rightful place in the medical profession. Also give them regular hours and adequate recognition when it comes to weekend, holiday and night duty stints. I have spoken to many nurses and have made a careful study of their needs. I pray that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to listen and to act, not by appointing a commission, but immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened in amazement here this afternoon to a tirade directed against me personally and delivered by a man who is a comparative newcomer to this House and did not have a very clean record in the province. I want to tell this House a few things about him today.

Mr. Speaker …

Why do you not sit down, man, and shut up?

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister entitled to say, in so many words, that the hon. member for Parktown did not have a clean record in the Cape Provincial Administration?

Order!

Would the hon. the Minister please explain what he means by that?

Mr. Speaker, I want to develop my argument by saying that the kind of problems I had with him when I was in charge of hospital services in the province are probably the reason why he is attacking me personally here this afternoon.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I please have a ruling from you about whether it is unparliamentary for the hon. the Minister to say that the hon. member for Parktown did not have a clean record as a doctor in the Provincial Administration of the Cape Province?

Order! The hon. the Minister was not talking about his record as a doctor. He was developing his argument and I have given my ruling. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The hon. member for Parktown …

Can his record be compared to your record as a dietician?

If I had been a psychiatrist, I would have been better able to say what that hon. member’s problem was. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Park-town was known as one of the prima donnas among the heart surgeons. As MEC I had problems from one week to another ensuring that that cardiac surgical unit kept its nurses, because of the way in which the sisters were treated by that hon. member as well as others—I shall not mention any other names …

What did the patients say?

… with the result that they did not want to work in that unit. They did not want to work for the kind of prima donnas who threw scalpels and clamps around in the theatre and reviled the sisters while they were operating. Under those circumstances I had to try to find nursing staff for them. [Interjections.]

Sir, may I ask whether the hon. the Minister has evidence and proof of such behaviour?

I shall produce enough evidence if it is necessary. I want to tell the hon. member that this afternoon he brought the medical profession to the lowest point it has ever been brought to in South Africa. His colleagues will deal with him, for we saw what happened to other people who also tried to denigrate the profession at a certain stage. The hon. member complains in this House about people who are dying in hospitals.

Let him have it, Lapa!

The accusation is now being made that people are dying in hospitals because of my alleged incompetence. The hon. member made this accusation against me and said that I was incompetent and should resign. I want to refer the hon. member to a relative of his, if he wants to quote him. What, according to him, is the reason why many people were dying in hospitals? Is it the incompetence of the Minister of Health, or are there other reasons? The hon. member must not make such a speech here and expect me not to attack him, and he must not get his friends to jump up and raise points of order.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I want to ask you to rule whether it is proper for a member to attack another member’s professional standing outside the House. [Interjections.] Sir, may I just enlarge on this? If, in fact, you allow this, Sir, then it will be quite proper for us to go into the hon. the Minister’s background in his profession, and everybody else’s background as well. I want to know whether that is proper. The ruling you will give will be very important for a lot of people. [Interjections.]

Order! I did not gather from the hon. the Minister that he was attacking the standing of another doctor. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The hon. member for Yeoville must be quiet now. I am coming to him. I am going to tear that hon. member apart this afternoon. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: I raised a point of order and I now find myself being threatened by the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] Are you going to allow such conduct, Sir? You are now acting for the Speaker in the House and if you are going to allow an hon. Minister to threaten hon. members, we are going to be in a very bad way in the House. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Sir, it is very clear that because I want to take the hon. member for Parktown to task, there is a tendency in the Opposition to interrupt me every time I want to continue my speech. I said nothing while that hon. member was speaking. However, I want to react to what he said, but five minutes of my time have already been wasted by the hon. member for Yeoville, who has suddenly become so sensitive, and by the hon. member for Groote Schuur, who keeps jumping up.

I want to continue. On a certain occasion, while the hon. member for Parktown was still a member of the Groote Schuur staff, he addressed a meeting in the Cape Town City Hall, together with the hon. member for Houghton …

And he spoke very well indeed.

… while the regulations specified that doctors were not allowed to participate in party politics. Before the meeting the Director of Hospital Services sent him a letter saying that he was not allowed to appear. However, that hon. member read that letter with bravado at the meeting. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I want to ask you whether you are not prepared to refer to previous decisions from the Chair which state in the strongest possible and most unambiguous language that no hon. member in the House shall be permitted to reflect upon the personal conduct, integrity or professional standing of another hon. member. I am referring to page 52 …

[Inaudible.]

I would be very grateful if the hon. Minister would keep his mouth shut for one minute so that I can complete my point.

He threatens everybody.

With great respect, Sir, I refer you to page 52 of the manual which has been compiled to assist the officers of the House, who include yourself and myself. I ask you please to consider the paragraphs dealing with unparliamentary language. The effect of those paragraphs is that at all times hon. members will be prevented from referring to the conduct outside the House of other hon. members. It is my contention that for the last 10 minutes the hon. the Minister has been embarking upon an attack upon the professional conduct of the hon. member for Parktown, Dr. Barnard, while a doctor. [Interjections.] He has referred to the conduct of Dr. Barnard as a doctor and while a doctor in the employ of the Cape Provincial Administration. I ask for your ruling and I ask you to substantiate the rulings of previous Speakers.

I definitely did not interpret the words of the hon. the Minister as casting a reflection on the integrity or the professional conduct of the hon. member for Parktown. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a specific occasion …

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I should like to remind you that one of the allegations made by the hon. the Minister was in respect of the conduct of the hon. member …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Mr. Speaker, I am busy with a point of order and therefore the hon. the Minister may not interrupt me.

Of course. You are obstructing the debate.

Order! The hon. the Minister must allow the hon. member to finish putting his point of order.

Mr. Speaker, one of the allegations made by the hon. the Minister related to conduct by the hon. member for Parktown in an operating theatre …

In the Town Hall.

… vis-à-vis the nursing staff. Sir, I ask you to recall those words. If you do recall them, are you prepared to reconsider your ruling?

The position is that the hon. the Minister did not refer to the hon. member’s conduct in his professional capacity. I therefore adhere to my ruling. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stood on a political platform in the Cape Town City Hall together with the hon. member for Houghton.

And he made a good speech too.

A letter was then served on him by the Director of Hospital Services in which it was pointed out to him that it was against the regulations for him to do this. I just want to show that he is undisciplined. What is more, I had him in my office the next morning and warned him that he had to apologize to the Director of Hospital Services or be dismissed within 24 hours. Thereupon he apologized to the Director of Hospital Services. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I beg you to ask the hon. the Minister to prove to you and to this House that I apologized.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

But let him do so in any case.

Order!

Sir, he did apologize, but I shall leave it at that. He knows he did. If the hon. member wants further evidence, we can call in his brother, or Prof. Jannie Louw, or the Director of Hospital Services.

I want to come to the hon. member’s tirade this afternoon. He began in a sentimental vein by referring to the health of the nation. I want to say that every sector of our population—Black, Brown and White—is just as healthy or healthier, percentage-wise, as any nation in the whole of Africa or even in the world. We have a health service in South Africa which is second to none. The continuous allegations on the part of the PFP that there is malnutrition and that we do not care for the Blacks are blatant lies. However, these allegations are publicized, just like the hon. member’s disgraceful speech this afternoon. The hon. member thought he could hurt me, but he is not hurting me; he is hurting the country with his disgraceful stories. [Interjections.]

The hon. member went on to say that there was an imbalance in the numbers of doctors. According to him, there are only 167 Black doctors. He then divides 20 million by that figure and asks whether this is a satisfactory figure. Of course, he should divide the total population of the country by the total number of doctors in order to arrive at the correct ratio. How many White doctors have not been providing medical care to the Black population of the country for years? The same applies to our provincial hospital services, which the hon. member discussed at length, without even being quite sure what my portfolio actually entailed. [Interjections.] Our provincial hospital services are among the best in the world. In my time as MEC I introduced the system of day-hospitals. Is that a sign of incompetence? It is a system which is now being applied throughout the world. We are now establishing community health centres throughout the country. This is being done on the same basis on which the day-hospitals are being operated.

Now I want to come to the other very base accusation which the hon. member made against me. He wasted so much of my time that I shall not even get round to the figures. I want to analyse the so-called crisis in the nursing profession this afternoon. One of the reasons for the decline in the number of nurses in the country is these very stories that are being publicized. I suspected that some hon. member of the Opposition would talk about this. Therefore I brought the figures along. However, I could not foresee that an hon. member would sink to such base depths as we have witnessed here this afternoon. [Interjections.]

Order! I request the hon. the Minister to withdraw the word “base”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. We are going to be together in this House for a long time. That hon. member will hear from me again. He has become to big for his boots. What is the situation in the Cape Province? More than 90% of the total number of nursing posts are filled. This was the figure as on 31 July. This is what is important. Now the hon. member for Park-town arrogantly insists that we should employ Black people as nurses in order to solve our “crisis”. What is the position? There are 126 vacancies in the category for Black trained nurses, and in the same group there is a shortage of 206 nursing sisters. This being so, how can we appoint Black nursing sisters for the Whites? Would that not be immoral? Prof. Myburgh, professor in surgery at the Johannesburg hospital, told me in my office that it would be one of the most immoral things if we took Black nursing sisters away from the Black patients and appointed them in posts for Whites. I agree with him on that point.

I also admitted that. [Interjections.]

What is the position now? 90% of all the existing posts in the Cape Province are filled. Is this a crisis? The hon. member must now tell me whether this is a crisis.

What about the situation in the Transvaal?

I am coming to the Transvaal. Allow me to deal with the provinces one after another. When I am giving particulars about one province, do not ask me questions about another. Does it point to a crisis in the Cape Province if 90% of the existing posts are filled? In the Free State, 86% of the existing posts are filled. Three days ago, I had an interview with the Administrator of Natal and with the MEC’s of the NRP. They should find out what their MEC in charge of hospital services told me. He told me that he had to admit that things were going very well in Natal. According to him, more than 90% of the existing posts there are filled. I obtained the figure myself. It is the figure for the end of July this year. At that stage, 96% of the existing posts in Natal were filled.

That is good administration, Lapa!

Of course it is. [Interjections.]

In the Transvaal, 76% of the existing posts are filled. When hospital wards are closed down, it does not always indicate a shortage of nursing staff. In the Paarl hospital, here in the Cape, the MEC concerned also closed down a ward because there were two wards in that hospital that were always half full. For that reason, one ward was closed and the MEC gave the instruction that all the nurses be transferred to the other wards. The Johannesburg general hospital was originally built for 2 000 patients. That was before I was Minister. I have nothing to do with the control and administration of that hospital. It is not my task to control provincial hospitals. So the hon. member for Parktown is trying to shoot the wrong man. However, I want to put it to him that the right man, a man in this House, is going to be hanged one day. That will be the hon. member for Parktown. [Interjections.]

Let us take a closer look now at the position in the Transvaal. The hon. member for Parktown says we should mix Black and White. Of course, that is the basis of his morality. Of course he wants Black and White to mix freely. I put it to him that this is a situation which the public in South Africa would not accept. The opening of our hospitals to patients and nurses of all races would simply not be tolerated. As long as I am the Minister in charge, this policy will be maintained. When the PFP takes over the Government, they can create more chaos in the country if they want to.

The chaos is already there.

However, they will not take over as long as I am the Minister in charge of this portfolio. Now they can decide how long I intend to remain a Minister. The hon. member for Parktown suggests that I should allow Black nurses to serve in hospitals for Whites. He wants me to give my permission for this. With respect to Black student nurses alone, there is a shortage of 571 at the moment. Why should I allow Black nurses to nurse Whites, thereby creating even more vacancies for Blacks?

But why do you not train them?

How many vacancies are there for registered Black nurses in the Transvaal? 644. Now it is said that a utopia could be created if only I would allow Black nurses to serve in White hospitals. One of our biggest problems in this country today is that we have too many beds for Whites in South Africa. We have too many beds for Whites, so the Cabinet has decided that no further hospitals will be built except with the approval of the Minister of Health after a full investigation to ascertain whether or not it is necessary in that area. We cannot build more hospitals and then wonder why we have a shortage of nurses, for then the shortage is on paper and in terms of the buildings we have erected.

The health of this country does not have to be measured in terms of my incompetence. I may be incompetent; I am humble enough to admit that, but I am not a babbler who is always telling other people how incompetent they are. However, there is one thing I want to say here today. The quality of our health services—the officials, the directors, the Director-General of my department, the doctors and the nurses we have in our health services in this country—is unequalled anywhere in the world. The hon. member should not drag them across the floor of this House just because there is a shortage of anaesthetists. Where are that hon. member’s colleagues and my colleagues, the private practitioners? Why do they not offer their services as anaesthetists on a sessional basis? It need not be done by full-time doctors only. We can go from one aspect to another. There were my lengthy discussions with the Nursing Association, for example. It is thanks to me, not thanks to that party, that there is salary parity for all doctors in this country today. I worked for this for nine years and this time we have achieved it. It was not done by those hon. members. It was done by me as Minister. I first discussed it with the previous hon. Prime Minister. Hon. members can read last week’s Medical Journal and they will see that in it I am thanked for this. However, the hon. member for Parktown tries to attack me in this House on the basis of my alleged incompetence. A very large proportion of our nurses have already achieved parity, and the hon. members knows it. The hon. member for Houghton, too, knows that it is our policy that within the next year or two everyone will be on a single scale. Then they will advance according to their merit, their ability, their competence and the quality of their work. This is something I believe in. It will come in the nursing profession as well; we are already working on it.

There will be plenty of time to debate these things during the discussion of my Vote. However, we are now speaking in the censure debate. Let us turn briefly to one or two other aspects. Let us forget about health for the moment. The health of the people in this country is as good as it could be.

The hon. member for Houghton has often spoken on the BBC and she has spoken on television in Australia as well. On the BBC she misquoted something. Then she said, according to The Citizen of 19 January 1977 …

A very reliable paper!

When she was misquoted, she said—

†Is that correct?

No, that is not correct.

She said further—

That part is correct.

She said further—

That is correct. Yes, I said that.

What did the hon. member say again yesterday? What did the hon. member say in Australia?

Yes, but what else did I say?

She has said all these things. The hon. member for Parys summed it up beautifully the other day when he said that she was the most decorated person who had ever travelled the globe.

Are you jealous?

What did she say in Australia? The Australian television asked her—

The hon. member’s reply was—

Quite!

The hon. member is still hoping. She wants to give the White man that vague hope that he will still be there one day. Now hon. members on that side of the House say, one after another, that their policy is not majority rule on a one man, one vote basis. [Interjections.] Let us see what has been said by the hon. member for Yeoville, who was so sensitive a short while ago. What did he say according to the Sunday Times of 21 November 1976? It is printed under a big heading, “School Integration”. A congress was being held and the hon. member for Houghton had proposed that there should be school integration. The hon. member for Parktown also said that everything should be thrown open. There were other members, too, who said that everything should be thrown open. But then that hon. member and the hon. member for Sandton voted against it. They voted against it and the hon. member later said that he had not walked out. Whether he says he walked out or not, the newspaper says he did walk out. He did not want integrated schools when they came into power. How can we regard these people as an Opposition? The Leader of the party says one thing, the hon. member for Houghton says something else, the hon. member for Yeo ville says something else still and the hon. member for Johannesburg North merely shakes his head. [Interjections.]

Let us consider what the hon. member for Yeoville said on 20 April. On that date he was asked whether he agreed that his party was in favour of Black majority rule. There upon the hon. member for Yeoville said “No.” The hon. member for Houghton says “Yes” so I leave it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to try to sort that out.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some disappointment to the previous speaker, the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions, who has just resumed his seat. I do not think that anything he said, let alone the way in which he said it, added to the prestige of his very honourable profession. In the first place, he resorted to facts from the distant past concerning the conduct outside this House of certain hon. members of this House. He advanced these things to justify his treating the hon. member for Parktown with the greatest contempt and bitterness, whereas the hon. member for Parktown did not address the hon. the Minister at that personal level. [Interjections.] He did not. He attacked the hon. the Minister in his capacity as Minister and in connection with the incompetence supposedly shown. I am not in a position to judge. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that if an hon. Minister can react in such a way to an attack on his competence as a Minister, it does not create confidence in either him or his profession. In the second place, the hon. the Minister once again dragged up the same old issues—things which were supposed to have been said 10 to 15 or 25 years ago, before the present policy of the PFP had been finally determined at a congress. Perhaps the hon. the Minister does not know it, but over the past four sessions it has been repeated time and again both here and outside, with frills attached. [Interjections.] However, at this point I do not intend to address myself to the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions. My words are directed more towards the hon. the Minister of State Administration and of Statistics, who did me the honour of agreeing to be present here this afternoon to hear the few remarks I wish to make here at this late hour. I should like to ask hon. members to listen to the whole discussion with a certain degree of respect because I am now speaking to the next chief leader of the NP. [Interjections.] I am not speaking to the subordinates; I am speaking now to the next chief leader of the NP. [Interjections.] And if fate is against us in South Africa, then I am speaking to the next Prime Minister of this country—and he will be that before too long. [Interjections.] In my opinion the hon. the Minister was guilty of disregarding the confidence which the State Administration has in the Government as such. I shall motivate my opinion briefly. Throughout 1980 there has been one report after another in the newspapers concerning dissatisfaction in the Public Service, and what is more, concerning shortcomings in the Public Service as far as staff strength was concerned. For example, the hon. the Minister of Health pointed out that 76% of the nursing posts in the hospitals of the Transvaal were filled, but then we read in the newspaper that in one hospital, 50% of the wards are going to be closed.

One should not believe everything one reads.

It may be true, but on the other hand it may not be true. I am not a doctor and I do not know. The relevant newspapers, too, and the newspapers that tell the truth—I am not referring now to Rapport nor to the Sunday Times; I am now referring to relevant newspapers such as Die Burger—published that same report and the hon. member can call it into question if he wishes.

In 1980 the situation became so serious that in October the hon. the Prime Minister had to intervene and issue a declaration concerning future prospects for the State Administration, but there was not a word from the then Minister of State Administration. Towards the end of the year public interest in the matter snowballed. Again I quote from one of the newspapers that always tells the truth. Hon. members know of course which one it is—Die Burger. On 22 January 1981, seven days before the hon. the Minister was to inform the country in this House of the problems, the possible solutions and the steps to achieve solutions which were to follow, Die Burger wrote—

The economy of the country is given as one of the reasons. The report goes on—

The hon. the Minister of State Administration was then afforded the opportunity to inform this House of the situation and what he intended to do about it. I shall quote what he said. It is in a paragraph much briefer than the report I have just quoted. He said (Hansard, 29 January, 1981, column 351)—

Bearing in mind everything that occurred in 1980 and what had appeared seven days previously in the newspapers, that was all the hon. the Minister had to say about the acute shortage of White manpower in the Public Service. [Interjections.] The pronouncement was made on 21 January in the newspaper that always tells the truth. In it we read—

This is the first motion of no-confidence in the hon. the Minister’s management, because the Public Servants Association went over his head and appealed to the hon. the Prime Minister to consider the case. [Interjections.] Just as before, the representations by the public servants are something to laugh about. The newspaper report goes on—

Therefore there was dissatisfaction as far back as 21 February. We need not go into the issue of whether the concerns of the Public Servants were justified or not. The issue here is purely the reaction of the hon. the Minister who is now sitting and laughing about the whole issue.

I am laughing at you.

I quoted an article which appeared in Die Burger of 21 February which explains why the Public Servants were dissatisfied. On 4 March 1981 we read the following—

You were a far better tunnel digger. [Interjections.]

Order!

On 31 March the officials approached the hon. the Minister of State Administration again and in that regard we read the following—

This is an assurance given by Dr. Treumicht, the hon. the Minister of State Administration. Thus, month after month, virtually week after week, remarks, reports and objections were made and publicity was given to bottlenecks in the Department of State Administration and the concerns of the Public Servants. On 22 April we read—

However, at the time the hon. the Minister failed to take the public, least of all this hon. House, into his confidence—and as far as I know he has not done so yet—concerning what the bottlenecks are, what the causes of the bottlenecks are, for how long the bottlenecks have existed and what steps could possibly be taken to solve the problems. [Interjections.] One newspaper after the other has commented on the matter. Even the big NP newspaper, The Citizen, states—

Critical shortage in the Opposition.

There was also an announcement on 10 July that considerably more than a quarter of the 70 000 White posts in the Public Service were vacant. Therefore there are more than 17 000 posts in the Public Service that are vacant. I quote as follows—

[Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, may I please have a decent opportunity to address the House?

Order!

I quote further—

Then examples are given of critical shortages in many Government departments where the competence and efficiency of service is beginning to suffer due to existing shortages. [Interjections.] Accordingly, the question that arises is this: Since when did the hon. the Minister know of all these bottlenecks, or from what point was his predecessor aware of them? It is immaterial to me who is involved, but since when have they been aware of this, and what is being done to resolve the problems? [Interjections.]

Kowie’s officials have all left.

Order!

I should like to say …

Do not be so seditious.

Mr. Speaker, once again I request a decent opportunity to speak. [Interjections.]

Order!

Hon. members do not seem to be taking any notice of your ruling, Mr. Speaker. In June 1981, for the first time in 60 years, the Public Servants Association began to air their grievances with regard to the Public Service, in public. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is tantamount to a motion of no-confidence in the leadership of the State Administration, viz. in the hon. the Minister over there. [Interjections.] Indeed, this is one of the things they are saying in public—

That is, the hon. the Minister and his colleagues—

The hon. the Minister cannot escape that “raw deal”, because it is addressed primarily to him. The hon. the Minister of Manpower also said in this House this afternoon that if the workers become dissatisfied and lose their confidence in the Government, they will act mercilessly against the Government. This should also serve as a warning for that hon. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak after the hon. member for Johannesburg North. There has always been a prophet among the hon. members on the opposite side of this House and this afternoon another prophet was born, one who made certain predictions with regard to the hon. the Minister of State Administration and Statistics. I wish to assure the hon. member that the hon. Minister will survive the scathing prophetic attack he made on him.

He will also survive his shadow Minister!

Thus far in this debate nothing has yet been said about the economy and for this reason, during the last 20 minutes of today’s sitting, I should like to turn to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and peacefully discuss with him a few remarks he made, and in particular the last paragraph of his motion.

For the second time this year we have had to listen to an attempt by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members of the Opposition to motivate their motion of no-confidence, in this case their motion of censure. We do not begrudge the Opposition their motion of censure, because it is their privilege to introduce a motion of no-confidence or censure. However, we had to exert ourselves to listen to their attempts to motivate this motion. After the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had finished speaking we on this side were shocked to see him sit down before he had even got round to his motion. I then asked myself whether the hon. Leader had in fact succeeded in motivating his motion. We on this side could only shake our heads in sympathy because he had certainly not succeeded. After the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had moved his motion on the first day of the session someone interjected from this side of the House: “And now you have made your speech as well,” and after the hon. Leader had completed his speech one realized how true that interjection had been. One involuntarily came to the conclusion that his speech had given birth to nothing more than a mouse.

You lot aren’t worth anything more.

Now I should kindly like to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that—there are many of us who already know this—there was also a previous leader of a previous opposition whose name was also linked to a mouse story. We know where that leader is now and where the rest of that opposition is sitting today. I should therefore like to tell the hon. Leader that he must be very careful when he makes a speech that his party does not acquire the image of a mouse party. Yet this is what is happening at the moment in respect of virtually all the speeches made by the Opposition.

The last leg of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s motion reads as follows—

I do not for one moment concede that the interests of the National Party are being accorded priority over the interests of the Republic of South Africa. But I should like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and all the hon. members on that side if they are not aware that, as has already been said today, when the National Party came into existence in the period between 1912 and 1914 the premise and basis of its establishment was in fact “South Africa first” and that the policy and principles of the National Party have evolved from that premise. South Africa has always come first in the policy and principles of the National Party. Therefore whatever we envisage and do must be in the interests of the Republic of South Africa and all its peoples. The speeches of the hon. the Prime Minister and his predecessors—the hon. members on that side can make a point of reading them—are interspersed with the statement that what we are doing is in the interests of the National Party, and also of the people of South Africa.

Primarily in the interests of the Nationalist Party.

The hon. members can go and read the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister at the beginning of this debate. If they do so they will see that it was made without the slightest trace of hesitancy, but with authority and conviction.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must also accept that the National Party, as he can see here, returned to this House after the election with a two-thirds majority. The hon. the Prime Minister received a mandate from the voters …

What are you going to do with your mandate?

I think the hon. the Prime Minister stated very clearly what we are going to do with our mandate. But I shall return to this. We have therefore come back with a two-thirds majority and a mandate from the voters of South Africa which says we must move ahead according to the pattern of the policy and principles of the National Party, which is aimed at placing South Africa and the interests of its people first. Furthermore, the hon. the Prime Minister and his party has also received this mandate to negotiate with the other nations of South Africa on their future.

What can one say about the way in which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition motivated his motion of censure? I think he became so entangled in the numerous papers to which he had to refer to try to motivate his motion that he never really got round to the motivation. We had the same thing from the hon. member for Johannesburg North. The resemblance between the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and our friend—let us call him that—Jaap Marais is that they try to motivate all the statements they make by means of quotes.

That is probably why the HNP polled so many votes.

Who was quoted by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? Regular as clock-work he quoted hon. members on this side of this House. This time he quoted the hon. member for Innesdal and an hon. Minister. On a previous occasion last year he quoted the hon. the Prime Minister 28 times in order to try to motivate his standpoint and his motion. Surely it is not possible to use the statements of persons whose political philosophy differs completely from your own when you are trying to motivate your own policy, which, as I have already said, differs vastly from that of the opposite side. It is just not possible.

That is why this entire debate has fallen flat. In contrast with this—let us call it Van Zyl-style—we had the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister in this debate, in which with great conviction and singlemindedness he laid down the guidelines of the Government, of the NP and of South Africa. What are these guidelines? In the first place these guidelines are political guidelines. They are political guidelines in the form in which the hon. the Prime Minister stated them, i.e. the President’s Council, which is the forum which will be used to plan the future of the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites in South Africa.

The second guideline indicated by the hon. the Prime Minister—hon. members on the other side wanted to know what guidelines there were—is the establishment of independent Black States in South Africa. Surely this is not a myth. This is not a dream. These are realities which are taking shape before our very eyes. The third guideline laid down by the hon. the Prime Minister is the confederation of States in the narrow sense, as well as the constellation of States in the broader sense.

The hon. the Prime Minister also laid down economic guidelines. One of these is the Small Businesses Corporation. He also set out its aims. He referred to the development bank and its aims. He also referred to industrial co-operation and other projects of co-operation as well as the recognition of the economic interdependence of the nations of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister also pointed out the many other areas of co-operation which already exist at this stage and are in operation under agreements. These are real things which are already in operation or are being implemented. This is not a hesitant result. This is the result of creative, initiating, original thinking to solve the problems resulting from the realities of South Africa and of Africa in a peaceful way.

However, what is the approach of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to all these problems? In his speech the hon. Leader asked a number of questions. One question which he asked was down what road the hon. the Prime Minister was leading South Africa. The hon. Leader said that we had held a general election and that even after everything was over he had still not received answers to a single one of those questions. The hon. Leader said he had no real answer to a single one of those questions. What kind of admission is this for the Leader of an official Opposition party to make when he says that he does not have answers to the problems of South Africa? Now the hon. leader is saying that when we move in certain directions he is prepared to help; then he and his party are ready to help. How can a leader be ready to help if he does not have answers to the questions and the problems of South Africa. [Interjections.] Then, surely, he is unable to help. Therefore he cannot help.

Well, I never. [Interjections.]

No, give me a chance now, please. I should now like to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a question. If he and his party are in fact prepared to help to solve the problems of South Africa what is his position with regard to the President’s Council? Is he prepared to help with regard to the deliberations taking place on the President’s Council? [Interjections.] What kind of help does he wish to offer with regard to the establishment of independent Black nations. What help does he and his party offer in the solution of the socio-economic problems of South Africa and of the Black States. Those problems with which we are grappling day by day? What is his party prepared to do in order to help build up the confederation idea? Are he and his party prepared to help with the expansion of the constellation idea?

No, they are not. I think the last part of the hon. Leader’s motion, intended for the hon. the Prime Minister, should refer to him instead. The official Opposition, with the hon. leader in the vanguard, is not prepared to help solve the problems of South Africa. They are only prepared to help when the solution follows the direction of the policy of the PFP. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Johannesburg North has no reason to laugh. Let us consider what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech. He said he was only prepared to help if we moved in the direction of a national convention. He is therefore not prepared to help to solve the problems, because he must still tell this House where a national convention has been successful in Africa. He is only prepared to say that he will co-operate if what is involved is “one man, one vote” in a unitary State. Now I know they are going to flutter about again like chickens in a coop because they will say this is not their policy. But there are many examples where some of their members have said that it is their policy while others have said that it is not their policy.

You are talking nonsense.

No, I think the hon. the Minister of Health made it clear to the hon. members from a quote that it was in fact their policy, a policy of “one man, one vote” which could only have one outcome, namely a unitary State with Black majority rule. In addition the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is only prepared to help if the Government moves in the direction of an open and integrated community. These are the only circumstances under which they are prepared to help. Let us look at the results of terms such as these in Africa. Let us see what has become of “one man, one vote” in Africa. It has led to political chaos and to coups. Recently there was another coup. A week ago there was an attempted coup in Gambia. We can also look at the economic decline in Africa, poverty and famine in Africa, as a result of the principle of “one man, one vote” in a unitary State. What is the hon. the Prime Minister’s standpoint on this? He has repeatedly stated with authority and conviction the standpoints of the NP. What are they? The standpoints of the NP are based on the realities of South Africa, i.e. the recognition of multinationalism, in accordance with which each population group can receive its own political powers and rights in its own constitutional dispensation.

What about the Coloureds?

This also means the protection of minorities. This is one of the fundamentals of NP policy. It also means the protection of one’s own community and the preservation of one’s own community, one’s own schools and one’s own churches, exactly the opposite of the PFP with their open and integrated communities. In the economic field and in the industrial field the economic interdependence of nations in South Africa is recognized by the NP. From this we may deduce that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party have an unprecedented fear of the realities of South Africa. They have an unprecendented fear of the realities of South Africa? Why? Because their policy does not offer a solution for the realities of South Africa. Because their policy will in fact perpetuate those things which are now happening elsewhere in Africa.

In conclusion I should like to refer to the economic leg of the motion moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. No one on that side had the courage to talk about the economy. What is the basis of a strong economy in any country? The basis of a strong economy in any country is its infrastructure, its railways, its telecommunications network, its electricity network and its harbours. The infrastructure of South Africa compares favourably with the best infrastructures in the world, to say nothing of Africa. This is the basis of our economic strength. The second basis of the economic strength of this country lies in our mineral resources. We are the storehouse of the minerals of the world. Therein lies our economic strength. This infrastructure is available not only to South Africa, not only to the nations of South Africa, but also to all the peoples and nations of Southern Africa.