Mr. Speaker, I just wish to give this House an indication of future business. The main budget of the Central Government will be introduced on Wednesday, 12 August, and the debate on this measure will be continued on Monday, 17 August. The Post Office budget will be introduced on Tuesday, 1 September. The debate on this measure will commence the next day. The Railway budget will be introduced on Wednesday, 16 September, and the debate will commence on the same day.

As regards the business for next week, the House will follow the Order Paper as printed for Monday.

Order! Before the House proceeds to questions, I wish to make the following statement:

I have now had the opportunity of investigating the circumstances surrounding the allegation by the Minister of Transport Affairs during the no-confidence debate yesterday afternoon that the person who disturbed the proceedings of the House from the public gallery during the speech by the hon. the Minister of Manpower was a guest of the hon. member for Sea Point.

†I must first state that the records of the parliamentary office show that the hon. member for Sea Point did not apply for a ticket to be issued yesterday to the person concerned.

The inference that the ticket was issued to the person concerned yesterday at the request of the hon. member for Sea Point, was based on information furnished by the office responsible for issuing of tickets.

*I must make it quite clear that information of this nature is regarded by the Secretary to Parliament and myself as being information of a strictly confidential nature which cannot be released without the specific authorization of the Speaker or of the Secretary acting for the Speaker. Such authorization was not obtained in this case and this matter will be further dealt with departmentally.

I wish to apologize to the hon. member for Sea Point for the embarrassment caused by this incident.

†The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs has expressed his regret to me for any embarrassment he has caused to the Chair, to the House and to the hon. member for Sea Point, and has requested an opportunity to make a personal statement, which I shall accord him presently.

For the information of the House I can state that the person responsible for the interruption was examined on my behalf and subsequently reprimanded and removed from the precincts of Parliament.

Under the circumstances I do not consider it necessary to ask the House to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into this matter. Any further action which may be required will be discussed through the usual channels, and, if necessary, the matter can also be considered by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders.

*I now accord the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs the opportunity of making a personal statement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of making a personal statement. I want to give the assurance that it was not my intention to cause you, the House or the hon. member for Sea Point any embarrassment with the remark I made yesterday and I express my regret for having unwittingly acted contrary to the rules and customs of this hon. House. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, I withdrew the remark yesterday at your request, and I express my regret for any embarrassment it may have caused the hon. member for Sea Point.

Colin, are you sure he has never been your guest in the past?

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate, but you will allow me to refer briefly to the personal explanation just given in this House by the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. Furthermore, you will allow me to say that we naturally accept your ruling in connection with this incident. However, you will also understand that there is considerable disquiet amongst members about the fact that in spite of security measures, such an incident could have taken place. It indicates to us that the measures are not effective enough. I therefore make a very serious appeal to the Committee on Internal Arrangements to meet as soon as is practicable to ascertain what hon. member gave access to the visitor concerned and to order an inquiry into the security measures in this House.

In the light of the background to the hon. the Minister’s statement, I specifically want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point, with your permission, whether he has never in the past allowed this particular visitor into the gallery. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: If I heard your ruling correctly, I understood you to say that the relationship between a member and those whom he invites into the House is not a matter for debate in this House, but is confidential.

No!

If it is confidential, I think the hon. Chief Whip on the Government side is casting a serious reflection on the Chair, and I submit he should be severely reprimanded.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the hon. member for Tygervallei … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order … [Interjections.]

Order! Does the hon. the Minister wish to raise a point of order?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I just want to say that the hon. member for Tygervallei has expressed an opinion about an incident which affects everyone in this House, and I am surprised that hon. member should react against it. [Interjections.]

Is that a point of order?

Therefore I believe it is right that the point raised by the hon. member should be taken up. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: The hon. member for Tygervallei was merely asking the hon. member for Sea Point whether the person concerned had been his guest here at any stage in the past. [Interjections.]

You cannot take a thrashing.

Order!

Disgraceful.

Order! The hon. member for Sea Point must stop interjecting.

*I have made my standpoint quite clear, but I should like to repeat it. Information of this nature is regarded as strictly confidential by the Secretary to Parliament and myself, and it cannot be released without the specific authorization of the Speaker or of the Secretary, acting for the Speaker. Such authorization was not obtained in this case, and as I have already said, the matter will be further dealt with departmentally. The matter raised by the hon. member for Tygervallei is therefore a confidential one for the hon. member for Sea Point, and if it comes before the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, it can in fact be investigated. Therefore I do not expect any reaction from the hon. member for Sea Point at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: May we infer from this that the Committee will be convened for this purpose?

Yes, as soon as possible. For the rest, I just wish to point out that my senior staff and I held discussions this morning concerning the security situation of this House. We also had in-depth discussions with the hon. the Minister of Police. In the first place, we intend to send out certain circulars shortly, and secondly, we should like this matter to be discussed at the caucus meetings of the parties, because we feel that something must be done to avoid a recurrence of an incident of this nature. We regard the matter in a very serious light. I hope that the matter has now been disposed of across the floor of the House and that we shall be able to lay it before the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, this debate must hold an all-time record for points of order. When I came in earlier this afternoon, I asked rather facetiously how much time the Whips were going to allocate for points of order this afternoon, little thinking that those points of order would start even before I had an opportunity to get to my feet.

We find ourselves now on the fifth and final day of the no-confidence debate, in which the main contestants have been the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I do not think, however, that either of those gentlemen can claim that they have anything for their comfort out of this debate. The hon. the Prime Minister and his team, I think, have clearly illustrated to us and to the country as a whole that we are right back where we started after the general election of 1977. We have gone back to the NP congresses of 1977 that preceeded the general election in November and we are starting all over again. In turn the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his team have not given us any alternatives, but we have grown accustomed to that. They certainly have not explained anything or brought any clarity to bear on their policy. This, too, we have grown accustomed to over the years. Sadly, this brings little comfort to South Africa, and this is what really matters. The motion of censure was introduced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but what have we heard from the PFP? We have heard nothing more or less than a frantic attempt on their part to paint the blackest possible picture of what is happening in South Africa. I believe that it is a sad state of affairs in our country that the Opposition has done nothing but paint the blackest possible picture of this country of ours, using the most extreme language, and that for the benefit of the overseas Press. If I were a person overseas and I were to read what came out of this debate, the remarks of, say, the hon. member for Berea, who spoke of barbarism, of a man being imprisoned under worse conditions than those in which the worst sex fiend or a murderer is detained, I would think very sadly of this country. I, of course, know that that does not pertain to this country. I believe that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a man of whom I must tell the House I am very fond and for whom I have a lot of respect, must cringe at the excesses of the hon. members sitting behind him in those benches. They are possibly only trying to compensate for their hon. leader’s own lacklustre performance in introducing this motion of censure. They are obviously trying to compensate for his very low-key and I might say very disappointing introduction to this motion of censure.

Have you ever had 59 days in solitary confinement?

That is what I mean. It is obvious to all that the bottom has fallen right out of the PFP’s plan for a national convention. Their own experiences in this direction prove it. I am sorry that the hon. member for Berea is not here. It was he who waxed eloquent yesterday when quoting from Inkatha’s submissions to the Schlebusch Commission to prove that In-katha actually accepts a national convention. But when I asked why the PFP did not give evidence before the Schlebusch Commission, the answer I got from an hon. gentleman here was: “We will give evidence before the national convention.” In my view that party, and the governing party, both stand condemned because neither of them gave evidence before the Schlebusch Commission. Only this party was prepared to go before the Schlebusch Commission to give evidence and to be cross-questioned by the commission. [Interjections.]

You are talking tripe.

It is equally obvious that they have no practical plan or program that will enable them to achieve the vague Utopia that they seem to believe should exist in South Africa.

Was that the plan before the electorate?

That party’s members have claimed that they are going to put things right, that they fight to put things right. We are dealing with a motion of censure. Have they once raised the issue of economics in this debate? Have we heard a whisper? Do hon. members know why we have not heard a whisper on economics in this debate? The Financial Mail of as recently as 3 July 1981 will give us the answer. I quote—

Incidently, we have here a picture of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in a turtle-neck sweater, looking out of a window, obviously brooding—

Social democracy!

The hon. the Minister must bear with me—

And the NRP.

I read further—

In reply to the interjection, let me say that the NRP is not watching developments, because the NRP knows we will never get policy from that party. We know it. We know it is useless waiting because it will never happen.

You are on the wrong side.

What have you been criticizing all along?

Yesterday we heard the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, I think it is …

Yes, we have seats all over the country.

At this point let me say that I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. Ministers have made a fatal mistake, because in succession they have said that this party stands for “one man, one vote” in a unitary State.

Which party?

The hon. the Minister’s party has said that the PFP stands for “one man, one vote” in a unitary State. That is not the case. They do not stand for “one man, one vote” in a unitary State, but for “one man, one vote” in a geographic federation. I want to ask the hon. members of the official Opposition whether that is true or not. [Interjections.]

Universal adult suffrage in a geographic federation.

And that will lead to the situation the hon. the Prime Minister sketched.

That was published three years ago. Anybody who does not know it, is stupid. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Bryanston tells us that that is what is coming in three years’ time. Is that right?

I said it was published three years ago throughout the country and that anybody who does not know it is extremely stupid.

Sir, a colleague reminded me of an old saying which applies to these hon. gentlemen: “Some people are so heavenly-minded that they can do no earthly good”. [Interjections.]

On the side of the Government we have had demonstrated their obvious inability to give a clear lead and a complete lack of vision for a new Republic.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member reads my hon. leader’s amendment to the motion, he will see what the position is. I said they had gone back to 1977, from which point, I submit, the Government seems to be unable to find any alternative, even today, to the Verwoerdian dream. They even use, rather hesitantly, the word “confederation”. It started with “constellation” and it has now developed to the word “confederation”. However, they use it to describe a Verwoerdian concept of a commonwealth of nations. Then they dare to tell this party that we do not understand what is meant by “confederation”. They dare to suggest that Switzerland is not a confederation.

It is no more.

“No more”? The hon. the Minister insists on this. Let me quote the following authority—

I quote further—

I should think that this gentleman is an authority, because this is a message from the President of the Swiss Confederation, Mr. Kurt Furgler, published in The Star of 29 July 1981, i.e. on Swiss National Day. If the President of Switzerland calls it a confederation, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I think it is time he accepted this point of view.

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

No, Sir, I have limited time. In view of the injury time I have lost, I shall definitely not answer any questions.

The Government is attempting to use as much of this party’s terminology as possible because, I submit, only in this way can it hope to give respectability to its policies which in no way accommodate or take into account the realities of South Africa. We hoped that, after receiving his mandate, the hon. the Prime Minister would have shown an honest attempt to come to grips with those realities. We have obviously hoped in vain and we find, to our dismay, that the verligte rhetoric has been notably subdued. What has happened to those noble and stirring cries? What has happened to the call: “Adapt or die”? What has happened to the other cry: “The Afrikaner does not need discriminatory laws to retain his identity”? The expectations that were created by these utterances required action. The expectations created by these utterances required, if not action then at the very least a declaration of intent from the hon. the Prime Minister, but sadly we stand here today, in the dying moments of this censure debate, and we have nothing at all.

I believe that this highlights the need for a clear look at the motion of my hon. leader, because it highlights the need for a party such as the NRP which clearly and unequivocally, through all its spokesmen, states time and time again exactly what it stands for and what its policies are. No one can deny that. We try to show the way. We try to show a way other than that of the disguised baasskap of the NP Government or the complete capitulation of the PFP.

How often do we find ourselves in this House, as we have for the last four days, listening to ranting and raving at situations that exist in our country? How often do we find speaker after speaker standing up to scream to the heavens, to hurl abuse? How often do we find hon. members on the Government side standing up to defend, without offering some sort of alternative, some sort of solution?

Let us examine one of the cardinal issues that have come out of this debate. Instead of shouting from the rooftops about injustice, or thumping the tub of the law, let us try, amongst ourselves, to find a solution. I am reminded of the words of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, who said yesterday—referring to the Black masses—that the masses out there wanted stability, work opportunities and food. In saying that he is right. In this debate we have had many emotional utterances on the tragic situation that exists here in the Western Cape in respect of illegal squatters. It is indeed a great, great tragedy. It is doing our country tremendous harm. It is terrible indeed to think that in this modern day and age people are left homeless, hungry and cold. It is equally terrible, however, to think that thousands and thousands of people are pouring into our cities, seeking non-existent work. The problem is here, but the cause is to be found elsewhere. The cause is to be found in the homelands and in the independent States. I believe it is the cause that is to be tackled intelligently in order to eradicate the problem.

Let us look at the cause. I believe that the biggest single tragedy of the homelands is the vast area of land that lies idle. It is land that should be put to active use, that should be creating wealth, that should be creating employment opportunities and that should be creating the need for ancillary industries. It is land that could, in fact, be effectively used to eliminate the social evil that besets not only Cape Town, but other urban areas to which people are attracted to seek nonexistent work. Unfortunately Cape Town is harder hit by this problem than any other city in South Africa at the present time. Millions upon millions of rand have been spent upon consolidation, and we have heard in debates in this House of the thousands of millions of rand that have been spent on apartheid and on the ideologies. I believe that we must now look to investing millions, with our eyes wide open, to assist our homeland Blacks and the Blacks who live in the independent States. We must help those people generate income from agriculture. I believe this can be done quite easily, and I intend to give an idea which may be worth debating and which may be worth thinking about. Let us assume that one takes 10 000 Ciskeians and 10 000 Transkeians, and for this exercise we could also take 10 000 Zulus, but let us confine this debate to this area and deal mainly with people from the Ciskei and the Transkei. This could also, of course, apply in other parts of South Africa. Let us now assume that one were to allocate 40 ha as a farming unit to each of these 20 000 people. I say 40 ha because I believe that 40 ha would be a viable unit because 20 ha could be put under maize and 20 ha could be used for any other suitable purpose to maintain crop rotation, a turn-about of the usage of the soil in order to keep the husbandry of that soil on a proper basis. Let us bear in mind that Transkei and the Ciskei are amongst the highest rainfall areas of the southern tip of Africa. I think it is safe to assume that a crop of five tons per ha could be achieved by each one of these farmers. I say this because every farmer on that side of the House knows that they would be disappointed if they did not take seven tons per hectare off the land. So it is safe to assume that with a little expertise, with a little assistance, they could take five tons off every hectare of land. Extend that at R130 per ton and it would mean an income, to each of these 20 000 people, of R13 000 p.a. Naturally this programme has got to be started with expertise and assistance. It has got to be nurtured carefully through its early years. One has to think in terms of a system of the co-operative ownership of tractors and implements. This is not an impossible task. Each one of these farmers would obviously have to pay rental, in the traditional fashion of the tribal custom, to their headman, but the important thing is that one would generate a cash flow and that this cash flow would encourage others, offering ancillary services, into those areas. That is the important thing. Once one generates this cash flow, one also encourages shopkeepers, tradesmen, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, and probably a few shoemakers as well, to remain and to develop ancillary services in those areas. One reads of the complaint of the squatter who came down here and said: “I come from a small town where there is nothing to do and nowhere to go.” The fact that there is agricultural ground back in the Ciskei and in the Transkei, land that is not being utilized, is the very reason for the complaint. It is because that land is lying fallow and is non-productive that he has this complaint. If we were to implement this action today, now, I suggest that that man would have more than enough to do in his little town back in his homeland or in his independent State.

An argument may be raised in respect of Transkei. Speakers may ask how we can interfere in the independent State of Transkei, but I am speaking within the framework of the policy that this party advocates. I am speaking within a confederal framework that we have spoken about time and time again, because in terms of this party’s policy that argument does not exist. In terms of this party’s policy Transkei would be one of the units in our confederation, and this aid could be termed international assistance to a member State.

The time for action is now, and unless the Government realizes that it must act now and that it must act firmly and with determination, it will have to face the consequences of an ever-increasing problem, not only here in Cape Town, but also in other cities in the Republic of South Africa. It is coming as surely as night follows day, and I submit, with all due respect, that we do have the answer. Let us in heaven’s name implement it now.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlanga reached both heights and depths in his speech. We welcome the constructive part of his speech in which he implied support for this Government’s standpoint that we must promote economic decentralization and that agriculture is one of the starting points for creating job opportunities for the Black nations, particularly in the rural areas. The hon. the Prime Minister has already announced great plans in this connection and we are engaged in giving new dimensions to the concept of economic decentralization. I think this is a discussion which can productively be taken further when the posts of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the hon. the Minister of External Affairs come up for discussion.

I really do not have the time now—because I am also the victim of injury time—to clear up the confusion in the mind of the hon. member regarding the concepts of “federation” and “confederation”. We shall have to do this at a later date. However, I can tell him that one does not change the essence of a thing by giving it another name and he will have to decide for himself whether he supports a federation which has a superstructure consisting of a Parliament and which exercises certain central powers, or whether he supports a confederation in which the autonomy and sovereignty of each of the constituent parts is guaranteed. I think he has a problem because they have no legal experts among their number. He should therefore approach the legal and constitutional experts in this House on this matter; they will clear up his confusion.

I would also have liked to touch on the sideswipe and irresponsible attack of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central on the fuel price, but since he is not here today and I should like to do so in his presence I will leave this for the budget debate or for the discussion of my Vote.

Mr. Speaker, the quality of parliamentary democracy is certainly as dependent on the contribution made by the Opposition as it is on the contribution made by the Government. If this censure debate is a true barometer of the contributions we are to expect from the PFP during the life of this Parliament, that is, up to the next election, I am a worried man. I will immediately concede that the hon. members of the PFP had an extremely difficult task. They did return with a few more seats, but if one looks at the total number of votes cast, they made very little progress—a growth rate of only about 2% in respect of the total number of votes cast. To have to censure a party which returned with an overwhelming majority, which improved on its percentage in previous elections, such as 1970 and 1974, after such a drab and colourless performance is certainly no easy task. To have to admit that in spite of massive Press support by newspapers with the largest circulation in South Africa, that in spite of having a new leader in the person of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who has been extolled by their Press as no other political leader before him and in spite of the negative consequences for the NP, of the events surrounding the former Department of Information, that in spite of all this the PFP could still only poll less than one-third of the NP’s total votes, must be a bitter pill for hon. members on that side to have to swallow. Even if I make allowance for that and accept it as an extenuating circumstance, the official Opposition’s performance in this debate is still a source of serious concern.

The hon. members of the NRP realize they lost. They entered this debate with reasonable modesty, as it behoves losers …

That is a back-handed compliment.

… but listening to the PFP one would have thought that they had won the election. Their side of the debate was characterized by mere reaction politics. There was no attempt to analyse and discuss the most pressing problems of the RSA in depth. The only one who tried—and he stopped at problem analysis—was the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. One of the main tasks of an Opposition is surely to test a Government, even in a censure debate, in respect of the administration of the country, but even this received scant attention in this debate.

The hon. member for Sea Point, chief spokesman on foreign affairs, did not say a word about the international situation. The hon. member for Berea, chief spokesman on transport matters and police, was guilty of a half hour of petty politicking and gave virtually no attention to the matters on which he is supposed to be an expert.

Just wait.

The hon. member for Yeoville, chief spokesman on finance, in a period in which far-reaching developments have taken in the financial field, did not say a single word about finance.

But are you discussing energy affairs now?

The hon. member for Bryanston, chief spokesman on industries, did not say a word about inflation, despite the fact that this was one of the foundation stones of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s motion. Instead of this, as usual, we experienced from him a plethora of unsavoury attempts at pithiness.

I think Andries is overtaking you. [Interjections.]

In fact we have an official Opposition which has no interest in the administration of the country. No, they prefer to be advocates for the legalization of squatting and for the inundation of metropolitan areas. They prefer to act as advocates for instigators of violence, strikes and boycotts. Perhaps one should not blame the hon. front-benchers …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister entitled to use those words about hon. members in this House?

Sir, I said they preferred to act as advocates for instigators of violence, strikes and boycotts.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. Perhaps one should not blame the hon. front-benchers to whom I referred too much. After all, their hon. leader set the example himself.

Well, you are just advocates for fascism.

In a speech which, according to The Cape Times, had as its main theme the need …

Order! What did the hon. Chief Whip say?

Sir, I said that the hon. members opposite were advocates for fascism.

I ask the hon. member to withdraw that.

Sir, on a point of order: I understand that your ruling was that if an hon. member says that other hon. members are advocates of something, it is in order.

The position is that the hon. member is associating the Government with fascists if he asserts that they are advocates of fascism. When the hon. the Minister said that they were advocates of instigators, as he put it, it does not mean that it applies in respect of fascists. I request the hon. member to withdraw his statement.

I withdraw those words, Sir.

According to The Cape Times the main theme of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s introductory speech was the need for “bold political leadership”. While he was discussing “bold political leadership”, he looked to us—and I say this without malice—listless and unmotivated. In the same Cape Times after his speech it was said: “It was below the fighting standard Parliament has come to expect of him.”

One wonders to what this decline may be ascribed. Has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who is by nature an ideologist, perhaps fallen prey to the pragmatists in his party? It would seem so. If a year ago you had asked me, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would sign misleading advertisements I would have said no. Today we know better. If a year ago you had asked me whether the hon. Leader would have lent himself to a total evasion of his party’s policy, I would have said no. Today we know better. He did so in this debate and also during the election. What he has accused our hon. leader of doing, he himself did in the election and I want to corroborate this statement.

†In the Sunday Times of 19 April the PFP devoted two full pages to an advertisement under the heading “The debate you won’t see on TV”, and in this rather cynical document they pretended to construct a debate between the NP and themselves on the basis of often disconnected quotations from Hansard.

Because the Prime Minister was too scared to appear with us on TV.

It is a most interesting document.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to say that the hon. the Prime Minister was too scared to appear on TV? [Interjections.]

The hon. Minister may proceed.

It would be reasonable to assume that the PFP, in deliberately compiling this fictitious debate, would have addressed themselves—because they had the choice of subjects—to what they regarded as the most crucial political issues of our time. One really gains perspective of the PFP when one realizes that they regarded, inter alia, the following issues of greater importance than their own policy or the question of the effective safeguarding of minority rights. I will list what they regarded as the most crucial issues one week before the election: The price of red meat and other practical economic issues; the Government’s refusal to abolish influx control; the Government’s policy not to allow mixed residential areas; the alleged closing down of a newspaper; and the steps taken against people intent on overthrowing the existing order by unlawful means. These issues ranked for the PFP as top priorities and not the really crucial questions which, I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will now agree with me, are the really crucial questions. I will mention only three: Firstly, how to ensure a just and equitable dispensation for all nations and groups in our multinational society. They did not address themselves to that, nor to another crucial matter, viz. how to safeguard the vested rights of the White nation and of minority groups in general. A third crucial point is how to avoid conflict in a country which has a tremendous conflict potential. Two full pages were taken up by the PFP in the Sunday Times, but not a word about their policy on these crucial issues. For them, as has once again been proved in this debate, it is a top priority to criticize influx control, regardless of the inevitable consequences of job insecurity for especially the urban Blacks, regardless of the shanty towns which will go up like mushrooms, regardless of the chaos which will result. For them mixed schools and residential areas are of supreme importance, regardless of the conflict and friction that will result, as is the case in the USA and England.

You are ludicrous.

They concern themselves more with the rights of those who preach disinvestment and advocate revolution than with the rights of the ordinary citizen who is prepared to work for his ideals within the legal framework.

… and who wants to live with his family.

One can see how the PFP is shying away from the shortcomings of its own policies. One would have expected those hon. members to have included in their fictitious debate, and in this real debate we have had here this week, some of their solutions, e.g. a national convention with Mr. Mandela’s presence a prerequisite …

A national sell out.

… their “one man, one vote” proposal for their umbrella federal assembly and their “one man, one vote” proposal for each member state; and their so-called guarantees of their bill of rights, their rigid constitution and their minority vetoes. Yet we have not heard a word about that. Nor did we hear a word about that during the election. [Interjections.] They do not address themselves to the really crucial issues at stake in the real political debate of our times. I am not for one moment saying that the issues raised in this debate and those raised in the Sunday Times are not important, but what I am saying is that the PFP has proved, through its choice of issues, that its members do not even sufficiently believe in their own solutions and their own fig-leaf assurances about minority rights to debate those issues or put them on the table.

*Then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had the temerity to accuse the hon. the Prime Minister in his motion of failing to indicate his policies. On the contrary, the hon. the Prime Minister, and the NP in general in the election and in this debate, have really got down to tackling the real problems of South Africa. The speeches of the hon. the Prime Minister and of other members on this side of this House, in contrast with those of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters, have systematically thrown light on the major problems of South Africa: The reality of multi-nationalism and the demands which this makes on us: constitutional, economic and social steps which on the one hand do not run counter to reality and on the other hand can succeed in allowing a just and equitable dispensation to develop. All this has been spelt out and discussed in this debate and during the election.

Naturally less responsible hon. members of the Opposition scoff at us and try in school debating society fashion to drive us into a corner to compel us to produce blue-prints, to spell out things and to furnish the tiniest details. But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must concede that many of the details which we have supposedly neglected to give must in fact come out of negotiations between the Government and leaders of the other nations and population groups. It is politically dishonest to complain on the one hand that the Government is too regulatory and decides for other people and then in almost the same breath to demand that details be spelt out in the middle of a negotiation process which is at present taking place on a broad front.

The NP will continue in accordance with its principles to protect the established right of self-determination of the Whites. The NP will continue to pursue the course of fairness and justness in offering opportunities to the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians to allow them to come to full self-realization, politically, economically and socially. The NP will also continue, with its course of negotiation, to reach an understanding with Blacks, Coloureds and Indians, an understanding which will effectively protect minority rights on the one hand and on the other will properly structure and ensure co-operation in respect of matters of common interest—and there are many of these.

I will conclude with a piece of good and seriously intended advice to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He must take cognisance of the continued opposition of his and my race, his and my nation, the White electorate, to any experiment which will threaten their security and survival.

Yes, that is what the HNP says.

He must take cognisance of the unshakeable will of the Whites to rule themselves and to protect their identity by means of fair differential measures. He must take cognizance of the refusal of the White electorate to accept an open community; take cognizance of the conflict potential built into the non-recognition of the will of the people and the existence of the White nation. The challenge facing us is to reconcile conflicting rights, and no one is going to achieve this by depriving the Whites of their lawfully acquired freedom and self-government.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition advocates change, and the government has indicated how it is prepared to bring about evolutionary change within the framework of its mandate. It is however the PFP, more than anything else, which is out of step. After all, it was the PFP which lost and which, after all its attempts and with everything in its favour, could poll only 19% of the total votes cast. It is the loser who must take stock after an election and ask himself: “What is the matter with me? How must I change? What are the stumbling-blocks?” The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must tell the ideologists and the pragmatists in his party to make an analysis of why his party’s policy is unacceptable to 81% of the White electorate. When he has this analysis before him he must eliminate the cardinal stumbling-blocks which make his party a losing party. But this will call for dynamic leadership on his part. This is the test before which he and the PFP stand. The hon. Leader will soon be rising to speak and I want to ask him to indicate whether the PFP is prepared to renew and to change. Is the PFP prepared to look fundamentally at what is wrong with its approach and what makes it so unacceptable to its own people? If the hon. the Leader is prepared to undergo renewal and to change, what is he contemplating and what does he think he must change in his party’s policy to be able to ensure a meaningful debate here in this House? If the PFP accepts this challenge they will be doing democracy in South Africa a favour.

However, I wish to predict that with an ideologist such as the hon. member for Pinelands as the real leader and the real manipulator of the PFP, this is just a dream. I can frankly predict that the PFP will continue to plod along its course of selling out and will remain a tool in the hands of those people who accept Black majority rule as inevitable in South Africa. As long as that party, in its heart of hearts, considers Black majority rule to be inevitable—even if it hides behind fig-leaves—it will remain unacceptable to the White electorate, because they do not reckon with the White nation’s unshakeable will to retain its freedom, its self-determination and its self-government.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. It astonished me that the PFP, a party which ostensibly has no policy, as has been said from the opposite side of this House, received so much attention from the hon. the Minister, specifically in connection with aspects of policy. The hon. the Minister said that we were not really trying to get down to the fundamental problems of South Africa. I wish to deny most strenuously that this is so. In my opening speech to this debate, I tried to touch on a fundamental aspect, and I tried to do so in a sober and objective way, and as succinctly as possible, so that we could discuss it without the traditional scoring of debating points off one another—for I can do that, too, as hon. members know. I can also cast doubts on the motives of others, and I can also question assumptions. In this way another parliamentary session can go by. It is no problem to do that. There is no skill involved. It is easy. However, I had hoped that we would in this debate, given the urgency of the problems confronting us, debate the real problems of South Africa. But I made a mistake; I wish to admit that candidly. Such a debate in this House is apparently not possible. I must say that this fills me with grave anxiety over the future of my country.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my reply to this debate, I just wish to make a point which might help you in your task. During the debate occasional reference was made to the fact that the previous Speaker adopted the standpoint that the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister ought to receive special treatment. I wish to state frankly that I do not want such special consideration. I wish to be treated in the same way as any other member in this House. I do not need any special protection or anything of that nature. I am saying this to make your task easier. I do not need to receive such protection.

Supervan!

I wish to return to a point touched on by the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, viz. the question of the general election. Let us not bluff one another. The hon. the Prime Minister called the election. I remember the day it happened. At the first opportunity I had in this House to react to it, I asked: “Why?” I still remember that the hon. the Prime Minister then asked me half-mockingly across the floor of this House: “Are you afraid to hold an election after what happened to you in Simonstown and in East London City?” I replied: “No, I am not afraid. We can fight an election if you like.” Sir, we fought an election, and despite what the hon. the Minister said, the official Opposition is back in Parliament today in greater numbers than before the election. [Interjections.] One of the newspaper reports which gave me the greatest pleasure—it appeared before the election took place—was a report in Die Burger of 10 April. The caption to the report read: “Sondvloed sal die Opposisie tref” (Deluge will overwhelm the Opposition). The hon. the Prime Minister said this, and do you know what, Mr. Speaker? Even the Dutch Reformed Church rebuked him for using those words. They said it was irresponsible for a Christian to speak like that. Even the language experts said it was not proper Afrikaans; one did not speak Afrikaans in that way.

Let us see what happened. Green Point was redelimitated and 2 500 votes were added to the electoral division by the commission. I do not think there are many PFP supporters to be found in Walvis Bay. There were 2 500 of them. What happened then? The National Party imported a special de luxe candidate from the North, a Broeder. What happened then? He lost. The Cape machine of the National Party ground to a halt. After certain by-elections the Cape Leader of the National Party had told the Transvaal leader: “Set your house in order,” but then things went wrong here in the Cape as well. The Minister of Industries, who lost in Cape Town-Gardens, is a very good friend of mine and that is why I am not going to rub salt in his wounds as far as Cape Town-Gardens goes. The result there speaks for itself.

Despite its victory it is a fact that in the recent general election the National Party polled only 37% of the votes of those registered voters who voted. The hon. members who have pocket calculators can make calculations if they wish. There were 2 103 415 registered voters in the contested constituencies, and in these constituencies the National Party polled a total of 37% of the votes, or, to be precise, 36,97%. [Interjections.] We shall give them the other 0,03% pasella.

How many did you poll?

In these figures lie the message of the election. These people got the fright of their lives, because they realized that they had polled the votes of the minority of the registered voters who voted—not the majority. [Interjections.] The question which now arises is: To whom have the other voters turned. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Those voters have moved to the right. When the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet saw what was happening, that those people had moved to the right, they got a fright. Instead of saying to the voting public of South Africa: “Friends, wait a minute; the reason why we are sounding these verligte notes is not because we are wooing votes—we do not need those votes—but because there are challenges awaiting us on the road ahead, and you must go forward with us to meet them. Do not run away,” they became rooted to the spot. They became rooted to the spot and said: “Oh, my goodness, what shall we do now? Let us run after these voters. Let us try to allay their fears. Let us tell them what they want to hear. Let us say to them: ‘Yes, yes, it is true.’”

And this is where we find ourselves now. There is no new leadership, and that is in fact the theme which I touched on in my words to the hon. the Prime Minister. That is precisely what I tried to say.

We come now to this debate itself. The hon. the Prime Minister decided to enter the debate at an early stage. This immediately aroused expectations. We thought that something was going to happen here. We thought that something exceptional was on its way. The daily newspapers speculated that the early participation of the hon. the Prime Minister in the debate indicated the laying down of new guide-lines. I listened attentively to the hon. the Prime Minister. He made a long speech. It was a speech which was to indicate a trend. I shall react to all the points raised by the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech, but at the outset I wish to point out that the hon. the Prime Minister had very little to say about one aspect, viz. the question of the elimination of discrimination. There was only one line in passing about it in his speech. The hon. the Prime Minister pointed out that I had referred to discriminatory measures. He said that surely I knew that the Government was consistently going out of its way, with the retention of what was not negotiable, to change those things which could be changed. However, he said that hon. members should not ask for examples. They should not ask them to give examples of how we were going to get away from discrimination. Quite tersely, that was all the hon. the Prime Minister had to say about the whole issue of discrimination.

For the rest he confined himself to three aspects in particular, which I now wish to deal with. One was the constellation idea; the second the question of confederation, and the third the whole question of the new constitutional proposals, which have now become rather antiquated because they were the 1977 constitutional proposals which had to be reconsidered now by the President’s Council. I now wish to subject these three aspects, as the hon. the Prime Minister presented them to us here, to closer scrutiny.

Let us first consider the constellation idea. As I understand it—and I read the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister carefully—it is basically an economic system which is being envisaged. A decentralization and deconcentration of industries have to take place, preferably as close to the Black States as possible. At the same time there must be a process of discouragement in existing metropolitan areas so that those areas do not become overpopulated. Those were his two aspects of the constellation idea. Allow me to point out at once that we have no objections in principle to the idea of decentralization. In fact, this is not a new idea in South Africa, because it has been tried out for quite a number of years now, with a greater or lesser degree of success. In his report of 31 December 1979 the Board for the Decentralization of Industry had the following to say—

Consequently they cannot be achieved—

There are tremendous problems involved in decentralization. The National Physical Development Programme also makes these clear. In the publication I have before me here, there are maps, which hon. members would do well to look at, on which certain important aspects are indicated. On one map the existing metropolitan areas were indicated as they are envisaged in terms of the National Physical Development Plan. The question is asked in what way we can expand, and they conclude that fundamentally it is not really possible to decentralize. What actually has to take place is déconcentration, and when a person deconcentrates, it cannot be done further than approximately 50 km from existing metropolitan areas. Consequently there is not much difference. So the point I wish to emphasize is that the entire constellation idea, as regards its economic infrastructure, is dependent on the existing metropolitan areas. One cannot simply establish a city in the bundu, and hon. members opposite know it. Their planners and advisers tell them the same thing, but it is important to realize this.

Of course we have considered the problems of decentralization before, and we have not been able to get away from this fact. What are the real problems which are confronting us? The hon. member for Yeoville has already referred to them. One problem is of course the creation of employment opportunities. It is an expensive process. The second problem is that it will be very difficult to persuade the private sector to pursue political objectives in their economic activities. They are not going to do it. This problem was inherent in the entire border area industrial development project, and Prof. Jan Lombard identified it as long ago as the ’sixties. Consequently we cannot bluff one another on this score either.

Therefore I say to the hon. the Prime Minister, to hon. members on this side of the House, that there are a few grave dangers inherent in this new obsession with the idea of a constellation. In the first place it could be seen as an alternative to measures for coping with the problems of urbanization which have in the meantime arisen in any event. That would be a tremendous mistake. We cannot imagine that we are going to solve the squatter problem, the problem of the illegals, by simply saying “constellation, constellation”; it is not going to happen. While an effort is being made to decentralize to a greater extent attention must at the same time be given to the problems of urbanization. This is tremendously important. In the second place, and I am putting this as a question to the hon. the Prime Minister: Does the danger not exist that we are, if we begin with programmes of discouragement in existing metropolitan areas, going to make those areas even more unstable? I am referring here to what the hon. the Prime Minister said in his speech about discouragement (Hansard, 3 August)—

What I understand this to mean, is that in places such as Johannesburg and, say, the surrounding areas, housing and transport will no longer be subsidized or that steps are going to be taken, so that people in those areas have to pay for these things themselves. If that happens in a place like Soweto, say, then I wish to state at once that we must realize what the impact is going to be …

Surely there are no industries in Soweto.

No, it is situated in an industrial area. Questions are going to be asked, and this kind of thing is going to crop up there as well. If we begin to implement a programme of discouragement in those Black urban residential areas we are going to bring tremendous problems upon ourselves. I am stating this as a possibility. When I mention this point of criticism now, it is always hurled back at us and it is said: “Yes, but you people simply wish to throw everything open. You say: Let them all come to the cities, uncontrolled, with over-urbanization …”

Yes, that is correct. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is so typical of the debates we have had in this House. If one tries to state one’s standpoint, it is always hurled back at one in the superlative degree: There is going to be over-urbanization; we want chaos, and things like that. Surely this is a stupid way to debate. Our standpoint is very clear. Two basis premises are needed to cope with these problems. In the first place there must be a clear urbanization policy and that urbanization policy cannot be based on influx control which does not work. It cannot. It is not the case that there should simply be an influx to the cities. All that I am saying is that the existing influx control measures cannot work. Let me go even further. Suppose the Government were to come forward with proposals which stated that one should have a dwelling and employment in order to determine whether one can be in the city. Even then the problem of how one is to administer such a policy exists. It is better than the 72-hour time limit; I agree with that, but how is one going to administer it? Therefore I say that the premise should be that the people are going to come to the cities. But what preparations are we making for them, how can we create decent housing there, and how are we going to make land available? The other essential aspect if we are going to cope with these problems—and this is of cardinal importance—is that we should begin with a large-scale programme of agricultural development. We shall have to reclaim the land. I know that the hon. member who is chairman of the consolidation commission knows precisely what I am talking about. During the last election I went to an area between Queenstown and Molteno. It was a farm where the rooigras had grown a half meter high; it was a farm where stock were fattened for the market. They bought out the Thornhill farm, initially with the idea of settling 6 000 people there. At present there are 60 000. The few pigs which are wandering around there, live on dust. There is nothing; it looks like a tennis court. Those people come here. If I were there, I would also come here. Surely they cannot live in the dust there. Surely it is an absurdity. This, too, is a problem we shall have to consider. It is not going to help us to have a resettlement policy of removing people to the rural areas, and to dump them on those farms—that hon. member agrees with me—and in that way destroy our agricultural potential and then be saddled with them when they come back to the cities. And on this issue the Government has not given us any answer yet. They simply continue to resettle more people, and then take them back again. They load them on to buses again and take them back to where they came from. Surely it is absurd to adopt a procedure like this. That is why I say, Mr. Speaker, that we shall have to face up to these things and we shall have to take steps to deal with them.

The second aspect to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred was the question of a confederation. I find it interesting that the hon. the Prime Minister did not, as he did in his election pamphlet, speak of a “participatory democracy”. The election pamphlet spoke of a “participatory democracy”. I am not trying to mislead this House. I have the pamphlet here in front of me. Here it states: “A participatory democracy”—singular. It reads as follows—

So it could have caused confusion.

Those are not the words I used.

I consider it to be important, because I just wish to point out that in his speech the hon. the Prime Minister spoke of “co-operating democracies”, and that was then the idea of a confederation to which he was referring. The constellation which I have just been spelling out, as I understood it from the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister, must be the wider economic infrastructure within which such a confederation of States can develop, and the confederation will then consist solely of the South African Government and of course the homelands which have become independent, etc.

The hon. the Prime Minister gave us a very clear definition of “confederation” and it is very clear to me that the hon. members of the NRP do not understand precisely what that definition of a confederation entails. It is as the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs said: A confederation is a voluntary assemblage of sovereign, independent States which cannot adopt binding resolutions in respect of one another without the consent of the constituent States. On what, then, will this confederation be based in South Africa? Basically it will consist of the South African Government and plus-minus 10 independent States. These 10 States will be based on the territory laid down in the 1975 consolidation proposals. Those States must be based on the homeland areas, which must then become independent. The hon. chairman of the Consolidation Committee, Mr. H. J. D. van der Walt, is shaking his head. He is consequently stating that this is not correct. But then I understood him incorrectly in connection with what he said in this House. I am quoting from Hansard of 29 January 1981, column 375, where the hon. member said the following—

Yes.

That is correct. [Interjections.] All that I said was that that quota land then determines the geographic basis of the States that have to become independent.

Read the Cabinet statement of 28 October 1980.

Yes, but it forms the basis on which the confederation must exist. That is why I say that the underlying assumption here is that plus-minus 13% to 14½% of the territory of South Africa is going to form the geographic basis of plus-minus 10 States which must enter into a confederal relationship with South Africa. [Interjections.] I also wish to quote the hon. member when he is discussing consolidation, for I consider that speech of his to be one of the most important speeches ever made in this House from that side of the House. I wish to quote the hon. member again, where he had the following to say in column 376—

Therefore this means that that confederal set-up will entail that the vast majority of the citizens of those regions will not be within the confederal States, but outside them. They will be outside them in that spiderweb of the metropolitan deconcentration which I referred to in the National Physical Development Plan. That is where they are going to be.

I therefore repeat my question: What is the solution for those people? The reply the hon. the Prime Minister gave me in his speech was that they would have more than municipal status, but for all their first level problems they would have to go back to their national States. I repeat: No political institution created in the rural areas for people living predominantly in the metropolitan areas, can work. I do not say this because I want it not to work; I say that it cannot work. We shall have to think about this again and we shall have to think creatively and clearly. The NP can do as it likes, but in this regard it is faced with a problem, and because it is faced with a problem, we are all faced with a problem. It is not only their children; it is the future of all our children that is at stake. It is pointless us trying to score political points off one another with regard to this fundamental problem.

When we address ourselves to this problem, we are told that our problem on this side of the House is that we do not understand the South African set-up. We are also told that we are a multinational country, there is ethnicity, there is cultural diversity, and I recall the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs just now, the hon. the Minister of State Administration and the hon. the Prime Minister himself saying repeatedly that if one does not adopt that as one’s point of departure for constitutional development, one can forget about it. Everything revolves around the multinationality of South Africa. Perhaps I could illustrate this by quoting from the speech made during the election by the hon. the Prime Minister at Brakpan on 31 March 1981. This is what he said—

He then went on to explain how they were dealing with these minorities.

The hon. members of the NRP also tell us that South Africa is a country of minorities. The urban Black man is one of these groups, and then, of course, there are also the Coloureds and the Asians and all the homeland authorities.

What I now want to know is this: When the PFP explains its policy, what has become of those minorities? Then there is only a majority. Before he resumed his seat, the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs said that a Black majority was inherent in my argument, but what had become of the minorities? Are these minorities a function of PFP policy? [Interjections.] What became of the hon. the Prime Minister’s standpoint.

It is you who wants to lump them together.

Now I am getting to the argument. The hon. the Prime Minister maintains that it is we who wish to lump them together. If there is one party that has succeeded in uniting the Blacks together against the Whites in South Africa, then it is the NP; not any other party. [Interjections.]

If it is true that we are a plurality of minorities, then I wish to say the following. I recall the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs rising in this House one day and, in his usual gripping fashion, saying that even if we were to abolish all the laws compelling people to be a member of an ethnic group or member of the Coloured group and so on, the Xhosa would still not vote for a Zulu and a Zulu would not vote for a Tswana. Yesterday the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs said the same thing. He said that a Shangaan could not bear being together with a Zulu. My question now is this: If that is so, why do they need those laws? If it is true that we are really a plurality of minorities, why do we need those laws?

Must I say why? Because constant White domination is inherent in the multinational concept of the NP. That is a fact, and that will mean the end of us all.

How do you accommodate minorities?

I am coming to that in a moment.

The whole idea that we can maintain the White right to self-determination here without this meaning White domination, is in fact the issue around which all our politics revolves. I say that that party cannot do it, because they have not asked a Xhosa to come and sit in this House to decide how his identity is to be determined in law. It has been done one-sidedly by that side. If it is true that a Xhosa wants to be a Xhosa because he is a Xhosa …

Then he has a Xhosa Parliament.

… then he does not need a law to make him a Xhosa; he will remain a Xhosa. That hon.

Minister did not need an Act to determine his identity for him. That is the fundamental point. [Interjections.]

Order!

I wish to illustrate the point that the issue of the right of Whites to self-determination also means White domination. I want to illustrate this on the basis of the proposals approved by the NP in 1977.

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

I should really have preferred the hon. the Prime Minister to ask his question towards the end, because my time is so limited. However, he may put his question now.

AU I want to ask, is this: With reference to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is saying now, can he show me any nation on earth which does not seek the right to self-determination and freedom?

Of course not. I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister, but can he show me any nation on earth which can exist in a society in which that nation is a minority and in which its right to self-determination leads to the permanent subordination of the other nations in that society? [Interjections.] I have just illustrated that such a thing cannot be done. The manipulation of ethnicity by the Government is regarded by the Blacks as an effort to divide and conquer. It is not I who say so; they say so.

Let us consider the constitutional proposals. The hon. the Prime Minister quoted me as follows—

To that I replied: “Yes, in terms of my party’s policy I cannot prescribe the race of a Prime Minister.” Now I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister: In terms of the Government’s constitutional proposals that are before the President’s Council at the moment, is it possible for a Coloured or an Asian to become State President?

Not in terms of those proposals.

That is an interesting statement.

It is very clear from the proposals that that cannot happen.

That is very interesting because it seems to me as if the present Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister differ in their interpretation of those proposals.

We can discuss it further under my Vote.

The former Prime Minister stated that point very clearly when he said in this House that the new constitutional proposals would not determine the race of the State President. That appears in the 1978 Hansard; I am not trying to lead anyone up the garden path.

It does not appear there, but the method of election indicates that they can participate, but they cannot obtain the majority … [Interjections.]

That is the answer I wanted. The former Prime Minister said that as long as the NP was in power, there would never be a Coloured State President. That means, as the Prime Minister said in his speech, that Coloured, White and Asian would be taken up in one State, and because the NP is concerned about White self-determination, they will ensure … [Interjections.] Sir, I am now trying to illustrate that the NP’s conception of the right of the Whites to self-determination is nothing but White domination … [Interjections.]

In this State, yes. [Interjections.]

There we have it. That is why I say that if White domination is the requirement that is set, then we are in trouble. Let us take that as the target. The Prime Minister says: “White domination in this State, yes.”

†If that is the aim, we do not face a constitutional problem. We face a logistical problem. How do you manage it? It is a question of crisis management. How do you do it? It becomes a question of manpower. It is the simplest thing in the world. How can one eventually implement influx control if one has to depend on a declining White labour force over the next 15 years? That is what White domination entails. How does one maintain a Defence Force over the next 15 years if one has to depend on such a declining White labour force?

We do not want one to dominate another. Can you not see that?

One simply has to draw a graph. In 10 or 15 years’ time one is going to find that a cut-off point is going to be reached at which there will be total disintegration on the levels of administering White domination.

*Then the question arises: Where will we be then? What is our negotiating position then? What are we going to say then, despite all our brave speeches about “wanting to be a nation” and “we will show them”? What do we say to our children? How are we to explain the situation to them then? [Interjections.] What they want to do is to perpetuate White domination in this State. Therefore I say to those hon. members that we must act from a position of strength and involve the other population groups in working out a new dispensation in which there can be no domination. That is what we shall have to do.

How are you going to do it?

I say to the hon. the Minister of State Administration and of Statistics, who referred to me in his speech, that in that new dispensation we shall really have to try, as Welsh and I wrote in our book, not to have “racial outbidding”. Not to have “racial outbidding” simply means that we must not incite one another in terms of our ethnic identities but that we must try to find one another and co-operate in that new dispensation. That, too, must come from this House.

Andries, you must listen.

We in this House must initiate processes whereby to involve the other population groups in this debate on how we can co-exist in this country. However, if we operate on the premise, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, that White domination—and that was the term—is not negotiable in this State, then we have lost the battle before we have begun, because then we are ultimately going to reach the point where we are in a state of siege.

Is there no Black domination in their States?

There is a simple analogy, often presented to countries to the north of us, about the fact that we would be swamped. I do not fear that. What I fear is a state of virtually semi-permanent siege in this country, similar to what there is in Lebanon, Ireland and Cyprus. That is what I fear. Why?—because of our inability to come to grips with the fact that we have to share power in South Africa.

*That is why.

You want to throw away the White man’s right to self-determination.

No, not at all. On the contrary, what I want is that we as Whites in South Africa should act and begin to negotiate from a position of strength. That is what I want. [Interjections.] The concept “position of strength” is not only a metaphor, it is not a comparative concept. It is a reality. We can analyse the “position of strength” on the basis of the people who are available to administer it. [Interjections.] However, what do we say to a young man who has to perform his national service and go and fight on the border? What do we say to a young Black man who has to grow up in the metropolitan areas? What is the plan for the future offered by the NP? I shall tell hon. members what the plan is. There is going to be a constellation and it is going to mean economic decentralization and deconcentration. Ultimately there are going to be 10 confederal States that will be involved in a relationship with South Africa. Most of their citizens will be outside of those States, and those citizens are going to be living in a State in which there is White domination, and that White domination will unfortunately depend on legislation such as that relating to separate amenities, population registration and group areas. After all, that is ridiculous. Do we think we can sell anything of the kind to the future, to our children? Do we think we can realistically tell them that that is what awaits them in the future? That is why I ask that we debate the issue in this House. However, this is not what is happening. Instead of that, we have had a personal attack and personal motives have been called into question, etc. This brings me to the final point touched on by the hon. the Prime Minister in the course of his speech.

†One leg of my censure motion refers to the hesitant and uncertain leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister linked this to a Press statement I had made prior to the session, a statement in which I said that this session was the last chance to spell out a clear reform programme if he wished to retain any credibility for his “verligte” rhetoric. Both the remarks—that on his leadership and that in connection with his credibility—the hon. the Prime Minister chose to interpret as an attack on his personal integrity. This is, of course, transparent nonsense. The hon. the Prime Minister reacted with such petulance and almost infantile sulkiness that I had to pinch myself to remind myself that it was the Prime Minister of South Africa who was speaking. [Interjections.] Credibility and leadership are the stock-in-trade of politicians all over the world. Political leaders all over the world suffer crises of credibility with their programmes.

Who wrote that for you?

I learnt that at school; I do not know how long the hon. the Prime Minister’s studies lasted. Political leaders all over the world suffer crises of credibility when their programmes collapse or their promises do not work out. Students of politics analyse why this is so. They write papers and theses about it. They very seldom, if ever, ascribe such credibility crises to the personal integrity of the political leader or to the fact that he does not love his children or kicks the dog when he gets home. They never do that. They rather look objectively at the political, social and economic conditions and relate them to the problems of political leadership. Then they say: “Well, that was the promise made; it could not work out, therefore there is a crisis of credibility as far as that rhetoric or promise is concerned.” In motivating my statement on the hon. the Prime Minister’s leadership, I concentrated solely on these matters.

I challenge any hon. member in the House to find one sentence in which I questioned the personal integrity of the hon. the Prime Minister. He, on the other hand, in replying, avoided entering into debate on my motivation, but chose to make an attack on my personal integrity in my actions towards my country as well as to Parliament. [Interjections.] I intend to react to those accusations, but I also want to record my own revulsion and disgust at the tone introduced by the hon. the Prime Minister and which set the tone for the rest of the debate, because it came from a number of hon. members on the other side who did not concentrate on argument, but rather on the personal integrity of hon. members on this side. Whatever innuendo and veiled hints the hon. the Prime Minister might wish to direct to my person, I will not question the hon. the Prime Minister’s personal integrity, nor do I have any desire to do so. The main thrust of my attack is that the “verligte” rhetoric of the hon. the Prime Minister is experiencing a crisis of credibility because of his hesitant leadership in the face of certain political, social and economic circumstances. I tried to identify those circumstances in my speech, and right throughout this debate, having listened very carefully, I have not been persuaded to change my mind at all about what I had said.

Let me come to the specific accusations. In the first place, there was the accusation concerning the maize price. I was wrong in my prediction and I said so and apologized publicly and said that I had no intention of misleading people. I stated that publicly during the election campaign on at least three occasions—once at a meeting in the Feather market Hall in Port Elizabeth, a few nights before the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs wanted to speak there; then at Randburg and also in Gardens, where the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism ran into difficulties.

Were those statements reported?

Yes, they were reported in the newspapers.

I never saw them.

I can show the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.]

He always closes his eyes.

I refuse to accept responsibility for the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister is incapable of accepting an apology when it is offered. This is a personal disposition of his.

When you wrote that statement, did you know it was untrue?

No.

Where did you get your information from?

I calculated it quite plausibly, and I can give the hon. the Prime Minister the facts.

So you were misleading the public.

The price had gone up by 60% …

You were misleading the public.

If the hon. the Prime Minister is incapable of accepting an apology when it is offered, I cannot help it. It is a personal disposition which he shares with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, and I have no sensible advice for them if that is their problem.

You were misleading the public …

The second accusation is that I am supposed to have written a paper to be read at a conference in Bonn on which I had stated “Not for quotation or publication”.

No, no.

On which was stated …

I did not say that.

But, again, the innuendo is that I go to foreign countries and secretly say things there which I am not prepared to say publicly in my own country. I want to say that such an innuendo is based on malicious and deliberate lies.

Did you say what I read out?

I have a copy of that paper with me. What happened was that I sent an advance copy to Bonn, as did all the other participants, and that was embargoed by them, although not on my instructions. On the contrary. I had additional copies made here in South Africa and I distributed them to all the media before I departed for Bonn—here I have the original copy—and they knew about it. It was ridiculously simple to check whether I was afraid to have this quoted or publicized. But you see, Sir, if one’s intention is to malign and impugn, if one’s intention is to question the integrity of another person, such actions are of no consequence and mean nothing.

Was the quotation I made false?

Apologize!

Here it says in the paper: “Blanke Parlement moet Suid-Afrika verander—PFP-leier.” This appeared in Die Burger of 27 May 1981. I quote from the report—

Apologize!

One could have read it in all the other daily newspapers as well. I was also interviewed on radio and television about this visit. Therefore I say it was a wilful decision on the part of the hon. the Prime Minister to misinterpret it.

So, what is stated in that paper is not the truth?

I shall come to the paper in a moment. The hon. the Prime Minister must give me a chance. The third accusation levelled at me …

Tell us something about Dr. Wynand …

Unfortunately the hon. member for Langlaagte is the victim of his own judgment. He must just keep quiet for a while.

Order!

The third accusation levelled at me was that I fled the Republic festival, that I was scared to be here at that time and that I did certain things outside the country which the Prime Minister was going to reveal. Let me explain. The Ebert Foundation started planning a series of conferences on foreign policy options in 1979 for the Federal Republic of Germany towards South Africa. For those who do not know it, the Ebert Foundation happens to be a research Foundation advising the SPD, the leading party in West Germany. Almost a year before the meeting of 1981, I consented to present a paper to them. That was long before I was aware of any arrangements that were made for a Republic festival. I was away during the Republic festival because I had made a commitment and stuck to it. I make no apologies for that.

What is interesting is that I was in fact not the only member of Parliament to be outside South Africa at this time. If the hon. the Prime Minister’s informers and news-bearers were as active in following me around as is implied in the next accusation I shall deal with, he must know that on Republic Day itself I was in London. He must also know what I was doing there, for which I also make no apology. As I have said, I was not the only member of Parliament outside South Africa at that time. In the Sunday Times of 17 May one reads—

I shall not mention the other MP’s name because he is a new member in the House and has not had an opportunity to state his point of view. Others who attended the meeting were advisers from the Prime Minister’s own office, including Dr. Rautenbach, Chief Constitutional Planner in the Office of the Prime Minister, Dr. Willie Breytenbach, Dr. Rautenbach’s assistant, and others. One also reads there—

That is the week preceding Republic Day. The hon. the Minister of National Education was invited to that meeting.

But his priorities were right.

It is stated here—

Let us not try to score petty debating points off one another on that matter. [Interjections.] The fourth accusation against me is the one I want to deal with now. The fourth accusation levelled at me by the hon. the Prime Minister was that I had had a conversation with a representative of an African State …

No, I asked you whether you had had such a conversation. [Interjections.]

It was stated that I had had a conversation with that representative. It was stated that I had had a conversation with the representative of an African State and that I had been reported to have said certain things to him to which the hon. the Prime Minister took exception.

The conference in Bonn lasted two days. I was one member of a panel, and the rest of the audience were invited guests of the Ebert Foundation. I did not invite them. There were two functions to which all were invited, a cocktail party and a dinner party. At no stage—and I want to state this categorically—during my stay in Bonn did I deliberately try to have a conversation with the representative of an African State, not that I mind doing so at all. I had numerous conversations with numerous people during the cocktail and dinner parties, and I talked about issues and responded to questions as I would anywhere else in the world, including —and especially—in South Africa. I want to make that clear to the hon. the Prime Minister. Allow me to make this very clear. I do not care a continental damn what the hon. the Prime Minister has on tape, on record or in any other form about what I am supposed to have said on that or any other occasion. I have never been afraid to state my views concerning my country wherever I have gone. This paper, the one I read in Bonn, is a case in point, and it is available to any hon. member here who might care to read it. I am not ashamed of what I said in that paper, because there I stated the case for peaceful constitutional change in South Africa. That was not a very popular line. I can assure hon. members of that. I was ostracized and abused because I had made that statement in Bonn. The majority of the people there were talking about violence and revolution, and I argued against them. [Interjections.]

Why do you not do that in South Africa then?

It is, nevertheless, a point of view which I hold very strongly, and I challenge hon. members opposite, who talk such a lot, but who do not have the courage to go out and do the same … [Interjections.] I wish to ask the hon. the Prime Minister directly whether he or any member of his Government is having me followed when I go overseas.

No.

Not? What about any other hon. member of the official Opposition?

No.

I am very glad indeed to receive that assurance, Mr. Speaker.

The report I have, however, is the report by the representative of an African State to his Government.

I do not care about that. I never spoke alone to any person. I was speaking in a group. Never did I speak alone to anyone. In other words, if that is his report, it is his report, and I could not care two hoots about it. I want to make it very clear, however, that whoever brings this kind of information to the hon. the Prime Minister—these soft-soled snoopers who go around and try to curry the favour of power-mongers and bullies—I should like the hon. the Prime Minister to convey a message to such informers.

That was a reliable report of a representative of an African State to his Government.

Mr. Speaker, I should like the hon. the Prime Minister to convey a message to whoever conveyed that kind of slanted information. Whoever that may be, the hon. the Prime Minister can tell them that to me it is a matter for deep personal regret that parliamentary convention does not allow me adequately to tell the hon. the Prime Minister what he can do with such informers and to tell them what they can do with themselves. [Interjections.] I want to urge it upon the hon. the Prime Minister to allow his imagination free rein about what I would have said if I had been able to do so. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I am thinking that with all the contempt and conviction I am capable at this very moment. That is my message. [Interjections.] If this is the attitude that is being adopted I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister now that, at the next caucus meeting of my party, we will be discussing the question of whether in future we are going to receive guests of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information, because if that is the attitude adopted towards us by hon. members opposite, surely we cannot receive such guests. [Interjections.] Then there is no point in receiving such guests. If our patriotism, if our loyalty, if our integrity as South Africans are questioned, why should the Government then take the risk of exposing such guests to us?

I think it would be better if you did not see them. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister started this debate in this despicable fashion, and he was followed by speaker after speaker on the Government side who questioned my integrity and the integrity of hon. members on this side of the House. Let me make it quite clear that I do not like this level of debate. I refuse to descend to it. I do not question the integrity of hon. members. If this, however, is the kind of debate they want, this is the kind of debate they will get. [Interjections.]

Just wait, I shall deal with you when my Vote comes up for discussion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, P. J. Clase, J. H. Hoon, R. F. van Heerden, H. D. K. van der Merwe and A. J. Vlok.

Agreed to.