announced that he had appointed the following members to constitute with him the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders: The Prime Minister, the Minister of Manpower, the Minister of Co-operation and Development, the Minister of Transport Affairs, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Minister of Post and Telecommunications, the Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, the Chief Government Whip, the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, Mr. W. V. Raw, Mr. C. W. Eglin and Mr. B. W. B. Page.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the following announcement concerning the business of this House: The Additional Railway Appropriation will be introduced on Wednesday, 17 February. The Part Appropriation of the Central Government will be introduced on Monday, 22 February. The reply to the debate will be on Thursday, 25 February, and the Third Reading will be taken on Monday, 1 March.

The Additional Appropriation of the Central Government will be introduced on Tuesday, 2 March. On Wednesday, 3 March, the Railway Budget will be introduced. The Second Reading debate will commence on Monday, 8 March, and the Third Reading on Monday, 15 March.

The Post Office Budget will be introduced on Tuesday, 16 March; the Second Reading debate will follow on Wednesday, 17 March, and the Third Reading on Thursday, 18 March.

The main budget of the Central Government will be introduced on Wednesday, 24 March, and the debate on this measure will be continued on Monday, 29 March. The reply to this debate will be on Tuesday, 13 April.

With a view to enabling hon. members to make their arrangements in good time, I should like to announce at this early stage that the duration of the Easter Recess will be from Saturday, 3 April, to Monday, 12 April.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Order! The hon. member for Sea Point was kind enough to inform me in advance of the intention of the Leader of the Opposition to raise during this debate the Government’s handling of events arising out of incidents in the Seychelles and the international repercussions thereof.

After careful consideration of the matter I have informed him that under the sub judice rule I shall not allow any discussion of the matter. In this regard I have been guided by a Speaker’s ruling of 30 September 1974 in which the relevant passage reads as follows (Hansard, Vol. 51, col. 4053)—

Mr. Speaker, arising out of the ruling you have just given and in view of its importance and the fact that the terms of your ruling came to us with fairly late notice, will you permit me to ask you one question in clarification of the ruling? I shall be very brief.

Yes.

Before I do that, may I just for the sake of the record indicate to you, with great respect, that the hon. member for Sea Point approached you originally on behalf of the caucus of the PFP and as chairman of the caucus, because this was obviously an important matter. Secondly, Sir, with great respect, I think it would perhaps be more correct to say that, when he approached you, he suggested that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition might want to raise aspects of the Government’s handling of the Seychelles episode rather than incidents in the Seychelles themselves. That is, however, just a matter of wording. The substantial point I would ask clarification on is the following: You have referred the House to a ruling given in 1974, but may I ask you whether you have considered a subsequent ruling, which was given …

Order! I have also seen the ruling of 1975 and unfortunately I cannot allow any arguments in this regard.

May I then just ask for your clarification on the following point: Does your prohibition on debate relate to one, two or all of the following matters: Firstly, the actual activities and episode in the Seychelles themselves, i.e. what actually happened in a foreign country …

Order! I have already ruled that I shall not allow any discussion on the matter.

You say, Sir, you will not allow any discussion on “the matter”. May I just ask you what “the matter” is on which you are prohibiting discussion? [Interjections.]

Order!

I merely want to make the point that there are three aspects involved. The first is the Seychelles episode itself. The second is the Government’s handling of the whole situation. The third is the question of the prosecution of certain persons. With great respect, Sir, we obviously have no quarrel with regard to the third aspect. That is what the sub judice rule is all about. Are you, however, going to prohibit discussion on the Seychelles incident as such and/or the Government’s handling of the situation?

Order! I have given my ruling and have stated explicitly that I will not allow any discussion on any aspect of the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Before motivating this, I should like to raise a matter which does not actually fall within the scope of the motion itself. I am referring specifically to the present developments concerning the Namibia/South West Africa question. 1982 could quite possibly become the year of a settlement in Namibia. When I say the “year of a settlement”, I do not mean that the settlement is going to be finalized, but that the most important decisions affecting the achievement or non-achievement of a final settlement will in all probability have to be taken this year. These are going to be difficult decisions that will have to be taken. I also want to begin by saying that we in the official Opposition support any steps which could end the war and bring about a just and acceptable settlement. If South Africa is exhorted not to obstruct a settlement, then we wish to say that this applies equally to the UN, and to its Secretary General as well. The nature and timing of the settlement are going to cause political shock-waves in Southern and South Africa and will require a cool-headed approach from us all during that time. In a stormy climate it is the easiest thing in the world to arouse emotions and to exploit prejudices, and this is the essence of short-sighted politics. This was just by way of introduction, Sir.

When we come to the reasons for this motion of no confidence, I have tried to examine several of what I consider to be valid motivations for such a motion of no confidence. I must say that reading this morning’s newspapers, I observed that Die Burger had already decided what I was going to say, while The Cape Times had already said what I should say. Between the two I shall have to decide what I want to say. However, there are several valid motivations, and out of all the valid motivations one must try to isolate the essential motivation for a motion of no confidence. I asked myself: Is ineptitude on the part of the Government an essential motivation? There is enough evidence of this. One sometimes gets the impression that the authorities have established a sort of committee for masterminding ineptitude which devotes itself to planning embarrassing incidents for South Africa. We have had several incidents over the past few years. For example, we had the Biko incident under the then hon. Minister of Police. We also had the incident concerning squatting under a previous Minister of Community Development, where the hon. Minister could not distinguish between a front-end loader and a bulldozer. Then there is the present hon. Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, who committed a gaffe in connection with the President’s Council. Now we once again have the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. Last year’s Post Office Appropriation Bill was introduced, and in the first paragraph of his Second Reading speech on that Bill, the hon. the Minister said (Hansard, col. 2502)—

Then the hon. the Minister went on to say in col. 2519—

In the next column he says—

The hon. the Minister said “gradually”. But just a few months later, four days after New Year’s Day, the hon. the Minister introduced drastic and sudden increases. What degree of competence do we find in this hon. Minister? Is this not an example of Government ineptitude? We had received no warning. The Posts and Telecommunications Vote had been discussed only a few months before, and at that time there had been no reason to increase tariffs.

And now it gives you a fright. [Interjection.]

Mr. Speaker, the real example of Government ineptitude, one which I think could hardly be improved upon, has already been the subject of a ruling by you, so I cannot say any more about it. However, I can assure this House that if it had been possible to discuss it, one could have indicated very clearly the real ineptitude of the Government in handling matters such as these.

† A second motivation for a motion of no confidence can also be ignorance on the part of the Government, ignorance with regard to the political realities that are necessary for a free enterprise system. When I mention this, I do not criticize the Prime Minister’s attempts to have discussions with businessmen, nor do I criticize the need for decentralization and deconcentration of industries. However, I cannot escape the conclusion—I have said so in public—that these two, the Government and the private sector, are talking past one another on the whole issue of free enterprise and the role of the Government in this respect. I think the responsibility lies on the Government to do something about this. So far the Government has not stated any of the political reforms that it itself is prepared to bring about in order to facilitate a free enterprise economy. Sure, the Government has mentioned inducements, but inducements within the existing political framework even though it has been pointed out time and again that the existing political framework is what actually inhibits the flourishing of a free enterprise economy. I just want to mention one expert in this respect who has already referred to it at an international seminar where he delivered a paper. I refer to Prof. Simpson of the Business Graduate School at the University of Cape Town. He asked the question: What is the danger of the Government not recognizing the importance of bringing about political reforms in facilitating the free enterprise process? Then he says the following—

This is based on research jointly undertaken by this department of the University of Cape Town and B. P. Southern Africa.

There again one has sufficient reason for proposing a motion of no confidence in the Government.

*A third consideration to which I have given attention is the question of the neglect of essential services, especially with regard to the Public Service. A good deal has been written about this. The executive director of the S.A. Federation of Industries, Dr. J. C. van Zyl, said the following in the Sunday Times of 10 January this year.—

I just want to put it to the Government that they should not underestimate the unhappiness in the Public Service. We are receiving calls from Pretoria from people who are by no means supporters of our party, who tell us how they feel.

There must be many of them.

An enormous number of them have done so. Various members of my caucus have received such calls. We shall see on which side of their mouths they will laugh if a rebellion really does break out among the Public Service officials.

The point I actually want to make in this connection is that for 30 years, the Government has been leaving a rod in pickle for itself and for us, and we are now beginning to feel its lash. The Government proceeded from the assumption that it was possible to create a White Public Service in South Africa which could attend to the needs of the population unaided. Gradually, however, they have had to concede that this is not possible. I know the hon. Minister who is now in control of the Public Service would have preferred this situation to continue. He has said so.

Now we find ourselves in a vice. What solutions can we offer for this dilemma? In the short term it seems to me that there is very little to be done. We are faced with inflationary wage demands. Then the private sector outbids these, with the result that we have this vicious circle. Only a long-term structural change in the Public Service will make it possible to deal with this problem. In South Africa the State does not provide the normal services such as health, posts and telecommunications, transport affairs, etc. Over the years, a Government bureaucracy has been established which has been incorporated into the Public Service and which is exclusively devoted to the implementation of the policy of separate development. This requires an enormous amount of skilled labour. I am thinking, for example, of the Department of Co-operation and Development, the Department of Community Development and the administration of laws such as the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act. All these sections of the Government machinery require skilled manpower and are devoted to implementing the policy of separate development. If it is true that the Public Service will increasingly come to depend on non-White labour of a skilled nature, then we shall eventually arrive at a fundamental contradiction. This is simply that we are going to reach a situation where we are going to expect Black people to implement the influx control measures in South Africa with enthusiasm and where we are going to expect the Coloured people diligently to administer, for example, the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act. This will simply not be possible, because no person, no matter who he is, will participate in the administration of his own domination. That simply will not be possible. That is the fundamental contradiction facing the Government. They will have to make a choice, a choice between persevering with the policy of separate development on the one hand and a truly rationalized and efficient Public Service on the other.

†A fourth reason that I consider is the coercive and insensitive repression of dissent. Many moral and ethical arguments against the Government’s security legislation and the manner in which it has been implemented, can be brought forward. One can talk about the horrors of solitary confinement and the injustice of being locked up without charge or access to legal assistance, the terror of arbitrary arrest, the arrogance of politicians who appropriate the right of the court to dispense justice and so forth and so forth. All these things apply to the security legislation in South Africa. However, apart from these considerations, one can point to contradictions in different aspects of the Government’s policy as a result of which dissent is summarily and coercively repressed. On the one hand, the Department of Manpower tries to stabilize labour relations while on the other hand labour trade union leaders are being detained, banned and arrested left, right and centre. We have warned repeatedly that if adequate political provisions are not made for people they will use whatever available channels there are to articulate their political, social and economic demands. Increasingly this is happening in labour and the Government’s response simply to arrest and detain the leaders is a totally futile and dangerous approach. However, these are not the most harmful consequences of the Government’s coercive repression of dissent by means of security legislation. What is the main consequence? The Government’s concern and action with regard to security is the single most important threat to the long-lasting and effective security of all South Africans. It is as well to remember that with few exceptions all autocratic, despotic or dictatorial governments justify their action on security matters by appealing to the “public interest”, “democratic government”, “law and order” and the “will of the people”. It is equally true that wherever justice is seen to be done this is not necessary.

For these reasons I want to warn this Government that one cannot pose as a democratic Government when one contradicts this in everyday practice. When one does this sort of thing, it simply breeds contempt for democracy and the Government. One cannot piously proclaim the virtues of the rule of law and then prevent the courts from implementing it. This simply develops a disrespect for legal procedure. If one introduces laws without justice, one breeds cynicism for the justice of any law. Worst of all, however, is that if these transgressions are justified in the name of maintaining a Christian civilization, then Christianity is cheaply bargained out of competition in the ideological marketplace of today. We have often said that in time of change and transition society needs security and stability, even tough security measures. However, they must be seen to be fair and just and their implementation must not be dependent on the whim of the politician or the unchallengeable judgment of an official. I should like to give an example, and what I am going to say now is not meant as a criticism against the official concerned because he was merely performing his duty within the existing legal framework. I refer to the release of Kitson. I do not know who Kitson is; I do not know with what he is being charged and I do not know of what he is suspected of being guilty. He was released, and the Commissioner of Police was reported as follows after he had been asked to give a statement—

His release did not prove his innocence.

We do not know, since we are in no position to see what is going on. That is why the Government’s administration of justice constitutes a threat to justice in a future South Africa. The real danger about it is that it can be an instrument of control for any kind of totalitarian system whether “fascism”, the “dictatorship of the proletariat”, “scientific socialism” or whatever, and it is all done with an apparent air of legality.

We have said—I want to repeat—that one needs tough legislation and tough security measures, but such security measures must be seen to facilitate transition in a society going through change and must not prevent it. If they prevent it, such measures become a threat to security itself. In the final analysis, however, the Government administers them in such a way that it ends up dispensing law without demonstrable justice in this area, and for this the Government is more than worthy of a motion of no confidence.

I wish to add another word in regard to the area of the coercive suppression of Dissent. I have been told—I have no way of verifying this—that the report of the Steyn Commission was made available to the Press before this weekend although not to either the official Opposition or any Opposition member. The Press could study the report during the weekend. I do not think it is a matter of coincidence that the report was tabled in Parliament today at the commencement of the debate. I do not mind. I have no interest in trying to hit the headlines, but I am interested in the debate and I am saying that the Government is deliberately avoiding the debate. [Interjections.] This is the action of a bully.

*The report was made available to the Press and they are able to write about it, but the Government did not make the report available to the official Opposition in the same way. It decided that the official Opposition could do whatever it liked in this connection. I think there is something petty, something small-minded in this action. [Interjections.]

Order!

What would have been better than for us to be able to conduct a proper discussion of that report in the course of this debate? However, this is not good enough. I know that the hon. the Minister who is responsible for this particular section enjoys this kind of trick. Nevertheless, I must point out that it is not conducive to meaningful Parliamentary debate.

†When it comes to the Press, I should like to repeat, in all seriousness because I have had no chance to study that report, what I said at the federal congress of my party on 19 November last year. In so far as the Press is concerned, I should like to read in full my statement on the future of parliamentary opposition in South Africa—

I say that without having had the benefit of reading that report or knowing what the Government’s reaction will be on the report, but that is a position that I want to give notice of before we become involved in a debate on the Press.

I want to re-emphasize that a Government that believes it is in control when it applies coercion lives in an illusionary world. When you use coercive control, you lose control over your society. Why? Because you stifle information. Any society that cannot act rationally on the available information to cope with the challenges and problems that confront it, is in difficulty. One of the first signs that a society is in difficulty, no matter how great the challenges it faces, is when it suppresses the free flow of information and when it suppresses this form of dissent as well.

All the above reasons are compelling ones in their own right for a motion of no confidence. I have charged that the Government is inept, ignorant, negligent, coercive and repressive. All these accusations can be demonstrated with ease and conviction. It is difficult to imagine, at a moment’s notice, an Opposition confronted with a greater concentration of mediocre politicians in Government than in this one. In fact, Pakenham’s description of Lord Lansdowne can be paraphrased to aptly fit this Government: “They have overcome and triumphed over all their advantages.” To put it in another way: “This Government has diligently prepared for every contingency except success.”

Yet the above reasons do not quite reflect the real and essential reasons for a motion of no confidence. They do not capture the spirit of apprehension and desperation which has gripped our land. This spirit can be summed up as follows: Those who are concerned about a peaceful future see the Government losing the initiative to bring it about and are extremely apprehensive about it. It is almost as if a promising and challenging future which we all want and anticipate, is fast becoming one of the lost hopes of our history without any of us having experienced it. The worst charge that can be brought against this Government is that for most of us—young and old; Black and White—it is destroying hope for the future. No greater indictment can be brought against any Government.

But why are they doing this? Not because they are demonic. Nor can it be explained in terms of the fact that they are inept, ignorant, negligent, coercive or repressive. The real reason must be found in two simple attributes of the Government. The Government is firstly paralysed by its own ideological prejudices and because of that, secondly, it lacks the courage to bring about necessary reforms. Other Governments have done the same but very few under circumstances where a country can afford it less.

This is what I want to motivate as the real reason for my motion of no confidence, i.e. that this Government is paralysed by its own ideological prejudices and therefore lacks the courage to bring about essential reforms.

*Let us examine the ideological prejudices. I am speaking now of prejudices, and not of a vision or a plan, for all that has remained of the original idea of apartheid or separate development are a few stereotyped prejudices. They are all that have remained. These prejudices are in glaring contrast to the reality of South Africa; the contrast is such that the Government is paralysed in its attempts to deal with these realities, especially in the constitutional field.

There was a time when the NP had a vision or a plan, when most people in the party and the institutions which supported it explained and defended these with passion and commitment. Gradually, the socio-economic and political realities of South Africa have stripped this vision or plan of its credibility, so much so that those who still firmly believe in the old plan or vision are referred to by their fellow Nationalists as the so-called right wing or the verkramptes, while those who advocate the abolition of or departure from the plan are called the pragmatists or verligtes. To them all, however, Dr. Verwoerd’s dream has become a nightmare.

The intellectual scaffolding of this plan is almost crude in its simplicity. Social economic and political segregation or apartheid between White and non-White had to be brought about. Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Blacks had to live and die in their own, established communities. Segregations was supposed to be an infallible means of eliminating conflict or friction. After more than 30 years we have still not eliminated friction or conflict by these methods. On the social level, separation measures were introduced which hindered contact and encouraged segregation. On the political level, separate political institutions were created in an equally systematic way. The Improper Political Interference Act may serve as one such example, which, as it were, initiated the process. On the economic level, integration was resisted and attempts were made to establish separate self-supporting economic systems. One after another, however, these levels of segregation and separation began to yield before the hard realities of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister himself threw in the towel on the economic level last year and said we could not have economic segregation in South Africa as had originally been envisaged.

What about the political level? What about the level of separate political insitutions? The political institutions of the Coloureds have completely collapsed. I need not repeat that sorry history. The recent elections for the Indian Council were a farce and made South Africa appear even more ridiculous. I was abroad when reports were published about it. Hon. members opposite really should go overseas sometimes to feel what it is like when people ask you what is actually going on here. Ten o’clock that morning the two candidates in one particular constituency were neck-and-neck with one vote each. [Interjections.] What does one say then? This is the position as far as political institutions of that kind are concerned.

After decades, the urban Black man is still moving around in a political vacuum. After more than 30 years, not one of these groups—the Coloureds, the Asians or the urban Blacks—has any political institution which has anywhere near the same power over their everyday lives as this White Parliament has. This Parliament controls their lives much more than any other political institution. This is the situation with regard to the vision or the plan of separate political institutions for the various population groups after more than 30 years.

It is on the social level that there is the most tenacious adherence to these separation measures, the so-called laws, laws which were created on this level in order to prevent contact and to promote segregation. Here too, however, permits and deliberate disuse are becoming the rule rather than the exception. However, the point is that social segregation without successful political and economic segregation boils down to simple racial prejudice. This is in fact what stereotyped racial discrimination is heading for. Also, it is on this level, the social level, that the country is repeatedly brought up short by the most shocking and embarrassing incidents.

†This vision lies in tatters—a miserable and costly failure, and in the process the Government has created a whole generation of White voters psychologically totally unprepared for the failure of separate development or apartheid. This is their dilemma—a generation of voters being prepared for the success of separate development and apartheid, and now they are confronted with the failure of it. What everyone wants to know is: What does the Government intend to do about it? So far they still appear to be paralysed by these ideological prejudices.

Let us take the President’s Council as an example. By the way, the exclusion of Blacks from the President’s Council is the clearest instance of ideological prejudice dressed up as a constitutional necessity. It is argued that constitutionally there is already adequate provision made for them. That is, however, so much hogwash. The real reason is that the Government does not see Blacks as part of the constitutional future of South Africa. In other words, they envisage a situation where the majority of the people in this country will be strangers in the land of their birth. It is a terrifying flight from reality!

However, the President’s Council had to make recommendations to help us out of our present constitutional cul de sac. It was faced with tremendous difficulties. The length of time that we have to wait for these recommendations attest the fact that it is in a difficult position, and I do not say this with any degree of schadenfreude, as the Germans would say. When they did however come with recommendations, the first few were mild and inoffensive, for example those regarding District Six and Pageview, inoffensive even in terms of the Government’s own policy.

In view of the political investment the Government had made in this institution, inter alia, the propaganda, the support and the pomp and ceremony, one would have imagined that the Government would have gone to as much trouble as possible to increase the credibility of the President’s Council by at least adopting with alacrity these mild, inoffensive recommendations. Not so, Sir. The minority decision of the President’s Council became the majority decision of the Government. Why? Because the majority decision offended the ideological prejudices of the group areas logic and vested interests. So much for the Government’s commitment to its own institution for constitutional reform.

Another example is the De Lange Commission’s report. Every once in a while a report of national significance is tabled in this House, for instance the Tomlinson, Cillié, Snyman and Theron Commissions’ reports and last year we had the De Lange Commission’s report. It has already been debated and discussed and I do not want to go into its findings now. All I can say is that it impressed with its quality, objectivity, depth of its research and clear intellectual authority. As in the case of the Steyn Commission report, it was made available to the Government at the end of the session, but in that instance the Government went into a catatonic trance. It sat on this report for months. In the meantime Parliament waited, anxious to know what was going on. That report was circulated amongst the interested parties in order to get recommendations, and it was quite apparent when the report was tabled with the Government’s response to it, that the key recommendations of the report contradicted key ideological prejudices of the Government. The Government rejected some of the recommendations with the following kind of statement—

As the constitutional framework is coming apart at the seams, I think this statement should really read—

Another example of an ideological prejudice concerns the urban Blacks. Government action towards urban Blacks vividly demonstrates its commitment to these old prejudices. An urban Black person is socially isolated, economically integrated and in a political vacuum. In 18 years’ time 75% of Blacks will be living in urban areas, and there are no indications from the Government that the situation will be different. Why is this so? It is so because a Black person cannot be a citizen of South Africa. That is what the Government has decided. This prejudice determines Government action in regard to Blacks as far as freedom of movement, residential qualifications, job opportunities, community development and political participation are concerned. This is exactly what the Viljoen Committee’s report found, i.e. that the Government’s position with regard to the urban Blacks was responsible for the delays in most of their community facilities they encounter in their daily lives. Let me quote from chapter 2, page 24, of that report, under the heading “Reasons for the backlog”—

I welcome the changes announced by the Government in regard to housing, but here again, if one looks at the key areas, such as home ownership, the citizenship rights of Blacks and the way in which housing is to be financed, one sees the Government shying away, and why do they shy away? It is because of their ideological prejudice with regard to the position of the urban Blacks. The Government knows it is the least defensible part of their whole policy; the one towards the urban Blacks. Until the Government changes these prejudices, one can never really have a new deal with regard to the urban Blacks. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development has mentioned a new deal. He actually tabled one, withdrew it and has now mentioned another new deal. We shall be waiting with patience to see how new the new deal really is. No new deal, however, can really be effective unless the Government gets rid of its ideological prejudice with regard to citizenship, home ownership, effective political participation and influx control. [Interjections.]

The area in which the Government’s commitment to ideological prejudice is most clearly demonstrated is in the area of moving away from discrimination.

*I am not blaming the creation of discrimination on the Government, but I am blaming the Government for perpetuating, extending and legally entranching it. Every time we on this side have asked that blatantly discriminatory measures, such as the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, section 16 of the Immorality Act, the Separate Amenities Act, the Group Areas Act, etc., be done away with, the answer has always been evasive, ambiguous, with qualifications, or else another commission of inquiry has been appointed. The Government cannot tell us whether they are prepared to move away from these hurtful measures. The question which therefore arises is the following: Is it because the climate for moving away from discrimination is unfavourable? By no means, and I quote from a market survey and opinion poll in Rapport of 13 December 1981—

They say “kwetsende kleurklousule”—

As a matter of fact—and I am referring to the statistics—50,4% are in favour of abolition compared with 36% five years ago; 66% are in favour of the opening of theatres to all races; 63%—and here we are speaking of White voters—are prepared to work under a non-White if he was promoted on merit; 63% say churches should be open to all races; 51% say free land tenure should be available to all races; 54% are in favour of the abolition of taxi apartheid; 66% say ambulance apartheid should be abolished, while 81,4% are in favour of the abolition of passes, with the proviso that everyone, including Blacks, should carry identity documents. [Interjections.]

These preferences are voiced by the majority of White voters. [Interjections.] This is according to figures obtained in a market survey and opinion poll. [Interjections.] The point I want to make is that if the same attitudes were tested among Blacks, Coloureds and Asians, the Government would be confronted by an overwhelming climate in favour of reform. By far the majority of all inhabitants of South Africa are in favour of moving away from discrimination, but this Government stands paralysed like a bullfrog facing a python. Why? The answer is simply that the Government does not have the courage to bring about reform.

This is the second reason for my motion. To put it bluntly: this Government is afraid of reform. Since the general election of 1981 the central question in politics has been the following: Why did the Government lose its courage to bring about essential reforms? This was the question everyone was asking in the general election of 1981.

One answer to this is dished up regularly. The election of 1981 resurrected the spectre of a right-wing threat. Political experts, whatever their affiliation, are all agreed that there is a so-called right-wing threat to the Prime Minister and the Government. The arguments are as follows: The Prime Minister and the Government actually favour reform, but they are being restrained by the right-wing; or it is said that if the NP changes too quickly, it will lose too much support to the right-wing and it will be even more difficult to bring about reform; another popular argument is that the greatest problem in South Africa is not a left-wing revolution but a right-wing rebellion.

One can continue in similar vein. These arguments were as balm to the troubled mind of the Government. Now they can piously sit back with folded arms and say: We want change, but due to the right-wing threat we can do nothing. It is amazing how many people, even outside the NP camp, have cheerfully and approvingly accepted this argument.

However, is the argument of a right-wing threat at all valid? What is the extent of the so-called right-wing threat? What does the 1981 election tell us? The so-called right-wing parties, i.e. the HNP, the NKP and the AET, polled a total of 214 688 votes. If one adds the probable votes in uncontested seats, they would have polled 225 257 votes, in other words a further 10,5 thousand.

What does this represent in the total political picture of South Africa? It represents 9,83% of the registered White voters of South Africa, 5,06% of all Whites, 1,81% of all South Africans above the age of 18 years, and 0,94% of all South Africans excluding the people in Bophuthatswana, Transkei and Venda. Survey after survey has shown that the vast majority of Blacks, Coloureds and Asians are in favour of peaceful reform. In the survey to which I have just referred, it was shown that the majority of White voters will accept and support the abolition of discriminatory measures.

One can hardly imagine a more favourable climate for reform, but because less than 0,94% of the total population is not in favour of it, the Government lacks the courage to bring about the necessary reforms. Businessmen, anxious “verligtes” and even overseas commentators shake their heads apologetically and sympathetically and say: The Government and the Prime Minister really want change, but in view of the right-wing threat they cannot afford it. This is the greatest political swindle I have ever heard of! Does 0,94% of the population constitute a threat to reform? That is ridiculous. They may pose a threat to the unity of the NP, but they do not pose a threat to reform. It has nothing to do with a threat to reform, but it has everything to do with political daring. South Africa is saddled with a government that is afraid to reform.

However, there is a second possibility. Perhaps the threat does not lie outside the NP, but within the NP. Perhaps there is a right-wing minority threatening the Prime Minister and the Government with a split if the Government introduces reforms. Perhaps the possibility of peaceful change is being blackmailed by a right-wing minority within the NP which is making common cause with the “right-wing threat” outside the NP. If this is true, then separately and jointly, according to available evidence, they are still an insignificant minority in the total South African population and the accusation of a lack of daring remains just as valid.

†Sir, it is ridiculously easy to prove me wrong. Simple answers to the following questions will suffice—and I direct the questions to the hon. the Prime Minister and the members of the Cabinet. The hon. the Prime Minister has already said that, even if the President’s Council recommended that Blacks sit on the President’s Council he would not accept it. What would the hon. the Prime Minister say if the President’s Council recommended that Whites, Coloureds and Asians sit in the same Parliament? Would he accept that? That is a simple question to answer. How they can sit in the same Parliament, when, and what kind of role they will play are other matters, but the question I have posed requires a simple answer.

At the Carlton conference of 22 November 1979, more than two years ago, the hon. the Prime Minister said it was the intention of the Government inter alia to “remove restrictions to facilitate equal access to economic opportunities” and to have “less direct interference in the market mechanism”. The present system of influx control and Coloured labour preference policy in the Western Cape is a direct and gross interference in the market mechanism. Is the Government prepared to scrap both or either one? If there is to be equal access to economic opportunities, is the Government prepared to allow Blacks to own and sell their homes on the same basis as Whites? It is a simple question. Is the Government prepared to lift all the restrictions to the mobility of Black labour which do not apply to Whites? Again a question that can be answered by “Yes” or “No”. The Government declares that it wishes to remove discriminatory measures and to do away with hurtful legislation. Time after time it has been pointed out by the Government’s own commissions of inquiry as well as by institutions sympathetic to the Government that section 16 of the Immorality Act, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the Separate Amenities Act, to name but three, are examples of such. The vast majority of South Africans would support their abolition. Is the Government prepared to do so to all three or even to one of them?

*In Die Burger two mornings ago I read an article by Vryburger in which he gave a sort of political survey—

These are the Cape Nationalists, Mr. Speaker. Vryburger found that they are agreed that we must move away from these measures. I should therefore like to ask the Cape Nationalists here: What about the Transvaal Nationalists? Have the Transvaal Nationalists also spoken? Can Vryburger of Die Burger not discuss matters with Vryburger of Die Beeld and see whether there is unanimity concerning moving away from section 16? Or are the Cape Nationalists going to be the tail wags the dog? Let us hear directly from the Cape Nationalists whether they agree with Vryburger. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs this question because it falls under his portfolio. Must these discriminatory measures disappear? The hon. the Minister can answer this question for us in due course. It is a simple question. Why can they not answer it? It is the simple reason that his right-wing threat has stripped the Government of daring.

†I have said that the worst indictment that can be brought against the Government is that it is destroying hope for a peaceful future. Already we see signs of that loss of hope. In Die Burger on Christmas Day 1981 under the heading “Suid-Afrika se Swartes al hoe meer ontevrede” the following is reported of a recent scientific survey that was conducted—

*I want to repeat the sentence. It was published by Die Burger, and now we have received the report of the Steyn Commission. I repeat—

†A Government that sits on its hands and does not exploit a positive climate for reform but wilfully lets it deteriorate because of an inflated so-called “right wing” threat, destroys the hope for a peaceful future and does not deserve the confidence of the people over whom it governs. However, the question remains: What is the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government going to do? This question is being asked today more often than any other question wherever one goes in South Africa. And, as hon. members know, extraordinary answers have been given to this question.

One such answer has been called the “De Gaulle option”. I regard the arguments around the “De Gaulle option” as gin and tonic politics at its best. The argument goes that the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government, plus the top military hierarchy and the business elite see the urgent necessity for reform, but realize that the Government is hamstrung by anti-reformist forces. Therefore the only way to bring about reform is to suspend Parliament and, with a quasi-military kind of Government, force the country through the necessary kind of reform. I am glad—and let me say this immediately—to see that both senior military men and Government politicians have discounted this kind of option. But a few observations need to be made about this kind of loose talk.

Firstly, it is dangerous to let this kind of attitude become the prevailing one in South Africa, because it displaces individual responsibility for change on to some magical group or individual. That is why I say it is dangerous.

Secondly, in this country the forces for reform are far more prevalent and numerous than those against reform. In Poland the military regime is acting against the wishes of the majority of the people. A Government that wants to reform in South Africa will be acting in favour of what the majority of the people want. The Government does not need a coup to bring about what the majority wants in any case. In this sense a reactionary right-wing coup would make far more sense than a reformist coup.

Thirdly, the Government does not need any more power to bring about change. It has passed such a lot of enabling legislation that in many respects Parliament is bypassed. An extraordinary amount of power is concentrated in the Executive. There are those who refer to this process as the “creeping” coup, as a subtle, stealthy, but entirely legal shift from parliamentary government to executive government so that a dramatic coup is simply superfluous.

Fourthly, the fundamental flaw in this kind of argument is the assumption that the Government is committed to large-scale fundamental reform away from the basic aspects of separate development or apartheid. There is simply no evidence to support this and there never has been.

I think the time has come for all South Africans to stop romanticizing indulging in wishful thinking and to start taking Nationalist Party Prime Ministers at their word. Neither the present Prime Minister nor his predecessor at any stage stated his intention to abandon separate development or apartheid, and until this happens no systematic reform is possible. I remember when Mr. Vorster became Prime Minister there was talk of “Jackboot politics” and “police State”. And 18 months later the very people who spoke thus were breaking their golf clubs to get within touching distance of him and regarded him as the greatest thing since penicillin. We remember all those verligte analyses why Vorster was the only one who could lead us to reform.

However, the present Prime Minister has by far surpassed his predecessor in this respect and, let me add to his credit as a politician, with more panache, pomp and circumstance. He has dazzled, bewitched and bewildered reform-minded South Africans almost into a state of hysteria, with the same old verligte praise-singers running before him explaining when, how and what was going to happen and even having their answers ready in case it did not. Right through it all the hon. the Prime Minister did not mislead, deceive or trick anyone. Again, as in the case of his predecessor, he made a few platitudinous statements which were seized upon and made pregnant with significance and insight far beyond their intention. Let me give some examples.

“Adapt or die!” This boring, tautological and uninformative observation on the fate of all living organisms that we have had with us since we have discovered our intelligence, has now in the mouth of the hon. the Prime Minister become a shibboleth to political nirvana. Adapt or die! This statement does not even have the merit of telling us how we are going to adapt or how we are going to die and it can be used by any political party from the HNP to the ANC.

Another example: “A Coloured is not a leper!” Again, for some extraordinary reason, this statement within the context of the sport policy in South Africa caused quite a stir. But to say that a Coloured is not a leper—something which any person can see immediately—does not mean that a Coloured is therefore an equal citizen or does not have to experience discrimination.

At the Carlton conference the hon. the Prime Minister was quoted as having said—

Nice ringing stuff, the kind of phrases that ghost writers think up for American Presidents. But in South Africa White Governments have been living in such “objectionable circumstances” since the time of Milner. What are we going to do about it? That is more important.

Statements like these were taken out of context and a great deal of confusion developed about the scope, quality and tempo of reform. I am not even suggesting that the hon. the Prime Minister did not mean well by these statements or was not sincere about them. I am sure he was, but at no stage did he give any indication that he intended that they should be understood outside the context of the policy of separate development or apartheid.

*My grandfather always said when one is fighting a man, one must not look at his hands or feet, but must look him straight in the eye, otherwise he will hit one where one least expects it.

You should have listened to your grandfather.

All I can say is that the political observers who looked the hon. the Prime Minister in the eye, did not suffer a beating they did not expect. However, those who looked at his political hands and feet, are now nursing bruises they did not expect. There is not a single important policy statement by the hon. the Prime Minister which is not fully in line with traditional party policy. Hon. members need only read his statements concerning the twelve point plant, the new constitutional proposals, urban Blacks or the homeland policy. It goes without saying that initiatives have been launched, such as the rationalization of the Public Service, meetings with businessmen and plans concerning constellation and decentralization. For the most part, however, these initiatives have been aimed at making the policy of separate development more streamlined and effective, not at deviating from it. The hon. the Prime Minister must not therefore be angry with me when I tell him that nothing has changed in respect of the fundamental assumptions of separate development. Here and there adjustments had to be made because we are now in a phase where adjustments must be made. However, these adjustments have been in respect of separate development and have not constituted intentional departures.

It is just here that the right-wing parties misunderstand the hon. the Prime Minister. They are angry with the hon. the Prime Minister and I have heard them say: “P. W. Botha wants to give the country to the Blacks.” They are angry because apartheid is not working. One can go anywhere in the Northern Transvaal, where I come from—to auctions and the like—and one will hear them say such things. However, it is not the fault of the hon. the Prime Minister or the Government that apartheid is not working. The policy could never work, irrespective of who is Prime Minister. It cannot work. Increasing international and national economic interdependence, the population increase and urban migration are processes over which this Government—as a matter of fact any other Government—has little or no control, and this in itself is sufficient to cause a far-fetched policy such as apartheid to collapse. The Government’s problem is that for 30 years they have made promises to the White voters which they are now simply unable to honour. It is as simple as that.

That is why the question: “What is the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister going to do?” is of such acute and urgent importance. One thing is certain: If the Government continues to muddle on in this paralysed stagnation it will help neither itself nor South Africa. The right-wingers will in any case become increasingly angry because apartheid will work less and less. The hon. the Prime Minister has lost them and he will not regain them, and this is a fact we want to make clear to the Government. There are no gimmicks he can contrive to lure them back. They are gone. [Interjections.] They will stay out. The more the Government tries to get them back, the more they will lose the others—Blacks and Whites—who are interested in peaceful reform. Their frustrations, too, will build up. A Government that wilfully loses the initiative for peaceful change, destroys hope for the future and does not deserve the confidence of the people it governs. For this reason not only the official Opposition, but the whole of South Africa can ask the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government: What are you going to do? This paralysis in the face of the challenges of the future cannot continue.

There are a few urgent requirements, and I want to refer to two which I think can help the Government to rid itself of this paralysis. The one requirement is obvious: Confront the right-wing minority in our politics. The time has come to do so. The Government cannot continue to try to reconcile people who are irreconcilable. It cannot placate the right wing and still bring about reform. This cannot be done. Therefore take a clear stand against the right-wing minority, even if it means that support from that quarter will be lost. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of reform and against the maintaining of obsolete ideological prejudices. For example, we know that the majority of people in our cities will not be White. We also know that our economy will become increasingly dependent on Black labour. We know that our State machinery will only be able to function in the future if it is manned to an increasing extent by non-White skilled workers. We know that it is indefensible that Whites can purchase and sell houses freely while Blacks cannot. We know it is hypocritical to expect a man to die on our borders when he cannot enjoy the elementary privileges of citizenship within them. We also know it is futile to try to maintain White identity by means of laws and power politics.

All these things have become common knowledge in White politics, and we know, too, that the rigid structures of apartheid and separate development cannot accommodate these realities. For this reason we are asking the Government to formulate a policy in view of these realities and not in spite of them. The more the Government formulates its policy in spite of these realities, the closer we are to confrontation.

†It is dangerous for the Government to placate the right wing by maintaining the illusion of White domination in terms of apartheid/separate development structures. We have come to realize by now that by building legislative assemblies in the bush one does not satisfy the political demands in the cities. We know that by breaking up squatter shacks one does not solve the housing problem. We know that by forcibly removing people from one end to another one does not solve unemployment and poverty. Now that we know all this, it is not enough that we simply take note of it—the Government must act on this.

By acting on this, however, the Government must alienate and jettison the right wing clearly and unambiguously. The only hope the Government has of holding them or getting them back, is by losing the initiative for reform. And having lost that, the Government will have lost not only the initiative for reform, but the right wing too in any case. We know that if the Government confronts the right wing effectively, this will and must bring about a political re-alignment in South Africa. We know that it will bring about a re-alignment not only in White politics—I am not talking cheap coalition politics for the sake of getting in with the Government or for the sake of getting Whites together, but I am talking about a fundamental political re-alignment—between those who stand for reform and those who oppose it, but also a re-alignment in the country as a whole between on the one hand the forces of moderation and evolutionary change and on the other hand the forces of left and right extremism and militancy. Not only can the Government rely on the support of the official Opposition in a re-alignment of this nature, but it will also have allies amongst moderate Black and Brown people whom the Government has never realized it has. This, however, will take courage to bring about because what is at stake, is co-operation or confrontation. If the Government does not move on this, there will be polarization.

This we know as a fact, and whether I stand here to say this or not, does not really matter because it is part of the reality that confronts all of us in South Africa. Whether the Government published a report on the Press to wipe out Opposition debate does not matter either; it still forms part of the reality in South Africa.

What we need secondly, is some urgent fresh initiatives. On the one level we need the visible removal of discrimination. I cannot emphasize enough the symbolic significance of this. If only the Government would come with clear initiatives in this respect!

*It must not take place slowly and apathetically.

Is that what you want?

There is an hon. member who represents a constituency in the Cape; does he agree with Vryburger? [Interjections.]

What is needed in the second place is a new constitutional initiative. In this field the Government finds itself in a cul-de-sac. Within the framework of the Government’s policy it has done virtually all that can be done to make constitutional progress, but without success. Allow me to indicate what I mean by this. In 1982 we still have the constitutional proposals accepted in 1977. The Government launched those proposals through its caucus and congresses after a general election. There the Government received all the support it could muster. However, the proposals have not yet been implemented, because it is not only the White voter who is involved; others are also involved. Therein lies the rub. The Gordian knot cannot be cut if the Government makes these same mistakes in the creation of institutions for constitutional development. It simply cannot be done.

For these reasons we have two constitutional aims which must be pursued diligently. The question is, in the first place, how to involve the different political interest groups in constitutional development and, in the second place, how to obtain a constitution which gives everyone equal political participation without domination of one group by another. These are the two aims. There was clarity on these two points in the Commission of Inquiry into the Constitution. There was consensus, and I suggest that we return to them, because there was a basis for effective and fruitful constitutional development. By the way, the PFP’s constitutional policy is in fact based on these two fundamental points of departure. We can debate as to whether they are adequate or not, but this was the basic point of departure: How to involve all important political interest groups in the process of constitutional development, and what constitutional mechanisms could help to bring about effective political participation without the domination of one group by another. Here there is a little confusion on the part of the Government. In this regard I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. I notice in a recent news report that there is discord and tension between the Government and the President’s Council.

Have you read this morning’s newspapers?

No, I am speaking of Rapport of 22 November 1981. This morning’s report is an old report. There must be clarity in this regard. The report reads—

Denis the Menace!

The report continues—

It is this year to which the report refers. The report continues—

I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would explain to us what the actual state of affairs is. Who makes the proposals and who speaks?

Why don’t you ask the person who wrote the report?

I asked the people involved. They wrote reports of speeches they heard the hon. the Minister and Dr Denis Worrall give.

The last initiative I want to mention is a new initiative in the economic field. In this regard I want to ask a very simple question: Is the Government prepared to remove the impediments applying to the Black man, but not the White man, in his economic endeavours? This is the essential question when we speak of new economic inputs. This question lies at the root of the success of a free market system in South Africa. If the Government does not launch a real initiative in this connection, the free market system itself can be endangered.

If these few requirements are met in the short term, the Government, South Africa and the world will be surprised how rapidly the momentum for peaceful change will be gathered. This is a country ripe for reform. All that is needed is a Government with the daring to initiate it. One cannot take place without the other, but a Government can wilfully destroy hope for the future by doing nothing in the face of the challenges of the future. I have tried to indicate that the so-called right-wing threat, whether inside or outside the National Party, is not an adequate excuse for the Government to sit with folded hands now.

However, there is perhaps a third possibility. We do not have a right wing threat; we have a right wing Government. If this is in fact the case, a motion of no confidence is doubly valid.

I have tried to show why I believe that a motion of no confidence in the Government must be moved. The reaction of the Government to this will determine what sort of debate can take place in this regard. If the Government falls back on its old arguments about patriotism or becomes personal, it will again be a sign of its own political bankruptcy and of the validity of the motion I am moving.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me as if it has already become a pattern for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to start the no-confidence debate with a badly slipping clutch. We shall see how he is faring by Friday. It is not my intention to get personal with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but I do think that the speech he has just made would at most have entertained a group of good-natured guests around a dinner-table. I did not gain the impression that this was a statesman engaged in a trial of strength against a formidable opponent who had just beaten him in an election with a two-thirds majority. To judge from his performance today, he was not an alternative Prime Minister of South Africa.

His policy and the policy of his party, which is to afford an alternative for South Africa, was conspicuous by its absence in his speech today. Once again we had the old, old story. In the same way people’s view of this Government is dominated by the few incidents, he, too, picked out a few issues with which he tried to sketch a pattern of policy on the basis of which he then alleged that separate development had supposedly collapsed.

If one wilfully closes one’s eyes to the realities of South Africa, one’s policy cannot be right. If one wilfully closes one’s eyes to the successes of one’s opposing Government, then one’s no-confidence speech cannot have any more substance than that which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has just delivered.

At him, Barend. It takes only two minutes to finish him off. [Interjections.]

He knows better what the shortcomings of the policy of separate development are than hon. members on this side of the House. It is of course a manmade policy. It is not a policy we have obtained from elsewhere. It is not a policy which is absolutely perfect. This policy has been discussed for years. However, to the extent that this policy is now being implemented in practice, the odd bottleneck must necessarily occur and we must try to solve them to the best of our abilities, bottlenecks which we may not have foreseen.

Your policy is one enormous bottleneck.

The picture that is painted is that we would have been living in a Utopia today had we done what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party want us to do. We must now try to see in perspective what would have happened if we had followed their advice over the years. In this regard I need only refer to the speech by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the no-confidence debate last year. Towards the end of that speech he was so kind as to provide the wording of a three-point strategy for the hon. the Prime Minister, the three-point strategy which, according to him, could be seized upon by the population as a salvation for South Africa. Although he could not then foresee it the election which followed offered him a golden opportunity to submit his plan to the voters himself. The terrible truth of the situation, however, is that in his election strategy he actually did not even use those three points in an effort to persuade the electorate to come over to his way of thinking.

In other words, this means that as he is doing today, he has been giving advice to the hon. the Prime Minister and to the governing party over the years—advice which, however, even he himself is unable to follow because in his heart of hearts he knows that what he advises cannot work and that if an effort were ever made to implement what he advises in this country we would be heading for chaos and bloodshed, and the powers of revolution and unrest would have the opportunity to gain a foothold in South Africa.

What you are now saying proves that we have a rightist Government. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says: “Separate development is a total failure.” This argument of his is three-fold. He speaks of the position of the Coloureds, the Asiatics and the urban-dwelling Blacks. However, I can well understand his sourness. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition chose to isolate himself from an instrument which is working hard with dedication, zeal and insight to afford us a solution for a very difficult question.

An instrument which is incapable of getting anywhere.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition isolated himself from it. Now he is sitting sourly on the sidelines and arrogantly making all manner of allegations with regard to our policy.

In addition, he goes on to allege that the policy of the Government has collapsed entirely due to the position of the urban Blacks. Who are these people? How many of them are there? How important are they in the total formulation of Government policy?

You tell us.

Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is as aware as all of us that when we speak about Black people living in the urban areas, we are speaking about more or less—and I do not mean to the nearest thousand—half of the Black people in South Africa. Let us now forthrightly recognize what the further perspective is as regards that half of the Black people that lives in urban areas or White areas. More or less half of them are surely in close contact with their respective national states because they live on the platteland, on farms, etc. If we research this matter in depth we find that the urban Black people are very homogeneous in specific areas. One could therefore expect that the Xhosas in the Cape Peninsula will have close links with Transkei and Ciskei, respectively. [Interjections.] That is true, and people who laugh about this are only exposing their own ignorance. [Interjections.]

One can understand them laughing about such things. We need only read what they said when Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei became independent. We must take note of the contempt with which they regarded the nationalisms of such people, the nationalisms which represent a living force in those peoples. [Interjections.] One can understand them laughing about that. Their laughter demonstrates their ignorance and their insensitivity towards the Black people—they who say that they have a solution for the problems of the Black people of South Africa. And in the end what happens? Looking at the urban Black people, we are faced inter alia with Soweto. It is totally ridiculous simply to maintain that all Black people living in Soweto are totally detribalized. That is scientifically untrue. When one considers the total spectrum of orientation and ethnic links of the Black people, and one is the responsible Government which has to formulate policy, is one going to be so stupid—as the official Opposition evidently is—to consider only those few people to whom they are exposed, those few people who have perhaps to a large extent adopted a Western system of values, those sophisticated Black people in the urban areas with whom we, too, have contact? Is a responsible Government going to base its handling of the political development of the Black people on that small section of this spectrum, or is it going to take cognizance, in terms of priorities, of what must be done first, second and third?

The official Opposition can make as big a fuss as they like, but the fact of Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei remains. These are nationalisms which are being actualized.

You say that “verligtheid” is simply a waste of time!

I have heard that hon. member so often here and abroad and in my opinion he is really irrelevant. I should therefore appreciate it if he would keep his irrelevant remarks to himself.

The fact of the matter is that after 30 years this Government can say that it has eliminated the potential for conflict between White and Black which existed in regard to the TBC countries, because there is no doubt as to who governs those countries today. These countries are governed by their own people. What is more, there is a second dimension of conflict, viz. that between Black and Black, because more blood is being shed on this continent of Africa due to ethnic clashes in which Black people have been involved than in clashes in which White and Black have been involved. And that is the truth, Sir. In other words, this Government has also applied a formula in South Africa which has eliminated the potential for Black conflict which may have existed among the various Black population groups. Nevertheless we are told today that after 30 years our policy has collapsed. How ridiculous!

The hon. Leader also discussed the Public Service. We realize that problems are being experienced in filling all the vacancies in the Public Service. However, we should listen to a man like Jan Sadie, who said that even if all the White people in South Africa worked in the Public Service, there would still be vacancies. He must listen to him and take cognizance of scientific facts, and the hon. the Prime Minister is pre-eminently a leader who takes cognizance of facts and has matters investigated thoroughly. I shall refer to that again shortly. We realize, too, that a mere increase in salary is not going to solve the problem in the Public Service, because what is the problem relating to the salaries of the Public Service? There is a limit to the amount of money available for them. They are linked to a specific cycle and can only be reviewed once a year, and even then perhaps only in boom years, and at such times the private sector simply poaches from the Public Service right, left and centre, and in the years when the business cycle is in a down ward phase, many of those employees return. If anyone in the private sector threatens to resign, he can easily be offered one to two thousand rands more. We are aware of these problems. However, the Public Service cannot do this because it is bound to a slow cycle. As a result, certain services have begun to suffer. However, I think that the Director-General of Finance hit the nail on the head when he said that in the course of being restructured, the Public Service should also get rid of some of the functions which could rather be performed by the private sector. Indeed, it must strip itself of everything that can possibly be managed and controlled by people in the private sector. There are many examples of this. Personally I strongly believe that a Government department need not provide all services. Why should certain Government departments have architects, engineers and other professional people in its employ? Surely that is unnecessary. There are many ways in which we can try to reduce the size of the Public Service, but the essential point is that a long-term solution depends inter alia on training.

As far as people of colour are concerned, the Public Service suffers from the same shortcomings as those firms which are now going to Vienna to recruit trained staff. We simply do not have a sufficient number of trained people in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of State Administration is fully aware of the figures. In any event, if I remember correctly, almost half of the posts in the Public Service are for Black people.

More than half.

The hon. the Minister says it is more than half. And if we were to say tomorrow that we would fill all the vacancies with Black people, where would we get them from? It is ridiculous to contend that this is an ideological issue. And the other countries of Africa that are struggling with their public services? Is that the fault of apartheid? Is it the fault of separate development that those countries are faring so badly? No, I think we must be realistic about Africa, the problems of the Third World and the problems South Africa faces as a result of the Third World section of our population structure.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition discussed labour leaders that have been locked up. Once again this is the old story of John Dugard of the University of the Witwatersrand, a story which has been ridden to death and which is nevertheless still just as distorted a statement. [Interjections.] The insinuation is that a person is locked up because he is a trade union leader. [Interjections.] That of course is total nonsense. [Interjections.]

Why then is he locked up?

There are many of those leaders who have entered the field of trade union administration with entirely different motives in mind and against the background of other training they have received, because the field of labour is an easy one in which to bring about destabilization. [Interjections.]

Take them to court.

Order!

Do you have the necessary facts to take them to court?

Order!

I investigated the matter after John Dugard had made such a ridiculous statement …

And you, of course, are the Supreme Court of South Africa.

… and I can assure hon. members that when we considered the matter two to three years ago, even John Dugard felt a little uncomfortable, and that in itself is already a major achievement.

When one looks at detention and at our security legislation, one forms the impression that the Opposition wishes to create the impression abroad that this is all done for fun or as a show of power. I should think that if this Government were seeking to put on a show of power by locking people up, it would not choose a group of relatively unknown people. [Interjections.] Those names mean nothing whatsoever to me. [Interjections.] What fun and pleasure can there be in locking up a group of obscure people? [Interjections.] What demonstration of power can that be? We might as well go to Green-market Square on a Saturday morning and lock up half of the people there if we want to give a demonstration of power. What is very important, however, is that detention is surely not a penal action. If it is necessary, the penal action can follow, and this is something that does happen in many instances. Surely, however, the Government has an obligation to protect its people against those who hatch evil plans, and the vast majority of those who are detained would be able to make a contribution, either directly or indirectly, by means of the information they provide, in preventing such bloodshed. Is the Government, then, to wait until the blood of innocent people is shed before it acts? Or should it, as a matter of exception, restrict the freedom of a small group of people in order to maintain law and order and stability in this country? It is ridiculous and uncalled-for for any person in this country—in view of the forces against which we are fighting in this country—to regard this necessary administrative action as a demonstration of power, a diabolical exercise of power by this Government. I think it is scandalous. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a big fuss about right wings and left wings. He set up straw dolls and knocked them down, and as for his after-dinner speech, someone said here this afternoon: “Adapt or die—we shall die of boredom if we do not adapt to his speech.” [Interjections] . The lot of straw dolls he set up in his after-dinner speech concerning right wings and left wings is equally applicable to himself. I want to make an appeal to him today. He must please not get rid of the little left wing in his party, the tail that wags the dog, because that left wing determines the platform of that party. [Interjections.] As long as that small group of radicals wields the sceptre in that party—outside this House as well—their growth potential will remain very limited, and even the Cape Times concedes that. [Interjections.]

We shall see you in Johannesburg on the third.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition makes a big fuss about the abolition of race discrimination. This is a matter which is close to our hearts as well, but when he himself stands before the voters so piously and calls upon them to give him the mandate to govern so that he can eliminate discrimination, why does he not get it? It is because the electorate of South Africa cannot even trust that party as far as their definition of discrimination is concerned. Their view of discrimination gives short shrift to the differentiation which necessarily plays a role in South Africa. They favour the liberal idea which has blown over from abroad and which is favoured there, namely that ethnicity … [Interjections.] Ethnicity is the same here and abroad. I am referring to the idea that ethnicity cannot have a political dimension. That is “the great American experience of ethnicity”. That ethnicity has no political dimension. The moment a foreigner sets foot on that continent he becomes politically part of the great American democracy even if he remains ethnically/culturally different. Africa is different. Let me quote from a scientific work, Ethnicity in an international context by Said and Simmons—

It is with regard to the view of ethnicity that the final watershed between the PEP and ourselves occurs, because it is our firm belief that we cannot deal with the political dimension of ethnicity other than by way of vertical differentiation. We in this country had to reach the stage at which one could reconstruct the old power basis, so that to the extent to which the traditional ethnic power structures had existed and been influenced by democracy over the years, they could find natural expression, so that people in South Africa could govern themselves in terms of their own value systems and we could elevate the potential for conflict from the level of the voters to the level of leader, at which level one can expect the maximum responsibility and co-operation. Those who have taken the trouble to speak to elected leaders in the national States have also had direct experience of this.

I want to touch briefly on another matter. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs has displayed prophetic powers. Last year he said that the PFP would walk out of Parliament. He also said that they would enter into extra-parliamentary alliances. Both of these things occurred during their recent congress. I have before me a newspaper report in which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—he too has just quoted from a newspaper report in this connection—said that if the S.A. Defence Force were to become the uniform of the NP, he would walk out of Parliament. He said—

he would leave. That is a vague and unqualified statement…

It is not a statement…

… which is published by way of editorials and which entails the suggestion—which is wrong to begin with—that the Government seeks to maintain the status quo. That is why it has relinquished power over Black people to the extent that it has already done so today and that is why it is negotiating a dispensation for Coloureds and Asians. It does not want to maintain the status quo. The White Government wants to relinquish any say over Coloured people. However, I want to make the statement that if anyone, wherever they may come from, were to seek to enter South Africa by force and violence in order to overthrow the Government and change the political status quo, we—and I am sure that I am now speaking on behalf of every hon. member on this side of the House—would resist it with all the force at our disposal. [Interjections].

Yes, that includes the Defence Force. Now that hon. member must tell us what he would do in such a case. If a force were to move in from a neighbouring state tomorrow and threaten today’s status quo, what would he do? Would he walk out of here? Would he walk out of Parliament? The hon. member does not even do me the courtesy of nodding his head. He made the statement …

You did not even have the courtesy to read my speech properly.

I read that document thoroughly. I even discussed it thoroughly with colleagues. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: In what circumstances does it mean that he will walk out.

The answer is in my speech; I can show it to you.

But please do show it to me. I read every newspaper report. The truth of that matter is that I can-riot imagine that a status quo could exist in South Africa which would not need the protection of the Defence Force if a large force were to cross its borders. If one does not wish to support it, there is a great danger implicit in that party’s view. Then we have the right to ask …

Where was P. W. Botha during the Second World War? [Interjections.]

In passing, Sir, it is the hon. member who has just made that interjection who gave the hon. member for Yeoville a headache at the congress at which the hon. member for Yeoville was the only one who sided with the Defence Force. He even had to address personal challenges to speakers at the congress in order to get them to subside. The hon. member who has just made the interjection was one of the petty ringleaders. [Interjections.]

I want to react in a single paragraph to another statement by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, viz. his statement as to the condition under which he would walk out. It concerns his reference to the decentralization of power to a single person or a few people. The hon. member should just bear in mind that the Government does not intend to undermine democracy, but in the process of constitutional development it can expect that certain democratic processes will be subordinated to self-determination on an ethnic basis. That he can certainly expect.

I now wish to come to my final point. An allegation such as that made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that this Government, under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister, is afraid of reform, calls for comment. There is very little time left to me, but to the best of my ability I shall attempt to comment briefly on that, because it directly concerns the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister. For some time we have been reading in the press, and we have heard it said today and on previous occasions, that certain things have been said about the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister. However, let us look at the facts.

The very first thing we are justified in saying about the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister is that he has changed the character of the political debate in South Africa. The second thing we can say is that he has changed the political style in South Africa, and changed it drastically. The third thing we can say is that the effect of this will be that South Africa will change considerably, but with the preservation of stability.

Let us consider why one can say that he has changed the political debate. He declared himself to be prepared to implement constructive reform. He did not merely speak about it. He created an atmosphere of urgent practical implementation surrounding this reform and renewal. He introduced the most burning issues in South Africa into the debate within the National Party and into the political debate outside the National Party. He took constitutional steps. Here I am not referring solely to the President’s Council. He also began to do the groundwork with regard to the realization of the idea of confederation and constellation and also other things concerning which I do not wish to go into detail now, for example the investigations which are in progress. Certain things have also been done in the social sphere.

There is just one important matter I still want to mention. It is also a question of attitudes. One does not simply change something without further ado. If a law does not live in the hearts of people, it is worth little. Therefore one has to change attitudes in order to get constitution and laws on the Statute Book and other laws off the Statute Book. If attitudes are not right and if one does not take one’s people along with one, one will not succeed in doing so.

Then, too, I want to say something about his political style. His political style is one of involvement across the widest political spectrum. What is the effect of this? Knowledge not only of the general public’s view of the matter, but factual knowledge which has had gathered by commissions so that he has the facts before him. Just as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he would deal with the decisions of his national convention and would not accept all those decisions, similarly the hon. the Prime Minister exercises his prerogative of implementing today what can be achieved in terms of today’s demands and in terms of his present policies, and he keeps aside what can be implemented in the future and throws out what does not fit in. However, this does not mean that he disparages those findings. It simply means that it is his prerogative to judge them in the light of his own political ideas.

This consultation is a dramatic step in the political history of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister has departed from prescriptive politics. He has taken the path of consultative negotiating politics. Political discussions are taking place today in the studies, in the council-chambers of companies, on the trains and everywhere because he has succeeded in obtaining the widest possible degree of involvement. As far as commissions are concerned we should just bear in mind that the appointment of commissions does not amount to delegation of governmental power. The appointment of the commission plays a specific factual role and the finding of a commission is then evaluated by everyone according to his or her specific political viewpoint.

What is very important is that by means of this political style he does not only convey knowledge to people, but has also provided us with norms against which we can measure changes and our attitudes. He tests his own actions against those norms. What did he say at the congresses of the National Party when people made racist statements, when people offended other people? He reminded them of their Christian norms. He has the courage to do so. If there are people in his party who do not like being addressed on the matter of their racist statements and departure from Christian norms, they should search their own hearts and not blame the messenger of truth for that.

Whom are you speaking to now?

I am speaking to people who are not in this House and perhaps to that hon. member too.

If change is effected too rapidly it causes instability and the result is weaker than it would have been if that change had not been effected. Therefore change is useless if it is not carried out within a context of stability. Accordingly it is done calmly with the necessary inputs and in such a way that people are not deprived of their security in a multinational community.

We on this side of the House are not going to reject this motion due to caucus discipline. We are going to reject this motion because the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government obtained the confidence of the nation last year and because he and the Government enjoy the unqualified support of the rest of us on this side of the House. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, there is one point—the point on which the hon. member for Florida ended—in respect of which we shall not criticise the hon. member, and that is that the Government is effecting change too rapidly. I do not believe there is anyone who would hurl that reproach at the Government. He need not therefore worry about that. Apart from that, however, the hon. member did not say anything other than to defend the Government and allege that everything which the Government did was right and to say that they were moving in the right direction in every respect. There was, however, no hope and no substance in his reply to the criticism. I want to come back to two points, ethnicity and a disposition towards change.

†It was an impossible speech to reply to because he just stood up and defended and attacked, without debating the merits of policies which are before this House. I noticed that there was much less hollow laughter on Friday when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition moved his motion. The reason is that I believe those members on that side know that there are many valid reasons for criticism of and no confidence in the Government. I was also disappointed in the way the attack was launched because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not propose any alternatives. He did not say: This is where you are wrong, this is what we believe should be done. There is so much that one can criticize about this Government but I do not have his hour and a quarter to do it in. The problem lies, however, in deciding what not to criticize because one’s choice is so wide. It ranges from the arrogance of a Government that has been in power too long with all the consequences of such a fact, its insensitivity to human problems and its ever-growing mismanagement of South Africa. That is, to a certain extent, what I want to concentrate on this afternoon namely mismanagement through ministerial incompetence on a frightening scale.

If it is true that we have been in power too long then the hon. member must quarrel with the people who put us here.

That is fair enough but a Government that has been too long in power becomes arrogant in itself and it holds on to power for the sake of power and not for the sake of service. This is what we have to get across to the country. However, I repeat that there is an ever-growing mismanagement through ministerial incompetence. I want to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister to find another way to reward loyalty and service to the NP. Another way should be found to reward such people—sincere and nice as they may be for I like them as persons and gentlemen—but they are people who are totally unqualified in managerial experience and are simply incapable of directing and controlling a complicated modern Government administration which requires finesse and special skills which many of these people rewarded for loyalty do not have. There are exceptions—[Interjection]—and there are also people like the hon. member for Turffontein who will never be rewarded however loyal he may be because he will never be appointed to those positions. [Interjections.] This mismanagement, and the inherent divisions in the NP, however much they may be denied, and its obsession with maintaining its facade of unity have forced the Government into unco-ordinated ad hoc decision-making which has left the country confused and uncertain. And while all the reasons we have heard—the reasons given by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other reasons which I will give—may be valid, the overriding reason for the snowballing loss of confidence and trust in this Government is the absolute failure of the Government to give the country a clear vision for the future of where it is going, a vision in which people can believe and for which they will be prepared to work. This is the Government’s greatest disservice to South Africa at the present time. This is why the HNP has any significant support at all instead of just being the lunatic fringe idiosyncrasy which it really should be. However, when people have no clear vision to believe in, no picture of the future, they seek refuge in the false security of the dead past. That is what is happening: People, when they do not have a vision, see disaster in any change which they are asked to consider. If they are without a vision, they turn back to the past to seek security. I believe the Government is endangering the security of South Africa. I do not mean by revolution or sabotage, but they are endangering the security of South Africa by failing in this crucial field where South Africa’s needs lie at this moment.

In passing I want to refer to something else which the Government fails to understand. I refer to its attempts and those of its Press to write off the NRP. The NRP was formed, let us remember, and it exists in order to preserve the political centre in politics. I want to point out to the NP that if they should succeed in destroying the NRP, the NP, because of its history, could not and would not become the centre party in South Africa.

In no way.

It could not and would not because the motivating forces of that party, viz. Afrikaner domination and a Republic in South Africa, died with the achievement of those two objectives. They have not been replaced in the party. There is no new motivation to take their place. The NP of today is just a historical hangover of the past because of its thinking, and many of its members are still rooted in the past. [Interjections.] I say that the NP would be inexorably eroded from the right by those preaching the doctrine of original nationalism …

[Inaudible.]

I shall deal with the hon. the Minister of Police in a little while. [Interjections.]

The NP will be eroded by those preaching the original nationalism on which that party was formed until that party itself is destroyed. What will then be left? It will be the suicidal choice between the disaster, the bloody disaster—I do not use that as a swear word but literally—of HNP irresponsibility on the one hand and the chaos of ever more PFP radicalism on the other. I heard an interjection just now from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, the man whose vision is the miracle of reconciliation. He came back from a visit to Zimbabwe and he wrote an article which I have here. He wrote that article on the miracle of reconciliation at a time when a member of Parliament is in detention without trial. In his own article he says that education is likely to collapse and that standards are going to drop, but still he says—

If that is a vision of the miracle of reconciliation, I think I am entitled to say that the choice between HNP and PFP would be a tragic choice for moderates.

When last did you visit Zimbabwe?

I hear another interjection. How did the hon. the Chief Whip vote in their caucus on the question of whether South African youths should or should not fight for South Africa? How did he vote? I do not have to go to Zimbabwe to know that there are people detained there, even a member of Parliament, who claims that he is being tortured. This, however, is the PFP’s “miracle of reconciliation”! That is all I want to say about that party.

The NRP is not going to be destroyed, however hard the road may be temporarily. We have survived five years and two elections against impossible odds. The reason we have not been destroyed is because most South Africans, in their heart of hearts, are really looking for a reconciliation of moderates. This Government has shown that it is incapable and unable to provide that reconciliation of moderates. I want to mention something else that is interesting and not very often known. In the whole continent of Africa the NRP is the only Opposition party in any country which controls an official and elected arm of government different from the central Government of that country. Nowhere else in Africa is that the case. This is the only party that has been able to control a State or province in this whole continent. [Interjections.]

But, Sir, let us not look only at the past. I would like to turn to the tragedy of 1982 politics. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the growing majority of people in favour of evolutionary but substantial change and also to a Government without the courage to shed its “verkrampte” shackles and get on with it. I stuck my neck out, at a high and calculated political price, and tried to encourage the Prime Minister to move firmly on reform, reform for which everyone is calling—not only leftists or the PFP or the Opposition, but responsible people, conservatives, businessmen, industrialists, Nationalists themselves, and their academics, in their Press, in their churches, and the thinking public at large. Everyone is calling for reform. A majority of people, as quoted, want reform, even in depth. What is more—and this is crucial—is the call by moderate Black and Brown leadership.

At this moment people all over South Africa are asking the same question. They ask just how serious the Prime Minister is about real change or if all the talk is simply aimed at buying time for the status quo in disguise. I want to give the hon. the Prime Minister the opportunity, by direct question across this floor, to answer this question which is being asked far and wide. I ask him to tell South Africa how deep is his commitment to real change. He must tell South Africa what price he is prepared to pay within his own party to place South Africa’s interests first and break the shackles and the deadlock of the ideology of a bygone age. This ideology has collapsed, as he knows, so let us really move into the realities of the ’80s.

There are two things South Africa cannot afford. One is change by concession under pressure instead of because it is right and on merit. Secondly, there is haphazard change without a clear goal. What we should have had by now is a programme for creating a climate for change, to which the hon. member for Florida referred, and for replacing values based on racial prejudice with dynamic instead of static pluralism. These are the two issues I would have liked to debate with him if he were here, i.e. the difference between a climate based on racial prejudice and one based on dynamic pluralism instead of static pluralism. I hope that during this session of Parliament we will be able to pinpoint and highlight the difference between the Government and ourselves with regard to these concepts. Their concepts of pluralism is a static one. It is a static concept in which people are confined within their community, in which there is no flexibility, no dynamic movement towards change. This, I believe, would be a fruitful debate, much more fruitful than the rejection of pluralism on the one hand and the obsession with pluralism on the other hand which forms the basis of the debate between the Government and the official Opposition.

Just think what a difference it would have made if the Government had understood the symbolism of Pageview and District Six What a difference if it accepted local option in respect of the use of local amenities— through a process of referendums and local authority decisions, of course—so that the people concerned could decide who would have the use of those amenities and how they should be used. Instead of the hon. the Minister’s doing it, let the people concerned decide. What a difference it would make if the Government did what it said it believed in in respect of central business districts. The hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism and his colleague the hon. the Minister of Community Development say they want to see open central business districts. They say it is their policy and yet they make a mockery of it by opening up a little suburb somewhere where it is not going to make any difference at all. Why does the Government not move forward with these things and create the climate for change? What a difference it would make if the Government opened up some new areas for people who want to live together of their own free will, to do so if they want to.

We have a policy and you don’t; therefore you are able to do anything.

This is all our policy. Every single thing I am quoting here is our policy, the policy of the NRP. That is why I refer to the difference it would make if this were done. If that could happen the Government could do away with the symbolic Mixed Marriages Act and Immorality Act because there would be places for people wanting to live in an open area to do so. We have confidence in the South African people. We do not believe that they need those laws to safeguard their character and traditions.

Instead of doing these things, the Government slaps its own creation, the President’s Council, in the face. As far as the President’s Council’s third recommendation is concerned, the Government appoints an all-White commission, barred from looking at the principle, to investigate the Group Areas Act. What a mockery of this commitment to seeking change. We have White, Coloured, Indian and Chinese members sitting together on that prestigious body planning the future of South Africa. In Natal all groups, including Blacks, sit together in an official body. Here the Government excludes Blacks from the President’s Council. In Natal Blacks, Coloureds, Whites and Indians are sitting together and have been sitting together for years as an official body in a consultative committee.

Are you going to support the Buthelezi Commission, Vause?

Yet, Mr. Speaker, we have a Prohibition of Political Interference Act which makes it a crime to become involved in inter-racial politics. We do consult. We are involved in dialogue all the time. The PFP does it all the time. The NP does it. Their youth meet Inkhata youth. This is inter-racial politics. Yet there is a law which states that this is illegal. I should like to call upon the hon. the Prime Minister, therefore, to repeal that Act and to let us talk freely at every level. We can retain the provisions pertaining to money and foreign interference. I do not mind that. It should, however, not be made a crime to practise interracial politics when we are doing that in our highest, most prestigious body, the President’s Council, and in other bodies all over the country as well.

I say the time has come to make this gesture at least so that everybody can talk together about their common future in Southern Africa. Meanwhile, however, this country is receiving blow after blow purely through incompetence, because of the Government’s own obsessions, its own ineptitude, until Die Transvaler cried out the other day—and the hon. Ministers concerned will know what this is about—

Allow me to quote from that same newspaper report—

“Dié ding” is something I am not allowed to talk about in terms of your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The incompetence of the said hon. Ministers, however, who, had they been under President Reagan would have been out, is something which the hon. the Minister of Police and his other hon. colleague will know about. [Interjections.] While talking about the hon. the Minister of Police, I wonder if countries like the Seychelles and elsewhere where there is detention without trial, get the streams of letters that I get from Amnesty International, all orchestrated, inspired and artificial but all based on the fundamental human right to trial and not to be detained without trial.

I want to give the hon. the Minister of Police a chance to …

Break a few windows.

No, to rehabilitate himself, this foot-in-mouth hon. Minister of Police, to redeem himself.

Give him a bush to run around.

The hon. the Minister of Police signed a report in which he, as vice-chairman of a commission, called for “administrative action in the sphere of internal security”, to be referred for investigation to a parliamentary commission, as proposed by the United Party members of that commission, and I quote from the report he signed: “… to reconsider such administrative action”. The proposal was a judicial tribunal or a judge who would review ministerial action. I understand that in the report on the Press that has been released this afternoon there is a similar appeal for judicial review of ministerial action. Just think what a difference that would make to the image of South Africa, how many slings, blows and hurts just that simple little action would save us from. And that is the hon. the Minister who could initiate it, because he served on the Schlebusch Commission which recommended that our proposal be considered.

In the little time I have left, I want to refer to the home front and the bitter price being paid in many fields by the people for this Government’s maladministration. I want to deal with the question of the Public Service that was glossed over simply by saying that difficulties do exist and that there should be changes. The hon. member for Florida referred to it. However, unless the Government takes radical action to prevent a collapse, there is going to be a major crisis. Apart from the new Directors-General and the hierarchy, ordinary public servants have lagged too long behind inflation, to the extent where they are now not even within shouting distance of competitive salaries in the private sector. The time has therefore come for drastic action to compensate those who today out of loyalty and dedication to the service are carrying impossible burdens, working overtime night after night and, instead of compensation, all they get is sympathy and a promise to tax their few fringe benefits. I believe the time has come that real action must be taken to prevent a crisis there.

Another crisis faces pensioners and those living on fixed income savings because of sky-rocketing rentals and cost of living. This is another field that requires desperately urgent action.

Increased interest rates on mortgage bonds could force many home-owners to sell. Increased Land Bank interest rates will push up the price of food further. Monopolies are allowed to flourish at will. Administered prices are continually rising, inter alia the price of coal during this weekend. Postal and telephone tariffs will be increased as from 1 April, while an increase in rail tariffs is still to be announced. So the cycle goes on and on. Unfortunately I do not have time to elaborate on these matters, but other speakers will deal with them. These are the twin prongs of the reason for no-confidence—on the one hand the lack of vision and on the other the maladministration.

I spoke of an ideal, a clear vision for the future, and my thoughts went back to the time when South Africans in scores of thousands willingly left their jobs, their homes and their families to risk their lives for South Africa. They willingly did so because they had a goal, an ideal, which was the freedom not only of their own country but also of the Western world, and they considered that worth dying for, if that was how it had to be.

What ideal do we give our youth today? What ideal do we give to those who are fighting for us today? When the battle is over, what will it all have been for? What dream do they have of a better future, a future they would want to fight for? There is nothing wrong with the patriotism of our youth. They are risking and giving their fives, week after week and year after year, defending South Africa, except for a few cowardly left-wingers who say they are not going to fight for reasons of conscience and over whose right not to do so the official Opposition is fighting.

Do you not believe people can have consciences?

There is nothing wrong with the youth of South Africa, with their patriotism or their sacrifice.

That was a scandalous remark.

I said their right not to fight …

You called them “cowardly left-wingers” …

Yes.

… who pretend to have consciences.

Yes, I regard anyone who refuses to fight for this country as being cowardly. [Interjections.]

You should be ashamed of yourself.

The NRP sees the South Africa that will give them this vision, a beacon on the horizon to aim for, a future that will not require their sons to make the sacrifices they have had to make or see those sacrifices wasted as my generation saw them wasted in pursuit of ideological policies that have ended in disaster. Our duty is to give to the third generation of South African youth, who have served and died for South Africa, the sort of vision that a Botha and a Smuts gave to theirs at the turn of the century, a vision of conciliation and the building of the Union of South Africa. It is not beyond our ability today to give such a vision or ideal of reconciliation on a wider basis, the reconciliation of all our people working together to build a new Republic, to preserve and perpetuate their own character and traditions and to live in dignity and security, but with equal opportunities, working towards a common destiny. And because the Government does not provide our youth with that goal, this party, too, has no confidence in the Government.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point tried to make a case here in order to indicate why his party would not perish. I should like to leave him to the pleasure of his day-dream. However, I do of course agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member that it would be a sad day for South Africa if the choice of Government were to lie between the PFP and the HNP, because the hon. member for Florida drew attention here to certain statements that the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition made when he said that if certain things were to happen, he would leave. I should like to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the entire country is sick and tired of the boycott image of the PFP, because it does not form part of the lifestyle of our people in South Africa [Interjections.] However, I shall come back to this point again.

Order! What does the hon. member mean by his remark? Is he saying that the Opposition is deliberately involved in a boycott?

Mr. Speaker, I referred to their boycott image and I am going to point out that there are certain things that the Opposition is boycotting. After all, it is general knowledge that they are boycotting things like the President’s Council and other things too, and later on in my speech I am going to refer to this once again. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that the Government is dragging its feet when it comes to political reform in South Africa. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that on the other hand, the Black people of this country are viewing the PFP with suspicion, because the PFP is creating expectations which cannot be fulfilled. In our heterogeneous, complex community there is nothing so dangerous as unfulfilled expectations amongst the Blacks, expectations that are being created by the PFP’s policy of “one man, one vote” and power sharing in an undivided State. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to this at the end of his speech too, when he spoke about the alliance of the moderates, White and Black. This will lead to unrest, racial tension and even bloodshed. The signs of this tension and unrest that draw inspiration from the policy of the PFP, can be easily seen already, firstly in acts of civil disobedience by means of which the authority of the State is being challenged in a horrendous fashion, for instance in the case of illegal squatting. We know what role the PFP plays in this. Secondly, there are certain churches that are openly propagating the transgression of certain laws. I am surprised that they are not propagating the transgression of the Immorality Act as well.

Thirdly, Chief Minister Buthelezi is being taken in tow by the PFP in this creation of expectations and he is playing a very ingenious but transparent role in this, in co-operation with the PFP. However, he hides this behind hypocritical statements, for instance his memorandum to businessmen over the weekend preceding the hon. the Prime Minister’s Good Hope Conference on 12 November 1981, which was aimed at benefiting Black people in South Africa as well. The following report appeared in Die Transvaler of 7 November—

What is this but a unitary State, the policy of the PFP?—

What is this but revolution? It appears to me that, as a result of the expectations that have been created, Chief Minister Buthelezi perpetually has bloodshed and revolution on the brain in his striving for a unitary state.

These are the type of expectations that the PFP is creating. The danger of unfulfilled expectations is hidden in the statement by Chief Minister Buthelezi. In the process, the PFP is becoming more of a danger to South Africa by the day, because it is in fact power-sharing that will bring about the total destruction of the entire community on the long term. Chief Minister Buthelezi is too obsessed with power to see this and the PFP is too inspired by the unitary state to notice it.

I note the aggressive tone of Chief Minister Buthelezi in the following paragraph in Die Transvaler—

He is a “Buthelezi Chief”. He can tell that to the Zulus, and to the Progs, but not to the Xhosas, the Vendas and the Tswanas. What place does he then hold in South African politics? Surely there is no question of a unitary state. He should rather limit himself to Zulu politics. If he views his destiny as the result of his bloodline and his Zulu tradition in a joint South Africa together with the PFP in one nation, he is not a pragmatist as he alleges, but a Black racist and ideologist—which he denies in his memorandum—because then he and the PFP are overlooking the existence of the Xhosas, the Vendas, the Tswanas and the Sothos who are also descended from royal bloodlines and who also have their own language, culture and tradition and would also like to maintain them as Chief Minister Buthelezi wants to maintain his Zulu bloodline, language and culture. The PFP and Chief Minister Buthelezi are throwing away their energies in a completely wrong direction and this is why the PFP has become totally irrelevant in South African politics and this is also why Chief Minister Buthelezi’s country still looks the way it does. Poverty and deterioration will remain an everlasting complaint against him until, by way of a changed lifestyle and hard labour he transforms it into the paradise that it should be. Instead of that, he and the PFP are campaigning for a unitary state simply to destroy that too. He says, and here he is strongly supported by the PFP, that he is not campaiging for independence because he does not want to find himself in a cul-de-sac. I want to tell him and the PFP that their policy has already landed them in a cul-de-sac because a unitary state will never be voluntarily created by the peoples of South Africa, and by using violence, South Africa will not survive long enough to implement it. The PFP should rather devote itself to what its “godfather”, Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, said on the subject of a unitary state. A report in Die Volksblad of 22 October 1981 quoted a very informative speech that he delivered on the occasion of a banquet in London. In the editorial, the editor of Die Volksblad stated the following—

Then he said—

This is what the hon. member for Florida referred to.

I attach tremendous value to the view of this young, dynamic editor of Die Volksblad. He has consistently shown himself to be a person with sensitive powers of observation and a balanced outlook. For this reason Die Volksblad is known today as the best Afrikaans newspaper, far beyond the borders of the Free State, as one with the most objective, most balanced reporting. What did Mr. Oppenheimer say in his London speech? A report in the same issue of Die Volksblad reads—

This is in quotation marks. Therefore they are the words of Mr. Oppenheimer himself. Mr. Oppenheimer went on to say—

Where could one wish to find better proof than in this damning statement by Mr. Oppenheimer himself for the fact that the PFP and its policy have become totally irrelevant in South African politics? And since the PFP has become irrelevant—and this, and only this is what it is all about—we once again have the threat of a new PFP boycott now, as if the boycott image of the PFP has not yet caused it enough damage already. I want to say at once that I am not shedding a single tear over that.

In Die Volksblad of 20 November 1981 we read the following—

Now he wants to boycott Parliament as well. That is not all. After the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had sketched certain circumstances under which he and his party might boycott Parliament, he said the following—

What is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition insinuating by saying that he will no longer be able to participate in peaceful constitutional reform? Is he giving notice of extra-parliamentary action here? [Interjections.] I think the philosophy and the ideology of the PFP is such that one could interpret a statement of this nature to mean that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has in fact given notice here of extra-parliamentary action. [Interjections.] You, Mr. Speaker, are entrusted with the tremendous, responsible task of carefully maintaining the inviolate character, the prestige and authority of this Parliament as long as the Government deems fit to retain Parliament in its present form. [Interjections.] I now ask you for a decision: Can this House show respect towards, have confidence in, and grant protection to, a Leader of the official Opposition who gives notice that he and his party are going to challenge and even destroy the authority of this institution by way of extra-parliamentary action and in this way aim at overthrowing the existing order by violent means? [Interjections.] I think the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition should furnish you with an explanation in your office with regard to precisely what he meant by this statement as well as the one to which the hon. member for Florida referred. I think the matter is of such crucial importance that you should go into it. [Interjections.] If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition fails to do so, I think it is his duty to resign. What right has he to sit here if he does not want to use Parliament for the purpose for which it exists, but wants in fact to boycott that purpose [Interjections]—this is what he says—or even to destroy it by means of extra-parliamentary action? What confidence can the voters of South Africa have in a Leader of the official Opposition that does not want to associate himself with Parliament, but remains here in order to hatch plans, under Parliamentary privilege, to destroy this institution and the authority that it represents, by means of extra-parliamentary action? [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon. member insinuating that the Opposition is hatching plans to overthrow Parliament?

No, Mr. Speaker, I am not insinuating that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is making plans, but I am saying that he is using the protection of Parliament to put into effect his threat that he will boycott Parliament. He is sitting here under parliamentary protection.

You are trifling with the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I think the matter is of such importance that you will have to give a decision on the question of whether a statement of this nature is not an act of treason against Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw them, but if these words do not carry the germ of revolution, I do not know what that means.

Order! The hon. member is particularly skilful with his word usage. He has simply repeated what he withdrew a moment ago. The hon. member must please withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw it, but then I do not know what it means when one says that one can no longer participate in peaceful constitutional reform.

Order! The hon. member is ascribing certain matters that are revolutionary to the Opposition, and I cannot allow that.

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that I do not know what it means when one says that one can no longer participate in peaceful constitutional reform, because surely words of this nature must have a special significance.

Rumours and insinuations of revolution can be extremely dangerous for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Once again the hon. member has used the word “insinuations of revolution”. What he is now trying to do, is to circumvent your decision. He is simply using the same words and saying them in the same spirit. This is showing contempt of your decision.

Order! The hon. member for Parys may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is essential for the Black people too to know that if revolution should break out in South Africa, it would destroy everything that has been built up in this country over the generations, to their detriment as well. The international community that is actively striving for the possibility of revolution must also be made aware of the fact that those strategic minerals that are absolutely essential for them will dry up on the international market because the installations and infrastructures that have been created to mine and produce them, will be destroyed completely and it will take generations to build them up again. There will not be adequate funds in the world to do so. That is why I want to leave the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition in your hands to judge whether the statements that he has made do no contribute towards the situation that I have sketched to you.

The hon. member for Constantia held a referendum and he says that in doing so he had the blessing of his leader. In that way the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has shown himself to be a person suffering from hyperactivity of the cerebellum—a mountain was in labour and brought forth an anxiety-stricken mouse! In the Sunday Times of 8 November the hon. member for Constantia issued a tremendous declaration under an enormous heading: “Me and my Conscience” I think the heading is the correct one because I do not think the hon. member has a conscience. His so-called referendum aimed at nothing but preventing a Coloured residential area in which Coloureds of every station and class could afford to live, being established adjacent to the rich, exclusive Constantia. He said so himself in his statement. He said—

and this is very important—

Here he gave away his entire secret. Surely then it is a deed of hypocrisy. He wants …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I shall withdraw it, Sir, but it is a deed that I do not think was entirely honest towards the Coloureds. Knowing full well that Constantia is protected by the Group Areas Act and by extremely expensive plots which only the super-rich Coloureds could afford to live on, the hon. member holds this so-called referendum. A report in Die Transvaler of 6 November read as follows—

Die Transvaler comes to the conclusion that the Coloureds were in fact cheated with this referendum. I agree. I would put it in stronger language, but I am afraid of you, Mr. Speaker!

The hon. member confirmed these doubtful motives in a statement as recently as on 25 January 1982. According to a report that appeared in Die Burger the hon. member said the following—

Well-off Coloureds! The report went on—

He comes along and calls it an honest policy of the Government to accommodate wealthy Coloureds. Where does he pluck that from? Surely it is not the policy of this Government to accommodate well-off Coloureds only. This Government wants to recreate and improve the weal and woe of the entire Coloured population. It shows what ulterior motives are floating around in that hon. member’s tiny mind when he makes statements like this.

Since the official Opposition and its members look like this, a doleful bunch, I reject the motion of no confidence with contempt.

Mr. Speaker, should like to put forward a few thoughts on state administration. [Interjections.] Why are the hon. members on the opposite side not laughing? [Interjections.] It happens repeatedly—this afternoon as well when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was speaking—that when the words “state administration” are used, there is great mirth and hilarity among the hon. members of the NP. [Interjections.] This is a fact and it has happened on previous occasions that when reference has been made to the Public Service in the House there has been great hilarity among the hon. members on the opposite side. This has not gone unnoticed and certainly not by the public servants. As a matter of fact, I think it would be a good idea to ask Pieter-Dirk Uys to devise a programme to which he would invite all the National Party MPs, for then he would not have to prepare a programme; he would just have to say “Public Service” three times, and everyone would die laughing.

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

Is the hon. member prepared to reply to the question?

No, Sir. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member who is now speaking is making a mistake; we are not laughing at the Public Service, we are laughing at the hon. member.

Order! The hon. member for Johannesburg North may proceed.

I would be able to accept the explanation of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries if it were not for the fact that it was not the only word that the hon. members on the opposite side laughed at when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke this afternoon. There was laughter not only when I spoke, but also when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was speaking. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Will the Chair give the hon. member for Johannesburg North some protection? There is a continual howl across the floor of the House.

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member for Johannesburg North an opportunity to proceed with his speech.

Before I deal with state administration, I must refer to the confusion which the hon. member for Parys has caused. This morning Die Burger stated in its main editorial that Chief Buthelezi repudiates PFP policy, but this afternoon we heard from one of the great propagandists, the hon. member for Parys, that the PFP had taken Chief Buthelezi in tow. The hon. member attacked the poor man, who is not here to defend himself, with such personal remarks and in other ways that I began to look around to ascertain whether Chief Buthelezi was not perhaps here somewhere.

The Zulus will remember that.

That it will be remembered is certain.

As far as state administration is concerned … [Interjections.] There it is again. One has only to mention the words “state administration” and there is laughter. One could, of course, laugh on the other side of one’s face like a little boy who has been asked whether he did not perhaps have his hand in the cookie jar. [Interjections.]

Order! I again appeal to hon. members to give the hon. member for Johannesburg North the opportunity to proceed with his speech.

The problem in the state administration originated in 1975 when officials were persuaded to withhold all demands for an increase in salary for the sake of combating inflation. It was part of the anti-inflation campaign in which the State as well as the private sector were to participate. The officials, especially those of Central Government, were also to participate. Everyone then deviated from this and acted in a different way to what was originally decided in spirit and the letter with the exception of the central Public Service. The result is, consequently, that we are confronted by a very difficult situation today. It is a situation for which the Government has only one answer as a recipe, namely to placate with a small salary increase.

What would you say is small?

Whether it is 12%, 15%, 25% or 35% it remains a placatory measure because the basic problem is not eliminated. The basic problem is that the officials of the central Government have no power to assert their opinion. The hon. the Minister may deny this if he wishes, but I do not think he will. I know and respect the hon. the Minister as a man who sticks to the facts and the truth, something which cannot be said of all Government supporters.

If one looks at the figures to determine what has happened since 1971, one realizes what the basis for dissatisfaction in the Public Service is. In the 10 years from 1971 to 1980 the salaries of Post Office staff have risen by 140%, those of the Railways by 152% and those of control boards by 164%. These are all State or semi-State institutions. This is consequently an average increase of approximately 150% since 1971. Against that, the salaries of officials in the central Public Service have increased by 113%. The Government is, however, surprised that there is deepseated unrest and rebellion in the ranks of the Public Service. One sometimes wonders whether the Public Servants are not ultimately in control. After all, they do not have the power to strike, but as citizens of South Africa they have political rights which they can exercise. If all things were equal in respect of the bodies I have just mentioned, the R6 300 which a public servant earns on average a year should have been increased to R8 100 merely to keep abreast of inflation. With R8 100 a year his real income in 1980 would consequently have been the same as in 1971. However, he does not earn R8 100. He earns R6 300. And now there is surprise in many quarters at the fact that the Public Servants stated in the first place that they had lost confidence in the Government because they had intended, throughout, as responsible adults, to set the matter to rights in a friendly way by means of negotiation. They have lost their confidence in this process because they are worse off, as is in fact very clear.

Secondly, they have lost their confidence in the Government because there is procrastination—apparently deliberate procrastination—in regard to methods of finding new ways of satisfying the Public Service, new ways apart from huge salary increases, which the Treasury cannot afford in any case. The State cannot afford 25% increases. The Treasury does not have this kind of money. [Interjections.] There are, however, other methods whereby Public Servants can be satisfied, whereby confidence can be restored.

Will the judge return a verdict as soon as possible?

… and one of these is bargaining power. The Public Servants are therefore entitled to feel that the time for giving advice is past; that a situation must now arise where they can sit around a conference table with their employer and argue until a decision is reached. If they cannot bargain in this way, independent arbitration must be available to make these things possible. This is no new idea. It was, in fact, raised as long ago as March 1981, by means of a specific proposal made by the Public Service to the Commission for Administration. In that proposal they were asked to investigate this specific aspect. Subsequently, in August last year, the Wiehahn Commission recommended that this be done; that some form of bargaining mechanism be put into operation to make it possible for public servants as employees, as against their employer, to arrive at a final, conclusive decision. This report of the Wiehahn Commission was first submitted to the hon. the Minister, after which it was referred to the Commission for Administration. The public servants are still waiting. It is already 1 February 1982, and they are still waiting for some sort of result, for some finality on the possibility that the Government will consider putting a bargaining mechanism in operation.

Is this not deliberate procrastination? Is it not a case of playing for time to see whether it is not possible to find other ways of keeping the public servants quiet and prevent them from making their demands? There have been many objections from the ranks of the Public Service as well as the Commission for Administration. On the part of the Government there is always the fear that this kind of method would lead to embarrassment for the Government. It is said that public servants should not be members of a trade union, that they should not form their own trade unions. The Public Service need not necessarily form a trade union or fall under the Industrial Conciliation Act in order to establish a bargaining mechanism. Parliament could make a special law whereby it could be arranged that officials could negotiate their benefits, working conditions or their salaries with their employer. But what is happening today? Today the position is that the public servants can tell the Minister how their working conditions should be improved, and the Minister must automatically refer it to the Commission for Administration. Who are the members of the Commission for Administration? They are public servants. They therefore play the role of judge or adviser in respect of conflicting interests, i.e. their own interests as public servants, and those of arbitrators of the conditions of service of public servants. [Interjections.] This type of situation is so outmoded it cannot possibly lead to satisfaction, and as I have already stated on a previous occasion, there is growing mistrust because the ordinary public servant realizes that he has been subjected to an arbitrary decision which has to weigh up various conflicting interests. Instead, the public servants want what any other employee in the world wants, namely that should he come into conflict with his employer concerning his working conditions, he would want an impartial court, a tribunal or a body in which either a reconciliation can be brought about, for instance the Industrial Council, or a final decision through compulsory arbitration, if a reconciliation cannot be brought about. I hope the hon. the Minister will have something to say during the no-confidence debate about his department and his views on state administration, but I should like to appeal to him to tell us and the public servants on that occasion, should it present itself, that new things are being planned and that one of these is a fixed, stable, unshakable bargaining power between the State on the one hand and the public servant on the other. This would be more effective as a first step towards restoring confidence than an an increase in salaries. A salary increase is a temporary measure. By the end of the year that 12% or 15% increase will be lost as a result of the increase in the cost of living, but if there is a body which can solve the problem between the two contending parties, which have conflicting interests, fairly and judiciously, it would eventually contribute a great deal to restoring confidence.

Mr. Speaker, it is not really my intention this afternoon to react to the speech made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

That is a pity.

Right at the outset I was rather worried because some of the hon. members laughed. I did not join in the laughter, however, because I do not like laughing at an old man when he begins to become a fool. I must concede, however, that the hon. member has had considerable experience of show business, and sometimes he still tries to get up to some of his old tricks here in this House.

I was born that way.

As for the serious part of his speech, in which he referred to the public servants, I am in no position to judge, nor do I wish to express an opinion on matters which I do not know much about. In my opinion the public servants’ organization is itself capable of addressing their representations to the Minister concerned and to the Government.

They are publishing it.

I believe that the Minister in question, when he participates in this debate, will reply comprehensively to the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

I want to come back briefly to the hon. member for Durban Point. We on this side of the House wish to welcome him and his party back to the Republic, for judging from certain sections of his speech it was not always clear whether he had in fact been in the Republic recently. He told us that his party was now, after difficult times, heading for better days. I find it significant that the only news contribution which the hon. member and his party made during the past few days was to give out the information that he had gotten rid of certain of his most loyal supporters of the past—that he had not got rid of them voluntarily, but had in fact driven them out. Because those well-balanced members were prepared to act in the interests of South Africa, because they put the interests of South Africa above the narrow party-political interests of the NRP, they were driven out of that party. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban Point also made the astounding remark that this Government had been clinging to power for too long. But what does he want? I think it would be something exceptional in world history, in any democratic state—I myself know of nothing like it—if a democratic party were to endeavour to be removed from office. It is the normal task of any democratic party to do everything in its power, within the framework of its principles and policy, to be retained as the government of the day. This Government and its party, under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister, has succeeded extremely well in this object. There is another reason, too, why the NP has been governing South Africa continuously for such a long time. What is the reason? It is simply because the voters of South Africa trust this Government with the future of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I also listened attentively to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. However, I want to take it amiss of him for having referred in his criticism of the Government to the President’s Council and the recommendations made by the President’s Council, a body with which the official Opposition wanted to have nothing to do.

Nor did you.

And we assume that this still applies today. He referred to certain recommendations made by the President’s Council on District Six and Pageview, and said the recommendations had been “mild”. He then reproached the Government by saying that surely the Government could have accepted those recommendations in order to prove its bona fides to the President’s Council. What is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition implying by suggesting that? Surely he is suggesting to the hon. the Prime Minister and to the rest of the Government that if there should be a proposal with which we do not agree, we should be dishonest towards our own convictions and accept the proposals, in order to achieve a different object. [Interjections.] Surely that is what he said. The Government did not refuse to accept those proposals of the President’s Council in their entirety simply in order to be difficult or to scuttle the President’s Council, which this Government had brought into existence. If it had been possible for the Government to have accepted those recommendations in their entirety, I take it—and so would any person in his right mind—that the Government would have been only too pleased to do so. However, to expect a Nationalist government in particular to be dishonest or disloyal to what it itself believes in, is in my opinion asking too much, and I hope that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will never do so again.

In the course of his speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred contemptuously—and I with to take this amiss of him—to the fact that the solution for South Africa does not lie in “legislative assemblies in the bush”. Those were his words. He did not qualify them. The only reference one can make is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was referring to the Transkei, the Ciskei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. We should like to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the members of his party whether the attitude of the official Opposition is, as we suspect, one of boundless contempt for the actual elected Black leaders of independent Black States in Southern Africa. It would seem to me that that contempt is reversed for certain elected Black leaders. We hear from the official Opposition every day that the Black man should be given the opportunity to bring forward their people by way of a democratic process, but when this happens within the context of NP policy, the leaders who were elected democratically by their own people, are held in contempt and disparaged, by the official Opposition as well. We find this repeatedly.

In one respect, though, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—I do not know whether he meant to do so—gave the hon. the Prime Minister a testimonial. In the course of his speech he said that certain members of the media and certain columnists had drawn certain unjustified inferences from the statements of the hon. the Prime Minister. If I understood him correctly, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that the present hon. Prime Minister had never said that he would overthrow NP principles. This is in effect what he said and this is the testimonial which he gave the hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon, for in his appeal to our people—to our own people as well—that we must make adjustments, the present hon. the Prime Minister never once put forward as a condition that NP principles would be thrown overboard. I wish to concede that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is correct on that score. Newspaper commentators and others who read into the changes which are being advocated by the NP Government the overthrow of the principles of the NP and who set this as a condition, are reading into those statements something which does not exist there. This is a fact. The NP and, I believe, the present hon. the Prime Minister and the present Government are not prepared to overthrow the principles of our party.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition told us that we in South Africa should base our planning for the future on the realities of the day. I think that is a commonplace. But what are the realities of the day? The realities of the day—and we cannot say this frequently enough—are that we are dealing with various nations in Southern Africa. While the official Opposition, as I understand it, are obsessed by the rights and privileges of the individual, the NP also recognizes the reality that the highest justice can only be done to the individual within his own ethnic context, that the individual, cannot detach himself from his ethnic context either. Surely it is a reality not only in South Africa but in the whole of Africa that where one has different nations living side by side, it has become apparent that integration or intermixing of those nations has never been a solution in Africa. Surely this has led to conflict, time and again, unless one creates machinery that enables each nation to realize itself to the fullest extent in its own circle. That is why it has always been the endeavour of the NP to accord each nation in South Africa the highest degree of sovereignty over its own affairs. It is my conviction that this standpoint keeps pace with the realities of South Africa. Therefore, if we are expected to surrender this standpoint, it is expecting too much of us. We have frequently listened to the young Leader of the Opposition, we have frequently listened to his motions of no confidence here in this House and also to his speeches on the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, and I concede that it is probably customary that in a debate such as this it is the privilege of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to attack the Government and to enumerate the short comings of the Government as he sees them, but I think it is time—I think it is high time—the hon. the Leader of the Opposition told us once and for all what he and his party are offering South Africa. What have we had from them so far? A national convention! The national convention they are proposing, to which they wish to invite us as well, is an unset table. One will not know in advance what the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or of his party is. One will have to try to find out at that national convention what their standpoint is and then try to arrive at a consensus. In all honesty I must concede that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition told us last year that common citizenship, as far as he was concerned, was not negotiable. I do not know whether they have changed their minds in the meantime. Even if they hold their national convention, the table of South Africa has already been set by history. We cannot accept that we can simply wish away history and the realities of the present. Separate nations, each with its own aspirations, yes, each with its own prejudices, too—and I am not ashamed to say this—are realities which one has to take into account. If one wishes to change, one has to take those realities into account. If one leaves those realities out of the reckoning and then tries to effect a change, one is going to have chaos. What I also find disconcerting about the statements, not of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but of certain young members sitting in the back benches of the official Opposition, is the impression which I gain that their point of departure is not what South Africa is dealing with today, that their point of departure is not the constitutional dispensation as we have in South Africa today. The impression I gain is increasingly that they first wish to destroy everything which exists today and then wish to try to build up a new dispensation out of the ashes, according to their pattern. Inevitably one gains the impression that those people are not prepared or are not in favour of evolutionary development. I maintain that it is time the official Opposition spelt out for us in this House as well where they wish to go with South Africa. They do not participate in the President’s Council nor do they want to participate. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred obliquely to Press reports implying that there was friction between the Government and the President’s Council. The NP submitted its proposals to the President’s Council for consideration. Surely that is a fact. But what I find so comical now is that if a national leader dares to express an opinion on a possible future dispensation for Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics, the following reproach is hurled at that leader: “What are you doing with the President’s Council? You are anticipating it.” But if the national leader does not do this, we get the reproach which we heard here this afternoon, i.e. “You are dragging your feet. What have you actually done?” But surely the Opposition cannot have the best of both worlds. This Government, with the co-operation of the NRP, established the President’s Council, not to make a final decision, but to deliberate and to prefer advice for consideration, ultimately by this House as well. That is why I think we as Nationalists, and perhaps the hon. members of the NRP as well, can debate matters among ourselves, but I personally think it would perhaps be inadvisable to anticipate possible recommendations of the President’s Council at this stage. The official Opposition does not participate in the President’s Council.

Then they may not discuss it.

They want to discuss it, and do discuss it when it suits them. Why does the official Opposition not come forward and spell out for us how it sees the future?

I reiterate: South Africa and the voters of South Africa have repeatedly returned this Government to office for one simple reason, i.e. because the voters of South Africa have confidence in this Government and believe that it will preserve, nurture and protect its special group identity. This is the main reason why this Government has repeatedly been returned to office by the voters of South Africa. A further related reason is that this Government has inspired in the voters of South Africa the confidence that it will not only nurture, preserve and protect the interests of the Whites but that it may also be trusted with the interests of every other population group in this country. This afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition told us again that this Government offers no hope for the future, but I wish to state that this Government and the policy and principles of the NP offer Southern Africa the hope that we will not deal here with conflicting nationalisms that wish to devour one another, but with nationalisms that wish to co-operate in the respective interests of all.

Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member for Barberton has made much of the story that this Government has been returned to power time and time again by the voters of South Africa. That is perfectly true, but it begs the question of precisely who the voters of South Africa are. This is one of the greatest problems that stares South Africa in the face today, because those voters are in fact a small White minority of the total population of South Africa. Simply because a majority of that minority has confidence in this Government does not for one minute mean that the majority of people in this country have confidence in the Government that is before us here today. He mentioned during the course of his speech homeland Governments and their independence and the fact that we on these benches do not see this as a solution to the problems of South Africa. I want to say to that hon. member that since 1976 we have had a number of areas taking their independence from South Africa. I want to ask that hon. member whether we are actually any nearer to a solution of our problems than we were in 1976. If those hon. members think that we are closer to a solution then I think that we must go back to what the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development, Dr. Connie Mulder, said during debate in this House. During the past session I asked the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development on many occasions whether he agreed with this statement and he did not reply once to that question. I am referring to this statement: When all the Black homelands have taken their independence—if that indeed ever happens—is it true that there will then not be one Black citizen of South Africa? The answer is obviously “yes”. That is obviously what this Government is aiming at. The only way that they can solve their problems is to claim on spurious grounds that there are no longer any Black citizens in South Africa. Does that Government really believe that we can solve our problems by offering 70% of our population less than 14% of our total land and on this basis asking them to give up their full citizenship of South Africa? [Interjections.] That is no solution at all and it will never be a solution to our problems.

It is patently obvious that all hope of real reform is dead because the NP, according to that hon. member, will not depart from its principles. However, one also has to ask them what those principles are. I say this because it is patently obvious—and I shall deal with this again later in my speech—that this Government has no plan for the future of South Africa and is waiting for the President’s Council to produce such a plan. I shall deal more fully with this subject later.

This is now the fifth no-confidence debate that I have listened to in this House and I find very little reason to believe that we have made any progress during this period of time. What has changed since 1978? Are we better off now than we were in 1978? There are many other questions one could ask. Are we any closer now to a solution than we were then? A very important question is whether race relations have improved since that date. Are we any closer to a solution in South West Africa? Are we better off economically? Are our social problems such as housing backlogs being solved? Are there fewer incidents of terrorism and violence than there were in 1978? Are we better off administratively? These and many other questions can be asked and to almost all of them the answer has to be a very definite “no”. In 1978 we had a man as Prime Minister who had constitutional proposals. He had a plan which he put to this country. He went to the country in a general election in 1977 with that plan. Today we have an hon. Prime Minister who has no plan that he has divulged to South Africa. He has created hopes of reform and yet he has done very little about them. South Africa drifts rudderless on a sea with that oft-quoted wind of change steadily increasing in strength. The seas are building up and becoming more and more stormy and our ship of State is manned by an unbelievably motley collection of officers whose ineptitude in some cases is almost beyond belief. I think of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications commonly called “Flinkdink Smit”. I think also of the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare who is now known as “Twenty rand Munnik”. I think of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development who is better known as “Crossroads Koornhof”. Then there is the hon. the Minister of Justice, better known as “Cool ’em off Coetsee”. The latest addition to this list is the hon. the Minister of Police. Unfortunately, because of the ruling by the Chair, I am not able to tell the House what he is known as today …

He is a bush-baby.

… but there is no doubt for him South Africa also has a nickname. The total crew of this particular ship of State are unhappy and they are giving ultimatums to the Government— the hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to this in his speech. They need pay increases. They find that they are worse off than in 1978. The vast majority of the passengers of this ship, the ordinary South Africans, have, as I said earlier, no confidence in the Government, but they have no say. Those who try to have a say—a number of them have tried—are gaoled without trial and for long periods of time to cool off. There is no judicial justification whatsoever for this.

I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question. We have had tabled today the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Mass Media. In this report there is a recommendation that interests me enormously. It is contained on page 97 of Volume I. I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he accepts this recommendation of the so-called Steyn Commission—

Does the hon. the Prime Minister accept that recommendation? I want to ask him again: Does he accept the recommendation that detention and banning orders be subject to judicial review? There is no answer.

You will receive the reply to that. Just continue with your speech in the meantime.

In the fact that there is no answer we find full reason for my stating that I have no confidence in the Government.

There are two aspects in particular with which I should like to deal today. Both have to do with deteriorating race relations. The first has to do with apartheid or separate development—call it what you will, even good neighbourliness. There are many names for it; the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development is always inventing new ones.

We have just come through a Christmas season. I think we should rather have called it a White Christmas season. It is supposed to be a time of peace and goodwill towards men. In South Africa, as we all know, it is the summer holiday season of sun and sea and beaches. To illustrate my point I want to tell the House that a couple of weeks ago I went with my wife to a beach at Sardinia Bay near Port Elizabeth. Sardinia Bay has a very large beach. When I left that beach, there, standing on the tarred road overlooking that beach were five little children, Black children, aged from six to ten—that sort of age. Next to them was that revolting sign “Whites Only” on that beach. It is a White beach and there they stood watching the little White children enjoying themselves on the beach while they were not able to go there. This is a semi-rural area where there are plots of 20 to 30 acres. These people live in that area and they have no chance of being taken to the nearest Black beach; the only way they can get there is on their feet.

What is the effect of this type of situation? It is that those little children are not able to use the beaches that are provided not by the Government but by a very much higher authority. I believe that during the Christmas season hundreds of Blacks were chased off beaches throughout South Africa. We have figures for Port Elizabeth and they indicate that during the holiday season some 28 people were charged with having been on a beach illegally while some 260 were warned and asked to move. This happened in the Cape Peninsula area, in the East London area, in the Port Elizabeth area—it happened throughout the country.

It never happened in the Transvaal. [Interjections.]

While the police were being tied up with this kind of complaint there were no fewer than five muggings in central Port Elizabeth between 5 and 13 January 1982. In other words, within a period of eight days no fewer than five muggings occurred in central Port Elizabeth but the police are tied up with trying to ensure that our beaches remain for Whites only. The Government’s policy is—we know it and they always give it as their excuse,— that we must have separate but equal facilities. Let us however look at some figures from the Week-end Post of 9 January. Let us again look at these separate but equal facilities in the Port Elizabeth area. The Indian population—there, are apparently about 5 300 of them—have 500 metres of beach exclusively for their use. The Coloured people—they are in excess of 116 000—have the use of 6 km of coastline of which two kilometres of coast is unsuitable for family recreation because of the sea wall. The 223 000 Black people of Port Elizabeth are very fortunate in that they have the exclusive use of two kilometres of beach of which one kilometre is allocated on a temporary basis!

The White population which totals about 155 000 has the exclusive use of 28,4 km of coastline. This is separate but equal! I do not plead for anything other than that in this wonderful country of ours we should be able to share the facilities that God has given us. Areas should not be departmentalized or compartmentalized so that little children, like mine or yours, are not allowed to go to their closest beach because of the policies of this Government. I believe this is scandalous.

I want to raise another point which is equally scandalous. I want the hon. the Minister of Education and Training to listen very carefully to this point which has to do with Government ineptitude. It affects fewer people than beach apartheid does but for those concerned it is an extremely serious matter. A report in the Eastern Province Herald of 10 December 1981 came to my attention. The report concerned a Mrs. Sindiswa Dondolo who lives in Kwazakele. She is a teacher. This teacher had not been paid her salary, according to her own report in the Herald, by the Department of Education and Training since May 1981. She had therefore gone without her salary for seven months. I do not know whether she has yet been paid. I quote from the Herald—

I quote further—

We now come to what the Government and its officials have said in regard to this. I quote—

I quote further—

I believe this is very bad indeed. They are aware of the situation that somebody has not been paid for seven months and yet nothing has been done about it. I believe this is scandalous. Because I was so worried about the personal circumstances of this poor lady, and others, I gave a statement to the Press saying that I was prepared to take up this type of case on behalf of these people with the Minister.

Here I have copies of some of the letters that I have written. One lady commenced duty on 5 October 1981. From that date to this, in spite of repeated requests, she has received no salary. Another lady, who is a teacher at a higher primary school, has not been paid her salary from 5 October 1981 to date. So it goes on, letter after letter after letter. The hon. the Minister has had them all. He has acknowledged receipt of most of them. Some of them have only been written during the last few days. He therefore may not have received them yet.

The first letter was written on 14 December, which is in excess of seven weeks ago. Yet, from that date to this, I have not had a reply from the hon. the Minister indicating that the matter has been settled, that these people have been paid their salaries.

I should like to ask hon. members to imagine themselves in the situation of a person who does not get paid his salary. They must put themselves in that situation, a situation of not receiving their salaries for seven or eight months. They should imagine what their financial position would be. They would probably have to borrow money, which would, in turn, cost them extra money in terms of interest. They might even be sued by their creditors. I do not believe it is sufficient for this hon. Minister simply to pay them their arrear salaries. I believe they also have to be paid additional funds to make up for the poor situation in which they have found themselves over quite a long period. It has obviously cost them money—instalments arrears, interest—sums of money which they have had to borrow. And these people—let us face that—are not the best off people. I believe the hon. the Minister must give his attention to this as a matter of urgency. Imagine the plight of these people. Sir. Imagine the upheaval if the same thing had happened to the White civil servants. Imagine what would have happened, Sir, if they had not been paid their salaries over a period of seven or eight months. Imagine too how many people are being affected by this administrative bungling. Imagine how many Black teachers are in this same position.

I am certain, as I stand here, that what I have here is but a fraction of the total problem in relation to the payment of Black teachers’ salaries. What about the dependants of these teachers? Is this the way to encourage Blacks to become teachers? I believe that this demonstrates administrative bungling and uncaring incompetence causing me to have absolutely no confidence whatsoever in this Government. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, one should think that any competent Minister who had this state of affairs brought to his attention would see to its rectification immediately. I hope therefore that this hon. Minister will tell me shortly…

[Inaudible.]

I should like to ask him across the floor of the House whether these matters have been settled. Have these people received their salaries? Has the hon. the Minister overcome the problems involved?

I shall reply to all those questions. [Interjections.]

I shall get a reply. I am very delighted to hear that. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I shall be hearing those replies during this debate.

I should like to come now to another matter in connection with reform in South Africa. There was a statement made by the hon. the Minister of Sport, in May 1981, in which he said that in view of problems which the Government was experiencing in the field of sport he would amend three Acts which, he believed, were causing South Africa to have a bad image in the sporting world. He stated that this was a matter which should be settled in the very near future. I have that very statement in front of me, and I should like to read out parts of what was said in that statement. It is said in the statement that the committee for legal matters of the HSRC’s investigation into sport had thoroughly investigated certain aspects and had recommended that certain legal provisions which were related to sport and which had by virtue of the accepted principle of sport autonomy become obsolete, and which were at present being used as an instrument to harm South Africa’s image, both locally and abroad, should be amended. It is therefore obvious that that hon. Minister is aware that these are being used as instruments to cause harm to South Africa and damage the good name of our country. And this will concern all of us, whatever side of the House we are on, because the last thing that we want is to damage the good name of South Africa. This was in May 1981, and the three Acts concerned were the Liquor Act, the Group Areas Act and the Black (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act.

We are aware that during the last session of Parliament there were certain amendments to the Liquor Act. We are also aware that they went further than the Government had gone before, and at the time appreciated and welcomed this to a degree. However, neither the Group Areas Act nor the Black (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act has been altered, and yet it is the opinion of the hon. the Minister who is responsible for sport that they are causing harm to South Africa. Sir, when are we going to move in the direction of the reform that the hon. the Prime Minister has promised us? I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of National Education whether he will introduce amending legislation during this session to rectify the situation, because we all know that sports bodies constantly have to make application to international sports bodies to be re-admitted to international sport. However, these particular Acts on our Statute Book hamper their efforts enormously. On behalf of sport in South Africa and of all South Africans I therefore plead with the hon. the Minister to do away with the onerous provisions of these Acts in an effort to normalize sport in South Africa.

I think I have, during the past 20 minutes, given ample reason for saying that this party and I in particular have no confidence in this Government, and I totally support the motion of the hon. Leader of the official Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should just like to make a short statement on behalf of the Government in connection with the Commission of Inquiry into the Mass Media, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Steyn, which was tabled today.

Within a relatively short period of time the commission brought out a voluminous and comprehensive report which deserves and requires thorough study and consideration. It is no simple matter on which the Government can reply with a “yes” or a “no”. The inquiry was concerned with the calibre of the services rendered by the mass media under circumstances of national peril, a subject with numerous facets, and one hedged round with profound differences of opinion and standpoints. In addition it is of urgent public interest; consequently reflection and deliberation cannot be allowed to drag on indefinitely. In this respect the Government wishes to set an example. In my policy statement on the Press—and I wish to include the other mass media—on 20 April 1979, I described the mass media as follows—

I said this in my statement on the Press. I went on to say—

My standpoint was and still is that all our authorities are in duty bound to be open and above board with the public, and for that reason the Press, as the principal information scandal—I mean “channel” … [Interjections]

I hear you!

We have heard so much about scandals this afternoon that one has to overstep the mark occasionally. As I was saying, the Press, as the principal information channel, also has that obligation, but only as far as it is reconcilable with the normal rules of confidentiality and with the security of and the order within the State.

The Steyn Commission emphasizes with conclusive evidence the full-scale communist-inspired onslaught on the Republic of South Africa. I shall deal with this further tomorrow. There is certain information and acts in connection with the threat which cannot be made public. This is clearly apparent from the commission’s report. The primary task and responsibility of the Government is to ensure the security of the State and its citizens, as far as humanly possible, but then it must be possible to deal with certain information on a confidential and secret level. The Steyn Commission expresses certain opinions on the handling of information by various State organs and on restrictive legislation in this connection. To the extent to which this critical view is found to be well grounded, the Government will try to put a process of rectification into operation. Besides the administrative action a Cabinet Committee will go into the advisability of statutory amendments and consolidation to facilitate the flow of official information to the media—that is to say, to the public. We have already done a great deal in this connection. In the South African Defence Force, for example, instruments have been created over the years to enable liaison with the Press to take place. Similar instruments have been created in the Police, and State Information has been reorganized to enable liaison with the Press to take place. In so far as the commission proposes a structural change in the Information Service, I must point out that the present arrangement is the result of the first phase of rationalization, and that I consequently do not wish to make any changes to it. As far as ministerial responsibility for the SABC is concerned, the present arrangement is working satisfactorily because all Ministers are in any event accountable to the Prime Minister.

In my statement I referred in the second place to the obligation of service which rests on the Press, service to the country, to the public or, as the Steyn Commission calls it, “social responsibility”. In general the criticism which I levelled at the time at certain sections of the Press, and my observations on shortcomings in the Press’s own machinery for self-discipline are fully confirmed by the findings of the commission. The commission exposed conditions in connection with the media which require attention which is at least as urgent as that which the Government intends giving to shortcomings on the official side. It calls upon the media to undertake self-examination, as well as reflection and rectification in its own circles.

If the Government has obligations, the media also have obligations. Freedom without responsibility is no freedom; it is licence. The Government is in no way committed to the concept for a new media dispensation which the commission has submitted to us in the form of a Bill. From experience we know that any proposal in regard to legislation in connection with the Press, however reasonably it may be framed, immediately gives rise to almost hysterical reactions in some Press circles, and that distorted interpretations then find their way abroad, greatly to the detriment of the country.

Whether legislation, and if so which legislation, in connection with the mass media is necessary, is not a matter on which the Government wishes to decide unilaterally. Most reasonable people can agree with the general aims of the commission. On the best ways in which these aims are to be achieved, there must be in-depth consultation with the responsible media, and their organizations.

It is the intention of the Government to consult the Press Union and other parties involved on the findings and recommendations of the Steyn Commission. Together we must establish, as soon as possible, which changes are required to the present dispensation to help the mass media to carry out their vital task in a threatened community more satisfactorily and how best to counteract the pathological phenomena to which the public has increasingly objected.

I said in 1979 that we have the right to be proud of the large measure of freedom which the Press continues to enjoy here, despite the struggle for survival which is being forced upon civilization in Southern Africa. But I also wish to repeat my appeal which I made at the time with the utmost urgency: Let those who, in common with myself and the Government, value sound working relationships between the public, the Press and the authorities in South Africa, now offer their co-operation to help put an end to certain abuses which have become unbearable and a threat to the nation. There is no longer time for a prolonged debate which merely wastes time. Those who think they can make a positive contribution, must now act quickly. Another important report, i.e. the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Security Legislation, under the chairmanship of Judge of Appeal, Mr. Justice Rabie, will soon be tabled. That report will directly affect important aspects of the Steyn Report.

Consequently the Government is prepared to make time available, at a convenient date, for a special debate on the two reports. This can be arranged between the Whips, in consultation with the Leader of the House. On this occasion, and also when legislation arising out of the reports is being dealt with, further standpoints of the Government will be stated.

Because I should like to continue with my speech at a more convenient time, I now move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.