Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal briefly with one of the major problems with which the Government and South Africa have to cope, namely the circumstances surrounding South West Africa and its future. This problem has been greatly internationalized during recent years, partly as a result of the conflict situation created by Russian expansionist policies. The South African Government, in close consultation with the internal parties of South West Africa, is exploring, with the Government of the USA and other members of the group of five Western nations, ways and means of finding an internationally acceptable solution to the issues.

Progress has been made, but the lack of UN impartiality, with its inevitable influence on the holding of free and fair elections in the territory, is one of the most difficult obstacles. The UN General Assembly is apparently unable to extricate itself from its bias in favour of Swapo.

The Secretary-General of this world body will, however, have to prove his impartiality more clearly and explicitly. To achieve impartiality, the United Nations should place all contesting parties on a par. Moreover, the Secretary-General should also demonstrate his impartiality over a reasonable period of time to establish mutual trust and confidence.

Swapo has over the years aimed at seizing power in the territory by intimidation and by force of arms. Swapo intends to impose its will on the people of South West Africa at the point of a gun. The resistance of the people of the territory and the action taken by the South West Africa Territory Force, assisted by S.A. Defence Force units, have thus far thwarted Swapo’s designs. South Africa cannot accept any arrangement in the territory which would have the result of subordinating the people of South West Africa to a communist-controlled force imposed through the barrel of a gun. South Africa will not be a party to the creation of such tyranny.

We are determined as far as possible to seek solutions together with the United States of America and other members of the Five as well as any other countries who are sincerely concerned about the welfare of the people of South West Africa and their future. It is vital to the future peace, stability and development of South West Africa that guarantees should be considered, and not only in the form of promises, to ensure an independent judicial system, a free economy, property rights, regular elections and religious freedom for the peoples of South West Africa.

Furthermore, the South African Government has made it clear to the Five that the protection of minority rights should receive serious attention. This is fundamental. If those rights were not to be secured, what would the future hold for that territory?

Accusations are continually levelled against South Africa that we are exploiting South West Africa for our own selfish purposes and that the South African presence is the result of ulterior motives on our part. But what are the facts? They are exactly the opposite. I want to state explicitly that, as the situation exists today, South West Africa is an economic millstone around the neck of South Africa. It cannot, without the continued support of South Africa, hope to survive and develop properly.

What is more, Mr. Speaker, in assisting South West Africa the Republic of South Africa is forced to cut down on its own development programmes and assistance to its own people.

We are continuously requested to provide funds to wipe out deficits on the territory’s budget, and the South African Transport Services have to absorb the losses on the South West African side of their operations. Last year the South African Government voted, granted and guaranteed assistance totalling more than R600 million, excluding funds necessary for the security of South West Africa and its peoples.

If a situation of total estrangement between South Africa and South West Africa were to result, South West Africa would suffer immensely. The vacuum which would be left following South Africa’s departure would have to be filled. Who would do so? That question must be replied to by the international community. So far not one country has offered to provide assistance on the scale that South Africa has contributed.

In the past, South Africa has repeatedly been threatened with sanctions on the grounds of its attitude towards South West Africa. In spite of this South Africa has throughout firmly stood by its principles, and we intend to continue to do so in future.

*However, allow me to say—and here I am more specifically addressing the people of South West Africa itself—that irresponsible interference from the Republic of South Africa by people who are trying to create ill-feeling between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the inhabitants of South West Africa does not promote the interests of that territory and its people. These politics of the uninformed, who appear on the scene from time to time and who make all kinds of ill-advised proposals to the inhabitants of South West Africa, will help that territory out of the frying pan into the fire, for naturally these people do not know—and cannot know—about the struggle which is being waged for the peace, the security and the future of South West Africa. Therefore I must sound a serious warning against what I want to call political opportunists from the Republic of South Africa who cannot make any impression here and now trying to stir up feelings among the people there. Furthermore, I want to appeal to the parties in South West Africa to get their priorities right, because the fact remains that since the Second World War, no terrorist war has been waged anywhere on earth where the security forces have been so effective in keeping the terrorists outside the borders of that territory as in the case of South West Africa. [Interjections.] I think, therefore, that we owe a debt of gratitude to our security forces for an achievement which is virtually unique. However, there is something else that is required, and that is that the political action within the territory must be such that it will support the security forces and not constitute a threat to them behind their backs. For that reason I hope that the internal parties will so arrange their priorities that a victory which has so far been assured in the military sphere will be made possible in the political sphere as well.

I now wish to come to another finding in the report of the Steyn Commission, and that is the irrefutable proof, on the basis of the evidence given before the commission, and its consideration of it, of the totality of the onslaught on South Africa. When I was still Minister of Defence, I repeatedly pointed out, year after year, that totality of the onslaught on this country, and I have repeatedly done so since I became Prime Minister as well. Now this is confirmed by the Steyn Commission. On the basis of the evidence and proof submitted to it, the Steyn Commission confirms the fact that there is a total onslaught, i.e. not only an onslaught on South Africa in one particular field, but an onslaught which is calculated to remove this country from the sphere in which it has moved for centuries to another sphere, namely that of Marxism and of communism. When we stated this year after year, it was ridiculed. I do not want to make any reproaches at this stage, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will know that only last year it was still being ridiculed by people from his own ranks. Only last year this contention of ours was ridiculed. However, they are not the only ones to do so. It is also ridiculed by extra-parliamentary political movements which are not represented here. It is strange, however, that the disparaging remarks coming from the ranks of the official Opposition in fact resemble the way in which the total onslaught is ridiculed by the HNP. The question one asks oneself is this: Why is this disparaging attitude being adopted towards the established and irrefutable fact that a total onslaught is indeed being waged on Southern Africa and the Republic of South Africa? One can only come to one conclusion and that is that these people do not want to admit this, because if it were true, they would also have to start rearranging their own priorities.

The onslaught is a result of the expansionist policy of Soviet Russia and the so-called liberation struggle in which it joins forces with Black Power organizations and actually exploits Black nationalism for its own purposes. The fact remains that Soviet Russia has identified the Republic of South Africa as a target area. It has done so, not only because it has got its eye on us, but also because it wants to use us in the struggle against the West. The rationale lies in the strategic position and the mineral wealth of the RSA. Soviet Russia believes that if it can control the supply of oil from the Middle East and of minerals from South Africa to the West, it can dominate the West and force it to surrender. Therefore the struggle which Soviet Russia is helping to wage and is increasingly instigating in Southern Africa is one which has a bearing on its total onslaught on the West as well. Black Power organizations in South Africa believe that Blacks are being oppressed and will only achieve their aims through socio-political emancipation and through violence, and in this they are often recklessly supported by media which refuse to understand the struggle in which Southern Africa is engaged.

The totality of the onslaught is brought about by the combination of an interaction between the Soviet desire for world domination on the one hand and the struggle for political power by Black Power organizations on the other. They both make use of the same instruments. This is also proved in the report, and will continue to be proved hereafter: “The Soviet makes full use of the desire of Black Power organizations for so-called liberation, but its ultimate goal remains world domination.”

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he believes that if he came to power, Soviet Russia’s attempts to control Southern Africa would diminish.

Its success would diminish.

No, it would not diminish. Surely this proposition was tested in Zimbabwe. After all, the Smith regime in Zimbabwe was a Prog regime. [Interjections.]

You cannot help laughing yourself.

Let us test it. I personally asked the Prime Minister of Rhodesia at that time how he saw the future. He replied: “Full civil rights with a majority Government.”

But he wanted to do it over a period of a thousand years.

Sir, I am not talking to the upstart who has just chipped in. I am talking to grown-ups. The hon. member should now be quiet. He should rather go and put on a nappy.

I now ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: What is the difference between the full civil rights and majority government, which were advocated there, and what he advocates here? He can reply later, but I am telling him now that there is no difference in principle, and he must not try to tell me that he wants federation, for in that federation, the vote of the majority will also be the decisive factor, because the constituent elements will be dominated by it. And it did not work. It has already been tried and it did not give satisfaction to Soviet Russia. The basic mistake which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his kindred spirits make is that they want to out-Russia Russia. They want to out-communist the communists. They want to outbid the communists. You cannot do that. You have to have an alternative. You have to take a different course. You must not proceed from the same premise, because the communists will beat you at that game.

You must not use their methods either.

Wait a minute. I listened very attentively to your hon. Leader yesterday and did not interrupt him once. Please keep quiet until I have finished. Then you can cackle as much as you like.

I go further by saying that Russia makes use of surrogate forces, such as the ANC, which is now being mentioned in quite respectable terms in political company by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as a political party. I listened to his words yesterday. The ANC has suddenly become a political party. Since when has it been a political party? It is an instrument of the Communist Party and of Soviet Russia for subverting this country. Soviet Russia provides training, arms and expertise and the organizations are manipulated by the South African Communist Party, which is banned in this country, but which long ago infiltrated the command structures of the organization, and that is what the West should know. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition should be helping this Government to open the eyes of the West to this fact and should not be supporting the irresponsible elements behind him and to the left of him.

In the political sphere, which includes the psychological, spiritual, social and economic fields, the Soviet uses international front organizations, such as the anti-apartheid movements, trade unions and their umbrella organizations, as well as the Organization for African Unity. Internally, the Black Power organizations are used to stir up unrest and ill-feeling. The false perception of communism which prevails in some Western circles is that it is not so harmful and dangerous to humanity. This is fully exploited. A prominent Afrikaner who recently visited Germany tells me that he moved in university circles there, and he says that all they were talking about was South Africa’s oppression of its own population. So he asked them: “And what about your brothers on the other side of the wall? Why do you not talk about that?” He says they no longer talk about it because they have accepted it. It is not so terrible any more. Then he asked them: “And what about Poland?” They replied: Poland is used to being under a foreign yoke. It is that kind of laissez-faire attitude. He was shocked to hear this from people with whom he had been conducting these discussions over the years. He was disillusioned by this defeatist attitude which he encountered in some quarters in the West. By emphasizing only the negative aspects in South Africa and in the mass media overseas, and by always emphasizing only the negative aspects from the Opposition side towards the Government, we are playing into the hands of these forces that wish to remove South Africa from the sphere in which it finds itself today. I am warning the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: He is playing with fire. I say that because there is such a total onslaught, all patriots must actively help to prepare a total response, for this is an all-ambracing onslaught which therefore requires an all-embracing response.

I am honestly convinced that the solution is contained in the guidelines laid down in the 12-point plan which I submitted to my party’s congresses and which we put to the country last year by way of an election manifesto and on which we were given the mandate to proceed. With that 12-point plan we can find one another in this country, we can achieve peace in this country, we can build up proper relationships, we can protect minority rights, we can express our self-respect, we can show respect for one another, and we can preserve the spiritual values which are precious to us. In that 12-point plan is contained a blueprint for South Africa’s security and prosperity. In spite of subtle and camouflaged attempts to obstruct the implementation of that plan, as in the case of the Good Hope conference last year, we are nevertheless proceeding step by step, sometimes in the face of opposition, sometimes in the face of obstacles, towards its realization. When we said, arising from the Carlton conference, that we were going to take further steps to consult with the private sector, and not only to consult with it, but to conduct open discussions and to establish machinery by means of which we can continuously remain in contact with one another, and when we announced the Good Hope conference here in Cape Town, disparaging and sometimes subtle attempts were made by some of the media and by certain politicians to ensure the failure of that conference. Up to a week before it was due to take place, one article after another appeared in which people went so far as to tell the business people: Do not participate in this conference; confront the Prime Minister. That attempt was a dismal failure. We had 600 community leaders and business people, some of the best in South Africa, assembled here, and we talked frankly with one another. We were not afraid to tell one another the truth. Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that we are talking at cross purposes. We talked to one another and we understood exactly where each one stood. But we also left there with the intention of co-operating with regard to those things which we agreed about. Therefore what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is saying is absolute nonsense. He is delivering himself of a platitude when he says that we are talking at cross purposes. He has sucked it out of his thumb. That conference was characterized by frank exchanges between the Government and leaders from the private sector. It was a success. I am getting letters from the most prominent business leaders and community leaders. Those letters are on file in my office. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would like to sample the selection, I shall show it to him. I do not suppose he will like it very much.

This is part of the 12-point plan, but it is much more: It forms part of the preparation of South Africa’s response to this total onslaught on the country. In the first place, I was able to spell out to that conference what had been achieved since the Carlton Conference. The private sector now knows what it can expect of the Government, firstly in respect of co-operation with self-governing and independent Black national States. As the late Mr. P. A. Malan used to say, I also want to say “in parentheses”: I think it is a contemptible remark, coming from a person in the responsible position of the Leader of the Opposition, to refer to the Governments of Black States as “assemblies in the bush”. I think it is contemptible. [Interjections.] I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ought to be ashamed of himself, because one does not refer in that way to people who have been elected by their own people. After all, those persons did not attain their positions through appointments made for some unknown reason, as certain media writers did. Those persons were chosen by people who have a sense of pride. Surely those persons attained their position because of their status as leaders in their own communities.

Like Mphephu.

Buthelezi is one of them as well.

Including Mphephu, of course. In many respects he is more of a leader than that hon. member. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, this shows one the complete intolerance of the liberals. That hon. member has the temerity to tell the Black people who their leaders should be. Who is she? She is not even a leader in her own community. [Interjections.] I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should know better, because he is an intelligent and upright person. I think that if he reflects for a moment, he will be ashamed of what he has said. [Interjections.]

In the second place, the private sector knows what to expect of the Government in respect of regional development and the decentralization of industries. These concepts of regional development and the decentralization of industries are not based on racial prejudice; they have nothing to do with colour prejudice. It is the same direction that is being followed in countries such as America, Sweden, Britain and others, in order to achieve economically balanced growth and to counteract excessive concentration at certain points. The private sector knows where it stands with the Government in this respect. It knows that this is not just a plan. It knows what the Government is prepared to spend on this, i.e. R100 million. It knows how the Government has selected its areas. It knows what benefits the Government wishes to grant, but that is not all. The Government has asked the private sector: Give us your opinion on our proposals, and they are working on it. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says, however, that we are talking at cross-purposes. Just like that. He simply makes a statement; he is just talking through his hat.

In the third place, the private sector knows about the creation of deconcentration points as well as industrial development points in 20 centres which are removed from the metropolitan areas. They know exactly where they stand with the Government and where the Government is helping to create advantages for them. The whole programme which is being launched on 1 April 1982 also includes new incentives that have been announced.

I also took a very clear stand on another matter which the Black States as well as the private sector wanted to know about as a matter of importance. That is that the Government is not going to deviate from its consolidation plans for the national States. We have given them the undertaking that clarity will be achieved this year concerning the proposed finalizing of this matter. Even if it takes longer to finalize it, we shall clarify the matter. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says we are talking at cross-purposes.

This policy, as well as other measures to which I have referred, will have an effect on a more balanced economy as well as on urban development and management. It is interesting to listen to what a prominent investor in South Africa had to say in this connection. I am referring to a speech made by Dr. Von Koerber, the managing director of BMW in South Africa. He is a foreigner whose firm is investing a lot of money in South Africa. It is interesting to listen to the following two paragraphs in his speech. He referred to the Good Hope conference which had taken place in Cape Town and said—

He welcomes this. He goes on to say—

He goes on in this vein, endorsing the attempts we are making to encourage decentralization. This is the reaction I am getting from many of our economic and industrial leaders. They tell me that we are taking the right course; they are going to support and assist us.

However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that the Government does not plan. According to him, the Government consists of a hopeless lot.

Hear, hear!

He skims over the matter of decentralization in order to get to something else which is funny. Why has the hon. the Leader of the Opposition become so superficial? What has happened to him? Is he keeping the wrong company? [Interjections.]

At this conference I did not hesitate either to deal with the present state of affairs in the South African economy as far as the Government was concerned. I put my cards on the table—the hon. members can read my speech if they like—and I did not conceal anything from them or avoid discussing the difficult matters with them. I referred to the deficit on our balance of payment. It is true that there is a decline in the gold price. There are recessionary conditions in the countries that are our trading partners. It is also true that we are heading for financial difficulties. This, too, I discussed with them. I asked the private sector to exercise self-discipline, and I promised them that the Government would exercise self-discipline. I pointed out that the current account of the State had dropped from 17% of the gross domestic product in 1980 to 13%, while substantial relief had been granted in income and other taxes. We discussed these matters with them.

I want to say emphatically and with great responsibility today that while our political enemies want to make 1982 the year of sanctions against the Republic of South Africa— they have already decided on this and are already propagating the idea among certain Members of Parliament in Europe, while the UN supports it—the public as well as the private sector must try to find common ground as far as possible in order to make 1982 a year of further planning, consolidation and preparation for further growth. Our reply to these boycott plans must be to gain strength from them and not to score political debating points off one another, as some people attempted to do here yesterday. We must stand united as South Africans and say: We shall have our differences amongst ourselves, but we will not allow ourselves to be economically broken. Fortunately there are many places in the country where the infrastructure is available for enabling decentralization and deconcentration to take place, so that even if we did exercise self-discipline, there would still be these points where the infrastructure would be available to enable us to proceed with this policy.

A serious attempt is also being made at the moment to have development committees established throughout the country, with the intention of eventually helping to promote the National Development Plan. After the Good Hope conference, which, as I say, was a success, we are presently awaiting the comment of 33 regional development committees—some of it has already been received—concerning our proposals to that conference. Comment is also being obtained from the TBVC countries—the independent States—and final technical talks will be held with them between 11 February and 22 February. The Economic Advisory Council has been asked to start considering the comments of bodies such as the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, Assocom, the Chamber of Industries, the S.A. Agricultural Union, Seifsa and others on 26 February, in order to ensure that we make a concerted effort in planning and co-ordination and to ensure the necessary co-operation so that the private sector may contribute its share in this forward-looking undertaking which the Government has initiated. Regional development advisory committees with broad representation on a national regional development council are presently being prepared. In other words, we are not inactive, and it is not true to say that this Government is not doing anything. That was a lot of nonsense which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was talking. He was talking without having consulted his book.

In March this year, meetings will take place on the ministerial level with neighbouring countries, national States and TBVC countries in order to consolidate this planning further. Further talks are also being held with semi-public bodies in order to involve them in this great undertaking. Therefore I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition where he gets these slanderous stories from.

I do not wish to refer again to the Small Business Development Corporation which has been launched, or to the Development Bank, since I explained at the Good Hope conference why we had not yet proceeded to establish them.

I want to make special mention here today of the sustained contribution made by our agricultural industry in providing food for our country and its people. I think our agricultural industry deserves the thanks of this House for what it is accomplishing. South Africa is one of the few countries in the world which is able to feed itself while still exporting food to a starving world, while still exporting food to a starving Africa.

We also have to import certain things.

Of course. But what country does not import anything? Even the country from which the hon. member’s ancestors came has to import certain things.

What about dairy products? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am not descending to the level of a cow’s udder. I am discussing food production in general. If the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is interested in drinking milk, therefore, or if he wants to milk some cow or other, he is at liberty to do so. [Interjections.]

In spite of natural problems and rising costs, which cannot be blamed on the Government but which have been imported, the rising costs which are often caused by factors abroad, we owe our agricultural industry a debt of gratitude. I want to refer in particular to the willingness of organized agriculture and its practical contributions towards improving agriculture and the utilization of land in our neighbouring states.

Hear, hear!

Our agricultural leaders are not only prepared to do this. Some of them have already made practical contributions by helping to place the utilization of land and the development of agriculture in our neighbouring states on a sounder footing.

And there is not a single Prog amongst them. Not a single one. [Interjections.]

Allow me to point out that it is also in the interests of our economy that science and technology be promoted. If this is not done, our country will not prosper. The latest survey of resources devoted to research and development shows that the State continues to finance almost 50% of the expenditure on research and development. In this connection, too, the Republic of South Africa is the leader in Africa. In spite of that, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition belittles our efforts. Between 1979 and 1980, the public sector spent R148 million on research and development, the business sector spent R103 million, and the tertiary sector spent R47 million, while non-profit-making sectors spent R3,3 million. The Republic of South Africa’s figure of R302 million a year—that is the total figure—is in glaring contrast to the second highest figure in Africa, that of Egypt—a figure of R85 million. Surely these are things which should be mentioned to the credit of one’s own country. Surely these are things with which one can enhance the name and image of one’s country. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stands here like a Jeremiah of old, only much weaker. [Interjections.] He has become a real writer of Jeremiads. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude my remarks in this connection with an emphatic statement, and I should like the price sector and the investors of money in South Africa to take cognizance of this. I want to state emphatically that the Government is determined to overcome our present economic setbacks. They are of a temporary nature, and we are determined to overcome them. This temporary recession is being thoroughly dealt with by the Government and its advisers. Our country’s economy remains basically sound, but everyone—the State, the private sector, employers and employees—can make a contribution if we have the will to put our country first.

At the Good Hope conference I made a serious plea on behalf of the Government for excessive and exploitative profit-making to be avoided. I hope it will meet with a response and that that warning will not go unheeded. In fact, we are not going to leave it at that; we are going to follow it up. There is unnecessary profit-making in this country, and if the private sector wishes to promote and maintain the free enterprise system in the country, it must itself take steps to ensure that excessive profit-making is put a stop to. [Interjections.]

I also pointed out that the State did not have unlimited means available for meeting wage and salary demands. The State simply does not possess such means, and we cannot go on exhausting Government resources by acceding to unreasonable demands, and then expect the country to prosper in the long run. Therefore I exhorted the private as well as the public sector to act with moderation.

The Government greatly appreciates the work done by our officials. The officials know that I personally have great appreciation for it. The hon. member who spoke about them yesterday does not have to tell me this. [Interjections.] It is true that the officials of South Africa are continually being subjected to all kinds of unfair accusations. During the Good Hope conference, however, I defended them and said this state could not be governed in an orderly manner without them. I want Parliament to take cognizance of this. However, Government expenditure cannot be allowed to escalate unchecked. The Ministers of Transport Affairs, of Posts and Telecommunications and of State Administration will make further announcements concerning the remuneration of State employees in due course. I do not intend to do so here today, nor is this the time or the place for such announcements.

The Economic Advisory Council took a very important decision some time ago, and I should like to place it on record—

I should like to endorse this. In view of this year’s difficult financial problems, which we believe are of a temporary nature, I feel that everyone who is at all able to make a sacrifice when it comes to higher remuneration should set an example. I therefore approached my Cabinet colleagues, and other persons who fall in similar salary brackets, on behalf of the Government. As a result, I am now able to make an announcement in this House on behalf of my Cabinet colleagues and other persons in comparable posts in the public sector by saying that we are going to make a personal sacrifice this year. We pay high taxes. Some of the media publicize the remuneration of Ministers, but they fail to add what the taxes on those salaries are. They are not honest enough to say that. They are only too inclined to keep publicizing the Prime Minister’s salary, with only one end in view, and that is to make a personal attack on him, because they cannot attack him in any other way. Fortunately I am above such things. My colleagues and I have taken a decision about the consequential percentage increases to which we are entitled this year and which must be granted to preserve the equilibrium of the structural increases, for when it comes to salary increases, one cannot allow one’s structure to be distorted and one’s pensions to become chaotic. With all this in mind, my Cabinet colleagues and I have decided that the consequential increases to which we are entitled this year will not be paid out to us, but will be used to promote some deserving State enterprise. [Interjections.] We seriously intend to help fight inflation.

Do not worry, Hendrik. You will just have to eat more “mieliepap”.

Already there are signs that we may succeed if we make a concerted effort. I hope our example will be followed by persons in the higher income brackets in the public as well as the private sector. It is time we did for South Africa what we say we want to do, and I hope the hon. Leader of the Opposition will support me in this step, so that we may bring South Africa through these difficult times and keep the country strong against the enemies that wish to destroy it. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to a few other matters before I deal with my last two points. Actually, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition depicted the Government as being very weak. In his political character sketch of the Government he went out of his way to present it in as poor a light as possible. He added a bit of spice to it by trying to be funny. I do not think this style really suits him. I think he should leave this sort of thing to people who can be a little more humorous. He and I should rather talk in our customary manner. He tried to depict the Government as being very weak, and now I want to put a few questions to him. If we are really so weak, if the NP Government is really the way he professes it to be …

It is worse.

… from a planning viewpoint and from the viewpoint of the preparation and development of the country, how is it possible that South Africa occupies a position of leadership in the world today in the field of energy and the provision of energy? How is it possible for South Africa to occupy a position of absolute leadership in this field today, in the field of breakthroughs? How, if we are so weak, does he explain what we have in fact managed to achieve in the field of water conservation, although South Africa is a country with a water shortage? How does he explain the fact that in the field of arms provision we have, in spite of the orchestrated attempt to weaken South Africa militarily, succeeded to such an extent that today we are exporting weapons? How does he explain all these things if we are as weak in the sphere of planning, preparation and development as he makes us out to be! Does not the hon. the Leader of the Opposition talk to prominent visitors and investors from abroad who come to this country and say: “This is the country of the future”?

They say it is just a pity that it has such a Government.

No. They say it is a good thing that every country has its fools.

Then they are obviously referring to you.

We must accept the fact that every country also has its fools. [Interjections.]

Order!

Those people who, in a world filled with anxiety and tension, really look ahead and say: “This is the country of the future”. This week two of the most notable and prominent people from the Western world paid me a visit and they said the same thing. They also said: “Your approach gives us courage; it gives us the assurance of stability”.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not listen to the chattering next to him now. He must listen to me.

How does he explain the fact that those people have come here and expressed their confidence in South Africa if what he said in this House is true? How does he explain his statement if one tests it against other things, for example, that the average monthly earnings of Blacks rose from R121 in 1977 to R189 at present? How does he explain the fact that salaries and wages for Whites rose by 69% in the period 1972 to 1979 and by 142% in the period 1972 to 1981 and by 152% and 293% respectively for Blacks?

And the cost of living?

How does he explain the fact that among the Coloured population the number of people in the white collar professions increased from 78 000 in 1973 to 129 000 in 1980, the number of artisans increased from 6 000 to 41 000 during the same period and that of semi-skilled workers from 32 000 to 385 000?

If everything is so good, why is everything so bad? [Interjections.]

The number of teachers increased from 9 600 to 26 000. To what does he ascribe all these things? Surely, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a highly intelligent person. When he wrote his speech, he should have thought of these things. Or did he allow the hon. member Prof. Olivier to write such nonsense for him? Allow me to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a further example.

You should not have allowed Eschel Rhoodie to write your speech.

The contribution South Africa makes to those States in the RSA that have gained their independence, the TBVC countries, is three to four times as much per capita as that made by the UN and its agencies to Africa. But all this means nothing. Only last year approximately R1 000 million was spent in this connection. But this means nothing. Why does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition disparage this in an attempt to get at the Government? Why does he disparage his own country in this way? Surely he was not born that way.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also made a statement about me. He also discussed me here. He said he had discovered something. He had discovered that I am a Nationalist. He said that he had told all those people who had written this about me that they were not making a mistake; the Prime Minister is a Nationalist. What a discovery! Did he expect something else?

I did not. They did.

Then he is right in one respect at least. He is quite right: I am a Nationalist, and I hope to die a Nationalist. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can put that in his pipe and smoke it. I am not prepared to do an about-face and turn my back on my own people. I would not do that for any price. The greatest happiness one can experience in this world is to remain true to what is ones own. That is why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is quite right: I am a Nationalist and I do not intend to become anything else.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the Government feared a right-wing rebellion.

I said there were people who said so.

Oh, he does not think so himself. What is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition really saying?

you fear the right-wing radicals.

But what is the difference? Allow me to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that my party is fighting the right-wing radicals. We do not collaborate with them. We fought them in the general election when others did in fact collaborate with them. There are two hon. members on that side of the House, in the party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who got there owing to the dividing tactics of the right-wing radicals. Two of them are sitting there by virtue of the treachery of right-wing radicals. Just imagine! The propaganda against me personally and against the Cabinet is that we are allegedly paralysed, that the Prime Minister does not act and that he does not do what he must do because he is being held back, he is being restrained by the right wing, and then one of my colleagues in the Cabinet is singled out and held up as being a terrible danger to me.

He is the ringleader.

I am telling you here this afternoon: I am not being pushed or pulled by anyone. I decide for myself what steps I shall take. I also say that in the same breath as people say I am being restrained by some person or other, there is now a new propaganda ploy, viz. that I have allegedly formed a clique within the State Security Council by means of which I dominate the Cabinet. How can both arguments be correct? Surely these two arguments cancel each other out. On the one hand I am supposed to be the bogey man dominating the Cabinet and on the other hand I am allegedly being dominated by someone else. What nonsense!

That’s how it works.

This is for want of anything better to say, as the idiom goes. What a miserable display of irresponsibility and Prog arguments! I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is laughing at himself.

No, I am not laughing at it.

Yes, and then he comes here with a cutting from Die Burger and reads something to us written by an anonymous person under the pseudonym “Vryburger”. I do not know who “Vryburger” is. All I want to say is that “Vryburger” is not speaking on behalf of the Cape Nationalists. I speak on their behalf. I am their leader. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to know what my standpoint is, he can raise the matter under my Vote; then I will tell him on behalf of the Cape Nationalists. He need not quote “Vryburger”, because “Vryburger” cannot speak on their behalf, and I repudiate him.

Do you repudiate his article?

I repudiate him if he says he is speaking on behalf of the Cape Nationalists.

I should now like to express a few thoughts on the relationship between Whites and Coloureds. I hope I shall be granted this opportunity. Yesterday the hon. member for Durban Point asked me: “Is the Prime Minister really in favour of change?”

“How deep is his commitment to change.”

“How deep is his commitment to change.”

As long as things remain the same.

My reply to the hon. member is that I am not … [Interjections.] Oh, please, Harry. The hon. member for Yeoville has enough problems of his own. He need not look for further problems. He already has to ward off so many attacks that he really cannot handle any more problems.

If you want me to interrupt you, I shall do so.

You can if you want to.

What is the matter with you?

Surely the hon. member knows by this time that it makes no difference. I am merely saying that he already has many problems.

I was so courteous to you …

Is it not true that the hon. member already has many problems?

Why are you starting an argument?

No, I am merely teasing the hon. member a little.

He has knocked over his glass of water.

I know the hon. member for Yeoville frequently feels like sweeping everything aside.

“How deep is the hon. the Prime Minister’s commitment to change?”

How serious is he?

I want to say to the hon. member that I am not for change merely for the sake of change. There are many people in this world who are in favour of change for the sake of change.

I …

No, give me a chance to answer. The hon. member has said what he wanted to say. I said I am not in favour of change for the sake of change. For that reason I do not believe in overnight change, because overnight change means that you put half-baked things in the place of things that have been established over a period of years. Ever since I became Prime Minister I have been saying that I am in favour of constitutional change by way of responsible administration. I am for renewal and development. I shall deal with ethnic relations in a moment.

What is the difference between renewal, development and change?

I shall tell the hon. member what the difference is. From a communistic viewpoint, change is preached merely to destroy existing structures, and they succeed in doing this by inciting the young people to change, but they put nothing lasting in its place. That is why part of the world is in such chaos.

That is not change. That is destruction.

Exactly. The hon. member is improving. He may as well knock over another glass of water.

I want to return to the hon. member for Durban Point. The Schlebusch Commission—I am not referring to the President’s Council now but to the Schlebusch Commission on which the hon. member for Durban Point’s party, and the Progressive Party, were represented—adopted a certain standpoint. The standpoint of the commission was that the British parliamentary system, adapted to make provision for a system of one man, one vote, is dangerous for South Africa.

It did not use those words.

I am putting it in my own words, but it amounts to the same thing. [Interjections.] Very well, the Westminster system. What else is it but the British system?

Not adapted. Unadapted.

Here we go again. I shall read it to the hon. member—

That is the finding of that commission and it appears in paragraph 8 of its interim report.

What is wrong with it?

Eglin says it is a lie.

Yes, he just wanted to query it again. One must always be careful with that hon. member. One must quote the correct words to him, otherwise he has a loophole. I know him. I am therefore telling the hon. member now that one cannot bring about that change under the present circumstances within this system. That is why it must take place slowly. No change in the constitution of the Republic of South Africa can take place without this Parliament’s approval, except when people wish to condone and implement revolution. On this matter the hon. member and I are agreed. I have no problems with him on this score. In other words, the people who constitute this Parliament will have to be in favour of such changes, not so?

But they can be led.

Oh yes, and that is why I lead them. But I lead them sensibly. I do not lead them in such a way that eventually I am alone and they are not even with the hon. member or with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but are wandering about like lost sheep.

You therefore agree with us, but the rest do not.

No. I am leading them along the path … [Interjections.] They will not join that hon. member because he is dangerous.

[Inaudible.]

No. If only that hon. member would refrain from laughing. When he laughs, he irritates me tremendously. One cannot change this Parliament unless the people who constitute it, want to change it. The voting public do not want to go along with the Progs, but reject them. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that the people do not have confidence in us. He says that this House does not have confidence in us. Yet when he had an opportunity to test this recently in False Bay, he was not there. One only finds them here on the slopes of Table Mountain where certain people live in their sheltered affluence and enjoy the protection of a National Party Government. That is where they operate.

They are just like a lot of “bergies”.

The hon. member for Durban Point’s party cannot convince these people either, and that is why the hon. members are where they are. We are a democracy, and for that reason, to get the consent of this Parliament to change things, one must do things which are acceptable to the people, and I am coming to that. I shall tell you in a moment what is acceptable to them. That is why, as I have already said, I believe that the voters of Parliament will have to give their opinion concerning drastic measures which we have not yet been able to test in a general election, by means of a referendum. That is because I want to take them with me and do not want chaos in this country.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether he does not think that if the rate of change is too slow, it will be far more difficult, if not impossible, to bring about stable, evolutionary change?

My answer to this is twofold. If it is the right kind of change …

Yes, of course.

And, in the second place, if it goes hand in hand with open hearted, clear guidance concerning what that change should be. Neither I nor the hon. member is in a position today to say what it should be, because he and I agreed to hold discussions with one another and with other people in a Presidents’ Council as to what it should be.

But we can create a climate.

Oh yes. Allow me to tell him that I am in the process of creating that climate. I am speaking to my people. I stand up in congresses and at meetings and tell them these things, but then this is exploited and used against me by the same media that oppose me in other respects. However, there is one thing I miss in the country and I want to say this afternoon that I do not see or hear Coloured or Indian leaders telling their people to “calm down”.

I do not hear or see any Prog saying that either.

Does the hon. member for Durban Point know any such people?

There are people who say this.

No, I am not referring to people who say this to the hon. member privately. I am not referring to what they tell the hon. member when they visit him in his office and tell him that he is right. I am referring to what they tell their own people in public. The Whites also have rights in this country.

There are those who say that.

No, there are not. There are only “demands—I demand this and I demand that” and I say that this Parliament will not change “if they go on demanding”, nor will the electorate change “if they go on demanding”.

What about an organization such as Cope? [Interjections.]

Order!

The greatest instigators of resistance in order to bring about concessions and change in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians are to be found in the ranks of the Progs. I shall explain why. It is because they preach such extremes that our people do not want a repetition of what was experienced in other parts of Africa.

Then we should encourage the moderates.

No wait, the hon. member cannot sit there arguing with me now.

On this point I say that I shall constantly endeavour to help establish peace between Whites and Coloureds in South Africa—I am in earnest about this—without wishing to create an integrated unitary community, because I do not believe that the various Coloured communities want this either. The best demonstration of this was what we had in King William’s Town. When the possibility was mooted that King William’s Town might be incorporated into the Ciskei, the people who were in the forefront of the opposition to such a step was the Coloured community of King William’s Town.

Because they would have lost their South African citizenship.

Go and tell the Coloured communities tomorrow that they should throw open their proclaimed group areas to the Black man and the Indians and it will be found that they will rise in protest.

In the second place I wish to point out that it is not possible to establish separate instruments for Whites and Coloureds in this country without having joint consultation on the first, second and third levels. We are working towards that.

In the third place I wish to point out that joint services for the Whites and Coloured population groups also require joint consultation and decision-making which, if it is necessary on the lowest level, must also take place on the second level. I acknowledge that principle. What we can argue about, however, is the means which we establish in order to do this. Under no circumstances will I be in favour of relinquishing the right to self-determination of my own people.

So apartheid will remain.

Could you not rather keep quiet?

No, he cannot keep quiet.

In the fourth place I wish to say that we cannot get away from areas of joint consulation and a form of joint decision—this also applied to the upper level—without the right to self-determination of the Whites being affected. Consequently there must be joint consultation, but also on the upper level the right to self-determination of White South Africa must not be affected.

And the other groups?

The hon. member will understand this better at the end of my speech when I shall issue a warning to the country.

The Coloureds are not a nation or a nation-in-the-making. I said this in this House last year already. Consequently it is not possible to create a sovereign parliament of their own for them. When I say this, I am not advocating an unitary state, I am simply elaborating on the terms of reference of the President’s Council, viz. to seek a decent collateral existence for all the population groups. I make it my life task—and my people know this—to try to maintain peace between Afrikaans- and English-speaking South Africans. I did this as Minister of Defence and in the political sphere in the Cape I succeeded to a large extent in doing this. I also make it my life task to try to create peace between Afrikaans- and English-speaking White South Africans and Afrikaans- and English-speaking Coloured South Africans. However, I shall not succeed in doing so by promising those people a heaven on earth and in the process depriving our own people of what is their own. That is why it is interesting to see the reaction of the Coloureds when they speak the way they really feel, for example when they talk about the Cape Town City Council. I think the faces of the PEP members were quite red. I want to repeat what I said at a party congress in the Cape when I addressed certain requests in respect of Pinelands to the hon. member for Pinelands, to which he did not react.

I have indeed reacted.

The hon. member did have something to say, but he definitely did not do what I asked him to do. Nor will he. He left it to irresponsible people to start something completely off-beat in Constantia Valley. Let me quote what a member of the PFP wrote to me on 20 November 1981—

Where does he say he is a Prog?

The address is “Lower Wrensch Road, Observatory”. I shall give you the name in a moment. The author continues—

Mr. Speaker, … [Interjections.] Allow me to add that this is not the only letter of this nature which I received. [Interjections.]

We do not want such people. [Interjections.]

You see, Sir, their numbers are dwindling. [Interjections.]

You may as well have them. [Interjections.]

Order!

I say again that the leaders of the Coloureds and the Indians, if they really want improved relations, if they really want sound changes—and this is my reply to the hon. member—must begin to stand up and be counted. They must be prepared to be counted for better relations between Whites, Coloureds and Indians. They cannot have the best of both worlds. They cannot say on the one hand—when they speak privately to you—that they do not want a system of “one man, one vote” because they are afraid of a Black majority, because they feel victimized, while on the other hand they can afford to oppose you in public, as they are in fact doing. That is my reply to the hon. member.

I want to conclude.

But you have not said anything yet. [Interjections.]

There have been threats of violence and revolution, as well as of sanctions, in other words pressure against the Republic of South Africa. I am not saying that it is being exerted by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or by the hon. member for Durban Point. However, they will agree with me that there are threats of violence, of revolution and of sanctions, internationally organized sanctions, threats that South Africa is moving into a confrontation situation. Then, too, there are unfortunately those South Africans who, when their arguments begin to fail, start telling you that you must be careful because if you do not do certain things we will collapse and will ultimately be driven in the direction of abdication.

I warn my own people as well. We should not be injudicious in a dangerous world. We should not draw hell-fire upon our country while we are able to keep our country strong. We should not draw sanctions upon ourselves if we can avoid doing so. We should not draw violence upon ourselves if we can choose another course for South Africa, a course of peace, prosperity and freedom.

A few years ago my immediate predecessor, Mr. Vorster, made a speech in the Senate. On that occasion he made a plea for improved relations in Southern Africa. He pointed out the consequences of the alternative, and those consequences—if peace could not be achieved—he described as being “too ghastly to contemplate”. Those were his words. They caused a great stir. In some circles those words of his were subtly misused to persuade the Whites in the Republic of South Africa towards surrender and abdication, as though peace and sound relations do not have to come from both sides. His words were misused to serve another purpose as well. In these days, in particular, an unprecedented campaign is being waged against the Whites. This is being waged from some States in Southern Africa, and what is more, by leaders of the Government there. It is also being waged from UN circles. It is even being waged from such quarters as the Prime Minister of Australia, a person who has enough problems of his own, so that he need not concern himself with our problems. Wild efforts are being made in the UN, and in the Third World, and also in certain European countries, and there are those people to whom I have just referred who sing in the same choir as the World Council of Churches, the South African Council of Churches and the ANC. They find it easy to talk and use abusive and even violent language against the Republic, and this refrain is also taken up by other elements who not only single out the Whites in South Africa for humiliation and constant disparagement, but who also depict the Afrikaner as some kind of monster who denies others any rights at all.

The Communist Party, with Russian support, orchestrates violence and subversion against the stable elements in South Africa, for if one removes the Whites, i.e. the English- and Afrikaans-speaking people from this country, or humiliates them; if one removes the Greek-speaking South Africans, the South African Jews, the Italian-speaking South Africans from our society and from the position which they occupy today, and destroys their structures of authority, one is looking for trouble in South Africa.

I and with me the Government, will go out of our way to prevent racial confrontation of this nature which these instigators are trying to bring about. The Government believes that its policy offers a better alternative because it is built on realities. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition that this policy is built on realities. It is built on self-respect, but also on the display of respect towards others. We are not seeking confrontation. We are not seeking bloodshed. We believe there is a place for every nation in Southern Africa to maintain its own system of values and self-respect. Peace brings prosperity; prosperity brings development and development brings work and happiness. Peace brings stability; stability leads to better standards of living and to the safeguarding of people’s savings, their pensions and investments. Peace promotes spiritual values and the arts, those things which are of the greatest value to mankind.

I would be disloyal if, in the position which I occupy today, I did not issue a warning. I would be disloyal in regard to the tendency to wish to force Whites and other minority groups in the Republic of South Africa to abdicate out of fear. Afrikaans- and English-speaking South Africans did not steal this country. The vast majority of them have no alternative fatherland. We cannot, as people elsewhere in Africa did, emigrate to the South. We are not in the position in which other refugees in the world are today, who are seeking the safety of South Africa. If South Africa is such a bad place, why are these people fleeing to this country?

I wish to quote what a young author, a lecturer at one of our universities, said—

The last remnants of British imperialism are dying in Zimbabwe. Lord Carrington delivered the funeral oration at Lancaster House. The greatest blunder, the greatest fiasco in history was committed there. We do not intend to allow that fiasco to occur in the Republic of South Africa.

You think the war should have gone on, do you?

If all reasonable attempts at peaceful coexistence fail, if violence is used against us as the final instrument, something will happen in Southern Africa which the instigators of violence cannot even dream of today.

Götterdämmerung.

Naturally I do not want this to happen. I am not advocating this. I am trying to avoid it by giving people the political rights which every self-respecting nation is entitled to have, by uplifting people so that they can improve their living standards, and by utilizing wealth to help ensure their prosperity. That is our object.

And their citizenship which they are being deprived of?

Some of these instigators do not realize what they are going to reap.

Now I should like to turn specifically to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He will understand what I am now going to quote to him from the distant past. I wish to have this placed on record here calmly, and without any ulterior motives on my part. I wish to quote to him from Ramsay McDonald’s book, What I saw in South Africa. In that book he said, referring to the Afrikaner—

You can say the same thing about the Black people.

I have quoted this excerpt because I persistently tell my own people that we must not do to others what we do not want done to ourselves. We must take steps to escape from these things. We must take steps to escape from the bitter fruits of British imperialism in this country, the after-effects of what the British planted here in their desire for domination in South Africa. It is in the interest of both language groups in this country. It is also in the interests of sound relations among Whites, Coloureds and Black people in South Africa that we move in that direction. If the Afrikaner, the Whites, remain silent, we must not deduce from that that they are prepared to abdicate, because they are not. There is much glib talk in some circles of sanctions and boycotts against us. We are even being threatened with violence. I have said that this kind of thing will not work.

†That which is too ghastly to contemplate will not only be applicable to White South Africa. It will be more so, much more so, as far as other people are concerned. A big silence and desolation will come over many parts of Southern Africa.

Scorched earth.

Let those who instigate people to choose the road of confrontation and chaos keep this possibility in mind.

*That is not the road to follow. We have frequently told our neighbours that we advocate non-aggression pacts with all our neighbours, as such pacts do indeed exist with some of them. We have frequently advocated that, as neighbours, we should not place our territories at the disposal of terrorists and subversives as launching pads against one another. A stable and developing Southern Africa is of great importance to the Free World. The Free World talks very glibly of how we should act in this country, but they are profoundly dependent on Southern Africa and the Republic of South Africa, and they know it. More specifically they are dependent on the Republic of South Africa because of its geographic situation, its strategic minerals, its food producing ability, its transport network, its modern harbours and its military capacity. Its people, its nations— White, Brown and Black—are in overwhelming numbers happy, peaceful people who need not be incited against one another, and malevolent meddlesomeness will not serve the interests of those people whom it purports to serve.

For that reason I move as an amendment to the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—

1. (a) promoting and maintaining the prosperity, security and freedom of the Republic of South Africa;
2. (b) seeking to ensure a just and acceptable solution for South West Africa as a future independent state in which civilized values and minority rights will be protected;
3. (c) pursuing in collaboration with the private sector and neighbouring states a sound economic development policy by means of, inter alia, decentralization and deconcentration as well as agricultural development for Southern Africa;
4. (d) seeking to achieve a fair constitutional dispensation for the Republic among Whites, Coloureds and South African Asians, with due regard to minority rights and the right to self-determination of the Whites;
5. (e) resolutely continuing to maintain the military security of and internal order in the Republic;
6. (f) combating the forces of the Communist threat and subversion; and
7. (g) promoting peaceful co-existence with other states in Southern Africa by means of, inter alia, non-aggression pacts and other agreements aimed at confederal development, with the retention of the independence of the states.”.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Prime Minister will not expect me in the short time that I have at my disposal to try to respond to the many points that he has raised. Indeed, a number of the points he has made have been directed to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition who will, of course, have an opportunity to reply at the end of this debate. However, there are just a couple of matters to which I should like to respond.

Firstly, there is one matter I can get right out of the way immediately because I do not really think it is all that important, and that is the challenge by the hon. the Prime Minister to me personally at a public meeting that he addressed last year when he challenged me in Pinelands in particular. I shall never know why he singled me out and why he singled Pinelands out, but I suppose he has his own reasons and he has the right to make his own challenges. I think I have the right to respond in regard to what I believe is also right. Among other things, the hon. the Prime Minister said the following—

If ever there was a cheap party-political trick, it was that. Therefore my response is firstly to dismiss it out of hand and secondly, to make the point that I have fought the seat of Pinelands on three occasions. On the last two occasions, firstly in 1977 and then in 1981, there was no Nationalist candidate. I challenge the hon. the Prime Minister now, as I did in public then, to come and fight me in Pinelands. I hope he will do that. Furthermore, I challenge him to come and debate the question of open areas and the Group Areas Act in Pinelands and I shall take him or any of the people whom he deputes on in my own constituency. That is one of the things that I want to make very clear.

Secondly, it is quite clear that the hon. the Prime Minister is wrong when he says that Mr. Smith was a Prog. If ever there was no Prog, it was he. Again and again, the Black Prime Minister at that time …

Let us just get this matter straight. I did not say he was a Prog. I said his policy was in principle the same as Prog policy.

It was Prog policy. Therefore if you practise Prog policy you are normally a Prog. It may well be that there are some hon. members over there who espouse our policy as well. The point I want to make is that Mr. Smith, unfortunately, believed that he could hold the inevitable back forever. I would hope that this hon. Prime Minister would learn from that, that he would learn from the mistakes made by Mr. Smith and that he would learn also, and I hope the people in this country will learn, that there was no real opposition in Parliament to the disastrous course that Mr. Smith set himself upon.

The last point, before I come to two matters that I should like to raise with the hon. the Prime Minister, was his warning to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in terms of the total onslaught. I think what we on this side of the House find very difficult is that if we do not accept exactly the hon. the Prime Minister’s or the Government’s understanding or definition of total onslaught, and if we therefore reject it entirely or in part, we immediately become a part of the total onslaught in the eyes of the Government. That is what makes it so very difficult for us to debate this matter here.

Then the hon. the Prime Minister referred to the second meeting he held with business leaders and he told us how marvellous it was. He told us that there were some people who had tried to undermine it before it even began. I do not know to whom he was referring. He also told us of the many letters he had received from very prominent businessmen, telling him how marvellous he was and how marvellous his policies were. I have only one here.

That is an untruth. I did not say so. Stick to the truth.

He said that there were very many letters that he had received complimenting him on his policy.

I said supporting me in my efforts. Do not twist my words.

And congratulating him. [Interjections]

The hon. member is a priest who cannot even stick to the truth.

If one cannot take one’s medicine then one should not give it. One cannot make statements and then not be responsible for them.

I want to quote Mr. Oppenheimer as follows—

I quote again—

He refers also to the progress that has been made in industrial relations, but then goes on to say—

And there is no mobility of labour in South Africa—

And so he goes on. I think we must get that in perspective.

The last point I should like to make in response to the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech is in regard to his quotation from the Interim Report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Constitution. For the record I think there must be some clarification. I should like to have the hon. the Prime Minister’s attention, please.

Very well, go ahead.

He referred to section 8 and quoted the following words from a document, namely “that the Westminster system of Government in an altered form does not provide a solution for the constitutional problems of the Republic.” That is how we heard it here. Perhaps we misheard him. However, in the actual document which I have in my hand it does not say that. It says “that the Westminster system of government, in unadapted form, does not provide a solution for the constitutional problems of the Republic.” [Interjections.]

That is the opposite of what he said.

That was what I intended to say.

I do not think we need waste any more time on this. I just want to get the record straight. If that is what the hon. the Prime Minister said, fine, but that is not how we heard it.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was guilty of belittling his own country and its efforts. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made it abundantly clear that his main charge against the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government was political ineptitude. It has nothing to do with how much coal we have beneath the surface of the land; it has nothing to do with the gold and with expertise, of which we are all proud. He was talking about the political ineptitude of the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government. The hon. the Prime Minister replies to the debate and says: “I am waiting to hear from the President’s Council.” However, we have already mentioned that when the President’s Council did make two recommendations, both were rejected. The hon. the Prime Minister goes further and says he wants to foster relationships between White English and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans and Coloureds as well. But then he must not kick them out of District Six. He must give them what is rightly theirs. He must respond to some of their requests. He says they make demands, but when they have been deprived for so long is he surprised that they make demands? Would he not, and did he not years ago rightly, make demands?

Why did the hon. member stop the Blacks from walking through Pinelands? [Interjections.]

In the context of a no-confidence debate even those of us who charge the Government with serious dereliction of duty do so, although hon. members on that side may not believe this, in the desperate hope that in this week the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government will give South Africa a clear and unambiguous lead away from the cul de sac of sterile politics, away from talking past one another. There can be no doubt that under this Government—we heard it again this afternoon— hope has been destroyed with devastating consequences for us all. We came here hoping to learn and hear from the hon. the Prime Minister. We did so last year, we did so the year before, and we wait in vain. We have heard nothing new. There is no new hope. I think the hon. the Prime Minister underestimates the number of people who are waiting on him because, after all, as the leader of the Government, he and he alone is the one who can give this lead, but we wait in vain. It is even worse to wrench hope from a man’s heart than to take bread out of his mouth. Without hope there is no life at all. I want to refer to just a few areas where hope is daily being eroded and where with the hon. the Prime Minister’s initiative this could be stilled.

Firstly, there is the area of education. The 1981 matric results in Coloured schools were but a continuing saga of failure and despair. Forty-four per cent of those who entered the matriculation examination at the end of last year failed. This is an unacceptably high figure. Nobody on that side of the House can dispute this fact. Why is this happening? Whatever conclusions are reached by a commission of inquiry, one thing is certain. It is that this result and others like it have once again served to highlight the deficiencies that exist within the opportunities for education for and the facilities offered to the Coloured people in South Africa. Let us exclude for a moment those who do not even get close to matric. Can we imagine the hopelessness in the hearts of those who finally make it, notwithstanding many problems and obstacles, only to find that 44% of them have failed? The situation of Black education in this country is, to say the least, confused. There is every indication that the results this year will again be appalling. But who can expect anything else after generations of neglect? We can imagine the reaction that would be forthcoming if this position obtained in White schools. This is what the hon. the Prime Minister has to understand. This Government would have been kicked out a long time ago if this was happening in White schools. The problem is that Coloured and Black South Africans have no political power. That is the rub. Therefore they are pressed deeper and deeper into the mire of helplessness and hopelessness. If the hon. the Prime Minister could do just one thing, if he could rekindle the lost hope in the hearts and minds of the majority of people in South Africa, he would be regarded almost as the saviour of this land.

I want to refer to another aspect of this matter. Let us take the question of loss of citizenship. We have the example of Transkei and Ciskei. This is a further extension of the problem. It is not simply a question of giving independence to a particular State; there is also the question of the loss of South African citizenship on the part of thousands of Black people who have no other choice. I want to warn this Government not to underestimate the bitterness that flows from the theft of what is a birthright. This amounts to a direct loss of identity. These people are strangers in their own land.

The third matter I wish to deal with is the question of the erosion of civil rights. I want to suggest that the most significant and poignant moment during the procession on the occasion of the opening of Parliament this year was not the roar of the motor cycles or the proud tossing of the horses heads or even the precision of the soldiers or the decorativeness of the ladies’ hats. It was the pathetic and yet heroic picture—I choose my words carefully—of three women and a child protesting against detention without trial. They were unceremoniously bundled into a police van and were soon out of sight. However, this is a single incident which is symbolic of the desperation and hopelessness of those who are now incarcerated and whose return to their own homes their families are anxiously awaiting. Can anyone in this House imagine what it means for Johnny Issel’s daughter to have a father who is forever being detained or banned? Let us beware lest the void brought about by lost hope be filled with hatred.

I have here in my hand a list of trade union leaders who were detained during 1981. It is not a complete list. There are 54 names in all on this list. However, I understand that 300 union leaders were detained for varying lengths of time during 1981. In regard of two of these whose names appear on this list, a Mr. Kwethu and a Mr. Jekelana, this is the fifth occasion on which they have been detained over the past two years. No charges have yet been brought against them. Is it any wonder that they treat with cynicism the recent enlightened legislation passed in this House dealing with matters in the labour field?

I want to refer to a fourth matter and that is urbanization and squatting. It is generally accepted that one of the deepest desires of all human beings is to have shelter and employment. Last week again we saw the continuing sordid treatment of hopeless and helpless people squatting on the Cape Flats. Already a certain newspaper has suggested that squatters put on a show deliberately in anticipation of the opening of Parliament.

I want to know whether it was the squatters who summoned a hundred and more camouflaged policemen armed to the teeth. I do not think so. It is impossible to measure the hopelessness and the despair of those who have over many years been denied housing, jobs and the opportunity to live in a reasonable amount of comfort and security and with their own families.

The threat against the Press is another example. So much has already been said about the Steyn Commission that I shall be very brief; some of my colleagues will deal with this report in greater detail. It is clear, however, that the bottom line is “gag your opponents”. What we seem to overlook is that the action is really not against the Press; it is against us, against ourselves because what the Press is doing, is that they try to reflect what is happening in society. Stifling the messenger does not stifle the message and when we muzzle the Press, it is not action merely against editors and journalists, it is the voice of dissent which is muted and more and more people lose hope.

I want to refer to three consequences of this hopelessness which pervade our situation. Firstly there are many people who, under the present Government, have left the country because they have lost hope in a peaceful settlement for the growing conflict in South Africa. For every one who has already left, there are many more considering taking the same route, not so much for themselves, but because of their children. Many of them do not enjoy being exiled and they want nothing more than to return to the land which they love, but they see no hope so long as this Government is in power. Every action which the Government takes and which brings us closer to the point of no return, leads to more people packing their bags. I wonder whether we could ever know how many first-class Black, Brown and White people we have lost over the last 30 years to places like Canada, the United States, Australia and elsewhere. Before we become over-critical of those who have left, let us be very careful because the time may come when the hon. members in those benches will begin to think about doing the same thing themselves. Let us stop that before we come to that stage.

The second consequence is that thousands of erstwhile concerned South Africans have opted out and have taken their seats on the sidelines watching the growing confrontation with the sound of thunder rolling ominously closer. The nerve of their action has been cut by the knife of hopelessness. There is a mood of despair and cynicism and of disillusionment. Many good people in South Africa have become cynical because of repeated disappointments and they apparently accept the inevitability now of some kind of cataclysmic final act. This is particularly true of many English-speaking South Africans who see the final conflict being waged between Black nationalism on the one hand and Afrikaner nationalism on the other.

Thirdly, an even more serious consequence is that thousands of South Africans, mainly Black, have given up constitutional means to effect change. It is no secret that since 1976 thousands of young Blacks have left the country after watching the devastations following the incidents surrounding 1976. Many of them—it is important to realize this—have chosen the way of the armed struggle because they have lost hope of meaningful change via constitutional means. Many of them abhor violence and have chosen it as the way of the last resort because every other method has met with rejection. Most of them are not adventurers, murderers by inclination, but have been caught up in the horror and the violence because any hope which they once possessed has been violently tom from them. Not all of them like killing or being killed. Not many of them enjoy being separated from families and homes and they have chosen this way in an attempt to forge a future for their children if not for themselves.

That we in the official Opposition differ radically from these three options of despair is clearly evidenced from our presence in this House, but it is no thanks to this Government. Indeed, any thinking, concerned member in Opposition politics must often have been driven close to despair at the intransigence and stubbornness of this Government which continues on its reckless and remorseless way and threatens to lead South Africa headlong into hell.

This Government stands condemned of robbing hundreds and thousands of South Africans of a priceless quality, the quality of hope, a quality which encourages, enriches and enables sane and compassionate opposition to a system which must be rooted out if we are going to have any worthwhile sort of future for our children. But let this Government be under no misapprehension. Despite every cause for disillusionment and despair and despite the difficulties we encounter in attempting to retain hope in a realistic fashion, we will not allow this Government to rob us of our utter determination and conviction to oppose with every means at our disposal. The last word does not rest with this Government. We will not be browbeaten and we will not give up. It is our responsibility and determination to fire the hopes of those who have lost hope and are tempted either to leave or to give up or to resort to violent means. We will not do that, but we will rather compel this Government to use the power at its disposal to apply radical surgery instead of band-aids, thereby bringing some measure of healing to our nation.

Yesterday the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to identify why it is that this Government has failed to give the lead in reform which in turn would engender some hope. He referred to the small right-wing influence outside the NP, the right-wing faction inside the NP and finally raised the possibility of the NP itself being so wedded to right wing that it is unable and unwilling to move. There is a persistent and pervasive belief that this Government’s first priority is the preservation of power in the hands of Whites and in particular in the hands of Afrikaner Nationalists. In other words, its thinking and planning is tribal in concept and everything is determined by obsession. The total onslaught they talk of is not a total onslaught against South Africa, but a total onslaught on the policies of this Government. But any person or institution that dares to dissent is seen as a threat and this in turn is interpreted as a threat to the security of the State because in the final analysis, in the minds of the Nationalist Government, the State is not South Africa, but Afrikaner Nationalism. As long as this Government continues with this obsession and puts party and tribe before country, powerful forces of hope will be eroded. It is for that reason that we have no confidence in a sectional Government which threatens the unity and peace of our land.

The speech of the hon. member for Pinelands is the normal type of speech which he usually makes in this House. It is a sour speech and, according to him, everything is wrong in South Africa. He says: “There is a sense of hopelessness amongst everybody. People are packing their bags or are about to pack their bags or they have packed their bags.” Everyone is leaving South Africa; everyone is dissatisfied; they have no rights. He referred to three or four areas at the beginning of his speech. Listening to the hon. member’s sour speech made me think of something. We who come from the South Western Districts know the sour fig very well. When one eats a sour fig, especially when it is green, it puckers everything up. One’s mouth, cheeks and even one’s false teeth, all contract. This is the kind of speech the hon. member for Pinelands makes. I wonder why one should make such a speech. I hope to show in the course of my speech, that the hon. member is completely wrong. Why should a person make a speech of this nature under the present circumstances? I say he does so because he enjoyes creating this type of distorted image of South Africa and its people.

†That is why he said from time to time in his speech, especially towards the end, that we have an obsession with Afrikaner nationalism.

*Surely, the hon. member for Pinelands should know by this time that not everyone in South Africa who votes Nat, is an Afrikaner. Not only Afrikaners vote National; thousands of English-speaking people also support the NP. Why single out the Afrikaner Nationalist for this type of attack, for this kind of special mention? It is because the hon. member would like to create the impression that it is the Afrikaner who is responsible for the specific situation in South Africa.

It is because he himself is a jingo. That is why.

According to him it apparently has nothing to do with what we inherited, it apparently has nothing to do with the situation in South Africa, with the diversity of its population composition and with the fact that there must be justice for all. He does not want to admit these things. As far as he is concerned, there is only one group in South Africa which is responsible for the status quo, and that is the Afrikaner Nationalist.

Why did Dawie and Andries withdraw from the University of Stellenbosch council election? [Interjections.]

The hon. member is making a grave mistake when he puts forward this type of argument. South Africa is, after all, long past the differences between Afrikaans- and English-speaking persons. Possibly the fact has eluded him, but a South African nation has already grown out of the Afrikaans- and English-speaking people in this country. The NP does not only represent Afrikaners. The NP is today representative of the Greeks, English-speaking people, Jews, everyone. The hon. member for Pinelands does not realize this. It just goes to show. The hon. member for Pinelands is implying that people are leaving South Africa. The hon. member’s family has surely been here in South Africa for a generation or more. Yet it seems to me that he does not know South Africa at all.

To create the impression, for instance, that 44% of Coloured children fail at school, and that accordingly there is something drastically wrong with our system of education … [Interjections.] Now he claims that it is because those children do not have all the necessary facilities. Surely hon. members of the NP are committed to creating equal facilites for all race groups in South Africa. Why, therefore, does the hon. member for Pinelands not say that one of the most important reasons for last year’s low pass rate was precisely as a result of the fact that those supposedly scanty facilities which the Coloureds do have, were not made proper use of by some of them? Why does the hon. member not say this? Why does he not say that it is due to the fact that a considerable percentage of the low pass rate was due to those people not doing their homework? It seems to me that the hon. member for Pinelands did not do his homework either. That is why his speech was so rotten. [Interjections.] This is what happens when one does not do one’s homework, when one does not study one’s case.

I have before me a document which sets out the position with regard to the improvement of Black education in South Africa. These details are not only available to me. They are also available to the hon. member for Pinelands. Why has he not read them? Surely he knows where to get these facts. They are taken from an appendix to Informer of October 1980, which is published on behalf of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information for the Department of Education and Training. What is the situation? Let us take note of what the position is, even if it is only for the sake of the hon. member for Pinelands. Let us look at the position in Black education. The hon. member for Pinelands is the one who is creating the impression that the situation is very grave in the sphere of Black education. This is one of the areas he has chosen to attack. “Hope is daily eroded”, that is how bad things are in Black education, according to the hon. member for Pinelands.

What was the position in 1950? In 1950 there were little more than 5 300 schools for Blacks in South Africa. In 1979 there were 11 495 schools for Blacks in South Africa, and that excludes Transkei and Bophuthatswana.

In 1950 there were 18 500 teachers; in 1979, 72 864. In 1950 there were approximately 750 000 Black pupils at school, and in 1979 there were almost 3½ million. The latter figure refers to two or three years ago, but I wonder what this figure has risen to now. Despite this, the hon. member for Pinelands says: “The position is absolutely hopeless. The people are opting out, or they are sitting on the sideline, and there is a sense of hopelessness among the Black people”. His statements are, however, not borne our by the facts.

What do we read further on?—

Nevertheless the hon. member for Pinelands presents this picture, viz. that things are bad because there is no education or training nor any progress.

The hon. member is the spokesman of the official Opposition on education and training, therefore I want to bring these facts to his attention. What is the position? In the years preceding 1956, only 1 426 degrees were conferred on Blacks, but from 1956 to 1978 no fewer than 7 190 Blacks obtained degrees. Nevertheless the hon. member has the audacity to try and create the impression that things are going so badly in this regard.

I could also point out to him that compulsory education for Blacks in South Africa has improved, by quoting the teacher-pupil ratio. In 1968 the ratio was 58 to 1, but by 1980 it had dropped to 45 to 1. There is therefore continuous progress in the sphere of Black education in South Africa. However, the hon. member told us: “So many Black people have packed their bags and have left. What talent have we not lost.” This is really a strange statement, because the hon. the Prime Minister today proved the contrary, and it is certainly worthwhile to repeat what he said. Things are so bad in South Africa and many people are packing their bags, but what about the many others who are packing their bags to come to South Africa? For instance, look at the large number of Polish refugees that are now coming here. South Africa is having difficulty accommodating all these people. Everyone would like to come here. If we were to open our borders tomorrow and have no form of influx or border control, we would be saddled with such a refugee problem, that even the hon. member for Pinelands would be ashamed of the words he had once uttered in 1982. These are the true facts of the matter.

Again I ask: Why can the hon. member not make a good case and speak positively? Why does he not say that they approve of what we are doing here, but that we can do even more, because it is vital that we train even more people in South Africa? That is indeed what we on this side of the House want to do, and I want to repeat that we are committed. We have already said that we want equal educational facilities for everyone in South Africa. Why? For the simple reason that, in the first place, we do not have enough Whites to administer and control the overall development of South Africa now and in the future. We need many more people to fill management posts. We need many more scientists, technicians and technologists. Where are they to come from? They cannot be drawn from the ranks of the Whites alone. That is impossible. That is why there is a complete change in the labour policy in South Africa today, precisely because we want this development. Therefore we, too, say that more and more will have to be done for the Black man so that he may undergo the optimum training not only for himself, his community and his people, but also that he may be an important asset to the development of South Africa, and Southern Africa as a whole. That is why we do this. We realize that it must be done, but there is no encouragement from that side of the House. Nor is any tribute paid by that side of the House to what is being done.

Only boycotts.

There is only criticism and the sort of extravagant language we had from the hon. member. Did he not say that we are leading South Africa straight into hell? That is the kind of language used. [Interjections.] That hon. member is not the only one, however, because “zo zongen de ouden, zo piepen de jongen”. The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, that young member sitting behind him, also resorts to this sort of extravagant language, because they cannot sell any aspect of their policy. All they can sell is their criticism, and they cannot even sell that, unless they disparage the Government, the NP and also South Africa in unbridled and excessive terms. I quote what the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said—

After all, this is the kind of thing that that hon. member is also saying.

†Does he not also say that we are obsessed with power? That is really amazing, when one considers that this side of the House is not in favour of retaining power in its own hands. He should know that by now. The policy of this side of the House is to decentralize power, to achieve a devolution of power.

*How, then, can that hon. member say that we want to retain power in our own hands? What kind of country does he live in? After all, we already have many Black states which make their own decisions and are absolutely independent and sovereign, but that hon. member still creates the impression that we want to retain power and authority in our own hands. The hon. the Prime Minister and his party need not doubt the path of the decentralization of power and authority. Nor need they heed the kind of change which the hon. members on that side of the House are advocating, for what kind of change are they advocating? They are not advocating renewal. They advocate a return to the old imperial system when everyone was cast together in the same basket. This is what the hon. members on that side of the House advocate. They advocate that there should be no form of political differentiation in South Africa. They would regard any form of political differentiation as discrimination. Therefore they advocate that the Group Areas Act, the Immorality Act and every last piece of legislation …

Is that differentiation?

They are also opposed to the homelands development policy. They advocate that it, too, be abolished. This is because they want to cast everyone into the same political basket. This is the type of renewal they want in South Africa. They want everyone to be on a common voters’ roll. They object to White domination, but at the same time their policy would amount to Black domination. Just as the HNP uses the Blacks to scare the Whites, they use the Whites to scare the Blacks. This is the kind of tactic and strategy adopted by our friends on that side of the House. [Interjections.] This is simply stated so that the hon. member opposite can understand it.

The NP is irrevocably on the path of change. Only one who does not wish to see or hear could not see this over the past number of years that he has dealt with this body or with the political situation in South Africa. I was present in this House in 1959 when Dr. Verwoerd announced the policy of separate freedom and separate politics. When he did this, it caused a tremendous flutter in Opposition circles in South Africa. Why? It was because the late Dr. Verwoerd gave a moral and realistic content to the policy of separate development. But apparently all these things have eluded that hon. member and his kindred spirits, or else he is so committed to integration politics that he cannot see that South Africa is in fact on the path of change.

The cardinal question remains, for me, whether we are in fact on the path of change. I am not speaking of the rate of change, for that can and will fluctuate. It will fluctuate continually, for the simple reason that it depends on circumstances. The rate of change in South Africa is at present being influenced by, for instance, the economic depression which prevails to a large extent in the rest of the world. This causes our gold price to drop. South Africa will not now have the revenue it would have liked to have. The necessary changes which one would have liked to effect could not, therefore, be made. The question is, however: Are we on the path of change, yes or no? I believe that every day the process of change is constantly being afforded more substance.

The creation of sovereign independent States which we excise from our own territory, the confederal bond between the people, and the constellation of States are all practical examples which shows that we are on the path of change, that we are on the path of more equality among nations and that we are on the path of equal citizenship among all peoples and all groups in South Africa. No one will prevent this.

Instead of assisting in this regard, the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition place obstacles in our path and make it more difficult to do these things. All they can tell the Black man is: “Look, the only way you can exercise your civil rights is to reject homeland policy as well as any form of residential segregation, any idea that every community should look after itself and its own schools, etc., and just to demand total political and social integration”. This is the only answer that that hon. member thinks he can give. I want to say that this does not help us in South Africa. It makes it more difficult for us to break down the prejudices and create the correct image for people and bring about more confidence in South Africa. I honestly think that at this point, at the start of the session, we can call upon the hon. members of the official Opposition to give the Government a chance. Help it. Discard your destructive politics. Play a part, for once, on the path of South Africa. Then you will be making a contribution. The people who talk past us are not on this side of the House. They, the prevaricators and doubletalkers are sitting on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great attention to what the hon. member for De Kuilen has said and I am pleased to see that he has clearly stated that in his opinion the Government is unequivocally on the road of change. He went on further to say that there may be some argument about the rate of change, and I believe this was the argument that the hon. the Prime Minister and my hon. Leader had during the course of the debate earlier this afternoon. I want to make our position quite clear. The hon. member says that the Opposition should assist the Government in bringing about change. It should give it encouragement. I believe that our party has acted extremely responsibly in this regard and we have taken part in every forum that has been created to create a mood for change and also to discuss the need for change and the ways of bringing it about. However, the one complaint that we have, and we have this with the hon. the Prime Minister, is that we believe that the Government is missing suitable opportunities to bring about orderly change in South Africa because of its own intransigence. The Government appoints commissions to investigate these matters, commissions consisting of responsible people commissions that take up a lot of the taxpayers’ money to investigate these problems and which finally present reports. We in these benches often feel that the Government does not even take the time to read the reports. For this reason I want to quote from the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Mass Media which has just been tabled in this House. This is in the preamble to a section on the need for change, which deals in particular with the ethnic diversity of South Africa. In paragraph (b) on page 176 it states—

This is the point that my hon. leader put to the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday when he made his speech.

In this debate, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in motivating the motion of no confidence, said yesterday that there was a feeling developing among those in South Africa who seek peaceful change or reform, or—to use the State President’s words that he used on Friday, the words that have been used again today, to encourage renewal in South Africa—that the Government is losing control of the situation. The reason for this, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said, was firstly, because the Government was paralysed by its own ideological prejudices and secondly, because the Government lacked the necessary courage to bring about the necessary reforms. My hon. leader said very much the same when he said that the lack of trust and confidence which permeates South African society today is due to the lack of a clear vision on the part of the Government and its inability to provide dynamic and unequivocal leadership. We so often hear, we have heard it again today, we hear it outside this hon. House and we saw it on TV earlier this week, that all too often we politicians tend to talk past one another and that this leads to confusion, frustration and a lack of progress. I believe there is much truth in this. I believe we should try to identify the ideological prejudices to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred, in an attempt to achieve consensus with regard to the common goals towards which South Africa should strive. It is in this regard that the Government and the Nationalist Party do have a problem. I am sure hon. member on that side will agree that time and circumstances have necessitated a change in the Nationalist Party’s political ideologies. The facts are—and the realists within the Nationalist Party have stated this on public platforms—that the apartheid myth of the Verwoerdian era is today as dead as a dodo and just has no future in South Africa. However, the dilemma of the Nationalist Party and, I believe, the tragedy for South Africa is that the prejudices of the apartheid ideology just cannot be buried by the Nationalist Party. It is this which causes the Government and the Nationalist Party so often to be seen to be speaking out of two mouths. It appears to act as if it had two heads. This is a tragedy, because so often when listening to Government speakers during debates such as we have had today I sense a direction, a set of political attitudes or principles which, I believe, could meet with a large measure of acceptance by members sitting in certain Opposition benches in this House and also by many representatives of and people belonging to the many diverse racial and ethnic groups outside this Parliament. Unfortunately, this mood is so often shattered by a jarring reversion to the past, a reversion to the dead dogma of apartheid or to the pull of the sectional and, might I say, selfish Afrikaner nationalism, as we have had again today in this Assembly. It is here where the confusion, the frustration and the talking past one another arise which destroy all confidence in this Government’s ability to lead South Africa to its stated goals of, as the State President said, peace and unity and, might I add, prosperity for all our people.

For example, yesterday the three Government speakers spent much of their time discussing the conflict potential within a multiethnic State. They spoke of the realities of ethnic loyalties and their commitment to the group. They spoke of the differing value systems which exist in South Africa and the need for self-determination and a constitutional system based on pluralistic principles. In order to avoid talking past one another I wish to state that we here in these NRP benches agree with these views. We are a party which recognizes the plural nature of our society. Our constitutional proposals clearly take cognizance of this fact. We have repeated this over and over. My leader yesterday correctly stated that the Nationalist Party practises a static pluralism, while we in the NRP practise a dynamic pluralism.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. the Minister, if he will just look at the record, will see that this is the case. With the limited powers available to the Natal Provincial Council, which is controlled by my party, that council years ago established in Natal Indian elected town councils. I have two in my own constituency. This is something we did years ago and only now is the Government starting to talk about it. We established a multi-racial consultative committee to solve our problems in Natal years ago. We have also established a multi-racial Town and Regional Planning Commission, water boards and parks boards in Natal. I believe—and it is there for all South Africans to see—that we have practised the dynamic pluralism in which our party believes. I want to say that dynamic pluralism wins adherence to the cause of pluralism while static pluralism as practised by the Government breeds frustration, disillusionment and cynicism. The NRP is not hung up on the ideological prejudices of the past. We look to the future. We do not look to the past. We have learnt from the past. I personally learnt my pluralism in this House listening to Afrikaner nationalism. We make pluralism work as a party but we do not have the slightest confidence that this Government is able to do so because I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister and other Ministers as well are actually sabotaging the pluralistic idea, which I intend to demonstrate.

The establishment of the President’s Council was an act of faith in the pluralistic solution to South Africa’s problems. The decision to establish a fully and democratically elected South African Indian Council was a major and positive step in the direction of self-determination for the Indian people and also to establish a pluralistic political structure in South Africa. I see the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs nodding his head. We on these benches therefore believe that both of these bodies deserve the support of all South Africans who seek racial peace and unity among our very diverse peoples.

May I ask a question?

No, I am sorry, my time is very limited. I will concede that there are some people whose ideological prejudices cause them to reject these bodies. They are people who would in fact like to see these bodies fail and therefore work actively towards that particular end. Because of these facts I believe it was imperative for the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to ensure that the effectiveness of these bodies should be seen to exist. I also believe that they should have ensured that the very credibility of these bodies in the eyes of South Africa’s population should have been maintained and, in fact, enhanced. I do not believe that this has been the case. It was for this very reason that during the debate on the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote last year I mentioned this very point. I want to quote from Hansard of 25 August 1981, column 1913, where I had this to say—

At that stage the hon. the Prime Minister interjected rather angrily as follows—

I went on to say this—

What happened later last year? The President’s Council recommended the return to the Coloureds and Indians of the areas of District Six and Pageview. I want to say, after accepting the principle of such a move—and this is what makes it all so amazing—after reversing a previous long-held dogma or stand on the apartheid principles involved, this Government then destroyed the credibility and effectiveness of this whole exercise by only going part of the way. [Interjections.] They did this just a few days before the elections for the Indian Council. I believe that in the process of doing this they sabotaged the efforts of those who were actively taking part in those elections and working towards a plural solution for South Africa. I believe that in so doing they played right into the hands of people such as this hon. member and his colleagues on my right who want to destroy the Indian Council because they do not want to see that it becomes an effective body. In this connection I believe the hon. the Minister actually sabotaged the whole pluralistic exercise of the President’s Council and the Indian Council.

I should like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister and his colleague whether they really want the Indian Council to succeed as a legislative body for the Indian people. This attitude of the Government is what we in these benches believe is a static type of pluralism.

Who instituted that?

The present Government has over the time instituted many things; I should like to see them coming to the correct and logical conclusion. I should like to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that all groups need symbols. All groups seeking self-determination need bench marks on which to measure their progress in life. Surely, the Afrikaner must know that? I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs that the Afrikaner has his bench marks. He has the Voortrekkers, Blood River and others. The Coloured people’s bench mark is their progress towards a return to District Six. This is their heritage and this is what they are striving for. Pageview is the same for the Indians in the Transvaal as Cato Manor and Grey Street in Durban are for the Indians in Natal. I appeal to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs to heed the requests and recommendations of the Indian Council. It is all very well for the hon. the Prime Minister to say that he and he alone is going to set the pace of change in South Africa, but there are other forces afoot in South Africa and I ask the hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues to read that quote which I read from the Steyn Report.

Do you really think you are fair now by stating that I said that I am the only person who will determine the rate of change in South Africa?

Earlier to-day, the hon. the Prime Minister took great pride in the fact that he was the leader of the NP and that he would tell his people what to do. He said that he would lead them.

I said that I would take the lead. Why are you misusing my words?

I am not misusing the hon. the Prime Minister’s words; I am stating a fact that happened in South Africa last year where actions on the part of the Government did nothing but harm the whole process of the development of a pluralistic constitutional solution in South Africa, and the hon. the Prime Minister must accept that he is the leader of the NP.

I had really expected far better from you.

There are so many things happening in South Africa today which give people cause to feel that there is a lack of confidence in the Government being able to bring about the necessary change, the necessary set of conditions which are so urgently needed in South Africa today. There is the economy, for instance. It was alleged 12 months ago—the hon. members on that side of the House were then bragging about this—that there was a tremendous growth in the gross domestic product: 8% in the year 1980. But what has happened? Last year the growth rate was 5% and this year it is likely to be 1%.

To whom are you attributing that? Come on, tell me.

I am attributing this to a large extent to those who control and manage the economy of South Africa, viz. the government. [Interjections.] We know that inflation acts against real growth in the domestic product, and inflation in this country is still not under control despite all the efforts of the NP to try to get it under control. It still runs at an exceptionally high rate of 15%. This is beginning to make itself felt at a time when the growth rate is on the decline. Many people in South Africa—here I am not only speaking about the Blacks who for years have lived at a very low income level—are finding that their standard of living is being eroded at a faster rate than for many a year. If the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs is not aware of these facts, then I believe he has lost touch with “die volk daarbuite”.

Why do you not tell us something about sugar?

I doubt whether there is an hon. member in this House who has as much to say about housing as that hon. member. I want to ask the hon. member how many people in his constituency have approached him in the past few months about the desperate position that they find themselves in? I am referring especially to aged people who have found that their houses and flats have been sold, out beneath them and who have no alternative place to live and are approaching living on the bread line. I believe that this is something that is the duty of the Government to sort out. This Government is not in a position where it can provide this class of people with adequate housing. This is not only the position as far as housing is concerned. One can ask any housewife how far her pay cheque goes every month to buy food and clothing for her children.

It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, namely the bungling and ham-handed handling of the President Council’s recommendations, the present state of the economy and the increasing economic difficulties in which people find themselves, that we in these benches certainly cannot have any confidence in the Government.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, although at times it was difficult to concentrate on all the nonsense he spoke. However, the hon. member made an important statement when he said that the economy would grow by 1% this year and that this was to be ascribed to the Government. Last year, when the economy grew by 8%, members on that side of the House said that it was not the Government, but South Africa that caused it.

I did not say that.

Yes, you all said it. The hon. member devoted his entire speech to “change”. I shall repeat a statement which has often been made here: The poor Opposition parties in South Africa think that there is only one method of change and that is to adopt another party’s policy. No party in South Africa has brought about so much development and progress—and thereby change—in all fields of the South African national life than this very National Party. In the economic sphere South Africa has in recent times, after the Second World War, developed under the rule of the National Party into the giant of Africa.

It would have been far bigger …

That hon. member must take care: I shall deal with him in a moment and I shall make a mouse of him. I shall come to that hon. member in a moment. Who established all the major enterprises in the economic sphere, such as Koeberg, Sasol and Iscor? It was done by the National Party. This is also the case in the field of education. When I went to school— that was in the days when the United Party was in power—we did not even have desks in the classrooms. The National Party has made South Africa’s educational system one of the finest in the world. In the field of Black education, 11 departments of education for Black people in South Africa, each with its own administrations, teachers’ colleges and institutions, have been established in the short period from 1948 up to the present—and then it is maintained that this is not progress.

In the political sphere the National Party has established 10 legislative bodies for Black people to enable them to administer and govern themselves and make their voices heard and express their own aspirations without restriction. Nevertheless, it is still said that this represents no change, development or progress.

While the hon. member for Amanzimtoti was speaking, it became clear to me why hon. members on the other side of the House are unable to understand that to adopt another party’s policy is not the only form of change. The history of that party and of its predecessors furnishes proof of that. They were first the South African Party; then they became the United Party and subsequently the NRP. I think that there have been a few other names in between too. The biggest change in them effected by the NP occurred between 1943, when they had the most seats they have ever had, to date. During that period—a period of altogether 39 years—the NP has reduced the number of their seats by an average of more than two seats per annum. Surely that is change. [Interjections.]

At that time you made your appearance as the HNP. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to put it to the hon. member for Durban Point that I believe that two further changes still await them. The first is the following. In view of their numbers and in view of what has just happened to Mr. Oberholzer, it is time for them to change into yet another party. The time is ripe for them to change their name again. They will have to assume a different form once again. That is the one change. The other is even worse. At a loss of approximately two seats per annum, there now remain only about four years before the NRP is buried. [Interjections.] I think hon. members of the NRP must let us know when this has happened. We shall come and lay a wreath. [Interjections.]

Yesterday the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central used this important occasion, on which political parties engage in a trial of strength with one another, in a very odd way. Whereas we saw today why the NP has as many seats as it does, and why it enjoys the support of the people of South Africa, and whereas we saw this by way of the speech by the hon. the leader of the NP in this House—his performance was that of a true statesman—and whereas we have the opportunity at present to bear witness to performances of that nature, the hon. member for Pott Elizabeth Central also made a speech. I was under the impression that he would attack us on our policy and that he would propose an alternative. Instead of doing so, he quarreled with me about people whose salaries are not paid. I believe that the hon. member would have done better to discuss those matters with me in my office. He could even have broached the matter during the discussion of my Budget Vote. However, he availed himself of this important opportunity for the PFP to show its strength, to pursue this quarrel he wants to pick with me.

Hon. members of the PFP should really not gain the impression that the Department of Education and Training is not extremely sensitive to this kind of phenomenon, which does occur from time to time. It does occur sometimes that people do not receive their salaries in time. The Department of Education and Training is extremely sensitive to this. We do know that people cannot work without being paid. In fact, we are engaged at present in carrying out an in-depth investigation in order to decentralize and also to mechanize the payment of salaries to people so that in the Port Elizabeth region, for example, the data in question can be entered on a computer terminal and read in Pretoria. In that way the necessary steps can be taken without delay. Even in this regard we still need the co-operation of the teacher and the headmaster and those who administer the school.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central quoted from a newspaper report here. The impression he created here was that this female teacher was employed by the Department of Education and Training, that she taught and received a salary up to May 1981, after which the department suddenly ceased to pay her, whereas she continued to teach. However, what are the facts? The fact is that the teacher in question taught under her maiden name up to 28 January 1981. At that point she resigned. The department was not informed of this and she continued receiving her salary up to May when she applied under her married name to teach once more. Only then did we realize that there was a mistake. Confusion occurred because suddenly there were two surnames, but eventually it was clear that both referred to one and the same person. Therefore there was an overpayment of salary as well.

Subsequently the department requested that full details be provided so that the matter could be resolved. It took months before the department obtained that information. However, the moment the information was correct, the arrear salary was immediately paid out.

I also wish to refer to another case; this too, is one about which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central wrote to me. It concerns a person with an honours degree. He had a BA degree on the basis of which he was appointed at a certain salary scale. However, when he obtained the honours degree he could be appointed at a higher salary scale. The man in question sent his certificate to the department in May 1981. On it was indicated that he had obtained his degree at the end of April. However, in practice the policy is that a man is paid from the day on which he wrote his last subject. We know that if we had paid him from 28 April he would have received less. What would the hon. member have done if we had in fact paid this man from 28 April. The department requested him to inform us when he wrote his last subject. He provided us with that information in December last year. In the mean-time, however, he received his normal salary. He then informed us that he wrote the subject in question on 29 January, and accordingly he received his increase from that date instead of from April.

Are you suggesting that your department is blameless?

I do not say that at all. We are struggling with the same problems as those which other departments are struggling with. We are also experiencing a staff shortage, but the people who occupy posts in the more farflung areas of the country can help us enormously—and it will be in their own interest too—by sending us the correct information.

The fact that this woman conducted a newspaper interview did not affect her position at all, but the fact that she sent us the correct information when it was called for, helped to rectify her salary. The hon. member sent me a letter on 14 December, but some of the people to whom he refers therein had already received their salaries on 12 November. Two of the letters the hon. member sent to me I received this morning, and the third I only received this afternoon, and the cases of all the people to whom he referred have been disposed of except for one, concerning which I have not yet obtained the information, and I shall inform him later in this regard.

I am glad to hear it.

Having listened to the hon. member’s speech last night, I came to the conclusion that as far as the problems and the future of South Africa are concerned, he displayed absolutely no vision. I ask myself why that was the case. Then someone gave me a book in which the hon. member conducted an interview with the author. The book is entitled Voices of Apartheid and in the interview the hon. member makes the following statement—

The thoughts of this hon. member are therefore not concentrated on the future of South Africa, but on ways of leaving South Africa. [Interjections.] How, therefore, can one expect to get anything constructive or positive from that hon. member?

Read the rest of it.

The hon. member says I should read further. He says it is a wonderful place. He has four servants; he plays golf whenever he wants to; he goes down to the sea; he fishes and he has all the pleasant things in life and, he says, that is all that keeps him here. [Interjections.] This, then, is the fine “fat cat”. He lives like a king.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition was equally pathetic. In fact, one asks oneself what is wrong with that man? Is there nothing in him which motivates and drives him to come up with something really important? He is unable to achieve anything of the kind, because look at what he says to his congress. I could not believe my eyes when I saw what was published after their congress had been held. We read in Die Vaderland—

Mr. Speaker, can you imagine that the leader of a party, who has to inspire congress-goers to go and persuade the people in the country to win seats, as the PFP tell us they are going to do, can say: “Look, friends, all you who are sitting here are patriots, and I have a plan. However, I cannot tell you what that plan is because the NP is going to tackle me if I say what it is.” Can you imagine that, Sir? He first wants to get into power and only then tell the people what his policy is. [Interjections.] That is really the ultimate in change, in renewal and all the other things I have heard him advocate. [Interjections.] I hope, however, that he will permit me to be serious for a moment. It is a tragedy that in a country like South Africa, where people who are in earnest, struggle day and night to serve this country and find solutions for its problems, one should have such an Opposition as this. I honestly do not think that this fatherland of ours deserves such an Opposition. If one asks oneself why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want to put forward his policy, one finds only one answer, and that is that he cannot afford to do so because what lives in the heart of that party is un-South African. [Interjections.] He knows as well as I do that if he were to do so, it would be comparable to a policy proposing that one should rear a mountain tortoise in the sea. He knows that his policy cannot grow in South Africa. That policy must be rejected in South Africa because it will only create chaos here.

After 30 years your policy is in tatters. What are you talking about?

Our policy has not been rejected. [Interjections.] Our policy works, and the only country on the continent of Africa where there is peace and progress is this one, the one we are governing. Here there is permanent stability. In what other country in Africa, whatever policy they follow or whatever they have done, is there the same degree of permanent stability as in that hon. member’s fatherland? There is no such country. Can the hon. clever Leader of the Opposition tell us where there is such a country? The hon. member who is now sitting there writing and who, a moment ago, spilt a glass of water on himself (“natgemaak het”) … [Interjections.]

Order!

You cannot make me wet (“Nat”).

That was not my intention. [Interjections.] At their congress, which was a model of the un-South African spirit which possesses them, that hon. member …

Were you there?

No, I am not stupid enough to go to such places. [Interjections.]

How do you know if you were not there?

There was a resolution before that congress which read as follows—

That is an insinuation against South Africa. It is a charge against their fatherland. That hon. Leader is shaking his head, but the hon. member for Yeoville had something to say about that resolution, and I quote—

If the congress had approved that resolution, it would help the enemies of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

But the congress accepted my amendment.

That is correct. [Interjections.] It is said that the voting was neck and neck. But if the hon. member for Yeoville had not been there? [Interjections.]

Order!

If that hon. member had not been there, they would probably have accepted that resolution in its original form. That hon. member states that if that resolution had been accepted in its original form it would have been in the interests of South Africa’s enemies. The fact that there are people in his party who are prepared to propose resolutions at congresses which are in the interests of South Africa’s enemies demonstrates that that party accommodates people who are prepared to champion the cause of South Africa’s enemies at their congresses. [Interjections.] That, of course, is their dilemma. [Interjections.]

Order!

That little hon. member who is now hiding his head under his wing, seconded that resolution at that congress. I am now referring to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. He seconded that resolution in its original form, a resolution which, according to the hon. member for Yeoville, supports South Africa’s enemies. [Interjections.] I now want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether it is the majority or the minority in his party that are un-South African and that are prepared to champion the cause of the enemies of South Africa.

Is the HNP in the majority or the minority in your ranks?

If I were that hon. member I would not open my mouth. I should be far too ashamed. I want to ask the hon. member, who is now so arrogant, whether he is prepared to state frankly that he rejects religious organizations that give money for terrorist activities here and elsewhere in the world. Is he prepared to reject that? Let him speak and not sit there as if he has toothache.

Of course. Why do you ask such stupid questions?

Because I want to see where his heart is. He does not have the courage to do so here, but he will do all kinds of irresponsible things outside, because his heart is not in South Africa. He lacks the courage.

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

Where was Kowie?

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North lacks the courage. I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that that hon. member is not the only member of the PFP in Parliament who is imbued with that spirit.

I want to put a further question to the hon. members opposite. Are all the hon. members on that side of the House prepared to reject extra-parliamentary action unconditionally?

Are you going to resign from the Broederbond?

I am prepared to support what is right and to reject what is wrong.

Therefore you support extra-parliamentary action if it is right?

I say it is wrong. Can that hon. member say it? I say that I reject and fight it. I am a democrat. I want to say to the hon. member that in my opinion there is only one thing that is good for South Africa and that is democracy. I reject extra-parliamentary action. Is the hon. member who is sitting there with his glasses in his mouth, prepared to reject that?

Reject what?

He will not reply. Now he pretends that he does not understand. He advocated it. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether all the members of his party in Parliament and outside it are prepared to advocate that foreign investors should invest in South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

I ask whether all the members of his party are prepared to do that?

You chase investors away. I encourage them.

I ask whether all the members of his party are prepared to condemn the ANC, Swapo and Communism. Are they? As the hon. the Prime Minister said, the hon. members opposite regard the ANC as a political party. They are not prepared to act against them. [Interjections.] I want to ask the Opposition whether they are prepared to condemn the role played by Russia, Cuba and East Germany in Southern Africa. They will not do so. They will again want to say that it is all the fault of the NP.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he believes that Swapo must be part of a settlement in South West?

We say that as regards the method adopted by Swapo and the sort of government it wants, we …

Answer the question.

… totally reject it. We say that Swapo must be beaten.

You have already negotiated with Swapo.

We say Swapo must be beaten.

Finally I want to say to the hon. members opposite that the basic reason why they display an un-South African spirit is that they do not yet understand South Africa in its true perspective and its true character. They have never yet understood their own father-land—if there are any of them who recognize South Africa as their fatherland.

The hon. member for Florida also referred yesterday to the fact that scientists are nowadays providing us with evidence that the most important cause of conflict in the world is ethnicity. Ethnicity gives rise to conflict and tension among various peoples and groups. The hon. members opposite have not yet realized that fact, and because they have not realized it, they are not prepared to make provision for the various groups and peoples of which there are several in South Africa. It is because they do not understand it, because they do not recognize that fact, because they pretend that it does not exist and because they say, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central does in this document to which I have just referred: “I see it very simply. My position is that ultimately we are going to have majority rule. I do not know how long it is going to take …” And so he continues. However, to him it is simple. It is not necessary for him to give people security, to ensure that minorities will be protected and that minorities will be able to decide about themselves and their future. And it is that very fact which the NP, of all parties, understands. It was on that very basis that the NP was founded and it is that very fact that has motivated and inspired the NP and has enabled it to maintain the pace since it came to power, from 1948 up to the present, at perhaps an even greater tempo today under the present hon. Prime Minister. It is precisely because the NP understands this and because what it does in based on that that it has achieved success, and that is why South Africa is as prosperous and peaceful as it indeed is. Therefore it would simply be a disaster if a party with an un-South African spirit of that party were to come to power in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech yesterday, the essence of our no-confidence in this NP Government is that it is paralysed by its own ideological prejudice on the one hand and that it lacks the courage to reform on the other hand. This afternoon we have had a display from an hon. Minister who is paralysed by his ideological prejudice and who will not see that it is his policy that is causing the conflict that has been developing in this land. I wish to dwell on the latter aspect this afternoon because I believe this Government includes men who, in the face of overwhelming evidence of the need for basic reform away from apartheid—reform which I think some hon. members on the other side understand very well—lack the courage to confront their high priests of the apartheid dogma like the hon. Minister who has just resumed his seat. They are “bangbroeke”, people who are afraid to set out on a new greater trek away from apartheid. They lack the courage to move even though the people want them to move; their own people.

*To me the years of the NP are the years in which South Africa was led completely astray.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member referred to certain Ministers and said that they were “bangbroeke”. I should just like to know whether that is parliamentary.

Order! The hon. member for Constantia must withdraw that word.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. To me the years of the NP are the years in which South Africa was led completely astray. As someone has already put it: South Africa today requires men who have the courage to return to the place where they took the wrong turning in order to seek the right road.

†How much is it going to cost South Africa and how much more must this country pay before it realizes that the basic mistake which has been made in the modern history of this country is the policy of apartheid? The cost is beyond calculation. There was a time when this country was one of the most popular countries in the world. We were received everywhere with honour, but what happens today? We are regarded as polecats. That is only one of the costs of apartheid. There was a time when Southern Africa was a haven of peace. Today we are being sucked into a vortex of violence. Why? Basically, despite what we hear from the other side of the House, it is because of the policy of apartheid. That is the main spring of our troubles. Apartheid is the rallying cry of the communists who cast their eyes on this part of the world. Until that is realized and until apartheid is abolished in this country, not one of our basic problems is going to be solved. When we point out these things in this House, for example in this debate, hon. members opposite must remember that it is not only the 27 members sitting here who make these points and enter the no-confidence debate against the NP. Behind this party, the PEP, stands a vast multitude of people who are united on one point, namely that we must abandon apartheid. When we say apartheid must go, we have the Black and the Brown people standing behind us. We have virtually the whole of humanity standing behind us on that point. They are wanting to get away from race discrimination. That is why this party is growing. We are growing because we are the standard-bearers of the great idea that South Africa consists of all its peoples and the ideal of a broad South African patriotism. This party stands for a multi-racial South Africa, inclusive of all its peoples, where every individual on the basis of merit can fulfil himself no matter what minority he might belong to.

What does the NP have behind it? What do they stand for? They have the votes of a section of a section of South Africa behind them. That is structured in such a way as to produce a majority in this House, but in reality only a tiny minority of all the people of South Africa supports their apartheid policy. The NP is a minority Government imposing its will on this country. The NP is a party which was formed in the early part of this century, at the time when it was still the politics of Boer and Brit, around the idea of uniting Afrikaners to gain power within the structure as then existed. The very idea of a party structured around one section’s interests is absolutely untenable in a situation where we must accommodate many sections’ interests, in a situation where we must satisfy far wider sections and cross-sections of this country. This inherent sectional structure of the NP means that it has become a dangerous anachronism in South Africa. It is a party which threatens the peace by its policies and, like the UP before it, because it was formed for the problems of another age, it is unable to respond to the issues of modern South Africa.

To take the analogy a bit further, the present Prime Minister is, like Sir De Villiers Graaff before him, struggling to maintain the unity of a fractious party and constantly vacillates between “verlig” and “verkramp” in what he has to say.

I referred earlier to those hon. Ministers who, even though they see these things, even though they see what must be done about apartheid, do not have the necessary courage to make a move. The irony is that a bold reformer from the top ranks of the NP would not even need very much courage because the people would be behind him. Just consider the evidence. My hon. leader has referred to a poll the results of which were published in Rapport on 13 December. Rapport says: “Nattes al meer verlig oor kleur”. Cardinal principles of the NP, cardinal principles of apartheid are, according to this poll, rejected by the majority of the electorate. The majority of the electorate is prepared to accept that the race clause in the Immorality Act must go, is prepared to work under a Black boss, is prepared to accept freehold property rights, is prepared to accept open theatres. These are cardinal principles of NP policy and they are rejected by the majority of the electorate, rejected by the majority of the White electorate, let alone the Black and the Brown people. Yet that Government claims to govern with support. This same article makes a very interesting observation, namely “politieke waarnemers vind die swaai verrassend omdat NP-leiers nie so ’n verandering bepleit nie”. Just consider the effect if the NP leadership were actually to give a clear lead on change from apartheid, something which Dirk Mudge in South West Africa at least had the courage to do along very similar lines. In a situation where there is no leadership on reform coming from the NP a majority has moved in this way.

There are many other examples. On 15 March last year there appeared in Rapport an article under the heading “Groot steun vir een Volksraad”. The article says:

It goes on to say—

Another cardinal principle of NP policy, another example of where the majority of the White electorate, and even Nationalists in this case, are in conflict with the stated policy of the NP. What more evidence do we need to show the necessity for reform? However, there are many other examples one can use. There is the example of the Cape Town city council asking for all its amenities to be made available to all races. What happens? The Government says “no”. The hon. the Minister of Community Development was reported in The Argus of last Thursday as having refused this.

I should like to dwell for a moment on one example with which I am well acquainted. I am referring to the example of 4 November of last year. Two things happened on that day. That was the day on which the Indian Council elections were held and on which a referendum was held in my constituency as well. The Indian Council elections of 4 November which were preceded by a massive propaganda campaign on the part of the Government and which were an official exercise by the Government in terms of legislation passed by this House, which were enthusiastically sponsored by the Government, failed. These elections failed in a laughable way. They failed in a massive way. They failed because the Indian leaders and the Indian community boycotted those elections. The percentage poll was ridiculous.

What was the percentage poll in your referendum?

Those elections represented a massive rejection on the part of the Indian community. On the same day fortuitously—the hon. member for Turffontein will get his answer—I held a private and unofficial test of opinion in my constituency, a referendum in regard to the readiness on the part of my voters to accept their area becoming an open area, their streets becoming open areas. Perhaps this could be described as a personal test of their attitude towards apartheid. In spite of boycott efforts on the part of the hon. member for Simon’s Town who favours the status quo and seems to think that group areas are a great idea as long as they are situated in some other constituency, in spite of other efforts that were made to the contrary, we had a percentage poll which compared favourably with the percentage poll in the general election. I say, therefore, that the results of 4 November taken together represent an unmistakable message of the rejection of apartheid on the part of a wide spectrum of our population.

I should like at this stage to digress for a moment in order to answer certain comments that were made yesterday by the hon. member for Parys. In his speech he referred to the Constantia referendum in a most objectionable way. He questioned my motives by quoting an article in The Sunday Times. I have the article here. I want to remind the House that the hon. member quoted this article in the context that he said he had discovered that the big secret of the referendum was actually to prevent the Government scheme being proceeded with and that we were not going to apply to the Group Areas Board to declare the suburb open because the board did not have that power. He made a major point of that. However, the hon. member for Parys did not tell the House what appeared in the very next paragraph of that same article, which makes one wonder whether he was trying to mislead this House. In the very next paragraph I said that I intended contacting members of the Cabinet to advise them of the wishes of my constituents. It was a mere statement of fact to say that the Group Areas Board did not have the power to make it an open area. However, I did say that the next step was to approach the Cabinet to make it an open area. That hon. member questioned my motives.

The hon. member did another silly thing and he made a fool of himself in regard to this point. He then tackled me for referring to “gegoede Kleurlinge”. In his uncorrected Hansard he says—

Well, Sir, the hon. member displays his gross ignorance in saying this. I say this because my interpretation arose from what was said by the hon. the Minister of Community Development himself. The word the hon. the Minister used was “affluent”. As early as 28 September last year he wrote me a letter referring to “proposed new Coloured areas for the affluent”. [Interjections.] These were his words, not mine. On 1 December I made an appeal to the Group Areas Board that we should have an open area. On 14 September that same hon. Minister had stood up here in Parliament—and the hon. member for Parys does not even know this—and said—

The hon. the Minister went on to say that he had approached the Group Areas Board—

But not in Constantia.

If that policy does not suit that hon. member, he must sort things out with the hon. the Minister and not with me. He does not know what it is all about anyway.

†I want to dwell briefly on four noteworthy things which I believe emerged from the exchanges which I had as a result of the Constantia referendum. I am of the opinion that they have significance for anybody, particularly on that side of the House, who might be contemplating the implications of reform away from apartheid.

Firstly, I encountered vociferous and aggressive opposition from certain people in my constituency, racist verkramptes in my constituency, throughout the campaign. They were noisy, they were aggressive, but—this is the point—in hard vote terms they appeared to be no more than a lunatic fringe. The actual vote showed that 83,4% of the people who voted were in favour of the open area, while 13% said no.

How many postal votes were there?

I shall tell that hon. the Minister in a moment.

†As I have said, the noes were 13%. The spoilt papers came to 3,6%. The noes therefore lost their deposit against the yes vote.

The hon. the Minister wants to know how many postal votes there were. He is obviously trying to imply that the postal vote was a suspect kind of vote. Let me tell the hon. the Minister something about the so-called postal vote.

You were the organizer and the returning officer. You handled all the postal votes yourself.

A firm of attorneys conducted that poll, and they certified that poll. To this day all the results, papers and documents are in a tin trunk in the office of that firm of attorneys. The hon. the Minister knows where and he can inspect it. In fact, anybody can inspect it. Anybody can inspect the validity of the vote. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Minister is trying to cast aspersions on the postal votes. About half of the votes were postal votes.

More than half the votes.

The postal vote was cast after the man or the woman, the owner of the property, had been invited to sign in front of a witness …

Oh no!

Yes, that was the procedure, and therefore the postal vote was an even stronger vote than the one that was cast in secret in the ballot box. The person who cast a postal vote had to say openly what his views were and he had to be prepared to sign in front of a witness. The ballot paper had to be submitted to the office of the firm of attorneys and had to be signed in against that property owner’s name. The hon. the Minister should not try to cast aspersions against that.

I say to the hon. members opposite if the numbers of the decent people of Constantia can be underestimated—there were people who said that we would never get a yes majority in that referendum—it is also likely that the Government overestimates the strength of the lunatic right wing fringe in the country as a whole.

Secondly, the voters were not concerned about living next to Coloured people as such. They were not at all concerned. The only reassurance they sought was that standards should be maintained. So much then for a cornerstone of the Government’s thinking that one cannot put people of different colour together. We say that that has nothing to do with the issue.

The third thing was a most heart-warming development of which the Government again should take note. I am referring to the fact that many voters revealed an earnest and sincere desire to welcome members of other races into the area on an open basis. I found a wide acceptance for the argument that the desirability value of living in the area would increase if it was declared an open area because it would allow for the natural growth of friendships across colour barriers, and this is something we desperately need in South Africa.

Fourthly, one of the most interesting aspects of the campaign was that a number of property owners said that the yes vote could not win. They said that they were going to vote “yes”, but I was doing something crazy. One Nationalist ’phoned me and said that I was going to smash the PFP with one stroke because I was going to lose. Yet, we had Nationalists who said that they were going to vote “yes” because the time had come to do so. [Interjections.] This makes me think—I say it here in this House today—that South Africa is far more ripe for basic reforms than anybody has dared to imagine and particularly the Government which has brainwashed itself into believing that everybody is a racist verkrampte. In the light of the referendum the hon. the Prime Minister must now explain why the Government has rejected an open area—because he started this whole affair—when we have proved that the people support it.

*He waxes lyrical about the so-called “right of self-determination of the people”. What about the right of self-determination of Constantia?

†The hon. the Prime Minister must explain whether he is just wasting time playing rhetorical games, because if he were in any way serious about basic reform he would welcome the opportunity to take one small step away from apartheid, with the support of the local community. The hon. the Prime Minister scoffs at us and says that we can buy our apartheid. However, if one examines the socio-economic profile of Constantia and Tokai—both of which were included in this test—one will find that large parts are totally indistinguishable from many other parts of South Africa.

What about Pinelands?

One can compare property sizes and values in Tokai and parts of Constantia and one will find that they correspond to parts of Pinelands. In any case, what is this nonsense about Pinelands? Why should a test be done in Pinelands? It is in my area that the Government wants to create this new scheme and it is therefore in my area that one must have the test. Most of Pinelands’ constituency falls under the Cape Town City Council and they have already said that they want the whole area open.

Why do you not do the same thing in Johannesburg? [Interjections.]

Order!

There is another point that members on that side of the House must remember. The SABC tried this one. It said the “plush suburb of Constantia” voted for an open area. It was trying to imply that Constantia is something very unique, special and right at the top of the tree. I do concede that there are some parts of Constantia that are right on top of the economic tree, of course, but there are parts of Constantia which are consistent with many other parts of South Africa. In addition, Constantia ranks only ninth among constituencies with PFP majorities. There are many other parts of South Africa where the same socio-economic profile applies.

Another point is that that side of the House knows very well that this kind of apartheid legislation has been abandoned in South West Africa/Namibia, and what has happened there? Nothing has happened except for complaints from a few “bitter-bekke”. They know that apartheid in South West Africa/Namibia is totally unsaleable so why do the Government not see the logic of that and make a start in this country?

May I please ask the hon. member a question?

No, my time is running out. I would like to conclude by saying that when I survey the political scene there are only a few leaders in this House who thus far have displayed the kind of courage, guts and principle that are required for the task that lies ahead for us in South Africa. All of those leaders are sitting in the front benches of the PFP. Our leaders were prepared to stand up and take unpopular stands on principle. They had the courage to do it at a time when it was unpopular and the task was a thankless one without political rewards. Today the leaders of the NP are not prepared to stand up for reform, even though it would be a popular thing to do. I wonder if any of the leaders on that side of the House will ever show the kind of courage that is necessary. Are they too comfortable in their positions as Ministers of State to grasp the nettle of change while South Africa desperately needs it? Only time will tell. Until the day arrives when the Government displays the necessary vision and courage to implement the reforms we need, we will continue to have no confidence in this Government.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia devoted his speech largely to the referendum in his constituency. I am already somewhat bored by his referendum. I do not think it was of any real political significance, nor do I intend reacting further to it. However, I want to refer to one or two remarks that the hon. member made.

In the first place he referred to the policy of the Government, and did so in a derogatory fashion. He spoke about the Government’s “policy of apartheid”. Now we all know that apartheid or separation has been part of the policy of the NP for many decades. Throughout the world a tremendous stigma has been built up around this aspect of separation. Without a doubt, the policy of the Government is not restricted to the separation of people only. It also goes much further. It is about the development of people. It is about enabling people to achieve their highest ideals. It is about people being helped along the road of self determination and self-development. Therefore if one simply dismisses the policy of the Government as a policy of apartheid, one is dealing with one small section only of the totality of the policy of the Government. Now we see that a stigma has arisen around the word “apartheid” throughout the world. In the UN there are special committees on apartheid. There are also commissions on apartheid, as well as actions against apartheid. That misrepresentation that is being perpetuated throughout the world in order to chastise us, why should we also have to listen to it here in the House of Assembly of the Republic of South Africa? Why is it not possible for an hon. member of the Opposition, when he is criticizing the policy of the Government, to place that policy in its context and in its totality, as it really is? Simply to refer to the policy of the Government as apartheid, as if separation were the beginning and the end of the policy, is surely to disregard the truth.

You are ashamed of the word “apartheid”.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to react to the remark by the hon. member for Pinelands, who says that I am ashamed of the policy of the Government, or words to that effect. I want to put it to him as follows. What this Government is not ashamed of, is the fact that it is in favour of the separate development of people and of groups that do in fact belong together. Nor is the Government ashamed of differentiation that exists. Nor is the Government ashamed of its intention to maintain that existing differentiation. However, we want to state clearly that it is not the beginning and the end of the Government’s policy. I hope that I have now put that standpoint clearly.

You don’t say!

No, you are not going to get away with it that easily. [Interjections.]

Furthermore the hon. member said that the Government is a “minority Government imposing its will on the people of this country”. In terms of the policy of the PFP—as far as I understand their policy—if they were to take over the government of South Africa now, they would convene a national convention. That national convention would then have to reach unanimity with the aim of advising this Parliament. Should this Parliament accept the advice of the national convention, this Parliament—this is the White Parliament now—would accept a new constitution here in terms of the policy of the PFP.

Should it not be possible to reach an agreement at that national convention, or if the Whites in power—it would then be the PFP—should not be prepared to accept the advice of the national convention, the PFP would therefore simply continue, in the guise of a White Parliament, to govern the country. Therefore, what the PFP is now accusing the NP of, is nevertheless a real possibility in terms of their own policy. Of course, this is if the unlikely, even ridiculous event should happen and the PFP should possibly come into power. I now want to come to what, in my opinion, is the essence of the criticism against the Government. In my opinion this criticism has been used against us fairly effectively over the years. The first point of criticism against the Government has three legs. The first leg is that the Government is opposed to reform, that it is not in favour of it. From morning to evening the non-Whites of South Africa are being told that the Government does not want to bring about constitutional, social or economic reform. This is what is being broadcast in South Africa from day to day: The Government is opposed to reform.

A second important point that ties up with this, is that the Government merely wants to maintain the status quo, and in the third place it is being alleged that the Government is doing so by making use in an improper fashion of the powers that it has in terms of the security legislation.

If one takes a closer look at these points of criticism, one realizes that the Opposition and our enemies have succeeded in making a formidable case against us, a case with far-reaching effect. These attacks are extremely malicious and they give the NP an image of inflexibility, of stagnation. This criticism is being initiated in South Africa. Over the years it has been articulated by the Leader of the official Opposition, and at the moment it is being orchestrated throughout the world.

Today we must ask ourselves a few questions. Firstly, is this tripartite attack on the Government fair? In the second place: What is its motive and thirdly, what is its effect?

I want to begin with the last point, viz. the question of security legislation. The hon. member for Florida replied to this yesterday. We on this side of the House reject the accusation that we are abusing the powers that are granted in terms of our security legislation merely to maintain our own privileged position in South Africa. We maintain that this legislation is being used to control people in an attempt to prevent those people who are affected by security legislation, from behaving in such a way that the entire dispensation in South Africa would be overthrown. It is not necessary for me to elaborate on that any further. [Interjections.] As far as the status quo is concerned, a reply was furnished to this yesterday, and therefore I do not want to go into it further now. However, I am quite prepared to debate it with the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition on another occasion.

The question is: Do we want to maintain the status quo? On Friday, the State President said here in the Assembly Chamber that the Republic is in a state of transition. We are part of a community that finds itself in a transitional stage. There is no question about this being the case. Last year the Minister of Internal Affairs stated clearly that the South African Government is not in favour of maintaining the status quo. The President’s Council and various other commissions were appointed for the very purpose of advising the Government on how we can move away from the status quo. The accusation that the Government wants to maintain the status quo, is therefore untenable.

The question is whether the Government wants to bring about reform, yes or no. The answer is a very definite, clear “Yes”. This answer was given to us once again today by the highest authority in the Republic, viz. the hon. the Prime Minister. It has also been given to us on a previous occasion by the other Minister concerned. Over the years there has been concrete evidence of this. However, the problem that we have with the PFP, is not that they want to help us to bring about reform in South Africa. Our problem is that they want to bring about change or reform of a specific kind. They want the Government to change and to bring about renewal in South Africa, but the PFP wants its ideas, ideals and policy of Black majority rule to be implemented in South Africa. Anything less than that, in their opinion, does not amount to any reform at all. Yesterday the hon. the Leader of the Opposition uttered strange sounds in his speech here. He spoke about a “political realignment” and said it would be possible if the Government were prepared to control its right wing effectively. He said that there could then be a “realignment” of all persons in favour of reform, in opposition to those who are opposed to reform.

White and non-White.

As far as that is concerned, we can never agree on this with the PEP, and for a very good reason too. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred in his speech to the “realignment”, he said it would mean a “realignment of the moderates” on the one hand, and on the other, the left wing and right wing radicals whose actions amount to a militariness in South Africa. However, the PFP’s problem is that it harbours left wing radicals in its bosom. Therefore, there is a question that we must ask ourselves. I notice that there is no indignant reaction from the other side. [Interjections.] The question is to what extent they will be able to develop themselves here in the House of Assembly. They do not want to bring about reform that will be accompanied by the maintenance of stability. There are people there who are radicals and who do not constitute part of the modern, moderate people in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition who came forward here yesterday with this type of offer of “realignment”, wants to create the impression that he is fair and that he will go along with everyone who wants to bring about reform. We on this side of the House—and I think most other South Africans, too—will simply not fall for it. It is nothing but show, it is nothing but sleight of hand. The PFP plays a very important role in the process of change. In the process of change one of the most important prerequisites is that we should have the right attitude for change in South Africa. One cannot first change the formal structure in a country and then hope that attitudes will change. One must first put right the attitudes in South Africa, and then the establishment of the formal constitutional structures will simply be a manifestation of the attitudes that have already changed in South Africa. This brings me once again to the special role that the Opposition plays in this regard. I want to accuse them today of undoubtedly bedevilling the spirit of and the attitude towards positive change in South Africa, and they are doing so in various ways. They are doing so by adopting a contemptuous attitude towards and misrepresenting the Government’s attitude towards change. They are also doing so by despising and ignoring the Government’s achievements. They are also doing so by disparaging all the Government’s plans and everything that it does. In that way they are making it impossible for the one body, viz. the Government, that is essential for bringing about change in South Africa, i.e. if one wants to do so in an evolutionary and peaceful fashion, to in fact bring about change. When reform is at issue, in my opinion, there is an important matter that we want to lay at the door of the Opposition today: They are making reform very difficult to achieve in South Africa. Now you could tell me, Sir, that the PFP is a small party and ask how such a small party could hamper the entire spirit and attitude with regard to reform in South Africa. In this regard we simply have to bear in mind that it takes only one blow-fly to spoil an entire carcass.

The Government is determined—and with this I conclude—to continue along the road to reform. In spite of the actions of the Opposition, the Government is determined to create the right attitude in South Africa as a prerequisite for the successful structuring of constitutional reform and all other reform that is required. Under no circumstances will the attempts of the Opposition in this regard hamper the Government in the long term, because more and more people—the Blacks and various population groups in South Africa—are beginning to realize that the Opposition is presenting a false front to them, that the Opposition is creating a false image and that the Opposition is not the most important factor for the successful achievement of a peaceful future in South Africa, but that the Government is in fact in that position.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria Central laid some considerable stress on the fact that he considered that the official Opposition was in fact hindering the process of change in South Africa. He went on to say that it is necessary to create an atmosphere of change in South Africa before one introduces the necessary constitutional changes. The one thing the hon. member must appreciate is that there has been the illusion in South Africa until relatively recently that the process of change the NP was indulging in would in fact result in a fundamental departure from apartheid, to which he referred. The reality has now, however, dawned on South Africa that the process of change which the NP is indulging in is in fact merely the process of adapting its existing policies in order to make them more acceptable and more of a consumer-orientated product in South Africa and the world. The one man who has actually made that clear throughout has been the hon. the Minister of State Administration. He has said throughout that in fact there is no change and that apartheid remains as it is. He has remained on one single path all along. All his colleagues have believed until recently that they were on another road, but the hon. the Minister of State Administration has brought them back to the road he wanted to walk. He even brought the hon. member for Pretoria Central back and even he is now walking the road of apartheid again. That is the reality of the situation.

The other point we have to remember very clearly is that if one wants to create the atmosphere in South Africa in which change is possible, if one wants to install amongst the people the degree of goodwill one requires of them—and I agree with the hon. member on that—one actually has to hold out hope that in fact changes are going to come about which will of be of a meaningful nature and which will be changes away from apartheid in South Africa. The tragedy is that one cannot in fact say to people that one is going to continue to have apartheid but it is going to come in a more pleasant package. In reality apartheid as such is not a saleable commodity for the bulk of the people who live in South Africa. That is the reality. If one is going to insist on trying to sell that commodity, irrespective of how one wraps it up or packages it one will not be able to sell it. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development must also realize that. He has to realize that he must sell a new product. It is like trying to sell a soap-powder that has ruined washing. One cannot then continue to try to sell the same soap-powder. One has to sell another product. That is the dilemma. [Interjections.] I am using the definition of apartheid of the hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Pretoria Central has just said that as far as he is concerned it means separation but also development. We know that that is not a saleable commodity and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development knows that it is not a saleable commodity. He has said so himself. On the one hand there is the hon. the Minister who says that it is dead but he will not bury it and on the other hand there is the hon. member for Pretoria Central, who is now a follower of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, who says that apartheid is alive and that it merely has a new face and a new make-up.

There is one thing that we have to accept in this debate. If we are going to talk about there being no confidence in the Government we also have to deal with the economic mismanagement in which this Government has indulged in the past, I would say, year or more. I do not want to deal in detail with financial policy tonight because I understand the hon. the Minister of Finance is indisposed and it would ill behove me to deal with his portfolio while he is away. However, the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance and of Industries, Commerce and Tourism are here and I want to say to them that they have utterly failed in the fight against inflation in South Africa. There are thousands and thousands of workers, housewives and pensioners who can testify to this in South Africa. The reason for this is not because something beyond their control has appeared with which they cannot deal, but the reality is that two things have happened in South Africa. The first is that this Government has allowed the money supply to get out of control. That is a fact. It is a fact because they have admitted it. They have allowed the money supply to get out of control when their whole policy is directed towards controlling the money supply in order to deal with inflation. They have admitted this and now they claim that they are getting it under control again. Not only have they allowed the money supply to get out of control but they have also actually failed to deal with the other aspect of inflation, i.e. the cost control element in the economy. That has been part of the problem of the philosophy of the Government in seeking to combat inflation—they concentrate on the money supply and fail to control it effectively. They ignore entirely the cost control factor in the inflation picture. In that respect they have failed. As far as the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism is concerned we have warned him repeatedly against exploitation and against the profit motive which gets out of control. The Government has done nothing about it until today when, miraculously, the hon. the Prime Minister gets up and echoes what we have said for the past couple of years, namely that steps have got to be taken to deal adequately with exploitation in South Africa. Exploitation is rife in South Africa and some people have taken the profit motive completely to extremes in South Africa at the expense of the ordinary man, the ordinary worker in South Africa. That indictment lies at the feet of this Government and there are thousands of people in South Africa who have no confidence in the Government because of its failure to look after their ordinary interests. We are not dealing here with the highfalutin constitutional stuff, the things that one can theorize about, but the day to day living of ordinary South Africans which has been adversely affected by this Government because of its failure to deal with the inflation situation that exists here. When we talk about having no confidence in this Government with regard to economic policy we say that they have failed and they have failed miserably in regard to this whole scene in South Africa.

There is another matter which I think needs to be touched on. I want to start on it this evening and I hope to continue with it tomorrow. I refer to the question of the Public Service and the situation in which the Public Service finds itself. However, in view of the hour, I now move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.