Mr. Speaker, as regards the business of the House for next week, I wish to point out that the House will proceed to deal with the Order Paper, as printed.

Mr. Speaker, there are three specific matters I would like to deal with arising out of the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to debate these on the hon. the Prime Minister’s premises. In other words, for purposes of the debate I am accepting the premises as they were put forward by the hon. the Prime Minister. I am not advancing my party’s policies, but I want to debate with him his approach and his policies in the manner in which he has put them.

*I should like to begin by quoting from the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister (Hansard, 2 February)—

The hon. member for Durban Point then said—

Then the hon. the Prime Minister went on to say—

The hon. the Prime Minister was referring to the members of Parliament, the members of his party. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon. the Prime Minister was referring to his own people. He went on to say—

A little later on the hon. member for Durban Point said—

The hon. the Prime Minister replied—

†What is significant about this is that it is quite clear from what the hon. the Prime Minister said that he wants to take his people with him and that he has ideas but that in fact he cannot take his people with him at this moment in time as regards these ideas. If he did not mean that, he would never have used those words and he would never have indicated that at all. What I believe the hon. the Prime Minister must tell us is where he would actually like to lead these people whom he does not want to “dwaal” around like sheep. Where does he want to lead them? What does he want to achieve in the circumstances? That is what he will not tell us. He spoke for two hours, but not once did he tell us where he wanted to lead his party. That is the reality of it. The truth is that the Government at the present moment is a Government of indecision. It is a Government that cannot tell one what it is going to do.

What does the smiling hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, for example, want to do with regard to the President’s Council and its proposed recommendations in relation to the Coloured people?

Does he want Coloured people in this House or not? Will he tell me now? He can say “yes” or “no” as to whether he wants Coloured people sitting in this House. I may be very foolish, but I can understand “yes” and “no”, even when it comes from the hon. the Minister. If that hon. Minister will not answer, will the hon. the Prime Minister answer? Does he want Coloured people sitting in this House? The answer is “yes” or “no”. Does the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development want Coloured people sitting in this House? Is anybody on the other side prepared to say that he wants Coloured people sitting in this House or not? Nobody can tell us. Is that not an example of government by indecision, the inability to tell the people what they want? The hon. the Minister of Manpower is now shaking his head. Does he want Coloured people in this House?

You must listen to what is said here.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it is actually a farce. It is an absolute farce if one cannot give an answer to a simple question. There are 135 hon. members sitting opposite and not one of them can answer. I know what the answer of the hon. the Minister of State Administration and of Statistics is, but he is keeping quiet now because he is also playing this game of the possible politics. The reality of the matter is that when they do not know what to do they say that the President’s Council is going to decide, and if it is not the President’s Council, it is a commission. I have perused the last Auditor-General’s Report and do you know, Sir, that according to this report in respect of pending matters and expenditure committed there are no less than 30 commissions sitting. So when the Government does not know the answer, what they do is that they ask a commission or a departmental committee, something of that sort. One of the reasons why one cannot have confidence in this Government is because it is incapable of making decisions, and when they make decisions, as the hon. the Minister of Police is an expert at doing, they make the wrong decisions. That is the tragedy of it all, that is the tragedy of this Government.

However, there is perhaps a more significant matter to which the hon. the Minister referred. It is a matter that I do not want to joke about, because I think it is a very serious matter. I refer to the very last thing that he said in this particular speech. He used words which, I must tell hon. members, sent a chill down my spine. The words which he used were “a big silence and desolation will come over many parts of Southern Africa.” Those are chilling words, words which I do not think anybody should joke about in this House. I want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister—I say it in all sincerity and I hope he will accept it in the spirit in which I put it to him—that it is not enough to say that that is a possibility. I think it is important that the message that should go out from this House is that there is a hand of friendship available from South Africa which can be given …

Read what I said.

I have read it. That there is a hand of friendship which can be given by South Africa as a whole to anybody who wants to be a friend of South Africa.

Read what I said.

It is not enough, as the hon. the Prime Minister has said …

You are quoting out of context now.

Wait a minute; let me go on. It is not enough to say that there should be a non-aggression pact. I agree with a non-aggression pact, but we have got to go a lot further than that. We have got to go further and I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister agrees. That is why I am not having an argument with him. I am putting a very important and serious point in relation to this matter to him. It is important from this Parliament’s point of view that the clear message that should go out to Southern Africa is that we look for co-operation, we look for helpfulness, we look for peace and we look to have a Southern Africa in which there is a place for everybody to exist.

Why do you not quote my words?

That is why where there are chilling words I believe that the real message that must come out from this House is a message of friendship and of understanding.

I now want to come to the third point and debate again with the hon. the Prime Minister because it is a serious matter.

Are you going to vote for my amendment?

It is the words that the hon. the Prime Minister used in respect of the total onslaught on South Africa. I am not a person who has ever suggested that there is no attack upon South Africa. On the contrary, there is an attack on South Africa in the border area, an attack by terrorists, an attack internally, an attack by means of subversion, an attack by the United Nations and by other countries of the world. Therefore, there is no doubt that there is an attack on South Africa. What the degree of that attack is people may differ on, but the reality is that there is such an attack. There is no doubt that we have to meet that attack. I want to take the hon. the Prime Minister’s own words in regard to what he calls the total onslaught and examine whether we are in fact doing everything that is required in order to meet the attack upon South Africa or, to take the hon. the Prime Minister’s own contention, to meet the total onslaught on South Africa. I want to debate rationally and reasonably whether we are doing everything in that regard.

The first point I want to make is that if we are going to meet that attack there is no doubt that all the people of South Africa have to be unified in the concept of meeting that attack. They can be unified when they have something to lose, when they have a stake, when they have hope for the future. One of the things I believe is the hon. the Prime Minister’s holy duty is for him to hold out hope for the people of South Africa as a whole that the lot of those who are deprived will be improved, that the lot of those who have something to complain about will be changed and that there is on the horizon for all of us a new South Africa which gives hope and which every person who lives here can be committed to to defend against the kind of onslaught we are talking about. That is the fundamental issue in regard to meeting this attack. That is what we should be debating, namely how we as South Africans in this House can get together and debate reasonably and rationally what we can do to unify our people so that we do not have to fear attacks on us. That is our fundamental duty.

Secondly, the hon. the Prime Minister indicated very clearly that in his view we are actually to some extent fighting the fight for the West here in Southern Africa. He indicated to the House that there are our resources, our strategic position and all sorts of other things which are important to the West, which we represent here in Southern Africa. I must say I agree with him completely. I have no difficulty with that contention. However, what I do say is that there is only one set of allies we can have in the whole world in this fight against the communists, against the USSR, against their satellites and surrogates, and those allies are in the West. What we have to do is while we in fact hold Southern Africa for the West, get the West to help us hold Southern Africa for it and so hold it for ourselves. The question I want to ask is whether we are in fact doing everything in our power in order to see that Western opinion and Western opinion-makers and Western powers as such are in fact helping us in order to deal with this situation. I venture to suggest that there are many examples which we can give of where we are not doing that.

I can give one example. I believe and there must be thousands who believe similarly that the mere tabling of the Steyn Commission’s Report on the Press with its recommendations, did harm to South Africa in the West. I have no doubt about that. When I look at the recommendations in regard to the Press I see a danger for us. Already there are comments in regard to those recommendations from all over. When I look at the philosophy in regard to democracy that is being advocated in that report and see concepts that have been tried and tested in the West for generations being attacked, I ask myself whether there is not something more significant in this report and whether it does not in fact do more harm to the country to have that kind of thing put forward in that kind of form. I must tell the House that I am more than concerned that such recommendations and such reports will do us harm. I believe that that is not the way to win friends.

The third point I wish to make is whether we in fact handle correctly issues which affect our image abroad. We have been a little unfortunate in our Ministers of Police. Our previous Minister of Police caused immeasurable harm to South Africa by his reaction to events. Now we have another hon. Minister of Police who has also caused immeasurable harm to South Africa by the way in which he has reacted to events and by the incompetence he has shown in the handling of his portfolio. I want to ask, with great respect to the hon. the Prime Minister, whether we can actually afford to have that sort of thing happening as far as South Africa is concerned. I am referring to this matter in this sort of situation where we need the friends, we need the image. In fact, we had a particular good image as far as this issue was concerned until the hon. the Minister of Police put his foot in it. We had a particular good image in this regard.

He put both his feet in it.

That image was completely destroyed for us in a matter of hours by one man.

You are talking absolute nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense and the hon. the Prime Minister knows it. However, the hon. the Prime Minister cannot admit it. I understand his problem. I want to put this question to the hon. the Prime Minister: Are decisions of this nature that can affect us in this way to be made by one Cabinet Minister alone? Are these not matters for the decision of the Cabinet as a whole? I believe that the Cabinet as a whole should not only make these decisions but should also take responsibility for them.

The fourth point that I want to make in this regard is that I believe that one of the fundamentals in resisting those who seek to undermine the State is to maintain the fabric of the State. I feel that when things start breaking down in South Africa we play into the hands of those who seek to destroy South Africa. Let me give a simple example. When the incidence of crime increases, this promotes the aims of those who seeks to undermine the State. I say this because such a fact destroys the confidence of people in the law enforcement agencies. An increase in crime can in fact be equated with actions that can be of a terrorist nature. I believe that when we allow this sort of thing to develop, when we allow this sort of destabilizing factor to develop in South Africa we are doing harm to the cause we are seeking to promote in fighting to maintain the very situation to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred. I say this because if there is no stability in South Africa then there is no ability on the part of anybody to change whether it be the Government or whether it be ourselves should we come into power. Stability is an absolute essential for peaceful change and it has to be maintained at all costs.

I want here to deal with the Public Service. This is a subject which causes me the greatest concern in this particular context. I believe that South Africa is facing a major problem in the threatened breakdown of the Public Service. Not only is it a service in which many of its members are unhappy and disgruntled and in which there is a shortage of personnel which makes people feel that they are underpaid and overworked but the fact also remains that the growing volume of statutes is increasing their workload. There are another 40 odd Bills on the Order Paper of today. Activities, both economic and personal, in South Africa are enmeshed in a mass of permits and consents and inundated with increasing volumes of returns that have to be filed with the authorities.

The effect of all this is that, in the first instance, there is not the required manpower in the Public Service to handle this workload. Secondly, manpower is being utilized to oversee and enforce laws and regulations which can clearly be dispensed with and this manpower is being diverted from the essential services of the State. In the third instance, valuable manpower in the private sector has to be diverted to handle this nonproductive activity. In the fourth instance, small entrepreneurs, particularly the new Black entrepreneurs who require to be encouraged, find it extremely difficult to get off the ground and, if they do get off the ground, to continue their business enterprises. In the fifth instance, delays in South Africa cost interest and make some activities, e.g. township development, extremely difficult to conduct. Township development has been virtually emasculated as a result of these delays. It is often not appreciated that, for example, delays in rezoning applications which take years to finalize add a tremendous amount of money to the cost of such a venture. Time is interest and interest is money and this increases costs. In the sixth instance, the use of an increasing number of economically active persons in non-productive activity clearly increases inflation. The so-called rationalization of the Public Service which the hon. the Prime Minister introduced does not appear to have succeeded in reducing either the number of posts on the establishment of the Public Service or the workload. If the problem is to be solved, then the actual laws, regulations and administrative procedures must be reviewed in order to eliminate unnecessary returns and permits and so reduce the volume of work. If free enterprise is to flourish in South Africa, business must be freed of this burden and in the process the Public Service can function more efficiently. I therefore want to appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister to proceed with his rationalization programme by conducting, what I would like to call, “operation freedom from red tape” and so assist in the fight against inflation, improve Government efficiency and free officials to do the work which is really required of them. Let us get down to doing things which are fundamental to the functioning of the State and not those which are incidental and which are unnecessary, and so solve some of the problems that face us.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Yeoville. He addressed himself to the hon. the Prime Minister; I think the hon. the Prime Minister is quite capable of throwing him into confusion with a single sentence. The hon. member asked whence we were being led and in answer to this he need merely be referred to the manifesto of the NP on which we fought the election last year and on the basis of which we achieved an overwhelming majority. He could also be referred to the 12-point plan which was compiled, issued and accepted by the party congresses on the initiative of the hon. the Prime Minister. If he is in any doubt, I do not think the majority of the voters in South Africa are in any doubt; least of all the doubt which the hon. member has at the bottom of his heart. [Interjections.] I can also refer the hon. member to the 1977 proposals …

What about the …

The hon. member can stop asking questions; he must be given an answer for a change so that he can know what is going on.

The hon. member can read what the 1977 proposals are again, in respect of which the chief leader of the party and we have recently stated that what is before the President’s Council by way of proposals remains the standpoint of the NP. From the recommendations of the President’s Council new decisions will be formulated in future.

The hon. member also raised other aspects. I think the hon. the Minister of Police will reply to him on certain statements …

I shall do so this afternoon, my friend. [Interjections.]

Sir, it really seems to me as though the climate is promising. [Interjections.]

I now come to what the hon. member had to say about the Public Service. In passing I want to refer to the hon. member for Johannesburg North who also discussed the Public Service. One of the remarks he made was concerned with the Commission for Administration. The commission is allegedly not a competent body to look after the interests of the Public Servants because it is also made up of public servants and this allegedly disqualifies it from acting properly. The fact of the matter is simply that the members of the Commission for Administration are not public servants; they are appointed by the State President and are accountable to Parliament. They are just as much public servants as the hon. member for Durban North is still a judge of the Bench. I think it was totally uncalled for to aim such a blow at the Commission for Administration.

During the past few months a great deal has been written and said about the Public Service. I feel that a great deal that was written and said about the Public Service was necessary. It was a good thing because it brought the problems of the Public Service into sharp focus. However, I am sorry to say that a great deal of what was said not only indicated the problems, but also in fact humiliated the Public Service and gave prominence to an image of dissatisfaction and frustration. This led to a feeling of despondency and paralysis among some people.

Some of the people who spoke and wrote about the Public Service reminded me of a character in the TV film Around the World in 80 Days.

I am referring to the character who kept on trying to wreck the entire project: Vuil Uil. Today I want to make an appeal to all those who have ears to hear: Do not be a Vuil Uil and run down our Public Service. Let us put an end to the sinking ship stories, the pessimism, the jeremiads and one-sided awareness of problems. From a one-sided awareness of problems one cannot get positive answers to the questions. Let us see the Public Service for what it is, viz. a particular combination of opportunities to work and serve. Function for function and post for post there are few other spheres of activities where the work which has to be done has the intrinsic value and offers the challenges which the Public Service does. Because the central Government operates over such a wide field and covers such a large canvas, it offers exceptional opportunities for career fulfilment and self-realization. Surely this is a fact. Young people for whom happiness and fulfilment in the pursuance of a career are important, will not be making a mistake if they choose a career in the Public Service. From the outset such a person has the assurance that he is working for an institution that will recognize his merits, acknowledge them and reward him accordingly—and we are trying to improve that reward—and that also protects the individual against unwarranted discrimination and favouritism. This is the kind of institution he will be working for. Young people who decide to make the Public Service their career—not just to accept a post there, but to make it their career—have the prospect of moving more rapidly than ever before through the various grades to the top posts.

Since we have been reading many letters, both anonymous and signed, I have here a letter written by a Public Servant in Pretoria—

The man who wrote this is not a “vuil uil”. This person is representative of the scores of Public Servants I come across who ask that the service of which they are a part should not be depicted as a service which is manned by strikers and people of that kind. They ask if they cannot be given another image and if we cannot act in a positive manner in this regard.

Of course the Public Service has its problems. I do not want to spend too much time on this because I do not want to be a Jeremiah. A few things are true. It is true that the position, in particularly the civil service, is causing concern. It is true that during the past 10 years there has consistently been a net loss of staff. It is true that since 1971 we have just not been able to rectify the staff position. The accumulated vacancies at present total 17 000. This is cause for concern. More than 80% of the officials leaving the Public Service are under the age of 40 and this of course causes serious problems in the manning of senior posts. In the entry grades for Whites the vacancies increased to 20% in 1981. This is true and we are not denying it.

On the other hand we have already tried every possible method of improving the staff position of the Public Service. Married women are being employed on a large scale and members of all population groups are being appointed in accordance with the current employment policy. It is therefore not true, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition implied in his motion of no confidence, that we have established a White Public Service during the past 30 years. The simple fact of the matter is that 53% of the Public Service is manned by non-Whites. This is a fact and was already stated last year. Why does he say such things?

Organization and method studies are constantly being applied; training is being promoted; labour-saving devices are being used and will continue to be used to an increasing extent. However, the staff loss continues.

I want to point out a few errors of judgment and misconceptions. There are people who profess to be experts on and advisers to the Public Service who have not worked a single day in the Public Service and I seriously doubt whether they are really qualified to speak with authority about this service. I must say that many of them have been weighed and found wanting. One can see this at a glance. Some people insist that the Public Service’s problem lies in the fact that it is too large. Then they drop hints about an unwieldy bureaucracy. Even the hon. the Leader of the Opposition alluded to an administrative State bureaucracy. They speak about an “unwieldy staff mass” which has been appointed indiscriminately and suggest that this mass be reduced in size.

What are the facts? Let us consider a few figures. I know that one can frequently juggle with figures. I know one can do this. However, the figures I have before me I have on the authority of senior people in the Administration. I believe the figures I have here are authoritative.

At all levels of government in the Republic of South Africa there are approximately 1,3 million people of all population groups in the service of public institutions. This is about 27% of the total employees in the entire country. Of these 1,3 million people employed by the public sector, 26% or approximately 335 000, are employed by the Central Government. Then one finds 21% employed in the South African Transport Services, 19% in the provincial administrations and 17% in the employ of local authorities. That 26%, i.e. the 335 000 of all population groups—is the so-called clumsy bureaucracy which is being talked about. Of this 335 000, 64% of approximately 214 000 are employed either in education or in the Army, the Police and the Prison Services. The remaining 36%, or approximately 121 000, render the normal civil services of the central Government, and this includes nursing and welfare services. If nursing is calculated at 6% and deducted from this, the total is approximately 100 000. Of this number just over 37 000 officials are employed in the administrative, clerical, professional, technical and the general A sections of the Public Service. In other words, 2,8% of all the public employees—which represents 0,8% of the country’s employees—is the figure we are discussing here.

If we were to add together all the officials of all the population groups and compare them with the service rendered to the entire population, it appears that one official has to teach, supply welfare services, health, hospital and security services, roads, and in addition administration to an average of 18,5 people. This picture is not all that unfavourable. The ratio compares favourably with that of comparable countries. The ratio of official to population is higher in the USA than in South Africa. In any event, this is the case in developed countries.

I think one can justifiably ask: Be very careful about making unfounded accusations about clumsy bureaucracy. The National Productivity Institute found that South Africa’s Public Service is producing the greatest increase in labour productivity. One could perhaps say that perhaps this is overstating the case a little, but it is in any event a very positive verdict on our Public Service.

I think we must also ask where we should or are able to retrench to such a great extent. The Defence Force, the Police and the Prisons Service grew by 37,28% between 1970 and 1979. Do our friends opposite want us to decrease their numbers? We cannot.

Non-White education grew by 65,28%. Does anyone wish to suggest that there should be fewer Black teachers, although we all know how many pupils must be taught by one teacher?

Nursing and health services grew by 43,58%, and the remainder of the Service decreased by 21,97%! Apparently this is where hon. members want us to retrench further.

Sir, may I say a few words about labour relations in the Public Service? As regards the question of collective bargaining, salaries and conditions of service, to which the hon. member for Johannesburg North referred, as well as arbitration and so on, I am sorry to say that I am not in a position to make a statement in this regard today. The Government has postponed its decision on the recommendation of the Wiehahn Commission concerning this matter until the Commission for Administration has investigated and reported on it. The first part of the commission’s investigation has virtually been completed and proposals in that connection will be submitted to the Cabinet as soon as possible. In the meantime, I can, however, assure this House that on the formal as well as informal level there is good communication with organized officialdom. Both sides prefer co-operation, dialogue and negotiation to confrontation. I am sorry that the suggestion of a rebellion which is ostensibly about to break out in the Public Service, had to come from the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition. We must not suggest such things because many people will hold it against us.

Personally I was impressed by the responsible behaviour of the management of the Public Servants’ Association in their negotiations with the Commission for Administration and with me; and also by the way in which they gave the hon. the Prime Minister a hearing and the way in which the Prime Minister received them and spoke to them. Their behaviour is a credit to them and to the officials they represent, and I want to pay tribute to them.

As regards the representation of non-White officials, there have been important developments. According to the rules for the recognition of staff associations, only the Public Servants’ Association, an organization for White officials complies at present with the requirements for formal recognition. However, the Commission for Administration has seen fit—and in my opinion correctly so—to accord an existing staff association for Coloured officials informal recognition on a basis of co-operation between this association and the Public Servants’ Association. The same possibility also exists for Indian public servants. In addition I could just mention that the rules for the recognition of staff associations are being revised.

I should now like to make a few remarks on the improvement in salaries. In the first place the Government is thoroughly aware of the position in which the Public Service finds itself and it expresses great appreciation for the tremendous task which the Public Service is performing under very difficult circumstances. Our Public Servants are of the utmost importance to the Government, the Administration, the security and the general welfare of the country. In the second place a fortunate and strategic country such as South Africa deserves an effective and happy Public Service. In the third place the efficiency of State services of which the central Public Service is the kingpin, has a specific influence on the growth of the private sector and the national economy as a whole, because State services to a great extent determine the climate and infrastructure in which our country’s growth is dependent. Of course the private sector is also very important, but we feel that the private sector should also realize that it is drawing its man power from the same labour pool as the State Services required to keep the State administration going.

It would be foolish to denigrate the Public Service by means of negative criticism, and to rob it of its trained manpower, and then think there will still be a stable economy within which the private sector can achieve its profits unhampered. If self-control among public servants is necessary in connection with the demands which they make, self-control is also necessary in other sectors so that the spiral of salary increases between the private sector and the Government sector does not escalate in an unbridled fashion.

The Government is in no doubt that the competitiveness of the Public Service has to be enhanced. That is why the hon. the Prime Minister said during the Good Hope Conference that the Public Service should be placed in a better competitive position. The Commission for Administration has informed the Cabinet Committee on finance and the full Cabinet of all aspects of the matter, and the proposals made were also discussed with the executive of the Public Servants’ Association.

It is a well-known fact that the present financial climate compels the Government, in the interests of the country as a whole, to limit the expenditure of funds, but the Government is all too aware, more so than others, how essential it is to maintain public services. For this reason the Government, on the recommendation of the Commission for Administration, has approved a package for our public servants, and I should like to indicate what this package is that the Government has approved.

In the first place the Government has approved of funds being made available for a general salary adjustment, with effect from 1 April 1982, for staff wholly or partially remunerated from the State Revenue Fund. In general terms this includes all staff on the central and provincial level, as well as the staff of specific extra-departmental institutions. The rate of adjustment will be related to the aim of compensating the staff concerned for the decrease in purchasing power of money during the past year. I want to give the assurance that it will not be less. At present the commission is working out the details of the salary adjustment, and it will be made known to departments in the customary way by means of a circular as soon as possible.

In the second place the Government has reaffirmed its acceptance of the principle of occupational differentiation, which has already been applied in the form of improvements for specific groups, for example teachers, certain legal staff, branches of the Defence Force, the Police, Prisons staff, agricultural scientists, etc. Perhaps I could just mention, too, that we are expecting the report in regard to nurses in the near future. Reports on other occupational groups as well are already in the pipeline. As I have already said, the Government has reaffirmed its acceptance of the principle of occupational differentiation, and an additional amount will be voted for the continued application of the approach of dispensation improvements for specific vocations, where pressing problems and function priorities justify this approach. Owing to the restriction placed on the Treasury, however, the amount will not be as large as the Government would wish. The amount will be utilized by the commission during the course of the ensuing financial year as investigations into specific occupational groups are completed.

This brings me to the third aspect of the package. A term programme to make the Public Service competitive by means of the continued improvement of dispensations for occupational groups according to priority and need, has been worked out by the Commission for Administration. The Government has considered the programme to achieve this goal, and the Government is in earnest about implementing it as soon as possible. However, as is to be expected, the time scale within which this can be done will depend on the availability of funds. Because it is impossible to predict the financial climate and position of funds in advance the most that can be said at this stage is that the Government will review the position from year to year.

This is the announcement in this connection which I have had the pleasure of making on behalf of the Government. It is clear to everyone that we are not dealing with a simplistic problem. The problems of the Public Service involve inter alia an interreaction of factors such as the general demand for skilled manpower, inflation, rising wages, etc. There is no instant solution. I trust that the steps which I have been able to announce here on behalf of the Government, will make a significant contribution to the solution of the staff problems of the Public Service, although we have not immediately met all expectations. Nor are we able to meet all expectations. However, I think we have achieved a great deal more than a mere light at the end of the tunnel.

The Government will constantly be receptive to approaches which, within the framework of the limitations which have to be taken into consideration in the national interests, will enhance the competitiveness of the Public Service. We shall keep our ears open for any positive suggestions which could contribute not only to our making our State Administration more effective, but also to our having a Public Service staff which will consist of happy people supplying a positive and fruitful service for the country.

That is all I have to say.

Mr. Speaker, this particular debate is a debate of no confidence and therefore I believe it is one’s duty to analyse and assess whether in fact confidence in the Government is justified.

I believe that the art of good government, good management, or good leadership for that matter, requires of the people concerned that they initiate programmes for the development and advancement of their people, that they assess the needs for development for the future and that generally they execute those programmes efficiently. Over the last 30-odd years in which the NP Government has been in power I believe they have initiated and put into effect a great deal of legislation in a very, very positive manner. It may well be that members on this side of the House have objected to and disagreed with much of that legislation, but I give the hon. members on the Government side the benefit of the doubt in saying that I believe they did it genuinely believing that it was in the interests of the country, even though, as I say, we on this side had very, very different ideas as to what should have been done. However, I believe it is generally agreed that many of the laws that were put on the Statute Book over the last 30 years, even if one concedes that they had a certain value in their time, today no longer serve their purpose. As a consequence there appears to be general consensus that certain changes must come about in South Africa in the interests of future political stability, economic progress and social harmony. If we are to achieve these, I believe, laudable objectives, then much of the old order must go and we must make new rules to meet the needs of our evolving society.

I believe that the hon. Ministers are honourable, loyal South Africans. If they are loyal South Africans, which, as I say, I truly believe them to be, I believe they must have the courage to remove offending laws and create an atmosphere in which most South Africans will be willing to work and fight for their country. The hon. Ministers must do so regardless—and this is very important—of whether they upset either the radicals or the reactionaries.

When I talk about most South Africans being satisfied with what is going on, it must be clearly understood that I am referring not merely to the White voters, but in fact to all South Africans, whether they be Black, Brown or White.

I have entered into this no-confidence debate not in any spirit of acrimony or with ideas of hate or criticism just for the sake of criticism, but out of genuine concern for the condition of our country, for our future in this country and for our children’s future. I believe those with families have very important decisions to make over the next few years if we are to have a future in our country. There is no doubt about it in my mind that hardline intransigence and discrimination can only lead to confrontation and that effete liberalism and unrealistic common-roll enfranchisement can only lead to chaos, bankruptcy and anarchy. One has seen what has been the result of this in other parts of Africa.

However, there is a third situation which perhaps although not as dramatic as the other two can also be rather hazardous and cause great damage, and that is a situation caused by the lack of true confidence and decisiveness and bad co-ordination on the part of the Government. It is this situation that I believe we have to contend with to some extent today because it is leading to lack of confidence in the Government and, what is worse, lack of confidence in the future of our country. One gets the feeling that in many areas the Government is dithering. They would like to make changes and I believe they will ultimately make changes, but the delay and the apparent unwillingness to make these changes will cost them and us dearly if they are unduly delayed, in goodwill and appreciation on the part of the other race groups. To avoid taking decisions or even perhaps to delay them, the Government is to a rather extraordinary degree these days resorting to commissions and committees of inquiry. The hon. member for Yeoville raised this point; so I do not propose to be should be doen away labour it, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that there are more committees, commissions, boards and what have you than ever before in the history of South Africa. Quite frankly I have grave reservations on whether many of them are really justified. I freely concede that there are often matters that require deep investigation by a commission, but I believe that an excess of this type of investigation indicates a lack of self-confidence. If the Government has a lack of self-confidence in itself it is very difficult for other people to have unalloyed confidence in them either. As I see it, so much lack of confidence displayed in business, or even in the military field for that matter, would indicate that the gentlemen concerned were due for redundancy. However, there is also an increasing degree of by-passing of Parliament even on financial matters, viz. government by decree, and I believe, the recent Post Office increases is another example where it was very unfortunate that the democratic processes of debate and discussion were supplemented by ministerial decree. There are many issues that require good executive decision making that are worrying people today, but I am afraid that the obsession with constitutional and purely ideological matters is pushing many of these things into the background. They have been allowed to get out of hand because they have not been dealt with. I am afraid we have come to a situation where matters that could have been resolved fairly easily with minor course changes at an appropriate time now require major operational changes if we are to resolve the problems. To give an example, I want to refer in passing to just a couple of points.

Overspending on such a massive scale that it will ensure that provinces and various other essential service areas of our country will be subjected to cutbacks. The gold return was overestimated, and further I do not believe there was sufficient note taken of the situation of the American dollar vis-á-vis the South African rand. As a consequence we have been somewhat severaly burned. If appropriate action had been taken timeously I do not think we would have been hurt so badly. The situation in hospitals is getting quite out of hand because decisions cannot be taken and will not be taken. We have an excess of hospital beds in certain areas and we have a shortfall in other areas. The costs are rising. For example, we have been trying to get a hospital built at Phoenix for years and the Government will not make a positive realistic decision that will resolve the problem. The Public Service has also been put under stress. There are massive shortages in the number of employees and massive discontent with their salaries. Non-White local government which was heralded as a great breakthrough some years ago is being allowed to collapse because proper decision making does not take place. The system has not been updated even when the Government was given fair advice and warning some years ago that this was in fact going to happen.

I now want to touch upon another subject which is related to this and which is worrying me. It is not something of recent origin, but is something which has been growing, and growing at an ever-increasing pace for quite some time. That is the question of housing. It is known that housing is an extremely important aspect of government. I am not one of those who believe it is the function and duty of the Government to provide housing for all and sundry. I do believe, however, it is the duty of Government to provide housing for the people who are not in a position to pay the inflated or even normal economic rates. Having said that, I want to add that I believe the general run of White South Africans also believes this, because historically more than 90% of the housing for Whites built in South Africa has been provided by that community from its own resources. I believe given an opportunity those entrepreneurs who were in the building industry and were providing homes for the White community would do so again. Unfortunately, the system is such at the present moment that there is absolutely no incentive for a White entrepreneur to go in for building or even property-owning. This is why the large number of flats that exist in the major urban areas are being sold off piece by piece, unit by unit to the detriment of the welfare of the older people who just cannot afford to buy them and certainly to the detriment of young married couples who just cannot get decent accommodation.

I know that I am placing emphasis at this stage on White housing but there are many others who are going to emphasize the question of Black housing. I believe that Black and Brown housing are very important as well. I hope to say what I have to say on that issue on another occasion. However, White housing is an area that has been greatly neglected. I say this because it does not pay to build White rented accommodation today. As things stand, one of the reasons for this shortage is the retention of rent control. I realize why rent control was retained in certain respects. This was done because there was a feeling on the part of the Government that there should be protection for certain categories of individuals. I have no quarrel with the concept of protection. I believe there should be protection for these people. However, I do not believe that this should be done on the basis of rent control. Why should one section of the community have to subsidize another section of the community to the exclusion of other people helping as far as that scarcity is concerned? In principle it is quite wrong. If subsidies have to be made, they should be made in consequence of the efforts of the whole community and not one section of it. I believe, therefore, that rent control has been one of the most important factors over a long period that has disillusioned entrepreneurs.

There is also the question of the tax system that prevails in respect of property owners. Let me give an example of this. I know of one case in the city of Durban where a property owner has a block of seven flats which includes two small business premises. The municipal valuation of this block is over R100 000. These flats are rent controlled and the shops pay the current rate per square metre. The net profit after rates and maintenance last year amounted to R8 000. After having paid 42c in the rand, this particular owner was left with a very small sum of money. He was left with something of the order of R4 500. Now, a return of R4 500 on an investment of R100 000 is pretty poor, I think we shall all agree. That is the profit the company makes. However, as soon as the company pays a dividend, income tax has to be paid on that dividend and, in the case to which I have referred, it may well be that it was about 50%. In fact, therefore, the actual net return on an investment of R100 000 was something of the order of R2 000. I think that this is, of course, quite ludicrous and if one is to try to obtain support for the building of flats and houses I believe it is very important that consideration be given to a new tax structure to assist these various developers. Entrepreneurs will resolve housing problems providing there is an incentive for them to do so. I believe that the sort of incentives that have to be given are to make positive tax benefits available, as is done in respect of border industries, to people who will build low-cost housing and flats for rent. I believe that rent control should be done away with and protection of another sort devised. I am quite prepared to discuss this matter at some other stage with the hon. the Minister concerned because I do not have time at my disposal now. What is most important of all, perhaps, is that there should be a massive reduction in the bureaucracy involved in building. It takes up to seven years to complete a development scheme these days whereas only a few years ago a major scheme could be put through in a period of between 12 and 18 months. Another matter which I believe also has to be looked at is that the Department of Community Development has to give serious consideration to the building of a number of schemes for Whites in the major urban areas.

Mr. Speaker, in the time at my disposal I have covered only a few points. I have not by any means been able to cover as many ministries as I should have liked. However, I believe that I have said enough to convince myself, if not hon. members opposite, that we cannot support the amendment moved by the hon. the Prime Minister. I want, therefore, to move the following as an amendment to that amendment, viz.—

Mr. Speaker, since he became a member of this House the hon. member for Umbilo has impressed us all with the earnestness with which he undertakes his task here, with the level-headedness with which he prepares his speeches and with their contents. I should have liked to have debated with him certain of the points which he raised here this afternoon—I should like to assure him that I listened to him with appreciation—but owing to circumstances, and other matters which were raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to which the House may expect that I, as holder of this portfolio, will reply, I do not have the time to do this. The hon. member must therefore pardon me; perhaps someone else in the House, one of my colleagues, will subsequently give more attention to his speech. That will suffice as far as the hon. member is concerned. I should just like to repeat that I listened with interest to what he had to say.

If one has been a member of the House for 16 years or more, there are certain impressions which you will carry away with you one day. Some of the impressions which I will certainly carry away with me, are impressions which I gained during the past three days in this House. Hon. members of both Opposition parties are hiding behind your apron strings as a result of a ruling which you, Sir, gave concerning the right or otherwise to debate a certain matter in the House. An impression which I will carry away with me, is that of the hon. members on the opposite side of the House abusing Mr. Speaker’s ruling …

Do you support the ruling?

I am not speaking to the hon. member for Bryanston now.

The hon. members are abusing Mr. Speaker’s ruling and then seated or standing, they insult a member of the House knowing that he cannot reply on that matter.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: At the time the hon. member raised this matter, nobody raised a point of order or complained about it. He did not even mention the name, but here is an hon. Minister suggesting that a member did not respect your ruling.

Order! I must point out to the hon. member that no point of order was raised in connection with that matter.

Sir, this is exactly what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North has said.

I am not referring to all the members who sit in the Opposition benches, but I should like to say to those who do not have the courage of their convictions to blatantly abuse your ruling, that one can have no respect for them.

Who are they?

The hon. member for Umhlanga is one of them.

Do not throw a stone through the window.

He is one of them—he started doing this on Monday already—and the hon. member for Yeoville is also one of them. He was hurling just as many insults around the other afternoon. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister should rather drop that subject. I know that some hon. members came very close to doing so, but they did not contravene the ruling.

With all due respect to you, Sir, all I am trying to do is to place on record my objection to the fact that hon. members are finding it possible to insult me from all sides by abusing a ruling given by you. [Interjections.]

Order!

On a point of order: Is what the hon. Minister has just said not a reflection upon the Chair?

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I now challenge those brave heroes. In the first place I should like to address the hon. member for Yeoville and challenge him to be present in the House during the discussion of my Vote and to raise the same standpoints there.

You were not present either …

By that time the court case in regard to which you gave a ruling, Mr. Speaker, will probably be over. Then the matter may be discussed in the House. I therefore challenge these hon. members to be present during the discussion of my Vote—not like last year when the official Opposition was not even present for about 40% of the discussion time of my Vote. The only Opposition members present were members of the NRP.

But you were not even present.

Those hon. members did not attend the discussion. I now challenge those heroes: Make sure that you are present in the House. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow a discussion to take place across the floor of the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Minister is making an accusation which is unfounded, because he himself was not present during his own vote on the additional estimates. What kind of nonsense is he talking then?

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

If that allegation is accepted, then I say the hon. member is lying. I was present throughout the discussion of my Vote in the Senate and I therefore repeat: The hon. member is lying.

On a point of order: The hon. the Minister says I am lying. The hon. the Minister must withdraw that remark, because what he is saying is not true.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir, and I content myself by saying …

Order! Did the hon. the Minister say that the hon. member for Yeoville was a liar?

Yes, Sir, and I have withdrawn it. I would welcome it if the hon. member and all the other “bitterbekke” on the opposite side would be present at the discussion of my Vote.

On a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to use the word “bitterbek”?

Order! Formerly the word “bitterbek” was viewed to be unparliamentary, but it was later again allowed in the House. However, the hon. the Minister used the word in such a way that I have to ask him to withdraw it.

I shall withdraw it, Sir, because I meant it to be disparaging. I now wish to leave the matter at that, because I should like to conduct a debate with the Leader of the Opposition on serious matters which he has brought to our attention. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Yeoville must please contain himself. The hon. member pays no heed to the Chair, but persists in conducting a debate across the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, may I explain that I was not conducting a debate. I was being told something by the hon. the Minister and I was trying to listen. I think you are mistaken, Sir. I was being told something by an hon. Minister. He told me that he was going to raise this matter and that I should be present. That is what I was trying to listen to.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

With these few introductory remarks, I shall now leave the matter at that. I should just like to confirm that a welcoming committee and I will be waiting at the front door to welcome everyone to the committee discussion during my Vote. Then we shall see what happens, man to man, if one of them is not standing with his hands tied behind his back.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition brought a few very serious matters regarding security to our attention and he would probably like us to debate them. I should like to do so today. There are three aspects which, in my opinion, are in the public interest and which ought to be debated here.

The first is uneasiness in the minds of the people that the Government is encouraging trade unions on the one hand and on the other hand is trying to destroy them by means of arrests.

The second question is whether the security situation is really as serious as it is made out to be. I should very much like to exchange a few ideas with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on this score as well. In the third instance there is the whole question of detention without trial. Unfortunately, I have no idea how much time I have at my disposal now. I hope someone can assist me in this regard.

In the first instance, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition states (Hansard, 1 February 1982, col. 23)—

This is an accusation and a well-known argument in leftist radical circles. I must say it is disappointing to see that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is siding so flagrantly with those who usually raise these arguments. [Interjections.] In this way he and those involved are trying to portray the true activities of these people in the labour sphere in a more favourable light than is in reality the case. The Government is to be praised for the steps it has taken in the sphere of labour and trade unions. All these things have been done openly. They have been done in the interests of sound labour relations, and an organized, lawful trade union system has been established. This success is, however, not granted the Government by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but disparaged with the subtle accusation of dishonesty on the part of the Government, dishonesty in the sense that on the one hand it says that it wants sound labour relations and to establish a trade union system, while on the other hand it breaks down what has been accomplished by arresting people and discouraging them from participating in the trade union system.

[Inaudible.]

This is precisely what the hon. leader said. I have a copy of his speech in front of me.

What are the facts, however? It is a well-known fact that the South African economy and labour set-up are inevitably intertwined, just as elsewhere in the world. True to their vexatious nature our enemies realize that the labour sphere can exert an exceptional influence on the economic sphere. We have known for a long time that our enemies are using this as a strategic area, as an effective weapon against us.

Unfortunately it is also true that a trade union’s mechanism and organization can create an opportunity which lends itself to exploitative practices. This is unfortunately true. We also know that its infrastructure lends itself ideally to a process of infiltration, and some of our enemies are, in fact, making use of this infiltration possibility. At international level, there are two trade union organizations in particular which find themselves in opposing camps. The one is the World Federation of Trade Unions—actually inspired by the Kremlin—and then there is also the capitalistic-orientated World Federation of Free Trade Unions. These two are important as far as the South African labour set-up is concerned. The World Federation of Trade Unions is especially important. This Kremlin organization, together with the South African Communist Party, the ANC and the South African Congress of Trade Unions, are the organizations which are bent on breaking down relations in the spheres of labour and trade union in South Africa and which are causing problems for the State.

Owing to a lack of time, I shall try to be brief and I shall not go into details now. It is true that the South African Congress of Trade Unions, which is most active in this area, accepted a certain programme at the end of last year. Its implementation comprises 10 points, of which I should like to present only four to this House—

1. 6. Unconditional opposition to legislation the object of which is enslavement, discrimination and the separation of ethnic groups.
2. 7. The establishment of a democratic State without subdivisions and which is representative of the inhabitants of the RSA.
3. 8. The release of all workers and leaders from detention.
4. 9. Instructions to all trade unions not to register in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act.

This initiative of SACTU is aimed at the mobilization of work forces to cause a conflict situation in the RSA by means of strikes, unrest and economic breakdown. As a result of the activities of the SACTU and the ANC with regard to this plan, it was necessary for us to take active steps, particularly against activists. What I should like to stress, however, is that we do not detain and arrest a person because he is involved in a trade union. It is not for that reason that people are detained. We detain people because they are directly implicated in the threat to internal security and particularly because of their ANC activities. The hon. member for Pinelands yesterday quoted figures which I would like to correct. Since January 1981, 16 trade union leaders have been detained. Of those 16, only 13 are still being detained, and nine of them can be identified as actual trade union leaders. The hon. member said that 54 leaders were detained in 1981. I am now giving the figures which indicate that his information is incorrect. The hon. member also said, inter alia—

This is not correct. The two leaders to which the hon. member referred and who are now under arrest, are being detained at present as suspects in a very serious case which is being investigated countrywide, and it is highly likely that they will be prosecuted in that case as well.

A second aspect which the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition mentioned in connection with security legislation is (Hansard, 1 February 1982, col. 23)—

Mr. Speaker, is it possible that a leader of the official Opposition in South Africa can reproach the Government of his country because it is concerned about the security of the State and is taking steps to defend its security? This is precisely what the hon. member said, and I can quote his whole speech. [Interjections.] It is, according to the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition, the most detrimental consequence of our actions in regard to security legislation. He says this directly. Can one believe this? Should one take this seriously? Is it possible that it can be true? If the hon. leader is really in earnest about this, one finds it difficult to accept that he should serve as Leader of the Opposition. For what is he saying? He is saying that the Government’s actions are the single most important threat to effective security for all South Africans.

Hear, hear! That is absolutely true.

That is precisely what the Communist Party, the ANC, the PAC, and all other leftist radical organizations say, and I should like to tell the hon. member who cried “Hear, hear!” a moment ago that after the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition spoke these words in the House on Monday, there was rejoicing from Maputo, via Lusaka all the way to London and from there to the Kremlin. [Interjections.] For here the Leader of the Opposition in South Africa is identifying himself with this argument by saying to the Government: “Your concern and actions concerning security matters are the single most important reason for the problems we have with regard to security in South Africa.”

The hon. leader went on to say (Hansard, 1 February 1982, col. 24)—

In other words, what is he accusing us of? He is accusing Parliament of passing laws without justice, laws in which there are no elements of justice. Furthermore the accusation is that if Parliament justifies these “transgressions”—and I think “oorskry-dings” is the correct Afrikaans word in this sense—in the name of Christian civilization, Christianity as such is cheapened. What is the hon. leader so concerned about? And what are some of the steps which we took in this connection?

Let me identify a few of the things which we are concerned about. According to the statements of leaders such as Tambo and others and their writings, the ANC is completely integrated with the South African Communist Party and they receive orders from the Kremlin. Does the hon. leader not know this? Secondly, it was decided as long ago as 1961-’62 to engage in an armed struggle against the existing order in South Africa. The Communist Party and the ANC, with Umkhonto We Sizwe as its militant wing—in fact its military wing—constitute an alliance with the South African Congress of Trade Unions. Surely we are aware of the slogan with which terrorists from Maputo are sent to South Africa, namely—

And so I could continue, but my time is almost up.

These are some of the things we are concerned about. What are we doing now in practice? These are some of the things with which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is reproaching us. During the past three years there have been 86 cases of sabotage by these organizations in South Africa and 13 people were killed by them in the process. There was an increase in the number of incidents in 1981, and this increase is not necessarily attributable to an increase in the number of terrorists, but, inter alia, to the fact that there were some of these terrorists who were involved in more than one incident, in comparison with previous years, when the pattern was not quite the same. Does the hon. Leader realize that the terrorists of the ANC in Maputo receive orders to murder any White civilians they may encounter on the way, and that the two Whites who were murdered at Ogies were murdered on the direct orders of Joe Slovo? Does the hon. Leader realize that this pattern could continue in our country? [Interjections.] During the past three years, 11 ANC terrorists were killed within the RSA and 61 were arrested. We also took possession of large quantities of arms, ammunition and explosives. At present 133 accused are being held in terms of various security laws in South Africa, and they are involved in 21 pending court cases. This does not include detainees being held in terms of section 22 and section 6. This is the kind of thing we are concerned about, and when we take successful steps to combat this sort of thing, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition reproaches us for it and says that we are the cause of the uncertain security situation in South Africa.

Yes, directly.

The security forces, especially the S.A. Police in this case, were thus far able to identify almost every case of sabotage and arrest the culprits, and those who are not arrested, they were able to identify and they therefore know who they are and with which incidents they could be associated. This is all the result of excellent investigatory work carried out by the Security Police. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition reproaches us for our successful actions and the provisions of our security legislation, but does he think we are playing parlour games wearing white gloves? On the contrary. We are involved in a struggle against communist-inspired revolutionary forces, and the hon. Leader must not expect us to combat them with the pontifical and euphonious democratic platitudes which he and his philosophical friends may dictate to us. In this struggle, which we are concerned about and against which we are taking steps, we shall hit our enemies as hard as we possibly can. The hon. Leader must then—and he has the opportunity to do this—give us greater clarity on this point. That is all I have to say for the moment on this specific matter.

There is also another extremely important matter which the hon. Leader raised. I should like to deal with it briefly in the few minutes which I still have at my disposal. It was the first time, as far as I know, that the hon. Leader of the Opposition or any other hon. member of the Opposition referred in this House to the ANC as a political party. The hon. leader said we should apply security legislation in such a way as to make it possible for people—“to facilitate transition in a society going through change and we must not prevent it”. Now I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if he is asking that we, by applying our security legislation, “must be seen to facilitate transition in a society going through change and that we must not prevent it” and that we must thereby enable the ANC to go through a process of “change”? Is the ANC as a political party—the hon. leader had problems earlier this week in replying to the hon. the Prime Minister on this issue—part of his “society going through change”? And what justification does the hon. leader have for referring to a communistic and revolutionary terrorist movement as a political party in South Africa? Then one asks oneself whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not subtly paving the way here in the House for the ANC, so that it can eventually have a seat at his conference table at his national convention? Is this the first step in this regard?

You will have to talk to them yourselves.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition can tell us. He has the opportunity. He referred to the ANC as a political party. Is this the path the hon. leader wants to tread? One is concerned—because I should like to speak about detentions, I do not have the time to discuss this—about the contribution which some elements in our media and some speakers on the Opposition side—not necessarily members of the party who sit in this House, but certain people who share those kinds of political convictions—are knowingly making in support of the image of the ANC in a political direction.

Like Ton Vosloo of Beeld.

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is taking the initiative and referred in the House to these people as a political party. He must speak to us about this.

I should now like to refer briefly to the question of detainees in South Africa. People are being detained in South Africa in terms of the provisions of two laws in particular, viz. section 22 of the General Laws Amendment Act and section 6 of the Terrorism Act. These laws were placed on the Statute Book by Parliament to enable the police to wage their struggle against the threat to South Africa more effectively. Now it is also true that, as a result of detentions during the past few months, detentions which extended over a wide area in South Africa, this matter has again come into prominence in the form of a public debate. In this connection, there are people who have organized themselves into “parents’ committees”, “support committees” and other kinds of committees and are taking part in the public debate. I should like to clarify matters a little in this regard.

Detentions in this connection do not take place at random. We do not simply lock people up. The factors which lead to the detention of people under these two laws can be briefly summed up as follows: Terrorist activities, trained terrorists who have returned, giving aid to and withholding information on terrorists, sabotage, the recruitment of trainees, the continuation of the activities of banned organizations and the furtherance of the aims of such organizations, the establishment of cells, the distribution and possession of inflammatory literature, the disruption of the economy by means of unlawful strikes, boycotts, intimidation, arson, the endangering of law and order, etc. This gives an indication of the wide spectrum covered by these activities.

Why do you not charge them?

I can tell the hon. Chief Whip opposite that we have already made good progress with the investigation into an extensive and important set of facts which will lead to an important court case in South Africa in the next few months. We have virtually completed the investigation with regard to some of the accused. With regard to others we have almost reached the point where the investigation can be concluded. We are co-operating with the office of the Attorney-General to speed up the cases as far as possible and to bring them before the courts as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the hon. the Minister can give the assurance that those people who are being detained and who will not be charged in this massive trial, will in fact be released?

Yes, those persons whom we are detaining and who the Attorney-General will not charge, or who, in the opinion of the Attorney-General, will not be used at witnesses …

Ah!

No, wait a minute. Hon. members are asking me a question. As far as the police are concerned, I give the hon. members the assurance that those people who are not needed by the Attorney-General under those circumstances, will be released. Hon. members are asking for an answer and I give them the assurance. This is correct. People are very concerned about the circumstances under which these people are detained. I should like to say to the hon. members that the detainees in police cells or in prisons are being detained under the most favourable conditions possible. Where possible they are being detained in separate cells. All reasonable precautions are being taken to prevent any of them from injuring themselves or from being injured in some other way or from committing suicide. Surely hon. members are aware of the serious circumstances in the past. We were all faced with this, but during the past two or 2½ years there has not been a single serious case of this nature. There are some hon. members who are well-informed on this subject, and who know that everything possible is being done to prevent anything irresponsible happening to these people while they are in detention. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the hon. the Minister of Police who locks up people without trial and who has a hand in the banning and silencing of political criticism in a manner which allows no right of redress or even of a hearing, I find it very ironic that that same hon. Minister, of all people, complains of his democratic right to be heard being transgressed. That hon. Minister has been in politics a long time …

Too long.

I think that he should know that politics is not for babies, not even for bushbabies.

I want to say one other thing in connection with the remarks that he made and that is in relation to the detention of labour leaders. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition will return to that subject, but I think that we can say straight away that we do not believe that the detention of labour leaders provides any solution at all to the problems that arise. We say that repression will solve no problems. It should be remembered that when development takes place in a country and when that development is unbalanced, then those instruments which are available and those improvements which are made will in fact be used by dispossessed people in isolation for political purposes. For instance, there are the labour unions. If one promotes progress on the labour front and no progress on the socio-political front, one will find that the labour unions will be used as political instruments. Those are the only instruments available to people who are otherwise without a voice. Until such time that there is a real and full say in the country’s affairs one will find that we are going to have unrest of the sort that the hon. the Minister is experiencing. The answer to labour unrest lies not only in labour reform and neither does it lie in police action. It is reform of the entire discriminatory fabric of South Africa which will bring an end to the sort of internal unrest which we are experiencing.

I now wish to deal with another subject and to say that the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister on Monday on the findings and recommendations of the Steyn Commission has for the moment diffused somewhat the heat of public debate on the issues. We are glad that the recommendation that a new and separate Department of Information be resuscitated with the power to conduct overt and covert operations has been rejected by the Government. No matter how well such operations may be audited, they are unacceptable. We believe the revival of that department will bring nothing but discredit to our country. We are not at all happy, however, about the Government’s response to the recommendations on the SABC. The response was perfunctory, it was dismissive, it was superficial, it was vague, to say the least. The recommendations in certain respects are good. However, there are aspects with which we do not agree and which we believe are bad. Yet, in his preliminary statement on the commission’s recommendations, the hon. the Prime Minister summarily rejected one of the main recommendations which aimed at ensuring greater autonomy, greater objectivity and, finally, greater credibility for the SABC. This is more than a pity for the SABC and for South Africa.

It is, however, the main recommendations of the commission that concern us the most. Those relate to the creation and bringing into being of a general council of the Press whose main task it will be to establish and maintain a register of licensed journalists and to exercise discipline within the journalistic field.

Why don’t you wait for the special debate?

In the light of the hon. the Prime Minister’s announcement that this recommendation is to be investigated further before final decisions are taken and that time will be allocated—that is what the hon. member for Simonstown wanted to hear—for a special debate on the subject, I do not intend to deal at any great length with the details of the proposed legislation. However, we wish to give notice of our attitude to one or two of the general principles which emerged from and were enunciated in the report. I want to say this: Let not the public and the Press of South Africa be bluffed. The signs for continued freedom, limited as it presently is, are not good. For instance, the commission’s view on the much publicized total onslaught which has enjoyed debate in this House this week and the view of the hon. the Prime Minister as stated on Monday night dovetail conveniently. The Commission’s pronunciations on the iniquities of the Opposition Press and its praise of The Citizen—that paper which was born in dishonesty, its circulation figures fraudulently inflated—are the sort of submissions that will find favour with that side of the House.

The Citizen’s circulation is going up by the day.

I wonder how many thousand copies of The Citizen are being dumped today as was done in Potchefstroom many months ago.

Probably all in that hon. member’s backyard.

Let us take another example. The commission’s virtual debunking in the modern and in the South African context of age-old and democratic concepts like “Press freedom”, “human rights”, “individual liberty”, “social justice and fairness”—these expressions appear in the report—will find a strong and ominous echo within the Cabinet and within NP thinking. Finally, the commission’s views on the so-called internal disciplining of the media as part of a South African strategy to combat the described onslaught have already drawn strong approval from the hon. the Prime Minister.

So, I say let us labour under no illusions. Whatever the faҫade of promised consultation and special debating time may be, the State professionalization of journalists through the medium of a Press Council with discriplinary powers and a form of register is in fact just around the corner. We reject those concepts and will oppose them with all that we have at our disposal. Not one Nationalist-supporting editor or journalist, not one Progressive-supporting journalist, not one single journalistic supporter of any political party in this country who appeared before the commission supported the idea of a professional register in the form recommended.

In fact, it was unanimously rejected. If the recommendations are enacted it will constitute a form of forced State professionalization brought about by people outside of the profession and against the wishes of all those in it. In any event, Sir, journalists are not and cannot ever be professionals in the traditional sense of the word. To compare journalism, as is done in the commission report, with the medical or legal profession, is a spurious analogy because journalism, unlike any other field of activity, has basically to do with politics. There is no other craft so subjective in its expression. No other profession can discipline one of its members on the ground of his political views, thoughts or writings. In fact, as we all know, there can be no objective judgment on political issues. It all depends on who you are, what you are and how you see things. Let me give an example. I want to put this question to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs whose duty it is to watch over the Press. What happened within the Medical Council, a body that looks after the affairs of his own members, when that council was confronted with a political issue, the Biko issue? Let him be honest. What happened there? The answer is that the Medical Council was split down the middle, quite predictably, into two groups each holding different subjective views on the same issue, and these views were diametrically opposed to each other. The same thing will happen in regard to any Press Council. To take it further, the arguments against a compulsory professional register and the power to divest journalists of their membership and, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, of their livelihood, are equally compelling. Without going into detail at this stage, we believe in essence together with the NPU and every editor in the country that far from improving standards, a register as envisaged is likely to emasculate the Press which, over a period of time, will be forced to become less critical, will be forced to become less enquiring, will be forced to become less reforming. I wish to quote from the commission’s report in regard to the main point of departure enunciated by the commission, namely, that of the freedom of the Press, its maintenance and its practical implementation. On page 117 of its report the commission has this to say in paragraph (e)(i)—

The end result will be that these main points of departure set by the commission will be washed away like flotsam in the wake of an ebbing tide.

There was one comment in the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement which I found ominous, to say the least. I should like to read this to the House. It reads as follows—

What is wrong with that?

I shall tell the hon. the Minister what I think is wrong with it. I think that this statement, quite inelegantly, sums up the tactical war which the NP has waged against the Press and the critical media over many years. It constitutes a form of precipice politics which says: I shall not push you as long as you jump. This is not the first occasion on which draft legislation to bring the Press to heel has been published.

What legislation?

Ever since the era of Mr. Voster this ploy has enjoyed usage. This is not the first time that editors, the Press, the NPU and other media representatives have been forced to hurry to the Prime Minister’s office under threat of legislation and have been compelled to make vital concessions to the Government thinking in an effort to conform with the Nationalist slogan of “putting your house in order”.

I ask the hon. the Prime Minister: Is the situation any different today? Will the NPU be forced to ask the Government to remove the dagger of state control from its heart so that it may plunge it less deeply into its own stomach—perhaps by being coerced to establish its own internal register of journalists? Is that what it is all about? I want to ask whether that comment “moet nou vinnig handel” is not just another intimidatory step to force the media into a state of self-immolation. I ask this because I believe this has been an on-going process which continues today. I would like to illustrate what I say. I want to illustrate by two quotations. The one is a snippet from the International Press Institute’s report of December 1981—January 1982 …

Who wrote it?

I do not know who wrote it.

It reads as follows—

This is the one snippet. Before the IPI report appeared, a small item appeared in the late September edition of a publication called The Journalist which, as we all know, is a South African publication. I quote—

I ask: Is this the legislation which we have before us now?

Which legislation do we have before us?

I address this question to either the hon. the Minister of Defence or the hon. the Minister of Police.

But tell me what legislation you have in front of you now.

I am not talking to that hon. Minister now; I am talking to either the hon. the Minister of Defence or the hon. the Minister of Police.

But we should like to know what legislation you have in front of you at the moment.

I mean, of course, the legislation tabled with the report of the Steyn Commission.

†Is that the legislation which is now before us? More important is this question to the hon. the Minister of Defence: Were guidelines issued to the Press on these matters and if they were issued on these matters, what is the gravamen of those guidelines? How restrictive are they? For instance, is it true that the Press have been supplied with actual examples from past reports of what the Government considers as being irresponsible reporting? I ask the hon. the Minister of Defence—I see the hon. the Minister of Police is not here—whether it is true that the Government considers as anti-South African and dangerous to the security of the State factual reports which appeared in the Argus and The Star relating to the arrest of homeless squatters in Nyanga. Is it true? Secondly, is it true that the Government considers making public poor living conditions a danger to the security of the State? The next question: Is it true that party political reports pointing out weaknesses and friction within the Government by the official Opposition and which were given publicity are considered to be a danger to the security of the State? As an example of this danger which official Opposition criticism in this Parliament constitutes, I want to point out that reports appearing in the Sunday Express concerning the censure debate of August last year and quoting the Leader of the Opposition were stated as being irresponsible reporting.

I think we require an answer. I think South Africa requires an answer. [Interjections.] I think we need to know just what the Government means by “responsible reporting”. I ask these questions for specific reasons—firstly, if the answer to any of my questions is “yes”, then to expose what is in fact a scandal of major proportions in South Africa and secondly, to show that while the Government talks of an open administration, talks of consultation and debating time and calling people to discuss matters with them and talks of the freedom of the Press, the reality is very different. Before, during and after the report of the Steyn Commission, the political intimidation of the media of South Africa continues apace.

Finally, I ask these questions to illustrate starkly that political perceptions differ from person to person and from political party to political party and that there can be no objective decision-making on political disputes. Politics is a subjective field and it will remain so, even in a Press council to be established. To threaten the Press is to threaten the freedom, not only of journalists, but of everyone—Black and White, citizens all. To curb the Press, who are in any event subject to the ordinary laws of the land, is to curb the flow of information to every South African. It will destroy South Africa’s potential to understand; South Africa’s potential to adapt and South Africa’s potential to survive. That is the tragedy of Nationalist interference in this field.

The hon. member for Sandton has now raised a number of matters flowing from the report of the Steyn Commission on the Press. There will be a special debate on this matter when it can be discussed to good effect. Of course, the hon. member is in the fortunate position of having a large number of people who would like to write speeches for him these days. Naturally, it makes no difference to him how many he delivers and therefore he can keep the other one or those that he has left, for the other debate. At this stage, as far as the Government’s standpoint with regard to the recommendations concerning the Press, Monday night has been very clearly set aside by the hon. the Prime Minister and we abide by that. What the hon. member did here by means of his speech today, was to anticipate the decision-making process on the matter.

It was simply to bedevil the atmosphere.

Yes, of course that was the case. The hon. member set up his own straw dolls regarding a Press which is now supposedly being threatened to such an extent and tried to knock them down, but of course it gives him pleasure to do so.

The hon. member put certain specific questions to the Minister of Defence to which the hon. the Minister himself will probably reply at a later stage.

I should like to talk about housing, but before I do so, I want to refer here and there to other matters that were raised. One of the hon. members on the other side asked a question about when legislation would be introduced for normalizing the sport situation. I now want to say that I shall shortly be introducing the necessary amendments here in Parliament and will pilot them through the House during this session in order to bring sporting affairs into line with the Government’s policy. I also want to react to what the hon. member for Constantia said here yesterday about his so-called referendum.

What do you mean by “so-called”?

I do not want to go into the merits of his so-called referendum now. I was not there, but people who were there, told me that it was the biggest confidence trick that they had seen in their entire lives. More than 50% of the people in this referendum voted by means of postal votes—imagine! [Interjections.] I am not going into the merits of this; I simply want to put the following question to the hon. members opposite: The hon. the Prime Minister issued a challenge to the hon. member for Pinelands to carry out a survey of this kind there. If the hon. members of the PFP did not have ulterior motives, why was the survey not carried out in Pinelands as well? There were ulterior motives and I shall tell you why they did not do so.

In Pinelands a significant number of non-Whites have the means to purchase properties there. Therefore there is a considerable possibility that non-Whites will be able to enter the shrine of the high priest there. [Interjections.] Of course, this is quite out of the question in Constantia, that rich man’s residential area of the hon. member for Constantia. I shall tell him why that referendum was held. It was a clever trick on the part of the hon. member for Constantia to give the pink Prog jingoes of Constantia an opportunity to protest in a civilized fashion and to express their dissatisfaction about the mere possibility of Coloured people entering their community in a legal way. If the hon. member for Constantia had not created this channel, this means of possible protest, those jingoes, those Progs of Constantia, would have protested in just as uncivilized a way as they did when houses were built for non-White employees at Groot Constantia, a protest with which he associated himself. [Interjections.]

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

No, sit down. [Interjections.] It was flagrant hypocrisy and rascism of the worst degree which is now being covered up by reference to so-called open areas. [Interjections.] There is nothing to laugh about. I now want to give the hon. members opposite an opportunity to practise what they preach. If those hon. members are really so concerned about open areas—and here we are sitting now; half of the debate is already over—why has not a single hon. member on the other side stood up in order to state the policy of the PEP? In my day I have not yet seen hon. members, such as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and the hon. member for Constantia, speak about such inconsequential matters in a no-confidence debate in this House as the salary of a Black teacher who was not paid in time. Surely it is a lack of conversation. After all, it is scandalous that the time of this House is being wasted in such a way. [Interjections.]

So it did hurt.

Does that mean that Black teachers are not important? [Interjections.]

If hon. members of the official Opposition are so concerned about open areas now, I am now giving them the opportunity and I challenge them, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Constantia and other hon. members. Let them now make this matter of open residential areas a plank in their platform in the city council election in Johannesburg. Where is there a better opportunity to exert pressure in connection with this matter? I therefore challenge hon. members on the opposite side. Let them now tell their colleagues in Johannesburg … Of course they do not want to do it voluntarily … [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that he told them that they should advocate open swimming baths there and that they should throw everything open. However, they do not want to do so. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Constantia will now be able to do pioneering work in the Transvaal. I shall pay for his board. He can travel at Government expense. [Interjections.]

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

No, wait a moment, Widman. I am still coming to you. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. member for Constantia to stay over in the Carlton Hotel at my expense and to travel at Government expense.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Bezuidenhout knows that a question is going to be put to him, and now he is leaving. Could we not ask him to come back? [Interjections]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I am being serious. If this question of open residential areas is such a cardinal issue to him and his party, surely there is an opportunity to test the matter amongst the people in Johannesburg now. Therefore, let the Progs go there and distribute their pamphlets. Let them also preach and propagate the issue of open residential areas from their platforms. [Interjections.] No, wait a moment. Let them specifically ask that Bezuidenhoutsvallei, Parkhurst, Malvern, Kensington, Mayfair, Vrededorp, Hillbrow, Ridgeway and the other residential areas be thrown open.

And of course Yeoville too. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. member for Constantia and every other hon. member on the opposite side …

If I were to do so, would you accept it?

Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. member for Constantia to hold a meeting in Mayfair or in Vrededorp and to tell the people there that during the City Council election he wants them to ask the Minister of Community Development and the Government to return Pageview to the Indians. I challenge him to do so. Until the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has persuaded that group of people of his in Johannesburg to do what I am asking now and until he has persuaded them to put into practice there what they say across the floor of the House here, viz. open areas, they must not talk to me here again about morality and sincerity again. [Interjections.] This also applies to throwing open swimming baths and White schools to Blacks around Alexandra, as the hon. member for Houghton requested. [Interjections.]

Housing is an important aspect. In recent times a great deal has been said and written in the public media with regard to housing. We have been here for three days already, but the Opposition has not yet uttered a word about housing. Of course, as far as they are concerned, it does not bother them because the official Opposition in particular adopts the attitude that influx control should be abolished. If one asks them where the masses who come to the urban areas are to be accommodated, they say we are living in an Africa situation and therefore we should not worry about it; let them simply squat around our cities. Of course, this is their housing policy and that is why they do not talk about it.

Housing is the basis of stable communities, of labour peace and favourable attitudes and therefore the Government considers it a high priority. That is why it is also essential for us to state the standpoint of the Government in this regard in a debate of this nature. The position with regard to housing is a difficult one at the moment. I admit that an ever-increasing backlog is accumulating, particularly with regard to Black housing, but reasons can be put forward for this. One of them is insufficient funds. However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. At the moment the Government does not have sufficient funds for all the important priorities and consequently has decided to grant the National Housing Commission statutory power so that when it is necessary in future, as it is at present, they may borrow money under the supervision of the Exchequer. Therefore, as early as possible during this session I shall submit legislation to the House in order to make this possible, and I hope we shall be in a position to draw funds from the private sector in that way so that we can proceed with our housing projects.

However, we are dealing here with a matter that cannot be rectified by money alone. It is a comprehensive, complex problem which flows from urbanization, and all developed countries throughout the world are faced with this problem today. In fact, it is a problem that is overtaking most Africa countries and that is why two-thirds of the millions in Africa, from Cairo to the Limpopo, are living in urban slum conditions today.

Conditions in the housing sphere are influenced to a large extent by trends in the economy of the country. The phenomenal economic upswing that we have been experiencing since 1979, gave momentum to the influx of non-Whites to the urban complexes. Expenditure on Black housing alone has doubled in the past four years, and the department alone has spent no less than R242 million on Black housing outside the national States in that period.

However, it is not Black housing alone that is at issue, Sir. Several Coloureds and Indians throughout the country have moved to the PWV area, and of course this has influenced our advance planning with regard to housing for these groups to a large extent. That is why we have problems in this regard in those areas today.

Furthermore, the position is being aggravated as a result of high rates of interest and the shortage of building loans, because many Whites who would normally have bought houses, can no longer do so and consequently they are dependent on the State for shelter. In addition, the explosion of the property market and the increasing costs of local taxation and services, to which the hon. member for Umbilo has referred, have caused rentals to shoot skywards, so that many people in our middle income group, as well as newly married couples and pensioners, are struggling today. There is no doubt about this.

However, having said all these things, I must also add that in the past we have already successfully combated much greater challenges in the housing sphere. The position with regard to White, Coloured and Indian housing is not nearly as poor as it has been in the past. On the contrary, it is much better than it was six or seven years ago. In 1975 the Erika Theron Commission found that with regard to Coloured housing alone, there was a backlog of 131 000 dwelling units. Today the backlog is less than half of that. They found that in the Peninsula alone there were 30 000 Coloured squatters huts. Today there are less than 10 000. Therefore, the position is not nearly as bad as it was six or seven years ago. I can say categorically here today that in spite of a shortage of funds there is no cut-back of State funds for housing, nor has there been. The provision of housing by the Government has not, and will not, come to a standstill. The fact is that the Government is still spending more and more on housing from Government funds year after year, with each budget. On the other hand, however, it is also true, of course, that there are factors that mean that the increased funds that we have available, are able to build fewer houses. These are factors such as increasing building costs and the cost of building material, which has increased by an average of 26% to 32% over the past two years. There are also higher rates of interest, which mean that an ever greater portion of the funds that have been voted have to be spent on subsidies. Last year R40 million was spent on that alone. Therefore, we have less funds for building houses. There is also the shortage of skilled workers and artisans, and pressure on the building industry has meant that tender and contract prices have rocketed.

I should just like to give an example of the impact of these cost increases on the provision of housing. Last year, in 1981, we built 11 000 houses fewer than we did four years before, but in spite of that we spent R100 million more on them. Nevertheless, we succeeded in 1981 in providing 25 621 houses from Government funds, and although there has been a down swing over the past five years, we were nevertheless able to maintain a record of an average of 30 000 dwelling units over the past five years. This is an excellent achievement for South Africa in view of all our urgent priorities. Therefore it is not true that the housing projects of the Government are coming to a standstill. At this stage we are involved in projects in which 82 310 dwelling units are involved. I am not talking about approved schemes now that are still awaiting funding. At the moment there are projects under way in which more than 82 000 houses were involved, and the amount for this runs to more than R891 million. It really is a comprehensive building programme. Of course, on the other hand it is also true that many millions of rands worth of schemes have been approved, but that progress cannot be made with those schemes at the moment. Of course, this creates disappointment and frustration amongst local authorities, Community Councils and management committees that have set themselves certain ideals and goals which will now have to” be postponed. But after all, these days all of us are being asked to make a contribution towards keeping the wheels rolling. Usually when I spell these things out to our people, they understand them.

Nor is it only the Department of Community Development that spends Government funds on housing. Over the past year the Department of Co-operation and Development spent R69 million on housing in the national Black States. The Railways, Posts and the provinces have spent R63 million on housing. Government corporations, for instance Iscor, Escom and Sasol, have spent R70 million on housing. The Government sector and the Government corporations have therefore spent no less than R540 million on housing last year. Taking into account the urgent priorities of the country with regard to security, education and training, health and welfare and other priorities, the question may be posed whether South Africa with its restricted revenue can afford to spend more on housing.

Due to changed circumstances and the ever growing need, we have felt obliged over the past year to take a fresh look at the tremendous task that we have, of planning a new strategy for the future and of evaluating our priorities according to our financial ability. I want to say that as far as this is concerned, we have made good progress this year. The greatest backlog is in the sphere of Black housing. With the hard work of our experts, the valuable co-operation of the Department of Community Development, the inputs from the Exchequer and contributions on the part of private institutions and individuals in the private sector, we have been able to draw up a comprehensive housing strategy for Black people, a strategy that takes into account the prevailing backlog and requirements and the ability of the State to put it into effect. As far as the housing sphere in general is concerned, I therefore think that we have now reached the point where we can very clearly broadcast the message, first of all, that the State cannot provide all the housing in the country. Nor can the State provide all housing for the lower income groups. This must simply be accepted. I have already said on a previous occasion that the State will comply with its share of the obligations, but that this financial burden cannot be borne exclusively by the State Exchequer. In the second place, the individual must be involved in his own housing to a much greater extent by means of controlled self-help, owner-builder schemes and home ownership. This is essential. In the third place, employers will have to assume much greater responsibility with regard to their employees than has been the case thus far.

A fact that cannot be overlooked, is that we must obtain the assistance of the private sector in this regard. There are very positive indications that employers are beginning to show a new attitude with regard to this matter. On our part, in any event since I became Minister of this department, we have eliminated all stumbling blocks in the way of the private sector, employers and companies, with regard to the development of areas for Coloureds and Indians. My colleague, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, has also attempted to remove the stumbling blocks from the path of the private sector with regard to Black housing. Now the road is clear for private enterprise. I believe we can expect to obtain their co-operation in this regard.

There are formulas that are worked out in consultation with the building societies and financial institutions and that aim at a more equal distribution of the financial burden with regard to low-cost housing which thus far has fallen entirely on the Exchequer, by spreading it between the private sector and the public sector. These formulas that are being negotiated, will of course apply to all race groups. It is not possible to grant certain privileges to Blacks in Soweto or wherever in isolation, by way of subsidies, for instance and not to put them at the disposal of other race groups as well. However, we must accept that this is not essential and it does not have to happen in such a way that all housing for all population groups is identical. We cannot tackle White housing on the basis of the site and service scheme. However, the Black man can solve his housing problem to a large extent on that basis because it is in the tradition of the Black man to put a roof over his head in such a way. 90% of the labour force in the building industry in the Western Cape is in the hands of the Coloureds and therefore to a large extent the Coloureds can build houses for themselves if they are put in a position to do so. With this possibility that in the future, when necessary, we can go to the private sector to obtain funds in order to help to relieve this tremendous financial burden upon us, there is a great deal of light at the end of the tunnel for us. Each one who is involved in the provision of housing, viz. the individual, the employer, the private sector in general and the various branches of the public sector, must accept the responsibility seriously and put their priorities right. The challenge that is awaiting us in this sphere, is a formidable one, but our goal is not beyond our reach.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Community Development must learn that he cannot take part in referendums in retrospect and he must learn to live with the fact that an overwhelming 83,4% of those who voted put their cross against a statement which includes a clear commitment to the principle of Constantia/ Tokai becoming an open area. It is important that the Nationalist Government understands that we on this side of the House are involved in a no-confidence debate not just as reluctant partners in some formal dance but out of deep conviction. We have no confidence that this Government can lead South Africa to a moral, enduring dispensation, perpetuated by the support and loyalty of the bulk of its people. We in fact believe that the Government continues to do irreparable harm to those elements of trust and goodwill that must form the foundation of any future healthy society.

I was very struck by a phrase used by the State President in his Opening Address to Parliament on Friday. He said that South Africa was in a state of transition in which adjustments would have to be made. Then again the President’s Council would submit its proposal concerning constitutional “adjustments.” If we believe that we are going to counter the spread of communism among our Black population by adjustments, we have our heads deep in the sand. The hon. member for Yeoville established why the hon. the Prime Minister’s plans should be kept in his pocket. In that way the right wing can imagine the plans are not there and the left that the plans are a blueprint for anything they want. What the hon. the Prime Minister has actually said is, of course, that he stands for the restoration of separate development in its original state. The policy of this Government was clearly stated by Dr. Connie Mulder when he proclaimed that there would eventually be no Black South Africans. This pipe-dream has not changed. Why? Because to do so would split the NP and the policy would then become adjustment, sometimes quite major adjustments but of absolutely no avail in the fight against communism because it is not a repudiation of discrimination. It is this policy of adjustment with which private enterprise is asked to co-operate, because in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister “the promotion of a regional order in which real freedom and material welfare can be maximized is still our common goal.” These are indeed the goals of this side of the House and, I think, of the private sector, but Government action gives no indication that it shares them. Private enterprise is asked to co-operate, but it will make a grave mistake if it is prepared just to be taken “op sleeptou”. It must take careful stock of the situation and not be afraid to negotiate the terms and conditions of its participation. This is a classic hijack situation where the hijackers are using the misery of and threat to the hostages to obtain co-operation and assistance from some third party.

The Government having ignored Black housing, despite what the hon. the Minister said, for years as a deliberate policy now invites private enterprise to help pull its chestnuts out of the fire. Private enterprise cannot refuse to help alleviate the distress of hundreds of thousands, but it must see the whole manoeuvre for what it is. The official Opposition has an obligation to describe it as it is and make sure that rape does not masquerade as holy matrimony. The businessman must understand clearly why he is being called upon to finance the backlog in housing, to bear an increasing proportion of the cost of education and other services and, would you believe it, refrain from offering public servants jobs! I wonder how the Public Service likes that! He is asked to compensate for three decades of gross misrule during which the Government has followed impossible immoral policies in one of history’s great aberrations. The housing situation is typical and illustrates this. The Viljoen Commission reports that we have spent an average of R40 million per annum during the past seven years on housing, but we are now told that Soweto alone requires an average capital expenditure of R154 million per annum for the next five years.

All organizations, all people make mistakes, even colossal mistakes, but they cannot be rectified without examination of past actions and acknowledgement of mistakes and the determination to make amends. These things are just not present. Naked apartheid has proved a disaster and now we want to dress it up as separate development and hope that it will be accepted. This Government has changed none of its apartheid goals. The hon. the Prime Minister has stated: “I cannot answer for the distorted pictures of Government policy which raise false hopes”. If the reason for this newfound affection for private enterprise is just that the train needs fuel and the Government has nowhere else to turn, but the destination still remains apartheid, then private enterprise must examine carefully the thin dividing line between co-operation and complicity. Apartheid or separate development is an unacceptable destination. Right at this moment whilst the Government says “we support private enterprise and are against communism”, the Black says “if this Government is operating a private enterprise system then my economic plight must be due to this”, and his next step is to embrace Marxism. This Government has very little understanding of private enterprise and the environment required for it to perform its magic of wealth creation and the improvement of the quality of life for a whole population. If this were not so how could one have the incredible situation described by the hon. the Prime Minister at the Good Hope Conference? Trade restrictions, he said, have been lifted on Blacks in Black residential areas— the arrogance of the original provision is mind-boggling—but we are told the question of trade areas accessible to all population groups remains the subject of an inquiry. What is required—you do not have private enterprise until it is achieved—is that everybody must be able to trade and compete everywhere.

The attitude of mind that lies behind trade restrictions is just not compatible with private enterprise. The White man’s future in this country is being established by the White man’s actions in the great Black townships that sprawl adjacent to our cities. How does the Government—and private enterprise is going to be tarred with the same brush—measure up to the Black man’s current needs and fulfil his aspirations? The Viljoen Report makes encouraging reading but does its acceptance in principle also indicate acceptance of the financial implications of its implementation, not only in Soweto but throughout South Africa? Or do the Government’s mooted vicious cutbacks in the finance for urban development take precedence? If this is so, we are involved in some kind of ridiculous debating society as the tragic course of history moves on without us. Private enterprise cannot stand aloof and must co-operate to alleviate the stress but it also has a duty to influence the Government away from its traditional ideological goal. To this end it must negotiate the terms for its co-operation. For example, at the very least it should insist that the price of its support is freehold ownership for Blacks in urban areas. It should do this because, in the first instance, no housing policy will ultimately ever be successful unless this concept is accepted and, secondly, because no policy could more quickly develop a resistance to Marxism among the Black population than outright home ownership. I discussed the question of freehold title with some of the most senior members of the NP and the reply that I received was: “There may be a very subtle difference but freehold title leads to one man, one vote”. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, this is not subtle; it is absolutely asinine! We are being asked to believe that the freehold ownership of land leads to one man, one vote and that a 99-year leasehold system does not.

How can the electorate have confidence in a situation where the hon. the Prime Minister appears to appreciate the dangers that face us but he is still prepared to condone actions that can only make of possible danger an inevitability? He can tell our business leaders: “Political instability and economic decline create a fertile ground for revolution” or “The Soviet strategy is to undermine socio-political stability and paralyse the economy” and yet every action we take undermines our socio-political stability and seeks to put in its place the power of the security police.

If Marxism is a threat, it is because we are vulnerable to it. If it is an evil, inhuman, unacceptable policy we have to ask ourselves two questions. The first is: How are we vulnerable to it? The second is: Why should we be vulnerable to it? I think there will be no disagreement that we fear that there is a danger of communism taking root among our Black population. I think our White population is well-armed against it. The more important of these two questions is the latter, viz.: Why should we be vulnerable to it? The answer to this question is very simple. It is simply that in the eyes of a large and growing percentage of our people we run an even more evil and inhuman régime than the Soviets do.

I walked through the area known as Little Soweto in Port Elizabeth a fortnight ago. It illustrates the power of the implicit threat when the Government said to private enterprise: Co-operate with us or we can do nothing. It is not a small town; it contains more people than the White population of either Benoni, East London or Bloemfontein. It is the shanty town I spoke of in this House six months ago, a place where the stench of rotting garbage and faeces hangs heavy on the air. It is without street lights or drainage. There are four households to a bucket latrine and there are fewer than 50 taps for a population of 90 000. [Interjections.]

I telephoned the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and asked how many cattle they suggested could be accommodated by a particular type of trough. They suggested 30; not more than 30. Apparently the Department of Co-operation and Development has a different handbook, and is quite satisfied with 1 800 people to one single tap. 90 000 people rot and smoulder in this place. It is a place of degredation and despair, but also of the triumph of the human spirit because even here people struggle to educate their children and to maintain standards.

It was during that last session of Parliament that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation said that the first priority in a Black settlement was water. It has taken four or five months to have another nine taps, I believe, installed. It is not owing to a money problem. What can the installation of another 100 taps cost? Could it be R10 000 or perhaps R5 000? I can assure him that the people of Port Elizabeth would give that money to him tomorrow if they were asked to.

A good place to apply the Cabinet’s increases. [Interjections.]

This is a problem either of gross carelessness or of gross neglect.

Morrison, why do you not listen, instead of holding a conversation?

In either case the responsible Minister, I believe, should resign or should be removed from his portfolio. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister is not even listening to you. [Interjections.]

It is in the little Sowetoes of South Africa and the rural slums and Black dumping grounds that the enormity of this Government’s failure must be measured. We fear so much and hope so much for our country that we seize eagerly, but usually with little judgment, on anything that indicates that this Government has at last come to grips with reality. As the hon. the Prime Minister has said, however, he cannot answer for the distorted picture of Government policy that raises false expectations.

Mr. Speaker, do not believe that we on this side of the House are unaware and not apprehensive of the spread of communism. This country is no less precious to us than it is to anybody who sits on the opposite side of the House. One does not need the resources of a security department to realize that for the Soviet Union this must be a prime target, and this Government’s policy of racial discrimination is a perfect Trojan horse which makes nonsense of our defences. Why must a Black man who was born in so-called White South Africa, who went to school here and who worked here all his life, who paid his taxes here and who possibly even fought in our Defence Force, be loyal to this Government when he is denied South African citizenship, has grossly inferior and inadequate housing, transport, education and health services, while his whole quality of life is inferior and he is given no meaningful say in the making of the myriad laws which affect every facet of his life? He is even denied home ownership. He is unable to use even the natural amenities of the country and a lot more. Communism promises him all these things. If for no other reason, he will support them on the basis of an enemy of my enemy must be my friend.

What is our response to this? Solitary confinement and all that goes with it in the tender hands of the Security Police? Racialism remains and racial discrimination is the communist’s best known ally in Africa. Its arch exponent today, as in the past, remains the NP Government. If one should ask the communists to rank in order of preference the leaders they would choose to see ruling White South Africa, I have little doubt it would be Mr. Jaap Marais, the hon. the Minister of State Administration and the hon. the Prime Minister. They would not like to see, I am sure, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition rule this country at any time. [Interjections.]

It is interesting to note that the report of the Steyn Commission makes reference to a survey in which people were asked to grade certain matters in terms of the danger that they represented. All Whites placed communism number one out of eight dangers, while Blacks placed communism last on the list. This is not a situation that one solves by muzzling the Press. When we cease trying to hide our problems from ourselves and the rest of the world and start sorting them out, we will be amazed at the amount of assistance and goodwill that is available to us. At the moment this Government is behaving like the owner of an insolvent business who spends more time trying to hide his financial position from his creditors then sorting out his position. This is the best recipe for disaster that I know.

Mr. Speaker, I support this motion of no confidence because the Government appears to be incapable of differentiating between what it would like and what is possible. This is the first step to madness. The Government appears to be unable to differentiate between cause and effect, and consequently it refuses to move from a policy of racial discrimination. This is not only morally indefensible but also plays directly into the hands of our enemies. If pursued, this policy will be cause of the destruction of this land and all we hold dear.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Walmer, because I knew that I was to speak after him. His discussion of the economic disadvantages and socio-economic problems which the Black nations have to contend with was probably the most callous I have ever heard in this House. As if separate development were the cause of the high population increase among the Blacks!

It is partially responsible for it.

As if the abolition of the Group Areas Act would suddenly solve the housing problem!

It would contribute a great deal towards solving it.

A house is a house and for every Black family one has to be built. I have only to ask what the reason is for the socio-economic problems in the rest of Africa, where separate development does not exist. We are faced here with a problem which must compel each one of us to ask very calmly: How can we improve the socio-economic position of the people of colour in this country instead of slinging mud at one another? I could not believe my ears when the hon. member for Walmer said that the Government had ignored Black housing for too long. When did the hon. member immigrate to South Africa? Where was he in 1948, when the National Party inherited a mess, an accumulation of slums?

We were just finished fighting the war.

The hon. member simply runs down the things that have been achieved and forgets about the chaos from which the measure of order which exists today was created. As far as housing is concerned, we have a clean conscience and we can stand the test of comparison with any other State in the world. In proportion to our per capita income—we can use any test we like in this connection—we have built more houses than any other country in the world over the past 30 years. So the hon. member talked a lot of nonsense which does not deserve a reply.

I now want to turn to the hon. member for Yeoville. This hon. member touched on an important aspect of politics in South Africa in passing last night—he referred to it again in passing today—when he spoke about the saleability of Government policy. He argued—this is his standpoint—that no matter what we do to separate development, it is not a saleable policy. For that reason he came to the conclusion …

Do not run away from the word “apartheid”.

The hon. member later qualified himself, for when someone asked him a question by way of interjection concerning his repeated use of “apartheid”, he said that he meant by that what the hon. member for Pretoria Central had said, i.e. separate development. He must not reproach me for using the terminology of this decade. If, for the sake of petty political point-scoring, they prefer to go on using the terminology of 30 years ago, they are welcome to do so.

Thirty years ago you were so proud of it, but now you are running away from it.

In any event, the hon. member came to the conclusion that whatever we call our policy, we should scrap it and we should find a completely new policy, a completely new product which we can sell. Here he left the question hanging in the air. Like the clever politician he is, he did not go on to say the obvious thing, namely “I have that product; your product is completely unmarketable, but we in the PFP have that product.” He did not say that; in fact, he did not say a word about their policy.

I want to enlarge a little on his idea, on his theme. I want to ask whether the following is a fair summary of the statement he made: In order to succeed, any Government in South Africa must follow a policy which will eventually be accepted by a majority of all the nations and population groups. Would this be a correct statement, a fair point of departure on which he would agree with me? [Interjections.] Can one believe that the brave hon. member for Yeoville does not have the courage to say “yes” or “no” when it comes to such a fundamental statement? Can you believe it, Sir? [Interjections.] The hon. member who said today that all we had to do was to say “yes” or “no” in reply to the seven or eight questions he put to us is not prepared to say whether he agrees with the statement that any Government who really wishes to achieve success with its policy in South Africa must follow a policy which will eventually be accepted by a majority of all the nations and population groups.

If I reply to that, will you be prepared to answer my questions?

The hon. member’s benchmate did reply in the affirmative, though, and I know that they are very close. Therefore I take it that the hon. member agrees; he just does not want to say “yes”.

There is a second question: Can that hon. member or any hon. member imagine a permanent and meaningful solution to our problems in South Africa which is not supported by the majority of the Whites? I do not think the hon. members will disagree with me when I say that no solution can work if it does not enjoy the support of a reasonable majority of the Whites.

My leader gave examples of what the majority of the Whites … [Interjections.]

I shall come back to that very point. Therefore it is a logical conclusion to say that for real success and for the solution of our problems, the support of Black and Brown people is certainly necessary, but any such policy must also be acceptable to the majority of the Whites. I want to go further and say that the Whites are the very first group to which a policy must be acceptable if it is to have any chance of success. I am not saying this because I think the Whites are better than the others, but for a very good reason. At this stage, the Whites hold the key to any change, because fundamental changes have to be approved by this Parliament. And the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself has said that even under their policy, this Parliament, as it is presently constituted, would eventually have to deal with any fundamental constitutional change.

[Inaudible.]

I made a note in the margin here that that hon. member would make that very interjection at this moment— that is how predictable he is! I added to that, “Ignore him, as usual.”

Mr. Speaker, we have consensus about the fact that no change can be introduced without the support of a reasonable majority of the representatives in this House. For any policy to succeed, therefore, it must be accepted by the majority of White voters in South Africa.

In other words, you admit that your caucus is verkramp.

For this reason, the question of what the Whites want is of primary importance. When we talk about what the White electorate wants—the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition played around with this concept—we are not groping in the dark, after all, for we are then talking about an electorate whose opinion is surely the most articulated opinion in Southern Africa. We are talking about an electorate whose opinion has been refined by a sophisticated political process since 1910. We are talking about an opinion which has been tested and tested again since 1948. In one election after another, all possible alternatives have been put to them, and debated in the most democratic manner possible, on one platform after another, on the radio and in the Press.

On the radio and TV.

And what has happened to that opinion? In spite of all the alternatives which have been put to them and all the faults of the NP policy which have been spelt out to them, the voters have become more and more firmly convinced that the policy of the NP is the right one for the Whites.

But that is not true.

They have rejected all other alternatives, and the PFP must take cognizance of this. They must listen to the advice of their own courageous frontbencher who tells them: Do not go to the electorate with an unsaleable product; read the heart, the desire and the will of your people. For only through this Parliament can we bring about meaningful and fundamental changes in this country in order to ensure peaceful coexistence, hope and a safe future for us all. [Interjections.] Any peaceful settlement will have to take cognizance of this irrefutable fact, and any party that wishes to achieve anything will have to stop trying to sell a suicidal policy to the Whites. For what is the result? You end up by no longer addressing yourself to the electorate which has to vote you into office, but turning to the Black and Brown people, in the hope that pressure from their ranks and their rejection of meaningful proposals will force the Government to start yielding and to start acting against the wishes, the will and the security of its own people. The NP will not do this.

There are two positive and constructive things which must happen in South Africa. The co-operation of the Whites must be obtained and the positive spirit which prevails at the moment must be nurtured and encouraged, so that a dispensation can be created which offers hope to Brown and Black people. Hope was the central theme of many of the speakers on that side. The Whites must help to encourage hope among Black and Brown people, and we are trying to do so, but the co-operation of Brown and Black people must also be encouraged by the Opposition and by all newspapers, so that a dispensation may eventually be developed in which the fundamental and vested rights and the security of the Whites are guaranteed. I say this because no dispensation which does not guarantee those fundamental and vested rights of the White people and which does not guarantee their security can be sold to the White electorate.

You want to do so in the short term only.

I come back to the feeble defence advanced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for his party’s “Mandela option”. He spoke about a “De Gaulle option” with which I disagree as much as he does. When he said that, he added that it reminded him of gin and tonic politics. The speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition reminded one of Bloody Mary politics. No kick, a lot of tomato juice, with a little pepper and Worcestershire sauce here and there. There was little of substance, a lot of rhetoric, flavoured with cynicism and wit. It was a mixed-up speech to cure a Prog hangover of fear and frustration.

I want to sum up briefly his main charge against the NP. Firstly he says that we suppress democracy and dissent by means of coercion.

Hear, hear!

Secondly, he says that we are destroying hope by not introducing reform in a dynamic way because we are afraid of the HNP and their ilk, as well as of our own so-called left wing.

Quite true.

I want to try to give a reply in this connection which will supplement and tie up with the remarks made by my own colleagues on this side, in spite of the hon. leader’s advice that we should rather ignore small minority parties such as his. Hon. members will recall that the hon. leader implied that the 214 688 votes in White politics to which he referred should have no influence on NP strategy. We should therefore ignore them. The PEP with its 256 578 votes falls in the same category, of course, because the two figures are only 40 000 votes apart. Therefore, although logic dictates that a little under Vi million votes can be ignored, according to the Slabbert model of democracy, and that the PFP can therefore be ignored as well, along with the HNP, the National Conservative Party and Aksie Eie Toekoms, we who attach great importance to democracy and to this House will nevertheless reply and keep the debate going. That is why I am reacting to the main charge of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I want to begin by saying that the Opposition must realize that we are talking at cross-purposes when we and they debate concepts such as “democracy”, “reform” and even concepts such as “hope”. To the PFP “democracy” means only one thing, and that is one man, one vote in one federal Parliament. To the National Party, the kind of system will advocate will in fact mean the destruction of democracy, as it is happening in Zimbabwe at the moment. That is why we advocate one man, one vote for sovereign national parliaments and a confederation of sovereign States as the only guarantee for democracy.

What about the Coloured people? Are they going to have a sovereign Parliament, too?

As far as the Coloured people are concerned, those hon. members have heard what the basic objectives are and why we are not discussing the details of their position at this stage. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Please do not try to distract me.

No, it is a crucial question.

To the PEP, “reform” means the combination of all nations and groups within one political and social system. To the NP, however, “reform” means the elimination of undesirable conditions and inequalities in a way which will not threaten or destroy the security of minorities. To the PEP, “hope” means the destruction of the NP. To the NP, however, “hope” means the preservation of White self-determination as well as the confirmation of full self-determination for the Black nations. [Interjections.] It also means full co-responsibility for matters of common interest to the Whites, the Coloured people and the Indians. To us, “hope” means the promotion of co-operation between nations on a confederal basis, while each retains its right to self-determination. Therefore we are speaking at cross-purposes. That is why debate in this House is so fruitless, so stagnant and so unpleasant. It is nonsensical of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to blame us for not wanting to promote his form of democracy, for not wanting to introduce his kind of reform and for not sharing his hope.

Today I am not going to join in the juggling with words and concepts which the Opposition indulges in. The simple truth is that all of us in this House represent the Whites and that the NP as majority party has an overwhelming mandate to develop its model of democracy, to pursue its definition of reform and to give hope to all in South Africa by implementing its policy and its standpoints and persuading others to support these. Therefore I want to reformulate the charge of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with a view to meaningful debate. Firstly: Is the NP undemocratic and too coercive in the implementation of its policy and in its day-to-day government? Secondly: is the tempo of the NP’s own programme of reform too slow, and if so, is this due to fear of extreme right-wing radicals or our so-called right wing?

The answer is “Yes”.

I do not want to say much about the question of coercion. Two reports by commissions, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Steyn and Mr. Justice Rabie, have already been tabled this session. Both emphasize in an exemplary manner that South Africa is a threatened country—not that the NP is a threatened party, but that South Africa is a threatened country. Both indicate that for this reason, special measures are necessary and justified. Both of them emphasize the highest possible degree of democratizing of such measures.

What is the NP’s reaction to this? In contrast to the gloomy prediction of the hon. member for Sandton—the hon. members have heard the hon. the Prime Minister on this subject—criticism levelled at the Government in the Steyn Report will receive attention with a view to rectifying these matters, and the course of consultation will be followed with the Press. In the case of the Rabie Report, this will receive equally careful attention. In that report, too, the process of democratizing is reflected in the recommendation concerning review, and this, too, will be scrutinized by the Government. Surely this bears no resemblance to the coercive repression of dissent about which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition waxed so eloquent.

Let us ask: Is the NP undemocratic?

Yes.

It is scarcely necessary to point out that besides holding regular free elections for the Whites, the NP endeavours to introduce meaningful and free democratic processes for all the other nations and population groups. The debates in this House are predominantly concerned with the question of how people of colour can best obtain full and meaningful democratic rights. About the question of whether this is necessary, surely there is no dispute between us, if we want to be honest with one another for a change. Our debates are concerned with how we are to achieve this. We are all dedicated to the same ideal, that of granting meaningful and full democratic rights to all. Why do we not say this more often? Then our country will not be so frequently slandered abroad.

The results of our policy are there for all to see: There are the four independent Black States to which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred so disparagingly and sarcastically; the rest of the Black national States which are becoming increasingly self-governing, also in a democratic way; and community councils which are democratically elected. The NP is exerting itself for consultation with elected leaders of all groups, and is applying this concept in practice. It seeks to achieve understanding between groups through discussion and persuasion. The all-over picture is one of an NP which is taking responsible action to escape from the historical heritage of selective democracy, a heritage which was not created by us, but which is essentially a part of our colonial heritage. We are not only trying to escape from it. We are in fact escaping from it. Therefore I reject the charge of unnecessary coercion and undemocratic policy which has levelled at the NP as an unfair and unsubstantiated charge.

Finally we come to the question: Is the NP afraid of renewal …

Yes.

… and is it being held back by so-called right-wing elements inside and outside its ranks? To this I want to give a three-fold reply. Firstly: The NP does not believe in helter-skelter reform and renewal, but is committed to orderly reform and renewal.

The hon. the Prime Minister has already explained this to hon. members in an exemplary fashion, so I need not elaborate on this. Secondly: The so-called right wing of the NP is an illusion and wishful thinking on the part of the Opposition. Of course there are differences of emphasis within the party. Of course there is healthy and on-going debate within the party, which can sometimes get quite heated. Of course the party leadership is sensitive to the feelings and standpoints of its members. That is why they are leaders and that is why this party prospers. But surely all these things are not an indication of stagnant group-forming; they are an indication of healthy democracy within the party. Those who are anxiously waiting for crises and rifts within the NP fail to take into account that in addition to this healthy internal debate, that same party shows other characteristics as well. It shows strong and fearless leadership, which can lay claim to the loyalty of its members. It shows a tradition of discipline and unity. It shows a basic agreement about fundamental principles and basic policy. I can testify to the fact that it also shows a general realization of the fact that the exigencies of the times require us to take well-considered action at a tempo which will produce tangible and visible results. This is what we are seeking to achieve.

Thirdly: The NP is not unnerved by the HNP and its supporters any more than it is by the PFP or the NRP. What is true, though, is that the irresponsible conduct of the HNP as well as the PFP and their newspapers often creates confusion amongst the public, confusion among White, Brown and Black, confusion which complicates the Government’s programme of reform, confusion which promotes White/Black polarization, confusion which creates fears on the one hand and false expectations on the other. To this extent the HNP as well as the PFP are in fact holding up reform. It is not because the NP is afraid of them, but because it takes so much more time to remove the false impressions created by irresponsible propaganda. Therefore my reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is short and to the point: The NP is not afraid, nor is it paralysed. We shall proceed along the road of orderly renewal as fast as we can.

How fast?

If the PFP seriously intends to avoid polarization, it must stop casting suspicion on every positive step taken by the NP as a so-called step in the right direction, or otherwise as a diabolical scheme affecting the treatment of people of colour. We are not seeking to undermine their interests.

Let us encourage the hope which the hon. members talked about. There is a tension in this country between fear and hope, and if the fear grows, the hope will dwindle. What we must do is to encourage everything which can give hope and to neutralize and destroy the factors that give us reason to fear. This we can only do by taking basic decisions in this Parliament which enjoy the support of the majority of members in this Parliament. Therefore we can only do it within the framework of NP policy and principles.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and cannot but be impressed by the self-advertisement that has taken place.

I must point out that we on these benches seek the upliftment of all sections. Our policy provides for this. The success of any government can only be measured if it enjoys the loyalty, the patriotism and respect of all inhabitants of the country. Time does not permit me to say any more in regard to the hon. the Minister’s address.

I should like to touch on an aspect which has not yet been dealt with in this debate. I want to point out to this House that this debate would be incomplete if there was not some reference to the agricultural industry. It is for that reason that I am delighted to see that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the hon. the Deputy Minister are here today. To leave agriculture out of this debate would be tantamount to leaving a job half done. In spite of the optimistic observations that were made by the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech yesterday, I should like to point out that considerable criticism has been levelled at the Government during this debate that it has failed to motivate a sense of hope for the future. This applies particularly to the agricultural industry of this country. To assume that all is well in this field would be tantamount to a complete lack of awareness of the true position. Agriculture in South Africa has suffered and is suffering because of a lack of long-term planning for many years. Important decisions have been taken on ad hoc bases as curative measures. Yes, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs shakes his head, but he also left the dairy industry.

The prices are so good at present that he has taken it up again.

No attention has been given to removing the root causes of the problems concerned. The vacillating trends in agricultural production over recent years are clear evidence of the unsettled outlook of the primary producers who are not committed to a particular product for ecological reasons. It has been stated repeatedly that agriculture is no longer a way of life. It is a business. I accept this in the context of economic survival. However, I must point out that there are many farmers on the land who are not there for monetary gain nor for the purpose of receiving a fair return on their capital but who are there purely for the way of life that it offers. It is inevitable, though, that this component of producers must fade into oblivion. The following question now poses itself: By whom will this void be filled? Will it be filled by the young farmers, by the businessman-cum-farmer for the purpose of pleasure and prestige or will this vacuum be filled by the large agricultural organizations who realize that the future of the small farmer is in jeopardy and who are merely awaiting the opportune moment to swoop like a bird of prey.

I make bold to say that, irrespective of repeated assurances by the Government that it appreciates the need to encourage young farmers to come to the land, insufficient incentive is being provided for this purpose. The capital required to participate successfully in agriculture today is of such magnitude that it is virtually impossible for anyone not backed by considerable capital resources to embark on a successful agricultural career. We must ask ourselves in what direction agriculture in this country is heading. Is it destined to fall into the hands of large corporate organizations with its resultant adverse effects such as the greater movement of people from the platteland and the inevitable demise of a number of small rural towns or is it the policy of the Government to ensure that the surface area of the country is adequately covered by a satisfied rural populace? If the latter is the case then I submit that greater attention must be given to many aspects of the agricultural industry in order to make it more attractive to those who may have their hearts in the land. I cannot sufficiently emphasize as a first step how important it is that the Government should approach the vexed question of input costs for agricultural purposes with greater courage and determination. Inflation and increased interest rates are wreaking havoc in the agricultural economy. It is at the source of input costs that effective steps can be taken if food prices in South Africa are in any way to be restrained. One has only to look at some of the increases that have taken place since the last session of Parliament. These cannot be absorbed by the primary producer and will have to be passed on to the consumer. This means nothing more and nothing less than an increase in food prices. Government indecision for the want of a long-term plan for agriculture is having the effect of undermining the confidence of the agricultural producer. This is clearly brought to light by the imbalance that exists today in an agricultural production. Who would have believed a few years ago that South Africa would have to import beef to meet its requirements? Who would have believed that it would be necessary to search the pantries of other countries to meet our dairy and wheat requirements? Who could have imagined that South Africa would have a total maize crop of 14 million tons in 1981?

The question that has to be asked here is this: To what extent has rigid Government control impeded the function of the Marketing Act? Without doubt, the Marketing Act is the most practical means of ensuring the stability and confidence that prevails in the agricultural industry but its effective operation appears to be severely handicapped and restricted by a lack of flexibility on the part of the Government in its approach to many of the functional aspects of this Act. There are certain danger signals that I see on the agricultural scene today which cannot be disregarded. I see a dangerous trend rearing its head where cash crop production is increasing at an enormous rate. This is taking place at the expense of the livestock industry. The implications of this are ominous in that the animal factor is being lost in areas which can be regarded as marginal for cash crop production but which are ideally suited for animal husbandry. I must also point out that the risk factor in agriculture today has been greatly increased as a result of this trend and favourable seasons over recent years may tend to blind us to the realities of disaster in times of drought. We could so easily be confronted with such a situation.

In conclusion I just wish to bring it to the attention of the House that the Republic has become accustomed to abundant and selective food supplies.

Hear, hear!

This is understandable when one looks at the agricultural potential of South Africa. Any suggestion that this could be otherwise would be met with cries of disbelief, but I must point out that this might become a reality in the future if the present attitudes of the Government to agriculture persist and if the Government continues to ignore the needs for a long-term plan for agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mooi River devoted his speech to agricultural problems. I do not intend reacting to what he said in that regard; I presume that the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister will deal with his problems should they participate in the debate.

Further to what the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and other speakers have said with regard to the onslaught launched by both the official Opposition and the hon. member for Durban Point on the policy of the NP, I should like to express a few ideas. From the debate thus far, it is very clear that the major onslaught was actually about the fact that the policy of the NP is stagnating due to specific circumstances and, what is more, that the NP is afraid to adapt its policy or is not adapting it as rapidly as the official Opposition feel is necessary.

First of all I want to come to a statement by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He thought fit to say—

The hon. the Leader went on to say—

If such an accusation were made and one wanted to analyse it, one would have to ask oneself about whom the hon. the Leader is speaking. About what portion of the population is the hon. the Leader speaking when he speaks about the “people”? Now of course we will have remarks like “the major portion”, and I trust that some hon. member or other will be more specific at a later stage, but I nevertheless want to ask the hon. the Leader whether he is accusing the Government of yielding to the pressure of the right-wing alone, the so-called White right-wing politics. [Interjections.] If what the hon. member over there is saying, is true, I want to ask whether this right-wing does not also constitute part of the group, the “people”, those about whom the hon. the Leader is speaking.

A small minority.

A small minority?

Just you and your pals.

As the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs said, the official Opposition is therefore definitely just as small a minority, numerically speaking.

You must bear the entire picture in mind.

On the basis of the same argument we should then also disregard the official Opposition just as we have to disregard the right-wing groups.

Now you are juggling with the figures.

I want to point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that they are repeatedly alleging to some White s and some other population groups that they should be irresponsible in their insistence on change and incitement of emotions. In directing this accusation at the official Opposition, I am doing so with a sense of responsibility. I have also spoken about this on a previous occasion in this House. I am of the opinion that by exerting pressure on specific things which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as well as the other hon. members on that side know it is impossible to implement, one achieves nothing at all apart from inciting emotions. In this way the official Opposition will not gain the co-operation and support of the major portion of the White community—they may definitely be sure of that. On the contrary, it may pose the greatest threat of a conflict situation which does not exactly guarantee a happy, peaceful future. This is what the hon. member for Durban Point would like to see, and I believe it is also what the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition would like to see. By inciting emotions through irresponsible behaviour one cannot guarantee such a happy, peaceful future for which all of us, including all parties in this country, are striving. Indeed, if this policy and the rate at which change is taking place, is not the appropriate policy according to the voters of the country, why is the NP governing the country with such a strong majority? As recently as in last year’s election, it was shown that most Whites are satisfied with the policy of the Government and with the initiatives of the hon. the Prime Minister …

The voters were intimidated.

… because we went to the polling-booths with those initiatives. During that election the official Opposition had the opportunity of mustering more votes for their policy. Well, they did not. It is not intimidation that is at issue here, but the shortcomings in the implementation of the policy about which the official Opposition is making such a fuss.

Surely every voter interprets it as he wishes.

The Leader of the official Opposition alleges that the majority of all inhabitants are in favour of moving away from discrimination. I went to look it up. He uses the term “all inhabitants”. I want to ask once again: Who are “all inhabitants”? Does this mean the Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Blacks?

Yes.

That hon. member is speaking on behalf of his leader and he says that it does in fact mean everyone. I want to ask: Do the Whites then no longer play any special role in the thoughts of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition? Nowhere in his argument do I hear that emphasis is also being placed on the needs of the major portion of the Whites of our country. It is the right of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to talk about the other population groups, but I am simply asking: Do the Whites then no longer play such an important role in the thoughts of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition?

But we want to put the Whites in a secure position.

I wish the hon. member would now keep his mouth shut.

I am just helping you.

With that hon. member’s help I would be bringing about my own downfall. I believe that most Whites condemn discrimination on the basis of race and colour.

Then abolish it.

However, the way in which it is carried out, must be responsible and balanced, which is in fact what the Government is doing. Later on I shall indicate how this has already been happening over the past 34 years. The Government commits itself to being aware of the realities of our country and its people. There is no doubt about that. However, this does not mean the abdication of the White man nor does it mean the repudiation of the principles to which this party has adhered since 1948. What change does the Opposition want? What will satisfy the official Opposition and the majority of “all its inhabitants”? Surely this is the question to which we must give attention. I wonder whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party will be prepared to admit that they will be satisfied with the acceptance of the policy of the PFP alone when it comes to change? I believe this is the only thing that will satisfy the official Opposition. Will this also mean that the majority of the people would have to agree with the official Opposition on a unitary state? Must the majority of the people be satisfied with open communities and with integrated schools? After all, the official Opposition has already tried to sell this aspect of their policy and in spite of that the election proved that this is not what the majority of Whites want. Therefore, where is the official Opposition heading with these changes? What do they want us to do? I think that this game of the official Opposition is too transparent. This Government is not prepared to sacrifice its principles and aims, which it has been maintaining for the past 34 years, with which most White voters trust it.

That is what is worrying us.

Of course there must be adaptations. Of course the realities must be accepted and the consequential adaptations must be made. However, there are conditions attached to this. In the first place it must be done in an orderly fashion—on the evolutionary and not a revolutionary basis. A distinction must be drawn between basic principles and realities that follow on from the development of the various ethnic groups. A distinction must be drawn between principles on the one hand and realities on the other, which follow on from the development of the various ethnic groups. The truth of the development of peoples forms one of the cornerstones of the policy of separate development, and therefore it is nothing new. Therefore, there will have to be adaptations.

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is talking about “ideological prejudice”. No, the Government has not been crippled as a result of ideological prejudices. It does not want to sacrifice its principles, which have been based on the survival of all ethnic groups. This is what it is all about. It wants to grant to all ethnic groups what the Whites demand for themselves. This is the basis of the policy of separate development. It is nothing new. It has already been set out clearly by Dr. D. F. Malan. Here in my hand I have a book titled D. F. Malan. It was written by Prof. H. B. Thom, and was published in 1980. This is an excellent book, a book written by an expert on the life and politics of Dr. D. F. Malan, a man who has also undertaken the necessary research. I quote from page 277 of this book, where Prof. Thom writes as follows—

This is the basis of the policy of separate development as it has been perpetuated by the various leaders of the NP to date.

Allow me to quote another paragraph from the same book. On page 353 Prof. Thom writes the following about Dr. D. F. Malan—

Therefore, once again the emphasis falls on adaptation with regard to the specific realities, which have also been based on the level of development of the various population groups.

The last section that I want to quote from this book, is to be found on page 354—

The Government has never yet retreated in the face of the necessary adaptations. The Government has never been afraid of them. The necessary adaptations have been made. Then, in an abundant, excellent fashion, it has been indicated what has been done over the past number of years. This has been done by the hon. the Prime Minister himself, as well as by various hon. members on this side of the House.

For example?

The twelve point plan provides for the maintenance of the principles of which I spoke, and for the orderly and balanced changes that may be necessary in terms of this policy. This is what the Opposition and all other peoples in the country must realize. The issue is not stagnation, but the fact that there can be flexibility with the maintenance of specific principles as contained in the twelve point plan.

On one occasion Dr. Anton Rupert pointed out that over the years we have moved consistently in one direction—this is how he expressed it—viz. away from discrimination. There is abundant proof of this, as I and many of my colleagues have already indicated. Indeed, the Opposition itself admits it. Yesterday some of the hon. members, as well as the hon. Leader who confirmed it by way of an interjection, said that little of our policy remains. If this is in fact the case, there have indeed been adaptations. However, the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition is making one mistake. What remains, are the principles that have been inviolated since 1948 when the NP came into power. It is strange that one minute the hon. members on the other side say that we are stagnating, and the next minute they allege that little of our policy has remained. How can one reconcile these two statements?

What the Opposition and all our people must understand, is that there is a temporary difference, therefore one that will disappear, in the level of development of the various population groups. I say it is a temporary and therefore a disappearing difference in the level of development of the various population groups. On the other hand, however, there is the permanent diversity of ethnicity as well as the various different nationalisms of the various peoples. This is fundamental and nothing can be done about it, it is a given fact. It will remain a decisive factor in the development of political structures, whilst it will also have to be kept in mind at all times in the social dispensation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition went on to say (Hansard, 1 February)—

The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs referred to this. However, I differ with the hon. the Leader. What is destroying hope for the future, is a Leader of the Opposition who is so afraid of this own policy that, he leaves his congress in the dark about his plans out of fear of the governing party. Now I ask: Is this responsible behaviour? Is this the behaviour of a party that has an alternative in which it believes? This is a boycott mentality towards the striving for a constitutional solution, and there is also ample evidence of this, including the President’s Council, the hon. member for Sandton who stated his standpoint in connection with our sports teams, etc.

I want to conclude with a quotation from the speech of the hon. member for Durban Point. In conclusion he said: “But what ideal does this Government offer our youth?” If I have to reply to that, I say that the ideal that we offer, is survival by means of the right to self-determination which is also granted to all other people in the country; peace and prosperity for everyone in the country, which can be brought about by peaceful coexistence, good neighbourliness which exploit and utilize the assets of this fine country to the benefit of all, and which will utilize the human assets of heart and mind, skill and physical labour for a happy comity of nations whilst each one retains his own identity and lebensraum.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address my opening remarks to the hon. member for Yeoville. He appears to be the hon. member with the most realistic perception of the threat to South Africa in the ranks of the Official Opposition. This is quite probably one of the reasons why he often has difficulty with his own party colleagues.

That is not true.

I should be obliged if the hon. member were to remain silent, because I am not dealing with him. In my opinion the hon. member for Yeoville presented a mischievous and one-sided picture of the warning addressed by the hon. the Prime Minister to those who advocate violence against South Africa.

Why do you use the word “mischievous”?

Because it flows from the text of his speech. I contend that by doing so, the hon. member has put about a misconception as regards the attitude adopted by the hon. the Prime Minister and South Africa to neighbouring countries in Southern Africa.

[Inaudible.]

Wait, allow me to quote it. The hon. member for Yeoville states (3 February Hansard)—

Here he is referring to the Prime Minister—

†The implication is clear. The suggestion is that the whole tenor of the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech had enforced that warning.

He said himself that he was going to give a warning.

That is not the point. The implication is that the only thing that the hon. the Prime Minister did in his speech was to refer to that.

Read on.

That hon. member must please give me a chance. I did not interrupt him whilst he was speaking.

You must just keep to the facts.

I think it is important for the message to go forth from this House that there is a hand of friendship being extended by South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister had to interject and say: “Read what I said”, and another hon. member did the same. The hon. member cannot escape the implication that his interpretation of what the hon. the Prime Minister said is one-sided and dangerous.

Oh, that is nonsense.

Oh, no. [Interjections.] What did the hon. the Prime Minister, in fact, say?

You are quoting out of context. [Interjections.]

What did the hon. the Prime Minister really say? I quote him (Hansard, 2 February)—

The accent which runs like a thread through the speech by the hon. the Prime Minister, is dedication to a search for relational attitudes within and across the country’s geographic borders, relational attitudes which can insure this peace, stability and progress.

And friendship.

The hon. member for Yeoville can win a debating point in this House and no one will begrudge it him, but if we are to take serious cognizance of the standpoints he adopts in regard to the threat to the country and what is necessary to avert it, we believe that he must not act as he acted here. I want to say to him that he has another opportunity to rectify the matter. If I have done him an injustice …

Read the …

… he has the opportunity to rectify that impression.

What are the facts? The hon. the Prime Minister moved an amendment to the motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I do not intend to quote the amendment in full, but I do want to quote two paragraphs from it—

1. (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; …
2. (g) promoting peaceful coexistence with other States in Southern Africa by means of, inter alia, non-aggression pacts …

That is what the hon. member for Yeoville referred to, but that is not all that the hon. the Prime Minister said. I quote further—

The emphasis which the hon. the Prime Minister maintained throughout his speech, and which epitomized his speech, therefore culminated in an amendment in which the emphasis was again placed on the concept of co-operation, on the search for development and the search for peace and the contribution South Africa can make in this regard.

I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he will vote in favour of this.

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

No, I am now asking the hon. member a question? Is he going to vote in favour of this?

Can one vote for part of an amendment?

All the other elements of the amendment are equally important. The hon. member will have his opportunity. The hon. member said that a message of co-operation should be projected. If he regards that co-operation as primary and dominant, he has a duty to vote in favour of this amendment on Friday. If he does do so, it means that he is only paying lip-service to this philosophy.

I can already say that I am not going to do so.

In other words, you are simply kicking up a smokescreen.

Nonsense. How can one vote for part of an amendment? Withdraw the other parts then.

I do not wish to argue with the hon. member about this. I know now that his plea in this regard is only a faҫade and is intended for outside consumption.

You are an expert on that.

Before I move that we adjourn the debate …

Read the rest. Rectify the facts.

In a no-confidence debate the spotlight is not focused only on the policy and actions of the Government. In a no-confidence debate the spotlight is also cast on the alternatives offered. Hon. members opposite will agree with me on this score. I listened in vain for an exposition in this debate of the Opposition’s alternative to the policy of this Government. I therefore had to seek it elsewhere. Do hon. members know where I found it? I found it in the Natal Witness of 11 December 1981 and in the Cape Times in an article entitled “Zimbabwe, a miracle of reconciliation”. The model held out for South Africa by the official Opposition is “a miracle of Zimbabwean reconciliation”. I give them notice now that I am going to deal with this model tomorrow, the only model we have heard of which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition holds out for South Africa.

I now move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.