Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce that the Government has decided to make three hours available on Monday, 15 February, for a debate on the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Mass Media, and three hours on Tuesday, 16 February, for a debate on the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Security Legislation.

On these specific days these two debates will take precedence.

Mr. Speaker, in present-day South African politics, but more specifically in this debate, very little is being heard from the NP side about the constitutional problems of this country. Only in the vaguest terms is anything being said about the problems confronting us and about possible solutions to such problems. Speeches on that side of the House give very little indication that we find ourselves in a constitutional crisis situation. Are those hon. members not concerned about the fact that the Coloureds today, for the first time since representative government was introduced in the Cape Colony, have no political representation whatsoever in South Africa? Are those hon. members not also concerned about the fact that the Indian population recently, during the elections for the Representative Indian Council, expressed themselves very clearly opposed to that body as being a hopeless failure? Are they not also concerned about the fact that the Government’s homelands policy will leave a multitude of Black people in our cities who will never have political representation in our country and who will therefore to an increasing extent—and this is important—use trade unions, schools, churches and even violence as political instruments? All these things cannot be swept under the carpet of the President’s Council. Hon. members must continue to give attention to these matters. What we do hear about, ad nauseam, is the question of total onslaught. Every speaker on the National Party side is discussing this. Even hon. members such as the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development gave us a homily on this matter. Now one cannot help wondering why so much is being said about this matter. The hon. members opposite have such a great deal to say about the total onslaught precisely in order to evade the crisis situation and their dilemma in the sphere of constitutional change. It is ironic, however, that they should in fact choose the concept of a total onslaught to serve as a smokescreen for their political actions. I say that it is ironic because the aversion in this country to the influence of Russia and communism is after all common cause in this House. Surely it is common cause between all parties. Obviously the NP is using the vague and undefined concept of “total onslaught” to include everything they do not like from communist intervention, foreign and internal political intervention, on the one hand, to lawful political action on the other. This includes strikes, boycotts and even the criticism of favourably-disposed Western countries.

The NP thinks that this situation can benefit it. Fear of a so-called total onslaught is being used as political motivation in a pathetic attempt to the vacuum caused by a lack of real political leadership. However, there is no substitute for real political leadership, in the first place to influence or impress the electorate and in the second to bring about reforms. Strong political leadership for reform remains a pressing necessity, but is, alas, lacking to a very great extent in South Africa. Very little guidance in this connection was given at the Good Hope Conference, and so far in this debate no guidance whatsoever has been given. The hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. Ministers mentioned achievements in South Africa as a defence against the motion of no confidence of my hon. leader, but it will avail them nothing to plough with another man’s heifers. Everyone knows about South Africa’s impressive achievements in the technological, agricultural and industrial sphere, but these have been in spite of this Government rather than as a result of the Government.

In the area of reform politics even less guidance has been given in this debate than was given at the Good Hope Conference. During the course of his speech the hon. the Prime Minister made a statement which gives rise to concern. He said that Coloured leaders were making demands which were unrealistic and immoderate. A further point which he made—and this was actually the most important point—was that this was in fact delaying reform because it caused a reaction in the ranks of the Whites. This statement confirms, of course, that the hon. the Prime Minister has problems with right-wing elements, whether inside or outside his own party. The question one should now ask, after the treatment the Coloureds have for many years now been receiving under this Government, is whether the hon. the Prime Minister is at all surprised that it has led to immoderate political demands. I also wish to add that I think that in general the demands made by the Coloured community have not been immoderate. They demand nothing less, but also nothing more, than that they should be accorded equal treatment in the true sense of the word. These demands will not diminish. This should be regarded by the hon. the Prime Minister and the other hon. members opposite as a political axiom. It is not something which is going to change. They could become more pressing, but they will definitely not diminish. In addition it must be understood that the reaction to these demands from NP quarters and other right-wing quarters are the unreasonable standpoint, and not the standpoint adopted by Coloured leaders who are laying claim to their rights.

In this connection the hon. the Leader of the Opposition indicated, of course, that the Government was in fact lagging behind public opinion in many important aspects of reform. In the position in which South Africa finds itself, I do not think there is a worse charge that one can level at a government. The inability to give purposeful and clear guidance in the reform process means that the young people in South Africa are expected to fight in defence of their country while nothing is being done in the political sphere to eliminate the underlying reasons for that conflict and in that way reduce the risk for those people to a minimum. Surely the NP knows that the conflict in South Africa is primarily between Black aspirations to political equality on the one hand, and White domination on the other. Surely they know that communistic influences are secondary influences. The basic conflict is between these two things, and it is a conflict which can be solved here in the White political sphere. The lack of clear leadership for reform means that the future of the young people in South Africa is being jeopardized because these people must expose themselves to mortal danger to afford us in this House a political opportunity to bring about reform.

That is a scandalous thing to say.

It is absolutely true. That hon. member should listen, because we shall say it again. It is being said that the Government must take the public along with it on the road of reform. We agree, we know that. As the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs put it, no new dispensation can work without the consent of a reasonable majority of the Whites. While they are saying these things, while they are offering this excuse, the Nationalists are, however, gleefully continuing to exploit those very race prejudices which they use as excuses, gleefully exploit, for short-term political gain, which is precisely what has happened in the recent Johannesburg municipal elections. Hon. members know what we are talking about. A great furore is being stirred up over non-Whites in swimming baths.

In the hon. the Prime Minister’s own words, Coloured children are not lepers, and for that reason we must allow our children to play rugby with them. But are they lepers now, when it comes to swimming baths? Surely one cannot stir up racial feelings over swimming baths and mixed residential areas and then expect the electorate to support one on mixed sport or joint decision-making. Surely a consistent principle must be discernible. Surely the electorate is not all that stupid.

†The Government’s reaction to this situation is not to provide leadership, is not to be strong and not to be imaginative, but repressive. It is to resort to repression which is justified on the grounds of a total onslaught. I believe that if it is a communist totalitarian régime, if it is communist-totalitarian influences that the Government is scared of in South Africa, then they should be able to rely upon the vast majority of South Africans to back them in resisting such influences. I do not believe that under normal circumstances there is any significant number of South Africans who have any patience with that kind of ideology. What comes to mind when the average South African considers the realities of a typical communist-totalitarian régime? It is the fundamental disregard of human rights that worries one. It is the horror stories of dissidents being locked up without trial, of doors being kicked in before dawn and of inhabitants being removed to isolation in some dark prison cell. This is the sort of thing that frightens people and makes people resist the communist ideology. It is worth fighting against something like this. It is worth taking a stand. It is worth risking one’s life to resist such a system. However, there could be a time when the citizens of a country may feel that it is not worth risking anything to resist the encroachment of communist totalitarianism in one’s country any more. That time comes about when those horrors, those horrors typical of a communist totalitarian State, become part of one’s own governmental system. It is our duty to ask ourselves just how far South Africa has progressed, or shall I say has moved, along this disastrous slope. What, for instance, should the Black squatter of Nyanga East have to fear of communism if he is rudely awakened before dawn by a horde of people dressed and armed as soldiers surrounding him and his people, manhandling him, breaking down shacks, confiscating his materials and rounding them up?

What do we expect that man to feel about communism? We have to ask ourselves just how that man must feel when he is arrested and taken away from his family, very often leaving them behind in a hopeless and distraught state. Why should a trade unionist in South Africa prefer our system to the communist system if he is locked up without trial as soon as he becomes at all effective in carrying out his task? Why should he expose himself to the desperate situation that could lead to his death, a situation such as we read about in today’s papers? What does the detainee in terms of section 22 of the General Laws Amendment Act, 1966, and section 6 of the Terrorism Act think of the horrors of communist Russia if he is as much at the mercy of his political opponents as he would be behind the iron curtain? The Nationalist Government has already moved a disastrously long way along the road of repression and totalitarianism. They have eroded the freedom of people in this country to such an extent that particularly the Black people and the Coloured people in this country, the voteless people, will begin to ask themselves what the fight is all about and whether what they are defending is really worth defending. This is the situation the blame for which must be laid at the door of the Government.

Cabinet Ministers love to talk about our neighbouring country, Zimbabwe, in very disparaging terms. This is not a country where everything is right, not at all. There are many things wrong in that country. However, I would love hon. members to make a few comparisons between the record of repression of dissent in that country and what is going on in that regard in our country. I can guarantee them that they will be in for a rude awakening indeed. Does the Government not realize that the essence of democracy is freedom? Does it not realize that that freedom is the only fundamental reason for people not opting for a totalitarian type of régime like the communist regimes that we know of?

No more freedom is when you have nothing else to lose.

That remark shows only ignorance.

The moment totalitarian measures have to be applied to fight off totalitarianism, the moment you have to act like a communist to resist communism, then you have lost the battle. Does the Government not realize that independent courts, that justice in the real sense of the word, is an instrument of civilization? Does it not realize that this instrument is designed to resolve conflict between subjects and the State and between subjects amongst each other? Does the Government not realize that this instrument is of fundamental importance in our country? I ask these questions because judging by the way the Government operates, judging by the way it exercises repression by punishing individuals by administrative action, the Government has removed this civilizing instrument from the most important area of conflict in South Africa, viz. the conflict between the disenfranchised on the one hand and those who have the vote on the other hand. I have said it and I repeat that murderers, rapists and robbers have the privilege of a fair and just trial in this country, but when you find yourself on the wrong side of the Government it is entirely in the Government’s discretion whether you are allowed a trial or whether you will sit and rot in a lonely cell for as long as it pleases a particular Minister or a particular official. This is not the solution to our problem. This is not the kind of measure that should be applied as a temporary one and most certainly not as a permanent one.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point has made his own kind of speech, of course, and I am sure that the next speaker on the Government side will furnish him with appropriate replies.

†Mr. Speaker, I want to start this afternoon by referring briefly to certain of the propositions made by the hon. member for Sandton in this House on Wednesday. In doing so, I do not wish to engage in a debate on the Steyn Commission report on the mass media because we shall be doing that at a more appropriate and specified time.

I want, however, to refer specifically to a statement made by the hon. member for Sandton that politics are a totally subjective matter. We will agree with this statement to a certain extent. However, this statement, as we so often experience from those benches, is only partly correct. Politics is, to a very large extent, a subjective matter. However, the subjective matter in politics relates really only to the party policies and their principles. There is another side to the political coin. I am referring here to the consequences and the actions which flow from the Government party’s policies in any country. These are the hard objective realities of life for the man and the woman in the street. They are as real as a walnut between the teeth or a piece of grit in one’s eye. When we talk about macro-apartheid and its consequences, or micro-apartheid or “klein apartheid” as it is known, we know that these are the realities of the actions—the objective aspect of politics in this world. It would certainly be foolish to ignore the realities of life and society and, in particular, the effect of Government policies on its subjects. This would amount to no more than the promotion of a very narrow and secular viewpoint. We have a classical example of this in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, where we had a change of Government with different policies, different objectives and different consequences.

I was interested to read recently, Sir, in The Daily News and The Cape Times about what has happened in Rhodesia or Zimbabwe recently. I believe that the Press have gone a long way towards informing the public about what is happening in Zimbabwe. After all, it is the right of the public to know what the consequences of political actions and policies in their country are, as well as what is happening in other and neighbouring countries. I should like to say of course, that it would have been a considerable improvement had the media seen their way clear to publish these two articles, if not in the same edition, at least in the same newspaper. The one appeared in The Cape Times and the other appeared in The Daily News which is published in Durban.

When one looks at the consequences of Government policy and one examines the changes that have occurred in the new Zimbabwe as against the old Rhodesia, it is interesting to see how different people interpret different events differently. I want in the first instance to refer to a report by an hon. member of this House which appeared in The Cape Times under the heading “Zimbabwe—a miracle of reconciliation”. We must remember, Sir, that the subjective aspects of policies in Zimbabwe have changed from one philosophy or political structure and policies to others. The latter one, the Zimbabwean one, as was so adequately illustrated by the hon. the Prime Minister the other day, is very close indeed to the policy of the PFP here in South Africa.

That is absolute nonsense and you know it.

What does the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North say in his article entitled “Zimbabwe—a miracle of reconciliation”? He says this—

As the hon. Whip of the PFP had said—

The hon. member goes further in the article to say this—

That is the statement of the miracle of Zimbabwe as it is today.

He never spoke to my brother-in-law.

Then when one reads in the Daily News, published in Natal, of 26 January this year, the first part of a two-part article by Jonathan Hobday, one finds the other side of the coin. Hobday says in this report about the new order in the same Zimbabwe, visited at about the same time as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North—perhaps they were in the same party—

He then continues about the farming and the farmers in Zimbabwe and he says the following which I selected specifically because the hon. member spoke about the same aspect—

Here we have the miracle of reconciliation! [Interjections.] What are the concluding words of Hobday in his first article? Hobday concludes with this question—

I add the words “in Zimbabwe” because he did not add these words. That is the question: Can political economic and social evolution be achieved in Zimbabwe? [Interjections.]

Order!

I believe that the difficulties in Zimbabwe and the stresses and the strain which are being experienced in a nation in transition hold naught for our comfort in South Africa, because that question applies equally here. It applies equally to South Africa. Can political, economic and social evolution be achieved without the difficulties which are experienced in Zimbabwe?

To answer this question, we must ask ourselves a number of questions. The first one is: What is the Government’s policy for South Africa, the subjective side of politics? Secondly, what changes occurred in NP policy to match the needs of present and future times? The State President, amongst others, including many hon. members on the Government side who said virtually the same during this debate, told us that South Africa is in a state of transition; it is in a state of change. The question we must ask ourselves about NP policy, because this has consequences for every man, woman and child in South Africa, is whether NP policy really has the watermark of popular confidence or does it have only face value for a minority of Whites. Also, the South African Government was elected—this is a statement of fact—by a minority of South Africans whilst it carries responsibility for the full spectrum of South African society. Therefore the question that must be asked in this no-confidence debate is whether the Government’s policies have popular support.

Are you going to vote against the hon. the Prime Minister’s amendment?

The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs asks more questions than he did while he was Minister of Agriculture. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that things come to all those who wait, even if such things come by SAR & H. In order to answer the question whether the Government’s policy has popular support or is likely to have popular support, we have to answer this question: What is Government policy? Here I can only turn to what I have found to be the most authoritative document issued by the NP. I have both the 1979 and the 1981 editions and they appear in Pro Nat and therefore there cannot be any complaint that they contain any misrepresentation. We have here out of the pen of the hon. the Prime Minister himself the twelve-point plan of the NP.

That must surely be a most authoritative and definitive statement of NP policy, and I do not think that any member on that side will disagree with that. I should like to read the introduction to this document before proceeding. I am referring to the “twaalf-puntplan” out of Pro Nat.

It says here—

Therefore, according to this document, an authoritative document, this must be a clear definition of what the NP stands for. Against that particular policy we must examine the probabilities. The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs quite correctly said yesterday that the NP would gain popular support. I would like to read one of the three preconditions which the hon. the Minister spoke about yesterday, preconditions for a Government to be successful in bringing about a new order in South Africa—if that is the intention of the Government.

*I am referring to the hon. the Minister’s Hansard of yesterday. In it the hon. the Minister says that in order to succeed, any Government in South Africa has to follow a policy which will eventually be accepted by a majority of all the nations and population groups. We agree. The hon. member for Yeoville, on the other hand, had problems yesterday when the hon. the Minister asked him whether he agreed. The hon. the Minister went on to say that there could be no change in South Africa unless those changes were approved by this White Parliament. As the Minister put it: If it is not supported by the majority of the Whites, it will not work. The hon. the Minister also said that all the various policies had been put to the voters and that the majority had rejected the other parties’ policies, but accepted the policy of the NP as printed here in the twelve-point plan.

Of course, we agree 100% with the first two statements. They are true. In order to be successful in South Africa, any Government must obtain the support of the majority of all the groups in South Africa, and change has to be brought about by this Parliament.

That is fundamental. We agree with you about that. We taught you that.

That was the mandate for the 1981 election and the question now is: Is this twelve-point plan made of the stuff that can turn a large political party into a great Government with popular support across the whole spectrum of South African society?

Never.

That is the question we have to ask today. Whether the answer is “yes” or “no” it depends on every member’s conscience. I would like to point out to the hon. the Minister that the process of rejecting other people’s proposals and ideas will always lead that group to radicalization. I should like the hon. the Minister and hon. members to take note of the private member’s motion of which we gave notice earlier on. If one rejects another group’s proposals—I am talking about Black, Coloured and Indian—it will result in radicalization, and that radicalization will end in polarization and polarization will result in a reactionary movement in South Africa rather than an interactionary design opportunity.

I also pointed that out.

Yes. So we are in accord on that. I should like to point out that where I earlier used Zimbabwe by way of illustration of what can happen when one changes one’s political philosophy without recognizing the realities of life, what is taking place in South West Africa at the moment is an equally valid example.

In South West Africa we have a classical example of a policy which has failed to receive popular support.

That is right.

Yes, absolutely right. It failed to achieve popular support, and the end result was protracted negotiations, military conflict and a reactionary polarization. In the case of South West Africa only external intervention brought about a possible change. As I said about Zimbabwe, there is nought for our comfort in denegrating what has happened there. South Africa is a plural society. That is the reality of life. It is recognized by the NP. The same reality is recognized by the NRP but unfortunately cannot be accommodated in PFP policy.

The first bad statement you make. [Interjections.]

When one designs a policy, in order to give it the greatest probability of acceptance by the majority of all groups in South Africa, one should start from the premise that one must recognize the hard, objective realities of the plural society of South Africa. In South Africa the key to minority group survival in our plural society is to be found in the establishment of joint decision-making bodies on matters of mutual concern.

That joint decision-making body must be created within a structure free of group domination. Without such an institutionalized facility, irrespective of whose design it is for a constitution, there is no hope of popular support. I should like to repeat that I believe that the key to minority group survival in our South African plural society is to be found in the establishment of joint decision-making bodies on matters of mutual concern within a structure free of group domination.

We must turn back now to the twelve-point plan of the NP. Nowhere in that plan is any provision being made for joint decision-making bodies. Therefore the probability of gaining popular support must be very small indeed. The hon. the Minister can go back and examine the successes and the failures in the Lebanon, in Cyprus, in Zimbabwe, in Nigeria and elsewhere, and he will find that the missing key element in the originally proposed settlements is the establishment of joint decision-making bodies on those matters which are of mutual concern.

What is the cause of the problem?

We shall come to that in a moment. Nowhere in the twelve-point plan is there any provision made for such a body or bodies. What we do find in the NP’s twelve-point plan is the word “consultation” on subjects of mutual interest. Provision is made for consultation, yes. It says that about the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites. It states that there will still be economic co-operation between the independent homelands and the rest of South Africa. It says so in the twelve-point plan of the NP.

[Inaudible.]

I shall come to that presently. I am still talking about the twelve-point plan.

But that is also contained in it.

Yes, it is contained in this. However, I am still coming to that. The hon. the Minister must just be patient for a while.

†The great difference is this. In the NP’s policy provision is only made for consultation. There are no joint decision-making bodies. I am sure the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs will concede that this is indeed so.

Power sharing.

I should like to tell the House what happens to “consultation only”, and I refer hon. members to an earlier statement I made when I said that if one rejected another group’s proposals one radicalizes them, and when you radicalize them they become polarized, and that in turn leads to reactivities. I should like to remind hon. members, particularly the Government—the hon. the Prime Minister will remeber this—that when he spoke to a very prominent Black leader from kwaZulu and said to him: “But we are giving you consultation; why then are the Zulus so cross with us?”, this leader replied: “Mr. Prime Minister, we are tired of talking on a toy telephone.”

Where did you get hold of that story?

From the man himself, Sir.

Did you ever approach me to verify it?

No, Sir, I have not. But I am giving his opinion. [Interjections.] This leader said they were tired of talking on a toy telephone.

I am telling you that that is not true. [Interjections.]

It may not be true, but…

I am telling you that that is not true.

It may be that the man I am referring to did not specifically tell the Prime Minister that, but he was talking to me about consultation with the hon. the Prime Minister, the Cabinet.

Now you are running away, aren’t you?

When I asked him why they refused to negotiate with the Pretoria Government, he told me it was because they were tired of talking on a toy telephone.

I am telling you that is not true.

But it must be true. Why then did the Buthelezi Commission come about in Natal? Why are there no Blacks on the President’s Council? There is no joint consultation with the Blacks, Sir; that is why.

Because there is considerable interest in the Buthelezi Commission, I want to tell hon. members why this party served on it. Firstly, because Natal and kwaZulu are geographic neighbours. Secondly, they are administratively closely linked, and we, the NRP, constitutes the provincial council of that area. Thirdly, we took the opportunity to state our case and, what is more, to listen to the other side, because we, unlike the NP, believe that politicians should learn to become the last of the big listeners rather than to remain the last of the big talkers.

The NP refused to take part in the Buthelezi Commission, either as commissioners or to give evidence, and I believe they missed a magnificent opportunity …

They boycotted the commission.

… to develop a better understanding of each other’s fears and aspirations.

They are getting like the Progs; they boycotted it.

Even if the Buthelezi Commission does not come up with the right formula the first time, like Brutus’s spider we must keep trying until we succeed. The same applies to the President’s Council. If at first their recommendations do not succeed,

I believe we should continue until they do succeed.

I should like to say that it was a great disappointment to me, also to the people of Natal and kwaZulu that the Government did not at least come and give evidence and state their case.

Surely, you are not surprised at that.

Yes, very surprised indeed. The Government should have given evidence before the Buthelezi Commission. After all it is the NP Government that created the kwaZulu Legislative Assembly …

But not the commission.

… and gave them the powers to appoint such a commission. This Government gave them the powers to form that kind of commission.

But not over Natal. Over kwaZulu, yes, but not over Natal. [Interjections.]

Well, Sir, if you are going to argue about where your policies hold water and where they don’t, you are going to get nowhere at all. Why did this Government not take the opportunity at least to send somebody to state its case? I believe they would have learnt quite a lot from the KwaZulu people, and much will be learnt from the Buthelezi Commission. Even if we didn’t always agree with the Buthelezi Commission, we would have learnt a considerable amount about the fears and the aspirations of those people.

He has said a few things that are true.

Because, Sir, the Blacks do not have representation on the President’s Council and it does not look as though they are going to get it. And that will be a cardinal mistake to refuse to hear or to reject the opinion of the majority of the citizens of the Republic of South Africa.

When we talk about imposing laws on others, I want to refer to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. Unfortunately he is not here. I did not tell him that I was going to refer to him. However, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs that we in the NRP wish to warn them that we will never agree to nominated regional councils replacing provincial councils. We believe firmly that any body with legislative power must have a popularly-elected base and must operate within a framework of separate power bases for the different groups. We believe in power-sharing in those things that are of mutual interest and concern to the different groups, but we will never agree to abrogating the privileges and rights of the citizens of South Africa to vote for their elected leaders. I say that we want to establish joint decision-making bodies, and if hon. members are interested they can read our federal-confederal policy to see how we have made provision for that. What better opportunity to share power, without domination of one group over another, than at municipal and provincial level? We are delighted to hear that the President’s Council’s recommendations in this regard will be made available sometime in March. There are many areas of mutual interest at provincial level, e.g. roads, parks boards, hospital services, etc. Joint decision-making on matters of common concern, by democratically elected leaders, is the key to minority group survival in our plural society.

Once again I want to say that the Government has no policy in this key area. Therefore the probability of the Government, on its own, and with its present twelve-point plan, finding popular support amongst the majority of all groups in South Africa and succeeding in producing a peaceful and prosperous South Africa are fairly minimal. I therefore want to warn the Government that appointing commissions, one after the other, is no substitute for sound leadership, and here I am referring, in particular, to the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. There is no substitute for sound leadership. A commission can only be an aid. What, however, do these commissions tell us about the Government’s policy? There was a whole string of commissions, including the Erika Theron Commission, the Cillié Commission and the De Lange Commission. What do they really tell us about the Government policies? They tell us that Government policy is out of kilter with the reality of South Africa, and before the country can have confidence in this Government we must have a thorough reexamination of the NP’s policy. That is something the Cabinet will have to work on, and let me direct my remarks, in particular, to the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs who runs a beautiful Blue Train, and an airways service at a loss. Let me ask them whether they believe, at the moment, that NP policy has the support of the majority of all groups in South Africa.

It is the only safe policy for Southern Africa.

That does not answer my question. You live in a Chubb safe and be safe for the rest of your life, but you cannot move around. [Interjections.]

He would be dead.

Sure, it is rock safe because it cannot move at all. But I am sure that Cabinet Ministers and other hon. members on that side will agree with me that until we bring in a policy which makes provision for joint decision-making bodies, only in respect of matters of mutual concern, we will not succeed in building that peaceful new Republic that we ascribe to.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether the confederal system, for which the NRP stands, is a fully joint decision-making body in which there will not be autonomy for each group?

May I point out to the hon. the Minister that in terms of the constellation of the NP, with that pirated concept “confederation”, there is no joint decision-making body at all. There is only consultation or “oorlegpleging” and “onder-handeling” on an economic basis. In terms of our policy, however, the federation and the confederation, the Chamber, the Assembly, is a body for joint decision-making on matters of common concern.

Mr. Speaker, may I also ask the hon. member whether it is proposed that there will be more Blacks than Whites represented in that confederal system of the NRP? [Interjections.]

That is a reality of life, yes. The answer is therefore yes, of course there will. In a confederation there must be. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister has jumped to the wrong conclusion again. He wants to count heads. How does the EEC operate, the Common Market operate? It is made up of sovereign States. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order!

The hon. the Minister is coming right. It is voluntary and there is consensus. That is what it is about. It is a question of consensus, of trade agreements. The realities of life indicate that 70% of the population of the RSA is Black. [Time expired.]

In the first place Mr. Speaker, concerning the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I want to say it seems to me that he intended to say two things here. Towards the end of his speech he said that this Government was not displaying leadership and that one had to test the situation in a country by the leadership it had. If this criticism had come from any other quarter but that party, one could still have heeded it. But it came from a party which has displayed one outstanding characteristic over the years, namely that it has displayed the greatest lack of leadership of any party in the history of this country. I am referring to the old SA Party and its successors that now sit in the Opposition benches here. [Interjections.] It also depends on whom one should display leadership towards. As far as the NP is concerned, we insist on displaying leadership towards our own people. Since this party was founded there has never been a Prime Minister who, in his own right, has brought back so many people to the ranks of his party as has this hon. Prime Minister. These are the facts. As far as leadership is concerned, the present hon. Prime Minister has brought back the largest number of his own people that this country has ever witnessed.

Such as the 200 000 that voted for the HNP?

Just give me a chance too. The hon. leader of that pathetic little party should realize that there is every possibility that he and all his colleagues will not be here at all the next time. [Interjections.] It is quite obvious to me that the rats are leaving the ship, and it is also quite obvious in what direction they will jump. I always thought that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat—for whom I always had the greatest respect—was one who could keep his equilibrium, but considering the desperation he revealed here today, it would seem to me that he is on his way to the Prog Party. I congratulate the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It seems to me the hon. member is coming to join him. [Interjections.]

He doesn’t want him.

Doesn’t he want him? [Interjections.] By the looks of things the hon. member will not be welcome.

The Leader of the Opposition has enough to contend with from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central.

In all fairness I want to say that despite what the hon. member for Durban North said, I still think he is better than three quarters of the members the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has. [Interjections.]

The hon. member also tried to say something else. He was concerned about acceptability. When he referred to it at the beginning of his speech, did he mean general acceptability within or outside South Africa?

Within.

Only within? Not outside?

Outside does not matter.

I want to tell him he is a member of a party that is not acceptable anywhere. No one in South Africa takes any notice of that party. He cannot show me a single responsible body in the country that has given any indication over the years that it listens to that party or wants to accommodate that party in any way in any plan it has for the future.

South Africa is committed to the maintenance of law and order. As regards the future of South Africa, in planning for it, the Government will not allow itself to be told to give evidence before all manner of commission of inquiry appointed by people in the country on the future of South Africa. Of course not. Since when are we under an obligation to run to Buthelezi’s commission to decide on the future of South Africa and of Natal? If any one is to take decisions, it will be the Government with or without the aid of a commission that will have status under the constitution. It will not be done in any other way.

We control Natal.

The mere fact that those hon. members bent over backwards to accommodate that commission gives us an indication of what would become of South Africa if they were to come into power. The hon. member said we must stop talking; we must simply listen. They will bend over so far backwards to listen that this country will be steered in a direction in which it does not want to go.

You have never listened.

I have only one thing to say to that hon. member. In the past few years there has been consultation on so many levels in South Africa and we have taken so much trouble that today we can say that this Government has gone further out of its way to consult people than any previous Government. What is remarkable is that in spite of the disparagement of all the Government’s attempts we have still managed to get as far as we have. For every positive word spoken something in the region of 100 negative words were probably spoken. There is an all-out attack against South Africa and the Government’s efforts.

What about the future?

I do not want to spend too much time on interjections, because I should like to say a few things about the motion of no confidence. However, before I come to the motion of no confidence, I should like to say in passing, and I am not being vindictive, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s speech did not receive the necessary attention, especially in his newspapers. In my opinion there wasn’t the enthusiasm there ought to have been, not that I thought it was such a good speech. However, I have never before seen a newspaper go out of its way to explain why it would not find a more prominent space in its newspaper for an Opposition Leader’s speech in a no confidence debate. There was also a little hypocrisy on the part of that newspaper. The Cape Times of 2 February 1982 said the following—

What the newspaper is actually saying to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that he cannot compete and that what he said was not important. They went even further and said it was the hon. the Prime Minister’s fault that a number of important reports were tabled at the same time. The newspaper report read—

I do not think this newspaper is being fair to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It is after all a big newspaper; it is a thick newspaper. In fact I had a look at the number of pages that that specific issue contained. And do hon. members realize that, in spite of everything the newspaper had to say about those reports, there was still enough space left to have given the hon. the Leader of the Opposition sufficient prominence if the newspaper had thought that what he had said in fact important? However, I do not think that is the reason why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was dismissed as unimportant by his own newspaper. I think there is another reason, which is that that newspaper and others like it, as well as members who think as they do, cannot persuade the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to adopt a more militant and inflammatory attitude. They were looking for a leader who, like a crusader, would take up his sword and fight for the militants, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not doing that. He is like a racehorse that, when he hears the starting bell, staggers instead of starting to gallop. That is a fact. One commentator wrote that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is the Prog’s Jimmy Carter. I do not know whether he really is the Prog’s Jimmy Carter, but I would rather not pursue the matter. I merely wanted to say in passing that there was probably another reason why there was no fire and enthusiasm for the “great man”, the “strong man”, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is supposed to be.

I shall leave it at that. It is between him and his people. I only want to say that there is dissension and he is on one side, he is not on both sides.

I come now to the motion of no-confidence. The motion of no-confidence says one thing. It say that this House has no confidence in the Government. In parliamentary language there are no stronger words to choose if one wants to express such a sentiment in a motion. The motion says only this, and nothing more, but if one says this, it means in parliamentary language an absolute and total rejection of the Government. Having said this, however, one is also by implication saying: If you reject the present Government, here is the Government you must choose and these are the reasons why. This is what is meant in parliamentary language if you word a motion in that way, because we must remember that if that motion of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is accepted, this Government must resign, because we have then been rejected. One can word a motion in such a way that a government need not resign if that motion is accepted, but if a motion is worded in the way this one has been, and it is accepted, the Government has to resign. Now I want to state categorically that I have never seen a better opportunity than the one afforded in the Republic of South Africa in 1982, with its circumstances, its challenges, its problems all spelled out, for a Leader of the Opposition to come forward and give the country an answer to those problems. I have never seen such a golden opportunity, but it slipped by completely unutilized. In the times in which we are living, no one can help but feel—no one sitting here has not felt this when thinking about South Africa—that the challenge to South Africa is at present probably the greatest challenge that has ever faced this country in its entire history. As a matter of fact, I do not know of a country in the world facing a greater challenge than the one we are facing at this moment.

Allow me to tell this House what the essence of this challenge is. The essence of this challenge is to force South Africa, which is a developed country, a First World country, to assimilate and accommodate a large part of the Third World in its constitutional dispensation and its economic system. This is an enormous challenge. South Africa is being pressurized from all sides to make this accommodation at a rapid pace and in the face of overwhelming numbers. We must remember that South Africa, unlike other countries in this regard, is being forced to accommodate these Third World people by the millions, not at Third World level or according to Third World standards, but at the level where South Africa is, namely, a First World level. Do hon. members know what the implications are? Do they know how much money this costs? Do they know how much thought it requires? Do they know how much catching up needs to be done? Do they know how great the challenge is for a country when it must meet such an obligation?

There is a second serious challenge facing South Africa. South Africa is being pressurized by the other components. It is being pressurized by the outside world, it is being pressurized by the Press in this world, in addition to its own, it is being pressurized by the Opposition, it is being pressurized from all sides to apply in the Republic of South Africa a process or project or, I almost want to say, recipe of Third World countries in Africa that has proved to be a failure. It is a fact—various members on this side of the House, as well as my colleagues in the Cabinet, have spelt this out very clearly—that we are dealing here with Third World countries that we have to accommodate, but on the other hand we are being pressurized to apply a process that cannot work, and this has already been proved.

One of the unaccountable things in South African politics is that, in spite of the fact that during the past 25 years outside South Africa, from the Limpopo to the Sahara, nothing has been so well demonstrated as that failure, in spite of all the knowledge that has emerged from that failure, it would seem that the scales cannot fall from the eyes of those people. They want to apply the failure to the Republic of South Africa. No argument used in this House is of the slightest avail.

What is the recipe then?

It is the recipe of one man, one vote, which leads to the rejection of all the democratic systems, without exception. This is what is being offered and it just does not work. It proceeds from the failure of trade unions to the failure of political parties. That is what is happening in the rest of Africa.

Like Transkei and Venda?

The position in Transkei and Venda is in any case far better than the position in the rest of Africa. However, this does not mean that what can happen in the Transkei, must also be applied in the Republic. We are not part of it. That is the whole point. They are independent, after all. Sir, this is South Africa’s challenge, but there are any number of similar considerations.

We expected the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to tell us where he stands in respect of these important components of what is now happening. I want to refer to one of the greatest challenges we are facing. It is a proven fact that millions of people in the Republic of South Africa, literally millions, are illiterate and untrained and they will have to be taught and trained at a rate that is really beyond the administrative and financial capacity of this country. It is really beyond our capability to do this at the moment. However, we have a plan to arrive at certain goals with co-operation. We have a plan to make up the lost ground, and we think it can be done. It is, however, an enormous task facing the country. Those hon. members did not tell us how to educate and train those millions. They did not say a word about it.

Not a word was said about another important matter as well. We in the Republic of South Africa are afraid that we can find ourselves in a situation where South Africa could experience the misery of large-scale unemployment. However, to employ millions of people at the required rate and to train them and to create the employment situations in which they can operate is an enormous task. It will require billions of rands and it is beyond the capacity of this country. We are in fact heading in the right direction but we are not receiving any help from that side to tell us how to proceed in this matter.

Hon. members opposite made a comparison between this country and Israel which receives billions of dollars from the United States of America every year. Every aircraft that crashes there, is immediately replaced by a new one. However, we are not in that position. If we in South Africa want to defend ourselves against the rest of the world, we must do it on our own and the costs and manpower requirements and the planning involved are also enormous. Hon. members opposite did not mention this either. Why do hon. members opposite say nothing to us about the social requirements of the future? There are enormous social requirements ahead of us. There is the question of health, housing etc. which also make demands beyond the capacity of this country. I maintain that there has never been an opportunity such as this for the Leader of the Opposition who says he rejects the Government to submit his plans for the future to the country and its people. We are told we cannot do so. Now I want to ask: What can we do? What ought we to do? However, we only heard two things from hon. members opposite. All we heard was that everything that was wrong, everything that was not being done, could be blamed on apartheid. We also heard that it was not true that the country was seriously threatened by a total onslaught. These are the two things we heard.

Who said that?

They said there was no such onslaught. They spoke about it scornfully. We were also told that everything that went wrong in this country could be blamed on the Government or on apartheid.

That is true.

I just want to say that there are two absolute requirements which can be laid down, two factors on which our entire future depends. One of these important factors on which our future depends is stability, economic stability, without which one cannot bring communities to realization of their ideals, without which one cannot give people work. Without it one cannot create infrastructures, one cannot train people and one cannot even defend one’s own country. Without it one cannot find a satisfactory dispensation for one’s government officials. One must have stability. It is however just as vitally important to have security. These two things are inseparable. It depends on security on the one hand and economic stability on the other, whether we can afford the things we want to do, whether we can create the climate for everything we want to do and whether we can lead South Africa on the road ahead.

I now want to make an accusation. I am addressing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when I say this: Although he sits in this House and confesses that he also believes in the principles of a free market economy, he and the people on his side are doing nothing to protect that free market economy because, as the hon. the Minister of National Education said, they have such unreal ideologies in the midst of the realities of today that what they do actually do means nothing.

I want to mention a few examples in this connection. I shall start with matters with which I am involved. The hon. leader and other hon. members on that side were in this House when we piloted through legislation aimed at developing the principles of the free market economy in the most sensitive field of all. I am referring to the field in which absolutely nothing must go wrong, the field in which 5,5 million people are working, the field in which the entire situation is being dealt with—all our factories, the total industrial effort of South Africa.

What is happening and what have we witnessed during the past few months? We have witnessed irresponsible actions on the part of many bodies, actions aimed at applying blackmail in the free market economy which could lead to its total collapse. As an example of these actions I refer to boycott movements. Where have you ever heard of trade unions and similar bodies involving themselves in launching boycott movements in order to make extortionary demands, such as we have experienced in Cape Town, East London and many other places?

This is being done by people who are well known to hon. members of the official Opposition. But what is the official Opposition doing about it? We have not heard a single admonitory word from them and we have not received a vestige of aid from them to help control the situation. I am now telling the hon. leader and his people that their behaviour in this regard runs directly counter to the security interests of the Republic of South Africa. By neglecting to do anything they are leaving the country in the lurch.

I now come to a second example. A while ago a campaign was launched at our universities. Do hon. members know what campaign it is? It is a campaign to sow discord in trade unions throughout South Africa. Certain pamphlets are being distributed and a student newspaper is being distributed in which large advertisements are published. The following is an example of the advertisements used—

This is a campaign aimed at indicating to trade union people, Black people, that if they want to cause trouble, they will be helped. Those trade union people, Black people, must boycott. This campaign is being launched from places where the hon. members of the official Opposition are also welcome. After all, their friends’ children are there and they are also frequent visitors there; it is their milieu, not the milieu of the NP. This is an extremely dangerous campaign, and if it should escalate it could rock the free market economy in South Africa to its foundations. But the hon. members of the official Opposition are doing nothing. Their failure to act runs counter to the security interests of the country. By failing to act they are leaving South Africa in the lurch.

That’s not true; I eat Wilson-Rowntree toffees. [Interjections.]

There are also other campaigns under way which are aimed at ensuring that completely unreasonable demands are made. These unreasonable demands which are being made by trade unions could, if they are met, totally destroy the free market economy. There are demands that wages be tripled or quadrupled. Wages must be increased without taking productivity or any other factors into account.

There is only one hon. member opposite who understands this kind of thing because he himself is the chairman of an industrial council. I am referring to the hon. member for Yeoville. I must immediately point out that over the past few months the hon. member has acted in a very responsible way through the agency of that organization of which he is the chairman. However, he is the only one; the others can do something, but they are not doing anything. Their failure to act runs counter to the security interests of the country; they are leaving our country in the lurch.

There are boycott actions in progress, incitement is taking place, large demands are being fostered and there are efforts to persuade Black people to have nothing to do with the channels of communication and the trade unions and other machinery we have created. Because the hon. members have neglected to take action in this regard, they have left South Africa in the lurch.

Just a final remark before I resume my seat. This also applies to the hon. members on that side of the House.

We have a packet of Wilson-Rowntree chocolates here.

You are being ridiculous, as usual.

Order!

I will support their products, but when other people boycott them, the Opposition encourages them. By failing to take action the hon. members of the Opposition have left the country in the lurch. What applies to them also applies to many other people in South Africa, seen against the background of the fact that we are facing a very difficult situation today. It is a very delicate situation to keep our country on an even keel. Because South Africa needs everyone’s co-operation at this stage and because it is necessary for all South Africans to show greater patriotism towards the country, I think the inspired words one should bear in mind are those of I. D. du Plessis—

Mr. Speaker, I shall react immediately to the speech of the hon. the Minister of Manpower, although I have not, as in the case of the speeches of the other members of the Cabinet, had the opportunity of studying the speech at my leisure. The first point he made was to get a little personal, and say that he could understand that the Press said that there was competition for news. I do not mind, however, that my speech was not reported, in view of the report that was laid on the Table in this House, for that report constitutes such a grave threat that perhaps no speeches will be reported on in the future or receive the attention which they deserve.

The hon. the Minister also made the assertion that this side of the House had said nothing about what ought to be done. He said that we complained and said: The fault lies with apartheid.

But of course.

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. I asked a few pertinent questions and those questions were repeated throughout the debate.

That is correct; that is what you did. You did not suggest anything; you merely asked questions …

But the questions which I put were the answer that I gave, and that was: Is the hon. the Minister, the Cabinet, prepared to do away with all obstacles in the economy which apply to the Black man and not to the White man? Is he prepared to do this?

Do you not know … [Interjections.]

Order!

We are awaiting answers to simple questions … [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow a dialogue across the floor of the House.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned with my speech; not with the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister did not attempt to reply to the question which I asked, but only gesticulated wildly.

The hon. the Minister also claimed that we were doing nothing to stablilize the free market economy. That is the biggest load of nonsense I have ever heard. We have pleaded for this at congresses and gatherings of businessmen, at home as well as abroad. But every time we have to go and explain why the Government is not prepared to remove obstacles. That is the point.

What did you do in the cases I mentioned to you?

In all those cases we tried to encourage mutual consultation. Mr. Speaker, that is enough of this. One could argue about these innuendos incessantly, but this kind of point scoring is of no value.

We have now come to the end of this debate, and it was a debate which did not altogether disappoint expectations. We did not really expect anything of the Government, but we at least hoped that they would disappoint our expectations and that they would give us something in this debate. The recurring theme of the argument used was the nature and extent of and the possible reaction to, a total onslaught on South Africa. I shall return to this when I react to the contribution made by the hon. the Prime Minister. Minor themes in the debate were, for example, the realities of the South African situation which have to be taken into account, that we as official Opposition do not take these realities into account, and that our policy cannot accommodate them. Then there was also the usual subordinate theme which is already traditional in a no-confidence debate, namely the so-called irresponsibility or lack of patriotism of the official Opposition. My reply is directed at these three themes and hon. members who contributed to the debate will pardon me if I do not refer to them specifically by name. They will, however, realize when I am reacting to their contributions by the standpoint I am adopting in respect of the three subjects.

Firstly I should like to refer to the so-called irresponsibility or lack of patriotism of the official Opposition. Contributions in this category were the speeches made by the hon. member for Parys, the hon. the Minister of Education and Training, the hon. the Minister of Community Development and the hon. the Minister of Police. The technique of such a strategy consists of course of one wresting slightly out of context what your opponent says and then arriving at ridiculous conclusions, or even putting certain questions by way of innuendo. I should like to make two observations only with regard to these techniques. On the one hand, they do not impress me in the least; nor do they impress my colleagues. [Interjections.] On the other hand those hon. members who are interested, continue to employ such methods because they gain more support for us. [Interjections.]

Order!

We only gain more support through this. Members of the public no longer believe in this. They consider it to be transparent, and it therefore has no credibility. Yet there are a few misrepresentations which are the result of this technique, misrepresentations which I believe should be eliminated.

†The first of these I should like to refer to concerns the hon. the Minister of Police. In his contribution he implied that I blamed the Government for being concerned about security matters in South Africa and that because of my attitude, as Leader of the Opposition, communists all over Africa and throughout the world were rejoicing. According to the hon. the Minister of Police I actually blame the Government for being concerned about security matters in this country. That, however, is not true. In my speech I stated quite clearly that I agreed that there was justification for concern about security matters in South Africa, but that in the case of the Government the methods and the actions in which they engaged in demonstrating that concern, constituted a threat to security. I was talking about the manner, the way in which they were demonstrating their concern. Furthermore, I made the point that if the powers of arbitration between the courts and the individuals are affected, when security matters affecting both the individual and the State arise, security problems for the State are increased. This position, as a matter of fact, is in direct contradiction to what the communists have to say about the rule of law and the freedom of the Press, to give but two examples. The communists say, as has often been said on the Government side in this House, that an excessive concern with the rule of law and the freedom of the Press is nothing but a liberal façade in order to disguise the intentions of those who are, in fact, the oppressors. One can pick that up in any communist handbook. They say: Look towards any society where there is a concern with the rule of law and the freedom of the Press and you will have nobody but the lackeys of capitalism trying to disguise the real interests of those who control society. And when we protest, in the name of the rule of law and in the name of the freedom of the Press in this House, the hon. the Minister of Police tells us that the communists rejoice. He simply does not understand what it is all about. [Interjections.] He does not understand, because that is exactly the same argument used by those people. I should like to point out that every action in this House which erodes the rule of law, every action in this House which militates against the freedom of the Press, plays right into the hands of the very communists the hon. the Minister of Police talks about, because at the heart of their whole approach lies the polarization between management and labour, between the capitalist and the proletariat in society. That is their whole approach, and it is for that reason that we are concerned about detention without trial, about bannings and arbitrary arrest. That is the reason why, and not because of the reasons ascribed to us by the hon. the Minister of Police. The hon. the Minister of Police, in his speech, gave assurances in connection with these things. He gave assurances in connection with detention without trial, and in connection with bannings and arbitrary arrest. I should like to read out the assurances he gave because they become particularly poignant at this very moment.

*The hon. the Minister said (Hansard, 3 February)—

The hon. the Minister went on to say (Hansard, 3 February)—

This afternoon a banner headline appeared in a local newspaper—“Ex-UCT detainee hanged in cell”, and the first paragraph reads—

†I do not know who this gentleman is. I do not even know what the circumstances of his detention were, but I do know that there is considerable concern about this incident. I also do know that there are people, his family, relatives and friends, who are extremely—what word can one use—“upset” about what has happened. What we do know is that he is 27 years old and a medical doctor, and that he was found hanged in his cell. However, incidents like these—and that is why we mention them in this House—fill me personally with a sense of shame, and I will tell hon. members why. I am ashamed because I cannot look the world in the eye and answer straightforward, simple questions. I am not ashamed of the fact that we are concerned about security. Every society has a right to be concerned about security. But I cannot answer questions that one would expect people to be able to answer in a normal, simple manner. I cannot explain why any charge against this gentleman could not, since 27 November last year until today, have been finalized. I have no way of explaining this. I cannot say, because I do not know whether, how or when he was visited by anyone other than those who were interrogating him. We do not know what the circumstances are, and if anyone did visit him, it could only have happened at the discretion of the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] I still cannot even explain remotely why he was detained in such a manner, but in particular, as a parent, I am in no position to comfort the parents of this man in terms of the very questions that I have raised. I cannot do so, and that is why I am raising this matter and why we will continue to raise matters about detention without trial and security matters because, I repeat, when one destroys whatever arbitrates between the individual and the State in terms of security, one polarizes the situation and one plays into the hands of those who believe that the rule of law is irrelevant and can make no contribution to peaceful change in a society. That is why we raise it, and that is why I believe the hon. the Minister should, at the earliest available opportunity, make a statement on this matter and tell us exactly what the situation is. The hon. the Minister must also institute a full-scale inquiry as to what took place.

At this particular time I just want to record my condolences and those of the official Opposition with the parents of this man who was found hanged in his cell.

Does it leave you cold?

I now come to attack another hon. Minister who also indulged in the argument about the irresponsibility and the so-called lack of patriotism of the Opposition, and I am referring to the hon. the Minister of Community Development. It was this hon. Minister who dragged the Johannesburg municipal elections into the no-confidence debate this week. Guess what his technique, his strategy, was? Surprise, surprise! It was “Swart gevaar”. That was his technique.

[Inaudible.]

He started off with the hon. member for Constantia, talking about the referendum that was held there, and ended up with one of these unique contributions to municipal elections: “Would you like to see Blacks in your swimming-pools and suburbs? This is the question.” [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Hon. members on the other side, including that hon. the Minister, do not mind when Blacks wash their cutlery, their dishes and plates, even put their black fingers into the cups and take away the coffee-rind at the bottom. [Interjections.] They do not mind that at all. Neither do hon. members on the other side mind Blacks making their beds in the morning so that they can go off happily to Parliament. No, that does not matter. They do not mind either when Blacks clean their bathrooms or their toilets, so they can use them in greater comfort afterwards. Nor do they mind Blacks changing their children’s nappies and hugging and comforting them when they are experiencing distress. [Interjections.] That is also all right. They even take them along on holidays in the back-seat of the car to do all the washing and so on. That is fine. [Interjections.] Let me just add that if there are some members on the opposite side who do not know what I am talking about, we could all get together in a telephone booth in the lobby so I can explain to them what South Africa’s problem is. Hon. members on that side do not mind Blacks performing acts involving the most intimate items of personal hygiene, but when we have municipal elections in Johannesburg they run into the streets and start talking about Blacks in the swimming-pools, schools and suburbs. [Interjections.] That was the contribution of that hon. Minister. Let me tell him, however, that we are going to fight the Johannesburg municipal election on our policy, and we are going to say: “Yes, we believe that the Group Areas Act must go and we also believe that the separate amenities legislation must go”, and if we are elected there, we shall try, as sensibly and responsibly as we can, to implement our policy. I want to put a question to that hon. Minister. If this were to come about, and we appealed to him to assist us in removing discrimination, would he help us? [Interjections.] Would he help us to do that? What did he do when the Cape Town municipality came to him and asked him for assistance and said they would implement it? He said no they could not. This just exposes the hollowness of his whole argument.

*The third contribution …

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition?

No.

Go back to your swimming-pool.

The third contribution which I should like to refer to, is that of the hon. the Minister of Education and Training. If ever there was a monotonous, a pseudo-patriotic speech, it was the contribution of that hon. Minister, and he does it every time. There is the perpetual use of innuendo. It is said that we are un-South African, we do not belong in South Africa, we are working with the enemies of South Africa, etc. We are sick and tired of those arguments. They make no impression whatsoever on us. [Interjections.] He repeated the old argument, as the hon. member for Parys did: Do we stand for extra-parliamentary action? I now ask the hon. the Minister for the hundredth time: Is the Broederbond parliamentary or extra-parliamentary? [Interjections.]

Ask Kowie!

Order!

Surely that is a simple question. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister is making a basic error in his reasoning. [Interjections.]

Ask Kowie.

It is precisely because he is sitting here that I am able to put the question to the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] He knows what an extra-parliamentary pressure group is. [Interjections.] As soon as he pursues this argument, it does not wash.

Ask brother Nic behind you there.

This brings me to another point, and this is the last bit of flippancy, because I have now been dealing with the flippant contributions from that side of the House. [Interjections.]

Order!

The other point which was made—and their reaction to this is an artificial catching of the breath—is that I referred to the ANC as a political party. And then they sit there with their hands clutching at their hearts. The hon. the Prime Minister put that question to me, and someone else also put it to me. [Interjections.] It is, of course, a ridiculous point. In one breath the hon. the Prime Minister says: Can you believe it, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that those communists are a party, and in the next breath the hon. the Prime Minister himself says the communists are a party. [Interjections.] Are the communists then a party in the sense that a celebration is a party, or in the sense of a political party? Surely this is an absurd argument. Of course the ANC is a political movement, a party, part of the political reality in South Africa. That is the final answer to that absurd question.

The second set of arguments which we had, was the set of arguments which relate to the so-called “realities” of the South African situation. We in the Opposition benches ostensibly do not appreciate these realities. It so happens that I myself began to speak about these realities. I said that the Government’s policy had foundered as a result of these realities. And then one hon. Minister after the other stood up and said that we did not appreciate these realities. It seems we were talking at cross-purposes here. I referred to realities and the hon. Ministers referred to realities, and we were referring to different realities.

On the Government side the contributions which harped on this theme were the contributions of the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and the hon. the Minister of National Education. I should like to deal simultaneously with the contributions of the hon. the Ministers of National Education and Internal Affairs in this regard. They kicked up a great fuss and said that the official Opposition did not understand the realities of Africa, that we fell back on our own ideological prejudices, just as the hon. the Minister said that I had accused them of doing this. But what do we stand for, for instance in the constitutional sphere? As I have often said in this House, we stand for the full and equal right to vote, regular elections, an independent judiciary, a charter of human rights and proportionate representation. Are these things alien to Africa, to Southern Africa? Do they have nothing to do with Southern Africa?

Just look at the consequences of those things for Southern Africa.

Is this what the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and others typify as unrealistic nineteenth century Western concepts of democracy which have no bearing on the South African situation? Let me begin again. Are the following typical of nineteenth century Western concepts of democracy which have no bearing on the South African situation: Adult franchise, universal franchise—do these have nothing to do with Africa?—the question of regular elections, the question of an independent judiciary, the question of a charter …

In a population situation such as that in South Africa, it is unrealistic.

For South Africa, therefore?

Yes.

May I then ask the hon. the Minister if he is happy that we have now reached the end of phase I with regard to the negotiations on Namibia? [Interjections.] What does phase I consist of? It entails the contribution of the South African Government to the settlement in terms of the constitutional proposals that were made. Do you know, Sir, what those constitutional proposals include? They include adult franchise, an independent judiciary, proportionate representation, regular elections, and a human rights charter. [Interjections.]

Look at them now!

Is this not alien to the South African situation? Is the population structure of Namibia completely different to the population structure in South Africa? Are there Afrikaners in Namibia? Are there English-speaking people in Namibia? Sir, we cannot have this kind of double talk. The Government is participating in a tremendously important settlement process—it is important to all of us— but when we try and make a contribution with regard to the internal situation in South Africa, it is suddenly completely alien and it is said that we do not understand the realities of Africa and that we are concerned with nineteenth century liberal concepts which have no bearing on the harsh realities of Africa. They are, however, selling those same realities for a settlement in South West. Let them reflect on this. It is because they indulge in this kind of double talk that they are so vulnerable when it comes to the parties on the right. Let them speak with one voice so that we can know what is happening in this country.

I turn to the contribution made by the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. Let me say at once that it was, without any qualifications, by far the best contribution to the debate from that side of the House. I am not attaching any frills to it and I am not praising him for it, for I differ from him radically. I should, however, advise the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs to take a leaf out of his book.

Let us move away from this accumulation of synonyms, long synonyms such as “multidimensional”, “parameters”, “reform”, etc. It sounds like someone who cannot clear his throat. That hon. Minister stated in straightforward terms how he viewed the matter. And what was the basic standpoint he put forward? Firstly he was a little stubborn. He said the logic of my argument was that, since I had supposedly said—and I did not say so—that the HNP could be ignored on the strength of the votes that it had received, and since we did not receive many more votes than the HNP did, we too could be ignored. I have never said that the right-wing can be ignored. What I did in fact say, was that they must be confronted politically. I said that the Government must stand up and confront them. The hon. the Prime Minister reacted to that and said that they were confronting them in South West. I said that we should confront them in South Africa too.

You used them in two constituencies, i.e. Greytown and Albany.

I did not use them. Therefore that argument is not valid. [Interjections.] I could also mention a few donkeys on the backs of which the hon. the Prime Minister’s people rode into this Parliament. The actual point is: Test what we advocate, what the Government advocates and what the HNP advocates, by means of a referendum amongst all the people of South Africa. Then we can see what the extent of the possibilities for reform are. We can sit together and plan it if the hon. the Minister is prepared to persuade the hon. the Prime Minister to do so.

What, in actual fact, was the standpoint of the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs according to his speech? I can summarize it in three sentences. He asks: “Can one come up with a lasting, meaningful solution for our problems in South Africa if the majority of Whites are not in agreement with them?” This was one very central question and I concede to the hon. the Minister that it is part of the realities of South Africa. In the second place he said: “At this stage the Whites hold the key to Parliament.” Granted. In the third place he said: “No dispensation that does not guarantee those fundamental, established rights of the Whites and ensure their security, can be sold to the White voting public.” These were the three key sentences of the hon. the Minister’s contributions that summarize what he wanted to say.

No one can overlook the key role played by the Whites as regards peaceful change. I want to agree with the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. However, I want to add that it is possible—it is not necessarily so, but it is possible—that the majority of people may be ignorant of the demands set by change, and not only the Whites, but the non-Whites too. They may be ignorant of the requirements for change. Furthermore, it is also possible that those who are in power, or those who are in the privileged position of decision-making, may be better informed as to the nature of and demands set by change. That is why there is a greater responsibility resting upon them to give the people guidance with regard to the requirements of change. That is why the worst thing that could happen, if there are indications amongst the voting public that they are in fact prepared to accept certain reforms, would be for the Government to sit with hands folded and not to seize the opportunity of bringing about those reforms. This was in fact the point that I made. I said that we had scientific evidence here of the willingness of the voters, the White electorate, where the majority say do X, Y or Z, but the Government says no, it does not want to do so. There is more that I could quote in this regard. One of the best pieces of research that has been undertaken over a period of four years in South Africa—there are a number of hon. members on the opposite side who are acquainted with this research; indeed, the hon. member for Pretoria Central was present when we discussed this research—is the book South Africa: The Prospects of Peaceful Change, written by Hanf Weiland and Gerda Vierdag. Let me quote what they say on page 240—

“The general consensus of political leadership”. I quote further—

Then, right at the end of their study, they reach the following conclusion with regard to the possibility of peaceful change—

This is the positive note that I have tried to sound in my entire contribution to the no confidence debate, viz. to say that it can be done. All we have to do, is to summon the courage in this House to take steps and make decisions to help it along. They need not be big steps to begin with. Even if there are only minor indications of it, the climate will be created for these things to happen and for movement to take place. Just as it is true that the support of the majority of Whites and the support of this House is necessary for peaceful change, so also the converse is true, viz. that the co-operation of the majority of Black people is equally essential. The one cannot manage without the other.

It is also in this respect that I said in my contribution to the debate that there were disconcerting signs that more and more Blacks were becoming dissatisfied about the absence of the possibility of such peaceful change. Once again I refer the House to the results of research. This is not something that I am sucking out of my thumb; it comes from Prof. Schlemmer. He was involved in continual research, together with these people, as it happens, on the possibility of peaceful change amongst Blacks. Therefore this is scientific evidence that I am presenting to the Government in this regard.

This brings me to the third theme, and of course the principal theme of the no confidence debate on the part of the Government, viz. the question of the total onslaught. Before I come to the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech in this regard, I just want to turn to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. When one listened to him yesterday, one gained the impression that the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development was talking about the total onslaught too. He practically played his own match, as they say, and was also his own cheerleader. He spoke with a great deal of enthusiasm. However, he did not really want to talk about the total onslaught. I listened to him carefully and he actually wanted to say what the total offensive to combat the total onslaught should be.

Oh, man, I tried to convince you and I failed miserably. I am sorry.

Mr. Speaker, I can only tell the hon. the Minister that he need not feel bad, because it is not the first time that he has failed miserably. He has often failed miserably.

What I actually want to tell the hon. the Minister, is that he went about things in a very clever way. I am not criticizing him.

I am not as stupid as you are.

Mr. Speaker, I do not mind being stupid. I merely try to understand as much as I can. Actually, the hon. the Minister is clever: He was like those magicians one sees at children’s birthday parties. He waves a red cloth with one hand and then does the trick with the other. In the same way he gave an indication with one hand of the total onslaught yesterday and then, with the other hand, introduced what he regarded as the counter-offensive. He wanted to come back to his speech at Washington. This is something which troubled the hon. the Minister. We keep asking him in this House “what about Palm Springs now, and what about Washington”, and he felt that he should really mention this story again. He wanted to contribute it as the total counter-offensive against the total onslaught. I just wish to quote from the speech by the hon. the Minister—and this is where the pleasantries stop. The hon. the Minister said (Hansard, 4 February)—

As far as the political sphere is concerned, he states—

That, according to the hon. the Minister, can take place on the same basis. What can take place on the same basis? That all people may enjoy full citizenship rights regardless of race or colour. As soon as he had said that one could almost see his relief, because what he was thinking, was: “I have said it now and they have not yet stabbed me in the back”. He then went on to say—

We do not differ with the hon. the Minister. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Rissik: Does he agree with what the hon. the Minister said, viz. that no one can differ with the hon. the Minister in this instance?

Yes, I agree.

The hon. member for Rissik agrees with him 100%. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister of State Administration whether he agrees with the hon. the Minister.

I was not following you. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister is being very cautious. I again want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he agrees that a radical system can be worked out involving full citizenship rights, regardless of race or colour, for everyone in South Africa.

While preserving self-determination.

Just say “yes” or “no”. [Interjections.]

Well, let us leave it at that, because I know the constitutional issue is somewhat difficult. Let us deal with the legal question. Does the hon. the Minister of State Administration believe that everyone, irrespective of race or colour, should be equal before the law?

Before the law, yes.

To me this is a very important concession which the hon. the Minister is now making. The hon. the Minister now states that everyone should be equal before the law. Would the hon. the Minister agree with me that there are Acts on South Africa’s Statute Book which apply to Whites but not to Blacks, and others which apply to Blacks but not to Whites? [Interjections.] That hon. Minister can move freely in this country in a way in which the Blacks can not.

You are guilty of distortion.

What am I doing? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister states that I am guilty of distortion.

The Minister said that people should be equal before the law.

I have before me the speech by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. I quoted what he said word for word and have only put a simple question to the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] That is exactly what the hon. the Minister said. Here it is in his speech. I merely quoted what he said. Surely it is this kind of thing that shows clearly that the Government is blowing hot and cold. [Interjections.] The Government is really blowing hot and cold. That hon. Minister has just proved it to us. [Interjections.]

†I want now to come to the hon. the Prime Minister’s contribution to this debate. The hon. the Prime Minister devoted his speech in part to a justification of his economic policy and to explaining the nature of the total onslaught against this country. There is one matter, however, on which I cannot agree with the hon. the Prime Minister. I did not, at any stage in my speech, criticize the policy of deconcentration and decentralization. I specifically said that I was not criticizing it. I said that there was a great deal of difficulty and that I could understand it, but I was not criticizing it. What I did in fact say was that the private sector and the Government were talking at odds on the whole question of free enterprise. However, I did not say that without justification or motivation either. I do not wish to bore this House by reading out newspaper reports of interviews, but here we have Mr. Harry Oppenheimer on the “Reasons for disillusion”, Mike Rosholt on “Time for change is not unlimited” and “Die sakewêreld soek konkrete optrede”. Everything is spelled out there. They specify the problems that they have and the areas where uncertainty exists. I did not therefore, as the hon. the Prime Minister suggested, suck this out of my thumb. I tried to put a motivated point of view.

However, when we come to the question of the total onslaught, we come to the meat of the whole argument in this debate. What is the nature of the total onslaught? Obviously, the Government feels very concerned, and so do we, about the interests of Soviet Russia, the big power conflict and the fact that Russia has a policy of destabilization for Southern Africa and has an interest in promoting violent change in this part of the continent. That is not at issue, but that is not the only source of an onslaught upon South Africa. We also have Africa after decolonialization which feels that it cannot tolerate even vestiges of colonialism and that it cannot tolerate any form of racism. Therefore, Africa itself will apply pressure to South Africa. We also have potential allies in the Western World who reject the policy of apartheid and separate development. They are also applying pressure to South Africa. Let me make this first point. Not all pressure for change originates from the same source, and I am referring here to external pressure. However, it would be dangerous to lump Africa and the West together with the communists in a total onslaught.

Who is doing that?

No, I say that that would be dangerous. One must not talk in an undiluted sense about the onslaught on South Africa or the pressures that have been brought to bear. I believe that some things can be done internally in South Africa, things that would make allies and satisfy some but not others. It seems to me too unlikely that there is anything the Government or this Parliament can do which would satisfy the intentions of, say, militant Soviet imperialism. I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister on that point. However, whatever the nature of the onslaught, our ability to cope with it internally is crucial for the peaceful survival of us all. That seems to be the crucial issue. In this respect there seems to be no question about it that the policy of separate development, or apartheid, is not only used outside as a justification for the onslaught on South Africa; it is also responsible for weakening our resilience to cope with this onslaught internally. There is no doubt about it. There are enough studies and research reports which show that the policy of separate development as it has been implemented over the last 33 years does weaken our resilience in South Africa. The policy of separate development has fragmented, polarized and divided the people of South Africa internally. That is a fact. It destroys the unity of purpose amongst the people of South Africa. In short, what I am trying to say is that it makes a total strategy against the total onslaught impossible.

Now, what are the dangers of using this type of “total onslaught” and “total strategy” approach in a situation such as I have sketched just now? The first danger is that it destroys critical reason as it relies on a self-fulfilling logic. The logic is that as there is a total onslaught, that one needs a total strategy, that the Government should decide upon the total strategy and that anybody who opposes this total strategy, becomes part of the total onslaught. That is the logic. One then starts to identify those who do not agree with this policy and one eventually ends up with the whole of South Africa against one except you yourself. To say that one is the only one that is part of the total strategy against the total onslaught does not allow for any critical argument at all.

The second danger is that it makes us less aware of the dangers confronting us, as it does cut off our critical faculties. And there are real dangers confronting us. We must be receptive to information and to the dangers which confront South Africa so that we can rationally react towards them.

The third danger is that it does not allow for healthy self-criticism. Why is this so? It is so because every problem that is encountered by the Government is ascribed to the total onslaught. If there is a problem in the labour field, with the Rents Act, with community development or with health matters, the Government ascribes it to the total onslaught. [Interjections.] That is nonsense.

That is what Lapa said.

We must be able to identify those problems and talk about them.

*However, I now wish to discuss the greatest danger of all. What is the reaction of the hon. the Prime Minister, the Government, to the problem of this onslaught on South Africa? The hon. the Prime Minister is calling for a total strategy to counter this onslaught. I held my breath when the hon. the Prime Minister said that he was going to tell us what this total strategy involved. I want to quote what the hon. the Prime Minister said about this. I do not know why, but while the hon. the Prime Minister was speaking he interrupted himself to say (Hansard, 2 February)—

What the hon. the Prime Minister had been saying just before that had nothing to do with me. The hon. the Prime Minister went on to say—

It was then that I held my breath and wondered what the reply was going to be, because these onslaughts against us are problematic and difficult.

Do you have any breath left?

Yes, I have a lot of breath left. The hon. the Prime Minister should take a deep breath and listen to what I am going to tell him now. He went on to say—

This, then, this twelve-point plan, is the reply to the total onslaught. However, the twelve-point plan is a reformulation of the policy of separate development, the policy which lies at the root of our internal divisions, which is why our defences are vulnerable in the face of the total onslaught. The cause of our vulnerability is what the hon. the Prime Minister wants to seize upon as the total strategy with which to counter a total onslaught. Surely that cannot be done, and that is why we are justified in asking the hon. the Prime Minister …

Did you expect me to use brother Kowie’s 14 points?

No, I had expected the hon. the Prime Minister to come forward with new initiatives. I do not expect him to accept all our proposals; I expect him to come forward with new initiatives. To me it seems obvious—I say this in conclusion—that if there must be a total strategy in the face of a total onslaught on South Africa, then that strategy should at least—I do not want to say at last—involve all the other population groups so that we can become inherently strong. I want to repeat: The twelve-point plan has not the faintest chance of involving the other population groups in such a strategy. Therefore we must say: If the hon. the Prime Minister is really in earnest, we cannot fall back on that twelve-point plan, but must seek new initiatives. What will happen if we do not do so? Let me end with the question put in this House by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, after he had quoted Churchill as follows—

The hon. the Minister thereupon asked: “Do you want to give it to them on a platter?” I ask the Government whether they want to give South Africa on a platter to the people who have in mind a total onslaught on us.

You are giving South Africa away on a platter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.