Order! I have to announce that I went to see Mr Speaker and conveyed to him the best wishes expressed by members for a speedy recovery from his illness. He asked me to convey his cordial thanks to all hon members. He is highly appreciative of this support.

Mr Speaker, I think that any observer listening to the opening address of the hon the State President and subsequently to the speech made by the hon Leader of the Official Opposition, must have been deeply impressed by the contrasts as regards both the presentation as well as the contents of these two speeches.

That is perfectly true! [Interjections.]

I listened to the speech made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, and if the hon member for Overvaal would do me the courtesy of taking the opportunity of reacting to it, I shall definitely appreciate it.

I am not … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, I want to say at the outset that it is interesting that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition only moved a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet. The implication of that is that he is satisfied with the administration of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly in regard to the way the own affairs of the White community are being dealt with. [Interjections.] I must say it is in fact arrogant and audacious to move a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet. In fact, I want to put it to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that there is not another person in political life in South Africa who has more support among all population groups than the hon the State President. [Interjections.] The question of the acceptability of systems and people has a completely different meaning, on the strength of the definition of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, than it has in common parlance. I shall still deal with that.

I think we find, if we consider the matter further, that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition actually donned a number of different cloaks. In the first place I want to give him the title of crown prince of no confidence, no confidence in the Government, no confidence in the church, no confidence in cultural organisations and, what is very important, no confidence in the ability of the Afrikaner to preserve himself and retain his own identity. What is more—this is the tragic aspect of it—no confidence in the alternative State President, a position he claims to wants to occupy.

Let us look further. The hon leader is also the knight of opposition politics. He opposes the policy of the Government, and he has every right to do so. He opposes the church of which he is a member. He opposes the cultural organisations which he used to lead. This is still not the most important factor. What is the most important factor? The hon Leader of the Official Opposition opposes the reality of South Africa.

Is the reality a Black state in South Africa?

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition opposes the multinationalism of this country. He opposes the fact that the country is a multiracial country. He opposes these things because he is incapable of dealing with the realities of this country. I tell him that as a result of that opposition, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition falls back on a simplistic reply of a peoples’ state (yolkstaat) which, if one analyses his speech, ought by definition ultimately to be an Afrikaner state or Boerestaat.

Let us in all reasonableness contrast this—let us subject it to a clinical examination—with the speech made by the hon the State President. The speech of the hon the State President addresses the importance of a stable and growing economy, which must be the substructure of social adjustment which in turn must be the substructure of political adjustment, because it is well known that the one is not possible without the other.

In his speech the hon the State President addresses one of the crucial questions, and that is the problem of the development needs of this country. He addresses the availability of funds in order to satisfy those development needs. He addresses the fact that as a result of economic progress and growth it must be made possible for us, the State—and I make no apology for this—to give all members of the population equal services in respect of everything for which the State accepts responsibility.

With equal payment being made?

Yes, with equal payment being made.

He addressed these matters to enable us to enhance the overall ability of this country and in that way enhance the standards and quality of life of all communities. The fact remains that the success we attain in that way determines the future stability of this country, determines its ability in regard to its security, determines its ability to compete in the world, determines its ability to adapt and to reform. The hon the State President therefore addresses the totality of the problems of this country.

If I may sum up, I say that emanating from his speech is the daring and faith of the State President of South Africa on the road ahead. [Interjections.]

In contrast—I am not saying this insultingly—the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition comes across as a person who wishes anxiously to protect himself in a little corner, as a person who has no plan for the future.

I want to go further in respect of the hon the leader’s political strategy. Yesterday evening I began with the statement made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that he would negotiate with the other parties in Parliament to change the Constitution. He said that that negotiation would be geared to the exclusion of people functioning within this system today. In addition it would be geared to keeping out other people not yet part of the legislative and executive authority.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition went on to say that he would negotiate, but if they vetoed him, he would take other steps. There are various elements in that statement. One of them is that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition accepts that if he wants to amend the entrenched provisions of the Constitution, he cannot do so without the consent of the majority of the other Houses of Parliament. He also said he wanted to persuade the other parties to consent to their own exclusion from the Parliamentary dispensation. Surely the hon leader knows what his record, and that of his party, is in respect of negotiation politics and the ability to negotiate with other hon members of Parliament in the other Houses. Party members of the hon leader have representation on standing committees and, whenever political questions are discussed on these committees that deal with constitutional matters, they merely state their opposition and that they will not participate any further in the discussion. The standing committees are Parliament’s institutions for negotiation and the search for consensus, for compromise in a spirit of give and take. The hon leader and his party is not even prepared to negotiate on the standing committees.

Let us take this further. What hope does the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition have in succeeding with his negotiations of excluding other people from the Parliamentary system?

You are not even succeeding in bringing them in.

They are already here.

The Blacks are not here, and they do not want to be here. [Interjections.]

Order! If hon members make things impossible, I shall prohibit all interjections. I should not like to do so. The hon the Minister may proceed.

What viability does the plan the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition propagates for South Africa have? I think he is already prepared for the possibility that his negotiations in this connection are not going to succeed, because he foresees it in his statement. There he makes provision for alternative courses of action. Here we come to the crux of the matter. What is the alternative course of action which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is propagating to attain his objective with the constitutional system of this country? He tried to follow the constitutional course. The only other steps he can take, will have to be unconstitutional, if he has to succeed. The implication of that is that if he cannot get past the provisions of the Constitution, he has to suspend the provisions of the Constitution. No reasonable alternative is being held out by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

If my argument is correct—I maintain it is—the hon the Leader finds himself in very strange company in respect of the suspension of the provisions of the Constitution. There are other institutions and organisations that also demand the suspension of the Constitution.

We read you like a book, Chris, we knew you were going to say that.

We are not running away.

There are other organisations that are also doing so. In the absence of a reply from the hon the Leader of the Opposition as to what other steps he is going to take if he does not succeed in receiving consent for his constitutional change, the inference inevitably remains that it has to be unconstitutional.

Tell us instead how we can make the horse drink the water.

The hon member says that the rightwingers have one thing in common and that it is their resistance. Let us deal with the politics of resistance which the hon the Leader is engaged in; let us analyse the company in which he finds himself when he does so. [Interjections.] Let us take a look: He accuses the Government of having divided the Afrikaner politically, ecclesiastically and culturally. Who left the NP? He, and the people under his leadership.

We were suspended.

That is not true.

It is true. I still have the telegram.

Who was the schismatic? Interestingly enough, the schism did not take place over the parliamentary system which we propagated; the schism did not take place because he believed in homeland and we did not. He developed the homeland concept subsequently. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member for Lichtenburg that the fact that it is old does not make the truth of the matter more correct.

I want to ask the hon member where this party divided the Church. Where did the party divide the Church to which it belongs? The hon member must come to this House with evidence that the Government interfered with the activities of any Church to which it belongs. [Interjections.] I want to ask him whether the Government was responsible for the reflection which took place within the NG Kerk? Was the Government responsible for the fact that the Church, as a result of continuous reflection, reconsidered its position on ecclesiastical coexistence?

The Government welcomed it.

Order! The hon member for Losberg is making too many constant remarks. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Instead of the hon leader, as member of the Church, formulating and stating his standpoints on the Church’s conduct in the Church’s institution and in the Church’s council chambers, he states them here in the political arena.

In the Kerkbode.

Who is bringing the Church into politics?

Do you know what the Kerkbode is?

What is the standpoint of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition on the Afrikaans Protestant Church? I condemn it! I condemn it! What is his standpoint in that regard? As usual he wants to satisfy both sides. [Interjections.]

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

No, I am sorry, I do not have the time.

What about the Broederbond?

I shall come to that. Do not be concerned.

Order! The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis is also making constant remarks. He must please make fewer of them. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Let us say this to one another now: The Afrikaner has a long history of divisiveness. The existence of three of Afrikaans churches or more is evidence of this, and the struggle along the way is as old as their history itself. I accuse the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition of being the contributory factor to the schismatic activities.

Furthermore I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition who disrupted the cultural activities of the country. For decades the FAK was the cultural institution of the Afrikaner culture. Who broke away from the FAK? Who was responsible for the establishment of the Afrikaner-Volkswag? Was it the Government or the NP? I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to express an opinion on this. Two festivals are being arranged for this year— one by the FAK and the other by the Afrikaner-Volkswag. Which one is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition going to support?

I said that long ago. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may as well tell us again. Is he going to support both? [Interjections.] Oh, only that of the Volkswag! [Interjections.] That is very interesting. He is going to support the Afrikaner-Volkswag festival. [Interjections.] Now I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition this question: What becomes of the accusation that the NP is dividing the Afrikaner? [Interjections.] The best exponents of divisiveness and the politics of division are sitting opposite in the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

I want to go further. I allege that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is inevitably embarking on a course of violence. What does the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition say? He says the actions and the reforms of the Government did not bring peace. [Interjections.] Where is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition living? Is it not a fact that the onslaughts from revolutionary circles are in fact aimed at preventing reform from succeeding, because it does not suit the objectives of those forces and bodies that we should succeed with reform.

I now want to say something else. When I travel throughout the country I discern a disaffection and impatience with people who are engaging in confrontation politics. Whether this is being done by White, Coloured or Black leaders, makes no difference. The people whom we lead expect us not to engage in it.

To make a plea for the exclusion of people from participation and from the existing institutions, and the exclusion of people from institutions that have to be formulated, is the road of confrontation. Then we are making a choice for confrontation. Then we are not serving the interests we say we are serving.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and its party speak in the resistance idiom of the AWB.

You people speak in the surrender idiom.

They speak in the violence idiom of the AWB. I do not know how many hon members there are in his party who are members of the AWB. I accept it if he says they are not five. It could be six or seven, too. If we are wrong, we will apologise. He easily dismissed the statement that there was a trojan horse in his ranks. The fact remains, if we consider what happened during the past week or two, that we find that some four-legged animal or other struck the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Many of his party members sitting behind him galloped into Parliament on this AWB horse …

And Worrall?

He is outside Parliament. They dismounted here, and now we have to give the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his members a little fodder for the AWB horse. [Interjections.] I want to make the statement that either the CP is the parliamentary leg of the AWB, or the AWB is the fall-back position of the CP for any violence that is going to come.

Precisely what is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition saying? He has already expressed himself opposed to violence, but he said that if members of the AWB are guilty of violence, they must be charged and tried. Is that his standpoint in respect of all the people who want to bring revolution into this country? Is it therefore his standpoint that we should not take preventive steps by means of emergency measures against people who want to commit acts of violence? Or does this only apply to other people who are not White? The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must give us a reply to that. [Interjections.]

The entire political philosophy of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is based on a system which we said long ago was not acceptable. Why does he pre-eminently want a state of their own for the Afrikaners? Because he believes in a majority model of government. He believes in a majority model in which winner takes all. Because he believes in that he sees only majority rule in the population numbers and ratios in this country. He says the majority rule which he sees is Black majority rule. By that he is alleging that all Black people in this country belong to the same people. In that way he is denying another basic philosophy which he says he proclaims, namely that our country consists of different peoples.

But we have minorities!

Order! The hon member for Overvaal is making far too many remarks.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition therefore believes in a system which we all said was not going to work in South Africa’s circumstances. He said the Government did not succeed in finding an acceptable model. That statement is partially true, because the model is not complete yet. However, I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition what his definition of acceptability is—acceptability only for the Whites, acceptability only for the Afrikaners, or does his definition of acceptability also include Coloured communities and Asian and Black communities? Is he prepared to negotiate with them on acceptable models for them as well? The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must tell us what his definition in this connection is. Surely he is prepared, if he does not succeed in having them excluded by obtaining their consent thereto, to take other steps to attain his objectives in this connection.

Mr Speaker, following on the speech of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning I should like to link up with the central theme, namely the problems the Official Opposition is experiencing in getting the policy of partition accepted constitutionally. In consequence of the speech of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning the Official Opposition owes this House a reply to the question as to which methods they are going to adopt to get the policy of partition accepted constitutionally.

The reply to this question is of the utmost importance as regards the potential for conflict which is inherent in South African society.

In his speech yesterday the hon the Minister of Finance sketched a new perspective on economic reconstruction for South Africa. Various processes are taking shape in South African society. In the midst of all these processes in the economic, sociological and constitutional spheres, both outside and inside Parliament, there is one central idea which no party in this House and no hon member of this or any other House can ignore. This is in fact the potential for conflict slumbering below the surface in South Africa. I am of the opinion that this potential for conflict is not a fabrication of the NP, but an essential element of South African society. However, this potential for conflict is now being exaggerated in pronouncements and policy statements by political parties. I listened very attentively to the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s in this House yesterday. I shuddered when I heard the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition talking about White rights.

That is going to be worth a lot to us in Standerton.

It sounded as if the Official Opposition had the monopoly to speak about White rights. This side of the House sets just as much store by White rights in South Africa. However not only White rights are at issue in South Africa. There are also Black rights, Coloured rights and Indian rights at issue here, and in the South African political situation we cannot promote White rights by neglecting Black rights, Coloured rights and Indian rights. That is yesterday’s politics.

We agree with you.

It is very interesting that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition agrees with me. [Interjections.]

That took the wind out of your sails.

I therefore want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether he is going to allow the other population groups to define their rights or whether he is going to define their rights for them. [Interjections.] Let me give the example of citizenship. Citizenship is a basic, elementary right in the country in which one is bom.

That didn’t hold true for the homelands.

In the Evander statement of the hon member for Lichtenburg I read that as regards citizenship he said that when they came into power they would only give Whites citizenship in White South Africa. Only Whites would be allowed to own land here and they would be able to exercise their political rights here.

That side of the House says that they agree that other population groups also have rights and citizenship. However, they are depriving millions of Black people of their rights of citizenship. How does one reconcile this with the statement that the CP does not begrudge other population groups rights. [Interjections.] It is a myth.

The time has passed when we in South Africa can think that we can protect and promote White citizenship by depriving other people of their rights of citizenship. This is not the way to protect White rights in South Africa. It inflates the inherent potential for conflict, which is trapped in South African society, to an unmanageable level, and in the long run the White man will get the short end of the stick. Partition and its elements not only deprive fellow South Africans of rights and increase the conflict potential inherent in South African society, but the policy of partition also destroys the economic base of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I want to get back to this speech which the hon member for Lichtenburg made in Evander. The hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare referred to it yesterday. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition moved his motion of no confidence yesterday without spelling out the details of partition. Let us now consider the details of partition. The hon member for Lichtenburg said that over a period of 10 to 15 years 70% to 75% of the Black people would be resettled in their independent or national states.

Do you believe that, Ferdie?

The hon member said that all other Black South Africans would be deprived of citizenship and an element of partition would be that influx control would be reintroduced according to a permit system.

If we consider the economic reality of South Africa as it is reflected in the figures of the HSRC and the latest available census data, we cannot get away from the reality that according to the policy of partition 7 million to 8 million Black people will have to be moved.

Frighten them with numbers.

Will the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition concede that in terms of the policy of partition 7 million to 8 million Black people will have to be moved? Is that or is that not so? [Interjections.] The hon the leader is not answering me now, but he will most probably have an opportunity to do so in this debate. We are asking that he be frank with us and say where he stands with regard to this removal. [Interjections.]

He must not talk about removals only, but must also tell us whether this is going to be a negotiated removal or whether they are going to drag the Black people from one place to another over a period of 10 years like trees which are chopped down. [Interjections.]

The hon the leader must also tell this House and South Africa whether they are going to add more land to the existing Black national and independent states during this removal. The problem is that if they are going to add additional land, they will have to use White capital to create space and orderliness for Black people. It is of no avail to preach partition in Evander and in the by-elections in Schweizer-Reneke inter alia, and not spell out the consequences.

When they preach partition, they are preaching White unemployment on a massive scale. I challenge the CP to prove the opposite. Let us take a closer look at the matter. If the CP is going to move 7 million Black South Africans, what are the provincial components of this population going to be. There are 5,8 million Blacks in the Transvaal. There are 1,5 million Blacks in the Free State; 1,5 million in the Cape; and 1,3 million in Natal. In order to move the quota of 7 million Blacks the whole of the Transvaal will have to be cleaned up. The CP will have to clean up the whole of the Free State. Now I am asking them whether they deny that this removal will have economic implications for the mining industry, the agricultural sector and the manufacturing industry. The agricultural sector has 80% Black labour. There is also 80% Black labour in the mining industry. If they are going to remove these people, they are going to create White unemployment on a massive scale. Now I am asking them whether this model is the model which is protecting the rights of the White man, and whether it is in fact this model which is destroying the rights of the White man.

When we preach partition, we are preaching the creation of unemployment on a massive scale, not only amongst Blacks but also amongst Whites. Let us summarise the main elements of the partition policy. Partition involves the denial of Black rights in White areas. It involves depriving 7 million Blacks of South African citizenship. It involves the forced removal of 7 million Blacks at a rate of more than 700 000 per year. Partition involves the settlement of 75% of the Black population on 13% of the country’s area, without any infrastructure, without capital, without an agricultural or economic base or access to the sea. Partition involves the total destruction of the local economy owing to the withdrawal of essential labour. White unemployment on a massive scale will be created and the South African community, if it is still in existence by then, will be totally isolated from the rest of the international community. Partition is an open invitation for violence between White and Black South Africans.

I am asking the CP in all seriousness to bring us the answers. Give the answers to the voters in Schweizer-Reneke, Standerton and Randfontein so that they will know what the economic and sociological implications are of the policy being presented by the CP to protect the rights of the Whites. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, today, as previously too, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was again very predictable. I must nevertheless say that he has never put up as poor a show as he did today. [Interjections.] That hon Minister, who is the father of the present Constitution and of this tricameral Parliament, gave us an explanation here of how, as a result of action on his part, as a result of his activities, in line with his interpretation of matters, his people is now in a position in which it must choose between surrender and unconstitutional steps.

Hey, you are the one who is now being predictable! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, we must now choose between surrender and unconstitutional steps. What the hon the Minister actually wanted to say, of course, was that we must choose between surrender and violence. He actually wanted to use the term “violence”, because he did add the word subsequently.

Of course that is so!

The hon the Minister has indicated that that is indeed the case. He actually wants to say that we are in favour of violence.

You do, of course!

Mr Speaker, that hon Minister negotiates with all and sundry—he and his party. They negotiate with all manner of peoples throughout the world; here in South Africa too. He just does not know what is in the hearts of his own people. That he does not know. He and his party have become alienated from their people. [Interjections.] Yes, that is why they do not know what is in the hearts of their own people. That hon member purposefully acted in this way, having planned for his people to find itself in a position in which it must either surrender or take unconstitutional or violent action. That is the item on his account. That is what he has achieved. That is the way in which he interprets this. That is why he, who is the leader of his party in the Province in which they are strongest, was elected to Parliament in a safe seat with the largest majority. [Interjections.] That is because the people know what he is doing to them. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, debited to the hon the Minister’s account is the fact that his Constitution is in the process of failing. His tricameral Parliament is failing. As far back as a few years ago we told him that the “pistons” of this Parliament would not all fire. Already there is one that has a “knock” in the “toolbox”. [Interjections.] Its “piston” does not fire, Sir. [Interjections.] That, Mr Speaker, is debited to this hon Minister’s account. I now want to tell him that that is what he has done to his people. And for this his people will never forgive him. [Interjections.] Yes, that is something for which his people will never forgive him. They will never forgive him for having forced his people into a position in which it must either surrender or make war.

I can now give him the assurance that the CP is not planning either of those two alternatives. We are not planning either of those two alternatives. We have no intention of surrendering. I want that hon Minister to understand that very clearly. I also want to inform him that 75% of the people sitting in his party feel and think exactly as we do. [Interjections.] The simple truth is that those people are coming over to us because they believe what we believe and feel as we do. They also know we are right. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, we do not intend to surrender. I want to add that we are not planning any violence either. We certainly know how to clear up this mess the NP has made and once more grant the Whites freedom in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the Government’s policy is one of power-sharing and joint decision-making by all groups, with the protection of minorities. That is the Government’s policy. It is therefore a twopronged policy—one of political integration and one of the protection of minorities. It is a simple matter to introduce political integration, and initially the Government made relatively rapid progress in that sphere. It did not take the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning a 100 years to introduce the tricameral Parliament. Abolishing the provincial councils and substituting appointed, integrated executive committees for them is something the Government also managed with relative ease. They are now dealing with the regional services councils. A joint executive authority for Natal and KwaZulu they have already introduced too. The National Council Bill we have already had before us. What now remains is the establishment of the National Council, a new constitution for South Africa and the inclusion of the Blacks in the highest legislative and executive bodies. That is what still remains. Now the whole affair has ground to a halt, however, the whole story has petered out. It does not want to budge an inch. There is a “knock” in the “toolbox”.

Meanwhile a certain degree of integration has been introduced here. The large-scale integration—the introduction of the Black people—still has to come. The main course still waits to be served. It has not yet been served. Yet we have already seen a certain degree of integration in South Africa. The result is that certain things have happened. There have been certain consequences, so typical when such systems are introduced. Wherever such systems have been introduced, where individual population groups, people with divergent cultural backgrounds, have been brought together in this fashion we have witnessed the same symptoms throughout the world with monotonous regularity. Likewise there have been those consequences here in South Africa too. The first is that integration is not restricted to governmental structures. It extends to all facets of the life of a people.

This pamphlet which the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ department is distributing in Britain states where they are putting an end to apartheid—at all levels; there is nothing that remains, because it is taking place in schools and in residential areas. They speak of “ending apartheid in education; ending apartheid in property ownership” etc. It is a fact that one cannot introduce integration into governmental structures and then think it is not going to manifest itself in other facets of the life of a people.

The second phenomenon is that the Government is losing control over the administration of South Africa. The most striking example of this is the fact that at the beginning of the year the Labour Party held its congress, stating that it was holding its congress to decide when the Whites would be holding an election. The hon the State President is not able to call an election for the Whites when he wants to, because the Labour Party tells him it is going to decide when the Whites will hold an election. The Government has lost control. There are hundreds of other examples.

They held their congress in the Skilpadsaal. Do you people not have any control over that?

The Government can no longer keep its initial promises. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning referred to an incident when we left the NP. It will be remembered that it involved the constitutional position of the Coloureds and the Indians. It will be remembered that Cabinet minutes were published in which it was stated that the Cabinet discussed what it should tell the President’s Council it could recommend, what it found acceptable.

That President’s Council Report appeared and in it was said that partition was the solution for the Black people. That was the NP’s standpoint at the time. They believed in separate development, in a totally different dispensation, and today they are asking for a mandate to include the Blacks. They cannot keep their promise.

What is more, prior to this election the Government was still saying that the advocates of violence who were in jail, who had committed acts of sabotage, ANC and communist terrorists, would not be released if they did not renounce violence. And here Mbeki has been released without his having renounced violence. He was released unconditionally. Again we are dealing with a promise which the Government could not keep. Mbeki was released to entice the Blacks to join the National Council, but this proved a lamentable failure, because his release did not have the desired effect; they are now further from joining than they were.

Another consequence of such a policy is that they begin to be inconsistent, because in Leadership Dr Willem de Klerk states—he ought to know what is going on there—that there are two clearly discernible groups, the conservative reformers and the radical reformers, within that party. The hon the Minister over there is surprised, but he knows exactly to which of the two groups he belongs. He need not wonder; he knows to what reform group he belongs.

I am saying they are inconsistent. Here one hon Minister after another comes along, and a week or two ago an hon Deputy Minister too, and says that the Natal-indaba is being rejected by the Government. In America the Ambassador distributed a circular, probably with the hon the Minister’s approval, which stated amongst other things:

They tell the Americans that they accept the indaba; here in South Africa they say they do not accept the indaba. They are inconsistent.

Another phenomenon that manifests itself is that of the lowering of standards. The hon the State President said that civilised norms and standards were to be maintained. He said that he would do all these things, but that he would ensure that civilised norms and standards were maintained. I am asking if what happened this year on the Natal beaches and is being exacerbated each year, amongst other things the demonstrations that took place in the kiddies’ paddling pools, indecencies that cannot even be mentioned, are indicative of the standards and norms which are going to be maintained in future.

Now the churches are being called in to assist. Where is the Government which said standards and norms would be maintained? Why do they not maintain them? They cannot; they do not have the courage to do so!

As far as the administration of the country is concerned, in 1978 the hon the State President said he stood for clean administration. What do we read? After the Cape congress of the Labour Party we read that the leader of that Party—he was a member of the Cabinet and is still a member of the Government—said:

The first Sunday of this year their mouthpiece stated the following in a report on the various options open to South Africa:

Today I ask the hon the State President whether, if in Mrs Thatcher’s Cabinet a Minister’s MPs were bribing one another, she would silently have sat by and done nothing about it. The hon the State President owes it to South Africa to clarify the issue. Is there bribery taking place? Is this country still being governed on merit? Does one still vote in accordance with one’s inner convictions or is it bribery that determines one’s vote? [Interjections.] The hon the State President owes it to South Africa.

He should have intervened in this matter immediately and clarified the situation. If that was so, those people should have been brought to book. If it was not the case, it should have been clearly demonstrated that Rev Hendrickse was not telling the truth.

I suspect, however, that the hon the State President is doing nothing because he knows it is true. He cannot institute an investigation, because the investigation would probably confirm that it was, in fact, the case. That is why he cannot do anything. I challenge the hon the State President to do something and demonstrate to us whether South Africa is governed on merit or whether it is governed by bribery.

Politics is becoming increasingly more radical in South Africa. That is the next phenomenon that manifests itself. Consensus politics is flying out the door. At its congress the Labour Party—the Government’s partner—decided on the politics of confrontation, not the politics of negotiation. Politics is becoming more radical and is going to become even more radical, because at the beginning of this year we witnessed an unbelievable spectacle. Over Christmas we received notice that Parliament was to commence on 1 February. One asked oneself what one was coming here to do. There was probably a great deal of work, and last year’s work had to be finalised. Then on 1 February we convened here for half an hour, and it was all over. Surely that could have been done at 09h00 on Friday morning, but something went wrong with the Government’s plans.

It is very clear that they had other aims, and it is also clear that the Government thought there would be a new majority party here in the House of Representatives. [Interjections.] What did the alleged bribery entail? It entailed the bribing of Labour Party MPs.

Now that hon Minister says we are the divisive element. What I am saying is that that party and the hon the State President are the divisive elements in South Africa and that the hon the State President wanted to solve this problem of his by splitting the Labour Party. That hon Minister speaks of an AWB horse, but their horse did not even leave the starting-gate; it is still in the starting-box. The hon the State President gets a hiding from Rev Hendrickse, the man who once told him he was crouching like a rat in a corner.

Order! The hon member made a great fuss about bribery. I did not hear directly whom he was accusing. Is there any element in the hon member’s speech accusing the NP… ?

Mr Speaker, I am saying that Rev Hendrickse said that NP MPs were bribing his MPs, and I am asking the hon the State President for clarification.

Order! The hon member may continue.

That does not make politics less radical; it makes it more radical.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member did not say what he now alleges he said. [Interjections.] He said that the hon the State President knew about some bribery taking place and was doing nothing about it. [Interjections.]

No, Sir.

You may consult the Hansard record, Sir. My contention is that the hon member is guilty of a breach of privilege in this specific context. If his words in Hansard were to be scrutinised, there would be proof of this.

Sir, I am asking why the hon the State President does not institute an investigation. South Africa is owed an investigation. I suspect that the hon the State President is afraid. [Interjections.] I am saying he is afraid that the investigation would show that his people did do so.

Order! There is no reason why we should have any doubts about that now; it will, in point of fact, be appearing in Hansard and I shall give it my attention. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: It is customary that immediately after this happens—if I may point this out—such a question is formally put. I therefore formally ask whether you will consider giving attention to whether the hon member has not been guilty of a breach of privilege. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member assured me about what, in fact, he said, and I shall examine the Hansard record. I am not going to call the hon member’s word into question, but I think it would be a very good thing if the hon member would state clearly that he was not accusing the hon the State President of knowingly permitting bribery to take place.

I stick to what I have said. Why did the hon the State President not subsequently institute an investigation? Is he afraid that the investigation would put his people in the wrong? [Interjections.]

Order!

The Constitution is failing…

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Lichtenburg spoke about bribery. There is no doubt that he meant that there was bribery. I courteously want to put it to you that the hon member for Lichtenburg has no other choice but to withdraw his words and to apologise.

Order! I shall examine the Hansard record.

The Constitution has failed, because that is why a new constitution is being sought. The tricameral Parliament is in the process of failing, and Chief Buthelezi is further removed from the National Council than he ever was before. Now the government is planning new concessions. It is planning new concessions to give momentum to this system once again. There are only three things left which the Government can give, because it has already given everything.

It has only three things left which it can give to get the system going once more. The Group Areas Act must be abolished completely, the schools must be opened up and the ANC must be unbanned and must participate or take over.

I am saying that the Government is preparing itself for the next concession and is now seeking a lightning-conductor. They are doing so on the basis of the economics speech made by the hon the State President. They now want us to applaud the auction they have prepared for. They want to use the AWB as a lightning-conductor before the next concession is made. In regard to the auction, let me tell them that in actual fact this is no news to us, because in the Freedom Bulletin, No 11 of 1987, published by the International Freedom Foundation, the Government is instructed as follows:

They continue with tax reform and explain a whole series of concepts, amongst other things privatization and government bureaucracy and expenditure. The salaries of public servants must be cut. Who are these people? This is headoffice, Washington, DC. We are accustomed to the Government receiving instructions from all quarters and promptly carrying them out. Broadly speaking this is nothing new; it was published last year. They now expect us to applaud this state of affairs.

We are not going to do so, because the Government is going to sell our roads in order to pay South Africa’s debt, and it wants us to rejoice! Who are the potential buyers of the roads, railway lines and the Post Office? A few bodies, not so, to whom more than half of South Africa belongs. In their ranks there are those who went to Lusaka to negotiate with the ANC and bargain for a future for South Africa. We say that we do not applaud such events. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must have an opportunity to complete his speech. The hon member may continue.

Whilst doing this, the basic causes of the economy’s parlous state continue unabated. Nothing is done about that. Nothing is done about the political instability; it is exacerbated, and that is the basis on which the economy must rest. Nor does the Government, secondly, do anything about the redistribution of income. They are like someone who bought a car four years ago and, still owing money on it, sells a piece of his land to pay for the old car which is now on its last legs. He tells his wife and children he has saved the situation; the bailiff is no longer knocking at the door.

This situation is going to repeat itself in a few years’ time, because the basic causes are still present. It will recur.

The second leg of the Government’s policy is that minorities have to be protected. The first myth is that South Africa consists solely of minorities. According to the Government’s present argument the Blacks outside the national states are not, after all, dealt with on an ethnic basis. Surely the Government is going to accommodate them on this National Council, not on an ethnic basis, but on a geographic one. Those Black people outside the national states are an absolute majority over the Whites, Coloureds and Indians. What is more, if we include the national states, the people in the majority are those who believe that the Group Areas Act should be abolished in toto, that the schools should be opened up and that the ANC should be unbanned and should participate in this process or take it over. Those people who believe that are in the majority. Now the Government is saying it is going to protect the minorities. I am asking the Government how it is going to protect minorities if, at the negotiating table, the Government is already in the minority and the majority tell the Government that they are specifically not interested in protecting the White minority.

That is why the voters do not believe them. A credibility gap has occurred and no voter can believe this Government anymore. The only course remaining, as far as this Government is concerned, is to tell the voters that if, at that negotiating table, that is the demand that is made of them, they will abort this system and not participate any further. They cannot say that, however.

They tried to indicate how they were going to protect minorities. In this circular Dr Koornhof speaks of an indaba principle with a “Bill of Rights”. They appointed a committee working on a bill of rights. They know, as well as we do, that that is not worth anything. Last year the hon the Minister of National Education said they were going to persuade the majority of Black people to protect the White people, but he knows, even now, that it is not going to work, because in the dying moments of last year, at the constitutional association of the University of South Africa, he said that research should now be carried out to find a formula. They do not have the formula. That is why the NP knows—that is the crux of it all, and that is why we shall not, from this vantage point, allow the Government to evade the issue, because this is the factor which is going to determine South Africa’s future—that it cannot protect minorities in the face of powersharing and political integration. They cannot protect minorities, and that is the deciding factor. On that point we shall be making things hot for the NP until we are in power in the not too distant future. [Interjections.]

That is why they know incontrovertibly that there is only one way in which minorities can be protected, and that is by way of the CP’s policy of partition. [Interjections.] Knowing that what they had and have renounced, and what the CP is now jealously guarding, is the answer to South Africa’s problems, is driving them to distraction.

That is why I want to tell those hon members that there is only one way in which minorities can be protected, and that is for those minorities to have full sovereignty over all their affairs, in all facets and in every respect. That is the one requirement. The second requirement is that a minority group or people should have a territory in which it can exercise that sovereignty and over which it has sole authority. Those are the two prerequisites. There is no other way in which minorities can be protected. That is what the Whites of South Africa choose. We in the CP choose that course and, as I have said, the majority of Whites in South Africa do so too. If the other peoples do not want it, if they want to integrate with one another, they are free to do so, and if they want to bring together their territories and their political views, it makes no difference to us. We state clearly and unequivocally, however: The Whites do not choose integration, neither political nor territorial. There are also very few signs that the other races want to integrate. They all want to integrate with the Whites, but they do not want to integrate with one another. [Interjections.] We say that we are not candidates for that course of action; we are not in the market for that. We are not available for the integration the NP is forcing upon us.

That is why we are saying that with this process we have achieved tremendous success in South Africa. The truth of the matter is that at the beginning of the century 90% of the Black people were in their own areas, while 10% were here. As a result of economic development, because that is an enticement, the Black people came to White areas, to such an extent that in 1951 we had, not only 10%, but two-thirds of them living here in White areas. Then the NP began with the policy of separate development and homeland development. There were no longer even decent tribal chief systems. There was absolutely nothing. There was no administration or economic development.

In 1978 we reached the position of having 52% of the Black people living in their areas. That is a great achievement, and it proves that it can be done. It was in fact done, and we therefore need not ask whether it is possible; it was, in fact, possible. In 19 years the Black people increased by two thirds of a percent per year in their areas. With all the knowledge we have available to us today, we say that it is possible to accelerate that process, implement it more purposefully and increase that percentage of two thirds to 1% or 1,5%. The CP is equipped and able and has the capacity to do so, and it is going to do so.

I want to focus on a second phenomenon of population settlement in South Africa. In 1980 half of the Black people lived in their areas. The other half lived here. Of the half who lived here in White South Africa, 25% lived in districts bordering on their countries, in other words where 3% of the total gross domestic revenues are generated. Fifty percent of the people lived there. Twenty five percent of the people lived in the adjoining districts. The Black man firstly chooses to live in his own country; if he cannot make a living there, he chooses to live as close to his country as possible. That is why we are saying that there are economic forces drawing people here, but there are also cultural forces—an inborn need in people to be in their own countries, amongst their own people, under their own government, where they can be themselves. Those forces continue raging. Now the NP is mobilising economic forces, whilst we are mobilising the forces in the hearts of men. We are therefore telling the NP that we have worked out a strategy. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning says he is seeking models; he says he has hundreds of models available, but not one of them yet meets the requirements. We have worked out our strategy. The moment the electorate puts us in power, we are not going to ask what the model looks like. Those hon members mentioned that I had stated at Evander—I shall say it here, there and everywhere in the world—that we were going to adopt that strategy. Let me say that that strategy of ours has many facets. One of the facets …

[Inaudible.]

The old United Party supporters also said as much to the NP when it was still governing South Africa correctly and when there was still peace in the country, and no confrontation, revolution and economic decline prevailed in South Africa.

On several fronts we are going to promote these natural forces in the hearts of people who want to establish themselves in their own countries, but we are not going to promote the economic forces to sow their devastation. [Interjections.] Yesterday those hon members referred to Secunda, and now I want to tell them and the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, Dr G Marais, that I did not say at Secunda that we were going to shift the coal to Witbank. I said there was also coal at Witbank. If we begin with a clean slate, there is no need to begin with that project at Secunda; we can initiate it close to the Black States where all the development can take place, where the precise economic generation of development can be obtained, but where the Black people can live in their country and work in those factories in their own country.

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

The hon the Deputy Minister must please resume his seat; I am not going to reply to a question now. The hon the Minister seeks a model. He must go on looking, because he will not find one.

Let me tell this Government something. It is engaged in the Highlands Water Scheme and the water is going to be pumped from the Southern Free State and Lesotho to the PWV-area and other places. The CP, however, would not do that. The resources are there, the water is there, and if the Government pumps the water to those areas, the water is going to be three times more expensive in Johannesburg. That means permanently built-in inflation. We say that the people are here, the resources are here and the development must take place here. What is wrong with Bloemfontein? Why can it not be done there? Bothshabelo developed there with 600 20000 people who moved in. We say that the development must take place in the South-Eastern Cape and there at Harrismith where the people are situated. The PWV-area, which is already over-extended with its overall infrastructure, is not the only area for development. The Government is now permitting large urban development, squatter camps and so on to develop. With every drop of water that goes to the PWV-area South Sothos and Xhosas will be drawn to that area, whilst they could have shared in the development here where they are, including the whole of White South Africa… [Interjections.]

[Time expired]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon the Deputy Minister of Defence said the hon member for Lichtenburg was crazy. Are you going to allow him to say that?

Order! I understood the hon the Deputy Minister to have referred to the statement as being crazy. I may be wrong.

Mr Speaker, it was not I who made that remark, but I heard the remark being made. An hon member on this side of the House referred the hon member for Lichtenburg’s statement as being crazy. The hon Chief Whip must keep his ears open.

Mr Speaker, if ever one had an opportunity to listen to a predictable person, it was the hon member for Lichtenburg. [Interjections.] That hon member had an opportunity today to stand up here and reply to a direct accusation that was levelled at him yesterday by the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare who chewed him into tiny pieces. Yet he rose here today and did not say a word in reply. This hon member is absolutely predictable. We knew that he would try to rouse emotions. He also said at the beginning of his speech that the public at large felt the way they did. The hon member’s problem is that he feels, but does not think! [Interjections.]

He gropes around in the darkness!

The hon member for Lichtenburg availed himself of accusations and abuse, but had not a shred of evidence. He said the tricameral Parliament was a failure. [Interjections.] That was his verdict. He went on to say the Labour Party would tell us when the election would be held.

But that is true!

That is the biggest load of rubbish under the sun, because the Constitution gives the State President the right to decide when that election will be held. We did not tell a single voter anywhere during our election campaign that that particular election would be held in 1992.

Why do you want to postpone it then?

No, the hon member for Lichtenburg cannot say the Constitution has failed because someone is insisting that the provisions of the Constitution be complied with. That may not suit us, but it does not mean that the Constitution has failed. A Constitution fails because people do not want to obey it, as those hon members do not. They do not want to observe the Constitution and that is why it will fail. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon the Minister entitled to say that we do not want to observe the Constitution? That implies a criminal possibility and accuses us of criminal action. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition admitted that and said that if they did not want to agree with him, he would use other methods. In other words, he was saying that he would not observe the Constitution unless they took his advice. I think the accusation made by the hon member, implying that the Government bribes people, was shameful.

That was not what I said.

That was what the hon member insinuated, and once again I say it was shameful.

I quoted your colleague and your newspaper.

At the same time the hon member tried to imply that there was enmity between us and the hon the leader of the Labour Party. He said we had failed. Surely it would be appropriate, if we did try to bribe people, for the hon leader of the Labour party to request an enquiry. It should not be difficult for the hon member to persuade the hon leader of the Labour party to do so. After all, they are on the same side of the counter. [Interjections.]

No, when the hon member says that he will use culture to take the people back to the areas where he wants them, I can merely tell him that that is another sign that he thinks with his emotions and not his brain.

You voted for Connie, did you not?

People come here for food, and hungry people know no culture or law.

And the economy can

That hon member is making a great fuss about the Highlands Water Scheme and the Secunda project and he was a member of this Government and of the NP caucus when all those things were decided. No, that hon member disregards and denies everything he did when he was using his common sense. [Interjections.]

Were you using your common sense when you voted for Connie Mulder? [Interjections.]

All the hon members of that party who have taken part so far use certain clichés. They have two master keys: Powersharing and integration. One is kept in one pocket and the other in another, and if the one does not unlock doors, the other one is taken out. [Interjections.] They use that as a smokescreen to hide a political philosophy of deception.

Who is talking?

It is aimed at the voters at large who fear the future and those who cannot adjust to changed circumstances or do so with difficulty.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had a great deal to say about how the White voters would deal with the Government if things such as the Group Areas Act were interfered with. While he was speaking, the Free State Congress of Municipalities accepted open residential areas as proposed by the President’s Council.

Does the electorate accept that as well?

The hon member for Standerton thrust out his chest and said he was being called a racist because he was opposed to the conditions on the Durban beaches.

That was not the hon member for Standerton, but the hon member for Barberton.

The hon member for Barberton said that. I do not know of anyone who approves of those conditions. Everyone is opposed to them. A non-White person told me he did not want to be part of such a mess either.

Are you going to do something about it?

It is only the hon member for Barberton himself who calls himself a racist. No-one would call him a racist for that reason.

I have tried in all honesty to determine what is behind the arguments of the Official Opposition. To do so I read the newspaper, Die Patriot, of which they send me free copies. [Interjections.] I also had a look at a book called Witman, waar is jou Tuisland?, of which two hon members of that party, viz the hon members for Ermelo and Bethal, were co-authors.

In the column “Politieke Kollig” in Die Patriot I read:

A few evenings ago I sat and watched the hon member for Lichtenburg making an emotional speech about White South Africa. [Interjections.] In fact there has never been any such thing as a White South Africa, and that is endorsed by those two hon members for Ermelo and Bethal.

Order! The hon members for Overvaal and Soutpansberg must stop making constant remarks. The hon the Minister may proceed.

There has never been a White country on the continent of Africa. Those two hon members of Ermelo and Bethal—they are two of the cleverest hon members in that party … [Interjections.] … say on page 74 of that book:

Hon members can question them about this. On page 48 of that book they say:

[Interjections.] Once again I say that those two hon members are correct. Those two hon members must teach the other hon members of their party something, so that they can also become rational in their thoughts instead of just emotional.

We wrote that to teach you something.

The fact is that the NP has taken division, or partition if one wants to use a different word, as far as was practicable. We are left with a collectiveness from which we can never escape even if we want to, because—I have asked this before and I do so again—will one hon member of the CP get up and deny that the economy of South Africa is totally integrated?

And in Europe?

You see, Sir. It is interesting to see what the kindred spirits of that party say. What does the Boerestaat Committee say? There is such a committee—the Boerestaat Committee—and one can hear from the name who fathered it. What does that Boerestaat Committee say about partition? They say:

That is what the Boerestaat Committee says. Some of their members are among the CP ranks.

No, that is not true. [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir. I want to say to that hon member what the Bible says: “What I have written, I have written”. He has written what he has written. [Interjections.]

I say it is a political philosophy of deception. That party says that according to the CP, political linkage with national states is the final answer to the problem of the political rights of Blacks who of necessity live in White-controlled South Africa. We say that is not practically attainable because of the passage of time over generations, because of development and because of established rights. Once again the hon members for Ermelo and Bethal have given a verdict about this. Do hon members know what they say? On page 17 they say:

Who said that?

Yes, one cannot believe one’s ears!

That cannot be!

And there they are in that party, Sir! [Interjections.] Those hon members go further, however. They say:

[Interjections]. Once again these two hon members are correct. The CP realises that this linkage policy cannot work, that it is impossible. That is why they turn to the next impossibility, viz the relocation of people.

Mr Speaker, I also want to refer to what the hon member for Lichtenburg said in Evander. He said that within the next 10 to 15 years he wanted 75% of all Blacks in the homelands. This hon member—according to the newspaper report I have in front of me—also gave his reasons for saying this was possible. He must listen well and tell me whether or not he was reported correctly.

What impression does that leave the voters with? The voters are left with the impression that during that period there was a time when the Blacks in the areas controlled by Whites decreased in number, but that the NP is too slack to implement and accomplish that process. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare pointed out the HSRC’s projections to the hon member yesterday. I do not want to enter into projections now, however. I shall rather give the hon member the figures which are at his disposal in any case.

Figures that he helped to draw up!

Oh, Pik, go and elect your Black president! [Interjections.]

I shall give those figures to the hon member once again. The first year mentioned by the hon member was 1951. In 1950 South Africa’s urban Black population was 2,3 million. This number grew until in 1980—the hon member mentioned 1978—it amounted to 6,8 million.

He was in the Cabinet then!

What were the percentages? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Lichtenburg leaves people with the impression that there was a period when the number of Blacks in White areas decreased. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, now the nonWhite workers in the White areas will have to have work permits. This will mean that a possible CP government could find itself in a serious labour force crisis, because all men will practise one of three occupations. Either they will be soldiers in the snow-white army, or policemen in the snow-white police force, or inspectors of these people’s work permits. [Interjections.] This is quite ridiculous, as the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare said yesterday. It is completely ridiculous and unaffordable. For the past five years we have dealt with losses of R5 billion on passenger and commuter services in this country.

That is because you are the Minister! [Interjections.]

Our losses amount to R5 billion, of which the Government shoulders R3 billion and the SATS R2 billion. The hon member can multiply that by ten or by as much as he likes. That R5 billion is literally strangling us. It is quite ridiculous, therefore, Sir.

In the same newspaper the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition explained how he would govern the country once he came into power. In essence, according to this newspaper report, he said the following.

It has his picture too! [Interjections.]

In this report he said that when he had come into power, these people would view him with greater understanding. [Interjections.] Yes, he said that his policy would be considered with greater interest and understanding then.

And with greater respect! [Interjections.]

In addition, he said, the justice he advocates would be viewed with greater interest and understanding. He added that we would have to take into consideration that this policy would really have to be applied in a fair and equitable way. [Interjections.] The hon the leader went on to say, with reference to the Coloureds, that this group could even get an own State President. [Interjections.] Of what kind of country would that Coloured person be State President? It would consist of approximately 600 group areas throughout the Republic of South Africa. It would also cover 1,7 million hectares of rural area, consisting mainly of desert or semidesert with little agricultural potential. I ask who would want to be State President of that kind of country.

You can.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal is making completely unnecessary interjections. I order him to stop it. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member for Lichtenburg said that if the Coloureds did not want to agree, the CP would decide unilaterally. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition added that if they did not want to, he was afraid the CP would have to tell them they were adamant. [Interjections.]

The tiger and the tortoise!

What does that look like when it comes to justice? What does it look like when it comes to fair dealing? Does the hon the leader’s Christian conscience not bother him?

Are you not ashamed of yourself? [Interjections.]

Even if the CP wants to offer the voters easy and popular solutions, there are none, because the voters are already recognising the CP’s emotion. There is a column in this same little newspaper, and one can make a whole speech by using any one of those newspapers. I thank the CP for that, and they must please keep on sending it to me. The columnist says that a lot of people voted for the CP, between 3 000 and 10 000 in every constituency, but he adds—

[Interjections.] The hon leader must fire this man! [Interjections.]

The NP’s policy is a laborious process of negotiation and adjustment with the preservation of stability and non-domination. We say forget about final political blueprints; no-one can see the end of the road. [Interjections.]

The RSA must govern itself into a changed constitutional structure by means of an evolutionary process over a prolonged period rather than a short period of time, and in the meantime we must work hard at the economic participation and upliftment of all our people.

Economic participation is an extremely important part of the hon the State President’s political message. The growth of thousands of small entrepreneurs throughout the country is part of this, and this has happened as a direct result of the intervention of the hon the State President. I witnessed this personally. [Interjections.]

In the second place there is privatisation which must broaden the economy further in accordance with the preamble to the Constitution. That is in fact why we are privatising. There is the promotion of private initiative and effective competition. This is not an auction; it is not a bankruptcy. When one compares South Africa’s assets with those of any comparable country in the world, we come out tops. This is mere gossip-mongering on the part of the CP.

Where there is effective competition, privatisation is relatively easy. On the other hand it is considerably more involved when one has to deal with Government monopolies which must not be converted into private sector monopolies; that is stated in the White Paper.

A possible solution in theory—I emphasise in theory—would be for the Government to retain a majority interest. This would not be acceptable in practice, because investors would hardly agree to be partners in any organisation in which a political body had a majority interest.

That is a Government institution; not a … [Interjections.]

On the other hand the public must be protected against possible exploitation. Certain counterweights have to be built in, therefore, for example a gold share for the benefit of the Government, on which there has been prior agreement about the rights linked to this share, and which is acceptable to the investors.

That is not an easy or simple process, but what I am saying is in accordance with the spirit of the White Paper and with the State President’s view on this matter.

How is the formation of monopolies going to be combated?

The hon member for Losberg can come to me for lessons; I shall tell him then. [Interjections.]

To be successful, this process of privatisation must succeed in building up its own momentum. The investing public must look forward to the next project, as it were. That is why it is imperative that the first really big transaction, viz that of Eskom, be accomplished successfully.

When all is said and done, and everything possible has been written about one of the greatest speeches ever made in this Parliament, we can reduce it all to five words: The value of the rand. That is the issue, because stable money leads to stable politics. The fact is that the businessman, the man in the street, the housewife, the salaried person and the wage-earner do not have the appropriate respect for the value of our money, and firm action and bitter medicine are necessary to change this fact.

In this connection the hon the State President has indicated clearly that he regards the national interest and the future of this country as more important than short-term political gain and popularity.

The Government has no choice; it has to set the example. The Government workers are the most important part of the Government, and therefore are irrevocably involved. Government workers have certain definite advantages. They have a reasonable salary, a good pension scheme, a good medical scheme, good housing, good leave benefits and job certainty. Let us be honest with one another. During the past three years workers in the private sector have had more to contend with as a result of unemployment and retrenchment than officials. One can ask why taxes are not increased and people paid higher salaries. That would be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Why not fix prices? That would frighten investors—the people who have to invest and undertake to provide work.

In the long term the advantages of these announced measures are worth far more to everyone than the short-term disadvantages, particularly as far as the workers, whose main asset is their wage, is concerned. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is customary in this House to reply to the speech of the hon member who has just sat down, but I have to say there is nothing for me to reply to as far as the speech of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs is concerned, because, apart from the last five minutes of his speech, which I shall leave to our Finance speaker when he enters the debate, he devoted himself entirely to arguments against the CP and their policy.

The most depressing effect of the elections of 6 May last year is that all the emphasis of debate in this House since the CP became the Official Opposition has indeed been on the internecine warfare between the NP and the CP. Instead of devoting the debating time we have in this House to the many pressing problems that are besetting South Africa, all we hear on the one hand are reproaches that the Government is undermining Afrikaner and White domination and on the other hand denials that the Government is doing any such thing.

I consider the speech of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to have been almost the worst in this regard because he is the man who is responsible for some of the most important issues in this country such as housing for Blacks, identification of land for service and site schemes, constitutional development and the political participation of Blacks. We did not hear a single word from that hon Minister about any of those vital issues.

Before the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare disappears from the scene, I want to tell him that listening to his speech yesterday, I felt like Alice in Wonderland. I really did. It could have been any speech which I made 25 years ago in this House about pass laws and influx control and the effects thereof on family life and what that has done to this country. It is quite incredible! The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs then went along with that to some extent when he dealt with the need that we would have for soldiers and officials etc if we reintroduced the work permit system. That is precisely what I and my colleagues have been talking about year in and year out in this House. Yet it is only just over 18 months ago, that the Government abolished the laws which introduced that system of pass laws.

This year expansive preparations are under way to celebrate, inter alia, 40 years of National Party rule. As one who has sat here for 35 of those years—heaven help me!—witnessing this Government exercising power, I have been racking my brains to find out what there is to celebrate. The best I can find to say is that, over the past 10 years, the Government has repealed some of the laws that it should not have put on the Statute Book in the first place. These are laws such as section 16 of the Immorality Act, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, job reservation, the pass laws and influx control as well as the Prohibition of Political Interference Act.

For the rest, I can find nothing at all worth celebrating; on the contrary, what I find is a dismal catalogue in every single major category of our life in South Africa, be it economic, social or political.

In the economic sphere, South Africa today has probably the highest inflation rate in the Western world and one of the lowest growth rates. Unemployment is estimated at an all-time high of 4 million, and is set to rise. Not a cent of foreign capital is coming into the country to promote the economic growth we desperately need. There has been massive disinvestment by major foreign companies—148 out of 310 United States companies have upped and gone, not to mention Italy’s Alfa Romeo and other European firms.

As a result of the latest punitive action by the U S Congress—the Rangel Bill imposing double taxation on American firms—more withdrawals will certainly take place.

Today a South African passport is a barrier to entry in an increasing number of countries, and not only Third World countries and countries behind the Iron Curtain.

Already our direct air links with both Australia and the United States have been cut, and I must tell this House that there are threats of total isolation looming ahead. South Africa faces the danger that hostile members of the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal will drum up the support necessary to change the constitution of ICAO which presently lays down that member states, of which South Africa is one, shall have the right to use the air space of other member states for peaceful purposes. [Interjections.]

As far as the education and training of the vast majority of our population is concerned, we have had underfinancing for many years, leading to bottlenecks in the skilled labour field and an oversupply of unskilled labour. This has had the result of a gross maldistribution of wealth between Blacks and Whites.

In the social field, which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning should be worried about, we are faced with a shortfall of over three quarters of a million houses for Blacks, and a desperate lack of shelter for hundreds of thousands of people, due to the Government’s stubborn refusal over three decades to accept one of the most elementary and universal facts of life in the 20th century, namely that of urbanisation. The result has been a proliferation of squatter camps around all our major cities. In the PWV area alone there are an estimated 786 000 squatters—a problem, I believe, that is a veritable time bomb. These figures do not include the people on the waiting lists in Soweto which today, with 14 people living in a house intended for six, is an indoor squatter camp. These figures also do not include all the thousands of people who have not bothered to put their names on waiting lists because they know it is hopeless.

The urgent problem of the urban poor, who constitute about 80% of those on waiting lists and almost 100% of those in squatter camps, has not been addressed. Until very recently the method of dealing with squatters has been the destruction of shacks by the urban authorities, constant harassment by the police and army, arrests under the trespass laws and fines of up to R200 per person.

Last week I was relieved to read that charges against some 670 squatters in the Vereeniging district have been dropped. Dare I hope that this means a moratorium on squatter harassment until the administrative chaos surrounding the problem of finding available serviced land for site and service is resolved in a meaningful way, and a real strategy is devised for tackling the problem of providing housing? [Interjections.]

The Government still does not totally accept the urbanisation situation. More than half of the money set aside in the Housing Trust has been concentrated on projects in the homelands or in settlements abutting the Black states. Therefore the Government still does not tackle the problem of providing housing in the metropolitan areas where it is badly needed. The CP, of course, say: “Bring back influx control”. That is not going to solve the problem at all. The one sensible thing that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs has said is that if a man is hungry and needs a job, the law does not help to keep him out of the urban areas. That we have found over many long years.

It is perhaps in the political sphere that we are confronted with the most dismal picture of all emanating from 40 years of NP rule. As a result of the Government’s abysmal record regarding race relations and civil rights, polarisation between the races has reached unprecedented levels. The climate for negotiation is less attainable than ever before.

The Government has embittered the Coloured and Indian communities with their harsh removals under the Group Areas Act which displaced more than half a million people from their businesses and homes. District Six, around the corner from this House, still looks like a bombed-out site. It is a grim reminder of the shameful act which took place in 1966 when District Six was declared a White area and people were moved out.

The Black population, of course, has been totally alienated by the ruthless laws which have denied them rights of mobility in their own land, and destroyed family life through the enforced use of the migrant labour system. Peaceful communities, estimated at 3,5 million people, have been uprooted as a result of the Black spot removals, people displaced from farms and people endorsed out of the urban areas.

In response to all these infamous apartheid measures, law and order has broken down over the years with monotonous regularity, as the country has lurched from one crisis to the other. One law after the other that eroded civil liberties was placed on the Statute Book, and the White electorate, alas, has become inured to this sad state of affairs.

I knew, and I told this House way back in 1963, when the first detention without trial law was passed—the 90-day law—that South Africa was on the slippery path to authoritarian tyranny, and so it has proved.

I want to know what in heaven’s name there is to celebrate in a country which for more than two and a half years, with a brief interval inbetween, has been burdened with a declared state of emergency, carrying with it vast powers for the police, the army and other officials, indemnity for their actions—“done in good faith”—strict censorship of the Press, and innumerable curbs on the fundamental human rights of freedom of association and of speech.

The Government claims that it has defused township unrest, but in truth the unrest has been contained by the use of bullets and tear-gas and detention without trial of at least 25 000 people, young and old, since July 1985 when the first state of emergency was declared. According to the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order and the hon the Minister of Defence there is no possibility that the state of emergency is going to be lifted in the forseeable future.

At the end of October 1987 there were, according to the official figures I was given, 1 100 detainees, of whom 100 were under the age of 18—now minus 14 of those detainees, thanks to Dr Franz Joseph Strauss. Many of these people have been incarcerated for months on end, some indeed for over a year, like Zwelhake Sisulu and Vusi Kanyile. What does the Government propose to do with these people who have not been tried for any crime? Does it intend to keep them locked up for life? They, like Mbeki, are certainly not going to alter their political views as a result of being detained. Do we need another visit from Dr Franz Joseph Strauss in order to get a few more detainees released?

The overall result of this sad catalogue of woes is to be found in the emigration of thousands of the most talented and best-educated young South Africans who, lacking—for very good reason— confidence in the future stability of our country, have taken their expertise to other countries to enhance those countries with the skills from which we in South Africa should have benefited.

But if I find the Government’s track record over the past 40 years extremely depressing, I cannot say I look to the future with any great hope. This Government displays a total lack of understanding of Black politics. This is exemplified by its mishandling, for instance, of the Mbeki release. For the Government to imagine that Mr Mbeki would cease his political activities when he came out of jail was utterly naive. So now, of course, he is restricted, confined to a prison without bars. Then, too, let me give the example of the incredibly insensitive action in reappointing David Thebahali—a discredited and corrupt man who was first elected mayor with 97 votes—not by 97, but with 97 votes—and who was chucked out as the mayor of Soweto. Now he has been appointed by the Administrator as the boss-man of Diepkloof. I think that it is totally crazy for the Government to have done that.

Thirdly, I want to mention the absurd event at Mossel Bay last week where, I am told, the “Whites Only” notices remained on the beach and no Coloured persons could be found or would volunteer to take the part of the indigenous inhabitants who greeted Bartholomew Diaz when he arrived in this country, Sir. Can you imagine anything so insensitive as to leave “Whites Only” notices on the beach at a festival which is supposed to commemorate the arrival of Bartholomew Diaz?

It seems to me that the Government’s future policy will be influenced by two main factors; in the first place its determination not to appear to bow down to international pressure, and in the second place its obsessive fear of the CP, as we have seen throughout this debate. Reform is on the back-burner. It is significant that the word “reform” received scant reference in the hon the State President’s speech on Friday. He referred to “revival” while perhaps what he really meant was “survival”. I want to tell hon members that Russia has its programme of reform, “perestroika”, and China has its programme of reform, “gaika”, and South Africa has its programme of reform, and what is that? It is the Joint Management Centres and very little else as far as I can see.

There is no indication that the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act will be scrapped and there are no prospects that the Group Areas Act will be repealed or even radically amended. That has become a private fight between the Rev Alan Hendrickse and the hon the State President. Neither do we hear any talk these days of the release of Nelson Mandela and his fellow political prisoners. The unfortunate Magopa people remain in limbo. The Oukasie people remain under threat of forced removal, and so do the people of Lawaaikamp. And if ever there were “political” forced removals those are two very good examples despite the fact that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said in a recent statement that “there would be no more forced removals for political purposes”. Both these removals are for political purposes.

The Government does not have an inkling of how desperately South Africa needs some positive action to remove race discrimination, to end apartheid and to show some sign of humanitarian sentiments such as clemency for the Sharpeville Six. I can think of nothing that would do us more good than reprieving the Sharpeville Six. They will not go free; they will go to jail, probably for life. But for heaven’s sake let us not hang the Sharpeville Six. The release of Mandela, of course, remains the burning issue in the outside world. Without “handing power to the Blacks”. These are the things that would give us some respectability in the outside world and that would help Mrs Thatcher and Chancellor Kohl who are fighting sanctions against great odds.

The Government has also as yet no understanding, it seems, of the urgent need to give encouragement and hope to those Black, Indian and Coloured people who still, at their peril I might say, reject violent solutions for this country.

Those of us who remember the high regard in which South Africa was held throughout the world at the end of World War II are filled with anguish when we contemplate the sorry reputation that South Africa has today: The pariah status, an outcast classified with miserable countries like Libya and Iran. I find nothing to celebrate in the 40 years of NP rule and I support the amendment moved by my leader.

Mr Chairman, one would have expected the hon member for Houghton to address the more fundamental issues at stake on the present political scene. However, she chose to deal with certain specific aspects of Government policy with which she disagrees and no doubt those aspects will be dealt with in due course.

What I would like to do, is to concentrate on the various aspects of reform dealt with by the various political parties up to this point in the debate.

*If one were to strip the speeches made by the various spokesmen of their great emotional content, and if one were also to strip that emotion from the words which are apparently woven around the truth for the benefit of the gallery and the electorate, it appears to me that only three basic statements have thus far been forthcoming from the various opposition parties in this House.

First of all the PFP made the statement that the NP was clinging to an outmoded apartheid dispensation. According to them reform is easy; all racial discrimination should simply be done away with immediately.

The Official Opposition made the very simple statement that the NP did not have a plan and that it was in a cul-de-sac, whilst the CP did have a plan, namely partition.

I cannot do otherwise than refer to the leader of the NDM, who also made a statement on reform. He said we had to create a framework for negotiation with regard to reform and lay aside our liberality. I shall come back to this statement later.

The statement by the PFP that we should proceed with reform by taking certain steps and abolishing certain measures gives rise, in all earnestness, to the question as to whether the pace of reform in South Africa is too slow. Should South Africa not speed up the pace of reform? The question which immediately arises is what the ideal pace of reform is and at what rate development, including development in the constitutional arena, ought to take place.

Constitutional development in the Western world has taken place over a period of many centuries, and it is very important to note that this has always gone hand in hand with socio-economic development, including educational development. Constitutional development could never, and has never taken place ahead of the other areas of reform. Therefore, there is a close link between constitutional development and the general level of development.

In Africa the Western colonial powers abandoned their responsibility in respect of socioeconomic development. They chose the easy way out by offering constitutional reform as their answer to Africa’s problems. The result has been that we in Africa have been left with communities without any infrastructure to support their political structures. These communities were not ready for the political dispensation into which they were placed, and political power in those communities was a hollow concept.

In writing about Africa’s constitutional history, people are fond of using the words “too little, too late”. I want to submit that the words “too much, too soon” are just as true of Africa. Too much political development took place too quickly in Africa and the development of the infrastructure took place too late and too slowly. Orderly reform cannot take place without stability and the financial capacity to uplift the underdeveloped communities. The PFP’s instant solution is the same as Africa’s instant solution, and Africa’s instant solutions have not worked.

The hon member for Randburg made an important statement when he said that reform was not a one-sided process. He said negotiations were needed, and I agree with him, but the hon member should have taken it further. It is not simply a question of negotiations, but of the full involvement of all the relevant parties in constitutional and other forms of development. The role played by one of them is no less important than that played by another.

Therefore, if the illusion exists that all this Government need do in order to create a Utopian situation is repeal a few laws and do certain other things to bring about reform, then the people who subscribe to that school of thought are very seriously mistaken.

In the developmental process within the South African situation contributions are being asked of both the Whites and the Blacks, and that also applies to constitutional development. The time has also arrived for the message to be conveyed to the Black man—to the Black political leader, the trade union leader, the teacher, the businessman and the parent—that he has a contribution to make and that his contribution also plays a part in determining the pace of reform that can be achieved in this country.

We should have no illusions about that. The contributions which the various groups make, are closely related to their basic points of departure and their primary motives. It depends on what agenda each one is prepared to place on the table. Is it White domination? Is it Black domination? If domination is the agenda, reform cannot advance a single step further because White and Black domination have no place in the future of this country. It is possible to speed up the pace of reform, but only to the degree that the preconditions for more rapid reform are complied with beforehand.

The CP says the Government does not have a plan. I say the CP does not understand the process of constitutional development. We may reproach them for the fact that they wish to function within the framework of a process which does not take account of reality. The Official Opposition is impeding relations in this country by addressing the general public in an emotional and irrational manner. The proof of this lies in the actions of those hon members in this House.

We constantly have to listen, both in this House and outside, to the peculiar debating technique of the CP. I shall mention a single example. The hon the State President invited the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in this House to sit down with him and calculate the cost of partition. How did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition react to that? He reacted by saying that he was not prepared to sit at a conference table to divide up South Africa’s land. However, that was never the question. That certainly was not the invitation that was extended to him. Hon members of the Official Opposition are now making a habit— and I resent them for it—of putting words into the mouths of Government spokesmen, in order to answer another question, namely that of the spectres which exist in their own world of thought, instead of considering the actual statements and the real policy of the Government.

I said that reform could not take place in a one-sided manner. With its alternative the CP thinks one can go and draw lines and treat people as if one were building a dam, laying out farm lands or constructing a factory. However, people do not allow themselves to be treated like things, not in this country and not if their skins are Black, either, I want to conclude with one last reference to the hon member for Randburg. I promised him I would do so. That hon member concluded his speech by saying that the NP and the Government should rid itself of its liberality. I think this statement by the hon member for Randburg should be understood against the background of a particular idiom, namely that the greatest stumbling block in the way of reform is those people who want to make small concessions under the guise of liberality, but who are not prepared to make fundamental reforms. Fundamental reform in that idiom is Black majority rule. As a new thinker on the political horizon, the hon member for Randburg has thus far been able to play around with fine-sounding concepts. He has been able to make a certain contribution, but now that he is functioning as a political party, in this House as well, he will have to state clearly to South Africa whether Black majority rule is a “yes” or a “no” in his vision of the future.

Mr Chairman, the hon members of the NP change their standpoints so frequently that one is absolutely astounded by the most recent example. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs spoke a while ago. He has, however, left the Chamber in the interim and is therefore not present at the moment. If I heard him correctly, he stated categorically here this afternoon that the State would no longer have control over those facets of the Transport Services which were going to be privatised. However, a banner headline in this morning’s Cape Times read: “Privatisation—State to retain control”. In the subsequent report the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr Kent Durr, was quoted as saying that the State would remain the controlling shareholder.

He will explain it to you himself! [Interjections.]

Sir, how is one to understand this? It would seem to me that this hon Deputy Minister of Finance has no idea what the Government’s policy with regard to privatisation is.

You will get your answer! [Interjections.]

Here, on the eve of two very important by-elections in the Transvaal, it is of the utmost importance to draw attention again to the logical consequences of the Government’s policy of power-sharing. This is a policy which makes provision for one umbrella government in a unitary state, consisting of a multinational, multiracial South African nation, in which the separate nationalism (eie volksnasionalisme) of thirteen separate peoples is going to be subordinated to a so-called State nationalism. This is therefore a very important choice which the voters of Standerton and Schweizer-Reneke must make—a choice between the standpoints of two parties, the NP and the CP, that differ radically and are poles apart. In this case it is not a difference of degree, such as that which exists between the NP and the PFP or between the PFP and the NDM. They are in total conflict with one another. If a person chooses the NP, he is voting for a multiracial state and for a government in which the respective Black peoples will form the vast majority of the population with equal civic rights, and in which his own people will be reduced to a mere minority group. On the other hand if a person chooses the CP, he is voting for a separate volkstaat with its own government and with full-fledged freedom and rights for his people alongside the Black states which have already achieved that ideal thanks to the policy of separate development and partition, which was succeeding. It was succeeding, as the hon member for Lichtenburg rightly indicated here.

That is not true!

It was succeeding until this Government yielded to the pressure of liberalism and accepted a policy of integration. [Interjections.] Now it is ironic that a columnist of Rapport, according to a report in 31 January’s edition of that newspaper, made an investigation in those two constituencies. That columnist’s findings were as follows. There were three very important findings which represented a negative aspect of the NP. The first one mentioned was the fact that the electorate was uninformed. Can you believe that, Sir? The electorate was uninformed. With a powerful NP Press, television, the radio and the influence of a whole series of established Afrikaans cultural organisations, from the FAK to the AB, which the NP has systematically hijacked for its new ideology, the NP could nevertheless not succeed in conveying the necessary information on its reform policy to the voters.

I want to put it as follows to the hon the leader of the NP in the Transvaal, the hon the Minister of National Education. If what this columnist says is true, he should rather be grateful that the voters are uninformed, because not all the voters there in the rural areas experienced the disgusting situation last December on the Durban beachfront when, according to the mayor of Durban, the policy of the NP was implemented.

I want to put it to the hon the Leader of the NP in the Transvaal that most of the handful of voters who still support the NP at this stage, actually still believe that separate development is the policy of the NP. They still believe this. [Interjections.] There is actually an hon member of the NP who also still believes this. Can this be true? They still believe that own residential areas are still a non-negotiable fundamental standpoint of the Government. They say that the fact that Blacks are going to be included in the Cabinet and in the highest legislative body of this country is simply CP gossip-mongering.

Some people say that they have now heard that Blacks may possibly serve in the Cabinet and in Parliament, but they will only take decisions on their own affairs, not on the affairs of the Whites. Can hon members imagine the disbelief and the surprise when Whites look in Hansard and read the debate of Friday, 22 May 1987, in which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning very clearly spelled out the participation of all the population groups of South Africa in the governing process? After a number of interjections the late Dr C P Mulder asked the following (Hansard: House of Assembly, 22 May 1987, col 370):

To which the hon the Minister replied:

Now I should like to ask the hon the State President something, but in his absence I shall ask the crown prince, the leader of the NP in the Transvaal instead. It is now exactly two years ago that the hon the State President repudiated the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he dared to say that there could be a Black State President and that Nelson Mandela could be released. Now Mbeki has been released, without renouncing violence. Now I want to ask the hon the Minister, two years after that repudiation and the letter which the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs had to write in order to be able to continue with his work, whether the hon the State President would repudiate the hon the Minister again today if he were to repeat that. I do not think he could, because that is indeed the factual situation today. [Interjections.]

The ordinary voter far away in the rural areas has not heard about the faction forming within the NP and in the ranks of the followers of the hon the leader. Club 22, under the protection of the hon the Minister of Manpower and of Public Works and Land Affairs, is apparently an informal club for new members of Parliament, and that club was not established in the house of a nominated Cape MP. I have it on good authority that certain meetings did take place, and in Rapport of 22 November I read the banner headline “Vir Pik gewerk? Nie ék nie!” and the hon the Minister of Manpower and of Public Works and Land Affairs was quoted in the report. [Interjections.]

In consequence of this a columnist of The Star of 2 December wrote the following:

[Interjections.] What consternation on that side of the House! They held a congress in the Transvaal in November, and who turned out to be part of the right-wing in the NP? None other than the hon member for Turffontein! [Interjections.] He spoke about blatant squatting in our White residential areas. I am quoting from a newspaper report:

What did Albert say then?

The hon member for Barberton is referring to the hon member for Innesdal, and I shall get around to him too. He belongs to the other side, the left wing of the NP; he is probably also a member of Club 22. With reference to the hon the Leader of the NP, who wanted to give greater weight to the concept of own affairs, he said the following in Insig of December 1987:

I assume he means rightwingers in those ranks—

[Interjections.]

I now come to a second reason which they advance for the slow progress of the NP in those two constituencies. This is the credibility gap that exists between the voter with rightwing leanings and the NP. In this regard I want to refer to a single example among hundreds. The hon the State President himself said in this House that one of the cornerstones of this country’s becoming a Union in 1910 was that this Parliament would consist of Whites only. This cornerstone is now being flagrantly and coldbloodedly destroyed by the NP. Who will ever believe the NP again? Certainly not the voters of Standerton and Schweizer-Reneke! [Interjections.]

A third reason, a one which is really causing the NP headaches, is the voters’ need for the future to be spelled out more clearly to them. The report closes with this paragraph:

Who are their negotiation partners? Is it Minister Hendrickse, who says: “First bring the chocolates, then we can talk”? Or is it Captain Buthelezi, who according to a newspaper report said the following in Ulundi last Tuesday:

The newly-elected Chief Minister of Lebowa, Chief Ramodiki, has said that he would not be willing to serve on the National Council. These people are not interested in an interim stage. They are not interested in a transitional government; they want one man, one vote and complete majority rule now, and not tomorrow!

The third most important logical consequence of the policy of power-sharing is the redistribution of wealth.

Let them have it, Willie!

The redistribution of wealth must end in this headline which we read in Die Burger this morning.

This also applies to health services, as becomes apparent on the second page. This is the logical consequence in the economic sphere of this policy of powersharing.

That Government is in trouble. Let me tell those hon colleagues again that if anyone in those constituencies tells them that the CP says that old-age pensions will not be increased further, they must not hold this against us. We are merely saying what the hon the Minister of the Budget and of Welfare said at the Natal congress. I am quoting from The Star of 15 October:

… he said that there was no way the State could continue indefinitely paying White pensioners in excess of what was being paid to pensioners of other population groups. Parity would have to be reached in this field…

How is one going to achieve this? One can only keep it static or lower it and then the people will get a reduced pension. [Interjections.] We do not see this kind of future expectation for our people in this year in which we are celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Great Trek. And that is why we enthusiastically support the statement which our leader made in this connection and I am quoting him:

For that reason I also support the motion moved by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in this House.

Mr Chairman, I have a better approach than that of the hon member for Pietersburg; with his own party’s manual in my hand I shall simply adopt the very style he has been employing against us for the past few minutes.

The CP gave a canvasser in the Schweizer-Reneke district a manual in which he was told the following:

The word “hom” is underlined. In this way the CP is using its canvasser in Western Transvaal as a parasite on people’s grievances. [Interjections.] The more widely the Group Areas Act is contravened, the fiercer is the CP’s attack on this voter. The more serious the overcrowding and offensive behaviour on South African beaches, the more ferocious their vilification of and accusations against the Government for being the cause of what happens there. [Interjections.] The more critical the drought and the dwindling means of the farmer, the more savage their disparagement and defamation of the hon the Minister and their belittlement of what he has done for the farmer in the past year. [Interjections.]

Worst of all, at a CP meeting in Schweizer-Reneke a farmer on whose behalf the then member of Parliament, Mr Willie Lemmer, had negotiated with the result that he subsequently obtained an allowance for his family because he was no longer able to make a living from his farming, was put up to proposing a motion of no confidence in the Government on the grounds that the Government was doing nothing for farmers in Western Transvaal. [Interjections.] If there is nothing bothering the voters, they start gossiping about Black neighbours or Black schoolchildren. An interesting situation developed when an old-timer at Leeudoringstad eventually asked the CP canvasser if he was correct in assuming that he had left teaching to take up farming. The canvasser said: “Yes, Sir”. The old-timer then said he assumed the canvasser had Black children on his farm. He answered: “Yes, Sir”. The old-timer then asked: “May I then assume that you live next to them, or they next to you?” The canvasser said: “If you want to put it like that, yes, Sir”. He then said: “Did I complain?” It is clear, therefore, that this story does not work either. [Interjections.]

The greater the number of old people murdered, the greater the CP’s success in intimidating people to vote for them. Ask the hon member for Kempton Park about the mood which prevails these days at a small group of old-age homes in Western Transvaal. Such fear has been instilled in the minds of these people that they no longer open their doors. The CP thrives on this fear syndrome; they encourage it and make the lives of the old people of that area almost unbearable; and all this for the sake of a vote for the CP.

The CP has no other message. Its canvassing rules also say: “Gee die KP se antwoord…” and the following words are in capital letters: “… MAAR MOENIE ARGUMENTEER NIE”. [Interjections.]

What is the “answer” supplied to the CP canvassers? Six little questions are all that is put at their disposal, and I am now looking at the answer provided to the first one. If the CP canvasser encounters the argument: “The CP’s policy does not work”, he must answer as follows:

With these three little lines a CP canvasser has to defend his party. That is also as much as he knows.

According to question 2 a voter might say: “The CP will cause revolution and a bloodbath”. Here is the CP canvasser’s answer, and it is the only answer he may give:

However, they omit to mention the situation in KwaNdebele last year, which prevented that state from becoming independent. They also omit to mention the situation in Lebowa, which eventually led to intervention in that independent state. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

When it suits the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, he can, as in his speech yesterday, quote the necklacings and the murders in Pietermaritzburg. Through its canvassers, however, the CP says in answer to the question that the most peaceful areas during the riots are the separate states.

Independent states!

No, Sir. It says here “in Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, en al die aparte state”. When it suits the hon member, he uses the riots in Pietermaritzburg to pounce on the Government and say what he thinks of it.

Let us look at question 6: “Ons stem vir eenheid”. How should one answer? As a result of the NP’s policy of integration and power-sharing without land allocation, there can never be unity in South Africa. I have here a newspaper cutting from Beeld of 14 October 1987 in connection with the CP congress in Bloemfontein. Hon members should remember that there cannot be unity without land allocation. According to the report, the hon leader of the CP said the following:

Surely that implies that even in their state—that is the White state which they have at their disposal—there is going to be another Soweto. All it must not do is expand. Now, how do we eliminate this growth? The hon leader of the CP gave the following answer as an item of policy at the congress:

[Interjections.] I would not be dealing with the CP in such a nasty way if it were not for the fact that they refuse to put a stop to their nastiness towards my party.

Here behind me sit people who also know something about Christian principles and the contents of the Bible. How do the three clergymen in that party reconcile themselves to this sentence? If we cannot eliminate the growth in any other way, we can do so by restricting water and other essential commodities. [Interjections.] How do the CP reconcile themselves to their Christian consciences when they proclaim, on one hand, a White country and partition and, on the other, these barbarous ways of making it White?

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition went even further. The report mentions the following:

The land added to the national states was in any case added by the Government, when they were still here, and now, too, in their absence, by means of a resolution of parliament. What is new in the policy proclaimed by the CP? The fact remains that more land will have to be taken away from the Whites while they are looking for a homeland for Whites. Now, how can one reconcile the standpoint being marketed here with what the hon member for Lichtenburg said in last year’s debate, namely that White South Africa is in that part of South Africa where one has White majority occupation? We therefore have a situation in which, on one hand, the hon leader of the CP says that we are going to add more adjoining areas but, on the other, it is said that land is going to be added where one has a White majority occupation, wherever that might be. I have been working in the Schweizer-Reneke constituency since 3 December 1987, and I have driven from the Vaal River right up to the Bophuthatswana border…

And you achieved nothing!

The hon dominee is going to get a shock. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon dominee we will give him the hiding of his life.

These CP voters have not yet heard this sentence. Wherever one goes in the Schweizer-Reneke constituency, there is not a single community, district or farm where one has White majority occupation. Meanwhile they come with their ambiguity and say that they will add more “adjoining” land. I was at the most beautiful farm 10 kilometres from Delareyville…

But no-one wanted you in their homes!

… and these people were shocked at the fact that they were still to be incorporated.

[Inaudible.]

Order! No, the hon member for Overvaal is not making a speech.

I am referring to ambiguities. In the answers they gave as canvassers, they referred throughout to land division. It is simply not possible to talk such rubbish to people while one does not have answers to the question: “Where are you taking the voters?” The voters stand with their eyebrows raised and ask who is telling the truth.

We simply cannot carry on dealing with the feelings of the voters in this way while fires are threatening to bum in South Africa. We cannot treat people like election-fodder in this way and not seek a solution for our country.

The report of 14 October 1987 in which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s speech during the congress is reported ends with the following words:

In Standerton, definitely!

That is the sort of fellow Afrikaner who has left the team and sits on the sidelines. They watch us like a flock of jeering magpies while we struggle with the problems of South Africa. They are the people who send out uninformed canvassers with material of this nature in order to add to the bafflement of other people while their own mixed-up minds have only these six leading questions and these limited answers at their disposal with which to confuse people.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal is conversing so loudly across the floor that I cannot permit him to continue. If I remember correctly, the hon member has already been warned not to make interjections.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect, I am not making interjections.

Order! The hon member is not permitted to converse as loudly as he likes in the House either.

I agree with you, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

We are approaching two by-elections, one in the far western and one in the eastern part of the Transvaal. It is heart-rending to behold how the Western Transvaal changed between last Friday morning and Monday morning. The place has been scorched.

Yes, tell them about it.

It is the umpteenth time in the lives of some of those people, and it is in this wretched and intensely personal situation of “Dear God, what now?” that they come forward with this repulsive, offensive attack on people’s feelings.

It is a scandal!

This is all for the sake of a vote and of retaining a constituency which they won on 6 May in the way they win elections.

Look who’s talking!

It is offensive and I distance myself from this kind of politics. Our canvassers do not have the full answer to South Africa’s problems either, but they sit down with people and talk to see if we can in any way bring home to them the facts about what is happening in South Africa. One then comes up against these confusions and distortions. We cannot carry on like this in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, after that speech the hon members of the Official Opposition must feel as if they have been savaged by a dead sheep. [Interjections.] Earlier today the hon member for Lichtenburg said that 75% of the members on that side of the House actually thought like the CP thinks. If there is one of that 75% of the members who thinks that way, it is the hon member for Brentwood. In fact, I understand he was briefly with them, but is no longer. [Interjections.] He demonstrates the tragedy of the South African situation and particularly the tragedy of the situation in this House.

The no-confidence debate in this House in 1988 has not been about whether there should be apartheid or not. It has been about how much apartheid there should be. The gentlemen on my right want more apartheid than the gentlemen on my left, but without any shadow of a doubt they have demonstrated here today that apartheid is still very much alive and very well in this White South African House of Assembly. [Interjections.]

When I listened to hon members like the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs who took part today, I agree with my colleague, the hon member for Houghton, who said that the contribution of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was not of a very high standard. I think it is high time that instead of talking about the Volkswag and the FAK in these important debates, we should perhaps discuss the reality of our situation as South Africans. It is time that we in this House talked about South Africa and South Africans rather than the minority interests of a small group of people.

Say that in Afrikaans. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs said that there were five very important words and they were “die waarde van die rand”. I agree with him that that is important and, if one uses that as a measure of the effectiveness of this Government in economic matters over the past seven years, one finds that over that period of time the value of the rand has dropped by more than half. Where one did get $1,30 for a rand, today one gets 50 American cents. Where one had to pay R1,60 to buy a pound sterling, today one has to pay R3,60. The cause of that is simply the way in which this Government has behaved politically and economically. They are as much to blame for the economic mismanagement as they are to blame for the political mismanagement. [Interjections.]

When one considers the economic mismanagement, one can only welcome the speech that was made by the hon the State President last Friday. There was little that one could quarrel with economically. The broad thrust of that speech was right, but one must express a caveat, because we have experienced fine words from the hon the State President in the past. I have two particular occasions in mind.

In the first speech he made in this Parliament after his election as leader of the NP and therefore as Prime Minister of this country, he promised action in regard to the burgeoning Public Service and the rationalisation of that body. Since then the Public Service has proliferated and the cost has escalated frighteningly. How much were his words on that occasion worth?

There is a vast difference between the personnel expenditure of this Government between 1985-86 and 1987-88. In this two-year period it had increased by 53%.

The second occasion I wish to refer to was, of course, the speech in which he referred to the outmoded practice of apartheid. It now appears that those outmoded practices were only mixed marriages and sex across the colour line. The rest of the practices, such as group areas and beach apartheid, are still very much a la mode. Regrettably, as I have said, apartheid is alive and well and the hon the State President hardly has an impeccable record in regard to fulfilling his promises. What we need, in addition to the speech that he made—which I have conceded was good—are actions and not words. That is what we need in this situation.

I hope for the sake of South Africa that socalled “Bothanomics” will actually happen and get going, because we desperately need a boost in a hostile world. We need a positive move that will help the private sector to help South Africa’s economic situation in the face of international sanctions. The South African Government, with its high tax rates, actively encourages the private sector not to invest in industry, because just to start off with they tax company profit at 50%, which I think the hon the Minister of Finance will concede is one of the highest tax rates for companies in the Western World.

What is the effective rate?

The effective rate is 50%, Mr Chairman. That is the actual rate. Then one has all sorts of concessions for exports. There are also decentralisation plans. The majority of companies in this country, however, cannot avail themselves of those methods. My first concern with “Bothanomics”, therefore, is the degree to which it will actually happen.

My second is the freeze on public sector salaries. A general freeze of this nature penalises the hardworking public servant as well as the loafer. It penalises those public servants who have been well looked after as well as those who have not. In my view the teachers and the nurses have not been well looked after, whereas many of the senior echelons of the public servants have.

One of the key legs of Thatcherism in Britain was the reduction of the numbers of the public servants in that country. The freeze now announced is all very well as a short term quick fix…

Surely it is not a freeze.

… but it must go hand in hand with a long-term commitment to reduce the functions carried out by the State and thus reduce numbers as well as to get rid of the passengers who are getting a free ride. This must be the long-term fix. It is not just to punish the innocent and the guilty alike.

The hon the Minister of Finance has interjected: “But surely it is not a freeze.” What is it, Sir, when one informs the public servants that they are not going to get a general salary adjustment in the year ahead? They have frozen the situation on the current general salaries.

That is not a freeze.

But of course it is! I would be most interested to hear the hon the Minister explain exactly why it is not, and I would also, interestingly enough, like to hear him explain exactly why his Deputy Minister at a conference yesterday talked about privatisation of companies in different terms to the hon the Minister Transport Affairs, as pointed out by the hon member for Pietersburg.

The multiplicity of departments caused by apartheid escalates the numbers required to fulfil the functions. The public servant is now having to pay for the policy of apartheid. That is why his salary has been frozen—because of the policy of apartheid. If he votes for it, he must consider the sacrifice worthwhile. On the subject of privatisation and deregulation, since 1983 we have been waiting patiently for the objective of private initiative and free enterprise to become a reality. In fact, pathetically little has happened to convince us of the earnest of the Government’s intent. In fact, the SATS seems to be going in the opposite direction. They are opening new branches of their travel bureau and I understand that they are also expanding into the clearing and forwarding business, and have applied for licences. I would like to hear more about that. I have a question on the Order Paper regarding its validity, but perhaps the hon the Deputy Minister, who I understand is going to speak in this debate, can respond to that.

I hope that the announcement regarding toll roads will also be discussed during this debate, because these are most important. To build a new toll road is one thing. The Tsitsikamma toll road and the Du Toit’s Kloof tunnel, for example, have existing national roads that provide good alternative routes, but simply to flog off existing national roads that have been built at taxpayers’ expense and used by motorists for years without charge is in my view undesirable. I have little personal knowledge of the routes that are to be sold off, and therefore do not know what reasonable alternative routes exist. I do not like the principle involved in this new move and believe that it should be reconsidered.

I would like to turn now from economic matters to more political ones and to discuss the difference between the Government’s words and its actions in two particular respects.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Information was being interviewed on television during the recess and made the statement that the Government wanted to bring about a constitutional situation in which there would not be a minority group that dominated the other groups in the country. The hon the Deputy Minister seems to agree that I have quoted him correctly, by and large. Those are wonderful words. I support them and agree with them, but we must then look at the actions of this Government in regard to those words. We simply have to look at the 1983 tricameral Constitution to realise that they are not paying any attention to removing domination by a minority, because that is what we have. We have domination by a White minority in this Parliament right now.

In that very Constitution, that Government took endless pains to ensure that the Whites could totally dominate the political situation. The worst example of this, of course, is the President’s Council, the main purpose of which is to ensure the passage of a Bill the State President wishes to have put through Parliament over the opposition of a majority of members of Parliament. It has actually happened that more members in the three Houses have voted against a Bill than have voted for it, and yet it has become the law of this land. The voting system in the standing committees is another example of how the system is rigged.

Finally, I want to refer to the latest debacle in the cold war between the Rev Allan Hendrickse and the hon the State President. Part of this racial parliamentary system is the concept of general affairs and own affairs. How often has this Government not told us we must allow people to control their own racial affairs? One of the own affairs, and the most important one, is education. The Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives is appointed by the State President at the request of the majority party in that House, and in 1984 this happened. Recently, however, that same majority party through its leader requested that one of their own Ministers be relieved of his post, namely the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. This request was not acceded to.

I believe that this action, or rather failure to act, by the hon the State President brings the whole tricameral Parliament into disrepute. In particular, it destroys the concept of own affairs. It shows that own affairs are only own affairs with the approval of the White State President and thus are no longer own affairs. Nothing could show more clearly how undemocratic this tricameral parliamentary system and our hon State President truly are.

I therefore have no confidence in the Cabinet, and I support the amendment moved by the hon member for Sea Point.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central who wrote his speech for him, because in the transport debates as a rule I know him to be a man far more conversant with facts and figures than he exhibited here this afternoon. [Interjections.]

He is off the track.

I agree with that hon member. I think he was bogged down in the tunnel we are to open one of these days.

How can the hon member talk about a “freeze”? Last year he lent great prominence to the fact that were giving public servants money. He is the hon member who is always putting questions on pension benefits which are supposedly so good and who pointed out public servants’ important, privileged position to them last year when we offered increases of 10% to 12%. This year he chooses to see it in a different light. Public servants are not the point at issue, however, it is criticism. The hon the Minister of Finance indicated after all that almost 99% of public servants would receive notch increases. That is more than anyone in this House is able to say he will receive.

Only 3%!

That does not matter; it is more than that hon member will receive. I believe he does not deserve anything, but let it pass. [Interjections.] I do not believe he deserves more than that. [Interjections.] In addition a sum has been set aside to benefit certain people under certain conditions in the professionally orientated section. Let us say a further 50% of Public Service staff remains—I do not know exact figure—who will also become involved in the professionally orientated section. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central wanted to get at the hon the Minister of Finance, regardless of the manner. He tried to do this but did not succeed. I regard his effort as a failure.

While I am on the subject of the PFP, I also want to say a few words on the party that is in general. Since 6 May 1987 the PFP seems to me to be a party that is increasingly without future expectations. It is a party which is just stumbling along. When no secret meeting regarding the chairman or the leadership is being organised, a secret meeting is being held about something else. The only stabilising factor remaining is the hon member for Houghton, the mother superior of the PFP. I believe she should remain there even if they have to prop her up with broomsticks. The moment she goes, that party will finally collapse. [Interjections.] Consequently I wish her every success. May she have a long life; she is the only saving grace in that party. [Interjections.] Only yesterday, Sir, Business Day revealed again that there was an altercation in progress in the PFP about the State President’s opening address. The Business Day report bore the caption: “PFP split over PW’s new economic package”. [Interjections.] Well, that is what is Business Day reported yesterday. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. The interesting aspect of this is that the PFP chief spokesman on finance has not yet spoken in this debate on an important speech made by the hon the State President which dealt chiefly with financial aspects. He has not entered the debate at all as yet, and we have already arrived at 17h20 on the second day of the no-confidence debate. That, Sir, is why I believe there are problems in that party. [Interjections.] There are serious problems there.

That is not all, however. I wish to tell them further to cast their minds back—I want to recall this to them—to last year or the year before, when Mr Horace van Rensburg went overseas to protest against sanctions and disinvestment, and the fact that very party which is now making such a fuss of purporting to be advocates of what the hon the State President said, that gave Mr Van Rensburg a dressing down in its own party caucus because he had interceded on behalf of South Africa. [Interjections.]

The entire argument put forward here today by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central was nothing but a hollow speech, just like their stance on national security. They are one and the same as far as I am concerned. [Interjections.]

I now wish to pause for a moment at the hon the State President’s opening address. I regard that address as being best summarised in Saturday morning’s Die Burger. It bore the headline “’n Plan vir voorspoed”. It is high time discipline was imposed on the economy of this country, regardless of how distasteful this may be. We have now reached the position in South Africa in which we can go no further by simply demanding this, that or the other. We can only go ahead by acquiring such items as we are actually able to afford. Consequently I am very grateful that the hon the State President adopted the standpoint that in our budgetary process we should take time to look at what we could afford. This is true regardless of whether the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central frequently distorts it to suit his own argument. His chopping and changing is also causing his party’s support to dwindle more and more. As I have already said, the hon member for Houghton will be the sole survivor in that party one of these days.

I want to add that priorities to be established will have to be of paramount importance with a view to the future. I believe the role of the priorities committee will therefore become even more important than it has been to date. The future and the success of what we are dealing with here lies in the hands of that committee. It will determine the priorities and what is involved. I want to wish the members of that committee every success because in conjunction with the private sector they will determine to a large extent whether the headline in Die Burger is realised. I want to appeal to the private sector to throw in its lot with us.

At the same time, while speaking of finance, I wish to request the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs—he is not present at the moment but I shall discuss this with him later—as well as the hon the Minister of Communications to try not to announce price increases in those statutory institutions either this year. If it becomes necessary for us to find capital, it would be preferable— within limits—to do so through loans this year. This then becomes the final nail in the coffin of somebody wishing to increase prices because the Government has increased certain prices. SATS and Posts and Telecommunications are influential enough to create a wider ripple effect on the economy if they increase their tariffs. Could they perhaps see their way clear, in view of what I have just said, to avoiding an increase in their tariffs? Statutory increases in price should be limited and, if possible, eliminated.

This leads me to a point I want to raise in reply to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central on toll roads. For the past five or six years a major debate has been in progress on such roads. Privatisation of toll roads has already been discussed in general, and I consider it a sound step, since there are many reasons we can furnish for this being done. The single most important reason is that if we do not effect it in this way, there will not be any cash for short-term building and maintenance of those roads which are essential and which will produce great savings. There is no money for this.

I have received a few long telexes from people in which they raise their objections. When one is given the opportunity of speaking to those people and putting Government standpoints on the privatisation of toll roads to them, it is interesting to see how readily they change their views. The hon the Minister held discussions with the AA and this body, which represents approximately 600 000 motorists in South Africa, changed its standpoint.

Toll roads are not the answer to everything but at least go a long way toward solving the problem of furnishing quality infrastructure in South Africa. If we can reconcile this with the State President’s opening address, in which the possibility of privatisation and deregulation were mentioned, this is the right way to go about creating these facilities. There are entrenched conditions of which the hon the State President mentioned a few, such as maintaining an alternative route. In addition a certain part of savings should remain in the motorist’s pocket and this is altogether acceptable to me at this stage, whether the rate he pays is 60% or 70% of the total savings. Ultimately we shall have an asset and the motorist will retain part of the savings.

I wish to put a few questions to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He explained fine constitutional models to us here and I have no fault to find with this. He made a speech with a view to the by-election campaign. Why did he not alter the theme of his speech and develop economic models while we are engaged in discussing an economic speech made at the beginning? Nevertheless I have problem. I do not want to give much time to the AWB; some of my colleagues here will deal with this subject. My problem is what model will be placed before the people when it comes to economic policy. Is it the AWB model or that of the CP? Surely the two models cannot be reconciled.

If we examine the AWB program of principles and that of the CP in which they both express their opinions on the economy, we find serious differences. I should like to ask those hon members—a few of them are still to have a turn to speak—which of those two concepts they will accept in their economic model. I am asking this because it is being said that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s fear of Mr Jaap Marais is unparalleled. I think, however, if he discovers how the AWB’s constitutional model works in conjunction with its economic version, his fear of Mr Eug ne Terre’ Blanche will be permanent— not only unparalleled.

Ultimately it is most important to discover what the economy of the “Volkstaat” will look like. As a White Afrikaner I shall also have to live in the “Volkstaat” if they come to power, and therefore I at least want the opportunity of knowing in advance what that economy will look like. I am sure it will never come up in the House for debate because those hon members will never come to power, but let us hear what they have to say about it for debating purposes. Those hon members have made promises in Standerton. I have two Standerton newspapers here in which those hon members make certain economic promises. Let us enquire about what is happening there.

In the few minutes remaining I should like to talk to the hon member for Randburg in the same vein. This hon member has formed his own party now and the best of luck to him. When I became a member of Parliament, he was my member when I lived in Randburg before going to Germiston. I want to tell the hon member he chooses strange bedfellows.

I looked at the manifesto of the National Democratic Movement and want to thank the hon member for my copy. I also listened to the hon member yesterday. I have an unrevised copy of his speech here and have examined it to establish the standpoints on the economy held by the hon member’s movement. Here we run into problems, however. I listened to what the hon member had to say about this, but he merely touched upon it yesterday so I shall not hold him to what he said then because he was more concerned about other matters.

I shall give some time to his manifesto after all and especially to point 6 which deals with his economic policy. I regret to say I can see this is no political party. The hon member says they are not a party. Is that right?

[Inaudible.]

It is not a party; it is a movement. I can see from this manifesto that it is a movement. [Interjections.] He had to accommodate everyone in this movement—people who talk to the ANC and are indoctrinated by the ANC and those like the hon member for Randburg who talk to other people. All of them had to be accommodated. That is why his explanation of economic systems under point 6 of his manifesto falls between two stools. It is a loose collection of meaningless words.

I should now like to appeal to the hon member for Randburg. I want to request him to take time over this when we reach the economic debates and tell us what his standpoint is. I do not wish to offend the hon member in saying this but I regard him as a reasonably naïve Christian economic socialist. [Interjections.] I do not wish to offend him in saying this as the hon member has fine ideals—such as I wish I had. There are no grounds for his ideals in practice, however, so I request him to expand on how he views the economy for the sake of the 1988 debate.

At one stage the hon member made certain announcements. I do not know whether this quotation is altogether correct and I shall make amends if it is inaccurate and he corrects me. According to this he said something like the following:

If I have quoted the hon member incorrectly, I am open to correction but this type of statement does not befit the leader of a party or a movement. To have such a policy is like swiping at the air with a fly-swatter in the hope of hitting something. We shall not come to the point in this way. I want to ask the hon member and the fellow members of his movement to spell out this aspect to us. We have to know what the standpoint of the CP and the other opposition parties is. The CP has a problem too; it has to decide between the Afrikaner nationalism of its fellow party members and the standpoints set out in its programme of principles. The same applies to the debatable point of this movement on the left. This is why I regard the hon the State President’s address as supplying light and leadership in this dark world because the Opposition has so far merely voiced criticism with no alternative that will work.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Primrose. I wish to reply to statements he made earlier concerning the toll road. I am surprised to hear that the toll road has not yet been constructed because earlier this afternoon the hon member for Lichtenburg said we were giving it away. This is one of the aspects I wish to discuss with the hon the Leader of the CP this afternoon. I want to speak on the CP economic policy, on the lead it wants to give South Africa.

In the first place I want to say that in the no-confidence motion he moved the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition implied that many matters could improve if his party were to come to power. If one looks at his motion of no confidence, the CP would have been a better government; it would have brought about greater stability, growth and more progress and prosperity for our country and its people. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition maintained that he could provide the leaders of the country with better leadership. He was asked earlier what leaders had talked to him. So far not one of those hon speakers has told us with which leaders they were negotiating and which leaders supported them.

As regards the CP concept of a “volkstaat”, it is difficult to believe that there is anybody anywhere who supports them in any way, except for their own group gathered there. Those are the people who write books about the “volkstaat” and now they all believe in the idea of a “volkstaat”. I should like to hear in a debate such as this what solution that would be acceptable to the private sector the CP could offer. What solutions can it offer to induce Black and Brown leaders and also leading churchmen to agree with its policy? Because CP members are, once again, going to say nothing about their policy this entire week—not are they going to tell us where the borders of their “volkstaat” will be; they will merely come forward with destructive criticism to which I believe hon members of the Cabinet will reply—I want to tell them I intend putting them to the test on the same basis as they were tested and rejected by my constituents on 6 May 1987.

The hon member for Waterberg, who introduced this motion of no confidence, is not even assured of the support of all the members of his caucus because some of those sitting around him have been planted there by the Afrikaner-weerstandsbeweging. So whose leadership do they accept? Do they accept the leader of the AWB or the leader who tells them to propagate partition? It is difficult to believe that he can have any influence on those new members of his coming from the AWB. Radical rightists are simply not satisfied with the policy of partition. I should like the hon member for Brakpan to remain a while since I shall be talking to him about certain of his statements later this afternoon too.

I want to ask the hon members for Nigel, Delmas and Losberg whether they support this concept of partition and the idea of the “volkstaat”. They must rise to their feet and tell us.

Do you support the “Windmill” idea?

I shall get to that. That hon member had better also sit still. Now and then, when he waggles his ears that way, he reminds me of the Windmill I shall discuss in a moment. If that hon Leader of the Official Opposition is a statesman—as he wishes to suggest through his motion—surely he would have had the support of the leaders of many other ethnic groups in this country. He would have drawn the support of the private sector, industries, agriculture and all these people. [Interjections.]

Also that of Allan Boesak!

Yes, possibly that of Allan Boesak too. Let us take a closer look at their supporters, however, and see what businessmen, industrialists and leaders support him. Let us begin with Afrikaans organisations in rural areas. I now want to ask hon members sitting there: Do the chambers of commerce of Potgietersrus, Witbank, Middelburg, Nigel en Waterberg support this “volkstaat” idea of the CP—or should I say the AWB? No, because a businessman will say the buying power lies with the Black people. If he had to conduct his business in a White “volkstaat”, Black people would not support him. Those hon members do not have the support of their own businessmen and industrialists in their own constituencies, and they cannot get away from this. [Interjections.]

This brings me to industrialists. One includes printing works among industries. The only industry which may be able to establish itself in a CP homeland will be the printing works turning out AWB bumper stickers. It will only be permitted to make stickers reading “Ek lief Morgenzon” for a few hours too before having to switch to “I love Soweto”, “I love Crossroads” and “I love Daveyton”. Its printing works will then be unable to deal with the production necessary in that “volkstaat”. [Interjections.] If by coincidence this printing works had to be somewhere in the Free State, where the “volkstaat” would be, it might be able to produce a further sticker reading “I love Kallicharan” because he plays cricket for the Free State. I do not know whether those hon members would want to attach it to their motor cars however.

I want to take a closer look at other people who have to support them—the farmers’ associations. What farmers’ associations will support them in what they have said frequently and what we have heard them say, which is that we should apply sanctions against people applying them against us. What farmers’ associations in their constituencies have already said that they would refuse to export their produce to Black states or European states which instituted sanctions against our country? I want to ask the hon member for Barberton …

Do you want to discuss agriculture now?

… he is something of a woolgrower. I challenge him not to export his wool to one of these states. He would be one of the first to object.

You should have your wool shorn. [Interjections.]

It is clear that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does not have any support from any leaders in this country. He cannot even obtain the support of Mr Jaap Marais, who was originally a rightist. Those original rightists want nothing to do with them.

He is voting for the NP now!

Order! Too many comments are being made. The hon member may proceed.

Let that suffice for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I do not think he impresses many people in this country. In speaking of people who support him, I can say that Rev Allan Hendrickse has the support of more people than the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has. [Interjections.]

That is not true.

It is true according to the figures we are looking at.

My standpoint is that the CP is destabilising the political, economic and social progress of South Africa. I want to show hon members how it is destabilising the country on these levels. The distorted image of the Afrikaner and the White man which is being disseminated throughout the world has only started increasing in intensity over the past four years. The impression the outside world has of the White man has received more media coverage over the past four years than ever before. Why? Precisely in consequence of the formation of the CP, which has provided it with momentum. We had the experience in this House of Assembly of foreign television companies, with their camera equipment, crowding into Mr Louis Stofberg’s office. And when they departed, one could be sure that this grim image of the White man and the Afrikaner in South Africa would be disseminated from there.

We therefore have the problem of the image of the White man created abroad. That is how they have portrayed their typical Afrikaners. The hon member for Overvaal as well as the hon member for Lichtenburg has frequently appeared on overseas television.

Are you jealous, Sakkie? Nobody will ask you!

Order! I have to appeal to hon members once again. Interjections are one matter but a stream of comment directed at an hon member speaking cannot be permitted and I shall not permit it further. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, in the constituency from which I come they would have said we would “box” him some time or other. [Interjections.]

Since their breakaway they have, like the leftists, started telling voters—we have heard this here this afternoon and I shall quote it in a moment— that the total onslaught is a political ploy. The further we have moved into this situation, the more we have discovered that they are wrong once again. They have permitted that view to predominate at the international level and that is why I believe that no statesmen like the hon the State President or the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs will come from their ranks. Recently when the onslaught against South Africa was being made, those two people were able to persuade Reagan, Thatcher and Strauss to give South Africa a chance. I want to know what members from the ranks of the CP would be able to negotiate with those people. There is no Western leader who wishes to be associated with that type of government. This is not intended personally but I want to tell those hon members that the policy they advocate is not acceptable anywhere in the world. [Interjections.] The policy they advocate gave rise to the Second World War, and that is why the West shies away from discussion with them and is unwilling to be seen with them.

I want to return to the hon member for Lichtenburg. He certainly has had many interesting things to say recently as well as today. I want to know from the hon member whether he spoke on privatisation at Welkom. According to Die Burger of 25 April 1987 he said the following:

Did the hon member say that?

That is the truth.

All right. An hon member is admitting the truth of that statement. [Interjections.] This is the first time I have heard that the private sector can be privatised.

That is not what you asked.

Only that hon member, who is the missing link between the AWB and the CP and is now also their financial spokesman, would say we should privatise large companies.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member an exceptionally easy question?

No, Mr Chairman, I am not prepared to talk to that hon member. The hon member for Lichtenburg continued:

He wants to tell us that the economy will recover through all those steps and by privatisation of the private sector, but why did he not tell us how he would improve the system of taxation? The Government has put its standpoints but we have heard nothing from the leadership of the CP, viz the hon members for Barberton and Lichtenburg.

The hon member for Lichtenburg also accused the NP of using the ANC as an election ploy. I believe the voters will ask them again after all these months whether the ANC is still a ploy. [Interjections.] They believe it is a ploy but that is because leaders in that party do not know how to deal with the realities of this country.

I wish to continue by referring to the hon member for Brakpan. When I say that they are destabilising the social unity in this country, I want to get to the hon member for Brakpan. There is a residential area called Windmill Park on the East Rand. The hon member for Brakpan addressed a meeting at Boksburg at which there was discussion of the fact that over the past five years of its existence only 25 houses had been built on the 250 plots of that residential area, an area with roads, electrical wiring, water and everything else. Consequently it was clear that that residential area had not developed as a White area. That it is why it was decided on the East Rand to see whether this residential area could not be organised as an Indian area. That hon member then held a meeting at Boksburg.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

I shall give him the opportunity later, Sir.

The hon member then harangued the people at that meeting—land should not be made available to Indians. He added that 20 km from there, south of Alberton, a place had been identified where Indians were to live. I want to say the following to the hon member: Approximately 20 000 Blacks live in hostels in Boksburg—and these hostels have been there for almost 100 years.

Come off it!

There is a Coloured residential area and a White one. What difference would this handful of Indians have made to the CP partition policy? We are in the very process of settling them in a place where we apply partition. We are settling them in their own residential area. Nevertheless that member said they had to get out of the East Rand; they did not belong there.

In Paul Kruger’s time certain patches of land on the East Rand were made available to Indians. All we want to do now is ensure that provision is made for those people in a large residential area and that they can be settled there.

The CP probably thinks it will become communist.

The time has come, Sir, for the CP to re-examine what Paul Kruger said to people—that they take from the past the good things done and build our future on them.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon member whether he told owners of property in Windmill Park that that area was to become an Indian residential area before the Group Areas Board decided on this.

It is a disgrace!

Mr Chairman, that was never said. What the people were actually told was that if they were agreeable we would talk to the Government and see whether we could consider declaring that an Indian residential area.

Got you!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Boksburg has emerged as a champion of the Indians. I think the voters will take thorough cognizance of the pleas made here by him this afternoon. It is for him to decide whether or not the interests of his own people should be subordinated to the interests of aliens.

Sir, it has become fashionable for a number of NP speakers to tell us that if the CP were to come into power, South Africa would be transformed into a blood-bath. The hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare even went so far yesterday afternoon as to say that the CP’s partition policy was not only foolish, but was a recipe for revolution. Those were harsh words, Sir.

This refrain of threats of a blood-bath and revolution which ostensibly will be the result of the implementation of the CP policy of dividing political power, so that every population group can govern itself in its own national area, not only indicates an irresponsible intercession by the NP and its leaders in respect of the unrealistic demands of radical Black leaders, but also indicates that the NP, in its new guise, has gone back a quarter of a century to the standpoint held by the UP approximately a quarter of a century ago.

The hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare sounded yesterday as though he was quoting verbatim what UP leaders of a quarter of a century ago had said.

A 1947 Sap.

It is ironical, Sir. Yet the NP claims to be taking part in realistic politics in the eighties.

It is not only tragic; it is a bitter irony that the NP attributes foolishness, a blood-bath and revolution to the CP, whereas in fact it is the NP that has brought this country closer to revolution during the past few years than it has ever been. [Interjections.] This was done under the pretext of bringing about peace and prosperity in our country. It is bitterly ironical for the hon the Minister to talk about the foolishness of CP policy when the Government has done one foolish thing after another during the past few years. I should like to refer to one of these things this afternoon, viz the release of Govan Mbeki. What did the Government think it was doing when it released Govan Mbeki without stipulating any conditions at all— behind the backs of our boys who are fighting on our borders? [Interjections.]

In the first place, in the words of the hon the Minister of Law and Order, Mbeki was supposed to be a sick old man. Ostensibly he was a diabetic who was going blind, and therefore would no longer be of much value to the ANC. This was the first ploy, since the hon member for Boksburg is so fond of talking about ploys.

Why are you so afraid of him? [Interjections.]

Sir, the Government made a mistake. After all, the whole of South Africa saw on television on 5 November last year that Mbeki is still very much alive, clear-thinking, aggressive and ready for the fray.

Is that why you are so afraid of him?

One is amazed that the Government, which had access to Mbeki, was unaware of this political fitness that Mbeki has proved he still has. In the second place the Government apparently thought that after his release, Mbeki would retire peacefully to New Brighton in Port Elizabeth, also the words of the hon the Minister of Law and Order. In addition, the Government, via the Bureau for Information, went and organised a retirement gift for Mbeki by arranging a Press conference for him in the office of the Bureau for Information—nicely planned so that he could talk to the world. This was probably to give him the opportunity to say thank you for the good treatment accorded him by the Government. Can you believe, Sir, that people who have all their faculties could be so foolish? Of course Mbeki did not go and retire peacefully. He did not behave like anyone who was particularly grateful to the Government. No, Sir, he said: “I still associate myself with that for which I went to prison, and that for which the ANC stands. I am still a member of the ANC. I am still a member of the Communist Party, and I associate myself with Marxism.”

Mbeki was taken straight to Jan Smuts in a rented aeroplane, where he received a hero’s welcome. Winnie Mandela accompanied Mbeki through the crowd—a rejoicing crowd with fists clenched in the Black power sign and calls of “Viva ANC!

Viva Mbeki! Viva Tambo! Viva the Communist Party!”

The wives of people who are still in prison were in the crowd, as well as a whole series of well-known radicals. The Government probably thought that these people would stay quietly at home to spend a peaceful evening at home. They were all there to celebrate their comrade’s victory over a foolish Government. [Interjections.]

Of course, Mbeki did not retire the next day either. No, Sir. He held a Press conference in Johannesburg. To my knowledge the Bureau for Information did not make the arrangements for that. The ANC probably arranged it themselves. This Press conference was held in Khotso House. To all practical purposes this Press conference was taken over and converted into a mass meeting which brought part of Johannesburg’s city centre of Johannesburg to a standstill. Mbeki made it clear that he did not intend to relinquish his role as leader of the ANC either inside or outside South Africa. He offered to act as a mediator between the fighting factions in Pietermaritzburg. He came to convey a message from Nelson Mandela, because this Government had also given him an opportunity to consult with his leader, Nelson Mandela, before leaving prison. Still, Sir, Mbeki did not retire. No, Sir. A reception was held for him by the SA Council of Churches that evening. The next morning he had talks with leaders of the UDF, followed by a triumphal march through the streets of Port Elizabeth’s Black residential areas.

When the Government thought this sickly old man was going to retire, thousands of pamphlets were printed for the many meetings he was to address. Port Elizabeth’s chief magistrate gave his permission, in a peaceful and conciliatory way, for the meetings to go ahead, in full agreement with the Government’s conduct, of course. And then, out of the blue, the Government came and said no, the sickly old man was adding too much fuel to the revolutionary fire, and they prohibited his meeting. [Interjections.]

And then you stopped being afraid of him!

In the third place the hon the State President and his hon Ministers told the electorate that they would not release terrorists and communists without their having renounced violence first. I have to deduce, therefore, that the Government thought Mbeki would renounce violence upon his release. Or has the Government relinquished this condition as well?

Is this going to join the many broken promises along the way? The fact is that Mbeki declared challengingly that he had not renounced violence, that he had been released without any conditions having been made, that he was still a communist and member of the ANC, that he intended to meet Oliver Tambo and that the Black youth should continue the struggle in the country. This took place, Sir, under the nose of the hon the Minister of Law and Order!

This sickly old man then called the Black youths to the struggle. The Government looked around in amazement and wondered what had gone wrong. [Interjections.] Or was it the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs who had sold the Cabinet the theory that Mbeki would renounce violence, because he would surely harm his image among his Western friends if he did not. Surely he would do it for that reason. [Interjections.] Sir, there is reason to suspect that the hon members of the Cabinet could have argued in that way. The fact is that despite his refusal to renounce violence, the Western governments welcomed him back with open arms.

Subsequently the Government must have believed the theory that has been doing the rounds among them for some time, viz that the ANC did not want Mbeki released because he was more useful to them as a martyr inside the walls of a prison. With all due respect, Sir, the ANC regard Mbeki’s release as a victory in their campaign to have so-called political prisoners released. [Interjections.] There was great rejoicing in Lusaka. [Interjections.] In their Press release, the ANC said they knew Mbeki had been released unbeaten and that he was ready to fight for his people against apartheid. The ANC said they knew then that the South African Government had given up the fight. They believed Mbeki’s release would ultimately lead to the release of Nelson Mandela and other so-called political prisoners.

As if the Mbeki fiasco was not bad enough, we had to watch the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs falling over his own feet to give in to foreign pressure the other day. He actually announced that most of the prisoners the West wanted released had in fact been released. [Interjections.] The conduct of this Government encourages the ANC. It inspires the ANC. At the same time we, the Whites of this country, are becoming the victims of a paralysed, foolish Government.

The Government has been guilty of a sixth extremely dangerous misconception in respect of Mbeki’s release, however. I refer to Beeld, which quoted the hon the Minister of Law and Order as follows:

This hon Minister was bewailing that fact. The Star said the Government had not received its pound of flesh, however. According to the hon the Minister of Law and Order, the Government had only pain to contend with. Certain Black leaders who had exerted pressure on the Government to release Mbeki have still not come forward to negotiate. That was what the hon the Minister of Law and Order said, Sir. [Interjections.]

That is not all, however, Sir. Beeld reports that the hon the Minister of Law and Order said the following in Delareyville with reference to the Mbeki affair:

To trust a communist, Sir? [Interjections.] Must we be prepared to trust a hardened communist? [Interjections.] That is what the hon the Minister of Law and Order said, under by-election conditions! [Interjections.] He did not stop there, however. At a meeting in Volksrust he became involved in an argument with someone who had put a question. According to reports the hon the Minister of Law and Order eventually asked this man: “What did Mbeki do to you?” [Interjections.] Imagine that, Sir! [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Law and Order questioned this man’s integrity. We shall come back to this later, however. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Law and Order was asking us to trust a communist. He wanted a fellow Afrikaner to tell him what Mbeki had done to him.

Who is Mbeki? He is an unwavering communist. He is one of the few to have applied to Mandela’s M-plan in the Eastern Cape. He played a key role in the process of getting the ANC ready for battle. He was the secretary of the ANC’s military wing. He is such a convinced Marxist that when the hon the State President offered in February 1985 to release him if he renounced violence, he refused. Afterwards the Government went and released him without stipulating any conditions, however. That same Mbeki, Sir!

The NP’s obsession with negotiation, even with radicals and with the purpose of releasing radicals so that the process of negotiation can get going, a process which is taking so long to get off the ground, is running away with the Government to such an extent that it is leading this country to the brink of revolution.

It is a foolish course. In this connection I want to refer to what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said at Tukkies. He said that he could understand that the ANC had advocated violence during the sixties, because ostensibly there were no opportunities for political expression then. What are the facts? I quote from Rivonia: Operation Majibuje, what judge of appeal Mr Justice H H W de Villiers said about this point on which the hon the Minister said he has sympathy with the ANC, who advocated violence during the sixties:

That was what the learned judge of appeal said.

The hon the Minister of Law and Order is asking us, against that background, to trust the Government, to trust Mbeki, even though he was part and parcel of this process. Incredible!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Potgietersrus devoted most of his time to the release of Mbeki. I at least want to bring one matter to his attention. He levelled certain accusations at the hon the Minister of Law and Order, and even after the hon Minister had explained that he had been misquoted, he persisted with those accusations. We have a rule in this House that one takes a member’s word in such a case.

The hon member maintained that the ANC was given new hope by the release of Mr Mbeki and also that this Government is ostensibly weakkneed. Surely this is not true. What has given the ANC new hope is the division which they have caused in the political arena in this country, something which can be imputed to his party.

Furthermore, the hon member maintains that the onslaught is, at present, at its heaviest because of the NP. Is the hon member so naive as to maintain that the onslaught would not exist regardless of which party was in power in this country?

Every year the Official Opposition enjoys the privilege of moving a motion of no confidence, but such a privilege also has its responsibilities. The Official Opposition must expound its own policy as an alternative government and debate why its own policy should enjoy more support than that of the Government.

Last year we experienced the frenzy of a general election; one can expects that parties would have had certain interpretations—a degree of showing off—after the general election. This year one really expected the Official Opposition to find themselves in a position in which they would state their own policy, and therefore they cannot be excused for their absolute failure to do so and for merely repeating election slogans instead. We have been taken on an absolutely idealistic flight of fancy.

The Government received a mandate from the voters and this debate should test the Government in its implementation of that mandate or even in its interpretation of it.

The Official Opposition either cannot or will not do that because another question has arisen this year, namely who or what is the real Official Opposition. The hon leader of the Official Opposition is capable of telling us what he is not. He did so even when he was still in our ranks, but he has never shown the ability to tell us what his party really stands for. It is significant that in his first motion of no confidence last year he claimed, first of all, that his party was not radical. He put it as follows: “We reject the label of radicalism.”

Naturally, no one wants to be thought of as radical and therefore the hon leader of the Official Opposition repeated it this year. However, one cannot settle a matter with statements alone. If one’s fellow-travellers are radical one cannot avoid that label. One must either repudiate those elements or one must take the consequences of one’s association with them. The extremist AWB described 1986 as the year of the breakthrough, the year of the breakthrough for its policy of the restoration of the Boer Republics. That is a breakthrough which they would have achieved without taking part in the general election. I quote from Die Stem of November/December 1986, the year of the breakthrough. In the editorial the following is said:

It is now almost a year since the election, and that party that was to have been formed before the election, provided an agreement could be reached, has still not been formed. The reasons for this is that the CP has now accepted the policy of the AWB, a policy which even Mr Jaap Marais described last year in Port Elizabeth as shallow and irrelevant.

The AWB did not form its political party as it threatened to do because its philosophy is being realised within the caucus of the Official Opposition. It is therefore no wonder that the hon leader of the Official Opposition says that he is satisfied, if the CP comes into power, that the AWB will be satisfied with once again being only a cultural organisation. If one considers the attitude of the AWB, either the AWB has abandoned its threat to form a party of its own or the hon leader of the Opposition is satisfied that the CP will accommodate the AWB politically. The attitude is not only directed at gaining votes.

The question which then inevitably arises is whether or not the CP is willing to accommodate the AWB also as regards its policy of antidemocracy, anti-freedom of speech, anti-freedom of the press and a centralised authority, as well as the policy of confiscation and nationalisation. When we hear about the nationalisation of private companies, I say it is not very far from a policy of confiscation. If the CP is again confronted on this policy and they have to deal with the same challenges as they had before the general election, they will once again, to use the words of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, get the “shakes”, and once again shift towards the line of thought of the AWB.

I know that the matters which I have mentioned are not stated in the CP’s programme of principles, but if a party like the CP advocates exclusive political power for the Whites, is that not a very large leap towards anti-democracy, with intolerance which will lead to national disruption.

I want to predict that the hon leader of the Official Opposition will never be free of the coercion of the AWB, as I have quoted in the past, unless his party and his political ideology is completely accommodated. In order to discuss the concept of “exclusive political power for the White man in his own area” in a meaningful way, we need to know where that area will be. The hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare spoke of the CP’s unrealistic claims that they would relocate people. In development region F, sub region 26, which falls in my electoral division, the Whites—if one does not include the national states—constitute only 7,3% of the population.

The hon member for Lichtenburg had the opportunity to improve this position in 1977. Instead, what did he do? He said he did not see his way clear to making the Nzikaze area White, so he moved the border and incorporated it into KaNgwane instead. The hon member is now juggling statistics to show that the policy succeeded. However, he does not take the moving of the border, which changed the ratio so radically, into account. Even after the border adjustments the White occupation figure is still 7,3% in region 26. Even if one wants to move people one needs co-operation and the basis of co-operation is consensus between parties. If one knows one needs co-operation and consensus, there can be no question of exclusive political power such as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition announced to voters.

Furthermore, the CP admits that we are economically interdependent. If one admits that, one admits that there must be a balance between groups; that the groups should co-operate. There is therefore no question of exclusive decision making by one group alone. It will do the hon Leader of the Official Opposition no good to be vague about his policies. We will pursue the hon Leader and the voters will begin putting those questions to him. He will not profit by avoiding the dark side—since there is a definite dark side to the CP’s policy, and many of the speakers on this side of the House have pointed it out in economic and other terms. There is no point in the hon Leader of the Official Opposition concentrating only on those voters, who in his opinion, are “yes” men. He will find that that section of the voters will diminish in size and that more and more voters will accept the voice of reason and the policy of the NP.

Mr Speaker, the member for Nelspruit devoted his time to an attack on the CP. I do not want to get involved in that because I want to deal with matters concerning the NP.

I note that by a remarkable set of circumstances and coincidences we have five anniversaries to take note of in South Africa during this year.

The first commemoration was the arrival 500 years ago of Bartholomew Diaz in these parts. This was a highly significant event and would have been a festival of great joy if it had not been bungled, in their typically arrogant way, by the NP Government. Who in their right mind could possibly have thought that any self-respecting Coloured person with even a minimal amount of self-dignity would have been prepared to celebrate this event on a formerly segregated beach in the knowledge that the week after the festivities it would revert to White occupation only again? The mind boggles at the thought of who the half-wit is who imagined it would be possible to pull this trick off in 1988.

The second anniversary is that of the arrival of the Huguenots 300 years ago, and as this is also an event of great significance, we hope that some sensitive South African who is not a supporter of the NP has been charged with the responsibility of organising this memorable occasion.

The third cultural event of significance to be celebrated in 1988 is the 150th anniversary of the Great Trek. With the state of war existing between the NP and the CP at the present time, and the arrangements being made for separate events to commemorate this event, it would appear that this too is to be enveloped in controversy.

The remaining two anniversaries are not cultural events. They are anniversaries of a political nature and will only be celebrated by the NP. It is to these two events that I wish to devote my time. The first is the 40th anniversary of the NP coming to power in 1948… [Interjections.]… and the second is the 10th year since Mr P W Botha took control of the NP in South Africa. In 1948 the NP promised the voters of South Africa white bread and the dream of White domination and privilege. Forty years later the promises have lost their glitter and the dreams have turned into nightmares. [Interjections.] In the process millions of lives have been affected, marriages broken, relationships wrecked, generations of Black South Africans consigned to lives of misery and grinding poverty, the rule of law subverted, millions of young Blacks committed to a life of ignorance, their minds undeveloped because of the Nat policy of Bantu education; and a wealthy country has been driven almost to the brink of bankruptcy, resources squandered, opportunities wasted and the lives of many of our young people put at risk. This is the legacy of the NP.

Now I have no doubt that they will want to celebrate their 40 years of rule and the imperial 10 years of Mr P W Botha. That is their right and they are quite at liberty to do so. In the process I hope they will reflect on how great this country could have been without the NP and the sorry pass to which they have brought us at the present time. We have a state of emergency, a crime rate almost out of hand, anarchy and murder in the Pietermaritzburg area about which they do not appear to be concerned, and a political tricameral system which has moved us away from the base of democracy by taking the decision-making process away from Parliament.

South Africa is a country rich in resources, both human and mineral. Our population is rich in diversity. It is made up of many cultures and backgrounds, but instead of building on these many pillars of potential strength, the NP has chosen those very differences to divide us and to drive us apart. In so doing, suspicions have been aroused, animosities have been kindled and we are left with a heritage of possible conflict a conflict which could well cause wounds and scars to this nation which will take generations to eradicate.

The main NP achievement, as I see it, has been to cling tenaciously to power. What else have they done in their 40 years in office? Having spent years pushing through legislation in this Parliament to drive people apart, they now attempt to rectify some of the monumental injustices they have perpetrated against the majority of the people of this country by embarking on a feeble programme of the reform of apartheid.

Three or four years of reform of apartheid has now come to a grinding halt as we reach the bottom line of White control over White own residential areas, White own schools and White own political structures. As long as those are the non-negotiables of the NP we will continue to be isolated from the rest of the world.

You are a Boerehater.

No, I am an NP hater. I am totally opposed to the NP. [Interjections.]

†I was extremely fortunate to travel to the United Kingdom and the United States last year and I was amazed at the degree to which we are cut off from what is going on out there. I have no doubt that the majority of White South Africans are unaware of the way in which we have become isolated in an ever shrinking world. As nations of the world grow together, we drift further away from the mainstream of political, social and cultural thought and developments.

One can look at any aspect of our way of life and there is some restriction on that activity. Sporting links have been broken. Diplomatic contacts are at a low ebb. Cultural ties are tenuous and boycotts are effective in cutting us off from developments in our countries of origin. Government sponsored trade missions both in and out of South Africa are almost a thing of the past. Financial links with outside markets are conducted in a clandestine manner. If it were not for the laudable efforts of many enterprising individual South Africans in the business, sporting, professional and cultural fields we would be completely insulated from the rest of the world.

I was in the United States at the time of the Wall Street crash in October. Attention during news broadcasts was focused on falling stock exchange prices throughout the world. The situation in London, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Sydney and Manilla was reported on in depth and at frequent intervals. The fact that the biggest fall of all was taking place in the gold capital of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange was ignored completely as no one wishes to be associated in any way with any structure in this country remotely connected with the establishment. This was also my experience in dealing with many individuals across a wide spectrum of opinion in the United States and in England.

Order! Will hon members kindly moderate their voices?

Why is there this antipathy towards us? Why is this the case? It is not because we are South African or because we are White, it is simply because we have refused to abandon the indefensible policy of White domination and privilege. It is because we have consigned the majority of the people of this country to a second class existence.

What is needed is a commitment to a non-racial democracy where Government and society respect the fundamental human rights and the dignity of the individual citizen. The Government asked for and was given a mandate for reform at the last election. We need a bold vision of a peaceful, free and prosperous South Africa, with Government based on consent and with a nation rich in cultural diversity, yet united in spirit through a constitution that guarantees equal rights and freedoms and real protection from domination for all our people.

If this were to come about the entire South African nation would celebrate the festivals that I mentioned at the beginning of my address, with enthusiasm as the Americans did at their bicentennial some years ago or when they celebrated their constitution last year. We South Africans could celebrate, enjoy and be proud of patriotic national events as the British were at the time of their two recent royal weddings.

It is not too late for a peaceful and lasting solution to our problems to be found. It requires vision and boldness on the part of the Government. Regrettably 40 years have shown them to be men with feet of clay when it comes to taking decisions which affect interests other than their own.

I do not believe that they have the desire or the inclination to move as boldly as is required and I therefore support the amendment moved by my leader, the hon member for Sea Point.

Mr Speaker, when that hon member interrupted himself and spoke so emotionally about “murg en been”, I found myself thinking that it was more a case of marrow than bone. [Interjections.] The election is no doubt still fresh enough in that hon member’s mind for him to test his statements about what a total mess the NP has made of South Africa, against the results of the election, because I am sure that he and every other hon member of his party made that same speech throughout the election campaign precisely in order to tell the voters to reject the NP, which was governing so poorly…

You are a minority.

… and to accept this dream of a “non-racial society”.

He must either have come to the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of voters in this country are nerds …

White voters.

… yes, or he must accept that the case he is putting forward has been overwhelmingly rejected by the White voters of South Africa. [Interjections.] That is the …

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister to please explain to me what he means by a “nerd”? [Interjections.]

It might be difficult to explain it to that particular hon member! [Interjections.]

The hon member has been rejected by the White electorate.

No, I have not been rejected.

He has not been rejected, but his party has been rejected to the extent that they are no longer the Official Opposition in this House. They are defeated. They are defeated as they sit there, and they have the gall to come and say that we have made a mess of South Africa.

*In the minute or two remaining, I should like to put a single question to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. We have listened to the speech made by the hon member for Potgietersrus, and I have also studied the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition himself very closely. We are also aware of certain propaganda sheets that are being distributed in the by-elections. Does the CP maintain that State President P W Botha and the NP have become soft on communism and the ANC?

Yes.

I shall reply to you on Friday.

Write, Andries, write!

It is a very simple question, Sir. That is the inescapable conclusion one must come to after listening to the hon member for Potgietersrus, if one reads between the lines—as one must always do—when one is perusing the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, and when one looks at their propaganda sheets in those by-elections.

I want to put a second question to him. I hope he will reply to it. In regard to the Mbeki issue, which he must surely appreciate is a sensitive matter, did he, as Leader of the Official Opposition, make any attempt to hold private discussions with the hon the State President before he himself and his party attempted to make a public spectacle of it?

Why did you not make that offer?

I am not interested in a private discussion with him.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in this House says he is simply not interested in consultation in, private discussions…

[Inaudible.]

…—what is the difference?—with the hon the State President on sensitive issues. His style, therefore, is to indiscriminately form his own opinion about any matter, and not to make enquiries when something sounds strange to him, even if it concerns something which could affect the national interest. He is not interested…

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

I am not interested in questions.

He is not interested in holding discussions with the leader of this country, on whose shoulders rests a tremendous responsibility with regard to the safety of this country, or in obtaining facts before he makes petty politics of matters which ought to be elevated above the realm of politics. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, actually the motion should have read that the House has no confidence in the Cabinet and the junior partners of the Cabinet, viz the Ministers’ Council. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member for Fish River mention a jackal?

No, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to hon members to conduct the debate in the right spirit, otherwise I shall have no choice but to request hon members who do not adhere to my request to leave the Chamber.

As far as I am concerned today is an epoch-making day. For the first time a fully registered party is introducing a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council in this House. In addition this is the first fully non-racial party to do so in the new dispensation. [Interjections.] If hon members regard that as a joke, they must come and prove to me that they are non-racial. A big fuss is sometimes made of the concept of non-racialism, but in the present rickety dispensation the United Democratic Party is the first non-racial party in the tricameral system. [Interjections.]

You are an “Uncle Tom”.

It is the “Uncle Toms” that I am going to talk to today. I do not know why that hon member wants to anticipate my speech.

I suppose you are the expert.

Yes, I am a great expert even if I did not study in California to get my degree.

Order! Hon members must please not make personal remarks. Once hon members get a turn to speak, they can refute everything the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has said. That is the correct way in which to debate. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

One can understand that hon members who are the “Uncle Toms” of this system will become very sensitive about these matters. [Interjections.] Sir, I am not going to take any further notice of hon members, because I want to continue my speech.

Federal …

Yes, federal, but most of the Federal Party members are in the Labour Party today. We all know that, but I want to emphasise once again that until now Government policy has been based on discrimination.

You are part of that.

We know that is a fact, even if they say it is differentiation. No matter on what basis they want to call it differentiation, it is a misplaced concept in the South African system. The so-called differentiation among people cries to high heaven. Hon members on the opposite side do not address this problem. The Government, particularly through the hon the State President, must say whether or not the unmentioned aspects of its policy are true. The Government must not say this to us in vague ambiguous terms, but must be very specific. [Interjections.]

It is an irrefutable fact that apartheid is heresy. I do not want to act like Paul Kruger’s little monkey in the House this afternoon. Where, according to Government policy, of which the Ministers’ Council is a part …

You are also part of it.

I am not part of the executive authority. [Interjections.] The Ministers’ Council is the executive authority by order of the hon the State President. That is what it is all about.

But you are PW’s “blue-eyed boy”.

If that hon member wants to make me the hon the State President’s “blue-eyed boy”, he will get full marks for doing so. He will not manage it, however. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Addo can request a turn to speak.

In the first place full citizenship within the state is being refused on the basis of race or nationality. [Interjections.] I shall re-emphasize that, because the hon member has so little between his ears that I do not know whether he always realises it.

One cannot miss your ears.

Secondly, even membership of the church is subject to this concept. I do not even want to mention Holy Communion.

Then you are one too.

I do not go, because I do not believe in heresy. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Bonteheuwel must please keep quiet.

Thirdly, free and unimpeded participation in a free economic system is prohibited if one is not of the right colour and there is no free participation in a single educational system because above all, race and nationality reign supreme.

We say that, but PW does not.

Sir, I do not mind who says that, the hon the State President or anyone else. The fact is that the Ministers’ Council is part of the hon the State President’s Government. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Addo must come to order. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

In the fifth place social matters such as marriages, involvement in political parties, cultural organisations, trade and trade unions, other social activities, as well as admission to public facilities, are still subject to race and nationality. What is more, Sir, they are subject to blatant domination.

In the sixth place one is not granted status with full dignity, rights and privileges, because—once again!—one’s racial and national identity is not in line with that of the Whites, who ostensibly wield the sceptre. [Interjections.] I just want to tell the hon member of the ostrich region that I have always written my own speeches; no one else writes my speeches for me.

†Mr Chairman, I stand before you…

As someone who went to a tea party. [Interjections.]

… at the climax of intense skirmishing between the hon the State President and the hon Chairman of the Minister’s Council, a junior partner of the Government. [Interjections.] He and the Labour Party can in no way be regarded as the largest opposition party within the tricameral system. They are a part of Government. [Interjections.] In fact, they are the Government, albeit for own affairs.

We of the UDP as well as the whole future of parliamentary activity—in fact, democracy itself—are being placed in jeopardy by a combination of posturing, paranoia, brinkmanship and subterfuge. [Interjections.]

That is ancient history!

Order! The hon member for Northern Cape must come to order. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

The only conclusion I can draw, Mr Chairman, is that the UDP and likeminded people…

The drunken party.

Order! The hon member for Fish River must please withdraw the words “drunken party”.

I withdraw them unconditionally, Sir.

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

The hon member must chase his wife around the house with a knife in the presence of the police again, then he will be able to display more sense. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition resume his seat for a moment. [Interjections.] Order! For the second time I should like to appeal to hon members on both sides not to make personal remarks. That is why I asked the hon member for Fish River to withdraw what he had said, and for the same reason I am asking the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to withdraw what he said. The hon the Leader may proceed.

I shall withdraw what I said, Sir, but I have to answer the hon gentleman on the other side who asked where my wife was. My wife is at her home.

Order! I appeal to hon members for the third time. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

I knew they would carry on in that way, Sir. [Interjections.] They cannot tackle politics; they have to tackle the man. [Interjections.] But I am ready for them!

Order! I

shall not permit personal remarks, and I am referring to hon members on both sides of the House!

I honour your ruling, Sir.

Thank you. The hon the Leader may proceed. [Interjections.] Order! The hon member for Addo must come to order!

I want to repeat what I said previously, Sir.

†The only conclusion I can draw is that the UDP and likeminded people not only have the opportunity but also have the duty, the obligation, to become a major force in South African politics. [Interjections.] I thank God that the UDP is able to act and is seen to act in accordance with its principles, and to act only in the interests of all people of South Africa. The UDP’s non-racial executive in Natal is proof of this and we are prepared to face reality in this regard. In South African terms, Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Indians are welcome to join us—as some have already done!

The UDP is not fettered by irrelevant and outmoded dogma or the need to appease anybody, be it the Government, or opposing forces for that matter. [Interjections.] We are free to pursue the rational dictates of our conscience without fear. We have already proved our good faith by rejecting the safe and the comfortable. We cannot be influenced by the need to hang on desperately in order to secure pensions and entitlements. [Interjections.] We are not the “Non-National” the “Non-Labour Party” or any “non-party” for that matter. This party has it its own existence and functions which are far too important to be described as “non” anything.

You were born of the Labour Party.

I was born of the Federal Party. I made the Labour Party what it is. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon member for Wuppertal wants a turn to speak, he must request one. I refer to the hon member for Northern Cape for the second time as well. I request hon members to assist me and to maintain order. The hon the Leader may proceed.

Sir, we are the UDP and we are dedicated to the same ideals on which the prosperous, liberal democracies are built. [Interjections.] I have been asked the question so let me now postulate the principles on which the UDP was founded. [Interjections.] These are: Firstly, the recognition of the inherent dignity of man and the equal and viable rights of all persons to justice and peace; secondly, one nation, one South Africa with universal suffrage in a multi-party dispensation; thirdly, the institutionalisation of basic human rights and the Rule of Law; fourthly, the achievement of a peaceful transition to a free and open society through democratic processes; and fifthly equal opportunity in the work place and the provision of housing.

Yes, master.

Speaking of “yes master”, Sir, there has been so much talk this year of “yes, master”, “no, master”, “excuse me, master”, that I do not have to reply to that statement.

Order! Did the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare use the word “sies”?

Sir, I said “sies tog”.

Sir, I do not reply to questions put by irrelevant people.

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition need only refuse and say he is not replying to any questions. He need not qualify his refusal.

He has no mandate.

Sir, I want to continue. In the sixth place we propagate an economic order which will satisfy the just aspirations of all South Africans. In the seventh place, we are committed to the repeal of all discriminatory legislation. [Interjections.]

That is Labour Party policy.

Hon members wanted me to expound our constitution, but now they do not want to accept the principles I have enunciated. If that hon member can quote what I said from the Labour Party’s constitution then I shall agree with him. Sir, I continue. We also propagate the right to freedom of association, speech and religion, the upliftment of the general state of welfare and living, and the acceptance of the Freedom Charter. [Interjections.] We are the first party in the tricameral system to accept the Freedom Charter, because it is the people’s charter.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition?

I am not replying to any questions, and that applies to everyone, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

†I want to reiterate that we believe in the government of the people …

You stand for violence!

… by the people, for the people and in terms of a fair and just constitution, with a bill of rights drawn up by the representatives of all South Africans, irrespective of their race, colour, creed or sex. So much, then, for the UDP.

*I now want to come back to the reactionary Ministers’ Council. It is our experience that no one wants to be seen with them in public. [Interjections.]

Sir, the fact that there is police protection at funerals, public meetings and elections confirms this. Casspirs were called in in Pietersburg so that they could enjoy the fresh air with the electorate. [Interjections.] That hon member was part of that. He will remember how they plagued the first executive of the old Coloured Representative Council about this police protection. They said they could go anywhere without police protection. [Interjections.] And now, Sir?

Do you have police protection?

Now there are police in front, the Minister in the middle, and police at the rear—to go and meet the electorate. [Interjections.] I have never had a single policeman to protect me because I was participating in this system. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether he accepts that police protection was implemented in terms of the Act, and that therefore it is normal practice for police protection to be given to Ministers—whether they are White, Coloured or Indian—in their official capacity.

I have no problem with that, Mr Chairman. I do want to point out, however, how these hon members carried on when other people received police protection. To my mind that is what is at issue. [Interjections.]

What I find interesting, however, is that the members of the Coloured Representative Council’s executive merely advised the Government, whereas these hon Ministers are part of the Government; they are not simply junior partners. Perhaps they are ineffectual partners. [Interjections.]

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council came to ask me whether I was interested in a promotional position, and I refused it. [Interjections.] I do not want to be an own affairs Minister. [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.]

Far too much reference is made these days to the Labour Party as the majority opposition party in Parliament.

But that is the case!

On what basis? The Ministers’ Council is part of the Government, after all. They are junior partners, and they themselves govern. Even if it is own affairs, they govern in the most oppressive and disparaging way. They treat us worse than the NP ever did. [Interjections.] In addition, the way in which they govern is moulded according to the Broederbond and the Communist Party’s Politburo.

If one does not follow their course, Sir, only one rule applies: Persecute, prosecute and destroy. Sir, the assumed radicalism we are suddenly seeing is merely a disguise for cruel oppression of their fellow man. You toe the line, or else. [Interjections.] It is true what they say: When the mouse has had enough, the meal is bitter. The Ministers’ Council is proof of this: The mouse has had enough and now the meal is bitter. There is plenty of other evidence that the Ministers’ Council is forcing the community it is supposed to be serving into the crush-pen of tyranny.

The question, however, is: Is the Ministers’ Council not an instrument of tyranny itself? It is clear as glass. With the assistance of Government machinery, the Ministers’ Council is bringing about a new era of slavery. I do not think such a violation of power should be tolerated under any circumstances. Whether it is inside or outside Parliament, this evil of oppression and slavery must be eradicated.

I come back to this once again, and it may sound like a refrain, but I say away with radicalism. These people are nothing but their masters’ foremen. The radicalism that conjures up so many forebodings is an attempt to soften the community systematically so that they will not oppose further oppression.

The boomerang is striking already, because the silence of the electorate proves that they are not accepting this—come what may!

You sit in the kitchen drinking tea!

The hon member for Diamant is welcome to say that I sit in the kitchen drinking tea. Who sat in the palace of Pharaoh for more than two and a half years, and did not merely sit there drinking tea?

Why does the hon the State President not want to make you a Minister then?

I did not ask the hon the State President to make me a Minister, but the hon member is too stupid to accept that. [Interjections.]

Since education is so important in our history, and because it has degenerated into such a phenomenal crisis …

Order! Did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition say the hon member for Addo was stupid?

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please not confuse me any further. Hon members are expected to tell the truth. Everything is recorded in Hansard.

Mr Chairman, since education is so important in our history, and since it has degenerated into such a phenomenal crisis as a result of the way in which it has been dealt with and maladministered by the Ministers’ Council, I now want to take a careful look at this hot potato. The reason for this is simple: Our community will stand or fall by education, despite oppressive measures!

It is an irrefutable fact that the Ministers’ Council has politicised education excessively. This reactionary conduct has resulted in a seething instability—not only in education, but also in the community.

This in itself has led to a reckless rejection of the system as a whole. In brief, the Ministers’ Council is making enemies for itself and for the whole system.

What is worrying about the whole situation is that polarisation has been overtaken. The feeling towards the system has hardened tenfold. This radicalisation, or calcification, is causing hardening frustration in the community that the Ministers’ Council is supposed to be serving.

It goes without saying, therefore, that their sudden bravado of radicalism is absolutely false. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council’s constant repetition that the LP is the majority opposition passes all understanding. [Interjections.] They are part of the system that is acting oppressively. They are governing and there are clear signs that they are co-operating with the security police and giving them information. It is no wonder, because a former member of the security police—I add a question mark to this—is their organiser in the Transvaal. He speaked into the University of the Western Cape in earlier days. [Interjections.] At present he is a reporter with the SABC’s radio service. [Interjections.] I have written to the Director-General. The Labour Party …

Talk about your party for a change.

I have spoken about my party already, and the hon member could not understand what I was saying, because it was beyond him. [Interjections.]

The LP supports the state of emergency and abuses it in education. Not a word is said about detention without trial, particularly that of children. [Interjections.] Involuntarily the question arises as to whether they condone or approve of this attack on human rights.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is misleading the House, because as a member of this party, I serve on the Standing Committee on Justice and I objected to detention without trial.

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will take cognisance of the hon member’s statement.

Mr Chairman, I take cognisance of it, but I shall continue my speech. [Interjections.] If that is not true, I want to know whether they have visited all the people that are being detained or have visited their families in order to salvage matters. I want to know that.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: I went and fetched two children from the Victor Verster. How many children has he fetched?

Order! That is a question; it is not a point of order. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

Mr Chairman, let us dwell for a moment on the outrages that have been perpetrated by the Ministers’ Council. Members of the LP must tell whether or not this is nonsense. I merely hope and trust that they will be permitted at the end of the debate to vote freely according to their conscience. [Interjections.] Or are they going to be afraid of being regarded as Carterites? [Interjections.] I have told the hon member that if he knows what a vulture is, he has never … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must not compare one another with animals. Will the hon member Mr Lockey please withdraw that if he said it, and will the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also withdraw what he said?

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, I did not say the hon member was a vulture.

In the first place the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is expressing no confidence in his own members. Among them are the hon members for Natal Mid-East, the hon member for Berg River, the hon member for Mid Karoo, the hon member for Wentworth and the hon member Mr Douw. Not one of them was appointed as Minister of Education and Culture. No, he had to assume that position himself. I shall explain why he did so. [Interjections.]

What makes it even worse, is that the hon member for Southern Cape did not resign for the sake of the unity of the Labour Party. He resigned for the sake of other members who would have been intimidated by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. [Interjections.] It is general knowledge that that is the case. If it is not, and he resigned for the sake of the Labour Party, what about the cause of the people? [Interjections.]

Now the hon member for Southern Cape is alone, stripped of everything, and politically he has become a “stinker”. What has happened to the gentlemen who discussed this urgent matter with the hon former Minister, viz the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, the hon member for Bishop Lavis, the hon member for Rawsonville, the hon member for Retreat, the hon member for Berg River, the hon member for Strandfontein, the hon member for Bonteheuwel, the hon member for Elsies River, the hon member for Belhar, the hon member for Matroosfontein and Mr Willie Ross of the President’s Council? The only thing those people tried to do was to formulate an opinion, within the province of a so-called democratic body, which they wanted to submit.

The campus chaos has not been alleviated, but instead has been fuelled by inter alia the conversion of bursaries into bursary loans and the withholding of bursaries. In addition—and this is probably the most scandalous thing to do—student councils that actively oppose the system are being dissolved and banned by the action of a repressive Minister. He says he will appoint them himself.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Northern Cape must contain himself.

Sir, he would not have been sitting here if I had not helped him during the election.

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must proceed and not try to help me to do my job.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council can now make appointments himself, and thus far he has not appointed a single student council at any school. He knows that that is undemocratic, impractical and contrary to the wishes of the people. By the grace of God, however, student councils are flourishing and increasing constantly.

Thus far my community has regarded nepotism as a word found only in a dictionary. We saw the dictionary definition as meaning the favouring of friends and family.

Sir, the Ministers’ Council has concretised that meaning of nepotism in the eyes of the general public. All over promotional appointments are made if one is a member of the Labour Party or is friendly with a member of the Labour Party. There is constant proof of this. If a teacher were to oppose the Labour Party in an election and lose, a reappointment in a teaching post would be taboo. That is the truth. [Interjections.] They forced Mr De Bruyn of Zeerust …

On a point of order, Mr Chairman. The statement the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is making is untrue. The man who opposed me is a headmaster today.

Sir, if hon members will listen to me, I will give them the facts. They do not want to listen, however. I have just explained that Mr De Bruyn was told he could get his position back if he became a member of the Labour Party. [Interjections.] What is more, Sir, Mr Stanley Ernest was told during the most recent election in the Northern Transvaal that if he did not join the Labour Party, he would not get an appointment. [Interjections.] What are they doing, Sir?

Order! Hon members must please give the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition an opportunity to continue his speech. They will have an opportunity to refute the statements made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition with facts. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

Sir, a White man was appointed to his position. Has affirmative action also gone to the dogs?

That is non-racial.

Yes, non-racial, but if the White teacher does not toe the line with the Ministers’ Council, he will be dismissed. [Interjections.] Sir, I want to repeat this: Be a Labourite and your future, whatever it may be, will be assured. If this happened when Mr Ebrahim was still Minister of Education and Culture, it will happen to a much greater extent now. Sir, Idi Amin himself has taken over the education portfolio. [Interjections.]

Order!

I withdraw that, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Addo must please resume his seat. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has already withdrawn that statement. [Interjections.]

The hon member is welcome to leave. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare please resume his seat? It is wrong of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to compare the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives with Idi Amin.

I withdrew that statement. The things they say about me are not objectionable. Only I say all the objectionable things. [Interjections.]

Order! I shall not permit that. If hon members on this side hear anything that assails the integrity of a person they must draw my attention to it and I shall make them withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Was the statement by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition not a reflection on the Chair? He said nothing said about him was objectionable, but what he said was wrong.

Order! It is a reflection on the Chair and I appreciate that. I am doing my best to maintain order.

I support you, Mr Chairman. I was merely responding to a remark made by …

Order! The hon the Leader can draw my attention to anything that is unparliamentary, and I shall react to it. [Interjections.] I appeal to the hon member for Ravensmead to keep quiet.

Mr Chairman, the debate is heated … [Interjections.]

Order! Does the hon member for Addo want to put a point of order?

Mr Chairman, has the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition apologised to the Chair for his statement?

Order! Yes, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did so. He may proceed.

Sir, I knew the debate would become heated; it was so hot yesterday that we had to adjourn. [Interjections.] I find it very strange in this situation that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is a member of the Regional Education Board in Port Elizabeth.

He was elected.

He was appointed by the former Minister of Education and Culture, the hon member for Southern Cape.

No!

Now he serves on a regional education board which is going to make a recommendation in respect of an appointment in a promotional position in education. He could not have his way in the regional board, but as a Minister he will be able to make his appointment now.

That is part of power.

That is part of the abuse of power.

Order! Will the hon member for Wuppertal come to order. One expects hon members to co-operate when one requests that order be maintained. Just for the sake of clarity I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether the regulations prohibit a Minister from serving on such a regional board.

That is not my problem, Sir. My problem

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is misleading the House. I served on the committee as an elected member before I was appointed to the Education and Culture portfolio by the hon the State President.

Thank you very much. That clears up the situation.

The hon the Leader must stop …

Order! I am appealing to the hon member for Addo for the second time to come to order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

Sir, I have no problem with what is determined by the regulations. To me this principle is the issue: How can a Minister who has executive authority serve on an advisory body which has to advise that same Minister? That is my dilemma, and that is the dilemma of education in general, Sir.

You do not even have a mandate to sit there in the opposition benches. Why do you not resign from your seat here? What dilemma …

Order! Would the hon member for Swartland please come to order. Thank you very much. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

All these appointments are being made merely to …

You should resign your seat.

… oblige the Ministers’ Council and they negate the future and the catalysing effect on our community.

That is an anglicism.

If the hon member knows what an anglicism is, he has spoken English before. [Interjections.] Permit me to illustrate this by means of an example. I should then like to know what the hon member for Retreat has to say. [Interjections.]

I shall say you are a …

Order! The hon member for Retreat is not to act in this way. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is provoking the hon member and he is reacting to this. I shall not permit it. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

Sir, I shall start with the latest chaotic incident. At Manenberg Senior Secondary School a brilliant …

But that is just gossip. [Interjections.]

You see, Sir, the hon member calls that gossip. Such is their reprehensible conduct, but I am not permitted to react because then I am told I am offending them.

Order! It is not unparliamentary to call something “gossip” because the reference is to an object—it does not affect a person.

I am with you, Sir.

Order! Then the hon Leader should accept that I am in the right.

Yes, Sir, but I am addressing the hon member and not you, Sir. Allow me to explain my meaning. If they call this gossip, they would do better to tell me it is untrue.

Order! Yes, that is correct.

It is the subject of the debate after all.

We have already called it gossip.

All right, then that hon Minister should tell me this is so, but permit me to tell the story.

A brilliant teacher was appointed to the principalship of the Manenberg Secondary School a day before it reopened. The man had no chance of settling in or mapping out a strategy for his school. The Ministers’ Council is perfectly aware that Manenberg schools are creating problems. A chaotic situation arose at the school involved which spread rapidly to other schools in the vicinity. That once brilliant man is a wreck today. Nevertheless the Ministers’ Council neglects to address problems caused by their dragging their feet over appointments. The closing date for applications is June; why should a man be appointed only the day before? If one confronts them with this in the corridors, they ask why we cannot do it if the Afrikaner can. That is the type of reply one receives. This may sound like a refrain but I shall repeat it: How can the Ministers’ Council be radical and act in opposition while using all the instruments of oppression to plough the community under? [Interjections.]

Sir, let us take another look at the nepotism applied by the Ministers’ Council. We are faced with the most horrendous situation: Belong to the Labour Party or be in sympathy with them and you will be all right. There is endless delay in making appointments at schools. Professional people in the department are ignored totally while the hon the Minister concerned and his two clerks have to deal with the entire education portfolio. Why is there such procrastination?

Hon members could well ask the hon the Minister to produce the letter.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, there is so much delay because each applicant has to be screened for security reasons.

Only the Black people.

Sir, it applies to all teachers.

†If that does not happen, there is once again prosecution, persecution and ultimately complete destruction.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Northern Cape said the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition “moet sy bek warm praat”.

Order! Did the hon member for Northern Cape say that?

Sir, I did not say that. I am sitting here at the back.

Order! I did not hear it but I ask again whether the hon member said that. I shall request a Hansard transcription and, if the hon member did say so, I shall have no choice but to take steps against him.

Sir, I wish to refer again to the nepotism of the recent non-appointments and late appointments. I have already referred to the teacher, a Mr Morrison, who was appointed a day before schools were to reopen. White teachers are dismissed and according to my information it is because they do not pay lip service to the Labour Party. Whites are also appointed to replace Coloured people merely because they do not genuflect to the Ministers’ Council. Mr Ernest is a telling example of this.

After a personal call by the hon the Leader of the Ministers’ Council to induce Mr Nick Wagenstroom to join the LP—which he did not do—he was not appointed to a post for which he had been recommended by the school committee, the regional council and the selection committee of the department. Does that represent opposition or the oppressive execution of government functions?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is repeating blatant lies; they are devoid of all truth. His statements are not founded on facts and I shall correct them later in the debate.

Order! Is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition sure of the facts he is mentioning?

Sir, I am putting them to the House and asking them for their reaction because … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council acted correctly so it is my duty to request the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and every other hon member to make sure of their facts, because a member is expected to speak only the truth in spite of the immunity we have here. That is why I requested the Hansard version. I have to act in accordance with the Standing Orders. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in this House is continually referring to nepotism.

Order! I cannot permit the hon member to address me on just any matter when he puts a point of order.

I am putting a point of order, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! All right, then put it.

The definition in the dictionary reads as follows:

Order! That is not a point of order.

But that is misleading. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon member says it is misleading, he has the right to say so.

Sir, I merely wish to put the record straight.

Sir, as I understand it, the dictionary defines nepotism as the favouring of relatives and friends. We can fetch one right now.

Order! No, leave the dictionary. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed; just let him make sure of the facts. He has freedom of speech but I remind him that I appealed to all hon members to make certain of their facts in the knowledge that everything they said here could be verified.

I can submit a document to you, Sir—not to them because they will not understand it— containing the facts I have presented here in the House. I am not sucking them out of my thumb.

Then where are you sucking them from?

I have given it to the Chairman of the House; that hon member has nothing further to do with it. If he feels so strongly about relatives not being favoured in politics, what is he doing in this House? [Interjections.] What is his brother-in-law doing in this House? [Interjections.] No, I am not afraid of being tackled by that hon member. [Interjections.]

Order! Please let us leave personal remarks out of this. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is well known for his reprehensible conduct. I merely want to point out to him …

Order!

I withdraw that, Sir. I merely want to point out to him that I was not the hon member for Addo’s brother-in-law when I came to this House. I was married of my own free will. In addition I am still with my wife; he is no longer with his. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Mr Lockey had better withdraw that statement. [Interjections.]

Sir, I refuse to withdraw it because the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is no longer living with his wife.

Order! In that case I order the hon member Mr Lockey, having disregarded the authority of the Chair, to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

[Whereupon the member withdrew.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

That is all they can use against me, Sir.

As regards Nick Wagenstroom, I realise the most disturbing aspect was that security police subjected various members of the school committee to a searching interrogation merely because they had recommended Mr Nick Wagenstroom. My question to the Ministers’ Council is: Who instructed this to be done? [Interjections.] I wrote to him and I am not ashamed of this.

Let the security police interrogate people before they can get houses.

I did not use the word “interrogate”.

Yes!

Order! The hon member for Addo will also be given the opportunity of putting his case. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

Ignore them! They are irrelevant!

One of the members of my party has just instructed me to ignore these hon members entirely so I shall do this.

Mr Chairman, Mr H M Daniels of Bredasdorp was denied promotion. [Interjections.] Nobody uses me except my constituents!

Except PW.

When did the hon member last visit his constituency?

Mr Chairman, Mr Daniels merely exercised his democratic right by criticising a certain letter. In this letter pensioners were threatened with the possible withdrawal of their pensions if they did not attend a meeting of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. [Interjections.]

Mr M Soeker was also recommended by the school committee, the regional council and the professional selection committee of the department but he was not appointed either, because this time it was the hon member for Bonteheuwel who had whispered to the Minister that Mr Soeker sold Grassroots at the Bonteheuwel school. Sir, what has democracy become?

The school committee, the regional council and the professional selection committee recommended him, so what constitutes merit? Are we merely to have a group of puppets in our schools who will lower our educational standard to such an extent that we shall all ultimately be on the losing side?

One cannot appoint a newspaper vendor to the principalship of a school!

Oh, but it does not matter if Steadfast is distributed at schools! [Interjections.] It does not matter that dozens of copies of Steadfast are distributed at schools! [Interjections.] Now the hon member is talking about a newspaper vendor!

Mr Chairman, Mr A J Februarie was similarly not appointed as the deputy headmaster at Bergzicht Primary School. Can hon members imagine what detrimental effects such a politicised action can have on education? Elected, not nominated, student councils want absolutely nothing to do with the department. If one speaks to a high school student, especially in the Peninsula, one dare not admit to being a member of Parliament because one would be in hot water in consequence of the action of one of these junior partners of the hon the State President.

Mr Chairman, why do you think the former Director of Education resigned his post before reaching retirement age? He could no longer tolerate the exasperation caused by political interference. [Interjections.]

Teachers who do serve on such committees by invitation are purely used as window-dressing. The community regards them as traitors without a mandate, speaking only on behalf of themselves without the consent of the corps of teachers and parents. Over and above the fact that friends receive appointments in education, this penetrates even to school committees. There are no quorums when school committees have to be elected and then only members of the LP are appointed to such committees. Regional councils are overloaded with these cultus figures who stand so remote from their own community.

The most disgraceful action of the Ministers’ Council is probably the withdrawal of stop-order facilities for membership of teachers’ associations. Thanks to a little perspicacity that withdrawal was cancelled. What a mess we land ourselves in.

An ever greater thorn in one’s flesh must be the Kairos case in Oudtshoorn. [Interjections.] Quite democratically, spontaneously and prompted by conviction and love of their fellows, people gathered to provide retarded children with education. But what happened? They were well organised and applied for a subsidy which was refused unless they substituted a different name for Kairos. Such is the Ministers’ Council. Representations were then made to the Minister-—perhaps I should not hold this against the former Minister, now dismissed, but he was part of the scheme of things—and he gave a firm undertaking that the subsidy would be paid regardless of the name.

When the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council heard this, he said: “Over my dead body. The name Kairos is to be changed or there will be no subsidy.” They must tell me whether that subsidy has been paid to Kairos to date.

You can find out.

I know very well it has not, which is why I am giving the hon member the facts. [Interjections.] Does this not represent a classic example of the violation of democracy? I not only find it strange but also quite peculiar …

Amusing.

When I use the word “amusing”, the hon the Minister calls it an anglicism. That is why I say it is peculiar that, when the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council wanted to call streets after Mandela and Sisulu and the Government would not permit it, he became as depressed as Genis and lodged protest after protest. Why act out of prejudice or opposition towards Kairos now? All this tells me …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is misleading this House as regards Kairos.

Has the subsidy been paid?

Order! The hon member for Dysselsdorp said the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was misleading the House. What did he mean by that? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I shall make a point of obtaining a turn to speak in this debate to refute, step by step, allegations made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

All I shall ultimately want to know is whether there were objections to Kairos and whether the subsidy was paid. I am not interested in the hon member’s step-by-step tale.

All this tells me is that the Labour Party together with its Ministers’ Council is a confused Jonas. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council ostensibly resigned from the Cabinet but his colleagues all remained members of the State President’s Cabinet Committee, so that resignation was merely a transparent trick. It was irrelevant to the community because he now becomes the Minister of Education and Culture for own affairs. This is nothing but a rift between Jonas and his master Peter on the farm. Jonas pretends to be angry but continues living in the hut on the farm. Jonas is angry about the tractor his master Peter refused to lend him but he remains in the hut without protest. At this stage the hut is in Reigersdal but they now want to move to other huts in Walmer Estate. The shocking aspect is that the Ministers’ Council now constitutes the latest resettlement in terms of the Group Areas Act which they are so frantic to abolish. Does the Labour Party accept that its Ministers’ Council has to be moved to a Coloured area under the Group Areas Act? If that is not so, why the blackmail about group areas?

The hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture has my sympathy. He says his colleagues request him to build houses although they want the Group Areas Act abolished. Where is he to build houses in such a case?

That is a mystery.

It is a mystery.

My only conviction is that the Labour Party has discovered new toys which will explode in their faces.

†It is so true, and they have said it so many times that I want to repeat it: You can bluff some of the people most of the time, but you can’t bluff all the people all the time. How the hell can they now say “ahoy”? (Interjections.)

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is not to use the expression “how the hell”.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The former high priest of Black consciousness will have his turn soon. I attached significance to metamorphosis before, but I really did not expect such a change this time. His actions would leave a chameleon wondering where the name originated. Instead of merely supplying houses, he is mixed up in Labour Party politics.

The hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture is someone who persistently requests memoranda. All we receive from him in return, however, is a vague meaningless bureaucratic reply. When I was still a member of the Labour Party, the Transvaal caucus submitted a comprehensive memorandum to him as regards the housing situation in the Transvaal. To date they have not received a proper reply to it. [Interjections.] No, I am not mentioning isolated incidents but the overall situation in the Transvaal.

Did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition receive a reply?

It is even worse that no clear housing strategy has been designed for the Transvaal yet. My constituents have reason to ask why we do not follow the lead of the hon the Chairman of the House in the House of Delegates. Every five minutes he announces where he is building houses and where he intends building them. [Interjections.] The question arises: What is the programme as regards housing for this country? South Africa awaits the reply. I shall be the first person to congratulate the hon the Minister if he should announce such a programme.

In last year’s debate I warned the hon the Minister not to politicise housing but he remains blind and deaf to this. One has to be a member of the Labour Party to obtain funds for this purpose. Even obtaining a house is subject to membership of the Labour Party; if one does not belong to the LP, one does not get a house. [Interjections.] The taxpayers’ money is used in building houses for every individual requiring one.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is misleading the House. I belong to the Labour Party and my enemies in Ravensmead also get houses. That … [Interjections.]

Order! Would the hon member please resume his seat. He is not permitted to make a speech when he raises a point of order. [Interjections.] The hon member has put his point of order and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

The greatest evil… [Interjections.] I am not interested in matchbox houses with pitched roofs.

The greatest evil this hon Minister has ever unleashed is the contract of purchase and sale in the new rent formula which makes it almost impossible to buy or rent a house. [Interjections.] I have it with me and will make it available to hon members through you, Mr Chairman. To illustrate I want to quote a few figures which have applied since 1 July 1987. Under the old rent formula somebody with an income of R800 a month had to cough up R120 for interest and capital redemption. We call this “net rent”. When all the other factors were added, the amount ran to R165,35. According to the new rent formula, which has applied since 1 July 1987, a person has to pay R193,75 for interest and capital redemption and R246,04 for the entire rental package. If a person earns R1 000, the new rent formula almost bankrupts him because he then has to shell out 33% or more of his income for rent. Before 1 July 1987 the amount payable on interest and capital redemption amounted to R150 and the total amount to R198,17.

Nevertheless the hon the Minister negotiates on the basis of his fellow rulers’ magic formulae and R309,26 has to be paid on an extortionate basis for interest and capital redemption and R372,42 for the entire paraphernalia. Apparently this hon Minister has forgotten that I requested the hon the Minister of Finance last year to abolish the other expenses as regards rent and that he heard me sympathetically in this House. He has only to report back on what he has done about it.

I expected this hon Minister, as a member of the Government, to pursue the matter further but he did not do so as I was no longer a member of the LP. He must have thought: “Why should I listen to him?” All the hon the Minister did was to send the hon member for Alra Park to Rabie Ridge to tell people I was lying about the rent. How could I lie about it if the department itself distributed circular 4/1987 on the subject of rent?

The picture darkens when a contract of purchase and sale is involved. There are so many restrictive measures and servitudes to be observed that it is no wonder that the selling action proceeds at a snail’s pace. I shall cite general examples: A house which for example costs R3 520 can be paid for in 360 instalments of R23,52 a month after an initial deposit of R300. [Interjections.]

Nor is that all. Hon members should listen to what happens further. So how does one purchase? So far the picture looks hunky-dory but it is not, because there are so many monthly levies which have to be made compulsory. For instance, there are administration costs of R6,50 and others of R23,00. In addition there are other unspecified costs which the purchaser has to pay because this is provided for in the contract he has to sign. That is the financial picture.

Let us look at other concealed or camouflaged traps. What happens in the event of “radicalism”? Heavens! It is also expected of the purchaser to meet the following in obscure situations and concerning unspecified amounts: Maintenance costs, reserve funds, transfer fees, etc. If shame is the issue, surely this is the greatest disgrace!

If for example I buy a house through a building society, I pay my mortgage bond and the local authorities for water, electricity and refuse removal—and there the story ends. These poor less affluent people have to pay for all the items I have mentioned so they have to bear the costs of instituting apartheid as applied by the Nats.

One is not allowed to sell the place either before a period of 10 years has elapsed.

Yes, one cannot dispose of the place before a period of 10 years has elapsed even if one has paid cash for it. If one does sell it, it has to be to the Ministers’ Council.

This hon Minister has done little to solve the crisis surrounding classroom accommodation. We get only prefabricated buildings nowadays with few or no prospects of new schools. A great fuss is made of the fact that the private sector should be involved. The hon the Minister could well examine this; I shall not criticise him on this point. I want to mention to him, however, what occurs when the private sector is involved. It seems the hon the Minister does not believe me but I can show him the contracts of purchase and sale.

The conditions and red tape attending the involvement of the private sector are of such a nature that the future occupant or purchaser will have to pay for it through the neck. When it ultimately ends up in the hands of the private sector, what will we be left with? We shall still have only row upon row of similar houses. Rumours are also abroad that certain members of the Labour Party are being compensated for this. I want the hon the Minister to tell me whether this is the truth. This is not an accusation. Recently a so-called housing tour was undertaken to Taiwan and Singapore. The hon the Minister was a member of the touring group. The community wants to know who paid for this. The question is also being asked whether this was perhaps done by companies which had concluded favourable contracts with the Labour Party. We want to know the truth, then the people and I will love the hon the Minister again.

Who paid when you went to Germany?

Sir, German TV paid for me.

Order! The hon member who said they went on a drunken spree must withdraw that statement. [Interjections.] Nobody went on a spree.

Sir, I should prefer not to comment on that. The only mistake the hon the Minister did not make was in the development of own affairs. The hon the Minister gave me 200% for Rabie Ridge. I award him 200% for the development of own affairs too.

People say I do not know what nepotism is. In August 1986 the people of Rabie Ridge were still living in Alexandra. At the time I submitted a list of names to the hon the Minister for appointments as members of the management committee with the request that the appointments be made before the people moved in. Powerful management committees are certainly one of the hon the Minister’s babies. In consequence of the red tape attending such matters, no appointments were made of course. The appointments were made in June last year and what happened then? The people elected were ignored because they had resigned from the Labour Party with me. Messrs Vernon McKenzie and Winston Jardine who continue to support me were appointed as well as Mr Jannie Marais, a supporter of the Labour Party. This Mr Marais did not at any time play a leading part in the community, however. Messrs Patrick Grebe and Ronnie Knight were also appointed but they did not pay a cent in rent or whatever to the department.

In terms of the ordinance they were then disqualified as members of the management committee. Jannie Marais never attends a meeting. I thought I would keep out of the affair for the sake of the orderly administration of Rabie Ridge. The city council wanted to know who was to be appointed to replace those people. People told the city council that Ben Theunis was their local leader and that he should be appointed. Pastor Peter Meyers, one of their leaders, and Lukas van Rooyen were to be appointed. Names were furnished. At some stage the hon the Minister complied but then the great man, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, sent a telex to Pretoria saying that no appointments were to be made and that he wanted other proposals. The new candidates were also disqualified.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has levelled the accusation that lies are being told. At a public meeting …

Order! No, the hon member has raised his point. He must resume his seat. He cannot give an explanation now; he can do it when it is his turn to speak. The hon member has already said this is not the truth. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

I wonder whether he has now become the shadow MP for Reigerpark.

Subsequently other names were put forward and a Mrs L van Rooyen was proposed. Her husband, however, works for the city council with the result that she does not qualify to serve on the management committee. Mr Veldman, who at that stage already owed the city council of Midrand R1 010, was automatically disqualified. [Interjections.] I am talking about the policy aspects of the Ministers’ Council.

[Inaudible.]

What does this hon member know about a constituency?

Order! I want to point out to the hon member for Eersterus that we are dealing with a motion of no confidence. Anything can be discussed—including aspects of policy. I must merely see to it that the debate proceeds according to the rules.

I want to conclude. The hon member for Eersterus has never even been in his constituency since the election.

Order! Will the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition proceed with his speech?

Another man, Arthur Markerman, has now been recommended. In the first place, he opposed the establishment of Rabie Ridge; he was the town clerk of Alexandra’s town council which ceased to function; he lives in Eersterus and can therefore not qualify as an occupant in order to serve on the Rabie Ridge management committee. Once again the three people that the LP proposed have been disqualified.

Consequently the agendas concerning matters about which decisions have to be taken in Rabie Ridge are becoming longer and longer, since the hon the Minister cannot appoint the members of the management committee in accordance with the choice of the people. Perhaps it is a good thing, however, because on 26 October an election in which he will not be involved in any way is taking place. The people themselves will decide.

That is what I have to say about a section of the Government. The other hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers are so irrelevant that I do not want to waste my breath on them. [Interjections.] Allow me merely to say that as regards the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, I can now understand very well why he is able to boast with such ease about the number of hands he has shaken since coming to Parliament. There is no alternative, since he sends out notices which read as follows:

Because Mr Daniels exposed them, he has lost his promotion. What worries me, however, is that I heard that the postmaster who is a member of the child care committee which sent out the notice, has been dismissed. The hon the Minister must tell me whether there is any truth in that. If it is true that he was dismissed, I want to know who had him dismissed for telling the truth.

Mr Chairman, I now want to deal with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to the best of my ability and down to the last detail. He is the national leader of the LP, a former member of the Cabinet, chairman of the LP’s caucus, member of the Regional Educational Board of Port Elizabeth, member of the Uitenhage management committee which is under the “lunatic” chairmanship of A B Tiary, according to the hon the Minister.

Yet the mayor thanked Mr Tiary “for bringing some sanity to the system”.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council acts as if he wants to destroy everything in his path. When inter alia he was excommunicated from the church in a democratic way, he did not abide by the verdict of democracy. Oh no! He established a new church so that he could continue his oppression, suppression and indoctrination without any hindrance.

Order! I do not think it is becoming to make such allegations.

I shall leave it at that then, Sir. My question to him is: Has he ever thought what will become of that congregation when he, as their pastor, dies? Mr Chairman, you do not want me to say this, but worse still …

Order! I should like hon members to desist from making this kind of personal attack and rather to tackle the policies of other parties.

Sir, it is not a personal attack. It concerns a system which is used and in which democracy is not respected, but if you do not want me to do it, I shall respect your wishes.

Order! I should like all hon members to help me. I include the governing party in this. I shall not allow hon members to commit character assassination. Hon members must restrict themselves to party policy because the Standing Rules and Orders state very clearly that character assassination will not be permitted.

Sir, I should like to quote from Hansard, because it has a bearing on this. Will you allow me to do so?

Yes, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may quote from Hansard. That is quite in order.

Sir, there has for example been a request to convert the hall for the purposes of holding church services. I say this pursuant to something an hon member of that party said at one stage. At any rate, he was a former member of that party. I quote from Hansard, 1977, col 137, in which he told the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In 1977 we were not here yet. [Interjections.]

Sir, he told the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and I quote:

Sir, that comes from Hansard.

Order! I merely want to tell the hon member for Dysselsdorp that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is quoting from the Hansard of the old CRC.

Sir, the quotation continues:

In a reactionary and oppressive way he vehemently objected to the name Kairos—I am referring to Kairos in Oudtshoorn—so that the subsidy would be withheld. [Interjections.] Not a word was said about the naming of schools, however—not that I have anything against the names—such as the Willie Theron Senior Secondary School, the Fanie van der Merwe Senior Secondary School and the C J de Jager Senior Secondary School, yet an objection was raised against the name Kairos. Surely that illustrates beyond all doubt that the hon member’s newly-found radicalism is opportunistic and aimed merely at securing votes. It is no wonder that the English newspapers are singing praises now after having remained silent for two and a half years. Let us look back and listen to what the hon member has said over the years. In 1969 he said:

In 1978 he said:

These are extracts from the speeches he made in those years. [Interjections.] I have nothing to say about an hon member who cannot even make a maiden speech.

[Inaudible.]

Let the hon member repeat that outside the House, and I will show him … [Interjections.]

In 1983 he said:

In 1985 the hon member said in this House:

What did the hon member for Silvertown say in the Skilpadsaal in 1987? I quote from his speech:

This report was accepted at the Skilpadsaal without any objections whatsoever, but there are other aspects which conflict with this. It is said that a circus lion’s roar and gnashing of teeth sustain the audience’s attention, yet the lion tamer is not afraid. He knows that with one crack of the whip, the lion will readily go and sit on his stool. [Interjections.] There are many hon members on the other side who fear the imminent crack of the whip.

Why is there suddenly such a swing to protest politics? I shall tell you why. For a while there was no talk of an election in 1989. Everyone thought—because that was the information that came through—that they could sit and sleep and dream until well into 1992. That is where the sudden appearance of radicalism comes from. Surreptitiously, the entire machinery of State is being geared towards oppression and extortion.

Serious reflection should be given to the futile strategy of destructive criticism. This reactionary attitude suits the Conservative Party down to the ground. As a result, the right wing can rejoice as they rejoiced in the House of Assembly yesterday. I have been getting the impression that the Labour Party is all too keen to help the CP to come to power. [Interjections.] It looks as if there is a co-operation agreement between this Ministers’ Council and the CP. [Interjections.] The question involuntarily arises whether that is not why the AWB did not do anything at the Skilpadsaal. Was it as a result of this agreement? [Interjections.]

Order!

It looks as if they have said: The AWB will not bother you, they will leave you in peace, but just take the right decision. What would the right decision be? To link the abolition of the Group Areas Act to the possible postponement of the election until 1992. In this way the CP can say in Schweizer-Reneke, Standerton and Randfontein: Can you see? That is how the system works. Allan Hendrickse is taking over the powers of the White man. He is blackmailing them.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council candidly announced that members of the NP had offered members of his party R10 000 to resign from the Labour Party.

How much did you get?

I want to know whether it is the truth or a trick? [Interjections.]

Was it not agreed that the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates would not have an election in 1987, but would postpone it until 1992? I ask the hon the leader of the Labour Party: If that was not a trick, tell this House which men were offered R10 000. We as an opposition, as well as South Africa, must know which members of the LP can be bribed so that we can inform the voters. If we are not told that, we ask whether such members can be trusted with community affairs. If the names of the hon members who received the offers of R10 000 are not made known, suspicion is cast on each and every member sitting on the opposite side of having been offered R10 000. The question then is how much they received to remain where they are.

How much did you get? [Interjections.]

This is not speculation. That hon member’s leader announced it in his caucus and to the Press. [Interjections.] Or is the story about the R10 000 another reason for confrontation suddenly to dominate the agenda of the Labour Party?

Let us look for a moment at what the LP has managed to do in the social, economic and political spheres. As far as housing is concerned, the situation is still wretched. I have already said that there is no clear plan of action. To top it all, the houses which are being built are being allocated incorrectly. Furthermore, despite the miserable housing situation, the LP voted in the President’s Council for the establishment of a cultural centre costing more than R12 million. Surely this amount could be used for the construction of houses.

But you appealed for it.

Just listen to the stupidity that I am hearing here now!

You are not even a candidate.

Why must the cultural centre be built? Strangely enough, this afternoon a motion is being introduced to abolish the so-called racial classification, while in the President’s Council a vote is being taken to establish a cultural centre so that the respective ethnic cultures can find expression, and so that the world can get a better idea of the composition of the respective races of South Africa. How is one to understand that?

Sir, I have in my possession the minutes of the Uitenhage management committee, containing a report calling for an investigation into the allocation of houses. I want to put it briefly as follows: (a) 25% of the allocations have been made to people who have not even completed an application form; (b) 14% of the applications were made only last year; (c) 20% of the applications were made between two and four years ago; (d) 15% were applied for between four and five years ago; (e) 10% were applied for six years ago; (f) 5% were applied for eight years ago, while only 1% of those who had been on the waiting list for the longest period of time received allocations.

How can one salvage the situation? It has also come to light that between 1971 and 1980, 950 applications were not considered. Between 1981 and 1985, 1 360 were not considered. Sir, if you were there you would know that Lapland was probably the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council’s biggest Frankenstein. While he sat in the Cabinet, I had Rabie Ridge built; and he caused Lapland to come into being.

I have already spoken about the crisis in our education situation. Social pensions are not equal and there is no indication when parity will be implemented. Unemployment still reigns. The year before last there was financial and food aid. This year it does not look as if anything is happening.

In the economic sphere, the LP has a feeble record. In what way has the man in the street’s quality of life improved? Nowhere do I see evidence of their having supported the small businessman or of having helped him to become established.

We know how many farms the hon the Minister has purchased, but we want him to tell us again. He must also tell us what employment those farms which have been purchased have created for our people. He must also tell us how many of those farms are being run by our own people. Furthermore, he must tell us how many of those farms are being rented out for a song to Whites who are becoming increasingly wealthy.

Racist.

I am not a racist. This House had a specific purpose in allocating money for the purchase of farms. I was not the one who asked for it. I also want to ask: What is happening at Lawaaikraal?

In the political arena, hardly anything has been done to replace this tricameral system with a fair system which accommodates everybody. Although the Ministers’ Council governs jointly, the power is still vested absolutely in the hands of the Whites. The LP’s greatest act of rectitude is to complain bitterly about the White oligarchy. They are overzealously engaged in establishing an elite to govern and administer own affairs, however. [Interjections.]

The most diligent member is probably the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. More powers are being granted to management committees; an own development and housing board is being established; and last week they agreed to control their own land affairs. No progress has been made concerning the inclusion of Blacks in decision-making, however. The KwaZulu-Natal Indaba was signed and approved by the LP, but nothing more has come of it. It is not even discussed by the LP—as the secretary of the party inter alia says.

How do you know that?

That is what the secretary said in his report about the Skilpadsaal congress. I am reading from the LP document, not my own document. It is gathering dust somewhere on a shelf.

Constitutionally speaking, apartheid and the homeland policy are being expanded. The Ministers’ Council has inter alia approved millions of rands for the building of houses for themselves in a Coloured area. [Interjections.] That is probably the most insensitive thing they have ever done. The houses have been completed now and I challenge them to move in so that the community can express its opinion about this.

Another scandalous action of the LP was when they agreed in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid last week that Rust der Winter, north of Pretoria, should be incorporated into KwaNdebele. [Interjections.] That is not only consolidation, but it is also the dowry on KwaNdebele’s so-called road to independence!

The LP, therefore, merely pays lip service to their rejection of the homeland policy, because this incorporation has tremendous implications not only for the inhabitants of Rust der Winter but also for KwaNdebele and the rest of South Africa. I consider it a waste of money which could have been utilised more productively elsewhere. I shall be interested to see what amounts these farms will be valued at.

I say that because the following people who want to sell their farms in Rust der Winter have so much debt. Mr N J Els, for example, wants to sell, but he owes Barclays Bank amounts of R300 000, R500 000, R150 000, R55 000 and R195 000 on his three farms. He owes a private individual, Mr P H Olivier, R42 000 and the Northern Transvaal Co-operative R200 000. If this is what he owes, what will those farms have to be sold for if he is to have something left with which to buy elsewhere.

Mr D J van Rensburg owes the Land Bank the amounts of R34 000, R47 000 and R139 000. He owes Barclays Bank R120 000. I am not going to mention all the acknowledgment of debt numbers, because hon members can get them from me. I merely want to point out the amounts here. Mr P S du Plessis of plot 89 owes Volkskas the amounts of R50 000, R120 000, R110 000 and R180 000. He owes the Eastern Transvaal Corporation R250 000, Mr H J v d Venter R60 000 and the Land Bank R19 000. Sir, the LP agrees to the wastage of such phenomenal amounts while there is no parity in terms of pensions and insufficient provision has been made for school accommodation. Nor is there enough money for our housing problems. That is why I am moving a motion of no confidence in them.

Mr T O R Weicheldt’s case is perhaps the most shocking example. He also gave evidence before the standing committee and owes R3,2 million on his farm. What amount should be paid out to him? His son, Mr C L Weicheldt, owes R800 000. Mr C P Brand owes the Northern Transvaal Corporation R200 000, the Land Bank R120 000 and Volkskas three times R50 000. Mr F A Vosloo owes R300 000. I can go on in this way to illustrate to hon members what the LP agreed to. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said members of the LP in the committee concerned agreed to the amounts, or rather to the incorporation of farms.

Sir, the hon member for Riversdal caused a great rumpus in the caucus meeting and wanted to know what their position was with regard to their policy of abolition if they were to proceed in allocating more land.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is misleading the House. I did not speak at the caucus meeting.

Sir, I believe the hon member. He did not do any talking. He merely said it. [Interjections.] At the time the Government gave the farm owners of Rust der Winter an undertaking that they would not be incorporated.

What is also regrettable is the fact that members of the LP toured KwaNdebele—and saw vast tracts of unutilised and neglected agricultural land—and nonetheless agreed to this mistake. In the same breath, however, they say that they reject the homeland policy. How is one supposed to reconcile these attitudes? How is the public supposed to reconcile these attitudes?

With this gesture, the LP has strengthened the NP’s monopolistic power base. They have betrayed the people of KwaNdebele, and have let the inhabitants of Rust der Winter down. What is more, with this gesture they have indicated that they support the violence, oppression and detention without trial that prevail in KwaNdebele.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member does not even know where KwaNdebele is. Perhaps he looks like one himself. [Interjections.]

Order! Surely people also live in KwaNdebele. What does the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition mean?

I am saying that perhaps he looks like one.

Order! Like what?

Like a human being! [Interjections.]

Order! He is a human being. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must not react to everything; he must continue his speech. [Interjections.]

The inhabitants of KwaNdebele who have to be moved and incorporated into Bophuthatswana do not want to be moved. They say that persuasion is going to be used in this incorporation in order to make the people move. And we know what persuasion means in South Africa. The burden of the commuters from KwaNdebele, who spend six hours on the bus to get to work and back, has not been alleviated. The incorporation is not going to bring them closer to their place of work. The proposal of Mr Mike Pienaar, who is attached to the department, would have obviated their problem. I know, however, that the people do not study the proposals and simply approve things.

One gets the impression more and more that there are people in the LP who suffer from an acute persecution complex. If one disagrees with them—as they are doing with me this afternoon for example—they simply want to “prosecute” and “persecute”. The most recent case is that of the hon member for Southern Cape. As far as I am concerned, that is a clear example of hardhitting and dictatorial conduct.

Returning to politics, I want to say that during 1986 this House passed two very important motions regarding constitutional affairs. I quote as follows from Hansard:

The second motion read as follows:

Nothing came of this, although the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was still in the Cabinet at the time. Convincing work in this regard has simply never been done. Nothing has happened. I submit that it will be recorded in the annals that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was the first Cabinet Minister who squandered his opportunities, and made a successful mishap of his Ministership. The motions to which I have just referred were never implemented; nor did he succeed in exorcising White fears or trying to accommodate Black aspirations.

I should like to know from him—I am sure the voters would also like to know—what his negotiation agenda looks like. This sudden radicalism and confrontation does nothing to solve the problems. The LP’s timidity has really made us the stepchildren of South Africa. Who is ever going to trust us in future—Black or White?

Mr Chairman, as far as I know the Labour Party has, as yet, done nothing to negotiate a solution for SWA/Namibia which affects South Africa so intensely. I do not know even now—even though I was a member of that party at one stage—what the LP’s foreign policy is. The Labour Party appears at military and police parades. Hon members of the Labour Party even visit the border and other military strongholds in South Africa, but not a finger is lifted to do anything about the state of emergency, the release of political detainees or the unbanning of banned organisations; on the contrary, their conduct creates an atmosphere for further conflict. They are therefore responsible for the fact that an opportunity for reconciliation is becoming increasingly remote.

Sir, without reconciliation, negotiation becomes a dim possibility and revolution and its proponents are incited and supported. I have said this already, but I want to repeat it: Because of the LP, nepotism has acquired real meaning in our community. The LP has given substance to it, and it has already acquired dangerous proportions. Hon members of this House can see this for themselves when they take a look at their own constituencies. An immediate end should be put to this.

As I have said, this evil is cropping up everywhere—in Parliament, in the Public Service, in education, management committees and regional education councils. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, as well as the Ministers’ Council, have become an embarrassment to the community. Moreover, they have become an embarrassment to the Government that appointed them.

Why is only the Group Areas Act linked to the 1992 election? Why is the entire concept of apartheid not linked to it? I want to tell the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that the UDP wants to have an election in 1989, because we want to measure our strength at the polls. [Interjections.] I know, however, that there are many members in the LP who want to go to the polls only in 1992.

Sir, in conclusion I want to return to the UDP, and give hon members an idea of our programme of action for the year.

Firstly, we are going to enter into discussions with extra-parliamentary bodies. We have already started to do so. Secondly, we are going to enter into discussions with the Government and all its departments. I am not afraid. Last Monday we were with the hon the State President and his four provincial leaders. There, inter alia, we said that race classification, group areas and separate amenities and separate education must be abolished. [Interjections.] Do hon members want to know what I found so interesting? We did not even have a cup of tea, because we had urgent things to discuss. There was not even time to drink tea! Of course, the hon the State President said on television that he had never heard of these things. The first thing he knew about it was when the reverend in his swimming trunks demonstrated in the sea! [Interjections.]

Sir, we are going to hold discussions with people abroad by means of aggressive diplomatic contact.

If hon members want to know how it works, they can come and ask us. As I have done in this House in the past, as far as the assault on human rights is concerned, we are going to introduce private members’ Bills and motions about hurtful and discriminatory legislation.

†Politics is unashamedly about power, but not about nepotism and how it is used. It is the power to influence and change events which we seek to develop with pragmatism and apply with integrity. We of the UDP will become a major and credible force only by providing the voting and the non-voting public with a clear manifesto, detailing what we stand for and detailing our working strategy to achieve these objectives.

Let us earn the reputation of being a party which always deals with its cards on the table. Let us surprise a cynical electorate with a straightforward approach and let us disarm our opponents with our honesty and our conviction. [Interjections.]

Are these the principles of professional protestors, or are they the ultimate objectives of a potentially great party, seeking power through the ballot-box? Far from mindless opposition, our role and policy is to emphasise areas of agreement where accommodation can be reached. It is futile and dishonest not to build on common ground and be topical. We abhor the hypocrisy of equating unrelated matters in distasteful public horsetrading. [Interjections.]

Considerations in Southern Africa cannot be based on clear-cut divisions of left and right. We share some common policy objectives with the LP, the NP and the UDF, but we also have some policy objectives in common with the ANC inter alia. Furthermore, we occupy the middle ground in certain instances. We will not compromise on our objectives, but we do acknowledge that it is possible for people of goodwill to agree to disagree on one topic and to work together to achieve another jointly held objective. The old cliché that those who are not with us, are against us, has no place in our modem political thinking. We shall disagree, but that will not prevent us from achieving our objectives through co-operation on the common ground. Anything less would be self-indulgent.

Oh!

This hon member is so obsessed with the Government, because he is part of the Government. I cannot blame him. [Interjections.]

†It is our objective to ensure that our policies on every issue are public knowledge. We must trust the electorate. We have chosen a course designed to lead to elected power. We are certainly not content to be permanent lobbyists from the opposition benches in this Chamber. In that way we will attract the quality of membership necessary to provide the electorate with a credible alternative government in this Chamber. The public are anxious to know where the country is going, and we must leave them in no doubt as to where we, the UDP, stand. We are not afraid to say that we support the free-market system or that we regard the existing tricameral system as a passing phase because of its failure up till now.

In conclusion, Sir, it would be so easy for us to spout attractive-sounding but impractical solutions to our various problems on the assumption that we would never be required to implement such policies or make them work. So many parties and individuals have courted popularity by offering the electorate that which they knew they would never have the opportunity to deliver. We reject this viewpoint as the policy of a party preparing itself for permanent opposition, unlike our party which is preparing itself for eventual power.

*Having said that, and having seen what the circumstances in this debate are, I want to propose that voting takes place immediately on this issue.

Order! I have to consult the Standing Rules and Orders as to whether this motion has been thoroughly discussed and I am not convinced that it has. The members on the opposite side of the House also have to put their case.

Mr Chairman, let me say thank goodness, it had to end some time. Anything that has a beginning must have an end just like the no-confidence speech of hon the Leader of the Official Opposition began this afternoon and, thank goodness, came to an end.

I want to say, Sir, that if ever a man had expounded his belief in own affairs, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did so today. If ever a person entrenched himself in his thinking in respect of own affairs it was the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

If we use terms like the “so-called” Race Classification Act it shows we are almost in a process of something. To me that stigma and that insult are unchristian and ungodly, because legislation is not “so-called”. It is real.

I said “so-called” because that is not what the Act is called. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House will not accept that.

*The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s argument made it sound as if he had received a mandate from the CP to put certain questions here. When speaking of Rust der Winter, he was only defending the CP. I regret to say that I shall not waste my time on this kind of nonsense.

†It was my bad luck to have to listen for the fourth year to the motivation of a motion of no confidence by a Leader of the Official Opposition. I believe the purpose of a no-confidence debate is to afford the Official Opposition the right to expound alternatives, to tell us where we went wrong and what we should have done. Instead, what we listened to—and these are not my words, Sir—was a lot of “lies”. It was a continuous stream of “lies” and, unfortunately for the Official Opposition, its leader conceded that they were all lies. May the finger never be pointed at me that I got up here in this Chamber where I represent people and their aspirations and told “lies”. [Interjections.]

You cannot say anything about me.

Order! I can tell the hon the Minister something and that is that he must keep quiet now. [Interjections.]

A great deal was said today about radicalism. There is so much misunderstanding about the word “radicalism”. I say unashamedly here that I am no radical. I am just someone who loves this country and who sees the great injustice that is meted out to the greater majority of people. It must be brought to an end.

*One no longer wants to continue these nonsensical slogans which mean absolutely nothing.

†Painting oneself with these fancy slogans will never bring about change in this country. The only time that one will bring about change—I am saying this with respect, Sir—is when one negotiates from a position of strength and not from one of weakness. That is why I cannot understand this motion. On the one hand it says that the Ministers’ Council cannot negotiate, yet on the other it says what a fantastic job the Ministers’ Council is doing. I ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition please not to couple these two as it makes things difficult for the Government. This holier-than-thou attitude must come to an end. Every one of us in this Chamber is painted with the same brush, because we took the risk, because we believed in finding non-violent solutions. [Interjections.] That is why we came here—all of us, without any exception. Nobody came here to burn down this building. We all came here to use this institution in order to bring about the necessary changes.

*Now, however, we are saying that some people have more policemen than others. [Interjections.] Not one of us can say that the police are never in the vicinity. Wherever I go, they are always around.

†They were present at the meetings I held. I am not going to say they are not around. You see, Sir, when one points a finger, one must also remember that three fingers are pointing back at one. At their so-called Mormont, the first national conference in Wentworth, they had to call the police … [Interjections.] I ask the hon members please to give me an opportunity. At Wentworth they had to call the police to evict young people who went there to express their opinion. However, the police were called to evict them. Yet they are pointing a finger at us. Thank goodness for democracy. They exercised their democratic right to excise themselves from us. Thank goodness they have rid us of that problem. [Interjections.]

Sir, anything that is founded on envy is bound to fail. My party was founded with only one ambition, ie to build a South Africa of which all of us can be proud. It was founded on envy and aspirations for people and not on personal envy or aspirations. You see, Sir, in all societies there are those who can lead and those who follow.

I expected the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to say that the Cabinet has insulted this House time after time. If he valued his own contribution he would have expected Cabinet Ministers to come here and answer. However, not one of them is present. On the other hand, maybe they were informed that they would not be touched and now they feel safe in their own cocoons because they are looked after.

I would rather use the little time at my disposal to look into the weaknesses of the system and the insult that the greater majority of people in this country have to endure.

Sir, let us look at what happened last Friday. For the first time in my experience the hon the State President came forth with an address that was absolutely non-controversial. He looked at the economy and said we had problems. I agree with him; in fact, I think all of us agree with him. The rate of inflation and the total state of the economy is of grave concern to us. It is of such grave concern that we cannot allow it to continue, because where will we go from here if we allow this downward trend in the economy to continue? It is always only the poor section of the community which endures the greater amount of suffering when the economy of a country is in trouble. I therefore say “Hear, hear!” that the hon the State President attempted to address this major problem, viz the economy of the country.

Nonetheless, Sir, we have to look at what has caused this continued downward slide in the economy. I can only say it is apartheid that has taken us on this road of destruction. What have you and I, Sir, and the greater majority of people in this country received after 40 years of Nationalist rule? Nationalist rule meant White privileges and entrenchment of continued White domination.

*Sir, 40 years of NP rule and domination has impoverished the country. It has made this country the polecat of world societies. That is why I can proudly state that the reason my party decided to participate in the tricameral system was to take the country out of its bankruptcy and restore it to its full status in world society.

†To put right the economy, all of us—not only the Blacks, but all of us—will have to make the necessary sacrifices. All of us will have to make the necessary contributions. I can say without any fear of contradiction that there is not a person of colour in this country who is not prepared to make his contribution to take the South African economy to where it ought to be. The big question, however, is: What is one Nationalist Government prepared to sacrifice in the process, and what is one Government going to contribute when we are all prepared to make sacrifices? Are they going to give priority to apartheid and the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, the Population Registration Act, and so on? They must make the major contribution; and if one really looks at it, it would be a very small sacrifice in reality, because apartheid is an ideology. It would not be a sacrifice to do without apartheid. There will have to be changes and they will have to be radical changes—if I may use that term—so that we shall be able to give this economy a chance. The future must hold out hope and a stake in this land for all South Africans, not only Whites.

After all, Sir, South Africa does not belong only to the Whites but to all the citizens of this country. Reform, Sir, must mean the death of apartheid. One cannot have one and not the other. Only once we have buried apartheid can we think of a process of reform. Only after the burial service can reform be bom. Reform must mean the preoccupation with the alternative to apartheid.

*Apartheid is the scapegoat. It is not only a slogan. Apartheid is what has hurt people over the years. Apartheid is what has made us as South Africans, Black and White, unacceptable overseas.

†Apartheid will have to go. I am committed to non-violent change in this country, and I believe all of us—not only the LP and all those who already believe in non-violent change, but literally all of us—will have to commit ourselves to non-violent change in this country. Committing ourselves also means making sacrifices, however.

An average of five or six violent deaths have occurred every day this year. Every day an average of five or six people die violently in this country. Why is this so? Moreover, no amount of police or army action has been able to curb this. They cannot stop this. The magic formula, however, is a commitment to the moving away from apartheid.

This Nationalist Government must issue a statement of intent committing themselves to the ending of apartheid in this country. They must do that if they are to bring all interested South Africans to the negotiating table. We shall have to start thinking in terms of unbanning people. It is impossible to create a climate for negotiation if half of the people who belong at the conference table are banned. If three-quarters of them are sitting in gaol, we shall not even begin to address the problem. Certainly, we shall not even begin to create the atmosphere of change. People talk glibly about the round-table conference, but this is the reality, Sir; we shall have to bring people together in order to resolve the problems of South Africa. No one particular group has the monopoly to determine the future of South Africa. We need the presence of everyone, across the board. Everyone must be present around that negotiating table where we shall negotiate for a new South Africa.

If they refuse after they have been given the opportunity, then it is another matter. We cannot, however, invite the ANC and still keep them banned. We have to create the atmosphere. We cannot say the ANC and the PAC are irrelevant. Sir, they are relevant in the sense that, as far as the greater majority of South Africans are concerned, they are the mythical leaders of the Black community. Let us test this.

I believe that the Nationalist Government has attempted to address this problem by means of the National Council Bill. I want to say to them— and I am taking undue advantage in the no-confidence debate—that the National Council Bill cannot succeed. It does not even begin to address the major problems that face this country, because it becomes prescriptive in that the Head of State will also be the chairman of the negotiating body. How is the Nationalist head of state going to negotiate with himself for change? People must feel that they have made the necessary input into the changing phases that South Africa will have to experience.

Sir, what I visualise is a South Africa in which racial domination will play no part, a South Africa of which you and I will be proud. That is why I want to move—and I do not move without notice this time—the following amendment to the motion of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition:

[Interjections.] I say this with conviction. While I do not believe that my party is the alpha and omega, I believe that my party is committed to the socio-economic and political development of all people. Furthermore, we will go to the negotiating table with our proposals, because we believe in and are committed to the idea that a non-racial geographic federation is the answer to South Africa’s problems. [Interjections.] I am not afraid of the detail, but unfortunately I do not enjoy the same privilege as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition of having unlimited time. However, the answers are to be found in a non-racial geographic federation. I want to conclude, Sir, by appealing to hon members to stop misusing the privilege of this House. [Interjections.]

Order! I put the question. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition now has an opportunity to reply to the debate. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, but I have a list of speakers who still have to participate in the debate. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition asked me to accept the closure of the debate after he had spoken. Is that correct?

After I had spoken, yes. Now I expect that a speaker will rise … [Interjections.]

Order! After the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had completed his speech, he asked me to move that the debate be adjourned. Is that correct?

That is what I asked, yes.

Order! In accordance with the Standing Rules and Orders the other side also had to put its case. That has now been done. I put the question and no other speaker rose. I was therefore forced to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to reply. [Interjections.]

I shall reply; I have no problem with your ruling.

Mr Chairman, when I concluded my speech, I asked you to put the question. In my view the matter has not yet been satisfactorily argued.

Order! If, according to the hon Leader of the Official Opposition, the matter has not yet been satisfactorily argued, he should not have put his question in the first place, because that is unfair. I merely did as he requested. I received a list of speakers, but when I mentioned the name of the next speaker, the hon member in question did not take the floor.

Mr Chairman, there was an arrangement between our Whip and the other Whips that these hon members could debate this matter further tomorrow. I am, however, prepared to reply. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition asked me to put the question. I merely had to ascertain whether that side which had not had an opportunity to put its case should also be given a chance to make a contribution. I have now given the one side an opportunity to put its case. Thereafter I asked the next speaker on the opposite side to say something, but no one stood up. The next step, therefore, was to ask the hon member who moved the motion to deliver his reply. And that is what I did. [Interjections.] Order! I challenge any hon member to prove me wrong! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I have no problem with that.

Order! I was not referring to you specifically. [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon the deputy leader of that side said that I had made a pathetic speech. If I made a pathetic speech, I probably misconstrue the word “pathetic”, because he said nothing I do not know already.

†Moreover, the hon member comes here and says the Government must make an announcement of intent.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did not listen properly to what I said. I never speak of “the Government”. [Interjections.]

Order! Would the hon member repeat that, please?

Sir, I said that I have never spoken of “the Government”. I always refer to the NP Government.

Order! But that is not a point of order! [Interjections.]

Sir, I enjoy these little episodes. The hon member said that the Government should make a declaration of intent. Now he is contradicting his leader, because during the no-confidence debate of 1985…..

Sit, Chris Cat!

Order! Who is Chris Cat? Would the hon member withdraw those words.

Sir, I withdraw them unconditionally.

Sir, the hon member is contradicting his own leader. The hon the Leader of the LP said that it was not at all necessary for the Government to make a declaration of intent, since the preamble to the constitution was already a declaration of intent. Now the hon member who moved the amendment says that a declaration of intent should be issued. It puts me in mind of the little choir that sang so monotonously in the CRC days. Whenever we landed in such a position in the political arena we were always told: “Now the Government must spell out its policy and indicate where it is heading with South Africa.”

Surely they are now part of the Government. They must now spell out to us what course they are adopting for South Africa. Hon members will remember my saying that my motion should actually have been a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet and in the Ministers’ Council, its junior partners. I told my caucus: “Chaps, if we do that, we cannot expect the LP to vote with us, because if we were to move a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet, we would have to hold an election.” [Interjections.] I want to hold an election, but we are again going to put the LP to the test. We are going to reject the Budget, and we then want to see whether the LP is going to agree so that we can hold an election. But no, no! They know that if their amendment were a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet, some of their members would have voted for my motion. That is why yesterday and Sunday were again spent swimming.

You are just guessing!

No, I am not guessing; I can analyse the political situation. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Wuppertal…

No, Sir, it is not the hon member for Wuppertal; it is the hon member who obtained three votes. [Interjections.] The hon member is paying me a compliment. Everything he does not agree with is weak, but I have never listened to anything of his that was not weak.

But this reply is not a reply.

Order!

I am addressing what the hon member’s deputy leader said.

You are repetitive all the time.

I must be “repetitive”…

Order! I want to point out to the hon member for Retreat that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is delivering his reply and may not be interrupted now. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may continue.

That they know. I saw it last year. When the hon member for Border, who is sitting here next to me, sent a note round to hon members of the LP to go for an election in 1992, he was regarded as a great bosom buddy. [Interjections.]

Since you started you have been playing children’s games… [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, what is also of interest are the endless complaints about the lies I have told here. Surely I have given them a wonderful opportunity now to expose me to the public and indicate how I am misleading the House and have prevaricated.

No one has voted for you yet. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare must come to order.

Now they know, however…

You people were caught out beautifully.

We were not caught out. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Retreat must come to order.

Mr Chairman, could you please ask that hon member to leave me in peace or else I shall deal with him. [Interjections.] Must I show the hon member how I shall deal with him? [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal, for the last time, to the hon member for Retreat to leave the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in peace. [Interjections.] Order! Will the hon member please resume his seat.

I did not say that I would embalm that hon member. I did not say I would treat him; I said I would deal with him. No, I do not have embalming fluid; one gets that in Egypt. [Interjections.]

Order! It is no threat. “I shall deal with you” is not a threat. [Interjections.] The hon the leader of the Official Opposition may continue with his reply.

Last year, when I was still independent, we moved an amendment to the effect that the Transport Services Appropriation be rejected as a result of several apartheid measures still applicable in the SATS. Then hon members moved an amendment and came to light with a clever little story, ie that if they were to move the amendment we would say that they approved of apartheid on the trains. If one moves an amendment to reject something because it is moulded on apartheid lines, one surely does not need an amendment if one agrees with it!

I was undermined. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Schauderville and the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare must please stop arguing across the floor like this. The hon the Leader may continue.

Sir, the hon the Minister shouted “I was undermined.” Let me tell him, however, that I came here fully elected and not through the back door. [Interjections.] Who voted for that hon Minister?

You people are not going to get a pension.

You people do have yours, do you not? Others are waiting for theirs.

Order! The hon member for Border must come to order.

I want to come back to the motivation in the speech of the hon member for Toekomsrus and the fact that they have not replied to me on one single He I supposedly told here. I am actually grateful that they did not give the floor to speakers who are too scared to agree with me, because now I can have a more tranquil journey back to Ceres to address a public meeting there this evening. [Interjections.]

Order! I now put the question. Those in favour say “aye”…

Aye!

Cowards!

Order!

The hon member for Border must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, Sir.

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

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz T R George, C B Herandien, F G Herwels, S Hoosen, C J Kippen, P A S Mopp, P J Muller, J A Rabie and C R Redcliffe) appeared on one side,

Question declared negatived and the words omitted.

Substitution of the words proposed by Mr I Richards put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz T R George, C B Herandien, F G Herwels, S Hoosen, C J Kippen, P A S Mopp, P J Muller, J A Rabie and C R Redcliffe) appeared on one side,

Substitution of the words declared agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to, viz: That the House expresses its full confidence in the leadership, policy directions and principles of the Labour Party of South Africa and further urgently calls upon the Cabinet to accelerate the reform process in order that all citizens of South Africa will be included in the decision-making process at all levels and to clearly define these reforms and to bring them about by way of legislation.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, to an extent a development occurred this morning which probably has made part of this Motion superfluous. This morning the House of Delegates namely passed a resounding vote of no confidence in the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the leader of the National Peoples Party.

Your elation will be short-lived!

Mr Chairman, I am not elated, I am merely reporting facts as they occur.

Mr Chairman, may I at this stage, because it is possible that I may exceed the half-hour time limit, crave the indulgence of the Chair, to accord me the one-hour privilege in terms of Standing Order 137(l)(b)? I am indebted to the Chair. Unfortunately, during the recess the hon member Mr Gopie Munsook passed away. As a consequence a vacancy was created in this House which had to be filled in terms of Section 43(l)(c) of the Constitution Act of the Republic of South Africa.

After due notice a senior official of the Department of Home Affairs, who acted as returning officer, conducted the election. There were two candidates. One candidate was present in the ante-chamber to the Chamber in which the election was actually conducted and I must say, he cut a very handsome figure. He was trim, well-dressed and very good-looking. He was here for several days. So confident, obviously, was his leader that he would in fact be elected that Mr Panday was brought from Durban—really, I suspect, to present himself in this august chamber for admission. He was the candidate favoured by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

Solidarity Party put up another candidate, a gentleman by the name of Mr Abul Samud Razak. When I went into the voting hall I took it for granted that because of the great majority the NPP had, their candidate—after all, they normally do as their leader says in this Chamber… [Interjections.]

Don’t be deceitful. Every one had a democratic right to vote.

I took it for granted that their candidate would be elected. I do not know what these hon members are getting so excited about. [Interjections.] Some people are becoming very hot under the collar and I would like to advise them that unlike our offices, the air-conditioning here is in fact functioning and so they need not become excited.

Why are you not truthful sometimes?

So Mr Razak was elected, and what was the result of that? The result was that there had to be a person from the NPP or from among the ranks of the Independents who claimed to align themselves with the NPP and who did not have enough confidence in the judgement of their own leader.

Oh, you are talking rubbish now!

They then supported the Solidarity Party in electing Mr Razak [Interjections.]

Everyone had a democratic right to vote for whom they wanted.

I quite agree, Sir. [Interjections.] Those hon members exercised their democratic right because that voting took place in secret. I believe that if the voting in this chamber took place in secret, we would probably see different results.

What did we observe last year? With regard to the Marketing Amendment Bill the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said to me directly: “We shall combine and reject this Bill unless the Government does certain things.” What happened? One of his other colleagues in the Cabinet came and spoke to his party and the very next day they did an about-face. They supported that particular Bill.

He accepted our condition; that is something you did not know.

The Remuneration of Town Clerks Amendment Bill was opposed unanimously in the Standing Committee and the hon member Mr Abram advanced a very cogent and rational criticism in the standing committee. What happened when it came before this House? Obviously the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had leaned on the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and lo and behold, that opposition fell away. Not even the trumpet was required to cause that particular little wall to fall. That is the kind of thing we have had because those votes were taken in this Chamber in open view.

This morning the voting took place in secret and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council will never know who defied his instructions.

Of course we know!

If he had commanded the confidence of his own supporters the result would have been different. [Interjections.] I am very surprised that the hon member for Newholme claims to know who voted how.

I am certain that the senior official from the Department of Home Affairs who conducted the election would not have revealed it, even if he knew. However, there was no way for even the returning officer to know. I normally have great respect for everything that the hon member says, but today he could not possibly mean what he is saying. If he does know …

I respect you from YOSA settlement days when you were the chairman of that institution.

The hon member disarms me with that comment.

Mr Chairman, it is not only the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in whom we say we have no confidence. We say that we have no confidence in the Ministers’ Council as a whole. We also say that we have no confidence in what the Ministers’ Council as a whole is doing. I will give the reason why we have no confidence in the Ministers’ Council as a whole outright.

Let us take the Group Areas Act. In the last 40 years there has been nothing as vile, evil and wicked as this instrument of legalised robbery which is the Group Areas Act. We have said before, I have said this outside and I repeat it here: The worst thing the Group Areas Act did was to murder settled communities. Even the most unlearned person will know that a community is something which takes years and years, sometimes generations, to mature. A neighbourhood is merely a collection of people living in houses in a particular geographical area, but it takes a very long time for a community and a community spirit to develop. A community is bound together by silken threads, but those silken threads can be stronger than the strongest tempered steel. What was perpetrated in terms of the Group Areas Act was that these communities were destroyed wholesale. Cato Manor and District Six were destroyed wholesale. Those people who were evicted from there became displaced persons.

Incidently, the expression “displaced person” these days has another meaning entirely. It no longer evokes the kind of sympathy and compassion to which a displaced person is entitled. “Displaced person” has become an excuse for skullduggery and thievery. Those displaced persons were resettled. Chatsworth was such a resettlement area. This is the expression that the Department of Community Destruction used when they built new houses and said to people: “Either you take that house, or you will be criminally prosecuted for living in this house which your grandfather built.” I have had correspondence with the Department of Community Destruction in that respect, in which I pointed out to them that they want to make criminals out of decent, law-abiding, loyal South Africans. That is how disgusting that department’s behaviour was. That is how disgraceful the crimes which were perpetrated in terms of the Group Areas Act have been.

I suppose most hon members will receive a letter from somebody called Wendy Parkhouse, who is the editor of the Reader’s Digest. I also received such a letter, in which she is asking members of Parliament to raise their voices in protest against the Group Areas Act.

I wrote to her and pointed out to her that perhaps she was not even warned when we started the protest, because if she had been following events in South Africa she would have known that we have been raising our voices in protest against this evil for a very long time.

What does the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council do without any protest from his colleagues in the Ministers’ Council? He says that if one does not want the Group Areas Act in one’s area, one has to tell him and he will ask the hon the State President to repeal it. We do not want the Group Areas Act. The community does not want the Group Areas Act. I do not know who goes and tells him things in secret. He is constantly claiming that people come to him and tell him things in secret. Let any member of the community say publicly that he support the Group Areas Act and wants it to be retained. To the hon the members of the Ministers’ Council and those who support them, whether they joined them last year, in 1981 or last week, I want to say that they are equally guilty here because they raised no protest at the expression of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I am not going to spare anybody because we are now dealing with matters which vitally affect the community.

I want to say here and now that we were told yesterday that a certain two hon MPs entered into “a gentleman’s agreement” that one area would be declared a Coloured area and the other declared an Indian area. I do not think any gentleman worthy of the name would ever enter into such an agreement because that is asking for group areas. How can anyone stand up in this House or in any of the other Houses and say that he opposes the Group Areas Act…

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether there is any provision for mixed residential areas in the Group Areas Act presently?

We do not want provision for mixed residential areas. We want an equal situation for every South African, be he Black, White or so-called “Indian”. I say: “so-called Indian” because I do not think that Indians are permitted to own land in South Africa in terms of their own country’s currency regulations. I do not think India will allow her nationals to buy land in South Africa. In political terms we are not Indians, but South Africans.

This is where the Afrikaner is far more intelligent and sensible than we are. They do not call themselves Dutchmen or French. [Interjections.]

They are more intelligent than you are, not more intelligent than us.

They are far more intelligent than that hon member. [Interjections.]

The least educated Afrikaner is capable of understanding English words better than the hon the Minister of the Budget. They call themselves Suid-Afrikaners. Why can we not say that we are “Suid-Afrikaners?” Actually I said this in my first speech in the President’s Council. [Interjections.]

You would have loved to have been called Harry!

That may be so if you are Tom and also Dick. [Interjections.]

I said in the President’s Council: “Ek is ’n Suid-Afrikaner met ’n Indiër-pappa.” [Interjections.] What do we get from the Ministers’ Council? We get some words that the Group Areas Act must go, but the Group Areas Act is still applied.

After a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing and a great deal of gurgitation and regurgitation, the President’s Council produced a certain report.

That report was a bit of a problem. A member of the NPP signed that report and he has claimed publicly that he was instructed to sign it by his leader, the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Of course that has been denied by the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and I understand that that particular contretemps has not yet been settled. Nevertheless the official record shows that that report was supported by at least one member of the NPP.

What does the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council himself say? He is moving like those Studebakers we used to have in 1942. The hon member Mr Nowbath will remember his son referring to that as a which-way car, because the front and the rear look almost identical excepting for the headlamps. [Interjections.] The reaction of the Chairman—and unfortunately his wizardry failed him terribly this morning—was a which way reaction. In their heart of hearts each hon member of the Ministers’ Council must know that that report is a wishy-washy thing. That report does not make the kind of recommendations that are necessary and they ought to have said so, but they didn’t.

The reason for that is obvious; they cannot risk offending their master. We all know what happened to the leader of the Labour Party when he dared to offend his master. We all know what happened to him.

Talk about what the hon the State President said to you in this House on 20 August.

Mr Chairman, these people dare not take a similar risk. We hear talk about improving the Group Areas Act, but that Act cannot be improved. It is so filthy that you can never hope to improve it.

Do you hope to kill it by talking about it?

Yes, I hope by talking to try to enter the hearts and minds of people and I hope that even at this late stage the members on that side and to my left are not beyond redemption. The hon member for Cavendish said yesterday that there was a divine spark in all of us; let us hope that is so. Let us hope that there is still that innate decency and innate integrity in all people which can be kindled and rekindled as a result of words. If words fail completely to persuade or to convince people then there is no need for any Parliament in any country. One could then simply have a dictatorship and let the dictator rule by decree.

As I was saying, Mr Chairman, it is impossible to improve the Act. That Act must go! I will not take it beyond that, because there is a motion on the Order Paper dealing with the request that the Group Areas Act be repealed forthwith, and once before the Chairman ruled that if a motion is on the Order Paper one may not anticipate the discussion of that motion.

I now want to deal with another NPP member.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take another question? Can the hon member indicate to us whether his coalition partners are in favour of repealing the Group Areas Act? [Interjections.]

I have no coalition partners. We are friendly with everyone and when any hon members are prepared to share their views with us, and we agree with each other, then of course we can act in concert. The hon member Mr Abram will understand that perfectly.

A member of the NPP in the President’s Council—poor man; I sympathise with him—signed a report, and astoundingly he told the newspapers that he signed the report without even knowing what it contained.

What about the Kannemeyer Report?

I did not sign the Kannemeyer Report. [Interjections.] If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council wants to use his influence with his pals across the road to elevate me to the position of Mr Justice Kannemeyer, I would consider signing a report.

The Ministers’ Council administers own affairs. Own affairs is apartheid. It separates the function of government. It is an administrative nightmare.

Is this not an apartheid Chamber?

I do not know whether the hon the Minister of Education in the House of Assembly heard us say this but I certainly put it to the Minister of Finance when he was before this House in another Chamber that the triplication and quadruplication of services is a terrible waste of taxpayers’ money. I do not know whether the hon gentleman from the House of Assembly heard that or whether he thought it up himself, but he made a first class statement before his own party in public. It is a terrible waste and at a time when the hon the State President—with respect, correctly—has set out measures to bring about economic improvement and an enhancement of the economic status of all the people in this country, a tremendous amount of money is still being wasted on own affairs.

But of course it is there and in terms of that what is being done regarding the second access road to Chatsworth? The people of Chatsworth have been clamouring for 22 years. The former South Africa Indian Council failed to alleviate the plight suffered by the people of Chatsworth. In the House of Delegates the Minister of Transport at that time, the hon Mr Schoeman, actually stated that he would give instructions for the cheaper and more direct route to be followed. After that a few people—a very small number of White people—objected, and there the matter stands. The White people who objected—the few White people—obviously have more influence with the Government than the entire Ministers’ Council…

And the entire House of Delegates.

… and the entire House of Delegates. Exactly. I am indebted to the hon member because the Ministers’ Council does not adequately put forward the viewpoint of the House of Delegates to the Cabinet. Admittedly, the hon gentleman who serves in the Cabinet will tell us that Cabinet discussions are confidential. Some members of his caucus get to know the day after the Cabinet meeting what the Cabinet decided, but that is a different matter. If anyone challenges me on that I will say …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I do want to object that the hon member for Reservoir Hills states that members of the caucus know what goes on in Cabinet discussions. It is a serious reflection on me as a member. It is an indictment and I want it placed on record that I will be pursuing this matter according to the rules of this House. No member of the caucus is given Cabinet secrets by me. I say this under oath in this House.

Order! I put it to the hon member for Reservoir Hills that that statement is highly irregular. It is policy that Cabinet matters are strictly confidential and classified. For an hon member to state that a Cabinet Minister divulges information, be it to members of the Cabinet, the caucus or anyone else, is a serious indictment. I would therefore request the hon member for Reservoir Hills to withdraw and apologise to the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rylands, when he was sitting in the opposition benches, was, like the rest of us, aware of information emanating from the caucus of the NPP. They knew, long before the ministerial representatives’ appointments were to be created, that that was coming, and that the Cabinet had made a decision to that effect.

Order! Will the hon member for Reservoir Hills withdraw the statement and apologise to the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, I first ask you for a ruling: Did I cast any direct reflection upon the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council?

Yes. [Interjections.]

My words were, and I chose my words carefully …

Order! Will the hon member for Reservoir Hills withdraw that statement and apologise to the hon the Minister.

I withdraw the statement and I apologise because I need to continue…

Order! The hon member for Reservoir Hills may resume his speech.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I just want to make one thing clear. What I said was that the caucus gets to know—I did not say from whom they get to know; they could get to know from anybody, from any official or anything. However, I am aware of the Chairman’s ruling.

Now, why has nothing been achieved with regard to the second access road? The promise was made by the hon the Minister of Transport nearly two years ago. Nothing has been finalised.

I wish to deal with health matters. It is notorious that while the Addington Hospital has a CAT scanner machine—apparently it has a very long name, but it is known as a CAT scanner—the CAT at Addington is not over-used. King Edward Hospital does not have one; Wentworth has one; the R K Khan Hospital, which serves a community of almost 450 000 if you take people from other parts of Durban, does not have one.

We may be told that insufficient funds were available.

Phoenix consists of more than 150 000 people. A hospital has been promised in respect of Phoenix for many years. That hospital has not got off the ground. We were told quite categorically by the then Minister of Health that it was because of lack of funds that that hospital could not get off the ground. If that is true, where did the funds come from for the Odeon cinema to be purchased and for the purchase price to be paid within 32 days of the negotiations for the purchase of that cinema having commenced?

That is not a House of Delegates record.

Where did the money come from for the supermarket site in Chatsworth to be purchased?

That was public money. Here we have a situation where people are desperate and need a proper hospital facility in Phoenix. However, we are told that there is no money. Do hon members want to know why? Except perhaps for the awarding of the building contract, there is nothing in it for anyone. As regards the Checkers supermarket site, more information regarding that transaction will be divulged in due course. Everyone knows all about the Checkers supermarket site at Phoenix. Let us examine the connection there. Mr Dina Pillay I am told—I did not see the transaction—has contributed R20 000 to the National People’s Party for the Tongaat election campaign.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask a question of the hon member and I would also like to ask for your ruling. As we commenced yesterday, you gave a ruling in respect of the following privilege. I want to appeal to the Chair that that privilege be used by people who will be able to substantiate statements outside this House.

He is wasting my time. I have not got…

Is the hon member prepared to make this statement outside this House when we have adjourned?

Mr Chairman, I do not want to waste time on people like this.

Don’t squirm.

I did not say that this hon gentleman stole the money from Mr Dina Pillay. I said … [Interjections.] … be quiet! [Interjections.] Yes, Mr Dina Pillay is connected, has had transactions.

No, no.

I know it.

You are misleading this House.

I will go on now. I will deal with certain childish statements made in the newspapers recently. They have not been denied as far as I am aware. I spoke to the journalist concerned today, who says that that report has not been denied. The fact is that instructions were given to the hon members of the Ministers’ Council not to speak to me because the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council contends that I write nasty letters to our hon Ministers and nice letters to White Ministers. This is naked racism, Mr Chairman. In point of fact, I have written some letters to the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council which were unpleasant …

And quite astute.

I wrote one letter to one hon Minister which was contentious, but none of the other hon Ministers can ever say that I have ever written an unpleasant letter to them. Fortunately his own hon Ministers have more intelligence than to indulge in such childishness. They don’t play “no speaks” and cut it out. At least their integrity remains.

I am not going to deal in extensio with the section 205 inquiry, but the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has claimed that he instigated my appearance in court. Undoubtedly this will be a subject of discussion next Monday when the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council moves his particular motion. However, I have here a statement which I have issued. There is not enough time to read it into the record, but I shall issue copies of the statement. However, it is important that I state in this House that I shall give my information to a commission of inquiry or in a court of law. I was commanded to go to the court of law, which I did. Apparently a request had been made to the senior public prosecutor that his hearing should be in private. Section 205 gives a magistrate the discretion and it is in fact permissive. It reads: “He may hold a hearing in private.” I, however, insisted that the hearing be in public because I had nothing to be afraid of. I had nothing to hide except a name. Now, who made a public statement detailing all the matters outside the privilege of Parliament … ?

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question?

No, I do not have the time.

You did not repeat that in court!

[Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Reservoir Hills may continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The only thing I did not divulge in public was the name of the person concerned, and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council knows the reason why I did not divulge that name. He has repeatedly asked me for the information, and I wrote to him. He has received my letter. He has in fact acknowledged my letter. I told him that the person concerned was very frightened. He gave as a reason the fact that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was a Cabinet Minister and that the Government would do everything to support him because he supports the Government.

That informant does not exist! [Interjections.]

He was afraid. Some other reasons are given by people.

One man who has information refuses to allow his name to be used or to provide an affidavit because, he has told me, a former member of the Southern Durban Local Affairs Committee by the name of A Rajbansi was accused by Mr C G Pillay of irregular conduct while he was a member of that Local Affairs Committee.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to state on record that the person who complained about me to the Town Clerk was a Mr B G Pillay and not Mr C G Pillay. I would like that to be recorded. I am speaking under oath in Parliament. It was not Mr C G Pillay. It was Mr B G Pillay.

Mr Chairman, I do not know what happened. I am giving the reasons as to why this man is afraid.

Your informant does not exist. He is locked in a post box.

That man says that as a result of the inquiry the gentleman concerned, Mr A Rajbansi, was barred from becoming a member of any local authority in Natal.

A political vendetta!

Shortly after that Mr C G Pillay was murdered in his own home. Whether or not that man has any justification for being so, he is frightened. I think he has the wrong end of the stick.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I need the protection of the Chair. I personally believe, Mr Chairman, that the suggestion in the ruling you gave yesterday in respect of using Parliamentary privilege for the purpose for which Parliament passes legislation, is being abused. I stated in my request to you to give a ruling that hon members who make statements in this House must be prepared to substantiate them outside without any reference to informants having informed them. I think the privilege of this House is being abused by the hon member for Reservoir Hills. He is going to extremes. He keeps on saying: ‘Informant, informant, informant’.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is deliberately getting up all the time in an attempt to waste my time and therefore I want to proceed.

You are misleading the House! [Interjections.]

I want to deal now with what happened in Tongaat.

Order! I would request the hon member for Reservoir Hills kindly to take note of what I stated yesterday in regard to any addresses that hon members may make, namely that if there are any allegations these should be made by way of substantive motions. The rules of Parliament allow for that. Hon members should not, however, be vague in their presentations. I would appeal to the hon member to kindly observe the appeal I made yesterday at the commencement of this debate.

With respect, Mr Chairman, I did not volunteer that information. I have given it as a result of repeated demands by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that I should name my sources. I am explaining why I could not name my sources.

Mr Chairman, on a point or order: I did not make any demands for any persons’ names to be mentioned. I made no such demands. The hon member told a lie in court.

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council must withdraw the word “lie”.

And apologise.

Mr Chairman, I will withdraw the word, but I need some clarification. Yesterday you clarified the point that a person may not call someone a liar on the basis of what he says in this House. You gave a ruling, Mr Chairman, and I noted that ruling very carefully. I am referring to a statement the hon member made outside this House. I will apologise and abide by the ruling of the Chair, but I very clearly remember that you have laid down a directive.

Mr Chairman, these frivolous interjections are taking up the hon member’s time and I think he should be permitted to speak.

Mr Chairman, I want to move fairly fast now, and I appeal to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council not to be obstructive and let me finish what I want to say.

All right, but speak the truth.

That gentleman, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, has alleged that a member of this hon House was kidnapped and held in prison against his will. That is a criminal offence. He has alleged that someone offered a bribe of R10 000 to a member of Parliament to induce him to switch sides. That is a criminal offence in terms of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He has also alleged that someone offered what amounts to a bribe of a “fantastic sum of money”—these were his very words—in connection with Villa Liza, that if any person were to declare or help to declare Villa Liza …

Not Villa Liza; Windmill Park.

Well, I will quote from Hansard. The memory of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is somewhat faulty. Sometimes his memory gets faulty within half an hour. I will read from Hansard, 22 May 1987, col 226. The Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said, and I quote:

Villa Liza; not Windmill Park.

I continue:

Mr Chairman, I cannot say that the man is denying … Yes, indeed, he is denying that which …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I corrected that statement subsequently.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council changed his statement. Everyone knows that certain people—I cannot point to any hon member in this House—trim their sails to try and reap the winds that they have to face. Certain people do that very regularly. Everyone in this House knows who those people or that person is.

A Cabinet member alleges that serious crimes have been committed. Even an ordinary citizen, if he knows about those crimes and does not report it to the appropriate authority, is committing an offence himself. When a member of the hon the State President’s Cabinet knows that these crimes were committed—whether it was in connection with Villa Lisa or Windmill Park is immaterial, it is still a crime—what does one make of that Cabinet Minister? Is he worthy to sit on these benches? Is he worthy to be Chairman of the Ministers’ Council? The answer is obvious.

What happened in the Tongaat election? We have a situation where certainly the number of persons who were identified as voters hold what is possibly a world record. We have sworn affidavits. Obviously the hon the State President has already acknowledged the receipt of the affidavits which were submitted. One of these affidavits relates to a protégé of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. His name is A K Mohamed, known as Mike Mohamed, who was elevated pretty fast to the position of undersecretary in the Department of Education in charge of staffing matters. That man has been playing havoc, moving teachers, offering promotions to teachers if they support the National Peoples Party.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Sometime last year you gave a ruling that hon members should not mention the names of civil servants who are not here to defend themselves. The hon member is now ignoring your ruling. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, there was no such ruling. The hon member is talking absolute nonsense.

Mr A K Mohamed was put into that position by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. He has now become the lackey of the NPP. What is worse, is that it is alleged in this affidavit, and I quote:

I wrote to the hon the State President and to the hon the Minister of Justice and the hon the Minister of Law and Order. I particularly addressed the hon the Minister of Justice as the Minister bearing overall responsibility for the administration of justice. While he cannot endeavour to influence our judges and our magistrates, he can—and in this case it is respectfully submitted that he should—influence the relevant attorney-general or public prosecutor to request the judicial officer to grant immunity from prosecution to those persons who were used, manoeuvred or manipulated by persons in positions of authority to commit acts that amount to serious criminal offences, subject of course to the testimony being accepted as truthful and satisfactory.

I also said in my letter, and I quote:

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

No, I do not have enough time.

That is an escape route!

In regard to the Villa Liza controversy I took the trouble of writing to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, asking him to see to it that no corruption takes place. I also asked him to see to it that land was made available for people. I said that I did not want any group areas, but certain members of my group as defined by the Group Areas Act must have land, as must the Black people, the so-called Coloured people and the White people. However, there is no reason whatsoever why in terms of the present legislation permits should not be granted to persons who want to buy and occupy land in Villa Liza, Don Park and Windmill Park. I did not mention Apex but it is within 2 km of Actonville. The Benoni complex is going to grow and the people there need more residential land. The people from Natal are migrating to the Transvaal because that is where more and more jobs are being created, and those people also need houses. Similarly the people in and around Germiston need land. I see no reason whatsoever why these four areas should not be allowed for development. Only traitors to the whole of South Africa will say that one should only allow one area to be developed while the other areas are being held up. This is because it is not in the interest of the totality of our people to have any kind of Group Areas. It is the Group Areas Act that creates these artificial divisions and the unnecessary tensions among our people.

There has unfortunately been an abuse of the procedures available to hon members of this House. An example of this in the last couple of days was the long and rambling notice of motion, the total purport of which was to make a serious and false allegation against me. The allegation made by the hon member for Lenasia South, I think it was, is a completely false allegation in that he said that someone else had alleged that I had committed perjury. Stuff and nonsense! Unfortunately he was allowed to leave it and he was not obliged to retract that.

It was yesterday, or the day before, that we had this strange and rambling notice of motion proposed by an hon Cabinet Minister which also sought, in a motion, to make indictments. And what happens now? Those two motions were introduced in this House—they did not appear in the disgraceful form in which they were framed in the Order Papers, they were cleaned up for the purpose of the Order Papers—and were then telexed to the newspapers. And I have been approached by newspaper correspondents from various parts of the country to comment on the telexes which they say came to them from the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

I do not know as I have not seen the telexes, but if it so, it is also a further abuse of state amenities. A telex machine in the office of the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, or in the Administration of the House of Delegates, does not exist for this kind of rubbish. It is there for the work which benefits the public, for the work of the Government to be done. The staff employed by the House of Delegates administration are not there for this kind of nonsensical political work on behalf of a politician or a political party. Yet those people have the temerity to come and try to lecture to us.

Fortunately I still have a little time and I would just like to deal more fully with the question of donations. Kistasamy Naidoo claims in a sworn affidavit that he was granted land by the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council—or at his instance—for purposes of development in order to make a profit for himself and that he was required to make a donation to the NPP. He says that he donated a sum of R5 000.

Required by whom?

He also says in his sworn affidavit that a firm called SSS Construction …

You have most probably invented that now.

Mr Chairman, that stupid remark I shall ignore.

On page 5, paragraph 8. 1 of his affidavit dated 3 October 1987, Mr Kistasamy Naidoo states:

I submit that if what Mr Kistasamy Naidoo said is correct then it is a serious contravention of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

A firm called SSS Construction which had also been awarded State assets, later also made a payment of R5 000. The actual payment, I am informed, was made by SSS Construction to Mr Yusuf Seedat, a member of Parliament nominated thereto at the instance of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and/or his party. I do not suggest that Mr Seedat received any personal benefit therefrom.

Blame the chairman!

What I do say is that an advantage was gained by the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council and his party from the allocation of State assets to SSS Construction. Mr Seedat, MP, will no doubt be able to explain what he did with the money.

Then Mr Kistasamy Naidoo goes on. Golden City Housing is, so it has been claimed, a public utility company interested in providing housing for the public on a non-profit basis. What one understands is that such a company will not permit its directors or shareholders to make any profit which should, on a proper construction, preclude not only dividends but also salaries or remuneration for acting as director other than of course arising out of actual employment and work actually done.

It follows that it is contrary to the principles on which public utility companies are granted special exemptions both in regard to the Companies Act and even in tax matters for such a company to make donations or to pay for the costs of a holding of a congress of a political party. I realise that as to such a company per se which conducts itself contrary to such principles, the Advocate General may not have jurisdiction. However the facts involved are germane, since they reflect upon advantage gained whether directly or indirectly by a Minister of State as a consequence of the allocation of State assets to such a company.

Golden City Housing purports to be an association not for gain although in 1985 it sought and was, under the direct or indirect influence or approval of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, allocated about 150 pieces of land, being State properties.

As I have pointed out in my memorandum, Golden City Housing has made a donation of R20 000 for sports sponsorship. If that seems quite extraordinary, what is astounding is that the said Golden City Housing paid more than R7 000, being the costs of the holding of a congress of the NPP of which the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is the leader. When this aspect was raised in the House of Delegates, Mr Rajbansi professed ignorance of who paid those costs. This was of course very surprising and quite incredible as it is well known that nothing of significance happens in this party without Mr Rajbansi’s knowledge or consent. In any event, he was made aware of the facts relating to the matter and the fact that, as appears below, Golden City Housing has once again now in 1987 been a principal beneficiary in the allotment of land in Lenasia establishes clearly a relationship of mutual advantage between Golden City Housing and Mr Rajbansi.

[Inaudible.]

I will continue if you want some more.

Golden City Housing Association was apparently incorporated on 24 September 1985 and as will appear from annexure “A” hereto, its directors are: Mohamed Haneef Mia and Sayed Hoosen Mia, both of whom give the same addresses, namely 7006 Seal Crescent, Extension 7, Lenasia and 156 Grand Place, Lenasia.

Then he goes on …

[Inaudible.]

A company named SA Reza Finance (Pty) Limited was apparently formed on 11 April 1986 having a Mr Liyakatally Mohamed as director who gives as his business address 156 Grand Place, Lenasia and postal address as P O Box 492, Lenasia which is exactly the same as the Mia brothers give. It is noteworthy that Reza was one of the recipients of Mr Rajbansi’s favour in respect of the allocation to it of State property both in 1985-86 …

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, if anyone in this House is interested in the truth, in clean administration, he will be careful about the company he keeps.

This is so because I was reading the ethics of journalism, and as an attorney I expect the hon member for Reservoir Hills to know that there is a phrase in legal circles: Audi alteram partem. There is a very good reason why Parliament passed a law in connection with the production… [Interjections.] No, I shall not take any questions now. However, I shall definitely take the question at the end of my speech.

That is also a reason why Parliament passed a law giving members of Parliament certain protection. Journalists and even others are very careful about the effect of what they finally do when there are, wittingly or unwittingly, omissions, or where one deliberately presents a one-sided picture of things.

This afternoon the hon member for Reservoir Hills, with his usual circumlocution took approximately 40 minutes to come to the topic. One thing has become a joke since yesterday. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition attacked the hon member Mr S Abram and held me responsible because he said that he belongs to my party. I do not allocate land, but I have letters from former Ministers of Community Development confirming people who are resettlement cases. Nobody can tell me that they did not deal with people who came to their homes or their offices for assistance. I receive representations in my capacity as Chairman of the Executive Committee of the SAIC. I am aware that my predecessor, who is now the Leader of the Official Opposition, also received representations. However, if I received the direct representations, I am at fault. On the other hand, if others in the Ministers’ Council did certain things, blame the Chairman. Blame the leader. “Blame the Chairman” has been a catch phrase for everything in this House since yesterday.

Society passes judgment on the company one keeps. I am a Minister of State. Now I am a Minister of Housing. If I bow down to threats, then I am not fit to hold my positions. No mobster from the Transvaal, no strong-arm men will control my work and my Ministry.

Hear, hear!

If they have succeeded with others … I am a former football referee, and I ask each budding politician to spend five years in football administration in South Africa. If you refereed Orlando Pirates when Eric “Scara” Sono and Mainline Xhosa were alive, and they lost the match in Natalspruit grounds, then you have passed your test. Therefore, dealing with the hon member for Reservoir Hills is child’s play when one had to deal with Eric Scara Sono—a great player. You could not referee an Orlando Pirates match, especially in Natalspruit Grounds, and walk out of the football ground alive. I was one of the few who did.

Therefore there is a good reason, and the hon member for Reservoir Hills knows the reason for my saying this. Society passes judgment on the company one keeps.

There are people who come into my office. They ask for an appointment, and I cannot prejudge what they are going to discuss. They sometimes get the boot out of my office. When they get the boot out of my office I know who they had supper with that night. There are some people who joined us—and even joined others—for reasons of sincerity. Some join us for favours, and I believe in one thing.

I believe in the principle of no favours asked, no favours given. Yet I assist people on compassionate grounds. The other day I received a request which was against our rules. Some people’s homes were collapsing outside the boundary of the city of Durban. I assisted them with homes overnight. Still, others will point a finger, saying that I made this allocation. However, I merely asked my department whether these people could be treated on compassionate grounds. Had the hon member for Reservoir Hills been honest today, I could say that I will take his pants off before I die. [Interjections.] He will never take my pants off. Call it what you like, we are living in Africa. In African terms we can call it ‘tauza’. [Interjections.] In this House I stated that I would be the first to request the hon the State President to appoint a judicial commission of enquiry. One cannot go to the hon the State President and play the fool. He is running a country, so that I must have reasonable grounds for my requests when I go to him.

I must comment on the manner in which some hon members are carrying on. Because they failed to beat us in the political arena they are now getting personal. On Sunday night I received a threat. Certain hitmen would get me if I did not bow down to a Transvaler—not an MP—and also if I continue to embarrass a certain member of this House. I do not fall for threats and if it was the intention of someone to control contractors and all land allocations in Lenasia, that intention has disappeared into ashes as long as I head the Ministers’ Council.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills stood up at one of the sessions of this House and talked about Lonhro, etc. God was on our side. A telex arrived, saying that Lonhro was one of those companies which at that stage had failed to commence the construction of the homes.

I would like to make a statement today. In the past 10 years accusations have been levelled against me, yet I have survived. I survived because truth was on my side. When the lid is off, the hon member for Reservoir Hills’ name will be associated with each one of these accusations. I do not run away. I have taken this fight into the arena of the hon member for Reservoir Hills. Only a guilty man runs away. I want the hon members of this House to know that ever since that shameful day in 1985 when an accusation was made, that accusation has affected my wife and I. [Interjections.] I said allegations. On the 25th February 1985 the hon member for Reservoir Hills said and I quote:

I did! In Durban, in court, in public.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills says that he did. I will prove to this House that he substituted the name ‘Rajbansi’ with the word ‘politician’.

He deliberately substituted that. Why did he not use the name Rajbansi in court? What is the hon member for Reservoir Hills’ opinion? Is he not protected in court? He made certain statements under protection in court. I said I was going to sue the hon member for Reservoir Hills. The hon member for Reservoir Hills knows that.

Your name is mentioned several times.

The name is mentioned when the prosecutor asks questions. The name is mentioned in sentences where I cannot sue you for defamation. However, he did not repeat those allegations in court. I want to deal with that court case because we have a notice of motion. I am not going to deal with it fully today but it should be remembered that if I had an allegation to make, I would not say that someone unknown to me came into my office. [Interjections.] He said in the Tribune Herald: “I have the evidence”.

Tell us about Jeevan Seebran. Is he not your front man?

I am coming to that.

Tell us about Tony Adams.

Mr Chairman, I want it noted that the hon member for Reservoir Hills has said: “Isn’t he your front man?”. I would like that to be recorded.

Yes, I asked you a question.

I would like that to be recorded. One cannot make insinuations by way of questions or interjections.

What about the butcher’s licence?

He then went on to say on 28 January 1985: “I will repeat it outside the House”. He is interjecting. I have waited for this day.

Did you not write out Seebran’s application?

I have waited for this day. No amount of interjections …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I respectfully request that you ask the hon member for Reservoir Hills to restrain himself?

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may continue.

I want the hon member for Reservoir Hills to know that when a man stands up in this House and makes serious allegations, the person who stands accused does not take it lightly. It has hurt me. It has affected me. It has affected my wife and children.

I am sorry about that.

Stop interfering with my family! [Interjections.] I want to make that appeal. Stop interfering with my family!

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council a question?

No questions. I will come back to Jeevan Seebran. I will come back to everyone.

Mr Chairman, if anyone has interfered with the hon the Minister’s family that is a serious state of affairs and it should be reported to the Police.

It should be reported to the Police. Yes, if anyone has serious allegations let them walk out with me at 6. 30 p m this evening and we will walk across to the police station.

You made a stupid allegation just now.

You are a wounded animal in a cage—no, not in a cage, in a post box. [Interjections.] Furthermore, the hon member is walking on the crutches of an informant. He is walking on the crutches of Kessa Thambi.

Kessa is not afraid.

Ask the Transvaal who Kessa Thambi is, what his history is and what his record is.

But he is not afraid.

I would not stand up here and use the word “informant” but I am going to say something this afternoon. I am going to say that an hon member of this House told me a year ago and again a week ago that the hon member for Reservoir Hills had informed him that he had made a mistake in respect of those allegations. The hon member for Reservoir Hills then apparently asked him to ask me not to pursue this matter.

Whoever said that is a liar.

I do not have the permission of the hon member concerned to divulge his name, but I am making this statement here under oath.

Well, if he tells lies, that is all right by him.

What if the informant tells lies? I want the hon member for Reservoir Hills to know that I am going to say what I planned to say this afternoon. His interjections will not dissuade me from doing so.

On 21 February 1985 the hon member for Reservoir Hills said the following (Hansard: Delegates, 21 February 1985, col 812):

Why did you sue Kista Sami?

Mr Chairman, Mr Kessa Thambi has made a statement to the advocate-general privily.

No, I am talking about the Sunday Tribune.

I will answer the hon member. I said a few minutes ago that it will ultimately be proved that all the fires that have been lit against me can be traced to one source, namely the office of the hon member for Reservoir Hills. I am aware of the case of Mr Jivaram Kessa Thambi. I also want this House to know that a person made a statement about me at a meeting in 1983. Why did I do? I did what was expected of me, the honourable thing. I wrote a letter to the Tribune Herald asking that a certain person who made a statement must go to the police station and charge me, or I would sue him. In all these cases, why is it that where the hon member for Reservoir Hills is concerned, the word “fear” comes into play? I want the hon member for Reservoir Hills to know that Mr C G Pillay and I had differences in the LAC, but the person he referred to, even previously, is not Mr B G Pillay, but Mr B G Pillay.

The records will prove it. Let us not pass insinuations. I wrote to the Tribune Herald, but I want hon members of this House to know that the Tribune Herald journalist told me that he is not allowed to divulge the address of a person.

Did you sue the Tribune Herald?

Why should I sue the newspaper? I must sue the culprit!

I believe that the statement that was made by that person was drafted by the hon member for Reservoir Hills. I was told that. This may one day be proved. I know the date on which Mr Kessa Thambi visited Durban. It was during the week that we had the floods. If you look at the paragraphs of Mr Kessa Thambi’s memo to the advocate-general, who uses the word glibly? Does Mr Kessa Thambi use the word glibly? It is attested by an attorney.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council wants an affidavit drafted and he pays a fee, I will do it for him.

Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr Chairman, ever since 1985 I have received visits, documents and calls, mostly from old people. Two weeks ago a lady met me at a school. She cursed a particular gentleman, an attorney. She said: “You know, my husband was killed, but my biggest mistake in life was that to wind up the estate, I went to a particular person.”

Personality! The hon member for Cavendish was no personality yesterday, nor was the guise of God a personality! No personality! Blame the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for everything. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. So when I deliver the truth, I will speak of Jeevan Seebran, inspite of insinuations. Did the hon member for Reservoir Hills tell the court that in acting on behalf of a client he threatened me, that if I do not give a client, who himself was not a victim of the Group Areas Act, a service station site in Phoenix by a certain date, I would be taken to court? Did he mention that here? Did the hon member for Reservoir Hills mention that in court? The hon member says that he repeated the allegations in court. It is unparliamentary for me to comment on that. If I call him a liar, I will be ruled out of order. Hon members should, however, read the statement the hon member for Reservoir Hills made in court. It deliberately excludes the allegations made here.

I had preliminary legal opinion—there are attorneys in this House—that the statement made by the hon member for Reservoir Hills in court on 25 January 1988 is not a breach of privilege and I cannot sue him for defamation. The hon member for Springfield says that he gave the statement to the Press. I can say outside that I said this in Parliament, and I cannot be sued. If I made a false allegation in Parliament I can make a statement outside, saying that I said this and that in Parliament on a certain day. On 3 February 1988 the hon member for Reservoir Hills released a statement saying that this is in response to a request from me—he says that I requested that the allegations be made outside Parliament.

Let us examine what a shameful thing the hon member for Reservoir Hills has done. In his statement of 3 February he excludes all the allegations he has made in Parliament from time to time. What is worse is that he has excluded some very serious allegations that he made in court. He used the name of a politician and said in his statement that I cannot deny these things. I want to say that the hon member for Reservoir Hills deliberately excluded the allegations that he had made in this House in 1985 in this statement to the court. He tried to mislead the public in saying that he had issued a public statement on 3 February 1988.

If the hon member for Reservoir Hills is interested in justice, the finest example that he can possibly set is by looking at the history of Mr Kessa Thambi. The Transvalers here know that. One should study his history. I am not going to cast any aspersions on him now, because he is not here to defend himself. One should study his history and find out how he amassed his wealth. Mr Kessa Thambi has made allegations against everybody standing in his way and he has investigated everybody except himself. Nobody except himself is fit to do anything, and anyone standing in his path must be destroyed.

I want to say that Lenasia itself is the pride of the House of Delegates. One day, when I find a loophole and make a breakthrough with Mr Kessa Thambi, he will admit to me that he was misled by people.

Let us look at distribution to the media. The subpoena that was served on the hon member for Reservoir Hills was posted anonymously to the Press. Can I say that the Chief Public Prosecutor of Durban did so? Can I say that any other officials in the party did so? It may have been posted in a parliamentary envelope, but I do not know because I did not see it. All the newspaper reporters told me that they received it anonymously.

I think Mr Kessa Thambi did a very fine thing in submitting those affidavits to the Advocate-General. If he felt that there was wrongdoing, I think he did a fine thing by asking the Advocate-General to investigate it.

I knew long before 25 January 1988 that the hon member for Reservoir Hills had a copy of the affidavit and that he distributed it.

I had several copies!

Yes, he had several copies but it went to newspaper reporters anonymously. I noticed the date on which the newspaper reporters received it anonymously.

However, we cannot make wild allegations. I want to say to the hon member for Reservoir Hills that he must walk out with us this evening at 6. 30 pm, ask all the newspaper reporters to be there and give them a written statement that contains the 1985 allegations outside of Parliament.

I want a commission.

If anybody says, “I want a commission” I do not want to transgress in respect of the notice of motion which I have submitted.

What did Kurt Waldheim say?

The hon member for Reservoir Hills was outside when I said this. I do not know why he did not listen to me when I said that he threatened me that if I assisted the Indian stallholders of Durban in the market venture he would attack me. He cannot deny this. He did so twice in private conversation. I want the hon member for Reservoir Hills to cast his mind back to one night in May when he asked his colleague to query indirectly the application made by the Durban City Council to sell a site for the purpose of the construction of a hospital in Chatsworth. He objected to it. That night something slipped from his mouth and I very clearly recollect him saying that he represents a competitor as an attorney.

That is a lie.

Order!

Sir, I withdraw the word “lie” and substitute it with “untruth”.

Order! I ask the hon member for Reservoir Hills not to come up with substitutions please. Will he withdraw the word “lie”.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw the word “lie”.

Continue with your inventions.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Reservoir Hills says that I am speaking an untruth. I know that I am speaking in Parliament, but then he cannot deny the fact that for some unknown reason he was objecting to the application for consent made by the Durban City Council to sell that site. There was something fishy about his objections and this type of fish is too slippery to get caught in the type of nets he wants us to produce.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills is a humiliated man, he is a wounded man walking on the crutches of an informant. He has made a statement in court that the police must do their job; I wrote to the hon the Minister of Law and Order in 1985 asking him to institute police investigations. In fact, I went to the Minister requesting that I be charged. I believe that the hon member for Reservoir Hills asked for protection when the police officers went to him and asked for a type of parliamentary protection.

Rubbish! A policeman told me that you interfered in 123 cases.

I am going to ask the policeman.

When a lawyer writes to me threatening to take me to court if I do not give a person a service station site by a particular date, when he states in his statement of 3 February relating to another person that he himself was not a displaced trader—the hon member for Reservoir Hills knows that that client himself was not a displaced trader—then one wants to be technical and apply the same rule. Why should he threaten me and why did he not tell the court or this House previously that he threatened me? I said last year when the hon member for Reservoir Hills was ill that we receive representations and that we attend to the representations.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills is highly principled. He will not attend to representations until such time as they tell him, “I am coming to you as a client, and I want you to work for me for a fee.” Nobody in this House can say that we treated opposition members in the area differently. Nobody can say that.

But you are afraid of a Supreme Court case.

I am not afraid of a Supreme Court case.

Let us have a defamation case tomorrow!

Did you not submit to the threat of court proceedings?

No! I did not submit to the threat of court proceedings. Which court proceedings?

You were threatened.

I can compare this drama with 1985. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says this comes up regularly. On whose initiative does it come up? The accusers? Let us describe the scene in terms of two boxers. One throws a punch and then dodges into his corner, and he receives vicious left and right hooks, and squirms and dodges, knocking himself out of the ring. He refuses to come into the ring. I raised the matter in 1985.

My client insisted…

I raised the matter in 1986. Can the hon member for Reservoir Hills tell me that his client was himself a displaced trader?

He was entitled to it.

Answer this question. Can you tell me, as you have said in a statement on 3 February, that he himself was not a displaced trader? Can you say if your client himself was a displaced trader? The answer is no!

Mr Chairman, I am obliged to answer that. My client merely insisted upon his legal rights and threatened that if his legal rights were not accorded to him, and if the site he had been promised was given to someone else, he would take the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council to court. However, the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council sensibly acceded to my client’s demand.

I did not accede to the client’s demand. That client called at my office twice and told me that a friend of his had taken him to see a member of Parliament and I did not realise that ultimately he was going to act as my attorney. The client also told me that the biggest mistake he had ever made was to go to that particular MP. He then returned with a witness. What I want to say is that the other hon members of this House receive representations, and day in and day out they help. However, the hon member for Reservoir Hills is unable to distinguish between being a member of Parliament and acting as attorney for someone. If I were an attorney and if I criticised the Group Areas Act to the extent to which I criticise it in this House, and when a victim of the Group Areas Act, or the son of a victim of the Group Areas Act, were to come to my office, am I going to charge him that fee when I am a member of Parliament? Am I going to say that because I am an attorney I should feel sorry for him and say that because of the stand I have taken in public, I am going to represent him as an MP? That is the difference.

He is not only a wounded man, he is a humiliated man. We have called his bluff many times, in this House too.

Why are you scared of…

I am not scared of a commission of inquiry because I am not going to let the hon member for Reservoir Hills get away with this. He wrote a letter to me stating that if the commission found there was nothing wrong he would apologise for the accusations he made in this House. An apology is a small thing. I am not going to let the hon member for Reservoir Hills get away with an apology. Let us have a judicial commission of inquiry tomorrow and simultaneously a defamation case. I want to sue him through every court in this country but the hon member is hiding behind protection. If he is interested, he has read out allegations against Kessa Thambi. Let us ask Mr Kessa Thambi.

There has been a great deal of debate about Bazaria. I want to say in this House that I did not know who Bazaria was until the name was mentioned in Parliament. What he said about me was that I went to the Ministers and I obtained plots for Bazaria because of political favour. Let us look at what was said in court. If a Minister is appointed it is corruption. If you do this, it is corruption. So, every way you turn there is corruption. Only when you look at yourself in the mirror do you say there is no corruption.

Let us come to 1984. There is a lot of nonsense about education. We have had talk of A K Mohammed, and I want to say what I said yesterday: Wrong is wrong. If I condone a wrong, then I am not fit to be here. However, let us not pick one wrong. We know that on the day of the election 90 people came along without identity documents, and somebody filled in the forms, and they voted. It is highly unlikely that in an election where one gets only about 500 voters, 90 out of 500 turn up without identity documents. We did not go, because of this very fact. The hon member for Reservoir Hills read about the Tongaat elections, about affidavits. He did not say that Mr Kessa Thambi dealt with those affidavits. He did not tell this House about Mr Kessa Thambi. You see, one gets Kessa Thambi lurking in the shadows. [Interjection.] Wrong is wrong.

Let the truth come out.

Let the truth in everything come out. Let us investigate everything. The hon member for Reservoir Hills was interested in special votes. He should have answered my questions in this House in 1986, when I asked where the missing duplicate forms were relating to the special votes of a particular constituency. I say this because if we submitted those duplicate forms to the Police … [Interjections.]

Talk about A K Mohammed.

I will never defend a wrong, but when the hon member for Umzinto mentioned the names of two officials in 1985, that hon member interjected so that he wouldn’t get a chance. That interjection was a type of threat. There were two officials, and the hon member for Umzinto indicated that a day after the election, during office hours, two officials of the State department of Indian Affairs had visited him at his house during office hours and asked him to join Solidarity.

Do you condone the fraud?

No, I do not condone any fraud; I would not condone any wrong. However, did the hon member for Reservoir Hills, in the name of truth, justice and fair play, say: “Very well, you have made an allegation; let us investigate it.”? Up to this point the hon member for Reservoir Hills has not challenged the hon member for Umzinto to pursue that.

Let us turn to another wrong, Mr Chairman. I know that the hon member for Cavendish likes to present a godly picture, but he should clean himself of the dirt that is within him.

You are talking nonsense. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I shall tell him why he is bitter. He is bitter with me.

Nonsense.

It is because he wanted a grand prize, and that is the secret. [Interjections.] Tell me, during May, when the high drama was taking place …

He went away because of this kind of accusation.

No. I shall deal with that. Will that hon member tell me whether he spoke to me privately in May last year?

Are we to conduct debates at this level!

I am speaking in Parliament and I am asking him a question. Don’t squirm; did you meet me privately in May?

Talk about something else, please.

No, but did he not meet me privately? Under religion, deny it!

Absolute nonsense, man!

I shall have to expose you.

If you have any faith, do not be too quick to say that.

The hon Mr R S Nowbath referred to a list of 22 names. He is correct. When I was chairman of the executive committee of the SAIC, he referred to a list of 22 names.

Have a commission of enquiry!

However, I want to say …

May I ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council a question?

I am answering no questions. [Interjections.] What will a commission of enquiry prove when it is his word against mine? [Interjections.] The hon member for Cavendish did not only speak to me in 1983; he arrived in my office in 1986.

That is the day of reckoning.

On a point of order, Mr Chairman, I rise to ask the Chair’s protection. The hon member has just recently had a triple heart by-pass operation … [Interjections] … and I ask whether this is good enough.

Mr Chairman, I want to appeal to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I realise that the hon member for Cavendish is not well. However I think that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition should also advise him to realise that he is not well. I would not have referred to him had he not passed remarks.

There is a phrase: “When rats eat you”. This does not mean that they physically eat you, but it points to living with your conscience. When your conscience begins to eat you, that is when you become restless—sometimes to the extent that you go insane.

There is another matter which I would like to refer to. This happened in 1984. The hon member for Reservoir Hills speaks of making use of departmental officials, but let us look at the hon member for Merebank. Monday was nomination day. He arrives at the nomination court on Friday and the returning officer says that because he is a State official, his nomination cannot be accepted. Can anyone deny that officials of the Department of Education did not meet certain people over the weekend? I understand that this hon member submitted a letter of resignation on that Friday, stating his resignation and the reason therefore, namely that he is standing for election on the Monday. Afterwards they realised that one has to give so many months’ notice. However, on the Monday he submits a letter stating that he is the organiser of Solidarity—he has taken on another job! I warned the members of Solidarity, especially the hon member for Reservoir Hills, to search their conscience. Did they have the payslip of that organiser and did they pay his income tax … ?

Under R7 000 you don’t pay! [Interjections.]

Well, if they are paying them under R7 000, they are not fit to be here. That is exploitation of manpower.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills is a super salesman in the eyes of some Afrikaners in this country. [Interjections.] In speaking of honesty, for once, please speak the truth in this House. Admit that a mistake was made in 1985. The hon member is a wounded animal and will remain wounded. He has jumped into a post-box.

I admit that you are not speaking the truth.

That story about an informant in court is a fabrication.

He is afraid of you.

Why manufacture a story about being afraid? Why all these so-called threats? They only exist in the mind of one individual. The hon member is too thick-skinned.

You misuse your power!

That hon member cannot forgive or forget that he did not become the Minister of Education in this Ministers’ Council.

That is rubbish!

He talks of rubbish! In 1984 I received a message at the H F Verwoerd Building that we do not need two Ministers of Education and that the coalition was on if I gave them the Ministry of Education. The scene was set.

We told the officials that bribery was rife in education and in housing.

The corruption took place in your own home when you gave liquor to white officials of the Department of Education.

You are filthy and desperate.

The truth hurts. I am delivering a home truth. We will bury the hon member politically—he is already hiding in a post-box.

You wallow in abasement.

Why then not go to a commission?

The hon member for Reservoir Hills is delaying the Commission of Inquiry. Why does he not make a statement outside this House in accordance with his boasts on the 20 January, the 21 February and the 25 February 1985?

On three occasions he boasted: “I will repeat these allegations outside Parliament” and we are still waiting. It appears as if he is locked in his postbox. [Interjections.] His day will come. Firstly he said: “I have the evidence”. Mr John McLennan is a seasoned journalist. You could not tell the court on 25 January: “I did not write the story”. I would be one of the few who would challenge the correctness of any article written by a person who was news editor of the Sunday Tribune, and you went and told the court: “I did not write the story”. What does the Sunday Tribune state? “I have the evidence”. What is the meaning of “evidence”?

The word is “document”. Do not talk nonsense in this House.

I have the court records and I have the article. It does not say “document”. Nowhere in 1985 did the hon member for Reservoir Hills tell this House that what he was saying was what an informant had told him. He failed to say that in 1985. However, because I pushed him into a corner, thoughts suddenly came into his mind. What could he fabricate? What could he manufacture? If he stood up here and said that an informant had told him…

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Are you going to permit the hon the Minister to suggest that I was fabricating or manufacturing statements? Is the Chair prepared to permit that kind of nonsense? [Interjections.]

Order! I shall rule on the matter raised by the hon member for Reservoir Hills at a later stage.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

As I said earlier on, Mr Chairman, I remember you giving a guideline and if I did not hear you correctly, I shall apologise. However, I am acting in accordance with the guideline you have given me. I shall apologise if I am not speaking within the terms of the guidelines you laid down yesterday.

There is no sense in hiding behind a call for a simple commission of inquiry. If a simple allegation had been made, that would have been a different matter. As I have said, I stood up in this House and said I would support the appointment of a commission of inquiry, but the hon the State President would not accede to any request without reasonable grounds. I have been to the Police. I have been to the Advocate-General. Let the hon member for Reservoir Hills cast his aspersions on the Police. When he appeared in court on 25 January 1985 what did he expect the Police to do when he was not receiving any co-operation from the person who was saying: “I have the evidence?”. We heard in court for the first time that there was an informant. The hon member for Reservoir Hills indicated that I had requested him to name the informant. What I requested was the evidence. Moreover, I was serious, and I want to say that if anyone has any allegations to make, then in addition to our having a judicial commission of inquiry they should go to the nearest police station and lay a charge. They should go and lay a charge.

Who is Ramburran?

Yes, you spoke about Naicker in court. You misled the courts as well, because the facts you are being given are incorrect. You are being given one-sided facts.

People spoke about dossiers. Is your informant that dossier?

Why are you avoiding Ramburran?

I will not be buried. You can mention names.

Tell us about Ramburran. How is he connected with you?

Not at all.

Why did you prefer him?

I do not prefer him.

Do you deny that you asked the officials… [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may continue.

Mr Chairman, only when an Indian Minister performs a duty is he wrong. It is corruption.

We have not accused any of your Ministers of this kind of behaviour.

No, it is corruption. However, I want to say that the only person standing between this House and a judicial commission of inquiry is the hon member for Reservoir Hills. He has stated in this House that he repeated the allegation in court. I say he has not.

He has failed miserably and I have finally called his bluff in court. When he received that sub poena he realised that he was wounded and in a trap. What he did was to get the media, prepare a press statement and distribute it to journalists. This statement dealt with side issues. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Reservoir Hills stated that the Durban City Council sold me a different plot. How can the Durban City Council sell another building site to a person who already has a site? I sent a telegram to the mayor of Durban, asking him to release that particular plot to the public. The mayor of Durban was not able to release that other residential plot to the public. I mentioned in this House last year that somebody went to the Registrar of Deeds and acquired a photocopy of deeds and distributed this anonymously to the newspapers. Reference was made in court to this same matter. I do not say that the newspapers distributed it anonymously, but there is a link between the two. The Durban City Council sells strips of land adjoining people’s properties to round of properties that are useless to the Durban Municipality. They have done it in a 1 000 cases in Chatsworth. What is wrong with it if they sold me a strip behind my plot if they sold a strip to everyone?

When did you buy your main house in Chatsworth?

That was bought in 1970.

When did you sell the plot in Silverglen?

Order! If the hon member for Reservoir Hills has any questions, they should be directed through the Chair.

As the Chairman pleases. Mr Chairman …

Mr Chairman, I am not taking any questions. I will answer everything. We have a motion before us and we will deal with it. The hon member for Reservoir Hills is ducking, diving and dodging. I will come to Silverglen, but let us deal with this first.

When did you sell that plot?

The hon member wants to shift our minds away from the topic. I will not diverge from the topic, because I have him in a comer. I have put a lock on the post-box; he cannot come out of it. That is why he is lost.

Great play was made in court and much dramatisation took place, and the journalists who were present fell for it. “Mr Rajbansi was sold another residential plot by the Durban City Council.” The hon member for Reservoir Hills must admit that he was wrong, and that what the Durban City Council did for me is what they did for a 1 000 others. The hon member for Bayview will know that the Durban City Council sold strips of land behind people’s houses which were of no use to them. Is that another residential plot? It was in the Daily News and other newspapers: “Rajbansi in shady land deals”.

When I was not a member of the South African Indian Council in 1972 the Department of Community Development and Planning did not allocate a residential site, lot 888, in Silverglen to me. They were selling sites in Silverglen. There were a few sites which they could not sell. I was not a member of the South African Indian Council then. I bought a useless piece of land, with public competition, and I regretted buying it. I really regretted it, because I lost a lot of money on that site and the house I built. There were a few of us who did this; we just filled in forms, because there were tenders. I remember the hon member for Havenside was involved in this. I think it was he who reminded me about the advertisements. I took it as a joke. If the condition of tender was such that they just wanted to get rid of the bad plots, do hon members blame me? Is that corruption? However, what a great play was made of this in court! Let me give an example: The Star says: “Rajbansi in shady land deals”. They quote this in court. Is that fair?

Is it fair that when the municipality sells me a small strip of land behind my house a great play is made?

Let us take the case of Mr Naiker. The hon member for Reservoir Hills dealt with omissions. I want to say that the Seebran family has been the worst hit in terms of the Group Areas Act. The two brothers lost 30 residential plots and five garage-related businesses of which three were exclusively petrol station sites. Two of these petrol stations still stand today. The one is rented to an Indian, but they both belong to Whites. The two brothers also lost 10 shops. Mr Parau Seebran claims that he has not been adequately compensated for being the worst hit victim of the Group Areas Act.

His brother Mr Bassan Seebran ran the business jointly with him according to Indian custom and tradition.

Mr Sheik Adam is not a displaced man. The policy of the former Department of Community Development was that when a father wants an allocation to be transferred to his son, the former department did it. When the father died and all the other children signed letters of cession, it was accepted. However, it was accepted in one case but in another case it was seen as wrong.

How many did Mr Seebran get altogether?

Mr Seebran got two.

Is that Mr Jeevan Seebran?

Yes, but that hon member cannot point a finger at me. I did not represent him in every case, but only in one case.

Let us take the case of Mr Sheik Adam.

What is your connection with Mr Seebran?

My connection with Mr Seebran is the same as everybody else’s in Chatsworth. He is not a friend. [Interjections.] The hon member says Mr Seebran is my bookkeeper. That is the biggest nonsense under the sun. It is an illusion and a figment of their imagination. The hon member for Reservoir Hills suffers in his mind to such an extent that he sees a ghost in everything. [Interjections.]

I have always maintained that this is the place where the truth will be established and where there is public accountability. I wrote to the hon member for Springfield and said that he is entitied to information. However, there is a way in which one writes letters. One does not make allegations of corruption in a letter and one is not rough to a person when you write him a letter. Yet he has done that to another hon member of my Ministers’ Council.

Any hon member in this House is entitled to information except information relating to personnel where there are good grounds that it should not be divulged. This is where accountability comes into the matter.

In reference to the Seebran case, Mr Seebran Snr himself admitted in a letter that I conducted my family business according to old Indian custom and that I hold these businesses in my name because they really do belong to my family. I declared the Seebran file closed because there are other matters that have to be considered. They are very bitter with me now because I refuse to assist them now that I am a Minister.

Let us consider the case of the Adam family. Insofar as property is concerned, they were second to the Seebran family. When Mr Sheik Adam was alive, he made representations to me but I failed him for 10 years. However, this is not recorded.

Did he not get a cinema site?

No, he did not get a cinema site, but he bought one in the open market. When a person buys property in the open market one cannot regard him as being resettled. He bought it in a situation of open public competition.

The garage site in Unit 3 was about to be allocated to him. I will concede that some of the allegations made by the former Department of Community Development are questionable. However, I have been blamed for something else, possibly in Unit 7.

There is something that I would like to know: Where did the Jaganath get three allocations? They only got one. Anyone can ask the Jaganath family if I ever made representations on their behalf.

The answer is no and I am saying this in Parliament, but these things are mentioned in wild affidavit statements such as, “my informant informed me”.

Did you visit the garage?

I sometimes fill up with petrol when I pass there.

Did you have discussions with them?

Mr Chairman, I am not interested in these kitchen stories. This is called kitchen politics and I am not interested in it, because the hon member for Reservoir Hills is putting these questions to me and then a telephone call will go to Mr Bissetty, because he failed to get a nomination as a member of the President’s Council, and the hon member for Reservoir Hills knows that Mr Bissetty will write anything against me and will write anything against the NPP. If the hon member is so concerned about the Group Areas Act and the uprooting of the Group Areas Act why should it worry him when the victims of this Act are assisted?

I want to say that our Chairman of the Housing Development Board is an upright man and I hope that one day members will have an insight into the number of things that that Board returns to the department, including applications for petrol service stations. I want to say that if there is a man of integrity it is the Chairman of the Housing Development Board.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills did not get the correct information and he stated in his affidavit to the court that Mr Naiker was been overlooked. However, Mr Naiker has not been overlooked; he was approved as a resettlement case by the board before 25 January 1988. The trouble is that he did not get the correct information that Mr Naiker preferred to be resettled in the area where his business was closed down and we are going out of our way to help him, because he feels he wants to open up where his business was closed down. So that statement in court that Mr Naiker was overlooked is wrong. Mr Naiker is aware of that and he is being patient and waiting.

I want to say this, I have on numerous occasions filled in application forms for people. There is nothing wrong or irregular about that. I will do it today and I will do it tomorrow for as long as I am in Public Service. I know that other people fill in forms.

But they charge professional fees for it!

No, I do not want to cast that aspersion.

There is a deliberate attempt to cast a cloud over the main issue in court on 25 January 1988, but that wounded animal is now caught in a cage. Unfortunately, the Press fell for that trap and on 3 February a great statement was issued that the hon member for Reservoir Hills was now responding to the request of Mr Rajbansi and that the world would see that here was a member of the Cabinet who was in trouble because the hon member for Reservoir Hills, the great accuser, had now issued a statement in public, when in fact it was the biggest non-statement of 1988.

I want to say two things. It failed miserably in repeating the 1985 allegations—I am not saying allegation, I use the plural. Furthermore, knowing that he had protection in court and that I cannot sue him for what he has said in court…

That is not true!

If it is not true, give me an opinion.

The court is only partially privileged.

I am not back-tracking, I have a preliminary opinion from my attorneys and if the hon member for Reservoir Hills can give me the opinion that I can sue him for what he stated in court I would appreciate that and we will pay him.

Let us look at the great nonstatement of 1988. Why does that statement exclude quite a lot of the things that were said in court? The hon member for Reservoir Hills said that his informant told him that I had had discussions with petrol companies on manipulating sites so that these companies could benefit. It is unfortunate that it was said in court, but when victims of the Group Areas Act want to come and see me I cannot stop them.

Was Mobil a victim?

Mobil is not a victim.

Oh, I see!

Now the hon member for Reservoir Hills has all the courage and has his voice inside Parliament, but I think one day he might make an excuse. His excuse in court was that the informant could not be traced. He gave valuable documents away. If the hon member for Reservoir Hills had one iota of evidence to hang me he would hang me tomorrow. He has no evidence. Can anyone believe that someone would return valuable documents to a person he did not know, whose address he did not know—he gave the court a vague box number? I think the hon member for Reservoir Hills might suddenly decide to say “I accept your challenge” here, and then he will go outside and say “I have lost my voice and my ability to write the statement”. That is going to happen because as he opens his mouth he puts his foot in it. His P O box number is becoming smaller.

About half an hour ago I said that I dealt with a petrol company, and I hope the petrol companies will come to me. I appeal to them to do so. Will whichever petrol companies I spoke to to manipulate sites for them please come forward and issue a statement to the police.

Why did you talk to the petrol companies? What was the nature of your conversation?

I want to say that even now I have received a request from a petrol company that wants me to see it, and I will see it officially. Whoever I see in my capacity as Chairman of Exco I see officially.

Yes, the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture is present. I had discussions with the victims of the Group Areas Act and their two attorneys and I reported back officially on the discussions to the Executive Committee of the South African Indian Council.

I met representatives from Checkers in the Johannesburg Sun on Wednesday. In my official capacity as Minister I requested them to come and see me. I said in this House last year that I warned Checkers to beware of a consortium of Indians because there were certain principles about partnership with individual tenderers which were held dear. If the individual tenderers did not have money, if they did not come forward and want to participate with Checkers when we gave them the opportunity to do so after they had complained bitterly to us, the fault is not ours.

I want this House to know that I was taunted and accused of having something to do with this consortium. The intention of the accusers was that this consortium should never be associated with Checkers. I want to report to this House that a member of the consortium received two calls the same night, quoting what I had said in Parliament, which I confirmed. Hon members can speak to Mr Paul Fox or Mr Ian Taylor. I told them no fewer than five times never to have anything to do with that consortium. If they do have anything to do with it, it will be wrong. There is a person, however, and he is going to hang himself. I want the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his new recruit to know that that person whose telephone number if 433-745, phoned me at 10 o’clock. He told me that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had telephoned and told him that Mr Rajbansi had said in Parliament that Checkers should not have anything to do with the consortium. You can quote me on that. I am saying what he told me. [Interjections].

What happened then …

What is wrong? Are you afraid of … ?

No, I am not afraid. But why, before I informed Parliament that I had informed Checkers on numerous occasions, did members not want to be in favour of the consortium? They wanted to be against it. However, when I confirmed to this House what I had told Checkers on numerous occasions, the message to act against me was flashed to the members of the consortium. I know what is happening. I know that they don’t know any secrets. The only secret that I share is the type of suggestions they made in my house, and they got the boot! I have occasions when I write and inform the State President when people make suggestions to me, and they get the boot. One man in my Durban office was thrown out of my office because he came in the name of the interests of the community, but made certain suggestions. It was only between him and me, and I asked him to leave my office. On quite a few occasions I informed the office of the State President in the interests of clean administration.

However, I stated that I now have a problem. It is that there are people who join us, thinking that they can make use of us. I will not bow down to these people. I will not bow down to any mobster in the Transvaal, enabling him to control housing development. If I am weak and bow down to these people then I am not fit to hold this position.

There is an attorney in the consortium—I have never seen what his face looks like. However, one day I shall tell the hon member for Reservoir Hills who gave me information as to what that attorney is doing in the Havenside shopping centre. I say this because in politics and in public life there is such a thing as honour. We should understand how big projects are undertaken, where the purchaser hands the site to an institution. Therefore do not say that third parties are involved.

How much was paid for that by the Delegates?

I do not know the details offhand. I do not know the details. If I am R5 off the figure, then he will cast an aspersion on me.

This is the place where I believe there is accountability. I have dealt with everything. That hon member is a defeated man. He is a humiliated man. Have the courage to stand up in society and …

Who is afraid of the commission of enquiry?

… and repeat: I am not afraid of the Commission. The only person who is preventing and delaying the appointment of a judicial commission of enquiry is the hon member for Reservoir Hills, because he indicated to me as I said earlier on that …

Do not run away from the issue.

We are not running away. You are like a boxer who has run away out of the ring. You are relying on the crutches of an informant to push you back into the ring. The hon member is a wounded man whose bluff has been called on numerous occasions. He indicates to me in a letter that if proved wrong he would apologise. An apology for this would be insufficient. What is required is a thrashing in a defamation action simultaneously with a judicial commission of enquiry.

[Inaudible.]

I want to say that there is only one person preventing a judicial commission of enquiry …

Mr Rajbansi.

… and that is the hon member for Reservoir Hills. He must make the statement outside this House and I will convince the State President. [Interjections.] I said that I would never object …

On a point of order: Mr Chairman, throughout the speech of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, the hon member for Reservoir Hills has continuously been interjecting. May I ask for your protection, Sir.

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may continue.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Reservoir Hills is not a good football player. Neither is he a good referee because he is shifting his goal posts every hour-—every time we have scored a goal.

Groundsman.

Yes, that is what the hon member is good for. He may become a good groundsman and play the game outside the field. That hon member is a very bitter man and as long as he lives he will not accept the fact that he lost in the 1984 elections.

But he won, he is here.

He is trying to cloud the eyes of the NPP with negative publicity, but the man in the street knows. In Tongaat, for the first time, my personal name was used in the election. In the Eastern Transvaal I put my personal name in, inspite of the fact that allegations of bribery and corruption were rife from East to West. However, the voters’ judgement was passed in this House where there is accountability, in Lenasia Central, in Brickfield, Tongaat and in the Eastern Transvaal. Why did the PRP not put up candidates? Because the hon member for Reservoir Hills knows that his party represents three people and as long as he remains in political life that membership will not change. In Tongaat in 1984 the hon member for Reservoir Hills said that if he gained less than 10% of the poll he would not take his seat in this House. I appealed to him not to resign. In 1985 I stated that the longer he remained in this House the longer he would help us destroy Solidarity. And now he is talking about a reunification with Solidarity— that is the finest thing the NPP could wish for. On that day the hon member will present the NPP with its greatest gift by destroying the official opposition for us. The fact that Solidarity is small in number may be attributed to the conduct, performance and behaviour of the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

Mr Chairman, the House of Delegates has produced the goods. The hon member for Reservoir Hills substantiates his motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council, saying “Own Affairs”. I once watched the senior council, Mr Ismail Mohamed, present a case before the Group Areas Board. He stated that at present there is no other machinery available to get land for our own people than the Group Areas Act. I have given various hon members of the House tasks to try and solve our housing problems. However, I gave the member for Reservoir Hills a task in Newlands and I would rather not mention his performance on behalf of his constituents. If he is worried about Lenasia South, let him rather worry about the developers in his own constituency. I go out of my way to worry about his constituency. Let us not hide the fact that the Minister of Health Services and Welfare is going to make a contribution to answer the hon member for Reservoir Hills as regards his performance in Phoenix in connection with provision of hospital services.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills is a very frightened man. This afternoon the hon member for Reservoir Hills interrupted a seasoned politician, trying to distract the attention of the hon members of this House. I hope that the country realises this. In his case I have made an exception. I normally would not go to the hon the State President, even with reasonable grounds. Only in his case I have made an exception. Let us have that judicial commission of inquiry and let us have a defamation case in the Supreme Court simultaneously. The ball is now in his court.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that this topic is growing into disturbing dimensions. This is through my effort, because I am not taking a false allegation lightly. If anyone were to allege that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had taken money, I am sure that he would not rest. Even an inquiry would not help, because the evidence would already have vanished. It would vanish because of threats. Why is it that all the fires that are lit around me, originate from an attorney’s office in Grey Street?

The hon member for Durban Bay is present here. He knows about Bazaria, and I hope I shall be able to sue him for what is contained in Mr Cassir Thambi’s affidavit.

Absolutely not.

I hope I shall be able to sue him. He is behaving like a scalded cat. I also called his bluff and I hope that those figures in regard to the ones he has not completed, are highlighted.

I also want to say that we have a great many problems in Newlands West but neither I nor the department have received any representations from the hon member of Parliament representing Newlands West. Let us look at development. In the fields of welfare, agriculture, health, housing and education, there is development. Hon members are attacking own affairs and saying that they have no confidence in the Ministers’ Council because of the own affairs concept. However, this House is also concerned with own affairs. Therefore, if they feel so strongly about it; if they have such high principles; if they have no confidence in the members of the Ministers’ Council because they are in an own affairs ministry, then it is a motion of no confidence in themselves because they are members of an own affairs House. This is an apartheid chamber.

I forecast that the hon member for Reservoir Hills would not contest the next election. His real reasons will be different, but publicly he will say that it is because there are no Blacks here that he is not going to contend the next election. I want to express the hope that he will contest the next election.

1989! [Interjections.]

Some people are shouting out “1989”.

It may be sooner.

Yes, it may be sooner. [Interjections.] However, there are some hon members on the opposite side of the House whose hearts begin to beat faster when one talks about an early election. This party is not afraid of a public election. I want the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to know that yesterday the motion of no confidence fizzled out in this House like a damp squib because in effect they had no case. Had this been a court of law and had you, Mr Chairman, been presiding as a judge or magistrate, I would have said: “I close my files. My case is closed and I apply for judgment”. That was the case.

I do not wish to cast any aspersions on the hon member for Stanger. I do not want to cross swords with him but I think we should look at the Tongaat and the Eastern Transvaal elections. People gave recognition firstly to the House of Delegates, which includes everyone. People gave recognition to the fact that there is development. They gave recognition to the fact that there are changes. My colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, referred to an anonymous pamphlet that was distributed and I want to say that I do not think any good Samaritan would go out of his way to prepare anonymous pamphlets. [Interjections.] There was not only one of them. It is nice for the Opposition to say that they condemned it, but they condemned it too late.

No, we did so immediately. [Interjections.]

Why, in other cases, is whatever they want to say published on the same day in the daily newspapers? Why, in this case, did the condemnation come only three weeks later? In other cases such as in the case of matters relating to the Tongaat election, criticisms appeared in the daily newspapers on the same day or on the next day. I want to say that the finger points in the direction of Solidarity. [Interjections.] I have no evidence.

It is a figment of your imagination.

Let us take a look at the Eastern Transvaal by-election. I was in Piet Retief and a group of people requested to see me in the presence of witnesses. They told me they had decided not to take sides, but because a certain Solidarity member or members had privately preached sectionalism to them, it was said publicly there—an hon member here is my witness— by a group of non-Muslims: “Because this was told to us by people who want to promote nonracialism in this country, we have now decided to support the NPP”.

I did not ask to see them. They requested to see me. The same thing happened in Kinross. We were told privately that certain people arrived to promote apartheid in the Indian community. The hon member for Lenasia Central is my witness. The Transvaal chairman of the NPP is my witness. I am saying what we were told in the presence of witnesses.

Treat it with contempt.

I treat that with contempt, but in Tongaat a very respectable person came to me, in the presence of the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, and said that he was approached in a house meeting to do certain things along certain lines. His critics are supporting Solidarity and he is supporting the NPP. If these things are happening, I cannot point a finger at anyone. These are facts. It is not done by a single individual. I want to mention that certain facts contained in an anonymous pamphlet are also contained in a pamphlet of Solidarity’s election committee of Tongaat which was released on the same day. One wonders how certain facts in an anonymous pamphlet can be the same as those which were included in a pamphlet that was released by the election committee in Tongaat on the same day.

Troublemakers could do that too.

Yes, Mr Chairman, but we should condemn this and say that it stinks to high heaven. Let us be truthful. In Tongaat, Lenasia Central and the Eastern Transvaal conscription is a theme. I cannot find a single fact in the entire advert of Solidarity of 31 January to say what Solidarity stands for. Every fact here runs down the NPP. A political party must be able to give something about its products.

That is our problem.

That is their problem. Their problem is that they do not have any positive fact. They talk of conscription and the President’s Council report. They should present the truth in another election. They are quoting what the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said in the House of Assembly, but they have not told the people, in press statements or pamphlets, that a newspaper misquoted the hon the Deputy Minister. The newspaper accepted the fact that there was a misquotation and they corrected it the following day. That was not presented as a truth. Let us now be truthful.

Even the Hansard makes mistakes.

The Hansard of the House of Assembly is correct. Therefore I corrected the newspaper after checking the Hansard of the House of Assembly. What Solidarity is doing in Tongaat, Lenasia Central and the Eastern Transvaal, is to quote an incorrect newspaper report.

Solidarity states that the NPP is responsible for high land prices. I want to deal with the East Rand and Windmill Park. Yesterday we heard a confession that there are exploiters in Windmill Park. However, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition conceded that his party or people linked to his party made representations to the Boksburg municipality that they want high-class development. He was not aware of the fact that they have taken options …

I did not concede that.

No, I said that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was not aware of the fact.

But in any case, those people are not members of my party.

But they are associated with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s party. [Interjections.] Your Benoni branch secretary has written to me privately to deal with contractors. In Nelspruit a person who wanted to be contracted to the House of Delegates did not get a contract. He became disgruntled and joined Solidarity where you accepted him with open arms.

Yesterday the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition went to great lengths in quoting the hon member Mr S Abram. In 1984 when we were electing the Chairman of Committees, Solidarity walked out of Parliament. That is the greatest single form of protest that one can record against a person. However, that party welcomes others with open arms. They included Mr Abram in their Shadow Cabinet, but yesterday he was criticised again. In politics there is such a thing as honour.

I do not want to say that the hon the State President should call for a commission of enquiry and that an hon Minister should perhaps step down. They must defeat us at the ballot box. I will be the one who will stand up in this House when the winner walks in, and congratulate him. I will do that because the person won at the ballot box. We must be fought at the ballot box, not on a personal level by means of wild allegations.

I can also make allegations. Why did the debate here fizzle out like a damp squid yesterday? It is because the flesh is getting thinner and I am about to reach the skeleton. I can find so many skeletons that it will put certain persons to shame.

Windmill Park is a good example. Solidarity is associated with everyone who wants Windmill Park, and if we do not get Windmill Park we will be criticised. Palm Ridge was not liked by us but was forced upon the Indian people. I asked for Windmill Park but there was reluctance on the part of the Boksburg municipality. They now want to give Windmill Park to us because a Black hostel is being constructed in the area. The “For Sale” signboards were going up and options were being taken up.

What sort of options?

Options of persons who made applications for permits. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition went to the hon the Deputy Minister to get the permits for these people.

Not at all! I deny that.

He is denying it now but the hon the Deputy Minister told me so, and the hon member Mr S Abram said yesterday that it had happened.

Ask the hon member for Central Rand— he was there.

I asked the hon the Deputy Minister. I want to say that everybody who is associated with Windmill Park is not doing a justice to the Indian community, but is assisting in harming us more in terms of the Group Areas Act. I delayed the identification of land at the East Rand in the Ministers’ Council. I delayed it, but there will be remarkable development at the East Rand in the very near future. We already have this type of development in Pretoria where we have announced the construction of 2 000 housing units.

I am asking that we should join hands now.

I also want to say that I am not going to settle the allegations of 1985 lightly. I will fight it right to the day that I go to the grave, and I will even fight it after I have gone to the grave. [Interjections.] I am saying this because this is how hurt I feel that anybody could stand up and hide behind a postbox and an informant.

I know about Cato Manor. Does the House want me to divulge who it was that went to Minister Pen Kotzé at the time to do deals with the Indian community in regard to Cato Manor? [Interjections.] Should I say who it was that indicated at the hearing on the Group Areas Act that I gave a guarantee that there would be a development that would blend with the White community? No, I do not want to expose those persons because I do not want names flashed in newspaper headlines.

Minister Pen Kotzé divulged to us that a certain Indian leader came to his office and said that there was enough Indian money to develop Cato Manor. It was definitely not Mr Abe Ismail.

I could talk about a lot of things, but the hon member for Reservoir Hills and the matter of Chellas I shall deal with in the debate that starts tomorrow. We shall be debating another part of the motion of no confidence in the Cabinet and I shall return to the matter of Chellas and Gurus.

In the meantime I want the hon member for Cavendish to study the history of Dr Conrad Adinov. When Germany was flattened after the Second World War he decided that Germany had to be rebuilt. There is a difference between the Coloured and the Indian communities in this country; there is a difference in their history; their is a difference in their struggles.

There is a similarity between the struggle of the Afrikaner and the Indian communities. We came from the East and we opened South Africa from Durban westwards, while the Afrikaner opened South Africa from south to north. We were both treated like slaves. Does this House expect me to adopt an irresponsible attitude? If the cause of the Indians in this country is destroyed in the context of the larger cause of every South African in this country, then I shall be hanged. I shall be called the culprit who, through irresponsible action in the House of Delegates, destroyed what the Indian community has built in this country.

I have stated an ideal about the Group Areas Act.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to take a question?

No Sir, my time is too limited.

It is up to the majority party to use the machinery of the Group Areas Act, and I want to say that we have done wonders to identify land throughout South Africa and the fruits of our labours are beckoning to be realised. I am not going to take individual credit. If any hon member of the Opposition has helped me, the credit goes also to the House of Delegates, but I want to make an appeal: let us not make wild allegations. If people think that this side of the House is going to be tainted as far as the public is concerned, every one in this House is going to be tarred with the same brush.

We held a meeting with business leaders and it was an excellent meeting. They asked me about the statements made in the House of Delegates and I asked them not to pass judgment on the whole House because of the irresponsible behaviour and actions of the few individuals. This House is making progress. The hon member for Reservoir Hills once conceded that one has to provide services in one’s areas. What member of Parliament can tell one that he does not want services in his area?

It is going to take us a long time to move away from group identity in this country. One has to have a period of transition. Even the Natal Indaba finally accepted that in the interim one has to find a solution on a group basis. Can we therefore run away from the fact that we have had Indian Housing or Indian Education for a long time in this country? Before the advent of the tricameral Parliament did we not have a single Minister and a single department? We had Indian housing and at that time one had to go with a begging bow to a general affairs Minister—there was one Minister for housing—who allocated money from a common pool to the various race groups. I know how communities have to beg and let me make it clear that I want the reduction of the duplication of services and that is why we have the National Health Plan where we are not going to be running hospitals ourselves.

If we can reduce the number of Ministers I shall be the first to support it. However, own affairs is not apartheid. Own affairs must be regarded as the provision of services in own areas. Ministers, whether they are Ministers now or previous Ministers, have certain perks. The hon member for Stanger made representations to the Minister to get a vacant Deputy Minister’s house for his leader.

That was built using taxpayers’ money. In the administrative headquarters of the Minister there should be official accommodation according to the rules and traditions in South Africa. But what do we see in the Post? The hon member for Stanger criticises us.

It was an existing house.

Never mind its existing.

Get your facts right.

Where do you expect a Minister to live? Throughout the country in the administrative headquarters there are official residences.

If you want to entrench it, that is fine.

No, we do not want to entrench it.

The house is a house. If it has no ministerial use it can be sold.

If you want to entrench the system, say so.

We are not entrenching the system.

If you want to entrench it, it is your right.

If I deal with another debate I will prove it. Your policies are determined by who bites the carrot. Your policies are determined on an ad hoc basis, not on a permanent, generalised basis. A person’s principle is dependent on where he sits.

I have been sitting here all the time.

I sincerely hope that hon members say here and in public what they say to me privately. It is nice to say that we are promoting apartheid. If you ask for land, you are asking for Indian land. It is nice to say that I have asked certain radicals whether they want the Group Areas Act to be lifted in their areas. In my capacity as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council I am accused of allowing Blacks into Indian areas. I received threats because we allowed non-Indian children, especially Blacks, to attend our schools.

Very true!

Look at the advances we are making. I have been receiving threats because Blacks have built shacks in Indian areas and I have to have the shacks removed. I said I would have the shacks removed but not because they happen to be Black shacks. That is my reply to these people.

I want to deal with the hon member for Springfield. He is quick to criticise. He calculated the rental of Malgate Building in this House and told us it would be cheaper to buy it. However, when the hon the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs bought the building he forgot it had been his proposal. There were front page headlines in the Post. As long as they get the headlines and table questions they are happy. Beyond tabling questions and talking to the Press one has no additional report on public service.

A ministerial house is provided in two ways. One way is that a Minister can provide it himself and the other is that an official residence is provided. The Durban City Council has made a decision and taken a request from the Housing Development Board. However, the hon member for Springfield comments that they have made the correct decision. I do not deny him the right to express an opinion. I do not deny the hon member for Stanger the right to differ with me provided we differ in a positive way, with facts.

Let us go back to the days before the House of Delegates was established. Members of the President’s Council needed official accommodation and to afford them priority was the correct thing to do. If any LAC member, a public servant or MP, comes to our administration wanting accommodation according to normal State policy which has been applicable for the past 20 years, we will assist them. The hon member for Springfield did not say in the Tribune Herald that I was faced with a similar situation and I got a plot. I am referring to him because he is the one making the comments. They got the banana peel he threw about Malgate, and he slipped on that banana peel. He was allocated a plot. At a time when the market value was R30 000, he paid R8 000. However, he was allocated the plot for a purpose which was to house him in his capacity as a member of the President’s Council and as of 28 August 1984 the plot has been vacant. No house was built on it. If you are interested in the community the correct thing to do is what was done. I was given priority to build a house in my capacity as a member of the Ministers’ Council. I have failed miserably to do that and I am now returning the plot to the State. Others have built…

Sold.

No, they could have sold. There are others in a changing situation, like teachers. We give them priority housing. I am not critical of them because the hon member for Springfield is opening his mouth and putting his foot in it.

We are on a grand road to progress. Let us not mistake own affairs for apartheid. Own affairs is the provision of services in one’s own area and I will be the first to support a reduction in duplication. I will be the first to support rationalisation. In this situation, however, because of the complex history of South African society, can you run away from group thinking? It is in the Freedom Charter. You know, some people are beginning to hate the Freedom Charter, because some people are reminding them that there is a phrase in the Freedom Charter that refers to the various groups in this country. When we deal with group development we are disliked. So there has to be a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council, according to the hon member for Reservoir Hills, because we are dealing with own affairs.

I want to take up one issue with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He has moved a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council, but he has added a rider. If we get the records out, he read the last few words with reluctance. That is personal. That is something personal, because he added that rider “especially the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council”. If there were a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council then I understand. It is a traditional thing.

You must not take it like that.

It is a traditional thing, but why add that?

[Inaudible.]

No, why add that rider?

It is nothing personal.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition should lead his party and not be led by his national chairman. I wished—and I said this the other day—that he had put up his national chairman as a candidate today. This is where the real test comes; the so-called … [Interjections.] Let us not run away.

If I decide to embark on a course of confrontation I must first realise what I am going to expect. Thus, if I decide to go for a swim then I must expect what is going to come. Do not be afraid; I told the hon member for Isipingo that the beach is open, but he did not go because he did not get a lift. Somebody was supposed to pick him up. [Interjections.] Their situation is that the national chairman of Solidarity is supposed to get him out there, and he did not arrive. [Interjections.]

However, what did we get on 2 September 1987? If I make a proposal then I must lead. I must not say that because I did not get a reply, my proposal falls away. What proposals did he get from the national chairman of Solidarity? I believe he is trying to interpret his own letter in order to get out of the jam he has placed himself in.

He received a proposal from the national chairman of Solidarity, and their leader confirmed that he supported the proposal, after being questioned by me in Parliament. He will resign if his reasonable changes are not made. I quote:

He says we must negotiate the following: A moratorium on all evictions, direct or indirect, pending a negotiated solution of the issue of the Group Areas Act; an assurance that no person shall be evicted until a constitution representative of all South Africans is implemented; on the issue of land usage in terms of races, this is to be decided upon by all South Africans. Then he continues that, should the Government refuse to negotiate these modest demands, would it not be proper to withdraw from the system for a month during February 1988 to register our protest against the Government’s unilateral and highhanded manner of going about applying its principles of a disgusting Statute. This is a suggestion. I do not want to go on a confrontation course in an unreasonable manner or in an irresponsible manner. We have fought the Group Areas Act and we took a tenacious stand in this House last year, when the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was present. That hon the Deputy Minister responded in connection with the attitude of local authorities. The hon the State President, in reply to a question from the hon member for Reservoir Hills on 20 August last year in this House, stated that I had expressed my disagreement in the Cabinet.

The Labour Party and the NPP have a good relationship but this does not mean to say that either of us has to listen to the other. We may differ on issues. The hon member for Reservoir Hills spoke about marketing legislation. He said that when the hon the Minister addressed our caucus at our invitation on a matter relating to the small market gardeners, he gave and undertaking that he would convene a meeting. He repeated that undertaking in this House. That meeting was being convened and we needed that undertaking in order to lift our veto on these two legislations. Our negotiations are hard and we dig in our heels on certain principles. I went to Volksrust and Westwood where certain people scoff at us because for 100 years the Indian community has wanted to improve their housing conditions and for that period nobody has bothered to identify land for them. Gone are the days when we ask for 20 or 30 hectares. I went to Rosslyn in Acacia and I asked the mayor for 3 000 hectares of land instead of a patch for 100 families.

Scrap the Group Areas Act!

Let us scrap the Group Areas Act— we will still need protection from those who have the liquid cash and those who are holding the land. The chance to give poor people protection after the lifting of the Group Areas Act will lessen. We will have to determine what kind of protection we can offer them before repealing this Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] Protection against exploitation across the colour barrier.

You are doing a better job than the State President.

It is easy to say ‘a better job than the hon the State President’. I am not defending the Group Areas Act. I want it to go. [Interjections.] Can anyone tell me, within the terms of existing legislation, who holds the land? With which race groups are we negotiating for land in the Transvaal? We are negotiating with Whites, so we must protect our poor people. Do hon members know what Blacks are paying for land? As much as R70 000 per hectare. And we dare say that R18 000 is beyond the reach of our people. [Interjections.] The people will pay the price for free enterprise. One cannot have total free enterprise as long as there is a First and a Third World situation.

The hon member for Camperdown discussed certain matters with me with tears in his eyes. He praised us on our achievements in agriculture. He praised us for attending to the needs of his constituency, and then he comes into an open debate and says he has no confidence in the Ministers’ Council. Let us hope that we will one day have a rule to the effect that we may also move a motion of no confidence in the Official Opposition during the first week of the session. [Interjections.] We shall have many debates. Let us hope that we can do that. Let us hope that we shall be able to table questions about MPs. [Interjections.] Let us change the rules of this House.

Fair enough. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Merebank says: “Fair enough”. I was in his constituency on a Saturday when the floods struck Natal. I was there. He was not there on the Friday. He was not there on the Thursday. He was not there on the Wednesday. Were the aeroplanes allergic to him so that they could not take him there in the rain? [Interjections.] Could they only take certain people, or was the airport allergic to the hon member for Merebank? [Interjections.] There was a crisis.

I do not believe in sympathy…

I know which day you landed there.

I do not believe in sympathy; I believe in deeds.

No, no, it is not a question of deeds. The deeds were performed in your constituency by us. [Interjections ] You went there on the Saturday afternoon to take the glory.

The circumstances did not allow me.

No, the circumstances were that on those particular days the aeroplanes were allergic to you. [Interjections.] For some reason they would not carry you. For some reason they would not land in Durban with you. [Interjections.]

I am glad the members of the public have realised, as evidenced by their general attitude, that they must ignore the irresponsible conduct of certain individuals and recognise the positive work that is being done by the House of Delegates. [Interjections.] We have our limitations, and we have those limitations through no fault of our own, but no one can fault the Ministers’ Council. No one can say that we are not opening new doors. It should not be said that we are opening doors because we want to give ourselves respectability and credibility. It is frustrating to negotiate with Government departments. It is frustrating at times to negotiate with Ministers, but we are trying. I say let us compare what we have done from 1984 to 1987 to what was done before 1984. Let us stop hurling stones at each other, because I came into this debate fully aware of a great number of skeletons which I could let out of the cupboard. I shall not let those skeletons out of the cupboard for the sake of the good name of this House because if I were to attack a particular individual the Press would say: “HoD member attacked”. The man in the street would say that House of Delegates members were under attack. However, I do want to say once and for all that I want a judicial commission of enquiry but not with an apology. [Interjections.] That is not a condition. Make an allegation where we can test it. It is not a condition. We are not asking for any reasonable grounds on those matters. As I have said, I shall not let the matter rest. I shall raise it at every opportunity. It will receive Press coverage, because I am going to pursue the matter. I shall do so because I believe in public accountability. I have dealt with everything this afternoon, and we shall always be willing to be accountable in this House and to be accountable to the community and the society we represent. Moreover, I say this House ought to pass a motion of confidence in this Ministers’ Council. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I have been subjected to almost three hours of waiting for my turn to speak in this debate. [Interjections.] I want to start off by saying that if I were to turn around and ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to take up a losing case, he might make a good job of it. As an attorney I should probably have considered handing all the losing cases to him because he has the oratory and the mastery of getting around the situation and trying to project himself. [Interjections.]

I want to start off by saying that whether it is a question of what is said inside or outside this House, I think I echo the feelings of many hon members here when I say that we are getting tired of this.

The public is getting tired of this. I can see a constant recurrence of this. Such recurrence is not desirable. There is only one solution to the problem. Whether a person wants to sue or not is totally immaterial to me. What is important to me is that these allegations are left unchecked, and that the reputation of this entire House is hanging on these allegations.

Order! With reference to my ruling yesterday that an expression is not regarded as unparliamentary when it is used in relation to what was said or done outside this House, I wish to say that I have given this careful consideration. This ruling stands, but I want to add that when hon members impute “lies”, “fabrications” and “deliberate untruths” to other hon members, then it does not matter whether the statements referred to have been made inside or outside the House because when one calls an hon member a liar, one is impugning his honour and dignity and this is highly irregular and tends to bring the proceedings of Parliament into disrepute. I request hon members to refrain from this kind of allegation.

Mr Chairman, in view of the interruption we have had, may I ask for the privilege of the hour?

Order! I regret to inform the hon member for Stanger that his request cannot be granted.

All right, Mr Chairman, I will deal with the aspects which I am unable to cover at a later stage.

Coming back to the question of the commission of enquiry, I would like to submit that this House—and I echo the feelings of most hon members here—must be spared this humiliation and agony which we are experiencing. I think we should get down to work and to real issues.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member for Stanger take a question?

Mr Chairman, in view of my limited time, I am not taking questions. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to deal with some of the inconsistencies which have so far emerged in this debate. As far as the commission is concerned, I believe that I echo the feelings of everybody in this House, not only from this side but also from the other side, when I say that a judicial commission of enquiry, without any conditions, should be established as soon as possible.

What substance do you have for a commission of enquiry?

Mr Chairman, I ask the hon member to be silent. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, how can I speak simultaneously with two other speakers?

On the question of a judicial commission of enquiry, for the benefit of the hon member who does not understand and whose colleague suggested it … [Interjections.]

He must have had a shot of cane.

Order!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bayview said: “He must have had a shot of cane. Generally “shot” has a particular meaning, but I think we should here divide the meaning of shot.

Order! What did the hon member for Bayview imply by that?

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, if the hon member for Bayview said that I had a shot of cane, then I want an apology.

Order! The hon member for Stanger may continue.

The hon nominated member Mr Thaver does not seem to read the Press but his own Minister of Local Government and Agriculture gave a lot of weight yesterday to what is said in editorial columns. For the benefit of this House and for the record I shall read what has been said in an editorial column, namely the Herald Viewpoint of 20 September 1987. The heading is “Judicial Inquiry Needed.” I quote as follows:

[Interjections.] I want to return to the subject matter to which that hon member refuses to listen. The hon member Mr S Abram accused me of untruths yesterday. I want to put the record straight. It is apparent to me that he did not have a clear idea of what he was talking about. I have already answered his question in Kinross and I will answer it here again, because I believe he deserves an answer.

I am intrigued by the hon member Mr Abram’s inconsistency. If there is a document that I really could put to use as an indictment against the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the Ministers’ Council itself, it is a document signed by the hon member Mr Abram himself. I quote:

This was signed by no fewer than eight hon members of the ruling party. Some of them went back again and it is apparent to me and the public why they did so. It is evident that these persons returned because of the positions to which they were subsequently promoted and because of the perks that they enjoy in these positions. This is what I call inconsistency, and to accuse me of untruths is a lie in itself.

I want to return to the matter of the hon member Mr S Abram who referred to legislation concerning town clerks and pensions. Because of my limited time I cannot go into all the details but I wish to state categorically again that it is apparent that the hon member Mr S Abram has not seen the decision made by the President’s Council. What was adopted by the President’s Council in respect of these two reports was what was passed by the House of Assembly. What happened here therefore became irrelevant. That is what I said in Kinross and I say it here again. I predicted in Kinross that this would happen, and my prediction was subsequently confirmed.

It was obvious because we know the roles that are being played. [Interjections.] I am glad the hon member Mr S Abram has returned to the Chamber. In the standing committee he asked us to oppose those reports and those Bills. However, it is regrettable that when it came into the House itself, it went against its own recommendations. That is what they should have realised. That is what I call inconsistency.

Before I come to the hon member Mr Nowbath I want to reply to the question concerning Villa Lisa. [Interjections.] Some people do not have manners. I have in my possession here a telex which deals with the question of Villa Lisa and all the various areas that people have been talking about.

The hon member Mr S Abram says that if he has done anything wrong he welcomes a commission of enquiry to clear the air. If people cast aspersions against one and one is prepared to subject oneself to an enquiry that does not clear the air. Nobody wants to take sides here, nobody wants to attack people unfairly. If they are right we will exonerate them and if they are wrong they will pay the price for it.

I have here a telex in my hand and this particular telex states:

I emphasise democratically—

Now what this party has done in representation, which the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council must pay attention to, is that it was done by way of a public meeting. Here is a telex which confirms it.

We did not go and say, “Are you a member of Solidarity?” We did not go and say, “Are you a member of the NPP.” To us the interests of the community is of paramount importance. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon member prepared to take a question?

No, Sir.

The telex goes on to say:

They said they had no mandate for any other area. That is where it ends. I now want to set the record straight.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

No Sir, my time is too limited.

He ain’t got no replies!

Mr Chairman, if I had an hour I would have taken ten questions. [Interjections.] If the hon member wants to speak in English I will understand, but if he speaks in another language I do not understand it and he must say it outside the House. I could not be bothered.

As far as these particular issues are concerned, this party is not interested in siding with individuals as such. It is a question of what the committee brought to us and we acted in the interests of the community. We are not saying that we are opposed to the rich man or that we are opposed to the poor man. We believe in socio-economic integration and we believe that there has to be accommodation for everyone. The poor man needs a roof over his head and so does the rich man. We have no problems with that Sir. [Interjections.] As far as that is concerned the record must be set straight. We were not taking a party line on this issue. We want to work in the interests of the community and if we are wrong we welcome anybody to come and correct us. We have no difficulty with that. However, let us pool our resources and work in the interests of the community. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, Mr Nowbath went on yesterday and made some disparaging remarks about the hon Leader of the Official Opposition. He started off with a bit of toffee and cream, but then he went on to make some nasty remarks.

I would like to quote here from what was said on March 1981 in the South African Indian Council. It was on the occasion when the then past chairman of the Executive Committee was invited for a presentation. This is what was said:

Then it goes on. Reference was made to Cato Manor.

Who are you quoting?

I shall tell you later. I quote further:

Who said that?

This was said by the then Chairman of the South African Indian Council, now Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates. [Interjections.]

Hon members may be wondering why I read that. A lot of people are shouting because they do not know any better. People criticise the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition for his political participation but there were none of these allegations related to corruption, bribery and education etc.

That is nonsense!

It is regrettable. Ever since the NPP took control of the South African Indian Council and now the House of Delegates we have been hearing these allegations over and over again. [Interjections.] Not a weekend goes by that we do not see these allegations in the newspapers. [Interjections.] The only way to settle this is to have a judicial commission of inquiry.

Let me also put it to hon members this way. Take for instance, 1983. Here is a headline. This is the kind of publicity we have had: “Rajbansi accused of blocking new butcher-shop licences.”

You believe in sensational news!

However, he claims Chatsworth is overtraded. [Interjections.] I do not say he is wrong. I do not say he is right, either, but if these things are not true, clear the air once and for all.

The accusers were the same!

If what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council says—that the accusers are the same people—is true, let me say that on 2 February 1988—I did not say this; I also had a motion—that here is a motion in the name of Mr M S Shah:

[Interjections.]

That motion was not moved in this House.

We sat on Tuesday and it was on the Order Paper.

The hon member is quoting something that Mr M S Shah did not move in this House.

It was the spirit of the motion.

Here again we have a situation …

Order! For the benefit of the hon member for Stanger, with regard to the motion just referred to, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has made representations to the Secretary about the motion as printed on the Order Paper. It is still under consideration and the hon member for Stanger is not aware of this.

I go by what is before me. This is prima facie. [Interjections.] Even if the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has made representations I appeal to him to clear his name once and for all. That is my appeal to him.

You are obstructing me!

I am not obstructing you.

I have nothing to do with these obstructions.

Let us go on to the question of conscription. Again, looking at the Herald, it says the Bill is too “punishing”:

It goes on to say:

[Interjections.] I do not wish to devote a lot of time to this issue, except to say that I have here with me the President’s Council Minutes. I hope that more than presentations were made to alter these documents. I have the President’s Council Minutes, and I urge hon members to look at pages 15 to 19, 19 June 1987.

It is abundantly clear that the recommendations in the Youth Report recommending conscription were adopted and voted for with the support of members of the NPP. [Interjections.] It is right here, Mr Chairman. There is no qualification. Indeed, when an amendment was moved to the effect that in recommendation 13 the only exception is in defence of a free and just political order in an apartheid free society, the NPP members actually walked out. They did not even support that. This is very clear.

I want to get on to the failure of the Ministers’ Council. Let us look at the appointments they have made on the demarcation boards, the provincial executives, the housing boards, wherever. I believe that the Ministers’ Council must take responsibility for the appointees they put there. [Interjections.] No, I have no time for questions.

Do you want to go there?

No, I do not want to go there. Thank you very much, I am not interested. [Interjections.]

In the case of Prospecton, it is absolutely clear that the idea of a demarcation board was first mooted to address certain irregularities and certain anomalies. I remember that although we opposed it from this side of the House, the motivation from the official who came and saw me in my own office, was: “Support this, Mr Moolla, because this will help you to get Prospecton back to the people of Isipingo. ’’ [Interjection.]

Now this was the motivation and the reason behind this demarcation board concept. However, it is most unfortunate and regrettable that people who have no competence and did not understand the whole background of Prospecton, sat there in judgment and sided with the Deputy Minister, George Bartlett, who went around saying before the election that he would make sure that Prospecton would be part of Amanzimtoti. Who did these people support? The Demarcation Board supported the Whites against the Indian community.

This was taken on appeal to the Province and the provincial members of colour sided with the Whites to ensure that Prospecton’s income remained with Amanzimtoti.

I have said before that if a person blind in one eye and purblind in the other eye drove through that area he would come to a decision that Prospecton should be part of Isipingo.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

The question of incompetence is again magnified here.

The nominees were NPP nominees; there is no question about that. It is magnified because there are hon members sitting in this House who try to defend this action. After the utterances of the hon member for Newholme, when he made the statement that the ex-mayor supported it and so on, I wrote a letter to him, and I am still waiting for a reply. [Interjections.] The letter reads as follows:

I sent a copy of this letter to the Isipingo municipality. They wrote to me as follows:

I have received no answer from the hon member for Newholme. This is the type of person we have to deal with. I referred to the hon member for Newholme, and I heard in the speech of the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council—I trust he is listening—that he was opposed to group areas, but here we have the hon member for Newholme again. If one looks at the minutes for Monday 8 February 1988 one will see, in his name as chairman of the House of Delegates Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs, the following committee report:

I respectfully submit that he does not understand the implications of this Bill.

No, he is the only one that understands it…

That Bill deals with the question of transferring State land under own affairs and in terms of the Group Areas Act. I will deal with this particular legislation when it comes up for debate, but suffice it to say for the moment that it entrenches the Group Areas Act and the system. [Interjections.]

I also have before me, on p 8 of today’s Order Paper, notice of a motion by the hon member for Isipingo dealing with the question of the Van Eyssen Committee and the market issue. I want to say again that the incompetence of people serving in certain positions affects our community. I want to place on record my appreciation of the fact that, working jointly with the members of the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Natal, we were able to stop a certain piece of legislation with far-reaching consequences, and we went beyond party-political lines to achieve this. [Interjections.]

Regrettably, if we were to listen to the people who sat in the Provincial Executive the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council would not be able to make any Press statements today, and that motion about the question of the market issue could not have been moved today. [Interjections.] What was intended by that legislation which was accepted by those members sitting in that particular body was to give local authorities greater powers. [Interjections.] Such greater powers would have meant that they could have taken final decisions which would have militated against even the wishes expressed by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

Are you going to support the Durban City Council with greater powers now?

I was the one who picked this up with my colleagues, and we opposed it in the standing committee.

You will not talk of the call that came from Durban.

The point I am making is that the Ministers’ Council is responsible for these appointments, and these people who are serving there are in fact doing more harm…

Are you so bitter about them you want to…

I am not interested. I want to place it on record that I am not interested. Let us get that very clear. [Interjections.]

I do not want to take the time to read through all this, but I would ask hon members to look at the President’s Council Hansard of 17 to 22 September 1987. The whole question of the Group Areas Act is expounded here. It is very clear what happened and who said what.

We can read it tonight.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may read it himself in his own time, if he has the time. [Interjections.] This House will remember the letter to which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council made reference. I am referring to the question of the chairman of Solidarity. What did the chairman of Solidarity ask him? With reference to those people who were being evicted in Mayfair and in Albert Park he asked that if those eviction notices were not withdrawn, we should consider withdrawing our participation for one month. It was a strategy, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.] In my opinion, many people do not understand the strategy. People do not understand how one could use pressure. [Interjections.] If they had understood the strategy, then they would have followed the subsequent events.

When the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was asked whether he associated himself with that letter, he stated emphatically that he did. In fact, he went beyond that, and when he went beyond that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council shared his sentiments. The newspapers featured it in their headlines. It happened on the Thursday and it made the headlines on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday. It was only on the Tuesday that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said that he had been misquoted in the Press.

Not misquoted. What I said, I said in the House.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member for Stanger that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, due to the shortage of time I shall not be taking any questions put to me during my address. [Interjections.]

We are dealing with a vote of no-confidence introduced by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Unfortunately, both the hon member for Stanger and the hon Leader of the PRP did not speak in favour of the motion of no-confidence and they introduced all sorts of frivolous and unintelligent matters into the debate. [Interjections.] Similarly, the issues that were raised by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition were also very unintelligent and frivolous issues, and most of what he said was vain and embarrassing. [Interjections.]

In 1985, when the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition introduced a similar motion of no-confidence in this House, one of the main issues he raised was that of land at Cato Manor and housing for the various groups in that area. Unfortunately he did not follow up on the housing issue and the Cato Manor issue when he introduced this particular motion of no-confidence this year. [Interjections.] I personally think he is very satisfied. He has confidence in the hon the Minister of Housing and in the manner in which he is attending to housing for the various groups in Cato Manor, particularly the Indian community. Therefore, Mr Chairman, I am pleased that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is very happy and that he has confidence in the handling of the housing and Cato Manor issues by the hon the Minister of Housing.

I believe there is another burning issue which we should bring into this debate, and that is the question of a judicial commission of enquiry. This is an utterance that has been forthcoming from hon members of the opposition. That includes those orphaned children who are the PRP. They are now going back home again in terms of a merger statement they have issued, because they are now conniving with Solidarity. They have been kicked out by Solidarity. They have no home and therefore these people are going back to Solidarity. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I am raising these issues particularly since the term “judicial commission” is used here. A judicial commission of enquiry is a type of enquiry similar to the one appointed in Transkei where malpractices have taken place. A judicial commission has been appointed to look into various malpractices and matters of irregularity concerning the Transkeian government. Concerning the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, there is no real evidence of any form of malpractice or irregularity. The only way to discredit the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is to cloud issues and call for a commission of enquiry.

I want to refer to an issue which took place about six years ago. Since the question of the South African Indian Council has been raised here, I want to refer to some of the matters which took place there. There was a director of education— I do not want to embarrass him by naming him— who was a friend of a prominent attorney who had a practice in Durban. In effect, the director of education was merely a rubber stamp, and the Indian attorney was running the office for him. As far as appointments were concerned, this Indian attorney used to pick up the telephone and ask for certain persons to be appointed to top jobs in education. [Interjections.] In this manner, certain people were appointed to some of those positions over the heads of others who were more senior. Here is a classic case which calls for a commission of enquiry. This particular director of education ordered liquor to the amount of thousands of rands, which was not accounted for. When the internal auditors came to examine the books, the liquor and other things which were ordered could not be found. [Interjections.] This is a classic case were a judicial commission of enquiry could be held to see exactly where some of this money went. Moreover, this particular Indian attorney, who was actually running that office, should also be behind bars. Naturally when the findings of a commission is made known, police action follows and if it involves a genuine case of crime, a conviction can come about.

Another point I want to make is that I do not think the hon member for Stanger knows the meaning of the term “commission of enquiry”. I think he should consult an encyclopedia and see exactly what the legal term means. The hon members for Stanger and Reservoir Hills are flogging a dead horse. They could not find any fault with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, so therefore they came with the phraseology “commission of enquiry”. They know that such a commission of enquiry can not come about and all the allegation which are put before this House, would only be good for consumption by the media and nothing else.

I want to refer to a matter which the hon member for Reservoir Hills mentioned.

He had taken affidavits from a number of persons in regard to the election held in Tongaat. Any intelligent man with some legal knowledge would, if he found any irregularities, first of all make an application to the Court in order to set aside the election results. That would be the first thing that one would do—not become pally-pally with the hon the State President, the hon the Minister of Justice and the hon the Minister of Law and Order, by submitting copies of affidavits taken as the issue. If the hon member for Reservoir Hills tells us that he has no legal knowledge, I would suggest that he should consult an advocate to get advice on the matter. The Tongaat matter should then have been taken to Court and the by-election set aside. If the judge would find any truth in the affidavits the votes that were to the advantage of the candidate who is now sitting in the House would be cancelled.

It serves no purpose to come here and read out affidavits. The persons who swore to those affidavits could perhaps even end up in jail for having committed perjury. It is unfortunate that the hon member for Reservoir Hills did not take the matter to the Supreme Court. Instead, he handed the affidavits over to some of the Ministerial people and the hon the State President. He did this to obtain some correspondence which he could then hand over to the Press in order to receive some media publicity. [Interjections.]

Another matter concerns the fact that Solidarity is planning talks on unity with the rebels. Somebody raised a question here earlier on to find out where the PRP stands with regard to Solidarity. They answered by saying they have nothing to do with them. [Interjections.]

We supported their candidate.

I am not concerned with whom the hon member for Reservoir Hills supported because four hon members were actually kicked out of Solidarity. The greatest thing that the Hon the Leader of the Official Opposition ever did was to kick them out. They are now trying to come in through the back door [Interjections.] I want to read to members a short story that appeared in a newspaper:

There is an admission here that he had been kicked out and now that they are opening the doors to come back. [Interjections.]

Why don’t you go where you can find them grasshopping?

Right, let us talk about grasshopping. There are certain hon members who went to visit the other side but they found that the conditions there were absolutely deplorable. When they could not find a political home they came back. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question?

Mr Chairman, does the hon member for Havenside not understand English? I said at the outset that I am not prepared to take any questions. [Interjections.]

Order! Would all hon members please keep in mind that the hon member Mr M Thaver has clearly stated that he will not take any questions.

Now I would like to deal with the Press statement issued by the hon member for Reservoir Hills in respect of certain issues that he brought before the House in 1985. If the hon member for Reservoir Hills had been able to prove all the accusations he levelled against the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, he could very well have come forward with substantial facts in support of all those allegations. He could have submitted those allegations to the Advocate-General for proper investigation. [Interjections.]

This happened in 1985. The years 1986 and 1987 have passed, and now it is 1988. One can understand why this is regarded as a gimmick. [Interjections.] They have no other matters of substance to add. Each time they come here, they want a judicial commission of enquiry. This is absolutely the long and the short of it, that they know such a commission could not come about. The hon the State President would on no account be able to appoint a judicial commission of enquiry because they have no evidence whatsoever to support it. [Interjections.]

All that they have to submitted is hearsay and circumstantial evidence. That is exactly what they are going to say. All the rubbish in this document which was given to the Press is hearsay and circumstantial evidence. Even when, as an attorney, the hon member for Reservoir Hills presented this in court, the magistrate adjourned it sine die, the point being that he adjourned it indefinitely. [Interjections.] He did not want any more nonsense from the hon member for Reservoir Hills. If the story he was telling the magistrate had been interesting and might have helped in an investigation resulting in certain criminal charges being brought against the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, the court could easily have kept him there for a week.

Everything stated by the hon member for Reservoir Hills in his evidence, in the Press statement and in various reports is absolute nonsense. Therefore I would like to advise the hon member for Reservoir Hills not to commit people who are innocent to making affidavits. He will not end up in jail, but those poor deponents have attested affidavits drawn by the hon member for Reservoir Hills who is an attorney. Most of those people do not read affidavits. They say, “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”, and sign the affidavit. Finally they come to court.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I do not know what the hon member’s own practice in these matters is, but is he entitled to allege in this forum that I get people to falsify statements? Can he make such an idiotic statement? [Interjections.]

During the speech of the hon member for Reservoir Hills …

Withdraw that stupid statement immediately!

… made the offer to other people that he was willing to make affidavits. I therefore verily believe that nobody but he is the author of the affidavits of which he is in possession.

Order! The hon member for Reservoir Hills states that the hon member Mr Thaver is now alleging that he was behind the affidavits that people made. Did the hon member Mr Thaver make such a statement?

Mr Chairman, what I said exactly was that he prepared those affidavits. The statement was made by the hon member for Reservoir Hills; I am dealing with the statement which he made. I never alleged anything of that nature. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I crave your indulgence, but I would like to submit that the hon member did, in fact, directly imply that the hon member for Reservoir Hills prepared the affidavits and got people to sign without knowing what they had signed.

Mr Chairman, I would submit to an apology or withdrawal if I had made such a statement.

You did!

I am not interested in what the hon member for Reservoir Hills says, or in his counterpart, the hon member for Stanger.

Order! I will call for a copy of the Hansard transcript and give a ruling tomorrow. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, you will also find that in the form of an interjection the hon member for Reservoir Hills referred to the hon member Mr Thaver as an idiot.

I said he was a stupid idiot!

The hon member for Reservoir Hills is aggravating the situation by saying he called the hon member Mr Thaver a stupid idiot, which is even worse.

Any idiot who makes a statement like that will get that remark from me.

Mr Chairman, I do not blame …

Order! The hon member for Reservoir Hills has, by his own admission, remarked that the hon member Mr Thaver is a stupid idiot.

Yes, an idiot who insulted me.

Order! I have clearly stated that I will go through the transcript and give a ruling tomorrow. I have said I would do so, but in the meantime the hon member for Reservoir Hills is stating that the hon member Mr Thaver is a stupid idiot. I ask him kindly to withdraw that remark.

I regret I cannot withdraw that statement. A stupid idiot made a stupid, idiotic statement. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to make it very clear to the hon member for Reservoir Hills that I have stated that I shall be going through the unrevised version of Hansard and that I shall give a ruling on the matter tomorrow. The hon member denies it. The hon member for Stanger says that the statement, as alleged by the hon member for Reservoir Hills, was made, so for me to be in a clear position I should like to see the Hansard and give a ruling. I am now appealing to the hon member for Reservoir Hills to withdraw his remark. I realise that emotions are running high.

I am contemptuous of that fool. [Interjections.]

Order! I ask you to withdraw all of those statements. [Interjections.]

May I have the Chairman’s permission to leave the Chamber? [Interjections.]

Order! Instead of the Chairman’s permission, I ask the hon member to withdraw the statements he has made.

No. If the hon member denies having made the statement, he is lying.

Order! The hon member is now adding insult to injury. I ask the hon member to withdraw those words. Until I make a ruling, I ask you to withdraw your statements.

I obey the Chairman.

The kind of emotionalism that has been caused by a responsible hon member of Parliament is absolutely disgraceful. This is not the way to behave.

The other important thing I want to mention is the second access road raised by member of Reservoir Hills. One must be knowledgeable about the planning of the second access road, which the Government is trying to build in Chatsworth.

Order! A little while ago the hon member Mr Thaver said that the actions of the hon member for Reservoir Hills were disgraceful. Will the hon member withdraw that statement.

I did say that. I withdraw it unconditionally. [Interjections.]

The second access road was planned for the Chatsworth area in 1960. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition played a very important role in order to make representations for this road. He must be highly commended. He also made representations to the various authorities for the road to be planned through the nature reserve in Chatsworth. He did not want any property or any homes to suffer as a result of the planning of the road.

This afternoon we heard a story from the hon member for Reservoir Hills, who gave us all half-baked half-truths in the matter. He is trying to level certain accusations at the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that he had not made adequate representations with regard to this second access road. I think that not only the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition but also the hon member for Bayview took an active interest, and played a very important role, as far as the second access road is concerned.

Therefore I do not want people who do not know anything about matters concerning the second access road to bring it before this House, because they will rather damage the issue than to do it any good.

Another important issue concerns the speech of the hon member Mr Devan yesterday.

Order! The hon member Mr Thaver used the word “half-truth”. Will he please withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Order! Will the hon member also withdraw the word “half-baked”.

I also withdraw that, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.] I am not taking any questions, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member Mr Thaver referred to the hon member for Cavendish as the hon member Mr Devan.

The hon member for Cavendish, Mr Chairman. I will honour him.

The hon member for Cavendish raised various new issues in his speech. On the advice of some members of Solidarity, when he was a member, he said that a large number of Maharajas were promoted. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council did not say much, until the hon member was provided with actual evidence in the form of the list of appointments. The hon member for Cavendish was in fact embarrassed by what he had said in the House. [Interjections.] The hon member for Cavendish was the official spokesman for education.

The other important issue is that the hon member for Cavendish said, if I am correct that there is a rift between the executive director of education and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. If that statement is correct, I think we must get some facts about who made representations to the hon member for Cavendish, and whether it was the executive director who informed him that there was this rift. If the executive director is in a position to give more information on the matter, I think he must do so, because this House needs as much information as possible. This is a very important issue. The executive director of education is a very senior civil servant and he cannot go about making references to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. [Interjections.] I think the executive director must be able to give us information as to exactly how representations were made by which the hon member for Cavendish acquired this information.

Mr Chairman, I want to appeal to the hon member Mr Thaver that we must not implicate the executive director of education. He is inferring that he has conveyed certain information to the hon member for Cavendish.

Mr Chairman, while I respect the views expressed by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, this has been quoted in this House. If the matter referred to by the hon member for Cavendish is absolutely truthful and authentic, I will ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to take the most appropriate action. Nobody has the right to go and say to somebody that there is a rift between himself and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Similarly other issues may also be discussed, because the hon member for Cavendish felt that this is the place where the matter has to be raised.

I want to say that, notwithstanding the fact that there are only 45 members in this House, there are many members of Solidarity who have much confidence in the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. [Interjections.] On the surface they seem to say that they have no confidence in him, but I must say to hon members that there is nobody here who is capable of occupying that high office like the hon Minister Rajbansi. There is no one as capable of discharging the function of the hon the Minister of Housing, which is a very important function. [Interjections.] There is no one in this House who would be able to discharge the functions of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council with dignity and decorum. [Interjections.] I have great faith in, and respect for the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Therefore, I only hope that when the vote is taken, this House will flatly reject the motion of no confidence.

Mr Chairman, after listening to the hilarious speech by the previous hon member, I should like to get down to some serious matters.

It is common knowledge that the Muslim community, the Hindu community, the Christians, the Telugu and the Tamil all have a great respect for what we term a teacher, because he is the one who moulds the moral, cultural and educational values of our children. [Interjections.] That is all the more so when it comes to the Hindu culture, to the extent that the first thing we say is: “Matha, Pita, Guru, Dev”, meaning “Mother, father, teacher and God”. That cannot be changed. It is not what I am saying. That comes from the Scriptures. [Interjections.]

When it comes to a situation like the one we saw featured in the weekend newspapers—and I am receiving many, many telephone calls about it— I want to ask the hon the Minister of Education: What has he done about this matter? I also want to put a question to this whole House. If such a situation were to arise in a school where your child was being educated—many of us have daughters and granddaughters—and if the child came home and told you “Grandpa” or “Dad, this is my headmaster”, what would you do about it? [Interjections.] Up until now we have not heard anything. No one has spoken about it. I want to know: Is this not impinging on our morals and our culture? [Interjections.] No one should tell me that this is a private affair. His private affair is in his home, not in public. [Interjections.]

I am given to understand, although I cannot prove it yet, that there are more damaging pictures than this which cannot even be featured in the Press. [Interjections.] That is the kind of person who is given promotion and appointments. I know, and everyone else here—perhaps not everyone—knows that this man was dismissed or that he resigned on account of a misdemeanour at some or other time. The question now is: What is the hon the Minister going to do about this?

Promote him! [Interjections.]

We need some action. The community needs action. We want some action to be taken by the hon the Minister. Under ordinary circumstances if nothing is done, the hon the Minister should stand down because it reflects on his department. I know the hon the Minister is an honourable man. He must do something about it. [Interjections.] He has a family—we all do—and we are not going to accept this sort of thing. [Interjections.]

I do not want to say very much about this because the hon the Minister will deal with it. I just wanted to raise the issue. I am receiving many, many telephone calls, but we shall leave it to the hon the Minister. [Interjections.]

Order!

I have replied to telephone calls by saying that the hon the Minister will take action. Surely he must. I shall be raising the matter during today’s debate and so I do not want to go into it in too great depth at this stage.

We don’t want political interference; that is the hon the Minister’s job.

Yes, I do not want to interfere but I merely want to point it out, as all of you should have done. Something should have been done about it by now. [Interjections.]

I just want to deal briefly with the hon member for Lenasia Central. He asked yesterday whether the opposition did not appreciate and recognise that they had appointed a member of the opposition as an MEC in the Transvaal. That was done on merit. I fully agree—I think everyone here would agree—that this goes to show where merit is to be found here. [Interjections.] That was definitely an appointment on merit.

That is what I said!

Therefore, I am beginning to wonder why the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is overburdening himself. He is the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council—he is all things to all men. He is also Minister of Housing, and it is not an easy task. I think he answered the question. They cannot find people who may be slotted into certain jobs and therefore they had to look to the opposition. [Interjections.]