Order! I have to announce that I have called a joint sitting of the three Houses of Parliament for Monday, 15 February, at 14h15 for the delivering of Second Reading speeches on certain bills.

Order! Hon members will recall that I indicated yesterday that I would examine the Hansard of the honourable member for Lichtenburg.

According to Hansard the honourable member for Lichtenburg said, inter alia:

In this context the honourable member also said, according to Hansard:

On 4 September 1986 Mr Speaker in a ruling said inter alia the following:

The above quotations I have made from the speech by the honourable member for Lichtenburg are considered to be a very serious reflection on the integrity of the State President.

Mr Speaker, I am not prepared to do so.

Order! I must point out to the hon member that if he disregards the authority of the Chair, I shall reluctantly be obliged to name him.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order …

Order! I am not allowing any points of order now. I am asking the hon member for Lichtenburg whether he will defer to the authority of the Chair, withdraw the said words and apologise.

Mr Speaker, I enquire again whether I may address you on a point of order.

Order! No, I am not listening to a point of order now. I am sorry that the hon member for Lichtenburg is leaving me no choice but to name him.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order …

Order! I am not allowing any points of order now. The hon member for Soutpansberg must resume his seat. I am not listening to any points of order.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is this now to be a rule of this Parliament that members may not take a point of order if Mr Speaker so rules …

Yes.

… because, Sir, I…

Order! The hon member must resume his seat. In the circumstances of naming an hon member no discussion at all is to take place. That is in accordance with the rules.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: It is not regarding that aspect on which there may not be any debate. It concerns the aspect that you announced that you intended to name an hon member, and I want to ask you to reconsider that ruling.

Order! No, I have …

Sir, I think I am entitled, in terms of the rules of the House, to address you on this.

Order! I have already …

Sir, I want to know whether you are ruling that hon members may not address you on the rules or on a point of order.

Order! I have already given my ruling. I now call upon the hon the Leader of the House to speak.

Mr Speaker, with all due respect, on a point of order on the procedure …

Order! The hon member must resume his seat. I have already called upon the hon the Leader of the House to speak.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—121: Alant, T G; Aucamp, J M; Badenhorst, C J W; Bartlett, G S; Bekker, H J; Bosman, J F; Botha, C J van R; Botha, J C G; Botha, R F; Botma, M C; Brazelie, J A; Breytenbach, W N; Camerer, S M; Chait, E J; Christophers, D; Clase, P J; Coetsee, H J; Coetzer, P W; Cunningham, J H; De Beer, S J; De Klerk, F W; Delport, J T; De Pontes, P; De Villiers, D J; Dilley, L H M; Du Plessis, B J; Du Plessis, P T C; Durr, K D S; Edwards, B V; Farrell, P J; Fick, L H; Fismer, C L; Fourie, A; Golden, S G A; Graaff, D de V; Grobler, A C A C; Grobler, P G W; Hattingh, C P; Heine, W J; Heunis, J C; Heyns, J H; Hunter, J E L; Jooste, J A; King, T J; Koornhof, N J J v R; Kotzé, G J; Kriel, H J; Kritzinger, W T; Kruger, T A P; Lemmer, J J; Le Roux, D E T; Louw, E v d M; Louw, I; Louw, M H; Malan, M A de M; Malherbe, G J; Marais, G; Marais, P G; Maré, P L; Maree, J W; Maree, M D; Matthee, J C; Matthee, P A; Meiring, J W H; Mentz, J H W; Meyer, A T; Meyer, R P; Myburgh, G B; Nel, P J C; Niemann, J J; Nothnagel, A E; Odendaal, W A; Olivier, P J S; Oosthuizen, G C; Pretorius, J F; Pretorius, P H; Radue, R J; Redinger, R E; Retief, J L; Scheepers, J H L; Schlebusch, A L; Schoeman, R S; Schoeman, S J (Sunnyside); Schoeman, S J (Walmer); Schoeman, W J; Schutte, D P A; Smit, F P; Smith, H J; Snyman, A I J; Steenkamp, P J; Steyn, D W; Streicher, D M; Swanepoel, J J; Swanepoel, K D; Swanepoel, P J; Van Breda, A; Van der Merwe, A S; Van der Merwe, C J; Van der Walt, A T; Van Deventer, F J; Van de Vyver, J H; Van Gend, D P de K; Van Heerden, F J; Van Niekerk, W A; Van Rensburg, H M J; Van Vuuren, LMJ; Van Wyk, J A; Van Zyl, J G; Veldman, M H; Venter, A A; Viljoen, G v N; Vilonel, J J; Vlok, A J; Welgemoed, P J; Wessels, L.

Tellers: Blanché, J P I; Jordaan, A L; Ligthelm, C J; Meyer, W D; Smit, H A; Thompson, A G.

NOES—38: Andrew, K M; Barnard, M S; Burrows, R M; Coetzee, H J; Cronjé, P C; De Jager, C D; Derby-Lewis, C J; Eglin, C W; Ellis, M J; Gastrow, P H P; Gerber, A; Hardingham, R W; Hartzenberg, F; Hulley, R R; Langley, T; Le Roux, F J; Lorimer, R J; Malan, W C; Malcomess, D J N; Mentz, M J; Nolte, D G H; Olivier, N J J; Paulus, P J; Pienaar, D S; Prinsloo, J J S; Schoeman, C B; Soal, P G; Suzman, H; Swart, R A F; Treurnicht, A P; Uys, C; Van der Merwe, S S; Van Gend, J B de R; Van Vuuren, S P; Van Wyk, W J D; Walsh, J J.

Tellers: Snyman, W J; Van der Merwe, J H.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker thereupon called upon Dr F Hartzenberg to observe the resolution of the House and to withdraw from the precincts of the House.

Whereupon the member withdrew.

Order! We shall continue with proceedings. The hon the State President has requested an opportunity to make an important statement, and I now give him the opportunity to do so.

Mr Speaker, while I am making this statement, it is also being made in the other two Houses of Parliament by the Chairmen.

As stated this morning by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the South African Government views the events in Mmbatho in a serious light, particularly because President Mangope and his government were recently re-elected constitutionally as the legal Government of Bophuthatswana.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bophuthatswana, Mr S L L Rathebe, together with several other Ministers of the Bophuthatswana Government and their families as well as officials of the Bophuthatswana Government took refuge in the South African Embassy this morning. The Bophuthatswana Minister of Foreign Affairs telephoned the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs from the Embassy at 09h00 this morning and said that he and several of his colleagues had decided unanimously to make an appeal to the South African Government for assistance. His message read as follows:

Further information from the South African Embassy is that Mr Malebana-Metsing went to the Chief Justice of Bophuthatswana with an armed entourage and insisted on being sworn in as President. The reaction of the Chief Justice was that he could not do so in terms of the constitution. Thereupon Mr Malebana-Metsing then declared himself to be President and the Chief Justice merely certified his signature. After this had been done, Mr Malebana-Metsing arrived at the gate of the property of the South African Embassy and handed over a message to the South African Government in which he informed the South African Government that a new government had assumed power in Bophuthatswana.

In his message Mr Malebana-Metsing said that he would co-operate fully with the South African Government and maintain good relations with the Government of South Africa. Mr Malebana-Metsing also said that South African interests and citizens would enjoy protection.

This morning the State Security Council met under my chairmanship to go into all the facets of this matter. It was clear to the Government that Mr Malebana-Metsing had taken power in an irregular and violent manner. The South African Government is opposed in principle to the obtaining of political power by force.

The South African Government recognises President Mangope’s Government as the Government of Bophuthatswana and consequently decided to comply with the appeal by that country’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and his colleagues to come to the assistance of that Government. Moreover, an agreement between the two Governments which provides for the one Government asking the other for assistance in cases of this nature has been in existence for several years. It should also be mentioned that according to the available information President Mangope is in detention, together with certain seconded South African officials.

Consequently, the South African security forces have been instructed to accede to the request of the Government of Bophuthatswana and have been ordered specifically to give the highest priority to the security and protection of the South African Embassy and all the staff and their families as well as to President Mangope, his Cabinet and their families and Government officials and their families. The security forces are at present engaged in carrying out their instructions.

I must also point out that this case cannot be compared in any way with the recent change of Government in the Transkei. [Interjections.] In that case no violence was used; neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Transkei appealed to the South African Government for assistance; the constitutionally-elected head of state was not ousted from office and he has, in fact, being recognised by the new Government and requested to remain in office as part of the governmental authority; there was no competing entity vying for the exercise of governmental authority; it was clear soon after the announcement by General Holomisa that the new Government was in effective control of the country and the national administration; and the South African Government deliberately waited for some time before granting the new Government recognition and it was granted only after the head of state of that Government visited me personally and formally requested that such recognition be granted. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the State President is still speaking.

Mr Speaker, the moment I have more information, I shall pass it on to the House. At the moment we are waiting for further information from our commanding officer there.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

1. (1) Immorality Amendment Bill [B 104A and B—87 (GA)].
2. (2) Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Amendment Bill [B 123A and B—87 (GA)].

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, at the very outset I should like to inform the House that I am authorised by the hon the State President to say that negotiations have been conducted with the Chairmen of all Ministers’ Councils and that tomorrow we shall move that a wider investigation be instituted than that moved by the hon member for Brakpan. There will also be a specific investigation into the truth of the allegations as well as one into a breach of privilege by the relevant publications. [Interjections.]

Delayed reaction!

No, the motion had already been prepared, but we had to take orderly and proper action because we are a parliament. We had to have proper co-ordination and co-operation.

From 31 October?

We obtained that co-operation, and therefore the truth about this matter will be laid bare.

Yesterday evening we closed on a disturbing note. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in this House said that he was not interested in private discussions with the hon the State President on sensitive security matters.

He did not say that! [Interjections.]

Order!

That was the question I put to him and he said he was not interested in private discussions with the hon the State President.

Yes, that is correct.

That is all he said.

It involved the tirade of the hon member for Potgietersrus concerning the release of Govan Mbeki. This matter is absolutely security-related, and there is a long-standing convention in this House and in this country that such matters be discussed confidentially before being dragged into the petty political arena, as is being done by the CP and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

This afternoon we began on an equally disturbing note. The CP had a great deal to say about the Labour Party and its boycotts and protest politics. What, if not protest politics, did we witness here this afternoon? What, if not a form of boycotting, are we witnessing at the moment?

Hear, hear!

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does not accept the hon the State President’s invitations to State functions. He does not attend the State banquet. The Deputy Leader of the CP uses unbridled language when referring to the head of State. When you call him to order, in terms of the rules of this House, Mr Speaker, what does he do then? He refuses to acknowledge your authority and challenges us with a smile on his face. Surely that is protest politics. To what extent are they better than the Labour Party and Rev Hendrickse, about whom they have so much to say?

The undertone of the CP’s overall approach to practising politics is that they are not interested in the realities of this country and that they have no interest in fundamental discussions concerning the problems of this country. They are merely geared to disruptive action and to canvassing support, on the grounds of raw emotion, for an unworkable policy which they know is unworkable. That comes as no surprise to us. It is typical of the CP’s whole approach to the Government of the country and to Parliament. The CP is not in favour of meaningful discussion and debate. Their recipe is quite simple: Ignore the realities; discredit the NP by repeating the same untruths about the NP with monotonous regularity; recklessly exploit the underlying grievances, fears and prejudices of the electorate; fan people’s emotions; and avoid answers to the fundamental arguments concerning own policy. That is the recipe with which the Official Opposition wishes to operate in the White political arena. That is their answer to a development phase, to a time in the history of our country which makes great demands on everyone who is concerned about the future. As long as that remains their attitude, we on this side of the House are wasting our time trying to argue with them. We are wasting our time trying to involve them in meaningful debate on the fundamental problems of our country.

Today I want to pose the question: Can the electorate ever trust the CP? [Interjections.] If one looks behind the numerous masks the CP wears, the answer becomes clear: No, never!

Allow me, schematically, to draw a profile of the CP for hon members of this House. Firstly the CP is a party guilty of constant misrepresentation of its opponents. The image is created that the NP has suddenly become soft on communism and the ANC. Nothing is further from the truth than that. A Cabinet colleague will deal with that fully and therefore I merely want to say that anyone who contends that our hon State President, who is the chief leader of this party and the architect of South Africa’s capability to check terrorism and communism, who has consistently refused to negotiate with terrorists and those advocating violence and who is the forceful figure who does not hesitate to take extraordinary steps for the effective combating of terrorism and revolutionaries, is not to be trusted with the security of South Africa, is telling a malicious untruth. What else is the CP doing? What was the object of the speech made by the hon member for Potgietersrus if not that? What were the references within the context of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s introductory speech on Monday if not that? What, if not that, is the impact of the propaganda in the areas in which we are now conducting by-elections?

Insinuations, and at times even statements to the effect that the NP has accepted the concept of majority government, are devoid of all truth. It is untrue that the NP advocates power-sharing in a unitary state, with just a little protection for minorities, but that is the picture they present.

The NP rejects a typically unitary state. Its endeavours are still aimed, where possible, at granting independence to Black peoples. The NP advocates the division of power to the greatest possible extent, with the greatest possible degree of autonomy for the existing institutions of various peoples and population groups and those which are to be established. The NP’s ground plan for power-sharing in regard to matters of common concern specifically requires that there be no domination of one group by another; not in the process of joint decision-making either.

How are you going to do that?

The NP is not prepared to allow members of the White population to become subservient elements in the country in which they gained their freedom, and in saying otherwise, the CP is propagating untruths about the NP. It is an untruth that the NP has abandoned or has begun to abandon its insistence on own community life for all communities.

When were you last in Hillbrow?

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must now cease making these continuous interjections. I see from the list of speakers that an hon member of the CP will speak immediately after this. He will have an opportunity to reply to these comments.

Whilst room is being made in all spheres for the development of free association for those who want it, the NP demands, as a basic pattern, that own residential areas be maintained, that own State schools are not threatened and that there is no displacement, and this is also done by virtue of the maintenance of own facilities. It is an untruth that the NP does not have a basic ground-plan or framework and that our only answer to the challenges facing South Africa is that we want to enter blindly into negotiations. That, however, is their picture of the NP.

We have a fixed policy framework which we have, in the eyes of the country at large, had ratified by a federal congress. It encompasses five comprehensive policy motions. Anyone who contends that the NP does not have a groundplan with which to enter into negotiations, is guilty of a malicious untruth. Thus I could continue. On each fundamental point involving policy the CP is guilty of the gross misrepresentation of the NP and its policy.

A party which disseminates untruths about its opponents does not tell the truth about itself either. That is why the electorate can never trust the CP.

Secondly the CP is a party that cannot stand on its own two feet. In its ranks it harbours, amongst others, members of the AWB. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition can protest to his heart’s content, but the AWB is no cultural organisation. I want to quote the very best of witnesses as proof of this, ie the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition himself. Is he not the one who, at Balfour, said, and I quote:

[Interjections.]

I emphasise the words “sal word”, Sir. I ascertained whether this quotation was correct. He was nevertheless quoted thus in two sources.

[Inaudible.]

In Beeld of 25 January I read the following:

That is, after all, an acknowledgement of the fact that the AWB is not a cultural organisation! He is right, of course. For once I agree with him. The AWB is no cultural organisation, Sir, because one of the main objectives—in fact, if I have heard correctly, the AWB advances this as the basis for its existence—is secession from the RSA and the establishment of a new “Boerestaat”. That is the political objective, Sir, of a movement which has registered its own political party.

The CP is at the mercy of the AWB. As long as they watch their step, listen dutifully to Mr Terre’Blanche and listen dutifully to the five AWB members in the CP caucus, the AWB will not activate its political party.

You go on being wrong.

Am I wrong about the five?

Of course you are wrong.

I shall come to that in a moment, Sir. [Interjections.] If the CP were to make a false move, the AWB would be ready and waiting. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says I am wrong about the five. Again I want to quote to him a very acceptable witness. In the Sunday Star of 17 January I read the following from an interview with Mr Eugêne Terre’Blanche:

[Interjections.]

You go on being wrong. You are hopelessly wrong.

Who would best know how many CP members were members of the AWB— the leader of the AWB or the Leader of the CP? [Interjections.]

How many members of your caucus are members of the AB?

We accept an hon colleague’s word. If the hon member for Ermelo is not a member of the AWB, that means that there are five others. He is simply an adviser or a member with representation in some or other head council, but he is not a member.

[Inaudible.]

There are, however, still five others. Let me say that the AWB members…

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

No, I am not interested now.

AWB members do not simply spontaneously support the CP. It is not simply because the CP is such a good party that the AWB members support that party. What does Mr Eugène Terre’ Blanche, the leader of the AWB, have to say in this regard? According to The Argus of 6 February 1988 he says, and I quote:

So there is an agreement. We would like to know what else that agreement contains. Listen to what the AWB leader goes on to say, simply going over the CP leader’s head. He is no longer satisfied with just speaking through him. In that same report he is quoted as stating:

He is simply speaking of Parliament as a whole, this innocuous cultural leader. Such covert threats to Parliament do not emanate from a cultural organisation.

We have come to the intrigue involving the number of AWB members present in the ranks of the CP. We shall not desist until we know. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s effort at justifying his relationship with the AWB on the strength of the AB membership of NP members does not hold any water at all. A moment ago the hon member for Brakpan also made an interjection about the Afrikaner Broederbond. Permit me to say here today that the Afrikaner Broederbond is an honourable, worthy and responsible organisation. The AB does not disrupt meetings. The AB accommodates supporters of several political parties—including the CP. The AB does not venture directly into the political arena. The AB acknowledges the authority of every element of society. The AB is geared to stimulating its members to think for themselves and to take balanced action. I think it is scandalous that a former leader of the AB—now the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—can now vilify an organisation he himself built up, the very organisation which has been loyal to him, by comparing it to the AWB. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, he does so by drawing a comparison with the AWB, with its Nazi-type emblem and techniques, by drawing a comparison with the AWB, with its stormtrooper approach, by drawing a comparison with the AWB … [Interjections.]

Order! Too many comments are being made on the hon the Minister’s speech.

… by drawing a comparison with the AWB, with its threatening attitudes and its irresponsible strong-arm tactics, by drawing a comparison with the AWB, with its undertones of a dangerous philosophy. I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether he is so unsure of himself that he has to surround himself with that sort of thing. Mr Chairman, I am saying that a party which allies itself to the AWB cannot be trusted by the electorate.

Hear, hear!

Thirdly, Sir, the CP is a party with an unworkable policy. Their failure to even try to reply to the speeches of my colleagues in this debate—amongst others the speech of the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare and that of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs—is proof of their discomfort about their own policy. That, of course, also makes it unnecessary for me to elaborate on it. They do not have the courage to spell out their policy. They do not have the courage to conduct a fundamental debate when we indicate to them how unworkable their policy is. How can the electorate trust a party which does not even want to reply to a fundamental question—a question I am now putting to them once more? Does the CP advocate the establishment of a smaller Afrikaner or White state, as advocated by the AWB and Sabra? Or is their policy, as far as that is concerned, the same as that of the HNP?

Silent as the grave!

Fourthly the CP is a party without purposeful and reliable leadership. How can anyone lead this country—this country with its complex problems—if he was unable to succeed in preserving the peace and maintaining co-operation within every power-base structure in which he has ever found himself throughout his career?

Hear, hear!

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition alienated himself from the party of which he was the Transvaal leader. He alienated himself from the cultural organisation in which he was a leading figure. He alienated himself from the Press in which he was an important commentator. He is even on a collision course with the Church in which he reached great heights. He could not succeed in reaching a settlement with Mr Jaap Marais, even after having taken over the HNP’s policy in most respects.

It is all Koos’s fault! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, when that hon Leader became the leader of the NP in the Transvaal, he was a contentious figure. There was nevertheless an overall willingness, on the part of many of those who did not vote for him, to grant him their assistance.

They were in the minority!

They were prepared to help him to broaden his power-base in order to become a great leader of the NP.

You also voted for him!

I voted against him!

Then you did at least vote for Dr Connie Mulder!

Order!

They were prepared to help him, after his having been elected once, to …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Before you took the Chair, the hon Acting Speaking gave warning that he was prohibiting all further interjections by the hon member for Overvaal during the rest of this afternoon’s sitting.

Mr Chairman, the hon Chief Whip of Parliament has his facts wrong, as he does his politics.

Order! Is the hon member raising a point of order?

Sir, I am merely addressing you with reference to the fact that the Acting Speaker said I should not continuously be making interjections, and I did not do so.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal would do well to bear the reprimand by the Chair in mind.

Yes, seriously, Sir.

I am saying that there was widespread willingness, amongst many who had not voted for him, to help him, and instead of broadening his power-base, he remained a prisoner of the same little group which is now sitting there all around him and which was continually stirring things up, continually engaged in undermining activities until they got him and themselves out of the NP.

That is why I am saying that the hon the Leader of the CP is unable to get along with other strong personalities within the same party or organisation, and that is a fatal flaw in the leadership qualities of anyone who wants to head a state.

This is a personal attack.

It is not a personal attack in the sense that I am assailing the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition as a person, but when someone presents himself as an alternative leader of a country, his leadership capabilities are under direct scrutiny. He must then be weighed …

What is yours?

Like mine.

Yours was found wanting.

Then the capability must be determined, and with 22 victories out of 76 in the Transvaal he has been weighed and found wanting. [Interjections.]

I say that the fact of not being able to get along with other strong personalities in the same organisation is a fatal flaw in the leadership qualities of anyone who wishes to head a state. After the publication in Die Afrikaner of Mr Louis Stofberg’s charge-sheet against the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition I am almost tempted to feel sorry for him.

And where is he now?

Nothing Mr Stofberg now says or does can negate his damning denunciation of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Can one believe it? In Die Afrikaner Mr Louis Stofberg is reported as having said of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition:

And what does he do with Mr Stofberg? He keeps him on his payroll. He is paying him to go around and say how wrong he was then, what a wonderful person the hon the Leader of the CP is and how bad Mr Jaap Marais is. How he can keep him on his payroll, I cannot comprehend.

The lack of leadership within the CP is best illustrated, however, by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s speech on Monday. Apart from a few hollow-sounding emotional appeals and generalities, it was negative from the beginning to the end. It was a fine example of debating skill, as we have come to expect of him. Yes, it was a fine example of debating skill which hides more than it reveals, but of actual positive reflection on the questions of our time there was no sign in that speech. And his second in command was equally bad.

If we look at the speech of the hon member for Lichtenburg and at the speeches of other hon members in those benches who have spoken thus far, we notice that there was the old assemblage of untruths about what the NP is, and no profound analysis of the actual challenges and problems of South Africa.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition speaks of weighing. With this motion he placed this party and his party on the scales, and to this CP with its distortion of NP policy, this CP imprisoned by the AWB, this CP with its unworkable policy and lack of vision, this CP with its lack of true leadership, I proudly say: Weigh up the NP. Our chief leader commands respect from friend and foe alike. The NP stands on its own two feet and not in alliance with anyone.

This party has accepted the challenge of making fundamental adjustments, specifically for the sake of its people; adjustments which are difficult; which probably appear to the ordinary voter in a serious light; which place the voters on the horns of a dilemma; which make heavy demands on them; which ask the voters to make a leap by acknowledging that certain facets of our policy have not been implemented with complete success, without relinquishing our goal of fairness and justice for all, and also of the maintenance of the safety, security and identity of our own people, a leap which will make it possible to achieve those very goals; adjustments which can prevent us—this party has the courage to do so— in this country from becoming inflexible and being bogged down in a stalemate, which would in fact occur if that party were ever to come into power; adjustments which would prevent the Whites from losing their freedom, but which offer room and opportunities to everyone in every sphere of life who lags behind in this country. This party has the courage to make adjustments which can ensure stability and prosperity.

That being so, I move as a further amendment:

Mr Chairman, I shall react presently to the allegations made by the hon Minister of National Education.

I want to begin by engaging in discussion with the hon the Minister of Home Affairs with regard to several Press reports concerning a Mr Giovanni Marco Ricci, which have appeared during the past 10 days. In the Press the following peculiar facts appear: During his first 18 months in South Africa, this Mr Ricci spent millions of rands on property, and his offer to buy Putco for $80 million failed.

Secondly, Mr Craig Williamson, a member of the President’s Council and former South African spy, is employed by Mr Ricci. Thirdly, Mr Ricci lives in Johannesburg on a 15 hectare plot which is surrounded by a security wall two metres high. Fourthly, he has a round-the-clock armed security guard. He owns approximately 30 firearms. He was previously in the Seychelles, for which he created an espionage network. He was the confidante of the communist René and is even referred to as “Mr Vice-President”. He has served a prison sentence and has twice been deported from other countries. His guests—and this is what is disturbing—often include South African Cabinet Ministers.

In his application form for permanent residence in South Africa he told outright lies. However, his application was approved and the hon the Minister of Home Affairs did not have him deported when it was discovered that he had lied. The editor of The Sunday Star has accused the hon the Minister of a breach of ethics.

These particulars which I have mentioned to hon members are stated in the papers. I now want to ask the hon the Minister what screening procedure is adopted for prospective immigrants. Secondly, how does it happen that such an immigrant is allowed into South Africa despite his alleged deception of the Department of Home Affairs, his lies, becoming known, thereby proving that he is par excellence persona non grata?

I want to ask the hon the Minister of Law and Order or his hon Deputy Minister whether it is true that this man has 30 unlicensed firearms? I want to make this statement so that the hon the Minister can know that these newspaper reports arouse the serious suspicion that matters are not as they should be and that it is the duty of the hon the Minister to clear up this matter. To say the least, if what the newspapers say is true, there is definitely a bomb on the way.

I now wish to refer to the contribution made by the hon the Minister of National Education. He said that anyone who maintained that the NP did not have a plan, was telling a malicious untruth. There are two of his own hon members here who say that—the hon member for Langlaagte and the hon member for East London City.

That is a lie!

He says it is a lie. I was with him in Ciskei…

Order! The hon member must withdraw the word “lie”.

It is an absolute untruth!

Order! The hon member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally, Sir.

I was present there! Some of the Progs here were there, as well as the Indians and Coloureds when that hon member told President Sebe:

Then the hon member for East London City stood up and said:

The hon members can ask President Sebe behind my back who the man is who is lying. In this House there are hon members …

You are twisting the facts!

Order! The hon member must also withdraw the word “lying”.

I did not say he was lying.

Order! That does not matter. The word “lying” is unparliamentary.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon member may proceed.

You are distorting the story.

I am not distorting the story. My name is not Albert Nothnagel! [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of National Education … [Interjections.]

Order!

In the first place, may the hon member call an hon member by his name, and secondly, may he say that he is distorting something, or insinuate that he is distorting something? [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.] Order! So many allegations have been flung back and forth across the floor of this House that it has been impossible for the Chair to keep up with them. The hon member may continue, but I want to caution him to moderate his language.

I said nothing immoderate. I want to say the following to the hon member about the AWB.

Are you a member?

An English-speaking woman told me in Johannesburg that the hon the Minister of National Education simply did not succeed in getting further than the AWB. She said that he had no leadership qualities because he had nothing but the AWB on his mind. He was unable to pay attention to the important matters of the country. [Interjections.]

Order!

I now want to ask the hon member … [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to allow an uproar in the House.

You have the AWB around your necks! [Interjections.]

You have it on the brain.

Order! I appeal to the hon member again to moderate his language.

What have I said wrong? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, I want to tell the hon the Minister of National Education …

Mr Chairman, on a point or order: Both you and Mr Speaker previously ruled that the words “jy” and “jou” may not be used. The hon member has just said to the hon the Minister of National Education: “You (jy) have the AWB on the brain!”

He said the same thing to me!

Order! The hon member must use parliamentary language and not refer to anyone as “jy” and “jou”.

The hon the Minister must set the example. I just want to ask the hon the Minister about the Broederbond.

May I ask the hon member a question?

No, you cannot ask an intelligent question. Sit down. [Interjections.]

Order! Whether hon members find it amusing or not, I am not prepared to allow proceedings in this House to degenerate into the kind of bedlam that belongs in the market place. I appeal once again to the hon member for Overvaal, and I hope it is the last time it will be necessary for me to do so, to use parliamentary language and nothing else. The hon member may proceed.

Today the hon the Minister of National Education gave his usual …

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

Sir, I am not going to answer any questions. At a public meeting that that hon member and I held in George, he ran away so fast that one could still see his “tackies” half a mile away. [Interjections.]

Today the hon the Minister made his usual predictable speech. If one did not know the hon the Minister well enough, one might have gained the impression that he was an honest, decent, reliable politician. That is the pious mask he hides behind, and I think the time has come to tear off that mask of respectability which that hon Minister hides behind. When one tears it off, the first thing one sees is that that hon Minister is nothing but a blatant political opportunist, a person who is quite prepared to exchange his principles for political ambition. [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Is it permissible for an hon member to attack the integrity of another hon member in the way the hon member is now doing? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may continue.

The hon the Minister was once a formidable Afrikaner Nationalist. He was a fierce champion of separate development and a venomous opponent of power-sharing. His statements of the past teem with proof that he supports the outlook on life and philosophy of this party. It was on the basis of that image that Mr John Vorster included him in his Cabinet.

Today, his political philosophy belies his principles of the past. Sir, do you know how that break with his past came about? Let me tell you. When the split came in 1982, he was as fierce an opponent of power-sharing as we were, but this political opportunist saw an opportunity. He saw that if the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was ousted, he could become the leader of the NP in the Transvaal. He saw another opportunity, namely that he could then become State President. [Interjections.] Do you know what he did then, Sir? This political opportunist, when he saw this opportunity, turned his back on principles in a flash and chose fame and honour instead. [Interjections.]

If one tears off his pious mask a little further, one sees the grotesque political untrustworthiness of his policy. His reckless departure from his principles of the past has inevitably taken its toll, namely that he must pay the very high price of naked political untrustworthiness. Today he can do as much fancy footwork as he likes and he can talk himself hoarse, but a fact which stares one in the face is that he is inextricably bound to a grotesque political untrustworthiness. [Interjections.]

There are so many examples of the politically untrustworthy policy of the hon the Minister that I cannot enumerate them all in one day. I can refer hon members to documents in which he said there was no question of power-sharing and that Coloureds and Indians would never become Cabinet members. There are reams of them. Now he shakes his head. Surely he is aware of his scaremongering tactics.

There is a third thing which one sees if one tears the mask from his pious face, as he stands here with his lily-white hands. I want to tell him that what it boils down to is essentially an intellectually dishonest policy. He says the NP stands for a model in which there will be no domination. They do not want to dominate. That is the basis of his new model, namely that there will be no domination, but do hon members know what? He is the member of a minority group. The NP represents the minority of Whites. [Interjections.] However, they dominate the majority of Whites. Their support, at the moment, is less than 50%. They dominate the majority of Whites. They dominate the Indians, the Coloureds and the Blacks. The political and intellectual dishonesty of his policy lies in the fact that while he says he opposes domination, in practice he exercises it. If such a thing as intellectual terrorism exists, then this is the best example of it.

By now I have asked him about twenty times how he intends, ostensibly, to protect the minorities. The hon the Minister says that their policy is aimed at protecting minorities. However, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said in Die Volksblad of 4 July that that was not possible. The hon the State President said in die Oggendblad of 31 July that the only way to protect minorities was by means of separate development.

In which year was that?

It was in 1980. [Interjections.] Apparently the hon member does not know the principle of principles. The shocking intellectual dishonesty of the policy of the hon the Minister lies, firstly, in the fact that today he proclaims a model which is rejected by his senior Cabinet colleague of Foreign Affairs, and secondly that he is fighting a party, as we sit here, which according to the opinion of his own leader has the recipe for what he wants. The distinction which the hon the Leader of the House has tried to make between breaking up meetings by the AWB and that of the NP is terrorism against the intellect. After all, we know it is the same thing. If there is indeed a difference, I will tell you what it is. Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche is an amateur when it comes to these things, and the hon the State President is a professional. That is the difference.

Order! The hon member may not insinuate that the hon the State President breaks up meetings.

I am not insinuating it; I am saying as much!

Order! The hon member must withdraw it.

No, Sir, I am going to address you on this point. I have proof here that Senator Hein Basson said that the hon the State President had broken up more meetings in his lifetime than he had held. It is a fact; it is an historical fact; it has been recorded in books. The hon the State President has read these books and has not objected to them.

Order! I want to put it to the hon member in this way: I think the conduct which the hon member is ascribing to the hon the State President coincides with what I read out today when I said that we must not cast aspersions on the person of the hon the State President.

I stand by the truth; not falsehood. According to Senator Hein Basson, the truth is that the hon the State President broke up more meetings than he held. It is common knowledge in this country that he was an expert at breaking up meetings. That is, after all, the truth, Sir.

Order! I will consider the matter.

The hon the Minister’s mask has come off. He is a political opportunist who follows an intellectually and politically dishonest policy.

I come now to the by-elections. I received a telegram in this regard which reads as follows:

[Interjections.] Finally, I want to say to the hon the Minister: Like Haman of old he built a gallows for Mordechai de Ville and for Mordechai Beyers. The by-elections take place on 2 March this year and there is a political gallows in Standerton and a political gallows in Schweizer-Reneke. Haman de Klerk will hang there on that day and hon members will be able to inspect his political corpse. After all, he wanted those elections; he could have stopped them; now he is going to suffer. He went against the wishes of his organisers because when they told him he must not hold elections, he went ahead and did so. The political corpse of Haman de Klerk …

Order! There is no such person as Haman de Klerk in this House. The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I want to conclude by saying that the political corpse of the hon the Minister will hang there on 2 March like that of Haman, because we have received the results of the post and special votes so far, and we are ahead by hundreds of votes in both those constituencies. The 2nd of March will see the end of the hon the Minister.

Mr Speaker, today the hon member for Overvaal had a great deal to say about political honesty. Right from the start I should like to enter into a discussion with him and hon the Leader of the Official Opposition about political honesty and their onslaught during the coming by-elections.

The hon member for Overvaal quoted from 1980 newspapers. I also want to quote a little for his benefit from a newspaper cutting dating from 1980. One of the things which is used by the CP as propaganda in the by-elections is that we are allegedly negotiating with all kinds of alien organizations and that we have allegedly become soft on terrorism and communism. We take that amiss. The caption to this 1980 cutting is as follows:

In those days he wanted to go on a one-man mission to the UN, to go and talk to the Russians and communists.

Rambo!

Koos Wayne!

There is another very interesting phenomenon. On examining the little newspapers which are issued by the CP in Schweizer-Reneke, it seems to me the hon member for Overvaal is more or less in charge of these little newspapers. I merely want to deal with a few aspects which appeared in the latest issue, the one in January, and then submit them to the test of political honesty. The main article on the front page of this newspaper reads as follows:

Here the allegation was made that the NP was using a number of paid workers. Then they complained about members of Parliament, members of the President’s Council and full-time organizers, paid officials of the party, who were rendering assistance there. They referred to them as a “mercenary commando” and as “mercenaries”. It was also argued that big business was pumping thousands of rands into the NP. This story is not only ridiculous, but also incredibly cynical if one studies the facts surrounding the CP’s campaign in Schweizer-Reneke.

The first fact is that the CP could not succeed in finding a suitable local candidate, who knew something about local circumstances.

What about Standerton?

We shall discuss Standerton as well. First listen to the whole story.

They then imported a candidate, at a fee, from Potchefstroom University. Their candidate is therefore a mercenary. [Interjections.] I want to issue a challenge to Prof Pieter Mulder to tell the voters of Schweizer-Reneke before 2 March …

But Piet you are one yourself!

I was not paid to be a candidate.

But it is the same thing. You are a mercenary. [Interjections.]

I want to extend an invitation to Prof Mulder to take the voters of Schweizer-Reneke into his confidence before 2 March. In reply to initial speculation that he would be a candidate in Schweizer-Reneke, he said he was not available. Subsequently, the Fourie family of Schweizer-Reneke went to speak to him in Potchefstroom and he decided to make himself available after all.

Bribed!

Is Prof Mulder prepared to disclose what happened between himself and the Fouries and what made him change his mind? I challenge him to publish the contents of those conversations and of the written agreement between himself and the Fouries. [Interjections.] Perhaps it is news to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, in the same way the AWB membership and the agreements between the AWB and CP candidates were news to him. [Interjections.]

Nor is that the end of the story. According to my information not everyone associated with the CP organization in Schweizer-Reneke was equally excited about this bright professor from Potchefstroom being a candidate. They had no choice but to accept him, because the Fouries apparently said: “This is the man or we shall withdraw all financial support”, yet those hon members speak of “being at the mercy of big business”.

It is not only the candidate who is being financed from that specific source. The previous MP, Mr Kobus Beyers, was also appointed by the Fouries and is being financed by them to act as a full-time election agent for Prof Mulder. Prof Mulder then also has somebody at hand who knows something about farming in that constituency. But that is not the end of it, because an ex-UP candidate, Mr Apie Roos, who in his day was a candidate for the United Party, was also appointed by the Fouries and provided with a car in order to help with the campaign on a full-time basis. Against the background of these facts the CP proceeds to write in this publication of theirs:

[Interjections.]

The CP’s slip is really showing when they object to the fact that the NP MPs and President’s Council members are going to be rendering assistance in Schweizer-Reneke. The CP cannot afford to have the voters properly informed. Even the CP’s office-bearers in places such as Schweizer-Reneke sometimes bow to the realities of the South African situation. This is especially the case when it affects their own pockets. They cannot, however, afford to admit it in public, because in doing so they admit that the attacks on the Government and on the NP are based on false premises.

Go and say that in Schweizer-Reneke!

I am going to give hon members the facts. These facts are beautifully illustrated by the situation in Schweizer-Reneke.

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

I am gladly prepared to answer a question.

No, the hon member for Bethal must resume his seat. He may not make a speech. [Interjections.] No, I have seen what happens.

In the days when it was still the general policy …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Bethal asked whether the hon member for Springs would reply to a question.

He said no.

He said yes.

Mr Speaker, I am prepared to take a question from that hon member.

I apologize. In that case I am quite mistaken.

Thank you for the apology, Mr Speaker. Will the hon member tell us how much he was paid when he ran the Rev Hendrickse’s election campaign for him?

At that stage I considered it to be a business transaction. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that that contract ended in a loss.

I should like to return to this issue of political honesty. In the days when it was general policy, a high-ranking office-bearer of the CP in Schweizer-Reneke, who was also a city councillor, Mr Theo Ebersohn, collaborated with Mr Willie Lemmer in having the Indian traders removed from the central area of Schweizer-Reneke to the Indian suburb. Mr Ebersohn also promised his co-operation as a member of the management committee in seeing to it that premises in the CBD would not be let to Indians.

In the meantime Mr Ebersohn has joined the CP and he is now one of the prominent office-bearers in Schweizer-Reneke. One would think that against the background of that party’s policy, he would be more determined than ever before to remove Indian traders from Schweizer-Reneke’s CBD. The fact remains, however, that this very prominent CP member is letting at least three premises he controls to Indian traders in Schweizer-Reneke. Some of the leasing contracts were in fact concluded very recently, and that happened while shop premises were standing empty in the Indian area. In one specific case, namely that of the Catco general store, the licence holder is a certain Magrieta Magdalena Smit. If one goes into the background of this particular lady the case becomes much more interesting.

Oh, but you are having a nice gossip!

I am not gossiping. These are the facts, and it is public knowledge. [Interjections.] She works as a till operator for Mr Ebersohn, in his shop.

Order! Some hon member or other said the hon member for Springs was gossiping. He must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

Surely it is very clear what is happening here. This very prominent CP member is not only letting his premises to Indians …

Mr Speaker, I want to address you on the ruling that the word “gossip” is unparliamentary. The words “gossip” and “gossipmonger” have repeatedly been used over the last 11 years I have been here by hon members on the opposite side of the House. I submit that the hon member does not have to withdraw it.

No, the hon member for Overvaal will note that gossipmonger (skinderbek) is in fact unparliamentary. In the sense in which the word gossip has been used here I interpret it to mean gossipmonger, and that is why I asked him to withdraw it. The hon member may proceed.

It is very clear what is happening here in regard to Mr Ebersohn, this prominent member of the CP.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible, when someone addresses you on a point of order, for comments to be made from the benches of the hon Chief Whip of Parliament and the hon Chief Whip of the NP?

It is not proper that that should happen. I must say it did not worry me, but it is not proper that it should happen. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, it seems to me those chaps are getting hurt. [Interjections.] It is very clear that what is happening here is that this prominent member of the CP not only leases his premises …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament says that I made a statement which I know to be untrue. Is that permissible?

You are wasting time again.

Order! I have bit of a problem. I should not like to interfere with remarks hon members make to one another. I often hear strange remarks from this side and I sometimes close my ears on purpose. Now I do not know whether the hon Chief Whip said that to you specifically. Did the hon Chief Whip of Parliament say that to the hon member for Brakpan?

Yes, Sir.

The Chief Whip of Parliament must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon member may proceed.

Splendid example, isn’t it?

Mr Speaker, I want to return to Mr Theo Ebersohn, the prominent CP office-bearer. From the story which I have told you, it is very clear what is happening here. He not only let his premises to Indian traders, but he also provided the so-called nominee to circumvent the Act.

Sis!

Schweizer-Reneke is not the only place where this kind of thing is happening. In Wolmaransstad a very prominent member of the CP sold his clothing store to Indian interests, and to crown it all it was the shop where White school uniforms are sold in the town. [Interjections.] That is truly a case of ready money being a ready remedy. [Interjections.] The question is why do people such as Mr Ebersohn not adhere to the Act by letting the premises to Indians. They can apply for a permit, and there also are examples in Schweizer-Reneke itself where these legal avenues have been used.

The CP should rather take cognisance of the fact that we are sick and tired of them continually going around slandering the NP and the Government while they themselves are standing in the wings. From now on we will unmask them mercilessly.

Wait for 2 March!

As far as planned discussions with the ANC, the Russians, and the Communists are concerned, we are still going to tell the voters how the hon member for Bethal, in his day, assisted in arranging a public meeting for the ANC leader, Albert Luthuli. [Interjections.] Sir, the CP complains about the assistance the NP members of Parliament are going to render in the by-election.

No, we are not complaining; you are helping us.

They should rather tell us what the meaning is of a document to which my good friend, the hon member for Brentwood, also referred yesterday. Among other things it contains instructions to workers. Apparently the CP is experiencing problems with some of its workers, because the following instructions were typed in capital letters:

Surely it is clear that the CP is beginning to realise that their way of doing things is counterproductive and is alienating an increasing number of voters.

There is also another very interesting admission in this document, namely that the CP standpoint cannot withstand the test of an argument. The following instructions are given in regard to people who are in two minds:

[Interjections.]

What we would like to have a reply to, however, is the following instructions given to the local CP office:

The telephone numbers are then given. The following section reads as follows:

I do not quite understand how this tallies.

There are many things which you do not understand. There will be many things in future which you will not understand either.

The signs of the CP’s panic in the by-elections are apparent everywhere.

Of course we know about the tension in the office in Schweizer-Reneke because Mr Beyers overwhelms the professor and treats him purely as temporary observer.

Things are not much better in Standerton. Mr De Ville has his own idiosyncrasies, such as having a Black attorney’s clerk. Is he a CP at heart? [Interjections.] Why does he not appear at meetings, and why was he so reluctant to be the CP candidate? More and more voters are beginning to realize that the CP can offer them no stable future. I do not know what this party’s field workers told him, but if they do not inform him as to the true course of the campaign in Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton there will be a rude awakening awaiting the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition when 2 March dawns. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I hope the hon member for Springs will forgive me if I do not react specifically to his speech. I have to ask—I have been asking myself the same question while listening to hon members’ speeches—what contribution today’s debate has actually made to the welfare of this country. I wonder what difference it really makes whether Mr Ebersohn has a shop or not; whether a lady somewhere does or does not do certain things, and so on. I do not know of what consequence these things are to our country. I must say I find it strange that even now, a few small party-political points can be scored by referring to the fact that someone has a Black articled clerk. I simply do not understand it. What is the purpose of this? Is there anybody here who is against it? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that if there are hon members of the CP who are attorneys and who employ Black articled clerks, I believe that there is hope for them. [Interjections.] Yes, then there is hope for them. If this is so, perhaps they are not really as nervous as we have all been led to believe. Perhaps there really is hope for them—hope that they are prepared to co-operate with other race groups in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Harry, I shall appoint you as my clerk!

Therefore I must say, Sir, that I have been dealing with all three tiers of government in this country for decades, but quite frankly, I have never listened to a debate that was being conducted on the level on which this debate has been conducted here today. This I have never experienced. [Interjections.] So I hope you will forgive me, Sir, if I now turn to an entirely different matter.

†Mr Speaker, I believe it is relevant to this whole issue that it be stated that the function of an opposition party is quite clearly not only to oppose and to expose, but also to offer alternatives and to offer support where it is necessary. One of the things that is developing in this House is some kind of confrontational politics, politics in which it does not matter what anybody says, whether it is right or wrong; if the wrong person says it it has to be opposed. I must tell you, Sir, this carries within it the seeds of disaster for our parliamentary system.

The second point I want to make, Sir, is also important. That is that economics and politics go hand in hand. We have said it again and again. These things must go hand in hand with reform. Reform becomes easier if the living standards of our people are higher, and political change without economic progress leads inevitably to the use of political power in order to achieve economic objectives. We also know that throughout the world, when people seize political power, they inevitably use it in order to impose particular economic ideologies.

The third point I want to make as part of the theme which I want to develop is that peaceful reform requires the maintenance of law and order; it requires respect for the law by all. A breakdown in either or both leads to revolution and disorder. Examining the current scene in the light of these fundamentals, I believe I should deal firstly with the question of law and order.

There seems to be little doubt that there has been a reduction in the level of overt violence over the past 18 months, but I think there are still some very disturbing features. One of those is clearly the situation which exists in the Pietermaritzburg area and which, I am sure, must be of concern to every South African irrespective of whether he is White or Black.

If the power struggle in South Africa is going to be transferred from debate, from argument, to violence and murder, whether that struggle be between White and White or White and Black or Black and Black, South Africa is doomed. We have to try to return the political differences and struggles in South Africa purely to debate and logical, reasoned argument where people try to convince each other rather than murder each other. The danger of the occurrences at Pietermaritzburg is that this may well spread to other parts of South Africa in that it may be seen as a means of achieving power and imposing one’s will upon other people.

The second question in regard to law and order I wish to discuss, is that of crime. Crime is at an unacceptable level in South Africa. I can give examples of streets in which every single house has been burgled and where people actually feel that there is no longer any point in doing anything in relation to preventing burglary except what one can do for oneself such as buying alarms, hiring private protective agencies, putting up burglar guards and buying firearms. To my mind that is a very dangerous situation that is developing because if one cannot maintain basic law and order and protection against crime, then one of the basic essentials of civilised society will have broken down. We find today that it is no longer simply the older people but also the younger people who feel that they cannot walk the streets at night alone in relatively lonely places because they are endangered wherever they go. There is no doubt that the unrest situation has perhaps resulted in numbers of police having had to be diverted to deal with other matters, but unless one deals with the crime situation and stops the escalation of crime we will be destroying the very fabric of our society.

There is no doubt that the police are not the only means of dealing with crime. It can be dealt with by means of social reform and improved living standards. There is also no doubt that one of the by-products of the economic era that we have experienced for the past few years has been the escalation of crime. This is one of the prices that we have had to pay. We may also have to consider that perhaps even elementary things in the economy which may appear to be elementary and have nothing to do with the situation such as the current account of the balance of payments which in its turn has an effect on growth and, because of that, upon employment can in that way affect the crime level in our society.

In dealing with the economic situation let us be perfectly frank about a few matters. This country has gone through a very tough economic period in its history. Perhaps when we were experiencing them they were very much tougher than people realised. I have always been a critic of this Government and I shall probably continue to be so for many years yet, because they have really got us into a mess. There is no question about that. However, I am the first to admit that the fault has not been entirely theirs. There have also been extraneous aspects that have contributed towards our problems. However, no hon member on the NP benches, including the hon the Minister of Finance, would argue today that in regard to everything that has been done as far as policy and administration are concerned the timing, in retrospect, was right. There is no doubt, therefore, that grave mistakes have been made. This does not apply only to economic matters; it also applies to political decisions which have had their impact on the economy. However, I think the time has arrived to take stock because the community cannot tolerate a situation in which the economy continues to deteriorate. We cannot find a political solution in South Africa if our country is being devastated by unemployment and wrecked by poverty and with a current account that continues to restrain growth and inflation that is eroding the savings and earnings of the people. In per capita terms there has not been any growth in South Africa for years. To cheers from the Government side the hon the Minister announced that there had been a 2,6% growth in the GDP. However, in per capita terms, that means nil growth as such. Therefore, in per capita terms, we are exactly where we were a year ago. Admittedly, it is better than before because it was then in negative terms. The reality is, however, that we have been in that situation.

Let us look at the unemployment situation. If even our most conservative projections are correct, by the year 2000 there will be some eight million people not employed in the formal sector or economically active. We will probably have about 20 million extra people in the urban areas, and the total population will be about 45 million.

The question that I pose today is this: Who dares play petty politics when problems of this nature are facing South Africa? If we look back, we can see all the problems we have faced, and today it does not matter to me who made the mistakes of the past. What has now become important to me is that in his address at the opening of Parliament the hon the State President demonstrated a willingness not only to make a new start, but to take decisions which might be politically risky for him and his party.

In these circumstances, those who want to be responsible and who place the interests of the country first will at least give his plans a chance of coming to fruition, will offer encouragement where it is needed and will not take political advantage. There should certainly not be the kind of petty politics that we have spent the whole afternoon debating.

The reality is that the risk for the country is too big. I repeat what I said initially, namely that the responsibility of an opposition—not only this party, but the CP as well—is to oppose what is wrong but also to support what is right, necessary and desirable for the country as a whole. I do not necessarily agree with everything that has been proposed. Where something is wrong, it is our duty to point it out and to offer constructive alternatives, but the time for petty political advantage-seeking is past as far as the economy is concerned.

To my mind, the outcome of the by-elections that have been debated here all afternoon, yesterday and before that, and even the outcome of the municipal elections are minor considerations in setting the stage for economic planning for the South Africa of tomorrow which is so vital for all of us.

I, for one, am not afraid of the future, but I am fearful of an ever-increasing population which is without adequate means to support itself. I am an optimist regarding the eventual ability of South Africans to find a political solution and a political accommodation, but I view with apprehension the large communities without adequate housing and basic, socially necessary infrastructure in their residential areas. Whatever anybody’s politics may be, these are the realities of South Africa and they have to be dealt with.

We have an anti-inflation package. Do we not realise how inflation can destroy the whole social fabric of a society? We merely have to look back at the Germany of 1923 to see what it did for that country and for the world. The package which has been announced to combat inflation looks to me as if it is at least a genuine effort to tackle the problem, and to that extent it needs support.

Let us now deal with the announcement concerning Public Service salaries. There is no doubt that this is unlikely to be popular with the Public Service, and it is likely to be politically exploited. This is quite understandable from a public servant’s point of view, but not from the point of view of the politician who has the country’s interests at heart.

I would like to appeal to the public servants to realise the consequences for South Africa as a whole if there is not a break in ever-increasing public expenditure. In the long term, it is going to jeopardise their very jobs, let alone their increases. It is correct that public servants should not be the only ones to make sacrifices, and if the private sector does not follow suit, the remedy will be much longer in taking effect if it is successful at all.

Some exceptions will have to be made in the Public Service. There are certain activities which will have to be treated sympathetically. It is no use, however, having a restraint in respect of wages and salaries if there is not a restraint in respect of prices.

I make the appeal that the Government set the example in regard to administered prices and tariffs. We cannot expect wages and salaries to be kept down and yet allow prices to get out of hand.

I want to make a further appeal to the Government. There is a need for further action regarding consumer exploitation. There is not adequate competition to ensure that there is not such exploitation and, I think, if legislation is needed in order to deal with this, let us have it and provide it with some teeth. There is no doubt that ordinary people in South Africa continue to be exploited in respect of the prices of products. Something has got to be done about this.

I hope that the hon the Minister of Finance will give us the next instalment of the plan under the part appropriation and the final instalment when it comes to the Budget. I want to appeal yet again to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs and to the hon the Minister in charge of the Post Office because if, in their budgets, they are going to go counter to this plan, the Government is starting off with no credibility in relation to it.

I hope—and I see some smiles but I will not say on whose faces they are—the hon the Minister of Finance will not be let down by his colleagues when it comes to those budgets. If they undermine him, they are undermining the whole effort that is being made in this regard.

The hon the Minister of Finance must bear in mind that there are many of us out here sticking our necks out supporting him. If he and those other Ministers let us down, we going to end up with egg on our faces, but we will not trust him next time. We trust him this time, we give him support this time, but, please, he must not let us end up with egg on our faces because we have been naive enough to accept that he is going to carry out what he undertook to do. We expect the hon the Minister to carry it out.

There are individual matters which can be dealt with but unfortunately one does not have enough time to deal with all of them. I will touch on a couple of them.

Firstly, there is the matter of privatisation. This has got to be carefully handled. I am a little worried about what the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs said in his speech yesterday because he tends to cast a little doubt on some of these things that are going to happen. To say to the people, for example, that the first issue is going to be a success, that it is going to be attractive and he is going to lure them into it, is not the way to do it. Every issue has got to be a success and one has to allow not only the workers to participate, not only the investors, but one also has to allow the consumers to participate in privatisation.

Look at how it has been done overseas and where there have been successful flotations such as, for example, with British Telecom and British Gas which have worked. One must tell people that shares fluctuate; do not bluff them that they are getting investments that can only appreciate. The reality is that when one invests in something which is privatised, one takes the same risk as when one buys any other share on the market.

The other issue is that of negotiation. One must negotiate, not only with management and investors, but with workers and organised labour too. What is so vital in regard to privatisation is that there are competing ideological views in South Africa on the question of the ownership of the means of production, particularly when they are assets which have traditionally been owned by the State. There is a fundamental difference between ownership by the State and ownership by the people.

I support ownership by the people. That is why I support privatisation. Where it has no adverse effect or impact, ownership by the people is the answer to the claim of those who want the State to own the means of production. There is no point in exchanging a public monopoly for a private monopoly, and I am pleased to hear that the hon the Minister of Finance also shares that view.

What is important now is not only to announce privatisation but to engage in a public debate on the value of the economic system of which it is a part, and to show the benefit to those who are being sold quick fixes of alternative systems. They are being sold quick fixes such as that on the day of liberation everything will be owned by the State, they will be free, they will be rich, they will be everything!

Life is not going to be like that. This gives an opportunity to educate, to market and to show people what the free enterprise system means in its true sense.

If the shares in State enterprises are sold and the proceeds are used to build houses and to create better living conditions for the people of South Africa, then the people will taste the benefits of the system. Then we will win the fight for free enterprise, and then the hon the Minister can expect the support of the people as a whole for this free enterprise system.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to follow the hon member for Yeoville. He has just made a very good speech, and as a member of this Government I want to thank him for the support he is offering to the programme of the Government as announced by the hon the State President. It is a pity he did not tell his leader what he was going to say before he made the speech because everything …

They dealt with two entirely different aspects of the same thing! [Interjections.]

If one looks at the amendment moved by the hon the leader of the PFP, one sees that the hon member for Yeoville did not speak to the amendment at all. He did not mention it in his speech at all. [Interjections.] I do not blame him, however. When one looks at the speeches of the other hon members on that side of the House, one finds that they absolutely shout against what the hon member for Yeoville has said. [Interjections.] He must be the next hon member to leave that party. I am absolutely sure of that. [Interjections.]

In the introduction to the amendment of the hon member for Sea Point he talks about “damaging the economy and reducing the living standards of our people”.

Read it all!

He also says that we are undermining the security and the safety of the citizens of our country and that we are leading the country away from democracy towards authoritarianism.

In view of what happened in Bophuthatswana today, is that not true?

The fact of the matter is that the whole gravamen of his charge and the direction and the thrust of his speech was that somehow the Government has now put reform on the back-burner and that we are now ignoring reform. The fact of the matter is that that hon member knows—it was said by the hon member for Yeoville and he should know it—that economic reform is absolutely central to the progress of this country and without economic reform there will be no other sustainable reform possible in South Africa. If one looks at what we have just been through …

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Houghton must not interject. She knows she said one or two things that were not true either, and I shall come back to that too.

The fact of the matter is, if one listens to that hon member, one would not think that this country is in the middle of a financial war, although we have managed to a large extent to overcome the major problems. Dr De Kock mentioned it in his speech on Monday at the Frankel Investment Conference that since 1984 some R10 billion of our foreign debt capital has been repaid. We have had a debt standstill and suffered all the consequences of such a debt standstill. We have had a trade war, and I had largely the responsibility of having to deal with it. The fact is that we have had a trade and sanctions war. Markets were closed to us, but in spite of that we have shown export surpluses. There has been a low intensity urban terror war against our people, against women and children, which has caused us to have to incur socially unproductive expenditure and to increase the size of the police force and security forces, and to make all kinds of investments we would rather not have made. There has been a low intensity regional war in Angola something we were sucked into while it has nothing to do with our country. It has to do with the East-West power-play, and we who have a regional responsibility to our country and to our neighbours have been sucked into that. That has added to the costs. We have had droughts, recessions and falls in the price of our major commodities …

None of which were of your causing?

No, Mr Chairman. Oh, we caused that, did we? That hon member is naive. If he wants to hear a stateman’s address, he must listen to the hon member for Yeoville.

Let me say to hon members that any country that can produce a 2,6% growth rate—not a good growth rate, there I agree with the hon member for Yeoville; it is not good enough—but with rising reserves and an increasing value of its currency and falling inflation—I refer to the circumstances that this country has had to overcome and given the challenges that we have had to overcome over the past year—has caused an absolute miracle to happen.

And given the Government!

No, while we have been fighting the enemies of this country, what have they been fighting? They were fighting each other. While we were trying to grapple with the problems of South Africa the former leader of that party walked away from the party, from this Parliament, from the constitutional debate in South Africa. He was followed by the new leader who spent his time on trivialities while we were having to deal with the problems of this country, as was well spelt out by the hon member for Yeoville.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question?

No, Sir, I do not wish to answer any questions.

While we have been grappling with the problems of this country and fighting for this country those gentlemen have been fighting each other. One does not know who is going to remain with that party, and the hon member for Yeoville actually touched on the reason for this. It is because they are so negative, they have turned in so much upon themselves, they have become so hateful, that they can do no good. They must go from this Parliament, and the voters of South Africa will drive them from this place. They no longer know what it means to make a contribution to this country.

All that the hon the leader of the PFP said—and he was supposed to set up the debate for that party—was that we should not go on an assetstripping exercise with privatisation. That is all he said. He did not come with any inspiration, with appeals for co-operation—as the hon member for Yeoville has done, and for which I salute him— but he just came with some small, petty partypoliticking which is not worthy of our country.

I have not noticed any great contributions by Cabinet Ministers as yet.

The hon member does not know his parliamentary procedures. He and I have both been in public life for almost 15 years. He ought to know by now that we are being held to account. This is what this debate is all about. [Interjections.] We are responding to that party.

The PFP amendment says we are leading the country away from democracy towards authoritarianism. Do those hon members not know what is happening at local government level, how we are following policies of inclusion, how we are trying to bring people into regional government and into co-operating structures with regional services councils. What is happening at provincial levels? We are drawing people into the organisation of our society and into the life of our nation as a whole. The hon member for Johannesburg North levelled all kinds of accusations about what he thought we were doing and not doing. However, the social expenditures that have taken place in this country over the past few years are quite unbelievable. On the health front, on the education front, on the housing front, on the upgrading front—this is a policy of inclusion— this country is making massive investments in the economy through the Small Business Development Corporation, through inward industrialisation, through the training programmes of this Government, through the massive education efforts of this Government.

This country is deadly serious about raising the living circumstances of all the people of this country. To my mind this kind of amendment is absolutely scandalous, because the implications of a motion of no confidence in this Government is that the supporters of that party have a growing support for the programme of their party. Of course, this is not the case. Actually, I find it very easy to understand that when the hon member for Yeoville spoke he did not address this amendment.

If we are to succeed in South Africa, if we are to succeed in this region, if we are to act out the imperatives of history, then the responsibility of history is placed before us. We have to show that we are part of the solution of Southern Africa, and that no solution and no progress in the region is possible without us.

Having said that, I can also say that there are encouraging signs. A few years ago we were searching motorcars on their way to Lesotho and there was a very hostile relationship between the two countries. Happily one can now report that the great Oxbow scheme as it was formerly known, which is now the Highlands Water Scheme, is in progress. That will bring untold wealth and development to Lesotho and will resolve the long-term water question mark that hangs over the Witwatersrand which is the greatest industrial megalopolis in the world south of Milan. That is a wonderfully co-operative enterprise. We have also seen the cooperative enterprise between our Government and that of Botswana insofar as we have indicated a rise in tariffs so that the proposed new plant where soda ash will be produced, will be viable. That will bring major development to the region. There are other major locomotives in the economy and some of them are interdependence locomotives while others are not.

However, there is a thaw in the relationships in the subcontinent. There is also a sign that people are internationally recognising how essential South Africa is to the progress of the region as a whole.

The hon member for Yeoville was quite right when he spoke about the danger of inflation. Only yesterday I was reading a report from Arizona University in which it is said that in 1920 Argentina was the fifth most productive nation in the world; today it is the 70th. Inflation was the major assault factor in that country. There is no way in which we in South Africa can get inflation under control without declaring all-out war on this evil. To the extent that the hon member has asked for the support of all South Africans and has offered his own support I salute him and I thank him.

Mr Chairman, I always thought that it would not be necessary for me to reply to personal attacks in this House. I always hoped that I would be able to speak on a level other than the personal in this House. However, even the previous speaker could not resist devoting the first five minutes of his speech to a personal attack on the PFP. I hope that we shall cease doing this in this House. Today you also heard that there are Afrikaners who are better than I am because I belong to the AWB. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of National Education said that they were better people than I. This will be decided on at some stage or other; I am not saying that I am better than he is. I am not suggesting that for a moment; on the contrary, I want to tell the hon the Minister that I do not think I am better than he is. I do not think I am a better person than any other person, whether he be Black, White or Yellow.

Hear, hear!

The hon member for Springs said things here to which I must reply. He distorted facts again. It is true that I helped to organise a meeting which was addressed by Luthuli. At that stage the ANC was not a banned organisation. That was in 1957 …

It was in 1958!

… and at that stage I helped to organise this along with a chairman of the NJB, the Nasionale Jeugbond.

Then you were a UP supporter too!

I could have been anything. [Interjections.] However, I still stand by the principles for which I stood. [Interjections.] What he is trying to suggest here … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I shall ask for your protection, because it sounds as if I am at an NP meeting in Standerton! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

At that stage it was not a banned organisation, but that hon member is trying to suggest that we do not talk to any Blacks. We are still talking to them today. I have been talking to them since I was a child and I shall still be talking to them and to other people of colour tomorrow. I am not a racist and my party is not racist either. [Interjections.]

It has been said that my leader is a prisoner of the AWB. I stand by the principles of the CP and I was sent here as a member of the CP. I shall be loyal to my leader and he need not look over his shoulder to see where I am. [Interjections.]

Today I should like us to ascertain who is a prisoner of whom. Let every one of those hon members of the Cabinet stand up and say whether or not he is a member of the AB. Let us see how many members of the Broederbond are serving in the Cabinet. Let us stop being such cowards that we do not say where we stand.

I think there are a few members of the Cabinet who are not members of the Broederbond. For example, I do not think that the previous speaker, the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, or his bench-fellow, are members of the Broederbond. [Interjections.] The fact that they are not members is also the reason why they are still only Deputy Ministers. And they are English-speaking. [Interjections.] Let us now ascertain who is a prisoner of whom.

Order!

Let every member of the AB on that side of the House stand up like a man so that we can see by how much they are in the majority in the NP and by whom the NP is trapped. [Interjections.]

There are 22.

The AWB is an open organisation and we are not afraid to say that we are members. I have never belonged to a secret organisation in my entire life. I do not say things in secret and do not meet in secret. I am prepared to say what I want to say in public. [Interjections.]

Are five of you members?

Five of us are not members.

How many of you are?

Three of us are members.

Who are they?

Everyone will stand up of his own accord. Hon members know that the hon members for Delmas and Ventersdorp are members. Therefore three of us are members. We do not hide this. I have never denied this; on the contrary, I have said so in private conversations to some of the hon members and even to an hon Minister. [Interjections.]

Order!

I have just said three of us are members of the AWB. Let us now hear how many members of the Broederbond there are. Hon members of the NP must give us the numbers, or is it perhaps that they do not know? [Interjections.]

Order!

They must give us the numbers, or is it perhaps that they do not know? [Interjections.]

Order!

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

No, Mr Chairman I am not going to reply to questions, because I want to complete my speech. [Interjections.]

Pietie does not look like a member of the Broederbond to me.

Order! I cannot allow the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition to hold a conversation across the floor of the House.

Mr Chairman, may I proceed? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Bethal may proceed.

Today it was said that our hon leader was not single-minded; he was falling around. I am sorry that I have to do this, but let us consider the leadership of the hon leader of the NP in the Transvaal, the person who has just launched that attack. Let us see how he fell around. He said that the CP could not be trusted, but I want to tell the voters of South Africa that they must decide for themselves whether they can trust the hon leader of the NP in the Transvaal. Is he a man who stands by what he has said? [Interjections.] He said the following to the PFP:

Then he went on to say—

We have now heard that there was never any suggestion that the Whites were entitled to their own territory. That is what another hon Minister shouted. [Interjections.] I do not want to give all the references, but he also said:

And then he went on to add—

It was not Eugene Terre’Blanche who said that; it was the hon the Minister sitting over there! [Interjections.]

Violence?

Violence! Fighting! Mr Speaker, all I can say is thank the Lord that we do not need to fight in the way he fought.

However, that was not the only occasion on which reference was made to an own country. In a subsequent speech he said the following (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1975, col 5268):

That is if power-sharing were to take place, according to the Progressive Party’s recipe.

Yes!

It is again the hon the Minister over there who is talking like that.

That has always been the case!

I shall proceed. What did he say about the abolition of influx control? He said the following (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1975, col 86):

Sir, he did precisely what he said should not be done. Can the people of South Africa ever trust him? [Interjections.]

That was when he was still a good Nationalist.

Let us proceed. We can continue in this way for days. He said the following (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1980, col 1229):

Yes, we are doing that!

He also said (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1980, col 1229):

Mr Speaker, this is the man who says he is adopting a course and following a fixed pattern. I want to ask whether even the NP can trust him as a possible leader, as a possible President for them.

No! No! Not at all!

Yesterday he spoke here about us and about conflict and strife. Let us hear what he has had to say about this in the past (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1983, col 13566):

This is still the case!

He went on to say:

That includes your policy.

This is the man who accused us of creating conflict.

Just read what I went on to say.

I can still quote a great deal to him from what he went on to say. Let us read what he said about local option for example.

No, read what I went on to say about that topic.

We shall proceed.

No! No!

He said the following about local option (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1983, col 7927):

That is correct!

Seeing that the beaches have now been thrown open, let us see what he said about the same principle in connection with hotels (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1975, col 7058):

They will therefore determine the situation.

Dr Treurnicht even helped me to throw open the hotels.

There are still many other…

But your hon leader helped me to throw open the hotels! [Interjections.]

No, Sir, let us hear what this hon Minister had to say at that stage about guarantees for minorities.

Get him, Chris! [Interjections.]

I am again quoting from Skietgoed of June 1977:

There are many other examples I could return to, but I want to refer briefly to one other aspect. This is the speech of the hon the State President regarding finance. I want to congratulate the hon the Minister of Finance on the fact that he is now going to do something to get us out of this mess. I want to thank him for the fact that he does in fact have a plan with which many of us will agree. But who, Mr Chairman, must I thank for the financial mess in which we landed? Boland Bank or Bothabank? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the success with which hon members on the Government side exposed the dreamworld of the CP’s own White fatherland in its naked reality, in this debate in particular, brings us closer to the AWB option, which is actually what is awaiting the CP. The proverbial AWB cat has been set among the CP pigeons. [Interjections.] The more difficult it becomes for the CP …

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question?

No, Sir. I am not going to take any questions. Those hon members would be well advised to sit still and listen. I want to explain something to them nicely.

I am sure it is a very easy little question! [Interjections.]

The more difficult it becomes for the CP to prove the practical implementation of its policy of partition against the background of unsuccessful attempts over decades, the closer it moves to the AWB model, and the more they argue in the AWB idiom.

It is of course the physical presence of the AWB in the caucus of the CP and the influence which the AWB has in the party structure of the CP which is strengthening Eugene Terre’Blanche’s hold on that party by the day. [Interjections.] The proverbial chickens are coming home to roost. This unholy alliance of CP members of Parliament with the AWB is now actually starting to take its toll in the politics of South Africa. The many admissions, reactions, explanations and so on by the CP, and even by Eugêne Terre’Blanche—sometimes even unsolicited—indeed speak volumes.

There are three relevant aspects we must face up to this afternoon. In the first place there is the political objective of the AWB. In the second place there is the membership of CP members of Parliament of the AWB, and in the third place there is the undertaking which was given by candidates of the CP to the AWB. [Interjections.] The question we must answer this afternoon …

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

No, Sir, the hon member must rather settle down. I am not replying to any questions. [Interjections.]

It has been alleged that an undertaking had been given … [Interjections.]

Order! No, the hon member for Bethal must resume his seat.

Mr Chairman, the question which the hon members of the CP must answer, is how the AWB wants to realise its political philosophy of a White “volkstaat”. That is the most important question, Sir. [Interjections.] The realisation of their ideal of a “volkstaat”, as formulated by the AWB, can after all not be achieved through a cultural organisation. Not in South African politics. The ideal of a “volkstaat” is after all a constitutional matter. It is a political ideal, and is inappropriate to a cultural organisation. Bear in mind, Mr Speaker, that the hon members of the CP tell us every day that the AWB does not want to achieve its ideal by means of revolution. Or does it? [Interjections.] It does not, Sir.

It does not want to achieve its ideal by means of violence, or does it? It is interesting that, according to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, it does not want to achieve it by means of the ballot box either, if one considers a recent edition of Beeld in which the hon Leader was reported as saying:

The AWB wants to use the CP by getting AWB CP members of Parliament, who are in their ranks, elected and by getting undertakings from CP candidates to propagate the “volkstaat” idea in that party.

Let us ask one another what evidence exists. In this connection I want to quote from a report which appeared in Pretoria News of 22 May 1987 on an interview with Mr Eugêne Terre’Blanche:

Go and ask Eugene Terre’Blanche.

May I ask the hon member who is now being so eloquent whether he is suggesting that Eugène Terre’Blanche lied? Is the hon member telling us in this House that Eugêne Terre’Blanche lied? That is what he must tell us. He can stand up and say so if he likes.

What did Mr Terre’Blanche say? He said:

He concludes with the following words:

Another report read:

‘These people’ are these super-duper Afrikaners in the CP.

Let us see what Beeld had to say. I am referring to a report concerning that tape recording made of Mr Groenewald’s interview. We must place these matters on record, and the hon members must either categorically deny this or tell us it is nonsense.

Did you not get it placed on record there?

Order! The hon member for Bethal has just made his speech. The hon member for Turffontein may proceed.

Mr Van Zyl asked Mr Groenewald over the telephone:

The report continues:

He was referring to those seven candidates whom the AWB supported.

What is your source?

This afternoon I want to submit that if one considers the pronouncements and statements of the AWB through Mr Terre’Blanche and one listens to the speeches made here, including the speech made in this debate by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, one notices that the idiom in which they argue is the survival of the freedom of Afrikaner people.

The AWB philosophy fits the idiom in which they argue like a glove. The strategy of these political mafia to get the “volkstaat” idea established as the central theme in South African politics and to get Mr Terre’Blanche to feature as the main figure in the right-wing ranks reveals itself in its naked reality as we sit here. After all, Mr Terre’Blanche himself appeared on television the other day and said that there was no significant difference between the CP’s partition policy and the AWB’s “volkstaat” idea.

Let us consider the membership story for a moment and see what the leader of the CP, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, has to say. In the first place he says that the AWB is a purely cultural organisation. In the second place he says that no organisation prescribes to the CP on policy, objectives or strategy, and that all members of Parliament of the CP have only one political loyalty. Everyone, including the CP, knows this and those persons who are members of the CP also know it. In the third place there are only two CP members of Parliament who are members of the AWB. This afternoon we heard from self-confessed sources in that party that there are three members. Now I am asking who is lying. [Interjections.] Someone is not sticking to the truth. [Interjections.]

The AWB leaders say that Andries Withandjies’ courage will be tested in February. I suppose it will be at the siege of Majuba which is awaiting these hon members at the end of February.

Let us help them a little. How does this so-called cultural organisation want to realise its political ideal of a Boerestaat by means of its cultural cloak? It is clear that in exchange for its support at the ballot box on 6 May the AWB received undertakings from candidates of the CP to support the “volkstaat” idea—either to strive actively for this or never to oppose, hamper or fight the “volkstaat” strategy. It is no wonder that in debate after debate which we have had during the past few years with hon members on that side of the House, in particular the hon members for Bethal and Ermelo, the CP members of Parliament did not want to become involved in discussions on the AWB “volkstaat”.

Here, together with the matter of membership, we arrive at the truth, the golden rule in this Parliament is that one does not lie in this House. [Interjections.] There is, after all, an example of a crown prince in South African politics who paid the highest price in politics because he did not stick to the truth here and there.

He is not the only one; some of them are sitting over there … [Interjections.]

As regards membership, the leader said in Balfour that only two members of his caucus were members of the CP. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not know whom the hon member for Overvaal is talking to on that side of the House is, but he must lower his voice.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Langlaagte says I am a coward.

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte may not say such things. He must withdraw it.

Sir, I withdraw it.

Do not whine, Koos!

I am not whining. [Interjections.]

Order! If I am not mistaken the two hon members belonged to the same boxing club and should therefore be good friends. [Interjections.] The hon member for Turffontein may proceed.

Clearly two stories were told in this Parliament. The hon the Leader spoke about two AWB members and the hon member for Bethal admitted there were three. The hon the Leader did this from a political platform in the presence of the hon member for Delmas, who admitted that evening that he was a member of the AWB. [Interjections.]

We now have the self-confessed members, the hon members for Bethal and Ventersdorp. Then another member was added to their number. Let me first ascertain whether the hon member for Delmas can hear me. Can he hear me properly? [Interjections.] When Beeld telephoned him, they had a friendly conversation until they asked him about the AWB. Then the hon member said: “I cannot hear properly; the line is rather bad”. [Interjections.] The next moment they were cut off and after that the telephone was consistently engaged. [Interjections.]

We now have the two self-confessed members, and the hon member for Delmas has now been added to their number.

Did he not also say that their policy was sub judice? [Interjections.]

That is quite true.

We now come to the grand council (grootraad) man, the hon member for Ermelo. He denies that he is a member of the AWB. It seems to me that he is merely a hanger-on of the AWB. He is not registered, but he is, as Mr Terre’Blanche put it, accepted as an Afrikaner who shares the ideals of the AWB. Mr Terre’Blanche says that in the old days when the hon member was associated with the AWB they did not register people. The hon member would seem not to have signed anything while he was with the AWB. However he was such a member of that movement that they invited him to serve on the grand council of the AWB. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member said that the hon member for Ermelo—he used the words—was a member of the AWB. On a previous occasion in this House the hon member for Ermelo denied that he was a member. I am asking you to rule that the hon member for Turffontein should take the word of the hon member for Ermelo. [Interjections.]

The hon member is dealing with the grand council. The hon member may proceed.

No, Sir, he said that the hon member was a member of the AWB. [Interjections.]

It does not matter in any case. The hon member may proceed.

The hon member for Ermelo stood up here in Parliament and said that he was not a member of the AWB and he had never been a member of the AWB. He must live with his own conscience.

That is disgraceful!

We always thought that the fifth member was the hon member for Brits, because someone alleged that the fifth member of the AWB …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member is not entitled to say that the hon member for Ermelo must live with his conscience. He is very clearly implying that the hon member for Ermelo was lying. The hon member said in this House that he was not a member of the AWB. [Interjections.]

Order! No! The hon member for Turffontein may proceed. The hon member for Overvaal has raised a second point of order. The hon member for Turffontein’s time is being taken up by this. At this stage I do not consider this to be a proper point of order. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it not customary in this House for there to be silence when you are addressed on a point of order?

That should be the case.

While my hon friend was addressing you there was a chorus—I am referring to the hon member for Innesdal and other hon members sitting over there—trying to give your ruling for you.

The hon member is correct. The point of order is accepted. The hon member may proceed.

It really is wonderful. I said at the outset…

Are you not going to do anything about it?

I have already requested hon members not to do this and I am repeating my request. The hon member may proceed.

I said at the outset that the AWB cat had been set among the CP pigeons. That is how they are struggling and floundering about. If they do not believe what I am saying, they must go and tell Eug ne Terre’Blanche that he lied to the people. Then they must go and tell Mr Groenewald that he lied to the people, because the evidence we have outside this House is that the hon member for Ermelo was invited to be a member of the grand council. Why did they invite him? [Interjections.] They invited him because he was a hanger-on of the AWB, because he proclaimed the ideals of the AWB and spoke to the AWB in out-of-the-way corners. [Interjections.] When the time came for him to be a man and stand up and be counted with them, all of a sudden he was technically no longer a member of the AWB.

Who is the fifth member of the AWB? They say he is a clergyman. [Interjections.] We always thought that it might be the hon member for Brits. The other clergyman—former clergyman—might be the hon member for Witbank. Perhaps he is a member of the AWB. As my colleague the hon member for Innesdal has said, the missing link between the CP and the AWB is the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis.

That is what Derby-Lewis is so keen to be!

Let us consider the so-called undertaking which was published in the newspapers. They vehemently deny that such an undertaking was signed. Why are they denying it now when Mr Terre’Blanche had occasion to say:

Why has the leader of the AWB now denied this? It is because the CP is in an embarrassing position with the voters of Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton. Now he is denying that such an undertaking was signed. However, during the election he claimed that his organisation was responsible for the election of four CP members of Parliament, because the AWB supported them. [Interjections.]

I assume that the hon members for Bethal and Ventersdorp did not need to sign the document. The hon member for Bethal told us this afternoon that he was loyal to the CP. Now I want to ask the hon member how one can be loyal to two organisations, whether they be political or cultural, when there is a big difference between the standpoints and philosophies which those two organisations ostensibly recognise. [Interjections.] This is the question which those hon members must answer. I submit that those two organisations are so close to one another that one can be a member of the AWB and of the CP, and it does not make any difference, because they stand for the same thing. [Interjections.]

We want to know whether the hon member for Ermelo signed that undertaking. I assume that the hon member for Delmas signed it, because he was man enough to stand up at a public meeting and say that he was a member of the AWB and that they had openly supported him. The hangers-on of the AWB, the people who tell the AWB behind the scenes that they are with them but who do not want to admit this publicly, like the hon member for Ermelo, are the people we are wondering about. We want to know whether that hon member signed that undertaking.

They say the AWB also helped the hon member for Pietersburg to get here. The same applies to the hon members for Brits and Witbank, as well as the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis. [Interjections.] We want to know who those seven CP candidates are that the AWB claims openly support them by way of an undertaking. That is what is being said in the newspapers.

What about the AWB members who voted for the NP? [Interjections.]

Sir, I want to finish my speech. [Interjections.] When people are in trouble, they start to get hurt; then they start shouting. [Interjections.]

He was one of the twelve apostles … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Nigel is kicking up a tremendous fuss. Perhaps he should calm down a bit.

Mr Speaker, I want to finish my speech. I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether Mr Rosier de Ville in Standerton has given the AWB an undertaking in any form, whether written or oral, that if he becomes a member of Parliament, he will not oppose the “volkstaat” idea.

Go and ask him!

Why should I ask him? He is a candidate of that party. If dual loyalties are not allowed, I am asking that hon member what the situation is with regard to Mr De Ville. Did Dr Pieter Mulder in Schweizer-Reneke not give the AWB an undertaking in exchange for their support? The same will apply to Dr Come Mulder when he stands as a candidate.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s deft manipulation of words, for which he has become so notorious in politics, will be tested to the utmost, and we are waiting to hear what he is going to say to South Africa.

Mr Speaker, it has been a very depressing experience to listen to the sterile debate between the Government and the Official Opposition this afternoon. In fact it saddens one to think that in the face of the enormous problems confronting us in South Africa the level of debate should sink as far as it has this afternoon. We are obviously on the battlefield for Schweizer Reneke and Standerton. I wish that an opportunity such as given to people during a no-confidence debate would be used better to look at what the problems really are that confront South Africa.

I want specifically to refer to the somewhat smallminded reaction by the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, who seems to have disappeared, which makes me think of a hit-and-run operation, to the comments made by the hon member for Yeoville, who made a gesture in the face of past failures by the NP, saying: “We are prepared to help, provided you take positive action.“ What was the answer? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members keep interrupting the hon member while he is trying to make a speech. The hon member may continue.

In the face of past failure by the Government to spend constructively during the good times we in this party have said that if the Government made positive moves we were prepared to give it our backing. We do so with considerable fear that this might not happen, because we have been let down so often in the past. However, we hope that our constructive approach will help the future of our country.

I want to say that when the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance was talking about the enormous contribution he and others in that party were making to the welfare of South Africa, he said that we in this party were busy fighting among ourselves and were making no positive contribution. I would like to know whether his contribution was as great as the contribution made by the hon member for Houghton in her fight against the sanctions campaign against South Africa. The Prime Minister of Britain, in the face of Commonwealth displeasure, said: “I have spoken to the hon member for Houghton, I have spoken to Mrs Suzman, and because of what she has said I cannot support sanctions.” I think South Africa and every member of this House should be eternally grateful to the hon member for Houghton for what she has done for South Africa.

She does not even get a “thank you” from the Government.

The congratulations showered upon the hon the State President for his speech outlining a new economic policy should be tempered by two inescapable facts. Firstly, it is only after years and years of debilitating doublefigure inflation that the Government has finally decided to attempt to deal more adequately with this problem. In that time enormous damage has been done to our economy and to the wellbeing and welfare of every South African. The complete failure of the Government to take firm action in the past has damaged our economic potential to the extent that any recovery is going to involve harsh medicine for all of us.

Secondly, instead of going overboard about these economic measures, we have to realise and accept that total success in the fight against inflation is not possible until such time as we cut out the sterile spending on keeping South Africans apart. We spend enormous sums bolstering the crumbling vestiges of apartheid. Over the years we have wasted our potential and severely damaged our wellbeing by establishing and perpetuating the institutions of apartheid to no purpose. This tricameral Parliament is one of those institutions. Until such time as we stop this sort of unproductive ideological spending our economy will never recover. Tricameral parliaments, group areas restrictions and the proliferation of separate institutions of Government are a financial burden which we will never overcome, and the sooner they are forgotten and all South Africans can work together and build together, the sooner we will be able to realise our true economic potential.

The price we have paid over the 40 years of NP rule is not only a financial price, and I want to talk about this other price. We are paying a price in terms of human bitterness which is going to be very difficult indeed to overcome. The cost in terms of human bitterness as a result of major group areas removals of previous decades is a cost we are facing right now.

In order to create the Bantustans, hundreds of thousands of South Africans were uprooted from areas where they had been established for generations and were dumped in the veld in dumping grounds which offered them no real opportunity to subsist. Towns where there were established infrastructures like schools, churches, community centres, and clinics, as well as houses, were demolished and the inhabitants were shifted to areas where this infrastructure had to be duplicated at enormous cost to the taxpayer but even greater cost to the people themselves.

I can well remember seeing some of those dumping grounds in the mid-seventies. People who had been living in established communities which worked economically, after a fashion, were dumped in places where they were unable to keep themselves alive. The resulting poverty was horrifying. I looked at the children being brought up amidst that grinding poverty and I can remember thinking to myself: What sort of generation are we breeding here in this squalor? What sort of people are those children going to be when they grow up? Are my children going to be safe living in the same country as children who have been brought up in these awful circumstances and in this grinding poverty?

Inevitably the chickens come home to roost. The products of the dumping grounds were unable to subsist in the new areas where they had been relocated and, together with their parents, they flocked to the towns—forced there by economic necessity. If you wanted to stay alive you had to go to town where there was at least some chance of finding a job or at least participating in some way in the informal sector.

That generation of displaced persons came to town and are still coming to town. [Interjections.]

As all over the world, not only here.

We have seen the results of their squalid, poverty-stricken upbringing. We have seen the results of their frustration and insecurity. We are faced with a rebellious and bitter generation who have a hatred for authority which has manifested itself in the explosions of violence we have seen in our townships. This displaced generation has been showing its frustration, and authority has only been able to deal with the situation by using force.

What we are doing is reaping what the Nationalist Party has sown. [Interjections.]

National Party!

We are all paying the price in terms of human bitterness for the failed policies of so-called homeland consolidation—parts of the failed grand strategy of separate development.

Such were the numbers of people who flocked to the towns that in all our urban areas we are now faced with the enormous squatter problem, which the hon member for Houghton referred to yesterday. I have been particularly involved in recent months with the squatter situation on the Witwatersrand where that hon member estimated there were in excess of three quarters of a million squatters. My own estimate based on information from a reliable Government source is that there are now in excess of one million.

Firstly—I think one must give what credit is due—it has to be admitted that there has been a major change in Government attitudes. The acceptance that urbanisation is inevitable has resulted in some action to provide facilities for squatters by way of the identification of suitable land and the provision of very limited services. The hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order will remember that I actually congratulated him on the handling of a particular move from Varkfontein to Daveyton on the East Rand. Land was identified in a great deal of haste, the squatters concerned were consulted and then, with their approval, the removal took place. They are now reasonably happily settled, I hope, on land which has been provided. Somewhat primitive amenities were provided. Unfortunately this exercise is the exception rather than the rule.

I have become sick and tired in recent months of people telling me that certain of the squatters must “go back to where they came from”. This is just not possible. They come from farms, and economic necessity has pushed them off those farms. They come from areas where they cannot make a living. It is totally unreasonable to condemn people to starvation. Many of the squatters are recognised now as legal occupants of the land where they are settled, but many, many thousands are continually being forcibly evicted and harassed. There is a floating population who are chased from pillar to post. Nobody wants them and they live from eviction to eviction.

On the first two days of this week—on Monday and Tuesday—evictions were taking place from the coal-yard area in Katlehong on the East Rand. I raised this with the hon the Deputy Minister and I am happy to say that I believe they have stopped today. This is a daily happening in squatter areas all over South Africa. Nobody wants them, so what are they to do? We throw them out, whatever the weather conditions. I saw evictions taking place in Thokoza near Alberton during a raging thunderstorm and the people had to stand in the rain. That sort of treatment is inhuman and disgusting and does no credit to the policies or the actions of this Government. I tend to think that in certain areas they are trying harder than before, but they are being let down further down the line. Nobody wants the squatters. The financial burden on various local authorities is too much for them to bear and there is actually inadequate financing and action on the part of the Government.

In these evictions people’s possessions are confiscated or destroyed and they are left to find alternative accommodation which just does not exist for them.

This whole eviction process which takes place repeatedly with the same people must be very costly and a very great financial burden in every way. This should be classified as sterile spending. In the long run it is money wasted because eventually the Government is going to have to accept that these people have got to be allowed to live somewhere. It is a matter of extreme urgency for the Government to ensure that all evictions of squatters cease forthwith, unless suitable alternative land is made available for legal squatting for the people involved. It is vitally important that this land be provided with adequate services such as water and latrines.

Among others, I visited the squatter camp at Thokoza near Alberton at a time when certain evictions were taking place. The squalor in which these squatters live is horrifying. One looks at the children being brought up in these circumstances and it seems that we have learned no lessons from the past. What sort of generation are we breeding in these conditions? Is South Africa going to be able to handle the next wave of rebellion as the frustration of these people boils over? Cannot we learn from recent history that we are making the ground fertile for communism and insurrection?

If we are to have any hope of a peaceful future we must handle this problem as a major priority. People with nothing are people who have nothing to lose. Surely the Government knows that we are playing with fire and jeopardising our future peace and prosperity.

Mr Speaker, of course the hon member for Bryanston is quite correct that slum and squatting conditions should receive the Government’s urgent attention. On the basis of the hon member’s argument that the evictions and so on should be stopped, it is obvious that this should receive the Government’s attention. It is with a sense of great responsibility that the Government has been addressing the housing issue for a number of years, and I think the imaginative programmes presented by the Government in co-operation with the private sector since last year deserve the support of that side of the House. Perhaps one is not aware enough of people’s appreciation of the situation and the urbanisation process which, as a result of the more intensive industrial development in certain areas in South Africa, is inevitable.

Perhaps the time has come for us to give more attention to decentralisation, because those people lived somewhere at some stage, but now they are moving to the fleshpots. It is essential, therefore, to take our decentralisation programme into consideration before it is too late.

The hon the State President gave attention to the development of the central part of South Africa on numerous occasions, for example. Industrialists and certain institutions are unwilling to give positive attention to this aspect, however, and South Africa is going to pay the price.

The mere cessation of evictions etcetera is not the answer. Let us begin with the problem, viz the more intensive movement to our urban areas. In terms of our hon State President’s policy, that must receive the necessary attention as soon as possible. The irony, however, is that the hon member for Bryanston addressed us here about the whole question of eviction. Of course, it would be most appropriate for the Official Opposition to listen to this, because during the by-elections they tell everyone that this Government has not said it is prepared to negotiate with squatters—nor has the Government applied this in practice—even if they have to be evicted.

Mr Speaker, I think circumstances require that I move at this stage:

Agreed to.

The hon the State President would like to make a statement. I should like to give him an opportunity to do so.

Mr Speaker, the latest available information at my disposal about the position in Bophuthatswana is that the security of the South African embassy has been assured. Our security forces are still in the process of executing their task. Hon members will understand that a delicate phase has been reached, but I have just been informed that President Mangope’s safety has been secured.

Hear, hear!

Further information will be released by the Department of Foreign Affairs as and when it becomes available.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I have been requested by the hon the State President to make the following statement on his behalf:

As stated this morning by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the South African Government views the events in Mmabatho in a serious light, particularly because President Mangope and his government were recently re-elected constitutionally as the legal government of Bophuthatswana.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bophuthatswana, Mr S L L Rathebe, together with several other ministers of the Bophuthatswana Government and their families as well as officials of the Bophuthatswana Government took refuge in the South African Embassy this morning. The Bophuthatswana Minister of Foreign Affairs telephoned the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs from the Embassy at 09h00 this morning and said that he and several of his colleagues had decided unanimously to make an appeal to the South African Government for assistance. His message read as follows:

Further information from the South African Embassy is that Mr Malebana-Metsing came to the Chief Justice of Bophuthatswana with armed personnel and insisted on being sworn in as president. The reaction of the Chief Justice was that he could not do so in terms of the constitution. Thereupon Mr Malebana-Metsing declared himself to be president and the Chief Justice merely certified his signature. After this had been done, Mr Malebana-Metsing arrived at the gate of the property of the South African Embassy and handed over a message to the South African Government in which he informed the South African Government that a new government had assumed power in Bophuthatswana.

In his message Mr Malebana-Metsing says that he will co-operate fully with the South African Government and maintain good relations with the Government of South Africa. Mr Malebana-Metsing also says that South African interests and citizens will enjoy protection.

This morning the SSC met under my chairmanship to go into all the facets of this matter. It was clear to the Government that Mr Malebana-Metsing had taken power in an irregular and violent manner. The South African Government is opposed in principle to the obtaining of political power by violence.

The South African Government recognises President Mangope’s government as the government of Bophuthatswana and decided consequently to heed the appeal by that country’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and his colleagues to come to the assistance of that government. Moreover, an agreement between the two governments which provides for the one government asking the other for assistance in cases of this nature, has been in existence between the two governments for several years already. It should be mentioned as well that President Mangope, according to the available information, is in detention together with certain seconded South African officials.

Consequently, the South African security forces have been instructed to accede to the request of the government of Bophuthatswana and ordered specifically to give the highest priority to the security and protection of the South African Embassy and all the staff and their families as well as to President Mangope, his cabinet and their families and government officials and their families. The security forces are engaged in carrying out their instructions at present.

It should also be pointed out that this case cannot be compared in any way with the recent change of government in the Transkei. In that case—(a) no violence was used; (b) neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Transkei appealed to the South African Government for assistance; (c) the constitutionally elected head of state was not ousted from office and he has, in fact, been recognised by the new government and requested to remain in office as part of the governmental authority; (d) there was no competing entity vying for the exercise of governmental authority; (e) it was clear soon after the announcement by General Holomisa that the new government was in effective control of the country and the national administration; and (f) the South African Government deliberately waited for some time before granting the new government recognition and it was granted only after the head of state of that government visited me personally and requested that such recognition be granted.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Order! I now give the hon member for Fish River the opportunity to make a statement.

Mr Chairman, I want to apologise to this House for my behaviour yesterday. I was not fully informed about the matter and that was why I did not react to your request. I tried a few times to silence my colleague sitting next to me, the hon member for Northern Cape. Eventually I got annoyed with him and told him to “shut up”. I regret those words, Sir.

I also regret the fact that the hon member for Northern Cape became involved in the matter. I did not realise that our voices were so similar that the hon member for Macassar could not distinguish between them. Perhaps I could ask the hon the Leader of the House to change our seats so that we would be further apart from each other. [Interjections.]

Order! Yes, the hon member has explained the matter to me and I accept what he said.

I just want to appeal to hon members again to be very careful what they say, because the people hear everything and one would like to avoid these personal remarks.

Mr Chairman, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

As much as I regret this, Mr Chairman—I am keen to continue with the work of Parliament— we have unfortunately been scheduled to conduct the no-confidence debate for the whole of this week, and no other work has been provided. We are thus confronted with the situation that no work has been provided for the rest of this week. Therefore, in the interests of all hon members of this House I moved the adjournment so that we could prepare ourselves for next week’s work.

It is unfortunate that some hon members objected to this, because I considered it to be a mere formality. It was in absolute innocence that I gave notice of the motion yesterday.

If, however, certain hon members want to talk about why the no-confidence debate ended so suddenly—perhaps abruptly—yesterday, I would point out that that is neither my particular problem nor my fault. We can talk about that today or at some other time.

Mr Speaker, I rise to speak against the motion of the hon the Leader of the House.

Confucius should have said that a man must first learn to know his own mind if he hopes to come to terms with himself. Since the inception, Mr Chairman, of this tricameral system I have really tried hard to understand the politics of the hon the Leader of the House. He leaves me completely confused. He says, on the one hand, that we in this Parliament have to negotiate for the political liberation of all the disenfranchised people of this country. I have no problem with that. However, the hon the Leader also says the Labour Party has set itself the task of destroying all apartheid legislation by its participation in the system. That is very good, Sir; I agree with that philosophy. I have no problem with that at all. He says, furthermore, that all political prisoners should be set free so that they may become involved with the serious business of negotiating for a new and free South Africa for all. Again, Sir, I agree wholeheartedly with this philosophy of the hon the Leader of the House.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Durban Suburbs is not addressing the motion.

Order! Yes, I am listening carefully, but the hon member is still on the point. I shall give my ruling in due course.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Addo must please contain himself. The hon member for Durban Suburbs may proceed.

On the other hand, however, the hon the Leader of the House makes a habit of creating paid holidays for hon members of this House at every available opportunity by introducing motions such as the one before us this afternoon. I want to ask him a question: Is this not a blatant waste of valuable time? Is it not vital that this time be used—under this very system— if his noble objectives are to be realised? I put it to him that this House faces a tremendous volume of work this session. [Interjections.]

Order!

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Addo must not argue with me. The hon member for Durban Suburbs may proceed.

In addition there will be a mass revival of lapsed Bills from the previous session. There are also at least eight, or possibly 10 private motions earmarked for this session. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon member for Durban Suburbs a reasonable chance.

As far as I am concerned, Sir, the reasons put forward by the hon the Leader of the House this afternoon are not valid. How much time does he think we in this system still have to negotiate for a peaceful solution in South Africa?

[Inaudible]

Order! I will not allow the hon member for Addo to carry on like that.

Can he be very serious about these holidays while people all around us are dying because of political violence? It is in this respect that he confuses me. Does he know what the people are saying both inside and outside the walls of Parliament? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Wuppertal must stop doing that. [Interjections.] I want to remind hon members that I am the one who decides what the reasons are. The hon member is well within the limits of the Standing Rules and Orders when he gives his reasons. He is replying to the hon the Leader of the House. Hon members must please give him the opportunity to do so, because all this shouting across the floor will not solve the problem. The hon member for Durban Suburbs may proceed.

The people are saying that this House is no longer the House of Representatives. They say that it would be more appropriate to refer to it as the House of Holidaymakers.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Dysselsdorp must please co-operate with me and not put his hand over the microphone again. Will he undertake to stop doing that?

I am sorry, Mr Chairman. I just said that…

Order! Thank you, the hon member need not elaborate on that now. The hon member for Durban Suburbs may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

Amongst other things, we are being accused daily of earning our keep while picknicking at caravan parks. I want to ask the hon member again whether he has a conscience or not. Does he ever give the poor taxpayer a thought before rushing ahead to create holidays such as he intends doing this afternoon? [Interjections.] We in the UDP strongly object to these excursions.

In conclusion I should like to put it to the hon member that he would not have got the support from his members which he is getting now if he had included in his motion a per capita salary cut for days not worked. [Interjections.] We in the UDP wish to express our abhorrence and disgust…

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

No, Sir. [Interjections.]

I repeat that we in the UDP wish to express our abhorrence and disgust at such LP tactics by moving our own amendment to the motion before us. I move our amendment which reads as follows:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: What is “normal business” in this case?

Order! Does the hon member expect me to reply? [Interjections.]

Yes, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not think the question warrants a reply, but perhaps the hon member is cleverer than I am.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the House attempted to advance some reasons for requesting this adjournment until Monday, but I think he himself was not convinced of those reasons. He sounded totally unconvincing. It is nothing short of a scandal that the majority party in this House wants the House to adjourn until Monday when there is still so much work on the Order Paper. [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon member for Bethelsdorp wanted to know what normal business is. Why is he the Chief Whip of the majority party, if he does not know what normal business is? Sir, normal business is the business that appears on the Order Paper. This is the work that has to be done by hon members in this House. [Interjections.]

Sir, it proves once again that the LP, the majority party in this House, does not care one iota about the interests of the voters whom they purport to represent. [Interjections.]

Order!

Why did he not speak yesterday?

Order! The hon member for Schauderville is entitled to speak about the amendment now. Yesterday is gone. The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council read a statement in this House on behalf of the hon the State President about the events in Bophuthatswana this morning. Those are serious events, but if the motion of the hon the Leader of the House had been agreed to yesterday without any objection from this side of the House, we would all have been at our homes—well, not us, because we are here to do our work. [Interjections.] All these hon members would have been away at their homes and no notice would have been taken of the serious events … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Dysselsdorp must stop that. The hon member for Schauderville may continue.

… which took place in Bophuthatswana. One of the things I find amazing concerns what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition mentioned yesterday, viz that hon members of that party serving on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid approved the inclusion of certain farms into KwaNdebele for consolidation purposes. We also heard what happened in Bophuthatswana this morning! That majority party in this House is assisting in the whole process of creating more banana republics in this country, and yet they talk about being opposed to apartheid and separate development! They are totally contradicting themselves.

Shame!

The hon member must not say shame! Mr Chairman, it is quite evident … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Rietvlei must come to order. [Interjections.]

†Order! No cross-talking will be allowed. If an hon member wishes to say something, he should ask for his name to be put on the speakers’ list and then he can reply.

I shall do so, Sir.

Thank you. The hon member for Schauderville may proceed.

Mr Chairman, we want to request the hon the Deputy Chief Whip of the majority party to have adequate consultation with the hon the Chief Whip of the opposition party as well.

I want to tell the hon the Leader of the House— and I want him to consider this as a friendly warning—that unless there is prior and timeous consultation with the Official Opposition in respect of motions without notice, we will have no hesitation in raising our objections so that he will have to come here the next day to move that motion. This happened frequently last year. We will not oppose certain of these motions without notice, provided that there has been consultation with us, the Official Opposition. Whenever we have not been consulted, however, we shall have no hesitation in objecting. I want to say this as a friendly warning.

The story was doing the rounds in the corridors here yesterday that a number of hon members on that side had already booked their seats to go home to their various constituencies. [Interjections.] They had already made those arrangements. [Interjections.] That was the talk going around in the corridors.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member allowed to abuse the privilege of Parliament to present rumour as a true fact?

Order! No, that is not a point of order. The hon member for Schauderville may continue.

Mr Chairman, this House sat for less than one hour last Monday; and after attending the opening of Parliament last Friday, we sat for a few minutes on Monday and then for a few hours yesterday, and now they want to pack their bags and go on holiday. [Interjections.] Then yesterday the hon the Leader of the House moved that this House adjourn until Monday. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please give the hon member for Schauderville a chance. Hon members will gain nothing by making remarks. The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, are hon members not ashamed of wasting taxpayers’ money like this? I want to tell them that this is not going by unnoticed in the outside world. [Interjections.] What is more, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition mentioned yesterday that some of these hon members have never been in their constituencies since they were elected. Now where were they packing off to if they had not even visited the constituents in their various constituencies? [Interjections.]

I want to quote from the annual report read by the national secretary of the majority party at the Skilpadsaal. He said:

That is an indictment on hon members on that side of the House, and these are the words of the national secretary, the hon member for Silvertown. [Interjections.]

Have you got a branch?

Of course I have branches …

Where?

The hon member is free to join them if he wants to. [Interjections.] The hon member can visit me in my constituency and I shall take him to a branch.

When last were you in your constituency?

I wonder when last the hon member was in his constituency.

Order! I have repeatedly called the hon member for Dysselsdorp to order. I am warning the hon member for the last time. The hon member for Schauderville may continue.

One can understand why those hon members are so sensitive about the issue. They know that they are on a perpetual holiday, earning fat salaries in the process.

Sir, there are a number of urgent issues facing the community, and these issues were highlighted by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition yesterday. These are issues which need to be addressed in this House. They are urgent issues like housing and education. The point is that those hon members are sitting there; they have undertaken the responsibility and they are accountable to this side of the House and to the people outside. It is our function as the Official Opposition to make them accountable, so that they can tell the people who voted for them what they are doing here. That is our function.

This brings me to the urgent issue of housing. In Port Elizabeth, for example, there is a housing shortage of about 8 000 or 9 000 units. This …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: If these hon members wanted to take part in the no-confidence debate, they should have taken part yesterday …

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Those hon members are taking undue advantage of this debate. If the hon member wants to debate the issue he should talk about the subject matter.

Order! The hon member for Schauderville is explaining why he does not agree with the motion and he is giving his reasons. I am not going to allow repetition, but he has not yet repeated anything that the hon member for Durban Suburbs has said. The hon member for Schauderville may continue.

We all know that there is a serious housing shortage as well as poor living conditions in various parts of this country. There is such a severe housing shortage that we cannot simply go home and not address those shortages. The existing housing shortage in the urban areas for so-called Coloureds is estimated at 75 000 units. Cumulative needs for the future are projected as follows …

Order! The hon member for Schauderville is going too far now. He must come to the point.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Schauderville is not dealing with the business as on the Order Paper.

Order! That is not a point of order. I have given my ruling that the hon member for Schauderville must come back to the motion under discussion.

Mr Chairman, I am raising these issues in order to put this whole matter into perspective.

Order! The hon member is going too far, however.

Mr Chairman, the fact of the matter is that we have a severe housing shortage. As a matter of fact, the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture gave us a different figure as regards the housing shortage from the one which I mentioned earlier.

Order! The hon member has said that at least two or three times.

This is a different figure, Sir. He gave a figure of 90 000 to 100 000 units.

We say that the business of the people should be given precedence over the interests of one political party in this House. That is why I am motivating my standpoint in respect of this motion.

Order! But the hon member persists in talking about housing and the backlog that exists.

In respect of education there are also severe crises in our educational system. In Port Elizabeth, for example, parents were not even certain that their children were going to be admitted to the Std 6 classes. Let me tell hon members that it is estimated that at the beginning of next year there will be more than 1 300 pupils entering Std 6 or 7 for whom high schools in the area will have no space at all. I want to quote from the Evening Post…

Order! The hon member for Schauderville has mentioned housing and education. He cannot discuss those matters in detail now.

Mr Chairman, I will abide by your ruling. However, let me just mention this one fact, viz that whilst all these problems exist in the community those hon members see fit to pack their bags and go on vacation for a few days to come back again on Monday morning. I consider it totally immoral that hon Ministers in the Ministers’ Council have seen fit to build themselves houses costing R3,5 million.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: No hon Minister has decided to build himself a house.

Order! That is correct. I believe the hon Ministers did not build those houses themselves.

The fact of the matter is that houses costing R650 000 each have been built or are in the process of being built for the hon Ministers in the Ministers’ Council, while the people out there are crying out for housing.

Order! The hon member for Schauderville must respect my ruling. He is dealing too widely with the issue under discussion. [Interjections.]

*Order! The hon member for Addo has made his point of order. He must now control himself. The hon member for Schauderville may continue.

It is quite clear that there is sufficient business on the Order Paper which could have been dealt with today, tomorrow or on Friday. If hon members are not prepared to deal with these matters, they must be honest and say so. If they did not prepare to debate these various pieces of legislation, they must be honest and say so. If there are logistical problems as to why these matters cannot be debated in this House, hon members must be honest and tell us what those problems are. However, they come here without advancing any reasons as to why this House has to adjourn until Monday. I—and I think the people out there—would appreciate it if hon members would be honest and tell us why they want a few days’ holiday while there is such a lot of business on the Order Paper.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: That hon member has repeatedly suggested that hon members on this side of the House want to adjourn in order to go on holiday. I want to know on what grounds he says this. [Interjections.] Sir, I want to suggest that you rule the hon member out of order, because how does he know that we are going on holiday. We might, after all intend to work.

Order! That is not a point of order. I cannot rule the hon member out of order when he is not out of order.

Mr Chairman, a notice of motion is supposed to be introduced by the hon member for Addo on Monday, 15 February, in respect of the repeal of the Population Registration Act, and all that was necessary was that this particular motion be accelerated on the Order Paper and given precedence so that we could debate it here today or tomorrow and not on Monday. [Interjections.] If hon members were serious about doing the work they were sent here to do, we could have debated this motion. We were ready to debate this motion.

Why were you not ready yesterday? Why did you not speak yesterday?

There is other business on the Order Paper. However, it suits hon members not to sit. We shall watch them to see where they go from here.

We also watch you.

I know. It has happened in the past. Some hon members had to cancel their flight bookings last night because they could not get their way when the Official Opposition raised an objection to the adjournment of this House. All their plans for a couple of days and a long weekend had been upset. [Interjections.]

There he is doing it again.

Order!

The hon member has said those words twice already.

Tell him to sit down.

Order! The hon member must have the opportunity to continue. The hon member may proceed. However, he must not repeat himself so often.

Sir, I believe it was nothing short of scandalous that the majority party in this House moved the adjournment of the House until Monday.

Mr Chairman, I rise to speak in favour of the amendment moved by the hon member for Durban Suburbs. There is one matter which must definitely be straightened out today. Yesterday the Whip and I made arrangements in the absence of the hon member for Durban Suburbs with regard to certain problems experienced with speaking turns.

The arrangement the Whip made with me was that since we had lost a day, we had to put forward more speakers in the place of hon members on that side who could not or would not speak. It was clearly stated that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition would take the floor on Monday. The hon member for Schauderville would have spoken on Tuesday, 9 February. Let us take a look at what would have happened, proportionately speaking, had the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition not done them the favour of revealing the truth. Allegations are now being made that the Chief Whip of the Opposition did not do his job properly. I cannot go along with that and take the strongest possible exception. It is not true. That Whip did his job.

Speaking in favour of this amendment, I wish to explain why we cannot adjourn today. Our experience in regard to health services and welfare is that where an application is made for a créche in one’s constituency, and one is accidentally classified White, it is approved. But when the needs of that hon Minister—who unfortunately is not here now—are stated, what does one hear? But it applies to Whites; our rules do not work that way.

Sir, when are these matters going to be addressed? When will we have that opportunity? It should not even have happened today, but rather last week. We should have discussed it already. This Parliament was convened earlier than it should have been—it should have been convened on 5 February.

No work has been done since the beginning of this session. Hansard will reflect the contributions made, for what has come from that side of the House? We have heard only insults and personal attacks. We cannot tolerate it any longer.

There are certain things which have to be addressed, Sir. Let us take a look at what has happened. Something to which answers have never been given since the House of Representatives and therefore the Ministers’ Council came into existence is the question of legal costs. That has never been singled out here.

Order! That has nothing to do with the debate. The hon member must give his reasons for thinking the House must sit tomorrow. The hon member spoke about health. He should concentrate on expressing and motivating his opinion of the policy in a general sense only. The mechanics can be spelled out when the relevant votes are discussed. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Then I will put it this way: It is important for us as taxpayers to know where our money goes. These are the matters which we should have discussed here, but the governing party is vociferous in its silence in this House. After all, these are questions which every hon member who represents a constituency will have to answer.

Another point of cardinal importance is national service. I know it is a dangerous and thorny issue in this House. National service is handled with kid gloves. What a shame, Sir! However, I am not going to …

Order! No, the hon member has now deviated far enough. He must merely state his reasons as the hon member for Durban Suburbs did. He stated why he thought the House should sit. National service, however, has nothing to do with this matter. The hon member has already said he feels that the matter of health has not been dealt with; but he must not spell out the mechanics now. That has nothing to do with the matter. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I accept your ruling. However, I wish to make the point again that the interests of the community at large should have preference. Unfortunately I have he SACC in my constituency— I am trying to qualify what I wanted to say, Sir— and what I wanted spelt out here was whether or not the governing party was in favour of national service, because at the intake of national servicemen every year, approximately 8 000 disappointed young men are turned away. These are the issues which must be addressed.

Are you in favour of national service?

Sir, if that is the judgment which the hon the State President displays by this type of appointment, we shall have to ask him to reconsider his decisions. [Interjections.]

Order! We must not drag the hon the State President into this debate.

I withdraw that, Sir.

Thank you, the hon member may proceed.

Answer my question: Are you in favour of national service?

That is a definite question, Sir, and if you will allow me to, I will gladly answer it. I must qualify now, Sir, because the question has been put in this House. I am not in favour of compulsory military service. However, when people voluntarily ask to join the Defence Force, opportunities should be created for them to do so. I at least have the courage of my convictions to say as much here today, but how many of those hon members who sit here are only prepared to visit the SACC at night when they have a little party there?

The other reason why we must proceed with our business now has bearing on our Coloured community. Since time immemorial we have been in possession of 23 rural Coloured areas, and somewhere on the Statute Book it is written that if one leases something for more than 30 years, it becomes one’s property. These people have been there for a lifetime. When are their problems going to be addressed? When are we going to look after the interests of those people? This is a real problem, and whether the governing party likes it or not, these are the questions they will have to answer when they return to their constituencies.

I have nothing more to say, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the House raised three points as to why he proposed the adjournment of this House today. Firstly, he said he was keen to continue the work of Parliament but that no other work was provided. If that is the case, I want to question the whole set-up of this tricameral Parliament. Why has no provision been made in the mechanics of this tricameral Parliament for situations like the one which arose yesterday in which debates take a shorter time?

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, I remained silent while other hon members spoke. They must please give me an opportunity too now, or else the hon member for Addo must take off his sunglasses so that I can see with what he is interrupting me.

†The hon the Leader of the House raised a further point, ie that nothing had been prepared for the rest of the week. Sir, Parliament was reconvened earlier so that certain other work could be disposed of. We have in our possession the Order Paper for the day, and we see that there are 18 Bills ready for debate in this House. [Interjections.] In addition there is a notice of motion. These are matters that could have been debated in this House today. Last year we had an outcry in this House because matters were debated in the House of Assembly before they came before this House. Here was a golden opportunity for us to debate matters first. By doing so we could have disproved the statement that we have to wait for Bills to be debated in the House of Assembly first.

The third reason advanced by the hon the Leader of the House was that unfortunately some people objected. Mr Chairman, it is not unfortunate, it is our democratic right on this side of the House to object. The rules of Parliament make provision for the opposition to object. We acted within our democratic rights; so what we did was not unfortunate. I want the hon the Leader of the House to withdraw the word “unfortunate”, because we were exercising our democratic right. This is not an inconvenience. The amendment clearly states that the interests of the people shall take precedence over the interests of an individual political party. When one looks at South Africa today— and I agree wholeheartedly with most of what the hon the Leader of Official Opposition said yesterday in another debate concerning apartheid— one can see that those are issues that could have been addressed further in this no-confidence debate. However, yesterday’s debate collapsed for other reasons. It collapsed because of the fear that if hon members sitting here had had their say, they would have been supportive of the motion which was introduced by this side of the House.

Order! I think that perhaps the hon member is casting an unfair reflection on my ruling of yesterday.

Sir, I am not attacking that ruling; it was within the rules and absolutely correct.

Order! Thank you, I appreciate that. I only acted in terms of the rules according to which I have to work.

Sir, the ruling was absolutely correct according to the rules, but accusations, which should have been refuted but were not, were levelled from this side of the House. The people at large who read Hansard accept that those accusations are the truth. There was a golden opportunity to continue the debate until tomorrow.

The prevailing fear was that hon members would get up and wail and moan about the lack of things in their constituencies, and in this way would in fact support our motion. That this is why this debate was cut short in this manner by hon members on that side of the House.

The time will come, however, when we will afford every hon member on that side of the House the time and opportunity to unburden himself about the shortcomings in his constituency. We shall find that there are many shortcomings. We do not agree, therefore, with the reasons advanced here by the hon the Leader of the House. The poor hon Leader of the House must have sucked them out of his thumb.

I am not poor; I am never poor!

I thank the hon the Leader of the House for saying that he is not poor. He is rich, because he is getting the unpaid holidays he proposed. [Interjections.] I support the amendment proposed by the UDP, since the interests of the people at large should receive precedence in this House. We were sent to this House in the interests of the people in the first place.

A coup d’état was executed in Bophuthatswana today. The coup in the Transkei was condoned. Is the SA Defence Force not behind all these coups? A coup has been executed in Bophuthatswana now—to cover up the coup which was executed in the Transkei. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am going to ask your ruling on what hon members are saying …

Order! I permitted the hon member for Border to refer to the coup, because it was mentioned in the statement. The hon member was justified in referring to it.

We want to know why the coup in the Transkei was supported by this Government.

Order! No, I permitted the hon member to refer to the coup because it was mentioned in the statement and because he said it was one of the reasons why they had wanted the House to sit, but we are not discussing the coup as such at the moment.

Sir, we could have had a debate on this coup today. Why was this statement made? Why must we simply swallow everything we are told? Why can we not debate that statement in this House today?

Another thing that is of concern here and in the Cape community in particular, is the murder of our children. We read in the newspapers that eight children have now been murdered in this region. When one switches on the television, and sees that a White person has been murdered, it seems almost as if the entire Police Force, the Defence Force and the Navy have been called in to investigate the case. Why can they not also bring the murderer of our children on the Cape Flats to book? This is the kind of thing we want to know.

Talk about the coup, man.

Order!

Sir, you are the kindest person I know; you are a real gentleman. I shall rather elaborate on these matters later when we discuss the Budget Vote. [Interjections.]

Why can a better effort not be made to arrest that murderer? We as members of this House demand that the police do everything in their power to arrest that murderer before he murders another one of our children. This is the kind of thing affecting our community that we should voice here. That is why I am opposing the motion before the House.

If you want to have … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Border may continue.

I just want to warn the hon member, Sir, that if he wants to leave today, he only has to fool around with me; we shall force him to leave again.

Sir, a slaughter of human beings is taking place. I am referring to the Pietermaritzburg area. Hundreds of people have been murdered already. Some of them have been burnt. These are the things we have to discuss in this House. Children of the police are being shot and killed.

Order! Yes, but the hon member will have an opportunity to discuss this; he will not be forbidden to do so.

Sir, we could still have discussed all these things this week. These are important matters. Yesterday half a page of The Argus was devoted to the names of students and teachers who are in detention at the moment.

†We want to know whether the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in this House is responsible for those detentions. Those are things that we wanted to discuss, but now everything has been cut short so that those hon members can have a glorified holiday—and an unpaid one at that!

I support the amendment.

Mr Chairman, you know I appreciate every word that has been said by hon members of this House who have participated in this debate. That, unfortunately, is the price one has to pay for democracy. I certainly appreciate the concern of hon members in the opposition for the state of this country. However, Sir, these hon members had a golden opportunity yesterday to place all these things on record, to spell this out quite clearly to those on the inside, and particularly to those people on the outside. However, what did they do to their hon leader? They dropped him! If that were ever to happen to me, I would know what to do with them!

Mr Chairman, a leader is as strong as those people around him. I pity the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition with all his strength and the weakness of those around him. [Interjections.] Those hon members had an opportunity yesterday after the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had stated his case—which he took more than two hours to do! Yet, when I replied— which I did—in 25 minutes, not a single hon member of his party was prepared to endorse a single word he had said. Now they say we want to go on holiday.

Mr Chairman, surely the hon the Leader of the House is misleading us, because the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had put the question and it was accepted by the other side.

Sir, it does appear as though some of us are slower in learning than others. I am not responsible for that, however.

Mr Chairman, allow me to start off with the hon member for Durban Suburbs. He says—and thank goodness he says this—that he does not understand my politics. That is why we cannot walk this road together, because he will never be able to understand the road of democracy. The very same hon member for Durban Suburbs will phone me up in the middle of the night and say: “Please, Miley, I made a mistake today. Two Bills were passed when you were not there, and I had not even realised that they had put the question. Will you kindly stop them?” This is why I say the hon member must please go his own way. I do not need him here.

Sir, this is a House of Parliament. Here one’s word is one’s honour. People have missed the presidency, the premiership of this country because they told lies. I would like to remind hon members that in this Chamber one’s word should be one’s honour.

Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order: Is the hon the Leader of the House implying that an hon member of the opposition told a lie?

Mr Chairman, I shall answer that question: If the cap fits, wear it!

Order! No, I do not think that the hon the Leader of the House is implying that.

Mr Chairman, I am merely making a point. The Whips, as well as the Leaders of the House come together and organise a week’s work. The Whip of the Official Opposition, the hon member for Durban Suburbs, was there at the Whips’ meeting together with the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament when we organised the work for this week, and agreed.

Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order.

I have not even mentioned what he did!

Order! Could the hon member for Durban Suburbs just wait until the hon the Leader of the House has completed his statement. After that I will give the hon member an opportunity to ask a question.

Sir, I do not understand what is going on here.

Order! No, start again.

Sir, he was there when we agreed that the matters on the Order Paper would be debated next week. He, and all hon members know what kind of preparation it takes to place an item on the agenda and to prepare for it to be debated.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Leader of the House is misleading this House in that although next week’s work was discussed, no mention was made of the fact that the no-confidence debate would be as short as it was. [Interjections.]

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon the Leader of the House may proceed.

Let me now thank the next member who took part in the debate, the hon member for Schauderville. He comes to this Chamber when he is in Cape Town, and I thank him for coming this time.

I do not need your patronising.

At regular intervals those benches are totally empty, but it is their right to stay away. He warns me, as the Leader of the House—it is his democratic right to warn me—that he is going to object to motions which I introduce here. However, I will enjoy this, because—as hon members will notice—I enjoy talking. So, he will be giving me an opportunity to introduce these motions continuously and to make the points that have to be made. He must please carry on with this trend; we will enjoy this.

However, if the hon member gives me his word— he will remember that he gave me his word last year that he would oppose those two Bills … [Interjections.] He was sitting on that bench when he gave me his word, and that was what his word was worth. The moment the issue was raised here, his word was not worth the dust on my shoes. [Interjections.] We take a man’s word for what it is worth. So, if he gives me his word that he warns me, I accept that as well.

*Mr Chairman, hon members referred to the houses that are being built for the Ministers— they raised the matter, not I; I have seen them also building houses there for the Ministers—and they objected to people occupying those houses, but I have never heard them complaining about the fact that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and other hon Ministers occupy houses provided by the State.

†What is more, all of them have an opportunity to demonstrate their objection to this. All they have to do is to move out of housing provided by the State. They do not have to live in Laboria Park. If they do that, the people outside will see how honest they are in their approach.

Accept the challenge! [Interjections.]

If hon members will allow me …

Order! The hon the Leader of the House is replying to the debate. I called the hon member for Schauderville to order when he said that the Ministers were building houses for themselves, because the Ministers do not build the houses themselves. The hon the Leader of the House may proceed.

Sir, I accept your ruling, but people are saying that houses are being built for the Ministers and the hon member feels that the Ministers should not be entitled to live in those houses. In that case, surely, no Ministers should occupy houses provided by the State. [Interjections.]

†However, as I have said, they have this opportunity of demonstrating their sincerity. [Interjections.] Over the years this party has demonstrated its sincerity. When those houses were built in Belhar, we did not move into those houses, because we associated ourselves with the people. [Interjections.] I want to challenge the hon member for Schauderville, as he is so concerned about the homeless, to move out of his house in Laboria Park; but he must first settle the account, and then we can get people who are homeless to move into his house.

The hon member for Macassar is one gentleman in this Chamber whom I admired. I regarded him as a person whom it was worth listening to. Not only did he have the gift of the gab, but his use of words was excellent. However, as one listened to him this afternoon, one realized that the charisma of the man had disappeared, because he was putting a case which was so unconvincing.

I want to tell the hon member for Border that I expected more of him. I know that hon member well. He is a person who grasps an opportunity and that opportunity was right there yesterday. I put it to him that the reason he did not enter the debate yesterday, was that he was ashamed of what his leader had said.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than fifteen members (viz T R George, C B Herandien, F G Herwels, C J Kippen, P A S Mopp, P J Muller, J A Rabie and C R Redcliffe) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House I want to extend to the hon Mr Razak our congratulations for being elected as an indirectly elected member of this House in a fair and democratic ballot. Of course, I just joked that one could have extended the courtesy for one member of this side of the House also to have directed him into the House. Nevertheless, we have had quite a long association with the hon Mr Razak and once again I want to offer him my congratulations and good wishes. On behalf of the members of the Ministers’ Council I extend to him all the co-operation we can possibly give. Iam sure that he will be able to make a contribution to enhance the image of this House.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, I appreciate the steps that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council took to introduce and welcome the new hon member. I hope the spirit in which he did this will prevail throughout our deliberations in this House.

On behalf of my colleagues and myself and all those people who supported our nominee and voted for him, I should like to thank you all very sincerely and I wish the hon member Mr Razak well.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the PRP I should like to associate myself with the congratulatory sentiments expressed. I agree with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that the election of the hon member Mr Razak yesterday serves as another example of how, occasionally, hon members on both sides of the House, in a co-operative spirit, can go for quality. In this hon member we have an example of very good quality and I feel sure that the hon member Mr Razak will endeavour to uphold that sentiment which you, Mr Chairman, expressed in the prayer this afternoon, namely to maintain the trust that people have placed in members of Parliament. To maintain that trust, of course, he will regard with contempt any carrots that may be offered to him. [Interjections.]

Order! On behalf of all hon members of the House of Delegates I wish to welcome the hon member for the Eastern Transvaal. It is my prayer that God will give him strength, wisdom, knowledge, patience and understanding as a member of Parliament.

Mr Chairman, the hon member is a nominated member. He lives in the Eastern Transvaal.

Order! He is an indirectly elected member. Thank you for the correction.

Order! During the course of yesterday’s debate the hon member for Reservoir Hills raised a point of order regarding certain allegations that the hon member Mr Thaver had made in his speech. I then indicated that I would study the Hansard transcript and give a ruling today. I have now had the opportunity of studying the unrevised transcript of the hon member Mr Thaver’s speech and I am quite satisfied that the hon member Mr Thaver’s words can be interpreted as an accusation that the hon member for Reservoir Hills was a party to the drawing up of false affidavits and I therefore have no choice but to kindly request the hon member to withdraw that statement.

Mr Chairman, I accept your ruling and I withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, in the few minutes I have left, I want to talk about the question of bribery and corruption which has been an issue since 1985. It did not start in 1985, however. It started long before that, before the House of Delegates even existed. It was in 1985, however, that it was brought to this House, and it has been debated ever since. I think it is important that accusations should be substantiated and dealt with properly and in their place.

People in positions of power must always remember that they are accountable to the people who put them in those positions. It is unlike a position of financial or any other strength. Power is different. It is like an electric stream. One cannot see it, but one can use it and abuse it. Power is a good servant, and it can be a very dangerous master. People who hold high positions of power must remember that from time to time many accusations will be made against them. It is not easy to hold positions of power in public life. I have held public positions, and I have been accused.

Let me give hon members my own example. When I held a position of power I was accused of various things. This went on for some time from the oppositions in my area. I requested the administrator to appoint a commission to investigate me. One cannot let people point fingers at one and still hold a position of power. If one knows one has nothing to hide, one just submits oneself for an investigation. That is what I did. Messrs Wilson, Cross and Hagarth sat as commissioners and conducted an investigation for two days. At the end they found nothing that could be pinned on me. They could not hang anything on me; in fact they complimented me for bringing the matter up and clearing my name. I am not saying that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is guilty of anything at all.

I will be standing on his side in fact to help him clear his name.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question?

No, Mr Chairman, I have no time. That hon member should sit down and listen.

That is not the way for one hon member to address another!

That hon member is supposed to be the hon the Deputy Chairman of Committees in this House but his behaviour leaves much to be desired.

He is talking nonsense!

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question? Did he take the matter concerning the person who made allegations against him after the commission had cleared him any further?

No, I did not take the matter any further because it is all recorded in Hansard. There is no point in taking it any further unless I want to sue them to make some money.

No, the situation was different.

We have certain examples. One of them was mine, the other was Fernando Marcos and the latest is Matanzima in the Transkei. There are times when people are guilty but there are other times when they are not. I believe that, until proved otherwise, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is not guilty. I will therefore ask him to submit himself to the investigation.

I agree, but your situation was different.

We will clear the whole matter for once and for all and we will be happy to do that. [Interjections.] I must say that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is spending a great deal of valuable time defending himself.

No, I am attacking, not defending.

Perhaps he is attacking, but he has stood accused for years. Why does he not clear his name so that we can all be happy?

I want to clear myself, but not in the way that it is done here.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said in his speech the other day that the hon the State President will not just appoint a commission of inquiry. My understanding is that if this House has a majority vote asking the hon the State President to appoint a commission of inquiry, it will clear everybody here. It will clear the name of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council as well as all of us. We can then start afresh and go ahead with the work that is the reason why we were put here. That is what we are supposed to do instead of fighting and arguing against each other as we have been doing for the past three years. It seems as though we are going to continue with this and that it is not going to stop.

I say that we should put the matter to a secret vote. [Interjections.] There are many persons on both sides of this House who are beginning to wonder why, if there is nothing to hide, we are not allowing a commission of inquiry. I agree that one cannot appoint a commission of inquiry for every little whisper that requests it but after these matters have been going on for so long it is high time that everything comes into the open. If there is nothing to hide, why is a commission of inquiry not requested? The guilty are afraid.

The false accusers are afraid! [Interjections.]

When there is a commission of inquiry they will be subpoenaed to give evidence, and their bluff will be called.

It must happen outside, not under Parliamentary protection.

We do not need protection. Call for a commission of inquiry. They will come and give evidence and the whole matter will be cleared.

You are right when you say that they do not need protection—I agree with you.

They should not need protection. If one wants to accuse, one must be able to stand up and prove it. That is why we want a commission. If they do not prove it, they lose it. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he will agree that not only one hon member in the House but a large number of hon members are consistently calling for the appointment of a judicial commission?

I said earlier that for many years there has been a call for a commission of inquiry to clear the air. I did not only refer to one hon member. We have been going on for many years and I for one find it very embarrassing to sit here year in and year out listening to these matters.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member agree that it is only I and no one else who since 1985 has been making this matter topical?

I disagree. I disagree to the extent that accusations are made and then defences are put up. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is not the one who is raising it, and that is the fact of the matter. Things like the Blacklist, the education scandal and the land scandal come up often. He is not raising these matters, others are raising it.

What about the Malgate scandal? Do you want me to blacken my face in Malgate? I shall not come to Malgate to blacken my face. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, one may ask what is different about Malgate, but when something goes wrong in a local authority …

But you want me to hang for it.

No, nobody is asking the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to hang. He should not hang. It is his duty as Minister of Housing to do what he is supposed to do and he must never do anything that is illegal, because I shall be the first one to call upon him. Nobody must ask him to do anything illegal. I shall defend him to the hilt, because he must do the right thing. He has the power of the position and you must exercise it responsibly.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member must go outside and get snuffed. He must take his snuffbox and go outside.

Mr Chairman is the hon member prepared to take a question?

No, I have no time to take a question. [Interjections.]

Order! May I ask hon members to stop interjecting and to give the hon member an opportunity to continue with his address. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to take a question?

No, Mr Chairman, my time is too limited.

I want to conclude my speech now. I must say that when people jump out of every corner, it must be hurting.

Mr Chairman, I have been listening very attentively to the debate on the motion of no-confidence in the Ministers’ Council. The major topic of the hon Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Reservoir Hills has been inferences about individuals instead of the Ministers’ Council.

Yesterday while I was listening to the speech of the hon member for Reservoir Hills he asked who gave individuals the right to enter into agreement with two communities for land. It is all very well to speak with regard to matters concerning local authority programmes but we all know that we have to face the practicalities. As one of my colleagues has said, when he flies over Cape Town he sees the beautiful Table Mountain and wishes that it was in his hometown of Palm Ridge, but unfortunately it cannot be there because it is here. In the same way the Group Areas Act stands on the Statute Book and at present we have to do things in terms of this Act. We cannot get away from this. The reality of its existence is there.

With particular regard to the East Rand where the Indians and Coloureds have really been taken for a ride by the various municipalities, the arrangements were that Boksburg would house all the Coloureds of the East Rand and Benoni would house all the Indians of the East Rand. Had the Indian community not fought for this there would have been no other areas like Bakerton, Palm Ridge, Nigel and other areas, but because of the steadfastness of the Indian community this came about. I therefore see no wrong in two aggrieved communities coming to an agreement through the leaders of those two communities, for example their management committees and members of Parliament. When they come to an agreement there is nothing wrong with it.

We have a very abnormal situation in that the hon member for Reservoir Hills resigned from the President’s Council because Blacks had not been taken into the legislative machinery. Blacks are still not part of the legislative machinery of the Government and the hon member for Reservoir Hills had to come back into Parliament. What is more, he had to hijack a party which I and the hon member Mr Abram and our associates formed, called Solidarity. He hijacked that party and pushed us out of it. He became its leader and in the end he had to leave it to form another party. That is the abnormal situation we have.

Mr Chairman …

I do not have time for questions because I have been given only 12 minutes to speak. If I am given more time to speak, I am prepared to answer questions.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member for Actonville take a question?

Order! The hon member is not prepared to take any questions.

I have only 12 minutes and I do not have time to say what I want to say.

A great deal was said yesterday about why all other areas are being stifled and stopped. That is not the case. What is happening here is that one area has to be fully investigated and finalised before other areas can be dealt with because every time a mushroom area is investigated it prolongs the proclamation of the one area that is coming up. That sets the whole machinery back.

It may be that a monopoly is what Solidarity wants. [Interjections.] It may be a funny world that we live in or it may be a queer situation in that the more people talk about the bribery and corruption of the NPP, the more the public wants to vote for them. I do not know why.

Does he wear Barclay shoes?

Perhaps.

Mr Chairman, I speak in peace. I do not want to become involved in a confrontation but would the hon member take a very simple question?

Order! The hon member is not prepared to take any questions.

From me? [Interjections.]

I would not mind taking questions from anyone but I do not have the time. That is the only problem. Otherwise I would not mind answering hundreds of questions.

Ask for the privilege of the half hour.

The situation is that in the Transvaal there was only one elected Solidarity member, and in the last election he …

There were two!

There was only one. [Interjections.]

When we adjourned here last year there was only one elected member of Parliament for Solidarity.

There were two!

He received just over 1 300 votes in the 1984 election. What happened then was that with all the linking of bribery and corruption and the NPP, in this election those votes were reduced by half, to a mere 722, and the votes for the NPP increased to a majority of about 2 000 votes. This goes to show what the people are thinking about.

How many dead people voted?

I was most surprised that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had to make a personal appearance at a representation on behalf of the people of my constituency at the hearing of the Group Areas Board. He was completely misled when he appeared there by persons who identified themselves as members and supporters of Solidarity. I want to discuss some of these things briefly.

His chief adviser was a person who lives in Benoni but expressed grief on behalf of the people of Palm Ridge, and said that his heart lay with the people of Palm Ridge. He is the very person who wrote to the then hon Minister Dookie suggesting that he would offer to serve on a committee if the hon Mr Dookie would appoint such a committee to be served on by him and the chairman of the management committee of Germiston, because he felt that Palm Ridge was a big enough area to house the entire overflow of Benoni, and there was no need for another area. This is the same person who was the chief adviser of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition at the hearing.

His lieutenant on that day of the hearing was a doctor who identified himself as being from Solidarity, whereas he himself is a total radical. He is opposed to the whole system and situation of the present Government. In addition, he looks for opportunities. I want to tell you about the last time he made an appearance in Benoni, or on behalf of the people of Actonville. It was some years ago, when he succeeded in acquiring a piece of land from the management committee of Benoni, which was of his preference. He acquired it at a price much less than the upset price, and on conditions which were very abnormal, in that they were contrary to correct procedure and very much in his favour. This was done on the pretext that he was going to put up a clinic for the people of Actonville. He has now erected a shopping centre on that site. That is the doctor that was his lieutenant.

May I ask the hon member whether that property was purchased from any State department?

Yes, Mr Chairman.

I have a second question. Is the hon member not amazed that that is not listed in any allegations?

No, Mr Chairman. It is very surprising, and that is why I want to know why nobody mentions it.

Mr Chairman, I crave the hon member’s indulgence; would he take a question?

Will the hon member give me some of his time?

Yes. The hon member said that some doctor …

The hon member must not waste my time. I have plenty to say.

He did agree to take the question. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am trying to tell hon members that I will take no further questions.

Order! The hon member is not prepared to take a question.

He is making an accusation that he cannot defend.

These are not accusations, Mr Chairman. Anyone can come up with the facts, and these are things that can be seen and heard. [Interjections.]

The indication was that Windmill Park be developed for the well-to-do and the rich people. My colleague the hon member Mr Abram read out the application. And that a small piece of land belonging to the HNP be developed for the poor.

This, then, is the type of apartheid which this lieutenant of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition wants to create in Benoni. We cannot stand for that.

I in particular wrote a letter to the Deputy Minister. Not only did I write a letter, I had an interview with him. I told him the following:

These areas, Leechville and Larrendale, are the closest adjoining areas to Actonville.

Before coming to the rejected land which is surrounded by slime dumps, do you know what the Minister replied?

The hon the Minister writes:

This is what the hon the Minister tells me and the irony of it is that this prime land must be left to the Whites because the Minister is not prepared to liaise with us about it, but that little piece of rejected land—surrounded by slum area and which belongs to an HNP member who could not dispose of it to the Whites—that very area is now being dumped onto the Indian community. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition now asks why we do not wish to accept that land. That HNP member stands up and says: “I respect that the Indian community want to live in its own area. They want to be away from the White community”. He was actually applauded by the Solidarity members and one of them even wanted to offer him a chair. [Interjections.]

Order! Will hon members please give the hon member a chance to deliver his speech.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition attended an ad hoc committee meeting in Boksburg, convened by a Boksburg councillor who was subject to an inquiry concerning bribery and corruption connected with the Windmill Park area. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knew very well on whose behalf he was attending that meeting—his general, a man who purports to be a member of Solidarity whenever Solidarity comes to Benoni, but who also purports to be an NPP member whenever they come to Benoni. Yet when the elections come, he is suddenly a radical, a member of the TIC. [Interjections.] A document went to the Attorney-General in connection with… [Interjections.] If the hon the State President can take a tomato, then a shoe is an honour for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.] This general of the Solidarity party goes and takes options in Windmill Park and prices rise from R20 per square metre—as it would have been sold to Whites—to R30 per square metre for Indians. Houses valued between R40 000 and R60 000 increased to between R70 000 and R170 000.

This is the situation for the Indian community. Why would the White community not want that piece of land? It is all very well to say that it is a very nice piece of land, but what has happened there? A big prison has been erected there and that is why the Whites do not want it. A hostel has been planned there for the near future, which will house at least 20 000 single Blacks. However, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition comes and tells us that it is free enterprise. I call it captive enterprise, where the Indians have no choice but to pay the Indian price and not the White price. Is this what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition advocates for our community? [Interjections.] He tells us to accept any land, but why should we live in the bundu while there is prime land which we want but which our community cannot get? We are not given the land we want, but we are told to take any land we can get.

Is this the kind of land the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition wants us to have? [Interjections.] I want to say that the Actonville housing committee, to which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred, held a public meeting which not even 200 members attended whereas we held two public meetings in the Benoni town hall which more than 1 500 people attended. It is all on video tape, Mr Chairman, and we have a written mandate from over 2 000 people. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I have your permission to issue a statement to this House on behalf of the hon the State President?

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council may proceed.

I am making this statement, Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the State President. It reads as follows:

Further information from the South African Embassy is that Mr Malebana-Metsing came to the Chief Justice of Bophuthatswana with armed personnel and insisted on being sworn in as President. The reaction of the Chief Justice was that he could not do so in terms of the constitution. Thereupon Mr Malebana-Metsing declared himself to be President and the Chief Justice merely certified his signature. After this had been done Mr Malebana-Metsing arrived at the gate of the property of the South African Embassy and handed over a message to the South African Government in which he informed the South African Government that a new government had assumed power in Bophuthatswana. In his message Mr Malebana-Metsing says that he will co-operate fully with the South African Government and maintain good relations with the Government of South Africa. Mr Malebana-Metsing also says that South African interests and citizens will enjoy protection.

This morning the SSC met under my chairmanship to go into all the facets of this matter. It was clear to the Government that Mr Malebana-Metsing had taken power in an irregular and violent manner. The South African Government is opposed in principle to the obtaining of political power by violence.

The South African Government recognises President Mangope’s government as the government of Bophuthatswana and decided consequently to heed the appeal by that country’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and his colleagues to come to the assistance of that government. Moreover, an agreement between the two governments which provides for the one government asking the other for assistance in cases of this nature, as been in existence between the two governments for several years already. It should be mentioned as well that President Mangope, according to the available information, is in detention together with certain seconded South African officials.

Consequently, the South African security forces have been instructed to accede to the request of the Government of Bophuthatswana and ordered specifically to give the highest priority to the security and protection of the South African Embassy and all the staff and their families as well as to President Mangope, his Cabinet and their families and government officials and their families. The security forces are engaged in carrying out their instructions at present.

It should also be pointed out that this case cannot be compared in any way with the recent change of government in the Transkei. In that case no violence was used; neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Transkei appealed to the South African Government for assistance; the constitutionally-elected head of state was not ousted from office and he has, in fact, been recognised by the new government and requested to remain in office as part of the governmental authority; there was no competing entity vying for the exercise of governmental authority; it was clear soon after the announcement by General Holomisa that the new government was in effective control of the country and the national administration; and the South African Government deliberately waited for some time before granting the new government recognition and it was granted only after the Head of State of that Government visited me personally and requested that such recognition be granted.

Mr Chairman, the message from the hon the State President is a matter of gravity and I think it is right that this House should associate itself with the action which has been taken by the hon the State President, which is the only proper course a State President of this country could have followed in the circumstances.

Mr Chairman, hon members will forgive me if I do not comment on the speech made by the hon member for Actonville. The fact of the matter is that not only was I unable to follow his speech on account of his very fast delivery, but also I could not understand the thrust of the arguments used therein. However, I would like to correct two bits of information on which that hon member seems to be misinformed.

The first one relates to the founding of Solidarity. I would like to assure him that Solidarity was formed in my office, by the hon the Minister of the Budget, my benchmate, the hon member for Reservoir Hills, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, myself and some other hon members. Most certainly the hon member for Actonville and the hon nominated member Mr Abram had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of Solidarity.

The other point that I would like to clarify for the benefit of the hon member for Actonville is that when this House was first constituted, Solidarity had two representatives from the Transvaal. One was the hon member for Central Rand and the other was the former hon member for Eastern Transvaal, Mr Arbee.

Having said that, I would just like, with respect, to correct the impression which has been created by the hon member for Southern Natal. He is partly correct, but I would like to give another interpretation to the argument advanced by him. I think he said that if this House were to agree by a unanimous substantive motion that there should be a commission of inquiry into all the irregularities that we have been hearing about, then the hon the State President is honour-bound to appoint such a commission of inquiry. That is only half-true, because as all hon members will recall, this House has, in fact, taken several such unanimous decisions, without avail. Looking at the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, I am reminded of the fact that this House unanimously decided that something needed to be done about the foreign-trained doctors. Of course we know that nothing happened in that regard.

If one looks at the Commissions Act, No 8 of 1947, one realises that in terms of that Act, certainly in terms of section 1 of that Act, the criterion by which the hon the State President ought to and must appoint a commission of inquiry is the criterion of public concern.

Can anyone in this House deny that there is public concern regarding the various allegations that have been made in this House? Can anybody deny that we have had many, many editorials which have been written on this matter? We even had the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council reiterate that he is not opposed in principle to the appointment of such a commission of inquiry.

Because it is the hon the State President’s right to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry, all hon members in this House will remember that I first raised the issue when the hon the State President came to this House in support of his Budget Vote last year. For the benefit of some hon members who were not with us at that time I would like to read out what I said on that occasion. I quote from Hansard: Delegates, 20 August 1987, col 2352 as follows:

I went on and said the following:

I make bold to say this afternoon that I believe that the hon the State President is shirking his responsibility towards this House, towards the Indian community and in particular towards his hon Cabinet colleague.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question? I would like him also to read the hon the State President’s reply. [Interjections.]

I will inform that hon member as to what the hon the State President said, seeing that his memory is not too good. The hon the State President did not react to my call for a commission of inquiry into the allegations relating to land deals. All he did was to react to my call for a commission of inquiry into educational matters.

I believe the hon the State President is shirking his responsibility to this House, and the question that arises is: Why is this the case? Is it because one of the men involved is his Cabinet colleague and political ally? I believe the hon the State President needs to explain the situation.

You are in the dock in the eyes of God!

To react to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. I am always in the dock when it comes to the question of being judged by the Almighty, and so is the hon the Minister and so are all of us. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, you will recall that you spoke about the dignity of this House and about the dignity of office in this House the other day. Hon members will recall that all of this derives from the traditions that have come down to us from the mother of all Parliaments, namely Westminster. These constitutional and parliamentary traditions and conventions are especially enshrined in our new Constitution by section 88. I think all hon members should be aware that it is a parliamentary tradition in all respectable systems that if there is even a mere whiff of corruption or maladministration and an official of the administration is involved or is alleged to be involved, that official or occupier of high office, if he has any self-respect, first resigns.

He either resigns until the matter is cleared up, or he immediately asks for the appointment of a commission of inquiry so that his name can be cleared. In this country we have such a tradition. A precedent was set when Mr Fanie Botha resigned because there was a whiff of a scandal.

In the light of what I have just said, I in all respect and humility call upon the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council either to petition the hon State President immediately to appoint a commission of inquiry, or failing this, I call upon him to resign immediately out of respect for this House and especially for his fellow colleagues and out of selfrespect to himself.

Is that for the Press?

No, that is for you.

The motion before this House is a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council. How can any member sitting on this side of the House have any confidence in the Ministers’ Council when the Chairman himself has no confidence in or respect for this particular council. He has no respect for or confidence in his colleagues.

We have not forgotten that it was none other than that hon gentleman, who is the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who passed a vote of no-confidence in his colleagues last year when he called them simpletons. As far as I can remember, he has neither retracted nor apologised. [Interjections.]

Order!

I ask the hon member to quote from that Hansard.

I shall quote the particular Hansard at the appropriate time by writing to the hon the Minister tomorrow.

Quote the page numbers.

I shall quote you, and I shall also refresh your memory by telling you that it was your hon Chief Whip who drew your attention to it.

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

Mr Chairman, I shall always take a question from that hon gentleman.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member for Springfield agree that after the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had used the word simpleton, I reminded him that it was most probably a slip of the tongue. It was not said deliberately and he said so and this is accordingly recorded in Hansard.

Mr Chairman, I am indebted to the hon Chief Whip for confirming that that is what his hon leader said in this House. [Interjections.] Please do not waste my time.

I would again like to remind the hon Chief Whip what a simpleton means. According to the Oxford Dictionary a simpleton is a halfwit. It is a person who is easily deceived. It is a fool. In view of this how can I, or anybody in this House, have any confidence in the members of the Ministers’ Council?

Were I to be in a court of law I would rest my case, but this is not a court of law, it is a House of Parliament and we are debating a vote of no confidence in the members of the Ministers’ Council. It is a motion that reflects, and is based, on the council’s inability, its integrity and its incompetency to deal resolutely and purposefully with the various crises that face not only the Indian community but all of South Africa.

I want to remind this House once again that it was none other than the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who said, on behalf of his party and most certainly I believe on behalf on himself and his Ministers’ Council, on the first day we took office here (House of Delegates, Vol 2, 1985, pp 18-19):

[Inaudible.]

In reaction to my learned friend the hon member Mr Nowbath, all I find is that he has obviously loosened his nuts.

You are plain nuts.

I want to remind this House that it was the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who proposed to effect this great achievement according to the principles enunciated by Mahatma Ghandi. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council cannot deny that. They are noble sentiments. I joined him in support of that.

He will never recognise our progress.

Let us examine whether these glibly mouthed sentiments have been translated into practice. Let us examine for instance the integrity and the performance of the Ministers’ Council in this regard. We all know that apartheid is structured.

We are not flying in the sky.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council says that he is not flying in the sky; he is flying in the clouds.

We are not flying in the clouds.

He is flying in the clouds and it is about time the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council had his two feet planted firmly on the ground.

Let us measure the integrity and performance of the Ministers’ Council in this regard.

Do you have anything new to say?

Apartheid is structured on the principle of separation. I say this because I would like the hon member Mr Nowbath to know this.

What is this House? Where are you sitting?

That principle manifests itself in three important pieces of nasty legislation. The first is the Group Areas Act, the second is the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, and the third is the Population Registration Act.

Are you not in an apartheid chamber?

Let us examine the record of the Ministers’ Council with regard to these statutes. We had a notice of motion only this afternoon from, I think, the hon member Mr Abram.

Are you prepared to rid our society of the Mafia?

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has asked me whether I am prepared to rid the Ministers’ Council of the Mafia.

I did not say from the Ministers’ Council. That is unparliamentary. I said from society.

If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council gives me the assurance that he will get rid of the Mafia relating to this Ministers’ Council, I will assist him in ridding society of the Mafia.

That is unparliamentary.

I have serious business to discuss and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is only trying to divert my attention, to no avail.

Which building contractors go bankrupt regularly?

Not only has the NPP not taken any stand on these basic acts—the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council knows this—it has made no representation in the Cabinet in which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is a member without portfolio.

Tell us which contractors went bankrupt and who masterminded them.

Order! Is the hon member for Springfield prepared to take a question?

He is wasting my time.

Order! The hon member is not prepared to take a question.

Which supplier committed suicide?

I say I have no confidence in the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council or in any of his Ministers because they have generally acquiesced in this policy of the NP Government.

Who is Tokkie Saayman?

Ask the hon the Minister of the Budget and he will tell you who Mr Tokkie Saayman is?

He will blow the whistle.

People keep asking me what the difference is between the policies of the NP and the NPP.

The quality of the Chairman!

And I keep telling them: “Nothing”.

I said to members of the NPP that “NPP” stands for “National Party’s People”. That is what they are.

It is in this regard that I believe the Ministers’ Council has failed. It has failed the community.

We should move a motion of no confidence in you.

They have failed because they have hitched their wagons onto the caravan on the NP policies …

That’s for the Press; those are the usual cliches.

… which are leading this country to the cliffs of disaster. By doing that, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is taking a lot of the Indian community towards that cliff of disaster together with the NP. [Interjections.] I should like to make another submission this afternoon. It is simply this: From the track record of the Ministers’ Council it is evident that …

Your track record is dismal.

… this Council has absolutely no vision, and any council without vision is doomed to disaster. [Interjections.]

Regrettably the Indian community will pay a price for the actions of the NPP. It is in fact paying that price in the fields of education and other related fields. [Interjections.]

Order! Will hon members please give the hon member a chance to continue.

How can we have confidence in people whose political conscience closely resembles well-tanned rhinoceros hide? How can we support a Cabinet that has failed to give community leadership at the national and regional levels? The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is a signatory to the Kwa-Natal Indaba. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was a signatory to the Buthelezi Commission.

Yes.

However, what did you do after signing those reports? Precisely nothing!

I will tell you. I do not sleep in air-conditioned offices.

Why is that? It is simply because his political star is hitched to the wagon of the National Party.

[Inaudible.]

We all know where that is leading us.

What did the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council say when the media of this country were gagged? Absolutely nothing!

What did you do with the Graphic?

The silence from the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was deafening.

[Inaudible.]

More to the point, Mr Chairman: What did that hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council do when the Cabinet decided to drastically cut the subsidies paid to universities? Absolutely nothing.

No, no. Your facts are wrong.

Well, then, tell us the facts.

You will get the facts in the education debate when the hon the Minister of National Education is here. Why do you not tell them what you told the Ministers over lunch tables? [Interjections.]

Before I resume my seat, I wish to say that I have been given to understand that the NPP, and more particularly the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, do not have a motto. I, in all humility, would like to suggest a motto to them. That motto should be sumus semper in exertum sed acta variet.

Mr Chairman, it would have given me great pleasure if the hon member who just sat down had repeated what he said in English. I am sure that many of the hon members, like myself, do not understand Latin. We came into Parliament with great expectations.

Charles Dickens!

However, what do we have today?

Small expectations.

That is right. The hon member can keep it that way. A lot of accusations have been thrown across the floor. I am sure hon members will agree with me that once a person accuses another of misconduct or asks for a commission of inquiry, that person himself had better also be cleared of any past wrongdoings. However, there must be some valid reason for asking for such a commission of inquiry. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has challenged certain hon members of this House to repeat such requests openly outside, so that we may continue with the actual commission. At least then we will have some means to ask for it.

That is no condition.

Sure, it is just that those who ask for such a commission should have the courage of their conviction.

They are hiding in a post box.

On Tuesday 29 January 1985 I asked the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in this House the following question (Hansard: Delegates, col 137):

I have brought this proof today and I would like to hand it to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Mr Chairman, this matter was raised and I think the answers were given in 1985 …

That is not a question.

But this is the reason for raising the …

No, ask me a question. Please do not give me a story.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member if the Minister concerned did not somewhere in the newspaper admit that the application was made, considered and granted.

No.

Mr Chairman, the hon member should get all the facts.

I am giving the facts.

Mr Chairman, I suggest that you submit that to an inquiry … [Interjections.]

It is funny, Mr Chairman. Suddenly everybody wants to shout me down because the shoe is now on the wrong foot. If they had been so innocent at the time one would never have found a heading of that size in the Sunday Tribune. I would like to give this evidence to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, so that he can have a look at it…

I do not want to look at it. I am absolutely satisfied that it was a bona fide application which was granted.

This was not a bona fide application because I can quote the chairman of the management committee concerned from this very newspaper article. [Interjections.] One gathers here that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition approached this man for …

Assistance.

No! To side with him and get houses where there were only 2 000 houses for people who needed those houses. That chairman then took away two houses which were needed for those poor people. Here it is, I have it here.

You are talking nonsense.

It reads: “Jumping the housing queue. Tycoons may get homes in spite of waiting lists”. [Interjections.] Where is the sense, Mr Chairman, in his doing a thing like this and then coming here and asking for a commission of enquiry for someone else?

I want a commission of enquiry into that, too.

The hon member should ask for one for himself. [Interjections.] In 1985 I asked the Chairman that question and he replied: “I will answer you”. It is now 1988 and I still have not been given an answer. [Interjections.]

Well, ask the Chairman; do not ask me.

Why should I ask for a commission of enquiry when he is sitting here and he could have given me that answer at any time since 1985? Now all of a sudden he is talking about a commission of enquiry.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member should go to the right authorities and get his facts straight. Then, when he has the facts straight, let him come and make the accusation. [Interjections.]

I will ask the hon member a question.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member what he would say if undue favouritism were to be granted to that application?

A crying shame!

That is a shame because that is exactly what was done. When we were fighting and shouting against the Group Areas Act here, we said how bad the White man was and complained about what the White man was doing to us. However, we forget what we do to our people when we are in power. Why do we oppress our people? Is that what he is trying to tell me, Mr Chairman?

Mr Chairman, is the hon member aware that plots were granted to that same firm in Richards Bay? The reason advanced was that they wanted housing for their employees when at the time the plots were allocated, against the wishes of the community who were waiting for plots, that firm had not yet opened in Richards Bay.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council a question?

I have not answered the question, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

I have a clean sheet, Mr Chairman. I will stand the test of any enquiry. I have an absolutely clean sheet. [Interjections.]

We came here to work for the community as a whole. Since the very first time we asked for a commission of enquiry here I have stated that I would be the first to stand up and say: “Put a commission of enquiry onto me”. From the days when I was in local government, and even before then when I used to help people, to this very day I have never even approached any official for a home for my own children. That is what one calls honesty; not dealing under the table and obtaining houses for other people and then naming them, like the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council says.

Who dealt under the table?

Open yourselves to it, then.

You are making serious allegations.

I have been asking questions since 1985, and I have been unable to obtain a single answer to them. [Interjections.] That is one of the reasons why we have this motion here today.

Make your allegations outside! [Interjections.]

What is this? [Interjections.]

I want to sue him for defamation. [Interjections.]

Order! Would hon members please restrain themselves. The hon member may continue.

It is all very well for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to ask me to go outside and face a law suit. All he will get is my shirt. That is all I have left. [Interjections.] That is all I have left because I am an honest man who did not work to line his own pockets. I did not approach Ministers behind anyone’s back for licences. I have worked sincerely for my people and hon members can go anywhere today and ask anyone to point a finger at me.

What have you done for your people? What is your record?

Go and find out. What is the hon member’s record? Taking houses under the table? Does he call that a record? [Interjections.]

Order! I think hon members will agree with me that the dignity of this House is now being lowered. I shall now take firm action against hon members who continue in this manner.

Hon members are allowed to contribute, but not in the manner in which they have now been doing. I therefore appeal to both sides kindly to allow the speaker to continue, but I also appeal to the speaker kindly to address the House in a non-emotional manner.

Mr Chairman, when a person or persons, regardless of who they are, ask for a commission of enquiry, there must be some substance. Here today I was asked to repeat what I said outside so that people can have a commission of enquiry or sue me. Yet, the irony is that for years people have been asking others to repeat outside what they say inside, so that we can have commissions of enquiry, but unfortunately, nothing is being done about this.

They are not man enough.

That’s it! The hon member takes the words out of my mouth. As he said, they are not man enough to stand up and say that they will do it.

†We must be man enough, go outside and repeat what we say inside, so that we can get that commission of enquiry. It is as easy as A, B, C. Do hon members want a commission of enquiry? The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has openly stated here, that if hon members will repeat their allegations outside, they will have a commission of enquiry. I therefore think it is high time that, because we are protected by Parliament here, we must stop making accusations which we cannot substantiate and cannot repeat outside.

That applies to yourself.

It does not apply to me; it applies to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, because today, after all these years, he could not answer a simple question. Because he is confronted with a piece of paper which says that he jumped the queue, he all of a sudden gets hot under the collar, in such a nice cool building. I cannot understand this thinking. Why ask for something if one knows one is not going to get it, because one—I do not want to use unparliamentary language—has not got the courage to go and say it outside? Have a commission of enquiry by all means. Let us get it down. Go outside and accuse people of what they have done, and we will have a commission of enquiry. I think it is as simple as that. There is no sense in making a big noise and kicking up a row here, where nothing can be done, and it is only recorded by the press and Hansard.

Mr Chairman, in support of the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon member Mr Abram, I wish to state emphatically that I fully support the leader of my party, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and my colleagues in the Ministers’ Council. It is not my intention to repeat what was already discussed yesterday and the day before, but I wish to deal with some positive developments in my ministry.

However, before doing so I just wish to respond to the statement made by the hon member for Reservoir Hills. Unfortunately he is not present here. This is an issue which he is very concerned about, and so are we. The statement was made in regard to the Phoenix Hospital. I want to repeat what I said during the 1987 debate on my Budget Vote, namely I would like to give the House an undertaking that this Ministers’ Council will guarantee that the construction of the Phoenix Hospital will commence in 1989. I would like to inform the House that the hospital will comprise of 750 beds, with building costs to the value of R72 million and equipment to the value of R22 million.

Over and above that, I wish to announce with effect as from 1 April 1988 social relief for indigent Indians will be increased from the present maximum of R12,70 per week per adult to R14,00 per week per adult, and the present R9,00 per week per child under 10 years of age to R9,90 per week per child under 10 years of age. This will now in fact be on par with the White community in South Africa.

I want to prove to hon members the positive steps that have been taken by the Ministers’ Council. In 1985 the amount was R10,40 per week per adult and this has now been increased to R14,00 which means an increase of 32%. In 1985 the amount per child was R7,30 per week and in April 1988 it will become R9,90 per child per week which is an increase of 36%. This is a positive step and I am sure that the hon members who criticised the Ministers’ Council will appreciate the positive role that it plays.

During the year under review, it can be reported with confidence on the progress and relevance of the health and welfare divisions in their endeavours to meet the health and welfare needs of our community. Significant developments, policy and aspirations will be referred to briefly. However, I first want to touch briefly on an issue which was not raised earlier.

Hon members are aware of the fact that two days ago we had floods that were similar to what we had in September of last year. I want to inform the House that we have made all possible enquiries and I am pleased to be able to report that no Indian family was really affected. Unfortunately 17 Black families were affected. With the exception of two Indian families in Westcliff, they have been rehoused.

With regard to the Natal flood disaster last year, officials of my department responded promptly and effectively in rendering services and meeting the urgent needs for food, clothing and shelter for the many victims of the Natal flood disaster during September and October 1987 at a cost of some R250 000. The generosity and ready assistance of community leaders and members contributed immeasurably in alleviating the plight of those affected. It is gratifying to know that the department was able to mobilise resources to combat an emergency situation of this magnitude.

As far as the service areas are concerned, social welfare covers the total spectrum of the wellbeing of the individual, the family and the community. Service areas and functions include: The protection and promotion of stable family life and the child; the welfare and care of the aged and physically impaired; the prevention of alcoholism and drug abuse and the treatment of those affected, etc. The list goes on but one of the important factors which will be of great concern to all hon members and to the Ministers’ Council concerns social pensions and social relief.

The allocation and administration of social pensions and relief to the disadvantaged sector of our community is undertaken responsibly and objectively with the application of established criteria. Every effort is made to deal with applications courteously and promptly with due respect to the dignity and selfworth of the individual. Basic needs of recipients are of primary concern, and equally important is our responsibility in promoting selfreliance and discouraging dependency.

Despite the foregoing, there is full recognition of the need for a full-scale investigation of the present social pension and relief system. It is outmoded and fails to meet the prevailing problems of economic stress and unemployment. Greater flexibility is required, if provisions are to be relevant, in addressing the situation effectively. Despite severe financial restrictions, it is encouraging to note that recent pension increases are narrowing the gap for all those groups and this department will endeavour to obtain funds with the objective of reaching parity in the next three years.

As far as decentralisation is concerned, I want to touch on the question of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. We receive cases every day and I am sure hon members on all sides of the House appreciate that every effort is made to give personal attention to them. Members must appreciate that we cannot give disability grants willy-nilly to every application. Some suffer from coughs or colds or arthritis for that matter, and every effort is being made to ensure that each and every case is treated very compassionately.

It is the policy of the department to decentralise and make its health and welfare services more readily accessible to members of the public. In this regard, offices have been opened in Ladysmith, Stanger and East London. Offices are also being considered for Umzinto—as far as Umzinto is concerned things have already got off the ground and the contractors are on site—Rylands, Cravenby, Tongaat and Palmridge. The offices in Lenasia are now operating on a full-time basis as opposed to part time previously.

The principle of partnership with the private sector is the basis of the welfare policy. This is one of the ways whereby services can be made more effective in response to needs. Officials of the welfare directorate have enjoyed a close working relationship with the National Councils and many private welfare organisations on all levels.

This is in keeping with the concept of privatisation whereby certain services and functions are undertaken by such organisations. It must be stressed, however, that in areas where the private sector is unable to provide the necessary welfare services, these are undertaken by departmental staff.

A new development in the financing of welfare services is the welfare programme/project formulation. This focuses primarily on the evaluation of community needs, and the programmes to combat them and not simply on the maintenance of existing services and objectives. This system is applicable to the private sector but it is obvious that the department must follow the same principles of programme formulation by objective.

This division undertakes preventative and statutory functions in respect of various Acts, including the Child Care Act, the Criminal Procedures Act, and the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act. This work is concerned with the distressing problems of child abuse and neglect, crime, and drug and alcohol abuse. Services include institutional care, statutory supervision, reconstruction services and rehabilitation and aftercare.

As far as the integrated approach is concerned it is most significant to note that there has been a shift in emphasis from an almost exclusively case work concern to a broader integrated approach, which incorporates close up research, groupwork and community development. This involves the perception and determination of need by the community and the involvement and participation of its members “doing with rather than for” them. New challenges for effective social development are opened in this way.

I just want to inform hon members about the progress when I spoke in terms of positive steps taken by this Ministers’ Council. As far as school social work is concerned, where the department has rendered health services to schools for many years, the department is establishing a division of social work in schools as a priority, starting off with four social workers at Phoenix. Here the accent will be on the prevention of and early intervention in social problems affecting both the education of the child as well as being a valuable contact point in identifying family and community problems, for example, growing problems of alcohol and drug abuse of the schoolgoing child, as well as antisocial gang activities.

Hon members will recall that on 23 January 1988 the Green Fields Place of Safety was officially opened. It is a facility in which 78 children could be accommodated. [Interjections.] It is attractively designed and situated in a garden and rural setting and is a facility in which we can take great pride. What is even more encouraging is the provision of the multi-professional team of a social worker, clinical psychologist and occupational therapist, which will be able to assess and treat the children effectively.

As far as the Valley View Place of Safety is concerned the erection of a new place of safety on the existing Valley View site is being proceeded with. It is intended to provide all the necessary facilities and professional services so that children in need of care and management can be catered for on as homely a basis as possible. It is the intention of the department to preserve the original architecture, since the possibility exists that it will be declared a national monument. This will also enhance the image of the Administration. As an interim measure, essential renovations to the existing building are in the process of being undertaken.

I now come to the rehabilitation centre at Newlands West. Under this Ministers’ Council for the first time the Administration will be able to provide this long-needed facility for the treatment of drug abuse and alcoholism. It is expected that the centre will open in June 1988 and be fully operative by August of this year. It will be staffed by highly skilled professionals of all the disciplines concerned and will contribute immeasurably in addressing these problems.

Members will also recall the taking over of the Phoenix Community Health Centre. The centre is programmed to serve the needs of the local community by providing a nurse-orientated primary health care clinic service five days a week with a 24-hour maternity service component as well as an emergency service. It caters for approximately 600 patients a day.

As far as Actonville is concerned I am pleased to announce that the new multipurpose community health centre is at present being planned alongside the administration block.

In Stonebridge, Phoenix, the Efficiency Services Subdirectorate has been urgently requested to investigate the infrastructure for a multipurpose centre. The building is expected to be ready for occupation during April 1988.

Hazelmere House at Canelands has recently been acquired. Facilities will be provided for psychiatric in-patients and out-patients and will include facilities for vocational rehabilitation. Hostel facilities for 40 patients will also be provided. This facility will enable patients to adapt in the transition phase from an institutional environment such as Fort Napier Hospital to the community.

The relapse rate of patients discharged from Fort Napier Hospital is in the vicinity of 50% and it is considered that this facility will reduce this high relapse rate. A clinic facility for people in the Verulam area will also be provided.

The Phoenix Assessment Centre should come into operation during May 1988. The administration has taken the initiative in establishing this much needed facility. The purpose of this centre is to assess disabled persons in the community as regards their residual functional ability. With the assistance of supplementary health services professionals—that is, paramedics—nurses and social workers, the disabled will be guided as to their best vocational ability. In this way it is foreseen that the disabled will become productive and independent members of the community.

A suitable site has been identified for a community health centre in Crossmoor, Chatsworth, and negotiations are to take place between the departments of Health Services and Welfare and Education and Culture with regard to the use of this site for health services.

I have outlined briefly some of the positive steps. In conclusion, the Ministers’ Council has nothing to be ashamed of. The recent by-election clearly signals the support of the people of Tongaat and the Eastern Transvaal in acknowledgment of the progress in the field of housing, education, and health and welfare services, and a positive approach towards the building of Indian agriculture. This has taken place more under this Ministers’ Council and the leadership of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

The Daily News editorial of 30 November 1987 confirmed the momentum gained by this House.

Finally, it is now our fourth year in this Parliament and the deliberations in this House ought to be not only meaningful and constructive but also to maintain the dignity and decorum of this House.

One has only to read through Hansard to glean how much time, effort and utterance is expended in unnecessary, trivial and petty matters. I should like to appeal to the hon members of this House to confine their deliberations to matters of a substantive nature that merit the attention of this House.

Mr Chairman, we have listened to the speech by the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare. He made a lot of statements, perhaps by way of defence, in the course of his speech.

Mr Chairman, last night I had a call from my constituency. I was asked how the debate was proceeding in the House of Delegates. This took me aback. I told the caller that there were accusations and counteraccusations that dominated most of the time in the House, and that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council put up a tremendous show. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council yesterday made the claim, among many others, that he was a very good referee. Undoubtedly he is a very good referee.

Not is, was.

Well, was and is. I have no problem with his refereeing, but when the referee takes over the playing and starts shooting the goals, then there is a problem. [Interjections.]

You want results, and when you get results, it is a problem!

I made an observation this afternoon. When the hon member for Springfield was speaking, the only person that was predominantly reacting from the other side was the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

I asked him: Who is Tokkie Saayman.

Then I looked across and in a sweeping glance I took in all the other hon members, who were either listening attentively and enjoying it, wondering, or completely divorced from the attack.

Now, this is something to reflect on. I pity the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. He is a one-man show here, and he is putting up a one-man battle.

That is why you came to this House—as that one man.

[Inaudible.]

However, when the referee blows the whistle, he makes a very good job of it. The Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has mastered this technique to such a degree that he has even a will to get the cockroaches and grasshoppers into his own enclosure. I must admire him for that.

I beg to differ; somebody yesterday had a better result.

My time is very short. I know these tactics of attacking by the hon the Minister is a defence mechanism and distracts people from speaking so that they will not make their point.

Are you not my ex-guru?

You see, that is another tactic.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council boasts of his ability. Yesterday he said that he was in my constituency at the time of the flood …

Yes, twice.

… and that he attended to the people, while the others were not there. I should like to remind the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that I have no helicopters and aeroplanes at my disposal.

But you have air tickets at your disposal.

I do not have the advantage or the power to arrange for even a donkey to carry me across. As far as I am concerned that flood disaster was a very serious matter. It was a tragic affair. If any man goes down there to boost his ego and his image and that of his party, then his sincerity is questioned seriously.

[Inaudible.]

One does not talk about others not having been there because one was there oneself. [Interjections.] In any case, if the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council or anyone else was there who could have avoided the misery caused by the disaster, the important thing was to remedy that situation and assist those people, not to indulge in party politics and party propaganda in that particular situation.

Let me tell you that the political intervention developed into a crisis. Let me tell hon members that a crisis between the Crisis Committee and the NPP was averted by the presence of myself and the hon member for Stanger. [Interjections.] It is sad. People have lost a lifetime’s belongings in that flood and does anyone think that taking them a cup of coffee and a blanket will solve the problem? I told them to clean up their houses and we would process their claims, but that it would be a long-term solution. I warmed the hearts of those people and they believed in me and trusted me. I did not talk to them about Solidarity. I only told them that as a member of Parliament I was there to help them. It was a catastrophe in the province, so much so that the hon the State President declared it a national disaster and in so doing was able to help.

Who was a Rip van Winkle?

My time is limited, but I can point out a lot of weaknesses in this no-confidence debate. I find the Ministers’ Council and especially its hon Chairman guilty of a lot of things.

What happened when you came to my house? Speak the truth.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has this constant habit of inferring that I have a skeleton in my cupboard. Why did I go to his house? I never went to his office or anywhere. He misconstrues things and casts aspersions …

Speak the truth, speak the truth!

It is a shameful thing that in this ruling party its hon Ministers place the party before the community.

I have a witness. I have a witness.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is like a parrot. That is about all he knows.

Mr Chairman, I would like to hear from the hon member if he agrees that only an opportunist would try to capitalise on a national disaster.

They go in late.

Certainly. That is what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has done and that is what he is saying now. On Monday, when the new hon member for the Eastern Transvaal was being sworn in, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said: “One more to come”. The tone and the manner of that expression indicated vengeance. That tone reflects his determination to hold power and gloat in his glory. When he achieves success, to me it is a hollow victory. Concerning the Tongaat election campaign, I have teacher friends whose names I do not wish to divulge—although I could supply a list as an affidavit—and they confided in me about the NPP’s electoral operation in Tongaat. I can take a reasonable, sensible defeat any time …

Enjoy your last few months in this House!

However, I will never enjoy a shallow, hollow victory. Subsequently certain teachers were promoted and I was not surprised to see their names, although I was shocked.

If you were not surprised, why were you shocked? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, that was because it confirmed what I had been told. I have no confidence in the Ministers’ Council and its chairman.

You are my ex-teacher. You are moving a motion of no confidence in yourself. [Interjections.]

Yes.

You moulded me, and you have no confidence in me. [Interjections.]

I moulded you, but a father can be disappointed in his son, too, on account of what he does. [Interjections.] They are so totally preoccupied with entrenching the concept of own affairs that they have either forgotten to make an input into the reform process in this country or they are turning a blind eye to the views of concerned people in shaping the destiny of the broad mass of people in this country. I say this because I feel sure that everyone in this House, as well as the public at large, is analysing the situation and the contribution we are making to this system. And what do we have to report back to them on? Arguments, accusations and counteraccusations, as well as calls for a commission of enquiry on the one hand and calls against a commission of enquiry on the other. Let us prove our worth. Let us bring about the reforms in this country that will solve the problems of the generations to come. Let us have a sound administration. Let us not proclaim in the newspapers that we have a clean administration, when it is not clean.

Mr Chairman, in support of the amendment I want to say that we have had some very good debate here this afternoon—some of it comical, some otherwise. [Interjections.]

I want firstly to read something from a study I made in education which is very relevant to the criticisms that are being levelled here this afternoon. Herbert Spencer said: “The great aim of education is not knowledge, but action.”

Like the strip-tease! [Interjections.]

I want to tell hon members of the Opposition that the NPP has demonstrated its action in various fields, as mentioned this afternoon and yesterday by my colleagues, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare and the hon the Minister of Housing. Hon members have heard how much development and action took place during the year. [Interjections.]

Increased facilities were established in all these fields. I do not want to give hon members too many details about them. Those details will be provided in the various Budget speeches.

Another learned gentleman by the name of John Wannamaker said the following:

This is exactly what those hon members have been doing. This afternoon we saw the resentment of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. When facts are brought before the House, it hurts. It hurts very much indeed. [Interjections.] I should like the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to indicate in his reply how he was able to acquire plots of land in Richards Bay on the assumption that his establishment, Sea Land Air, would be established there. Sea Land Air was not established. These plots were acquired, although they may not have been acquired during the term of office of my colleague, the hon the Minister of Housing. Whenever it was, it is a fact.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister take a question?

I am not taking any questions, Mr Chairman. We all have limited time.

Then he must not give distorted facts.

“Please be short”, I have been told. [Interjections.] I am illustrating what John Wannamaker says, and not what John Iyman says. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, if I may have another say in this context: Truth, like oil, must flow to the surface. One cannot hide truth. Our leader has made it amply clear that if hon members repeat these things outside this House, they will have their commission of enquiry.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister take a question?

No, Mr Chairman, but I will say this: I am very disappointed with the hon leader of the PRP, as well as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I am disappointed in that both these hon members missed a very good opportunity to rise to the occasion and pay tribute to the late Mr Munsook who was an hon member of this House. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, the leader of the National Peoples Party, did pay this tribute. It is a pity that hon members of the opposition parties did not rise to such an occasion or even aligned themselves with the tribute paid by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. It will go down in the history of this House. Our culture demands that we pay tribute to a man who has served in this House. [Interjections.] It is too late.

We on this side of the House appreciate that convention demands that this debate takes place and that the opposition parties put forward all the criticism they want to level against the ruling party, albeit we have not made bones about the fact that there is constant repetition of matters that were dealt with last year, the year before and the year before that.

Is the hon the Minister prepared to take a question?

All right, I will.

Mr Chairman, would the hon the Minister indicate whether he takes a light view or a serious view of it if a senior official of the department of which he is the head were to encourage people to commit fraud, perjury and falsity?

Mr Chairman, it is not relevant to the discussion. [Interjections.] I would take it very seriously. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, having just returned from various elections where we swept the board, I know that the feeling of sourness is still there with the members of the Opposition. Hon members from the Opposition have been gloating over their success yesterday, but one swallow does not make a summer. There is a special kind of swallow, a swift. If the hon member makes a swift crossing of the floor, he will no longer be on the other side.

I want to go on to some of the matters mentioned by my hon colleagues on the other side. The hon member for Cavendish referred to promotions, appointments and transfers of educators in my department.

They were autocratic appointments!

No, I deny that categorically.

Have a commission of enquiry!

The hon member can have that, but I deny that allegation categorically. I want the hon member for Cavendish especially to know that he as an educator realises very well that we have a committee of professional people to do this.

He also made mention of examinations. Much has of course been said about this subject. Our results have been very much better than before.

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

No, Mr Chairman.

Is the hon the Minister afraid of something? [Interjections.]

No, I am not afraid of anything. I will answer the hon member fully when my budget vote is discussed. We will have plenty of time then. [Interjections.]

There has been great satisfaction as far as the matric examination is concerned. [Interjections.] Will the hon member for Stanger please listen to what I have to say?

Mention was also made of the appointment of teachers. I want to say to the hon members here that we discussed it fully last year. Hon members must appreciate that we had a problem. I thought the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition would have made a list of the progress that we made as well as the matters that require attention. It should be the job of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to list a number of things that are found wanting. He should assist the ruling party in the House in these matters, and he should also give credit where credit is due.

I will not be able to answer all questions, because of time limitation, but I want to mention that the hon member for Southern Natal drew our attention to a certain acting principal. I want to tell him that the matter is receiving the attention of the hon the Minister as well as the attention of the Director-General.

Mr Chairman, it is interesting to note that the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council is a reputed referee. Being a referee, one needs a great deal of judgement, control, and above all, one must be an impartial official in every football match. I also want to remind him that in the world-famous stadiums there are protection zones for referees who misjudge matches.

I have a respect for the office of the Chairman of the Minister’s Council but when the hardy annual of bribery and corruption creeps in, I wonder what is really happening. I am not accusing him in any way because the question of bribery and corruption is a hardy annual in this House. I think we are tired of listening to it and I demand of the hon the Minister to put an end to it. Let us bury it in 1988, either by a commission of enquiry or by any parliamentary machinery that is at our disposal.

I make a very earnest appeal—as not only the name of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is tainted, but all hon members of this House are surrounded by suspicions—that until and unless we bring an end to these allegations of bribery and corruption, all hon members of this House stand accused of being dishonest. It is my demand therefore, that this matter will not be debated in this hon House.

I hope that the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council takes whatever steps he can that could lead to a commission of enquiry. I am ignorant as far as these steps are concerned, but I often hear repeated statements that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council requires those who are accusing him, to make their statements outside the House. However, I think adequate publicity has been given to this matter in the Press and outside.

I now want to dwell on a very controversial topic, and that is the M L Sultan Technical College.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to take a question?

Mr Chairman, may I inform you that I am not taking any questions and that that learned “attorney” can sit down.

I now come to the very controversial topic of the M L Sultan Technical College. The hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council knows that any official in charge of an institution which is run on State funds is subject to certain regulations, particularly with regard to stock. When I was a headmaster we took stock on 31 March every year, and in that stock report all deficiencies, all shortages and other discrepancies were brought to light. The men who were on the stock inspection committee certified that stock record. I am surprised, however, that this very august institution had a deficit of stock running into hundreds and thousands of rands without any control, without any check or without those people who are responsible, being brought to book, or some departmental justice being meted out to those people who are responsible for such anomalies. [Interjections.]

I am sorry, I am not prepared to take any questions. I will give hon members the opportunity when I have a few minutes.

This is a very serious anomaly on the part of the authorities who are running the situation. M L Sultan Technical College is a very august institution in the Indian community, not only in Natal and in South Africa.

Blame the chairman!

I am not blaming the Chairman, but I demand of the hon the Minister to put an end to this controversy that is going on at the M L Sultan Technical College. [Interjections.]

I now want to come to another very important point. On Tuesday the hon member for Cavendish quoted the following, amongst other things in his speech, and I want to quote him verbatim:

That this post has been vacant for a considerable time is common knowledge. The nominated member—I have not got his curriculum vitae at my disposal—is, I think, a non-practising “attorney” or he may be a legal assistant, I cannot say.

The hon Mr M Thaver gave the quoted speech a contorted or misconstrued malicious twist by suggesting indirectly that the hon incumbent to the post of executive director sought the opposition’s support to expedite his appointment. The hon Mr M Thaver should know that the acting executive director of education could not be present in this august Chamber to defend that allegation.

I leave that to his conscience.

If he has one.

Order! Will the hon member for Stanger withdraw that statement.

I withdraw it.

One would have expected the hon member Mr Thaver to have made a worthy contribution by reason of the fact that he holds a very elevated position. His position in the House is that of a deputy chairman of committees. I wonder whether he was appointed on merit. I am surprised that this emanates from a man holding the position of deputy chairman. He has made insinuations about the Director of Education who is respected by both Houses. We are responsible and this is the respect we accord a man holding a very important position. [Interjections.]

Order! I should like to draw the attention of the hon member for Phoenix to the fact that the hon the Deputy Chairman of Committees was elected by a resolution of the House.

But he was nominated.

He was nominated, not by my party, and I accept your explanation.

To sum up my whole argument, I have nothing against any member in this House.

Mr Chairman, I want you to check in Hansard the address by the hon member for Phoenix where the hon member casts a reflection on the position I hold. I would like you to give me a ruling on it tomorrow.

I object to the hon member Mr Thaver’s rising on a point of order and making a speech. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I would also like to come to your assistance on this matter to see whether the hon member has reflected on the hon the Deputy Chairman of Committees because we hold the Chair in this House in very high esteem. [Interjections.]

Order! For the benefit of hon members I cleared that immediately with the hon member for Phoenix. He said he wondered whether the hon the Deputy Chairman of Committees had been elected on merit. I pointed out to him that the hon the Deputy Chairman had been elected by the House.

Later he also went on to ask whether he was worthy … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, is the hon member Mr Thaver permitted to say “stupid” from the other side?

Order! Did the hon member Mr Thaver use the word “stupid”?

Mr Chairman, I said it was a stupid suggestion. I did not refer to anybody. I admit I said it was a stupid suggestion but I did not refer to any particular person.

Mr Chairman, may I ask, with due respect to you, whether these people are enjoying a special privilege? I told hon members clearly that I was not taking any further questions.

Order! What is the hon member for Phoenix suggesting?

I think hon members are taking advantage of the Chair. [Interjections.] This is my very humble submission.

Order! What is the hon member actually suggesting?

Hon members are disturbing the Chair and they are disturbing me while I am trying to continue with my speech. Despite the fact that you have implored them to stop, they continue. In my opinion they are taking advantage of the Chair. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may continue.

Thank you very much.

In conclusion there are three aspects that have been raised. To sum up they are the corruption inquiry, the question of M L Sultan, and finally to clear the good name of the incumbent holding the position of acting executive director. His name has been cleared and he has in no way sought the assistance of the Opposition in highlighting or expediting his appointment.

Mr Chairman, I crave the indulgence of the Chair and the members present to give me a fair hearing. Most serious allegations have been made here and I want to state my case clearly so that it may be understood.

When I opened my address in moving the motion of no-confidence in the Ministers’ Council and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, I said that I am always prepared and will be ever prepared to submit myself to any enquiry where there are doubts about my bona fides.

Hear, hear!

Despite that, the hon member for Lenasia East has run away from here. He made allegations on matters going back to 1981. I just wish to state for the purposes of the record what an official of the Department of Community Development said, namely that Mr Pen Kotzé had instructed him to make the allocation. The Minister approved of it. Mr Kotzé said in his reply that he had not influenced the allocations and that the allocation had been made on merit. There is the answer to his query, Mr Chairman. Unfortunately, that gentleman chose to ignore those important factors contained in the press report and made an issue just to embarass me.

He knows no better.

He knows no better, and I am certain that he was encouraged to do these things by somebody in order to try and make capital, as usual. [Interjections.]

The answer is here.

The answer is here.

In my absence reference was made to my company buying industrial land in Richards Bay. We did not buy it with a grant from anybody’s grandfather.

Hear, hear!

I made the purchase because the land was offered for sale—anybody could have bought it! It was industrial land. [Interjections.] I am not taking any questions.

What about me? I bought land in the same way! [Interjections.]

Secondly, the authorities advertised residential plots which employers could purchase for their employees. I am in the shipping business, and in anticipation of us moving some day to Richards Bay, I bought those plots and we have just taken transfer of them now.

As far as Cato Manor is concerned, when I made the case for Cato Manor we were asking for Cato Manor from Bellair Road near the river right to Clair Estate. There were objections from Whites, who asked what kind of homes Indians would build in this area. All I said to them was that the homes that would be built, would harmonise with the environment. [Interjections.] I want the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to listen: “Harmonise with the environment.” Part of that environment is subeconomic homes zoned for Black people.

Hear, hear!

You are answering Whites.

You are basking in reflected glory.

In so far as the reference to Mr Kotzé is concerned, he was not a Minister when I was chairman of the executive committee. My Ministers were Minister Steyn, Minister of Community Development; Minister Heunis, Minister of Planning; and in addition, Minister De Klerk dealt with me. I do not know anything about Mr Kotzé. I wrote to Mr Kotzé and pointed this out to him, and the gentleman accepted that. Therefore hearsay evidence is being used here to castigate people …

It is not hearsay evidence.

[Interjections.]

What did he tell me? [Interjections.] He told me that the hon the Minister was wrong because you know, Mr Chairman, that I resigned as chairman of the executive committee in 1980. Mr Kotzé was not my Minister.

But take that up with him.

I took it up with him, and I have told you all about it. It is in Hansard.

As far as the M L Sultan College is concerned, I say here today that the Minister promised me that he would institute an investigation and that he would inform the House as soon as possible what was being done. He has not done that. He should make a statement here. I could not care two hoots if the University of Durban Westville or M L Sultan College are independent institutions. We approve the funds for those institutions and the Minister is responsible to Parliament. [Interjections.] He must resign …

Order! [Interjections.]

Why do you not tell us what is happening at M L Sultan College?

Why blame us? We have taken action.

What actions have you taken?

Appropriate action.

Well, report to us here! [Interjections.] He did not report and we want a report.

Would the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition be prepared to accept that, regardless of one’s opinion of his political judgment, no one can ever question that hon member’s integrity? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I hope the House will grant me the opportunity to reply.

Please speak calmly. [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to hon members to give the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition an opportunity to reply.

I would like to refer to the hon member for Actonville who claimed that I acted as an agent for somebody and that Dr Karim was an agent of Solidarity. That is not true and it was confirmed by the hon member Mr A S Razak.

It is true! He said so! [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member for Actonville please restrain himself.

As I did in the days when I was chairman of the executive committee, I would go to any part of the country if I could make a case for more land for our people. I used to go at my own expense and I will continue to do so. However, I have recently noticed that some people in the guise of public representatives are using their offices to enrich themselves. [Interjections.] The fact that some members of Parliament object to Apex and Windmill Park, and then support Villa Liza, is in itself a case …

Is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition prepared to take a question?

No, Mr Chairman.

Here I have a telegram addressed to the hon the Deputy Minister of Development Planning, where a committee which was formed at the request and behest of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and which is representative of numerous organisations … [Interjections.] That committee has telexed the hon the Deputy Minister of Development Planning, confirming their support for the declaration of Windmill Park and the land at Apex for the Indian community. Apparently the management committee confirmed this.

Stop interfering on the East Rand. You know nothing about it.

I know quite a lot about that area and I will continue to take an interest in it. There are people there who are being taken for a ride … [Interjections.] Reference was made to the fact that we supported applications for permits. The hon member Mr Seedat was also at that meeting. We were invited and we went along but the hon the Deputy Minister made it very clear that he would not be able to do anything without the consent and the approval of the House of Delegates. Furthermore, before anything could be considered, the local authorities would also have to indicate where they stood in this matter. All those proceedings are now completed and a hearing has been held, but it suits some people to ask for permits to be given in respect of Villa Liza … [Interjections.] When 23 people want to buy homes which are available at inflated prices, they are entitled to do so if they are stupid enough to pay high prices. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I crave your indulgence in asking you to restore some order here. We cannot hear what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is saying. [Interjections.]

Order! I think hon members are now exceeding their bounds. Hon members are really exceeding their bounds. I shall order certain hon members out of the House if this continues.

Actonville!

Order! That is for me to decide. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. What is more, when we appeared at those hearings at Windmill Park and at Apex we made it very clear that we wanted the House of Delegates to be responsible for the provision of homes and land for those people who look to the State for assistance. As I have said, the fact that opposition was voiced against these two areas, in my view leaves much to be desired.

Tell the truth!

What is more, the hon member Mr Abram was complimented by a CP member on having supported the opposition to that Indian area, for different reasons. [Interjections.] They have strange bedfellows! For the sake of convenience, they have strange bedfellows. A CP member complimented him on the case he put up against the Indian community in Apex. [Interjections.] That is the truth.

You are hiding facts, and you know it!

You have been let loose for too long, and we are going to haul you in. [Interjections.] As to the matter of gaols being built near Windmill Park, it may be the ideal thing because some people are ready to go there and the nearer they are to their homes, the better. [Interjections.]

That is a further manipulation of the truth! It just shows how much you know about the area. [Interjections.]

I want to compliment the hon member for Isipingo in all sincerity on his sense of responsibility, on his honesty and on the ethics and morality he practises in this House in regard to matters which are near and dear to us all. [Interjections.] He said there were matters which were questionable. He said there were matters which were wrong and that we should address those matters. He said: “Favours have been done.” He admitted that favours had been done.

He also said that the failure of the Indian community to obtain some response on the Prospecton issue was a reflection on the entire House, and that includes the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, his Cabinet colleagues, all the members of the demarcation board and, unfortunately, the provincial executive. He was honest enough to admit all these things.

Furthermore, he also asked: “Why does my Chairman run around the country making announcements about housing when nearer to home, in Malagazi, nothing is done for the people here?” I do not know why, but he did say that.

The Press did not quote him properly. [Interjections.]

In any event, he did express concern.

You are quoting a newspaper report. You are not quoting him. He did not say … [Interjections.]

All I am saying is that this man has the conviction, the honesty and the sincerity to say those things.

Why do you not quote him properly and fully?

I picked this up in the newspaper.

I shall reply to you tomorrow, but you will not sit here while I reply to you. [Interjections.]

I was reacting to an article in the Press.

Now you are admitting that you saw it in the Press.

That is what I said.

Your colleague says he said that yesterday.

But I am speaking now. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture said we should lay all allegations to rest.

I also said in my address yesterday that we must take the necessary steps and clear the air so that we can lay to rest for all time these allegations. The hon the Minister further said that the teachers in Tongaat must surely have taken leave to participate in their activities. I am not talking about the Sunday show, but about the election day effort on their part. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister has not been able to give us an answer. Let me tell him about two teachers there: Mr Kamal Panday and a Mr Tulsi, a man who is balding and short and who is, I understand, a lecturer at the training college. At least I can remind him of two of the many that were there. [Interjections.]

In so far as Greylands is concerned, anybody, any Indian worth his salt, who is sincere and honest about his cry for more agricultural land for the Indian community and the loss of that land, will not do anything to take away land from the Indian community. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council only gave his approval in principle. That itself is a threat. Whilst the campaign was going on, we demanded a decision. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, all I am saying is that I heard personally from those farmers what the loss of that land would have meant to them. We spoke to them, not because of a political campaign, but we visited them at a function and they told us what would have happened to them if they had lost that land. The last thing anybody can do, particularly a member of the Indian community, is to be a party to depriving Indian farmers of their land. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the question was asked here yesterday what Solidarity did during the floods. God strike me dead the day I want to take a photograph when I visit a site where there is a calamity, where there has been loss of life! Only inhuman beings will cash in on their visit to places where people are dying and have lost their homes. [Interjections.] My party will not resort to that. We could have lost our lives, but we did not take a cameraman with to take a picture.

Where is the Stanger Mail? Bring the Stanger Mail and The Daily News’.

I am only saying please do not claim credit where calamities strike our people. The fact that they have access to helicopters … [Interjections.] If we had such transport, we could also stick some feathers in our cap. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Lenasia Central made great play of the fact that an application form in the Eastern Transvaal election was incorrectly filled in. I want to remind the hon member that forms are not always correctly made out … Let us assume that the candidate who was nominated belonged to a party which has no member in Parliament. Where would they find an MP to sign that form? Obviously the form is incorrect!

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question?

Mr Chairman, I am taking no questions.

The authorities informed the candidate and his secretary that the forms were not correct and that the applications were accepted after review by the authorities.

We have no obsession to gain control. I have supported the party in power on numerous occasions in the past and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and other hon Ministers have complimented me when we acted constructively. So long as we act constructively it is my duty to support and assist this House in every way possible. [Interjections.]

My good friend, the hon member Mr R S Nowbath, said that to come to Parliament, one need not be intelligent but one should be clever. I have tried to improve my understanding and appreciation of matters but I do not want to become so clever that one day a rope gets around my neck and I have to hang through my cleverness. [Interjections.]

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council made certain references to the matter of conscription. My colleague the hon member for Stanger put forward the case that Solidarity has consistently referred to the proceedings in the President’s Council. We stand by that and we will not change in any way. [Interjections.]

In so far as prospection is concerned, the Indian community lost out on R4 million, even if we received 50% of the rates that would be to the benefit of the Indian local authority and the Indian community. When the opportunity was presented to us we could not make out an adequate case, and we lost out. Whether one likes it or not, it reflects on the Ministers’ Council and on everybody.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether he signed a petition that a member should be appointed to Exco. I have the petition that he signed but today he condemns them. [Interjections.]

If somebody takes a joke seriously it is not my fault.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he joked in signing the petition?

Of course it was a joke, and everybody knows it. [Interjections.]

Order! There are too many conversations taking place between the hon members.

All I am saying is that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council can appoint certain persons to certain positions in good faith but if he finds that those persons are incapable of discharging their responsibilities in a manner that will serve the interests of the community and the country, I think he must exercise his right to remove those persons and replace them with others. [Interjections.]

I said earlier on without going into great detail that my party and all of us here pledged our support to work and co-operate in this House to promote the well-being of the Indian community. We have the right to criticise but we will be fair in doing so. I do not point a finger at a guilty party, but what I say with all sincerity is that enough has been said and done to create a cloud hanging over this House, and we must take the necessary steps at the earliest opportunity to clear it. Whether it is a commission of inquiry or something else, the necessary machinery must be instituted in order to do that.

Let me come back to Chatsworth. The people of Chatsworth clamoured for one of these big supermarkets or “hyper stores”, as they are called. I know that at one stage there was opposition to it because it would affect the small Indian businessmen. Ultimately it was agreed that these people should be given the opportunity to come and do business in Chatsworth. However, what were the conditions set by the ordinary people— and I think this was also supported by the local affairs committee? It was that equity in that company should be made available to the people of Chatsworth. [Interjections.]

My submission is that I want to see Checkers publish an advert in a newspaper circulating in that area, inviting people to subscribe to shares publicly. They could create a company.

I told them so, and you can check that with them.

I am not saying that you did not do that.

All I am saying is that we want evidence from Checkers that that commitment they made is being carried out. If, after that, nobody buys shares, nobody can point a finger. If only three people buy shares after that it is their right to do so, but a commitment made, must be carried out. [Interjections.]

At the moment all kinds of rumours and stories with regard to this Checkers deal are being flashed around, and this is another matter which is causing me concern. I hope that the appropriate steps will be taken so that is also cleared and the record put straight, because we do not want anybody to make unfounded accusations against anybody. However, in order to avert that, steps must be taken in order to ensure that the original concept is strictly adhered to.

I have just remembered that this debate should have closed yesterday after the vote which resulted in the election of the hon member Mr A S Razak, because that vote was based on a secret ballot, and as the majority of hon members voted for a Solidarity member I believe it shows confidence in what we on this side of the House are saying. [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr M Thaver is a friend of long standing and I am sure that he will accept my criticism in the spirit in which I make it. All I have to say to him is: Let us respect senior civil servants and not attribute to them things that they have not done, because that is unfair, as they cannot defend themselves. It is our duty to protect them. It does not matter who it is. Mr Chairman, I am grateful to you that you were able to establish that the statement with regard to the sworn affidavits was in fact unacceptable, as it was stated, because that again reflects on the integrity of individuals who have signed and drafted those documents. I do not think that we in this House can allow such a situation to develop.

Finally, enough has been said from this side of the House and enough has been proved about the inadequacies. Even if one hon Minister was inadequate, then the Ministers’ Council must take responsibility and blame the hon the Chairman, because he controls the team. [Interjections.]

What I now have to say I say with humility, I say with pain and I say with concern for my community.

I would have expected that on the third day after that striptease act had been publicised—it was degrading and disgusting, it reflects on the teaching profession, and it embarrassed so many people—the hon the Minister would have stood up in this House and said to us: “Gentlemen, that matter is under control. That individual has been suspended.” What action has the hon the Minister taken?

I said so!

The hon the Minister is worried about land in Richards Bay. He should be worrying about the dynamite he is carrying in his department. If the teacher had been touched in the right place he might have gone into orbit.

You are demoralising our children, my friend. You will pay a price for that.

That act is indefensible and if a Minister does not have the courage to make the correct decisions—the correct decision is to get that man out of that school until at least an inquiry has been instituted—he is not capable of holding that post and he should resign. If he does not have the courage to take that action he should resign. [Interjections.]

The hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was talking about Richards Bay. He is more worried about these things, where he scores debating points. I am serious about these matters. [Interjections.]

I think we have summarised enough items with regard to which we have had no satisfactory answers. In fact, I have had the support of good friends on the other side regarding the charges I have made. It therefore gives me great pleasure to move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—15: Chetty, K; Devan, PI; Dookie, B; Iyman, J V; Moodley, K; Moodliar, C N; Padayachy, M S; Palan, T; Pillay, A K; Poovalingam, P T; Rajab, M; Razak, A S; Reddy, J N.

Tellers: Bandulalla, M; Moolla, Y.

NOES—27: Abram, S; Abramjee, E; Akoob, A S; Baig, M Y; Bhana, R; Collakoppen, S; Dasoo, I C; Govender, M; Hurbans, A G; Ismail, A; Kathrada, I; Khan, A; Khan, F M; Khan, N E; Lambat, A E; Nadasen, P C; Naicker, S V; Naranjee, M; Nowbath, R S; Pachai, S; Pillay, C; Rajbansi, A; Ramduth, K; Shah, M S; Thaver, M.

Tellers: Jumuna, N; Seedat, Y I.

Question negatived and the words omitted.

Substitution of the words proposed by Mr S Abram agreed to (Official Opposition, Progressive Reform Party and Dr M S Padayachy dissenting).

1. (1) the Chairman and all the members of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates work tirelessly to improve the quality of life of the people and that much progress has been made in respect of the provision of services in the various areas under the jurisdiction of the House of Delegates; and
2. (2) the image of the House of Delegates has been tremendously enhanced by the performance of the Ministers’ Council, a fact recognized and appreciated also by most of the members of the opposition parties in the House,

and therefore has full confidence in the Chairman and all the members of the Ministers’ Council.”.