Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, there is regular talk, threats and machinations from all quarters in regard to the release or non-release of a small group of sentenced security prisoners, of whom Nelson Mandela is definitely the best-known. At home and abroad many amateur and professional politicians occupy their time with giving the South African Government advice. Every Tom, Dick and Harry, in the interests of his own political image, sees his way clear to making clever statements about these matters. The AWB too, harps on the same theme, and the CP is also singing along with reference to the release of one of this small group of people, just to see how much AWB capital they can make out of it.

The Government really cannot accept, nor listen to, everyone’s advice. Nor would it be able to do so, because the advice given is frequently contradictory. There is only one way in which the Government can deal with this matter—in addition it is a very sensitive matter—and that is by determining its own agenda and acting in an absolutely calculated way, in the interests of all whose interests are affected, but particularly in the interests of the security of South Africa.

Admittedly, these people must receive more attention than the ordinary sentenced criminal. The reason for this is that what they were sentenced for and what they can occupy themselves with when they come out, can have such far-reaching consequences. That is why they must receive special attention. Therefore the Government must bear in mind that it is dealing with an enemy—I am now referring to certain organisations such as the ANC—that wants to concentrate its attention on all spheres, and is in fact doing so. The evidence for this we find in the latest statements made by Oliver Tambo on 8 January 1988 on the occasion of their celebrations.

As targets for their 1988 programme he sets the labour sphere in the RSA, specifically the farm labour sphere, as well as education in South Africa because, to use his own words, it “remains one of our crucial fronts of struggle”.

I am going to quote further, and I hereby give the media official consent in terms of section 56 (1) (p) of the Internal Security Act to make use of these quotations from Oliver Tambo’s statements:

1. 1 The masses of our people within the Bantustans must be activised to transform these into strong and reliable mass bases of the revolution. New possibilities exist for the people to act decisively to turn these enemy-created institutions against their creator, the Pretoria regime.
2. 2 The accomplishment of this task requires that the fighting masses of our people should join hands with those elements within the Bantustan administrative system that are prepared to break with the apartheid regime and join the people in the struggle for a united, democratic and non-racial South Africa.
3. 3 Of central importance to the success of this process is the need to ensure that the masses of people are organised into their own mass formations as well as into underground units of our movement.

The question which arises is whether recent events in our neighbouring states cannot perhaps be related to Oliver Tambo’s statements. However, the fact of the matter—I want to emphasise this once again—is that the RSA Government was prepared as well as successful.

Tambo also declares as an ideal the release of certain sentenced leaders such as Nelson Mandela and others. This demand of his is a huge bluff, as I shall indicate in a moment.

To begin with, Mrs Zenani Mandela Dlamini said in Washington—she lives there—as recently as 7 November 1987 that she was afraid of what young militant Blacks might do to her father. She said some Black South Africans did not want him out of prison because he was an influential person.

What, therefore, is the situation in respect of these people? Approximately 25 years ago they were found guilty of fomenting revolution in an effort to take over in South Africa. They were sentenced to life-long imprisonment, which meant that they would never be released except through Government action. If their sentences had been limited to 20 years, that would have been the end of the matter and they would have been released. Now, however, it can only take place by means of Government action, in regard to which specific considerations will apply. The question which therefore arises is what the Government must consider when it wants certain releases—any releases; also those of AWB members who were in prison—to take place. What must the Government take into consideration when it reflects on this matter?

As far as this group in particular is concerned our enemies—and this is an important consideration to our way of thinking—have built up a heroic image around them and have established their imprisonment as a symbol of resistance and martyrdom in such a way that it has become a more effective instrument against us than the armed terrorist struggle itself. Add to this a mystique which the group is progressively acquiring through their isolation and it follows that release can also be a tactical and strategic step with which we can deal our enemies a heavy blow. An example of where this was applied with great success was the case of Toivo Herman Ja Toiva. There is still a flurry in the Swapo dovecote. Sam Nujoma is still being partially immobilised by the presence of Ja Toiva.

More generally we are dealing with a group of people who have been in prison for a long time and who are growing older. The hon the State President said that he felt compassion for people who had been in prison for years and who had already reached an advanced age. Humanitarian reasons are also always present. Hundreds of letters from opposition ranks are lying on my desk asking for the release of people who are just over 60 but who have perhaps served as little as a fifth or less of their sentences.

Do those people advocate violence?

I can understand that their age will always be a consideration.

A responsible government cannot, however, act on the basis of humanitarian reasons only. The responsibility with which the Government has been charged, is to determine in a calculated way when such a person can be released and whether the consequences of his release are manageable. No one understood it better—I am referring to the release of Mbeki—than the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. When he was asked for his opinion he replied instantaneously that it was a “calculated risk”; in other words it was calculated. When taking such decisions the Government must therefore make an informed prognosis and it does so by taking into account the advice from all its organs that are able to assist. This includes the security community that can give advice on various considerations such as the climate of unrest and the position of friendly countries. The Government takes cognisance of a person’s physical ability or otherwise to direct a revolution.

It is in this process that we find ourselves in a dilemma in that we are dealing with people who have been in prison all their lives and have already reached the advanced age which the hon the State President announced on 31 January 1985, would be the age at which security prisoners would be considered for release if they renounced violence. It was aimed at those persons who were serving a life-sentence. Five of them availed themselves of the offer of renouncing violence and were subsequently released. In the same spirit the measure was also extended to other security prisoners serving other life sentences, and to date 23 of them have been released. The interesting point, however, is that among those who signed the statement renouncing violence was the communist Goldberg. He was serving a life sentence for sabotage.

He left the country directly after his release and was quiet for a number of months. The next thing we heard about him was that he had been accepted into the bosom of the ANC where he was playing a very important role—in spite of his having renounced violence. In other words, renunciation did not work in his case.

There are also two other cases in an earlier situation in which we released people in this category—the one received a reduction of a year or two and the other three years off for good behaviour—who had not renounced violence. Consider what happened to them—and this emphasises once again the tactical possibility of release as far as hostile perceptions are concerned.

In the case of Kitson, so much suspicion attached to him that the reception which the ANC arranged for him in England was a complete washout as a result of the mistrust of him which prevailed in their ranks. Subsequently he was in fact rejected by them in public.

Almost immediately after his release David Rabkin became actively involved in the ANC, and the next thing we heard was that he had died in a bomb incident in Angola or Mocambique. The rumours implying that he died in a bomb explosion also suggested that he had been eliminated. The fact is that it seems as though the ANC have the same purging process in respect of most people they do not trust as the Russians—if a person who has been in the West for a year goes back to them, he simply disappears.

There is also another category of people, namely those who have renounced violence and have then requested their release. Their actions for which they were sentenced were not violent, for example espionage, although perhaps with indirect consequences. We have learnt from experience that the mere renunciation of violence is not a decisive factor and that it cannot be absolutised. It places the Government in the situation that, if that person has renounced violence, it plays no further part in the matter. That is wrong, because every case must be judged on a basis of a diversity of factors, for example does the person have revolutionary potential or not, or does he or does he not perhaps have tactical potential if he is released? Every case must be judged on its own merits. All factors contribute to a decision being made.

It is in that spirit that the hon the State President requested the Advisory Release Board to reconsider the whole matter. It is in that spirit that the Advisory Release Board, a week or so before 13 August 1987, published a comprehensive report which led to the hon the State President making a comprehensive statement. Hon members can study cols 2758, 3759 and 3760 in Hansard. This applies in particular to the CP backbenchers, because I have to accept that an hon member acts in a bona fide and honest way here. I also accept this in respect of the hon member for Potgietersrus, who played an active part in this connection and implied that we had suddenly out of the blue, abandoned the factor of violence completely. Surely that is an outright lie and we shall watch those hon members carefully as regards the contents of their pamphlets.

For this reason it would be a good thing if hon members examines what the hon the State President said, viz:

He went on to elaborate on the length of sentence, the interests of the public, the previous criminal record and the disposition of the prisoner, all of which contributes to constituting an ultimate prognosis. It means, furthermore, that the State must in any event allow itself to be led by its advisory bodies such as the Intelligence Committee, the Release Board, which consists of prison officials who look into the matter with great skill, and to the Advisory Release Board, the chairman of which is a judge.

Ultimately, the hon the State President said, the Government would have to allow itself to be guided by giving consideration to what would be in the best interests of the RSA, its institutions and its people. He said that it was going to do so in such a way that the same policy applied to all prisoners.

What did the hon the State President accomplish with this? The consequence of this is that we look objectively at each person’s situation and deal with it in a calculated manner. That is the positive value of that adjustment. When the hon the State President said that he would allow himself to be guided by the best interests of the RSA, it also meant that the security interests of South Africa would be taken into account, as well the possible tactical and strategic advantage in each case.

No one will differ with me concerning the absolutely irrefutable logic with which this matter has been dealt with. Nor will anyone be able to doubt the integrity of the advisory bodies involved in the matter. The authorities were therefore not at the mercy of the possible blatant dishonesty and vicissitudes of the individual prisoners, but each case is considered on its merits. This brings me to the case of Mr Mbeki.

Mr Mbeki is 77 years old and he was in prison for more than 23 years. Not only was he advanced in years, but he was also a spent force in terms of physical strength. He walks with difficulty and his eyesight is poor. This is something which is being called into question by the hon member for Potgietersrus.

And he was banned again!

Why did it happen? I now challenge that hon members. I have a medical certificate here in my possession. It is open for inspection by those hon members in my office. Medical ethics do not allow me to divulge the contents of that certificate here, but hon members are quite welcome to come and have a look at it in my office.

He is strong enough to stay a communist! [Interjections.] He is also strong enough to be restricted again. [Interjections.]

For his age his mind and memory still function reasonably well, but the medical advice was that owing to the pathological conditions present and the resultant prognosis, he should be treated, which was fact what happened.

The Advisory Release Board in fact recommended his release. After we had examined the situation satisfactorily, we were of the opinion that in his case there was a good prognosis for release. I have already referred to his health and his own attitude, something which also made a contribution. There was, however, a degree of danger involved, and I am now stating categorically that we were aware of it, as we also stated. The only danger involved lay therein that there were elements inside and outside the ANC and the UDF that, for various reasons, did not want Mr Mandela and other members of his leadership group to be released. Mr Mandela and others are worth more to them in prison than outside, and also present danger to their own position and schools of thought in the ANC.

Why do you not let them out then?

We have been arguing the case for 20 minutes. Please shut up! [Interjections.]

*How these elements would react was unpredictable.

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

Mr Chairman, I shall do one thing immediately. I apologise for being rude to a very innocent and obviously very naïve lady. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon the Minister prepared to take a question?

I am not prepared to do so, Sir.

*The possibility was not excluded that Mr Mbeki’s life could have been in danger. Other persons and bodies, more specifically those in the ranks of the UDF, would have wanted to claim the credit for Mr Mbeki’s release to improve the image of their organisation. That is why Mr Mbeki’s release was planned and executed in such a way that the UDF faction, that wanted to meet him at the prison doors, was neutralised, and in this way a great deal of unrest was prevented. Only later did they recover, and then everyone tried to climb onto the bandwagon. I do not think Mr Mbeki himself was much inclined to those activities, and in my opinion the actions of my colleague, the hon the Minister of Law and Order, rescued Mr Mbeki from a very critical situation into which he had been manipulated and orchestrated, against his will.

What was the result of the Government’s handling of the Mbeki case? His unexpected release caused a flurry in the ANC dovecote, which has still not subsided. Mbeki did not contravene any statutory provision or restriction which was imposed on him, not by my hon colleague the Minister of Law and Order either.

I think he is shocking them; I think he is disappointing them. Consent was requested for meetings where consent was necessary. He is obeying the restrictions imposed on him. It seems as though a person who came out of prison as a mystical hero, is fading further into the background. We expected this.

As regards the rest of the old guard of prisoners, the Government will repeatedly act in a calculated way and in the best interests of society. It will not allow itself to be dictated to. The Government is strong enough to deal with any situation that might arise out of any release. We also mean this in a calculated way, in the sense that we will under no circumstances allow any revolutionary to derive advantage from such a release, if it should take place.

They orchestrated and manipulated around him in a calculated way. We foresaw that. I warned against this two days after his release and said that there would be a wailing and a gnashing of teeth for them if they did so. We kept our word. The hon the Minister of Law and Order saw to it that it happened.

Furthermore we knew that he was a listed communist. All we did not know was whether he still subscribed to that doctrine. Tactically and strategically we allowed him a half hour to say, after 23 years, where he stood. Today everyone knows where he still stands. Everyone knows that I acted correctly by subsequently keeping him on the list of restricted persons who may not be quoted. Nobody doubts that any more. I do not need a court case to prove it. He said so himself, and everyone accepts it. Is that not tactical and strategic conduct? In the fine words of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition: “It was a calculated risk”. There is no doubt that the SACP, ANC and UDF want to ensure that Mandela and company remain in prison. They have indeed ensured that the Government has dug in its heels and that it will not allow its release policy to be manipulated, orchestrated and pushed and pulled to their advantage.

We are saying this for general cognisance, but we are also saying this for the sake of those who are trying, unnecessarily, to derive political capital from it.

At the end of the day it is the Government that has far more courage to deal with a sensitive situation which we find irksome in our system. We have far more courage than the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. We have constituted a number of advisory bodies and councils that advise us on how to deal with these matters. I want to suggest that he constitute a number of advisory bodies to deal with the AWB situation.

I find it very strange that nothing is being said about the release of the two AWB members, Messrs Viljoen and Jacobs, in this entire process of criticism. As a result of the hon the State President’s release policy they derived the most advantage, which varied from 3 to 11 years reduction of sentence. I think I know why this is the case. The hon the Minister is very sensitive about the AWB. Just look at the trouble they have taken recently to scale down the number of AWB members in their ranks as far as …

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

No, Sir. I still have a few substantial things to say and the hon the member should listen to them. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Seldom has there been action on the part of the Government involving so much contingency planning, and seldom have we had such an opportunity to prove that the Government has at its disposal the arsenal to deal with any situation. In addition it has the will to utilise it in the best interests of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to refer much to the speech made by the hon the Minister of Justice beyond expressing concern for the fact that one would like to see the release of more political prisoners if at all possible. However, one realises that this must be linked to the renouncement of violence. I fully support that concept.

Before getting to the “teeth” of my speech, I want to express my unqualified support for the steps taken to restore law and order in Bophuthatswana.

Hear, hear!

The manner in which the exercise was carried out was of great credit to all concerned. However, I must point out that the coup that took place in Bophuthatswana reveals a certain fragility in the independent state concept. I would urge the Government to take factors like this into consideration at the time of granting independence to any new states.

I also want to refer to the debate that took place yesterday in this House. As far as I am concerned the content of yesterday’s debate, with the exception of the speech of the hon member for Yeoville, can best be described as absolutely futile.

From the outside let me assure the NP that their efforts to tarnish the image of Mr Terre’Blanche had the reverse effect in that that gentleman’s credibility has received an undeserved boost as a result of the repeated publicity it has been given in this House! As far as the CP are concerned I would like to remind my friends on the right that the “volk” in this country comprise English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. Their destinies are intertwined and therefore the reference solely to the “Afrikanervolk” is completely out of context with reality.

That is a political reference.

It would be incongruous not to commend the Government on the bold initiatives it has taken and will take to curb inflation and to bring the economy back on course. This is the most positive sign that we have seen from Government benches in years in that it shows that Government has at last realised that it has no alternative other than to restore a sense of respectability and stability to the economy.

I welcome too that the Government has had the courage to apply a wage freeze to the public sector. Whilst steps of this nature are bound to incur the wrath and indignation of those effected, it is essential that this aspect of Government spending be brought firmly under control. One now looks to the private sector, in the interests of fighting inflation, also to play the game and apply wage constraints. While the once-off freeze in salaries is an important component of the package announced by the hon the State President, special consideration will have to be given to salaries in the teaching and nursing professions.

The general move towards privatisation of Government assets is widely welcomed. However, I must warn the Government not to jettison essential services such as health and rail services, welfare, care of the aged etcetera, purely in the interests of providing a super-privatised system. It is obvious that privatisation will free a large proportion of the economy from Government control, and there can be no doubt that these proposed steps will also bind the Government to the inevitability of reform in which all sectors of the population must be able and will be able to participate thus providing an opportunity for all to have a direct stake in the economy of the country.

I see it as important that the marketing of privatisation be carried out in collaboration with the private sector in order not to disrupt the normal workings of the financial market. Government must also ensure that the man in the street has direct access to acquisition of any shares that are offered on the open market, and that measures are taken to prevent Government undertakings falling into the hands of private monopolies.

We have a lot to learn from the strategies that have been employed by Mrs Thatcher, who by her actions has involved some 8 million shareholders in her privatisation venture which, as we all know, has been a resounding success, resulting in increased productivity and profitability.

The conflicting statements that have been made during this week by several hon Ministers in regard to Government control being retained, require further clarification. It is an inescapable fact that Government’s credibility among the private sector is low and that scepticism abounds as to whether or not Government will give full effect to the hon the State President’s proposals. Therefore, Sir, privatisation must be carried out as expeditiously as possible and with minimal delay if the Government’s sincerity is to be accepted in these quarters.

While accepting that the VAT system of taxation is preferable to CBT, I wish the hon the Minister to indicate clearly what the effects of VAT will be on the agricultural sector, bearing in mind that GST was not payable on farming requisites and inputs. In other words, will similar exemptions apply under the VAT system?

I now wish to turn my attention briefly to the unrest problems that exist in Pietermaritzburg and the surrounding areas. I want to stress that the implications of the unrest must not be underestimated. Furthermore, it would be foolhardy to dismiss the present violence as merely a power struggle between two groups. I would venture to suggest that the root cause of the problem goes far deeper. I am also not necessarily one of those who claim that apartheid as such is basically responsible for the present state of affairs, but the Government itself must become more involved, because the time has come where efforts must be made to establish whether or not legitimate grievances exist. If so, necessary action must be taken to deal with these grievances without delay, so that peace can be restored to the area.

Police presence alone is not sufficient to bring about any long-term normality to the situation. At this stage I want to commend the police for the difficult task that they are called upon to perform, as well as the dedicated manner in which they are dealing with the very difficult problems.

Sir, I wish to appeal to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the Minister of Law and Order to visit Pietermaritzburg as a matter or urgency and to meet with the relevant Black leaders to establish the reasons for the present discontent and to ascertain whether or not legitimate grievances do exist. Let me point out, too, that the present unrest in the area is becoming intolerable for those who live there and is spilling over into adjacent areas.

Many families are being forced to move further and further into outlying areas and onto farms. May I repeat, Sir, that the present disruption of life must not be allowed to continue and that every effort must be made to bring the situation under control.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the hon member for Mooi River that the speeches made by the Official Opposition yesterday were lack-lustre, and none more so than that of the hon member for Overvaal. He excelled himself! He tried, very vociferously to cast suspicion on the conduct of my department and myself in respect of a certain Mr Ricci. His attack was based on an article which appeared in the Sunday Star. The hon member put certain questions with reference to this article, but if he had turned over the page, he would have seen my complete statement.

On 5 February I issued a statement of six folios in which I clearly set out the conduct of my department and my own decisions. We have nothing whatever to hide. The Sunday Star of 7 February published the statement in full, but the hon member for Overvaal did not even refer to it yesterday. I may also mention that other Sunday newspapers presented my statement in a balanced way, but the hon member for Overvaal decided to use the Sunday Star’s comment. The Sunday Star is annoyed with me.

Really, why would they be annoyed with you?

I did not give the statement exclusively to them, but to all the Sunday newspapers and that is why they presented the facts and made a comment which left much to be desired. I have been in communication with the editor-in-chief in this connection. I wondered why the hon member, as a responsible politician … [Interjections.] … made such a one-sided hit-and-run speech here yesterday. Either he was overhasty and did not do his homework, or we can deduce from the report in the Sunday Star that he has become that newspaper’s agent. It reads:

I just want to say one more thing about this. I do not know Mr Ricci personally. All I know about him is what the department has told me officially, and I want to repeat what I said in my statement, viz that on the basis of the given facts I would take precisely the same decision as the one I took at the time. We have absolutely nothing to hide.

†I want to continue talking about the Press.

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

No, Mr Chairman.

It is very significant that you are not replying.

Order! If the hon the Minister indicates that he is not prepared to reply to a question, the hon member may not proceed to ask the question.

In regard to the emergency regulations relating to the media, which I administer, I want to state that virtually every action of the Government against subversive publications has so far been met with unduly selective reporting, as well as negative if not malicious comment by a section of the Press. We are experiencing an all-out and world-wide propaganda war and I want to stress that in the fanning of the attempted revolution against the entire South African system—it is not against the Government only, but against the whole system—some newspapers within the country, wittingly or unwittingly, also play a very important part. I have on many occasions pointed to the fact that the South African revolutionaries themselves say that the media are useful tools in creating support for the attempted violent revolution. In this regard certain elements of the media, intentionally or unintentionally, play an important role in the mobilising and politicising of sections of the people for support. Publicity is essential for the mobilisation of people for a revolution.

The Government has time and again expressed its dedication to effecting negotiated reforms; to accommodate all groups in a new equitable dispensation in which the general interests of all groups will be secured without any group having to submit to any other group as far as its own affairs are concerned.

A prerequisite for the process of peaceful transition is simply peace—being free of intimidation, uprisings and unrest instigated by the dissident organisations that are bent on a violent takeover; a take-over which will destroy all freedoms—including the freedom of the Press.

The emergency regulations on systematic or repeated subversive propaganda relate to the manner in which the subversive subject matter is dealt with in a series of issues, and the effect of the publication. The prescribed administrative procedure that has to be followed has been explained by me on several occasions inside and outside this House. If any member of this House does not feel perturbed or deeply concerned about the systematic publishing of subversive material then he either does not understand or refuses to appreciate the strategy of revolutionaries.

Those who hold a reasonable and balanced view support the idea that media curbs should address subversive publications during a state of emergency. They accept that the state of emergency is a strategy to save lives and maintain the system during the process of reform.

The application of the regulations and their validity is sub judice, pending the outcome of court proceedings, and therefore I will not comment in this regard any further. However, I have taken note of relevant comments in various newspapers and their attempts at “trial by newspaper”.

*I also took cognisance with amazement of a Press statement issued by the Chairman of the Media Council, Mr Justice Van Winsen. The statement was released on 28 January this year.

Many aspects which Mr Justice Van Winsen mentioned in that statement at present constitute the subject of a court application. This application was heard in court for the first time on 26 January this year. Mr Justice Van Winsen saw fit to issue his Press statement only two days later, after all the declarations under oath in this application had been filed. I consider it to be inappropriate and in conflict with the sub judice rule for such a statement to have been issued at that stage. In addition he approached the matter in a one-sided way and disregards the considered opinion of the hon the State President as to why the regulations during the state of emergency were necessary.

†Let us take a look at the record of certain sections of the press in respect of the contents and purpose of these emergency regulations. Before I do that, I wish to refer briefly to the code of conduct to which the organised Press say they subscribe. The code’s first provision reads:

The code also provides, inter alia, that comment—

This is in line with certain common law defences against claims for defamation or libel, and has consequently long been known to journalists and editors.

Let us now apply these norms and standards to some of the Press reporting and comment published in regard to the emergency regulations relating to the media.

Firstly, I refer to The Argus of 28 August 1987, and I quote:

In what way is this going to be done? Where do the regulations refer to views contrary to the official line being forcibly muted? This is just a thumb suck, a contrived statement aimed at misleading the public and placing the Government in the worst possible light.

It is groundless and untrue. There is nothing whatsoever in the regulations on which such a statement can be based.

Then I want to refer to the Sunday Star of 6 September 1987, and I quote again:

There is no question of the Government wanting to control what people may know. There is no way in which the Government can control people’s knowledge. Similarly, it is not a question of what should or should not be published in South African newspapers. What we are concerned about, is that newspapers should not publish subversive material aimed at the violent overthrow of the South African system. This comment is an example of gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of the facts. It misleads the public. It attempts to promote opposition to the regulations by falsely creating the impression that the individual’s right to know is being affected in fields wider than subversive propaganda.

Similar misrepresentations also appear in the Sunday Times of 6 September 1987, and I quote:

*This quotation testifies to flagrant one-sidedness and contempt for the honest attempts of the Government to protect the security of the public and public order. These include the legitimate interests of the media. To say that the people who apply the regulations will now determine what South Africans may know, is a ridiculous statement and entirely unfounded. Naturally the report also testifies to an arrogant attitude that only journalists are wise enough to judge whether reporting has a specific effect.

†A final point I want to refer to is the following. The Argus Group, including The Star, have also had a great deal to say about the emergency regulations, along lines similar to those that I have quoted. I want to refer hon members to a speech by The Star’s Editor-in-Chief, Mr Harvey Tyson. When he delivered the Robert Godlonton Lecture last year, he is reported to have said, and I quote:

I have quoted from The Star of 16 September 1987. For sheer cynicism in the light of indiscriminate killing of people and the destruction of property at the hands of terrorists in this country, the paragraph I have just quoted is almost beyond belief. It contains an important error of fact as well. Contrary to what is suggested, it so happens that Israel has stringent media control measures, including pre-censorship where the security of the state is involved.

I must say that the newspapers of the Argus Group have been particularly prominent and venomous in their campaign, their vendetta, against the emergency regulations and those who have to administer them.

Maybe you should launch an afternoon Citizen!. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should now like to make a few general observations. When paging through our newspapers one finds more than enough examples of negative and contentious reporting and comment on the emergency regulations to show that a new breed of journalists is active—journalists who portray a belief that their duty is not to report news but to make news, not to observe objectively and report the facts but to present material which they want people to believe. They see themselves as agents for change with a mission to influence their readers to their way of thinking by practising what is known as advocacy journalism.

*Mr Chairman, I do not want to create the impression that the Press in its entirety is guilty of these malpractices. There is also a section of the Press which, although it is opposed to any restriction on the Press, is nevertheless acting with sound judgement and responsibility in regard to these matters. We are very grateful for this because it makes a positive contribution to restoring normality and solving our problems.

The Press has great power. Like nuclear energy it can be applied for good or for evil purposes. My question now is: Why is there such a large section of the Press in South Africa which is applying its power to break down and destroy. Where does the negative Press want to take South Africa? What are their motives? What do they want to achieve? This section of the Press is characterised by an almost unbridled urge to disparage and ridicule government bodies and public figures without any respect of persons, always to give precedence to what is bad and to ignore what is good, to present false perceptions, by means of which the public is misled and a negative psychological climate created.

Let me say this as well now. The Media Council, the instrument of the organised Press to ensure the maintenance of high journalistic standards, has no influence on this destructive section of the Press. It even includes members of the organised Press itself.

I am making an appeal to the Media Council for the umpteenth time to discharge its obligations by taking the initiative, enforcing its code of conduct, and in so doing making an important contribution to a more positive and more constructive utilization of the power of the Press.

Furthermore, I am making an appeal to the Press in its entirety to reflect on the role it is playing in the sensitive circumstances in which South Africa finds itself at present. Let history praise the South African Press for its contribution to the creation of a better South Africa, and not condemn it for its contribution to the destruction of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I also want to say something about the recent events on certain Natal beaches, and also about the misrepresentations concerning the NP’s policy in this connection. It is necessary for the party’s standpoint in this regard to be clearly stated. However, before I specifically discuss the Natal situation, I want to refer to the important policy speech which the hon the State President made here in the House of Assembly on 5 October 1987, with reference to the recommendations of the President’s Council, which investigated the Group Areas Act and related matters. On this occasion the hon the State President said inter alia the following [Hansard, 1987, col 6675]:

That is what the hon the State President had to say. We, as the NP of Natal, are disturbed because there were several cases in our province—for example in Durban—where the utilization of open amenities occurred in a way which was not orderly and civilized at all.

But surely we told you that! [Interjections.]

These events were characterised by unacceptable, offensive and even antisocial behaviour through inadequate control measures to deal with this situation. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis has now, within the space of half a minute, made five interjections, and I think that is too many. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The situation is also characterised by an overutilization of amenities, caused inter alia by excessive marketing of amenities without due regard to their capacity to deal with the crowds of people. This situation is unacceptable because it has far-reaching implications for the tourist industry, which represents an important sector of our economy. It also has far-reaching implications for the property market and for vested interests in our coastal resorts, in which millions of rands are involved, and for intergroup relations when unnecessary points of friction are created by a failure to act, or by ill-considered conduct.

It is therefore necessary to take action. In the way we deal with this problem there are a few important principles which are going to apply. We accept that all population groups have a need for and are entitled to adequate amenities along the coast as well. We accept that there will be beach facilities which will be open to all population groups. Because the unique character of a community also finds expression in recreation resorts and places of entertainment, any physical planning must therefore make provision for this, too. Groups must therefore have the assurance that in respect of certain facilities their right to their own institutions is being recognised and guaranteed.

Within the framework of these principles we must deal with the problem with great circumspection and discretion because we are dealing here with sensitive matters, and every inhabitant of our country has a duty to help find a solution. It will not be in anyone’s interest to convert places of recreation into political battlefields and arenas. Those who want to use the beaches for radical political demonstrations or reactionary shows of strength are not contributing to the solution of the problem. They are merely reducing the chances of finding a solution.

However, I want to end on a positive note. The aim of our actions must be for each population group—including the Whites—to be able to utilize and enjoy our beaches and related amenities to the optimum. To achieve this aim a few things are necessary. Firstly, greater purposefulness in respect of the establishment of adequate facilities. A well co-ordinated and comprehensive campaign on the part of the central, provincial and local authorities as well as the private sector, together with greater investment by all persons involved to establish the necessary facilities. Acceptance by everyone involved of their responsibility for the application at all times of essential and effective control measures is also necessary. In that way it is ensured that amenities will be utilized in an orderly and civilised manner, and the overloading of amenities and unacceptable and anti-social behaviour will be eliminated. Finally the preservation and further development of beaches and related amenities for use by a specific population group which has a need for its own amenities, or where orderliness requires this, are also essential.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House should like to congratulate the security forces on the swift way in which they salvaged the situation in Bophuthatswana. We are pleased that President Mangope is at the helm once again, but want to add that we are concerned by the element of surprise that came from the other side.

I should like to tell the hon member for Springs that the man who says the candidate in Standerton, Mr Rosier de Ville, has a Black articled clerk in his employ, is a public liar.

I want to tell that hon member that if he were a man, he would repeat in public, in Schweizer-Reneke in particular, the libellous claims he made yesterday against our candidate in Schweizer-Reneke, Dr Pieter Mulder, and certain people to whom he referred as Fouries. I want to tell that man …

Order! The hon member must refer to that person as the hon member.

I want to tell that hon member that he is still the faceless, small-time columnist without identity that he was before. [Interjections.] It is very clear that the NP’s strategy in this debate has given each of their speakers the same recipe for a speech, viz praise the hon the State President, praise him as the “ululaters” of Africa praise their leaders—just as long, as loudly and as much; curse the CP and associate it with the AWB ; rant and rave at the hon Leader of the Official Opposition and denigrate him, and in this connection the Transvaal and Cape leaders will set the example; praise the economic brainwaves of the hon the State President, but say nothing, nothing at all, about the NP’s policy and plans for reform. This has been the pattern for the debate and it will remain the pattern until tomorrow afternoon.

The speech made by the hon the Minister of National Education was a study in unbridled hatred, venom, bitterness and frustration. [Interjections.] It is very clear that the hon the Minister came here to practise his speech for 3 March 1988 in the final anticipation of the results of his two election failures on that day. His abuse of my hon leader was the desperate cry of an embittered loser. It was the hollow blustering (geswets) of …

Order! I cannot permit the hon member for Soutpansberg to refer to the speech made the hon the Minister of National Education as a “geswets”.

With respect, Sir, I am replying to the hon the Minister in the language he used here and on the level… [Interjections.]

Order! I do not want to restrict the hon member in what he is saying, but I appeal him to keep his language within bounds.

His speech reflected the desperation of a politician, driven by ambition, who first of all abandoned his principles, then lost his provincial majority in the NP caucus and now stands to lose three by-elections, a politician whose hope of becoming President is fading. [Interjections.]

How many dictionaries did you consult?

That is my normal language usage. Such a man has the audacity to say the things he said about my hon leader. Actually I should have asked him through you, Sir: “F W, were you not ashamed last night, did your conscience not keep you awake all night?”

Are any of my facts incorrect?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Soutpansberg refer to the hon the Minister of National Education as F W?

Order! I was listening to the hon member, and he was speaking and quoting in the first person. The hon member may proceed.

I want to reply to certain of the accusations made by the hon the Minister. With bravado he quoted what Mr Louis Stofberg had said about my hon leader in Die Afrikaner, and concluded that Mr Stofberg was on my hon leader’s payroll. I want to refer briefly to two quotations from Hansard:

Who was the man who said that? It was the hon member for Turffontein. Whose Government is he sitting in now, and whose standing committees is he chairman of? [Interjections.]

I want to quote something else to hon members:

That was said about the hon the State President by Mr R M Cadman, who is on his “payroll” at present. I merely want to remind the hon the Minister of National Education of that.

The hon the Minister of National Education was incensed because my hon leader had not had consultations with the hon the State President about Mr Mbeki. He was also incensed because my hon leader does not attend State banquets. Does the hon the Minister of National Education know that there was a Mr Hans Strijdom who did not attend one official State function or reception during the royal visit to South Africa? [Interjections.]

Are you comparing the queen of England to South Africa’s head of State? [Interjections.]

That is not the issue. The issue is consultation.

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

I am not replying to any questions, Mr Chairman.

Whose prerogative is it to initiate dialogue in Government or opposition context?

Even Mr Van Zyl Slabbert did so.

We shall come to Mr Van Zyl Slabbert in a moment.

This was what Mr Willem de Klerk wrote about the hon the State President:

Does he think that my hon leader should go to that kind of man and say to him: “Mr State President, can we say a little something about Mr Mbeki?” Does he expect my hon leader to take the risk of a presidential rebuff by doing something like that?

That is nonsense!

That is what will happen! [Interjections.]

He has a responsibility as the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

That is nonsense! The hon the State President has a responsibility to consult with the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.] In any case, does he expect my hon leader, especially after what happened to Mr Van Zyl Slabbert when he went to speak to the hon the State President in confidence, to go and speak to the hon the State President as well?

I expect it of him!

The hon the Minister expects it! All of us know in any case that when we enter a ministerial office, a hidden tape recorder is activated somewhere. [Interjections.] I was witness to that! [Interjections.] I hear they are even eavesdropping on one another these days. In any case, the democratic convention is that the head of state has the prerogative and therefore should take the initiative when the leaders of the opposition have to be informed. That hon gentleman … I think I shall leave it at that.

Let me rather turn to another aspect of his speech, viz the “split”. The hon the Minister spoke about the split, but I do not want to go through the old song and dance of who did what again. Nevertheless I want to tell him that in the days, weeks and months immediately after the split, they were bubbling with bravado. At that time the hon the State President was not accused of splitting the party; he was cleaning up the party, and he told the AB they should clean up the AB. He probably sent the same message to the FAK.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning also bewailed the split, but that was because he had it on his conscience, because he was the Prime Minister’s adviser at the time. He said they should get rid of us.

They inflated him. They inflated that man whom the hon member for Randburg called the poor man, and today they are unhappy about the split. The word “split” was unearthed only when the tide began to turn against the NP and its lackeys, the AB and the FAK, and once the CP had begun to show its muscle.

I know this weighs heavily on the conscience of the hon the State President, because the test of the leaders of the NP as treasurers of this people’s past, present and future property, is what they do with that valuable treasure, Afrikaner unity in the cultural, political and religious spheres.

Put the CP to that test!

The hon the Leader of the Transvaal sent me a telegram saying that my membership of the NP had been terminated.

He sent me one too!

That was after you had begun to hold your meetings to form a new party.

Prime Ministers Malan, Strijdom, Verwoerd and Vorster passed those tests. If the situation had developed when they were in office, those splits would not have taken place in the church, the AB, the FAK or the party. [Interjections.] I want to use the last few moments at my disposal to ask the hon leader what his philosophy for South Africa is. It looks as though the protection of minorities is the only straw they still have to clutch at.

In that case the hon member was not listening to me.

I shall come to the hon member’s leaps and bounds in a moment, but…

And somersaults!

The hon the leader said the CP had no policy. When he retired as chancellor of the University of Stellenbosch, the hon the State President appealed to the academics to address this problem of the protection of minority rights.

I think the hon the State President said here in the House that he had referred the question of the protection of minority rights to the Law Commission. Why did he pick on them? Those poor people are not qualified in that aspect.

He is politicising them.

The hon the Leader of the Transvaal said he had not done so, but I have affirmation of the fact that when he addressed the students of the University of Pretoria, he asked the students, by way of a reply to a question, whether they did not want to assist the Government in seeking a solution to the protection of minority rights. If the Government has no answer to that—there is no answer to the issue of the protection of minority rights in “one large and one small composite society”—one has no answer to one’s political problem.

Are you in favour of the Boerestaat, the smaller South Africa?

No!

Did you say no?

No! This NP, under the leadership of the State President and his advisers, has come up against a blank wall in any case. They cannot go forward, and a grey wall is moving towards them from behind. The following is written on that wall in English and Afrikaans respectively: Allan Hendrickse/Baas Allan.

Mr Chairman, the speech of the hon member for Soutpansberg was on more or less the same level as their election campaigns in Schweizer-Reneke and Standerton. I shall discuss that subject rather comprehensively, and therefore shall not reply to his speech any further.

I want to put a simple question to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. The hon former member who was called the rara avis Louis Stofberg by the hon the Leader of the Opposition said the hon the leader could not be trusted and that he was untrustworthy. I do not say that. The hon leader must merely answer my question and help me to prove Mr Louis Stofberg wrong and myself correct. The connection of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition with the AB and the leading role he plays in that organisation is very well known, both inside and outside this House. Would he agree that the AB, just like the ANC, is the greatest single threat to every population group in this subcontinent? If he does not agree, is he prepared to repudiate that statement?

[Inaudible.]

I cannot hear.

He will reply tomorrow.

Mr Chairman, I shall tell you why I asked that question. We know the ANC specialises in naked terror. We know the ANC’s objective is to force the Whites and also the Afrikaners in this country to surrender by force of arms. We also know that the ANC’s hands are bloodstained. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows very well that the Afrikaner-Broederbond is an Afrikaner movement which I need not describe to him any further. [Interjections.] I want to quote to him from the President’s Council Hansard of 18 September 1987. Adv Cehill Pienaar, a member of the President’s Council who, according to my information is also Chairman of the CP in the Free State, had quite a lot to say about the Afrikaner-Broederbond in column 577. I cannot quote the whole section, but I want to it on record that among other things he said the following about the AB:

The only thing that is more disgraceful than this remark about the Afrikaner-Broederbond and the Afrikaner’s organisations, is that hon Leader of the Official Opposition who is not prepared to say directly and immediately that he does not agree with it and repudiates it.

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

Order! Is the hon member prepared to reply to a question?

Mr Chairman, that hon leader is not prepared to answer my question…

Order! Is the hon member prepared to reply to a question?

Mr Chairman, with all due respect, I am answering you. That hon leader did not have the respect to reply to me and I have even less respect for that hon member and I shall not reply to him.

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: That hon member said the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was disgraceful.

Order! I shall come to that point. I wanted first of all to deal with the matter of whether or not the hon member for Langlaagte was prepared to answer a question. The hon member is not prepared to answer a question.

What exactly did the hon member for Langlaagte say with reference to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition?

Mr Chairman, I am not sure precisely what you mean. I said among other things that the only thing more disgraceful than this remark made by this member of the President’s Council, was the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition who was not prepared to reply to me, or words to that effect.

That is not half of what you said about our hon leader!

Order! I must accept the hon member’s version until such time as I have had an opportunity to consult his Hansard. The hon member may proceed.

Unfortunately we have an Official Opposition in this House today which nine months ago could win only 22 seats, restricted to the Transvaal rural areas, out of 166 seats. Twelve of those seats, viz 55%, were won with a majority of fewer than 1 000 votes. Six of those seats, viz 27%, were one with a majority of fewer than 300 votes. Now the Official Opposition is doing everything in its power to try to retain those 22 seats. I do not blame them for doing so, but I do blame them for the exceedingly reprehensible political propaganda they employ. That is not acceptable.

I now want to make a categorical statement and prove it. The CP is making use of reprehensible, dangerous and even mendacious political propaganda in the by-elections that are in progress in Standerton and Schweizer-Reneke at the moment. This political propaganda is also being spread about my own political standpoints and statements. [Interjections.] Those hon members can scream and shout, but it is the noisy wheel that needs grease.

To begin with I want to make a few general statements and then I want to discuss one or two of those statements more fully. I have here a CP newspaper, KP Standerton, dated December 1987. There are references to what I am supposed to have said on the back page, the centre page and everywhere else. Among other things the newspaper says that I said certain things at a house meeting in the Standerton constituency. I invited the CP to that house meeting because I am not afraid of them. When I invite them to my meetings, however, they should at least have the decency to tell the truth.

We also make notes of our speeches sometimes. Sometimes we also make recordings of what is said. This newspaper says that I said the Group Areas Act could be abolished in my constituency. That is a lie; I did not say that. I quote:

Once again this is a lie. I said Whites could not expect to be protected by laws alone. Sir, when I spoke about the Group Areas Act, they said I had said I would not mind if a Black man lived next-door to me. My argument has always been that it is not a matter of individuals, but of groups. In my opinion the group should have the right to organise its own community life and possess its own schools and land. In my opinion it is not a matter of individuals. I said I did not hate any Black man. I said I would not mind if a Black man per se were to live next to me. It is not a matter of individuals as far as I am concerned, however. My whole argument was that the main issue was groups.

I can go on and quote one half-truth and distortion after another, but I want to concentrate more specifically on what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Overvaal had to say.

This headline appeared in the January 1988 edition of KP Standerton, and I understand that the same newspaper is distributed in Schweizer-Reneke: “Openlike erkenning aan president Sebe—NP-LV’s erken openlik die NP het geen plan nie”. What I am going to quote now is printed italics and is in quotation marks—

The article goes on to say that I made this statement in public during a meeting between a group of parliamentarians and President Sebe and his Cabinet.

I said that the abovementioned quotation appeared in quotation marks. In other words, they are claiming that this was my exact wording. [Interjections.]

Was it recorded on tape? [Interjections.]

Unfortunately what I said was not recorded, but the interview we had with the SABC afterwards was recorded on tape. The hon member for Overvaal made an interjection in this connection yesterday, but I challenge him to go and listen to that tape recording with me. Then he will hear what we said to the SABC, but I shall come to that later.

Sir, I say categorically that the claim that that was what I said is a blatant lie. I said it in public outside Parliament, and I shall say it in public outside Parliament again. I do not make use of parliamentary privilege.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: By implication the hon member for Overvaal was saying that the hon member was not telling the truth, and that he refused to accept his explanation. Is that permissible, or should the hon member for Overvaal withdraw his words?

Order! If the hon member for Langlaagte states categorically that that was not what he said, the hon member for Overvaal must accept his word.

Sir, I have never made these statements or used these words on any occasion, not in public, in confidence, in secret or in private.

One wonders where these statements came from. Who said this and where did it come from?

I was the leader of a group of 14 members of Parliament who visited the Transkei and the Ciskei from 1 to 6 November 1987. I want to say the following about the discussions with President Sebe on 6 November:

In reply to that question I went into detail about the NP’s standpoint, or rather, the South African Government’s standpoint of powersharing without domination, one South Africa, the recognition and preservation of individual as well as group rights, the devolution of power and the implications involved. After setting out our vision and plan, I indicated how it would affect them. I said they could not ask me about the finer details or about the number of people that would have representation on the respective organisations. I said that had to be worked out by the National Statutory Council. I also mentioned specifically how it would affect them. In addition I said it would have to take place by means of negotiation; I did not want to and could not spell it out. The hon member for Overvaal entered into the discussion which followed immediately afterwards. He said: “Dr Vilonel has just said that his party has no plan!”

I immediately said to the hon member for East London City, who was sitting next to me, that that man was engaged in a political ploy and that he would see this in their propaganda pamphlets later. I told the hon member that day that it was untrue and that I had not used such words.

That is not true!

That hon member and I went for an interview with the media. He made that statement again on tape to try to establish the erroneous impression, and on the same tape recording I told him that it was not true that I had made such a statement.

There were other witnesses too!

Do you accept his word now?

The witnesses are in this House in and the others.

That was not all that happened there, however. A few days ago the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to our visit to the states—I have his Hansard here—and to what parliamentarians are supposed to have said. When I told him in an interjection on that it was not true, the hon member said that he had not been referring to me. In that case, I want the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, who is a former clergyman and therefore honest, to tell us to whom he was referring. It is a question he will be able to answer very easily. He need not consider it until tomorrow or the day after. To whom was he referring? Surely that is a simple question. [Interjections.]

That was not all that happened at that meeting. I do not have time now to quote what President Sebe said. He said many positive things too, but he accused us of “broken promises”, and apart from other negative things he said “disillusionment is everywhere”. Everyone on that tour co-operated well in order to represent our country well, but there was one fly in the ointment. [Interjections.]

President Sebe said that we should inter alia, in exchange for the Glen Gray area, have consolidated the Ciskei into one state. He said far too many people were being sent back to his country and that he was getting far too little money for his country. I now want to tell hon members what the reaction of the hon member for Overvaal was to that. He got up immediately and said that the hon the State President—he mentioned him by name—and our Government had broken our promises not only to the Ciskei, but also to our Afrikaners, who were our own people.

But that is what he does! [Interjections.]

Those hon members are obsessed with colour. That hon member accused us in a Black neighbouring state of not having kept our promises to our own people. He maligned his own people.

You are not my own people. You broke your promise.

Order! No, the hon member for Langlaagte has the privilege of the House to speak without being interrupted by unnecessary interjections. The hon member may proceed.

That hon member not only did that, but he said that when the CP came into power, they would rectify all those matters. They would therefore consolidate the area into one piece, give them much more money and not send many people back. Those were the President’s complaints.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member a very easy question?

Mr Speaker, the hon member cannot interrupt me now, because I have only 15 seconds left. I do not want to reply to a question put by that hon member. I now have only 10 seconds left, and in those 10 seconds I want to tell hon members that it is an absolute disgrace that that hon member maligned our Government, our hon State President, our people and the Afrikaner people, of whom they are a part, in a foreign country. I think it is unheard of in South Africa’s history.

I shall repeat that you do not have a word of honour!

I shall say that to that hon member in public. I do not make use of the privilege of the House of Assembly to say it.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I am very sorry that I have to raise a point of order against my colleague, the hon member for Overvaal, but I fear that as members of this House, we need your guidance. The hon member for Overvaal made constant interjections during every single speech all day yesterday. I do not even want to talk about the nature of the interjections.

Today, while the hon the Minister of Justice was speaking, the hon member for Overvaal made loud interjections seven times. While the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and of Communication was speaking, the hon member made seven loud interjections. While the hon member for Soutpansberg was speaking, he merely mumbled once. While the hon member for Langlaagte was speaking now, the hon member for Overvaal interjected loudly 18 times.

I want to suggest courteously that if you let every single hon member of this House …

Are you suggesting that Mr Speaker is not doing his job?

Mr Speaker, I am addressing you on a point of order.

Mr Speaker …

Order! The hon member for Innesdal is addressing me. The hon member may proceed.

I beg to suggest that if every hon member of this House did exactly what the hon member for Overvaal is doing, my modest opinion is that this House would degenerate into a circus, and now I want to ask for your ruling in this connection. We are trying to follow the debates, we are trying to hear what is going on, we are trying to have meaningful debates, but as a result of the conduct of the hon member for Overvaal, the debates here are degenerating into a circus. I therefore courteously request your ruling in this connection.

Order! I shall give careful attention to the number and nature of the interjections made from now on. The Chair has acted as it thought fit in the circumstances, and I shall leave it at that.

Mr Speaker, I have no interest whatsoever in the puerile war which continues to be waged between hon members or the Government benches and hon members or the CP benches. Therefore the hon member Dr Vilonel must forgive me if I do not respond to, or comment on the speech he has just made. I do believe that these exchanges are totally unproductive, that they do not benefits South Africa as a whole and that they are not relevant to the situation of our time.

In the time at my disposal I want to say that the terms of the amendment moved by the hon member for Sea Point four days ago is in my opinion more relevant today than they were on the first day of this debate. We in these benches have indicated our approval, in general terms, of the financial and economic package announced by the hon the State President last Friday. However, that in no way precludes us from highlighting the crucial issues referred to in our amendment as reasons for having no confidence in this Government. Looking back on the hon the State President’s speech, whatever plaudits may go to him for his economic and financial package deal, his speech was as significant for what he did not say as it was for what he did say. His ignoring, as he did, almost entirely the pressing political and social problems which daily cry out for attention, and giving no indication of any initiatives on the part of the Government to resolve them, must be seen as a retreat from reform on the part of the NP Government. If it is not a retreat from reform then it is a stalling of the reform process or it is going into neutral on the reform process.

The amendment moved from these benches attacks the Government for its failure to resolve the issue of political rights for Black South Africans, and for its clinging to the tattered remnants of its apartheid policy, thus damaging the economy of South Africa and, because of that, undermining the security and the safety of the citizens of South Africa and leading the country away from democracy towards authoritarianism. In the year that it celebrates its 40 years of misrule of South Africa I think this amendment is an entirely appropriate and well-earned indictment of the NP Government. [Interjections.]

The Government’s newest example of failure in this its 40th year in power is, of course, the spectacle of what happened yesterday in Bophuthatswana—a state which is a creature of its own creation, a creature of the Nat ideology over the past 40 years. No one, and least of all the PFP, condones illegal or revolutionary actions. However, yesterday’s events in Bophuthatswana have again thrown into very sharp relief the farce surrounding the so-called independent states and the philosophy behind them. They are neither viable nor stable. They stand out as a monument of the failure of Nat obsession with ethnic racial identity as a solution to the problems of South Africa.

Ethnicity on its own can never be the basis for the establishment of viable, independent political entities. [Interjections.] When ethnicity is used as the NP uses it, as the basis for separate racial independence instead of the NP facing up to the realities of the situation, facing up to the challenge of recognising the common interests of non-racial South Africa, then it must fail.

So it is that after 40 years of Nationalist rule, Bophuthatswana and Transkei stand out as monuments to the failure of Nationalist Party ideology. This, once again, is a classic example of the accuracy of the terms of the amendment moved by the PFP in this debate. After all, what better example can there be of the failure of this Government to resolve the political rights of Blacks in South Africa, of the security and safety of the citizens of our country being undermined by Nationalist Party ideology …

It is the National Party, not the Nationalist Party.

… and of the country being led away from democracy towards authoritarianism, than the events which took place yesterday in Bophuthatswana?

Against the background of what happened, who will believe the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs—I am pleased that he is in the House today …

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

No, no. I am not going to answer questions at this stage.

Against that background, who will believe the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs when he says that far from casting doubts upon the international acceptability or credibility of the so-called independent homelands, yesterday’s events have made Bophuthatswana, to quote his words which I heard on the SABC this morning, “better known” in the international community. [Interjections.] This is the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs on radio this morning—yesterday’s events did not cast any doubt on the credibility of the independence of states like Bophuthatswana, but they would serve to make them “better known”!

This is a remarkable reaction by a foreign Minister to a highly critical and sensitive situation which underlines the futility of his own Government’s policies. If a comic opera were to be staged about these events in Bophuthatswana, this hon Minister would be a certainty for the lead role. He would be an absolute certainty for the lead role so that he could display his well-known propensity for ham acting to a much wider audience.

Yes.

If yesterday’s events are taken note of by the international community— and I must say that I would be the last one to suggest that the presence of the Head of State of South Africa, of senior Cabinet Ministers, of the head of our Security Forces within hours of the attempted coup would not attract the attention of the international community—then I want to suggest that their reaction will rather be that of scorn for what is a farcical situation than it will be of wonder at the realisation that there is an independent state of Bophuthatswana in Southern African:

You are making a fool of yourself, man.

The hon member for Turffontein talks about making a fool of oneself. If any government has ever made a fool of itself, this Government made a fool of itself yesterday and in the events leading up to what took place yesterday. [Interjections.] Another aspect that will cause Bophuthatswana to be “better known”, will be the reasons advanced—which will have been reported internationally—by the perpetrators of the attempted coup for what happened yesterday, in particular the reference to the alleged involvement of the KGB agent, Mr Kalmanowitz. [Interjections.] I am glad that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is present, because I believe this Government cannot escape comment on the involvement of Mr Kalmanowitz in the affairs of Bophuthatswana in recent years. It has been common knowledge for some time that this gentleman has enjoyed a special and privileged position in the politics of Bophuthatswana. Mr Kalmanowitz, who is Russian born, is a holder of a Bophuthatswana passport and has been an accredited foreign representative of that country. Our Minister knows that, Sir. He is alleged to have amassed a considerable fortune in Bophuthatswana, and to have wielded considerable influence in that region. We know that when he was detained or arrested by the FBI in the United Kingdom last year, he was able to find R1,8 million as bail, with apparent ease at very short notice.

In cash.

He is in detention in Israel at the present moment on suspicion of being a KGB spy. This, Sir, raises a number of very interesting questions for the South African Government. What is this Government’s reaction to this gentleman’s involvement in the affairs of Bophuthatswana?

Ask Bophuthatswana! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister suddenly tells me to ask them, Sir. Just a moment! Is this hon Minister now pretending that Bophuthatswana has suddenly become independent again? [Interjections.] Mr Kalmanowitz had access to the inner circles of Bophuthatswana politics, including, one must assume, the whole security operation in that country.

How can you be so sure of that?

He must have had, Sir. He was a confidant of the top politicians in Bophuthatswana. I want to know what this Government knows of his activities. What influence have they brought to bear on the Government of Bophuthatswana in this regard? I assume he had access to security information. I assume also that we work in unison with a state such as Bophuthatswana when it comes to the exchange of security information. Probably they have an agency of our own security forces. Has this hon Minister done anything in that regard? Has he made any representations to Bophuthatswana in relation to the activities of this Russian-born gentleman, who is now in detention as a KGB agent in Israel? Has this hon Minister—of all Ministers, Sir—suddenly gone soft on security? [Interjections.]

Oh, no! [Interjections.]

He probably has, Sir. [Interjections.] This was the hon Minister, Sir, who, prior to the general election last year, accused everybody else day in and day out on television of being soft on security. [Interjections.] It was this hon Minister who suggested that there were armies of the ANC streaming across the borders, presumably through Bophuthatswana, in order to come to South Africa. [Interjections.]

Here, Sir, in our neighbouring state of Bophuthatswana allegations were being made yesterday that it was because of the involvement of this gentleman in the affairs of Bophuthatswana that the coup took place. [Interjections ]

Now, Sir, what is the reaction of the hon the Minister? Or is he now saying we are not going to interfere? Is this a sort of selective interference in a so-called independent state? They have interfered now in restoring the government which made use of the services of Mr Kalmanowitz through the years. They have re-instated that government. I want to know what they have done about his activities during the time in which he operated in that country. Nothing, Sir. Is the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs going to take part in this debate? Can we expect him or his hon Deputy Minister to deal with this issue? I ask this because I believe it is of fundamental importance when one looks at the situation which evolved in Bophuthatswana yesterday. We need reasons.

As I have said, Sir, nobody in his right mind would support illegal activities, unlawful activities and revolutionary activities. I do believe, however, that the allegations made yesterday which gave rise to what took place, deserve an answer from this Government because this Government obviously has very direct links with what takes place in that region under the Bophuthatswana Government. I believe we are owed an answer—either a comment or a statement by somebody in authority within the Cabinet in relation to what took place yesterday. [Interjections.]

Who paid Kalmanowitz’s bail? [Interjections.]

Yes, there are numerous questions. Who paid his bail? Where did he get the money from? What was the extent of his activities? Were they monitored by this hon Minister? One must remember, Sir, that, as with the other TBVC countries, much of their finance comes from the taxpayers of South Africa.

Quite correct!

The people of South Africa are entitled to know how a gentleman of this nature happens to achieve eminence in a country such as Bophuthatswana, and happens to wield such influence as apparently he has done in recent years.

Did the PFP … [Interjections.]

No, I am interested in the hon member’s comments, but I would be much more interested in comments from the Cabinet benches, and in particular from the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. [Interjections.] I hope we will receive a reply on this matter because it is of fundamental importance at this stage.

I should like to return now to the Government’s general failure throughout to address the real problems of this country realistically, and I want to refer specifically to its retreat from attempts at reform. I hope the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs will remain in the House to listen to these comments as well because they also affect him, or they should affect his department.

I have a lot of important work to do. [Interjections.]

Sir, part of this hon Minister’s responsibilities as a Cabinet Minister is to sit in this House more often than he actually does. [Interjections.]

I am only too conscious that, certainly since the middle of 1986, this Government appears to have become less and less interested in what the international community might think about the situation here in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! It should not be necessary for the hon member to struggle so valiantly to make his speech. I request hon members to give him the opportunity of making his speech.

I am only too conscious of the fact that since 1986 this Government seems to have become less and less interested in what the international community thinks of the situation in South Africa, and that even the threat or imposition of sanctions seems of little concern to them. However, to the more responsible elements in the NP the whole question of the threats of our growing international isolation must be of some concern. There ought to be some appreciation for those outside South Africa who stick their necks out opposing economic and other sanctions when they are threatened against this country. One thinks immediately of the Government of the United Kingdom, the Government of West Germany and the lobbyists in the United States and in Europe who oppose sanctions being instituted against South Africa. For those influences to endure in our favour, however, we have to realise that it is absolutely vital that we be seen in this country to be moving towards realistic and positive reform. I think we have to realise that as far as this support is concerned, we are living on borrowed time, and that if we ignore the urgent need for realistic reform, we will be leaving our friends—those who are resisting the application of sanctions against South Africa—high and dry. Unless there is some sign of change in South Africa they will not be able to resist the pressures on them in respect of sanctions against South Africa.

The more expectations of reform are not met as we retreat further and further into a siege situation in South Africa, the more sympathy for this country abroad evaporates. There is tremendous impatience and even frustration among our friends abroad, let alone the open hostility gaining momentum among our enemies. The perception that people have of South Africa becomes more and more that of a country ruled by an authoritarian, intransigent minority government intent upon the oppression of the masses and lacking even a semblance of broad human and democratic values. Whilst we may be able, in response to that perception, to point out that there are double standards among those who make that sort of accusation and point to other states where similar authoritarianism exists none of this is consistent with our own claim that we are part of the Western community of nations and that we subscribe to Christian democratic values.

I was interested to hear the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr K D S Durr, say yesterday that we must be part of the solution in Southern Africa. He is correct in that. That is what we ought to have been in the past 40 years. We ought to have been part of the solution but, let there be no doubt, we are seen instead not to be part of the solution but part—and a major part—of the problem of the Southern African region. We could have played a prominent role in bringing about real stability and progress in this subcontinent. We could have made far greater use of our strength, our know-how and our experience in bringing about a more stable Southern African subcontinent. Instead, thanks to the NP, we embarked upon policies which have been totally destructive and divisive, not only in this country but also by their example divisive in the rest of Africa as well.

As the NP looks back over the past 40 years they should ponder on the fact that history will show that apart from the fact that the operation of their policies had been disastrous itself, their timing could not have been more disastrous. In looking back over the past 40 years, history will show that at a time when the world was emerging from a ghastly global conflict in respect of which the naked racism of the dictators had been a major factor, the NP in this country elected at that time to embark upon policies which were also based on race, and they have pursued them effectively over the past 40 years. That was the disastrous beginning of the 40 dreadful years of NP rule for South Africa.

So, as they ponder over the past 40 years today, they can see a nation divided as never before and isolated from the civilised world as never before. They can see how they have debased our once proud South Africa—perhaps irrevocably. Then, Sir, they must decide whether there will be very much for them to celebrate at the end of their 40 years of power in this country. In the meantime it is my opinion that it is impossible for people who believe in a broad South African patriotism to have any confidence in this Government.

Mr Speaker, I should like to tell the hon member for Berea that Bophuthatswana is an independent State and that yesterday South Africa was asked to render assistance. I also want to convey our thanks and congratulations to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the prompt action we did, in fact, take there. I did not hear a single word from the hon member about that. At a later stage the hon the Minister himself will elaborate on the matter. [Interjections.]

The past three days I have listened attentively to the debate, but the conflict debate conducted here serves no purpose. No one, including the hon members of the Official Opposition, has achieved anything by those means. They have made no contribution whatsoever to the problems and challenges facing us in this country. I think I am speaking on behalf of all the hon members on this side of the House when I say we are proud to belong to a party such as the NP which projects a message of hope and justice, which grants to others what we arrogate to ourselves and which does not, like hon members of the Conservative Party, desperately cling to the past or evidence such fear of the so-called Black peril that they have no vision of the future. We on this side of the House look reality squarely in the eye. I want to refer to what someone once said, and that is that if one has a positive mental attitude, if one has faith and hope and sets oneself a goal, which one pursues relentlessly, one can face reality undaunted.

We have a world population in excess of 2 000 million, and in Africa a population of 430 million. Here on the southern tip of Africa we have only 30 million people, of whom only 4,8 million are White. That is a small handful, and then the hon member for Berea says that in 40 years in power the NP has not achieved anything. Today we are one of the wealthiest African countries, and that is not only due to the Whites, but also to all the other population groups in this beautiful country of ours. In the past few days we have frequently heard about the self-governing and independent Black states in our country. Those states can only support 40% of their overall population. Where must the other 60% go? The 10 million Black people living in our cities at present did not come in search of the bright lights. They were born and raised here. We brought them here to work for us in the mines and the industries and to help us to keep this country of ours going. I want to ask hon members on that side of the House what we White Afrikaners did in 1930, during the depression years, when we could not continue to farm owing to the drought. Did we not come to the cities too and do anything, simply to give our children something to eat? We found ourselves any possible place to live, and that is where our poor White conditions developed. We want to thank the Reddingsdaadbond for having helped us to become a fully fledged and proud nation and Government in this country of ours. According to the report on urbanisation approximately 13 million people will flock into the country by the year 2000, and it is our responsibility to ensure that we accommodate them. It is the Government’s responsibility to create 250 000 new job opportunities annually so that we can also give these people an chance to make a contribution to the economy. Do hon members of the Official Opposition not realise that of every 100 people entering the labour market, 73 are Black people and only 12 are Whites? Then they speak of a White state! We do not have enough Whites in the country to do everything themselves. Those are the realities of life. Perhaps I should speak of a “Boerestaat”, because that is what Mr Terre’Blanche says, and he is, after all, the one who calls the tune.

Do hon members know what has struck me really forcibly about those hon members of the Official Opposition during the past few days? What has struck me so forcibly is the fact that their delivery is typically that of Mr Terre’Blanche. They have followed his example of bellowing and denigration, of demolishing what we, as a Government, have tried to establish here.

According to Die Burger Mr Terre’Blanche said last year at the Kruger Day celebrations:

One of the reporters asked him how they were going to manage that. His reply was: “In die vorm van ’n heilige oorlog.” Now those hon members must please tell me how one wages a holy war. The only wars I know about are ones that sow destruction, wars in which there are never any winners.

Do those hon members realise what it means to speak of a White state? They say that students and schoolchildren will work for them on the farms during their holidays. What happens, however, when the holidays are over? Does that work suddenly come to a halt? What about the five million Black farm workers who work for the 70 000 farmers in our country? Are they simply going to be evicted? Must they simply manage somehow and find a means of livelihood somewhere? What is to become of those farms in the Northern Transvaal, the Eastern Transvaal en Northern Natal where only Black people work for the White bosses, keeping their farms going for them? What is going to happen to the 700 000 domestic servants? Those hon members must not tell me that they all do their own housework, without any Black help. We also need them. Those Black domestic servants also make a contribution to the economy. They also have a right to exist.

What happened during the unrest situation in the Eastern Cape, when those White shops were boycotted by the Black people? One of the present-day realities is that the Black people account for approximately 60% of the purchasing power in our country. Those shops therefore had to close down. What would happen in Pietersburg, and all the other cities in the North, if the Black people were to decide that they would no longer make their purchases there? Our entire economy could collapse.

The truth of the matter is that we cannot afford to have an internal revolution. While we sit here muttering and talking, vilifying one another, we still have those major problems involving the total onslaught on our country, an example of which we saw developing in one of our neighbouring states.

I acknowledge today that we have Black spots and that we have problems. The hon member for Houghton, however, should also stop looking over her shoulder all the time. The Government cannot, overnight, do everything that has to be done.

I also want to speak about the hon members of the Official Opposition on the other side, referring to what they are doing prior to the coming by-election. I was also in Schweizer-Reneke the other day, at an old-age home where I held discussions with some of the old people. I asked an old gentleman about his political persuasions. He looked at me and said: “My child, I am a bom Nationalist. I am still one. I am going to vote for the NP, and I shall die a Nationalist.” He said, however, that he had been visited that morning by a man and a woman from the CP. They asked him whom he was going to vote for. He said he was proud to be a Nationalist. They then told him: “Sir, you must think carefully about what you are going to do and for whom you are going to vote, because I am now telling you that if the CP wins this by-election, you will be the first one we shall evict from this old-age home.” [Interjections.] The tears ran down the old man’s cheeks. He then said: “Mrs Hunter, I am now asking you whether I should pack my small suitcase and go and live with my children in Kimberley.” I replied: “Sir, you stay right here, because it is a foregone conclusion that people who are so desperate for votes are not going to win this byelection.” [Interjections.]

The truth is that we are engaged in reform. We are making progress in this country of ours. In order to reform, however, there must be progress on the social front, and that is only possible if we have an unalloyed economic power-base. That is why we take off our hats to the hon the State President’s prospective plans, announced by him at the opening of Parliament last week. With law and order we can create job opportunities, give people housing where necessary and offer them equal educational opportunities.

It does not help to separate us and implement a policy of partition. What happened to that small handful of farmers who, after the Boer War, left for Argentina? There they sit in their wretchedness; they have achieved nothing and are indigent. If they had rather stayed in this country and helped to build it up, today they would also have been able to share in the wonderful future that we …

May I put a question to the hon member?

I do not want to answer a question from that hon member.

Order! The hon member may continue.

I merely want to tell the hon members of the opposition that we are not prepared to relinquish the rights for which we Whites fought in this country. We must share the benefits we have in this country. We have brought the other population groups into contact with Western civilization. Why do we begrudge them the right to pick those fruits that we so generously partake of?

The Whites and their survival are not threatened. No partition, no White state or “Boerestaat” can assure that survival. I am speaking on behalf of NP members when I say that we are proud to work for a cause that is greater than we are—that of this wonderful country, South Africa. With compassion and an absence of selfishness, we are going to take these people with us into the future.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Edenvale has spoken. In her speech she put certain questions to the hon members of the Official Opposition. The problem with the hon members of the Official Opposition is that they never reply to certain fundamental questions and can never be drawn into a debate on those issues.

I want to evaluate their attitude on the basis of political morality and ask them whether their proposed policy of partition satisfies the norms prescribed by political morality. Honesty about one’s standpoint and responsibility in adopting a standpoint are, in truth, the cornerstones of political morality.

On that basis I want to debate with the hon members of the Official Opposition their policy of partition. Their policy of partition is a twopronged policy. It has an easy or lighter side. It does, however, also have a complex or darker side. I do not want to debate the easy aspect. It concerns the desirability of partition as a political model. We all agree about that, but on this side of the House we say that we have already implemented this, as far as is practicable.

The CP wants to take it further, and now they must debate the complex aspect of partition with me. There are a number of important questions at issue here. Firstly there is the practical implementation of the policy of partition, ie the division of land. Secondly costs must be taken into consideration and, thirdly, in implementing their policy they will encounter problems as far as the Constitution is concerned.

I do not want to hear any more about a White heartland and the benefits inherent in that. That may be true, but I want to speak about how practicable it is.

I do not quite understand where the borders will be when land is divided up. I am putting it to those hon members that all kinds of trends are discernible. If one looks at the question of dividing up land, one must examine where the boundaries will be. I do not think any Opposition member is seriously telling me that the boundaries will remain exactly as they are at present. That is impossible, and I shall tell hon members why. That would mean that approximately 5 million Black people would have to be moved. If the CP intends to make the majority of people in the present White area White, 5 million Black people will have to be moved, and that will have to be done, at the accepted cost of R40 000 per person. We have determined those costs from experience. I cannot do that multiplication sum on my pocket calculator; R40 000 multiplied by 5 million gives one, I think, R20 billion! If I am wrong, those hon members must debate the issue with me and tell me what it would cost to move those 5 million people. [Interjections.] If those people are not moved, what are those hon members going to do to get the majority of people in that area to be White?

Paint them!

Those hon members must debate the issues with us and tell us what they want to do. If they are not prepared to do that, there is no honesty involved, and they are not acting responsibly towards us and towards the electorate. Hon members on that side of the House must tell us what costs will be involved, if they are not going to move the boundaries. If they are, in fact going to move the boundaries they must indicate where they are going to move them to.

I watched the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition making a speech on TV during the run-up to the election of 6 May 1987. I think he spoke about 33%, saying that so many Black people still could and should be consolidated in their own areas. That means the shifting of boundaries and consequently a smaller South Africa. How much smaller would South Africa be and where will the boundaries be? Please give us a sketch of that. Let us debate this very important aspect of the shifting of boundaries, if that is, in fact, going to happen. How much land is going to be given away and at what cost?

The trends are very clear, and I should just like to quote what Dr Hendrik Verwoerd Jnr said in Leadership:

I understand that the CP is talking about this and thinking about it. I want to ask them, however, to take us into their confidence and tell us whether they do, in fact, plan to have a smaller country and a smaller White land area and where it will be situated.

It is no use our arguing in the air about the darker side of partition and getting no answers. The Opposition does not satisfy the tenets of political morality by propagating a policy and neglecting to reveal their plans. In right-wing circles it is common knowledge that mention is being made of a smaller White state. In the AWB terms it is called a small Afrikaner state.

In the Tydskrif vir Rasseaangeleenthede Prof Hercules Booysen of Unisa states that a smaller Afrikaner state, a type of ethnic state …

A “Boerestaat”.

… a “Boerestaat” should be established. He says:

In his “Eie staat vir Afrikaners” memorial lecture last December, Dr S J J van Rensburg—I take it he is also a CP supporter—spoke of a State for the Afrikaner people which should be clearly defined and which should be much smaller so that the Afrikaners can look to their own interests there. When one gets to their own statements, however, the CP is speechless. They do not debate the shifting of boundaries with us, because they find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They cannot admit to envisaging a smaller state for Whites, because then too many people would be excluded from the White area and would not vote for them. They say continually, therefore, that the boundaries should remain as they are, but the costs of removing the 5 million Black people from the present White area, and the problems involved in doing so, are so overwhelming that this borders on the ridiculous. If am wrong, I invite the Official Opposition to conduct a meaningful debate on the darker side of partition.

Mr Speaker, I should like to react to what other hon members had to say, but permit me to touch upon one small point raised by the hon member for Klip River. It is a question that crops up here time and time again, and has to do with where the boundaries are. We have heard that story ad nauseam. Let me just say this. At the time when this situation developed, when the NP said that the other peoples should be given homelands, there were no boundaries.

A commission of inquiry was appointed, its task being to determine the boundaries. Those boundaries have not, to this day, been finalised yet. Today the hon member asked us to say where the boundaries are.

Surely one has to make a decision based on principle, acknowledging that the solution to ethnic problems can be found along this road. Then one can start working on it. That is why we find ourselves in a situation in which there are people—many of them are in right-wing circles— who say they want to draw the boundaries in this way or that way. We are not arguing about the principle of placing people in separate groups and their own ethnic states. We are not arguing about that. The question of how and where is already under discussion.

Mr Speaker, firstly I should like to react to what the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs said. He made a statement here as if it were supposedly CP policy to have the Black people, if they found themselves in a Black urban area, link up with their own independent area when exercising their political rights. Then the hon the Minister said: “Maar in die boekie wat jy geskryf het, waarvan jy ’n mede-outeur was, staan dan dit was ’n foefie. Jy kan nie die Swartman sy regte so laat uitoefen nie.”

Sir, I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether he has read the whole booklet. I see the hon the Minister does not want to answer my question. The reason is now becoming clear to me, because you see, if he had read the booklet properly, he would have noticed that that was under a heading which introduced a discussion about what the results would be if someone found himself in someone else’s area, for example a Black man in a White country. The consequences of his settlement in that specific country are examined. Then the argument proceeds, and it is stated that in such a situation—in which he found himself somewhere else—he would obtain rights in that other place. He would obtain rights! No one should bluff himself into thinking that person would not obtain rights! He would obtain political rights by way of trade unions. So this is quite a different matter. It does not even affect the question of the possibility of someone in such a place being able to exercise his political rights. I am not surprised at that hon Minister thinking I am clever, because it seem to me he cannot read Afrikaans properly.

No wonder the Railways has incurred such great losses! [Interjections.]

I also want to refer to the hon member for Turffontein, who alluded to all kinds of things here. I am sorry that I have to react to him, because I want to say frankly that I think it is more enjoyable to listen to the yapping of the mongrels in Turffontein than to have to listen to him nagging about the AWB. [Interjections.]

I was on this side of the House when I was told, from that side, that I was a registered member of the AWB. I would have been neglecting my duty if I had said, at that stage, that I was a member of the AWB. [Interjections.]

Order! There is a running commentary while the hon member is speaking. The hon member must have an opportunity to complete his speech.

I would have been dishonest to this House, because it is not true. In spite of the insinuations made in this House, it is not factually correct either that I was a member of the grand council. If the hon member thinks, however, that I am running away from my people, from my fellow-Afrikaners, he is making a very big mistake. I am not, in any way, concerned about efforts to link me to that organisation. It does not bother me in the least, and as far as that is concerned I shall look the world straight in the eye, but I would bow my head in shame if I had to be part of a secret organisation that did not care about having a majority of Black people in the Government of this country. I would not know how to face my fellow-Afrikaners. The Minister of National Education nevertheless says they do not intend giving away any of our vested rights. [Interjections.]

The following aspect I want to focus attention on is that this no-confidence debate was steered in a particular direction by the Government because it wanted to conceal the true aspect of its problem behind a smokescreen. [Interjections.] Its problem is that it has come to the end of the road with its plan. It stands or falls on the establishment of a National Council, and it is going out of its way to make a success of this.

In this documentation the Government states that it wants to get the Black people to the negotiating table. The Black people, however, put forward as a condition that the ANC be unbanned, that political prisoners be released and that the state of emergency be lifted. A further express condition of theirs is that the Group Areas Act should be abolished. I am concerned about whether we can trust this Government. These were absolute conditions which were laid down and which were summarily rejected by the Government initially, but now they have become items on the agenda.

What agenda?

The agenda relevant to the negotiations. [Interjections.] I now want to know from the Government what their standpoint on this issue is. Why do they place it on the agenda if it is non-negotiable? What is their attitude to this going to be?

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

No, the hon the Minister may not put a question. He speaks for days on end. [Interjections.]

I now merely want to question the Government on one of those aspects. What are the indications in regard to the Group Areas Act, and what is going to happen to that Act? The first indication is that the other parties involved have said that the Group Areas Act should be deleted, and I am saying that it will be. I shall tell hon members what the indications are. Firstly, last year, for the first time, there was acceptance of the principle of grey areas. It is now being said that the AWB is behind it all. Let me say, however, that I did not find that at all strange. I want to ask whether there is a hidden government behind this Government.

Here in my hand I have a document that many hon members ought to be very familiar with, because the majority of them are members of this organisation. It is the Broederbond publication. Listen to what this publication had to say as far back as 1986:

Voluntary! I quote further—

Is there a secret, hidden government behind this Government: Yes or no?

Let me go further. The hon the State President said that the Government accepted these grey areas, but that the provisions of the Group Areas Act, as formulated at present, would be maintained. Those were his words. Hon members must not think that the Group Areas Act has been abolished, that they can go courting and live where they please; the Act remains as it is.

Here in my hand I also have a small document from Die Vaderland with the following heading: “Nege nagte in ’n agterplaas.” The report concerns a White man and his cripple wife who, for a period of nine nights, were kicked out of their flat in Hillbrow, where they had lived.

And is that the Government?

Of course!

Just a moment. They were kicked out for nine nights. The man was evicted from his flat—one of 35 families evicted from the relevant block of flats. The chairman of the NP in Hillbrow said those were merely examples; there were many similar cases. Now the hon the State President tells us that the Group Areas Act is going to be implemented. This event took place in December 1987. I want to ask hon members why this Act was not implemented in spite of the undertaking given by the Government at that time. I shall tell hon members why it was not done…

There is a court judgment that prohibits it.

Oh, there is a court judgment. Let me give the hon member a bit of assistance. That is the customary excuse the Government always advances. It now hides behind that. Let me tell hon members what the position in regard to that court judgment is. There was no court judgment stating that those people could not be prosecuted; on the contrary, the Act states that that man could be prosecuted and found guilty. The eviction had nothing whatsoever to do with that matter. That person is going to be punished for having contravened that Act. That is the first point. The question of eviction is a sequel to that.

Let me give the hon member some further assistance. The court did not rule that he should obtain alternative accommodation. The court laid down seven conditions which should all be considered. One of these involved the question of alternative accommodation. That is all. I want to give the Government some help, because it seems to me the Government cannot solve the problem. We shall help the Government. It is so easy. Since 1982 the Government has been hiding behind the fact of a court decision, The State vs Govender, which supposedly prevents the Government from acting. Let me tell the Government that if it had the courage it could merely change one word in that Act and then take action. Is the Government powerless—the powerful NP—to take such a little step? We shall help the Government. We shall draw up a little piece of legislation and introduce it so that the Government can implement the law.

So that the Government can govern the country properly.

We shall bring the Government that little piece of legislation.

Mr Speaker, before I deal with the hon member for Ermelo, I think it is appropriate, since I come from Natal, to dwell for a moment on the flood disaster that has afflicted our province. On my own behalf and that of my colleagues, I want to convey our condolences to those who have lost relatives in that disaster—the second in fewer than six months.

The hon member for Ermelo and his party are the last people to come and tell us that we will not adhere to our policy. We have not been able to get clarity about certain aspects of that party’s policy to date. Yet the hon member for Ermelo wants to tell us that the Group Areas Act will be a thing of the past as a result.

Backyard politics.

It is a thing of the past already.

That hon member for Ermelo maintains that he and his party are the true nationalists. I think the CP is indicating that they still stand by the old leaders of the NP; that they are the true supporters of the old leaders.

… and their principles.

We have seen the example of a CP representative who betrayed former leaders of the NP here this afternoon. The hon member for Ermelo also made the blatant statement that when the NP came into power in 1948, there were no boundaries of Black areas in South Africa. I want to take the hon member back to 1959 for a moment, when Dr Verwoerd announced the homeland policy, and replied to the accusation that 80% of this country’s people would be occupying only 13% of the country’s surface area. What was his reply? His reply was that we had not created Black areas, but that history had done so. Does the hon member not remember that? Yet he came and told us today that there were no boundaries when the NP came into power. No, Sir. If the people do not even know their own history, I can understand their throwing in their lot with an organisation such as the AWB, which does not have the least idea of the Afrikaner’s history.

There have been numerous attempts by hon members of the CP during this debate to present the NP as a party embarrassed by its so-called allies. In the latest edition of Die Patriot, the one dated 5 February, they say the following among other things:

In the same way opposition newspapers have tried to indicate during the past few weeks and months that the Government was embarrassed about the fact that it had to adhere to the Constitution as far as a next general election was concerned. Naturally that is absolute nonsense. The Labour Party cannot create an embarrassment for the Government, because they are neither our coalition partners, as the CP claims, nor an opposition party to the NP, as others claim. They are the majority party in their communities, elected by their own electorate, with the fullest right to assume standpoints as prescribed to them by the interests of their community. We did not bring them here. The Constitution, which was approved by two-thirds of the voters of South Africa, brought them here. That Constitution, which was drawn up by the Government after protracted negotiation, gives them and us veto power. That veto power can be exercised by a majority party in every House, without anyone’s having anything to say about it. It creates no embarrassment for anyone, and at the same time gives no majority party a weapon with which to threaten any other party.

That is not all, however. No one on this side of the House promised his or her voters a five-year term in May last year.

How then can the present requirements of the Constitution create an embarrassment for the Government? What is most important, however, is that the NP, unlike other political parties, has never tried to run away from the voters’ judgment. This year we shall have been in power for 40 years, and should therefore have been in the last year of our eighth term this year. In reality, apart from two referendums, we held the ninth general election in these 40 years in May 1987.

No, Sir, other parties will fail to find anything with which to embarrass the NP. When one wants to talk about the embarrassment caused by allies, the AWB created the granddaddy of all embarrassments for the CP. We have seen this very clearly in the debate thus far. We have seen a picture of a passive opposition party which has allowed itself to be taken in tow by a militant extremist gang. That party showed this week that it is in serious danger of being undermined from the inside by that organisation, and ultimately being hijacked completely.

The CP says the AWB is a cultural organisation. That is really enough to make anyone laugh. When one thinks of the AWB, one need go no further than its programme of principles to discover what a transparent organisation it is. On the first page of their programme of principles … Sir, I must interrupt myself to point out that they have published a new variation to their programme of principles. Of course they have done so without making any prior announcement. They have surreptitiously omitted the worst extremes of their previous document.

On the very first page of this programme of principles, the AWB talks about the task of the state. They talk about citizenship. They talk about the Government’s system and then say:

Since when has it been necessary for a cultural organisation to discuss these political subjects? Since when has it been necessary for a cultural organisation to run amuck with horsewhips at political meetings? Or are we talking about a horsewhip culture?

With revolvers at their side!

No, Sir, we must not try to bluff ourselves. The objectives the AWB has set itself are purely political objectives. If the AWB is such a cultural organisation, and if it is merely posing as a militant political gang for as long as it has to protect the poor, defenceless CP, surely we can put a few questions to the CP.

If the AWB is such an innocent cultural organisation, why was it necessary for the CP to take the lead in establishing the Afrikanervolkswag? Why did they feel a need to establish yet another cultural organisation? [Interjections.] What is more, Sir, why did they need another cultural organisation for the same population group? Not for English-speaking people. Not for Jewish South Africans, No, another organisation for the Afrikaners. Why? [Interjections.]

Has the CP abandoned all pretensions of seeking the support of English-speaking and Jewish people and others as well? How else can it co-operate in this way with an organisation which is striving for one official language, an organisation which makes no secret of exerting itself only on behalf of the interests of Afrikaners?

If some other cultural organisation—the Jewish community, for example—wants to be sure that the CP candidates will protect them against sentiments such as an attack on the British-Jewish party-political system, would the CP also give such a Jewish organisation an opportunity to submit documents of intent to the candidates of the CP? Or do they have no interest in the votes and the support of English and Jewish people in this country?

We heard here yesterday that the hon members for Bethal, Delmas and Ventersdorp are prepared to admit that they are members of the AWB. May we ask those three hon members what their language policy is? Are they in favour of an Afrikaans unilingual policy à la the AWB, or are they in favour of bilingualism as the CP professes to be?

Go and read our programme of principles!

I put that question to those three hon members who are also members of the AWB. If the hon member for Losberg does not know this, I want to refer him to the AWB document which reads that they are in favour of one official language. That party has three members of the AWB who endorse this document like the hundreds and thousands of other AWB members who, according to them, are also CP supporters. I want those members of the AWB who are also CP members to tell me whether they are in favour of one official language in South Africa or of two official languages. [Interjections.]

We saw an amusing spectacle this morning when the regional leader of the AWB described the ANC as freedom fighters. We all saw the report. I want those three hon members of the CP to tell us whether they agree with the hon member for Potgietersrus about Govan Mbeki or whether they agree with this AWB leader.

But Pik spoke about Namibia.

The hon member for Soutpansberg should address his AWB colleagues rather than address me. [Interjections.]

Not only is the AWB not a cultural organisation, but it is also opposed to democracy. It has said so openly and surely those hon members do not deny it. Its publications—I do not want to bore the House with this for too long—state that the Afrikaner people was forced to accept Parliamentary democracy by the Peace of Vereeniging. What nonsense! Parliamentary democracy and opposition groups existed in the Transvaal and Free State Republics before 1902. What absolute nonsense that is! These people who profess to be the super Afrikaners do not even know their own history.

These publications also say that the true representatives of the people who will ostensibly represent the people in terms of their Parliamentary state system, will be subject to the co-ordinating and general leadership of the authoritarian political body. That is a blatant, purely one-party form of government. It is a typically African form of government. It is the kind of thing the AWB wants to force those parties to accept while trying to make them believe it is doing them a favour. It is trying to make them believe that this is an expression of an Afrikaner cultural background.

Just like the AWB, members of the CP suggest that they are the true followers of former great leaders. The NP also had to contend with a militant organisation of this kind during the war years, however. It also had to contend with an organisation which had a one-party dictatorship as its objective. What did the leaders of the NP— those leaders of whom they supposedly are the true followers—say about that organisation? I quote from Hansard of 18 May 1945, col 7587 what Adv J G Strijdom said 10 days after the Second World War:

He went on to say that Dr Van Rensburg had converted the Ossewabrandwag into a political organisation and added:

Adv Strijdom then went on to quote what Dr Malan had said:

This is the true spirit of nationalism, not that of the good-for-nothings that are the bedfellows of those hon members.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Umlazi. I saw that quite a few of his arguments had the hon members of the Official Opposition in difficulties and, as they then usually do, they started to read or talk to one another.

I would like to use this opportunity to make a few remarks prompted by what happened in the House yesterday and the day before. Yesterday and the day before the Parliament of South Africa, with its proud history and traditions which were built up over many years, experienced spectacles which we have seldom seen here before. Twenty-two years ago, when I became a member of Parliament for the first time, one of the first things which was impressed upon me as young politician and parliamentarian was the tradition of Parliament and its built-in code of ethics, a code of ethics which at the same time is a code of courtesy towards fellow parliamentarians. This code of ethics, in the tradition of the Parliament of South Africa, teaches one a chivalry towards others, not only towards one’s own caucus members, but also towards one’s parliamentary opponents. For this reason, at every sitting of every Parliament I have been part of up to now, it has been impressed upon each member to adhere to the traditions of Parliament. The tradition of democracy in South Africa is a proud one.

In my parliamentary career it has often been said that if a person should have that amount of esteem and respect for an ordinary member of Parliament, how much more should he not have for the head of State and his executive authority. If one has no respect for that person, then at least have respect for the office he holds because it belongs to the Parliament and the tradition of South Africa. In debates we were taught to respect and obey rulings from by the Chair. One was taught how to use certain forms of address when addressing or debating with opponents, and to refrain from bringing personal matters into a debate; to attack policy statements and trends but never to sink to the personal level. The sole object of this tradition is the preservation of the precious system of democracy under which we find ourselves in South Africa.

It was envisaged that these rules were followed closely by every member of Parliament, because the hierarchy of every party to which I have ever belonged made sure that hon members preserved this tradition with jealousy. A transgression of the rules incurred the wrath of the Whips, and if need be of the leaders. If this did not happen, this place would deteriorate into an arena and a battlefield. Therefore these rules and traditions were made an integral part of the system. Uncouthness has no place whatsoever in this tradition.

However, I want to emphasise that it is the task of the political leaders to inculcate the principles of this tradition in their caucus members, and if there is a lack of this among caucus members, no one but the party leaders themselves are to blame. This is how democracy in South Africa, and Parliament as the instrument of that democracy, acquires the respect of the population, of the leader of the party, through the hierarchy of the party, down to the caucus member, and from there to the ordinary voter in South Africa, in order to make him proud of this priceless possession: The democratic Parliament of the Republic of South Africa.

What did we experience in this House yesterday and the day before? The contrast with what I have just outlined to hon members was so striking in the form of the behaviour of certain hon members of the Official Opposition that it was a spectacle.

What about your leader?

Examine your own conscience! [Interjections.]

Sir, my own leader did not say a word. He was not even able to participate in this debate. That is why the personal things that were said about him were more reprehensible than they would otherwise have been. [Interjections.]

Every tradition was broken. The hon CP members reduced the debates to a personal level. Forms of address and practices were thrown overboard completely.

First remove the beam from your own eye! [Interjections.]

I was sometimes very pleased that there is a traditional line running down this Chamber, keeping the opposition parties and the Government party at hypothetical sword’s length from one another, otherwise I am not so certain that the altercation would not have become physical. The Whips who have to discipline the caucus members, participated in this fracas with a will. They did not even try to stop it. To tell the truth, they even spurred it on in their speeches. The worst aspect of all, however, was the attitude of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. When the person of the hon the State President was attacked and when he was accused of having known about the irregularities that were committed and having failed to take action, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition sat there with an expression of complacency and satisfaction on his face. In that way he expressed his blessing and approval of the events in this House and the conduct of CP members. [Interjections.] At one stage I felt that if the nerves of the CP caucus members had become so frazzled by the tension of by-elections, I almost felt like praying, as the old gentleman did during the Second World War: “Please, Lord, let there be peace soon, never mind who wins”.

It was a spectacle which I hope never to experience again in this House. The attitude of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was more one of encouragement of this kind of conduct than discouragement.

It was obvious that democracy with its institutions and traditions is not important to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. The disruption of meetings of the kind the hon the Minister of National Education experienced was extended into the Parliament of South Africa by this kind of behaviour.

The CP have become the parliamentary minions of the AWB. The hon member for Umlazi told us what principles the AWB believe in. They do not believe in democracy. They condemn it. They do not believe in the present parliamentary system. They are going to abolish it.

If the dismantling of the system has to happen in this way, they are very satisfied. Can the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition tell me what respect the ordinary voter of South Africa—I am referring to the White voter—can have for the parliamentary institution of South Africa if that is the contempt with which the Leader of the Official Opposition and his caucus members treat this Parliament? [Interjections.]

The principles of the AWB are beginning to gain the upper hand in the CP because they are intertwined. They are closely intertwined. One is not even able to call them political twins any more. One has to call them political Siamese twins; a political Mpho and Mphonyane!

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may not criticise the AWB. [Interjections.] One asks oneself why he does not want to tackle the AWB, because he is not lacking in courage. Why does he not want to criticise the AWB? According to his own admissions he is so brave that he tackled Mr Jaap Marais in an election struggle. Now that same man does not want to reprimand the AWB. He knows that such conduct would mean the death of his party.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition talks about everyone who gets the shakes if there is any reference to the AWB. He has no right to say a thing like that. He gets the shakes himself!

I hope this spectacle which we saw in this House yesterday and the day before never repeats itself. I hope that we will move past that stage. I hope that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will have the courage to admonish his caucus members, including the AWB members.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman has spoken with conviction in support of the parliamentary tradition. He does that as a very senior frontbencher with a long tradition in Parliament and I can only say in response that, as a much more junior member of this House, I support him fully in his appeal for the upholding of the parliamentary tradition in this House. That is part of the foundations of the democratic system and if we tamper with that we tamper not only with the foundations of democracy in our society but also with the foundations of constitutional stability in our society. What we have has been built up over many centuries and we must protect it.

I want to move to the subject which has been raised by the hon member for Berea: namely the questions arising from yesterday’s activities in Bophuthatswana. The hon member for Soutpansberg, as the foreign affairs spokesman for the CP, said only one thing. He said that he wished the security forces well in what they did in Bophuthatswana yesterday. To the extent that we are talking of a military operation whereby the SADF were given an instruction which they carried out swiftly, effectively and successfully, to that extent we can abide by the comment of the hon member for Soutpansberg. However, there are political and diplomatic issues of great importance surrounding the events of yesterday which transcend the question of whether or not the military carried out their orders effectively.

There is a pattern of politics by coups developing in Southern Africa in the states immediately around us. This pattern is practised on the basis of one man, one army which determines power. It is very disturbing for the interests of this country. There have been two coups in Transkei, there have been two attempted coups in Ciskei and then the attempted coup yesterday in Bophuthatswana followed by the counter-installation of the deposed government. A short time ago Lesotho was taken over by the military. As South Africans we have to take very serious account of this pattern.

If one looks at the statement issued yesterday by the hon the State President in this House, that statement in itself raises some very important questions. The motivation given for the security forces having been sent into Bophuthatswana was based fundamentally on the request received from the deposed Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bophuthatswana. That is the one foundation given in the report for the action yesterday. The hon the State President ended his statement by saying that we should not draw any parallels and that this case cannot in any way be compared with the recent change of government in Transkei.

And then you laughed about it.

He then set out a number of points which raised more questions than they answered. The first point was that no violence was used. The question that arises is whether, if no violence is used, we condone coups as a method of changing governments? [Interjections.] Surely not!

No, it is only a factor.

Can we accept that a nonviolent coup is also not OK? In which case why is there a difference in attitude towards the two countries?

A second point offered by the hon the State President was that neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Transkei—who had been deposed—appealed to the South African Government for assistance. The question is raised there: If they were to have appealed and if indeed they still were to appeal today or in the near future for assistance to reinstate them as the constitutional executive government of Transkei, would this Government’s attitude then be that they should go in and help them in their appeal? [Interjections.] I raise this question because it is a valid question in the light of the statement made here by the hon the State President.

Another issue is that we went in on the basis of a request from a deposed politician. The world would say that it was merely South Africa clearing up something of a mess in their backyard because they do not recognise Bophuthatswana as an independent state. This Government, however, keeps insisting that it is an independent sovereign state. Is it now a diplomatically accepted principle in this country to go into another independent sovereign state with the army on the basis of a request from a deposed politician?

They had an agreement and you know that!

Will they invade a foreign independent state on the basis of such a request, and then do it within a matter of hours after the request has been received?

What would you have done?

I raise the question, because it is an important one.

However, let us look at the third issue. The hon the State President said 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 of Transkei. However, Sir, these are two different systems. The executive head of Bophuthatswana was President Mangope. The executive head of Transkei was the Prime Minister who was constitutionally elected by a party to that position. Where is the difference? In both cases one has the military deposing the executive government of the country, and in the one case that is okay, but in the other case it is not okay! There is a point to be answered here, Sir.

The fourth point: The hon the State President said that there was no competing entity vying for the exercise of governmental authority. I cannot actually make much sense of that, because in any political situation there is always a competing entity for the governmental authority.

The fifth point: The hon the State President said that 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. Is that so, Sir? Was it completely clear that the pretenders in Bophuthatswana yesterday were not in control by nine o’ clock in the morning when this matter was resolved? I raise that as a question, too.

The final point the hon the State President makes is that the South African Government deliberately waited for some time—in the case of Transkei—before giving them recognition. The question is: Why not wait for similar action in this case? Why not consider it after taking all the facts into account? In the one case it is justified to take time over the decision, but in the other case one goes straight in without taking the time. Where is the logic in the two positions?

However, a more important point is revealed here where the hon the State President says that recognition was only granted after the head of state of that government visited him personally and requested that such recognition be granted. Is the test now that the head of state—in the case of Transkei—had personally to visit the hon the State President before such recognition could be granted?

Mr Chairman, I have some questions arising from this issue. I think they are important questions. Firstly, did the Government take sufficient account of the motivations behind the developments in this other country before taking the steps that they took? If one reads a number of authoritative documents over a number of months, it would appear that everything in the garden of Bophuthatswana has not been rosy. There is a very interesting set of facts that has emerged, and the hon member for Berea has set these out in detail. These surround the personality of a certain Mr Kalmanovitz. Mr Kalmanovitz is a close associate of President Mangope. He openly enjoyed preferential economic rights and interests, according to an article in The Argus last night, substantiated by the reports in authoritative journals. Mr Kalmanovitz was involved with high officials in the land, as well as Ministers of state who bailed him out in a court case in America to the tune of R1,8 million. This gentleman’s firm is alleged to be a company that secures huge construction projects without tender. It is alleged that he is the holder of a Bophuthatswana passport, is a highly salaried representative of Bophuthatswana’s foreign desk in Israel and also that he enjoyed freedom of movement in the Republic of South Africa. That is also spelt out here.

The question I would like to ask is this: How is it possible for a man to operate in this manner, milking out millions of rand from the Bophuthatswana economy, which we support from the South African taxpayers’ funds? How is it possible that such a man could have operated without connections at the very highest level in the government of that country? I say it is impossible! How is it possible that our country whose security forces claim to have a tremendously good intelligence system operating throughout Southern Africa was not aware of Mr Kalmanovitz’s activities and his connections?

I want to ask this Government to what extent they are aware of this gentleman’s activities and to what extent he has contacts at a senior level in our Government. We want an explanation of the fact that this man is now being held in an Israeli prison on charges of being a KGB agent. If one takes that whole chain of events full circle one has to ask the question whether we yesterday reinstated a government which has dubious connections of this kind which will come out in due course and cause us embarrassment. Is it possible that by acting precipitately yesterday we have placed the hon the State President, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon the Minister of Defence and the head of our Defence Force in a somewhat embarrassing position? Have we acted precipitately—as we did—in a situation which may re zeal a can of worms in the very near future? There is only one reason for a country to act militarily across its borders and that is in the interests of the country.

So you do not support it?

If the national and security interests of South Africa are served by acting across the borders, we have to act. If our interests are not served, we do not act. Could it have been determined so quickly that our interests were being served? Is it not possible that in the light of the facts that are emerging, our interests were not served? [Interjections.]

I would also like to know whether the money that has been piped through to this gentleman, Mr Kalmanovitz, can be traced back to the money that South Africa gives to Bophuthatswana. I believe an enquiry should be instituted in this country to determine just how our money is being used in that country. In the light of the economic priorities which have been set and held up so high by this Government, I believe it is justified that we should look at that particular example of how our funds are being used.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Constantia made a remarkable speech here. Over the years we have come to know him, not as a person with whom we agree, but he has often created the impression of being a person who thinks deeply about South African politics and is concerned about it. He has also given the impression time and again of being a member who does not concern himself with minor points, but concentrates on the major problems of the country. I still recall some of his speeches in which he quoted papers on great conflicts in this Southland.

Until very recently this hon member’s party was still the Official Opposition in this House. Yet the hon member takes a single aspect, the events of the previous 36 hours, and constructs an entire speech around that. He asks one question after another to which I am not equipped to provide the replies, but to which the responsible Minister will certainly reply, and constructs an entire speech around that. Nothing came of the characteristic tendency of that hon member to address major problems and to discuss major issues. Why is that? It is because that hon member is a member …

Do you not consider what has happened important?

It is typical of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central to interrupt to protect his member while I am arguing a case. He should leave me alone so that I can talk to the hon member for Constantia.

The hon member for Constantia normally addresses major matters, but what he was doing now, he did because he is a member of a party which feels hurt because it no longer fills its former position. In the second place, he is a member of a party whose members are fighting about the leadership, about strategy and about what they should do and what they should not do. It is no wonder that we do not take them seriously.

I should like to give the hon member an answer by means of the circumstances that apply to me. Years ago, as an impulsive adventurer, I attended the independent celebrations of Transkei and I awaited the approach of midnight when the hour of independence for Transkei would strike with just as much excitement as the Transkeians in the independence stadium were doing.

I can recall the speech which Kaiser Daliwanga Matanzima made on that occasion as well as if it were yesterday. I recall that my colleagues who accompanied me, in commemoration of their visit, all bought switches which are used to scare off women and children. I said I was not buying such a switch, because I still wanted to attend many independent celebrations. I experienced the birth of that state. Years after that I also visited Bophuthatswana on a parliamentary tour in the company of members of the PFP. I experienced the aspirations of the people in Bophuthatswana to make a success of their country and the circumstances with which they were struggling. When the leaders of South Africa act as they in fact did, namely to recognise a coup in the one case as the de jure government of the day, and in a second case to rush to the assistance of the de jure government to ensure that they are not taken over by a de facto government, in my opinion, if one takes everything into account, there is surely one underlying aspect, namely what is in the interests of South Africa. What is in the interests of South Africa in this southern continent as far as the people with whom we have to co-exist are concerned? If the hon member for Randburg wants to put a question to me, he can do so now. I see the hon member does not want to put a question. [Interjections.]

The fact is South Africa also has responsibilities. In view of the circumstances and the facts that came to light yesterday and the night before, we had no other choice than to be of assistance to those hon colleagues and friends. But what is the question which these hon members are dodging and avoiding? Is it not a fact that these hon members are confronted by a tremendous dilemma, ie that they do not want to recognise the independent states as such in this Southland? They ignore the independence of those states. The fact is if those hon members were to tome into power and were to govern this country they would surely have dealings with the independent states, they would surely have to look the independent states in the eye and have to confer with them, also with regard to the future. We can tell one another that there was a time in our history— a history we do not repudiate—when we believed that independence was the only answer to South Africa’s problems. However, we also faced up to the realities, namely the Transkeians, the Bophuthatswanans and the Tswanas around our cities and in our residential areas. For this reason the NP embarked on the course it is following at present.

I have no doubt at all that there is no room in this country for obsession with colour and colour prejudice. TNT is a dangerous explosive and it is easier to set off an explosion than to repair the consequences of one. That is why we despise the TNT politicians and their statements on South Africa. We are opposed to Tambo and Terre’Blanche; we do not like them, but unfortunately they are part of the South African political scene. We therefore consider it to be an enormous challenge—a challenge which we accept— to persuade South Africans that their salvation and future do not lie with the TNT politicians of South Africa. Those people will set off the explosion without in any way taking into account the repair costs. We are going forward to meet the future with the builders, not the destroyers, of bridges.

The future will not be decided by people who are afraid of the conference table or who are obsessed with colour. Just listen to the absurd statements made by members of the Official Opposition. These are members who say in this House and in the newspapers: “We are being brainwashed with all this American civil rights rubbish. From what we see on our screens, you would think that Negroes run America”. This is criticism these hon members express on the television programmes that are presented on our screens. These hon members then launch an attack on programmes such as “Webster”, “Scarecrow and Mrs King” and many others I do not even know of. My question now is this: How superficial does one’s value system have to be if you are afraid of “Webster”, Sir? [Interjections.] I am ashamed to think that I am a member of a people that believes that “Webster” can dislodge me from my value system, and do so in the absence of any scientific evidence that a person who is not inclined toward integration, can be moved towards integration by a television programme. The CP belong to the ranks of the timid Afrikaners and the timid White people of this country who overestimate the brainwashing ability of television.

Television has three functions—entertainment, information and education. The most sensitive is certainly entertainment, because that is where the money lies. Now the CP are calling upon their supporters to venture into this market-sensitive area and turn off their television sets because—so they argue—if CP members turn off their television sets, the advertisers will, owing to the lack of viewer density, withdraw their advertisements and the SABC will be forced to withdraw those programmes. This is an amusing challenge …

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

I only have five minutes left. He must pardon me for not wanting to reply to a question now.

I now want to accept the challenge on behalf of two million White South Africans and say that we will not tolerate this obsession with colour of the CP. We challenge the CP to encourage CP members to turn off their television sets when these programmes are being shown. Let us then see what happens. The programme “Scarecrow and Mrs King” is among the first three most popular programmes, and little “Webster” among the first 15 programmes on the popularity list, and 50% of the people who watch television, watch this programme. That is approximately two million people. I now propose that we make this a test case. Two million White people are not going to allow themselves to be led by the obsession with colour and the colour prejudices of hon members on the opposite side of the House.

I want to suggest that we change the CP membership card and rewrite it a little. Since the CP is now indicating that 75% of the Blacks have to be resettled in the national states, I now want to suggest that a CP member may not watch “Webster”, because that will make him soft on integration. [Interjections.]

I hear very few hon members laughing.

A CP … does that hon member not accept the challenge?

Furthermore I propose that CP members should say that Blacks should not live in backyards, because our dream of a White South Africa with 75% of the Blacks in national states could in that way be defeated. In addition, every CP member must adhere meticulously to the provisions of the Group Areas Act. A CP member must not shout “hoorah!” when his leaders argue for the maintenance of the Group Areas Act, and then quietly come along and request NP Parliamentarians nevertheless to ensure that the Group Areas Act is scrapped so that they can rent flats to Blacks in Hillbrow. The CP also says that they are going to introduce influx control.

However, they are not going to do this by means of a cruel Act. They are going to do this by means of work permits. I suggest that on the back of this CP membership card it should be stated:

Only Black people who are able to work and who have a job may form part of this in future.

Is this whole argument of the CP that members should switch off their television sets when certain programmes come on, not perhaps the precursor of the drubbing they do not want their supporters to see when the hon the Minister of National Education has his debate with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition on television? [Interjections.] I should very much have liked South Africans to have been able to hear the last five minutes of the debate in this House the day before yesterday when the hon the Minister of National Education put certain questions to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Anyone witnessing that would have known who he should follow.

Mr Chairman, I must say that the hon member for Krugersdorp made a very good speech. He should just remember, of course, that he and the CP are afraid of different things. Just as the CP may be afraid that “Webster” could undermine their market, the hon member for Krugersdorp, too, is somewhat afraid of something. I wonder if he might not agree that one should in fact refuse to permit Breyten Breytenbach to come and visit his sick father. Would the hon member be afraid that his intellectual basis would be further undermined by Breyten Breytenbach?

The hon member for Randburg proposed that, as in the case of the new economic dispensation, one should also make use of the skills and willingness of others in the community in an effort to rectify the security situation in the country.

The initiation of reform is dependent on a certain strategy. This strategy involves the suppression of certain political actions and of the free flow of information. In this instance the strategy adopted was inadequate from the economic point of view. The hon the Minister of Finance has admitted this. At the same time, this strategy has apparently failed in the field of security. For this we have the very clear evidence in Pietermaritzburg. After 18 months of a state of emergency the security situation is still deteriorating by the day.

The key to a new approach or strategy is that instead of speaking about reform within the system of an unacceptable ideological structure based on race and ethnicity, we should rather begin to think about negotiation aimed at fundamentally restructuring the South African community. This ought to include all its facets and all its institutions. Anything of this kind could only succeed if all the leaders of all the people who, after all, will have to stay here, are involved in such a process from the outset. It would be pointless defining the majority of the people and their leaders out of the political process as if they were the enemy, forming part of a so-called total onslaught. We cannot afford to waste the creativity and energy of the best leaders in the Black communities by either locking them up or driving them to focus on mobilisation in order to resist oppression. In this way we shall only be losing the energy and creativity of the best leaders in those communities.

An inclusive process of negotiation embracing all spheres—yes, the security sphere as well—would perhaps be a start in creating a democratic culture that could lead us out of the current autocratic system, while at the same time preventing that system from being replaced by a new autocratic system.

The situation of conflict in Pietermaritzburg has a history. In my opinion the control of the security situation there is also a considerable factor in the deterioration of the situation. As political action against the leaders there was stepped up, the normal maintenance of law and order in Pietermaritzburg deteriorated. I refer here in particular to specific and notable affairs, such as the murders of the three trade union leaders near Howick. This happened more than a year ago and so far these violent murderers have not been arrested yet.

It is common knowledge in those areas who the murderers were who were engaged in an orgy of violence for an entire night and a morning. I refer to wellknown “warlords”, against some of whom interdicts have been obtained as far back as early 1987, but who still walk the streets full of bravado and persist in such deeds. [Interjections.] I am referring to innumerable charges laid at the Plessislaer police station in particular where the dossiers are accumulating but these people are not being prosecuted. I refer to perpetrators of violence who are released on bail for long periods or are being detained on serious charges, without their cases being followed up. In this way confidence in the normal procedure of law and order is systematically being undermined.

In such circumstances it does not take a call from Moscow or Ulundi to prompt people to decide to begin to defend themselves because it is clear to them that they cannot be afforded protection. If perpetrators of violence are not brought to justice and if gangs can walk the streets in their hundreds, the opposition of the community is aroused and a very natural reaction is retaliation, raids and offensive action. Rather than simply take the law into their own hands, the people in the townships have approached various bodies, including the churches, for assistance.

†Eventually the Chamber of Commerce agreed to act as mediator. As part of the process of finding out what could be done to create a situation or a climate in which a peace process could succeed, they spelt out the role of the State. They said first of all that the SAP should be seen to be neutral in the situation. Secondly, justice should be seen to be done by bringing to court those outstanding cases. Thirdly, the assistance of the Attorney-General would be sought to expedite the process of justice. I see today that it will be done in respect of public violence where large numbers are involved but nothing is still being done about those cases which have been outstanding for a long time. Fourthly, people should not be detained for political reasons because they are part of the peace initiative. In the last instance it should be noted that the above-mentioned were not preconditions for the talks to carry on. People have shown their bona fides. They want the peace process to go ahead.

What was the reaction of the State, however? Firstly, people were detained while they were actually working on this initiative. During a meeting of leaders of community organisations the police swooped in and arrested 17 of the people who were there trying to implement some of the decisions that had been taken in the negotiating process. Two senior leaders of one delegation were arrested. They were subsequently released but to my horror I learnt this morning that Martin Wittenberg has been detained again at a time when both the UDF and Inkatha had agreed to meet and that the process continue. There were raids on organisations which give relief to the people who are suffering as a result of the events there. Field-workers were arrested. I appeal for the release of Siphiwe Kanjile, a field-worker who helps those people in distress. He is not a threat to the State.

Who?

Siphiwe Kanjile.

As regards the question of neutrality one cannot dismiss the allegations simply by saying that there are accusations from both sides. Unfortunately everybody in the townships says there is a lack of neutrality when acts are perpetrated against members of the progressive movement and no action is taken. I once went into a house on which a full-scale terror attack had been launched with petrol bombs, short-arms, shotguns, etc.

Sir, I have the actual evidence in my possession. The remains of petrol bombs were found on the site but no evidence was gathered and no investigation held. The people of Pietermaritzburg are ready to continue with the peace process and we need the assistance of the hon the Minister in this regard. I accept his promise of neutrality and we will assist him in that by getting concerned people to monitor the situation. Above all, we are glad that, despite the request of the PFP and NP MPs, the Defence Force was not brought in. That, Sir, would finally have killed the belief that the forces of law and order, the police, are still the first protectors of the people. I accept that an additional task force was brought in to assist with follow-up actions and can only trust that all of this will help us get over this nightmare situation and that eventually we will all be able to participate in the peace process. This peace process is not simply the responsibility of the State. It is the responsibility of all peace-loving citizens and the people of Pietermaritzburg are ready to take up the challenge.

Sir, not surprisingly I find very little in the speech delivered by the hon member for Greytown with which I disagree. He will forgive me if I concentrate my efforts on the people in whom we have no confidence.

During this debate the cry has gone up on a number of occasions from the Government benches that we should not rehash all the criticism that we have had of Government administration over the past 40 years. I can understand this in the sense that if I were sitting on those benches, I would not want the history of that party highlighted. I can also understand that in all fairness there are hon members on those benches who see themselves as being a new kind of nationalist, a nationalist who believes in White domination without discrimination. I do not quite know how those two fit together but it is clear to me that the NP is still intent on maintaining White domination. All the protestations about what the CP gets up to and all the professions of moving away from discrimination I find, unfortunately, to be without much substance. Nevertheless I do not intend to repeat the long list of NP sins. Suffice to say that I do not think anybody who really knows what is going on in this country will disagree with me when I say that after 40 years of NP rule, this country is poorer, the average South African is poorer, unhappier, certainly less secure and more hated by the rest of the world as a direct result of NP rule.

What is remarkable is that during this debate the NP has deliberately chosen not to respond to the very specific citations of crimes which they have committed during the past 40 years. They are crimes, and if anybody wants to tell me that the Group Areas Act is not a crime, I would like to have it explained to me. I cannot understand how the hon member for Krugersdorp who went on about “kleurbeheptheid” and “kleurvooroordeel” which he attributed to the CP, and other members sitting on Government benches, can criticize the CP.

Sir, on a point of order: The hon member says that the NP have committed crimes. Courts only regard an act as a crime when it is committed by someone, and I want to ask if it is not unparliamentary to allege that hon members on this side of the House have committed certain crimes.

Order! Would the hon member for Groote Schuur please enlighten me as to exactly what he said in this regard?

Mr Chairman, the content of what I said was that the NP had committed crimes. I referred specifically to the Group Areas Act which the NP was instrumental in passing. As far as I am concerned this Act is a crime against humanity. I certainly had not intended to convey that they committed a particular criminal act which would have been chargeable in a court of law.

Order! Do I understand the hon member as wishing to convey that it was a crime in the political sense?

That is correct, Sir.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Then Parliament did that too. They passed the Act! [Interjections.]

Who was in the majority at the time? Who introduced the legislation? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, with due respect, I cannot understand a party that continually proclaim that they are moving away from discrimination, that apartheid is dead, and yet, in a debate such as this, they refuse to justify their keeping Acts such as this one on the Statute Book. [Interjections.] They refuse to tell us why a continued state of emergency and detentions are still necessary, or why we are at war in Angola. These things have not been touched on in the debate.

It is for security reasons. That is why.

With the exception of the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance who touched on certain aspects of our economic performance yesterday … [Interjections.]

Order! I hear too much noise in the Chamber anyway.

With that one exception, none of the Government’s spokesmen, apart from their by-election speeches and the odd word of praise for the hon the Minister of Finance and his spokesman, the hon the State President, for the promises of economic reform, has said anything about what Government has done or justified anything that Government has done. Quite honestly, I do not see the purpose of this debate from the NP point of view. The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance correctly admitted that this was a debate where the Government is called to account. However, the NP have not given any account to the people of South Africa, neither have they given any answer to the critics of their administration over the past year.

If I may, I should like to give an example of this. On Tuesday evening the leader of the NP in this House after facing a barrage of criticism both from our hon leader and the hon member for Houghton and subsequently the hon member for Johannesburg North, chose to answer these criticisms—there were many of them—by pointing to the fact that the electorate had returned the NP to power with an increased majority thereby suggesting that this was proof that everything was in order in this country and with this Government’s administration. I must admit that this strange phenomenon needs an explanation. How does a political party with the appalling record of the NP win election after election?

Maybe because the record is not appalling.

I think it is common cause that the record is appalling. I should like to know what the explanation is.

However, I believe we all know what the answer is. The NP have over the years catered only to the wishes and fears of those South Africans who have the vote.

That is your opinion.

With respect, Mr Chairman, I wish to point out that the only people who have an effective vote in this country are the members of the White population, and the NP, very cleverly and very successfully, have tailored all their policies to the wishes and fears of that White electorate. [Interjections.] Quite clearly, human nature being what it is, the majority of White voters took the short-term view of supporting the party that offered them the largest slice of the cake.

I accept that we are all human—some of us more so than others. [Interjections.]

Now the Nats are finding themselves in a spot of bother. Faced with the growing demands and the power of the people who do not have the vote, they are being forced to redistribute this cake. Having conditioned Whites to a life of privilege, and after 40 years of teaching Whites that they are in fact entitled to those privileges, the NP is now trapped in its own creation. The White electorate, or at least a very large section of that electorate, have been moulded to think like the CP and to want what the CP is offering. The NP is trapped in this creature of its own making.

In retrospect I want to ask the hon NP members whether it would possibly not have been wiser to have listened to the counsel that came from the hon members of the PFP and rather to have spent the past 40 years emphasising the advantages of equality of opportunity, promoting the concepts of human rights and the rule of law, attacking rather than promoting discrimination, and building understanding, rather than creating division? If they had done their homework, preparing the country for the future, they would not be faced with the problems they now have.

How often so we not, in conversation, hear good Nats telling us that they cannot move too fast because they have the CP on their right, or that they cannot move ahead of the electorate. In fact, they cannot move ahead of the people that they have educated to think in a retarded fashion. [Interjections] It is a thing of their own making.

I believe the NP still has a golden opportunity. They have almost total control of the media in this country; they certainly have total control of radio and television which dominate viewing and listening in this country. If they wanted to, if they intend reform, they could still do an enormous amount to bring Whites along with them just by telling the simple truth to South Africa and making a concerted effort to prepare South Africans for the future.

What do they do, however? We still have an SABC which, night after night, promotes the same kind of racial thinking that has been with the NP for the past 40 years.

The NP’s obsession with political power and playing party political politics places severe Emits on its ability and, I believe, on its desire to deal with the problems facing South Africa. One of the prime examples of this is the manner in which they handle security in this country. At election time the NP make great play of how strong they are in this area and through their publicity they do quite well. They accuse us of being soft on security.

If one analyses the situation, one realises that the man in the street is far less secure. There are far more assaults on individuals in terms of their rights than has ever happened before in this country. Why is that? It is because the NP has had to deploy our security forces in order to prop up a system which is totally unacceptable to the vast majority of people in this country. Until the NP gets its priorities on security right to protect the man in the street both in his home and when walking on the street, I am afraid that security will never come to this country.

Mr Chairman, I had not intended to react in detail to the speech of the hon member for Groote Schuur, but he did say a few things which one could not simply allow to go unanswered.

The hon member spoke about a list of crimes and transgressions which the NP were supposed to have committed during the past 40 years. However, we could spend hours this afternoon enumerating all the achievements of the NP during the past 40 years. I only want to mention two. In the first place, the hon member cannot argue with me that the standard of living of all the people in South Africa is the highest in Africa at the moment. [Interjections.]

Order!

Yes, this has been the case for 40 years. Did it simply materialize out of nowhere? No, the NP accomplished this in South Africa! [Interjections.]

Order!

Do you think the fairies brought it?

Order! I only called upon the hon the Minister to speak. This was not an open invitation for a conversation. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, that hon member is correct. The fairies did not bring it, and the Progs did not bring it either. [Interjections.]

Let us discuss another matter regarding which the hon member tried to be clever this afternoon, namely security. Heaven help this country if its security is in the hands of the Progs. Then there will be nothing left. [Interjections.] If one is talking about people who are soft on security, it is the Progs. After all, we have evidence of this. During the past 40 years the NP has given high priority to the security of this country. The Defence Force and SA Police were enlarged so that we did not need to be afraid of anything in Africa. We can stand our man against the enemies who want to take our country by violent means.

What about the man in the street?

The hon member has asked: “What about the man in the street?”, but I want to say something else about the Defence Force first. That hon member is a supporter of the End Conscription Campaign, who wants us not to defend this country.

Not true!

He is at the forefront in asking people not to defend this country.

Not true!

Let us then discuss the security of the man in the street.

You cannot even defend yourself against your fellow South Africans!

Order! The hon member for Green Point must now contain himself. [Interjections.]

We have said repeatedly and I want to reiterate that the crime rate in South Africa is unacceptably high to all of us.

After 40 years.

Yes, now the hon member for Sea Point is also jumping on the bandwagon, but those hon members are always holding up a certain country to the NP and South Africa as the best example of how we should set about combating crime. That country is Britain.

We did not say that.

When did we say that?

However, in the past 14 days we have read that the police in Britain—this is a highly civilized country—have made a serious appeal to the public to help them because crime has increased so much. They say that the crime rate is unacceptably high—I have the words here in front of me. They are therefore saying the same thing we are. During the past three years we have experienced unrest and violence in South Africa. During this period of unrest which was forced on this country by the revolutionaries and radicals, the criminals also had a field today. We therefore say that the crime rate is unacceptably high, but if we really examine this closely, we have already succeeded in allowing people to live more safely in South Africa that was the case a while ago. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Do you think it is better than before?

The hon member for Sea Point is now trying to rescue that hon member. I am now asking him whether he wants us to spend more money on the police. He need only tell me whether he wants that.

[Inaudible.]

It seems to me that hon member wants us to spend more money on the police. [Interjections.]

Order!

I have sat here all week quietly listening to the hon members and I did not hear a single hon member ask the hon the Minister of Finance to take money from a department and give it to the SAP.

[Inaudible.]

Where must we get the money from to employ more police?

[Interjections.]

I again want to say that we consider the crime rate in South Africa to be unacceptably high, but we are not simply accepting this, and that is why we are going out of our way to do something about it. When I speak to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in a moment, I shall quote a single example of where the crime rate has dropped in order to indicate that we are successfully dealing with the situation.

Why can you not do so now? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member said that he had a long list of our transgressions which he could enumerate. I have only given two examples of achievements. There are many other similar achievements. The NP has never told anyone that we were perfect. We have admitted that we have made mistakes.

Many too! [Interjections.]

Order!

That is the difference: We are honestly trying to put right the mistakes we made. We are trying to put matters right. We are not getting any help from the PFP to put these matters right. They are putting a spoke in the wheel to make things more difficult for us. [Interjections.] The hon member for Groote Schuur…

Order! I am not going to allow the barracking of the hon the Minister any longer. The first hon member who does not abide by my ruling will be called to order.

Mr Chairman, may I ask that the hon member for Houghton be given a little leeway, because she cannot keep quiet?

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

We are good friends too, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Groote Schuur asked why the state of emergency was necessary. Where is this hon member living? Was he not sitting here in the House when the hon the State President motivated the declaring of the state of emergency? Is he a Rip van Winkel? The hon member’s surname is after all Van Gend and not Van Winkel! [Interjections.] Did the hon member not hear what the hon the State President’s motivation was? If the hon member did not hear it, I merely want to say that the hon the State President fully motivated the declaration of a state of emergency. He said that the laws of the country were not adequate to handle the revolutionary situation in South Africa. A state of unrest and revolutionary activities are the order of the day.

The hon member for Greytown and other hon members complained about what was going on in Pietermaritzburg. We need such measures so that the radicals and activists can be controlled and the unrest can abate. The fact of the matter is that the state of emergency enabled us to do this. During the past year we have succeeded in reducing the visible signs of unrest to a certain extent. However, the revolutionary climate is so high throughout the country that we cannot manage without the emergency measures. Let us submit this.

This therefore also means that it is essential for us to detain people in terms of the emergency measures. We are not doing this in a clandestine fashion. An Act of Parliament determines in terms of which provision we may detain people. Detainees have repeatedly taken us to court regarding the evidence on the basis of which we were detaining them, and the courts ruled time and again that we were lawfully detaining these people in accordance with the emergency measures. [Interjections.] That evidence was presented to the courts and the question was put: Is this man—I can mention names—being lawfully detained? I should also like to reply to my friend, Wynand Malan, in this connection.

Order! The hon the Minister must refer to him as the hon member for Randburg.

I beg your pardon, the hon member for Randburg.

The hon member is concerned about someone we are detaining in this connection. His case was presented to the court and the evidence was put. At the end of a long trial the judge ruled that this man was being lawfully detained. This is my reply to the hon member for Randburg.

We do not simply detain people; we detain radicals who are bedevilling matters in the community. They try to prevent ordinary people from going to work and participating in organised activities in communities. It is in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of those communities that we remove such elements from the community and detain them until such times as the community is stabilized. That is also what we are doing.

The hon member for Greytown started off fairly well this afternoon, but he very soon lapsed into his ordinary unbalanced speech. I am not being unfair, but I feel that the hon member again made a disgraceful speech this afternoon. The speech he made was not only damaging to the SA Police, but also to South Africa, because he cast very ugly reflections here this afternoon. I see the hon member does not agree with me, but he views these matters from a different angle. He views them from the Lusaka and the ANC angle. I beg your pardon, not Lusaka—Dakar! After all, he was in Dakar! He sees South Africa from the Dakar angle. He sees things in a completely different light.

The speech which the hon member for Greytown made here this afternoon, was only to the advantage of the UDF. After all, we know that the ANC described the UDF as an ally. The hon member’s speech was only to the advantage of radicals who want to bedevil matters in South Africa. It is the radicals who are trying to make things so difficult for us in Pietermaritzburg. I can understand that the hon member views this situation from another angle, but he is now making wild allegations. Against whom is he making these allegations? He is making them against the SA Police.

I should like to invite the hon member to substantiate what he said here today. After all the hon member said here, and he was referring to three trade union members who had been murdered, that the culprits had not yet been arrested more than a year later, although it was general knowledge in the town who the murderers were. Those were more or less the words the hon member used. I want to ask the hon member whether he has the information.

[Inaudible.]

No, I assume the hon member has this information. It is the duty of every citizen, if he has information on a crime which has been committed, to give it to the Police. We shall now wait for the hon member …

When can I get an appointment?

The hon member can come and see me tomorrow. [Interjections.] The hon member can bring me the information and we will take down a sworn statement. I shall then have the information investigated. We cannot go on like this. If hon members or anyone in the country has information regarding a crime, he must submit it to the relevant authorities, the SA Police.

In his speech the hon member also spoke about “evidence of murders” he knew about. He said:

Those were more or less his words. The hon member is nodding his head. I think the hon member for Randburg is now trying to protect him. I understand that; the members of the movement must assist one another. I want to challenge the hon member in this regard too. Bring that information to the Police so that we can have it investigated. We cannot continue in this way, with gossip-mongering against the SA Police.

The hon member also mentioned dossiers at Plessislaer which were allegedly not being investigated. I want to tell the hon member … [Interjections.] The hon member must interrupt that argument for a while, because I am still speaking to him. He said dossiers were not being investigated. I shall have this matter fully investigated. In due course we shall finalise the matter here, where the hon member raised it, in public.

The hon member also objected to bail. I thought he was in favour of the independence of the judiciary. A judge or a magistrate grants a person bail on the basis of evidence presented to him.

However, the hon member is objecting to that. One cannot have one’s bread buttered on both sides. Those hon members belong to a movement which sets great store by these high principles. However, now they come and attack the Government; they attack the Minister of Law and Order because people are being released on bail This is incomprehensible. It is inconsistent.

The hon member also made a very interesting point about the Defence Force which should ostensibly not be involved. In this connection he is in direct conflict with members of the PFP. The other day the PFP said in public that in specific circumstances they were prepared to allow the Defence Force to deal with the situation. Perhaps that is the reason he left, because the ANC does not want the Defence Force to be in the Black residential areas either. The fact of the matter is that the SADF is involved throughout the country in the combating of unrest in a supporting role to the SAP; it is at present involved in Natal in this role. The SADF’s involvement, the increase in the manpower, will be reconsidered from time to time. I want to give the hon member the assurance that we shall continue to take action in Natal to see whether we can bring about peace, whether we can restore peace.

We are also concerned that people have to die. I want to tell the hon member that we prosecute everyone whom we find to have committed a crime. The evidence speaks for itself. In Natal we have prosecuted members of Inkatha. The other day 43 of those young people appeared in court. [Interjections.] I have just said that we prosecuted people. We prosecuted people from the UDF. We even prosecuted policemen who in our opinion had exceeded the bounds. That is why I am telling the hon member that it is extremely irresponsible to try to blame the SAP for the fact that there is no peace in Natal. This kind of thing is beneath the dignity of an hon member of this House.

We shall continue to take action against these people, also in terms of the emergency regulations, and if in the process we detain some of the hon member’s friends—these people he mentioned by name, which I do not want to repeat across the floor of this House—we do so because we have information that they are contravening the emergency regulations, endangering the security of the Republic and the security of its inhabitants. That is why we are detaining them.

We, the SAP—this Government—are not apologising for the fact that we are detaining radicals who are disrupting our Black communities. It is our duty and we shall continue to detain these people.

In the last few minutes I have at my disposal I should like to address a few words to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. The hon the Leader is extremely angry with me, and became very vehement a few days ago because I referred to the SACP, the ANC and the AWB as radicals. I do not know whether the hon the Leader has been instructed by the AWB to speak on their behalf. I did not think he had been, because they denied all these things. This afternoon the hon member for Ermelo said that he was no longer a member of the grand council (grootraad) either. The hon the leader is now attacking me … [Interjections.] No, I do not know. I do not want to become involved in that argument. The hon members must sort that out by themselves.

The fact of the matter is that the hon the leader is angry with me and is attacking me because I said that the AWB was radical. The hon the leader must not take it amiss of me if I gain the impression that he is acting on behalf of the AWB. I wonder whether the CP is not the Parliamentary wing of the AWB. [Interjections.] Or is the AWB perhaps the extra-parliamentary wing of the CP? I think it is the other way round. The fact of the matter is that the leader of the AWB, Mr Terre’Blanche, proclaims from one platform to another that moderation has no future in South Africa. Hon members have after all heard him say so.

They say so too.

I have never heard them say so, but I know that Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche says so. He says moderation has no future in South Africa. Is the AWB not radical if they are not moderate? Someone must give us a reply to this. I would be very glad if the hon members were to tell me that the AWB is moderate, but I do not think they are. I therefore stand by my statement that they are radical. Not all radicals are murderers nor do they all commit acts of terrorism, but all radicals in South Africa stand in the way of reform. [Interjections.] I have said this before and I am repeating it today.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition then attacked the Police and said that we could not even cope with car theft in South Africa. He usually chooses the wrong topic, but in this case he really chose the wrong one, because I took at a look at the crime statistic for six months as regards motor car theft in South Africa. The figures for July 1987 compared with those for July 1986 had declined by 3,62%; the figures for August had declined by 11,56%; for September by 14,15%; for October by 24,29%; for November by 25,95% and for December by 14,58%. [Interjections.] Yet the hon the leader says we cannot combat car theft. That hon member also said that we were not looking after the public. I really think the hon the leader must be fair. We consider him to be a fair man, and he must also be fair to the SAP when he makes this kind of unfounded allegations. [Interjections.]

Order! The running commentary is getting out of hand now. The hon the Minister may proceed.

When are you going to find my car?

During the past year the SAP has experienced serious problems with organisations and individuals seeking confrontation in South Africa. Other organisations and individuals also caused us problems, but we had our hands full with these confrontation seekers and instigators in South Africa.

We are going through a period in our country in which the climate of revolution is so threatening that a confrontation could cause a serious catastrophe. We must discuss this frankly with one another. We must discuss this seriously with one another. It is a real danger, but this danger does not seem to deter some people. This afternoon I should like to mention a few examples.

The first example I want to mention is the AWB which went to Jan Smuts to await the arrival of the Dakarites with the threat: “We will get you there”. Efforts which we made to persuade the AWB to abandon this idea of confrontation, failed. What was the result? We had to call on hundreds of policemen and use thousands of man-hours to keep these two groups apart.

Like at NP meetings?

Yes, that is the other example which that hon member has mentioned. The other example is the NP meetings at Pietersburg and Standerton. The NP held a peaceful meeting, and let us tell each other frankly who turned up there and caused the trouble. It was the AWB, Sir. Let us tell each other so. It is of no avail for us to make accusations across the floor of the House and in the newspapers that the NP also did so. Let us consider the factual situation. I therefore want to tell the AWB that their confrontation is causing …

[Inaudible.]

… is resulting in hundreds of policemen having to take action and thousand of man-hours being lost. Then the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition comes along and tells us that we cannot even combat motor car theft. That is the point. We must discuss these matters frankly with one another.

They are actually accessories to car theft.

At Jan Smuts Airport these hundreds of policemen had to try to keep people apart and this created an image of intolerance and fighting and quarrelling between different people.

Like the NP did in the old days.

The AWB must think this matter over. We cannot afford to carry on along the road to confrontation with one another in South Africa. Today the SA Police are very serious when we say that we must abandon this course. We would like to seek peaceful solutions, but it is unnecessary for responsible political parties or cultural organisations, left wing or right wing—it does not matter who they are—in South Africa to continue to seek confrontation. This leads unavoidably to the Police having to separate the different parties and eventually being ground up in a process which is totally unnecessary and can only be harmful to the Police and South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I should very much like to take this opportunity to tell the hon the Minister of Law and Order and his Deputy that we in South Africa think extremely highly of the way in which they not only maintain law and order in South Africa, but also create a background against which peaceful change can take place in South Africa. There are those of us who know what they have been through during the past few years in South Africa and during the 40 years of NP government, and I make so bold as to say that if it had not been for our security forces, there would not have been a South Africa as we know it today, a land in which there is development and which can still make progress peacefully. I am convinced that the hon the Minister, and those persons who preceded him, handled the portfolio in such a way that the SA Police stood between peace and prosperity on the one hand, and revolution on the other, to create that situation for us, the ordinary citizens in South Africa. I submit that everyone in South Africa owes them a debt of thanks for this.

Thus far in this debate the hon members of the PFP have actually raised two main points. The first of these was that they were not interested in the dogfight between the NP and the Official Opposition. They are not interested in the so-called “internecine fight that goes on in South Africa”. I cannot blame them for not being interested, because the voters rejected them as an official opposition. They are no longer receiving much attention. They are no longer receiving the attention of the voter, and that is why there is now a new Official Opposition.

Hear, hear!

It is because so many people are voting for the NP.

It is after all their fault that they were no longer the Official Opposition after the election. That is the one point they raised.

Their second point is that after 40 years of NP rule, there has never been more misery in South Africa. People are unhappy, and as far as the outside world is concerned, we are completely penalised and ostracised—nobody wants anything to do with South Africa. I will deal with that tomorrow.

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has drawn my attention to certain remarks made by the hon member for Reservoir Hills during the no-confidence debate. I have read that portion of the Hansard and I now call upon the hon member for Reservoir Hills for an explanation.

Mr Chairman, may I read the following statement which I have prepared into the record:

Mr Chairman, it is all right for the hon member for Reservoir Hills to make this statement today. Tuesday’s reference was not his first and once before I requested him to accept my word that it was not the late Mr C G Pillay who went to the Town Clerk, but Mr B G Pillay. I requested this in 1985 and it was not accepted by him. Upon reading the unedited version of Hansard I feel that one should go by the record. The hon member must withdraw what he has stated and he must apologise to me. This is the second time since 1985 that he has made this very serious statement against me in this House.

Order! In the light of the explanation given by the hon member for Reservoir Hills and of the further explanation given by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council this matter will once again be considered by me and a decision will be given on Monday.

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

I should have thought that on this very important occasion we would have had some representatives of the Cabinet from the House of Assembly here with us.

We have one member.

Yes, we have. I know that. We were told that before. There is a member of the Cabinet here. However, I should have thought that out of respect for this House there would have been other hon Ministers present. [Interjections.]

In the course of my address I shall refer to certain matters which pertain to various portfolios and I should like to place my comments on record.

Did you inform them?

They know about it. They received the Order Paper.

The hon the State President is on record as having said that no political solution to the problems of South Africa can be arrived at unless and until the historical economic imbalance which exists in our country is addressed and resolved. I welcome the far-reaching measures which the hon the State President has announced in order to give stimulus to our economy and to address the question of inflation. However, I believe that notwithstanding the processes envisaged to deregulate some of the outdated regulations which inhibit trading by Black people in their townships, and so on, insufficient emphasis has been placed on the many other issues which still inhibit the arrival of the man of Colour as a full partner in the economic life of South Africa.

The intention to reorganise the SATS, the Post Office and Eskom and to make changes and adaptations with a view to their becoming, in whole or in part, profit making concerns, also gives me cause for concern because in the light of what I said earlier on, I cannot see how we can transfer a State monopoly to a private monopoly. Hon members are aware of what happened when all those American companies packed up and left the country, partly due to the call for sanctions and disinvestment by people who did not really understand what these things meant.

What happened? It was merely a change of ownership. I do not know of any people of colour who have really benefitted from, or participated in, the change of ownership. In fact, the Sullivan Code which covered the operation of many companies has also been reduced to a minimum by the departure of these companies. However, the important point is that we have tangible evidence of the fact that the departure of the owners did not result in the involvement, to any extent, of the Black people or the people of colour in the companies which took over. There were just changes in management, arrangements of convenience, but the Black people and the people of colour did not benefit to any worthwhile extent. Therefore I must express my concern about the privatisation of these large organisations if there is no indication or a blue-print or plan which will result in some benefits accruing to the people of colour by making them participants in this process.

I emphasise again that I welcome and respect what the hon the State President said in regard to the need to address the historical imbalance. It must not be done in an airy-fairy style. There must be a definite, well-defined, clear-cut, workable program according to a time-schedule to ensure that the people of colour can be included. We cannot move with political reform unless and until all the people of this country have the opportunity to share in the economic cake of South Africa. What we are doing at this moment is to talk about splitting up institutions, the capital and assets of which all people in South Africa, irrespective of their colour, have contributed to in some way or another.

In fact, I am somewhat concerned that at this very moment the SATS is already trying to make some inroads into areas in which the private sector has been engaged for a long time and has carried out its work to the satisfaction of the country’s business people.

We cannot allow privatisation or change of structures or activities in any way to threaten the existence of small businessmen in the private sector. I want to make this point very clear. When I talk about small businessmen, I refer to small businesspeople in the White as well as the nonWhite sector. We must understand the reality that we have in South Africa a major Third World situation. Privatisation sounds good in England or in the United States and we would like to see privatisation in South Africa also. There is no disagreement on that issue. However, we must not forget the Third World situation. For the benefit of the hon the Minister I want to say that we cannot allow privatisation merely to be a formal transfer from one monopoly to another.

Again I want to say in the presence of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning something that the hon the State President mentioned so eloquently some time ago, namely that until and unless the historical economic unbalance between the haves and the have-nots is addressed, the process of political reform can run into difficulties. I want to repeat for the benefit of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that if any process of adjustment that is envisaged in terms of the hon the State President’s Opening Address, that historical reality must be taken into account. We know that plans have been put into operation with a view to helping the underdeveloped and developing sectors to start walking up the road that leads to opportunities for economic participation, but that walk is as yet happening very slowly. These changes do not take place overnight because of past practices and existing legislation. It will take a considerable period of time before this journey gathers momentum. One has to bear this factor in mind in connection with anything that is envisaged in the hon the State President’s plan.

I appreciate the fact that the hon the State President said that some of these outdated regulations which deny people the chance to start moving forward will be reviewed. The one man hawker, the clothing pedlar and such persons must be protected and assisted to ply their trade wherever they are. It is a start and I welcome this schooling of business people.

I want to reiterate that we cannot allow the SATS in its endeavours to make a profit, to challenge and in fact threaten certain sectors of the economy which have been well catered for. I am glad that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is here today because I want to send a message with him and repeat what I have said here before. I want to say that the urban populations, be they Indian, Coloured or Black, have been hard hit and are facing a situation of serious unemployment as a result of the move of entrepreneurs and factories away from their location in the urban areas to other parts of the country where there are inducements and benefits.

I am not against expansion and the creation of new jobs nearer the homes of people but if in that process unemployment is created in a settled area then there is something wrong and there is a contradiction.

It was my privilege over the past three months to visit Stanger, Verulam and Tongaat. I want the hon the Minister to know that in virtually every home in these towns there are matriculants— both boys and girls—with no work opportunities. Tongaat is a classic example of this. I would say that in every other house there are one or two children with matric who are jobless. I am sure that persons who have canvassed in these areas are aware of this situation because this is the first thing that strikes one when one goes into the homes. Yet the cry that there is a shortage of skilled labour in this country goes on and on. The potential is there and either we do not want to see it or we deliberately want to ignore it.

In his address the hon the State President spoke about the new role of the IDC and I want to present the hon the Minister with a challenge. Let the IDC become the catalyst for bringing people of colour into industry. Let it plan and examine economic opportunities and if it has to use its own capital let it do so. When it is working on a profitable basis the people of colour will be prepared to put their money into those businesses. It has been done in the past and here is another opportunity.

I suggest that the Board of Trade and Industries be charged with the responsibility of making an investigation in the areas that I have mentioned with a view to seeing what kind of industries could be located here in order to make purposeful use of the labour that is available in these areas. Thereafter it should serve as a catalyst in these areas even if it has to be in partnership or in technical collaboration, with people from abroad whether it is Taiwan, Germany or anywhere else. I am certain that when this thing gets off the ground one will see more and more people from the non-white groups becoming interested investors and participants.

We have managed in the clothing and furniture industries and in certain other industries, but in a lot of other fields we have to have the kind of assistance that the IDC has provided in the past. I am certain that our people will respond and that the problems that I am talking about will be merely challenges, which gives us the opportunity to resolve them to the satisfaction of all concerned.

What I would also like to suggest on the basis of my own evaluation is that the incentives offered to industrialists should be increased even if they are made available for four or five years. Let us do something to induce people to come along to these areas. In fact I was talking to the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council yesterday and I suggested to him—he is in agreement with me—that we should, with a view to winning the hearts of these people, invite the big leaders of industry and possibly take them out to the North Coast so that they can see for themselves what is available. We will do that, but I believe that in terms of the hon the State President’s announcement there is some hope if we are prepared to accept the challenge and turn it into an opportunity. Here I place emphasis on the new role and the new direction of the IDC. [Interjections.]

I want to summarise by saying that the future stability, peace, wellbeing and prosperity of our nation depends on us arriving at an acceptable economic and political partnership between black and white. That alone will guarantee the stability, peace and progress that we want.

That is why I am concerned that in his address the hon the State President did not give us some insights into his programme for reform, or of the problems that he was confronted with which were inhibiting progress in this direction. We all wish him well as far as that is concerned and we have stated this before, but I would have expected that in 1988 tremendous emphasis would have been placed on that matter and that the nation would have been addressed so that we could contribute to whatever extent we are able to.

I believe that the hon the State President should work for reconciliation, to such an extent that we can contribute. We shall be able to do so. I believe the hon the State President should work for reconciliation with all the parties in the three Houses which are committed to finding solutions to our political impasse through peaceful means. That is an important priority, but in addition to that we have to canvass South Africa as widely as possible so that credible Black leaders can come forward and sit around the table. Thus, through a process of give and take, the basis for constitutional reform can be laid.

The statement made by Dr Franz Josef Strauss about the cry for work opportunities on the part of the people of Mozambique is an indication of the recognition of the potential that exists in this country. There is a recognition that this land can provide so much—not only for its own people, but also for the people in the region as a whole. We must address this whole question of constitutional reform as a matter of the utmost urgency. It must receive national priority.

What is in fact happening? What is acceptable today or what is considered favourably today is rejected in a week’s time, because time is moving on and expectations are running high. This is an understandable thing, and we might have to move ahead of expectations in order to make a beginning.

I know that the President’s Council has reported on the Group Areas Act, but I want to make it absolutely clear to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who is present here today, that I travelled recently in the Eastern Transvaal and I saw what the Group Areas Act did to people in many parts of the country. In the town of Carolina nobody can walk in the street with his head held high when he sees what has been done there. A shopping complex was built for the Indian community in Carolina, but the ten yards between the veranda and the tarmac was left untarred, thus creating one big dust-bowl so that food, groceries and clothing are continuously being affected by dust. If that was not done intentionally, then there is something seriously wrong with all of us who deplored that.

Are you suggesting that the Government was responsible for that? [Interjections.]

The Group Areas Act gave people—as in Natal and in other areas—an opportunity to wreak vengeance against the Indian businessmen and the Indian business community. Even those architects who, by their training, should never stoop to that level, were forced to do what, I am sure, their teaching does not allow them to do. Hon members can go to Ermelo where they planned the shopping centres in such a way that the frontages do not face the street, instead one building faces another. Obviously this was a plan to deny the public an opportunity to see what wares are being exhibited in those shops. When I saw that—I am not a radical; the hon the Minister knows that—I felt hurt, because there expression was given to this desire to ruin the Indian community, and even architects participated in the plan to achieve that goal.

It was built during your chairmanship.

Sir, I hope the hon member for Laudium shares my pain. There is another time to debate other things. I think this House should show total unity in what I am expressing, because if they were to see it, they would be pained by it.

Louis Fouché ruined us.

Exactly. The hon member is right.

He helped his favoured few.

Another problem is that of identifying land for the Indian community. The existence of the Group Areas Act makes it possible for those in the White community who have land to hold us to ransom. We have been arguing amongst ourselves in this House over this matter because there is a law that makes that possible. Where we should be standing united there is disunity. I want to tell the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that if land is required for the Indian community, we must have that land. All this paraphernalia and all these investigations, and all the nonsense we have to put up with, must come to an end. I am saying to him as a friend of long standing—I am speaking to a friend …

But you have confidence in him!

Let us not worry about confidence. I shall have confidence in him when he has responded positively to what I am asking for. Confidence is something that comes from action.

We have had a lot of action.

Reaction!

In the Tribune Herald.

Finally, I want to say this. Hon members know that if we are to begin to resolve our constitutional impasse—this is not a political speech; I am speaking as a concerned South African—we must explore every possible means of involving leadership from all sectors, leadership that may be of different political persuasions, provided they are prepared to come and sit around the table and to talk and find answers by a process of give and take. In this regard I want to commend to the hon the Minister once again what we have said in this House before: Reconsider the question and look at the possibility of releasing political prisoners so that should they want to participate in this way in this great indaba we are looking forward to, they will be free to do so.

Mr Chairman, it is always a privilege to appear in this House. This is also true today. It is indeed more so today because we meet under these new circumstances.

I have listened very carefully to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and there is nothing in what he has said that could possibly substantiate the motion he has placed on the Order Paper.

Hear, hear!

Nothing whatsoever because a motion of no confidence is a very important expression of dissatisfaction with the Government of the day. Its adoption also implies that it is in fact accepted that the Government of the day should change.

I now want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition a question. A fair one. If this party and this Cabinet were not to govern this country, who does he think would govern it, and how?

Me!

That would be disastrous. That would in fact be a minority government of three people governing millions. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has addressed himself to the process of urbanisation. With regard to that I should like to say that when the hon the State President expressed himself on that process, he qualified his statement with the proviso that those services will be rendered more efficiently by the private sector than by the public sector. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows that. There is no ground whatsoever, therefore, for a motion of no confidence in the Government of the day.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition went further and said we must use the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd— IDC as a catalyst to bring people of colour into industry. Let us check the records in this particular regard. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will remember that I was Minister of Economic Affairs at one time. I indicated then that, when it came to involvement or participation, the IDC did not decide on the basis of colour, but on merit. He will recall that, Sir. Notwithstanding that fact the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition requested me to establish a separate IDC for the Indian community. [Interjections.]

For the small man, yes.

No, for everybody, not only for the small man.

I persuaded the Government to do just that. The reason that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition requested that at the time was that he did not believe that the IDC was capable of doing that. He nods his head as if to say yes.

What, then, did the Government do? It accepted the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s view in this regard. Once again, therefore, I say the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition should have moved a motion of confidence in the Government in this regard, for the Government acted in accordance with his perceptions and on his advice. [Interjections.]

I want to take it further, Sir. While I concede immediately that there is unemployment in many areas of the country, I should like to ask the hon member something. Has he ever thought about the unemployment among the people in the rural and decentralized areas? Has he ever thought about their needs? Has he ever thought about the implications of migration to urban areas for those people seeking work when there is no work for even the present urban population?

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

No, just one moment please.

Has he ever thought about how much the jobs of the people in the urban areas can be placed in jeopardy because of mass migration? Does he not understand that when one implements a policy of decentralized regional development one also does so for the protection of the people who have settled in urban areas.

One does not create mass unemployment among them.

I beg your pardon?

You have created mass unemployment among them.

I am sorry, but that is not true!

It is! It is indeed!

Will the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition just allow me to carry on please.

Does the hon member know that at the time that there had been little or no investment in the manufacturing industry—when there had, in fact, been disinvestment—the bulk of investments had been placed in the decentralized areas and in various regions? Some 5 000 applications for investment had been received from 1 April 1982 until around the end of last year. If they all materialise in the form of actual investment, it would mean an investment of some R7 billion. That would in turn mean employment for more than 350 000 people. If one thinks of what the implications are in terms of job opportunities in sectors other than the industrial sector, one would understand that the effectiveness of the decentralisation and regional development schemes are not only in the interests of the regions but also the urban areas.

I want to say this openly today. We are reaching a stage at which one can, in fact, attain a saturation of people in certain concentrated areas.

Like Durban.

Yes, like Durban and also certain areas in the PWV region. I therefore make no apology whatsoever for propounding a scheme of regional development and decentralised areas.

I wonder whether we appreciate the culture shock experienced by traditional people coming to the urban areas, a completely strange and different environment. I wonder whether we understand their fears and problems of culture and language. Let us therefore talk to one another about improving situations.

I would like to take this further. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was, in my opinion, contradicting himself in his speech today. I listened to what he said, and I share that view. He said that reform in our country, whether economical, social or political, was a difficult process. In economic terms he was talking about the haves and the have-nots, and he argued— quite correctly, in my opinion—that the have nots required some protection to make the competition more equal where it was, in fact, unequal.

It is not only in the economic field, however, that people have not been exposed to First World systems. It is also in the political field, and we can argue ad nauseam about who is responsible for what. The fact is that the only cabinet that has really addressed itself to the problem of the development of this country—I am talking about development in the broad sense of the word—is the Cabinet of the hon the State President. Nobody can dispute that.

This is evident in relation not only to political reform, but also to every other facet of reform.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows that what I am saying is true. We can argue about whether or not what has been done is adequate. We can argue about whether it has taken place fast enough. We can argue all those details, but we cannot argue about the fundamental philosophy that obtains in this country today.

Of course changes are dangerous. Let me say publicly that there is no road more dangerous to travel than that of change, but the surest way to suicide is not to change.

I do not want to be personal, as I do not argue on that basis, but I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether it is not true that in the past five to ten years more opportunities have been opened up for all people and all groups than ever before. Is that not true? The hon leader indicates that he agrees.

But expectations build up.

I am coming to that, but let us first deal with the facts.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that was true. If it is indeed true, on what grounds does he propose a motion of no confidence? [Interjections.] Had I been here I would have lauded this Government and assisted them to go forward.

However, because he is in the opposition he speaks in opposing terms. I say this to him today: The time has come for South Africans to get away from politics of this sort, where we oppose. The time has come for us to practise the politics of support.

Propose instead of oppose.

That does not mean that hon members cannot criticise. Let me say this—I almost said “off the record”, but I understand it cannot be done that way—that I could be a far better critic of myself than the hon the Leader of the Opposition because I know more about myself than he does. I also know more about the mistakes that I make. However, that is not important. What is important is the will to address the issues of this country; the will to change. One will not succeed in structural, economic and political change unless one addresses the problem of individual change. He knows what I am saying is true. My question is this: When we speak in the Houses of Parliament, do we address the issues or do we address our respective constituencies? What do we do? Are we prepared to say: “I would rather lose an election than my country”? I say this because that is the final test.

I should like to ask the hon the Leader of the Opposition this: If the State President and his Cabinet do not govern South Africa, who will?

Mandela.

Sir, the thought would be unparliamentary; the words even more so! [Interjections.]

It is time—I say this in all sincerity—that leaders of the Indian people and of the Coloured and Black communities understand that the National Party is better than anything they could ever hope for in South Africa. Unless they understand that, they will not be able to make a contribution towards addressing the issues of our country.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition states: “The walk”—I am using his words; I hope I am quoting him correctly—“is slow”. However, do you know what he says in conclusion? “I think we must speed up political reform as fast as we can”.

No nation can be forced into a straitjacket of reform that they do not approve of. Of course, political reform is difficult. If you want an expert on that, come to me. It is also true, however, that the reform processes set in motion by the Government of which I am a member, have in fact resulted in the fact that we are all parliamentarians. Is that not true? The reform process of the Cabinet, in which the hon member proposes a motion of no confidence, has done in the economic field what no other Cabinet before it has done. I plead with all hon members: Will we not understand how sensitive emotions in this country are? Will we not understand that when we venture into fields, trying to change human thinking, trying to change the institutions in which they must live, we must do this with sensitivity in expression and in method.

The hon member says that it will take time and I agree with him. Does the hon member agree with me on one thing—and it is not a catch question nor do I want to score a point off the hon member, as I would rather score points for this country because times are serious. They are more serious than most of us can even contemplate. Does the hon member share the conviction with me that it is only possible to negotiate with people that seek peaceful change? The hon member agrees with me. If he agrees with me, he will understand that one cannot put violence on the agenda of our discussions. His colleagues will tell him what Black leaders say. To me they say that they are concerned that the Government may unban the ANC and that those who work with the Government in a process of change will become the first victims if this happens. I did not say so— those leaders said so.

All hon members in this House know of intimidation at elections, not so? We all know of the intimidation at elections for local authorities in other communities, is that not true? Knowing about it, do we understand the fear? People fear to come and sit around a table to discuss the future of our country. They fear the people that do not wish reform of that nature and through that process. Is that not true? I will say one thing this afternoon, that it takes a special kind of leadership in this country to survive. It takes a special quality of leadership to succeed where no other country has succeeded. Not one. The goal is a tomorrow with a constitutional development and system that reflects the diversity of our society. This is in terms of race, ethnicity, religion and also in terms of the various phases of development. It is a tremendous task.

It cannot be done by one generation. He knows that cannot be done. Therefore, if we say that time is of the essence, let us use the time we have as best we can.

Who initiated the concept of deregulation? Who wanted to make it possible for those people who had not been involved in the economic activity of the country to more readily be able to do so? Who propounded the concept of the informal sector’s contribution, if not the hon the State President and his Cabinet?

Have we looked at the changes that have taken place in this country over the past five years, and even during the past year, in the fields of labour, industry, commerce, property rights and political participation? Would the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition care to make an assessment of that? I want to reiterate that no one can substantiate a motion of no confidence in the Government. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says he welcomes it. That is what I understood him to say. However, he has moved a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet.

Let us turn to the Group Areas Act. I do not want to discuss it in detail at this stage. I shall come back to it later and discuss it in more detail. I do not deny that that law may have been applied unfairly.

Not may have been; definitely.

Well, we can even discuss that without arguing about it. What I do know, however, is that in terms of the Government’s land policy land which Black communities had lost in a private enterprise economy, is being restored to them. Is that not true? What do we sincerely believe? If it had not been for the 1936 Act, would the Black communities have had more land or less? The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows what the answer is. He says yes, he does. Well, Sir, if he does, then he should not move a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet. He should move a motion of support for this process.

I want to take it further. Who referred the question of the Group Areas Act and its application for investigation? Who did that? This Cabinet did it. Therefore, there is no reason to move a motion of no confidence on this issue. Let us discuss it when the Cabinet’s point of view on that report is made known. Can we not agree on one thing in this House? Can we not agree to negotiate solutions, as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has indicated, with people who seek peace?

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said in conclusion that only a political partnership would solve the political issues of this country and bring stability. Did I understand him correctly? He says yes.

I agree, but when he says “partnership”, he means there must be partners in that institution, not so? He also means that those partners must be comprised of all the communities in this country. He says “yes”. He also says that it cannot be built on the individual alone, because then there will not be a partnership left. Is that not true? On the basis of a simple majority government there will not be a partnership. Does he agree with me? He says ‘yes’. What does this mean? It means that the structures for political participation, for sharing power in this country, have to be modelled on a different basis than the First World concepts of democracy. There again, when the hon member agrees with me on this issue, where is the ground for a no-confidence motion in the Cabinet?

When I defend the Cabinet, I am not implying in any way that we have all the answers. We have not got them. I am also not implying that we are faultless, because we are not.

I do not see the halo.

Well, that is why I am saying that we are not faultless. If we were, the hon member would have seen the halo. What I do say, is that the time has come for people who believe that we can solve the problems of this country by negotiation, to stop their preconditions. What is happening in many cases, is that the conditions are becoming more important than the issues that we have to address. Is that not true?

Yes, we know that from the committee.

Fine, let us do it then.

Something else I want to say, is that I believe that many leaders interpret their communities incorrectly. They interpret their constituencies incorrectly. People want their basic needs addressed, firstly, as the highest priority. They want their housing problems addressed, as a first priority. They want the education of their children addressed, as a priority. They want work opportunities addressed, as a priority. Many leaders in this country are only talking politics and neglecting the needs of the people as they propound these themselves.

The history of the Indian people can be made in this Parliament. We believe that this House can make history. If hon members are really great leaders, they can make history. What they could do, is not to put this motion to the vote, but to leave it to the debate. That would not condone mistakes that we may have made. It would not detract from hon members’ right to criticise, but it would in fact mean that we have so much common ground that we can go forward from there.

Mr Chairman, for a moment I thought we were being addressed by a philosopher and not a seasoned politician this afternoon. Taking into account the comments that the hon the Minister has made and the essence of the motion before us, I cannot expect any more wisdom than the advice that my colleague, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, has given here. It concerned the quality of leadership, the needs of the country and the direction in which it is moving.

It is an undeniable fact that South Africa has made notable progress along the path of reform in recent years. A great deal of oppressive and indeed offensive legislation has been repealed. However, the reform process still has to cover a great distance before it can be said that we have reached our goal of a just and fair democratic climate to satisfy all of South Africa.

While the attention is focused on the aim of evolutionary reform, we are mindful of various destructive factors which frustrate the harmonising process. Such factors as violence, both on the borders and in certain unrest troubled areas within the country, economic sanctions and the unemployment that it has generated, and the campaigns of the right wing elements, force our attention to meaningful reform. The fact that so many teenagers are involved in unrest-related violence is very disturbing. The fact that reports of gruesome hostilities reach us almost daily is equally disturbing. The goal of evolutionary reform can only be attained in a climate of peace and economic stability. It is our task to ensure that the momentum of change continues and that the Government does not shelve the reform process or abandon it altogether.

There are, of course, hopeful signs of an upswing in the economy. As the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also mentioned, the visit of the Bavarian Prime Minister, Dr Franz Joseph Strauss, and the favourable comments and consolatory moves made by him also mean well for the future. The increasing dialogue between the Government and Black leaders are indeed encouraging.

The death sentence of apartheid has been pronounced but its complete execution remains unfulfilled. It is the responsibility of this House, as my hon colleague has mentioned, to negotiate. We must orchestrate its execution and resist its reprieve. This can be achieved by a unified and concerted effort with a common goal. Apartheid was once very healthy and thriving but now it is ailing with a promise of doom hovering over it.

The pace of its annihilation is the subject of vociferous criticism. However, we all know that for everlasting peace and tranquillity to prevail, the transition should be gradual. Sometimes it is a painful process entailing numerous adjustments and changes in the attitudes of people in a country like South Africa. The eradication of a system that has been in existence from time immemorial cannot be accomplished in a short span of time. It entails a re-assessment of moral and ethical values and various readjustments. This may take longer than some of us imagine and it calls for tremendous patience.

With regard to reform, South Africa’s future constitution will be hammered out by Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Indians within the National Statutory Council as defined in terms of the new National Council Bill introduced in Parliament in September. It is unfortunate that at this juncture where there is a light at the end of the tunnel and with the dawning of a difficult era of reform, some countries have suddenly found it incumbent upon themselves to apply sanctions, whilst they never appeared unduly concerned over the past 40 years since World War II.

Here they must take into consideration certain factors. One of these transpired yesterday. It gives me tremendous pleasure and satisfaction as a South African to pay our highest respect to the hon the State President and the Cabinet for their initiative and their bold stand in normalising the situation in Bophuthatswana.

Whilst many international nations believe it is the Republic that tries to impoverish its neighbouring states, they fail to understand the contribution South Africa makes towards its neighbouring states. I can list a few examples of the co-operation between this country and its Cabinet with its neighbouring states: the Nkomati Accord, the Lesotho Highland Water project, South Africa’s participation in Botswana and the airport project in Swaziland. All of this points in one direction, the honest intention of a country like South Africa.

Therefore to be faced with a motion which states that there is no confidence in the Cabinet poses a question. On behalf of this side of the House and for the sake of practicality and circumstances I move:

Mr Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to welcome the hon the State President to this new Chamber of ours and to say that we should like to see him more often.

Reference was made to the unfortunate events in Bophuthatswana and the action taken by the Government to remedy the situation. I think the hon members here will recall that yesterday the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council read out the hon the State President’s statement. It was I, on behalf of the Opposition who immediately rose and proposed that we should associate ourselves unanimously with the action taken by the Government and so this House unanimously decided.

In doing that we were behaving as responsible members of the Opposition, but more particularly—as the hon Minister of Local Government and Housing said—as South Africans.

There is a little more to it than that. We are citizens of a country which is a regional power and no regional can afford that kind of nonsensical coup to take place even—in this case— within its own geographical borders. There is historical precedent for this kind of police action. When Grenada was overthrown by a communist regime Pres Reagan sent in the Marines to overthrow that illegal regime and to restore the elected government to power. When there was chaos in East Pakistan—the Government of India in 1971—without the invitation of the Government of Pakistan—sent in troops to normalise the situation there which resulted in formation of Bangladesh. There is historical precedent for that. I am not good at international law but I am pretty certain that this would even be within the confines of international law. So our Government did what it had to do.

It was necessary to do that because it also sends out a warning to other people who might endeavour to try similar stunts. I have also a personal reason for being very happy with the result. It so happens that Pres Lucas Mangope and his wife and my wife and I have been good personal friends for many years. Not so long ago when we were in Mmabatho the President of Bophuthatswana insisted on driving us around personally. I must confess that I have not had that particular honour conferred on me by my own State President. [Interjections.]

We support the motion of no confidence in the Cabinet. The fact that we have great regard for many hon members of that Cabinet does not necessarily mean that we have full confidence in that Cabinet as a collectivity.

The fact that we approve of many of the steps taken by the Government does not mean that we approve of all the steps taken by the Government. The fact that we believe that the Government is guilty of many sins of omission is the reason why we do not have adequate confidence in this Government. Traditionally, a motion of no confidence is moved in order to give the opposition parties an opportunity to make an assessment of what the Government has done and to make suggestions which the Government may follow. Of course, there is also the hope—a hope which, as far as I am aware, has never been realised in the Westminster system—of a motion of no confidence at the beginning of a session being carried and toppling a government. As far as I know it has not yet happened, and I do not think we have a hope—if I may use the word, Sir—in hell of toppling the Cabinet. So, the purpose of this motion is to give vent to various feelings and opinions, and to examine and analyse the causes of the political instability which exists in our country at the moment.

No one will deny—I agree entirely with what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said—that some people make preconditions and almost turn them into idols to be worshipped. I do not subscribe to that. The hon the Minister will know that in a certain situation in his presence—I cannot reveal here what the situation was—I said to a certain person that I made no pre-conditions before coming to this Parliament, and that it would be ridiculous to expect others to make pre-conditions. One should evaluate a situation as it is and move accordingly.

However, this does not detract from the demands of people who want to create a situation in which it would be possible for them to take the necessary steps. I want to refer specifically to Umtwana Mangosutu Buthelezi. He is a politician. He probably is the second most important politician in this country, other than the hon the State President. They both have enormous constituencies. Each of them has to see to it that he carries as many of his people as possible with him, because a horse that runs too fast and runs away from its cart, leaving the cart behind, is not conveying anything. So, from the opposite side of what the hon the State President has to contend with, Dr Buthelezi has similar problems.

His dilemma, as I understand it, is that if he allows his movement to participate in the National Council, while his other principal opponent in the Black community—who is today personified by Nelson Mandela—is incarcerated, he would lose out in the eyes of the Black people and he does not want to run that risk. Looking at it in that way, it is not a pre-condition, but a plea to say: “If I am going to participate, let me participate in such a manner that my participation will be helpful. Do not force me into a position where I may become a Muzorewa, where I may become irrelevant.” That is the crux of the matter. So, when he says: “Release Mothopeng and release Mandela,” that is what he is saying.

However, in this House I want to go much further. I say decency and Christianity requires that every single political person, sentenced to life imprisonment, who has served more than 20 years, must be released, regardless, unless he has committed an act of violence in those 20 years or has preached violence from within jail during that time. Now, we do not ask murderers to promise that they will not murder. As a matter of fact, unfortunately, rapists are regularly released from jail and they go back and commit the same offence again. If a murderer, a man who killed for personal gain, is allowed to be released, why should people be kept in jail when they were not motivated by personal gain—however wrong their actions might have been, whatever illegalities might be involved—but acted for, what they thought, was the betterment of their community?

The main cause of the political instability—and here again the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning adverted to this—is that people want the necessities of life. Why do they want political rights? Because political rights enable them to obtain the necessities of life. Because the Black people have not had political rights they have been left behind. I want to repeat here that I am not an Indian, I am a South African; as I said in the President’s Council, “ek is ’n Suid-Afrikaner van ’n Indiese papa”. My father was an Indian but I am not an Indian in political terms. I am a South African. We have to find a way to get away from this incorrect political appellation.

At a time when we were dominated and oppressed by Whites—we were exploited by Whites—we were given marginal political opportunities via the South African Indian Council. There was an economic improvement. There was educational improvement; it was not adequate but as a result of even those rather tenuous political rights there was an improvement. The same thing happened with regard to what we call the Coloured people.

As a result of the establishment of community councils Black people obtained limited political rights. There is some improvement.

Political rights are the key to getting a fair share of a nation’s wealth. That is why people want political rights. Let us consider the tricameral Parliament. We still have White domination here. The President’s Council is White-dominated and no matter what we decide, if it comes down to a Bill, the White-dominated President’s Council overrules any opposition. To that extent there is a very cynical attitude that ultimately it is the White supererogation that will reign supreme. Without wanting to say that this is done illegally, I want to say it is done wrongly. It is done improperly. It lacks morality. It lacks that Christian ethos upon which the civilisation of this country is supposed to be based. Ultimately it proves that might is right, not that right is supreme.

We also have to be careful that in own affairs, whether it comes to the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives, or for that matter to the Ciskei or any of the national states, that the Government does not simply say: “Okay, I have given you your rights. I am going to wash my hands of you and it does not matter if Stella Sigcau gets R50 000 from somebody and calls it a donation for a bursary fund, or if Mr Naidoo gives land to somebody who is not entitled to it. This is an own affair and I am not going to interfere.” That will be wrong. That would be an abdication of the responsibilities of the Government as a whole. We do not expect the Government of this country to abdicate its responsibilities.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to decentralisation, and I take the point the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made. We need decentralisation in this country because we need to avoid an overburdening of the cities. In Zambia they avoid the overburdening of cities in the following way. When people move into the cities they simply grab them, put them onto the buses, cart them into the countryside and leave them there. In India they do not avoid the overburdening of cities. They simply let the people eat, sleep, live, love and die in the streets. In this country we have permitted squatter camps to arise simply because of a lack of foresight and planning. Fortunately, however, there is the urbanisation programme, although it has not yet got off the ground satisfactorily. If it had—the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning should not shake his head at me—we would not have squatters coming into Reservoir Hills, Clare Estate, Lenasia, Chatsworth or anywhere else. [Interjections.]

Sir, violence is endemic in our country. There is violence in the Natal Midlands. It is serious, tragic violence, because South Africa is not unique. You know, Sir, it is when people think that deliverance is near that contending groups try to place themselves in a pivotal position from which they can get into the jockey’s seat. This has happened. If the Mensheviks had been a bit more careful the Bolsheviks would not have been able to take over Russia so easily.

It would be false, however, to say that Inkatha is the aggressor. I am not a publicity officer for Inkatha, but I believe, as Chief Buthelezi has said, that Inkatha has no representation in the Eastern Cape. Yet there was terrible violence in the Eastern Cape between Azapo and the UDF. Dr Oscar Dhlomo says that Inkatha members are merely defending themselves. Whatever the facts may be, the violence occurs at that level.

The violence in the townships has been curbed as a result of three different factors. One is strong police action, supported by the troops. The second is the fact that ameliorative action has been taken in the townships. The third—I have said this in this House before—is the splendid steps taken by the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid and the hon the Deputy Minister of Education in their attempts to meet the needs and the aspirations of Black parents—not Black children so much, but of Black parents.

That is confidence in the Cabinet.

Of course I have confidence in those two hon Ministers! That does not mean, however, that I have confidence in the entire Cabinet. I laud what those two hon Ministers are doing, because to the extent that they are helping Black children they are also helping me and my children. No man is an island, and to the extent that one segment of our total community is advanced, the whole of the country is also advanced. [Interjections.] Where there is credit to be given we shall not hesitate to give that credit. By the same token, where there is criticism to be meted out, we shall not fear to mete out that criticism.

To quote the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning once again, fear takes many forms—there is the fear of intimidation that we suffered during the elections; there is the fear of intimidation that Black councillors suffer; there is the fear of the Mafia; and there is the fear of physical harm. As far as this last fear is concerned, we know of many cases, even civil cases, in which witnesses are afraid to enter the courtroom to give evidence because they are afraid of the consequences. Fear is an intangible thing; one cannot measure fear. While that fear prevails, however, we have to bring about a situation in the country in which people can feel assured that they need not fear. The only way to do that is to bring total enlightenment to the country. To bring about that reconciliation which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to. Without reconciliation, Sir, there can be no harmony.

The hon the State President—I said this last year when we dealt with his Budget Vote—has it within his grasp to bring about complete reconciliation among all the people in this country. It does not matter what the media may sometimes say about him; it does not matter that certain Black leaders may be saying nasty things about him; and it does not matter that certain hon members in another House of this Parliament may be saying unkind things about him, he has the power, he has the authority, and, I believe, the will and the capacity to bring about reconciliation among all our people in this country. We know, however, that he is also burdened to some extent by a ball and chain.

He must cut off the chain that is affixed to that ball. Even if certain members of his own community may disown him, he will gain the love and affection of the vast majority. He has not done that yet, however. He is the head of the Cabinet and that is why we want to put more confidence in him, but we do not have that confidence now.

It may be said, “It is all very well for the hon member for Reservoir Hills to get up and make these statements, but what does he suggest in place?” Obviously in a short speech of this kind I cannot go about making such a suggestion, and naturally I will be making further suggestions in the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs to which I have the honour to belong. However, I would recommend to all hon members an excellent monograph published by Dr Daniel J Elazar who belonged to the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs. In this monograph, Dr Elazar, who has visited South Africa five times and who has apparently made a study of the concept of political federalism, recommends a federal cum confederal solution for the political problems of South Africa. I cannot explain the whole of this monograph, although it is a fairly short publication, but everyone would benefit from a perusal of it, not necessarily to follow only his particular suggestion.

There are models that we can look at, and I am going to startle the hon the State President by suggesting that we should look at the constitutional model of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That constitution could, in fact, be borrowed by us holus-bolus to be brought into South Africa and used here, apart from the Bolshevik aspect of it.

What is the Soviet Union? It is an agglomeration of geographically defined and geographically designed ethnic states, but by some strange contrivance it is the Whites who continue to rule that country where a substantial majority of the population is Nonwhite. So far, the leaders of the Soviet Union, as far as I can make out, have come from only two of the republics, namely Georgia and Russia.

We could take the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba proposals and make Natal one constituent within the confines of those proposals which, in fact, pay heed to the ethnic factor.

Comrade Poovalingam’s option!

I would not put that forward quite seriously. I do not think the hon member knows that I used to be a comrade. Many people know that. [Interjections.] I used to be a comrade and I used to think that that was the only answer. Of course, that was a long time ago. I realised a long while ago that it was not the only answer and, of course, these days even Mr Gorbachev is of the view that that is not the only answer. A liberal democracy is the only possible answer, and we can attain that in a country like South Africa by a system of one person, one vote in a federation. I will not take that particular argument any further at this stage, as I want to come back to the state of emergency.

Just get back to South Africa!

Yes, to the state of emergency. The hon member obviously does not understand a thing of what I was trying to explain.

The problem is that I understand you too well.

I was trying to explain that we should use the experiences of other people.

This is the problem we have in this House. The intellectual capacity of some of the hon members on the governing side is so low that when one tries to explain something to them, they do not understand one. [Interjections.]

Nobody can understand you.

The difficulty is that the state of emergency was called some time ago to meet a particular situation. We did not approve of that being done, but one could understand the circumstances that necessitated such a very drastic and draconian step.

However, Sir, there is no justification for that to continue any longer. The only way to avoid this and to put an end to the state of emergency is to bring about that reconciliation to which I refer, in which there will be no need for such a drastic curtailment of civil liberties.

I want to make one final point. I accept that you can never have equal education. Even among the children of a single family you can never educate each child equally with the other. However, there must be complete equality of opportunity to obtain the best education possible. That cannot be obtained for as long as the artificial segregation that we have, continues.

On Saturday last week I was in Durban and it was heart-rending to watch these Black mothers and Black fathers with a few grubby rands in their hands waiting in a queue to go into a bookshop to buy books for their children. That made me feel terribly guilty. Whites, Indians and Coloureds get the books free, and yet our fellow citizens— who contribute a substantial portion of the revenue of this country—do not get exactly the same privileges.

They burn them, man! [Interjections.]

I am appalled by the comment from the hon the Minister of the Budget.

Hopefully you are looking at the events there, which are being wound up.

He obviously does not know what is happening in the country. [Interjections.] Of course there were instances of the burning of books when certain irresponsible elements said: “Liberation before education”. However, that nonsense stopped 18 months ago, and that mind is almost 18 months behind. That nonsense was stopped as a consequence, as I see it, of action taken by certain Government Ministers in meeting with the parents; in meeting with the guardians of the children and trying to smooth the way for better education.

Sir, I wish to conclude by dealing with the whole concept of privatisation, and here I respectfully disagree to some extent with my learned colleague, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I wish to support the statement made by the hon member for Yeoville in the House of Assembly, that the President’s move towards privatisation is a momentous forward step, which is going to lead the country to an economic betterment which I do not think we foresee at the present time.

We agree with you.

It will also lead to a greater integration of the labour force into the spheres which are represented by those mammoth institutions which it is intended to privatise. This, in turn, will enable a better distribution of the resources of the country among all the people of the country.

I believe that that is an excellent step. It does not go far enough, in the sense that I would have wished that because of the desperate need for massive housing estates, principally for our nonWhite population in this country, instead of planning to use the resources thus gained to discharge the public debt in part, all of the money realised would be used for social and other services. This would be money well spent in developing the most important capital resource we have in the country, and that is the people of the country.

If we do not develop the people of the country, the country will not prosper as it should.

That, I think, is a very important point, but of course a spin-off off the privatisation will be that the large sums of money which financial institutions, banks and insurance companies and South Africa Breweries are getting in every day can go into purchasing shares in Iscor … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this is a very historical year for the Southern African region with the celebrations of the arrival of Bartholomew Dias and also the commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the Great Trek. Prof Du Toit, a great Afrikaner historian who settled in the United States of America, wrote the history of South Africa from an American point of view. He viewed the cause of the Great Trek at the time as follows: “In this incompatibility between little freedom and much restraint lies the cause of the subsequent history of South Africa”.

I want to make my position from a constitutional point of view very clear. On 14 September 1984 the hon the State President announced the composition of the Cabinet and the composition of the Ministers’ Council. He explained the new character of the new Cabinet and repeated that in this House two years ago. This is not a coalition Cabinet. I do not want to repeat what the hon the State President said in this House on 20 August 1987 in response to a question from the hon member for Reservoir Hills about agreements and disagreements. On Monday the hon member for Cavendish made reference to my relationship with the hon the State President. I indicated to him that that should have been discussed in this debate. At that time we were dealing with our own affairs Ministers’ Council. The super salesman selling to the Nationalist Party belong to the party of the hon member for Cavendish.

That is your conception.

That is not a conception; this is a lecture. This is the truth, and as always the truth hurts. When the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning delivered his speech this afternoon he got the nod from the other side every time. Every time he got the nod he indicated, that for that nod the other side should have actually moved a motion of confidence in the Cabinet. The hon member for Cavendish again spoke about Guru Vanchera. The hon member for Reservoir Hills said that second to the hon the State President, Chief Gatsha Buthelezi is the most important leader in this country. I agree with him. If one looks at all the socio-economic surveys in this country—not excluding the survey conducted by Prof Fatima Meer who is no friend of either the hon the State President or of the South African Government— these surveys all conclude that the great majority of members of the Indian community support the initiatives of the hon the State President. Last year in this House the State President indicated very happily that the majority of people incorrectly look at the constitutional direction as the only arena where reforms should take place.

I should like to remind the hon member for Cavendish of something. If he was present at the launching of an historic development in this country, namely the joint executive authority for Natal-KwaZulu, he should study the words of praise spoken by Chief Gatsha Buthelezi about the hon the State President of this country. None other than Chief Gatsha Buthelezi described the hon the State President as a very courageous man in that he was the first man to take the bold initiative of steering this country in a new constitutional direction.

We did not deny that.

I want to repeat this. I have stated in this House that we are not supporters of the NP despite the fact that I serve in the Cabinet. I serve in a different type of Cabinet to the one that existed before 28 August 1984 or 14 September 1984.

As I indicated during that debate, let us cast our minds back to the time when some good leaders took the leadership of Germany. I have praised the Government and I have been critical of the Government in this Chamber. I have been critical of certain actions, but that does not mean that reform is not taking place in this country on a very broad front. Moreover, we on this side of the House have never been afraid to praise or criticise in a spirit of understanding and accommodation.

Quite correctly, I believe, we heard about the question of reconciliation in this House today. What did the hon the State President say in this House on 20 August 1987 in response to a question from an hon member on the opposite side of the House who asked: “Is this also applicable to the African National Congress if they abandon violence?” The answer given by the hon the State President is on record.

I want to come back to the comment made by the hon member for Cavendish. What the hon member for Cavendish said about me and my relationship with the hon the State President was what the critics, like him, said about the leaders in Germany at that particular time. They called Dr Conrad Adenauer the “Chancellor of the Allies”. A journalist in Durban, who has never been to Parliament, wrote recently that I was a Botha man. I called her into my office and said: “I do not mind being called a Botha man as long as we are together in the directions where we agree”.

What happened to Conrad Adenauer? In the Bundestag of Germany they told him “You are the Chancellor of the Allies”. We do not mind being called the great friends of the hon the State President in the arena where there is definite progress as far as reform in this country is concerned, in the arena where there is definite development. [Interjections.] I want to repeat that I told the members of the Indian community not to double deal.

You must tell the whole truth.

I told the members of the Indian community not to double deal.

You are fabricating again.

The supporters of the hon member for Cavendish in his constituency have made representations …

Order! The hon member for Cavendish used the word “fabricating”.

[Inaudible.]

Order! Did the hon member use the word “fabricating”?

Mr Chairman, I have risen to withdraw it if it is unparliamentary.

Order! It is unparliamentary. Would you please withdraw the word.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Order! Thank you.

Mr Chairman, there is a time when we must condemn hypocrisy and double-dealing. I want to take two issues to substantiate my argument about double-dealers in this country and those who engage in double standards. I am not referring to Sacos.

I know what hon members of the other side honestly and sincerely think of the Group Areas Act.

We have it. It is evil.

In public it is hated. Where are there orchestrated actions in Indian areas concerning shacks? I know there are no shacks in Reservoir Hills, but there are shacks on the periphery of Reservoir Hills. There are people in the constituency of Cavendish, where there are shack developments by Blacks, who have approached me to get those shacks removed. I have been to the constituency of Eastern Transvaal and hon members cannot deny the fact that in 50% of the areas I have been requested, in the presence of witnesses, to relocate Indian areas because of certain reasons.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council take a question?

I am taking no questions, Mr Chairman. I will take questions at the end of my speech.

Are you not aware that shacks are filthy and dirty and attract flies?

But that is a health issue. We must not attach a racial factor to it. [Interjections.] I think hon members must examine what the Department of Development Aid is doing. I asked in one Indian area where radicals reside, for support to remove a buffer strip between a Black and an Indian area. Right until this very day nobody has supported me. The members of the Indian community wanted housing there, and only when they realised that that buffer strip is a Black area did they abandon their request for housing in that particular area. Hon members must not adopt one policy in the chambers of Parliament because there is a press gallery and a public gallery, and in reality come to me privately in my capacity as Minister of Housing, adopting a different attitude. [Interjections.] I want to say that I do not subscribe to the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] I will come to the hon member for Stanger. I want to confirm that I have evidence in writing …

The letter about which the hon member Mr Nowbath spoke.

Yes, about that letter. A White transport operator wanted permission… [Interjections.] The hon member cannot interject, because I will expose him. A White transport operator applied for a permit to allow his Black workers to stay overnight in an Indian area, in the hon member’s constituency.

He wanted to buy that property.

Now the hon member is putting his foot further in it. Allright, let us accept what he says is correct. The application for the permit was opposed by the hon member for Stanger.

It was not. [Interjections.]

I am making a statement in Parliament. [Interjections.] And the hon member wants the repeal of the Group Areas Act! He thought that man would not go to different departments. He thought his letter would remain confidential in the quiet of that State department. [Interjections.] By the very fact that he opposed it, he denied Black workers the right to stay overnight in an Indian area. He is perpetuating the Group Areas Act. However, because this is in public, he stands up here and asks for the repeal of the Group Areas Act. Privately, there is a massive demand on us to have Indian areas in a particular place. Mr Chairman, let us not do double-dealing.

I want to come to the military. Much nonsense has been said about the military and conscription and I want the hon the State President to hear it. We were in touch with his office in 1986. On a Monday, 92 university students carried placards, stating “Mr Rajbansi tells P W Botha to take the troops out”.

Forty-eight hours later we had the Inanda riots and there was a massive request that I should tell the hon the State President to bring the troops in.

What is wrong with that?

That is double-dealing. If one does not want troops in the townships, one should be consistent. One should then not have troops there under any circumstances.

But there are different situations.

Yes, I agree that there are different situations but one’s principles must not come from one’s selfishness. Principles should come from one’s heart and must apply under all circumstances and in all situations.

What we heard here this afternoon was a lecture that the horse must pull the cart and that the horse must not run away from the cart. Fifteen minutes later a suggestion was put to the hon the State President that we understand the problems in our constituencies and that we should carry our constituencies with us. A particular speaker told us that we should make sure that the cart follows the horse. We accept that in political terms one should carry one’s constituency.

However, the same hon member said that we have a ball on a chain and that the chain must be cut.

Do you understand the difference between the two?

Yes! It comes from a confused person. If one wants the horse to pull the cart, one must make sure that the two do not part, but the ball and the chain cannot be parted so easily. These utterances come from an hon member who is the finest salesman of the NP at the lunch-table. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Reservoir Hills also spoke about Gorbachov. That hon member reads a lot but I suggest that he should read an account of the key adviser of the late Mr Krushchev who defected to the West. The Russians will never change. They believe in presenting a false picture to the world. Their attitude is always that if a project should fail, the West should be blamed.

We also heard once again this afternoon that the hon member for Reservoir Hills is a great friend of the President of Bophuthatswana. We appreciate it but I think it is one point that counts against him now.

Do not be stupid! I did not say “great friend”, I said we are friends.

Right, whatever it is. Let us then say that they are friends. However, knowing the character of the hon member for Reservoir Hills, it definitely counts against President Mangope. [Interjections.]

I do not want to deal with own affairs now, but what I want to say I want to say openly, not privately. One of the reasons why we are here is to represent our constituencies, and in my opinion own affairs is not apartheid. Own affairs means the provisions of services in one’s area.

That is your conception.

Unfortunately it is the correct conception. The hon member for Cavendish is unfortunately a very bitter and a very disappointed man. He will jump into the smallest foxhole to promote own affairs if a particular carrot is dangled in front of him. [Interjections.]

South Africa is in an important era in its history. Reforms are taking place, not only insofar as constitutional matters are concerned, but where many matters are concerned, especially education. The hon member for Reservoir Hills highlighted this.

What have we seen taking place in Black education since on the occasion of the official opening of Parliament the hon the State President announced the programme to equalise education in this country? Look at the budget for education.

If one wants to see reform in this country there are two areas we can highlight where great changes have come about. One is the area of labour reforms. There is no doubt that the labour reforms that resulted in the formation of these giant unions are changing social patterns and are almost certainly going to have a profound effect on the political patterns of this country. The other area where reforms have taken place is in Government policy, for example the White Paper on Urbanisation after the repeat of the influx legislation. I think the repeal of the pass laws together with the labour reforms in this country are two very significant steps that are going to have a profound effect on the social, political and even educational upliftment of the majority of the people of this country, especially the Black community.

The Government’s White Paper on Urbanisation emphasises a very significant point and that is the timely identification of adequate land for housing the underdeveloped communities of this country. My colleague the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning dealt very briefly with that in his speech. However, let us not draw comparisons with an era of the past, the bitter past. Some of this bitterness and some of the past still exists. On two occasions in this chamber I have heard from the hon member for Reservoir Hills that change will take time. The hon member for Reservoir Hills wrote a letter to the Wilson Commission reminding them that change in India took 800 years and that change will take time. I want to say that we are in an age of reconciliation but some people look over their shoulders to organisations that want to use violence as the only means to bring about change in this country.

Let us understand the South African situation properly. There was a Black leader who once quite correctly stated that in South Africa one is not talking to an absentee landlord unlike India, Kenya and Zimbabwe. In South Africa one is negotiating with a group that has a chequered history in this country and its determination to survive in Africa must never be underestimated.

I condemn apartheid and my party condemns apartheid and the hon the State President has declared officially in Parliament that the old colonial system of apartheid is outdated.

What about the tricameral Parliament?

The tricameral Parliament can be described as an apartheid chamber, but I am not a purist and if one tries to find a solution to the problems in South Africa one cannot be a purist. If anybody feels that he wants to be a purist, however, and he feels so strongly about an ethnic chamber …

But we don’t kowtow!

We do not kow-tow, but some people kow-tow when it comes to lunch tables. That is where the real pussyfooting is done and sychophantic arrangements are made.

Let us cast our minds back to 1985. I think it was in March when the hon member for Reservoir Hills indicated that the Indian community has no confidence in the hon the State President. Today he talks of kowtowing, but nobody said anything to him twenty four hours later when in this House he praised the State President to the heavens.

You are not telling the truth, and Hansard will prove this.

Hansard has recorded that, and journalists of long standing cannot all make a mistake.

Let Hansard prove you wrong …

Hansard has recorded the truth. [Interjections.] There are no other people who try to make explanations after making such utterances in Hansard.

I criticised the hon the State President, but I said he was the most courageous leader we have had.

I indicated that we are in a period of transition where we must not look at the Indian community or the Indian matriculants and youths as the only job seekers. I heard a speaker saying: “Let us not make a mistake about this; apartheid protected the White community, and apartheid protected the Indian community”. We also enjoyed favoured treatment as regards the allocation of funds for housing and education. We were better off than the Blacks.

That is wrong.

However, we are still better off, and when we want to make changes within the context of what the treasury can afford in this country, we are criticised …[Interjections.] …by none other than the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

Do not dig a grave for our community …

The hon member for Reservoir Hills criticised the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in 1986 when he presented the Budget, and we did exactly what the hon member for Reservoir Hills suggested, namely to ensure that those who were underdeveloped and underprivileged get a better share of the allocation, but when this hurt the Indian, one began to think as an Indian and not as a South African.

You are changing your tune.

We are not changing our tune.

We argued and I said we must take Indian money and give it to Blacks…

Yes, the hon member did say that, but at the same time …

You are summersaulting.

We are not summersaulting, but the hon member beat the hon member for Merebank as a summersaulter when the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition picked up the gauntlet which the hon member threw at him. In the name of justice and fairplay we decided to make a sacrifice for the benefit of those underdeveloped communities in this country, and the hon member was the first to criticise. [Interjections.] The hon member was the first to criticise when his proposals were accepted by my hon colleague in the Ministers’ Council at that time.

However, we are in an era of reconciliation. Let us take the proposals in the National Council Bill. According to these proposals, elected Black leaders—not nominated leaders; if they are nominated, people say they are lackeys of the Government—will participate in a proposed structure under the chairmanship of the hon the State President to plan and prepare a new constitution for the Republic of South Africa. Should they complain about the process of government, they will also have a say in the interim process of government.

No one can deny the fact that reforms are taking place in the field of housing, social services and education. The very fact that the Government is now committed to talking to elected Black leaders who are committed to non-violence to plan and prepare a new constitution for the Republic of South Africa, proves clearly that we are now in an age of reconciliation. The hon the State President even indicated in this House on 20 August that his invitation to Black leaders to participate also includes the ANC if they abandon their policy of violence.

We are still bitter. We express our bitterness in the structures of the new Constitution. We express these things in the Cabinet, in the Cabinet Committee, in the standing committees when we deal with legislation and also in this House. However, we must have no confidence in the people who refuse to accept that South Africa is changing. Recently there were bold headlines about a South African industrialist who decided to settle in London. The finest thing one can do today to get popularity in certain circles is to criticise the hon the State President.

However, apartheid is practiced outside government circles where there exists no legislation to enforce that apartheid.

I believe that in a particular milling industry in Durban there was a strike. The strike occurred as a result of apartheid in that bakery. I do not want to say who the managing director or the head of the bakery was. He is most probably running away from this country because he cannot practise what he preaches. His bluff has probably been called by the people who are employed by him. I think when one gives reasons for leaving this country one must present the truth because I know the reason for the strike. I believe there are many people in the private sector, let us take commerce and industry, who all appear to be ganging up, but did they reform? Did they offer equality of opportunity to the people of colour in this country? What announcements have we had from the Cabinet recently by the Minister in charge of the commission in this country? That the Public Service is going to be mixed. There is going to be equality of opportunity for all race groups in the Public Service. Let us look at remuneration for the people of colour in the Public Service. We heard an announcement recently—a few months ago—on a matter we discussed in this House, that on 1 April this year the last vestiges of discrimination in the Public Service will be removed. An amount of R137 million a year is being budgeted to put this into effect. However, that does not mean we are always pleased with events in this country. I want to say from my experience in my capacity as Minister of Housing that I am not happy with the manner in which the Group Areas Act is applied. I am not happy with the manner in which local prejudices are allowed to have their way. I am not happy about the fact that there are opportunities for employment for our youth in this country in areas where they previously had no opportunities and as a result of not having sufficient land for housing, these opportunities are denied them. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition even suggested to me yesterday that we should get together on a non-party political basis to try to find solutions to this problem.

We should have no confidence in those people who are controlling institutions in this country. I want to say that colonialism has not left this country. We know the bitterness of the so-called last bastion of the British Empire whence we come. This side of the House has stood up in this House and disagreed with the Government. Hon members on this side of the House have disagreed with Ministers, and we disagreed with dignity. Allow me to say publicly that there is a difference in the character of the Indian community in this country. The Afrikaners were treated as slaves and the Indians were treated as slaves in this country by the same people. There were times that the Afrikaners did not get a cat and there were times that the Indians, especially in Natal, did not get a cat. That is why we cannot adopt irresponsible stances and present a radical front. I want to say that a great deal of the progress the Indian community has made in this country has not been as a result of the generosity of the State. Indian education was taken over by the State in 1966. From 1966 there was tremendous progress, but Indian education had advanced before 1966. We know, however, the way the provincial governments treated us. We have learnt the hard way. We have learnt through the process of self-help. I want to repeat what I have said previously and that is that the Indian community of South Africa is one of the finest examples of a community that has progressed as a result of the process of self-help.

What we hear today about the Soviet model, we heard about various constitutional models. What we heard today, however, is what goes on the bottle of a prescription. We have never had a suggestion. We have many experts who are prepared to give us the prescription labels, but they are not prepared to give us details of the mixtures that will go into the bottles.

Mr Chairman, Chief Gatsha Buthelezi praised the hon the State President on the occasion of the launching of the Joint Executive Authority for KwaZulu and Natal. Then there were overseas visitors like Professor Wira Wenthre, a learned judge from Sri Lanka, who once said that the greatest ally for reform in this country is none other than the hon the State President. There is something I want to say: We have been criticised because of the path we have chosen; we have been criticised by people who are prepared to use this system; and we have taken tough stances in this House, radical stances, and sometimes non-negotiable stances, but we have done it with dignity. We have not come here on a path of the type of confrontation that people want us to engage in.

That does not mean, however, that we do not have confrontation when we do not agree and when we do not get our way when we make reasonable demands. I want to say, however, that when the hon the State President indicated that the old colonial system of apartheid was outdated, we saw it as a sign that there had been movement. Moreover, the greatest peaceful revolution we have ever had is in progress in the sphere of Black education. Sometimes, when we call for sacrifices to be made as far as Indian education is concerned, we are criticised. In respect of the National Council people are criticising the State by saying that it is not determining an agenda. Yet when an agenda is drawn up the hon the State President is criticised by people who say he is prescribing. Yet, when he does not draw up an agenda they say he is not determining the direction of this country. Whatever one does, then, one is criticised.

Let us rather all join hands to ensure that everyone plays his part in creating the necessary climate so that there can be unbanning of organisations, release of prisoners, and accommodation of one another’s point of view. We differ in respect of the Group Areas Act, and we have made public statements to that effect. We are bitter about the manner in which it was and is presently being applied. That does not mean, however, that there have not been changes. The Sunday Times said some time during 1983 that this Constitution is like an anvil on which the future of South Africa can be shaped. There are deficiencies in the Constitution, but in the present context one has a choice between two alternatives. One alternative is the left. In this regard we must not forget the words of Govan Mbeki when he was released. I think he let people down when he confirmed that he was still a communist.

The other alternative is the right. If there is anyone who wants the heads of people, and he believes that the left will deliver those heads, he is mistaken. Sometimes he may succeed in getting the heads of people, but those may be delivered by the wrong people. That is the danger.

As I have said, Mr Chairman, we are in a period of transition, and in a period of transition we must show tolerance and we must show understanding. I want to say—I said it in the Eastern Transvaal—that I am satisfied, just as hon members on the other side of the House have also said that they are satisfied, that our decision to give this a try was a worthy one, for it is proving to have been correct.

If we are dissatisfied, we must have the courage to stand up and say that our decision to try the Constitution was wrong, and we are now going to part our ways.

There are many things in country about which we, representing our constituents, are bitter. We are bitter about the Group Areas Act. I am bitter because I cannot fulfil my desire to provide adequate housing for my people as a result of the manner in which the Group Areas Act is being applied in certain areas at present, but I believe that with the negotiations we are going to have as well as the discussions in and report produced by the President’s Council, there is going to be positive development in this direction.

If one looks at the how the hon the State President is praised to the heavens and regarded as the number one leader in this country, at the attitudes to him expressed by Blacks, Coloureds, Indians and Whites in opinion surveys and at the fact that being Chairman of the Cabinet he is, in effect the Cabinet, I do not think one can pass a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet, especially when it is headed by a person who is the only one who had the courage to shift this country onto a new constitutional course. We should rather have no confidence in people, structures and institutions—they are not necessarily confined to the right—who refuse to accept and believe that we are now living in a country where we are watching revolutionary peaceful changes.

All is not well in South Africa but, as the hon member for Reservoir Hills once said, it took a certain other country 800 years. Changes will take time. We disagree with the Government in certain respects. I want to admit publicly that we disagree. In response to the many questions posed by my colleague, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning this afternoon, even the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition conceded on most points.

If it is right, we support it; if it is wrong, we do not.

Let us not engage in a discussion on whether this should be a debate on trade and industry. This afternoon’s proceedings could initially have been mistaken for a debate on the Budget Vote concerning trade and industry. We are dealing with major national issues confronting this country, and I want to place on record that this side of the House has disagreed with Ministers and agreed with them. We will support the hon the State President on issues in respect of which we agree with him, and we will oppose the Government on issues in respect of which we disagree. That is our right in terms of the announcement made on 14 September 1984. However, we will disagree with dignity, taking into consideration that the Indian community as a group has its own chequered history in this country.

Our determination to survive in South Africa, in spite of the fact that we comprise only 3% of the population, must never be underestimated. That is why there may be a difference in attitude and approaches by parties or groups in different Houses in this Parliament, and the public must understand this difference in approach because our history and upbringing in this country has been different.

Mr Chairman, the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council concluded his contribution by referring to the fact that this debate had been one on trade and industry. It is indeed a pity that the hon the State President has left this august Chamber because it is, in fact, trade and industry on which he himself placed emphasis when he said we had to deregulate in order to give the economy a free hand to move forward. [Interjections.]

Obviously, the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is so engrossed in singing the praises of the State President that to some extent he embarrassed him. The State President is a politician who wants to hear the other side of the story as well. He wants to know how we feel about it, and I would have liked the State President to listen to me tell him what is happening with this shift of industry from the urban areas to other areas. There is no satisfaction given to anybody when you displace a group of people from work in an urban area and then create employment in a rural area. In the process you hurt the one and you hurt the other.

Some people do not understand.

I am surprised that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said that trade and industry do not play a part. Obviously the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council must have misunderstood what the State President said: “Radical reforms on the economic front”. He must have completely misunderstood him.

I am not going to interject.

I am not a dishonest person and I will give an honest answer. There has been development, there has been progress, but we are trying to point out what the shortcomings are. We disagree with the pace of reform. We disagree about the fact that this year, 1988, we were not given any indication as to what the programme of political reform is. We are entitled to that.

Nobody has answered that.

I am not afraid to say that.

Secondly, with reference to privatisation I think the hon member for Reservoir Hills misunderstood me. I said that the State President himself said that one cannot have a platform for political reform until and unless one addresses and levels off the wide historical disparity which separates the economic levels of the White and non-White sectors.

These are realities, and I am sure that if the hon the State President were here, he would agree with me on these matters, because he himself has said these things. All I am saying is that he is not addressing the problems which he himself claims must be addressed at the pace they ought to be addressed.

Surely the State President would listen with interest if I told him that in townships like Tongaat, Verulam and Stanger we have massive unemployment and nothing has yet been done to bring industry there; that the Board of Trade and Industry should carry out an examination; that the new role of the Industrial Development Corporation should be a catalyst for establishing new industry there. I could also debate like the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning if I were on that side, but I put forward practical propositions and practical questions which have to be answered, and they have not been answered.

Let me quote a telegram, and I want all hon members to listen to this. It is addressed to Mr Moolla and it says:

Are you not concerned about this?

By whom was it sent?

It was sent by a businessman in Stanger and the local authorities.

Are you sure he did not send that telegram to himself?

I do not send telegrams to Dasoo’s. [Interjections.]

I am not afraid, as the Leader of the Official Opposition, to say to the hon the State President the things that I feel ought to be said. He is a politician of long-standing and he knows when praise is worthy and when praise is in fact hypocrisy. He is too old a politician not to know the difference. What I am saying, however, is that we must also bring the Group Areas Act to his notice. Carolina! I should like to repeat the name “Carolina” to him. It shames us all, and it must also shame him and his Cabinet.

Not the super salesman for the Nats—it does not shame him!

Let us not spare anybody because we want to sound nice! Please, if one tells the hon the State President the truth and conveys to him the feeling of one’s people, he will be pleased—he wants to know that! Often officials of departments do not adequately convey representations that we make.

Our own people do not convey them properly.

Reference was made to Mr Fouché. Do you know what Mr Fouche told the late Mr Vorster about Cato Manor? He said that he was very sympathetic and understanding of Mr Reddy’s plea, but Cato Manor had been planned and laid out ready for the houses to be built. This was not the truth!

It is not even ready now. This is how some officials advise Ministers, covering their own mistakes and errors of judgment, and some Ministers may base their decisions on that. Hon members should not be afraid to speak the truth and speak it with conviction. Let them hear it, for they know what is the truth and in doing so, we will be helping the hon the State President to appreciate our difficulties.

Hear, hear!

I respect the hon the State President. I know that he is a courageous man and that he has a constituency. However, I also have a constituency. We all have constituencies to which we are answerable. [Interjections.] Let us not, in the course of debate, make utterances which may give the impression to our own people that we are here as defenders of the faith. It can be misconstrued. [Interjections.] This is the time when the Opposition has an opportunity to state its case and it is an accepted form of debate.

I have heard no case today.

Mr Chairman, can the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council tell me whether the hon the Minister answered on privatisation? What does it mean to the non-White people of South Africa? It means nothing, but the hon the Minister did not answer that. When I spoke about decentralisation, with thousands of Indian, Coloured and Black workers in the Durban clothing trade losing their jobs because the factories are moving away, the hon the Minister did not answer that.

I took your pants off with group areas today.

Panday took his pants off. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, when the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council made his address today, I listened carefully and with concern. I think it is time that he learnt to behave himself.

But your colleague …

Order! Hon members must please give the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition a chance to address the House without interruptions.

Mr Chairman, in my address I am trying to educate hon members of this House about the role of the Board of Trade and Industry, because I am sure that 50% of them are not acquainted with it. I am being humble about it. I am trying to say that we should call upon the Government to get the Board of Trade and Industry to make an investigation into those areas where we have educated people who are unemployed. They are our constituency and we have to defend that constituency. We must canvass their support. Why are hon members afraid?

I must tell hon members that in 1961, when there was massive unemployment, I wrote a letter to the then Minister of Indian Affairs asking for some concessions to be given to Indian areas to encourage development. As a result Stanger, Tongaat, Verulam and Pietermaritzburg were declared as concession areas for the Indian community. If one does not ask, one gets nothing. One will not ask if one is ignorant. One never learns if one thinks one is too clever. However, this is the chance for the Opposition to speak its mind in a responsible manner. I believe that I addressed the hon the State President, through his hon Cabinet Ministers, in a responsible manner. Anyone who reads Hansard will find that I made a case as I see it.

We are missing a very important point. When those American companies pulled out, who took over their stock? Was it Mr Zulu, Mr Munsamy, or Mr Hendrickse? Who did it?

Those were Whites!

Whites took over.

Surely that must worry us if we are concerned politicians? What I am saying is that we cannot allow this to go on. If these large State corporations are privatised and no equity comes to people of Colour, that means there will merely be a change from one boss to another. That is what I am saying. As far as the Group Areas Act is concerned, whatever the feelings of people may be, we are being held to ransom. We are being hauled from one corner to another and exploited by the people who own the land, and those people happen to be the Whites. We are paying the price.

I lost a home in 1953.

Tell us what the official wanted in your house.

Yes, they wanted my home and they virtually chased us out of it. [Interjections.] What is more, we got peanuts for it. There are many people like me who lost their homes.

Is your home still standing?

It is still standing there.

We are taking it back! [Interjections.]

I am not bitter, Mr Chairman, but could anyone blame me if I were?

I have said that we must have reconciliation. There are parties in the House of Delegates, the House of Representatives and the House of Assembly, all of whom are committed to contributing to peaceful reform. There may be differences in approach, but I do believe that no effort should be spared in harnessing the goodwill that exists in order to accelerate this process of reform. [Interjections.]

I also want to make mention of political prisoners. We realise and we accept that when people come to the negotiating table there must be no conditions. The hon the State President has made it very clear that at one stage he was accused of setting conditions. Now there are no conditions. What we are asking, is that he should try even harder to create the right climate by releasing prisoners so that men of goodwill can come together and draw up an agenda and start work on the formulation of a constitution which will give us the opportunity to make this country great, because nature has so richly endowed it with so many resources.

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

Question negatived and the words omitted (Official Opposition dissenting).

Substitution of the words proposed by the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to, viz:

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.