Order! I announce that in terms of Rule 56 of the Joint Rules and Orders of the Houses of Parliament, I notified the State President by message on 18 June 1986 that the House of Assembly had passed and the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates had in terms of Rule 30(4) rejected the Public Safety Amendment Bill [B 80—86 (GA)] and the Internal Security Amendment Bill [B 89—86 (GA)].

as Chairman, presented the Fifth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning, dated 11 June 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Ninth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Home Affairs, dated 18 June 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Tenth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Home Affairs, dated 18 June 1986, relative to the Restoration of South African Citizenship Bill [B 94—86 (GA)].

Report to be printed.

as Chairman, presented the Ninth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, dated 18 June 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Fifth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs and Tourism, relative to certain State-owned land, dated 13 June 1986, as follows:

1. (1) The proposed withdrawal from demarcation in terms of section 10(2) of the Forest Act, 1984, for handing back to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs for further disposal, of portions 62 and 63 of the farm Roodeplaat 293 JR and portions 126 and 127 of the farm Zeekoegat 296 JR, being components 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the estate of the South African Institute for Forestry Research, situate in the district of Pretoria, Province of the Transvaal;
2. (2) the proposed withdrawal from demarcation in terms of section 10(2) of the Forest Act, 1984, of a portion, in extent approximately 6 hectares, of Witwater Forest Reserve 188 JT, being a portion of component 1 of the Witwater State Forest, situate in the district of White River, Province of the Transvaal, in favour of Wayland Green (Pty) Ltd, subject to a permit for the establishment of the factory being obtained by the said firm in terms of section 3 of the Physical Planning Act, 1967;
3. (3) the proposed extension in terms of section 11(1) of the Forest Act, 1984, of an existing servitude of abutment and water storage over a portion of Witwater Forest Reserve 188 JT, being component 1 of the Witwater State Forest, situate in the district of White River, Province of the Transvaal, in favour of Messrs H L G Knight, A S Smith and J F Viljoen, subject to the cancellation of the servitude granted in 1968;
4. (4) the proposed withdrawal from demarcation in terms of section 10(2) of the Forest Act, 1984, for handing back to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs for further disposal, of portion 2 of the farm Waterval 205 KS, being component 10 of the Serala State Forest, situate in the district of Pietersburg, Province of the Transvaal, subject to a servitude being registered for the unlimited use of the water from the borehole by the State, and subject further to the maintenance of the present school building for as long as such building is required for school purposes;
5. (5) the proposed ex post facto approval for the withdrawal from demarcation in terms of section 10(2) of the Forest Act, 1984, of a portion of Erf 171, Arniston, in extent 9,2630 hectares, being component 4 of the De Mond State Forest, situate in the administrative division of Bredasdorp, Province of the Cape of Good Hope, for condoning the disposal by the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs of the land to the Divisional Council of Bredasdorp;
6. (6) the proposed withdrawal from demarcation in terms of section 10(2) of the Forest Act, 1984, for handing back to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs for further disposal, of a portion, in extent approximately 25 hectares, of portion 2 of the farm Oude Brug 313, being component 16 of the Grabouw State Forest, situate in the administrative division of Caledon, Province of the Cape of Good Hope;
7. (7) the proposed granting in terms of section 11(1) of the Forest Act, 1984, of a servitude of water abutment, water storage and the laying of a water pipe-line in favour of Elandskloof Vee- en Vrugteboerdery (Pty) Ltd on and over a portion of the farm Witte Water 28, being component 3 of the Sonderend State Forest, situate in the administrative division of Caledon, Province of the Cape of Good Hope;
8. (8) the proposed withdrawal from demarcation in terms of section 10(2) of the Forest Act, 1984, for handing back to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs for further disposal, of a portion, in extent approximately 47 hectares, of the farm Groot Elandskloof 780, being component 2 of the Sonderend State Forest, situate in the administrative division of Caledon, Province of the Cape of Good Hope, subject to Old Elgin Apple Friends (Pty) Ltd acquiring the adjacent private properties required in connection with its apple nursery;
9. (9) the proposed withdrawal from demarcation and withdrawal from setting aside as a nature reserve in terms of sections 10(2) and 15(2) of the Forest Act, 1984, for handing back to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs for reservation in favour of the Natal Parks Board, of a portion of the farm Warwick, FP 316 No 9035, being component 23 of the Garden Castle State Forest, situate in the district of Underberg, Province of Natal;
10. (10) the proposed withdrawal from demarcation in terms of section 10(2) of the Forest Act, 1984, for handing back to the Department of Public Works and Land’ Affairs for further disposal, of the farm Paul’s Kloof 217, being component 55 of the Cockscomb State Forest, situate in the administrative division of Humansdorp, Province of the Cape of Good Hope;
11. (11) the proposed granting in terms of section 15(4)(a) of the Forest Act, 1984, of a temporary right for the erection and maintenance of a 22 kV overhead power-line in favour of the Electricity Supply Commission over the De Vasselot Nature Reserve on the Bloukrans State Forest, which has been declared a nature reserve in terms of section 15(1)(a)(i) of the Forest Act, 1984, situate in the administrative division of Knysna, Province of the Cape of Good Hope;
12. (12) the proposed exclusion in terms of section 2(3) of the National Parks Act, 1976, for handing back to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs for further disposal, of a portion of land, in extent approximately 700 hectares, from the Karoo National Park, situate in the administrative division of Beaufort West, Province of the Cape of Good Hope;
13. (13) the proposed withdrawal from demarcation in terms of section 10(2) of the Forest Act, 1984, for handing back to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs for further disposal, of the properties described in the Schedule hereto:

SCHEDULE

and

1. (14) the proposed exclusion in terms of section 2(3) of the National Parks Act, 1976, for handing back to the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs for further disposal, of a portion of land, in extent approximately 12 hectares, from the Bontebok National Park, situate in the administrative division of Swellendam, Province of the Cape of Good Hope.

Mr Speaker, when the House adjourned last night I was relating how the National Party had fared in Pietersburg last weekend. I believe that, if the hon member for Pietersburg—and he is present here this afternoon—were to know what was happening in Pietersburg, he would decidedly have cause to be somewhat concerned. [Interjections.]

In conjunction with events occurring in the Northern Transvaal, I wonder whether the parliamentary leader of the Afrikaner-Weerstandsbeweging, the hon member for Waterberg, has heard of what took place in the election of the school council of the high school at Louis Trichardt. [Interjections.] The hon member for Soutpansberg will probably be able to inform him about it. He would do well to send him a note to ask about it. [Interjections.]

We returned from Pietersburg with a positive message. Why could we succeed in returning from Pietersburg with such a message? It is because we went there and permitted the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs to give us a message of hope there. [Interjections.] That is why we could return from there with a positive message. Those people, the sensible and moderate people of the Northern Transvaal, realise one fact very clearly. This is that the one party which is able to come up with a practicable answer acceptable to most people of this country is the NP.

I wish to indicate four reasons why I feel so positive about the Northern Transvaal. The first is that there is gratitude in the hearts of the people of the Northern Transvaal. [Interjections.] Of course, these people are also excited about the rugby match which is to take place in the North on Saturday afternoon and the hon member for De Kuilen will have to eat his words. [Interjections.]

The second reason for my optimism is that there is a will among the people of the Northern Transvaal to go ahead. Thirdly, those people understand the problems of the country with which we are struggling. Fourthly, there is no hate in the hearts of the people who have a vested interest in the Northern Transvaal. Those people do not speak about a Black policeman as the hon member for Kuruman did; no, those people bear no hate in their hearts.

The conference we held inevitably dealt with two important matters because the subjects were security and agricultural affairs. The items on the agenda dealt with there covered these two fields. The Northern Transvaal has suffered and is still suffering. If we think only of the drought and certain other events there, we need not go into this any further. The hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply showed up there and, as in the Western Transvaal the previous week, he also had a message of hope for the Northern Transvaal. He made announcements there which caused the people to rejoice. One may say the same on the question of security and to the extent that one already sees the fruits of the measures instituted by the Government.

Let there be no doubt on one matter. The Government has not forgotten the Northern Transvaal—as the people of the Northern Transvaal are well aware.

I said those people understood the problems of this country. They know that the country in general and that area in particular have problems. They know that the funds which the hon the Minister is able to make available are limited. They know that, when the State President speaks of a total onslaught, he is telling the truth even if hon members of the CP and some others laugh at this. They know he is telling the truth. They know that power-sharing on a group basis with protection of minority rights is the answer. They know White domination is out. They know that partition is a stupid plan. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is because they know this that they are giving the “Parliamentary leader of the AWB” such a bad time.

Order! Will the hon member for Rustenburg please give me a chance to speak when I call him to order. Will the hon member reply to a question?

No, Mr Speaker, I do not wish to reply to a question. [Interjections.]

Then the hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I thought you were perhaps calling me to order because it was unparliamentary to address the hon member for Waterberg as the “Parliamentary leader of the AWB”. The hon member for Waterberg will not enter the Northern Transvaal and tell the people there what he plans regarding the Black people living outside the independent or national states. He dare not do this because then the bottom would fall out of all the arguments he is trying to build up because those people understand what it is all about.

As the learned hon member Prof Olivier said, those people realise that we cannot attempt curbing confrontation with confrontation but they read politics better than that because they understand that the crux of the matter is not the release of Nelson Mandela but also the contents of an SACP document which was recently tabled. It is about the bottom line which they demand:

The Northern Transvaal wants no part of this.

Mr Speaker, I am sure the House has taken cognisance of the message of joy emanating from the NP in the Northern Transvaal. Unfortunately that spirit of joy and gladness is not in keeping with the overall political situation prevailing in South Africa today. I want to elaborate on that overall political situation for a few minutes.

†I must make it clear at the outset that whatever the reasons the Government may have relating to 16 June for having imposed the state of emergency, I believe it is in the interests of all South Africans that the state of emergency with its awesome and arbitrary powers be lifted as quickly as possible. [Interjections.] That is our view. The sooner South Africans, free from these unnatural restrictions, get back to their unfinished task of dismantling apartheid and of getting on with the new task of negotiating a new constitution the better for everyone in South Africa.

What I am surprised at—I am glad to see he is here—is that the hon the Deputy Minister of Information in the course of a telephone conversation has now stated, I presume on behalf of the State President, the conditions for lifting the state of emergency.

*The heading of a telephonic interview he had with Die Vaderland is: “Louis Nel stel eise”. In the telephonic interview this morning he says:

[Interjections.]

†I now want to know whether he was speaking on behalf of the Government. Are these the reasons for which the Government is holding South Africa under a state of emergency? Are these the conditions for lifting it? Surely the fact that in a certain number of Black townships third-tier government is not working and that in certain Black areas children are boycotting the schools are not good reasons for a state of emergency. Is that a good reason to have a blanket ban of security and censorship over the whole of South Africa? Is this the basis on which one must try to get the system of third-tier government to succeed in South Africa? Has it not perhaps dawned on the Government that many Black people perhaps do not want this third tier of government at all but that they want a different system of government?

I want to address the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid in particular. Is this the basis on which he wants to get the children back to school? Did he go to the State President and asked for the state of emergency to help him get the children back to school? I do not believe he did. I do not believe that he or the hon the Deputy Minister would be so stupid as to try to coerce the children back to school by declaring a state of emergency.

They owe us an explanation. It is simply ridiculous that for the reasons given by the official propagandists of the Government the whole of South Africa should be kept under a state of emergency.

During the state of emergency it is quite clear that Parliament remains the only real platform for free political expression in South Africa. The reason is that it is the only place where the facts surrounding the state of emergency can be probed and debated. In these circumstances I want to say to the Government that I do not believe that Parliament should be adjourned next week. I believe it should stay in session for as long as the state of emergency is imposed on the people of South Africa. Let us do our duty by the people. [Interjections.] Secondly, I do not believe it is good enough for Parliament if it wishes to function as the legislature of South Africa to have as a basis the limited and relatively unreliable information provided by the Bureau for Information of the hon the Deputy Minister and which is unfortunately supplemented by rumours that float around the country. We warned the Government yesterday and the day before that we will be overtaken by rumours if we are not allowed to have the facts.

The PFP is doing what it can to monitor the situation. However, I believe the hon the Minister who is responsible for enforcing these regulations has to come to Parliament to keep us and the members of the public informed as to what is happening in the country. It is the hon the Minister’s responsibility.

He must tell us how many people have been detained under the emergency regulations. [Interjections.] I believe he has to tell the public their names and whether their next-of-kin have been informed. Rumour has it—it may well be a fact—that Mrs Winnie Mandela is once again under house arrest. I ask the hon the Minister if that is so, and if it is, what the conditions of her house arrest are. How many other people have been placed under house arrest as well, and under what conditions? We believe it to be essential that Parliament, and through it the public, be informed about what is taking place in South Africa. The hon the Minister of Law and Order should not use the Bureau for Information as a shield but should himself tell this House what is taking place.

There is no doubt that we are in a crisis situation, and crisis situations demand emergency treatment, but not that being meted out by the Government in terms of the emergency regulations.

The best emergency treatment for South Africa at this stage would be a major Cabinet reshuffle by the State President in the process of which he would replace more than half of the present Cabinet with a new crisis Cabinet composed of Ministers with sensitivity, management skills and a vision for the future. [Interjections.]

Hear, hear!

He should replace the whole lot. Why only half?

We believe that the combined efforts of the best South Africans available irrespective of their party or race will be needed to get South Africa out of the crisis and give it real hope for the future.

Name the other half!

In a crisis situation it is often very difficult to see the wood for the trees, but I think it is important that we occasionally look at South Africa, where we are going and what we are trying to do about it. One should look beyond the bannings, the bombings and everything else that is taking place. There are those who say that there is no real change in South Africa but I believe that certain important processes of change are taking place in South Africa.

The first of these is a process of fundamental structural change, because in spite of apartheid this society is restructuring itself in a very fundamental way. This restructuring process was initiated primarily by economic forces and is being propelled by the frustration and anger of the people at the system of apartheid. It is being strengthened by factors such as education, communication, domestic needs, external influences and urbanisation. The result of this is that, in spite of all the apartheid laws and all the Government actions and contradictions, South Africans are moving towards a greater sharing of social freedom, economic opportunity and political power across the colour line.

Although White South Africans still have the vote, we no longer have the monopoly of political power in South Africa. The course of South Africa’s history is being determined not only by those of us who sit in this Parliament but also by the voteless Black South Africans in the townships, the trade unions and the community based organisations around our country. So, there is a process of restructuring, and it is a process which is gaining momentum.

However, there is another process to which I want to direct the attention of hon members on the Government side. It is the statutory process of legislative and policy change. There again there have been some changes—some have been minor, others have been important. However, all these changes started far too late and have been painfully slow. These changes have not been initiatives by the Government. They have always been seen as responses to pressure inviting more pressure. As a result of the difference between the pace of the natural, organic restructuring which is taking place and the slow, uneven pace of reform in this country, the gap between aspirations and concessions and the gap between demands and reform remain as dangerously wide as ever. As a consequence of this wide gap angry pressures have been building up against the Government, the authorities and what people would call the system. The Government’s response to these angry pressures has not been more reform but a mixture of repression and reform. This hesitant mixture of repression on the one hand and reform on the other has been a major cause of the uncertainty and the conflict that characterises the South African political scene today.

The fact is that the Government is guilty of gross mismanagement of the whole reform process in South Africa. It has failed to initiate the statutory and policy changes demanded by the dynamic of the evolving South African society. This mismanagement by the Government of the reform process has played into the hands of the revolutionaries. It has given encouragement to the right-wing reactionaries. It has sown confusion and despondency in the middle ground of South African politics, and it is busy pulling the rug out from under the feet of our friends abroad. What is more—as the hon the Minister of Finance will understand—is that this mismanagement of the reform process is doing incalculable harm to the economy of South Africa.

One would ask what should the Government be doing to get out of this and to undo the errors of its own mismanagement. Obviously it must without any delay remove the last vestiges of apartheid that we have from the Statute Books. Once again the Government has been too hesitant and slow in doing this and its efforts have been almost too miserable in their content. If the hon members on the other side of the House are concerned about their right wing, I want to point out to them that they may take consolation in the fact that the forwards of the Blou Bulle and of the Western Province are quite happy to see reform taking place. They actually say the following:

This is not Mr Schwarz or Mrs Suzman speaking; it is UH Schmidt, Burger Geldenhuys, Johan Heunis and Louis Moolman of Northern Transvaal and Carel du Plessis, Schalk Burger, Shaun Povey, Morné du Plessis and Dawie Snyman of the Western Province. [Interjections.] I say to the Government that it must take some courage in its hands. If the sportsmen and the rugby players are demanding that this be done then I believe the Government should have the courage to do it as well. [Interjections.]

Let me say to the hon the Minister, as I have said once before, that they will not get rid of apartheid if they abolish the outdated concept of apartheid on the one hand and reintroduce the updated concept of apartheid on the other hand in the form of so-called own affairs. That is not abolishing apartheid. South Africa will not be scrapping apartheid if under the guise of own affairs, it reintroduces apartheid in the form of separate education, separate local government, separate housing, hospitals etcetera.

Secondly—and this involves the hon the Minister of Finance specifically—I believe that a most important task at this stage is to start to get rid of the legacy of apartheid. Apartheid is more than just a set of laws. Apartheid has become a state of mind, a way of life, a condition under which the people of South Africa live. Hon members should go to Crossroads, KTC and Khayelitsha, and they will know what I mean. It has a profound effect on our people and our society. Therefore, as the legislative obstacles of apartheid are removed, we have an even more important task of getting rid of the legacy of apartheid—the inequities and the lack of opportunity of apartheid.

In this the Government is starting to play a limited role, and I want to give the hon the Minister of Finance two assurances. The first is that the PFP will support him on every cent that he includes in his Budget for the removal of the legacy of apartheid. We will support him on every cent for socio-economic reconstruction in order to get rid of the legacy of apartheid.

Secondly, every time he does provide some money, we will ask for more, because we believe that the task of reconstruction in order to get rid of the legacy of apartheid is absolutely critical to the future stability of South Africa.

We welcome what the hon the Minister has done in the announcement he made in trying to stimulate the economy. We are particularly pleased with the R750 million which is to be made available for housing. However, this must only be the start. What he announced yesterday will do no more than partly offset the damage which the Government has already done to the South African economy. This is a retrieving action and, in that sense, we will support it.

However, as hon members on this side of the House have pointed out, this Government obviously, at long last, has to get on with the process of negotiating a new constitution. The State President gave notice of a draft Bill on a national council. We will discuss that Bill in due course. Suffice it to say that negotiation will not only depend on the statutory form of council that is established; it will depend also on the political climate and environment which this Government creates. We must make it quite clear that the state of emergency which exists today may create a facade of order but it will not create the conditions under which genuine and serious negotiation on a new deal for South Africa can take place.

We in the PFP want the process of negotiation to succeed. We believe peace and stability depends on its success, and not only inside South Africa. It will also have a critically important effect as far as our foreign relations and the whole issue of sanctions are concerned.

It is in this context that I believe we should reflect for a moment on the recent mission of a group known as the Eminent Persons Group. It is possible that the mission of the EPG was bound to fail before it started insofar as it was to encourage “the process of dialogue inside South Africa”. I believe that the EPG made some significant progress in focusing the attention of widely divergent political groups inside South Africa on negotiation as an alternative to violence. Nevertheless, it is true that its mission in its present form has ended without having achieved any tangible success. To an extent that is a setback for peaceful change inside South Africa. It is most certainly a setback for South Africa in the field of international relationships.

The conflict situation inside South Africa is essentially a matter which has to be resolved by South Africans. We all acknowledge and accept this. However, at the same time we have to face up to the fact that it has serious international implications for this country, and the EPG with all its shortcomings presented to South Africa an opportunity— perhaps the last opportunity for some time— of getting significant international co-operation in resolving our international situation.

What would you say were its shortcomings?

There will be explanations and recriminations from both sides. I do not believe that we are going to get very far by indulging in these at this stage. What is much more important is where we should be going from here. I want to put it to the Government that it should keep the door open for discussions, either with the Commonwealth or for that matter with other countries who in the future may genuinely want to assist South Africa with its conflict problem. [Interjections.] We cannot simply dismiss the West as if all Western governments were simply hellbent on destroying South Africa. I do not believe that is the reality, and if one listened to the radio today in regard to the debates in the House of Commons, it certainly was not the reality there.

Secondly, I do not believe that the Government should accept that sanctions against South Africa are inevitable and that they should base their future strategy on that inevitability. It is true that the campaign for sanctions overseas has developed a momentum of its own regardless of whether those sanctions are going to be productive or counter-productive in South Africa. It is true that elements of sanctions are already with us, and it may be impossible to ward off certain further elements in the future. [Interjections.] That notwithstanding, I believe it would be dangerous and against South Africa’s interests for the Government simply to throw in the towel and then to batten down the hatches and try to ride out the storm. I also believe it is stupid for South Africans simply to posture on the sanctions issue and suggest that sanctions may actually benefit South Africa. [Interjections.] The fact is that economic sanctions will harm South Africa even if only because they will prevent us from getting with the task of the socio-economic reconstruction of our country.

We should face the issue of sanction head-on, not by posturing or battening down the hatches but by coining to grips with the simple reality that the steps that we have to take to get sanctions, or the threat of them off our backs are exactly the same steps that we have to take to resolve the conflict situation inside South Africa. The road away from sanctions does not start in London or in Washington. The road away from sanctions starts right here in Cape Town and in Pretoria.

A number of important conferences are going to be held during the next few weeks and months, particularly the mini-summit which will be attended by Mrs Thatcher and her six Commonwealth colleagues at the beginning of August at which they will consider the EPG report. I put it to this House and to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs that before that August conference this Government must lift the state of emergency. Furthermore, this Government must release Mr Nelson Mandela. I believe that those two steps will be the most positive signals that this Government and South Africa could give in order to tell the world that this Government is serious and that it really wants to get on with the tough task of negotiating a new deal for all South Africans.

Mr Speaker, the hon Leader of the Official Opposition made much mention in the last part of his speech of the possibility of sanctions against South Africa and what our attitude to this should be. The hon member’s answer to this is apparently that we should do what is expected of us within the country, which is to institute fundamental changes. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition always talks of “fundamental change” although he did not do so today.

If we on this side of the House can prevent sanctions against South Africa, we shall do so with pleasure. It is definitely not in the interests of anyone in this country—least of all in the interests of our Black population and of our neighbouring countries that sanctions be applied against us.

What is expected of us, however? The hon Leader of the Official Opposition says there are a few conditions we have to satisfy. In the first place, we have to lift the state of emergency. In the second, we have to release Mandela. And who is responsible for our having a state of emergency in South Africa now? Surely it is those who challenge the maintenance of law and order. Surely it is those people who sow devastation, who plant bombs in South Africa, who drape “necklaces” about people’s necks. Surely those are the people who are creating problems in South Africa so that we have been forced to declare a state of emergency in this country.

Secondly, there was nothing to prevent a man like Mr Mandela or the ANC from being able to talk to South Africa or even being around the conference table with South Africa. There was only one very important requirement, which was the renunciation of violence.

Surely the hon Leader of the Official Opposition is not trying to tell me he will talk to people who are proponents of violence. Yet he expects it of this Government!

But he does talk to them.

All right, let him talk to them. Is he prepared to listen to those people’s solutions?

Incidentally, what are their solutions? The hon leader certainly knows their solutions are not a form of power-sharing. He certainly knows their type of solutions to the problems of South Africa come down to one fact only and that is an absolute take-over of power and ultimately the creation of a Marxist state here.

Added to this, that hon leader and his party usually talk about freedom. We know the freedom we have in this country today is an abnormal one as we are faced with an abnormal situation.

Let me say this to the hon Leader of the Official Opposition, however: If we are to release those people with whom he is eager to talk, the Mandelas and the ANC, without any conditions and if we have to talk to the ANC without setting the renunciation of violence as a requirement, we will have no further freedom in this country. This will result in a far greater lack of confidence in this country.

Instead of our having to discuss disinvestment, we shall observe that the ordinary man with money here will send it overseas because there will be no confidence in this country any longer. Disinvestment will inevitably follow without being organised. That is the situation.

The hon members say: “We should have a crisis Cabinet.” The PFP had a crisis in its leadership this year. The new hon Leader of the Official Opposition’s seat is still warm from the previous leader’s occupancy. [Interjections.] He owes us an answer on a few facts about the previous leader. The previous leader told us that the present hon leader and others were influencing the hon leaders of the PFP to remain within the system. Nevertheless they say it was actually Dr Slabbert, the previous leader, who had influenced them. The previous leader is pursuing his extraparliamentary action outside this House at the moment.

He is still a member of that party.

The hon leader has not yet told us whether Dr Slabbert is still a member of the PFP. Dr Slabbert embarrassed them enormously this year but they retain him as a member.

Dr Slabbert was not altogether wide of the truth when he said he wished to go. He said he had warned them not to remain in this system. Hon members can read about the interview which Leadership held with Dr Slabbert. He stated very clearly that he had told those hon members to resign their seats.

The hon members for Houghton and Berea are sitting there now as well as the hon Leader of the Official Opposition whereas they know Dr Slabbert put it very clearly to them as frontbenchers—the inner circle, the power clique—that he intended resigning and did not wish to remain part of this system. The hon member for Houghton then said it was actually he who had influenced them. We still want to know who was telling the truth—the previous leader or the new leader who now has to solve the leadership crisis in that party.

That hon gentleman tells us: “The legacies of apartheid must go.” That is why we have to abolish everything we have in South Africa such as own schools and so on. Nevertheless how can the hon member say: “These are all the legacies of apartheid”?

These acts took place in South Africa long before the NP came to power in 1948. Certain conventions and customs arose in the country and own affairs are definitely not something new. Throughout the world there are examples of cultural groups recognising this and seeing to their own affairs. The hon member knows this is done in Belgium and Switzerland to mention only two of many examples. Now the hon member says everything has been inherited together with apartheid and has to disappear.

I want to tell the hon member he will create greater problems, confusion and friction in South Africa if he thinks he can throw all the people of all the different population groups in South Africa into one melting pot and say that is the new South Africa. We shall have the greatest problems if we all have to be on joint voters’ rolls.

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

No, I am busy with the hon Leader of the Official Opposition at the moment. That hon member’s leader is not the hon Leader of the Official Opposition yet. This may be the case later but not yet.

The hon Leader of the Official Opposition says: “The public should be informed as to how many have been detained under emergency regulations.” He says the hon the Deputy Minister should not set certain conditions. I can assure the hon member that no South African will tolerate a state of emergency one day longer than necessary for the good of all in South Africa.

Hear, hear!

I believe you!

May we quote you on that? [Interjections.]

The hon Leader of the Official Opposition is wide of the mark if he thinks that disorder and chaos does not reign in schools or at the third tier of government in Black areas.

I am pleased the hon the Minister touched upon two sore points in particular: What is happening in Black schools and how this is exploited as well as what is being done to destroy any form of government for Black people even at that third tier. Unless order is maintained and violence stopped, we cannot do right by those people at those levels and they cannot make a proper contribution either.

I think the hon Leader of the Official Opposition loses sight of the fact that we want a stable Black community. We do not want them to fight one another or become involved in a civil war but this can only be prevented if the situation at schools is not exploited and if those people fare well at the third tier of government. There has to be some form of management and leadership to see to the weal and woe of those communities. This cannot operate against a background of fear and violence.

Mr Speaker, this side of the House certainly cannot fault the argument of the hon member for De Kuilen that if one thinks that friction can be eliminated by the elimination of seperation, one is making a big mistake. It is, in fact, one of the ridiculous aspects I found in the HSRC report which simply makes the groundless allegation that apartheid causes friction. That is, by definition, utter nonsense because, by definition, there is no friction if one introduces separation. One must distinguish between dissatisfaction and friction. [Interjections.]

I actually want to associate myself with the quotation which the hon member for Waterkloof used yesterday when, in the argument which he was putting forward, he referred to the answer which Pres Kruger gave Milner. Pres Kruger said: “You don’t want the franchise; you want my country”. Two of the most important things at issue in the debate today—whether we are dealing with riots, the ANC, the release of Mandela, power-sharing, the freedom of various peoples or whatever it may be—are the question of territory and the question of government.

I do not think that America wants to incorporate South Africa as an extra state of the USA. What America wants is that South Africa should be a country under Black majority rule. There is no doubt in my mind about that. If there was, Dr Chester Crocker removed it on 13 or 14 March this year when, according to United Press international, he gave the following answer to a question from Howard Wolpe.

†He was asked whether he favoured Black majority rule in South Africa, and he replied as follows:

The interview continued:

*Consequently I do not think there can be any doubt about it. That is what that state envisages for South Africa.

I do not wish to pursue that point in this speech except to say in passing that the State President’s reproach, that I offend friends of South Africa by observing that they do not really support South Africa and the policy of the NP, is unfounded. The State President did not react correctly, because if one has a friend or associate like the USA and it suggests something for South Africa which is in conflict with the basic interests of any people in South Africa, such a country is not a friend of South Africa.

As far as the questions of territory and government are concerned, I do not want to weary hon members by repeating quotations from the distant past in order to place on record what the general standpoint of the NP, and also our own standpoint, used to be for so many years. For the sake of the argument, however, it would perhaps be a good thing to refer to a few statements. Dr Verwoerd once said the following:

My submission is that, irrespective of whether or not it is against the NP’s will and whether or not the NP thinks it can still call a halt at any stage, the road which the NP is travelling will lead to this reality.

In his first Republic Festival Address, Dr Verwoerd said:

I quote this as a basic standpoint. In 1974 the following was said in the publication Vrugte van Nasionale Bewind:

I accept that the hon members of the party on the other side of the House say that this is no longer their standpoint. I am just reminding them that it used to be their standpoint. They can also remind themselves that Dr Verwoerd said in 1959:

One can continue in this vein. In 1962, when Transkei attained self-government, this was the feeling:

By the way, I had the privilege that day of sitting up there in the gallery and listening to the speech which Dr Verwoerd delivered from that bench.

I have quoted a sentence of Mr Vorster’s simply to give hon members an indication of the trend at the time. Even in 1981 he was still saying:

At the time of the referendum in 1983, the NP addressed itself to Dr Mulder and me through Die Nasionalis. The following was written in Die Nasionalis:

The article continues:

A little sermon is then addressed to me:

That was an extract from Die Nasionalis of October 1983. In this connection I just want to say that I can look those people who voted “no” in the eye with confidence, and that I can deal with their wrath (toorn) quite adequately, because it is not visited on me but on the opposite side.

The basic assumption which is now being made, then, is that the whole of South Africa is one country and one state. I have before me a pamphlet which has been distributed with the title National Action. I do not know if it sounds familiar to the hon the Minister of Law and Order. If it has not been brought to his attention yet, I think he will be interested in these people. The following question is a typical example:

These are radical people. They are socialist disciples of Azania, and their approach is that there is one South Africa, it is their country and they want to govern it.

That means the take-over of power.

Yes, that means the take-over of power. In that respect the hon member for De Kuilen and I are not terribly far apart. We are almost in the same boat! [Interjections.]

I should like to put a question to the hon member for Innesdal. He said that the abolition of influx control amounted to a loud and clear statement that the “old concept of White South Africa”, according to which a part of South Africa belonged to the White people alone and the homelands to the Black people alone, was being wiped out completely. What the hon member for Innesdal was implying; therefore, was that no such thing as a White South Africa would exist anymore.

[Inaudible.]

Wait a moment, the hon member for Jeppe must not put their argument for them.

The hon member for Innesdal then said that, as far as the CP’s standpoint regarding Black, Coloured and Indian people was concerned, these people saw the CP’s policy as a rejection of them as people and as South African citizens. The hon member will then also have to accept that the implementation of the policy of separation between the Republic of South Africa and the Republics of Transkei, Bophutatswana, Venda and Ciskei told all those people, in effect, that they were being rejected and that South Africa did not want them as part of this country. Surely that was an act of rejection! His party’s present policy, which still advocates own schools and residential areas—although there is some doubt about that—as well as separate voters’ lists and separate Houses in Parliament, thus represents an entire series of acts of rejection. I just wanted to bring that home to the hon member.

I now come to the two questions which I wish to put. Against this background of the about-turn in respect of a White South Africa—one now hears voices saying that no such thing exists any more, or that no such thing ever existed—I should like to ask whether the NP and its associates do not recognise the existence of an own fatherland for Whites at all any more, in the sense that one cannot justifiably refer to a White South Africa because the whole of South Africa is being reformed to such an extent that all regions are becoming the common property— take note, the “common” property—of Blacks, Coloureds, Asians and Whites. There is, therefore, not an inch of ground of which the Blacks cannot say that it belongs to them just as much as to the Whites. They can say that they have just as much of a claim to it; it does not matter whether or not the Whites establish group areas for themselves and for the Blacks.

We therefore ask the NP to tell the Whites of South Africa straight out today: The Tswanas have a fatherland as do the Xhosas—they actually have two—the Zulus, the Vendas, the Swazis and the Sothos but you, the Whites, you do not have a land which is your own any more and you have never had one. Is the NP going to tell them that now?

What about the Coloureds?

I am now referring to the Whites. The hon member must not involve them in this, because they do have land. [Interjections.]

We are spending hundreds of millions of rands on consolidation so that the Black peoples can become independent. Is the NP going to say: You, the Whites, are paying for the excision of land which has to be added to national states, but what is left is not yours? The Whites are helping in the establishment of self-governing and even independent states with separate political bodies and structures, but the White’s state is not their own; it is a multiracial state.

We in the CP are telling the White man that he has title to the land which belongs to his people today and that he thinks he can negotiate with a view to exchanging and even excising it and making it available to other peoples in order to establish viable units for them. We are also telling them, however, that the Government accepts an undivided Republic of South Africa within which all regions and communities form part of the South African state. The Government accepts one citizenship for all South Africans, and that includes equal treatment and opportunities. We are also telling them that the Government says that if any Black national state prefers not to become independent, it remains part of the South African nation and must be accommodated as such within the political structures of this state.

In other words, we are telling the Whites that their state is simply being declared common property, because everyone receives equal treatment and equal opportunities here. Certain South Africans—the Black South Africans—receive their own land and their own governments. They can accept independence but our own people, for example the people of Innesdal, stick their tongues out and say the Whites can make as much of a song and dance as they like but they do not have such a choice. [Interjections.] They do not have such a choice. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I am making a projection based on the premises stated by the State President in this House. I am discussing their implications. [Interjections.]

We are telling them that we condemn discrimination except against us as Whites. The Whites are being preached to and they have to do penance, but in their case they have to be reconciled, find peace and deny themselves. They are the oppressors. They are the ones who steal land. They are the arrogant ones. I am not saying that that is the kind of language used by everyone there. It is, however, the kind of language we hear around the country. When one asks where the White homeland is—our fatherland—the hon member for Innesdal says it has been wiped out. At the same time, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning says there was never any such thing.

It is the presence of Black people in urban areas and on farms outside their national states which is creating the critical issue. The NP says they are there permanently. The NP says they cannot conduct their politics in their homelands; they have to do so here. The NP says that participation in the political decision-making process must take place on a collective basis up to the highest level.

The following question inevitably arises. Have the Black people of Mamelodi the same rights in Innesdal, Koedoespoort, Gezina or Waterkloof—in all those areas—as in the White part of the South African nation? In his second reading speech on the Abolition of Influx Control Bill, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said that a new legal order was coming into existence in this country. That means that the citizen of a country must be allowed to move freely wherever he wants to—everywhere in that country.

Have the Black people of Crossroads and the Coloured people of Bellville South the same claim to residence in Marina da Gama and Oranjezicht? [Interjections.] I have a few more examples, Sir.

You know perfectly well that the answer is no.

Oh, the answer is no, is it?

†Mr Speaker, certain agencies claim that if they present a legally binding deed of sale to the authorities, together with a guarantee that finance is available, applications for exemption from the Group Areas Act go through in a matter of weeks. [Interjections.]

One of the Peninsula’s big five agencies is advertising as follows: “Marina da Gama—

*The hon the Minister of Law and Order should wake up.

Sir, according to this recipé I now have to go to the people of Waterberg and Delmas— my apologies to the hon the Leader of the House; we are delighted to see him here—as well as the people of Eerstepoort, Derdepoort and all the way round to Palala, and tell them that their farm labourers are their co-owners of the entire Northern Transvaal.

You are being ridiculous!

If I am being ridiculous, stand up and repudiate the philosophy of the NP’s new political policy! [Interjections.] If a man may move where he likes, then the residents of Soweto have just as much claim to Florida and Roodepoort as any White, because this is their common fatherland, is it not? [Interjections.] Yes, of course this is now a common fatherland! Then the people of Sharpeville can say that they have a joint right to govern Vereniging and the whole of Transvaal. I want hon members on the other side to tell us where they draw the line. If they were to tell me they would not allow such a thing, we would ask what government would not allow it. The present Government? What guarantees has it given in the past? It guaranteed that power-sharing would never take place. What do we have now?

My goodness, Sir! Who can provide us with the guarantee that this Government, with the associates it has in the Cabinet, will refuse? I should like to take the argument further in relation to the standpoints which the NP accepted in terms of the statements in the State President’s opening address made in January this year—one undivided South Africa; equal rights; equal opportunities! One undivided South Africa, with a Black majority in that one undivided South Africa? I put it to the Government that they will not be able to stop that Black majority. The NP argues that these things represent a broadening of democracy. If they still think they have a democratic approach, the Black majority will vote them out of office! They will vote the NP out of office unless those hon members call a halt now, turn around and again accept the policy from which they deviated. That is what will happen unless they return to the policy of partition, upon which they now spit, proverbially speaking. The NP will be voted out of office by the Black majority unless it again accepts the old policy of partition and follows it through to its logical political conclusion. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Waterberg will pardon me if I do not pursue his arguments. I believe discussion on the old apartheid policy is purely of academic interest. But I believe he put certain pertinent questions to which we owe him answers. I am burning to provide those answers …

You are well and truly in trouble!

I can reply to the hon member for Waterberg and I also have more sense than the hon member for Jeppe. [Interjections.] There is one altogether certain way in which the Government and the NP, actually all of us in this House, could fail in our vital task and calling. This is by failing to tell all our people—as I am speaking in this White House, I shall mention the White voters in particular—what the real situation in our country is and what should really be done about it. I also think the hon member for Waterberg’s speech is a typical example of what should not be done.

This matter has two important faces. Firstly, there is the obvious onslaught against law and order, the Marxist-communist onslaughts and those of their fellow travellers, inter alia by means of fire bombs, “necklaces”, violence and intimidation. I feel this side of the matter is being put clearly to everyone in our country and people outside as well. The message is disseminated and proper and effective steps are taken against this. The declaration of the state of emergency is a proof of this among others.

The other side of the matter—this is an even more important aspect—is the rise of Black nationalism and the attendant reasonable, fair and justified aspirations and demands of millions of the Black people in our country, demands and aspirations which must be satisfied and I emphasize “must”. If this is not done, this Government and the NP as well as the entire country and all its people—please pardon the expression, Sir do not have a cat in hell’s chance of succeeding and escaping the Satanic forces of chaos and violence. Consequently the hon member for Waterberg will understand why I am burning to reply to his speech.

I say specifically that this is an even more important side because it holds enormous implications for us in this White House and the White voters outside. Incidentally, the majority of White voters seldom if ever enter a Black residential area. Nor have most of them ever spoken to a Black national leader—that leader is a kindred spirit of ours in that sense. It is easy for us to know about the violence and observe it inter alia through the communication media. How can we observe, however, and how can we and our voters get to know about the genuine nationalism and the reasonable, fair and justified demands and aspirations of our Black people if there is no proper and effective contact between our groups?

The solution is therefore like a building resting on two pillars. If one pillar collapses, the building falls. On the one hand we should therefore mercilessly and inexorably, with might and main, clamp down and literally destroy the perpetrators of violence, the murderers, the Leninist-Marxist-communist-orientated intimidators, fire bomb hurlers and “necklace” operators. This is absolutely essential to the solution but it is not the solution itself. I repeat: It is essential to the solution but it is not the solution itself.

The solution is the second pillar—the political-constitutional pillar. This is compliance with the reasonable, fair and justified aspirations and demands of the Black millions. We are working on this but we have to satisfy these demands with greater speed and state this more explicitly to the Whites. The hon leader of the CP’s question was whether the policy of apartheid furnished an answer to this question and it has now been proved that the answer to that question has to be “no”.

I am concerned about this pillar, that of the actual solution. Of course, the answer is to be found in the NP policy of 1986. We may find the answer in the State President’s opening address and the subsequent advertisement in the Press. The hon member also referred to this but permit me to quote two short paragraphs again. The State President said:

That is one of the pillars. The other pillar lies in the State President’s saying:

These are no empty words or a case of “I cheat you here, I cheat you there”. These are facts, this is reality and this is our policy.

As I have said, this is recorded in these documents. It is contained in NP policy and the State President does his share.

How does each of us do his share? How enthusiastically and how effectively are we trying to bring the second pillar, the absolutely essential truth, to the attention of the Whites? What good is it if one wins one’s seat again but loses the country? Would one not be more likely to win one’s seat again by explaining the full implications to one’s voters now? [Interjections.]

The hon member should not mention a quitter (“hensopper”); I shall … I think the hon member should merely work out the divorce statistics among their theologians and seek less evil in other people. I am no quitter nor am I one of the descendants of a quitter. I wish he would stop that type of argument now.

I did not say that. It was not I.

I have not even reached the vital necessity of penetration to the Black masses; our message has to penetrate to the Black masses. Our message either reaches them or the forces of violence will hijack them. One had better ask oneself honestly what is happening at present. We dare not lose the psychological war.

I find it frustrating that at this time we literally sit for hours and days in the House bickering and having to listen to such irrelevant matters as what the CP thinks of the SABC. I think we are wasting our time and that we have reached a point when we should devote time and attention to realities.

I should like to make my modest contribution to the solution concerning this pillar. We should communicate seriously and to the greatest possible extent on religious and cultural levels as well. Modern methods of communication, urbanisation and the increase of human knowledge have led to increasing numbers of people’s being concentrated in small areas. Westernisation, higher educational levels and better qualifications on the other hand have led to the gap between people concentrated in such small areas becoming narrower. The point of departure and basis for harmonious coexistence and a multicultural dispensation is mutual respect, understanding and appreciation and constructive communication between ethnic groups and cultural communities is imperative for that.

Surely we are opposed to boycotts. Speaking of cultural boycotts, a Black group has been refused admission to Wales but we do not permit the same group in our own halls. We are opposed to economic boycotts and disinvestment.

Each community should have the right to be itself, to live together and attend school together. I approve of this, work for it and it is my party’s policy.

When this is taken to absolute extremes, however, even to the extent that one may, will or cannot visit other groups or permit others among one’s group at cultural level, for instance, it is nothing but a senseless boycott. If White and Coloured neighbouring schools refuse on a basis of principle to hold debating evenings together, to visit one another with choirs and plays and refuse to compete with one another in the sphere of sport, surely they are boycotting one another. That is certainly boycotting.

If we want to boycott one another within the country and to the degree that Black, Brown and White youth no longer even know one another, what grounds for protest do we have against foreign boycotters? If we do not wish to permit a Black choir among us, how can we hold it against Wales for not permitting it there? One should do to others what one wishes them to do to oneself.

In consequence, I request that cultural waters be permitted to take their natural course. They should be channelled only where absolutely necessary but we should not build retaining walls and divert whatever gives life, expands and enlarges.

I wish to conclude. The hon member for Paarl made a fine appeal in the sphere of religion. One morning at half past four at the Leratong Hospital when quiet descended after we had worked hard that night, I saw a Black nurse reading a book. I looked over her shoulder and saw she was reading Afrikaans poems. She was a Black nurse and not a BA student. I took down the title of the anthology but lost the note. I remember, however, that it also contained poems by H A Fagan. I reread the poems by H A Fagan, a great Afrikaner, a cultural leader, who not only had a great say in the Afrikaans version of Die Stem but also the English.

In closing, I wish to read what H A Fagan wrote:

Is that your new national anthem?

I am saying a prayer and the hon member should know that! [Interjections.] I shall continue quoting:

I want to pray in a Black language today and ask: “Nkosi Sikelel’ i-Afrika.” I wish to pray in Afrikaans and ask: “God seën Afrika. God seën asseblief Suid-Afrika.” I want to pray in English: “God save Africa and, please God, save South Africa.”

Mr Speaker, I do not intend to follow directly upon the hon member Dr Vilonel but I will deal with aspects of his speech later in the course of my remarks.

I want to say to the hon the Minister of Finance that we on these benches often have a personal sympathy for him when we see him in the House or on television in relation to the responsibilities he holds. However, when we remind ourselves that he is a member of the Government I am afraid that I have to say that sympathy evaporates immediately. If it is clear that the economy is sick at the present time—which it is—then it is equally clear that the overriding reason for that sickness can be found in the policies of the Government and the inept administration which accompanies the administration of those policies.

It is, after all, the policy of this Government which has divided the people of South Africa for nearly four decades. It is this Government’s policy which has forced the most rigid form of statutory racial segregation upon the entire nation for 38 years. It is this Government that has divided our people politically, socially and economically and has highlighted and encouraged the imbalances between races and groups. It is also this Government that has allowed us to spend money like drunken sailors in setting up symbols of separation and separate infrastructures in the pursuit of an abhorrent and impractical political ideology. When we sit here discussing this financial measure today we can see that we are paying the price.

I am reminded of a comment made by the late Dr Verwoerd in the 1960s when he said that if South Africa had to choose between being integrated and rich or separate and poor it would choose the latter. [Interjections.] I do not know if that is still the Government’s prescription for the sick South Africa which we see around us today. If we had the choice between being integrated and rich or segregated and poor the thought was that we would choose the latter.

At the moment we are integrated and poor!

No, I am not dealing with the CP at the moment. Well, yes, but I do not know about integrated.

I want to ask if that is still the prescription that this Government prescribes for South Africa in the sickness that is around us. South Africa is definitely sick at the present time. Today the country faces large-scale political unrest on its own but we also face political unrest in tandem with serious economic decline. I want to submit that that is a highly dangerous combination because the one is compounded by the other.

We have unrest and violence and in tandem with that we have unemployment and poverty. The one feeds upon the other as I believe the country and the Government are discovering at the present time. It is this Government that has brought this situation upon us.

My hon leader spoke of legacies this afternoon. The legacy of our preoccupation with the ideology of apartheid is really twofold. Firstly, apartheid and our preoccupation with it has cost this country millions upon millions in material terms with our expenditure on separate institutions and separate infrastructures over a wide area of human activity. It has of course cost us a great deal more in the undermining of confidence in our economy and the instability which it has brought.

Secondly and more importantly, it has built up an awesome bank of hatred, suspicion and prejudice among the masses against those who are for the system and operate it, to say nothing of the reaction of the civilised world.

It is going to be extremely difficult for us to get away from all of this unless there are fundamental changes. Their experience in recent years should have made the Government aware of this but they appear to be mesmerised by their own past.

In view of the Government’s repeated claims that it is getting away from apartheid and that apartheid is dead, I found the recording of the speeches made in the British House of Commons yesterday and this morning quite ironic. Even those defending South Africa against the imposition of sanctions mentioned their loathing of the apartheid system. So the name has stuck, and it is not going to go away merely because lip-service is paid to its disappearance. The word “apartheid” will not go away until we remove the substance of apartheid and, despite the Government’s reform programme, we are not perceived to be doing that.

We in these benches have conceded that there have been reforms, some of the most significant of which have taken place in this session. We have conceded that the Government’s urbanisation programme is encouraging and that the abolition of influx control and the pass laws is a major reform. These in particular have been significant, but the Government and the country unfortunately still have to realise that events have passed these sorts of reform by. They do not have the impact they might have had two or five years ago. We have to realise that what people are looking for is fundamental reform in South Africa, and that means the dismantling of apartheid from top to bottom. It is no good fiddling around on the periphery; one has to get rid of the system and look at the institutions which govern South Africa which are still based on the concept of apartheid because they are based on separation.

How many hon members would claim that the tricameral Parliament and the new Constitution have been a great success? I believe they have been an abject failure and disaster.

[Inaudible.]

I believe there are few hon members who would care to predict how long the tricameral system is going to last in its present form. Will it be one, two or five years? [Interjections.] The Government, therefore, has to look again at these institutions.

As we warned at the time of the referendum, the whole system has been a provocation and has led to the polarisation of thought across South Africa. We are paying the price of that polarisation in what we see happening around the country at the present time and its resultant impact not only on peace and stability in South Africa but also on the entire economic situation and the question of our stability in the long term.

Perhaps the hon the Minister of Finance, who is a member of the Cabinet which is presumably party to decisions relating to matters such as the declaration of states of emergency, can tell us how long the Government thinks it can go on resorting to declaring states of emergency in order to govern South Africa. How long do the members of the Government think that is going to remain a tenable situation. It has unfortunately become part of the pattern of life in South Africa, but in the end it will achieve very little.

This morning I heard the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs being interviewed by Ted Koppel. It was a pathetic performance on the hon the Minister’s part. He talked of restrictive rule imposed in communist states, and cited examples of restrictions on individual freedom and liberty and on the Press. He said that that was what we were trying to avoid in this country. Of course he walked right into it! The interviewer then asked him if that was not precisely what the Government was doing in South Africa now. There are restrictions on the freedom of individuals and on the Press.

It is not a permanent feature; you know that!

We know that these restrictions are being imposed. I have here a computer print-out which is one of about six pages containing a list which we have compiled in the past two days of people who have simply disappeared around South Africa. People have just disappeared. They have been taken by the Police. [Interjections.] This is what happens in a communist state.

One gets this sort of situation. Last Sunday a journalist of the Cape Times, Andre Koopman, was detained on assignment. His assignment was to go to St Michael’s Anglican Church in Elsies River last Sunday. He was detained along with the entire congregation of about 200 people. His employers have been trying to find out where he is and have been trying to obtain his release. The point is that here is a man, a journalist, working on an assignment for his paper and, because he happened to be there at Elsies River on Sunday, he has disappeared. They cannot find out where he is and why he is being detained. The man was doing the job he was employed to do, and that is what has happened. I am sorry that the hon the Minister of Law and Order is not here, but the hon the Deputy Minister of Information is here, and he is the man who gives us the news every day. We must thank him and go down on our knees with gratitude for the fact that he releases certain items for us to know. However, I want to ask him, since he is the man with all the information, to tell us for example why Andre Koopman is being held by the SA Police. Is it perhaps part of the vendetta which the hon the Minister of Law and Order has against the Cape Times? That might be the reason, but otherwise there is no explicable reason why a man like this should be detained. [Interjections.]

Before I came into the House this afternoon I received a telephone call from a mother, a Mrs Boulle from Durban, who said her daughter Jacqueline had been picked up by the Police. Her crime is that she is the chairperson of the local committee of the ECC in Pietermaritzburg. However, she has disappeared—a 21 year old girl—and her mother is distraught because her daughter is locked up. The same sort of thing happened to the president of the SRC in Pietermaritzburg, Sandy Jocellyn. Because of his involvement in student activities, he has disappeared along with thousands of others.

This sort of situation—Mr Speaker, my time is up—is not going to help the stability of South Africa and is not going to help this hon the Minister and the country with their problems.

Mr Speaker, I want to take the strongest exception to what the hon member for Berea has just said about people who disappeared. [Interjections.] To say people are “disappearing” is a new kind of propaganda term which is being created in the House of Assembly with the purpose of broadcasting it to the world. I accuse the hon member of disloyalty in this connection. How can the hon member make such an accusation?

Where are they?

The hon member knows that the relatives of every person taken into custody or detained are informed of the fact. [Interjections.] Why should anyone else be informed? The hon member has no right to know who is being detained, but the relatives of those who are in detention are informed of their detention. If they want to make it known, they can do so. [Interjections.] Apart from that, the Government will give further details about this in due course. To create the impression, however, that people in South Africa simply disappear, points to extremely irresponsible conduct on the part of that party.

The hon member spoke about the “legacies of apartheid”, and I merely want to tell him many things may have gone wrong in this country during the past few years, but many things did not. Development has taken place in this country, and we on the side of the Government have great pride in what we have managed here despite the opposition we have had. [Interjections.]

We have managed so many things that not only do 400 000 Black workers from other countries work here legally, but 1,2 million Black workers are here illegally, because there is a new future for them here, a new salvation, that they could not find elsewhere. The time has come for those hon members to take cognisance of the positive facts in South Africa. Let us unite to inform the world at large of this.

You are going to “disappear” as well. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition discussed the emergency situation, and I want to say certain things in that connection. The most important question I ask myself is whether the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party believe that South Africa is experiencing a revolutionary onslaught at the moment. [Interjections.] The hon leader says “Yes”.

I said “carry on”.

Oh, the hon leader does not want to reply. That is very important. It is a cardinal question. Does the hon leader believe that we are experiencing a revolutionary onslaught at present? If he does not have the courage to answer the question, he can keep quiet. We shall not blame him for doing so and we need not go into the matter any further.

The fact is that South Africa is experiencing a revolutionary onslaught today. The time has come for the hon members of the Official Opposition also to believe what the ANC says sometimes. The ANC says officially it is their policy to bring about a revolution in South Africa. There are 23 members in the ANC’s national executive committee who are either supporters or members of the South African Communist Party. A complete strategy has been worked out to bring the Government in this country to its knees. The Government spelt this out in a publication, and the contents of that publication were not attacked anywhere nor did this ever really become an issue. That publication stands, and what it said in connection with the ANC stands and has not been contradicted. That is the truth.

Because we are experiencing a revolutionary onslaught and because progress has been made in that connection, the Government was compelled to declare a national state of emergency in the country, and did not do so as a matter of choice. The objective of the revolutionary onslaught in the first place is to make South Africa ungovernable. That was the first phase. This process consisted mainly of three elements: In the first place, the planning of a physical onslaught which we have to contend with at the moment. In addition we have to contend with the instigation of a revolutionary climate, as well as the undermining of the will of the ordinary people in South Africa, Whites, Coloureds and Indians, to resist this revolutionary onslaught.

This revolutionary onslaught to make the country ungovernable in the first place, consists mainly in making the Black residential areas ungovernable. That is the strategy. If they were to succeed in making the Black residential areas ungovernable, they could make South Africa ungovernable. To make the Black residential areas ungovernable, they had to do three main things: In the first place the third tier government in the Black residential areas had to be destroyed. For that reason effective and systematic action was taken against these Black government members and a number of council members were murdered, and those who were not murdered were intimidated to resign. The whole intention was the complete destruction of government structure on that level.

There can be no doubt at all as far as these things are concerned. They are stated in ANC pamphlets regularly as well as in broadcasts on Radio Freedom. There is no doubt about this, neither in my mind nor in every informed mind.

In the second place the attack on the schools is an important element of the revolutionary onslaught. The idea in the first place was to get millions of children out of the schools. If one can get the children out of the schools, it leads to chaos and eventually one is in a combative position to make the Black residential areas ungovernable. Alternatively, if one does not want to take the children out of the schools, one has to start a process of alternative education to advocate revolution in the schools.

In the third place intimidation has to be used. Intimidation has already taken on a serious dimension in the Black residential areas. Intimidation has taken shape in the cruellest possible form of propaganda, viz the use of murder. The so-called necklace method has been used in South Africa a number of times. Hundreds of Blacks have been murdered in the process. More than 600 Blacks have been murdered by other Blacks in South Africa, mainly in an effort to obtain control over the Black masses in South Africa.

If a revolutionary leader appeals to Blacks, and every Black man who hears the appeal is in a position to judge objectively whether or not he wants to listen and respond to it, one thing is certain, and that is that he will get a certain percentage of support. If that Black man believes that he can die, or his house can be burnt down, or his children can be killed, or his car can be destroyed if he does not respond to the appeal, as a result of the intimidation I spoke about, there is a measure of control over those people and the situation becomes serious.

The next big step would be that once the Black residential areas have been made ungovernable in this way, an effort should be made to bring about a large-scale confrontation between Blacks and Whites in South Africa. The idea was that the efforts which had been applied during the past few months were to culminate on 16 June.

There can be no doubt about that, and no one sitting in this House can honestly say today that there is no revolutionary onslaught. Nor can anyone deny that the revolutionary onslaught in South Africa has progressed to such an extent that it was necessary for the Government to take this seriously in the interests of Blacks, Whites and all well-meaning people in South Africa. That is why the state of emergency was declared.

The State must reflect now on when to lift the state of emergency. The point of departure will definitely be that the state of emergency should be lifted as soon as possible. When the Government has to decide, however—and that is the point I made in the report to which the hon member has just referred—it must take into account the various spheres or factors which have contributed to the conditions we are experiencing today. This includes the situation concerning the third tier of government, the situation concerning schools and the general intimidation that exists in South Africa, together with the effective planning which the revolutionary elements can still produce.

These are factors and aspects which have to be considered to enable the Government to take a fair and reasonable decision in this connection. I do not think we can have any problem in that connection at all, and that is the message I want to convey.

I want to come to the question of information. There are certain restrictions on the Press in South Africa. [Interjections.] The purpose of all the restrictions placed on the Press was to ensure that no incitement would take place in South Africa. At this stage everyone who means well with the Government must support the Government so that law and order can be properly preserved in South Africa and there can be peace in our country.

Hon members of the Official Opposition must ask themselves, therefore, to what extent the Official Opposition is contributing to bringing about peace in this country and to what extent their conduct is aimed at actually allowing the unrest to continue. To what extent are they undermining the Government’s ability to bring the state of emergency to an end? That is a serious question, and if they want to answer that question seriously and honestly, in my opinion they would give them very few points on a scale of nought to 10. [Interjections.]

The Government decided that the population of South Africa was to be informed, and that is why there was an instruction that information about what is happening in South Africa be made available by the Bureau for Information.

They do not believe you!

The hon member says they do not believe me. I want to give the hon member the assurance that as far as the Government, the Bureau for Information and I am concerned, the point of departure and the approach is to be frank, fair and just and to make all the information we have available as we get it, apart from certain information which is strategic or which cannot be made available at a specific moment for some reason or another, for example the number of people being detained. The approach is to be frank, however, to inform the population of South Africa about what is really going on at the moment, and that is what is happening on a daily basis. [Interjections.]

If, for example, the Bureau for Information does not announce how many people have died as a result of violence on a previous day, or how many Blacks have been murdered, the population of South Africa would not know this, and the only reason they do know it—except perhaps that they have heard of a case here and there—is that the State is making that information known officially. The State is also officially announcing information about people who have died in security action, and no one can say that that information is not correct.

I want to conclude by saying the following.

May I ask a question?

No, not now. [Interjections.]

We have a state of emergency in South Africa. We are experiencing a revolutionary onslaught at this moment. We are experiencing a revolutionary onslaught as no Western country is experiencing at the moment. This is a time, therefore, in which all fair, reasonable people in South Africa must cooperate to make a success of the effort to bring about law and order and peace in our country for the sake of the future of us all.

I am prepared to answer the question of the hon member for Houghton now.

Mr Speaker, can the hon the Deputy Minister tell me why he is of the opinion that it is not relevant that the country knows how many people have been detained? It is the most relevant question of all!

Sir, the answer to that is that that information will definitely be made available in due course. The hon member will be satisfied in that respect. The names of those people will also be made known in due course. A decision has not yet been taken about when it will be done, however. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I also ask the hon the Deputy Minister what advantage he thinks South Africa will gain by not allowing Winnie Mandela to give interviews between 16 June and 20 June in the Transvaal to any newspaper, magazine, television or radio interviewer? What will happen on 21 June 1986? How stupid can one be!

We know from experience that Mrs Winnie Mandela makes subversive statements. [Interjections.] In terms of the regulations published last week it is, for instance, a subversive statement to call for sanctions. We are not going to allow any subversive statements whatsoever to be made from South African territory. That is why we are putting a stop to that.

Apart from that, Mrs Winnie Mandela has also called for violence in the past. Why should we allow a person to propagate that point of view under these circumstances? [Interjections.] Why should we allow a woman, or any person, to call for necklace-murdering in South Africa? [Interjections.] That is nothing less than calling for more conflict between Black and Black in this country! The Government is saying “no”— so far, and no further! The violence and murder must stop; we must return to normality, and we are going to! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I wish to pay tribute today to my hon colleagues of the CP with whom I could work and fight in recent times, at a time of crisis in our people’s history, for the survival of a free people in an own fatherland. In the words of the NP, the Afrikaner liberalists have cast off the burden, as they call it, of apartheid and separate development from their shoulders. We, on the other hand, regard the policy of separate development and the struggle for the survival of an own, free people as no burden; we see it as a responsibility we have to shoulder in faith.

We honour the memory of our forefathers who began the just struggle and we are doing it for descendants of whom the majority—we know this—will bear this responsibility further in gratitude. I should also like to express my thanks to all other conservatives who are pursuing this struggle. We are already joining hands in this fight for freedom with justice. [Interjections.]

Last Tuesday during question time the State President said to the presiding officer on a point of order:

In this regard I wish to quote from two sources. One of these is the book by Jan J van Rooyen, P W Botha, 40 Jaar. He writes:

I quote further from the work PW, written by Dirk and Johanna de Villiers:

I therefore wish to say this afternoon that anyone inside or outside the House who says Pres P W Botha did not break up or disrupt a meeting is a public liar. [Interjections.] If Pres Botha recalls what he did to an honourable person, who devoted his life to the NP, and said that that person—I am referring to Dr Connie Mulder—had told a lie in this House, I think he should not apply double standards but then the honourable way would be for him to resign on the grounds of his own point of order that it was an untruth. [Interjections.] If he does not do so, I say he is applying double standards and then his public conduct and his credibility is exceeded only by his shameless action in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member reply to a question?

No, Mr Speaker.

On Monday evening during the debate the hon member for Innesdal said the following to the hon member for Houghton and I quote from his unrevised Hansard:

I now wish to refer the hon member for Innesdal to what the State President said about the hon member for Houghton a number of years ago. I shall quote from Hansard, 1972 (House of Assembly), col 4670:

Referring to the PFP—

That is why I want to say that the judgment of the PFP expressed by the NP in the course of many decades …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible in this House to quote words from a speech whereas those words were withdrawn at the time after a ruling by Mr Speaker?

Order! Were the words quoted by the hon member for Rissik withdrawn?

Mr Chairman, according to the Hansard in front of me they were not withdrawn but, if they were, I shall withdraw them as well. [Interjections.] I am not saying this to the hon member for Houghton but the Minister of Defence at the time expressed that judgment about hon members of the PFP. The judgment expressed about the NP today is the same judgment and the same yardstick by which the NP judged the PFP. [Interjections.] Today the National Party has become the extension of the PFP because it is following exactly the same principles recognised over the years by the PFP. The National Party should therefore take note that the struggle which lies ahead in South Africa today will become more furious and intense every day. It will also emanate from the side of the White people which is not prepared to be misled and plunged into a situation of abdication in which it will lose its sovereignty, its freedom and its fatherland. [Interjections.]

If a grain of honour remained in National Party ranks, they would relinquish the name of that party, offer their apologies to the hon member for Houghton, disband the National Party and form a new political party together with hon members of the PFP on the strength of the principles of power-sharing which will ultimately lead to Black majority rule in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon member for Rissik and I must say I have a fundamental objection to his speech. My objection is based on my not observing any depth in the hon member’s political thinking. His political thinking has no depth as that of hon members of the Opposition Parties has in general. That hon member also suggested that the National Party change its name but I shall revert to this. I first wish to suggest to the hon member that he ought to consider changing the name of his party to the “ontstigte” party or “gestigtes” as the late Mr John Vorster called the HNP.

Yes, Daan and his bunch of “ontstigtes”!

After weeks and months of debating, there is still no perspective among the PFP and all the other Opposition Parties in this House on the situation in which South Africa finds itself today; on the contrary, they are perpetually engaged with trifles and irresponsible utterances. They do not exhibit any understanding of incidents occurring in South Africa and elsewhere in the world.

Crucial questions in our politics are inter alia the following: How do the various political parties regard the position of South Africa in the world? Where do they actually wish to head with South Africa? To answer these questions properly, we should view the position of South Africa, the onslaught against South Africa and the struggle of South Africa in the world in perspective. What is involved in South Africa? South Africa forms part of the struggle in world history and the CP, the HNP and the PFP refuse to recognise this perspective because, according to their inadequate and faulty insight, the National Party and especially its most recent reform measures are the root cause of the position of South Africa in this struggle.

This insight is not only faulty but actually 100% wrong. It does not take reality and the historical course of civilisation into account. Whether we want to admit it or not, South Africa forms part of a struggle in the history of the world which was reflected altogether correctly by Augustine centuries ago. The hon member for Waterberg can and should therefore give his CP colleagues a lecture on this. The CP and the HNP have no perspective on the position of South Africa.

I wish to support this statement by quoting in illustration of how naïve and erroneous HNP views are on the role of South Africa in international politics. I assume the CP will agree with this as its members always say there are not many great differences between them and the HNP. I shall refer to a number of current HNP policy statements and I wish to ask the hon member for Sasolburg whether he and his party still stand by them. I shall quote from Die Afrikaner of 20 March 1985.

Who wrote that?

I am quoting from the leading article which appeared in Die Afrikaner that day, Sir. As we all know, Die Afrikaner is the mouthpiece of the HNP. The leading article concerned commented on State President Botha, President Machel of Mozambique and the Nkomati Accord. I quote:

In 1971 those hon members now sitting in the Conservative Party were still with us. The late Advocate John Vorster was the Prime Minister at the time.

Hon members should note the use of language—

I shall read a few gems from this pamphlet drawn up by the HNP, Toets my aan my Dade—Sy Ed B J Vorster. I then ask the hon member for Sasolburg again whether he still stands by this. I could quote from nearly every page. [Interjections.] On Angola it runs:

Further comes the headline:

Then two gems follow:

About South West Africa:

The following page bears the headline:

Further one finds:

[Interjections.] I could continue like this:

I ask the hon member for Sasolburg emphatically whether he still stands by this. I also ask hon members of the CP whether they stand by it. I also wish to venture to make a prediction, which is that the HNP and the CP can never co-operate while they stand by this book. [Interjections.] And they know it; that is why they are laughing. [Interjections.]

I wish to revert quickly to the policy of our party. I am referring to a pamphlet distributed at our Federal Congress in 1982. In that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said—I quote only one sentence:

He said that in 1982. On the same occasion he said:

On the next page he made an accurate prediction in saying:

What does Jaap have to say?

I have finished quoting what he said and the hon member now has to tell me whether he agrees with Jaap.

Oh, do repeat that; it is beautiful!

The tragedy of our time is that the PFP, the CP and the HNP have no perspective on this struggle in South Africa. They are blind to the truth. Our Government has been drawing attention regularly to this onslaught over a number of years as I have already indicated.

In sum, I want to ask that a person inscribe in red regarding the PFP as a political party: “Tragedy of our time” and in black concerning the yet unformed CP-HNP party: “Tragedy of our time”. Because their perspective is faulty, they can and will never lead South Africa along a road to safety in difficult times but along one to chaos.

The PFP says there is too little reform; the CP-HNP says there is too much reform; the NP stands for balanced reform. The policy and action of the NP are intended to maintain a balance, an equilibrium, a harmony in a multiplicity of interests. This is in accordance with the core of justice which should characterise the true nature and task of every state and every government. [Interjections.] That is why South Africa is not on the road to chaos or nowhere as the Opposition alleges. The policy and principles of the NP and the Government are anchored in justice. Consequently the NP is heading for a destination with South Africa—a constitutional state with balance and harmony in a multiplicity of interests, as regards reform as well.

Mr Chairman, I should like to deal with a few matters, which did not arise from this debate, before I return to the debate.

†In the first place I would like to pay tribute today to a person who is well known in South Africa, and very well known in the Department of Finance, and that is Mr Carl Schweppenhäuser. He will be retiring at the end of July this year after 46 years in the Public Service. He was educated at the Durban Boys’ High School where he matriculated in 1939. He joined the Department of Inland Revenue in 1940 and served in various departmental Receiver’s offices for 14 years. From 1954 to 1958 he was the Registrar of the Special Income Tax Court of Appeal whereafter he became attached to the legal section for the period 1958 to 1960. The following year he commenced duties as a parliamentary officer where his duties were the drafting of tax legislation for the period 1961 to 1976. In 1976 he was promoted to Director: Tax Structure Development and in 1983 to Chief Director: Taxation. He was appointed Commissioner for Inland Revenue on 1 February 1984. While working for the department he obtained the degree BA Law at the University of South Africa.

Those of us who have had an opportunity to meet Mr Schweppenhäuser have always found him a very approachable person and absolutely correct. When one obtained any information from him one could count on it. On behalf of all of us in the department and all those hon members who have known him in his professional capacity I would like not only to thank him most sincerely for the selfless service that he has rendered to this country that he dearly loves but also to wish him well in his retirement. We trust that he will have a long and very happy retirement. We trust that after having been in this department in this very special position for a number of years at long last he will now get sufficient opportunity to play his favourite game, which is golf. Thank you, Mr Schweppenhäuser. [Interjections.]

In a speech in this House on Monday the hon member for Berea made the following incredible statement. I quote him:

It is disgraceful! [Interjections.]

That was his statement. This statement is not only in stark contrast with the facts but it also exhibits a shocking ignorance with regard to the truth concerning the ruthless, godless and cruel Soviet system. In fact, if he had been a Soviet citizen and had made a remark about that country such as the one he made on Monday, he would most probably have been found guilty following an unfair trial in terms of the provisions of the Russian criminal code.

At least I would have had a trial!

This code provides, inter alia, that:

Incidentally, this particular article contradicts article 50 of the present USSR constitution which is supposed to guarantee freedom of speech, of the Press and of assembly. I quote: “AU this in accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the Soviet system …”, and I have another quote: … with the aims of building communism.”

The hon member’s statement may reflect a familiar failure to distinguish between the myth and the reality of the Soviet system. It also fails to distinguish the vast differences between so-called constitutional guarantees and the horrible truth of Soviet terror and ruthlessness.

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

I am not answering any questions.

Unless the hon member has been brainwashed by Soviet propaganda he should be aware of the difference.

Have you read the emergency regulations?

In this regard I wish to quote from the 1985 report of Amnesty International which is not really known for being either a close friend of South Africa or too critical of the Soviet bloc. I quote:

In terms of Soviet law a parasitic way of life is also a crime. This particular provision has often been abused against Jews after they had applied for an exit visa to emigrate to Israel. After their application they are dismissed from their job and they cannot find another adequate job. They are therefore not working and are leading a parasitic way of life. This means that they can be charged and punished by deprivation of freedom for up to four years. Many Jews have been sentenced under this provision.

In many fields the provisions of the Soviet constitution violate commitments under international law. Soviet legislation—especially criminal law—often contradicts and violates the constitution. The Soviet KGB, legal and court practices violate Soviet legislation. In this chain of unconstitutionality and illegality nothing remains in the end except arbitrariness. As Victor Kalmann has said in testimony, in practice a criminal code takes preference over the constitution, and the interpretation of the KGB supersedes both the criminal code and the constitution.

At a time when South Africa is in a process of broadening democracy to protect people and minorities the hon member for Berea compares us to the Soviet Union. [Interjections.] Surely he is aware of the Soviet record in this regard.

At the time of the October Revolution in 1917 there were some 200 nationalities and smaller national groups in Russia. Their number decreased to 109 in 1969.

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

No.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon the Minister permitted to reply to a speech which was made in another debate?

He is motivating a grant-in-aid to Amnesty International!

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

The official explanation is that smaller national groups merged with related nationalities. However, their numerical decrease is in fact due to forcible Russification and cultural genocide. In Prof Leo Cooper’s book on genocide this is referred to as “the time when they dumped whole nations down the sewer pipes”. The number of deaths is unknown but a figure of 20 million and more has been mentioned.

I do not know what the hon member for Berea had in mind when he made that ill-advised statement. Whatever it was, I believe he did South Africa incalculable harm and the Soviet Union a lot of good. [Interjections.]

I think it is a revelation to hon colleagues in this House who are listening to this comment on a speech made by the hon member for Berea to notice the uninterrupted stream of interjections designed to obliterate the meaning of these paragraphs insofar as the perception of hon colleagues in this House is concerned. It is a very significant ploy, and I hope hon members have taken note of exactly who used it.

I think we should impose sanctions on Russia.

When I announced the names of the members of the task group yesterday, I did not expect an issue to be made of this matter and therefore did not deem it the time or place to elaborate too much on their brief or on the philosophy underlying the appointment of members of Parliament from only the Government side to the task group. As this matter has now been queried, I wish to state briefly that, despite the undoubted competence of some hon members of the opposition parties in this regard, I do not consider it appropriate that they be appointed to the task group in view of its brief to evaluate critically programmes launched by the executive itself over the years.

Had opposition members been included, it would have transferred parliamentary political conflict to a forum with a professional brief, and the politicians, aside from using their abilities in that forum, would have had to interpret Government motivations and anticipate Government reactions to their findings. The task group is not a place where opposition members can play the vital role that is necessary. If they were given the opportunity to qualify their position and carry on that kind of activity, it would not be conducive to the kind of brief that has been given. [Interjections.]

That is the most futile argument I have ever heard!

The question of whether members of the majority parties in the other Houses, who of course now accept co-responsibility for the management of this country, should be included in this task group is receiving our attention right now, and I shall soon be in a position to approach the two Chairmen of the Minister’s Councils to see if some form of accommodation can be found as far as this particular brief is concerned.

A notice to give effect to the proposals announced yesterday will be published in the Government Gazette on Friday 20 June 1986 with regard to the surcharge on imports. Persons who have questions regarding the detail may address them to their nearest Controller of Customs and Excise after 15h00 tomorrow. We shall appreciate it if the media will assist us in publicising this information so that people will apply to the right quarters.

*One of the main considerations in the planning and announcement of yesterday’s package of measures was to stabilise confidence in and expectations arising from the economy. Naturally the planning went hand-in-hand with the consideration and weighing up of numerous possible alternatives before the final package was decided upon.

Not only did we consult widely. We ran several econometric models to find out which course we should adopt. We used several scenarios, for example an investigation into a reduction in GST, before we ultimately decided on this package.

That is why we considered yesterday’s announcement to be an important matter. We expected hon members involved in debating financial matters, particularly those in the opposition parties, to at least use this opportunity to participate constructively in this debate. There was an opportunity to ask specific questions about the participation of the private sector in the house-building project. There was also an opportunity to discuss the involvement of the private sector in the Small Business Development Corporation, and many other subjects, but what happened?

†The hon member for Yeoville ranted and raved, and I will come back to what he said in a few minutes. Despite our political differences with the hon member, I do not think that one hon member on this side of the House could recognise the tone and the foul mood with which he approached this debate from the first to the last word of his speech. It was a complete surprise to all of us. [Interjections.]

What about you?

I shall come back to that.

*I want to say that we in this House should re-read what the hon member for Johannesburg-West said. We cannot continue in our debates in this House to create a little world for ourselves which really has no relevance to what is happening outside. [Interjections.] It cannot be said of any party or of any specific member that it or he is completely guilty, while others are completely innocent, but any objective observer looking at yesterday’s reaction to the announcement of this important financial package while a state of emergency and all kinds of difficult conditions were prevailing, must conclude that many of the people participating in this debate, and who have the privilege of making an input here, did not make proper use of that responsibility. [Interjections.] That is why I think we all need to carry out a self-examination, and I am not excluding myself and Cabinet Ministers.

When one arrives home at night and gets into bed and asks oneself what one has done for one’s country today, or if one reads one’s own Hansard, there is no one in this House who cannot say that he should feel ashamed of himself at least once a day, once a week or once in a while. I am not only talking about each person’s individual responsibility; it is also our collective responsibility. It is of no use—as far as the realities of South Africa are concerned, whether economic or political—our trying to create a world for ourselves here within which we propagate formulations of policy as though they are going to provide the solution, while the realities in the outside world are quite different. That is of no use to us at all. Sometimes when I have doubted the Parliamentary system—and I read the Hansard of yesterday’s debate—I could not help getting the fatal feeling deep down inside of me that this was perhaps not the solution for a country such as South Africa on a continent such as Africa. [Interjections.]

You are talking like Van Zyl Slabbert.

If this is interpreted as an accusation, I begin by making that accusation against myself, because in the work it is my privilege to do, I arrive at the conclusion more and more often that the main issue is no longer the balancing of this country’s books. The issue is no longer the soundness or otherwise—although it is important, yes—of the financing method. The ultimate issue is what economic system and what political system is going to apply in South Africa. We must know that every word that is spoken here is devoured throughout the world, and if anyone of us on this side or that side of the House makes a fool of himself, he makes a world-wide fool of himself, because that Hansard is obtainable throughout the world in any library of any significance.

While I could not help levelling specific criticism, I am, in my human weakness, going to do my best at least to conclude this debate in a manner which will set a different tone. [Interjections.]

As regards the IMF visit, I want to say briefly that once again we had an intensive visit from an IMF delegation which consulted people extensively. Inter alia they held talks with the private sector, as well as state corporations. We are optimistic that the report of the IMF delegation will contain a realistic evaluation of the position of the South African economy. That report is circulated all over the world, and I hope our expectations are not disappointed when that report appears. I also hope that the know-alls and the critics will have egg on their faces.

I also want to refer briefly to a few relevant points made by hon members on this side of the House. However, I shall not spend much time on this, because my time is limited. The hon member for Vasco raised a point which was repeated by the hon member for Umbilo, namely that our capital in South Africa was not being correctly utilised. We could conduct an entire debate on this issue, but we must face up to the fact that as a result of certain unavoidable factors, we are experiencing a serious underutilisation of capital. This is unavoidable, however, and I shall have something more to say about this in a moment. Secondly we, as the general public sector, also have reason to examine our own conscience. It is clear when one examines the statistics that the overall public sector has during the past decade—and this even includes local authorities—spent capital in regard to which only 50% of this sector produced a return on that capital in comparison with overall government spending during the previous 10 years. We see these things, Sir, we see them in luxurious civic centres. We see them in every second largish town or city that wants a theatre, a play-house or something of that nature. I am not saying these things are not important. I am only saying that there comes a time when one should take a careful look at the way in which one’s capital is being utilised. There also comes a times when one has to pay attention to the utilisation of capital by the private sector.

Hon members have already debated this matter very seriously, and I am not going to refer to it for long. However, there is on the part of large organisations in South Africa an overconcentration of First World investments at a low risk and with a high yield, instead of Third World types of investment at a higher risk with a lower yield over a longer term. [Interjections.] There is a simple truth we simply have to face up to, namely that there is a fatal difference between the economic means of this country and the demands that are being made in respect of job creation, which is directly linked to the increase in the population. Unless we do something about this in the various spheres, that difference is fatal.

In this connection I want to make a point in connection with criticism which is being hurled at this side of the House by people from the far right. This criticism is that we are doing too much for the Black people. I want to state my case briefly as follows: If it is necessary for the Government to decide to utilise White money to subsidise development over a few decades, if necessary, in order to uplift Third World people socially by providing them with proper housing and by affording them opportunities to buy electrical appliances and participate in the economic processes, to make use of credit and to enjoy a First World way of life—this can cause the population expansion to diminish, as has graphically being demonstrated by the Coloured people in our country—then we are in this way doing more for our people than by giving them a tax rebate instead of making those investments. It is going to avail them nothing to live in greater luxury or in greater comfort, or whatever term one wishes to use, in a country which is heading for disaster.

That is not our point of criticism. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Umbilo apologised for his absence. I fully endorse his call on departments and on industry to concentrate this housing project that we envisage on the basis of labour-intensive operations and not on automated or mechanised methods of construction. Basically the hon member for Amanzimtoti supported that idea when he pleaded for the owner-builder approach. I would like to add that I really believe that we have made tremendous progress in our communication with the private sector. This aspect is not advertised and not widely known, and it should not ever be widely known. However, I think we have made tremendous progress in our communication with these interests in reaching an understanding about the challenges that face South Africa and the way in which we should respond to those challenges.

*The hon member for Gezina advocated that we should help the small businessman in the city in the same way we were helping the farmers. The Government, on its part, has truly made large investments in the Small Business Development Corporation.

I want to ask the hon member for Gezina, if he is aware of any small business undertaking that has not received the necessary attention they think they ought to have received, to make use of my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister, who is at present participating in another House, so that we can get this matter to function in a better way. It is, after all, an extremely important matter which the hon member raised.

I thank the hon member for Waterkloof for his contribution, and the appreciation he expressed on behalf of the automobile industry. The automobile industry itself has, during the past 24 hours, reacted very positively and constructively, and I owe them a debt of gratitude.

The hon member said something very important. He said that reform could only take place within a growing economy. I think this is a fundamental truth which those people who are preaching sanctions against South Africa should also take into consideration. Those people within South Africa who are advocating that sanctions should be applied against South Africa are identifying themselves in this respect as people who are not interested in reform, but who are basically interested in siding with those who do not wish to share power, but who wish to seize power. I think this is a fundamental fact, and this is the result if they advocate sanctions.

The hon member made an important point when he said that we were going to find that selective sanctions were being imposed on us. I come now to the point I wanted to make earlier about capital. The fact that we have had certain sanctions imposed on us for more than two decades, undoubtedly contributes to the high inflation rate which we have in this country, because an underutilisation of capital, in the same way as an underutilisation of labour, is a cost-increasing factor in the economy, and must inevitably contribute to a hard core of inflation which is not easy to break down.

Furthermore it is a fact that our defence capability, our ability to protect ourselves, is costing us a great deal more than it would have cost if we had had access to world markets. Billions of rands have had to be invested in this country in the additional effort we had to make to be able to equip, defend and protect ourselves, and in the oil and other strategic materials we have had to stockpile here, as well as in the money we have had to invest in nuclear energy.

After all, the absurd idea does exist that they can prevent us from utilising that technology for other purposes. Goodness me! We had the technology and the grey matter in this country to create a unique enrichment process. How can we then not have the other skills? But that is not the issue.

The issue is that it is absurd to think that one can keep on transporting coal to the south of this country in order to keep our power-stations functioning, or otherwise to have long power-lines. My hon colleague next to me here is an engineer, and he will be able to tell you how much power one loses over that distance when one has such long power-lines. Whoever governs this country will in future have to use nuclear energy to generate electricity in this southern part of the country. That is simply a fact. It is an economic fact. We cannot continue to burn up coal, because we are then depriving posterity of an important chemical product. It is also ecologically unacceptable to do so. Hon members will just have to think about it along these lines: Surely one cannot continue to burn coal to generate half of Africa’s electricity. Surely that is absurd.

†I want now to turn to the hon member for Yeoville. I do not know why he lost his cool yesterday. [Interjections.] He completely lost his cool, and I think that if he listens to his own speech, he will feel ashamed of himself. [Interjections.] What did we hear from him? We heard him perpetrating an ad hominem attack not only on myself but on other hon members present as well, and I want to quote the inventory of the words he used. He used such expressions as: No guts; no ability; impertinent—that is the reality; old man; senile; senile old man. He repeated those words defiantly.

With reference to knowledge about the law, he was so snide about my knowledge of the law. I have never put myself forward as an economist, and therefore I have every reason in the world to avail myself of the best economic advice and devices. Moreover, on account of the fact that I am not an economist, I do not belong to any particular school of thought and I have no brief for either the marketeers or the controllers. I shall therefore formulate my advice to the Government…

And I’m your lawyer and I’m the best!

Yes, I have a good lawyer as well! [Interjections.] I shall formulate my advice to the Government …

Without your lawyer, because that is best!

Yes, but I also have a good lawyer! [Interjections.]

He said marketeers, not racketeers!

I shall formulate my advice to the Cabinet, as far as economic and financial matters are concerned, on the basis of consensus … [Interjections.] Sir, we spend hours debating issues at the highest possible level with every adviser on whom we can lay our hands and who is willing to give us objective advice before we formulate something economically or financially.

Also as far as the whole AA affair is concerned, to which I will return in a minute, I availed myself of the best possible legal advice because I learned from my hon colleague here that it is disastrous to try to be one’s own legal adviser. I think the hon member for Yeoville graphically demonstrated to us yesterday what happens to one when one becomes one’s own legal adviser! [Interjections.]

With regard to the inventory, my colleague the hon member for Amanzimtoti stood up and wanted to ask the hon member for Yeoville a question. What did the hon member say to him? What did we read on his face and in the tone of his voice? We read an outburst of years of pent-up frustration! [Interjections.] What did he say to the hon member for Amanzimtoti? He said: “Sit down. You’ve got your job!” [Interjections.] What is that but meanness? What is that other than the utterances of a person with a deep, all-destroying and all-consuming frustration at having been forced to sit in the opposition benches for such a long time?

I wasn’t forced! I have chosen to be here! [Interjections.] Maybe he will tell the truth one day!

Tell the truth then! The Bible says the truth makes one free! I have nothing to hide as far as that hon member is concerned.

I have chosen to be here. [Interjections.]

Sir, let me say immediately that my three colleagues who were appointed to this particular task force will not receive a single cent of remuneration for it— not one cent! So, it is not an attractive job any way.

We on this side of the House take it amiss that that hon member has availed himself of this kind of terminology, abuse, and vilification of hon members on this side of the House in their personal capacity. [Interjections.] Let me say that in my personal capacity I will take it. The hon member can confront me with as much abuse, vilification and meanness as he likes, but I am no longer prepared to take it in my capacity as representing all the advisers who stand, so to speak, invisibly behind me, because what I say in this House represents the best efforts of true patriots, of technicians and professionals, people who make their best abilities available to this country and to this Government! However, the hon member did not offer a single word of constructive criticism on this package. By having availed himself of vilification and abuse to the extent that he did, the hon member did himself no favour in this regard. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, how did the hon member respond in his comments? He accused me of dishing out blame for the state of the economy. I challenge him—I have my speech of yesterday here—to show me where I apportioned a single bit of blame! Where? Yet the hon member got up and said that in that speech I dished out the blame to all other persons.

You are twisting the words!

He said I blamed everybody but the Government. I challenge him to get up and say where he found that!

Sure …

Secondly, he said I was touchy about the AA Mutual story. I said in that statement yesterday that the AA Mutual story is extremely sensitive. It is, after all, also sub judice. Every word I used in that statement was carefully weighed.

I cannot for the life of me understand how he can accuse me of being touchy about the AA Mutual. Goodness gracious me! [Interjections.]

A third accusation by the hon member was that toll-roads will not do a thing for the economy in the short term. Who said it would? Where in my statement did I claim that the privatisation programme of the Government in terms of toll-roads would in the short term do something for this economy? [Interjections.]

Fourthly, at one stage the hon member accused me of not wanting an inquiry on the AA Mutual. He said: “If the hon the Minister does not want an AA inquiry, let him say so.” That is what he said, and I cannot even imitate the aggression in his voice. [Interjections.] Where did he find that? The last paragraph of my statement on the AA deals with the fact that I had already obtained permission from the State President to appoint a commission of inquiry, if necessary. [Interjections.] The hon member was very snide and mean when he said I did not have proper legal knowledge for a person with financial responsibility in the Government.

What is the legal position as far as the AA Mutual is concerned? In the first place, the Insurance Act specifically stipulates that the liquidation of an insurance business must be done on the basis of the Insurance Act and not on the Companies Act. The legal facts are, further, that if the liquidation was pursued along the lines laid down in the Companies Act or, for that matter, under the authority of the Trade Practices Act, if it so qualified, it would have rendered the liquidator completely impotent.

Why?

Because the law says so. The Insurance Act says an insurance business cannot be liquidated by anybody other than a person appointed under the auspices of the Insurance Act itself. How can the hon member therefore argue that we should have liquidated the company? He is a lawyer. I am not a lawyer; I am only acting on proper advice. What is the locus standi of the Registrar of Financial Institutions in terms of the Companies Act? Zero; he has no locus standi. However—and on account of the sub judice rule I must choose my words very carefully—we said we had obtained permission to appoint a commission of inquiry, following the ruling of the judge, because the judge has the power to stipulate certain conditions and, if those conditions should not fully comply with the kind of investigation that we would like to undertake—and I share the hon member’s concern about the conduct of all the people involved in that affair—we are free to appoint our commission of inquiry. While their briefs may coincide or overlap, at least they will not clash. I am as concerned as anybody else about the rights of the policy holders of not only the AA Mutual but all other short-term insurance companies in this country. Therefore, we shall take the necessary action once we have the ruling of the judge. Then we will have everything on the table; and we have a legal team which is properly qualified to handle this affair.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister of Finance if there is any reason why there should be a distinction between liquidating the company in the AA Mutual case, and having the companies liquidated in the case of Parity, in the case of the Johannesburg Insurance Company, in the case of the Pinnacle Insurance Company and a number of others?

I will furnish the hon member with a reply to that question. I do not know whether the stipulations of the Act have been changed since those days. The Act stipulates, however, that the business is to be liquidated—not the company. Therefore, Sir, in the process of handling the AA Mutual affair one has to deal with a very complex situation because for a period of one month there had been an attempt on a confidential basis to try to save the whole business. The question is also what has to be done in respect of the accountability of directors under those circumstances. It is a very complex affair, and therefore I rely on the ruling by the judge. Once that is available we will decide whether we will appoint a commission of inquiry or whether we will appoint a commission simply to investigate the possibility of misconduct.

I accept that.

Thank you. [Interjections.]

There is another very important point, Sir. The Act also stipulates that the Registrar of Financial Institutions has the right to order the liquidator to provide him with any kind of information which the Registrar may require. That means that if in terms of the conditions of the court order there are certain areas which we should want to have investigated—with or without a commission—the Registrar has in any event locus standi to order the liquidator to investigate the conduct of an individual or of an interested party, and that will then be done. As a department and as a Government, however, we have taken a very serious view of this matter ever since the first word about this affair came to our notice. We are also determined, if any misconduct has taken place in this instance, that whoever is responsible should be brought to justice.

One last point, Sir, in connection with the hon member for Yeoville’s point of view in relation to this issue. I am actually saying this not for his information because he obviously knows it but for the information perhaps of others who do not know. No, Sir, I think I should rather not say this, Sir. Bearing in mind that this may infringe the sub judice rule, I shall rather refrain from saying anything more in this connection.

Sir, I should also like to refer—and I hope that we have this whole affair cleared up now—to some other points made by the hon member for Yeoville. He referred to the matter of encouragement by the Reserve Bank of financial institutions to borrow from foreign banks. To an extent that is true, but as a general policy it is not true. I saw with my own eyes—and I want to share this information with the hon member—what can really happen in an instance of this nature. I was witness to this type of accusation being made. It was alleged on that occasion that the Reserve Bank was encouraging foreign borrowings—an unqualified allegation. The person who made that allegation produced information to prove his statement. A knowledgeable person from the Reserve Bank simply asked him a few questions. The report made by the person in question referred to only one of very many financial instruments, and when one looks at that particular one it appears that there is substance in the said accusation. When, however, one looks at the overall picture it is clear that it cannot be said with any degree of truth that the Reserve Bank, as a matter of policy, simply gives a blanket licence to people to borrow overseas. I want to put the record perfectly straight in this respect, Sir.

As far as foreign borrowing is concerned, I cannot for the life of me see that we will ever have the ability properly to monitor it because every small businessman who imports or exports is at a particular moment a transactor in foreign currency. Therefore we cannot monitor all such transactions with any degree of accuracy. I challenge any critic of our foreign borrowing policy to look at our maturity profile when it comes to the State and the parastatal organisations. I think this foreign borrowing policy is beyond criticism. Moreover, when we criticise the foreign borrowing pattern, we are, in effect, criticising the private sector. With due respect, Sir, it will be a sad day if a government has to take it upon itself to regulate the banks to that extent; to tell them, as it were, not to borrow short and then lend long because that is not good business practice. After all, why should an inspector from Church Square tell a banker that? Yet that is exactly what has happened in so many cases. In any event, attention is being given to this matter, although people should not place too much confidence in our ability to control it. Instead we should shift the responsibility to where it belongs. With that I think I have done battle long enough with the hon member for Yeoville now, and I hope we are friends once more. [Interjections.]

It is not finished yet.

The hon member says it will not finish.

I did not say that, I said it is not finished yet. I did not say it will not finish.

Oh, the hon member said it is not finished. So he wants to continue doing battle. That is fine by me. I am a “bok vir ’n fight”. [Interjections.]

As a final word to the hon member, I would just like to say this.

You see, he said it was not finished yet.

Actually, I would like to invite the hon member to look at today’s Press reports in some of the newspapers that are not very kindly disposed to the Government or to me personally. He should just look at the coverage we received as a result of the package we announced yesterday.

Let us wait two months.

“Let us wait two months”, the hon member says. Why, Sir, if this proves to be insufficient we can do something more if it is in our power to do so. If it is a question of our having done too much now, well then, let us wait two months and perhaps then we can see whether that has in fact been the case.

Is this only a start for next year?

I am not prepared to go flat out for the economy and accelerate at breakneck speed, only to have to slam on the brakes again one of these days.

I am pleased the hon member for Sunnyside has just walked in. He is just in time. There are just two remarks I want to make to that hon member. [Interjections.] If I recollect what happened yesterday evening correctly, the hon member withdrew his statement that I had told a lie, and substituted for it the statement that I had told an absolute untruth. I must simply accept, therefore, that that allegation, namely that I had told an absolute untruth, is parliamentary. Now I just want to tell that hon member that Hansard is full of these so-called “absolute untruths”. [Interjections.] What are the facts in that regard?

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I do find it interesting that if one speaks to one member of the CP, there is always a “chucker-out” or a rowdy who interjects and tries to defend the hon member. After all, I have said before that if one talks to the hon member for Waterberg, the hon member for Rissik replies. Hon members will recall my having said that. But I think the hon member for Waterberg is quite capable of speaking for himself. [Interjections.] I just want to ask the hon member for Brakpan not to try to act as advocate for the hon member for Sunnyside. The hon member for Sunnyside is quite capable of speaking for himself.

You could not succeed in getting Ferdie to resign. [Interjections.]

The matter to which the hon member for Sunnyside is referring now, and which I shall now explain to him again, has to do with the statements the hon member for Lichtenburg made about the financing of the Budget with bank credit. The department furnished me with a reply in that connection. The reply contained a full elucidation, and everyone can go and read it in Hansard. In the process, however, the department instituted an investigation into the statement made by the hon member for Lichtenburg. The hon member for Lichtenburg did not mention the amount, but the department obtained the data in question, and in the reply which they furnished me with, they mentioned the amount. Then, in my reply to the hon member for Lichtenburg, I mentioned the specific amount. I then told him that he had mentioned that amount in his statement—which of course he had not done. When I compared Hansard with the reply given to me by the department, I saw that and conceded the point that the hon member for Lichtenburg had not mentioned any amount in his statement. However, I mentioned the amount, which he had omitted, in my reply. Because I did so and, in the process, laboured under the misapprehension—quite correctly according to the information I had before me—that the hon member had mentioned an amount, I am being called a liar and I am being accused of having told an absolute untruth.

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

No, Sir. Since that day I have had an arrangement with the department that if they prepare an answer for me, they must put the relevant passage from the hon member’s Hansard at the top, so that I can see whether he mentioned an amount and what particulars he mentioned, so that I can relate the reply with Hansard all on one page. Because that bona fide error crept in, and because I gave more information than the hon member for Lichtenburg had had available, I am being called a liar.

More information, but with erroneous facts.

The facts are not erroneous. The hon member for Brakpan is sitting there, looking like a cat who has swallowed a saucerful of cream. There is absolutely nothing erroneous about the facts. The hon member must go and examine himself.

According to Hansard the hon member for Sunnyside said yesterday—I am not going to reply to his questions now, because my time is limited—and the SABC reported him in that way in his own voice this morning, so that wide publicity was given to it:

Referring to me now, the Minister of Finance.

That is the package …

According to those same particulars we use bank credit only for operating expenditure, and not for the construction of the Budget. Consequently this is an erroneous statement in any event,

I now want to ask the hon member for Sunnyside where I stated in my speech that we were selling assets.

I shall reply in a subsequent debate. [Interjections.]

There is not even an insinuation of any assets being sold. Revenue and proceeds does not mean the selling of assets. Apart from the fact that the hon member is the main CP spokesman on finance, he should also, owing to his professional background, be better informed than to make such a nonsensical statement, to which publicity has now been given, and which is untrue.

Why did you threaten a bank clerk in connection with facts that were erroneous?

My facts were not erroneous. I was only in error in one respect in that I said the hon member for Lichtenburg had furnished a figure, and because I furnished a more comprehensive reply than the question he had asked.

The hon member for Sasolburg referred to how he had pulled me to pieces on 16 April. I have the Hansard of 16 April here. He spoke about backlogs, and said that the White group was the only group that was deteriorating, and based his argument on certain statistics. He also quoted from Rapport, but I do not want to go into this in detail. What is the simple truth?

There is such a dramatic backlog, particularly among the Black people in this country, that there is so much room for improvement that any improvement would appear to be dramatic. If one’s income is R1, and one suddenly receives R2, one is doubling one’s income. However, when one’s income is R100, it is a little more difficult to increase that by 100%. One can juggle percentages. Inherent in this statement of the hon member is naked racism, and that is my accusation against the hon member.

What are the facts concerning the income of Black people? Since only a few years ago, Black people have made dramatic progress in regard to their level of education. Consequently their incomes must rise. Think of education and the number of graduates. Work reservation has been abolished. Some of them have become active in the private or informal sector, and have improved their incomes dramatically. We had a deliberate policy of eliminating the wage gap.

We are now addressing the question of nurses. My hon colleague here is working to ensure that a Black and a White nurse, with the same qualifications, receives the same salary. The White nurse is already on a certain level, and now the Black nurse is being brought up to that level.

The hon member for Sasolburg said that because Black people were being brought up to that level, the position of White people was deteriorating. That is what his nonsensical statement amounts to. The hon HNP member, and his colleagues of the CP, are trifling with the future of this country if they disseminate the idea among people that Black people simply cannot be allowed to make progress at the expense of the White people. That is quite simply not true … [Interjections.] … and it is the most dangerous and most inflammatory statement one can make and impression one can create among the Whites. Their pamphlets and publications are teeming with those insinuations. It is an untruth to say that Black people can only make progress at the expense of White people. It negates all economic growth measures and so on. [Interjections.]

I am now going to deal with that hon member’s pamphlet. His leader writes a letter to one and publishes it in Die Afrikaner. Then that hon member, what is more, reproaches me for not replying to his leader’s letter. I had a very good reason for not replying to the letter. I shall not reply to the letter, nor shall I appear on the same platform with him until such time … [Interjections.]

The hon member is saying that I am afraid, but he need not withdraw it because it is a nonsensical remark.

I am not going to do so until such time as we have proof that the HNP, via the hon member for Sasolburg, has a more responsible attitude to the truth than they have thus far displayed in their pamphlets.

Oh my goodness gracious me! Oh, shame! [Interjections.]

In his letter the hon member’s leader said—listen to how charmingly he puts it:

The true facts! I now show hon members where this report is printed at the bottom of this page. I shall now go to the middle of the same page and I shall quote what the hon member for Sasolburg’s leader had said, while he was suggesting that we should discuss the true facts on a platform. Here he was writing about the gratuity of the State President. Just listen to what he said:

What are the facts? If I remember correctly, Mr Jaap Marais was a member of this Parliament in 1961. Surely he should have known that at that stage no gratuity was paid. [Interjections.] The hon member must still tell us whether he is going to accept his pension, and whether he is going to accept his gratuity.

Mr Chairman, may I reply to that now?

No, the hon member must sit still for a while and listen to the true facts.

If I am correct, gratuities were paid out for the first time on 1 January 1979. The hon member should inquire from a prominent member of the CP, who was to have been the architect of the finest city of Africa, whether he was not perhaps the first person—I am guessing now—to receive such a gratuity.

Surely that has nothing to do with it!

No, it has a great deal to do with it, because politically speaking they are bedfellows. They are bedfellows with the CP. Apparently it is unethical for Mr P W Botha, if he ceases to be a member of Parliament, to receive the lawful benefits of a member of Parliament, but it is not unethical for another person who has received gratuities since then. [Interjections.] I shall leave it at that, because I think there are other people too, who are better able to inform the hon member about the matter of gratuities. [Interjections.]

You are dragging the State President into this. [Interjections.]

Arrest him, Louis! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kuruman said I had dragged the State President into this. But what is the truth? The hon member should listen to this. In a letter which Mr Jaap Marais wrote to me, and shortly afterwards made public, he by implication accused the State President of having received a gratuity in an unethical manner. Yet he had every right to receive that gratuity when he ceased to be a member of Parliament, and became State President.

What does Dr Connie Mulder’s gratuity have to do with that? Tell us! [Interjections.]

I shall tell the hon member what it has to do with this. If Dr Connie Mulder is the person under discussion, he is fully entitled to it, and I do not begrudge him a cent of that gratuity. [Interjections.]

Do not display your stupidity, Jan!

You can now proceed to make your point! [Interjections.]

To the extent to which Dr Mulder, as Minister, might have been involved in helping to make a gratuity available to members of Parliament, I want to express my personal and sincere gratitude in this House, because it is only right that members of Parliament should receive a proper remuneration. I want to place my appreciation on record here. [Interjections.]

If it is ethical for other people to receive gratuities, it is absolutely immoral of the HNP to allege that it was unethical for Mr P W Botha to receive such a gratuity.

Say you are sorry, Stoffie!

You have not yet furnished the reason that Jaap mentioned in that letter …

Let us look at this HNP pamphlet. I have a copy on me here.

You are steering clear of the reason.

The hon member must keep quiet, so that he can hear better. I have already told the hon member some of these things, but it seems to me he deliberately retorts so loudly and persistently that he will not be able to hear me.

[Inaudible.]

On the strength of this pamphlet the hon member is now a member of this House, and I can understand his nervousness because he is sitting here on such a false premise.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, on false propaganda. I shall quote it:

That was in 1984—

[Inaudible.]

Keppies, give me a chance; your voice is very loud, man!

According to this pamphlet the Cabinet quickly increased their salaries with retrospective effect by an amount of R23 340 in April, when they saw that the economy was ailing. [Interjections.] After all, the hon member’s leader said we should convey the true facts to the voters. That is why he wants me on the platform, because he wants to tell the voters that I am not telling the truth. He, Jaap Marais, is telling the truth. What is the truth?

You are too afraid … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Sasolburg must withdraw the word “afraid”.

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]

The hon member does not even hear Mr Speaker, that is why he does not hear the facts I am giving him either. I just want to have this placed on record in Hansard.

Yes, but your back-benchers are making such a noise; I cannot hear you either. [Interjections.]

It is the NP Whips who are making such a noise.

What happened in 1984? I have a letter in my possession in this regard. At the time a salary increase for Ministers was granted, but this letter was dated early February, not April; so, what is contained in this pamphlet is quite untrue. What was the amount of the increase? The amount of the increase was approximately R9 000, and not R23 000. This is just one more identifiable lie in this lying pamphlet of the HNP, on the basis of which the hon member for Sasolburg has representation in the Parliament of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon the Minister, and this is the second time he has done so now, say that the hon member for Sasolburg came to Parliament on a false premise?

It is the truth!

Order! It is not unparliamentary. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, as you see the advocate is doing his work again. [Interjections.] The hon member’s pamphlet goes on to state:

They claim we are making the tax on companies lighter. The hon member can ask anyone who knows anything about tax what happened in regard to mines during the last few years. In any case, mines have a tax formula. The greater the profits they make, the more tax they pay. Do hon members know that some mines are paying up to 78% tax? In a pamphlet which helped that hon member to win the election in Sasolburg, however, it was stated that this Government was making the tax on mines lighter. [Interjections.] What is the average tax paid by mines? The average includes those mines which are only just, below the best gold price, showing a profit. What is the average? It is 58%.

I want to make haste, but there is another page of this pamphlet to which I wish to refer. Here it is stated:

In this House, and it is recorded in Hansard, even before Mr Jaap Marais wrote his letter to me, I gave that hon member the true facts, but his leader carried on merrily as though the information I had furnished was not the truth, or was irrelevant. Yesterday the hon member challenged me and said it was high time I gave an answer.

Oh, yes! [Interjections.]

Here I have the names of a few companies—Pick ’n Pay Holdings, Anglo-American Gold Investment Trust, Anglo-American Investment Trust and Anglo-Vaal Holdings Limited. In the pamphlet it is stated—and what is more they obtained these particulars from the 1985 yearbook of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange—that the average tax these companies paid was 1,25%. It is stated here that this was caused by a Hoggenheimer Government. [Interjections.] He says it is correct. [Interjections.] Again he says it is correct. What, then, is the truth? These companies …

It is a Hoggenheimer Government.

Let Hansard simply place it on record then. These companies are all holding companies that receive their income from dividends, and those dividends, in the hands of the holding companies, are not taxable, because those dividends are simply paid out by holding companies to the shareholders, in whose hands it is then taxed. Before those dividends end up in the hands of a holding company, the dividends have in any case already been taxed …

By the company held.

By the company held. Thank you; here my attorney is helping me. [Interjections.] That is the truth. Does the truth not make any impression on the hon member for Sasolburg? [Interjections.] The small amount of tax they are paying here is probably what they have to pay on their cash flow, when they received a little interest income. This is the truth, and all I can do is throw up my hands in exasperation.

In his speech yesterday the hon member also told me the following:

He says this did not appear anywhere in the Budget speech, and if he says that here, how many times does he not say it to credulous people who believe him unquestionably? After all, we are taught in this place that one has to accept the word of a member of Parliament. [Interjections.] What is the truth? I shall now convey it to the hon member. On pages 38 and 39 of the Budget speech to which he referred, we elucidated this matter comprehensively. This is another “true” fact, which this hon member proclaims, which is as far removed from the truth as East is from West. That is why I say, honestly, if one has to deal with this kind of politics, then I feel ashamed in front of the officials who have to prepare my comments and who have to spend hours of their time on it—they are already overloaded—if I get this information in return, and it is this kind of banal politics and lying politics.

Look who is talking! You are the last person to talk! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member for Rissik what he means by lying politics?

You should have apologised for what you have just said!

One needs a great deal of patience when one is dealing with that hon member. I want to ask that hon member why he does not say this from a public platform. I can assure him of one thing: He must make sure his bank account is not in the red. I am determined to retire in comfort. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon the Minister has now repeatedly and by implication and insinuation ascribed to me personally that I told lies in that pamphlet. May he do that?

Order! The hon the Minister said that the hon member for Sasolburg, also on the basis of the pamphlet which he distributed, did that. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The essential issue, which the hon member seemingly still does not understand, is whether what was stated in the pamphlet, which helped him to win the by-election, was the whole truth. I have repeatedly demonstrated now that those statements are untrue. There are other things as well on which I could comment. In his speech, which is recorded in Hansard, the hon member said that eminent economists did his research for him. If it is true that eminent economists gave him those particulars, they are people who have extremely nifty footwork who cast that information into that lying form in which it appeared in that pamphlet.

In conclusion, I honestly want to say that when one is dealing with this kind of politics, and one subsequently receives a challenge in regard to speaking the truth, and a pamphlet is teeming with lies from the first word to the last, then it is too deplorable for words. Then one has to ask oneself what is the state of politics in South Africa today. Instead of seeking for solutions we have to spend our time refuting these facts which upset credulous people.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, obviously one is very sorely tempted to react to what was said this afternoon in another debate on a previous occasion, but we shall return to that in due course. At this stage I accept that it is out of order to expand upon that now, and that is why I shall not do so. However, I merely wish to inform the hon the Minister that we have not finished with him. [Interjections.]

Another lying pamphlet! [Interjections.]

The hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning quoted in his speech what President Kruger supposedly said. In his speech he, said:

Then he contrasted it with what N P van Wyk Louw is supposed to have said in his volume of essays Lojale Verset. But the hon the Minister did not quote President Kruger correctly. I would not have dwelt on this had it not been that not only the hon Minister, but left-wing and liberal circles and people who have deviated from the principles and the foundations of the nationalism of President Kruger, are constantly misquoting him. President Kruger never said: “Neem uit die verlede wat goed en reg is en bou daarop die toekoms”. President Kruger made a much more subtle statement. He said:

In other words on the ideal—

The hon the Minister quoted it in such a way, however, to create the impression that the right-wingers, the HNP in particular, are merely a lot of die-hard conservatives who are rooted in the past. On the contrary, though, it was a dynamic vision of the future, a concept of the future, a plan for the future and an ideal for the future which President Kruger put forward, built upon an ideal which was to come to fruition not in the past but in the future. I must therefore tell the hon the Minister that he has once again made a very big mistake in this regard.

In the second place the hon the Minister and his party are committing a further error which is in fact a violation of the truth of modern-day politics. The State President started it. Early in the year he said that the NP had made a break with the past with the steps they had now taken. However, we had already rebelled against it on a previous occasion. The break with the past which the State President spoke about, was not only a colonial past, it was also a republican past, and the policy of apartheid, the policy of separation and the segregation policy in fact came from our republican past. [Interjections.]

To draw a veil of portentousness and ugliness across the good, the beautiful and the idealism of the past that is to be carried into the future, the hon the Minister follows in the footsteps of his leader, and he even goes a bit further. He has learned a lesson, but he has only learned it in half measure. He should now learn it in full. [Interjections.] He learned the lesson, and now he draws a distinction. He says: “We have outgrown the outdated colonial system of paternalism as well as the outdated concept of apartheid”. He separates “the outdated concept of apartheid” from “the outdated colonial system of paternalism”. He draws a slight distinction between “colonial” and apartheid. Yet it is still an association in one sense, and the normal reader does not perceive that this distinction should be drawn.

This afternoon I want to tell the hon Minister that the policy which is under discussion with the abolition of these influx control measures, the principle underlying this step, arises from the republican aspiration for apartheid—segregation, separate development and ideals of racial separation and racial principles—which arose and developed from our own Afrikaner and more specifically our Republican past over a period of more than a century. The hon the Minister therefore gains nothing. In fact he is doing the Afrikaner people an injustice by seeking to drag us in this way and to cover us under the cloak of the colonial era, and then the word “paternalism” is thrown in for good measure. [Interjections.]

The Afrikaner people does not want to, and has never in the past, tried to dominate other developed peoples, which was more specifically the position in the English-speaking world. The big difference between ourselves and the English-speaking world was in fact that we were not empire builders, was in fact that we did not enslave a single indigenous Black or non-White person in this country.

Consequently, when the hon the Minister refers today to these fundamental differences between the Afrikaner and the English-speaking person to a lesser degree, and in particular to the difference between those who advocate racial separation and those who advocate racial integration, I think he is making a grave error. He owes it to himself to argue on a basis according to which he will not seize upon erroneous premises and misquote President Kruger in an effort to build his case. We think the hon the Minister can do better than that. [Interjections.]

It is not quite honest to adopt that procedure and I think the hon the Minister must note that apartheid is in essence a national and a republican concept, while integration is a colonial and liberal concept. Racial separation is nationalist and republican, while racial integration and reform are essentially colonial and liberal. There have always been only two bases to South African politics— the national and the liberal. What has happened here in our politics today—that is the subject of our debate—is that in our view the NP began in 1969 to move gradually from the national to a liberal basis. Today any fool can see that the NP is now functioning on a liberal and no longer on a national basis. It is impossible to escape this fact. One cannot argue that this is not the case.

All that still has to happen is that the voters must also perceive this, and as has become apparent in past months and years and from the results of the recent by-elections, more and more people are breaking away from the NP and there is an increasing movement among the voters to the right-wing national basis. In the same extent as they have moved away from they are now moving back to the national basis. That is inter alia what the struggle in South Africa is all about.

In respect of the abolition of influx control measures the hon the Minister ought to know—he also reads the newspapers and other reading matter—that the entire White world is subject to the influx of hordes of non-Whites today. Surely he knows that Britain today is not the same as it was before the Second World War. Surely he knows that the European nations are not all the same as they were before the Second World War! The whole of Europe, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand—to say nothing of South America—are subject to the influx, on a massive scale, of endless hordes of the underdeveloped, backward and often poor non-White masses of the world. It has an effect on those Whites!

We are right-wingers and are occasionally accused of being Fascists—very well, let them do so if they wish—but in the rest of the world the tide is no longer turning towards communism; it is in fact turning to the right! France, which on so many occasions has been the precursor and has so often given the first indication of the direction of the great new tendency in the entire Western world, is once again indicating the new trend. I shall not argue with the hon the Minister or anyone else about the fact that France indicated in 1789 that democracy and the rise of nationalism would be the “in thing”—please excuse the expression—during the next 100 or 150 years.

France is doing it again. Something remarkable occurred during the recent election in France. One only needs to take a look at the results of the election there, which we received in full from France. We even received the pattern of how the new attitude was distributed throughout France. There are only an estimated 2 million non-Whites in France. Most of them are of Arabic origin and come from North West Africa, from former French territories, and they are mostly French speaking. There was a large influx of non-Whites into Marseilles, that city in the south of France. During the recent elections Jean-Marié le Pen’s national front harped on the fact that there were also exactly two million unemployed in France. Inter alia he blamed the unemployment on the influx of non-White masses, for whom France has no work.

The French voters reacted in a dramatic way! Mr Jean-Marié le Pen’s party gained ground and acquired 10% of the voters in France, although until recently he wasn’t anywhere on the horizon! The party rose more quickly than communism did in the days of Karl Marx! It was a dramatic political development in France! He now has 33 to 35 representatives in the National Assembly. In fact they are coming very close to controlling the balance of power in the French National Assembly.

A great disillusionment therefore awaits those knuckle-heads who think that liberalism and integration are the tide of the future! The whole White world is up in arms against the massive influx of hordes of non Whites into what they considered to be their own fatherland. It is no use becoming angry about it nor does it help to take umbrage. It is no use regarding it as racist or fascist either because these are Whites who are just as entitled to their opinion as anyone else. There are people who are equally entitled to their fatherland as anyone else is. [Interjections.]

Jean-Marié le Pen’s slogan is “France for the French”. On that basis he has now attracted 10% of the votes, and the communist party’s votes, they who at one stage had a third of the French voters on their side, have dropped to less than 10%. Jean Marié le Pen is the man of the future in Western Europe and in France in particular and the days of the communist party in France are numbered. [Interjections.]

Nor is it only happening there, because it is also happening in the dealy beloved England, with which the hon members of the PFP have such strong linguistic, cultural and other ties, and I think those hon members will be able to understand it. In the Cape Times of 9 June—just the other day—a reporter wrote a report from London under the headline “United Kingdom race attacks on the increase”, from which I should like to quote:

I repeat:

Why is there such an increase in racial attacks and racial conflicts in England, which has never known apartheid? [Interjections.] Those hon members cannot go and tell Britain “it is the rotten policy of apartheid”. Britain is the mother of liberalism. Why is there an increase in racial attacks in Britain, with its tolerance? Why are they on the increase in Scotland and in small rural communities, where there are few Blacks? The reason is that deep in the heart of England, despite its outward image, there is still a strong national feeling and there is still a strong realisation that they are not a non-White people nor are they going to become one, because they are a White nation. The most vehement attacks are being made on right-wing organisations such as the National Front and others.

The hon the Minister is responsible for this legislation. I am not going to tell him this afternoon what the situation is in respect of the influx of the so-called Hispanics into Toronto and America.

I cannot present all the facts, because my time is limited. But if this is the case in Britain and Scotland and among the liberals and, almost at one stage, the communists in France, what does he think the effect is going to be on the Whites in South Africa if he opens the sluice-gates and abolishes influx control measures? What will happen then to the White population of 4 million or 4,5 million in the face of an overwhelming majority? In Britain, France and the rest of the world it is still a relatively small non-White minority which has already caused that swing in politics.

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

I do not have time for that, Mr Speaker.

Is the hon the Minister a responsible person, has he a sense of responsibility, bearing in mind the newly-prevalent tendencies in the world? The right wing, whether the left wing wants to know it or not, is representative today of the new developments. They are the future today. The new, most fundamental witness in the history of the present-day world is the right-wing witness. We are on the verge of our breakthrough, in the same way as the communists and the left wing of 100 or 150 years ago were on theirs. These hon knuckle-headed members do not see this, however.

The hon knuckle-heads.

They read nothing, they do not take notice of anything and they spend all their true ranting and raving at the right wing in South Africa. Have I not a far greater right? I have 50 times, a thousand times more right to fight for my South Africa and to oppose the abolition of influx control measures than the British have. Britain is not yet facing a threat. They have at most 5,6 or 7 million non-Whites out of a population of 55 million. We are only 4,5 million Whites, however, and we are surrounded by at least 50 million non-Whites. That hon the Minister, who was superintendent of a Sunday School, who is supposed to have an understanding of things, who should display compassion for his people, and who should at least show an understanding for the problems in which his people find themselves, goes ahead, believe it or not and in spite of the obvious tendencies in Europe, in Canada, in America and in Australia he opens the sluices gates for a non-White influx into South Africa such as we have never seen before.

From whence?

I must tell this hon Minister we simply cannot support this legislation. Obviously we can no longer stop it either. We are not yet strong enough to prevent it. But what is that hon Minister’s excuse going to be in 10 or 15 years’ time?

No, by then Chris will have been dead a long time!

He should think about this a while, Sir. How will he be able to face us? How will he be able to look us in the eye in 10 or 15 years—perhaps even in five or three years—bearing in mind that he simply ignored these warnings we are giving him now.

South Africa is also saddled with a problem of an influx from Mozambique. Over a period of years we have been dealing with a tide of people streaming into South Africa from that country. Is it not true? The State President uses it as an argument against the outside world. Why are there two million Blacks in South Africa who do not belong here at all, who were never here before? They are migrating into this country because they are hungry and are in dire need. Now they come and eke out a living in South Africa. The State President uses this fact as an argument against the outside world to demonstrate how kind-hearted South Africa is. But that is of minor importance. The question is whether South Africa should become the receptacle for everyone in the whole of Southern Africa who cannot make a living under their own steam. Not even Christianity demands that of us. Christianity does not demand that a people should sacrifice its life, its freedom and its fatherland so that another people can continue to exist.

The hon member for Ceres, here next to me, would not say so. There is no one in this House who calls himself a Christian who would assert that his Christianity included that he be prepared to sacrifice his people’s survival and independence to the masses charging in from all sides. No, Sir! I am afraid that is not the case at all.

Hon members on the Government side cling to the Group Areas Act. They labour under the delusion that they will be able to use the Group Areas Act to keep the Indians out of the Free State. They think that they are in one way or another going to solve all their problems with the Group Areas Act. That hon Minister will have to explain to us—even more important, he will have to explain to the National Party—how the Group Areas Act is going to stop these marauding hordes. [Interjections.] He must explain that, while the Group Areas Act is now under consideration in the President’s Council. This hon Minister knows of course that the Group Areas Act is going to be amended in such a way that it will be totally ineffectual. This Act might even be abolished. What defence, what physical protection do the Whites have left in respect of his territory in these times when even the Group Areas Act is being threatened?

In the South African Foundation News, a publication which professes to fight for the interests of South Africa, it is stated in the October 1985 edition:

The enemies of the Government are the ones rejoicing at this, not the right-wing enemies! The people who are rejoicing at this, are the left-wing enemies of the Government, who know that the Government is taking a huge step in their direction. The Government is taking a step in bringing Afrikanerdom and the Whites to the point at which they are literally, in so many words, going to be throttled. Does this hon the Minister know what he is doing to South Africa?

Furthermore it is of very great importance of course that this very step is shown by the hon members of the National Party to be the major step in the direction of reform, as the removal of the one thing which irritated and infuriated the outside world the most, namely that influx control was being applied in South Africa. The abolition of influx control is silencing those specific critics, and is the single most important step in the implementation of this reform policy. The enemies of South Africa know all these things, and that is why there is jubilation among “all but the most implacable enemies” of the Government. They are jubilant because they realise—and they realise it as well as the right wing does—that in taking this step, they are taking a step which could possibly be the most difficult one to undo. He is now putting the White man in the position in which he is most vulnerable. I should now like to know from the hon the Minister why this process of throwing everything in South Africa open by means of the abolition of these influx control measures has to be linked to urbanisation—because it is in fact being linked to urbanisation. Why, together with these measures, does the Government console South Africa with the promise that orderly urbanisation is going to take place as well? They do it because that is the way the big moneyed interests want it. Mike Rosholt, the big boss of Barlow Rand, said a while ago—it was not all that long ago—that urbanisation was the most potent factor favouring change, and that is why he supports it. He does not want urbanisation merely to make money.

And economic growth!

That is of course what I am saying. He is, however, not only concerned with the economic aspect. He also says: “It is the biggest single factor in favour of change.”

That is the policy of the Government in its entirety. That is the entire direction which the Government is taking which has provided Mike Rosholt with so much satisfaction. Dr Piet Koornhof, if I remember correctly, and a while ago too Dr Smit of the HSRC, as well as a lot of other left-wing “pals”, spoke of 15 Black cities the size of Soweto in South Africa. Have these people taken leave of their senses? Have they taken leave of their normal White senses?

Piet Koornhof has.

[Inaudible.]

Can one still speak of being pro-White in any way, can one say one has any feeling left for one’s fatherland and people if one thinks in terms of 15 Black cities the size of Soweto?

Where are the people going to live? [Interjections.]

If these people are still thinking in terms of White survival then they are out of their minds!

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Bryanston must please keep quiet. He should remain calm and take his medicine.

Order! The hon member for Bryanston must please come to order! Where does the hon member think he is? [Interjections.]

At the moment I am still in one of the White cities, Sir. [Interjections.]

Well, it seems to me the hon member does not think he is in this House at present, the highest legislative authority in the country. We cannot go on like this. I do not mind worthwhile interjections, but the hon member is singing the same tune over and over again, and the more he sings the more tedious it becomes. What is more, he is sitting with his back to the Chair!

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

No! [Interjections.]

The hon member does not wish to answer a question. The hon member may proceed.

I shall now quote prof James Gregor of America. He in turn emphasised another aspect. He said urbanisation promoted equality because it loosened the ties between people. He said that it was easier to loosen the ties between people if they are urbanised; it is easier to sever the ties between such a person and his own people and to wean him from them. This professor pointed out—he is not really someone whom one could call a right winger— that urbanisation promotes equality. Urbanisation in itself then becomes a milieu favourable to revolution. It rarely occurs that Blacks in the rural areas manage to stir up the masses to the extent to which they do so in urban areas. Already some Black towns are virtually ungovernable, inter alia as a result of this situation.

There are also economic disadvantages associated with urbanisation. The infrastructure for the accommodation of Black people and mass-urbanised people is far more expensive than rural housing.

Even Dr Kenneth Kaunda—I shall be able to bring the hon the Minister the evidence— made the point a few years ago that it was much cheaper to continue to accommodate people in the rural areas than to provide them instantly with housing in the urban areas over a short period of time. Dr Kaunda’s whole point was that these people should remain in the rural areas until such time as they could be provided with housing on an orderly basis, and not in the haphazard way in which this Government is going about it. We have just heard from the hon the Minister of Finance. Nothing makes him wax more lyrical—extreme leftist that he is—than the fact that enormous amounts of money are still going to be spent on a large scale on housing, despite the country’s financial position. Enormous amounts are going to be spent, not on White housing, but rather on Coloured and specifically Black housing. [Interjections.]

What happened at Crossroads? There we have a superb example of what the Government calls urbanisation. There we saw what their orderly urbanisation looked like. If this is the kind of urbanisation that took place when we still had influx control measures then the hon the Minister will have to explain what kind of urbanisation there will be in the absence of such measures. Hon members of the NP have not as yet refuted what we told them. We have already told them that the struggle in Crossroads is not one raging between the left and the right—between the “conservatives” and the “revolutionaries”. It is a struggle between the “squatter community” as originally established, and those who moved in afterwards, making life difficult for them and crowding them out. Out of fear and on the basis of what Robert Ardrey called the “territorial imperative” they reacted and hit back mercilessly. The hon the Minister fails to appreciate these things.

We now demand of the hon the Minister—we want to use it against him during the next election—to give us a definition of orderly urbanisation. Up to this stage no a single Government representative has told us what orderly urbanisation is and how it takes place. It is merely a kind of propaganda slogan, a hollow slogan and a consolation prize for the NP, so that they do not labour under the misconception that they can go ahead and do these things and still be protected all the time. The hon the Minister should not come along with a lot of vague phrases—he is quite capable of doing it—but with a scientific definition of orderly urbanisation.

He does not have one.

What we find quite shocking is that the Government is still engaged in steps which we obviously cannot support. I also want to quote—I must quote a right-winger for a change—what A T Culwick said. He pointed out that for moneyed interests the main concern is having a large pool of labour at their doorstep, which was at the same time a large pool of consumers. Even if the labour pool is not in full production, continued consumption must be ensured by welfare allowances. That is why the exponents of “free enterprise” are not at all opposed to the principle of the “dole”. It is done to give those who are unproductive, buying power at the expense of those who are productive. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I warned the hon member for Sasolburg yesterday that he was going to get a hiding today, and he got a good hiding this afternoon, but nevertheless he carries on. [Interjections.] I should just like to remind the hon member of one little matter. He remarked a moment ago that the R750 million announced by the hon the Minister of Finance for housing projects for underprivileged people inter alia, is all for Blacks.

He did not say it was all for Blacks.

He said it was mainly for Blacks.

Let us say it is mainly for Blacks. I want to remind the hon member of a day when his leader was caught in Pretoria with a number of Blacks whom he had not registered, in his backyard. [Interjections.] That is a fact.

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

No, Sir, I do not have time.

Then you must not stand proclaiming an untruth here.

It was not an untruth.

There was one Black man who did not have a licence.

Very well, there was one. The principle, however, is that Blacks who did not comply with the requirements of influx control were living in the backyard of the hon member’s leader. That is the point. The Government is providing the R750 million precisely to solve the real problem of Blacks who are in White residential areas— this angers the people—by providing those people with a roof over their heads so that they can live in Black residential areas. The hon member asked what the Government meant by orderly urbanisation. Has the hon member read the Government’s White Paper on Urbanisation?

Derby-Lewis is waiting for you.

The hon member is just as bankrupt as Derby-Lewis. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member asked for that.

I am not bankrupt, Mr Speaker.

Order! It was meant figuratively, and is not unparliamentary.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Can the hon member explain to you whether he meant it figuratively?

Order! He need not explain, since it was meant figuratively.

I am not bankrupt, because I have money in the bank.

Order! It was meant figuratively; that is very clear! The hon member may proceed.

The hon member for Sasolburg’s problem is that he is so far removed from the realities in South Africa that he is absolutely obsessed by the facts the Government is dealing with. The hon member compared South Africa with Britain and the Commonwealth situation. There are a number of Commonwealth countries which have the right to go there in terms of Commonwealth agreements. The hon member also compared South Africa with the USA and with the Spanish-Americans who were moving there. The Spanish-Americans come from outside the USA.

The Government does have real agreements with our official neighbouring states, such as Mozambique, Lesotho and Malawi, for the purpose of controlling this matter strictly.

How?

But that is true! There are agreements and the hon member knows about them.

Let us be honest. We shall talk about the citizenship question of the TBVC countries later, but every Black in South Africa who is not a citizen of the TBVC countries is a South African citizen and is entitled to be here. That is a fact, and the hon member must not think he can get away from it with futile arguments. I think I should refrain from saying any more about him, however, because it is really just a waste of time.

I now come back to an argument raised by the hon member for Barberton about influx control. He linked it directly to separate development and the creation of own homelands, and in doing so tried to maintain that the Government had thrown the concept of national states completely overboard. That is not true. I want to tell the hon member, and the CP or whoever is welcome to listen as well, that more capital has been invested by the NP Government and more development has taken place in the national states during the past 10 years than in the past 50 years. What is the reason? It is precisely because the Government wants to make magnets and economic growth points of those areas because we want to keep the Blacks there. That is the purpose of this investment.

The NP is not against separate development. The NP is not against geographic jurisdiction areas under Black control. The NP is not against the independence of the national states. KwaNdebele, which is going to become independent under the NP Government in December, is a living example of this.

The Whites may not get it, however!

The NP is not against the national states’ development in the economic sphere. Let us consider what the Government is doing. Surely it is the Government of the State President P W Botha which has created the development bank for Southern Africa, which has brought about communal growth points, which has created deconcentration points, which has created development, not on the borders of the homelands, but inside them, and which has started special employment creation projects. The Government has spent millions of rands on this in the national states. We heard from the hon the Deputy Minister the other day that they have created more than 300 000 employment opportunities for Blacks in the homelands using R38 million.

The NP is simply faced by the following fact: Influx control measures, as the NP has tried to apply them during recent years, have simply not worked. That is a fact. The hon member for Sasolburg said so too. The hon member said influx control had not succeeded, and yet he wondered to what extent people were going to come streaming in, now that influx control had been abolished.

The removal of this measure will not really cause an influx. The people are here already, and need not still come here. They are here. They do not have housing, however, and are squatting in places. They are in people’s backyards and in places where they should not be. [Interjections.] That is why the Government is making a positive effort to implement orderly urbanisation in South Africa so that we can cope with these problems.

I want to emphasise the point that it is not so much the present Government which is responsible for the influx of people to the metropolitan areas in South Africa. The expectations of former governments that the stream of Blacks from the homelands and the reservations to the metropolises would be checked and reversed, never materialised. I want to say immediately that if the policy of the national states had not been applied, we would have had not 50% of the Blacks in the White areas of South Africa, but 100%. It was in fact under the Government of Dr Verwoerd and Mr Vorster that the efforts failed. That is a fact! The magical year was 1978; I was in the opposition benches then. The Government said the Blacks would begin to move back in 1978.

Who said that?

Mr Blaar Coetzee said so. [Interjections.]

What were the circumstances? [Interjections.]

Mr Blaar Coetzee maintained on behalf of the Government that the day would come when the stream of Blacks to the White areas would be reversed. [Interjections.] That is a fact.

But Daan denies it! [Interjections.]

Why did it not materialise? It is very easy to criticise afterwards, but the realities the Government has to deal with today are the following: Former governments held the standpoint that White capital may not be spent in the Black national states. That was the Government’s standpoint, and it was only under Mr Vorster, when Mr M C Botha had been a Minister for some time, that that standpoint changed. He allowed White capital to be spent in the Black states, to develop those places and to attract Blacks to them.

It is always too late.

I also remember another aspect of the standpoint held at the time. It was argued that since the Blacks were in the White areas on a temporary basis, it should be made as unpleasant as possible for them so that they would pack their bags and go back to their homelands. That did not work, and the Government under Mr P W Botha developed those areas extensively, as I stated explicitly, and it is still not working. We are still struggling to keep at least 50% of the Blacks in those areas.

We do not expect you … You are not capable of doing that.

The Government is realistic, and the permanence of Blacks in White areas is an undisputed fact. The only thing the Government is doing by abolishing these measures is facing a fact, not throwing its hands in the air, but introducing an alternative approach of orderly urbanisation and the creation of accommodation for people.

Through the years there were two labour reservoirs in Johannesburg, of which one was official. That was where registered people who carried the old “dompas” went. After the contractor had picked them up to go and work, there would be no one left on the bakkie by the time he stopped at the third robot, because all they wanted was confirmation in their passbooks that they were working for someone.

There are hundreds of people at the nonofficial labour reservoirs, however, and they want to work. The contractor picks them up, they are paid and then they have to be subjected to influx control measures. Surely we had to stop bluffing ourselves, and we must not seek the solutions to South Africa’s problems in illusions. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Langlaagte asked where the people were going to live and what we were going to do with them when they arrived here. They are here already! I drew that to the hon the Minister’s attention, and he is considering the matter with great sympathy.

Does he have sympathy with that problem?

There is a modern, developing White residential area in my constituency, in which Blacks squat blatantly on empty plots. Why? No alternative housing is available for them. That is why the Government says it will apply the legislation concerning squatting and slums and ensure that no more Sophiatowns orginate. There will be orderly urbanisation to provide orderly housing in South Africa.

The Government is realistic, and instead of this House being negative, criticising and ranting and raving, hon members should say that they will all seek the solutions to this real, fundamental problem in South Africa together.

I congratulate the hon the Minister on this legislation, and on the guidelines which are spelt out very clearly in the White Paper. We are on the way to solving South Africa’s problems. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, in opening I wish to refer to one aspect arising from the scathing remark made by the hon member for Turffontein about the hon member for Jeppe. By doing this, I wish to recall an example in its entirety of the mentality of that hon member who can speak of another hon member as bankrupt. I want to quote the hon member’s words of 13 April 1972 in this House. He said (Hansard, Vol 38, col 4876):

This is the present State President—

That is the mentality of an hon member who can say another hon member is bankrupt. It is a pity that I have to follow such an hon member because we have pointed out the quality of his debating and the extent of his personal naiveté and pettiness before. [Interjections.]

I wish to refer to a few aspects of his speech. He said inter alia that the question of influx and influx control was controlled in great measure through agreements with foreign states—kept under strict control. Have I interpreted him correctly?

Why do you want to talk to me now?

He said that, according to agreements with other states, the influx of people from those states was kept under strict control. I have Die Burger of 19 February in front of me in which the full text of the discussion between the State President and Dr Van Zyl Slabbert appeared. In the third column of that report the State President said to Dr Van Zyl Slabbert:

Yet there is an agreement which says they shall not pour in and they are strictly controlled. The State President said:

Who said that?

The State President said that.

Well I never!

He said it in an interview with Dr Slabbert which was recorded on tape and has to be correct.

The hon member proceeded to say the NP was not opposed to separate development. That is a remarkable statement in this advanced year and this late stage of NP Government. The hon member said they were not opposed to separate development but 24 hours previously the hon member for Bellville said apartheid had finally been buried whereas the hon member for Randburg said apartheid was still alive in some measure and not altogether buried. [Interjections.] How can one understand the contradictions between the hon member for Turffontein and the other New Nats in this House?

He made yet a further remarkable statement and said Black people were here already and housing and accommodation had to be provided for them. The figures at our disposal, however—the hon the Minister may put us right but they are the figures used in the President’s Council when this same debate was held there—indicate that in general 90% of Whites, Coloureds and Indians have been urbanised whereas this applies to only 38% of Black people. This very releasing of the brakes through the White Paper and the Bill we are discussing at the moment will mean that this figure of 38% will soon grow to 90% and more. We saw how this happened almost within a flash in Crossroads.

The hon member also said that orderly urbanisation and the way in which it would take place were set out in the White Paper. Nevertheless we listened to the SABC brainwashing the other day when Dr Clase—I think that is his name—and Prof Oosthuizen told us on the programme Monitor that orderly urbanisation would take place now. They did not add what orderly urbanisation was, however, nor did they say how it was to take place. They did not tell us in concrete terms how they would set about orderly urbanisation.

Glorified squatting!

We know what happened in Crossroads. We also know that certain measures which have existed over the years are to be lifted which will make the situation in Crossroads appear to be a small problem if we look at the total complexity of the situation in the entire Republic.

Firstly, I wish to refer to the hon member for Innesdal’s speech the other evening. Could hon members ever imagine that a day would dawn in the history of the NP that a frontbencher of that party, modest as he is, would tell the hon member for Houghton that she had been more far-seeing in certain respects than NP members? [Interjections.] What would a proud, disciplined NP Caucus have done to such a member at the time when the NP was a party to which both friend and foe looked up? It was a party which even foreigners respected and a party about which someone said, on seeing a photograph of party members after a speech by the Prime Minister shortly after his election as Prime Minister at the time: “Do you want to fight these men?” Someone now comes forward from the ranks of the party of that man with that will to resist and fight who says that the hon member for Houghton saw further in some respects than members of the NP. Over the years when she was the lone champion of the Progressive Party, the hon member for Houghton was actually the personification of everything the NP rejected and that is why she was challenged. We also discussed this in the caucus. [Interjections.] Now a love affair has even sprung up between them.

Could we ever have thought that a day would dawn on which the hon member for Klip River would be praised on two occasions by the hon member for Houghton on the enlightened statements he was making and the fact that he had seen the light?

If one thinks to what degree Mr Piet Marais, the member for Moorreesburg at the time, was reprimanded merely because he spoke about a Tricameral Parliament instead of three separate Parliaments and how the State President almost evicted him from the caucus and how he was almost banned from the Cape party and also think how Mr Japie Basson clashed with the National Party about the very Bill connected with regional authorities and what happened to him, one realises what the situation is. Frontbenchers of the NP now come, however, and without further ado echo hon members of the PFP.

I now wish to revert to the hon member for Randburg’s speech. He referred to Dr Verwoerd’s speeches on 12 November 1958 and 20 May 1959. Unfortunately the hon member is not present but I think it desirable that we re-examine Dr Verwoerd’s views a little. The hon member used these speeches by Dr Verwoerd in an attempt to indicate that Dr Verwoerd had changed his policy regarding the protectorates. In the first speech on 12 November 1958, at the opening of the Transvaal congress, Dr Verwoerd first had this to say on the United Party:

In the same speech Dr Verwoerd appealed for the transfer of these protectorates to the Union of South Africa, as it was at the time. That was not part of the policy; it formed part of the request of the South African Government that these protectorates be transferred to South Africa as part of the emancipation process of the Black peoples. When Dr Verwoerd therefore made his speech in this House on 20 May 1959, he did not depart from this policy. At that stage, when Britain decided to grant independence to Lesotho and the other protectorates, he said it formed part of the emancipation process in which South Africa also believed.

A very interesting statement made by Dr Verwoerd in that regard was that an argument had come from the side of the Opposition that in the time of Prime Minister Louis Botha and Genl Hertzog—before the First World War—practical politics still demanded the accommodation of the Black people in separate states and the retention of those parts of South Africa managed and controlled by Whites under White sovereignty. Dr Verwoerd continued by asking in the speech he made in this House on 20 May 1959 whether the fact that these people had entered the urban areas of South Africa after the First and Second World Wars to offer their services and sell their labour here meant in consequence that we had to surrender in a revolution without violence so that Blacks could take over South Africa. That was the way in which Dr Verwoerd rejected the argument that those Black people should also have a share in the government of the country as a result of the influx of such persons.

Regarding the legislation itself, I now wish to say that this Bill draws an inexorable line through a system which served as one of the most important foundations for determining relations between White and Black in South Africa because our original contact with one another formed part of the proper and peaceful regulation of the various peoples here in South Africa.

The Government has come forward with this Bill in the midst of conditions of unrest and violence which have as their objective the establishment of Black political power over the entire country. Government action exactly reflects the train of thought of Alexis de Tocqueville to whom the hon member for Jeppe referred previously. De Tocqueville remarked:

Professor Arnheim’s reference to De Tocqueville’s remark takes this further:

Once again this also points to the hon the Minister’s reply to the person who wrote under “Vra wat Pla” in Die Burger. “Dat ’n mens deur middel van konstitusies, deklarasies van menseregte en minderheidsveto’s en allerhande konstitusionele geknutsel jou belange in hierdie land sal beskerm is praatjies vir die vaak.”

We are living in a very critical epoch in which the powers of our security forces are being used to the utmost in restoring peace, order, calm and stability especially in Black areas of the RSA as the highest priority. Cases of terrorism are erupting like ulcers throughout South Africa in previously peaceful rural surroundings, in the cities and in thronged business complexes. Parliament is almost being overtaxed to pilot through urgent legislation in order to have security laws included in the Statute Book to bring about order.

I wish to refer to a document which has already been quoted from in this House. I am referring to the Police document before the Joint Committee, a document on the escalation of crime in South Africa at this stage. I wish to mention the statistics on public violence, figures which have risen by 1 922% since 1982. In 1983 there were 281 cases, 164 in 1984 and 4 408 in 1985. Then we get to arson. In 1982 there were 2 900 cases; in 1983 the figure was 3 000 and there were 4 724 cases in 1984. That is an increase of 62%. As a result of the withdrawal of policemen from areas where there are no disturbances with a view to curbing riots, crimes against property are rising in consequence of the lack of effective, normal police action. From Pretoria we hear of the incredible escalation in violence in urban areas like Sunnyside after the abolition of reference books. The increase there was approximately 30%. We are informed that the SA Police finds it exceptionally difficult to exercise control over vagrants in the streets because of the abolition of their control, the well-known reference books. Surely we know the system of reference books enabled the SA Police to exercise proper control over vagrants. It is foreseen that this increase in crime will be further aggravated when the great trek of Black begins to urban areas; in other words, when the orderly squatting begins.

The abolition of influx control will make the task of the SA Police in curbing crime infinitely more difficult. The particular problem we are experiencing in this regard is how the Police are to be enabled to combat crime and terrorism if these people do not have to present any permits on entering. Even at this stage, terrorists from Mozambique, Swaziland, Botswana and everywhere can cross the border without any documents—they do not need to show any document to anybody—and they can penetrate from those parts of Southern Africa to within the urban areas of our country. We also find that the Police are not succeeding to the degree we should like to see in trapping these arsonists and terrorists. Over the past weekend there were incidents in Durban again; on the Saturday before last there were also terrorist attacks in Kempton Park.

I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Barberton who said yesterday that this legislation should be read in conjunction with the Identity Bill and the legislation on the granting of citizenship to citizens of the national states which had obtained independence.

The question of orderly urbanisation has to be seen in the light of what is happening in Crossroads at the moment. We ask again whether this is an example of orderly urbanisation. In this respect I wish to refer to the hon member for Sasolburg. He mentioned that the Government could possibly wish to use provisions of the Group Areas Act to deal with the matter of influx control. I wish to point out to him, however, that the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has already promised that he will not apply that Act to prevent urbanisation. [Interjections.] Consequently there are no brakes to this urbanisation movement. The NP is doing the Republic of South Africa a bad turn through this.

They are releasing the brakes.

This is a tragic day in the history of this country. Hon members should just note what further arises from this. Section 3C of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, Act 52 of 1951, is repealed. Do hon members know what this means? Section 3C provided that a Black man had to have accommodation before being permitted into an urban area. This has to be read together with paragraph 2.1.6 on page 64 of the White Paper on Urbanisation:

Do hon members know what those measures comprise? They comprise and I quote further from paragraph 2.1.6:

1. (a) the owner of a building in an urban area outside a Black town may not accommodate more than five Black persons in a building …
2. (b) the owner, lessee or occupier of premises must obtain a licence from the urban local authority to accommodate a Black person on the premises.

That provision is now being deleted. In the past local authorities and development boards experienced problems in particular with people who even used these persons for farming, especially on smallholdings round cities. Squatting took place even under these circumstances. Can hon members imagine how that 38% of urbanised Black people will now grow to 90% and more? Section 9 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, Act 25 of 1945 and its provisions regarding Black people in urban areas are being deleted.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, I contend that through the legislation before us the Government has placed us inexorably on the way to a unitary state in South Africa. I can quote no more authoritative source on this than the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid who wrote a book with the title Ideaal en Werklikheid. On the question of where to go with the Blacks, he said and I quote:

But those are old-fashioned views!

Fortunately he has changed his opinion!

That is on the authority of someone who is one of the senior Cabinet members of the Government at the moment. [Interjections.]

When was that book published?

It was in the seventies but it makes no difference in any case. These are facts. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bellville and other hon speakers on the Government side said apartheid had finally been buried. It would therefore be very interesting if the hon the Minister would spell out the ins and outs to us in replying to this debate. Surely apartheid is part and parcel of the Group Areas Act. Apartheid is part and parcel of the Population Registration Act. Apartheid is part and parcel of separate schools. The hon member for Bellville and the hon member for Randburg said apartheid had either already been buried or was in the process of being buried. This is a segment of apartheid. This system in which we are working—the system of three separate Houses—forms part of apartheid. The hon the Minister should tell us whether this step which is now being taken forms part of the burial of apartheid. [Interjections.]

The new. National Party’s type of apartheid!

Order! Some hon members here are speaking far too loudly. Will they please lower their voices. The hon member for Brakpan may proceed.

Mr Chairman, this is part of the new National Party’s type of apartheid—the three separate Houses. [Interjections.] Of course, there is yet another aspect as regards orderly urbanisation. We should examine what the White Paper contains and also see how the hon the Minister thinks in his naïvete that he will be able to handle the influx of Black people to urban areas of South Africa. How will he deal with that spontaneous and uncontrolled influx? On page 48 of the White Paper it is said that information bureaux will be established. Under these so-called information and education programmes special attention will be paid to prospective immigrants and their places of origin in order to inform them on accommodation and employment opportunities, conditions of unemployment and the implications of migration to urban areas. Can a person imagine that one will be able to stop those people in this way with the aid of information bureaux—be able to stem that stream to the cities? When I think of what the National Party is doing with South Africa, it reminds me of the prophet Isaiah who wrote: “The treacherous dealers have dealt treacherously; yea, the treacherous dealers have dealt very treacherously.” [Interjections.] It is tragic too that in the final analysis of this chapter of our history the man in control of this piece of legislation…

The Bible is not suited to your tongue!

Mr Chairman …

But that is a disgraceful remark! [Interjections.]

You are a disgraceful Minister!

Mr Chairman, that that hon Minister, who in the recent past has committed certain acts, should now say something like that here in public! He knows what I am talking about, Sir.

Yes, definitely! [Interjections.]

I shall leave it at that, however. His name is Jan Christiaan! [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to enter into debate with the hon member for Brakpan. There are certain problems in this, however, because how does one debate with someone who does not put his own standpoint? What has happened here tonight? The hon member for Brakpan attacked the hon member for Bellville. He attacked the hon member for Turffontein. He quoted Dr Verwoerd. He made no positive statement of his own standpoint, however, about how he and his party plan to deal with the urbanisation problem, and specifically the urbanisation of Blacks.

Channel them back into the homelands!

During the course of my speech I shall speak to the hon member for Sasolburg too.

I want to react to the point made by the hon member for Brakpan. The hon member advanced the argument that influx control is in fact the way in which one should deal with urbanisation of the Blacks. Let us look at the facts. The fact is Blacks would have come to the cities in any case. The hon member for Brakpan asked us whether Crossroads was an example of orderly urbanisation. I say no, Crossroads is in fact an example of disorderly urbanisation, if one is trying to shut one’s eyes to an inevitable process. [Interjections.] Crossroads exists despite influx control. [Interjections.] After all, Crossroads originated in the days when influx control applied. People talk only about Crossroads, however, because it contains a certain emotional element. Crossroads is not the only place in which conditions of that kind prevail. There are similar places in the vicinity of Durban, for example.

Apparently the hon member for Brakpan does not know what is going on in his own area. He referred to human farming. The fact is there are examples on the East Rand today of farming with people, and this is in spite of influx control!

As a result of influx control, the attitude was taken that people can be prevented from coming to the city. That is why comprehensive planning was not done for them. What was the result? The result was conditions of serious overcrowding. These are the facts. That is what happened.

I should also like to refer to certain aspects of the speech made by the hon member for Sasolburg. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sasolburg traced a very interesting argument. He got his references from America and Europe. The HNP’s people lay such strong claim to having a say about this land. Why then do they seek their references in Europe? That is not where we are living; we are living here in Africa. We are not talking about strange citizens who enter the country. We are talking about people who are citizens of South Africa. [Interjections.]

There is talk of the sluices that are going to be opened, of the charging hordes. [Interjections.] The fact is, however, the Blacks are here, and there is a certain interdependence between those Blacks and us. I have a very interesting example of that interdependence here with me. It is a copy of Newsweek of 24 March 1986, in which there is an article about South Africa. Included in the article is a beautiful colour photograph—the photograph I am showing hon members now—which was taken at an election. There are two White children in the photograph— they are toddlers—and each has a sticker on his back. If there is one thing I must tell the HNP, it is that they have made progress, because this sticker is an English one which reads: “This land is our land. Vote HNP.” [Interjections.] While the HNP people are voting, a Black woman is looking after those two toddlers. [Interjections.] That is part of the reality, part of the interdependence, that exists in South Africa and that we have to accept.

When we talk about influx control, however, the very same influx control we are bidding farewell to with this Bill, we must not think we are taking our leave of something which was only negative. Nor can influx control be seen in isolation. It was part of a whole conglomeration of measures. Pro-active development plans and objectives made up part of those measures. That is why there were things such as decentralisation. The important question is whether or not influx control succeeded in all its objectives.

In the first place I want to say yes, in part it did succeed in its objectives. It assisted in the planning of a more meaningful distribution of economic activities throughout the whole country. It also assisted in deconcentrating urbanisation and creating new urbanisation points. In addition it restricted inundation in existing urban areas up to a certain stage. It also made a contribution in dealing with the real crux of South Africa’s problem—the problem of different levels of development in the various components of the population.

I must also give a clear “no” as an answer. Influx control did not work fully. The fact of the matter is that the positive attractions of the urbanisation process and of the existing metropolises appear to have been too strong. Our urban complexes continued to grow, and despite influx control people kept on rushing to the cities. Just as with everything in this life, there were not only positive aspects, therefore, but also negative aspects as far as influx control was concerned.

When we look at the new approach, we must be realistic. We are not dealing here with a magic wand which is going to solve all our problems overnight. Of necessity there are problems associated with the urbanisation process. We are going to have squatting in any case. The question is what that squatting will be like. What is being proposed here, is ordered squatting with plot and service systems and areas which are upgradable. This is different from a place like Crossroads which was not upgradable at all, because it grew wildly. That is the difference.

In fact, squatting can play a positive part in certain cases. To people coming to the city for the first time, a squatter’s camp is part of a bridging phase in the modernisation process. That informal settlement forms an important basis for the origin and the growth of the informal economic sector. It makes a contribution to modernisation.

The evidence before the President’s Council contained many divergent opinions about how many people were going to come to the cities once influx control had been abolished.

It is impossible to determine how many of those people are here already, and how many are here without their wives and how many are going to bring only their families.

We must accept, however, that since urbanisation is going to take place and we are going to have to deal with it, we can harness it. That is why we on this side of the House say we are not sorry to bid farewell to influx control; on the contrary, we are looking forward with great excitement to the new development phase which this legislation is introducing in South Africa. The old one did not work and the new one does have advantages.

In conclusion I merely want to ask to what extent the old one did not work. When one looks at the statistics, one sees that despite the European kind of argument one gets from the hon member for Sasolburg, Whites are the majority in only eight magistrate’s districts in South Africa. The interesting fact is that 73% of the people who live in the “CP’s dream”, the CP kibbutz of Morgenzon, are Blacks. Even if something were to happen and that party were to come into power in the year 2050, it would still have to deal with urbanisation. No one in South Africa can escape that reality.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Springs tried to sound very excited and enthusiastic about the new dispensation which is imminent. He said he was not very concerned about the Influx Control Act which was now being abolished. He said Crossroads was not an example of orderly urbanisation but of disorderly urbanisation.

Indeed!

Those hon members have not yet been able to tell us, however, what orderly urbanisation looks like. In the entire White Paper on Urbanisation there is no mention of what orderly urbanisation looks like.

The hon member must know that influx control was no longer being applied at the very time when Crossroads originated. It was then no longer being strictly applied. Nevertheless there were many years in the history of South Africa when influx control worked brilliantly and I shall cite examples of this to the House in the course of my speech.

The hon member said squatting could fulfil a positive role. He said informal settlements could contribute to the modernisation of man. If this is an example of what modernisation of man should be like, however— these informal settlements in squatters’ camps—then I think the Black people are very much better off in the distant rural areas from which they hail. [Interjections.]

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

Later, if I have time.

I also wish to put a question!

Last week the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made the introductory speech to the Second Reading of the Bill. We experienced a tragic day when the hon the Minister rose in this House last week and solemnly read the epitaph of separate development. One of the most important measures to enable separate development to assume form is being abolished here. The beginning of the unitary state is being announced here.

In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister said:

I agree with him on this because it affects the entire spectrum of our current regulation of society.

When we debated across the floor of the House on a previous occasion, the hon the Minister promised me that he would come to Pietersburg with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Manpower to tell the people of the Northern Transvaal about free trade areas and regional services councils.

[Inaudible.]

I am merely mentioning this in passing.

Why do you distort the truth like this?

The hon the Minister said across the floor of the House he was also going.

I said I would go to Pietersburg but not with them!

Oh? I did not notice the hon the Minister there at all. I should like him to come and tell the people in the Northern Transvaal himself how he can justify and explain the abolition of separation measures—these include the Bill before us.

There is no helicopter for him!

It is not strange that the hon member Prof Olivier was in ecstasies when he rose to welcome this Bill. Surely it is understandable that that hon member would have great praise for this Bill because the philosophy they have been disseminating over the years is now assuming substance.

After this, the hon member for Bellville said apartheid had to be buried and it had been buried. He said the fantasies of the Afrikaners’ past political thinking had been shattered. In saying this he at least showed that he was sincere but to my mind he is not sincere enough to accept membership of the PFP. That is the party which has to take the full consequences of that route.

The hon member for Randburg quoted from Dr Verwoerd’s speech of 20 May 1959 as an example of a change in policy. Nevertheless that is actually one of the best examples of the right to self-determination of a people by the development of that policy. I shall revert to that speech in a while.

I wish to agree heartily with what the hon member for Sasolburg said when he indicated in a very effective way what interesting situations were occurring in Europe—in France among other countries. If the influx of other races into this country is to have the same effect as it had in France, the other side of the House has cause to shudder at what will happen to them in the years ahead. [Interjections.]

This Bill must represent the most blatant proof yet of the total about-turn to the left of a party which until reasonably recently prided itself on separate development as a policy. Not long ago the hon member for Bloemfontein East said separate development was 100% his policy.

André Fourie said that this evening.

Did the hon member not say so?

He did!

He is sitting mute.

The hon member for Turffontein did say this.

That is ancient history.

The hon member for Turffontein actually repeated it tonight. [Interjections.] The hon member for Potgietersrus …

Remember the election!

During the election large posters appeared bearing the words “Afsonderlike ontwikkeling is ons beleid”. [Interjections.]

And in Rosettenville!

I ask the hon member for Potgietersrus whether he still stands by the words on those posters this evening? [Interjections.]

Yes. The NP designed that policy.

He says “yes”!

I cannot believe it! [Interjections.] The hon member for Potgietersrus says: “That is our policy.” [Interjections.] That is the NP policy? Good heavens! The hon members for Innesdal and Randburg say apartheid is dead. [Interjections.]

Apartheid is dead!

One says it has been buried altogether and the other that it has been buried only halfway. [Interjections.] The hon member for Potgietersrus says separate development is still his policy. [Interjections.]

What is wrong with conversion?

Sample is torturing separate development.

Hon members will probably agree with me that the underlying principle of separate development is being totally destroyed by the implications of this legislation.

They have been converted!

Thirty-two Acts are being repealed in their entirety such as the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945, or partially repealed such as even certain sections of the Group Areas Act, 1966, and two proclamations are also being repealed. In addition the Government is also removing the word “Black” from its vocabulary just as it has already removed the word “White” from its programme of principles. The hon member for De Kuilen will be only too aware of this, the word “White” no longer exists in the NP programme of principles. He also said across the floor of the House: “What is wrong with that?” [Interjections.] In the Bill all the words like “Black location”, “Black town”, “Black area”, “Commissioner” and every reference to the administration of Black affairs or Black labour and so on appear in brackets which indicates that they will disappear. All those words have to disappear!

They are all becoming White now!

A unitary society— this “one nation”—of the Government’s has become colourless now. Everyone is green— like the story about the bus. [Interjections.] They are shareholders in the same nation, in the same unitary state, but that Government now says that pale green ones should still have their own schools and residential areas. But this is not discrimination because, behold, the dark green ones have equally good schools and residential areas. [Interjections.] Surely that is the philosophy of that side of the House now; there are pale green and dark green ones now.

One gains the impression among the White population in general, however, that that Government is beginning to land in the soup. Trusting people, like the letter writer from Stellenbosch, quoted here by the hon member for Jeppe, are starting to put questions. This letter writer, who wrote a letter under the nom de plume “Vra wat pla” which appeared in Die Burger of 7 June, is a good example of this because he also had serious reservations on the question of the abolition of influx control. The hon member for Jeppe quoted a considerable portion of the letter and I shall not repeat it but the letter writer had his reservations on conditions which would arise. He said there were horrendous slum conditions in most cities of the Third World and he was concerned that they would develop here. He said finally with justification that only schools and residential areas would remain in which the pale green ones would be able to live and attend school. [Interjections.] I think the letter writer made a very valid deduction in saying:

Over the years we have listened to the State President and found that, whenever he said an Act was not a sacred cow, this was the prelude to its abolition. [Interjections.] It is very interesting that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning— I see the hon the Deputy Minister is present now—said in his reply:

Imagine, Sir, those hon members now want to remove even the differences between sexes. [Interjections.] The hon Minister continued:

The hon Minister ended with this paragraph:

[Interjections.] That is the old NP cliché— self-determination in own affairs and joint decision-making in general affairs. Surely they have already discovered that this does not work in our situation in South Africa.

Does the hon the Minister really think that by giving such an answer—I regret the hon the Minister is not present and I request the hon the Deputy Minister to convey this to him—he will bring peace of mind to this poor letter writer? By giving such an answer the hon the Minister has created appalling concern in the minds of thousands of other people. To say minority rights will be protected in a unitary state by a future constitution and other juridical mechanisms is enough to make one choke. Does the hon the Deputy Minister really think this offers the necessary guarantee for protection? It is unthinkable that anyone could be so naïve. Look at what happened to the north of us in Africa. Prof Arnheim has also been quoted here from an article of his in Die Ekonoom:

It is not worth the paper it is printed on.

In the Government’s White Paper on Urbanisation the Government accepted the following as a point of departure among others. In paragraph 4.3.1 on page the following is said inter cilia:

Please note that rural towns are mentioned. I shall revert to that.

What is wrong with that?

I know the hon member is in total agreement with this; that is no problem.

The following is stated in paragraph 4.3.3:

I now want to ask the hon the Minister whether local White communities will also be consulted in this process. Are they to be consulted as they were consulted in the establishment of free trade areas or in throwing open facilities?

Who said I did not consult them on this?

I am asking the hon the Minister precisely whether he will consult them in the same way as he said he had consulted them in those cases.

The White Paper continues:

The following paragraph runs:

This will probably apply until such time as the President’s Council publishes its report on group areas. [Interjections.]

The Government says the following in paragraph 4.3.10 of the White Paper:

I now want to ask the hon the Minister how matters are proceeding at present in these so-called squatters’ camps? Is this principle, laid down here by the Government, being applied? How will this principle work, for instance, in cases of so-called controlled squatting which is now being made possible in terms of this legislation? What services will be provided and how will they be administered? Surely this will be an impossible task according to the accepted principle which I read here of freedom of movement within urban areas as well. I wish to ask the hon the Minister something else. The hon member for Springs could not tell us what controlled squatting looked like. He said Crossroads was not an example of controlled squatting. Perhaps the hon the Minister can tell us whether the KTC squatters camp is a controlled one.

While we are speaking of these services and facilities for which payment has to be made, the hon the Minister should perhaps inform us how the collection of debts is progressing regarding services and facilities in the existing Black urban areas. The hon the Deputy Minister floundered badly when we put questions to him here across the floor of the House. He could not reply to us. If that situation had been satisfactory, one could assume it could possibly work but, with the taps that are now to be turned on and the resultant trek to the cities from rural districts and self-governing areas and from the TBVC countries, it will be an impossible task and the hon the Minister should know this just as well as we do on this side of the House. Atrocious conditions and slum districts are now in effect being encouraged by the Government because section 3C of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, 1951, which prohibits employers from bringing employees into an urban area under certain circumstances, unless the local authority provides a certificate that proper accommodation is available, is being repealed.

The development boards which have been abolished kept very close watch on this situation of illegal employment and not only in urban areas but very definitely on our farms as well. [Interjections.] The hon member for Winburg probably does not encounter this in the Free State but we have a great deal to do with it in the Northern Transvaal. The development board told us that our farmers were not permitted to employ illegal Blacks because they would not know when they would be employing a terrorist and it was an extremely dangerous situation. I now want to ask the hon the Minister: How is this problem of the possible employment of terrorists on farms in the Northern and North-Western Transvaal to be controlled on the abolition of this legislation? [Interjections.] Surely there is no method by which it can be controlled.

Not only does this legislation represent a disservice to the White Republic of South Africa—that White Republic which Dr Verwoerd had in prospect—but also to independent states and national states in our midst.

I wish to quote from the magazine Rasseaangeleenthede in which D J Viljoen said in the April edition last year:

That accords exactly with what the hon member for Brakpan said. He continued:

As the Government is actually doing in effect. This researcher then added:

This will take place to a greater extent now. He continued:

In addition he made this very valid point:

As will happen now. This researcher then reached this conclusion:

The hon member for Brakpan referred to that very effectively. The writer then continued:

I now wish to ask the Government whether it is its serious intention that these states should develop further into own fatherlands for these Black peoples.

Albert says “no”!

The most amazing fact is that this policy was succeeding! The policy of spatial regulation of peoples was succeeding in a brilliant way! [Interjections.]

Two researchers, Prof J F Venter and Dr C J Nel of the University of the Orange Free State, found as early as 1976 on the subject of the Black population in the various Black states in comparison with the population in the districts immediately adjacent to those states: As far as Zululand was concerned, 76% of all Zulus were within Zululand or in the immediately adjoining districts; Ciskei and Transkei, 68%; Bophuthatswana, 70%; Gazankulu, 70% and Lebowa, 80%. And then the hon member for Turffontein said it had not succeeded! Surely this is the clearest proof of a process of regulation which was succeeding!

I have to hurry as I should like to sketch a picture to hon members of the situation in the area of the Northern Transvaal Development Board. According to its surface area it is the largest development board area in the Transvaal; it comprises almost two thirds of that province. What was the position in that area up to the point when the activities of that development board were forced to a halt by the Government? Remember, Sir, this affects two self-governing areas, Lebowa and Gazankulu, as well as an independent state, Venda.

What was the policy of this development board? It was that in the area of this board all Blacks working in White urban areas had to live in neighbouring Black homelands and that all Black urban residential areas had to be done away with. The board also converted words to deeds! Potgietersrus—the hon member for Potgietersrus should listen to this; he will also know about it—Ellisras, Pietersburg, Tzaneen, Duiwelskloof and Phalaborwa no longer had any Black towns in White areas.

The Black residential area of Louis Trichardt was in the process of disappearing; I have figures here on this. Last year 847 Black people were still living in a Black town in the White area. This year—until the Government upset the applecart—there were only 250 families.

I do not have time to mention all the figures but in this entire area—an area in which more than 100 000 Whites live—only 15 875 Black people remained as residents in Black towns next to White towns! In a town like Pietersburg, fewer than 200 Black people spent the night there. Years ago Pietersburg accepted the principle that no Blacks were allowed there without permits during the night. Permits were granted only by the development board, for instance to pump attendants, guards and attendants to sick people who had to have proper certificates. This was strictly applied by that development board! It therefore resulted in very few Black people spending the night there so it was an arrangement which worked well. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, so many subjects have been broached that one really does not know where to begin! I should like to start by saying that the hon member for Pietersburg virtually accused the State President of having said that the Group Areas Act was not a sacred cow. Now I should just like to ask the hon member for Pietersburg whether the CP regards the Group Areas Act as a sacred cow.

That is your terminology. [Interjections.]

We regard it as being important enough to remain.

When the State President says that the Group Areas Act is not a sacred cow, he has a certain intention in mind. [Interjections.] If the CP holds it against the State President for saying that the Group Areas Act is not a sacred cow, one can only accept that the CP will elevate anything which they regard as very important to the position of a sacred cow. In other words, they would place it in a position where it would have to be maintained at all costs. [Interjections.] The history of the sacred cow is precisely that that animal walks around …

These are the sacred cow’s teats which you have brought here. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Helderkruin is being interrupted too much now. Hon members must give him the opportunity to continue with his speech. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the symbolism of the sacred cow is precisely that it may not be slaughtered or bothered in Hindu countries because it is sacred. What therefore happens there, is that people die of hunger because those cows in the first place eat their food and secondly, may not be slaughtered. [Interjections.]

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

No, Mr Chairman, I do not want to reply to questions now, because hon members are interrupting me to such an extent that I am unable to make my point.

Answer a little question.

That then is the symbolism of it. If a measure is elevated to such an extent that it in fact starts threatening the survival of those people which it should protect, one has to reconsider such a measure, and that is all that is meant by this. [Interjections.] To the NP it is therefore not a matter of the welfare of the Group Areas Act, but a matter of the welfare of the people which it is supposed to protect. [Interjections.]

Hon members of the CP, and in particular the hon member for Brakpan, raised another point in connection with this. He cannot understand how it is possible that one hon member says apartheid is dead while a second associates himself with separate development. The hon members simply cannot see any difference between the concepts of separate development and apartheid. [Interjections.] This took me back about 15 years, when in my academic days I wrote an analysis for a scientific work in which I …

You “New Nats” do not know what you are talking about.

Order! If the hon member for Langlaagte does not keep quiet, I shall forbid him to make further interjections. The hon member for Helderkruin may proceed.

Some hon members annoy me, Mr Chairman.

I specifically made the point that a change came about in the NP’s and in the Afrikaners’ whole approach to ethnic relations as a result of specific circumstances, while in the days of apartheid the emphasis fell on the fact that Whites were privileged at the cost of others.

But that is not true, surely.

It was no disgrace, because it was a universal concept. That policy to be sure developed over the course of time into a policy of separate development in terms of which people were placed next to each other at the same level with a vertical rather than a horizontal dividing line. [Interjections.] I then said at that stage that the greater likelihood of division amongst Afrikaners was to be found in the fact that a portion of the Afrikaners continued to retain a concept of apartheid, in spite of the fact that in many cases they accepted the term separate development. This was where the big problem arose, and I am now speaking of 15 years ago, because many people who found themselves in the NP, did not experience this intellectual transition from apartheid to separate development. [Interjections.] That is why right up to the present day they cannot understand what the basis of the policy followed by the NP is, a policy which is indeed a further development of the policy of separate development.

Oh, never!

That is why the policy which the NP follows today is in no respect contrary to the policy of separate development. [Interjections.] And that is why the particular facets of separate development are also still part of the NP’s policy today, in the sense that the development of Black homelands is still a priority, that the consolidation is still taking place and that these units are still being developed for the purpose of giving the people who are housed there the opportunity of increasingly coming into their own right through development. This is still part of the National Party’s policy. [Interjections.]

We have gone a step further than this, however, and arrived at a policy of co-operative coexistence with the realisation that we cannot exist in isolation from one another and that there should be more co-operation between these different groups. But something else has also come into it, and here we are dealing with a fundamental difference. The hon member for Pietersburg has once again made the point that the policy of separate development was in the process of succeeding. He tried to indicate that the percentage of people who were accommodated within or in the immediate vicinity of the Black homelands, was increasing.

And you say it has failed.

From that they have to come to the conclusion that the National Party, in spite of the fact that the policy of separate development was bringing about this great geographic ordering, now decided that it no longer felt like it and then dropped it. [Interjections.] What I cannot understand about the hon members of the Conservative Party, is that they were after all in the ranks of the NP when we were busy with that inner conflict which accompanied the discovery of the fact that the great spatial ordering which we had visualised at one stage, was not going to become a reality, and that in the process we had to adapt our own concepts to the reality.

There is something else which I do not understand about the hon members, and that is how the process of urbanisation works. The hon member for Brakpan said that whereas 36% of Blacks were urbanised at present, the figure for the next year or the following would be 90%. But that is not how it works. It is a gradual process. When the process has started, however, development gains its own momentum, to such an extent that no law can stop it, and as the carrying capacity of the area where the people live reaches saturation point, that process speeds up. That is exactly what happened at approximately the time when that reversal had to take place according to the prediction of 1978, and that decision of the National Party when it conceded that the Blacks would certainly not return to their homelands in increasing numbers, was taken with much agonising amongst the members of the National Party. It was not easy for us to come to that conclusion. But there is a difference between the CP and us. When we came up against the irrefutable facts, we were man enough to say: Then we have to go and take another look at the realities of life and adapt our policy accordingly.

Supposing one is hunting and one is aiming to shoot at a buck standing at a particular spot. But the moment one pulls the trigger, the buck runs away. One then says to oneself: Now the buck is gone; now I am not going to have any biltong. It would be better for one to sling one’s rifle over one’s shoulder and to go and find the buck where it happens to be. If one says to oneself, however, that the buck should be standing there, whether it is standing there or not, and one just goes ahead and shoots, one would be doing exactly what the CP is doing now. [Interjections.] Their children are going to be hungry when they come home in the evening, because they continue to shoot where, according to them, the buck should be. This is the problem. [Interjections.]

The NP is realistic enough to say that even if we have to walk ourselves to death once again to find the buck at the place where it is standing still, we shall do so, and that is why our children are not going to go hungry when we come home. That is the big difference. This is the basis of the difference between our approach and that of the CP, also in regard to this legislation on the repeal of influx control.

If a realistic possibility existed that within the foreseeable future that a reversal in the process of population growth could take place, the effort which is being made and the suffering one causes in the process, still makes sense to a certain extent. When it becomes clear, however, that that ideal cannot be reached with the best possible measures and one changes one’s pattern of thinking, one has to get rid of these measures.

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

No, Sir, unfortunately I have very little time.

The hon members here have referred to conditions at Crossroads and asked if this was an example of orderly squatting. The Government’s policy is orderly urbanisation and the model we are aiming for, is not Crossroads, but Khayelitsha. The former is an example of the impossible conditions which have arisen because we refused to accept that there were in fact people there. We said that people were not allowed there, as a consequence to us they are not there and hence we do not make provision for them. As a result uncontrolled squatting conditions such as those at Crossroads have arisen. Once one has accepted, however, that those people are going to be there whether one likes it or not, one can go and build a Khayelitsha and settle people in conditions of controlled and orderly urbanisation.

I know that it is impossible for us to house all people adequately. That is where the idea stems from that we should provide site and service areas so that people can erect their own little houses there. This may possibly have the appearance of a squatter town, but if one goes and investigates, one will see that that housing is characterised by the fact that the owners, as they are able to afford it, break down those little houses and replace them with adequate housing. Then a well-regulated town comes into existence, while this is completely impossible in an area such as Crossroads, as we have seen.

Therefore the Government’s policy of separate urbanisation is aimed precisely at accommodating the unavoidable urbanisation of people, not only around existing cities, but also in other places and in Black homelands. Through that the inhuman conditions which would exist if one tried to ignore the problem, as happened in Crossroads, are avoided.

Mr Chairman, I shall get back to the hon member for Helderkruin in a moment. But I first want to refer to two other matters.

In the first place I want to address the hon member for Rustenburg. Earlier this afternoon he was in a fairly euphoric state here when he exulted ecstatically about a trifling matter which apparently fell to the lot of his little party yesterday evening. I believe it was at Louis Trichardt, Mr Chairman. The hon member referred to the fact that his little party had achieved a short-lived success in the election of board of management for the high school at Louis Trichardt. I just want this placed on record. [Interjections.]

But do you know what is interesting about this, Sir? What is really interesting and what also stresses the hypocrisy in this place at the moment, is that when the Conservative Party takes over eight out of eleven boards of management in school committees in the Soutpansberg, it is said that we are politicising those school committees. This is then branded as politicising, and it is absolutely unmentionable! Then it is said we are dragging politics into education! [Interjections.] But when the National Party accidently gains control of one little school committee, the hon member for Rustenburg derives the kind of pleasure out of it one does not even want to mention in decent conversation.

Small things amuse small minds!

Precisely! Small things amuse small minds! [Interjections.] But why does the hon member not mention the fact that all eight of the schools in Pietersburg are controlled by the Conservative Party? Why does he not talk about Phalaborwa—the stronghold of the hon the Minister of Manpower—where a town council by-election was held the other day in which the Conservative Party was victorious?

Hear, hear!

Why is he silent about that? He did not say anything about that, but then he came and strutted about here like a young baboon with its tail in the air when his party gained control of one little school committee. [Interjections.]

But you are oversensitive, not so?

No, I am not oversensitive. Oh, Sir, the hon member for Rustenburg cannot frighten a locust. I put it to him that I am not at all oversensitive. I am merely telling him what I think of his sort, and I am doing it with the contempt with which one should do it.

That’s the spirit, Thomas!

Well done, Tom! [Interjections.]

This evening the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning took the liberty, with the self-justification of a Caiaphas, to tell the hon member for Brakpan that he dare not quote from the Bible.

Yes! Disgraceful!

I just want that placed on record too. [Interjections.] I am placing it on record that a Minister of the National Party said to someone else in this House—a former colleague of his: You dare not quote from the Bible.

Just wait, we can see what Hansard says!

Never mind, Chris, after all you change your Hansard!

Caiaphas Heunis!

I just hope that Tom Langley reads what Hansard says!

You change Hansard in any case to suit yourself!

Mr Chairman, I heard precisely what that hon Minister said. Is he now denying that he said it? Let him tell us whether he is denying it. Let him tell us now, before we check up in Hansard. Is that hon Minister denying that he said that? Or did he say it?

Now he is afraid to open his mouth!

Now he is silent! [Interjections.]

Now I am having it placed on record that the hon the Minister is turning his head away and does not want to look up when I address him directly. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Brakpan say that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning changes his Hansard?

Order! What did the hon member for Brakpan say?

Mr Chairman, I said that the hon the Minister changed his Hansard. I can prove it, too.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that allegation.

I withdraw it, Sir. But the hon the Minister knows what I am referring to. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Soutpansberg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, who on earth does the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning think he is to come here like a member of the Sanhedrin and tell another hon member that he dare not quote from the Bible?

[Inaudible.]

Chris, if you are so sure of yourself, ask that a select committee be appointed. I challenge you! [Interjections.]

Order! Normally I do not interfere very frequently when an hon member’s own party members are giving him a bit of a hard time. But hon members of the Conservative Party are now speaking too loudly. The hon member for Soutpansberg is finding it difficult to proceed with his speech.

Tom, what Bill are you talking about now?

Mr Chairman, that hon member wants to know what Bill I am talking about now. I am talking about the same Bill the hon member for Brakpan was talking about when the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning told him he dare not quote from the Bible. That is the Bill I am talking about! [Interjections.] Now I want to point out one thing, Sir. There is something we must try to get away from in this House. Actually I want to say this specifically with regard to my own party. I believe that we must not question one another’s faith. But one thing I can say about hon members of the Conservative Party is that we do not tout religion when we try to get political gain from it. [Interjections.]

Well done, Thomas!

What about Andries and the three sixes? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Helderkruin is well-known for his ability to look for parallels and draw comparisons. I still remember how he referred here in a very complimentary and prophetic way to the Conservative Party and again came up with one of his many comparisons. If I remember correctly, it was on Friday, 18 February 1983, while a private member’s motion of the hon the leader of my party was being discussed. On that occasion the hon member for Helderkruin referred to the Conservative Party as a Mercedes 380 SE. He also said that the NP was like an old rattletrap, chugging along slowly over the stones and the potholes. Perhaps he was trying to be witty at that stage, but three years later it appears that he was prophetic. [Interjections.]

Tom, you are quoting him very badly, you know. [Interjections.]

Oh, Sir, that is the little hon member for Krugersdorp chipping in again. Because the hon member for Krugersdorp is trying to interrupt me, I want to challenge him …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible to refer to hon members in this House as “little hon members”?

Order! Did the hon member do that?

I did not refer to him as “little hon members”; he is only one little member, Sir. [Interjections.]

Then the hon member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon member may proceed.

I want to challenge than hon member now. I challenge the hon member for Krugersdorp to have a public debate with me at a place of his choice in the Soutpansberg—after all he is the so-called guardian MP there—on any point of debate or any aspect of NP policy, and at a time of his choosing. [Interjections.] I challenge the hon member, but I can tell him right now that he does not have the guts to do it. He can choose Messina, Louis Trichardt, Tzaneen, Letsitele, Levubu or anywhere else. [Interjections.]

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

Order! Before the hon member for Krugersdorp asks his question, the hon member for Soutpansberg must withdraw the words “he does not have the guts”, because they are unparliamentary.

I shall withdraw the words, Mr Chairman, but I must admit I never knew they were unparliamentary. I say the hon member will not accept my challenge. But if he wants to do so, he can do so right now. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, is the hon member for Soutpansberg prepared to admit that the hon member for Turffontein, the hon the Deputy Minister of Law and Order, and I have held very successful public meetings in Soutpansberg very recently? [Interjections.]

How many policemen were there?

There were two policemen for every Nat, and the AWB was there too.

Is the hon member not talking about the successful “oeloe-oeloe” meetings which they held there? In any case, I challenge the hon member now. If I hold a meeting at Louis Trichardt, for example, between 500 and 700 people attend that meeting. If my hon leader holds a meeting, approximately 1 500 to 2 000 people attend the meeting. Now I challenge that hon member; and I specifically challenge him to repeat his interpretation there of what I said in this House on 11 March during the debate on my private member’s motion. Then we can test his interpretation or version against mine to see which is the correct one.

I challenge you to quote the hon member for Helderkruin correctly.

Sir, this hon member is the epitome of an MP who runs away from his own constituency and tries to prey on another constituency, because he knows the cities are burning in his own area. [Interjections.]

Order! I am now going to start mentioning names; and I shall start with the hon member for Rustenburg because he is making too many interjections. The hon member for Soutpansberg may proceed.

The hon member for Helderkruin tried to give us a lecture on what a sacred cow is, inter alia. We all know what sacred cows are. We also know what the origin of sacred cows is. But in the dictionary of the NP the sacred cow is the State President’s way of getting away from everything he pretended to support when other Prime Ministers governed this country. [Interjections.] This is his formula to get away from what other people proclaimed and he also supported at some stage or other.

The hon member is now starting to talk about apartheid and separate development. This evening he apparently tried to differentiate between apartheid and separate development. I wonder whether the hon member for Innesdal and the monitor of the NP, the hon member for Randburg, now want to tell us the NP is finished with apartheid, but still clings to separate development. What are they still clinging to? What is dead, and what is alive? [Interjections.] In any case, what is still alive in the NP, reminds me of a carp lying on the sand. The carp looks as though it is stone dead, but suddenly it flaps its tail weakly, and gasps. This is what the NP is like, this is what the Government and the leaders of the NP turned it into.

The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid—unfortunately he has now disappeared from here—said the other day somewhere in the Transvaal that the independent homelands were one of the aspects of the apartheid policy—this policy has been rejected by them—with which they are continuing. I am now asking the hon member for Innesdal, who has said everything must be got rid of, how they can reconcile the separate national states which they are still developing with the pronouncements of the New Left of the party.

As they are sitting there the hon members of the NP—except for those elected after 1983—are the products of separate development. As they are sitting there, not one of them came here on any other political ticket than that of the policy of separate development. This also applies to the hon member for Helderkruin. I am asking him now whether he was elected to Parliament in 1981 on any ticket other than that of separate development.

He says he does not deny that.

He does not deny it. I want to tell him he is here this evening on a counterfeit ticket, because his policy is no longer that of separate development. Is his policy separate development? [Interjections.] The hon member for Helderkruin’s apartheid carp has flapped its tail again, because he said separate development still existed to a great extent. What does the hon member for Randburg say about that?

Yes, that is so.

He also says yes, but is he going to kill it? [Interjections.] If I am correct, and the hon members for Randburg and Helderkruin are on the same frequency, the hon member for Helderkruin has now, apparently for the sake of building up reasonable conservatism in the NP—they link this to power—made another quotable remark which can be quoted somewhere, namely that separate development is still alive. But it will not be linked to this when it suits them to say that the hon member for Randburg said that this would also be eliminated.

At the moment we are experiencing a very interesting spectacle in South Africa. One can measure that interesting spectacle by the series of speeches by the hon members of the NP who spoke in the first Second Reading debate on the Public Safety Amendment Bill, compared with the speeches made during the second Second Reading debate on the same amending Bill.

At the moment we have a show of strength; first are being clenched and voices are being raised. A real show of strength!

And the Defence Force is being called in.

Yes, the Defence Force is being called in, and they are powerful. Yes, this is “one of the steps to the right”, but when will the next “five steps to the left again” be taken? There are already five or six such amending Bills on the Order Paper. The Bill on the National Council is one of them. But we do not know whether we must prepare for an election now or later, and whether this is all part of a build-up in that direction. [Interjections.] But we are not worried; we are ready!

I now come to the hon member for Helderkruin. I feel there is reason to be very worried when one listens to that hon member and other hon members of the NP, as well as what emerges here and there from behind the closed doors of their “oeloe-oeloe” meetings, for example.

You were the one who quoted the secret document here!

Which secret document?

From the NP’s committee meeting.

Look, I have the agendas of the divisional committee of the NP, because they are sent to me. I receive the minutes of the management committee. There the hon member for Krugersdorp said they must break the CP’s necks. [Interjections.] It is forwarded to me. The Ceres constituency held an information conference, and I received the documents. I have also received AB minutes since I left the AB. I received a document on how the AB must be used to soften up the Afrikaners for what was ahead. I have never in my life used any AB information I received when I was a member against anyone anywhere.

I am talking about the divisional committee of the NP!

I am now talking about the AB! (Interjections.)

The hon elected member for the Orange Free State was not a bad person at one stage. He is not a bad person, but unfortunately he did not walk when he knew he should have.

I want to finish off with the hon member for Helderkruin.

When are you going to get to the Bill?

I have been discussing it all along and if that hon Deputy Minister understood the art of debating here, he would know that one was allowed to reply to what was raised in a debate.

It seems to me you do not have a speech, Thomas!

Leon, he hurt you, not so!

Let us put it this way: Do hon members want me to carry on speaking for my entire half hour or do they want me to resume my seat a few minutes before the time? The hon member must tell me. [Interjections.]

Order! The art of debating will also be that the hon member will have to show me how he is going to link up with the Bill. The hon member must now move a little closer to the amending Bill, and I should like to hear how he is going to link his argument to the legislation. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, as you wish.

The hon member for Helderkruin said that in its opposition to the Bill the CP was like a hunter looking for a buck. That hunter will go hungry because he will arrive home that evening without a buck. The hon member said this in consequence of a flight of imagination, in which he came across a buck which was standing there waiting to be shot. In another flight of imagination he wants the buck the CP is aiming at to run away before it can be shot.

When one wants to shoot a buck, one needs a few things. In the first place one needs a buck. In the second place one needs a rifle. Nowadays a person who cannot shoot a buck with his first shot must steer clear of the hunting ground. We owe this not only to the wild life of South Africa, but also to the children of South Africa. I think Tobie Muller wrote the following in one of his poems:

Random shots! [Interjections.]

You must teach Koos to shoot!

One needs a tracker or one must be able to track oneself to find the buck which runs away before one shoots it.

I want to tell the hon member that if we continue on the same track, it will be his children who will go hungry. This party and I are following the road of South Africa, which does not turn aside or deviate. This is the road destined to be followed by a nation of the future. This is the road of South Africa, about which C J Langenhoven wrote a thick book. This is our road, the spoor we are following, and we shall get our buck at the end of it.

All Jurie ever shot was a line!

Our children will not go to bed hungry, but I shall get back in a moment to the heritage the NP wants to leave the children of South Africa.

Influx control is intended to control the flow of sectors of the rural population to the metropolitan areas in South Africa.

The Black sector!

Yes, it is concerned with the Black sector of the population because it involved them for a specific purpose. They were also the social victims of uncontrolled influx to the metropolitan areas, and they were exploited by unscrupulous persons because of their powerlessness which resulted from the slum conditions in which they found themselves in the metropolitan areas.

That is true! That is a fact!

That is a neat point!

Like the Afrikaners in the thirties and forties! [Interjections.]

When will you say something decent about the Whites for a change, Wynand?

Can he tell us of one place where the Whites squatted?

The day he was born the hon member for Randburg was received with great pride in an Afrikaner home.

That is correct!

Insults! That is all one gets from you!

But he is now one of the people who uses Afrikaners when he wants to mention negative examples to support his capitulation arguments. [Interjections.]

What is negative about the Afrikaners?

Tom can only be insulting, that is all.

I am not insulting. The hon member for Randburg brought Afrikanership and Afrikaners into this in an endeavour to undermine my arguments. [Interjections.] Some of those hon members curse their Afrikanership in their haste to get away from their past. [Interjections.] Yes, the whole lot of them as they are sitting there! [Interjections.] The language of the National Party has become the language of the quitters (hensoppers).

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member refer to this side of the House as “the whole lot of them sitting there”? [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member for Soutpansberg refer to the “whole lot of them sitting there”?

I do not think I referred to them in that way, Sir.

You did!

It does not matter, Sir. If I said it I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Soutpansberg may proceed.

What about riffraff! [Interjections.]

Piet, the truth hurts, does it not? [Interjections.]

The NP … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Langlaagte say they are not a bunch, but riff-raff?

There is nothing wrong with saying they are riff-raff. [Interjections.] But if it is unparliamentary, I withdraw it.

Order! If the hon member said that, he must withdraw it, and he has withdrawn it. The hon member for Soutpansberg may proceed.

The language of the NP in this debat is the language of the quitters, the language of the defeatists and the language of the capitulators …

Order! Is the hon member insinuating that hon members on this side of the House are quitters (hensoppers)?

I was talking about the NP …

Order! Hon members of the NP are sitting here. Is the hon member insinuating that the hon members sitting here are quitters? That is my question.

I said they were speaking the language of the quitter. The language of the NP is the language of the quitters, the defeatists and the capitulators, but also the language of the cynically arrogant. [Interjections.] I just want to refer to what the hon member for Springs said. He is one of the “New Nats” and “he is out-Progging the Progs”. [Interjections.]

Who are you talking about?

The hon member for Springs. [Interjections.] He wanted to know what the value of influx control was, and I want to tell him that he owes the Springs he is living in, and the milieu he finds himself in, to separate development and influx control.

Does the hon member know what the shacks looked like that surrounded Pretoria and Johannesburg prior to 1948? Did he see the rubbish, the flies and the garbage, and the absence of health services …

Where people had to live!

… and the misery which this caused the Black people?

Black people! People! Not animals!

Today there are still parts of Johannesburg which are remnants of this, and where one still has examples of this. In addition to the people, one also sees this by the thin dogs and the misery of the animals. [Interjections.] Have they seen this? Has the hon member for Springs ever, in the affluent milieu from which he probably comes, seen what the evils and the fruits of the slum community are?

Cas, you are ashamed of him, not so?

No, I am ashamed of you!

They want to control the influx to and inundation of the developing parts of the South African community, which—as the hon member for Randburg will immediately want to qualify—are Black, by means of guidance and promises.

Tom, you have made better speeches than this one.

It is strange that their chief leader confessed a while ago how he had toppled all the cornerstones of the NP because he was confronted by the realities. But what are the realities of the abolition of influx control? Have they ever been in Haarlem in New York?

No, we live in South Africa, Tom.

Have they ever seen the slum areas of London, Huddersfield and Leeds? [Interjections.] That is uncontrolled influx. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I must say I am disappointed that the hon members of the Official Opposition did not take part in this debate this evening or on an earlier occasion. I shall tell hon members why I feel this way.

We support the Bill!

Yes, I know, but I just want to tell hon members why I am disappointed about it.

The same applies to hon members of the NRP. I am disappointed that they did not participate in this debate either. During the past few debates hon members of the governing Party have very often referred to us, and when we produce a document to prove what the old NP’s standpoint was, we are asked to give the date. We are asked whether we are quoting something that was said 10, 20 or 30 years ago. The hon member Dr Vilonel says the same thing.

Now I just want to say this: What is interesting about present-day politics is on the one hand, for those who are interested in the survival of this Southern land, whether the truths that history has taught us are still valid at the present time. Let me tell the hon member Dr Vilonel that in the early fifties the hon member for Houghton came to Parliament with a set of principles which she has consistently maintained to this day. Hon members of the NRP, as members of the old United Party, have consistently, as a party, stood by the principles they have adopted, throughout the years, in debates here. [Interjections.] These two parties—I do not reproach them for this and they do not reproach themselves either—have throughout the years stuck to the principles they opted for early in life. I take it they were principles to which they—as in my case—had given thorough consideration and which they firmly believed would solve the problems of the survival of their people and the overall problems of Southern Africa.

On the other hand it is interesting that the CP and our colleague in the HNP are still sticking to the principles on the strength of which the old NP came into power in 1948. Now, however, we see the NP, in its desire to get away from those principles—principles which it either chose incorrectly early in life or which it can not longer tolerate today—on the one hand trying to refute Prog arguments and saying they are not siding with the PFP or the NRP and, on the other hand, trying to accuse us of being played out in this day and age and of having principles which are no longer of any importance. That is why I am sorry that the PFP is not again spelling out its old principles for us today. What the NP has given us is the lukewarm, rehashed old debates that were concluded here long ago. [Interjections.] They have not succeeded in really spelling out for us the principles and consequences inherent in this particular Bill in terms of which influx control is being abolished.

I want to come back to the speech of the hon member for Helderkruin who is not here in the House at the moment. The hon member for Helderkruin made a speech here in which he said that 15 years ago he wrote a specific article. If we go back 15 years into the past, that brings us to approximately the year 1971. In 1966 I took part in my first election, and in 1970 my second election was already something of the past. That was an election in which I participated on the strength of the old NP’s principles. Now the hon member for Helderkruin comes along and wants to tell us, from a report of a scientific analysis which he did 15 years ago, what the difference between apartheid and separate development supposedly is. The veritable confusion of tongues we encounter in the NP these days is rooted in the fact that the hon members for Innesdal and Bellville say apartheid is dead. This evening the hon member for Potgietersrus says, as he did a year or two ago in a by-election of his, that they are still sticking to the policy of separate development. We would very much like to know this evening which policy the NP is now sticking to. Is it their policy, as the “New Nats” say, that apartheid is dead? Does that also mean that separate development is dead?

No! [Interjections.]

The hon member says “no”. It is not a matter for me to settle. Hon members must settle it amongst themselves. The interesting questions I want to ask, as a result of that specific argument, is whether the establishment of regional services councils, on which Black people, White people, Coloureds and Indians can be represented, represents separate development. Are the multi-racial executive committees, on which Black people, White people, Coloureds and Indians will be serving, a manifestation of separate development? Will the National Statutory Council be a manifestation of separate development? [Interjections.] Are the joint sittings and joint debates in one multi-racial parliament a manifestation of separate development? Is one undivided South Africa—one nation of White people, Black people, Coloureds and Indians—a manifestation of separate development?

Yes. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Randfontein—and I shall be coming back to him in a moment—still has a problem, because he was one of the 22 people who voted against healthy powersharing. He is still battling to recognise the features of this new-born babe. He does not know whether it is going to be mottled, coloured or black or whether, as my hon colleague behind me has just said, it is going to be pale green. [Interjections.]

Let me say that the hon the Minister is a well-known figure and that he, like the previous hon member for Primrose, Dr Koornhof, will still be given many nicknames. On the strength of the debates we have had about legislation in the recent past I want to call him the hon Minister of White Abdication.

Hear, hear!

This Bill is one of the White abdication measures with which the hon the Minister has come to light. I want to tell the hon the Minister in this House this evening that in the debates we are conducting here we sometimes have our lighter moments and sometimes our more serious moments. This evening, however, with all the correctness I can muster, let me tell the hon the Minister that when I look at him and reflect on the role he is playing in South Africa today, I cannot but quote the words that Cicero used in 63 BC in a debate in the Roman Senate. This is an English translation and I shall therefore quote this translation:

I am saying this to the hon the Minister because we have consistently given him warning, ever since he set food on the path of so-called healthy power-sharing. As far as section 3 of the twelve-point plan is concerned, we also warned him that if he set foot on the road to power-sharing and integration, there would be conflict in South Africa. This evening I want to tell the hon the Minister that this course he has adopted, which he masterminded, will result in unbearable sorrow and conflict in South Africa. [Interjections.] We issue that warning to him in regard to the course that he has started adopting over the past year or two.

With this new tricameral parliament the old system of second readings and third readings has, of course, fallen away. In these debates we are therefore discussing the principle as well as the implementation and consequences of the relevant legislation, and I want to dwell on this aspect for a moment. There is something I want to remind the House about. What are the realities which the founding-fathers of the NP discovered early this century—also as an historic extension of the occupation by the diversity of peoples of Southern Africa? And what realities were discovered in 1948 when Dr Malan countered the policy of racial federation with the policy of apartheid? What was that reality, and does that reality differ from the reality we have in South Africa today? Let me put it in a nutshell. The realities of South Africa are that there is a diversity of “peoples”. I am now using the term “peoples” in inverted commas, because in actual fact many of the Black peoples are comprised of a community of tribes which one could perhaps not equate fully with the Afrikaner people as a people. There are nevertheless a diversity of peoples in Southern Africa.

There is also an ethnic community from the East—the Indians. There is the Coloured people, with its particular composition, which had its origins here in South Africa. Then there is a White people consisting of two main branches—Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking branches—which have also had their history of conflict and clashes and for which a solution was found in Gen Hertzog’s erstwhile two-stream policy.

How did the situation develop? British imperial forces drew boundaries round all these peoples. We must also remember—many foreigners and South Africans remember this—that before the White man brought his authority to South Africa by his presence here, the respective tribes in the area came into conflict with one another and frequently assembled violent, murderous bodies of soldiers against one another.

As far as the Whites’ occupation of Southern Africa and their approach to it are concerned, there were two streams—a conservative stream and a liberal stream. The hon member for Sasolburg also referred to that earlier. The Whites who had political control advocated divergent solutions to the problems. On the one hand there was the liberal idea, according to which the boundaries were drawn by British imperialists and everyone was joined together to form one nation. There was in fact, to a greater or lesser extent, recognition of the existing ethnic diversity. On the other hand there were the conservative Afrikaners whose standpoint is our present-day standpoint. Their contention was that it was not possible to recognise the boundaries drawn by the British—other boundaries had to be drawn. According to them that was specifically the way in which peoples would be granted their freedom. [Interjections.]

Now the NP comes along and says that the policy of separate development, apartheid, and separate freedoms has failed. I want to state this evening that the policy has not failed, but that the leaders who were the heirs of that party failed in the implementation of that policy. [Interjections.] The people who failed were the ones who had to implement that policy. What not only saddens me, but also upsets me a great deal and makes me angry, is the fact that the White voters, particularly those who voted for the NP, have had a grim joke played on them by this Government. The White voters had a macabre joke played on them! As recently as two or three years ago—in fact, only last year—the Government was saying that the solution to this problem lay in the policy of separate development.

In the 1981 election we came to this Parliament. On 24 February 1982 we took a stand when the term “healthy power-sharing” was used. I was one of the members who spoke up. I told the Prime Minister that if he was going to adopt the course of healthy power-sharing with Coloureds and Indians, the eventual outcome would be Black government in South Africa. I told him that neither he nor I knew what that would be like. [Interjections.]

With its salami-policy the Government has gradually brought the people, with one act after another, to the point where we find ourselves today. I want to say this evening that if on that day, 24 February 1982, the Government had come to light with the package we have now, the majority of us would have been sitting there in the Government benches, and if they had had the courage, the small bunch of “New Nats” would have joined the PFP. [Interjections.] The dillema is that the Government did not do so!

The planning involved in pushing the conservative element out of the NP began as far back as the sixties. [Interjections.] I recall, when I was a young student involved in student politics, how even then Prof Piet Cillié launched an attack on the late Dr Verwoerd in Die Burger. Gradually the right-wing element was driven out of the NP. That was done, as it were, to set the table for the liberals, seen in the light of the course they wanted to adopt. Up to this moment this hon Minister still cannot tell this country—I shall be discussing the matter with him further at a later stage—what his political solution is and what his constitutional structures are going to look like. I also want to say that I know that it was very difficult to implement the policy of separate development. It was very difficult. It was no easy task, and when the CP comes into power one day, hon members must not think we will be so foolish as not to realise what a difficult policy it is to implement. [Interjections.] Let me now identify the problems for hon members. Firstly one has that portion of the White population in South Africa who are liberalists and do not care for the continued existence of ethnic groups in South Africa.

The Wynand Malans.

We have encountered that element from the very outset in South Africa. Secondly one has to implement the policy in a hostile world in which a great deal of the philosophic thinking has stopped short with the Second World War, with people not perceiving that the racism or nazism of Hitler cannot be equated with what the late Dr Malan brought into being in South Africa—the fact that specifically on the grounds of our own identity, which is not merely based on culture, but has far wider ramifications, we have needed a policy of separation. The policy of separation, the apartheid policy of the old NP, was therefore not a herrenvolk idea, as the outside world came to know it. [Interjections.]

The next problem was that in South Africa one was dealing with a Third-World component in the population. One was dealing with people who did not have the ability to give substance to an economic structure in a modern society in terms of Western, White norms and standards. I am not a racist when I say that. If I could theoretically place 4 million Israeli’s in Transkei or somewhere else, there would not be an exodus of Israeli’s to this country. Those people would make a success of Transkei. One’s dilemma is that in Southern Africa one has a First-World component on the one hand—with its good and poor qualities—whilst on the other hand there is a Third-World component continually streaming into the White areas. That has caused problems in the implementation of this policy.

After having understood the NP’s policy, after it became clear to me and I had made a choice, with all that knowledge about Southern Africa, Africa and the world as a whole, I became more than ever convinced of the fact that the only policy that could guarantee the survival of my people in South Africa was the policy of separate development. The sin the NP guilty of is not that it has changed. I can understand people and their standpoints changing. [Interjections.] My dilemma, as far as the NP is concerned, is that it has changed, but still tells the electorate that it is the NP, whilst in actual fact the only thing that is left to the NP is its name. [Interjections.] The NP’s about-face is simply astounding.

In this connection I want to quote a few passages. In 1972 I was a member of this House, a year after the hon member for Helderkruin wrote his scientific dissertation. [Interjections.]

At the time no one took any notice of it.

I will always be a Van der Merwe, and that is the only reason why, at times, I am so friendly towards and patient with the hon member. [Interjections.] Mr Blaar Coetzee was Minister of Community Development and of Public Works in those days. That was after the 1970 election, and at the time the old United Party experienced a brief resurgence after the slump and the break between the NP and the HNP. I quote from the Minister’s debate with the United Party at the time (Hansard, 1972, House of Assembly, col 4601):

Then the hon the Minister goes on to say (Hansard, House of Assembly, 1972, col 4601):

I have very often disagreed with that particular hon Minister, but I do not want to disagree with this fundamental viewpoint of his today. In the world in which we are living, and with the situation the Government has created in South Africa, a situation of despondency, depression, concern and uncertainty about the future and our financial circumstances, things are even worse than they were in those years. [Interjections.] There are further passages I should like to quote, but the hon member Mr van Staden is not present at the moment. What have we had recently, however? The hon member for Bellville said that apartheid is dead and that this particular legislation dealt the deathblow to the policy of apartheid. [Interjections.] The hon member for Randburg said more or less the same thing.

Now I want to come to the hon member for Randfontein, however, because I still have a problem understanding how some people can stand up here and, without even blushing, adopt a standpoint to the effect that as far back as the ’seventies the National Party began to feel that the policy was not working and that we would actually have one nation with some kind of power-sharing. [Interjections.] On 16/10/81 the hon member for Randburg wrote a piece that I should now like to quote, in other words something that was not said in the ’seventies. What did he say? I quote:

Yesterday evening, however, the hon member came along here and said that as far back as the ’seventies the National Party felt that the policy would not work, and he mentioned the examples of leasehold and a few other aspects. Here it is a matter of the survival of our people. How can an hon member, who says that as far back as the ’seventies he already felt that they should change, state in writing, with his own signature appended—that of Dr Boy Geldenhuys—that they have not deviated? [Interjections.]

Quote the whole piece.

Oh, man, I do not have time to quote the whole piece. [Interjections.] Did he write that or did he not?

Of course I did.

Let me now quote how he summed up Dr Verwoerd’s future plan for South Africa in the issue of 10 September:

He went on to state:

If that hon member has any integrity left in this political debate in South Africa, he must stand up this evening and tell the people of Randfontein that he has changed his principles. He must not, however, come along here and mislead good National Party supporters—if that is Parliamentary, Mr Chairman—by saying that they still stand by Dr Verwoerd’s principles, whilst in the same breath telling me and other hon members of the Conservative Party that as far back as the ’seventies they abdicated as far as the policy of separate development was concerned. As long as we have political opportunities of this kind in South Africa, we shall not be able to make any progress with the debate. That is why I would be very grateful if one could have a natural split in South Africa between the true liberalists here on my right—the “New Nats”—and the conservatives who would then be able to team up. The hon member for Johannesburg West said the same thing.

What are the consequences of the abolition of this Act? To a greater or lesser extent the abolition of this Act affects every facet of the pattern of life of my people. It does, however, also affect every facet of the pattern of life of all the other peoples in Southern Africa. The first facet that is affected is the political one. I have no doubt whatsoever that if the hon the Minister regards South Africa as one undivided State in which all the groups—minority groups or whatever he wants to call them—are involved in the same constitutional system, with each vote having the same value, it is surely quite natural and logical that the majority of those people will be members of the Third World component. That has been the subject of the debate between us and the UP since the ’forties. How many times have I not sat here in the House when we have debated this specific point with the UP! We won one election after another with our standpoint.

If a bus were suddenly to run this hon Minister down—I would not like to see that happen—there would be a veritable confusion of tongues in the NP. The NP cannot send more than 10% of its supporters to hold a public meeting or a television or radio debate on the fundamental issues involved in NP policy. It is impossible. If there is one town in South Africa which is, in my view, fairly liberal and NP-orientated, it is Stellenbosch. And yet, on 7 June 1986 a report appeared in Die Burger under the heading “Waarheen met eie gebiede: Vrae wat pla op Stellenbosch”, an article which even I could not have done a better job of writing. I think the person who wrote it is an academic who had thought about these matters, found himself to be a member of the NP, but was concerned about South Africa’s future.

It was Piet Marais!

No, do not mention any names. It was not the hon member for Stellenbosch.

The hon the Minister had time to study it and analyse it, and Die Burger allowed him to sit down at his desk in his study and leisurely reply to this. Let me tell the hon the Minister this evening—and this is more or less the friendliest response I shall be making this evening—that I have elicited responses from many NP supporters and that they do not understand anything of the reply to that letter. I must say that I do not understand it either. I do not know whether, somewhere in the back of his mind, the hon the Minister has another plan that he simply has not revealed to South Africa yet.

The hon the Minister says influx control must be abolished, but this is not a simplistic Act. It is part of a series of Acts, involving separation between the respective peoples in Southern Africa, particularly Whites and non-Whites, which have to be abolished. The hon the Minister does not, however, have any alternative for us. The other day the hon member for Jeppe used the striking example of the hon the Minister swinging from one stick like an acrobat in a circus tent and then letting go but not knowing whether there was another stick on the other side. Yet he expects us to vote for this in this House. We do not, however, know where he is taking us. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have now listened to the fifteenth speech on this Bill. It is a fact that hon members of the CP have quantitatively made the longest contribution. I do, however, want to make the overall remark that in analysing those portions of their speeches relevant to the legislation, one finds that they do not justifiably fill one speech.

I should just like to come to the hon member for Rissik for a moment. He quoted a passage from Cicero dating back to 63 BC.

Very fitting.

It would perhaps have been better for him rather to have quoted from the New Testament because I think that would have been more relevant to our thinking today.

I should like to discuss the legislation and not comments made about matters related to the legislation. I do not want to bring my arguments down to a personal level. I should like to debate certain basic points of departure which on members debated about. I should like to debate hon members’ views of a unitary State. Hon members are arguing that with the abolition of influx control we are accepting a unitary State.

Of course.

It is very interesting to hear the hon member say “of course”. Let us look at the facts as they are. The fact of the matter is that in South Africa itself, apart from the national States and the independent States, there are more Black people than all the White people, Coloureds and Asians put together. So if hon members’ arguments about the presence of Black people within the borders of the State relate to a unitary State, that is already a fait accompli. Then influx control has absolutely nothing to do with a unitary State.

But you are acknowledging their citizenship. You are therefore giving them the right to vote.

Mr Chairman, I really would like your co-operation. I did not interrupt one of those hon members when they were delivering their speeches.

Oh, no? That is untrue.

You insulted the hon member for Brakpan.

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

It is nevertheless a very interesting remark that the hon member for Langlaagte made. He says we are making them South African citizens. The fact of the matter is that those people who do not belong to any population group in one of the independent States are South African citizens.

Are you then going to give them the right to vote?

They are South African citizens. Just look at the arrogance of those hon members, Sir. They speak as if we are the only ones who have the right to determine who are citizens and who are not.

Of course we have the right. It is, after all, our country. [Interjections.]

Is it not their country too? [Interjections.] It is an absurd remark that the hon member for Sasolburg has just made. He says we can do so because it is our country.

Of course it is.

With all due respect, does it not also belong to the Black people?

But they do have their own fatherlands, do they not?

Do you see, Sir, what absurd arguments we have to listen to?

You are arguing like a Prog.

Order! Hon members are making a large number of interjections which contribute nothing to the debate and are merely calculated to thwart the hon the Minister in his efforts to make a speech. This cannot be tolerated. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Let us look at the parallel the hon member draws between conditions in Europe, particularly in France, and those in South Africa. The fact of the matter is that the Black people within the borders of South Africa are not foreigners from other States who have come here. They are not, after all, foreigners. They are people who were born within the borders of this country. The hon member also contends that there is a swing to the right in France. The parallel he therefore wants to draw here is one between his own standpoint and those of people in France who are part of this swing to the right. [Interjections.] But that is absolute nonsense, is it not!

Balderdash!

France, that country in which there is a swing to the right, is taking steps against South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon member, however, takes the matter further. What does he say? He says that the presence of Black people in France is the reason why there are two million people unemployed in that country. Does the hon member not know that in European countries, from time to time, there are as many as ten million people who are unemployed—depending on the prevailing economic circumstances in the relevant countries?

All I am asking, Sir—I believe I am entitled to ask this—is that when we debate matters with one another, we should at least do so on the basis of specific, arguable points of departure or standpoints.

Let me go further, however, Sir. Hon members of the Conservative Party contend that this is the first time we are allowing Black people participation in the political life of South Africa.

And without a mandate, too, yes!

Sir, just listen to what the hon member for Jeppe is saying! I want to ask the hon member, however—and I am doing so in all fairness—whether it is not a fact that the first community councils, if I remember correctly, came into being in 1977? Is that not political participation too? And is that not political participation within the borders of South Africa? [Interjections.] What is more, is it not a fact that with regard to the Black people in the country Adv Vorster, whose name is frequently bandied about, said that they could develop to the point of having a system even transcending the autonomy of the local government systems for Whites? I am now asking again whether it is not true that as far back as the ’seventies recognition was given to political participation by Black communities at a higher level than that of White local authorities? [Interjections.] I am just asking, in all fairness, that we should at least have some respect for history and for the facts—that at least!

There is no hon member who can deny that as far back as the ’seventies there was recognition for political participation at the levels I have indicated. [Interjections.] There is something that is even more important, and I should like to refer to that. Under the Government of the late Mr Vorster instructions were given for investigations to be carried out into many of the Acts which are now to be repealed by this Bill.

The Riekert Commission was not appointed by this Government or the present leader of the NP, but by the previous leader of the NP. I am not upbraiding him for that, I am praising him. In 1979 the NP adopted a standpoint about a whole series of Riekert Commission recommendations, and I should briefly like to refer to that aspect. The hon CP members belonged to the NP at the time. Who of them, at that time, opposed the acceptance of the Riekert Commission’s norm for the presence of Black communities, ie that relating to accommodation and jobs?

Just read the White Paper!

The hon member must not ask me to read the White Paper; I read it before he was even aware of it.

I am asking hon members who of them opposed that standpoint. Not one of them opposed it! In fact, they cheerfully went along with it. [Interjections.] On the grounds of the Riekert Commission’s recommendations, a Bill was published for comment in 1980.

[Inaudible.]

No hon member of the CP reacted to that; not one! Even then we realised, did we not, that there had to be some change. [Interjections.] In regard to the compulsory registration of Blacks with labour bureaux, in that year the Government decided, amongst other things, that work-seekers should not be compelled to register themselves and that voluntary registration should be encouraged. Not one of the hon members of the CP, who were members of the NP at the time, objected to that decision; not one of them!

As far as the Black Labour Act, 1964, is concerned, an Act which is only now ceasing to exist, even at that time the Government accepted the fact that certain unnecessary provisions should be deleted. The Government decided at the time that the provisions were of a discriminatory nature on the grounds of references made to race groups and should therefore be deleted. Not one of the hon members of the CP who were then members of the NP lodged any objections and, as hon members will recall, some of them were Ministers at the time.

Well I never!

Let us take a further look at the Riekert Commission’s recommendations concerning the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945.

You are probably also going to quote the twelve-point plan.

Again those hon members did not object to that.

[Inaudible.]

What about the Tomlinson report?

Are you still going to quote from the twelve-point plan?

I just want to tell the hon member for Rissik one thing, and I am not saying this in the spirit in which he normally says things. The hon member for Rissik was chairman of my study group …

A good chairman!

Yes, I concede as much, but he was a silent one, because even at that stage I was responsible for the constitutional changes. That was prior to the advent of the tricameral Parliament in 1982. [Interjections.] They did not, however, question a single standpoint that I expressed there—not once, not on any single occasion! None of the standpoints I am now expressing is a standpoint that I did not express at the time. [Interjections.]

I hoped it would not be necessary to say this, but the hon member for Rissik is the one man in Parliament who admitted to having drawn up an unsigned document aimed at his colleagues. [Interjections.]

Why are you again using smear tactics?

He himself acknowledged it. It is in Hansard. The hon member is free to go and read it.

Those are smear tactics!

No, that document employed smear tactics.

Was there anything in that document that was incorrect?

Yes.

What?

I shall discuss the document with the hon member, but that is not the point under discussion. The point is that the hon member thought fit to publish an anonymous document aimed at a colleague. [Interjections.]

Which colleague?

A document aimed at me and at the State President.

Good heavens! You are my political opponents! You are not my colleagues!

That is very interesting! The hon member is therefore saying that if I am his political opponent, he can publish anonymous documents aimed at me. [Interjections.]

Terrorists are also anonymous.

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

No, Mr Chairman, that hon member may not ask me anything.

All I want to tell hon member …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: After the hon the Minister made these allegations against the hon member for Rissik, the hon the Minister of Finance said “Just like the terrorists.” [Interjections.] The palpable insinuation was that the hon member for Rissik was a member of a terrorist group.

Order! What did the hon the Minister of Finance say?

Mr Chairman, I said: “Terrorists are also anonymous.”

Yes!

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said the hon member for Rissik did something anonymously, and the comparison the hon the Minister has drawn with terrorists, can only apply to the hon member for Rissik. [Interjections.]

Order! I have listened to the hon member’s point of order and also to the hon the Minister’s explanation, and I have decided that the hon the Minister may proceed.

The communists also have a Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. [Interjections.]

I want to examine a second argument put forward by hon members, ie that we acknowledge the permanence of Black people in the cities. This allegation is made as if the acknowledgement of the permanent presence of members of Black communities is something that arose after those hon members left our party. But surely that allegation is not true. In fact, the legislation acknowledging the permanence of Black people in the cities dates back to the year 1945.

The Black people obtained permanence, but not the right to vote!

Why do you not go back to Jan van Riebeeck’s diary?

Then I shall probably have to go back even further, because that hon member even goes back to 63 BC! [Interjections.] That is the way we conduct debates!

My contention is therefore that the fundamental criticism levelled at the Government by hon members is altogether devoid of any substance.

You have forgotten point three of the twelve-point plan!

At the moment I am discussing the legislation on influx control. [Interjections.]

I do, however, want to go further. The hon members sitting there—I was hoping it would not be necessary to conduct a debate in this fashion—bring their Black domestic servants with them to the Cape during the parliamentary session to serve them down here. [Interjections.] Is that no influx? Our logic therefore really does leave us in the lurch. [Interjections.]

I should like to go further …

Order! The hon member Mr Theunissen’s voice is being heard very often.

I am saying the hon the Minister is politically bankrupt.

Order! The hon member must please resume his seat. His voice is being heard too often. I would not like to prohibit interjections, but I shall consider doing so if this goes on. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member made the remark that the country’s security forces were hard at work ensuring the country’s security. What hon members neglect to say, however, is that the security forces contend that whilst they are engaged in action aimed at stabilising our country, we as politicians must take action, on the political front, to introduce permanent stability here. Those same security forces also propagate the philosophy that 80% of the answers to the country’s problems are to be found in the political sphere, not in action taken by the security forces.

That is also what they said in Rhodesia.

The hon member must not take issue with me on that score. He must take issue with the security forces, because that is their standpoint.

What I want to say this evening is that we must stop arguing so superficially with one another. [Interjections.] Let us now weigh up the hon members’ standpoint.

What about section 3?

I shall be coming to section 3 in a moment; the hon member need not be concerned about that.

I am very concerned.

The hon member need not be. We shall protect him. [Interjections.]

We shall see!

We shall protect the hon member; he need not be concerned about that! [Interjections.]

In all fairness I want to clear up the following questions—I am just mentioning this because of its historic importance—about why, when he had a specific responsibility in regard to serving Black communities and investigating the possible linking-up of citizens outside the national States with the governments of those States, the hon member for Lichtenburg neglected to mention, in the report of that investigation, the possibility of Black city States for Black communities within South Africa? Why was this not brought up for consideration? [Interjections.] Why did he do that? It was done because those hon members, when they were members of the governing party, were struggling with precisely the same questions that this Government is now struggling with.

We do not dispute that!

I am glad!

The fact of the matter is that the pattern of Black settlement is as old as the economic history of South Africa. Hon members opposite argue that the abolition of influx control measures is going to change the demographic picture of South Africa.

Yes, of course!

But, Sir, that is not true! I shall prove that to the hon member in practical terms! The hon member for Barberton made the statement that the influx to the cities has only been taking place since 1982—when we supposedly grew slack. What, however, are the facts? The facts are that from 1960 to 1970 the percentages were higher, and at that time the hon member was still in this party!

Yes, but I was not a Minister, was I?

Was the hon member not a member of the NP Government at that time? [Interjections.] It is clear what kind of argument hon members are advancing. They say …

Piet Koornhof was the Minister!

But did the hon member for Barberton ever confront him on that question?

Yes, of course.

What about?

In every group meeting. [Interjections.]

Just note the tenor of the argument: Things were going well while we were there, but after we left, everything was thrown overboard.

Do you want us to reveal what happened in the caucus?

But in this debate I heard from hon members what happened in the caucus. The hon member for Rissik has just spoken about the caucus. Since when has the hon member for Barberton been so sanctimonious? [Interjections.]

And that is being honourable!

Yes, that is being honourable. For the hon member for Barberton it is not honourable to reveal what has been said in the caucus, whilst the hon member for Rissik regards it as an achievement. [Interjections.] That is the kind of ethical code that applies as far as hon members on that side of the House are concerned. [Interjections.]

Let us go further. I want to contend that the overall pattern of urbanisation was laid down over a period of years. Let us acknowledge this once more. I am not saying this with any sense of recrimination, but the hon member for Kuruman will concede that there are also Black people on his farm.

They have no say.

I am referring to their presence; I am not talking about their having any say. That is also the case as far as the hon member for De Aar is concerned. He will not dispute that fact either. [Interjections.] The hon member for Meyerton is also a big businessman, and surely there are many more Black people than White people in his employ.

Yes, but they are kept in check.

Very well, but the fact remains that they are there, and do hon members know why they are there? [Interjections.] The Black people have become urbanised owing to the economic development of South Africa.

It must be done in an orderly fashion.

That is interesting. There is a question I want to put to the hon member. What is the position to the north of Pretoria? Orderly!

The area to the north of Pretoria is a large area, or am I mistaken! [Interjections.]

Order! At this stage I want to ask the hon member for Jeppe to refrain completely from making interjections. [Interjections.] No, I do not want to engage in a verbal exchange with the hon member. [Interjections.]

It is a fact, is it not, and we must keep our historic perspective, because with the discovery of gold and diamonds Black people moved to the mines. Not only did they move to the mines, but they were, in fact, welcomed there. And when the industrial development in our country took place, where were the major manifestations of such development? In the PWV area, of course! [Interjections.]

Now you want to create hundreds more of a similar kind.

Economic considerations drew people or pushed people to those areas. [Interjections.] For their ideal of a White State, are those hon members prepared to send all the Black employees they have back to other areas? The answer to that is “no”, because what happens is that economic realities are at odds with their political philosophy. They are engaged in a flight of fancy. They are trying to make reality unreal. Do hon members know how they are trying to do this? They are doing it, not by setting an example of the non-employment of Black people, but rather by simply saying that those people are not there. They think that if they say that those people are not there, they are not there. They are like people who cannot see a tree, but who say there must be a tree! [Interjections.] The pattern of the urbanisation of the Black communities extends over a period of 40 years or more, and owing to the phenomenal economic development of our country, I am saying this evening that there is an inexorable process of urbanisation taking place. Every population group in this country has been subject to that process of urbanisation. This also applies to the Black communities.

The reasons for urbanisation have not changed or disappeared. The hon member for Kuruman says that I have lost out against reality, but he wants to win in spite of the realities of the situation.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question now?

No, the hon member may do so tomorrow, because I am now dealing with my argument.

The factors giving momentum to the urbanisation of Black people are precisely the same as those promoting the urbanisation of Whites, Coloureds and Asians. We can argue until we are blue in the face, but we cannot deny that truth.

What are the facts? Let us look at the present-day situation in the rural areas, leaving the other population groups out of the picture for the moment. Have the rural areas not become depopulated as far as the Whites are concerned and has this not happened for the same reasons that all people are drawn to the cities? Let us look at what the driving force is.

Are they going to have the right to vote here?

Sir, the hon member for Langlaagte is not concerned about the presence of the Black people, but rather about their right to vote.

Of course I am concerned about the fact that they are going to obtain the right to vote and that they will then be able to dominate the Whites.