Mr Speaker, allow me at the beginning of the debate to thank the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Defence for their efforts to restore peace in South West Africa. These efforts to once again implement plans for peace are very encouraging. We greatly appreciate their contributions towards ensuring that Resolution 435 is implemented and that Namibia’s plans for independence do not come to grief but are implemented down to the last detail.

This is once again proof that violence is not the answer when it comes to political emancipation. The answer is negotiation. Negotiation must come from both sides, but must go hand in hand with understanding and compassion for each other’s standpoints. Our party strongly condemns the violence which has brought about loss of human life during the past two weeks there.

The hon members of the DRP are all singing their swan-song out loud these days to the tune of “My little boat is sinking further”. They are rapidly disappearing from politics. They no longer know the people who voted for them at all. Their actions are politically reprehensible, and are proof of their political bankruptcy. I want to put a question to the hon member for Daljosaphat. Was he so intoxicated last year that the policemen of the Parliamentary Guard Unit had to take his car keys away from him just to prevent him from driving? [Interjections.]

If that is true, that hon member is misleading his voters. He no longer regards their interests and their problems as being of prime importance, but is concerned with his own pleasure. [Interjections.]

I rather want to pay attention to the Appropriation. Shortly before the Easter recess there was a large sigh of relief because the hon the Minister of Finance had only increased GST by 1% to 13%, and not to 15% as was feared earlier by our people. However, the fact is that people are still upset because the public at large is being so heavily taxed. No amount of taxation can be too little for the majority to pay—those people who have nothing to live on. For our people an increase of 1%—from 12% to 13%—in GST is nevertheless a bitter pill to swallow.

South Africa would never have found itself in this economic mess if it were not for apartheid legislation. Apartheid is the death of sports bodies because they are unable to compete internationally. Nevertheless, what worries me the most at the moment, is the falling gold price, which could result in the profits from South Africa’s gold mines being the lowest yet. This situation is cause for concern, not only because of the possible loss in gold exports, but also as a result of the loss of employment opportunities and the effect of that on related industries.

This is a factor to be reckoned with, especially as most inhabitants are dependent on positions on the mines. The fact that some mines could possibly close down, must also not be overlooked. For this reason the dollar price of gold must begin to rise soon so that a considerable adjustment in the index may be confidently expected.

While I am dealing with the mines and talking about the gold price, I must also highlight the cause of our terrible difficulties. Recently, the problem area—the Carletonville-Boksburg incidents—has been thoroughly addressed, but they are not the only culprits. I would now like to refer to that. Because I come from Potchefstroom, pay my tax there and spend my money there, it is only fair that I should now highlight the position with regard to the town council members of Potchefstroom.

I must draw the attention of hon members to this because the members of the CP make conflicting, not to mention confused decisions. What gives me nightmares, however, is the fact that one can never rely on what the present mayor of Potchefstroom says. To make matters worse, he is the person who says people should not believe the Nationalists.

At a founders’ meeting of the district development corporation—I was personally present—councillor Landsberg said the following, according to the minutes of the meeting:

What is strange is that shortly after 26 October 1987, when he was elected mayor for this term they decided that people from other population groups could not use the cinemas, the Andries Potgieter Banquet Hall, the town hall or the De Klerk guest house at the PU for CHE. As a result of that decision, a project of R2 million came to grief. To me, these town councillors seem to be completely confused. Does that not conflict with what he said at the district development meeting?

Furthermore, they then reconsidered the decision to accommodate students from other population groups at the PU and suddenly remembered the norms of Christian education of the university. Where are we heading? Do those hon members who have suddenly become members of the CP, not have fixed principles? That is not all. They cannot touch the cinema at all because it is not town council property. They are terrified of closing the multiracial country club. Neither do they touch the Kenneth MacArthur Sports Stadium, where multiracial sport is practised. However, what worries every inhabitant, is that non-Whites pay a great deal towards the loan on the banquet hall, but are denied the privilege of using it.

Sewerage services have been increased by 100% in Potchefstroom to help shoulder the burden of debt. It is a fact that Blacks are paying for the comfort of the Whites. Does the CP not think that that community is frustrated, while their decision in that regard is reminiscent of the mind of a drunken mouse?

We can attend a function at the Andries Potgieter Banquet Hall, but I personally cannot rent the hall. On two occasions, the hall was refused for the weddings of the daughters of well-to-do Indian men.

I now wonder what their decision would be if I were to hire the hall for a function in my capacity as MP and wanted to invite high-ranking guests. This is why the Government must address this matter urgently and repeal these laws.

Immediately!

I want to discuss cricket. The big general of the CP in Potchefstroom, Prof Ben van den Berg, is hard at work trying to transfer the Western Transvaal cricket headquarters to the Witrand cricket fields. This cricket association is also multiracial.

I think the voters of Potchefstroom were misled on 26 October. They did not indicate there whether or not they supported the CP, but they did indicate that they functioned independently. They would never have gone ahead with these undesirable proposals if the voters had been given timely notice of them. The boycott action is now also threatening to raise its head in this town, which was 150 years old last year and which was to have been recognised as the city of the future.

Although Coloured blood runs thick in the veins of the members of the CP, one is, nevertheless, concerned about the scare stories of the CP which these gentlemen are spreading without respect or understanding. They do not realise what damage they are doing to the population at large and to the economy. They are ruining the economy of the country. This brings me to a standpoint in terms of which they may undoubtedly be described as a remarkable phenomenon. These gentlemen are like Rip van Winkel, who suddenly wakes up after 150 years, and predicts anarchy and destruction. They are still dreaming about a system which worked more than 150 years ago. I find this disturbing and a total political failure.

I trust that the new hon leader of the Government will stick to his guns by making drastic policy changes in order to come to grips with this situation.

I want to refer, however, to the entrepreneur centre which is going to be erected there soon. I trust that the Government will open it to all races and not leave that to the town councils; on the contrary, it will be held against me if I do not touch on this matter, namely the bridging in order to relieve the economic burden. It is already a foregone conclusion that there are not enough Whites to do the work. White and Black must enter into partnership. A form of coexistence will have to be found. This would by no means be integration, because, on the contrary, it is an element of involvement, whereas coexistence comes about voluntarily and through the acceptance of differences between people. That is what the Labour Party is striving for, to attempt to bring about a new South Africa.

The presence of the Labour Party in Parliament for the first five years helped everyone to undergo a transition at the political level. The direction of negotiation politics which we have taken, is undoubtedly a challenge for everyone, even for those who want to say that they can lay claim to the dismantling of apartheid. Those of us in the Labour Party believe that our struggle is going to be extremely difficult and in the attempt to dismantle apartheid, we are still far from throwing in the towel. We will undoubtedly have to resume the struggle each day in the knowledge that we are experiencing a sensitive period which we must approach with optimism and confidence. Before us lies a long period of sacrifice before we ultimately achieve true South Africanship. We must fight for the emancipation of all South Africans, White and Black, with everything at our disposal, so that there can be light at the end of the tunnel—the light which everyone needs for a peaceful existence, the light which will lead us out of the darkness of bitterness and oppression to the freedom which we all long for, for one South Africa.

We welcome the announcement that there is going to be an election. Those of us in the LP are ready to do battle in an election. On the other hand, it is a setback for the hon members of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives, because they are slowly saying farewell and goodbye.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rus Ter Vaal, who has just spoken, apparently has high hopes that the new hon leader-in-chief of the NP will eradicate apartheid now. He need only look at how apartheid is flourishing in Vereeniging. He speaks about elections; then I want to tell him that, if the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP has the courage to take part in that election in Vereeniging, he will come second and he will not be sitting here—neither will he become the State President.

I should like to make a few very serious comments regarding the great uncertainty and confusion which is currently prevailing in South West Africa. This is a very important matter which concerns us greatly and one which also involves Parliament. I want to allege here today that the hon the Minister of Defence is engaged in a cover-up action as regards military events in South West Africa.

The fact which the hon the Minister is trying to cover up is that, as the South African Minister of Defence, he was caught unawares by Swapo. At present, there are numerous alarming rumours that the hon the Minister did not have an effective contingency plan if Swapo were to break the agreement and take to violence. One would have expected it of a responsible Minister of Defence, who should be aware of the value of a communist’s word by this time, to have been prepared for Swapo to deceive him. The least that one would have expected of the hon the Minister of Defence, is that an effective, armed force would be prepared at all times to be able to eliminate Swapo murderers immediately and firmly, with the greatest rapidity, when it became necessary. This apparently did not happen. The mere fact that Swapo launched an incursion into South West Africa supports my statement. The hon the Minister permitted Swapo to deceive him. [Interjections.]

There are numerous reports which prove the hon the Minister was caught unawares. I want to mention only a few to hon members. A policeman said on Sunday: “Ons sal nie weer onverhoeds betrap word nie.” This means that they were actually caught unawares. Somebody said that Swapo …

It was not the Defence Force!

It was not the Defence Force? Now the blame is being laid on the Police by this cowardly hon Minister. Good heavens!

Order! The hon member is to withdraw the word “cowardly”.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw the word “cowardly”.

In further proof somebody said that Swapo’s tracks had been found by accident. Another person said that machine guns had already been removed from armoured vehicles and yet another person said that combat vehicles were still to be off-loaded from trains. It is clear that the hon the Minister had started relaxing in view of conditions of so-called peace which prevailed there. [Interjections.]

There is yet another disturbing factor, however. It is well known that Swapo was supposed to confine itself to the north of the sixteenth parallel. The crucial question is: When did the hon the Minister hear that Swapo was moving toward South West Africa?

Yesterday!

Somebody says yesterday.

In The Weekend Argus of 8 April there is concrete evidence that the Department of Foreign Affairs said:

Gen Geldenhuys of the SA Defence Force warned continuously against Swapo. When did the hon the Minister hear that Swapo was moving toward South West Africa? He must have known this immediately because our intelligence service would have known it and informed him immediately. I do not doubt that at all. It is a fact that the hon the Minister did not take any action against Swapo at that point. The answer lies in the fact that the chaos in South West Africa is the consequence of political blunders.

The hon the Minister of Defence, as the political chief of the SADF, made those political decisions and he has to bear the responsibility for them. I am convinced that the SADF informed the hon the Minister well in advance. I am also convinced that they were prepared to take action against Swapo—and in good time too! The hon the Minister would have done better to listen to his generals.

All indications are that the hon the Minister of Defence was bamboozled by Swapo and caught with his pants down. The hon the Minister is now trying to conceal his embarrassment from South Africa and also from Parliament. He is engaged in a cover-up action to conceal his embarrassment.

[Inaudible.]

I shall get to that. The hon member for Boksburg had better go and do his military service and keep his mouth shut! [Interjections.]

Earlier in the debate the hon member for Turffontein said that, in the days when he had belonged to the SAP, as the Opposition party responsible they had consulted hon Ministers on sensitive matters. According to him, they were informed and armed with the same facts as the Government had at its disposal. We consider that a sound practice. That is why we follow it too. [Interjections.]

Somebody said: “Oh, balls”, but I shall explain this to him. They are not Louis Nel’s! I now want to inform hon members on how the CP, as the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, went about obtaining information from the hon the Minister of Defence on what was going on in the operational area in the present crisis.

I want to mention by the way that my hon colleague, the hon member for Soutpansberg, has already explained to the House during this debate that he requested information from the office of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He had so many disappointments there that he was obliged to say in this House …

Do you believe him?

Yes, I believe him. I do not believe you! The hon member for Soutpansberg was obliged to say that the CP would not humiliate itself again by making enquiries of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

We had the same unpleasant experience with the hon the Minister of Defence. One could probably have expected this because we know how arrogant he can be. I personally approached the hon the Minister’s office early last Thursday, 6 April. I asked whether we could not be informed about the military situation in South West Africa as a matter of urgency. In reply, a note was sent to me that information would be provided on Wednesday evening, that is tomorrow evening.

The CP caucus discussed this serious matter of South West Africa on 6 April and subsequently instructed me to request a representation in writing and most urgently before 12 April. I wrote a letter, dated 6 April, it was delivered to the office of the hon the Minister of Defence by 12 o’clock last Thursday and that letter read as follows:

That is to say tomorrow—

Do hon members know what happened then? I despatched the letter to the Minister’s office and waited. Nothing happened. Now I want to tell hon members that the very responsible attitude of the CP toward the matter emerges from this letter. [Interjections.] We wanted to know what was happening in the operational area so that we could formulate our standpoints here. [Interjections.] We received no information. [Interjections.]

Your hon leader was on television then!

On television?

The hon Minister should go back to Vereeniging and start fighting the election. He is too frightened to fight because he knows he is going to lose.

On Friday morning, 7 April, I was informed by a member of the hon the Minister’s office that information would definitely be furnished on Wednesday evening. I then pointed out to him that correspondence was passing between us. After that, I turned to the hon the State President. On Friday, 7 April, I had a letter delivered to the hon the State President in which I explained the request of the CP caucus for information and appealed to the hon the State President to instruct the hon the Minister of Defence to comply with our fair and just request in the public interest.

Captain Ehlers of the hon the State President’s office informed me today that the hon the State President … [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Defence apparently knows about everything that is going on here, but he did not know what was going on in the Seychelles, in Windhoek, in his own constituency and in Parliament. [Interjections.] Yes, that is correct. Captain Ehlers … [Interjections.]

Order! We cannot continue like this. It cannot be permitted for a speaker not to be able to make himself audible from the podium. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Defence is very much better than I at one thing and that is riding a camel. He beats me easily at that. [Interjections.]

Who is the camel?

The hon the Minister would have done better to ride fewer camels in Egypt and confine himself to his work. Then we would not have been in the trouble in which we have been plunged now. [Interjections.]

I appealed to the hon the State President and Captain Ehlers informed me today that the hon the State President, on receipt of my letter, immediately gave instructions that the hon the Minister of Defence should sort out the matter. Captain Ehlers added that he had already, prior to today, been informed by the office of the hon the Minister of Defence that a letter was on the way to the CP and that the matter had been resolved—which was untrue.

I want to express my appreciation on this occasion toward the hon the State President for the steps he took. Whatever our differences might be, I should like to state that the hon the State President acted impartially and in the public interest in this matter by administering a sharp rap to the knuckles of an hon Minister who apparently cannot do his work properly. [Interjections.]

I now have to give hon members the disturbing information, however, that—aside from confirmation of the information which I had received on Wednesday evening, to which we had objected in particular, because it had taken so long—I have received no intimation from the office of the hon the Minister of Defence. The hon the State President’s office was therefore deceived by that of the hon the Minister of Defence. I want to say this frankly. The office of the hon the Minister of Defence deceived the hon the State President’s office about this matter by saying that it had already been put right. [Interjections.] The matter has not been resolved at all and, as I stand here today, we have received no information. To say the least, the conduct of the hon the Minister of Defence is shocking, arrogant, an insult to Parhament and in contempt of the hon the State President’s authority.

If hon members think that the arrogance of the hon the Minister of Defence ends there, they do not know the half of it. The entire drama arose because the hon Minister did not want to furnish information before Wednesday evening, 12 April. While we were struggling to obtain that information earlier, we were notified yesterday that Wednesday evening’s briefing had been cancelled. We are not even getting it tomorrow evening any longer. We were not told whether Parliament would be informed now or at any future time. No explanations were supplied. This typically arrogant attitude is one of “Who are you? Do what you like.”

And that is broadening democracy!

Yes, that is broadening democracy. I saw fit to inform Parliament of this inexcusable arrogance of the hon the Minister of Defence. By means of this type of conduct he makes co-operation between political parties in Parliament really impossible as far as defence matters are concerned. He takes not the slightest notice of parliamentary etiquette but tramples on traditions and ignores conventions. He even deceives the hon the State President about his parliamentary activities. We find this disgraceful and we think that the time has come for Parliament and the voters of South Africa to take note of this state of affairs.

This means in effect that Parliament and the political parties are uninformed about the war in South West Africa. That is the bottom line. This means further that the hon the Minister carries on in South West Africa and refuses to be accountable to Parliament. We have to stand at the graveside of fallen South Africans, as I had to do the day before yesterday at Stanger, but we are not permitted to know what is happening in the operational area.

This cannot continue. An end must be put to this arrogance in the public interest. I request the hon the State President, with respect, to intervene urgently in this and to rule that Parliament be informed immediately on what is really happening in South West Africa.

Before I resumed my seat, I received a letter from the hon the Minister of Defence. I do not even want to read the entire thing out loud but he says in it that there will be a joint comprehensive briefing on 18 April. This is yet another week later and this has to be connected with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the strong man on whom all fifteen of them depend. I now have to go and listen to the affairs of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

All I have been asking since Thursday is what is happening in the military sphere in the operational area. Why can we not be informed? Why does this have to be postponed? The hon the Minister has not deigned—except for his letter now—even to fulfil his parliamentary duty and to inform me what the position is.

I now say that the CP is the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly and as such has the right to be informed. [Interjections.] We refuse to be treated with contempt in an arrogant way. We insist on being briefed and I repeat my request to the hon the State President that he will inform Parhament on what is going on in the operational area so that we need not wait another ten days.

In conclusion, I insist today, as my hon chief leader did, on action being taken against the hon the Minister of Defence. There is only one fate good enough for him and that is his dismissal from Parliament—the sooner the better. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, without taking lofty flights after listening to the hon member for Overvaal, my predecessor …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: There was a ruling that if speakers pass this way to their seats, they are not to be insulted. I should like to tell you if we do not get an undertaking from the NP that we may freely pass this way without being insulted, we shall walk through the passage on the other side. I will not tolerate insults from these guys. [Interjections.]

Order! That is not a valid point of order, but I appeal to hon members not to interfere with hon members who are returning to their seats, regardless of the party they belong to.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member refer to other hon members of this House as “guys”?

Order! Did the hon member for Overvaal refer to hon members as “guys”?

Only some of them, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it with regard to the other hon members, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! No, the hon member must not play games with the Chair. The hon member must withdraw the word.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I was on the verge of saying that after listening to the hon member who spoke before me I have come to the conclusion that the CP has little to conserve or preserve for posterity. It is said that expansion is life and contraction is death. Only when there is no fear and the head is held high will one do the right things that are needed in order to enhance the nation as a whole.

The economic situation in South Africa is a matter that is not without grave concern. The rand has dropped so much, no one will deny that. It is worth so little because of the politics of the Government. Interest rates have gone up. Young married couples in particular find it extremely difficult to buy homes and flats as they are so expensive. These young people have to live and bring up children apart from having to meet high interest rates. The bank rate is continuing to rise. Is this necessary?

Something is radically wrong somewhere. The Government’s spending programme, as other hon members have indicated, for the various departments is high. There is duplication and quadruplication of services. Again, is this necessary? There is an enormous wastage of public funds in this exercise and we are paying the price for this ideology of separateness. The overall size of Government has to be reduced drastically and more should be done to do away with discrimination.

The economy is in difficulties—I want to emphasise this—for only political reasons. Despite that there is a future here and a good one at that. South Africa could become the lynchpin of development for the whole of Southern Africa.

Black African countries are well aware that South Africa is a potential economic powerhouse and this would be to the benefit of all in this country. The Blacks have no representation in Parliament and they must be given proper representation. We must see to it that they have a voice in Parliament. This is imperative. Serious thinking must go into a federal system of Government for South Africa—a system, of course, without a majority domination or a minority domination. This is feasible and a concerted effort is now necessary to realise this ideal.

While this political factor is given due consideration an organisation for Southern African economic co-operation must be set in motion. This organisation should be conceived along the lines of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation. Details apart, South Africa should forge closer economic association with other states. This country enjoys several advantages which one could use to motivate such an economic union of states. South Africa has attempted such a scheme on more than one occasion—probably with luke-warmness—but could make more endeavour to realise this organisation as advantages are high for all involved. Renewed dynamic effort on the part of South Africa will be all the more significant at present. If this can be achieved then South Africa also could become a technical, financial and industrial hub. This is within our means.

What do we need? Firstly, we need an industrial revolution in South Africa as was the case in South Africa after the First World War—of course that was on a modest scale then; secondly, a long-term economic plan which has to be properly marketed and communicated both within and outside South Africa; thirdly, and more importantly, inspired leadership that could attract foreign investments into South Africa on an unprecedented scale and bold dynamic leadership to come to grips with and break the present political log-jam.

I pray that South Africa will find such a leader who sees all the people of this country as being equal, who is God-given with the strength and vision to accommodate all the people of South Africa as equal citizens and who forges ahead. I am sure if that is done we need not worry about the conservatives on one side or other radicals on the other side. South Africa will then find its place in the sun among the other nations.

Another factor that I wish to address, especially in regard to the non-White areas, is White prejudice and discrimination specifically when it comes to the treatment of non-Whites. I now wish to refer to a parochial issue. Fourteen years ago the Durban Corporation established a need for a link road between the Indian township of Shallcross … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may not stand in the aisle. The hon member for Cavendish may proceed.

… and the Higginson Highway in Chatsworth. Had there been no prejudice this link road would have been realised about 14 years ago. Now that the Durban Corporation has established a need for this link road, neither the Durban Corporation nor the Development Services Board have the funds to develop it. What a tragedy! The link road is an absolute necessity for the development of light industry, small businesses and housing on land in this area that is ideally suited for these projects. I communicated with the Department of Transport to expedite this link road. Unfortunately, they took the reports of the Durban Corporation at face value. Behind the facade there is naked prejudice. I am going to involve the Ministry of Transport, the Provincial Administration and the Durban Corporation again, for what it is worth. They should look at this issue again to expedite the development of this link road so that it may bring the necessary prosperity to this area.

Now I want to spend some time on another matter. Very often we discuss extraordinary issues from this forum so that the common and more important issues go unnoticed. If the various Government departments, provincial departments and local authority departments adopt a colour-blind attitude to human relationships in their day to day dealings, a new era will dawn in South Africa. A change of heart on the part of the personnel in the various departments … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, as far as I could follow, the hon member for Cavendish made a responsible speech. I am sure he got more words per minute on Hansard than I could manage. However, I do not want to react to his speech any further.

*I cannot omit to react briefly, though, to a few things the hon member for Overvaal said in his speech. Firstly, the hon member for Overvaal dragged a matter—this is a feud he is waging with the hon the Minister of Defence—into a Second Reading debate on the Budget while the Vote of the hon the Minister of Defence will come up for discussion next week. With his usual rowdiness he used brutal language here in his completely ill-timed attack on the hon the Minister. Although one could say a great deal more about this, I want to leave it at that.

However, there is another point I want to react to. He attacked the hon leader-in-chief of the NP on the assumption that the hon leader-in-chief would not make himself eligible for re-election in Vereeniging. If the hon leader-in-chief does not make himself eligible for re-election in Vereeniging, he will at least do so for a good reason. [Interjections.]

But what kind of record does the hon member for Overvaal have? In 1982, after he had stormed out of the NP with his customary indignation, he misrepresented those poor voters for a further four years under the wrong banner. When the election arrived he walked backwards all the way from Jeppe to Overvaal so that people would not realise that he was walking away from Jeppe!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon Minister to refer to another hon member as having misrepresented a certain constituency? [Interjections.]

Order! It is in fact permissible in a certain context, and I accept that that is the context in which the hon the Minister used the word. The hon the Minister may proceed.

That is certainly the way I meant it. At the time the hon member was elected as member of the NP and he subsequently fought the NP from that seat, under a banner for which the voters of Jeppe clearly have no time, as was proved four years later. It was in that sense that I meant it. [Interjections.]

Today I want to spend a little time discussing the newest party in our midst, namely the Democratic Party. The question one asks oneself is this: What is one actually dealing with when it comes to this new phenomenon? Another question is this: Who are these democrats in actual fact? The hon leader of the DP saw fit to say that the defunct PFP did not sacrifice a single important principle to be able to establish the DP. All the same old principles of the PFP are therefore still there! This is simply the PFP in another guise. The poor NDM and the IP, which two years ago did not see their way clear to joining the PFP, have simply had to relinquish their differences in the meantime, because they have joined a party that has precisely the same principles as the party which they did not want to join two years ago.

The DP is an interesting phenomenon! Firstly, it has three leaders because they cannot decide which of these three leaders they should really accept. When it comes to such an important matter as who is going to represent them on television, they simply draw lots. They have three leaders. This is an interesting phenomenon because, where there are three persons, they cannot choose. When it came to the election of a parliamentary leader, there were only two persons. Then the choice was suddenly easy. Consequently it is very clear that the problem is not that of choosing between the three persons in charge but between two of those three because, with one of them gone, it was very easy to choose between the other two. If they find it necessary to have three leaders at national level, why could they not simply have made do with two leaders at parliamentary level? Surely the structure is precisely the same.

When it comes to a matter like appearing on television, this party draws lots to see who is going to do it. I want to ask them whether they are also going to draw lots in regard to other important matters. When it comes to the question of their representation in all three Houses of Parliament, are they also going to draw lots to determine what standpoint they are going to adopt? One could elaborate on this theme. [Interjections.] They are going to have a bit of trouble with the issue of their participation in all three Houses in any case. If they do not participate in all three Houses, they are implying that the standpoint of the UDF and the ANC is correct, namely that the other two Houses are in fact out of place there and that they should not be Houses of Parliament. Consequently if they do not participate they are endorsing this standpoint, for surely they can have no other objection than possibly that one.

If they were to participate then the LP and Solidarity are going to find that the DP is meddling in their affairs and is in fact going to become the LP’s opposition. I see the hon member for Addo and the hon deputy leader of the LP attended these functions, and I am just wondering whether they are going to continue to do so if they begin to meet with opposition from the DP. [Interjections.]

There is another interesting phenomenon. We saw that there was no flag at the DP’s founding congress. The joint leader—if that is the correct term to use when there are three—then explained that it had all been a mistake. The hon leader of the Official Opposition would have said it was just a trivial little mistake.

What happened? They instructed a firm to decorate the hall for them. They paid that firm hundreds, probably thousands, of rands to do that fancy decorative work there. This matter is important enough to spend thousands of rands on but they did not take a look to see what those people had done. They walked into the hall—if one is to believe Dr Worrall—and then saw that there was no flag and that there was nowhere to put a flag either. The matter is important enough to spend thousands of rands on but it is not important enough to justify taking a look at what those people had done.

The symbol which the DP has come up with is to my mind a very interesting one. At first I could not make out what it was and I wondered whether it was perhaps something they had cribbed from Sanlam. Bearing in mind the pedigree of the hon leader of the party, however, I thought it was probably not possible that they would crib anything from Sanlam.

I then saw that the people who had designed their logo for them were very modern. They live in the computer age. They saw these little creatures that scamper around on the computer screens and swallow everything up.

†These little “pacman”-like figures have already swallowed the NDP and the IP. They have already swallowed two previous members of Solidarity and they are trying to swallow a previous member of the LP.

The next one we are going to swallow is you!

He says we are next. [Interjections.]

This proves that my theory about symbolism is quite correct because the hon member for Green Point actually admits that we are the next target. These little pacman-like things have another attribute and this is that they swallow but they do not change. They do not grow any bigger. They have swallowed two whole parties and a few Independents and yet they are still the same size. I do not foresee much hope for them. [Interjections.]

My time is running out.

*What I want to say is that the DP has been engaged in the building process for a long time and all we have seen from them are general principles. No one can find fault with these general principles because the NP itself endorses those general principles.

The NP wishes to create a democracy in this country. It is just that we emphasise that we have to make very certain that this democracy does not, as happened elsewhere in Africa, degenerate overnight into a one-party state or into a dictatorship, or even produce an Idi Amin. We say that it must remain a democracy. That is why we must guard against domination. As the hon the leader of the NP said, we want to do away with domination. Where White domination still exists it must also be removed. Consequently, what is the difference in respect of those general principles?

We say that civilised values in this country must be maintained and I am certain the DP has no problem with that, because they say more or less the same. We say that the economic system in this country must be based on free enterprise. We have been saying that for a long time. We have a comprehensive policy of privatisation and deregulation in progress. We have an entire campaign in progress to promote privatisation, deregulation and free entrepreneurship.

In other words, these things which the DP is coming forward with are so vague and so general that they do not really tell us anything. We say that when we create a new system there must be stability and law and order during the process itself, and at the end.

I notice that the DP leader says—and it is also stated in their advertisement—that they will not lend themselves to violence. The hon the leader of the DP said, and I quote:

It is all very well to say that but what I should like …

Do you agree?

Of course we agree. Of course we stand for democracy being practised in a peaceful way. What I should like to see in the DP is that, besides saying all these splendid things, they are going to do something about it. I wonder how much they are going to do about it. If we find ourselves in a situation in which people are being burnt alive and killed, would they be prepared to proclaim a state of emergency? Would they be prepared in principle to support the proclamation of a state of emergency when those events occur? If they can give us that assurance there will indeed probably be at least one minor difference between them and their predecessors, the PFP. Hon members will recall that those same people who now state that they are opposed to violence tried with everything in their power to prevent this Government from taking effective steps when violence broke out in this country by opposing the introduction of a state of emergency.

All this fine talk of the DP up to now will have to be converted into something more substantial before the voters will be able to assess them. We shall give them a little period of grace.

†However, I have a sinking feeling that when the policies of the DP emerge, they will emerge in very much the same form as those of the old PFP. This just shows again that these little pacman figures can gobble up as much as they can but in the end they remain the same. They remain the same in character and in size. Unfortunately, I do not see much hope for the DP.

Mr Chairman, it is interesting to speak in the “Groot Saal”—as many of our people call it—and to listen to how people talk about South Africa. I was born in Cape Town but grew up in Cradock—a town in the midlands of the Karoo.

A great South African writer in 1908 wrote the following:

These words were written, of course, by Olive Schreiner in 1908. Today, 80 years later, we are still debating the same issues without addressing the major issue confronting South Africa.

The major issue confronting us in South Africa is how we are going to build one nation; how we are going to unite South Africa on the African continent.

I have previously stated in this House that I am an African. I originate from the roots of Africa.

*Many people racistically call me a Hottentot. I want to repeat that I did not come to South Africa in a ship. What is important, however, is that we have not discussed these questions in this Parliament. We talk petty politics concerning political parties.

†The restructuring and reforming of political parties is a reflection of the strains we are going through in our society. Even the CP was formed not because of Black people, but because of Coloured people. People of colour are therefore a dominant force in this country. We led to the formation of a White political party amongst the Afrikaners because they say a mixed government will never become a reality in South Africa. [Interjections.]

*I want to put a question to hon members concerning the Great Trek. When Piet Retief died in Dingaan’s kraal how many Brown people stood outside looking after the horses? Did they stand there or did they all of a sudden land there by plane? They were the wagon-leaders of the Voortrekkers.

With whom was the wagon-leader?

He was with them. They were a mixed group when they trekked to the Transvaal. [Interjections.] That is an old story. Here, next to Parliament is a museum—the old Supreme Court. It was the slave lodge for females situated next to the Company’s gardens. As sailors and soldiers frequented the place, the slaves in that lodge here next to Parliament became whiter.

†Because of the shortage of women in those days, the White man bought their freedom from the slave house and married them in the Groote Kerk.

Look at the Marriage Register from 1700 to 1800. Who were the people who got married in the Groote Kerk? Many of them still moved up to the Transvaal!

*If Simon van der Stel was still alive and lived in South Africa today he would have been reclassified a Coloured. Simon van der Stel was the founder of my constituency, Stellenbosch. In today’s language he would have been a Coloured. He was a person of mixed blood who came to South Africa. At that time people used to marry in the East—in Java and Indonesia. Consequently many people who came to South Africa at that time were of mixed blood.

†Integration is a historical fact in South Africa. It is a fact! We are the proof that integration works. Look at the Whites and the Blacks. This is the issue that we must address when it comes to the economy of South Africa. We all work together in the economic field.

*Why do we not kill one another on the farms? Why do we not kill one another in the mines? Why do we not slaughter one another there where we work together in the economy every day? Now, all of a sudden, there will be friction if people were to swim together or live together. That is nonsense! We are forever emphasising the differences which exist between us but I want to emphasise that which we have in common. First of all there is our Christian faith. That is a factor which binds us together in this country. There is no religious strife in this country.

Look at the Muslims in our community. Have they ever called for the Muslims to have their own group area because they want to protect their own identity? Have they ever called for schools to be built for Muslims only? They were brought here as political prisoners as a result of slavery and yet they have succeeded in safeguarding Islam for over 300 years.

Now Afrikanerdom has to be protected by legislation. Is Afrikanerdom so bankrupt spiritually that it needs toilet apartheid to protect it? [Interjections.] Is that Afrikanerdom? Does Afrikanerdom need laws? Is Afrikanerdom so impoverished spiritually that it needs its own homeland? Does the Afrikaner have to build a wall around him when he wants to become the leader in South Africa?

We have said that we want to thank the Government and the leaders of the NP for the freedom struggle in Namibia because that was its role. Its role is that of reconciler and peace-maker because it is a child of Christ. It is its calling because it is a child of the Lord and not a divider of nations.

†That is why we want to come and talk about the future of South Africa. In the few minutes available to me, these are the issues that we must address all along the line.

In the South African scene I have become tired of the economic nonsense that has been spoken. I am not against sanctions because I am pro-Government but look at my own constituency Pniel. It is a little Coloured village that evolved out of the mission stations. Pniel is a Biblical word.

*How do those people make a living? They are involved in the fruit industry. They are involved in the transport of fruit as well as the export of it to the outside world. Some of them go out into the farmer’s orchard to pick and pack his fruit. They even make the cardboard boxes for him. I am now talking about businessmen of colour.

†A million people in the Western Cape are dependent on the fruit industry and half a million work in that industry. If sanctions come, who will give work to these people in the Western Cape? Therefore we cannot talk of a Coloured homeland in the Western Cape.

*We need one another. The economy is so integrated that we cannot disentangle it. I keep asking the CP please to tell me where my homeland as a Brown man is. They must tell me! I do not want the little group areas all over the rest of South Africa! They talk about justice. They must tell me where my great land is where I as a Coloured can settle. When they belonged to the NP they formulated a policy which rejected the idea of a homeland for Coloureds. Now, all of a sudden, it is a new policy that the Coloureds should have their own country. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude with the story of Namibia. Brown soldiers are fighting there. Did the CP tell their electorate that if they win this election only White people will go to Namibia to fight? Did they tell the White people of Namibia that they were going to send back all the Brown soldiers, all the Bushmen? Are all the people of colour going to be kicked out of the Defence Force of South West Africa and are only White people going to defend the country in future? [Interjections.] Does the CP say that? They are such very honest people. Our Parliament is going to be sovereign. Those hon members must watch out lest I become Minister of Defence. [Interjections.] Then I will take sovereign decisions on the Brown soldier. This is the sort of trash which those hon members are talking in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege to follow on the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing who has spoken with great feeling and eloquence here this afternoon. He and I once were co-members of the same political party and I think in most respects we share the same political philosophy. I shall touch on some of the matters he referred to later during the course of my remarks.

I want just briefly to refer to the hon the Minister of Information, who spoke earlier this afternoon and expressed disappointment that all the old principles of the old PFP are still the principles of the DP. There was nothing wrong with the principles of the PFP at all and all that we have done now is to broaden the base together with other people who believe in exactly the same principles. [Interjections.] He ought not to be surprised at that, Sir. Apart from that the hon the Minister tried to make mischief about aspects of the PFP and I must say his performance was about as profound as that of Cliff Saunders, one of his employees. [Interjections.]

I do not want to waste more time on the hon the Minister. I want to come to the debate in question. This is after all a budget debate and it is traditional that we should deal with the overall economic situation against the background of a review of Government policies which influence the economy. The hon the Minister of Finance must perforce sit here and listen not only to economic arguments and criticisms but in the nature of things also to political issues because Parliament is voting funds for the administration of South Africa.

There can be no one in this Parliament who does not recognize that in South Africa, more than in most countries, politics and political attitudes and policies constitute a major factor in relation to our present economic plight. The hon the Minister concedes this when he now acknowledges that the growth rate problem in South Africa could change if we could—to use his words—break the isolation and make political progress.

I suppose that that in itself is some progress because only last year he complained in a special debate on the economic situation that nobody gave adequate credit to the Government and its financial advisors for their diligence and their efforts to protect and improve the economy. At that time he lamented that, in his words: “Considering we are functioning on three out of eight cylinders, we are doing exceptionally well.” When I interjected at the time to enquire why we were functioning on three out of eight cylinders, the reply from those benches was that it was irrelevant. It is, however, very relevant indeed. The hon the Minister must know that basically the South African economy is sound. If it were not for the Government’s racial policies the other five cylinders would be firing as well. He must know that in his heart of hearts.

We must ask ourselves why those five cylinders are not firing. The Chase Manhattan Bank action of a few years ago was not caused by no confidence in our economy per se, but by a basic lack of confidence in our political attitudes in South Africa.

The withdrawal of confidence from South Africa is not a judgement on our economic viability, but one on our political insecurity and instability. The divestment and disinvestment campaigns and the operation of sanctions are not motivated by fear of economic instability per se, but by the effect of political instability on our economy. We are therefore entitled to ask this hon Minister and his Government what they are doing to get the other five cylinders firing. This is his responsibility as a senior and up-and-coming member of this Government, but it is also the responsibility of the new leader-in-chief of the NP.

There has been much talk of this hon Minister and the new “hoofleier” of his party as being agents of reform in South Africa; in fact, there is a certain euphoria about the change of leadership in the NP and the prospect of dramatic changes in Government policy which, I believe, if not totally misplaced, is certainly totally premature.

Since he has assumed the position of “hoofleier” of the NP the hon the Minister of National Education has made two or three speeches around the country which have given rise to some of this euphoria about the changes which may lie ahead in South Africa. Some people have gone overboard and have seen in a few generalised statements cause to hail his views as a breath of fresh air and a sign that South Africa is about to break out of the darkness into the sunlight.

It is.

I am afraid I cannot accept that at this stage. Political commentators and sections of the public, starved of any real sign of a break from the straitjacket of racist apartheid, are now tending to be as gullible about the change in leadership in the NP as they have been in respect of previous changes of Nat Party leadership.

When Mr Vorster took over from Dr Verwoerd, people said that this would bring great change in NP attitudes, that he was more pragmatic, that he liked hitting golf balls rather than looking into crystal balls. There was the “Jolly Johnny” image and people said that that would be a new era.

When the hon the State President, Mr Botha, took over from Mr Vorster, in turn people said he was much more in touch with the reality of our security situation and the need for change, as a result of his defence connections, and would do positive things to try to win over the hearts and minds of people in this country.

The fact is that throughout these peripheral changes the NP has remained committed to the basic racist philosophy from which it started in 1948, that is, separate group identities, and overall White domination. That is the same situation at present.

The fact that you are here is also merely peripheral.

Yes, Sir, I shall get to that too. As a result of all this, the situation in South Africa has continued to deteriorate, notwithstanding changes in leadership, from one state of emergency to another, until we are in the present situation where unrest is rife, hatred, suspicion and mistrust abound, where there is internal division and international isolation as never before, and, worse, our economy functions, according to our own hon Minister of Finance, on three out of eight cylinders.

The hon the Minister of National Education who is the new “hoofleier” of the NP and the hon the Minister of Finance as the apparent number two in the hierarchy must not be allowed to get away with conning the public in the same way as their predecessors. The new “hoofleier” of the NP will lead his party into a general election later this year. I believe that he will try to look enlightened if and when he believes it suits the best interests of the NP. Some will react to this by claiming here is the great reformer South Africa has been waiting for, but the “hoofleier” of the NP must prove this to be the case.

His background shows that he is steeped in NP ideology. He comes from a stable which propagated apartheid and separate development in the 1960s and 1970s in its worst form. He has been nurtured in the necessity for separation, separate amenities, the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act. That is the sort of background from which he comes. We know from our own experience of debates in the House of Assembly that the new “hoofleier” of the NP is committed to group thinking and the protection of group identities, both in the political and social sphere. Through the years he has steadfastly argued against the principle of voluntary association in guiding individuals to their destiny in South Africa.

That is not true!

The hon the Minister says that is not true, but we have had many debates where quite clearly he has said that group identity is vital to the policy of the NP. [Interjections.] If I had more time I could quote from Hansard on the debates which have taken place, also on voluntary association.

The hon the Minister has even talked—he has got to show that he has changed and I hope we will change—in recent weeks of the need for fundamental constitutional changes in South Africa. We will need to know before the election what changes he has in mind.

This we will want to know and the country will want to know. I want to state emphatically here this afternoon that if these constitutional changes are to be based on compulsory protection of group identities and the perpetuation of a tricameral type system for Parliament they will buy us nothing—neither internal peace and stability nor international acceptance.

He has not told us why he believes that fundamental constitutional changes are necessary though, heaven knows, any realistic observer of the South African situation must realise that they are vitally necessary because of the abject failure of the present constitution and the tricameral system. I wonder whether the new “hoofleier” subscribes to that reason.

It is time for the hon gentleman to spell out very clearly what he offers the people of South Africa when he talks about constitutional changes. Will it be a perpetuation of enforced group identity and therefore built-in, apartheid-type race friction, or will it be voluntary association where people can choose with whom they associate at all levels and build a free and open society in South Africa? These are some of the questions which we need to be answered and he must come clean as soon as possible.

There are a number of other issues where we would require enlightenment from the hon gentleman before he leads his party and the Government into a general election. Some would relate to his attitude to the whole question of detention without trial and the incarceration of people as we have evidenced in recent years again for months on end before bringing them to a court and dealing with their release through a court. Is this the sort of situation that we can expect in the future from the new leader of the NP? We would also want him to tell us of course what his attitude is towards the release of Mr Nelson Mandela.

I think another matter in respect to which South Africa would like to hear from him is what he is going to tell young South Africans as to what he offers them. Are they going to continue to be condemned to compulsory military training? Are they going to continue to be condemned to the rigid conscription which disrupts their lives for ever and a day or does he offer something different and something more hopeful—perhaps a phasing out of the conscription process and something better to look forward to for young people?

Perhaps the creation of a stronger Permanent Force is needed to look after South Africa’s defence needs. The hon the Minister replied in typical parrot fashion, which is what we can also expect in the elections, that we are still soft on security. [Interjections.] That is simply NP propaganda tactics.

I am addressing a matter of vital concern to young people around South Africa. Does this hon the Minister’s party offer no better future than that they should forever be condemned to compulsory conscription which disrupts their lives? Is this what the future holds, that young men in South Africa can see no other future than that they are always going to have this tremendous commitment—which they have honoured with great distinction? Is there then no way or suggestion that there can be a move away from that type of commitment which is made compulsory by the State? If the hon the Minister and his party have any sensitivity he must realise that this situation is becoming more and more intolerable to more and more young South Africans—apart from the totally frustrating effect it is having on their ability to contribute to the economic and business life of the country. It is a situation which is driving hundreds of South Africa’s brightest young men out of the country because of its seemingly endless consequences for them in their daily lives.

Among other matters these are the ones which the new “hoofleier” of the NP must answer before a general election if he is to produce any real hope of change in South Africa. Fine words and generalisation and rhetoric are not enough. Is there going to be any change in his attitude to race issues such as I have mentioned and his attitude even now towards the Group Areas Act, to which he has committed himself in the past as well as his attitude towards the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and other legislation? All these are matters which he needs to define and soon at that. If not, I believe the euphoria which is being created around his accession to the leadership of the NP will soon lead to further despair.

Mr Chairman, this afternoon I listened closely to what the hon member for Berea said. If that is the new Democratic Party’s policy, I merely want to say that this afternoon the hon member asked the same old questions that have been asked in the past, and he is in the same groove in which he has been throughout the years that I have been here. They speak about our hon leader-in-chief who must now spell out his policy. It does not seem to me as if he wants to accept the fact that it is possible for us to be engaged in reform and change here in the House.

†I am afraid this hon member does not realise what the realities of South Africa are and that we have an economy in a state of siege and that we have to supply the economy, services, education … [Interjections.]

Order!

Exactly! We have to supply training, jobs and houses for two thirds of our population in this country who are Third World people. Does he realise these realities? It does not look like it. [Interjections.] He is still soft on security. I want to tell him that the young men and women I know are proud to stand up for their country and to serve their country. We are talking here not just because we want to send them to the border voluntarily but because we want to preserve this country of which we are so proud.

*Mr Chairman, economic growth and productivity go hand in hand. A country’s living standards can only be maintained if productive growth takes place. The truth is unfortunately that South Africa is a country with a low productivity rate. If we were to compare South Africa with its overseas trading partners we would see that it had a productivity rate of only 33%.

I want to refer to the recent study document on productivity in South Africa which the President’s Council has made available to us. In my view it would be a good thing if other hon members all studied that document. It is said that what is disappointing is how extremely poor South Africa’s productivity is. They allege that from 1981 to 1987 our people’s standard of living has decreased by 1,7% per annum.

For South Africa to grow and develop, we must have a positive economic growth rate, evidencing a growth rate of between 3% and 5% per annum. Last year we had a growth rate of 3%. Unfortunately, as the hon the Minister spelled out for us, it does not look as if we are going to manage to exceed an economic growth rate of 2% this year. It is important, as I have mentioned, for us to provide job opportunities and housing for all the people in our country, particularly those who do not have any. Ivan Pavin has said:

Today I also want to speak to hon members of the opposition. One cannot always simply criticise. One cannot always simply be destructive, even if one is an opposition member. One must, after all, come to light with constructive criticism too, with something one can listen to, take note of and react to. I should also like to ask the hon member for Overvaal—by the way, he is always so self-important when he stands up here and tells us we never do anything right—what progress he has made with the fund he was to have established to help the workers and businessmen in Boksburg cover the losses they have suffered? Unisa has …

May I reply?

Order! No, the hon member for Overvaal may not reply now.

Unisa has conducted an investigation and determined that Boksburg could suffer losses totalling more than R300 million per annum as a result of the Black purchasing power that has been withdrawn from that town. I should now like to know the extent of those funds at present? Has the hon member for Overvaal begun to make payments to those people yet?

Now I also want to come back to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis. They are always telling us that they collaborate so closely with their members and that there is fantastic co-operation. It has come to my attention that the hon member recently contacted the management committee in Carletonville to tell them how they should implement CP policy there. The member of the management committee said: “Listen, I do not want to talk to that Englishman!” I am just wondering whether that is the general level of co-operation that those hon members have with their people.

The past week-end I found it very interesting to listen to the ceremony marking the establishment of the new DP. As the hon the Minister has mentioned here this afternoon, it struck me just as forcibly how conspicuous our national flag was by its absence on that platform. There was tremendous “razzmatazz”, with wonderful music, tunes and singing, with hands waving about all over the place. They tried to talk themselves into believing what a wonderful future they would be creating for South Africa.

I should like to ask them to look at the ANC’s programme of objectives, because there those people also speak about a “non-racial democracy”. I merely want to ask those hon members who are so fond of speaking to the ANC—apparently the chairman of Idasa is again in Moscow to hold discussions and obtain information—whether they do not realise that those people are pulling the wool over their eyes?

I also just want to refer to the hon leader of the DP in the House of Assembly, Dr Zach de Beer. Hon members know with what ease he became a member of Parliament. I think it was Prof Olivier who gave him his seat, and now he thinks he is going to win the Parktown seat as easily. Today I want to take off my hat to the hon member for Parktown who said he was going to stand in his constituency. He said he was not simply going to give in so that the hon the leader of the DP could step in.

†I would like to congratulate or rather commiserate with the hon member for Sea Point, although he is not here at the moment. I feel so sorry for this poor man because every time they need a leader, they take him off the shelf and dust him off. He then has to participate and do the thing. When they have someone else and they do not need him, they shove him out of the way and say: “Carry on! We now have someone better.”

*I just want to tell that party that throughout the years the NP has remained the same. [Interjections.] Since 1914, when this party came into being, we have always had a party. Today we are still a party and proud of it.

Today I want to speak about something that is very dear to my heart, and that is that we should re-examine the question of daylight-saving time. I feel in my heart of hearts that it would contribute greatly towards increasing productivity in our country. From the earliest times human beings have been governed by the sun, and it is only since they began to be civilised that they started using watches to regulate their days.

It is interesting that when soldiers were recruited to fight against the Boers here in South Africa at the beginning of this century, they found that so many of those soldiers had to be rejected. Let me quote the following from a document:

It was realised that as a result of a lack of sunshine, exercise and proper food, those men could simply not be recruited on a large scale for that force. William Willard, an English builder, specifically made a study and published a pamphlet entitled The Waste of Daylight.

†He suggested that by introducing daylight saving, workers would be able to spend more time in the sunlight either in recreation or to tend their gardens after the normal working day was done. It was only during the First World War that this was very successfully implemented in England.

*South Africa is one of the few countries that has not yet reverted to daylight-saving time. I should like to ask why this is so. Is it because the generally-held view is that South Africa has so much sunlight, in any case, that this is not necessary? Our people do a better job and are more productive, however, if they work in the cool hours of the day. If we were to advance the clock each year by just one hour from 1 October to 30 March, we would start working earlier in the morning and also go home earlier.

Every day when I travel along De Waal Road at approximately 16h30, I see how congested that road is. One of these days we shall have to spend millions of rands on extensions to those roads.

I am thinking that if we could have daylight-saving time and staggered working hours, we would be able to make better use of those roads. They would not be that congested either, nor would we have to spend all that money on them.

In 1981 the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs conducted an investigation specifically to determine whether daylight-saving time would result in any considerable energy-saving. At the time the results were not very positive, and that is why it was not recommended. Times have changed. I think that this could very profitably be implemented today.

Let us look at a few advantages. Office-workers who normally go to work at 08h00, would still begin at 08h00, whereas it would actually be 07h00. At that time of the morning the air is brisk and cool and there is less air-conditioning necessary. In the afternoons they would go home at the same time, but it would actually be an hour earlier, and as I have said, there are many advantages attached to that.

Our Black workers begin working in the morning when it is still dark, in any event, but in the evenings they also go home when it is dark. This would enable them to go home earlier in the afternoons, too, and they would then not run the gauntlet of so much crime. There would be longer hours for recreation and we would be able to save more energy.

In Europe and Australia, where daylight-saving time has been implemented for many years now, there is a definite reduction in traffic and pedestrian accidents.

The farmers could possibly object, but they begin working before the sun comes up, in any case, and they work until the sun goes down. Some people ask whether the large number of illiterate Black people would be able to understand this concept. It works in the Middle East, however, and there there are thousands of illiterates. Why can it not work here?

For so many years we have dug in our heels about extended shopping hours. Now that we have this, we realise what a great advantage it is for all the people in our country. In Israel it was determined, in 1980, that as a result of increased productivity as a result of daylight-saving time, they saved between £500 million and £600 million per annum. During the last World War daylight-saving time was very successfully implemented in our country. In 1942 we used one million fewer bulbs and 50 000 tons less coal in one year. That was in 1942, and I am merely thinking of what the saving could be in our present situation.

In my constituency I have had several requests from our industrialists to please re-examine daylight-saving time, because it is to the advantage of every one of us in this fine country. Let us tackle this new challenge. Let us try it, and if it is successful, as is the case in so many other countries, I am convinced that it could not but be to our advantage and to the advantage of our wonderful country.

Mr Chairman, I am very disappointed and dismayed today at the insensitive speech made by the hon member for Germiston in this House yesterday.

The hon member claims that we are dragging in “apartheid” and condemning it for no valid reason. He spoke of “the simplistic cry of apartheid”. He blamed the hon member for Reservoir Hills for not condemning the discrimination in India. He welcomed him—an hon member born in this country—because his predecessors came from India.

The hon member for Germiston said that the time had come for hon members of the Houses of Representatives and Delegates to be cut down to size—in his words “to bring the truth home to them”. He said: “Doing away with the swearword apartheid is not going to solve the country’s economic problems.” Does he by any chance think that “baasskap” is going to be the solution to our economic problems? He said that countries abroad blamed “apartheid” for all the misery in the economic field. Isn’t it true that countries abroad are not alone in saying this? We also say that “apartheid” is the source of our misery. I doubt whether any right-minded Afrikaans-speaking people would agree with this hon member in this day and age. The hon member will never comprehend why we respect and appreciate an Afrikaner such as the hon Dr Zach de Beer, because he respects us and is fighting hard in defence of our rights.

Many Afrikaners in this Chamber can understand why we are so set against “apartheid”. They understand that we are humiliated by this policy of “apartheid” that that is why we despise it. He says the hon member for Addo spoke of massive amounts of money spent on “apartheid”. I think the hon member for Addo was being conservative in his allegation about the large amounts of money spent on “apartheid”, but it is nonetheless true that that is indeed the case.

The hon member for Germiston’s argument in favour of making “apartheid” acceptable, comes too late, since “apartheid” is on its way out. The provision being made for education and training will lead to the solution to many of the problems of this country. Improved education and training, better known as Black education, offer innumerable advantages. It will lead to sound relations in a multiracial country. The positive attitude engendered by the good progress in the field of Black education will take the place of confrontation and act as a counter to it. It will help in finding a negotiated solution in the political dispensation. Improved education and training is a positive sign for this country. We regard it not only as being in the interests of the Black inhabitants of this country, but also in the interests of the country as a whole.

Our neighbouring countries also benefit from this process of upgrading education. The whole of Southern Africa benefits from it, while productivity and development are increased when skilled labour is promoted and made available to our Black community.

The LP has constantly encouraged the Government in its efforts to assist neighbouring countries in their economic development as well as in the development of mining, export and trade, not only because we see Black labourers and students pouring into this country in search of job opportunities and expertise, but also because of the fact that Africa needs expertise.

Africa needs its industries to be developed. That is why the LP has supported these efforts. Our country has the expertise to find solutions to Africa’s needs. We could teach young men and women the skills of maintaining rolling-stock, locomotives and trucks. Our agriculturists and veterinary surgeons could provide the skills necessary for combating pests, droughts and famine. We are thankful and proud to note that our country has never refused assistance in providing expertise in these fields.

The South African Transport Services are playing a constructive role in stimulating the economic development of our neighbouring states and promoting their imports and exports. Africa desperately needs the foodstuffs and basic raw materials. Our own country also desperately needs trade. We should therefore do everything in our power to provide Africa with trained people. For this reason we welcome the funding of education in our community.

One evening in March 1989 a Black professor had dinner at my home. I talked to her about the development of the economy and about education and informed her about the extent to which we had developed education in this country by very heavy domestic taxation, in spite of her country’s sanctions against us and in spite of the economic pressure on South Africa. I informed her about the measure of co-operation and support we were giving to our neighbouring countries. I also informed her that Black people were the hardest hit by sanctions. She did not denounce me as an “Uncle Tom”, but made the following comment. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, during his speech the hon the Minister of Information referred to the number of leaders and advisors in our party. During the course of his speech I received the following note from a colleague in the House of Assembly:

The hon member for Edenvale declared that the NP had remained the same over the years. Unfortunately that is the problem. The problem is that they are finding it more and more difficult to conceal. They are even using the new hon leader to try to conceal the fact that they have remained the same over the years.

†The DP has arrived and, no matter how much the NP may wish that it will go away and no matter how much they may ridicule it, the DP is here to stay for the simple reason that it is on the side of justice and on the side of the future. [Interjections.]

*It is interesting to read in the newspapers and also to listen to how hon members, particularly those in the Government benches, are carrying on about the DP. I was particularly interested in the hon the leader of the NP’s reaction which clearly showed that he does not yet understand the DP, or what the party represents, at all. According to him the DP is soft on security. He is not here at the moment, but I am prepared to put this to his followers.

Between 1982 and 1989 South Africa’s gross national product increased by an average of 1,9% per annum whereas the population increased by approximately 2,5% per annum.

The gross national product?

Yes, the gross national product.

That is not true.

Those are the figures I have here in front of me. I shall look to see where I found them. They nevertheless come from a source of the hon the Minister’s or from a source in his department. In any event, there has been a net deterioration in the growth rate of this country of approximately 0,5%, 0,6%, and 0,7% during the period mentioned. Is that what he understands under security?

From 1982 to 1989 South Africa has become more isolated to such a degree that companies have been continuously withdrawing from South Africa and from their involvement in the country and at present we have hardly any access to very important technology. Does the hon the leader of the NP call that security?

During the same period terrorist incidents increased from 33 in 1982 to 209 in 1988. Is that what he understands under security?

South Africa has been caught up in pressure from various quarters, which pressure is mercilessly plunging us into growing poverty, and which contains the danger of constant social instability because South Africans are venting their frustrations more and more on the system itself.

South Africa is in a crisis situation and in a crisis there is only one safe harbour, and that is stark reality, the truth. The truth is that we cannot ignore the realities of our situation. The truth is that we cannot ignore the reality of a growing population.

The truth is that we cannot ignore our people’s aspirations. We also cannot ignore the manner in which they try to express these aspirations by way of the organisations to which they belong.

The hon the Minister of Information asked whether we would declare a state of emergency if we deemed it necessary under the circumstances which he had set out. Of course we shall. He need only read our policy programme. We put that point and say that it may be necessary, but we also add that under such circumstances the executive’s actions will be tested in the courts. We shall not act in the same way or on the same base as the Government does at present, namely at its own discretion without anybody having any say in the matter, except on the basis of administrative review. An independent judiciary shall test the merits.

†Security can never be guaranteed by a system of government which attempts to suppress instead of channel the aspirations of its people. Security means far more than just an artificial state of social stability enforced through the use of the instruments of State to keep the people in their place.

*There is only one way in which we can ensure enduring piece, safety and security and that is by facing the truth. The truth is that all the people of our country will have to be included in our planning for the future. We can only do it together.

†Security will only come when all of our people have a stake in the system and for that we need economic growth, for which we need politics in which everybody can participate and can believe. The two are absolutely inseparable. Without confidence in the future of the country we cannot know economic growth. Without a political system fashioned by all South Africans we will not have confidence in the future of the country. We simply can no longer afford to have a situation in which the very South Africans on whom our economic future depends and whom we therefore wish to make our partners in attaining this future, are treated as political enemies.

We cannot move towards a solution with opposite solutions. We have to get involved mutually in planning the future.

*The DP is facing these questions fearlessly. Therefore we shall not hesitate to cross political dividing lines in order to build a new future together. That is also why we do not hesitate to speak to people who are going to form part of our future. When we speak about the future, we speak about the future of all South Africans, and with all South Africans. The stark truth is that these organisations represent millions of South Africans, whether we like it or not.

The DP has committed itself to a political programme which knowingly cuts across all dividing lines and which is aimed at co-operation with everyone who can be persuaded to become involved in building a new nation. We have tremendous confidence in the talents and dedication of South Africans to build this new nation; a new South Africa which will include everybody and which is based on the principles which the hon member for Umlazi described as “vague and empty” and with which he and other members also say they could associate themselves. We are not doing this because we are nice guys, but because it is the only way to ensure a secure community, a community which is governed and administered according to these values and which ensures the security of these values. The values which the DP represents, must be applied and also respected.

The new nation which the DP is striving for, is a wealthy and robust nation in which the constructive energy of all the people of the country is given free rein. It is a nation in which the inherent healthy attitude of the nation builders will act as an emotional basis for harmonious co-operation and interaction. It is a nation in which the energy, also of the Blacks, will be expressed because they will be free to use the opportunities which will be available to everybody. It is a nation in which the White man will also feel safe because he will no longer be the target of Black frustration.

We are not opposing the NP and the Government simply because they are threatening or insulting these values, but because the direction in which they are taking us will not lead us to a future of prosperity, peace and security.

In political terms we are talking about the politics of nation building, the politics of reconciliation and the politics of liberation. There is only one kind of security worth having and that is lasting security which forms an inherent part of a government system in which everybody believes and a nation of which everybody forms part. Security is to be found only in real national accord.

†I briefly want to address an issue raised by the hon the Leader of the House in the House of Delegates. He accused the DP of despising those who take part in the system and challenged me to take the same route as Dr Van Zyl Slabbert and leave Parliament.

Firstly, in leaving, Dr Slabbert said that he wanted to explore different avenues towards a negotiated future and that as the hon leader of the Official Opposition he could not conduct a creative debate with the hon the State President. He never has rejected and to this day still does not reject Parliament as an important arena of power.

Secondly, neither the DP nor any one of its component parts before has ever said that participation in the tricameral Parliament was not a strategically valid political instrument. In fact our programme of action commits us to interaction with all groups including those groups in Parliament who claim to support these aims.

Thirdly, the DP is committed to effectively participating in all representative bodies at all levels of government. We may approach this in different ways. We may go for direct participation or we may work with alliance, coalition or agreement concepts but we are committed to participation.

Fourthly, we have been arguing and sticking to the position, as opposed to other organisations which attack the strategy of participation, that everybody has the right to pursue the avenue which he deems fit in pursuing the goals which we all share, moving us toward this future. Everybody should be judged against the background of his track record and his commitment to really delivering a democratic society. We are committed to breaking down the barriers that divide parliamentary and extra-parliamentary politics. Apart from participating in any body which goes for electoral representation, we will keep on defending the rights of those who participate in these bodies.

*In the short space of time still available to me I want to conclude with another aspect.

The Law Commission’s report on human and group rights has been tabled. I think it is a monumental piece of work. This working group showed a practical as well as an accommodating approach.

The five-phase approach for implementing the report will in all probability not satisfy the dogmatists and the fanatics, but the Government need not be embarrassed in accepting it. It is a recipe for progress. The first phase recommended by the commission in this report, requests a decision by Parliament to support and validate a bill of rights. Our system requires as a prerequisite that the Government commits itself to such a bill. The sooner the Government does this, the better. I want to appeal to the Government to show the courage of doing so. When all is said and done, it is the Government’s own instrument that is making this recommendation. Furthermore, the report contains recommendations which everybody can support, also in terms of the new rhetoric we are hearing from the Government benches.

Today I also want to appeal to all the other political organisations which support a bill of rights in their own manifestos and policies to support this report, its recommendations, and the route is sets out. I challenge, for example, Inkatha, the UDF the ANC and the SACC to react positively to this report. I appeal to them to declare their willingness to consult with the Law Commission, the project team or the chairman, Mr Justice Olivier, on the contents of the draft bill of rights contained in the report. It offers a meeting point for all opposing parties. I am sure that the chairman, Mr Justice Olivier, will welcome these request for consultation—no matter where they come from—and that he will meet such requests.

Consequent upon this report the Government is also faced with a second challenge. That is to address the part which the Law Commission did not consider, namely the consideration of a constitutional system for South Africa which will comply with the Commissioner’s requirements for the bill of rights within the framework of the report which they studied.

I therefore challenge the Government to instruct the Law Commission to investigate the development of constitutional models which will meet the requirements of a bill of rights. If the Government is serious, it will do so and do so now. In any case, it is much better to obtain recommendations from an independent body, or a body which is probably seen as the most important independent body in the South African context, than to play around with models within the context of the President’s Council which will have to come back to the Government within the framework of an instruction from the ruling party in any event.

I appeal to the Government immediately to instruct the Law Commission to undertake this investigation. We shall keep an eye on the Government. I hope that Inkatha, the UDF or the ANC will not precede the Government in reacting positively to the report which was submitted by its own instrument, namely the Law Commission. I suspect I shall be disappointed.

Mr Chairman, a hundred years ago the people of Indian origin, those of mixed race and the Black people of South Africa did not have great perceptions or expectations of political rights. However, these perceptions have developed to a large extent and we have to thank the White people of this country for inculcating those desires in the minds of the Black people. The Dutch Reformed Church and also the liberal Whites have been responsible for impressing on the minds of other human beings that they are human beings and as such are entitled to certain rights and privileges.

This has developed and reached a stage where one cannot keep any group of people in a state of suppression and deny them their political rights. Until all sections of the population have political rights, the perception that the White people have an attitude of superiority will remain. In terms of political science, frustration deepens and resentment soars to a large extent when any group of people feel that the members of the ruling class consider themselves superior because of their race or colour. The Government cannot rule satisfactorily either. This applies not only to the Government of this country but to any government anywhere in the world.

Regrettably, this Government’s attitude has alienated people of colour in this country and White people are divided by ideological differences. Unfortunately this is a split country today. There is no unity in the country. The time has arrived for us not only to reverse the alienation but to bind this country in unity. We need a strong hand to bind the sheaves together and to exemplify the revered motto of this country: Ex Unitate Vires. That strong hand is the Democratic Party of South Africa. The much needed political and economical stability will be instilled by the Democratic Party.

Having said that, I want to come to the Budget proper. In a previous debate in this august Chamber, I urged the Government to control their expenditure. Let us get rid of unnecessary Government expenditure. I concede that we must have expenditure on education; we must have expenditure on health and welfare services; and we must have expenditure on law and order. These are the essential expenditures, not connected with the establishment and maintenance of the tricameral system. The House of Delegates alone is costing the taxpayers something in excess of R6 million per year. That, to my mind, is an absolute, utter waste of taxpayers’ money. [Interjections.]

Shut the House!

I agree. It must be shut.

The presence and participation in this august Chamber of members of colour is ample proof that people of colour are capable of participating in parliamentary affairs in a unitary parliament. What more proof is needed? It is because of discrimination based on colour and creed that two extra chambers had to be created and the Public Service tripled or quadrupled.

When I first came to Parliament, the appropriation was just a fraction below R29 billion. Today we are considering something in excess of R62 billion. This is an increase of more than 100%. Where will we be in another 10 years?

I therefore strongly urge the Government to scrap the tricameral system and create a unitary parliament where capable men like those seated on my left can participate equally, debate matters and assist in the administration of the country’s affairs. [Interjections.]

I can’t hear you.

Somebody says he cannot hear me.

My message to the Government is this: Please, for God’s sake, do not take South Africa down the lane of insolvency. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wish briefly to announce that Dr Kerneels Human, the chairman of the hon the State President’s Economic Advisory Council, was unfortunately killed in a motorcar accident this afternoon and his wife is lying very seriously ill. Our thoughts are with her at this time.

I want to say to the hon member for Camperdown that he is a political rolling stone that is gathering no moss at all. He has changed parties about five times and in the past week he has been a member of Solidarity, he has been an independent and apparently he is now a member of the DP. For that very reason and as I think the time is ripe, it is going to give me a great deal of pleasure this afternoon to deal with the DP.

In an article “Linkses—hulle kom en gaan” in the Beeld of 13 January 1989, Ferdie Greyling referred to no less than 10 different attempts to establish parties to the left of the Government in the past 30 years. All of them have come and gone and all have them have failed to capture the support of the White electorate.

Quoting Prof Hennie Kotze of Stellenbosch University and Prof Willem Kleynhans of Unisa, Mr Greyling comes to the conclusion that these parties have failed because of two basic reasons: Ideological differences among the participants and a lack of leadership.

On 8 April we saw the launch of the DP. I must say that it got off to a very bad start. In the first place through an “oversight”—I question the “oversight”—the South African flag was not flying at a South African political party’s foundation meeting. [Interjections.]

Secondly, they call themselves the DP, of all things, and the first thing they do is to ask one of their potential members—the hon member for Parktown—to stand aside. They did it in a most autocratic gesture and advised him that he must abandon his party’s seat for their leader. [Interjections.]

Bearing in mind the unhappy and unsuccessful record of the past, it is not surprising that the news media, especially the English language Press, have greeted the new party with guarded reserve. The media is certainly not wildly enthusiastic about it. The reason must be obvious to anyone. Why should this attempt succeed when all the others have failed?

The acid test is whether there are ideological differences among the hon members of the DP and whether they have an outstanding leader. The answer to the first question is yes; there are very serious and deeply divergent ideological differences among the members of the DP.

You would like to think that!

I know it. These represent the seeds of internecine strife and I believe they are going to constitute a recipe for political disaster for the participants.

Dries van Heerden in the Sunday Times of 27 November 1987 warned White liberal politicians against what he termed “the dangers of a shotgun political marriage”. The DP is hardly anything more than that.

One must consider the record of the existing MPs who have become the caucus of the new DP. The remnants of the former PFP contain elements of ideological differences that actually prevented the PFP from ever becoming a really effective opposition. The patently liberal thinking of the hon member for Houghton and the ex-NDM members stands in sharp contrast to the staunchly loyal, if somewhat hawkish, views of the hon member for Yeoville. How does one in the same caucus reconcile the commendable approach of the hon member for Yeoville to our security forces, law and order and ANC violence with the protagonists of the End Conscription Campaign also in the midst of the same caucus? Will the hon member for Yeoville now have to condone the hon member for Randburg’s meeting with Joe Slovo of the South African Communist Party last year? How will Dr Denis Worrall and the hon member for Randburg, quite apart from their rivalry for the leadership, reconcile their ideological differences relating to the role of parliamentary and extra-parliamentary organisations and talking to the ANC while they continue with violence? How will the hon member for Reservoir Hills and the co-leader, the hon member for Randburg, get along when they sharply disagree over representation in the tricameral Parliament? Throw in the hon member for Claremont, Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, Jannie Momberg and a pinch of spice and we have a complete recipe for political disaster.

By the way, Dr Worrall had to be drawn by lot to talk on television recently. Will the co-leadership have to draw lots every time one of them has to make a statement of some importance? The DP can gamble with their leadership but the NP will not let them gamble with the future of South Africa.

According to The Argus of 21 November 1988 Dr Worrall assured his supporters that his party’s principles and strategy would not be compromised. He aimed to attract so-called disenchanted Nats. He was therefore originally very strong on group protection and apparently against one man, one vote on a common voters’ roll. What has happened?

The policy document issued, I assume, with the assent and blessing of Dr Worrall and the other leaders, presented at the founding congress of the DP, calls for, and I quote:

It goes on to say that the DP favours a voting system of proportional representation and, as we know, in such system parties are accorded seats in Parliament according to the percentage of support they get from voters.

The Independents have tamely capitulated to the PFP’s policy. They will not attract Nats in this fashion. The political result will be a Black majority rule government with minority groups in the country reduced to token representation, if they are lucky. The DP must come clean, and I challenge them today to do that. They must get up and state very loudly where they stand, because they have been ducking the issue all the time. They must get up and say that their policy is one man, one vote on a common voters’ roll. They must get up and say it. I want to warn South Africans about the DP. I am certain the White electorate will not be fooled.

You are a racist!

I am not a racist. High-sounding ideals are one thing, but the practicalities and the hard experience of Africa are quite another. The DP is not anything more than a revamped PFP. We know what happened to the last turbo-charged model. It was buried on 7 April. Change in this country must be effected through Parliament. If this does not happen and change is effected through extra-parliamentary means, the scene will be one of anarchy, chaos and revolution. The NP is not prepared to allow that to happen to this country. That is why we appreciate the stand that has been taken by the LP and the parties in the House of Delegates to participate in Parliament, despite all its warts and its inadequacies. We will change the system constitutionally, together, because we have the will to do it.

That is where Dr Van Zyl Slabbert was wrong—to ditch both Parliament and the PFP. However, despite serious ideological differences, the PFP old guard now appoints him as an advisor to the DP.

Ideological differences are going to tear the DP apart. Their naïve one man, one vote principle on a common roll is going to sink the DP in the elections that are coming up. So much for their ideological difference: What about the other criteria? What about leadership?

Ever since the DP was mooted this thorny issue keeps on raising its ugly head—or should I say three heads? Mr Patrick Cull of The Herald—who can hardly be described as a NP fan—produced an article in that newspaper on 26 November under the title “Unity Nightmare”. In dealing with Dr Worrall’s IP he said:

He then speculated about leadership left of Government and suggested Dr Van Zyl Slabbert or perhaps even Dr Anton Rupert. However, he concluded with this very important statement:

He is right. It was hoped by the sponsors of the new party that perhaps Dr Wimpie de Klerk might be the man to lead them. What is significant is not so much the progressives’ misgivings about Dr Wimpie de Klerk but rather Dr De Klerk’s own misgivings about leading the party. Dr Worrall and the hon member for Randburg decided that none of the present leaders should lead the party. They wanted Dr Wimpie de Klerk. The PFP wanted Dr Zach de Beer and it looks like he is very keen for the job. They all want that job—the main job. None of them is unselfish enough to stand down.

As far as I am concerned, there is no charismatic leadership among the DP and they are going to find that that is going to sink them as well.

For clear-thinking South Africans, oil and water do not mix. There is only one party that represents the interests of the great majority of English and Afrikaans speaking voters. The NP, under its dynamic new leader, is ready to continue its reform and to fulfil its role as the power for peace in South Africa and we will do just that. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to draw the attention of the hon member for Bishop Lavis very gently to the fact that he should concentrate somewhat on staying at home and gadding about less because a meeting was held in his constituency last night. About 80 people attended that meeting and one of these days quite a large number of branches are to be formed in his constituency.

It is common knowledge that financial boycotts have so far had the greatest disrupting effect on the South African economy. At present we are also in a position in which the South African economy has little left to satisfy its domestic requirements after payment of its premiums to overseas bankers. This results in its being impossible to finance reform in a proper way. This is the reason for indications from the Government that it intends using the returns from privatisation to pay its foreign debt. I regard this as a short-term solution against which I want to issue a warning that it will hold no long-term benefit of any size for the South economy.

The late Dr Du Plessis once warned that the Government should not sell the family silver. I agree with him wholeheartedly. I want to emphasise, however, that I realise the Government is dealing with a specific dilemma in this respect that it can take up hardly any loans overseas. To ask therefore that the family silver not be sold may be seen as a request that the obvious alternative solution must not be used.

The question therefore arises how the Government is to address its dilemma without harming the economy in the long term. Considering this, I see that the Government must fulfil its role as follows: The Government will simply have to sound political notes more loudly. If the NP relinquishes certain political obstinacy and standpoints, deletes laws which cause people in this country so much heartache and does this in style, as it did in South West Africa, the world will change its attitude toward South Africa. This will enable us to take up loans again. It is possible. If this worked in South West, it can work in South Africa too. We just have to do it in style.

Another solution is to draw from those who have plenty and to give to the lesser privileged. This is not a popular move. I see that the hon the Minister is frowning. We have to encourage certain Whites in South Africa to make sacrifices, however. Countless Whites in the country have too much and consequently live far too lavishly—that at the expense of numerous others who have nothing.

If no notice is taken of these methods, I do not know where we will land in future. The sacrifices which I am calling for are not sacrifices which I regard as excessive. If the haves in South Africa are not prepared to make sacrifices today and the economy later reaches a phase in which it drags them down with it, they will be compelled to make sacrifices. That is what worries me most at present.

The Government boasts daily about reform, but the oppressed say that they see no reform. They do not feel reform, because they are even worse off financially and therefore as far as security is concerned. Per capita the individual is very much poorer today. The real value of money—the hon the Minister knows this, it is a world tendency—is continuing its downward slide. My greatest problem with the current Budget is that it does not narrow or address the gap between the haves and the have-nots. This is the greatest dilemma I experience regarding the current Budget. I see a deficiency in it which does not extinguish the imbalance in the case mentioned.

We must seek ways and means by which, through constructive redistribution—I do not mean in a destabilising but a stimulating manner—we can find a way to rectify this imbalance.

Hon members are aware that the word “peace” is now linked to the concepts of satisfaction and confidence. We have to overcome the conviction of the masses of the Black community that a communistic system is the only solution with the democratic steps which we take. We must do away with legislation which places restrictions on those of colour and prevents them from obtaining a greater share in the economy. The NP has sometimes sabotaged its tricameral system itself. Mistrust and dissatisfaction on the side of the less privileged have permanently damaged relations between groups and that because the NP has conducted its politics until recently so that it seems that those of colour have arrived in Parliament together with the master. We are serious about making a different South Africa of this country together with other hon members. Nevertheless we do not wish to have seats in Parliament as subordinates.

Let us take the question of unskilled labour and those with few skills. How long has the LP been appealing for the fixing of a minimum wage or wages above the breadline? Because the Government is afraid to make such demands of its voters, the dominant group of employers, nothing has been done about that matter. Look at the position of poor farm workers for instance. When are they to be protected by legislation? Is the Government afraid of the Afrikaner community? The LP is an important majority party in Parliament and that is why notice must be taken of its standpoints. I now ask how the NP sees the role of the LP.

Let us next take a look at the creation of job opportunities. It was the question of the creation of employment which played a phenomenal role in survival of the NP in the past. Now the NP is emasculating the LP in this sphere. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, on the principle that one should give credit where it is due I would firstly like to take this opportunity to give the Government four commendations with regard to recent events in SWA/Namibia.

Firstly, I must commend them for having reached the various agreements and protocols which have facilitated the ending of the war in Angola and the implementation of Resolution 435.

This time a year ago when we were still deeply engaged in the Angolan war, I personally would not have dared to hope that by now it would be over and we would be in the process of the implementation of Resolution 435.

Secondly, I must commend the Government and the Defence Force for adhering strictly to the terms of the agreements until Swapo tried to pull a fast one. South Africa’s battered international reputation has gained a great deal in recent weeks as a direct result of that adherence.

Thirdly, while also regretting the lack of a parliamentary briefing on the present crisis, I wish also to commend the defence and security forces for their apparently prompt and effective reaction to the recent Swapo incursions.

Fourthly, since the latest confrontations took place after 1 April, I must commend the Government further for reacting in full co-operation with the international community to put Resolution 435 on track.

Having said that, it is also necessary to ask what are the main lessons to be learnt from the experience in South West Africa/Namibia and Angola during the past 15 to 20 years. [Interjections.]

Surely the first major lesson to be learnt is that there is no profit in being involved in foreign civil wars. We South Africans have paid a terrible price for our involvement in Angola. Firstly, we have spent billions of rands unproductively. Secondly, we have been drawn into a process of escalation since 1975. Thirdly, we have lost many lives and many of our young people have been grievously injured. [Interjections.]

The second major lesson to be learnt is that co-operation with the international community pays off. In the modern world no country can isolate itself in opposition to the rest of the world. In open, honest and frank negotiations in co-operation with the most powerful countries of the world we can gain a great deal in terms of international goodwill and active assistance in the resolution of our own and of regional problems.

Particularly now that a historic détente seems to have developed between the super powers whereby the USA and the Soviet Union in particular are co-operating to end regional conflicts, now is the time for the RSA to make maximum use of the international community to help establish regional peace and an internal negotiated settlement.

It seems to me that there is a real chance now that the ANC could be deflected from the armed struggle and be persuaded to take part in a Great Indaba or national convention. This would be possible if the West and the USSR were to act in concert and help bring the ANC to the negotiation table. [Interjections.] In such a scenario I believe South Africa could obtain the lifting of international sanctions as a quid pro quo for legitimising a peaceful ANC and entering into real negotiations for an internationally acceptable new inclusive non-apartheid constitution.

I believe this scenario should be the overriding objective of our international diplomacy during the next year or two.

This brings me to say that it seems to me that an invaluable window of opportunity has opened up for South Africa at the present time. Through that window shines the light of a potential golden era for South Africa in which we could re-enter the world community as a respected, peaceful and powerful democracy with a strong, surging economy, in short as a winning nation. To do so requires some fundamental changes of direction, however, chiefly the eradication of the race doctrine from our constitutional and political life. It is with this great need and challenge in mind that the DP has been brought into existence.

It is entirely predictable that the NP propagandists, such as the hon member for Umlazi, and other speakers such as the hon member for King William’s Town, have attempted to belittle the DP as merely a later version of the PFP, representing nothing really new in the political life of South Africa. This is naturally what the NP would like to think about the DP, but they are fundamentally wrong in that assessment. The hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry was wrong about the symbolism. Our logo is not a pacman; it is the sun rising over the sea, a sign of hope for a new dawn in South Africa.

The DP is fundamentally different from the PFP in two vital respects:

Firstly, the DP represents the achievement of a broad-based unity of the democratic opposition which the PFP was not able to achieve. For 30 years since 1959 the democratically minded opposition has been divided between the Progs, the UP, the NRP and recently also the IP and the NDM. Those 30 years of division were marked by bitterness, acrimony and mutual suspicion reaching even into family splits which bedevilled the effectiveness of the democratic forces and allowed the NP to gain a great deal of electoral support for the wrong reasons.

The deep relief and the positive camaraderie which is flowing from this new unity represented by the DP must not be underestimated.

From this unity will flow a strength which was unfortunately denied to the PFP in the years of its existence. This broader unity was tested at the last election. It was tested and it showed its great potential in three constituencies—Randburg, Helderberg and Stellenbosch—where a unified democratic opposition to the NP was fielded. Later this year it will be tested throughout the land.

*The second big difference between the DP and the former PFP is the support of a fundamental number of leading figures and young people from the Afrikaner community. To be honest, I must admit that the PFP grew from the ranks of the English-speaking community, and despite our endeavour to change and extend the overly English image of the PFP, we did not manage to do so.

In contrast, the DP was founded by a historic alliance of both Afrikaner- and English-speaking democrats.

The hon member, the propagandist from Umlazi, can say what he likes, but he will never be able to pooh-pooh the importance of many of our founding leaders. The fact remains that important and leading Afrikaners who did not see their way clear to supporting the old PFP at all, have now found a political home in the DP. This is a new phenomenon.

People such as the former managing director of Nasionale Pers, the former editor of Rapport and brother of the NP’s leader-in-chief, the former vice-chairman of the SABC and other prominent academics, the present chairmen of the Transvaal Rugby Union and the Boland Athletics Union, the former heads of the Air Force and a Defence Force training centre, former MPs from the NP, the UP and the NRP, and former ambassadors are all included in this number. These are men of stature who have turned their backs on the NP.

The hon member for Umlazi can try to dismiss this phenomenon as being merely a group of defecting intellectuals—I think that was what he said—but when a party starts losing its intellectuals and its young people, as has happened in the NP over the past few years—that is the NP’s loss—it is going downhill.

The same pattern evidenced itself in the old United Party during the sixties and the seventies. It did not cost the UP too many seats initially, but those losses sounded the death-knell for the party. Where the thinkers and the young people lead, the community eventually follows.

†Just like the old United Party, the NP has lost its leading intellectuals and it has no clear policy, while at the same time it is being challenged strongly on two fronts by two clear alternatives. The NP has become wishy-washy. It may take time for the squeeze play now unleashed on the NP to do its work and to be reflected in seats in Parliament. I will not make wild predictions, but I will say that the mills of politics grind slow, yet exceedingly surely.

The NP cannot have power and also share it. It cannot keep race discrimination and also reform it at the same time. It cannot persuade the world to accept race classification as the basis for the constitutional future of South Africa. That means that the NP and indeed all South Africans—particularly Whites, who now hold power—must sooner or later confront the clear and fundamental choice of political direction which is now offered, in a clarifying of the political choices available, by the CP on one hand and the DP on the other. By following the DP’s policy and programme I believe South Africa can still take its place as the proudest, strongest and most respected leading nation on the continent of Africa.

Mr Chairman, it is an honour and a privilege to participate in this debate. I take pleasure in following the hon member for Constantia. Owing to the time factor, I hope he will pardon me if I do not react to any point which he raised.

Firstly, I want to congratulate the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Defence and their competent negotiating team on what they have achieved for us in the north of Namibia. The cease-fire and the withdrawal of Swapo forces which have been brought about there are a source of great comfort to us. We believe that the implementation of Resolution 435 may now be continued with to the benefit and prosperity of Namibia.

Mr Chairman, as regards the Budget under discussion, I want to shoot an arrow in the air here this afternoon. I want to propose that the hon the Minister seriously consider the institution of a welfare-orientated State lottery and the reintroduction of bonus bonds in order to supplement shortfalls in the Treasury.

A great deal of sanctimonious fuss is made that the Republic of South Africa, owing to its Calvinistic, religious and Christian convictions, is opposed to all forms of gambling. If that is true, why is horse racing legal in South Africa? Why is it permitted?

It takes skill!

People who are denied the right to gamble within the country pour over the borders of the so-called homelands at weekends to gamble at the “sun cities” or the “sin cities”. One sees them at the Thaba Nchu Sun, the Amatola Sun and the Marula Sun which is practically on the threshold of Pretoria. One also sees them at the most recent addition to this hotel group, the Fish River Sun.

Who does one see there?

One asks oneself who one will see when one arrives there. One sees the same person, who acts as a spiritual Calvinist leader on Sundays and has actually crept in there under the cloak of darkness, standing in front of the one-armed bandit. One sees him at the gambling tables. Why do we have to pretend to be what we really are not?

The irony of legalised horse racing is that the profits which are taken there are deposited in the accounts of private people … [Interjections] … while the profits from a legalised, welfare-orientated State lottery would supplement the Treasury. If this were done, I believe we would be able to supplement the shortfalls in the Treasury.

Last week in the budget debate of the Free State Provincial Committee the hon member for Randfontein presented the policy of partition, as it is advocated by his party, to us as the policy which would provide a solution to the South African question. We on this side of the House want to reject partition with the utmost contempt. Partition will not work in South Africa and it has not worked elsewhere in the world either. It offers no solutions to South African problems because it will only incite and aggravate conflict between people, groups and individuals.

South Africa is a wonderful country with a rich variety of plants, animals, natural resources and people. Aided by this diversity of talents and abilities we can complement and strengthen one another in this beautiful country but then we first have to realise that we are mutually dependent upon one another. The time has come now to talk to one another. This will succeed if we accept that many mistakes were made in the past and that we should not start looking for differences now.

We of the LP believe that as South Africans who inhabit a common area we have common interests. Aside from the fact that we have to realise our interdependence, the argument and internecine warfare among people, communities and groups must also be stopped now. The intolerance which CP supporters in particular show toward other Afrikaners as well as, to a greater degree, toward people of colour is unacceptable to us and shortsighted. It is not only a sign of immaturity but also the recipe for self-destruction. The political vendettas and petty action carried out by protagonists of partition and racial discrimination on the grounds of colour are out of step with the demands of the future.

Secondly, I want to ask this hon gentleman whether we in South Africa can afford to reject the free-market system, which led to the economic success of the West and the reconstruction of Japan and West Germany after the Second World War. The LP and I believe that private initiative should be given the opportunity to operate with the utmost possible freedom. In so far as we want to retain the free-market system, we must ensure that it really is a free-market system.

There can be no question of restricting the right of people, merely on the basis of their colour, to trading or selling their labour in one area or another. Such restrictions as have been instituted by certain CP councillors and advocates of partition and racial separation are in direct conflict with the free-market system.

We on this side of the House welcome the proposals which have been submitted by the Law Commission to the hon the Minister of Justice and support the recommendations contained in that report which deal with the bill of rights. Up to the present very little has been said on the recommendations contained in the bill of rights. I want to make so bold as to hold out a few of the recommendations to hon members this afternoon.

The proposed bill provides for so-called affirmative action. According to this article all people have the right to human dignity and equality before the law. This will mean that in applying this bill of rights there will be no discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, sex, creed, ethnicity, social standing, birth or political convictions.

Free association or dissociation is also addressed in this bill of rights. The right of a person to associate with or dissociate himself in a formal or informal way from others who have a similar choice in the matter of churches, schools, universities, clubs, various forms of recreation, political parties and so on, is guaranteed here.

Thirdly, the proposed bill is unambiguously in favour of the free enterprise system and private ownership of property.

Fourthly, provision is made for the protection of cultural, religious and language rights. It is the right of every individual that there should be no discrimination against him owing to his culture, religion or language. In the same way nobody may be privileged on the basis of his culture, language or religion.

Permit me in conclusion to present hon members with the following thought. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with those who congratulated the DP today, and I should like to ask those hon members on this side of the House who have asked what is going to happen to me, to be patient until my membership is decided on at the meeting of the council of that party. [Interjections.]

It is my sincere hope that that party will unite within its ranks democrats to the left of the Government so that White South African democrats—they are people who are short of hope for the future—will again have hope that there will indeed be a future in this country, and that there will not—as this Government suggests—be a reality of an apparently never-ending road of conflict before us.

Today in the House of Assembly I asked the hon the Minister of Defence a question relating to the showing of a video film to young national servicemen near Mamelodi in January. I asked the hon the Minister whether the film existed, whether the film had been manufactured by them, whether the film had been shown to those young national servicemen, and if so, who appeared in that film. The hon the Minister’s reply was: “Technically, no.”

What is the truth concerning this video? The South African Security Police with the aid of the South African Defence Force over a long period filmed, from Defence Force vehicles, Whites entering Pretoria’s Black residential area. Among these people were, for example, the Rev Nico Smith of the DR Church in Africa, who lives in Mamelodi, and there are innumerable other Whites who were also filmed in this way. The shots of these people were included in a film, and the film was shown to young national servicemen.

The attention of the young national servicemen was drawn to each White person appearing in that film. There were also enlargements of photographs of some of those people which were displayed at the same time. At that specific lecture the White persons who appeared on that video were pointed out to those young national servicemen and labelled the enemies of South Africa. They were told: “These are the people you must watch. They are our enemy.” Those are the facts of that specific video presentation.

The hon the Deputy Minister today saw fit to keep the other House uninformed, and in reality, as far as I am concerned, to keep the truth from that House. Although he tries to deny that such a film was held, an admission by the Defence Force that the video was in fact shown, was published in the 23 March edition of the Cape Times. I quote:

In other words, the only point of dispute is that the person who presented the programme, did not brand the Whites in that video as the enemy. The point remains, however, that the video does exist. The hon the Deputy Minister today created the impression that such a film does not exist. If he says that that film does not exist, it is an untruth. The question I want to ask him today, is whether that film exists. The hon the Deputy Minister can say yes or no. The hon the Deputy Minister is present at the moment. Does that film exist? Today in the other House he created the impression that it does not exist, and that is misleading, because it does exist. Does he deny that it exists? Then this is an unsavoury example of how he is misusing the Defence Force for his own party-political ends.

The hon the Minister also omitted to approach those people to ask whether he could film them. He did not say that he would like to inform the young national servicemen about the kind of White person who regularly travels in and out of Mamelodi. He did not do that. There was even a captain of the Defence Force in Mamelodi who photographed Rev Smith in front of his house from across the street. Is it the task of a Defence Force officer to film a clergyman in front of his house and enlarge the photograph, and then to take it to young national servicemen and tell them “Here is the enemy—watch him”? The hon the Minister must tell us whether this is the truth, since we are going to draw certain conclusions if that is the truth.

The people he is attacking, are people who are trying to build bridges between White and Black in the country. The Rev Nico Smith is a man who has sacrificed, and is sacrificing, his whole life to the development of a genuinely better relationship between White and Black. What does the hon the Minister do? He makes a film and vilifies him as if he is something that has crawled out of the woodwork.

A letter was written to the hon the Minister, because the daughter of the Anglican Dean of Pretoria also appears in the film. I have a letter written to the hon the Minister of Law and Order by Mrs Briggs in connection with this incident. I quote from her letter:

†Mrs Briggs continues to explain how her daughter has been portrayed by the SADF as the enemy.

Try selling that to the voters of Claremont.

I shall use this incident in the constituency of Claremont and the NP candidate there will lose his deposit. [Interjections.] The Government is concealing the fact that it is misusing the Defence Force.

You are a deserter! [Interjections.]

In the days when I did not serve in the Defence Force, there was not yet such a thing as a terrorist. My reasons for not serving, were not political. I was a Nationalist in the days when I did not perform my national service. I cannot be held responsible for what I did as a Nationalist. [Interjections.]

This is the most scandalous example of how the Defence Force is being politically misused. The government is making the Defence Force the military wing of the NP. That is what the Government is doing.

Rubbish!

If that hon Deputy Minister says I am speaking rubbish, I shall only withdraw my words if he will unambiguously condemn the making and showing this video. If the hon the Deputy Minister does this and says that this video should not have been shown, I shall withdraw my words with the greatest pleasure, but he is not going to do so.

I have before me letters from at least two people who wrote to the Cape Times to say that this incident I am mentioning here, is no exception. Here are several letters. [Time expired.]

Debate interrupted.

Mr Chairman, I move:

It is apparent that with the exception of the Whips, consensus has not been reached amongst hon members on both sides of the House as far as the sitting hours of this House are concerned.

I would like to place on record the discussions that I had in my office with the hon the Chief Whip of Solidarity and the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, the hon member for Umzinto. The hon the Chief Whip of Solidarity requested a special sitting to consider the notice of motion appearing in the name of the hon member for Umzinto. I was informed that consensus had been reached between the two hon Whips.

After the hours of sitting had been set for Monday night immediately after the joint meeting, I had occasion during the course of the day to meet with the hon member for Umzinto who informed me that he was unhappy about the meeting that night and that it would be more acceptable if it could be arranged to take place during the day.

Having ascertained the availability of Mr Speaker, I asked both Chief Whips to meet with me in my office, which we duly did. At that meeting I drew the attention of both Chief Whips to the difficulties that we would encounter if the House was to meet on Monday night. I suggested to them that we meet on Tuesday morning, 11 April.

The hon member for Umzinto, the Chief Whip of the NPP, requested a few minutes, after which he would return with the decision of his party. The hon member duly returned and confirmed that his party would agree to the House meeting on Tuesday morning at 10h30. I asked the hon member whether it would be necessary for me as Leader of the House to consult with the hon members of the other opposition parties in the House of Delegates. The hon member mentioned to me that he was representing them as well and that as such it would not be necessary for me to meet with them.

I also mentioned to him that in the event of a single hon member objecting to the motion being moved without notice I would have to give notice today to meet tomorrow. I was told that this would not prove to be necessary. However, having discussed the matter with the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament, I took the necessary steps and informed the Secretary to Parliament and Mr Speaker about the discussions that I had had with the Chief Whips of both parties in this House.

Pursuant to that I moved the motion without notice which is history now. The hon member for Reservoir Hills objected to that and I subsequently moved the motion that appears in my name on the Order Paper.

I may add that after the meeting with the Chief Whips of both parties at my offices a decision was reached at approximately 15h30 yesterday afternoon.

Mr Chairman, while I agree with some of the things said by the hon the Leader of the House I must disagree with others. When he asked me about the opposition parties I told him that I did not whip for all the opposition parties. [Interjections.] I made it clear to the hon the Leader and the hon member for Stanger, who is the Chief Whip of the majority party, that we on this side of the House are against any special sitting outside the normal sitting hours.

Our hon Muslim members are fasting at the moment. They get up very early in the morning to say their prayers and to have something to eat before sunrise. I feel it would be too much for them to try to get to Parliament early in the day. [Interjections.]

The other reason is that we have joint committees sitting tomorrow and hon members have other commitments as well. They are involved in heavy and time-consuming work concerning the pending general election.

I do not see the urgency for this motion when there are numerous other important motions of national and international interest on the Order Paper.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the House has pointed out that the intention behind this motion is to facilitate the hearing of a notice moved by the hon member for Umzinto, to which notice of an amendment has already been given and appears on the Order Paper.

I do not know what discussions went on between the hon member for Umzinto and the hon the Leader of the House, and quite frankly I do not care. I have far too much work of an important nature to do to worry about petty stupid little details concerning stupid little arrangements which involve the offering and the taking of carrots. [Interjections.] We are not rabbits in this House.

It seems that the purpose is to consider a motion of confidence in the hon the Chairman of the House. Now I have never come across a more stupid motion than that. I am reasonably familiar with parliamentary practice. One never proposes a motion of confidence in Mr Speaker or the chairman—that is taken for granted.

Order! I think the hon member must rather confine himself to the draft resolution on the Order Paper.

Sir, I am only reacting to the remarks made by the opener in his own statement. With respect, Mr Chairman, I have to deal with it.

The amendment is sordid. It arises out of an offer of a bribe made by a senior member of Solidarity to someone else. This is bribery of the most corrupt kind.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I respectfully submit that the hon member should confine himself to the draft resolution. He is now talking about an amendment which has nothing to do with the discussion of the draft resolution.

Order! The hon member must try to keep to the draft resolution.

Sir, in Windmill Park there was a direct threat to human beings but Solidarity did not think it necessary to call an urgent meeting of this House to consider a matter of fundamental human importance. In Namibia South Africans were being killed by Swapo terrorists—27 South Africans were killed—but hon members of Solidarity did not think it necessary to summon an urgent meeting of this House.

However, they do want a special meeting of this House for something to serve their own personal sordid self-interest. That is disgusting. Hon members of this House have other work to do. They cannot be at the beck and call of the majority party simply because they want to engage in corrupt practices.

We are satisfied that there is no need whatsoever for a special sitting of this House as contemplated, and certainly nothing that the hon the Leader of the House has said justifies the holding of a special meeting. It is completely unnecessary to take up the time of a segment of Parliament. I would say it is a gross abuse. It is a cynical, dishonest and callous abuse of the rules of this House for the position of this House to be subverted in this manner.

I repeat, if there were substantive business of interest to the public to be discussed …

Order! The hon member used the words “dishonest abuse”. He will have to withdraw those words.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw the word “dishonest”. I would call it cynical, callous abuse of the procedures of this House, designed to incommode hon members of this House. It was also designed to waste public money, because hon members of this House are being paid by the public in order to serve the sectarian interests of one party only. That is reprehensible and completely unacceptable. It is the kind of conduct which has brought the House into disrepute and which has damaged the decorum and the dignity of this House. That is the kind of conduct of an hon member whom we wanted to have expelled, but whom the hon members on the other side retained as an hon member of this House. That is also the kind of conduct which the hon members of Solidarity are engaging in at present.

They are bringing this House into further disrepute. At one stage the public at large heaved a sigh of relief because they thought carrots would no longer be dangled. They thought the dignity of this House would be upheld. What are those hon members doing? They are again reducing this House to the turmoil and the turbulent position in which it was previously. We are not prepared to be a part of this. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I entirely endorse the view taken by the hon member for Reservoir Hills. I want to say here and now that I totally oppose the motion proposed by my good friend the hon member Mr Seedat, because, just like the hon member for Reservoir Hills, I am utterly disgusted at the motive underlying such a motion. Why should a motion of such a nature be given such priority and such urgency in the first place? A motion proposed on Thursday by the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, the hon member for Umzinto, with regard to the escalating violence in SWA/Namibia was totally ignored. It is a germane and pressing motion of current national importance. It now appears as if this motion brought by the hon member Mr Seedat is important enough to be discussed outside ordinary parliamentary time.

Mr Chairman, on a point of correction …

Order! There is no such thing as a point of correction.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The motion was not brought by me in my personal capacity but in my capacity as Leader of the House.

I meant the amendment proposed by the hon member Mr Seedat and the motion brought by him today for the House to sit outside normal parliamentary hours. [Interjections.] This looks like a shotgun wedding arrangement. Not only is the bride being held with a shotgun but the priest is also being forced to attend. [Interjections.] In this case the priest happens to be Mr Speaker.

You have experience of that kind of wedding.

Yes, but I divorced myself from that. [Interjections.] Furthermore, we make a big fuss about religion in this House. [Interjections.] We say that we have to adjourn before the fast can be broken for the convenience of the hon Muslim members and that we must close on Fridays because people want to attend Jumma, the Friday prayers. However, some people in this House have seen fit even to sit during the evenings, not realising that we have Muslim service officers in this House and that there are Muslims working in the cafeteria who have to take two buses from here to Mitchell’s Plain.

It is a shame!

I think it is absolutely disgusting for people who pretend to be Muslims to behave in this manner. I make no secret of the fact that I am not a practising Muslim. I am not ashamed of it.

[Inaudible.]

I want to ask my friend the hon member Mr Seedat to search his conscience. [Interjection.] That is probably the reason why I do not wear a beard. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in the last four years there have been special requests made to Mr Speaker with regard to the programmes of this House. As far as this particular period of Ramadan is concerned, provision has been made to accommodate members of the Muslim community. [Interjections.] Special consideration was given in respect of this particular religion and the requests of hon members of this House. However, what is intriguing in an issue of this nature, as mentioned by the hon member for Reservoir Hills, is that there are far more important issues confronting this country and this Parliament. What would appear to be the case at the moment, however, is that somebody in this House all of a sudden seems to have the right to prescribe the programmes of this House to suit certain circumstances.

Therefore I cannot imagine why consideration should be given to a special sitting for an issue of this nature whilst there are far more important national and international issues, as highlighted by the hon member for Reservoir Hills as well as my colleague, the hon member for Umzinto.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Northern Natal is making such a hue and cry about sitting early tomorrow, and he is bringing religious tenets into this. How does he account for those of us who attend ten committee meetings in the morning?

Mr Chairman, I have made it very clear that it is not fair and proper, neither is it ethical. Equally, this Parliament costs money. Issues of this nature, which are not absolutely relevant or significant, are matters that should be dealt with in accordance with a parliamentary programme, but without altering parliamentary programmes to suit certain circumstances.

I am therefore in total disagreement with the submission made by the hon the Leader of the House. Therefore this motion should be dropped.

Mr Chairman, I have been listening very attentively to all that has been said. I am very gratified to know that some people have now suddenly had a change of heart and seem to feel endeared towards members of the Muslim community! I am not questioning those sentiments. However, I want to say quite categorically that there are those who make very derogatory statements about members of the Muslim community, but I do not wish to reduce this to that level. To use the Muslim community as an argument and bring religion into this, is absurd.

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

No, Mr Chairman, I am not taking any questions. I know what goes on. I want to make it abundantly clear that as far as we are concerned, the motion was discussed with the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition in terms of the Rules. After that it was the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition who, within earshot of other hon members of this House, mentioned to me that on Monday there was no need to have a lengthy debate on this issue; two speakers of ten minutes each would suffice on his side. It was I who suggested to him that they should take 30 minutes and allow the Chairman who is going to be involved in this debate, 30 minutes. The ruling party would take 40 minutes. He agreed to that.

Never before has he indicated to me that he has any difficulty with or has any affinity for the Muslim community. However, let me grant him that come Monday, he had that concern. I accept that he had that concern and over the weekend he met his Muslim friends and told them to do something about it. That is fine.

To accommodate him there was for the first time a meeting of the hon Whips of this House on a Monday immediately after the main Whips’ meeting. I want the hon member to deny that. It has been done because the Rules have been changed. It is evident to me that people do not know the Rules. It is because of the joint debating system that the Rules have changed. I have gone out of my way to be accommodating. I will continue to do it notwithstanding what is happening here.

I want to state further that it was the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition who did not object to the motion—I hear the objection is about the motion which is the subject of debate. He moved two motions. He never asked me to schedule his own motion—the other, internationally more implicated, motion. He never asked for this. He knows the procedures and the principles in accordance with which it must be done.

I want to state quite categorically to hon members that the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition asked for the motion to be debated on Thursday. That was his submission. However, because of certain other problems it could not be done on Thursday. He had no other argument.

[Inaudible.]

I am not prepared to take any questions, Mr Chairman.

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I asked for Thursday because we have no other business in the morning.

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon member may proceed.

That is absolute rubbish. He in fact agreed that there were party caucuses on Thursday.

I want to say that it is unfortunate that the hon member for Reservoir Hills—who normally endeavours to keep the argument at a higher level and I quite often appreciate his point of view referred to the arrangements of the hon Whips as stupid little arrangements. This does not reflect an understanding of parliamentary conventions and traditions. He is also the one who on many occasions brought to my notice that we should not allow corruption to continue in this House.

Exactly! [Interjections.]

I now want to say to him that he must be here tomorrow during the debate. [Interjections.] If he is present during the debate tomorrow he will know—to use an expression of the former Chairman of the Ministers’ Council meaning that he might find himself in a difficult situation—that he is probably slipping on his own words. He will be slipping on his own words and I suggest he comes to hear it. [Interjections.] We will do our best to see that unhealthy practices are removed from this House. We are committed to that. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

I want to say to the hon member who said something about Rushdie that he does not even understand the fundamentals of Rushdie or of Islam.

Do you understand Rushdie?

Mr Chairman, on the other hand I want to state quite clearly that it is not the first time that this House will have sat after hours during the fast. I am aware of the fact that hon members on the other side of the House who were suddenly showing a great affinity for the Muslim service officers, are the people who subjected us to the same thing when they wanted to pass obnoxious pieces of legislation on the regional services councils—which we did not want—during the month of Ramadaan. We had to break our fast. It was done in this particular House.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I think the hon member for Stanger is referring to the two “Terror” Acts.

This would not have been the first time we have had a sitting. Hon members are suddenly adopting this noble stance. Why do they not come out with the truth that they are doing everything possible to prevent a motion from being passed in this House? [Interjections.] It was only after the other side was advised that such a motion would be moved that the hon Chief Whip saw fit to move a motion of confidence. These are all tactics aimed at trying to delay and mislead Parliament. We should have had the motion. Either the hon Chairman enjoys the support of the majority or he does not. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I do not believe my hon colleague had any intention of misleading Parliament as the hon Chief Whip of the House alleges.

Mr Chairman, I am saying quite categorically: Either one enjoys the support of the majority of the House or one does not enjoy the support of the majority of the House. Put it to the vote and that will be the end of the story.

Debate concluded.

Question put.

The House divided:

Ayes—22: Abramjee, E; Akoob, A S; Bhana, R; Chetty, K; Devan, P I; Dookie, B; Kathrada, I; Khan, N E; Manikkam, E J; Moodley, K; Moodliar, C N; Moolla, Y; Pachai, S; Palan, T; Pillay, A K; Ramduth, K; Razak, A S; Reddy, J N; Seedat, Y I; Thaver, M.

Tellers: Bandulalla, M; Jumuna, N.

Noes—16: Baig, M Y; Cader, D; Dasoo, I C; Hurbans, A G; Khan, A; Lambat, A E; Naicker, S V; Naranjee, M; Padayachy, M S; Pillay, C; Poovalingam, P T; Rajab, M; Rampersadh, H; Shah, M S.

Tellers: Govender, M; Nadasen, P C.

Question agreed to.