I have to announce that I have received, on behalf of Parliament, an illuminated manuscript of the words of Die Stem, executed by the well-known Portuguese calligrapher Prof. J. R. Branco. The manuscript was handed over to me at a function held in the Gallery Hall at which I received Prof. Branco.

†Prof. Branco’s donation was originally accepted by the State President, and after consultation with me it was decided to display the manuscript next to the other documents relating to the National Anthem in the Gallery Hall in a display cabinet which has been donated by the Portuguese community. On behalf of Parliament I wish to express my sincere thanks for this donation.

announced that he had appointed the following members to constitute with him the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders: The Prime Minister, the Minister of Manpower, the Minister of Co-operation and Development, the Minister of Transport Affairs, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information, the Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, the Chief Government Whip, the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, Mr. C. W. Eglin, Mr. J. H. Hoon, Mr. B. W. G. Page, Mr. W. V. Raw and Dr. the Hon. A. P. Treurnicht.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also referred in his speech yesterday to the state of our economy in the short term and let it be known that he wished to express his concern in regard to this matter. I should also like to refer to this matter in passing before I go on to other matters. Of course there is despondency in respect of economic prospects at the moment, not only in South Africa but throughout the world. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition may rest assured that in this connection we as a Government are in contact with the best authorities in the world and that not only are the hon. the Minister of Finance and other hon. colleagues in the Cabinet, as well as some of our senior officials, holding consultations with experts throughout the world on the best basis, but we are also being visited by important people—bankers, financiers and others. This matter is serious. It is a matter of concern to the entire world. An eminent banker who was here recently and paid me a visit told me he was simply at his wits end; he could not give me any indication as to when there would again be an upturn in the world economy.

The Government is therefore well aware of the problems arising from this state of affairs, a state of affairs prevailing throughout the Western World. As far as South Africa is concerned we are not satisfied with the present state of inflation. However, it is easier to talk about it than to do something about it— far easier, particularly for a country that is increasingly making it quite plain that, as far as possible, it is moving towards a free economy. The inflation rate is too high in comparison with other countries, but an important facet of this is that South Africa has a much lower unemployment figure than many other countries. In South Africa it is in fact Government policy to keep the unemployment figure as low as possible. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will grant me that.

For example, towards the end of last year the Government itself intervened because it was alarmed by the state of inflation. By taking certain steps the Government prevented an increase in fuel prices. We took further steps when Escom had to announce its tariffs and we held discussions with Escom. Although we are aware that Escom has essential development projects which it must initiate and that this would lead to heavy capital and other expenditure we also tried in this instance by means of consultation to keep the tariff increases within bounds. However, from time to time tariff increases become essential in order to allow development to take place and to create facilities for the country when further development takes place in other spheres. An infrastructure has to be provided.

As far as the economy in general is concerned the Government is trying, in collaboration with the private sector, to achieve positive results.

There is the closest co-operation with bodies in the private sector. However, the drought conditions here have made our position worse and have dealt the South African economy a telling blow and no Government or private sector can do anything about that, not even the hon. the Leader of the Oppostion. There is continual consultation with economic and financial bodies. There is regular high-level consultation with the Economic Advisory Council. Every day we hear about negative aspects of the economy. We hear quite enough about these aspects and I am afraid the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is no exception to this. He is a prime offender in this regard. However, there are also positive aspects and for South Africa’s sake we should also emphasize these for a change. There was a cooling off of the over-heated economy in which the Government played a major role. There was a resultant drop in imports; the deficit on current account became smaller; there was a strengthening of the rand; there was a deceleration in price increases; in other words there were positive aspects as well. It is no wonder that visitors to South Africa from the financial sector say unequivocally: We are despondent about what is going on around us in the Western World and also behind the Iron Curtain, but South Africa is still one of the promising countries in the world. Let us also tell each other this. In spite of this weak and poor Government things are not all that bad! Nevertheless the Economic Advisory Council recommended at its most recent meeting that the Government should not interfere directly in the regulation of wages and prices in the private sector; in other words, we are consulting with the best people at our disposal in connection with the economy. However, this is a time for responsibility, self-discipline, hard work and proper planning.

In this regard I want to conclude by making one further remark. South Africa with all its capabilities and all its natural riches cannot do everything at once. The Government cannot be expected to tackle all projects and to provide all services simultaneously. That is why the Government is giving serious attention to the matter of priorities and it has now also become a priority for us to give proper attention to priorities at every level of government, not only the first level of government but also the second and third levels, and to create an orderly situation there. We cannot merely spend money as if there were unlimited resources.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also expressed other views. He said South Africa was dynamic. He said it derisively because he wanted to get at the Government, but I found it significant that even when jesting he could not help giving a little recognition to the fact that South Africa is an important country. The gaze of an increasing number of people from various continents and countries is being focused on the Republic of South Africa. Some of them are envious and covetous. Others are drawing attention to us to draw attention away from their own ineptitude and shortcomings. It has become a convenient subterfuge when you want to draw attention away from your own shortcomings to begin to malign South Africa. However, many thousands of people throughout the world are turning their attention to the Republic of South Africa out of interest and even for the sake of friendship. Although there is little friendship in the international sphere, there are well-intentioned people throughout the world who are well-disposed towards South Africa and who take a friendly interest in us and try to take a positive view of the possibilities being created here, because they realize this is a country of good hope and expectations.

For many years the Republic of South Africa has been subjected to a hate campaign. For some time now that hate campaign has begun to produce negative results. Over the years it was too exaggerated; it became counter-productive. People became inquisitive to visit this bad country and once they got here they discovered that the country was not all that bad after all.

Only the Government is bad; the country is not all that bad.

During the past session of the General Assembly of the United Nations a further ten resolutions were rattled off in a row by that body in its persecution mania against South Africa. One cannot describe what has come over that body as anything else but a persecution mania. However, many responsible countries either abstained from voting or voted against these resolutions. I believe they did this because they are beginning to realize the futility of this hate campaign, particularly when it is borne in mind that the Republic of South Africa is not being afforded an opportunity to defend itself in the General Assembly of the United Nations. This is a one-sided hate campaign without the accused being afforded the opportunity to put his case.

Of course there are certain elements who will never give up. They want to destroy us and if they cannot destroy us they want to draw us into another political milieu. And that is my main charge against the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I can sympathize with many of his standpoints in the sense that he is pleading for an improvement in peoples’ circumstances. But what I cannot understand is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot or will not perceive that our problems are magnified and our obstacles intensified by the fact that we are locked in a struggle for survival, that there is an attempt by one of the major powers of the world—I shall return to this later—to try to draw us into another milieu and to try to wrench us from the milieu in which we as a country have moved up to now.

At the same time it has also been my experience that prospective investors and prospective establishers of undertakings and industries from many parts of the world as well as decent tourists who come to South Africa, depart with enthusiasm for our country after a visit to South Africa. They tell this to the Government. They also tell the Government that they are glad to see that the country is being ruled by a government that knows what it is doing. I get a great deal more support and encouragement from these people than I get from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Far more.

We know you better.

If the hon. member would just keep quiet now, I shall take notice of him again later on. That is a promise. He need not ask for it at this early stage. [Interjections.] That is why I think we ought to attract greater numbers of tourists to this country. In the past financial year overseas tourists brought R550 million into South Africa. In other words, in addition to it being a good industry, it also has the advantage that tourists who come here gain an impression of our country which is to the advantage of South Africa. The latest tourist figure for the period January to May last year—only a few months—shows that approximately 292 000 tourists came to South Africa during that period and those people left this country with a feeling that this was a country that still had character, not only a country that was beautiful, but a country with people who believed in the future, who had not become tired of life. They also left this country with the realization that it was not true to describe South Africa as a country that was standing on the edge of the precipice. And this happens in spite of the fact that there are certain individuals and media in South Africa whose hatred for the Government drives them so far that they do not mind prejudicing South Africa in the process. [Interjections.] Recently a prominent man from Europe visited me—I am not going to mention his name—and when he had greeted me he said there was one thing he wanted to tell me and that was that he had been approached by individuals in this country who had told him he must not believe any facts and figures I made available to him. There are such people. He gave me their names, and I was astounded to hear that such people could go out of their way to denigrate our country and our Government to a well-meaning visitor. [Interjections.] I think it is a disgrace. [Interjections.]

In spite of these circumstances, the Republic of South Africa is important. In the first place it is important—I do not want to dwell on this for too long today—because of its strategic position, its modern harbours, its modern transport system and its ability to be of great value militarily. In its time in office the National Party Government has made a tremendous contribution towards making these characteristics or circumstances possible. In the second place—and this is recognized throughout the world—this country is of the utmost importance to the West owing to its strategic minerals. However, South Africa is also important from the point of view of food production. It is one of the few countries in the world that still exports food, in spite of the inconsistency of its natural conditions. From an investment point of view South Africa also remains an important country. People are not going to invest their money in a country if they do not know that there is a stable government that can offer security to their investments. [Interjections.]

However the Republic of South Africa is also important in the African context. It is important as an African State. I want to refer to two facets of this importance. Soviet Russia and its satellites are not only interfering in Africa, but are also, in particular, involved in a brutal attempt to conquer Southern Africa. No matter what our mutual differences may be as we sit here in Parliament, of what good could it be to us if Southern Africa were conquered by Soviet Russia? Is this not a matter about which everyone of us should ask ourselves: Is what we are doing to each other for temporary party-political gain not of such a nature that we may be aiding this campaign of conquest?

Look who is talking!

Only a fool would ignore this.

Now you are really being sanctimonious! [Interjections.]

Just a moment. “Koos Besproeiing” must give us a chance now.

I am also going to start using nicknames.

Yes, but at least I have never spat in a decent man’s face.

Neither have I. [Interjections.]

As I was saying, only a fool would ignore this and not help to guard against it. Russia is waging a psychological war and a propaganda campaign against Southern Africa and the Republic of South Africa which is unprecedented in history. It is also carrying on a campaign of subversion. I have been told on good authority that the KGB has at least a half million agents working for it throughout the world, and recently the KGB has been more active in South Africa than ever before. In the third place Russia is waging a terrorist war through the ANC and SWAPO. The training of both these organizations is being co-ordinated by the PLO and the Communist Party. Russia is also gradually building up conventional forces in countries to the north of us which it already has in its power. Surely it is no use our denying these facts. That is why we must stop levelling accusations at each other here while there is destabilization from that quarter. I shall return to this matter later.

Soviet Russia’s task is being facilitated by its infiltration—and that of its satellites— of the World Council of Churches and the United Nations. However, its task is also being facilitated by a number of sickly left-wing politicians and toadies in certain Western media who pave the way for communism in many countries. We also have some of them in South Africa. Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition think that if he comes into power he will be able to cause this onslaught to abate? Under him it is more likely to increase because he will make more concessions to Russia.

Nonsense.

He will make more concessions and I shall tell you why. Certain people are hiding behind the party of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

You are talking nonsense. You are talking tripe.

Certain people are hiding behind that party.

But we shall not employ Russian methods.

We do not lock people up. [Interjections.]

The facts are as they were recently put in U.S. News and World Report, and I quote merely one sentence—

In other words, communism, as far as true liberty and economic progress are concerned, is a swindle. What is more, it is a hollow cry which is made to the world and which conceals purely military control for power purposes. We should act purposefully and in unity in an attempt to avoid a fate of this nature for the Republic of South Africa. I repeat, we must act purposefully and in unity in an attempt to avoid a fate of this nature for the Republic of South Africa. Soviet Russia and those paving its way in the Republic of South Africa often go about dressed in flowing garb with Bibles in their hands in order to prepare their way to chaos with devilish cunning, and they cry blue murder if they are touched.

There is a second facet to our relationship with Africa. The second facet to our importance as African State is our multinationalism, but also our positive interest relations to the rest of Africa, particularly Africa south of the Sahara. Let me present hon. members with a few alarming facts concerning Africa, not because it might be news, but by way of illustration of what I want to say.

†The United Nations Conference on Trade came to the conclusion that out of 30 of the world’s poorest countries 20 are African States. African countries have a foreign loan burden of 77 000 million dollars. Or is the West perhaps carrying this burden instead of Africa? These countries have a per capita income of 316 American dollars per annum. A while ago it was authoritatively stated that the United States pumped in 5 000 million dollars into the agricultural development of Africa without any impressive results. A member of the European Parliament, Richard Cottrell, wrote the following in the Daily Telegraph of 17 September last year—

his burden again. Could we re-invent colonialism? It is a reasonable assumption that many of the former people of the Empire must now be looking back with fondness to the calm, ordered and often relatively prosperous days of colonialism compared with the present miseries and dictatorships.

We might not agree with him, and I for one do not agree with him. However, Mr. Cottrell made an important point to consider: The dreadful plight of Africa. That is the point, and let me add this to this gloomy picture: I believe that a large part of Africa’s present bad state of affairs can be attributed to a lack of management capability, lack of good administration, lack of proper agricultural know-how, land utilization and lack of action against corruption. Africa needs less weapons and more food. Furthermore, Africa is illogically hanging on to colonial drawn borders as well as out-dated socialist ideas destroying their national resources and initiative by private enterprise.

*In contrast, Sir, the Republic of South Africa holds great promise, although it is only during the past 50 years and particularly since 1948, (that it) wrested itself from colonialism. In 1948 the National Government had to start with many problems of its own, problems lying unsolved at the door of that Government. For example, there were a number of neglected Black peoples without any structures of government of their own. What did colonialism bring the Black people in the then Union of South Africa? What did it bring our immediate neighbours? One of our neighbours said, at the time of its independence, that the only thing England had left them was a flag. Only a small group of Black people in the Cape Province had sham representation in Parliament. Up to 1948 no development of import had taken place in the historic homelands of our Black people. In the field of agriculture they were impoverished; there was no industrial development; there was no infrastructure. For more than 100 years, from 1806 to 1936, colonial politics and the Black people’s own inability kept the Black peoples in and around our country in a state of backwardness.

Cholera …

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member reminds me of cholera.

He is suffering from it.

It seems to me he suffers from it all the time.

Sir, it was only in 1936 that Gen. Hertzog had the opportunity of moving away from the prevailing conditions.

What about Dr. Verwoerd?

Sir, I am dealing with our history. The hon. member for Sea Point is always like an ox resting its hindquarters against the yoke. We, too, Sir, made mistakes, of course. When there are countless problems lying at one’s front door, one has to make errors in one’s handling of those problems. One of the mistakes we have made since 1948—I want to admit to it frankly here today—was our failure to see to it that the necessary development occurred within the Black States. I admit this frankly, and what is wrong about a politician admitting mistakes? After all, we are seeking the good of South Africa. But was the State to blame for everything? Or should the private sector, too, accept a major share of the blame? What a reluctant attitude was not adopted by the private sector in this regard! And White South Africa is not to blame for everything either. The independent and self-governing Black states of Southern Africa have 23% of the agricultural potential of the region at their disposal. Even so they produce only 6% of the output.

It is calculated that between 30% and 50% of the arable land is not being utilized correctly. Nevertheless, their are signs of improvement in some of their countries; in this regard I have in mind particularly a country such as Bophuthatswana, which is seeing to its agricultural development in a beneficial and positive manner.

Sun City!

No, I do not know whether the hon. member for Houghton has ever been there. I have never been there, and consequently I am unable to form a judgment in this regard. However, if she would like to take a sauna bath there, I can understand it. [Interjections.] Since 1948 the NP Government has been much too modest about its contributions to the development of the independent and self-governing national States, as well as to the development of other neighbouring States. This afternoon, however, I am going to deal with a few facets of such development.

I have taken the trouble to have ascertained what the NP Government has spent since 1948 to date on the development of the national States—those national States which are independent and self-governing. I find that the amount spent on them by the Republic of South Africa for development and otherwise comes to R8 489 million.

And what has that achieved? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the amount comes to R8 489 million.

How many jobs were created? [Interjections.]

The amount spent since 1977 comes to R4 952 million. It is a tremendous amount for a country such as South Africa, calculated in comparison with what the so-called vociferous world is doing to Black Africa. Whether it has achieved the desired results, is another matter. But I have just dealt with those reasons. After all, we have the same problems here as those Africa has. Surely we have exactly the same problems.

However, what have we achieved in addition? We have assisted four peoples along the road to full constitutional liberation. The other peoples, at least four or five in number, have proper self-government. There are four independent States, each with a sovereign Parliament of its own, and four or five self-governing States, and this in comparison to what happened in the colonial politics of Southern Africa, in which no rights were granted to those people. And yet people allege that there has been no constitutional development.

In this process, Mr. Speaker, there has been no bloodshed. However, let us now view it from a different angle. The independence of Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland is recognized by Britain, by the UNO and by other States in the West, but the peaceful liberation of Transkei, Venda, Ciskei and Bophuthatswana is not recognized. So what kind of standards are applicable in this regard? What difference is there between the liberation of Lesotho and that of Transkei? Both were granted their liberty by means of sovereign parliamentary resolutions. The one has a greater potential than the other. So what gives rise to these double standards being applied if such action is not born from dishonesty—from international dishonesty? What international hypocrisy is not involved in this regard! Of course, these dishonest international political practices are being aggravated by certain elements in this country, and it is these we must battle against to complete the process of emancipation in South Africa. Therefore the constitutional as well as the economic development of Black people is a matter to which the Government gives high priority, and our actions have proved this, as I have just quoted. It forms part of the twelve-point plan for which the Government obtained a mandate in the elections less than two years ago and with which it intends to proceed. It forms an important part of the greater ideal of promoting order and stability in Southern Africa. However, multinationalism and the facts with regard to population numbers cannot be disregarded. These are realities which we must bear in mind, but there is no reason to be defeatist, as the hon. member for Bryanston is. Now I am taking a little notice of him.

I am not being defeatist; I am merely being realistic.

Wait a minute, let me have my say first. After all, I am taking notice of the hon. member now, not he of me. [Interjections.] This is no reason for us to throw up our hands and say to one another: Just look what is going to hit us in the year 2000. It does not work that way. Numbers alone are not decisive in life. [Interjections.] We respect the cultural and national aspirations of Black people and we recognize their right to territory. They already possess some of Southern Africa’s best land with the highest rainfall. We do not begrudge them that land and we do not intend to deprive them of it. At the same time, we subscribe to the principle that for the citizens of States that have opted for independence, and have taken the necessary steps to attain it, that independence has to be meaningful in respect of efficient administration, good government, developing economies and international recognition. We help them wherever we can to try to obtain that international recognition. The Government tries to help promote it by means of meaningful consolidation and socio-economic and administrative aid on a large scale, and the latest successful summit and other deliberations are the best proof of this. It was a successful summit, in spite of all the predictions that it would not succeed.

Accusations concerning the position of the urban Black communities, especially those outside the national States and the independent States, are constantly being hurled at us. Especially since 1961—I am not going into detail; research can prove this—machinery has gradually been created which has enabled Black communities existing outside our towns and cities to develop into full-fledged Black local authorities. Since 1961 they have been prepared step by step for the eventual step of making Black local authorities possible. Hon. members can examine legislation piloted through this House and other administrative steps taken over the years which have brought this process to completion. The 1982 legislation laid further foundations for this, and more than half of all Black people living within the territory of the RSA have obtained self-determination at local government level in terms of that measure.

What a joke!

How can it be a joke when one gives them powers of local government?

It is not enough.

Just follow my argument; do not sit there repeating one story like a parrot.

I was saying that more than half the population of the Black communities living within the territory of the RSA have obtained the power to introduce full-fledged local authorities under the 1982 legislation.

Are they not South Africans?

See, there he goes again. [Interjections.] I think the hon. member should put his head inside a bucket or something like that.

They are; what are you?

I am a South African.

It does not look like it.

I should prefer to go on and not to be led astray by someone like the hon. member for Pinelands. He sits here thinking of other things.

Some problems still remain, such as the management of overlapping interests between neighbouring local authorities. When a community such as Soweto comes into being, after all, problems of overlapping arise between it and the rest of the Witwatersrand. In the second place there is the possible creation of regional institutions to serve rural communities. That is another problem. Thirdly, there is the exercise of final control over such communities. That is also important. Fourthly, there is the taking of measures to increase financial viability. In this connection there are other problems as well, but in particular there is the question of viability in the financial field. I could point out many other problems as well, but I do not wish to weary the House.

The complexity of the problem is not under-estimated by the Government. Allow me briefly to mention a few factors: firstly, more than 60% of all Black people live outside national States in five metropolitan areas. Of course there will always be Black communities outside national States in the Republic of South Africa. I have never denied that; I admit it quite frankly—it is a fact which we have to take into account. The economy of the country and the interests of our Black communities themselves necessitate this. Secondly, some of these concentrations of Black people have a heterogeneous character. It is easy to deal with them. In some of them, ethnicity does play a role. Thirdly, the process of urbanization inside and outside national States has to be taken into account. However, there are no instant solutions to these problems anywhere; they do not exist elsewhere in Africa either.

But you have had 35 years.

Nor do they exist, comparatively speaking, in Germany or France. [Interjections.] Go to the Algerian quarter in Paris and see what conditions are like there. This is what I say to all the people who preach at us. Just look at the tragedies which are taking place elsewhere in the world and in Africa at the moment. No hue and cry is raised about that, however, because it is happening in Nigeria! The greatest human tragedy has been taking place in Nigeria over the past few days, but there is no outcry about that; not at the UN—nowhere in these sacred temples in which people with long robes move about. Let South Africa wrestle with this problem, however, and it is singled out for abuse. [Interjections.] The Government is aware of the problems which exist, but there is never a time in the life of any people when all problems can be removed. If people want to go on co-existing peacefully, every generation of every population group will have to work at relationships in all spheres.

In view of these factors, these problems and others which may exist, the Cabinet has decided to appoint a special Cabinet Committee which will consist of: The Minister of Co-operation and Development …

Doomed!

… the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, The Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Minister of Law and Order, the Minister of National Education and the Minister of Justice. As in the case of other Government bodies, such as the Commission for Co-operation and Development, these persons will have further consultations with the governments of independent national states and self-governing national states, as well as with community leaders outside national states, to try to find solutions to the problems that remain. With a positive attitude, I believe, we shall also come closer to solutions to these outstanding matters. This invective against the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development I reject with the contempt it deserves. [Interjections.] I reject it with the contempt it deserves, because there is not a man in South Africa who has shown greater dedication…

In selling the White man down the river.

… in working on this matter than he.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Does the hon. member for Rissik have the right to say that the hon. the Minister has sold the White man down the river? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

Order! Would the hon. member please rise when he withdraws it?

Mr. Speaker, I do so.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether this Cabinet Committee which is investigating this sensitive subject will be bound by any principles or non-negotiables?

If that hon. member ever came into power—which he will not—and appointed a Cabinet Committee, that Cabinet Committee would act according to the principles of the Government of the day. [Interjections.] What else does the hon. member expect? His own leader told me that if the national convention were to take decisions which ran counter to his policy, he would reject them. [Interjections.] What nonsense is the hon. member talking, then? [Interjections.] He is just wasting my time. He may ask questions, but they must be proper and meaningful questions, not nonsense. [Interjections.] Yes, he should rather phone McHenry.

In this connection I want to deal with another facet, namely the question of regional development. For positive relations between the various population groups in South Africa, regional development and decentralization are of the utmost importance. I regard regional development in the economic field as well as decentralization of industries as being of the utmost importance for a balanced economy in our subcontinent and our own country. It is very strange that in this particular field, where we can co-operate with one another, some people are dragging their feet in respect of this important matter. I have already referred to the need for agricultural production in certain countries and in our neighbouring states and to the need for the correct utilization of land. To our neighbouring states, agriculture is an important source of employment, because what can be achieved by means of agricultural development can provide far more people with a living than decentralization of industries would. Therefore it must receive priority. I am pleased to be able to say today that the S.A. Agricultural Union, with which we have had talks, sees this matter in the right light, has adopted a positive attitude towards it and is also prepared to contribute its share towards achieving this.

Since our announcement of new benefits relating to decentralization, the Decentralization Board has, between 1 April 1982 and 30 November 1982, evaluated no fewer than 612 applications for concessions in respect of new enterprises and expansions. Of these, 599 have been approved. This involves a capital investment of R843 million. That was between 1 April and 30 November last year, a time of tight money and economic restrictions. Employment has been guaranteed for almost 46 000 people. Just think of the families of these people who are benefiting from this. Of these applications, 46 came from abroad, involving a capital amount of approximately R83 million.

At the summit, we also gave attention to another matter which we believe to be closely connected with this, namely the Development Bank for Southern Africa. This bank is not going to compete with the private sector, but is in fact going to increase their share in development and to eliminate fragmented aid as far as possible. Therefore we are grateful to be able to announce, with the approval of all the governments concerned, that this bank must start operating on 1 September. The Government is giving serious attention to this, along with other governments.

We are working on an imaginative plan, therefore. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke about urbanization and the social problems as well as needs arising from that, but if one allows urbanization to take place at only a few metropolises, it creates unsatisfactory demands with regard to housing, the availability of land, transport— which is one of the greatest burdens—health services, etc. If one wants to avoid or minimize these problems, regional development is of the utmost importance. However, if the State and the private sector can co-operate to give a high priority to decentralization and deconcentration, with regard to services as well, large numbers of people can be made happier. An unrestricted influx, as advocated by some people, would result in chaos and would not be in anyone’s interest. No community would benefit by it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to remarks concerning the idea of a federation. I want to say at once that if independent Black States wish to form a federation to serve their common interests, I have no fault to find with that. They are free and independent and they can enter into a federation with one another and do just as they please. It is for them to decide, and it does not affect our proposals in respect of regional and confederal co-operation, as we have repeatedly explained them. Therefore I am not going to discourage the idea. If they can succeed in doing that, good luck to them. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows as well as I do—he is already smiling—what the problems are. Therefore we shall leave it to them. We have no more objection to that than we have to the SADCC. I have told Black leaders in Southern Africa that if they want to proceed with the SADCC, they are welcome to do so, and they must make a success of it, because, I said, “We do not want poor neighbours; we prefer rich neighbours.” I told them, however, that they should not establish that organization and then start railing at us. They should get their projects off the ground. Look at the smile on the face of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He knows this is true. Nor does the promotion of this matter have any effect in principle on the proposed co-operation in the development bank that is being envisaged. Therefore the proposed development bank does not stand in its way.

In stating this positive standpoint towards neighbouring countries, I want to add at once that I have never seen the struggle in Southern Africa as a struggle between White South Africa and the other population groups. The struggle in Southern Africa is an ideological one. In this I am supported not only by my party, but by the electorate of South Africa, which has given us a two-thirds majority. The year before last we issued an election manifesto in which stated the following—

We also stated—

[Inaudible.]

Oh, come on. Give me a chance to speak. Surely the hon. member has no quarrel with me on this point. But just give me a chance. I am now talking to people sitting close to the hon. member. If he wants to whisper something to the hon. member for Houghton, he should do so in a dark corner outside.

The election manifesto goes on to say—

It was signed by the hon. member for Waterberg. [Interjections.] Now he raises a hue and cry in this House and says that we are listening in on his conversations. Allow me just to say to the hon. member in passing—I am not going to take much notice of him— that we are not doing so. We do not think there is anything he can say which we cannot predict. [Interjections.] The Afrikaner people and other minority groups known as English-speaking South African—and there are many of them; I have referred to them in this Parliament: The Portuguese-speaking South African, the large number of Italian-speaking South African, the Greeks and Jewish South Africans and others, who pass as English-speaking South Africans—stand for the preservation of civilized Christian standards and norms in this country.

What about the Jews?

Yes. The Jewish community in South Africa has accepted those norms in this country and is fighting for them. Surely the hon. member knows that. Why is he laughing about it now? Why is he laughing on the wrong side of his bald head? [Interjections.] But the difference between the two of us is that I am not marching backwards. The acceptance of these Christian Western standards and norms contributes towards the security of these minority groups in South Africa as well. What is more, it is a part of the heritage of the Free World. Therefore we are not being funny at all when we say that, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me, because he knows what I am talking about. However, I am looking for friends. The difference between me and the hon. member for Waterberg is that I am looking for friends for the Afrikaner people and the White man. I am looking for friends, and I am finding them.

We are finding more. [Interjections.]

The HNPs?

The kind of speech which we heard from the hon. member for Waterberg in this House yesterday is one which I hope he will make on every platform in South Africa. It was a contemptible performance for a man who says that he proclaims the Christian dogma.

We are also a part of Africa. Our presence here is not temporary. Nor are we trying to achieve better relations and arrangements with minority groups such as the Coloureds and the South African Indians in order to gang up against the Blacks. It is an absolutely hypocritical lie to say that we are doing that.

†I have pledged myself to create opportunities for Coloured South Africans to help carry the burden of orderly Government and peaceful co-existence in the Republic of South Africa, and I welcome the signs of goodwill that I am receiving. But I am prepared to leave it to the Coloured to fight things out among themselves and I am prepared to keep quiet until they have done so. No uproar and clamour from a small group of dissidents will prevent me from doing what I believe to be in the interest of the country. [Interjections.] We have made it clear that we want to move away from the Westminster system … [Interjections.]

Order!

We have made it clear that we want to move away from the Westminster system of “one man, one vote” … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, may I have an opportunity to address the House, or not?

Do you want a better opportunity than others?

Of course! It is in accordance with a ruling from the Chair. [Interjections.]

Order!

The Chair has ruled that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition should both be given a proper opportunity to put their case, and that hon. member has been ordered from the House in terms of that ruling.

†Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, we made it clear that we want to move away from the Westminster system with its “one man, one vote” system within a unitary State, and on this point we have the support of the official Opposition. They acknowledged the fact that it would be disastrous to try to continue with such a system in making provision for the peoples of South Africa. They see it as “disastrous”. The best proof that this system does not work is the confused shouting of political opponents in this House yesterday. Furthermore, nowhere in Africa did it prove to be a success. On the contrary, it led to one failure after the other in all those African States who tried to apply it. At the United Nations the system of “one man, one vote” is a total failure. Such a system will furthermore be to the detriment of the cultural and other interests of the different peoples of South Africa. We are even being told that as South Africans we are not prepared to grant our Black nations the necessary land to develop and that we want to retard their development. I say this is a mean international lie supported by some irresponsible South Africans.

*Mr. Speaker, I come now to another matter, that of South West Africa. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised the matter in this House, and I want to tell him that if he reads the statement I made about this matter in this House last year in conjunction with what I am going to add now, he will have the full picture. I still stand by that statement.

The Republic has consistently co-operated, with the five Western countries in particular, to help make a positive settlement possible in South West Africa. Not for a moment can we be accused of not having been available at all times and not having co-operated in seeking a solution. The five Western powers knew, and still know today, that South Africa is not prepared to hand over South West Africa at the point of a gun and to allow the Red flag to fly in Windhoek. I have said repeatedly and I say again here today: We will not do that; we would rather fight. At every stage of the negotiations there was proper consultation with the internal parties. I personally wore myself out, together with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defence, and we went out of our way to consult the internal parties, and we consulted all of them; not just one of them. We spent hours, days and nights consulting with these people in order to convey their standpoints to the five Western powers. Eventually we also succeeded in persuading representatives of the five Western powers to go to Windhoek themselves to consult with the internal parties there.

Sir, this is what our attitude has been and still is today. Meanwhile, we have borne a great financial burden in respect of South West Africa, a burden which no other member of the international community has helped to bear up to now. I have had the figures checked by an expert, information covering a number of years, and it is amazing to see what South Africa has done to meet its obligations—in fact, more than its obligations—to South West Africa. Excluding military expenditure, expenditure affecting the security of SWA, and excluding customs arrangements, the Republic has assisted SWA to the tune of R1 721 million since 1977 in the form of direct subsidies and loans. Sir, this is an enormous amount. As I have said, this excludes military expenditure, customs arrangements and our contribution in the case of Ruacana in the form of a loan. I readily concede that the military security and stability of SWA is of strategic importance to the Republic as well. I do not deny that; I have never denied it. But the success which the security forces have achieved against Swapo has also been to the direct benefit of the vast majority of the people of South West. Their security, their properties, their families, their education, their churches—all those things have been safeguarded by the success which the SADF has had against Swapo.

Let us take off our hats today to a defence force which, under difficult circumstances, has been the second since the Second World War to deal effectively with terrorists across the border.

Hear, hear!

The Red flag in Windhoek can only bring untold misery to the people of South West Africa, because the Red flag is the symbol of decay, of hunger and of economic despair in Angola. It is also the symbol of decay, of starvation and of death in Mozambique and in Zimbabwe. Surely this is so. Why should we try to gloss over the facts? We do not wish that fate upon South West Africa. Because of its ties with South Africa, but also because of our strategic interests, and for the sake of the people themselves, we do not wish that fate upon South West Africa. Therefore we hope that the multiplicity of political parties in South West Africa will be reduced. I must say it is a maze of political parties, an absolute maze. I think there are some of them that have more leaders than followers; more or less like the CP. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to appeal to the inhabitants of South West Africa to lend their active co-operation in putting an end to this state of affairs. In fact, I believe that I do so with the support of this House today. I believe that I do so with the support of this House. Of course there may be exceptions, people who cannot think for themselves. However, we shall leave them out of it. The great majority of members in this House will agree with me that one cannot have 40 political parties for a population of about 1 million people.

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said a very irresponsible thing here, something I did not expect of him, because he has been kept informed with regard to South West Africa, very well informed. Now he makes a certain statement in passing—a kind of a side-swipe—and in doing so, he involves Mr. Mudge in this discussion. I have no wish to choose the political leaders of the people of South West Africa. That is their own affair. However, they should take my advice, because I have to act with responsibility towards the taxpayers of South Africa, and my advice to them is that they cannot carry on in this irresponsible manner while at the same time expecting the taxpayers of South Africa to put up with these things.

Now the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that we did not treat Mr. Mudge as we should have. But I did not deprive Mr. Mudge of his followers. I did not tell Peter Kalangula to walk out. Nor did I tell Mr. Josef Garoep to walk out. I did not create those difficulties. I did not do that any more than I told the Stellenbosch Progs to put up the kind of candidate they did in the recent by-election. [Interjections.]

However, I want to make a further statement. The internal relations politics of South West Africa cannot be practised without taking into account the realities of the existence and ideals of minority groups. If one refuses to recognize this—and I am afraid that the international community completely fails to see it, because, I believe, they are not familiar with the circumstances there—and if one does not recognize the realities of the existence of the minority groups in South West Africa, one is not facing up to the problems of that country. By denying that, one is bringing disaster upon that territory. The people of South West Africa must seek their own internal solutions, but we must help them, because we have a responsibility towards them. The South African Government does not interfere, but it does try to give advice where necessary. As a result of this, and as a result of the general struggle we are waging against the Soviet onslaught in Southern Africa, a new cry has now been raised. Every year we have a new cry. This year again a new cry has been raised in the country. It is the cry of destabilization. And once again, South Africa is the scapegoat. That cry was raised by certain radical clergymen who wrote me a letter about South West. I sent them a proper reply to that. Thereupon, however, they proceeded to publish a document full of distortions, in which they tried to gull the world into believing that I had not replied to them properly. Secondly, the cry is being raised in certain media which have been known for 80 years for the unsavoury role they have played in South Africa’s history. Just read the history books, then hon. members will see how they have promoted discord and strife in Southern Africa and how they have helped to cause bloodshed. I shall come to one of them presently.

Thirdly, this cry is being raised by certain communist elements outside the Republic of South Africa, because it suits Russia, with its enormous propaganda campaign, to accuse South Africa of destabilization, while Russia, with its Cuban and East German lackeys, is the main destabilizer in South Africa. Fourthly, the cry is being raised by certain African leaders whose only contribution to history has been the impoverishment of their own countries. What are the facts, Mr. Speaker? Let us examine the facts. Firstly, there are co-operation agreements between us and several Southern African States concerning posts and telecommunications, trade and railway transport, the only reliable railway transport in Southern Africa. Similar agreements exist in connection with water and electricity. It is not our fault that Ruacana is not working at full capacity. It is not our fault that Cabora Bassa is not working at full capacity. Furthermore, there are co-operation agreements in respect of the Rand monetary area. There are co-operation agreements in respect of health services for humans and animals. In this connection it is interesting to note the following, and I quote—

This is the destabilizer! We are supposed to be the destabilizer, but we are paying R20 million a year!

Take that away and see what is left.

Take it away, then we shall see what is left. In 1969, a comprehensive customs union agreement was entered into between South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. During the 1982-’83 financial year, R314 million was paid over to the BLS countries and R341 million to the TBVC countries in terms of this agreement. The total customs pool will amount to roughly R2 418 million, but we are a destabilizing influence. What nonsense! Then one gets a South African newspaper such as the one which had a rush of blood to the brain a few weeks ago because. I believe, its editor is not quite normal. Let me tell hon. members that I am sorry for him, because he is a man who harbours a grudge. I say this because what he wrote in this Cape Town morning newspaper is a base lie, and I am prepared to say this outside.

Well then, say it outside.

But in this House I can say what I like, and that hon. member knows that I can say what I like. He can also say what he likes, but the only difference is that he makes a fool of himself when he says what he likes. [Interjections.] Just imagine, destabilization in South Africa as a result of our actions! Who went to talk to Dr. Kaunda about peace in Southern Africa? I did. Who went to have talks with the Prime Minister of Lesotho at the Peka Bridge? The Minister of Foreign Affairs and I. Who discussed peace in Southern Africa with the Swaziland authorities? Who travelled a long distance recently to have talks with Angolan authorities? Who had talks with Mozambique in spite of deep-seated differences? The Minister of Foreign Affairs of South Africa.

But no, we are destabilizing! If we had really wanted to destabilize, we could bring the whole works to a standstill overnight. Let me say it here. That is why I reject the allegations with the contempt they deserve. I think these reports verge on treason. [Interjections.]

Pik, will you tell us the truth?

The hon. member can go and read them for himself; they will be good for his stomach. [Interjections.]

What is the date?

They have appeared virtually every day during the past two weeks: just go and read them.

What more did I do? I made an offer of defence agreement—that is to say, non-aggression pacts—to neighbouring countries, and I did not only do so in public. I said I was prepared to conclude a defence agreement with each one of these neighbouring countries. However, I went even further and said that I was prepared to conclude agreements with them in which we stated that we would not utilize our territories for any across-the-border operations against one another. There are independent States who concluded defence agreements with us and with whom we are living in peace. I repeat this offer today: I am prepared to conclude defence agreements with every State in South Africa that shares a common interest with us, and I am prepared to conclude agreements with them in which we state that we will not allow our territories to be used against one another.

Evidently these offers are falling on deaf ears. They are being rejected with a cynical gesture. If those gentlemen want to do that and want their territories to become the gathering places of ANC and Swapo terrorists, I say here today: We shall remove those nests for you. [Interjections.] I said this not only to them, but also to the Western leaders: We shall remove the nests for you. There is sufficient opportunity to discuss matters with one another in a peaceful and constitutional way in South Africa. There is sufficient opportunity here. There is sufficient opportunity here for people who wish to work in order to make progress; there is sufficient opportunity here for people seeking health services to receive what …

Except Black people.

Sir, did you hear that remark? Oh please, let me rather not react to it.

Have you been to Onverwacht recently?

I say again that every country which offers shelter to anti-South African terrorists, will have to deal with the Security forces of South Africa as far as those terrorists are concerned. [Interjections.]

The hon. member put questions to me concerning the Seychelles.

Are you going to keep on until 5 o’clock?

Hon. members will just have to be patient with me; I am trying to reply.

As to the Seychelles I wish to make the following statement, and with that I will have disposed of the matter as far as the Government’s reply is concerned. In pursuance of those of my colleagues and my own previous statements on the Seychelles affair, I wish to reiterate for the sake of the parliamentary record that neither the Cabinet nor the State Security Council had any knowledge of the envisaged coup. Furthermore, this was readily accepted by the commission of inquiry of the United Nations Security Council—they received every opportunity to pursue their inquiry here in this country— into the attempted coup. The commission of inquiry was instituted by resolution 496 of the Security Council. In this connection, Mr. Justice James also said the following in his verdict after the Pietermaritzburg trial—

[Interjections.] The worst of it all is that the hon. leader of the CP, who also spoke here yesterday, was a member of that Cabinet. Surely he knows what we discussed among ourselves. [Interjections.] Surely he knows what we told one another, what our standpoint was and what investigations we were going to order. Why did he ask nonsensical questions here yesterday? He is running away from everything which he undertook with us. He flees from everything! [Interjections.]

Oh, come now!

The abortive coup led to the hijacking of the Air India Boeing by Col. Hoare and his men. The Government immediately and correctly allowed the judicial process of the RSA to take its normal course in the South African courts.

After Louis had tried to stop it.

I say that any person who says that the hon. the Minister of Law and Order tried to stop it, is a liar. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Prime Minister must please withdraw those words.

No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to withdraw them. I am sorry. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I said—and I repeat it—that any person who said that the hon. Minister of Law and Order tried to stop the judicial process was a liar, and I am not prepared to withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Prime Minister’s remark followed immediately upon an interjection from this side in which the hon. member for Green Point said that the hon. the Minister of Law and Order had, in fact, attempted to stop the legal process. The hon. the Prime Minister said that anyone who said that was a liar. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Prime Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Did you not direct the hon. the Prime Minister to withdraw those words? [Interjections.]

Order!

It is a disgrace!

Order! What did the hon. member for Waterkloof say?

Mr. Speaker, I said it was a disgrace to Parliament that the hon. the Prime Minister should react in that way.

Order! That is a reflection on the Chair and the hon. member must withdraw it and apologize to the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, if I cast a reflection on the Chair, I just wish to say that it was not my intention, and I withdraw it.

Order! The hon. member must apologize unconditionally.

I do so, Sir. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Rissik say that the hon. the Prime Minister is uncivilized?

Order! Did the hon. member for Rissik say that?

Yes, I said it.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

In addition, continuous reports on the judicial steps were made to the International Civil Aviation Organization. With these steps the various conventions on civil aviation in respect of which the Republic of South Africa is a contracting party, conventions prescribing certain steps in the case of hijacking of aircraft, were fully complied with. The International Civil Aviation Organization considers the entire matter to have been disposed of. The judicial proceedings against the hijackers were followed by departmental investigations into procedures and the involvement of some officials in the unauthorized requisition and provision of equipment to Col. Hoare. It may now be categorically confirmed that no responsible official granted approval for that abortive attempt. This is confirmed by Mr. Justice James in his verdict—

suggest that they were aware that the coup attempt was to begin on 25 November 1981.

This is what the judge had to say. The departmental investigations also confirmed that no State funds had been utlized in connection with the coup.

Who bought the petrol for the truck?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Prime Minister a question?

No, I am making a statement. The hon. member can sit down. [Interjections.]

Order!

The investigation led to action being taken and procedures being modified to prevent a repetition of such undesirable contact with such undertakings. I do not deem it to be in the public interest to make known the steps taken against the officials involved, and the rectifications which were carried out, because they affect delicate sections of our security service. However, action was taken and I am prepared to give the hon. Leader of the Opposition the necessary information if he wants it.

We are all members of Parliament.

Who owned the AK 47’s that were delivered to them?

Order!

As you are aware, Sir, the Government has repeatedly stated that it will not support mercenary operations against other States, inter alia because it is not in favour of such operations against other countries. In this connection my Cabinet colleagues and I have stated the Government’s standpoint unequivocally. In this way, as Minister of Defence, I said in the House of Assembly as long ago as 9 September 1974—

This is what I said in my statement. I went on to say—

That was the statement I made. My Government and I still adhere to this standpoint, and during this session, as I promised last year, legislation is going to be introduced that will prohibit members of the S.A. Defence Force from making themselves available as mercenaries or to prevent them from being recruited as mercenaries.

Say thank you to the Opposition.

The hon. member must not talk nonsense.

Say thank you. Be gracious.

I am prepared, as far as the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned, who always adopts a responsible attitude but who is hiding something away today …

What am I hiding away?

Apparently the little altercation between him and the rest of his party. [Interjections.]

You can be sure it is not an AK 47 I am hiding away.

Sir, I was always under the impression that if one wishes to make a statement in this House, one is afforded an opportunity to do so. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North and the hon. member for Yeoville must please pay heed when I call the House to order.

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what you mean because at the moment I am sitting here without saying a word. [Interjections.] I did not say a single word and you cannot blame me if I did not say a word.

Order! The hon. member was engaged in a running conversation with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg…

I was not talking. I was listening. I did not say a word. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville was whispering.

I was not even whispering.

This action on the part of the South African Government anticipated, as it were, the recommendations of the UN commission of inquiry which recommended that the Republic of South Africa had an obligation to take steps to impose restraints on the participation of mercenaries. This commission stated its views as follows—

I also wish to state that the Government of the Republic of South Africa, as well as its officials, co-operated fully within the limits of the South African legal process to enable the Security Council’s commission to complete its investigation. The Commission expressed its thanks for this wholehearted cooperation during its visit in February 1982. In its final report of November 1982 the commission stated—

In spite of the principle that South African citizens travel at their own risk to countries where the Republic of South Africa is not represented, efforts are nevertheless being made to ensure that South Africans who find themselves in an invidious position in such countries, are treated according to the recognized principle of international law. This also applies to Col. Hoare’s men in prison in the Seychelles. The Government realizes the seriousness of the matter and the position in which it placed South Africa. However, I wish to emphasize that if this matter were to be blown up further, it would be playing into the hands of our enemies, those enemies who hold South Africa up to be the destabilizer in Southern Africa in order to disguise the actions of the true destabilizer, the Kremlin. Consequently I am of the opinion that it is not in the interests of the Republic to discuss this matter any further. I reiterate, however, that I am prepared to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in his official capacity, more about the steps which the Government took. I think that is a fair offer.

Are you going to say something about the spy?

No, for obvious reasons I am not prepared to say anything on that score. A delicate investigation is in progress and a court case might be pending. Consequently it would be the height of irresponsibility on my part to say anything about the matter now.

What happens to his blue card?

I understand the card was posted to the hon. member. It gives the hon. member access to Moscow.

I also wish to make a short statement on the Ingwavuma and Kangwane issue now. In this case, too, I must speak with great responsibility today because an inquiry is at present in progress, an inquiry which was agreed to. Otherwise I would have been able to say far more than I am in fact going to say today. The decision to investigate the possibility of incorporating the territory of Kangwane and the district of Ingwavuma into Swaziland was the outcome of prolonged talks on border adjustments between the Republic of South Africa and Swaziland. It is a step in the direction of the realization of a long-cherished ideal of the Swazis who a long time ago were deprived, through historical error, of their Swazi citizenship of being united under one king in one country. In addition, these steps were taken after I had personally had talks on Ingwavuma with the Chief Minister of KwaZulu and after repeated discussions on Kangwane had taken place on ministerial level. Consequently the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was once again a little too hasty with his accusation. It was deemed desirable for the finalization of the border adjustments to remove the Black areas in the Ingwavuma district from the jurisdiction of the KwaZulu Legislative Assembly, to do away with the Kangwane Legislative Assembly and to transfer the authority in respect of the areas concerned, which was previously vested in the Governments of KwaZulu and Kangwane, to the Minister of Co-operation and Development. By so doing it was by no means implied that the territories would finally be transferred to Swaziland. And the Swazi Government knew this. The reason for doing this was simply to try to create a climate in which the true feelings of the inhabitants of the two territories as to the desirability or otherwise of incorporation into Swaziland could be gauged in an impartial way. That was our motivation. Two proclamations were promulgated to make provision for the removal of the Black areas in the Ingwavuma district from KwaZulu, i.e. R109 of 1982 and R121 of 1981. As far as the first proclamation was concerned, it was disputed in court by the KwaZulu Government, and the local division of the Supreme Court there issued a decree nisi and the authority and control over the administration of Ingwavuma was re-allocated to the KwaZulu Government. Therefore the South African Government did not take these steps before it had engaged in effective consultation and it did so on the advice at its disposal. I am not referring here to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development; I am referring to legal advice. In other words, the decision of the court was given in spite of the fact that other legal advice became available to us.

Which was not so good.

Get your Butterworths in order.

That hon. member is probably far better trained in law than I am. However, a Government has certain legal advice at its disposal.

You must be short-staffed there.

The State has certain fixed legal advice at its disposal. Sometimes the State succeeds on the basis of its legal advice and sometimes it does not.

Just like the hon. member.

The hon. member has also lost many court cases in the past. I do not wish to offend him now, but looking at him, I would say he has quite probably lost more than he has won.

The Government of the Republic then issued a further proclamation, viz. R21 of 1982, in terms of the provisions of another Act, in order to achieve the same object. The KwaZulu Government likewise disputed this second proclamation in court and the aforesaid Supreme Court declared this proclamation null and void as well. An appeal was lodged against this court decision by the Government, but the Appeal Court upheld the decision of the Durban and Coast Local Division of the Supreme Court. This gave rise to the decree nisi granted in the first court case still being valid. As a result of a settlement between the parties, Proclamation R109 of 1982 was declared null and void by the court and KwaZulu is once again in effective control of Ingwavuma. The settlement between the parties makes provision, inter alia, for the appointment of a commission of inquiry into Ingwavuma. Let me just add here that I played a personal part in these talks. I should therefore like to express my thanks to the King of the Zulus, who also played his part in this connection, and who did so in an honourable and sensible way.

The terms of reference given to the commission were to institute an investigation into and bring out a report and make recommendations on the conflicting claims between the kingdom of Swaziland and KwaZulu concerning the Ingwavuma district, and, having regard to the interests of the inhabitants of Ingwavuma, to consider the desirability or otherwise of border adjustments between South Africa and Swaziland. The commission, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Rumpff, was appointed by notice in the Gazette. Besides the chairman, the commission consists of five members nominated by the Government of the Republic of South Africa and three members nominated by the Government of KwaZulu. The Legislative Assembly of Kangwane had been abolished by proclamation since 18 June 1982, and as a result of the decision of the Appeal Court a settlement between the two parties has been agreed to in the case of Ingwavuma. The settlement between the applicants and the respondent provided, inter alia, that the question of border adjustments between the Republic of South Africa and the kingdom of Swaziland, in so far as these affect Kangwane, should also be referred to the commission for investigation and report, and that the Government of Kangwane should also be allowed to nominate three representatives in this case as members of the commission.

What I must in fact say here at this stage is that the Government was never in any way imbued with the spirit of acting in an arrogant and unilateral way here, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition alleged. We, and I personally, went out of our way—long before the time—to find a solution by way of discussions, but we were unable to succeed in doing so. However, the Government is not dealing only with Ingwavuma. Nor is the Government dealing only with Chief Minister Buthelezi, like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The Government is dealing with neighbouring States. The Government is dealing with a legacy left behind by previous regimes, regimes long before there was an NP Government. We have to cope with these problems. Earlier today I said that Africa was clinging in an unnatural way to colonial border arangements which caused it far more grief than joy.

What about Walvis Bay?

Surely we have already adopted a standpoint on Walvis Bay. The hon. member for Bryanston should not ask nonsensical questions here about matters which have nothing to do with this matter. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Bryanston is simply trying to distract me now. However, he is altogether too young for that. [Interjections.] Therefore the Government will continue to wait, in the spirit which I myself have determined, until clarity has been obtained in regard to certain matters by the commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Rumpff. After that we can deal further with this matter.

We have at all times said that the final say is not in the hands of the executive authority, but in the hands of this Parliament. We have said this at all times, and with every arrangement which we proposed we would ultimately have come back to this Parliament.

That brings me to the end of my replies to this debate. I wish to conclude by adding just one thing more. It is not becoming any easier to govern a multi-national country in this world. It is not becoming any easier to govern a country in this world which is being threatened in the way the Republic of South Africa is being threatened, because it is important. This Parliament also has a responsibility; not only this Government. Other parties in this House also have responsibilities. The Press also has responsibilities. The responsibility of the Press—and I am now referring to the Press in its entirety—is to be have itself in such a way that it does not make the position of this country more difficult than it already is. Last week we made an appeal to all the newspapers to act in such a way in regard to a certain matter that they did not harm delicate international relationships and an essential investigation on the part of the Government. I am afraid that, in the first place, this appeal fell on deaf ears until, by the weekend, we had to intervene and say to them: Now we are going to apply legislation. I am making an appeal to the Press today: Do not, for the sake of sensational reporting, allow an uproar to be created with photographers and political reporters trampling one another simply because they want to outdo one another as far as circulation is concerned. There is such a thing as responsibility to one’s fatherland. I am making this appeal to them and I am doing so in all fondness and for the sake of South Africa. If they do not wish to listen, this Government has an obligation to the country and then we shall have to meet our obligations to South Africa in a different way.

I want to conclude with another short statement. I resolved, while it is still granted to me to participate in the public life of South Africa, to go out of my way, within the limits of the possible and within the limits of what I believe is necessary to maintain stability and order, to cause population communities to co-operate with one another for the sake of the greater whole. I demonstrated that I did not stop when certain foolish people from my own ranks questioned my motives and tried to drag my Afrikanerdom through the mud. I did not hesitate when upstarts maligned and denigrated me with their gossip-mongering. [Interjections.]

Order!

I shall continue on my chosen course, but I now wish to issue a warning to other elements in the country. There are elements in this country that are not satisfied, whatever one does to regulate and bring about better relations, but that make extortionary demands and speak about bloodshed and confrontation. Let me say this to them this afternoon: If they want confrontation in spite of all my attempts to create peace: Let it come, and the sooner the better!

Mr. Speaker, it is quite impossible for me to reply to all the hon. the Prime Minister has dealt with in a speech which was wide-ranging and which lasted for about two hours. I only have limited time at my disposal. Obviously my colleagues will respond and comment where necessary.

I would like to begin by saying two things to the hon. the Prime Minister. I am sorry that he felt it necessary, towards the end of his speech to make what appeared to me to be yet another threat against the Press. It is true that he has a difficult job but it is equally true that the Press has an incredibly difficult job in a troubled land as well and I think, on the whole, do it well. As far as his personal comments in response to interjections are concerned I think it is very unfortunate that a Prime Minister makes that kind of comments. Instead of the Prime Minister, it reminds me of Pieter-Dirk Uys, but I think he does it a lot better.

The hon. the Prime Minister has responded to a number of issues raised by my hon. leader. In the first place his response to the questions we have put on the Seychelles we regard as totally unsatisfactory and totally unacceptable. We want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that we will not let it rest there. We will continue to ask questions. We will continue to place them on the Order Paper and we will continue to raise them in the debate until they have been answered.

Thirdly, with regard to destabilization, we are grateful that the hon. the Prime Minister took some time in responding to those questions because they are serious. I want to be quite clear here. Do we take it that the hon. the Prime Minister is now on record that the South African Government and the South African Defence Force have no involvement whatever with the MNR in Mozambique or with Unita in Angola? Is that what the hon. the Prime Minister has told the House today?

Carry on with your speach.

I just like asking the hon. the Prime Minister—it is a simple question. Is that the implication of his reply—yes or no? [Interjections.] Well, may I put it to the hon. the Minister of Defence? Will he tell us? [Interjections.] Well, it is very difficult in a no-confidence debate, when we are dealing with a very serious matter, when allegations are made not only by enemies of South Africa, but also by friends of South Africa. This is a very important matter, and I think we deserve a reply. Obviously the hon. the Prime Minister does not want to answer, but all I can say is that we shall not let this matter rest either.

As far as South West Africa is concerned—once again this is a vast subject and one of my colleagues will obviously deal with it later on in the debate—I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that we agree with him when he says that no one should take over the government of South West Africa/Namibia at the point of a gun. We agree with him. I want to ask him, however, whether he and his Government would allow, if there were a free and fair election, that no matter who won that election, that new government to go on unimpeded. If, for example, Swapo should win that election, then would the Government be prepared to allow it to take over?

On whose side are you? [Interjections.]

I ask this because it is an important question as to the motives and attitude of the Government towards South West Africa.

I have not received very many replies, but let me go on to a very important announcement made by the hon. the Prime Minister. This has to do with urban Blacks. I want to come to that, but not only to the urban Blacks; the whole future and development of Blacks in South Africa too. The hon. the Prime Minister said, firstly, that there was no instant solution to this problem, and we accept that. 35 years, however, is a pretty long time. The appointment of a Cabinet Committee—I am not at all persuaded that this is the best way to do it, but the hon. the Prime Minister has chosen to do it this way—makes one wonder why it is that the hon. the Minister of Education and Training is not serving on that committee. Perhaps I should put the question again: I do not think that the hon. the Prime Minister heard: Why is it that the hon. the Minister of Education and Training, who has to work directly with Blacks in South Africa every day of his life, is not on that Cabinet Committee? Is it an oversight or is it a deliberate decision? Could he be added too? Has it any significance?

He should replace the hon. the Minister of Law and Order.

Yes, I would have thought so.

Then there is a question about a non-negotiable attitude: Are there any specific terms of reference given to this Cabinet Committee, terms of reference beyond which they dare not go? The reason why we ask this is not that we expect the hon. the Prime Minister to take over our policy, much as we would like him to do that, but rather that he himself earlier in his speech said that politicians on any side make mistakes and that Governments can change. This is one area where change is overdue. I should like to know from the hon. the Prime Minister—if the hon. Minister behind him would give me a chance—whether this Cabinet Committee will be involved in any constitutional discussions with the people concerned. In other words, is the committee looking for a streamlining of contact or better contact between national States and the urban areas, or is it going beyond that? Can it go beyond that to a new constitutional dispensation for Blacks in South Africa?

Within the principles of the NP.

Oh, yes, sure.

Well, that is fair enough. Could I go beyond that, however, and ask whether the hon. the Prime Minister is prepared to review—at any point—the principles of the NP regarding Blacks in South Africa?

I am prepared to review policy, but I cannot review principles unless I consult with my congresses, and you know it.

This brings me to one last question in that area. Obviously the leaders to be consulted by this Cabinet Committee include the leaders of the national States and the homelands. Can I take it, however, that the Cabinet Committee would be consulting with Black leaders in the urban areas, and could he give us any indication of whom they will be? Will the committee be calling for evidence? [Interjections.]

That I will leave to the intelligence of the Cabinet Committee.

I want to suggest to the hon. the Prime Minister that the appointment of a Cabinet Committee, against the background of rapid constitutional change in South Africa, is highly inadequate to meet the demands of the day. The central problem facing South Africa—and here I think that the hon. the Prime Minister and ourselves are at one—is to try to find a way for Black and White, in fact for all, to live in peace and security together in South Africa. We both surely admit that Blacks will not go away, and nor will the majority of Whites. This is a truth which Black and Whites alike in South Africa have to acknowledge. It follows then that any constitution that does not come to terms with this reality does not meet the burning issue of our day. I would go further, however, and say that a constitution that deliberately excludes Blacks in its planning and its proposals contributes to the heightening of tension and the extension of suspicion, distrust and polarization in South Africa. The irony is that while constitutions are intended to assist in the search for consensus and unity, the Government’s proposals have exacerbated the conditions and the divisions within South Africa. On the one hand Blacks, by their own admission, their public statements, are bitterly disappointed and angry at being excluded and are critical, not only of the Nationalist Government, but even of those Coloureds and Asians who have expressed their willingness to accept the new dispensation, sharp criticism, in spite of the severe reservations and qualifications laid down by both those communities. Strong feelings have been let loose in South Africa, feelings that have heightened tension and division within the Asian and Coloured communities themselves. All the old wounds are again being exposed and long-held frustrations have come bubbling to the surface. Bitterness, accusation and counter-accusation are the order of the day in those communities. The introduction of these proposals is a declaration, by the Government, to the effect that it has no investment in unity in South Africa. Instead of coming with a constitutional plan that would unite South Africa, the proposals have served to be divisive, and any hope of genuine consensus has been thrown out of the window.

Yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance, in reacting to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s criticism of the proposals, said the following (Hansard, 31 January 1983)—

This is, however, exactly the reason given, by the hon. the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers, to indicate why the Government is to introduce a Coloured Parliament and an Indian Parliament, the object being to move away from paternalism, with other people speaking on their behalf. The object is to have people speak for themselves. In response to criticism, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance said: “Well, anyone can raise these issues”. However, what happens once the new dispensation comes into being? I have looked at the rather cute little diagram contained in this brochure sent out at my expense and find that there is no Standing Committee on Black Affairs designated at all. [Interjections.] Does that mean that there is going to be one, or not? I notice, incidentally, that there is no Standing Committee on Education, nor one on Community Development.

There will be a confederation.

I see; there will be a confederation.

Or a constellation.

Yes, a constellation of casinos. That is the only answer the hon. the Minister can give us.

How much longer are we going to deny Blacks the right to speak for themselves in the highest courts of our land? Or is it a fact that this Government does not really accept Blacks as South African citizens? The Government has argued that Blacks are excluded not because they are irrelevant, but because there is already machinery for them. There are national States, there are homelands, there are Community Councils, there is the beefing up of local government, there is regional government, there is the confederation, there is the constellation, the casinos and all the rest. However, that is not the point. The argument that provision has been made for Blacks and that therefore they do not have to be included is hollow for, whatever the rationalization, the consequence is the same, i.e. Blacks by definition are not recognized as being an essential part of South Africa’s body politic. That is what we are saying to them. What is at stake is the key question, the question all of us have to ask: Who is a South African? It is how we answer that question that determines how we see South Africa and its future.

We in this party have stated repeatedly that we believe that citizenship rights must be enjoyed by all South Africans. Our standpoint is quite clear and unambiguous on that. It would appear that the Government still holds to what a former Minister called the ultimate objective, namely that there will be no Black South African citizens at the end of the road. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, who is perhaps better qualified to answer that than anyone else, whether it is still the objective of the NP that at the end of the road there will be no Black South African citizens. [Interjections.] It is either yes or no.

Carry on with your speech.

That hon. members does not have to protect him. He is a big man and we know each other. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will deal with that when he speaks in this debate.

Yes, I will deal with that in my speech.

Thank you very much. That gives him time to think about it. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that, if this is still their view, it flies in the face of reality and can only intensify conflict. This, I submit to the hon. the Minister, is the great divide between the NP and the official Opposition. Perhaps I do the Government an injustice, because when we meet with overseas visitors—some of them come to see us as well as the Prime Minister—or with some diplomats and journalists, we are told with great excitement that it is the intention of the Government to include Blacks and that it is just a matter of time. This is what is called the hidden agenda syndrome. I put it to the hon. the Minister: Is there a so-called hidden agenda? Is there, for example, a fourth chamber being contemplated for Blacks? Is that part of the plan?

I will also reply to that in my speech.

It is going to be quite a speech.

Alternatively, does the Government still confine itself to the view that Blacks will exercise their rights through the homelands, the national States and some vague confederal structure? What is the truth? I ask the hon. the Minister to include that in his speech. He is going to be very busy. Is the hidden agenda syndrome a figment of the imagination, a “verligte” sop to concerned businessmen, foreign diplomats and overseas visitors, or is there some truth in these whispered rumours? The Government must come clean on this issue because so long as it creates the impression that Blacks have no part in the constitutional proposals so long will it erode any remaining support from moderate Blacks in South Africa who have desperately tried to follow the path of peaceful change despite continued rejection by the Government. I want to warn the Government that it is playing with fire in its stubborn refusal to come to grips with Black and White coexistence. Where is the Government’s political—I emphasize “political”—answer to Maseru and Koeberg, and to bombs in offices, on railway lines and in court offices, or do we only have a military answer? Is there any answer at all? Do we have any political framework? Where do the constitutional plans, these marvellous designs, meet that problem? If they do not meet that problem they have no answer to the central problem facing South Africa. This kind of attitude reinforces the ANC’s position and its philosophy that the armed struggle is the only way left to Blacks.

I want to go further by saying that the proposals which deliberately exclude Blacks are an absolute gift to those who have opted for violence in their attempt to bring about change. By their stubborn refusal to face the consequences of Blacks without meaningful rights they are driving hundreds more each day into the arms of those who have given up the apparently hopeless pursuit of genu ine reform by constitutional means.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central— he is not present in the House at the moment—described the NP as the freedom party. We are used to that hon. member speaking with his tongue in his cheek, but this time he put his foot right into his mouth. Harold Pakendorf put it much better when he wrote—

He is talking about the ANC now—

†The tragedy about this Government is that the majority of the people in this country do not regard them as the freedom party but as the party of the oppressors. When we call for Blacks to be included in the constitutional proposals, it is not a call for capitulation but for courage; not a posture of surrender but of statemanship. The very people that the Government is seeking to protect, viz. the Whites, are put in jeopardy by the Government’s irrational decision to exclude Blacks. If the Government were really concerned about the welfare, safety and future of Whites it would know that its proposals are not a recipe for resolution but a recipe for revolution, a prescription for polarization.

I want to close with the comments made by the hon. member for Randburg yesterday. He said—

You go and tell that to the people living in squatter camps. You tell that to people languishing in gaol for pass offences. You tell that to families who have been ruthlessly separated. You tell that to people, thousands of them—people from District Six and other places across the land—who have been forcibly moved out of places. You tell that to people banned and detained without trial and they will laugh at you once they are done with weeping. It is said that if people have no vision they perish. It is tragic that a Prime Minister can stand up in this House and speak for two hours on so many subjects and not display the courage and the determination so necessary to move South Africa forward so that the future will hold the promise of security and peace rather than escalating violence and even civil war. What an example of blurred vision at a time which cries out for clear-eyed realism!

Mr. Speaker, in his speech this afternoon the hon. the Prime Minster drew the sting of the Opposition’s motion of no confidence with, in particular, the new initiatives he announced in respect of the Black people. What, in reality, did the hon. the Prime Minister do here this afternoon? He inspired anew confidence that the Government does not avoid difficult national issues, but tackles such issues fearlessly with faith and confidence and resolves them. By his actions he once again brought hope on the basis of fairness and justice, hope for the Whites but also hope for the Coloured people and the Indians, and this afternoon he also brought hope for the Black people in this country in particular, especially with regard to aspects of the question which has been under close scrutiny recently—there have repeatedly been questions about this from the various political parties across the floor of this House. As far as this is concerned, it was an epoch-making speech and occasion.

What are the facts of the matter? A process is being set in motion by the Government in an honest effort, after much hard work over the past months, to find solutions to these thorny problems. I therefore wish to pledge in advance that the Department of Co-operation and Development, which is my responsibility, will co-operate with enthusiasm and dedication and, as far as it is within the Department’s power, will carry this out. I appeal to all officials in and outside this department in the firm belief that they will do so with might and main. I also wish to declare that, within the ambit of this department under my supervision, initiatives in respect of this matter will be taken.

Allow me to digress for just a moment since I should very much like to elaborate on the announcement made by the hon. the Prime Minister by saying that on this side of the House—and now I am speaking on behalf of the entire Cabinet and the hon. the Prime Minister in particular—there is absolutely no consideration of the possibility that the Department of Co-operation and Development will be dismantled or destroyed, as is being conjectured in certain circles. It is simply a question of ordinary rationalization to which all departments are subject and it will be done in an expert way. It will not be to the detriment of the essence of this department, which is one of the oldest departments. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I request your protection regarding a few hon. members opposite who are making it very difficult for me to deliver my speech. I do not feel inclined to enter into a debate with them across the floor of this House concerning what I regard as their absurdities. There are other opportunities for that. I simply ask you to assist me to make my speech. The fact is that this rationalization will be done in an expert manner in order to leave untouched the essence of the department, which is one of the oldest departments in this country, a department which has come a long way, with the assurance that officials will be completely protected in all circumstances and will not be at all prejudiced in this normal process of rationalization, which is also in the interests of the country.

Now I should like to turn to the theme I wish to deal with on this occasion. I take it very much amiss of the Opposition that they create the impression that because Black people are not included in the guidelines for the new constitutional dispensation for Whites, Coloureds and Indians, Black people are for that reason not going to be involved in the constitutional development and the process of reform in South Africa. I wish to enter into serious debate with the Opposition concerning this, since it is not in the interests of South Africa that this impression should be created. It must be avoided and I request that it be avoided. We are dealing with a dispensation for Whites, Coloureds and Indians, and the Blacks are not involved in this. But any responsible person who wishes to bluff the world that for that reason the Black people are not being involved in the constitutional or reform processes in South Africa in any way, are doing the country a serious injustice, since this is not true. After all, the hon. the Prime Minister made this very clear this afternoon. The inference is being drawn, incorrectly, that the Black people are being excluded from constitutional development in South Africa and that the Government, for whatever reasons, is insensitive to the constitutional aspirations of the Black people. I deny this emphatically, Sir. This is not the way of this Government, and it certainly is not the truth.

Let us test the validity of this accusation in the light of the Government’s policies and goals with regard to constitutional development in South and Southern Africa, on the basis of the progress made—the hon. the Prime Minister spelt this out clearly here this afternoon—and the problem areas and bottlenecks which still exist with regard to the policies and goals, and on the basis of the methods which the Government, for its part, wishes to propose in order to allow sustained constitutional development to take place as smoothly as possible. What do we find then? We find that Black constitutional development is one of the Government’s highest priorities. We heard this once again this afternoon from the hon. the Prime Minster. It has always been, and still is, the Government’s view that Black people constitute part of any reform which is undertaken and that the Government, in co-opertion with other interested parties, is therefore working on the rightful Black claims to participation in the processes which affect their interests. As far as my personal standpoint on this is concerned, hon. members have already repeatedly referred to what I had to say to the Washington Press Club and at Palm Springs in 1979. Even on that occasion, shortly after I was put in charge of this portfolio by the Prime Minister, I stated that it was the goal and aim of the Government to involve Black people, too, in the process of constitutional development and to make it possible for them, too, to take part in the decision-making processes.

Sir, this policy, the policy of including Black people too, in the decision-making processes, relating to constitutional development in this country, has already gathered an irreversible momentum. What are the objectives of the Government in this regard? The Government has very clear objectives in this regard. Its overall constitutional objective is this: While maintaining order and stability and promoting the welfare of all, to give everyone an individual say, as well as a say in a group context, in decision-making processes which affect his interests and expectations, without affecting the claim of any people or group to decide for itself concerning its way of life, continued existence and standards. This also applies to the Black people, with the understanding that multinationalism and ethnic diversity are accepted as a reality and taken into account in the reform we are undertaking. The Government remains convinced, and it is at all times a primary objective, that the optimum form of self-determination for the Black peoples is the gaining of independence in their own territory. And all the Government is doing is simply to recognize the God-given realities of South Africa and to build on them. There is no stronger foundation to build on than precisely this, and if anyone expects the Government to move away from this, then he is seeking from the Government something he will not find, neither now, nor in the future. This is how the TBVC countries…

What about the positive realities of … [Interjections.]

If the hon. member for Bryanston wishes to scold the Good Lord because He created nations, he is probably entitled to do so. However, I accept it. This is how the TBVC countries came into being. These are the facts. No one can deny this. These are irreversible facts. The processes by means of which preparations for independence are made, require courage and perseverance from all involved. Very often this is overlooked. It is essential that the entire process of support for development, of interstate cooperation and of the consolidation of land be evaluated continually in order to ensure that the common objectives, which I have, after all, clearly stated, are furthered. For this purpose, continuous consultation and negotiation between the independent and self-governing States and the Republic of South Africa, along the proper channels, are absolutely imperative. Against this background of clear objectives and the progress which has been made, which has been expounded in detail by the hon. the Prime Minister, I wish to say a number of things about the Black people outside the national States. I wish to state clearly that the Government accepts the fact that large numbers of the Black peoples will be present in the Republic of South Africa on a permanent basis. This fact, too, must be taken into account in the responsible planning of constitutional development. To try and wish these people away and to pretend that they do not exist, amounts to irresponsible and dangerous evasion of reality, something which the Government does not intend being guilty of.

[Inaudible.]

Oh, Nic! Surely I have said this before in this House. [Interjections.] Within the framework of the constitutional premises, and taking into account what is possible in the South African situation, we are working towards accommodating the position of this section of the Black population in one way or another. Provision for the exercising of powers at the local authority level by Black people in the Republic of South Africa reflects an ongoing movement in the direction of management bodies which are elected by the residents themselves, and which are being vested with constanly increasing powers. Thus, in a process which began many years ago, there were advisory committees for Black people from 1923 to 1945. From 1945 to 1961 there were advisory committees [for the Black people] consisting of Black people. These developed further into urban Black councils from 1961 to 1977, which further developed into community councils, from 1977 to 1982. Last year, with the acceptance of the Black Local Authorities Act, the stage of fully-fledged Black local authorities was achieved. This process is still under way, as hon. members who served on the Select Committee on the Development of Black Communities Bill are only too well aware.

Self-government promotes stability in urban communities, and it is an important instrument for the realization of Black self-determination in respect of their own affairs up to a certain level. They will be able to develop to the maximum extent into fully autonomous bodies, as hon. members are aware. At the same time, such local authorities form structures which offer the potential for the coordination of common local interests, which include neighbouring structures of the Republic of South Africa and, where practicable, also neighbouring states and self-governing States.

Now in this set-up there are, of course, also certain bottlenecks and problem areas, such as the possible establishment of regional institutions, to which reference has already been made, to serve rural communities. Another problem is, for example, taking steps to increase and ensure the financial viability of the Black local authorities. The arrangements with regard to Black communities which do not satisfy the criteria for viability, will have to be investigated and resolved—and this is the vital issue—in co-operation with Black leaders in and outside the national States. This is a process which was begun and has been spelt out here this afternoon by the hon. Prime Minister, a process through which precisely this will be done, in cooperation and negotiation with the Black leaders. It is accepted that Black people in the Republic of South Africa also have expectations beyond local authority level. It would be extremely unrealistic not to accept this. The meaningful satisfaction of those expectations is undoubtedly one of the most important constitutional challenges we face at present. Allow me just to say in passing that the Cabinet Committee which the hon. the Prime Minister announced this afternoon, under the chairmanship of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, consists of members of the Cabinet who serve on the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs of this Parliament, as well as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information, in view of his direct responsibility with regard to independent States. I say that this is the great challenge we face.

May I put a question?

I just wish to finish speaking, and after that the hon. member may put his question to me with the greatest of pleasure. I reiterate that this is one of the greatest challenges facing us. This is a challenge which must of necessity be dealt with. I am grateful that I could bear witness this afternoon to the hon. the Prime Minister who had the courage, the drive and the faith to tackle this and not to be afraid of it. I am proud to be a member of a party such as this which has the courage and the conviction to tackle this in spite of perhaps becoming unpopular in some circles in the process. Why? For one reason only, and that is that we love our children and we love this country, and we should like to bequeath to them a future in this country. We wish to act in the country’s interests; we wish to act in terms of what is important in this country and for the people of this country. I say I am proud that it can be so. I reiterate that this task must of necessity be tackled, but that it must be tackled extremely responsibly, since the problem is an extremely complex one. It is essential that tangible content be given to certain general ideas as soon as possible for proper evaluation and possible implementation. How can a government proceed more sensibly than that? The reciprocal granting of jurisdiction across national borders with regard to certain Governmental functions, for example, local authorities, with regard to the territory of their own citizens and others, the possibility—and now I come to the question of the hon. member to which I said I would reply—of improved arrangements concerning nationality and citizenship, and the forced union with Black national states which has to be adapted in order to be more naturally acceptable, and just a few of these problem areas which must now be investigated and evaluated by way of this process which has been set in motion here this afternoon in order to face up squarely to this unavoidable problem in our time and try to find solutions together.

The optimum socio-economic development of independent and self-governing States remains a top priority, however difficult it may be. In Africa, with its Third World orientation, this is one of the most difficult tasks to perform. This is proved by what I am tempted to call the astronomical amount which has been spent since 1948 and over the past five years in particular. Then there is the question: What has been achieved thereby? Of course, much has been achieved. But certainly is not optimal, and therefore it must remain a priority. It will have to be seen to that the consolidation of land furthers the constitutional objects of the Government in all respects. Firm multilateral and bilateral structures will have to be established in cooperation with Black leaders, thereby enabling Black people to have the maximum say concerning matters which affect them at the highest inter-state level. It is therefore clear that as the hon. the Prime Minister has said, simple, instant solutions would be irresponsible, measured against the Government’s objectives of order, stability and prosperity, and as in the case of the idea of the addition of a fourth chamber to Parliament—and now I am replying to the other question—are in conflict with the Government’s approach and are not feasible in South Africa. However, this is not the only way in which constitutional solutions for South Africa’s problems can be found. On one occasion I made a speech before the International Society on the Swiss canton system. Of course, there are other ways in which plural societies can find solutions which are better for the problems of those specific plural societies, and as sure as I am standing here and speaking this afternoon, the Government will find them. There is a marvellous quotation I should like to read—

The Government will bring in the ship, since we are fearlessly dealing with these matters and since we wish to do these things for South Africa. Thus I have now furnished a clear reply to that question.

Bearing in mind what is attainable at local authority level and what can be achieved in the short term, solutions for the problems from region to region and even from urban area to urban area will have to be sought in close cooperation with Black leaders within and outside the independent and self-governing national states. I do not wish to elaborate on that now; we can talk about that later, since there is a great deal to be said about it. Suffice it to say that we have investigated the matter and that it has worked. We have investigated it, and the ievestigations we carried out were extremely encouraging. Therefore, if there are hon. members in this House who think that mere stereotype solutions for this problem in South Africa can be found, I can say this afternoon with the utmost conviction that there are other countries in the world, such as Switzerland and other plural communities, where other solutions have brought better results than even the most homogeneous countries have found possible.

It is against the background which I have briefly sketched that the new constitutional initiatives which the hon. the Prime Minister announced this afternoon with regard to the Black people inspire so much hope for evolutionary and peaceful development, and a new process, full of promise for all South Africa’s people was launched today since this is the only way in which one can allay the fears of the White people in this country: One must truly find workable, practical, meaningful solutions—there is no other solution to that problem.

An important point is that it is essential that the clearance of the steps which have to be taken, is done in consultation with the Black people, since experience has shown that if this does not happen, one may put forward the best answers and it will not be possible to implement them in practice. Therefore, this will be the golden rule to follow: This will take place in consultation with the Black people. I therefore extend my personal invitation to the Black people of this country to let their best brains come forward to cooperate with us in finding meaningful solutions to this thorny, unavoidable question. With cooperation, development will follow, and arising from this, lasting peace, prosperity and progress will be South Africa’s lot in the future, and we shall leave our children a worth while heritage. That is why I am extremely happy and proud on this occasion.

On one occasion, that hon. member who shall be called “Goor Daan” …

Which one?

… give me the nickname of Piet Horizons. I just wish to say to him: Full of hope, full of confidence, follow the NP—the only way—the NP.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen once again to the hon. Minister of Co-operation and Development, with his eloquence and his superlatives. I called to mind the cartoon in Beeld of Saturday, 27 November 1982 in which the hon. the Minister says—

[Interjections.] The hon. the Minister and I were always very good friends—until a certain date last year when he came here and made one of the most bitter speeches I have ever heard him make. It was then that he said that the hon. member for Waterberg would be known as the greatest source of division since the Three Years’ War. It was then that he said that he had made trouble even at the Cottlesloe Conference. [Interjections.] It was then that he said that the hon. member for Waterberg, as a Deputy Minister, and therefore at a stage when not in the Cabinet, had caused the Soweto riots. [Interjections.] The hon. member was repudiated by one of the most honourable people that has ever appeared on the South African political scene, and that person said that it was a shame that he had said anything of the kind. I promised that hon. Minister that I would say this openly on every platform, at every meeting I attended in South Africa. [Interjections.] I want to tell him from the bottom of my heart that on every platform where I was present, the people laughed when his name was mentioned. [Interjections.] I shall leave the matter at that.

We are interested in this committee. We are interested to know what will become of this committee. We only hope that this committee will not set to work now to find ways and means to depart from the policy of separate development, the policy in which we have always believed. I am going to try to indicate that the National Government is departing from the policy of separate development.

I should like to put a question to the hon. the Prime Minister. Unfortunately he is not present at the moment. However, there is something which I find inexplicable. The aspect of the South African political debate which is most immediate at the moment, namely, the issue of the new dispensation, is something which is not only being discussed and debated by the newspapers and the various peoples of South Africa, but is also being raised outside and within this House by the leaders of the three political parties. However, in a speech of two hours, no reference whatsoever was made to this by the hon. the Prime Minister.

He is incapable of doing so.

I find this totally inexplicable, and I think it is inexplicable to all hon. members in this House as well. Or is it perhaps that he has no answer to the weighty arguments advanced by this side of the House? [Interjections.] When our former Prime Minister returned from Austria after having held discussions with Dr. Kissinger and Vice-President Mondale, he said that he was more than ever convinced of the fact that the policy of separate development offered the solution to the problems in South Africa. However, when the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development was in America in 1979, he said: “Apartheid is dead”, and then he said: “Apartheid—as you have come to know it—is dead.” [Interjections.] However, I want to say to him: “Apartheid, at present, is dead as a dodo.”

Not one of the hon. speakers over there advocated separate development. [Interjections.] I should like to be proved wrong. [Interjections.] One of the cornerstones of separate development is, of course, the issue of self-determination. In this regard one must also take cognizance of what a person like Dr. Willem de Klerk had to say in connection with this matter. I refer to an article by Dr. Willem de Klerk, who is at present the mentor of the Transvaal NP. After all, he holds symposia at Hartebeespoortdam and so on. He states inter alia—

I go further and say that the policy of separate development is also linked to the sustained endeavour to preserve a person’s identity. Once again I refer to Dr. De Klerk, who states that the endeavour to preserve one’s own identity is a puberty-related phenomenon among the Afrikaner people. I want to know whether the NP agrees with these statements by Dr. De Klerk.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central was not very happy yesterday with a definition of self-determination given by the hon. the leader of the CP, a definition given by a professor at the University of the Orange Free State.

Yes.

Now I just want to ask the hon. member whether he agrees with another definition I want to provide. I should be obliged if I could have his attention.

I shall not allow myself to be cross-examined by you.

Does he agree with the following definition: The concept of self-determination and the right of self-determination of a people involves its right to determine its own Government. Does he agree with that? [Interjections.] I just want to say to him that it comes out of Nat 80s. I also wish to say to him that it comes from a speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister in November 1981 at an NP congress.

Your leader spoke about a population group and not about a people.

I want to say that if in 1981 the White nation of South Africa rejected the establishment of a system of government which did not give it the right to establish the Government, it will reject it in 1983. The White nation of South Africa will reject it in 1990 as well. The White nation of South Africa demands the say over who governs it. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House also want to hear from the hon. members opposite how they are going to maintain self-determination without a territory of geographic jurisdiction. How are the few crumbs which are still reserved as being group-specific, to be given effect to in an acceptable fashion without a delimited area of jurisdiction? If that is not the case then we are back to the race federation of the old UP.

But where were you in 1977?

In 1977 it was separate Parliaments for separate areas of jurisdiction. [Interjections.]

A fourth characteristic of separate development is the rejection of the idea of a unitary state. This tricameral system is nothing but a moving away from apartheid. Moreover, these three chambers are pure deception, they are a fabrication, because the engine-room from which this country is to be governed is the Standing Committee.

You are in Parliament, not in a ship.

The system of Standing Committees through which the members meet without being in the spotlight of public opinion will in due course, if it succeeds, play such an important role that it may be said: If we can sit together in the engine room, we might just as well sit together in the sitting-room.

I also wish to refer to the argument advanced by the SABC, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information and all the propagandists of the NP government to the effect that the sovereignty of the White Parliament is being preserved, or is not being prejudiced by the new dispensation. The hon. Prime Minister said at Pietersburg that the character and features of the White Parliament would remain unchanged. Surely that is not true in terms of the guidelines of the NP Government. The White Parliament becomes a chamber in the tricameral system which will not have a greater say over matters of common concern than any of the other chambers. In certain instances the White chamber will even be subordinate to the President’s Council. What is stated in that blue book in Prog colours issued at our expense? Merely because it does not have the final say in respect of all legislation, it is not a chamber or a super-parliament. P. G. du Plessis and Pakendorf and all the other Goebbels of the NP Government, say that this is not a virtual parliament. Do the lawyers on the NP side agree with this argument that it is not a fourth chamber or a virtual parliament? A mule does not graze all the time, but it remains a mule nevertheless. Because the President’s Council will primarily be an advisory body, the final sovereignty will not vest in it, or so the argument goes. The President’s Council will be the final, legislative or decision-making body concerning those very matters which will be of fundamental importance for each specific group as regards legislation and policy formation. Surely that is true. Why, then, is the hon. member for Mossel Bay shaking his head? It is so. It will be the final legislative body in the case of conflict and accordingly it forms part of the legislative process of South Africa. In that case it is not only a virtual parliament but it is part of the legislative authority of South Africa. I challenge the hon. Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to deny that.

What will the President’s Council look like? It will comprise 25 members who will be nominated by the State President. And then we still say we are moving away from the Westminster system. Do hon. members know what is the worst and most deplorable aspect of the Westminster system? In the struggle that took place over the years between King and Commons, the king enlarged the House of Lords in order to clip the wings of the Commons. This appointment of 25 members to the President’s Council by the State President in order to get his way there, is the most deplorable aspect of the Westminster system, which is here being accepted as part of the new process once again.

Mr. Chairman, we have now had another opportunity to listen to a lot of theatrical nonsense concerning the future that the CP envisages for South Africa. I should like to begin my speech by referring to a remark made yesterday by the hon. member for Langlaagte, and other hon. members of the CP, in regard to my colleague, the hon. member for Pretoria-Central. I regard this House as a mirror to life. Nothing that happens in life, does not also happen here. Of all the hon. members here I have been the only member who has said things about hon. members along the way, then I say to my colleagues that I am very sorry. If it is true that all of us in this House are only human, and that things are sometimes said along the way which should not have been said, then we must have the decency not to practise politics at a personal level. I want to say to my hon. colleague for Pretoria Central that I dissociate myself from the reflection cast upon him and I want to assure him that I want to join hands with him and the other colleagues here in the interests of South Africa.

I also wish to say to hon. members of the Opposition that I extend the political hand of friendship to them, too, in the interests of South Africa. If we were to reach a point at which we had to undermine, disparage and humiliate one another at a personal level, then we would end up in a meaningless political debate. Let us leave this matter at that. As far as I am concerned it is past. However, it is true that there is a worthwhile lesson to be learnt from stories of this nature. This applies to me as well. It is the finest lesson, for each one in this House as well. Do unto others as you would be done by. Let me suggest this lesson to the hon. member for Jeppe too. Then, too, I also wish to put to him by way of advice what the late Advocate Strydom said: “Eagles do not catch flies.”

When we consider the hon. members of the CP—and this is something we encountered in them in the previous session too— we note that they suffer from something of an anxiety psychosis, a process of striking fear into the hearts of the public at large. One of the most amazing aspects of the debate that those people are conducting with the public is they say, on the one hand, that they are pious people, and yet, on the other, they tell the people: “We do not have a hope because P. W. Botha is selling us down the river. We are going under.” How these two things can be reconciled, I shall never be able to understand. However, what I should like to say to those hon. members is that I have become convinced that any person in this country, whether he be attached to the PFP, the CP or the NP, who has decided in his heart that we do not have a future here, any person who is afraid to work for his future in South Africa, had better pack his bags and leave, because that kind of person only acts as a brake on all the other people who would like to get the work in South Africa done. Under no circumstances can we continue to afford a spirit of defeatism, pessimism or negativism among our people, and I therefore call upon the hon. members of the CP, the propagandists of that spirit, please to come to their senses. On a previous occasion, in the first speech I made in this House after they had walked out of the NP, I said to them that to the right of the NP there was only a political darkness. I also said to them that they were heading inevitably towards the HNP. Is it not interesting and ironic that from Germiston district to Stellenbosch they employed exactly the same arguments as the HNP; viz. everything is being done for the Blacks. P. W. Botha is selling us out. We are on the road to integration. Conservatism does not count for anything any more. We are on the road to mixed government.

But it is true.

In their newspaper they repeat verbatim what the HNP said in their election pamphlets: “Right is right”. They go on to say that we are going the way of Zimbabwe. They ask the same questions: “How far are you going to go?” They say that the concessions are going to destroy the White man.

I want to make the statement here this afternoon—and I made it last year to the hon. member for Rissik as well—that faith is something that emanates from one’s own being. If a people does not have faith in itself, it has no right to survive, and it is doomed. If the White nation in this country does not have faith in itself, it is doomed. I want to say exactly the same thing to the hon. member for Rissik again today so that the hon. member for Waterkloof can come and say it in my constituency again, to the people in the Innesdal constituency, viz. that Albert Nothnagel says in Parliament about South Arica that the identity as Whites of the voters of Innesdal is alive in their hearts and that I have so much respect for their self-respect and sense of identity that I believe that they do not need laws like the Immorarily Act and the Mixed Marriages Act to protect them. But the hon. member for Waterkloof went to his constituency and made a tremendous fuss there. It was simply amazing.

In passing, he arrived at the meeting half an hour late. The hon. members of the CP say that the NP has changed. Yes, the NP has changed dramatically and in many respects.

Excellent!

Why has the NP changed? The NP has changed because the Whites who are capable of seeing, thinking, hearing, listening and interpreting in the interests of ourselves and our children, have said: There are now matters in the constitutional sphere which we must deal with today in terms of a formula which we perhaps did not foresee 10 years ago. If the CP were only to drop the nonsensical arguments which they and the HNP sent out in the election propaganda, and were only to come forward with a new constitutional dispensation, the people would say: We can understand that certain sacrifices will have to be made if we want to survive.

I wish to say to hon. members of the CP that they have lost touch with the nation entirely, and that that part of the nation that is with them has lost all touch with reality. [Interjections.] We are being set a very major task, because we must go and fetch those people and bring them back to us. [Interjections.] They must not think we are going to let matters stand.

Hon. members of the CP have absolutized views. My friend the hon. member for Rissik has an absolutized view about separate development, as was also reflected in the speech of the hon. member for Brakpan, viz. that we must have absolute areas in which the Whites live, absolute areas in which the Coloureds live—all in watertight compartments. Now I want to repeat to them once again what I said here last year. They must go back and read the summary of the report of the Tomlinson Commission. In it they will find that the Tomlinson Commission projected two figures concerning the numerical strength of Black people in South Africa in the year 2000. The one figure—this is the highest estimate—has it that in the year 2000 there will be 22 million Black people in South Africa. All those hon. members know that if we were to determine the true figure today—unfortunately there are estimation problems with regard to the census figures— already, in 1983, we apparently have almost 22 million Black people in South Africa. That is a fact. It is a reality which in many respects brought our idealism of that time face to face with realities which the NP must deal with and of which it is not afraid. We cannot enter the future with absolutized views. In this life we must adopt approaches which make provision for our being able to effect changes in our country. We live in a wonderful, dramatic and dynamic world. Hon. members opposite must realize that. I wonder whether hon. members of this House know, I wonder whether people anywhere in the world know what the effects on us and on all people of the technological revolution that is bearing down on us are going to be during the coming decade. There are so many dramatic developments relating to technology alone and then—bearing in mind, too, all those complexities which our country must deal with in the economic and other spheres—we meet here and score points off one another concerning matters such as integration and conservatism. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Rissik— and they are so fond of touting with the word conservatism—what a conservative is. [Interjections.] Is a conservative not a person who, faithful to the meaning of the word, wants to conserve that which is his? Are we on this side of the House, from the hon. the Prime Minister to the most junior backbencher, not all conservatives, because it is important to us … [Interjections.] Yes, those hon. members can shout if they like. Are we not all conservatives, because that which is important to us—namely our identity—lives in our hearts, because our language lives in our homes, because our children’s education lives in our schools? That is of importance for us, for everyone in South Africa, and therefore I call upon hon. members of the CP not to tout with the word conservatism. How can any one Afrikaner, any one White person, tell other people that his interpretation and experience of conservatism is the correct interpretation? [Interjections.] Are we not engaged in a kind of sanctimonious display?

Mr. Speaker, I want to put a very simple question to the hon. member for Innesdal. I want to ask him what his opinion is with regard to the urban Black man in the new constitutional dispensation. Will he please tell us that? [Interjections.]

It is indeed an easy question, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development has just replied in that regard. [Interjections.] However, on behalf of all hon. members of the NP I should like to say to the hon. member for Barberton that we on this side of the House, as the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development have in fact said, know that there are certain political realities concerning our Black people in certain areas, e.g. Soweto and elsewhere, which we cannot ignore. As far as we are concerned, therefore, the question is not whether we want to accommodate those people politically. To us the question is how, on the road ahead, we are going to reach a point where urban Black people are to obtain political rights in an evolutionary way, with local authorities as a basis—as the hon. the Prime Minister has clearly stated—and with a homeland link with which the Black people themselves ought to be involved. Allow me to point out that what the basic philosophy of the NP amounts to is that it wants to give everyone in South Africa something to lose. I also want to put a question to the hon. Leader of the CP. Does he realize and does he also agree that from all points of view—in the economic sphere, the sphere of manpower with reference to opportunities and unemployment in general—we in South Africa are in fact faced with a potential revolution that could plunge this country into chaos in that field and also other fields such as the field of education, and with regard to unemployment and incitement? I want to ask them whether they find fault with that. The basic philosophy of the NP is, therefore, to give everyone in South Africa something to lose. The enemies of our country say to our people: You have nothing to lose. The communists say to the man who does not possess a home: You do not have a home to lose, join us. There are people who tell the Black man: You have an inferior type of education; join us. There are people who tell the Black man: You do not have sufficient land; join us. That is why we say that we shall consider all these matters. Having said all that, then we say, with the common sense that every voter in my constituency, from the most uneducated to the most highly educated, is fully capable of understanding: everyone must have something to lose. That is our philosophy.

There is something else we tell our people, and I want to tell this to the CP as well. I know that the hon. the leader of the CP and the hon. member for Lichtenburg were very angry with me for saying this, but I want to say it to them again. We have passed the stage of the politics of “baasskap”, of master and servant, and this is a dramatic change which has been caused by the NP. Let us say this clearly. We on this side of the House would like to minimize the relations dramas surrounding the Fraserburg Republic Festival and the examinations at Clan-william, and also those surrounding the parks of Pretoria and in all the other places of South Africa where dramas will probably continue to develop for a long time. We want to head towards a situation of sound relations among peoples, and to us the most basic aim is, in the context of a total South Africa, to uplift Black and Brown people socio-economically and make them full partners. In what? We want to make all people in South Africa partners in freedom in order to form a bastion here in Southern Africa. We want every person in South Africa, every nation, every urban Black community, the Brown community and the Indian community to be free to be democratic partners in a promising future. That is the basic philosophy of the NP, and we are still working on the practical side.

We also want to liberate our people economically. The NP is in favour of every person being economically free, free to learn to improve himself, free to be an entrepreneur, and free to possess. The hon. the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that people must be free to possess …

Wherever he likes?

Where he lives. [Interjections.] I should like to say to that hon. member, who was a member of this party, that, for example, we have already given a form of right of possession to Black people in urban areas. He can ask the hon. member for Barberton who is a lawyer—he is not a “linksgeleerde”, but a “regsgeleerde”; the hon. member for Sand-ton is a “linksgeleerde”—and the hon. member for Barberton will tell the hon. member for Sunnyside that 99-year leasehold is a form of land ownership right. The idea is therefore to give everyone something he can lose. Let us say this to one another, irrespective of our political viewpoints. If the Black national states in South Africa must remain poor appendages of wealthy cities, and we are to enter the future like that, then we are going to be in trouble. If the Black urban areas are to remain poor appendages of a wealthy South Africa, then we are in trouble. Therefore we have a task, a task to be productive in the economic sphere so that as many people as possible may become partners in a go-ahead South Africa.

As far as relations are concerned, I want to say this: Over the years I myself have worked with Black people a great deal. We have also conducted many discussions with them. My hon. friend over there will recall the discussions we conducted with Inkatha. [Interjections.] I am referring here to the hon. member for Waterkloof. I wish to make this statement: There are many people who summarily assume that if Black people and Brown and Indian leaders make sharply-worded statements against the Government of the day and the White people, and fight vigorously concerning what they feel is in the interest of their people, that means that those people are inherently our enemies. To that I wish to say that there is in South Africa so much goodwill and so many positive aspects in the interests of the building up of human relations that we must go out from this House and advocate communication, communication and more communication.

You have been brainwashed.

The hon. member for Waterkloof says I have been brainwashed. I say to him that he should come to the constituency of Innesdal—it is a very conservative constituency—because I understand that he is going to flee from Waterkloof. If he comes to my constituency I promise him that he can dredge up all the old stories and practise against me HNP politics at its most despicable; he will come off so badly that he will return home in disgrace with that remark.

He is going to Soutpansberg; it is easier there.

The hon. member for Waterberg says that ten thousand people applauded them. He regarded that as an enormous achievement. I want to warn the hon. member in a friendly spirit, if ten thousand people applaud him concerning that kind of boss-boy politics. I have said this year that there is no such thing as a boss Christian and a boy Christian. I also said that there was no such thing as a boss politician and a boy politician. In South Africa there are people and leaders. If we could only imprint the words “people” and “human dignity” in our vocabulary, our thinking and our statements, three quarters of the battle would be won. If ten thousand people applaud the hon. member for Waterberg in the Skilpad Hall does he know what is dreadful about that? Hundreds of thousands of radical people, radically-incited people outside South Africa rejoice together and are pleased that the standpoint of the party of the hon. member for Waterberg gets such applause, because those radical people, our enemies, see in that—I know he may not mean it in that way—the opportunity to get at South Africa. [Interjections.] All the enemies of South Africa that I have met in Bonn, New York and Washington on parliamentary tours together with colleagues, and the UN, the nest from which South Africa is to be destroyed, rejoice together with tens of thousands of people in the Skilpad Hall when the hon. member says that we must remain the boss.

Let me conclude. We cannot enter the future with that approach of master and servant, boss and boy. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe must put a stop to his incessant stream of interjections.

I do not have the time to quote to the hon. member for Waterberg an extract from his own speech, but let me just quote to him the way in which people say things as he says them. When he speaks about the Brown people, he talks about “those people”. In his speech there are several statements of that nature, which when I listen to him objectively, reflect something which I do not like, viz. “Here we stand, the White; we are in control and the other people—we can consider them in passing.”

There was a time when the NP clung to things that we thought were absolutes. However, the time has come—and that time is now—when we have realized that some of our ideals have been overtaken by the realities in South Africa. I call upon all our people to consider the realities together with our leaders, because it is on that basis that we shall come through.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed amazing how the political wheel has turned in recent times. For the last 20 minutes the hon. member for Innesdal has been waging a politico-philosophical battle that we commenced waging about seven years ago when the NRP was formed, and I am sure my hon. colleagues in this party will agree with me. That hon. member was replying to a reaction from the CP, a reaction that we always used to get, about seven years ago, from the members in the Government benches when we talked about a new constitution and reform in South Africa. I think I should remind the hon. member of a well-known little prayer that I think is attributed to Saint Francis of Assisi. I should like the hon. member for Innesdal to hear this little prayer. It goes like this—

After having listened thus far to this no-confidence debate, I believe that this little prayer bears repeating by all moderates like the hon. member for Innesdal, and not only the hon. member for Innesdal, but moderates of all races in South Africa who have been striving, working and searching for a constitutional solution for our multi-ethnic and multi-racial society. My colleages and I have repeatedly stated, in this House, that our party’s objective is a new Republic for South Africa, something which can only come about as a result of this hon. House changing the constitution. It is in this context that we, as a very small party—and we acknowledge this—pray for the strength to change the things we can change, the things we believe we can change through the logic and the correctness of our philosophy and our policies, as we have put them to the hon. members in this House, and might I say also in the spirit of constructive and objective opposition. We are also realistic enough to know that in order to achieve our objectives, we are going to need the support of members of the governing party, because it is only they who have the political power to change things in this hon. House. We fight for a new republican constitution, based on the political philosophy of pluralism, the philosophy which is now beginning to be expressed by hon. members on the benches opposite such as the hon. member for Innesdal. We oppose the Government in this debate because, as my hon. leader stated in his amendment yesterday, its constitutional proposals incorporate serious defects and its general philosophy and policy fail to meet the demands of the present time. My leader has spoken of political “attitudes”, and I believe this is an extremely important word. He has also spoken of the need for the correct feel or spirit which is absolutely essential to the creation of a new Republic in South Africa. It is here that I agree with the hon. member for Rand-burg. I do not see him in the House at the moment, but yesterday he said that it is the spirit in which we approached these problems that would determine whether we succeeded or not, and I agree with him. We believe that we in this party possess such attitudes and the correct spirit, and whilst we see encouraging signs from the benches opposite—for example from the hon. member for Innesdal—we believe that the Government has an extremely long way to go. It is for these reasons that we believe that the NRP is needed in this hon. House, in these Opposition benches and not in the Government benches, as it is needed in the President’s Council, where we can express our views, and indeed as it is needed in the Natal Provincial Council where we are the majority party. It is needed in Natal where we Whites have to live in peace and harmony with South Africa’s largest Black group, viz. the Zulus, and, may I say, also with 85% of all South Africa’s Asian people.

However, the main reason why we have no confidence in this Government is our major disagreement on two issues. The first is the position of the urban Blacks and the second is the matter of a confederal citizenship for all South Africans regardless of race or colour. My hon. leader discussed this at length yesterday and I certainly do not have the time to do so today, but I must emphasize for the hon. members of the NP that to vacillate and equivocate on these two major issues, especially at this time in our history, is to place stumbling-blocks in the way of the correct resolution of our complex constitutional problems. In the process—this is our great fear—the Government could be jeopardizing the entire exercise.

Having said that, I must say that, speaking for myself my hon. leader also said it yesterday—I welcome the Government’s moves towards constitutional change, imperfect as they may be. Therefore I should also like to say that we welcome the announcement by the hon. the Prime Minister in regard to the setting up of a Cabinet Committee to look into the urban Black and homeland issues. We in these benches believe that it would have been far better had the hon. the Prime Minister agreed to establish a commission on which the Blacks themselves could have been represented and we sincerely hope that the Cabinet Committee, after its initial discussions, will realize the wisdom of such a suggestion and that in time we will see a special commission set up to look into ways and means of bringing the urban Blacks and the national States together in a single confederal Southern Africa. I should like to say to hon. members that, as a result of moves such as those the hon. the Prime Minister has announced and other moves towards reform that are taking place, I believe a new spirit is emerging in South Africa. It is the fragile spirit of reconciliation, a spirit which we certainly believe is born out of the philosophy of pluralism, a spirit which we believe must be nurtured and protected at all costs. We still have an awful long way to go and I have no doubt that both the radical forces on the left and the reactionary forces on the right will do all in their power to destroy this new spirit. For them to succeed would be, I believe, a disaster for South Africa.

However, having said that, I believe that at this stage of the debate it is very clear that, unfortunately, there can be no reconciliation between the philosophy of the moderates of all races in South Africa and the political philosophy and policies of both the PFP and the CP. It is very clear that the official Opposition rejects the constitutional entrenchment of group rights or ethnic rights. Rather, they are committed to an open political system with universal suffrage for all groups on a common voters’ roll, which be believe will lead to majority rule, and in the South African context that means Black majority rule. On the other hand, the leader of the CP made it very clear yesterday that his party stands foursquare behind the rigid apartheid dogma which held sway in South Africa from 1948 until just recently. The fact is that during the intervening 35 years those hon. members have won no converts to their philosophy from other groups in South Africa. They appear to have overlooked this point.

Four peoples have become independent.

This is, I believe, the dilemma of both the PFP and the CP. Neither of their political philosophies can gain acceptance across a sufficiently broad spectrum of South African society to cause them to be a viable alternative Government for South Africa and meet the needs of all our diverse peoples. They talked about polarization in South African politics between Black and White. The PFP does this too. I submit that those parties are the black and white poles of South African politics. In this connection I agree with the hon, the Deputy Minister of Finance when he said yesterday that the policies of both the CP and the HNP would result in White “baas-skap” while those of the PFP would result in Black “baasskap”. I agree with that point of view. It is therefore in this context that we can pray for the grace to accept the fact that we cannot change the extremist political thinking and philosophies of those parties. However, one thing is certain and that is that once a new constitution based on the political philosophy of pluralism is passed through the House both these extremist political parties will have been checkmated. The polarization between Black and White extremes will have been, I believe, averted because the very structure of a pluralistic constitution will force South Africa’s various groups to work together in the spirit of negotiation, self-respect and mutual respect in order to reach a consensus in the search for solutions to our complex problems.

So far this debate has dealt almost entirely with constitutional matters, but it is not only in this field that we in these benches have serious reservations about the Government’s performance. I should like to refer to the economy. Much has been said about the need for political change to redress the inequalities of our society. I believe there is no greater liberating force in any society than economic growth. It is in this connection that we believe the Government has failed miserably. It is generally accepted, even by hon. members on the Government benches, that South Africa requires an average 5% GDP growth rate per annum in order to meet the needs of our people. Yet during the last six years the increase in the GDP has only averaged 3,85%, which includes the extremely high growth rate of 8,1% which we experienced in 1980 and which was due almost entirely to the windfall resulting from the extremely high gold price during that year. If we exclude the 1980 figure the average rate for the five years remaining is a miserable 3% per annum. This barely keeps pace with the population growth. This means that as each year goes by more and more of our people are getting poorer.

Coupled with this unacceptable growth rate is the equally unacceptable inflation rate which I regret to say the Government has proved to be totally incapable of controlling. Inflation robs people of their hard-earned money. I have stated this many times in the House. It also destroys the real value of their savings and in the case of those living on fixed incomes such as pensioners it dooms them eventually to poverty. To give hon. members some idea of what inflation has done to their rand over the past five years I want to refer to a cutting from The Citizen of 29 January in which it is stated that the rand has halved in value in five years. It says that a man earning R800 in 1977 at today’s value is only earning R424. This gives some indication of the degree to which inflation has been eroding the purchasing power of our rand.

I am well aware of the reaction which we will get from the hon. the Minister of Finance when we talk about inflation. He will put the blame on inflation imported from our external trading partners or he will use the high price of imported crude oil as an excuse. However, in today’s world he can use neither of these excuses because the inflation rate in both Britain and the United States has dropped to about 4% or 5% and we know that the crude oil spot-market price is way below what it was a few years ago. There is only one way in which a nation can beat inflation and that is by its people and by its productive machine producing more wealth than the nation actually consumes. It is here that the Government plays a pivotal role as a controller of, firstly, the money supply which we all know has got terribly out of control in recent years. It goes without saying that if the Government pumps into the economy—as it has done—more money than the productive capacity is able economically and efficiently to consume, the purchasing power of that money will decline, and that is what has happened.

Secondly, the Government through its mishandling of monetary affairs in recent years caused the largest deficit on the current account of our balance of payments in our country’s history. We know that this account plays a major role in our endeavours to fight inflation and to promote growth in our economy. We need large surpluses for growth besides needing them to pay off our outstanding external loans. Was it not just a few months ago that the hon. the Minister of Finance negotiated a $1,25 billion loan with the International Monetary Fund? Where we have had large deficits, as happened recently, we have also had the depreciation of the rand and uncontrolled inflation.

There is a third pivotal role that the Government has to play in its handling of the fiscal policy of South Africa. The world’s economy and the international banking system are today in extremely dire straits because of deficit budgeting by Governments, many of whom now find that their economies cannot even service their loans let alone repay them. The financial world is almost on the brink of disaster. This Government’s borrowings in order to meet its budget deficit have placed too great a strain on South Africa’s capital market and, in the process, it has fuelled inflation by forcing up interest rates. Government expenditure should in principle be financed through taxation and not through loans. After all, who is fooling whom on this particular point? Inflation is nothing but a hidden form of taxation and the sooner the voters of South Africa realize it the sooner will this Government be forced to do something about it.

Then there is the Government’s overall control of South Africa’s economic life through the implementation of its policies. South Africa is still a developing country. Our gross domestic product has got to expand at a sufficiently high rate in order to uplift the majority of our people from a subsistence level of life to that of a modern industrial society. Therefore we cannot afford the luxury of trying to implement the outdated ideologies of the past, those which the party to my right would like to see us implement, as they are already at present represented in legislation such as, for instance, the Environment Planning Act. I want to ask hon. members on that side of the House whether they have any idea what certain sections in this Act are costing South Africa in wasteful expenditure. They should investigate it and I put this question to the hon. member for Innesdal. Then there are the Acts that restrict the mobility of labour. Have any hon. members on Government benches any conception of the frustration and cost incurred by this legislation at almost every level of our society and economic life? Ask any housewife who is seeking a domestic worker or a gardener about her problems. Ask any businessman or industrialist who is looking for motivated and suitable workers. I emphasize “suitable” workers. Ask them about the effect of this legislation on the economics of their businesses and how it affects their daily lives. This is wasteful expenditure that this country can ill afford and that is in fact fuelling inflation.

There is much more about the effects that Government policy has on restraining the growth of our gross domestic product that I could discuss at this time, but I just do not have the time to do so. I would rather use the time left to me to raise yet another reason why we in the NRP cannot support this Government, and that is its inability to control the stranglehold that monopolies have on the economic life of South Africa, despite the fact that the Government has the power to do something about this problem through the implementation of the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act. South Africa’s economic giants, who are the huge conglomerates, are stifling the free-enterprise system in South Africa. I shall go so far as to say that many of them are ripping off not only the average consumer but also many of the smaller manufacturing concerns. Their complete stranglehold on certain sectors of the economy enables them to profiteer to the extent that their actions can only be described as sheer greed and avarice. One only has to look at the figures of the growth of corporate savings and the drop in private personal savings in South Africa to realize the transfer of wealth from the consumer to these giants that has taken place in recent years. Today, at a time when the average man cannot find the wherewithal to purchase his own home because of inflation, we find huge residential office blocks and commercial complexes being built by the giant retail food chains. How do they do this when the rest of the country is having a tough time? This Government has failed to do something about this situation despite the fact that it can do something about it. The objectives and the power inherent in the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act and Competition Board are based, we believe, on the right philosophy, but either the board is not doing its job correctly or this Government is not giving it the necessary backing.

In this respect one can, for instance, refer to the example of the Boards’ investigation and recommendations into the Liquor Industry, about which regrettably, the Government has done nothing at all. It is because of these failures by Government that I believe we can support the amendment moved by the hon. the Leader of the NRP, the hon. member for Durban Point.

Mr. Speaker, I speak obviously in support of the motion on no-confidence moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. However, I also want to speak specifically against the amendment moved by the hon. the Prime Minister, which is really more in the nature of a substantive motion rather than an amendment.

The hon. the Prime Minister asked the House to express its confidence in the Government and to give it support because, inter alia, he alleges that the Government maintains economic stability in South Africa, that it promotes positive relations among the population groups, that it maintains a prepared defence force and police force, that it maintains civilized Christian standards and norms, and that it combats terrorism and the communism onslaught against South Africa. In fact, Mr. Speaker, unless there is a dramatic change of direction and emphasis, posterity might well show that even if the Government purports to do these things the effects of its efforts are in fact the very opposite.

The economic stability of South Africa, despite the tremendous advantage we have of natural resources and other plus factors, is always in jeopardy because of the ever-present twin threat of political instability and potential labour unrest as a result of the Government’s racial policies. Positive race relations in South Africa and the hope of peaceful co-existence are in fact a myth. They are recognized only by the hon. the Prime Minister and his party, who are so blinded by their obsession with separative and race ethnicity that they seem unable to recognize the widespread and deepseated sullenness and hostility of the majority group of Blacks in South Africa towards the White minority. I shall return to this aspect a little later.

Then, the third leg of the hon. the Prime Minister’s motion—or his amendment—refers to the defence of South Africa. The defence of South Africa, effective though it may be with the vast sums of money being expended on it, and the commitment of tens of thousands of young South Africans to a lifetime of national service, is made necessary largely because of the Government’s disastrous race policies and friction and the hatred which they engender, not only abroad but also within our own borders. The Government’s policies compound the threat against South Africa. That is what the position is.

That brings me to the fourth leg of the hon. the Prime Minister’s amendment in which he talks about the Government requiring support because of its preservation of civilized standards. I must say that I find it very difficult to recognize the hon. the Prime Minister’s claim in that regard because of so much that is happening in South Africa today as a direct result of Government policy. One thinks of the mass removals of hundreds of thousands of South African citizens from their natural and historic habitats in the name of the apartheid ideology. One thinks of the race classification laws, one thinks of the Group Areas Act. One thinks of the Immorality Act and the Mixed Marriages Act. One thinks of detention without trial. I find it very difficult to see how the hon. the Prime Minister can reconcile any of these things with maintaining the norms of civilized standards. [Interjections.]

Then we come to the fifth leg of the hon. the Prime Minister’s amendment which deals with the fight against communist forces. That is the other point on which I would join issue with the hon. the Prime Minister. The fact is that our resistance to communism would be made that much more easy if we followed policies which recognized the rights and the dignity of the individual, which were an advertisement for the free enterprise system, and which also, in general terms, were capable of producing a contented local population, strong in their resistance to foreign ideology. Consequently I reject the hon. the Prime Minister’s amendment.

I do want to return, however, to the aspect of promoting positive race relations among the population groups and peaceful co-existence in South Africa. The Government talks of power-sharing and reform. No one will deny that power-sharing is necessary in South Africa and that there is an urgent need for major reform in our entire constitutional structure. We on these benches have certainly for 20 years and more pleaded for reform. We have pleaded for a new constitutional dispensation which will be capable of meeting the reasonable aspirations of all sections of our population. However, Sir, in this climate in which most thinking South Africans are conscious of the need for real reform, the Government comes forward with constitutional guidelines which at this stage neatly sidestep the real sharing of power with the largest group in South Africa, the Black population. I think this is a tragedy, Mr. Speaker. Surely, in this climate, the Government is missing a golden opportunity to reshape the constitution in a manner which will give it a measure of permanence which can only stem from participation by all sections of our population in its making. We have said this time and time again and it is indeed a fact of history that the best way to ensure the durability of and respect for a constitution is to allow the largest possible cross-section of all the people to participate in its formulation. I say this because in those circumstances the constitution becomes our constitution collectively, a product of joint participation of all groups. However, the present guidelines have the basic defect that they reflect the thinking of the NP only; they reflect the thinking of a part of a segment of the population of South Africa—the White majority in this Parliament. So it will become the NP’s constitution for the masses in South Africa and it will commence at a disadvantage for that reason alone. This means that its acceptance and durability will already be in jeopardy. As we know, the guidelines and a mixure of the unilateral proposals of the NP of 1977, the recommendation of the President’s Council comprised of members nominated by the White majority in Parliament, and the later recommendations last year of the congresses of the NP. Therefore it will reflect the will of the NP rather than the will of the people of South Africa.

The will of the electorate.

The hon. Whip over there says “the will of the electorate”. I say that what he means is the will of a section of the White electorate and not the will of the people of South Africa. This is the basic defect of these proposals at the present time.

It is not merely by omission that the Government has not bothered with a broader consultation or that the the Blacks have been excluded from the constitutional proposals. It is by design. We have had that time and time again and also during this debate. The Government explicitly excluded Blacks from the President’s Council. We know that as a fact of history. When asked a year later what his attitude would be if the President’s Council itself asked that Blacks be included, the hon. the Prime Minister in this House gave as his answer a categorical “no”. He said that it was contrary to Government thinking and that the course for the Blacks in South Africa had been decided in terms of Government policy. We have had other examples of Blacks trying to participate. In planning for the future of South Africa we have the commendable example of the Buthelezi Commission which was set up to try to resolve the problems regarding interdependence in the province of Natal, and this was also rejected out of hand by the Government. Its reaction to that commission was, of course, also in the nature of something that was anything but gracious or responsible for the same reasons because it said that as far as that was concerned, on the basis of ethnicity KwaZulu should determine its own future and should not even try to deal with or discuss problems relating to the province of Natal. If ever the Government has shown its contempt for Black opinion and wishes in South Africa, I believe this was evidenced last year in what the SABC last Friday described as “the Ingwavuma debacle”. I want to deal with this and I hope that the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development will give me some attention in this regard.

We had some discussion from the hon. the Prime Minister in this regard this afternoon which did not take the matter any further at all. In fact, the more one considers what happened last year in regard to the whole Swaziland/Ingwavuma/Kangwane deal, the mind boggles at the sheer stupidity, the unseemly haste and the utter irresponsibility of the Government on this issue—this coming too from a Government which the hon. the Prime Minister in his amendment to this motion of no-confidence asks us to support because of what it is doing to maintain positive race relations and the hope of peaceful coexistence. If ever there was a display of gross imcompetence, ineptitude and irresponsibility, it was the Government’s attempt last year to enter into some sort of a sordid deal with the Government of Swaziland aimed at handing over South African sovereign territory to that Government and to deprive hundreds of thousands of South Africans of their rights to South African citizenship. At a time when more than ever there was a need to try to salvage trust between Black and White, the Government launched itself on this great gamble which was a total disaster and which in most Western countries would have brought about the resignation of the Ministers concerned if not the Government itself.

What are the facts, as they are known, about the proposed deal? It was an attempted deal which strained relations between the Government and large sections of the Black population as never before. It was a deal also, let me say, which subjected the country and television viewers throughout the country to a tragic comedy farce, whatever it was, the Pik and Piet Show, which we saw almost nightly for weeks on end when two Ministers virtually monopolized the television to try to explain what they were trying to do in regard to this issue in South Africa. It is a deal which thus far ended in ignominious defeat for the Government.

The background was of course that there were a number of comings and goings over a period by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information to and from Swaziland. There were stormy meetings with Kangwane and KwaZulu representatives, all of which were shrouded in an atmosphere of secrecy and intrigue. We would suspect that the master-mind behind this whole thing was the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information parading as a master diplomat and trying to pull a major diplomatic coup, but still we do not know at this stage what the true motives were. I want to ask: What was the quid pro quo; what was in it for South Africa? We were to hand over thousands of hectares of South African territory and hundreds of thousands of South African citizens, but what were we to get in return?

Whatever the deal, it seems that it received Cabinet approval a few days before the end of the last session of Parliament, but no announcement was made at that stage to the House. It is a sobering thought, in fact, to consider that while we were debating in the early hours of that Saturday morning the tragic dispossession of the Fingoes from their land in the dying hours of that session, the hon. Minister who was participating at that time knew that the Government had already approved plans to dispossess hundreds of thousands of other Blacks of their right to South African citizenship. This is the position. Then Parliament was prorogued on that Saturday morning, and within 48 hours of the proroguing of Parliament last year we had the unedifying spectacle of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development appearing in Ulundi to announce the Government’s decision to the KwaZulu Assembly. He came away with a giant flea in his ear and his credibility was totally shattered.

On this issue I have no sympathy with him whatsoever. He may well have been a cats-paw in this whole affair, but that he should have lent himself to this, is beyond all belief. He of all people should have known the effect which this would have and the anger and the tension it would engender. Despite that, despite his appearance in Ulundi, despite the open hostility which was shown and the outright rejection by the representatives of KwaZulu and Kangwane, he bumbled on trying to give effect to the Government’s plans. Despite all the talk of consultation— we have had talk of consultation again this afternoon on the same issue—with the people concerned, despite the outright rejection of the plan, the hon. the Minister then issued a statement on 17 June announcing what the Government had decided as a result of what, as he termed it in his statement, was decided mutually between the Republic of South Africa and the Kingdom of Swaziland. The statement is in very outright and forthright terms—

these things should happen. So there it was. Never mind the talk of consultation beforehand, never mind the assurances we had in this House, in May of last year, from the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs about there being consultation with the people concerned. The Government had decided, in consultation with a foreign government, what was going to take place, and the hon. the Minister was the man who was responsible for selling that, or trying to sell it, to the people concerned, after the decision had been taken. Then followed a disastrous series of proclamations relating to the removal of the control and administration of Ingwavuma from the KwaZulu government and the dissolution of the Kangwane Assembly. We all know the result of those proclamations which were each found to be ultra vires by the Natal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, and finally by the Appellate Division. Now if that in itself is not evidence of gross incompetence and ineptitude on the part of this Minister and his department, what is? Who was responsible for these proclamations? There was the first proclamation, which was challenged, and then came the second proclamation, and that was equally defective because it did not subscribe to the very basic tenet of ensuring that before anything of this nature could take place, there should be proper consultation with the people concerned. [Interjections.] We all know of the settlement of the Kangwane affair, settlement effected in regard to the application brought by those concerned with the Kangwane situation, and who will never forget how this hon. Minister tried to pluck victory out of defeat by announcing, at the time of that settlement, that this was a fine example of inter-racial co-operation between Blacks and Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.] There sits that Minister, the chief bungler, the man who tried to sell this idiotic proposal to the people at the end of a series of cases that had been thrown out of court, and after they had been thrown out of court, that hon. Minister appears on television and tells South Africa that this is a fine example of co-operation between the races. [Interjections.]

This brings me again to the claim made in the amendment moved by the hon. the Prime Minister, i.e. that the Government is committed to promoting positive relations between population groups and peaceful coexistence in South Africa. The whole Swazi Ingwavuma-Kangwane debacle, however, suggests exactly the opposite as far as the Government’s actions are concerned. It did nothing to help race relations. In fact, it soured race relations amongst those people as they had never been soured before. In terms of Government policy, the people of Kangwane had asked for second-phase self-government for that territory. When it suited the Government, however—and this is the sheer cynicism of the whole operation—the Government disregarded the views of those people completely and dissolved the Assembly because of the deal it was trying to contract with the Government of Swaziland.

In the case of KwaZulu, the Government has known the views of the people of KwaZulu, not only on the question of the Ingwavuma issue, but on the whole issue of independence and the attitude of the Zulu people to the so-called independence that is being offered them. Yet they still seek to ignore those views and to delude themselves that the Zulu people are satisfied with their present lot. I find it absolutely unbelievable that in the pamphlets, which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has issued so freely at the taxpayers’ expense, pamphlets about the new constitutional guidelines of the Government, the Government should use, as an example of a Black ethnic group which is satisfied with the dispensation, the example of KwaZulu! [Interjections.] Here is the pamphlet, and here we see the usual question-and-answer format, with statements made at the end of the pamphlet. One question asks—

The incredible answer is—

As I have said, I believe it to be an act of sheer cynicism that in these circumstances the Government, knowing the attitude of the KwaZulu Government and knowing of the dissatisfaction of the people of KwaZulu with the so-called administrative powers given them, should cite KwaZulu as an example of how the Blacks are, in fact, being included in the Government’s dispensation. The fact is that, as far as Blacks are concerned, the Government has decided what is good for them and the Government continues to take unilateral decisions with regard to their future and their aspirations.

My time has nearly expired, but before I resume my seat, let me say that I want the hon. the Minister to answer specifically the question that was put to him earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Pinelands with regard to the question of citizenship, viz. whether it is still the Government’s viewpoint that in time there will be no Black South Africans.

I have already replied to that in my speech.

The hon. the Minister did not answer that question. He evaded that question. Is it still the attitude of the Government that in time there will be no such thing as Black South Africans?

Yes or no? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister refuses to answer that question.

I have replied to that question. Go and read my speech.

I want to say in conclusion that I believe that this lack of consultation, this lack of consideration, shows again the tragic weaknesses of the Government’s whole approach to the future of South Africa and must be a major reason why we cannot have any confidence in the Government.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to commence by referring to a remark made by the hon. member for Waterberg yesterday. I find it incomprehensible that a man with a theological background and profession could have made a speech such as the one he made yesterday.

It was a very fine speech.

Just give me a chance. I did not interrupt the hon. member for Waterberg. The hon. member referred contemptuously to my allegedly having bowed and scraped to the leaders of the Brown parties in order to obtain their co-operation. I have never grovelled before anyone.

That is not what Alan says.

Give me a chance please. I have never grovelled before anybody. I want to say, however, that if in the face of the problems of this country crying for solutions, success has been achieved in the negotiations with leaders of other parties and other groups, I want to attribute that, in the first instance, to the fact that my fellow party members and I and thousands of South Africans have indeed gone down on their knees, yes, but they have gone down on their knees before their Creator and not before a human being.

There is an English proverb which reads: “It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good”. I want to apply it to the hon. the Leader of the CP. His presence in this House, however troublesome, is nevertheless a ray of light because it means his absence from the pulpit. [Interjections.]

Are you saying that on your knees?

I mean it in all seriousness.

Never mind, Alan will … [Interjections.]

On 5 June 1980 I said in this House—and nothing said by the hon. member for Langlaagte can detract from that in any way—that there were people in this country clinging desperately to obsolete concepts which elevated separation to a principle and who viewed everything being done for the sake of improving the lot of other people as a threat.