Mr. Speaker, we in this House are debating and deciding at a time when the South African society is caught up in a process of fundamental structural change; at a time when deep down in our society fundamental forces of change are starting to gather momentum. The nature of our responses to this increasing momentum is going to be critical in the days ahead in determining whether there is going to be peace or conflict in our country.

What is clear, however, Mr. Speaker, from the three days that have preceded today’s debate, is that the Government senses the need to respond but that because it is so riddled with doubts and prejudices, and so committed to outdated principles, its response is hopelessly inadequate. On the other hand it is also clear that the CP’s response is nothing short of a recipe for conflict and disaster in South Africa. [Interjections.]

However, Mr. Speaker, this debate and the structural changes that are taking place are not taking place in a vacuum. They are taking place against the background of a Southern African region that is itself under severe stress and strain. Just as the stresses and strains in the Southern African region affect us in our decision-making, so the decisions we make, and the actions and the policies of this Government have a profound impact on the people and the concerns and the fortunes of the countries of this region, and because of this important and sensitive interrelationship between the fortunes of South Africa and its many neighbour States it is of the greatest concern to us in these benches that the Government’s foreign policy for this region has failed, and stands today at the point of collapse.

If the object of foreign policy is to achieve and to maintain good relationships with neighbour States, I should like to point out that this Government’s foreign policy has failed on almost every count. Allow me to say immediately for the information of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs that in a very gloomy scene the only rays of light we have had in recent months have been the discussions at ministerial level between the Government of South Africa on the one hand and the Governments of Angola and Mocambique on the other hand. The simple fact, however, is that this Government has, instead of achieving good relationships in Southern Africa, strained relationships with almost every one of 10 neighbour States.

It has even managed to alienate the people of South West Africa, whom we are supposed to be assisting along the road towards independence. Just look at what is happening inside SWA, Mr. Speaker. After more than four years of ineptness and vacillation, and occasional attempts at political manipulation, the Government’s internal policy inside SWA is in a sorry state. Whatever the South African Government may have intended to achieve by its policy inside SWA, it has succeeded in making the people of that territory dispirited and divided, and yet significantly united on one issue—their mistrust of and disillusionment with the Government of South Africa. This growing disillusionment and mistrust which was once reserved for the United Nations now bridges the gap between all parties and all ethnic communities in that territory. I have a host of files here showing how this mistrust is now becoming part and parcel of the spoken word in Namibia. What an ignominious position for South Africa’s Government in which to find itself 64 years after it accepted the mandate over that Territory as a “sacred trust of civilization” to “promote to the utmost the material and moral well-being and the social progress of the inhabitants”. Merely six years ago this House passed the South West Africa Constitution Amendment Act abrogating its power in favour of an Administrator-General appointed by and acting for the South African Government, who was to prepare the people and the Territory for independence. After those six years we find that most of them, in terms of that preparation and that drive, have been wasted years. Far from achieving that internal objective— and I am not talking of the external objective; it has prepared them neither for economic nor for political independence—these years have been wasted years, years during which the leaders of the internal parties have had to endure frustration upon frustration, years during which we have seen an increasing alienation between the South African Government and the people inside SWA.

And now, after these six years, the South African Government is back to square one, and the Administrator-General nominated by and acting for the South African Government, is the overall authority without even any facade of shared responsibility with the people of SWA. He is now there on his own for all to see. There must be something seriously wrong with an administration within a territory if at this time one has to have a judicial commission investigating allegations and corruption and irregularities with regard to Government spending, when the police are investigating the death of two detainees in detention, when the members of the Minister’s Council have resigned and when the National Assembly has been dissolved.

The feeling of unease about the state of affairs inside SWA will not be eased by the banning of the report on Namibia by the South African Catholic Bishops’ Conference. There are many reasons why the Government plans for development inside SWA have collapsed. Foremost amongst these is that the Government has with its typical insensitivity failed to read correctly the mood of the people of SWA.

We in these benches do not underestimate the problems caused in SWA as the result of external factors but the trouble is that the South African Government in administering that territory has in fact itself a number of millstones weighing around its neck.

The first of these millstones is the NP Government’s own past. The Government simply cannot ignore or wish away the impact of its own past on the future of those people. It cannot ignore or wish away the impact of the years of Verwoerdian apartheid that was once branded on the people of that territory. It can also not wish away the existence of an Odendaal Commission Report, which was once the guideline for governing SWA. It cannot wish away the fact that right up until the early 1970’s SWA was administered as a de facto fifth province of the Republic of South Africa. Clearly the South African Government has failed to undo the damage which its past has done, and the recent refusal of the Administrator-General to sign the Public Holidays Bill, which was passed by South West Africa’s National Assembly, is evidence of how hard the Government’s neo-colonial spirit dies.

There is another millstone around the Government’s neck in that area and that is the millstone of apartheid. It is apartheid, it is discrimination, it is compulsory segregation that is the reason why the Government’s policy is in fact in such a sorry state within that territory. It is the apartheid structures introduced and maintained by the Government that have destroyed the unity, the prospects and the viability of the anti-Swapo alliance in Namibia. It has been the maintenance of the two-tiered ethnic structure of government and the apartheid role played by the White National Party in that territory that has cast doubts on the Government’s intentions to get rid of apartheid and discrimination. It was the Government’s apartheid policy which in the end resulted in the proliferation of political parties. The hon. the Prime Minister says that the parties must come together. I say that as long as there are 10 or 11 ethnic authorities there is going to be a proliferation of parties. If the hon. the Prime Minister wishes to get rid of a proliferation of political parties in that territory let him get rid of the apartheid structures of government and then he will achieve it.

There is another problem that has been facing the Government and that is the problem of militarism. Nobody denies or contests the need and responsibility for defending South-West Africa’s borders and maintaining peace in the territory. That is taken for granted. However, this is a far cry from allowing militarism per se to become a disruptive power within the territory itself. Wherever there is a high degree of militarism there is always a tendency for the military component to dominate the political decision-makers. There have been complaints and allegations from inside South-West Africa that this is in fact what is happening—that at times South Africa’s strategic interests have been given priority over the internal interests of the people of South-West Africa; that at times various Security Forces have engaged not simply in defence but have become a political factor in South-West Africa. There have been specific complaints from the internal parties that elements of the Security Forces have interfered with the political government process and at times that members of the Security Forces have been tempted to exert direct political influence. The hon. the Minister will be aware of these facts and cannot simply brush them lightly aside.

There is a fourth factor that has bedevilled the internal situation and that has been the Government’s own indecisiveness, the strange inconsistency of will which the Government has displayed on the South-West African issue. It has started to dismantle apartheid and it has started to dismantle discrimination. Then it has looked over its shoulder either in South-West Africa or at the National Party and it has allowed the National Party within that territory—I am referring to the National Party of South-West Africa—to put the brakes on the whole process of the dismantling of discrimination and the process of internal reform. It has given the appearance of giving real power to a National Assembly and a Council of Ministers but at the same time the real power has remained vested in the Administrator-General and the apartheid second tier authorities. By doing this, by giving a semblance of power and at the same time withholding it, by the semblance of getting rid of discrimination and yet structuring the institutions on discrimination and apartheid it has caused the members of the National Assembly and the Ministers’ Council to lose their status and their credibility in the eyes of the people of South-West Africa. Just as this Government destroyed its own Coloured Persons Representative Council by appearing to give it power and yet not giving it power, by saying that it wanted to get rid of apartheid but then forcing it to operate within an apartheid structure, so this Government has helped by its policies to destroy the Ministers’ Council and the National Council and to undermine the forces of moderation in South-West Africa. The only people who stand to gain by this indecisiveness are Swapo on the one hand and the right-wing forces of discrimination on the other.

I want to leave South-West Africa/Namibia for the moment and take a look at another aspect of foreign policy which is in a state of collapse. I refer to the relationships existing between South Africa and the nine or ten independent States on our borders. The hon. the Prime Minister was at pains to tell us of the formal agreements that South Africa has with many of these States in the field of transport, customs and monetary affairs. He has told us of the millions of rand that have been paid to these States and particularly to the States that were previously part of South Africa. Those figures are correct, but we all know the fact that partly due to history, partly due to geography and partly due to the deliberate policy of the Government, most of these States are economically dependent upon South Africa. In some instances they can only survive with assistance from South Africa, but even with these States which are economically dependent upon South Africa, as a result of the policies of the Government relationships are strained. Where the relationships are worse these relationships are linked with allegations—I use the word “allegations” advisedly—of destabilization and lack of respect for territorial integrity.

Let us look at the countries bordering us in the north. In Botswana from President Masere down there come accusations of acts of destabilization, of constant violation of Botswana’s air space, of kidnapping of refugees and of acts of violence by South African agents. These are allegations which in themselves are damaging to South Africa—no use the hon. the Prime Minister smiling and being cheerful about it. [Interjections.]

Mozambique has repeatedly alleged and has repeatedly come forward with evidence that South Africa is actively supporting and supplying the Mozambique Resistance Movement. This is a statement which has been made time and time again right throughout the world. The hon. the Prime Minister, however, brushes it to one side. He says—

He says further—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, however, pointed out that only this last month it was not this “koor”, but the State Department of the USA which in a formal statement to the Africa Report said—

The MNR—

It is no use the hon. the Prime Minister brushing this to one side. What he has to say is that he repudiates that statement on behalf of the US State Department. He has to say, not that we shall not allow mercenaries over there, but that South Africa in no way whatsoever is supporting terrorists or saboteurs or murderers in other countries. That is what he should say; it is quite simple. I put it to the hon. the Minister: Silence is not good enough.

Do you believe it?

If the hon. member does not believe it, I believe the Government should have the courage to say that in no circumstances will they, their agents or their surrogates in any way assist any organization which is trying to destabilize or is committing acts of terrorism in other countries. That is what we require.

I now come to the question of Zimbabwe. Once again relationships are bad. I must be the first to admit that some of the rhetoric and some of the words which come down from Zimbabwe hardly help to make for good relationships—that is a given. Once again, however, there is this allegation of destabilization. I see that just recently Mr. Munangagwa, the Minister charged with Internal Security, made certain allegations, and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has reprimanded him and said that Mr. Munangagwa must produce the evidence. I do not know how that gentleman is going to respond to that challenge of the hon. the Minister, but I do know that when hon. members of the PFP’s Foreign Affairs group were on a fact-finding mission in Harare towards the end of 1981, we were told that none other than Prof. Neil Barnard, who after all is the Director of the National Intelligence Service, at the invitation of Mr. Munangagwa, came to Harare and sat in the office with Mr. Munangagwa. We are told that at that meeting not only was evidence given to the head of our Security Service that in fact there was participation by South Africa in the MNR, but evidence was also given to the fact that there was recruiting of Zimbabwean agents by South Africans through their Trade Commission in that area. Those were stated as specifics, and I believe that these have to be countered.

“What about Swaziland?” we were asked. I would hope that the relationships with Swaziland are better than with others. The secret deals over Ingwavuma and Kangwane indicate, however, that even this relationship has a seamy side. We in these benches hope that relationships between Swaziland and South Africa will improve, but never under any circumstances should they improve at the cost of 800 000 South African citizens being stripped of their birthright, whether that birthright is in the form of land or whether it is in the form of citizenship.

Finally there is the question of Lesotho. Long before the Maseru raid, the Government of Lesotho had been complaining about the terrorist activities of the LLA across the borders from South Africa, and the hon. the Minister knows that I went to Lesotho, had discussions with the Minister, travelling as I did up the border area. I then flew back and spoke to the Minister. I had a meeting with him and his officials at which the Minister clearly indicated a sense of concern at the situation. He indicated that he was aware that certain steps had been taken. Nevertheless the fact is that these terrorist organizations still operate across the border. The police and the South African Security Forces have not taken effective steps to curb their activities. [Interjections.] Some time ago it was reported—and there has been no denial—that the hon. the Minister made an offer to Lesotho, saying: Get rid of the ANC refugees and we will curb the activities of the LLA. [Interjections.] It may seem to be a reasonable deal, but what the hon. Minister was doing was admitting that the LLA was operating in South Africa and also that it was possible to curb their activities. Otherwise he could not have made his offer part of the deal.

Even relations with Transkei, Ciskei and Bophuthatswana are in a bad state. The hon. the Prime Minister has talked about this wonderful, “geslaagde spitsberaad”. Even since that “spitsberaad”, however, the presidents of three of the countries had bitter things to say about South Africa and co-operation with South Africa. I have come to the conclusion that this “konfederasie” is a figment of the hon. the Prime Minister’s imagination or fantasy and will never be brought into being. [Interjections.]

Let us just look at what has happened, even in three States created by this Parliament, three States to which we have to supply vast sums of money. Let us just look at what has happened to them. President Matanzima comes to South Africa, discusses matters with the head of a Black institution in South Africa, then goes back and says the following: “We want to establish a federation.” The hon. the Prime Minister glossed over that and said that if Black independent States wanted federation, they could have it, but what did President Matanzima say to his people on the radio? He said—

The goal of the proposed federal Parliament, was a majority government controlling the whole of South Africa.

I am surprised, because if the hon. the Prime Minister took the independence of Transkei seriously, he would have reacted to this, but he actually sits back quietly and allows the president of another country to come to his country and announce a strategy for freeing South Africa from White domination and installing Black majority government in this country. [Interjections.] That is what has happened since the “Spitsberaad”.

Let us also take the case of President Sebe, because he was also at this “Spitsberaad”. What does he say? Let me quote what is reported on the occasion of Ciskei’s first annual independence celebrations—

This is what he also said to his people after the “Spitsberaad”—

He also gave further evidence that through the Department of Foreign Affairs attitudes had changed drastically in the years since independence. These are not foreigners. These are people from South Africa to whom we gave independence in an independent State.

Lastly, let me refer to a person I believe to be a conservative and dignified president of one of these States. I am referring to President Lucas Mangope. What did he say only a month ago, after the “Spitsberaad”?

*I quote—

He went on to say—

Then he went on to say—

That is the situation in Southern Africa. There is no State in Southern Africa with sound friendly established relations with South Africa.

†Because we are an integral part of the Southern African scene, because what happens across our borders vitally affects us in South Africa, because this Government’s policy has contributed directly to the tensions which exist in Southern Africa, it is quite obvious that neither this House nor the people of the country can have any confidence in the Government.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the PFP is now shying away from its boycott image to such an extent that is has decided at this late stage to scamper over the potholes of Southern Africa instead. Unfortunately they are doing so without any knowledge of the terrain. The hon. member for Sea Point has previously found himself in difficulties when he ventured into areas he should not have ventured into.

He phoned McHenry again.

I have no other explanation for his irresponsible statements this afternoon than that they wish to distract attention from their political bankruptcy as quickly as possible. They have received the signal, from certain English-language newspapers as well, that if they continue to do what they are doing now, they are finished as a party. They cannot say that this is untrue, because their own newspapers are warning them. What did the hon. member for Sea Point do a moment ago? He made a lot of statements here, with a view to publicity, statements for which he furnished no proof at all. He simply takes what other people say, swallows it whole, and dishes it up here as if it were the gospel truth, simply to make South Africa’s task more difficult. Fortunately that party has so little credibility and I want to tell hon. members that we should not become too angry at them. They no longer have the credibility to make it possible for what he said to do us too much harm.

For the sake of the hon. member himself I wish to point out that the Government accepted the constitutional principles for South West Africa a year ago. Did the hon. member read those principles?

Of course.

What fault does he find with the acceptance of those principles by the Government?

They are not being applied.

The constitutional principles cannot be applied before the territory is independent. Does he not know that? It is not for this Government to apply them in South West Africa before that territory has become independent and before the election process has begun. How many times have the hon. the Prime Minister and I not explained it? We have stated this repeatedly, and it has been accepted by the five Western Powers. Not one of the five Western Powers has reproached us in the present circumstances as the hon. member did in this House today. There is not one who expressed concern over any of the matters which the hon. member carried on about with so much exaggeration here this afternoon. For reasons of his own, however, he wants to make worse accusations than the five Western Powers. The South African Government accepted the constitutional principles on 20th January last year. As the hon. member said it was a good thing that we had done so. Today he says that we should apply them, but who should apply them in South West Africa and when? This Government has stated throughout that it would not intervene in the internal political processes of South West Africa. [Interjections.] It has stated this repeatedly. Hon. members need only look at our record. [Interjections.] Hon. members may laugh if they like. The more they laugh, the more they display their ignorance.

What about their public holidays?

I shall come to that in a moment. The hon. member should just be patient for a while. Unfortunately I cannot deal with the man who has not decided whether he wants to be a foolish wit or a witty fool.

I invite the hon. member to acquaint himself with all the dates on which I, the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Defence travelled to South West Africa and spoke to all the parties. [Interjections.] It is not necessary to bleat now. We spoke repeatedly to all the parties and listened to them patiently for hours, we listened to parties over the entire spectrum, parties from the extreme left to the far right. We gave all interested groups, even the churches of the north, a hearing. During our last visit the hon. the Prime Minister asked the extreme leftist group this question: “Do you want us to withdraw?” We have still not received a clear reply to that question, except that they said that it was not a decision they could take, but that we should decide on the matter. That was the attitude of the most extreme left-group. All the other groups, even groups more to the left than the PFP, said: “Under no circumstances, please do not withdraw”.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must listen to the truth for a change. Who were the people in South West Africa who made the most vehement representations to the Government of the Republic to the effect that the Council of Ministers should no longer govern? The hon. member spoke about the National Party of South West Africa. But has he ever heard it of Mr. Peter Kalangula? Does he think that that hon. member is a member of the National Party? Has he ever heard of Mrs. Ottiliè Abrahams? Is she a member of the NP? Has he ever heard of Mr. Garoeb? Is he a member of the NP? Has the hon. member heard it of Mr. Diergaardt, or of Mr. Barnes? Are they members of the NP?

[Inaudible.]

The statement was made and the hon. member must now take his medicine. It has been stated umpteen times in public that because Mr. Peter Kalangula, the Owambo leader, broke away from the DTA, and because Mr. Barnes, the Coloured leader, beat Mr. Kloppers in an election, because Mr. Diergaardt beat Dr. Africa in an election and because various other shifts have taken place in the territory, no one can say who the majority party is any more.

There were two elections. One in 1978. This one the DTA won hands down. Then there were further elections in 1980. By that time shifts had already occurred. That was followed by the break away of Mr. Peter Kalangula. Today, nobody can say precisely what percentage of the poll the Owambo vote represented in the 1978 elections. However, the one request which rained down on the desks of the hon. the Prime Minister and the Administrator General, and on my desk, from the left and the right—from a proliferation of parties—was the request that we should please make the Government more representative or abolish it. When we asked when an election should be held, the parties said: “No, not now, because if an international settlement is achieved, we might have to hold another election within a few months. For the present, therefore, that alternative was taken out of our hands.

Towards the end of last year we went to South-West Africa again and went through the entire exercise again. We spoke to the DTA and all the other groups, as far as we were able, and a decision was taken that the DTA could govern until the end of February. We then received opposition to this decision from the left and the right. If the hon. member thinks that he can go to South-West Africa and can rectify the internal situation overnight with the recommendations he made here today, then he is living in a fool’s paradise. [Interjections.] The one South African organization which supported me best in the international negotiations and which supported us conscientiously in our efforts to achieve greater political stability and co-ordination in South-West Africa itself was the S.A. Defence Force. The S.A. Defence Force has stated repeatedly that they can only afford South-West Africa military security protection; the people must find the recipe for a political solution themselves. The South African Defence Force was perhaps more helpful than any other organization because it was so closely involved in the defence of the territory and had had to make sacrifices and had won victories over Swapo. That is why it is the S.A. Defence Force which feels how essential it is for a workable political solution to be found. Who has stuck his neck out to a greater extent than my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Defence, to tell the leaders of the NP that they cannot see themselves as an extension of the NP of South Africa and that they should come to an understanding with other leaders?

Let us consider the facts. Does the hon. member want all the Whites to leave South-West Africa?

They are doing so at the moment.

No, they are not all doing so. The hon. member must not simply make a statement here. I am prepared to evaluate the hon. member’s statements and I did not interrupt him once while he was speaking. I am asking him a question, in a decent way across the floor in this House: Does he want the Whites to leave?

50 000 have already left during the last five years.

If the hon. member does not want the Whites to leave, how is he going to ensure that they remain there?

Any person who wishes to approach the problem of South West Africa has to take a few basic realities into account, realities which no one can change, not the hon. member, nor the UN and not I either. It is a reality that there are Owambos, there are Kavangos, there are Caprivians, there are Bushmen, there are Damaras, there are Namas, there are Tswanas, there are Whites, there are Basters, there are Coloureds and there are Hereros. With all these groups and also with the political parties which cut right across ethnicity, the Government of the Republic is constantly holding talks. The Government has constantly pushed them into attending international conferences. In addition it is through the instrumentality of the Government of the Republic that representatives of the five Western Powers travel to Windhoek regularly these days. But what do some of the representatives of the five Western Powers say to me? They say: “Spare us going to Windhoek. Cannot we just talk to you? It is just too difficult to talk to such a proliferation of parties.” But the hon. member has just said that this multiplicity of parties is attributable to the policy of the Government of the Republic. After all, we did accept the constitutional principles. Why do some of the parties that also accepted those constitutional principles not get together? For what reason are they unable to get together?

Financially the Government of the Republic has done its best for South-West Africa. Figures in this connection were quoted by the hon. the Prime Minister in his speech on Tuesday. At present it must be in the region of R800 million/R900 million/R1 000 million per annum, if defence expenditure is included. When they needed drought assistance, we gave it to them. The amount was R65 million. The losses incurred by our railway system was R70 million. Who plays the major role in getting the people of South-West Africa together to work out among themselves and between themselves a solution for the territory and to form a unified front? It is this Government. Repeatedly we have brought together Brown leaders, Black leaders, White leaders and the leaders of parties over a broad spectrum and conveyed this message to them: Do not ask us to prescribe your political policies to you; we shall protect you; we shall give you assistance in all respects, but please get together and work out a plan and the Government of the Republic will respect whatever you decide upon.

Now the hon. member for Sea Point comes here today with misrepresentations, I almost want to say with wilful misrepresentations. Once again he referred to Africa Report. Here I have it. I have the complete article here. It comprises a series of questions which this publication put to the State Department of the USA. We should not look at one sentence only. Here is one of the questions—

To this the State Department replied as follows—

Consequently this is a neutral standpoint in which South Africa is not singled out, and this has been stated repeatedly. In spite of the fact that they wanted to involve Dr. Crocker and even Vice President Bush in adopting a standpoint against us, they said that they preferred not to take sides but stated categorically to all the countries of Southern Africa that: “If you harbour the ANC you must expect counter-action from South Africa”. But just see how the hon. member for Sea Point presented it here today. [Interjections.] I shall also read the relevant question and reply from which the hon. member quoted one sentence, the full reply so that hon. members may judge for themselves. The hon. member read only one sentence. This is what the State Department said about the MNR in reply to a series of specific questions—

I can go along with most of these statements. The fact of the matter—and we have made this very clear—is that we never made a secret of how we felt about subversive attacks from across our borders. I never made any secret of it either, nor did I do so in my talks with Angola and Mozambique in December 1982. Now I want to put it to the hon. member for Sea Point today that if there is going to be any progress in these talks, it will be for one reason only, and that is because I began by saying to both countries, Angola as well as Mozambique—and I did not want to say it here, but the hon. member is forcing me to do so—that I did not trust them. I said to them: “I distrust you. I distrust your motives. I think you are directed by the Soviet Union, and I think you are looking for peace because you are in trouble. If you can convince me that I am wrong—I should gladly wish to be wrong—then we can start step by step to build mutual trust, allowing trust to grow between us, and step by step we can implement a programme for the creation of peace.”

I made this very clear to the Government of those two countries. I did not do so in an arrogant way, as the hon. member thinks, but I nevertheless made it very clear that there cannot be peace in Southern Africa unless all Governments in Southern Africa refuse firmly and sincerely to allow their countries to be used for attacks, for the planning of attacks, subversion, or whatever form of violence one could conceive of being aimed at other countries. Without that there cannot be any peace here.

We now have this peculiar position. The offers of agreements, of understandings on the part of South Africa—to which the hon. the Prime Minister also referred—with a view to bringing about such a situation of peace, have so far not been accepted. It is true that there are indications that they may perhaps become acceptable. However, I can give hon. members the assurance that if we had carried on and had held the standpoints which the hon. member for Sea Point held here today, we would have had no hope of peace. Attacks from across our borders will be met with appropriate counter-actions.

†How can one exist peacefully, how can one have peaceful co-existence with a neighbour bent on destroying one?

[Inaudible.]

But why does the hon. member not say that?

*We are dealing with the typical Marxist ideology which dominates the Governments of two of our neighbouring countries. It is a basic philosophy. Do not tell me that that is not the case. It is their basic philosophy. There are quite a number of countries which agree that that is their basic philosophy. Therefore it is very important for me to know to what extent Russia controls Angola and Mozambique. If Russia does not control Angola and Mozambique completely then we must know whether they are free to negotiate independently of Russia. Surely I must know whether I am negotiating with Moscow when I talk to Mozambique. Am I negotiating with Moscow or with Mozambique? Am I negotiating with Angola or with Moscow when I talk to the Government of Angola? If it is Moscow I am negotiating with, I must use a slightly longer spoon. That is the point. What is important is that it is not impossible that we can reach an agreement on achieving a peaceful settlement in an openhearted discussion with one another, displaying a realistic attitude towards one another, in a position in which one clearly tells the other what its conditions are. That is what we are trying to do. However, I say again today that there is only one way in which we shall achieve that goal. We shall only do so if we have a creditable military and security force, if we have a strong economy, and if we ensure that change in our own country can be controlled in an evolutionary way. There is no other way in which we can achieve that goal. And even if the PFP or the CP were to come into power, there are certain basic facts which neither of them will be able to evade. I am not saying this accusingly now. They will not be able to evade them. They will not be able to evade the fact that there are Xhosas in South Africa, and that there are Basothos in Lesotho, whose independence we did not grant. In addition, there are 140 000 people from those independent States whose independence was granted by Britain, and which is recognized throughout the entire world, working within South Africa. The hon. member for Sea Point must listen to these arguments now. Lesotho has not held an election since the previous one when Mr. Jonathan lost the election and seized power at midnight. I want to ask the hon. member why he does not kick up such a fuss about the position of Lesotho, or is that a different matter? Lesotho is far less viable than Transkei. Why does the hon. member wrest the recent statements of certain Black leaders, a few sentences, out of context and use them here to present the Transkei as a failure? Two days ago my hon. colleague here and I took leave of President Matanzima and the Prime Minister of Transkei on the airport, and the hon. member did not even know that they were here. President Matanzima and his brother came here to visit the principal of his university who had been injured. We had a pleasant conversation. When will the hon. member get it into his head that we in Africa are dealing with different dimensions and that when the hon. member makes the kind of speech he made today, those people laugh at him. They laugh at him. [Interjections.] There are certain basic facts which the hon. member cannot evade. The hon. member and his party will not be able to evade the truth of multinationalism in South Africa. They will have to deal with it. Even with their national convention they will have to bring the leaders together. And that will not be all that easy. The hon. member spoke about leaders who have said certain things against us. Yes, that is true. It happens from time to time, but I do not let off steam over it. Surely I cannot be held to ransom simply because leaders attack us in respect of certain issues. I must first decide whether I am on a road to reform which the country can absorb and control without a revolution occurring here, because a revolution will destroy all of us, and them as well. Cannot the hon. member understand what Mr. Allan Hendrickse said the other evening, viz.: “There can be no winners any longer in our situation”? The hon. member and his party are withholding themselves from sound change and co-operation, they are withholding themselves from controlled change. They have manoeuvred themselves into a corner. There are certain basic facts they will never be able to change. What are they going to succeed in changing to the north of the Limpopo? Do they think they will succeed in changing Zimbabwe overnight into a haven of stability? The word “destabilization” has again been used accusingly against the Government. Has the hon. member worked out what we have done in the sphere of communication, of transport, medicine and in every sphere of life, not only for the Black people of South Africa, but for all our neighbouring States, and what the extent of the facilities at their disposal is? Who offered Lesotho a R4 million maize-planting programme the year before last and implemented it with the help of White farmers from the Free State? Who has demonstrated to a greater extent that it wishes to co-operate? I said that I warned Lesotho repeatedly to get rid of the ANC. At one stage the police took an ANC man prisoner. Lesotho then approached me and said: “Although we cannot make a deal—we can never make a deal in such a matter—if you can release him, we promise you Mr. Hani will leave Lesotho. We will get rid of him”. With great difficulty I had to persuade the hon. the Minister of Law and Order to agree to this— his men had had a very hard time getting hold of this person. They had documentation, they had direct evidence of plans for murder in this country which were found in the briefcase of the person concerned. For the sake of international relations and for the sake of the efforts to create good neighbourliness and trust, I went and stuck out my neck and convinced the Minister of Law and Order. The man was then released. A little while later I was told: “Yes, Mr. Hani has gone”. When I went back to the Lesotho Government and told them: “Yes, but he has been replaced by a much more dangerous man”, I was then told: “But we only said that Hani would go”. Lesotho knew very well that Hani was an ANC representative who recruited terrorists. It was the ANC and all its representatives that had to get out.

The hon. member had a great deal to say here today about the question of breach of faith and the breaking of agreements. I explained many of these matters to him in my office. I explained the position of the complaints that had been made against us. We flew to Lesotho by helicopter and invited the Lesotho Government, together with the police and my officials, to fly immediately over the area where it was alleged we were allowing BCP terrorists to shelter. I told him how we had asked for the fingers of the people whom they had said had been shot dead by our policemen because we wanted to take fingerprints, and how they had said to us: “No, we do not cut the fingers off corpses”. We were repeatedly thwarted in every attempt to establish the facts. The hon. member has no knowledge of these complicated issues. He does not understand these things; he does not know what is involved. He does not understand the concept which my hon. colleague, the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, dealt with yesterday, viz. the various political cultures. We do not look down on the political cultures of other people. The hon. member displayed extreme arrogance. Just like those typical, intolerant liberals, the hon. member wants to force down the throats of Black, White, Yellow and Brown his particular brand of morality. That is the truth. They are the most intolerant people.

According to the PFP, one must bring every conceivable leader together before one can have a convention. On what basis is one going to bring them together? What understanding does the PFP have of the attempts which we are in fact making and of the problems in that connection?

I want to conclude. [Interjections.] The hon. members over there can laugh as much as they like, and the more they laugh, the more support they are going to lose in this country, because they are laughing at the realities. I am making an appeal to them, because there are some of them who can play positive roles—on one condition, however: They must come back to earth. They must come back to earth and face up to the truth as all leaders in Southern Africa will have to do. The Government is prepared to accept controlled change for the sake of everyone in Southern Africa; we are not prepared to descend with open eyes into the abyss. We are not prepared to allow a situation to continue in Southern Africa in which some countries accommodate terrorists and others and then tell me: “They are merely refugees”.

I believe that the neighbouring States of South Africa will, together with us, slowly but surely arrive at the point where we will all see that we have an interest in the peace and stability of Southern Africa. We have the manpower potential. We are going to train more manpower. We have the raw materials. We have the infrastructure. I believe that we have the technology. I think and hope that we have the faith. What this country needs is a little less venom, a little less hatred, a little less suspicion of one another, and to face up to the truth and the reality frankly.

If one had to sum up the debate as it has been conducted up to now, we realize, as a foreign journalist asked me yesterday: “But they cannot both be right?” He was referring to the PFP and the CP. I then said: “No, neither the one nor the other is right; they are both wrong”. I do not have the time to go into this matter any further, but I wish to tell them that if they think they can continue in this way, they must remember that the world is not standing still in the meantime; our enemies are not sleeping. Southern Africa has so much potential, is displaying so much goodwill, is creating so many opportunities for Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics to arrive at an agreement without crippling our economy, but the hon. members over there are allowing so many opportunities to slip through their fingers, to their own detriment. There is constructive criticism which the PFP and the CP can level at the Government, but what are we demonstrating to the world? While the outside world gives recognition to the Government’s changes, while it is being said on the part of America that sound changes are taking place here, and while people are being encouraged by the American, British and German Governments to realize that change of a peaceful nature must come about in Southern Africa, those hon. members rise to their feet and talk about disaster and conflict. Why do they talk about those things? Do they wish to see them created? Is that the way in which they wish to be proved right?

I am making an appeal to the PFP and the CP. The interests of South Africa and of the various peoples of this country are greater than all of us. We have come forward and stated that we have a dilemma as regards the position of the Blacks in the RSA, who are unable to exercise their political rights in any of the national States. Now we are going to make an attempt, in all seriousness, to do something about it. We have come forward with proposals for a new dispensation for Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics. Of course it is progress if one is able, in this country, to have a situation where one says: “Colour as a determinant factor in the allocation of political rights exists no longer because … [Interjections.] No, the hon. members must listen now. I am talking about an ordered pro rata basis. They, however, proceed from the standpoint that because they cannot create their impracticable idyllic situation, everything else has to be destroyed.

I want to give the hon. member for Sea Point this advice: Examine your facts on what happened in South-West Africa. Examine your facts on the efforts made by the Government. Examine your facts on what we are doing in connection with our neighbouring States and the understanding with which we are conducting negotiations with all our neighbouring States, even those which are diametrically opposed to us ideologically. Then you may change your tune. Also examine the facts to find out what you would not have been able to alter either if you had taken office, and what the CP would not have been able to change either, if they had taken office. [Interjections.] There are certain basic facts, and if we cannot achieve consensus with one another on the basic facts of South Africa, we have the kind of quarrelling which is in progress here, and it is not pleasant. From my point of view or that of my department it is not pleasant. This has not been a pleasant debate. It is not doing South Africa any good at all, nor is it worthy of South Africa. [Interjections.] The reason for this is that we should not sit down and quarrel about basic facts—how many people there are in this country, how big the country is, what its capacity is, how much water it has, whether there are Whites, how the Whites feel, whether there are Coloureds, Asiatics, Zulu and Xhosa, and how they feel, how they feel in their heart of hearts, what they are prepared to do and what they are not prepared to do, what their political cultures are and what the trend in Africa is, whether our Black people would historically have acted in a different way to the people in the rest of Africa, whether we should expect the same, and whether we should not then say openly to one another: “Look, these are your tendencies, your values, which differ from mine, but I do not look down on you”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs that I believe that in a sense a Minister of Foreign Affairs probably has to bear a heavier burden than his colleagues, in that he not only has to consider domestic politics, but also has to carry the complexities of domestic politics into the outside world and obviously has to contribute to the peace which we all wish for on this earth. [Interjections.] I also believe that the whole development of man’s history, particularly after the Second World War, has in a sense taken place in such a stark contrast to the development of the Afrikaner—the White man—in Southern Africa that it is indeed difficult for any hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs to state the case in South Africa. I understand those problems which one has to deal with in the international world, not only as a member of the Government party, but as a member of the Opposition as well. We are in the position, however—in terms of our system—that an Opposition has to be critical of the Government party, and consequently the CP in the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s vote would like to give a clearer analysis of our own points of view and in addition, consider critically the activities of the hon. the Minister and his department. My personal inference from his performance as a politician in recent times is that the hon. the Minister has brought a message of pessimism particularly to the White people in South Africa. Am I right or wrong? Secondly, I have very grave doubts about the actions of the hon. the Minister in the struggle of the White man or European to remain in Africa. Thirdly, there is profound concern in the CP about the whole matter of the stability of Southern Africa, particurlarly as far as South-West Africa is concerned—the various peoples who live there, and then, too, we are deeply concerned about the White man, those of our own blood, who live there, and the work of years which they have done there. [Interjections.] On that note I want to leave the hon. the Minister.

I now turn to the hon. the Prime Minister. His amendment is defeated by his political principles and policy, but before I come to my argument on that score, I have a special word for the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. He made the allegation last year that the hon. leader of the CP inter alia contributed to an attempt at Cottesloe to cause a split in his church. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that our first clash early in the sixties concerned two matters: One was that the hon. the Minister wanted to be the candidate in the Rissik constituency and I expressed doubts about his doctoral thesis; the second was when I, as president of the ASB, made a speech about Mr. Beyers Naudé, and that hon. Minister took up the cudgels for Mr. Beyers Naudé. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that Mr. Beyers Naudé was one of the henchmen of the Cape Liberal Nats who, through Cottesloe, tried to destroy the Afrikaner community and to destabilize Southern African society. That is what Cottesloe was about. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that Dr. Andries Treurnicht, together with Dr. Kosie Gericke, Dr. Koot Vorster and many others, with the approval of Dr. Verwoerd, struck a blow for stability in Southern Africa on that occasion. I want to tell the hon. the Minister today that Dr. Treurnicht is still upholding the same standpoint and principle in the church and in Afrikanerdom that he upheld then, whereas the hon. the Minister, in defending the Cottesloe point of view of 20 years ago, finds himself in the company of Mr. Beyers Naudé.

The hon. leader of the Government party in the Free State, who is not present now, also referred to the hon. member for Waterberg yesterday and made certain statements. In the first place he referred to him as a clergyman and former moderator of the D.R. Church. I want to state that the hon. Minister makes many factual errors. Last year he rose here and said that I was a self-acknowledged member of Aksie Eie Toekoms. I said in this House that it was not true. The hon. the Minister then replied that he would adduce proof to substantiate his standpoint. He never did so, however. That statement by the hon. the Minister was disseminated by the NP in Stellenbosch and elsewhere in the country. It is an untruth, but it was disseminated nevertheless. If the hon. the Minister is so well acquainted with church life, why did he make the factual mistake of stating that the hon. member for Waterberg had been a Moderator of the D.R. Church? That is untrue. It is not so. [Interjections.]

In addition, the hon. the leader of the NP in the Free State referred to the chairmanship of the hon. member for Waterberg of a certain Afrikaner organization and to other-positions whereby he was allegedly have been afforded protection. I want to state that a minister of the D.R. Church, of which I am a member, is not a protected person in society. If there is anyone who has to avert the onslaughts of Satan, as we call it in religious terminology, then it is the minister, as the preacher of the Word of God in a community. However, the hon. the Minister says that ministers of the church live in a protected world. This is the first point. Secondly, I want to say that the Moderator of the D.R. Church in South Africa has for years been one of the people who has had to endure the sharpest criticism from the World Council of Churches and from the liberal theology of this world. The hon. the Minister, however, for petty political reasons, said here that the hon. member occupied that position and as such lived in a protected world because he was not attacked there. How he could say anything of the kind is beyond me. In the third instance, the hon. the Minister referred to an Afrikaans cultural organization of which the hon. member for Waterberg is said to have been the chairman. If this is the organization which we are aware of, I want to say that to be chairman of the organization is, in my opinion an outstanding achievement. The chairman of that very organization has come under fire from the liberals in the past decades. I am not referring only to people from outside, people like J. H. P. Serfontein and others, but also to people like Beyers Naudé—a person who betrayed that organization. It is very unwise, therefore, of the Free State leader of the NP to attack Afrikaner cultural organizations in that sense. But I leave it at that.

I now want to come back to the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister moved an amendment on the motions submitted. I contend that the political principles and the political philosophy of the hon. the Prime Minister defeat that amendment which he moved here.

In Rapport of 10 September 1978 there was a report entitled “P.W. pak Piet oor driekamerparlement”. Remember, this report appeared on 10 September 1978, barely four years ago. The report reads—

The report goes on—

The report goes on to deal with the role of the Afrikaans-language nationalist newspapers in the past 30 years in the situation in which the NP and the White man find themselves today. The report goes on—

ie. Mr. P. W. Botha—

But that is true.

I accept that. I do know that the NP had an in-depth discussion of those matters.

Read the report further.

The report goes on—

That is also true.

The hon. the Prime Minister at the time said that it was not the policy of the NP. [Interjections.] Last year, at the time of my expulsion from the NP, we debated the interpretation of the 1977 proposals. On various occasions, when I had the opportunity, I, as a member of the party, as well as subsequently on this side of the House, very clearly gave my interpretation of this, as well as the evidence to back it up, to the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister presents to South Africa as a policy a tricameral parliament.

Are you not aware of the congresses of the party last year?

No, that is not the point. The hon. the Prime Minister was chairman of a Cabinet Committee, and that committee submitted certain standpoints to the then Cabinet, to the caucus and subsequently in the 1977 election. I first learned of the standpoint of a tricameral parliament from the hon. the Minister of Community Development. That was in 1975. It was then said that we did not understand the Coloureds.

That is very clear; you do not understand them.

He said that we should have a tricameral parliament. This is an old standpoint, one which prevailed for many years in certain circles of the NP. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that he rejected it in 1978. And then a few years later, he placed us in such a position here that we had to leave the NP. Interjections.] Confidence in the NP and in the hon. the Prime Minister has disappeared in this country.

These proposals of the hon. the Prime Minister destroy the sovereignty that the White man has built up over centuries in this country, in that the Parliament of the Whites is being changed into a chamber, and anyone of the meanest intelligence would know that to change a Parliament into a chamber, is to deprive it of its sovereignty.

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

Unfortunately I do not have the time, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Prime Minister is now depriving the White man of his sovereignty after a centuries-long struggle. Secondly, he is not affording a real right of self-determination to the three respective population groups. Thirdly, by instituting the President’s Council, the Prime Minister has encroached upon the sovereignty of Parliament as an institution. I want to say today that the NP, under the leadership of the hon. the Prime Minister, is disintegrating, because it has tampered with the vital principles of the struggle and the endeavour of the White man and the Afrikaner to survive, and for that reason it will lose.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to what was said by the hon. member for Rissik. I think one or two of his introductory remarks were quite correct, inter alia, that many changes had occurred here in Southern Africa since the Second World War. I, too, am concerned about that, because there are some of our people here in South Africa who do not realize to what extent we have indeed developed. I am referring not only to the constitutional development which is taking place in a peaceful manner here in Southern Africa, but also to the physical onslaught taking place in Southern Africa. In this regard I am referring to the fact that this country of ours is engaged in a war and that the S.A. Defence Force—and when I refer to the S.A. Defence Force, I am referring to the Defence Force of all the parties—is engaged in carrying out certain operations on the borders of our country.

To me it is very clear that after the hon. member had tried to score points off us, he stopped short when it came to the constitutional development and the Government’s acceptance of certain standpoints. The party’s congresses agreed to those standpoints. The hon. member stopped short before the decisions of the congresses. He blamed the congresses for everything. But the congresses are, after all, the heart of this party.

The hon. member said that he was very concerned about destabilization in Southern Africa, and in that respect I am in full agreement with him. However, I shall come back to this important point.

It was particularly interesting to listen to the arguments and statements of the Opposition parties in this House. Today is the first time that I am availing myself of the opportunity of participating in a political debate such as this one. In fact I am doing this for two reasons. In the first place, the arguments advanced by members of the Opposition parties in their newspapers, in their political campaigns, as well as in this House, compelled me to participate in this debate in order to clarify certain things. I shall come back to these arguments at a later stage. In the second place, it was with appreciation that I took cognizance of the standpoint of the hon. member for Wynberg—who is the spokesman of the PFP on defence at the moment—that he will keep defence out of party politics. This is not the appropriate time to extend congratulations to that hon. member in his new capacity. The most suitable occasion to do so will be when we discuss the Defence Vote. On this occasion I nevertheless want to thank him for his positive attitude to this, I may say, long-standing tradition in this House to keep Defence out of the hurly-burly of party politics. This is my opinion too, and I have no reason to suspect that the majority of the members of the CP and the members of the NRP are not of the same opinion.

Now I want to make a contribution in respect of defence matters which were raised here by members of the Opposition, and I am doing so to avoid the need to bicker about party-political matters during the debate on my Vote. The first matter I want to deal with, relates to allegations and suggestions that South Africa is the destabilizing agent on this subcontinent.

The first question we have to ask ourselves in this regard is where these allegations and suggestions originated. Allow me to say that it is an orchestrated campaign against the Republic which is being conducted from our neighbouring States and certain other countries. It clearly forms part of an attack or propaganda strategy against the Republic of South Africa. Formerly the word “apartheid” was the term of abuse. Now, however, this word has taken second place. Not a single day passes without some Marxist-orientated African leader being used by Radio Moscow or another propaganda centre to brand or label the Republic as the destabilizing agent of Africa. But we must expect this, because one judges others by oneself. The alarming fact, however, is that these propaganda onslaughts emanating from certain neighbouring States and Marxist countries, also find acceptance among certain supporters of the PFP. This is reflected by their newspapers. It is also endorsed in the editorials of these newspapers. In this regard I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition and the editor of The Cape Times: Whose interests did the newspaper promote by its editorial of 20 January 1983? In that editorial it associated itself with statements made by Radio Moscow. Let us now look at what Radio Moscow said. I have here a short summary of what was broadcast by Radio Moscow on 13 and 19 January 1983. In that broadcast “racist” South Africa was accused of aggressive action against neighbouring States. The attack on Maseru was described as an international crime, as another link in the chain of destabilizing and aggressive action launched by Pretoria against other independent African States. In addition, Radio Moscow said that South Africa was following a policy of “shoot first and ask questions later”, resulting in the murder of innocents.

The editorial of The Cape Times of 20 January 1983 dealt with the recent incursion into Lesotho and South Africa’s action across the border. This newspaper casts suspicion on the S.A. Defence Force by referring to a so-called policy of “shoot first and ask questions later”. I shall quote only a short passage—

Here in its editorial column The Cape Times is echoing Radio Moscow. I do not know in how many other things this newspaper echoes Radio Moscow. What is surprising is that this newspaper very seldom has the interests of its own country at heart and always tries only to paint a one-sided and subjective picture to South Africa’s detriment. No right-minded South African and patriot can tell me that this newspaper of the Opposition promotes South Africa’s cause, and I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition supports me in this. I know that there are certain members of his caucus, in any event, who support me in this, but I should like to accept that not one of his people would be prepared to echo Moscow and this newspaper. In the light of this propaganda onslaught against us, I am of the opinion that anybody, any newspaper or any organization which pursues the same aims and objectives as Moscow with regard to Southern Africa and that wants to promote them wittingly or unwittingly, is playing into the hands of the enemies of the Republic.

Smear politics!

Moscow’s aims are to put our country in greater disfavour in world opinion. Its actions are centred on presenting the Republic as the so-called destabilizing agent of Southern Africa. I repeat: Anybody, any newspaper in the Republic promoting this theme is playing right into the hands of our enemies, and I am prepared to furnish examples of this to the hon. member for Pinelands in a moment.

Let us consider a few more aspects of this so-called destabilization. For example, bombs have exploded at various places in this country; plans are hatched to commit murder; Lesotho’s Government says it merely accommodates refugees, etc. and this Government must maintain peace and order. Last year a short list of incidents appeared in the Star in order to give the public an impression of the intensity of the destabilizing efforts aimed at the Republic. It appeared in the Star of 3 December 1982. Let us just look for a moment at the intensity of the terrorist attacks launched from Lesotho and Mozambique. The following are examples—

Here we have seven serious destabilizing actions within a matter of only 16 days, actually launched by the ANC from Lesotho and Mozambique against the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, if the Government had not acted, these evil plans of these enemies of South Africa would have continued unabated. But when it acts, it is in the wrong, according to The Cape Times and certain other papers. Now what are the facts? There are hon. members on the opposite side who act sanctimoniously and talk peace all day long, and who regard the actions of our Defence Force as “appalling”. I shall come to that at a later stage. Can they tell me who is really destabilizing this sub-continent? Do they want to tell me that it is the policy of Russia to bring peace and progress to this subcontinent by supporting certain factions, certain minority factions in Angola and Mozambique, by creating famine, poverty and chaos in those areas and dumping large tonnages of arms and ammunition in those areas? Do they want to tell me that the subcontinent would have been in its present mess if the Russians had stayed out of Africa? This is the essence of the problem in Southern Africa.

Is there a single thinking person in this country who is going to tell me that we would have been able to discuss this matter in this House today as we in fact are had this Government not acted against those who tried to destabilize the Republic of South Africa?

What is the objective of the ANC? To eliminate this political structure, of which all of us form an extremely important part and to remove it not by means of peaceful constitutional development but by putting a Marxist government in power here by violent means?

Who supports the ANC openly? It is the communists through the S.A. Communist Party, and the headquarters from which they are operating at present, are in Mozambique, especially now that Lesotho has been eliminated by the security forces.

When that Marxist organization commits sabotage, wants to blow the railway system in Bloemfontein sky high, wants to murder Black leaders in Transkei, plants bombs to blow up fuel depots, support for all these things comes from Lesotho and Mozambique. Does anybody want us to sit with our hands folded in these cases, and merely issue warnings each time on the diplomatic level that these things must not be done? Hon. members may rest assured, as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated here, that warnings were in fact issued at diplomatic level in this regard.

What about economic actions? [Interjections.]

I shall still come to that, Mr. Speaker. After what I have just said, hon. members of this House will probably not take it amiss of me if I address myself to the hon. member for Sea Point now. I regret that he is not present in the Chamber at the moment. I want to quote, however, from what he wrote in The Argus of 22 December 1982. It is very much in the same vein as that in which he spoke here this afternoon. He wrote as follows—

In the same article the hon. member also wrote that we had only ourselves to blame for this. In addition he mentioned what, according to him, were the fundamental reasons for terrorism and so on in South Africa and I am going to quote these as well. He wrote—

I should not like to contend that the hon. member for Sea Point is ignorant. The hon. member is not present at the moment, but I hope that he will be able to give me an answer to this at a later stage. I should like to know from him whether his fundamental reasons given by him here in this article of 22 December last year, also apply in Afghanistan, in Poland and in all the other countries which have been destabilized by the Soviet Union and which have entered this process of destabilization. The motives of the hon. member for Sea Point are extremely obscure to me. What I do know, is this. There is one place which is jubilant about this. The Kremlin is rejoicing loudly about the hon. member’s standpoints, because he is playing directly into their hands. I do not believe for a single moment that he is doing so deliberately. Nor do I want to charge him with doing this deliberately; on the contrary I believe he is doing so out of ignorance. [Interjections.]

What the Kremlin wants, Mr. Speaker, is that South Africa should blame itself, and this afternoon, sure enough, the hon. member for Sea Point did it again here in our midst.

I believe the official Opposition should rather ask itself how many other states in Africa have as yet reacted to the hon. the Prime Minister’s offer regarding the conclusion of non-aggression pacts with South Africa. In this regard I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the newspapers supporting his party should rather take up a standpoint opposing those countries which allow bands of terrorists, who are enemies of South Africa, to operate against our country from their territory. Why cannot our neighbouring states give the undertaking, an undertaking such as that which the South African Government is prepared to enter into, aimed at preventing incursions being made against South African territory from their territories? If certain of our neighbouring states do not heed this, the South African Government will be obliged, in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of the security of all our people in this country, to reconsider this standpoint and this offer. Whatever methods we may have to use to combat South Africa’s enemies in those countries, even if it were to mean that we support anti-Communist movements—and this I should like to emphasize—for example, the MNR and Unita, and allow them to operate from our territory against Swapo and the ANC, we shall have to do os. We might be compelled to do so by necessity, we shall have to fight communism wherever it is in the interests of the Republic of South African to do so.

A great deal remains to be said about this matter and I shall if necessary, refer to it again during the discussion of my Vote and spell out to hon. members the realities of this propaganda onslaught against this country.

Before again addressing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, I just want to make this statement. If the official Opposition were sitting on this side of the House with a responsible member such as the hon. member for Yeoville in my position, I am sure he would have held the same views I hold. Having said this, I want to add, however, that I do not think he or his party has any chance at all of crossing to this side of the House.

Let us now consider the views which can be adopted, particularly with regard to the question of destabilization. At this stage I want to quote from column 4691 of Hansard of 24 September 1981 where the following was said—

The hon. member went on to say—

What thanks did the hon. member who uttered these words, the hon. member for Yeoville, receive? He was ousted as the chief spokesman on Defence. [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, I do not have the time now. I am certain the hon. member for Sea Point as well as the editor of The Cape Times are going to speak to the hon. member for Yeoville about this standpoint which I have just quoted.

There is another matter which has received a great deal of publicity as well, and it concerns the terms “terrorists” and “murderers” as against “freedom fighters”. Hon. members will recall that it was also fashionable at Stellenbosch recently. On 4 September 1974 my Leader dealt with the Leader of the Opposition in this regard. I want to quote from column 2485 of Hansard of 9 September 1974. The then Minister of Defence said the following—

Hon. members must remember that this was said as long ago as 1974. The Minister continued—

And here, where the Minister referred to his “hon. friend”, he was in fact referring to the hon. young and inexperienced member for Rondebosch who is the experienced hon. Leader of the Opposition at present. I quote further—

When the hon. the Minister spoke to Kaunda, was this what he said?

I said that to Kaunda.

What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not realize is that the hon. the Prime Minister is honest and sincere. It does not make any difference with whom he is negotiating, or who is sitting opposite him. He is honest and sincere, and whether it be President Kaunda or the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition, he does not mind saying it. The dilemma of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is, on the one hand, that he objected as long ago as 1974 to the Minister of Defence calling murderers murderers. [Interjections.] Can you see his problem now, because the other day his candidate in Stellenbosch, Mrs. Bishop, called terrorists “freedom fighters”? She was the candidate in the Stellenbosch by-election last year in November. Can you understand now why the Leader of the Opposition really did not want to repudiate Mrs. Bishop. What he said about her remarks, actually means nothing. It is obvious that he does not like terrorists being called “murderers”, but he does not mind at all if terrorists are christened “freedom fighters”.

What about Nkomo? [Interjections.]

I never spoke of Nkomo; his name never passed my lips. Who is Nkomo? [Interjections.]

As a result of the indecision of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition he was given a total motion of no confidence in Stellenbosch. Let us take a look at who these people are who are called freedom fighters by members of that party. What are the facts? During the past four years in Owambo alone these so-called freedom fighters murdered or horribly maimed a total of 787 civilians, inter alia by planting mines on public roads. This is a scandalous, cowardly deed committed by Swapo. They are murderers or bands of terrorists intent on murdering or abducting innocent people and children. They are the people whom Mrs. Bishop called freedom fighters.

Despite the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has doubts as to whom South Africa’s enemies are, they are, fortunately, hon. members on that side who do not hesitate to come out against the enemies of our country. I want to refer to Hansard, September 1981, col. 4816—

I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that I agree with his pronouncement. [Interjections.]

I still stand by that.

It is necessary for the hon. Leader of the Opposition to support this PFP policy of the hon. member for Yeoville. I know there are certain members in his party who will not support it, but there are others who will support it, because it is in the interests of South Africa …

Tell us something about the Seychelles, will you?

I am coming to the Seychelles, too. [Interjections.]

*Incidentally, I want to come back to another matter as well, and this, too, is part of the dilemma of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. When the hon. member for Wynberg reacted in a responsible way—I give him full credit for that—to the attack on the terrorist nests in Lesotho, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came along, again under pressure exerted by his leftists and his Press, and he bedevilled everything with a virtual repudiation of the hon. member for Wynberg. I am not the one who said this; it was The Cape Times that said it prominently in an editorial. Reference was made to it in The Cape Times of 15 December 1982.

Certain hon. members tried to make political capital—now I am coming to the point raised by the hon. member—out of the Seychelles affair. I am not going to say much more in reply to that—enough has already been said. [Interjections.] Attention was not paid when the hon. the Prime Minister gave a comprehensive …

If you were a decent Minister, you would have resigned.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North entitled to insinuate that the hon. the Minister is not decent? [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North say?

Sir, I said because the Minister did not resign, he was not decent; in other words, he is not a decent Minister because he has not resigned.

The hon. member must withdraw the words “not decent”.

Sir, I withdraw them.

To me it is important— this is on record—that the Government and the Defence Force were not aware of these inadmissible actions. Certain actions have been taken and certain actions will also be taken in this regard in the course of this session in order to prevent a repetition of the occurrence. This has already been spelt out by the hon. the Prime Minister.

Giving one of the brigadiers a medal.

One must always bear in mind that if the Government had wished to take over or overthrow the Seychelles, it could have used the best Defence Force in Africa to dispose of this small task successfully in a jiffy. [Interjections.] Yesterday this House also had the astonishing opportunity of hearing an hon. member, the hon. member for Jeppe …

What do you want to do with the place?

No, I am not referring to the hon. member, I am referring to the hon. member for Jeppe. You are only a …

No, tell us what you want to do with the place.

I do not want to refer to the integrity and virtue of the hon. member for Jeppe. [Interjections.] His outburst yesterday cast a direct reflection on one of the most valued …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May hon. members on that side of the House indicate that the hon. member for Jeppe does not have integrity? [Interjections.]

Order! Which hon. member said that?

The entire chorus at the back over there. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.]

I do not want to refer to the integrity and virtue of the hon. member for Jeppe.

Because it is above suspicion.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. Minister refer to an hon. member in that way? [Interjections.]

When one thinks back to that outburst of his yesterday, one realizes that he cast a reflection on one of the most valued and honourable people I have ever come across in my long career …

Namely Gen. Malan.

… a man working under tremendous tension, a man who is responsible for the security of our country. Here I am, of course, referring to the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force. [Interjections.]

Order! Which hon. member said it was a lie?

Mr. Speaker, I said it was a lie.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it and say it is an untruth.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

No, but it is a he.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it. [Interjections.] Order! Hon. members must please maintain order while the Chair is giving a ruling. The hon. member must withdraw his statement.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I just draw your attention to the fact that the hon. member Mr. Theunissen also made that statement.

Order! Did the hon. member say that?

Sir, that hon. member should have his ears tested, because I said nothing of the kind.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

In an attempt to get at me and to get at the Government, that hon. member made one of the meanest and one of the most objectionable attacks ever heard in this House. [Interjections.] (Time expired.)

Mr. Speaker, I should like to use the time at my disposal to amplify two of the points in the amendment moved by my hon. leader, viz. that the philosophy and policies of that party fail to meet the demands of the present time and that the economic management and the administration of the country’s affairs are inefficient and harmful to the interests of the people of South Africa.

My hon. colleague the hon. member for Umbilo, has very aptly pointed out that the attitude to reform will play a very critical role. One’s approach to change and the manner in which it is negotiated and executed is naturally drawn from one’s philosophy and therefore shapes one’s policy. Statistics and realities, economic, demographic and international, have actually forced the Government to change, but that is a very different thing from believing in the new type of society as a desirable or chosen state of affairs. In fact, the Government’s philosophy in the past was situated at the opposite end of the scale at enormous cost to South Africa and the valuable time and economic well-being of all its people. I have here a document of the Instituut vir Suid-Afrikaanse Politiek of the University of Potchefstroom. It is called Die Dwang van die Statistiek and it is by Dr. Willem de Klerk, Prof. Van Tonder and Prof. Boshoff. This document is an absolute indictment of the NP’s policy of the past. In fact, it shows that the CP’s approach and the original policy of the NP is doomed to failure unless these statistics are borne in mind.

We do not take them seriously.

I very much doubt whether some hon. members of the NP have read this document, but it is a gem and has all the answers in regard to the NP’s previous dogma over the years.

Great credit must go to a Government which changes direction so markedly. There is no question of the Government not in fact having done this or not being in the process of doing it. The Government of course does so at great political risk. It leaves itself highly vulnerable for a period. As the French historian De Tocqueville says—

Not only will this Government need consummate statecraft, but it will have to improve its rating in the eyes of all groups in the areas of trust and credibility. In the crises that come to mind the Government has performed abysmally, showing an authoritarian and secretive manner. One can of course refer back down the years to the Info scandal, deaths in detention, Ingwavuma, the Seychelles and even South-West Africa, events which leave a distinct feeling of doubt in the ability of the Government to handle crisis. South Africa is rightly very concerned at most of these cases and in respect of some of them it is even downright ashamed at those performances.

It has become common policy for the Government to deny certain policy directions which it then in a very short period of time has adopted. There were for instance denials at recent congresses on the subject of confederation. When questioned by members of the NP on confederation in the years 1980 and 1981, the Government answered: “Ag nee, man, moet nie daarvan notisie neem nie. Dit is ’n ou Sap-beleid daardie. Hierdie Regering staan ’n konstellasie voor.” Now where are we? Confederation is there. The Government is struggling with it. Let me quote, like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did in introducing this motion. He quoted Ogden Nash and I shall do the same—

But more upon the just because the unjust stole the just’s umbrella.

The NP is good at stealing umbrellas. Then it struggles to open them and usually pokes people in the eye left, right and centre. For the information of the hon. member for Klip River, the umbrella body of the confederation is all about the common economy, matters of common concern, shared resources and a shared infrastructure in many cases. In that umbrella body member States will have to make consensus-style joint decisions. It is a great mechanism for making the two macro value systems in South Africa unite in the common cause of the upliftment of all its people, with a far greater homogeneous background, took 200 years to develop to its wards the federation which the hon. member seems to indicate that this party stands for.

The Swiss Confederation of States among people with a far greater homogeneous background took 200 years to develop to its state of the present federation. Our struggle for South Africa is for our value system with the extension of democracy and free enterprise, but we are surrounded by third world States whose tribal authoritarianism or traditional systems backed by a communal economy are so easily tempted by a one-party State Government, Marxism or socialism. Every person that we can draw into the free enterprise democratic State is a victory and our task is to make it work for all our people. I think it is very true to say that the West has learnt at enormous cost and with disastrous consequences to world economic stability of the dangers of pouring money into a bottomless pit which that system, the authoritarian tribal system, is.

I should like to refer to the very good speech made by the hon. member for Innesdal in which he said that the Government wanted all South Africa’s people to be economically free. The question is: How? How, when they do not have access to the commercial and industrial centres? How are they going to participate in the economy to the full extent, to be taken into the free-enterprise system, if they do not have access to the central business districts for a very start? The statistics in the publication I have by Potchefstroom University are absolutely irrefutable and the urbanization process that is going to follow will be such that it will be absolutely unavoidable. In fact, it is extremely necessary and urgent.

We on these benches can only welcome the Government’s belated undertaking to investigate the specific position of the non-homeland Blacks. The seriousness of the challenge of accelerating urbanization has been repeated ad nauseam in this House by this party and by others. The fact that this matter will at least get the attention of the Cabinet must be seen as a step forward. However, the incredible shortsightedness of various hon. Ministers who have ruled out the possibility of a fourth chamber or a separate legislature for non-homeland Blacks will undoubtedly boomerang on them and they will be forced to swallow their words just as they had to do in the case of confederation. The NRP believes that only a full-scale commission of inquiry into the nature, needs and aspirations of the non-homeland Blacks—similar to the Erika Theron Commission, the Fagan Commission or the Tomlinson Commission—will be able to produce an objective appraisal and realistic proposals. We do not believe that a Cabinet committee with all of their other enormous responsibilities, and particularly bound to the outmoded principles of separate development, which the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development has defined as the committee’s point of departure in the investigation, will do it justice.

I want to refer to a somewhat facile statement made by the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that one would need 13 chambers to represent the non-homeland Blacks. It really does nothing to reinforce confidence in his commitment as Minister of this most vital portfolio in coming to grips with the real constitutional needs of South Africa. I want to refer to the first report of the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council. On page 15, paragraph 3.9 it is stated—

The fifth alternative of the alternatives proposed was that a consociational democracy for Whites, Coloureds and Indians as well as non-homeland Blacks and a confederal arrangement for Blacks in the national States could be considered. On page 38 the report states further—

One wonders whether the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has referred back to this document when making a statement such as he did and why in fact the Government does not take this opportunity of using the President’s Council, that very body which was created in order to come to grips with South Africa’s constitutional needs in general, to investigate this matter instead of giving the Cabinet Committee a departmental Ministerial type of image and to start off with a somewhat preconceived attitude. Here is the information. Work has been done and suggestions have been made. The second real alternative to the one on which the Government has been working is already laid out and they could therefore get on with the work so much quicker.

It does not work that way.

Not in the NP. But that is the way it should be.

It goes backwards before you can go forward.

That is why they sacked Worrall; he saw the light.

I should like to use the last couple of minutes available to me to express my regret at the implications of the statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister in an attempt to whitewash the evils committed in the name of apartheid by the NP concerning the political rights of Blacks before the NP came into power in 1948 by describing the Native representation in this House and in the Senate as “bedrogverteenwoordiging”. The same calibre of remark was made by the hon. the Prime Minister last year in this House when he said that the Coloureds were taken off the roll in order to protect them from exploitation. That sort of thing is absolute nonsense. Nobody outside this House believes it. Probably some of the NP members themselves have a great deal of difficulty in believing it.

It is not the right spirit.

Certainly—and this is the point I want to make—the spirit and attitude shown in this matter is absolutely out of touch with any genuine approach to change.

There is another point that I should like to mention and that is the remark made in this House yesterday when the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare decided that he would make a first year medical student joke about the burning of Soweto. Really, to be cynical about such a tragic occurrence in South Africa’s history and to try to shift the burden from the Government’s shoulders, a Government which has been governing this country for so long, and to say it is the CP, is another example of the hopelessly out of touch attitude towards reform which this Government still displays. It is still the old, old style and the Government has got to change that style. It must come into the reform process. The hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism said yesterday that the NP was the reform party and the hon. member for Innesdal said it was the new NP. I should like to suggest that they get together over this and perhaps come up with the National Reform Party.

No. We call the NP the new Progs.

They might just get in touch with the whole spirit and approach that this party has to put into reform and the necessary means of approaching reform in its true sense with an open mind and based on the realities that are facing South Africa.

I have one or two more things to say, but unfortunately my time is running out. However, I should like to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Sandton. Really, Mr. Speaker, when a party at this stage in the development of the sports policy of this country has to resort to that sort of bankrupt remark for the sake of their political profile by bandying remarks about a touring team in this House during this debate is the last thing in bad taste and it serves no purpose whatsoever.

It is typical of the Progs.

Mr. Speaker, with these remarks I am naturally in support of the amendment moved by my hon. leader.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for King William’s Town devoted his time to the discussion of certain matters with the Government. Therefore I shall not reply to him because I am sure an hon. member on the Government side will do that.

I should like to raise a matter which is I believe of importance though I have no doubt that there are many hon. members in this House—and certainly all hon. members on the Government side—who would rather that this matter were buried and forgotten. I want to refer to the Aggett inquest. The hon. the Minister of Justice is on record as saying that the case was heard in open court—I am quoting him—and “that all its facts were thoroughly aired, that there was an opportunity for all parties to bring witnesses and that the magistrate in no way tried to inhibit any evidence”. According to the hon. the Minister “justice took its course”. I am sure the hon. the Minister will remember saying that. The newspapers quoted him as saying that after the finding was made public. Did justice indeed take its course? I want to place on record that, in my opinion, the magistrate’s finding at the Aggett inquest was outrageous. [Interjections.] That is the only way in which I can describe it. Maybe if the hon. the Minister of Justice had sat in court as I did on every possible occasion that I could manage, had listened to the evidence that was led and to the cross-examination of the witnesses, he might express the same opinion. I wonder if the hon. the Minister has looked at the court record of that inquest. I wonder if he has examined any of the many affidavits that were disallowed by the magistrate—affidavits which would have established beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a pattern of behaviour among the Security Police as far as their treatment of detainees was concerned.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Justice knows that the Magistrate dismissed almost all the evidence that was given by every detainee, and that he accepted almost all the evidence that was given by every member of the Security Police. I wonder if he knows that the magistrate sought out every minor inconsistency in the evidence given by detainees. He even made caustic comments about the discrepancies in the statement made by one of the detainees— Smithers—and in the note which I read out to this House. I have here a photostat of the original, which is so small that I would need a magnifying-glass with which to read it. The magistrate sought out minor discrepancies between this hurriedly scribbled note and the statement which was later made by the detainee, when he was released from prison. I wonder if the hon. the Minister knows that the magistrate totally ignored the effects of solitary confinement for many weeks on the detainee, and the fact that detainees feared retribution should they make complaints to the magistrates and inspectors when they were visited.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister of Justice does not consider it very extraordinary that another detainee. Auret van Heerden, was accused by the magistrate of possibly being “morally responsible” for Neil Aggett’s death because he did not warn the Security Police of his suspicion that Aggett was suicidal. This was a man who was supposed to be visited at every possible opportunity by the police themselves. Yet the magistrate accused another detainee, who had a passing look at this man after he had come back from interrogation, and he was deemed to be morally responsible because he had not reported the fact that Aggett was suicidal.

Does the hon. the Minister of Justice realize that the magistrate’s finding went further than counsel for the police even requested? Counsel for the police asked for an open verdict. What they received, of course, was complete exoneration from the magistrate. “Aggett’s death”, the magistrate said, “ was not brought about by any act or omission involving or amounting to an offence on the part of any person … I cannot find beyond any reasonable doubt that any unlawful or negligent act caused Dr. Aggett to take his life”. Not an open verdict, but complete exoneration of the Security Police.

I want to leave the hon. the Minister of Justice now, who I believe must thank his lucky stars everynight he is no longer the person responsible for the manner in which detainees are treated. This awesome responsibility now rests with the hon. the Minister of Law and Order.

Will the hon. member deal with the question of moral responsibility? Why did the magistrate find as he did? The hon. member must be fair.

I am unable to read into the misty recesses of the magistrate’s mind. I can only say that another detainee who is himself under enormous strain because of solitary detention and interrogation under very harsh circumstances, according to his evidence, has no moral responsibility in this regard. This is the responsibility of the Police in whose hands that man has been placed.

Has the hon. member read the judgement?

I have read the judgement, Sir.

Obviously the hon. member has not otherwise she would not advance that argument.

I was in court day after day. I say that it is on the broad shoulders of the hon. the Minister of Law and Order that the responsibility now rests as far as the treatment of detainees is concerned. I wish to address him in this regard because I am concerned about the on-going effects of the Aggett case. That is the important thing. I say this because there are at the moment some 25 people who are presently being held in detention under section 29(1) of the Internal Security Act, that is to say, the old section 6 of the Terrorism Act. No doubt in the future other unfortunate people will find themselves in John Vorster Square and elsewhere under the same Draconian law.

I want first of all to draw attention to what has emerged from the flurry of detentions that took place throughout 1981 and more particularly during the last few months of 1981. The hon. the Minister will remember that when I taxed him towards the end of that year about these lengthy detentions under what was then section 6 of the Terrorism Act, I was told that a senior advocate had been seconded to the Attorney-General’s office to speed things up and that a major conspiracy trial would emerge. The Minister repeated much the same to the House at the beginning of the 1982 session when he said that a very important case that was being investigated countrywide would arise out of the detentions. This was further substantiated by a statement that was made to the Financial Mail by the Attorney-General’s office. In the event, what has happened to that major conspiracy trial? What has happened is the following: One young woman was charged with treason, which by any normal standards I would say was an excessive charge in the circumstances …

Are you prejudging?

No, she was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment of which 10 years are effective.

The hon. member says she would say that the charge was excessive?

I say it is an excessive charge.

The hon. member said she would say it was an excessive charge.

Yes, of course; I am only talking for myself at the moment. I am not talking for the hon. member. I say that I think this was an excessive charge and this was, I may say, the opinion of many of that hon. member’s colleagues at the Bar. As I say, this woman was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment of which 10 are effective. One man was charged with furthering the aims of the ANC and he was acquitted. Two others had charges withdrawn against them and one man is awaiting trial and I am not sure whether that is on a charge of treason or not. All the rest of that whole clutch of detainees were freed without any charges being made against them at all. Not a single trade unionist has been charged even though dozens and dozens of trade unionists were arrests and detained, and notwithstanding the fact that the hon. the Minister of Law and Order and the hon. the Minister of Manpower stated in this House that their activities had nothing to do with their trade unionism. Nobody was charged with any other activity and this I find quite extraordinary.

Of course, one further result of all these detentions was the death of Aggett in detention. To the best of my knowledge no further arrests have been made—I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister of Law and Order or the Minister of Justice will tell me if I am wrong—despite the fact—and this is an important fact—that the Security Police claimed at the inquest—and I was there when they did so—that Aggett had incriminated his friends in the statement that he had made and therefore he had committed suicide. Will somebody tell me why, if a man has made a statement incriminating friends but no arrests have followed on that incriminating statement, this should have been the reason why Aggett committed suicide? The hon. the Minister of Law and Order reminds me of the wolf in the Little Red Riding Hood story—despite all the noise he makes, all the threats he makes, nothing seems to emerge. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development makes promises that he cannot fulfil, but the hon. the Minister of Law and Order makes threats that he cannot carry out. He can rant as much as he likes about the Detainees’ Parents Support Committee, but the thinking public of South Africa today is convinced that the Security Police have no compunction about using those harsh and inhuman methods that I mentioned in the House last year and which the hon. the Minister categorically denied could possibly take place.

I want to point out that over 5 000 people have been held in South Africa since 1963 when the first statute allowing detention without trial was passed—that is the 90-day law—and under section 6 of the Terrorism Act and under section 29(1) of the Internal Security Act. We have had about 5 500 people held in the last 20 years. That is a formidable number of people who could testify as to how they were treated by the Security Police when they were in detention. Of course, about 50 people cannot testify at all because they are dead, having died in detention. Not all the survivors claim to have been ill-treated, but a great many do claim to have been ill-treated. I must say that a good many people, including myself, believe them. As the Association of Law Societies has pointed out—

What reinforces this belief, is the apparent reluctance of the hierarchy to take disciplinary action, even on proved gross irregularities by the police, thus giving the impression of condonation from above. This is a very serious matter. Let me give an example. Goosen who was notorious in the Biko case, has been promoted; Wilken, his side-kick and equally notorious, was discreetly transferred; and as far as the Aggett case was concerned, on the admitted facts I want the hon. the Minister to tell us what disciplinary action has been taken, if any, for instance regarding the visit paid by Lt. Whitehead and Sgt. Erasmus to the home of Aggett’s parents in Somerset West. That visit reeks of illegality. These two men—it is admitted in the court records if the hon. the Minister who shakes his head so sadly would look them up—used false number plates to get themselves there. Sgt. Erasmus tried to bribe the maid at the Aggett home to admit him, and when neighbours sent for the police, who was it who arrived and purported to come from the local police station? None other than Lt. Whitehead. Surely, all these actions are grossly irregular, and I want to know what the hon. the Minister has done about them. [Interjections.] I think that any lawyer would admit that these actions come perilously close to trying to defeat the ends of justice. This man Whitehead was one of the prime suspects in the Aggett case—he was the chief interrogator of Aggett.

I want the hon. the Minister to tell the House—let us not have any shilly-shallying like we had over the Seychelles, for heaven’s sake—what disciplinary action has been taken against these men. [Interjections.] If he has not taken action; why not?

Helen, you hate the police like Koos van der Merwe hates the Defence Force.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May an hon. member say that the hon. member for Jeppe hates the Defence Force?

Order! The hon. member for Houghton may proceed.

It is true. [Interjections.]

It is a lie, Sir.

Sir, I ask hon. members not to raise points of order because I have little time.

The hon. member who said that, was lying.

Order! Did the hon. member for Jeppe imply that the hon. the Prime Minister was lying?

Yes, Sir.

Then the hon. member for Jeppe must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, but the hon. the Prime Minister …

It must be withdrawn unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally. Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Order! The hon. member must please take his seat. Did the hon. member withdraw the word “lie” unconditionally?

Yes, Sir, unconditionally.

Order! So what point of order does the hon. member want to raise?

My point of order is that the hon. the Prime Minister says it is true that I hate the Defence Force, and I object to that, because it is a lie. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I wish hon. members would have their private rows somewhere else.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Jeppe who has just withdrawn the word “lie” unconditionally, is in fact ignoring your ruling in saying once again at the end of his statement that it was a lie.

Order! Did the hon. member for Jeppe repeat that it was a lie?

Mr. Speaker, I said that if the Prime Minister…

Order! Did the hon. member repeat that it was a he?

Mr. Speaker, you cannot request me just to say “yes” or “no”. With respect, I have to explain myself.

Order! I want to know whether the hon. member said that it was a lie?

I said that if the hon. the Prime Minister says that I hate the Defence Force, it is a he.

Order! Then you did say that it was a lie.

What the hon. the Prime Minister said, yes.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

No, Sir.

Are you going to withdraw the words “it is a lie”.

I am not, Mr. Speaker.

Order! Then I order the hon. member to leave the Chamber.

I do so, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Would you please call the hon. member back, because he is trifling with the Chair in that, while he was leaving the Chamber, he once again said that it was a lie.

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe must resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member be named.

Order! No, I cannot accept the suggestion. I want to point out to the hon. member for Jeppe that the utmost respect for the Chair is expected of every member in this House. Consequently I expect the hon. member, as a member of this House, to act accordingly. The hon. member must now leave the Chamber in a way which befits this House, and before doing so, he must apologize to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I submit my apologies unconditionally, but I still have my conscience. With these words I now leave the Chamber.

(Whereupon the hon. member withdrew.)

Just you try that again.

And just you try that again.

Order! I do not think that we need any further comments from either side of the House. The hon. member for Houghton may proceed.

Thank you, Sir, and with injury time, I hope. [Interjections.] Before the private war broke out, I was asking the hon. the Minister what action had been taken about Lt. Whitehead and Sgt. Erasmus who paid what I consider a completely illegal visit to the home of the Aggett parents. Transferring them is not the answer. It simply means that some other poor devils are going to get the benefit of their “friendly” interrogation. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that a dressing-down in the privacy of his office does not suffice either. Justice—if I might coin a phrase—must be seen to be done. Again quoting from the Association of Law Societies—

I want to know what is being done about Lt. Whitehead and his colleague who admitted in court that they had interrogated Aggett for 62 hours with—they said—12 hours sleep allowed. They said that Aggett himself had requested this. It is a likely story, I must say, that a doctor would willingly submit himself to that form of debilitating treatment, knowing full well the effect that lack of sleep would have, and also not being allowed to wash during that period. It is indeed a very likely story, and yet the magistrate accepted that story! Aggett’s own statement claimed that he was allowed no sleep at all, but in any event it is admitted that 62 hours interrogation, with 12 hours sleep—this was admitted by the police in court—is not the normal way in which a detainee should be treated. What disciplinary action had been taken in this regard?

What has been done about the inordinate slackness of the Security Police in allowing almost three weeks to elapse after Aggett had complained to a magistrate that he had been tortured and grossly assaulted by his interrogators, before a police officer, a junior one at that, was sent to see him to take a statement? In other words, it took 17 days, nearly three weeks, to transmit Aggett’s complaint about gross ill-treatment the 500-odd metres from his cell to the office of the Commanding Officer at John Vorster Square.

What has been done about the admitted evasion by the Security Police of the provisions regarding visits to detainees by magistrates and inspectors? In Aggett’s case, on four occasions—in one case it concerned an inspector and in three cases magistrates— they were turned away by the police when they came to see Aggett. They were told by the Security Police that he was not available. All I can say is that these watchdogs—that is what they are supposed to be—are very docile if they can be so readily turned away by the Security Police. A very important point I want to make is that this differs materially from the evidence the Security Police gave the Rabie Commission on this score. They told the Rabie Commission that magistrates and inspectors were always allowed to see detainees, except when the detentions had taken place at the border or a man had for one reason or another been taken back to the border, in which case it was obviously not possible. On every other occasion, however, according to them, the inspectors and magistrates were allowed to see detainees.

I think the Rabie Commission would have made more stringent recommendations about the protection of detainees had the police not given this false evidence. It seems to me that it is quite clear from what I have just said, from all the accepted and admitted facts at the Aggett inquest, that the Security Police have simply been ignoring the law as well as the standing instructions which were issued in 1978 after the death of Biko. Special standing instructions about the manner in which detainees were to be treated were issued to the Security Police. That led to a clean record, thankfully, at least as far as deaths in detention were concerned. That does not necessarily mean, of course, that detainees were not maltreated in other ways.

Then came the death of Neil Aggett. In November last year the hon. the Minister, fulfilling an undertaking he had given the House when the Internal Security Bill was being debated, produced a new code, a code which was to regulate the manner in which detainees were to be treated. It was a set of guidelines. They were very well publicized. The hon. the Minister had promised to make them public and expressed the hope that, together with a few new provisions in the Internal Security Act of 1982, this would prevent any further deaths in detention, which I believe upset him almost as much as they upset me. I am prepared to concede that at once.

I am sure hon. members have read the new code. It contains, inter alia, instructions about informing detainees of their rights, about exercise, about washing facilities, about sleep and about food and water. It specifically prohibits torture, inhumane treatment, etc. That is all to the good. It is a pity that this code was not written into the law, because then maybe more attention would be paid to it. It does, however, demonstrate that the hon. the Minister has concern for civilized behaviour. But I want to ask him who is going to monitor the new code? That, of course, is the $64 000 question. The 1978 code contains similar injunctions to the police. Indeed, it should not be necessary to inform the police that they are not allowed to torture detainees or treat them in an inhumane fashion, because apart from its being part of the ordinary common law, way back in the sixties the judge in the case of Sachs vs. Rousseau laid down that the police are not permitted to maltreat detainees. I want to know who is going to make sure that the 1982 code, after some time has elapsed and everybody has forgotten about Aggett, are carried out? Who will ensure that magistrates and district surgeons will visit detainees as is laid down by the law? How will the hon. the Minister, when he gets the monthly report—which he has to get now and sign for further detention— check whether it is correct? That report emanates from an interrogator, goes through the ranks and eventually reaches the hon. the Minister.

How many more questions are you going to ask?

Just one more.

How many are you going to answer? That is more the point.

I say again, as I have said before, that as long as the system of indefinite detention without trial exists, it is uncontrollable. As long as the Security Police continue to have vast powers under the security laws which enable them to hold and interrogate people without it being monitored—the new code does not lay down monitoring—and as long as access by relatives, private doctors and lawyers to detainees is prohibited, I believe tragic deaths in detention will occur over and over again with all their traumatic aftermath. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that law and order is not the only thing that matters. What also matters is that legality is preserved by those who are given these vast powers over the public. For otherwise, public confidence in the administration of justice is totally undermined, and thereby the very fabric of civilized society is threatened.

Mr. Speaker, in the 20 minutes at my disposal I certainly do not intend subjecting myself to the cross-examination which the hon. member for Houghton has tried to sustain here this afternoon. She is quite entitled to ask questions, but I think it is extremely unfair to expect one to furnish all the information in the course of one speech. I therefore wish to ask her to repeat the same questions during the discussion of my vote, or at any other time when a debate may be arranged. I shall reply to her with pleasure. The fact of the matter is that I also do not intend repeating one by one this afternoon the arguments raised last year in a week-long debate during the discussion of the Internal Security Bill.

With regard to the inquiry concerning the incident in which Lieut. Whitehead and Sgt. Erasmus were involved, I wish to inform the hon. member that a dossier has been opened. The matter has been investigated and the dossier is at present with the Attorney-General. He will decide on the matter.

The hon. member also wished to know what had happened to the so-called big court case which was to take place. I shall raise this matter, too, during the discussion of my vote and I shall explain the circumstances. However, I wish to assure the hon. member that I am fully equipped with the necessary information to reply to her questions in full now, but unfortunately there is not sufficient time to do so. If she wishes to put a question concerning what has happened to each of the detainees, I could specify this for her. I have the details available. If the hon. member is interested, I am also prepared to give her all the information privately.

I should like to refer to two other matters. The first was raised by the hon. member, while the second matter concerns the CP. I shall therefore return to part of the essence of the matter which the hon. member raised.

I should like to exchange one idea with the CP, and this has a bearing on the last part of the speech of the hon. member for Waterberg earlier in this debate. What does the hon. member’s warning to the Government mean? The hon. member stated that he as a White person, and an ever-increasing number of Whites in South Africa, will not stand for a Coloured becoming co-ruler of this country. The hon. member also warned that the Government’s policy would lead to confrontation and, according to him, confrontation does, in fact, already exist as a result of this policy. Furthermore, the hon. member referred to leftist elements in the ranks of the Black and Brown people and tried to create the impression that the Government’s standpoint was that the wishes of those elements should be respected and that their demands should be met in order to prevent a revolution. Of course, this is not the Government’s motivation for what we are doing. The hon. member went on to say that there were also people in the ranks of the Whites who say that we should refrain from provoking them with a political policy and a political system which will deprive them of their self-determination and which will subject them to a mixed and multiracial government in South Africa. At that point, unfortunately, the hon. member’s time expired. But what was he trying to bring to our attention? Was he trying to explain what Die Patriot put forward as its official standpoint on 14 January? I quote—

Then this illuminating sentence—

Then the editorial goes on to say—

Then again, this illuminating sentence—

The following short paragraph links up with what the hon. member for Waterberg had to say. The editorial went on to say—

Which, once again, is not true. This, to me, is linked to the standpoint taken by the members of the AWB, viz. that they must arm themselves now, since the Blacks are going to take over the Government and then shooting will be necessary. The standpoint of the AWB, read in conjunction with Die Patriot, is dangerous language, and that is why it is imprudent of the hon. the leader of the CP to put his case as he did in this House.

That is your interpretation of it.

There are irresponsible elements in its ranks who do not need a great deal of encouragement to act in an irresponsible manner.

Name them.

He should rather follow the example of the hon. member for Barberton. He sensibly explained how democratic his party is and would like to be.

Do you accept that?

Yes. I accept the standpoint of the hon. member for Barberton.

There is a second matter I should like to raise this afternoon. It concerns certain friends of the PEP and matters which interest them. These are viz. matters pertaining to the Detainees Parents’ Support Committee. Last year this committee requested a meeting with the hon. the Minister of Justice and me, and they handed us a memorandum in which accusations of improper interrogation methods and the abuse of power by members of the Security Police are made, as well as the allegation that this so-called improper conduct is accepted by the S.A. Police as approved standard procedure. This committee first handed their memorandum to the Press before coming to us. This is contrary to the basic decency one could expect of them, but they could not do so, because, as they put it—

Hon. members are aware of the result—banner headlines about the memorandum they had discussed with us. As a result of this action and the contents of the statement and everything connected with it, as well as the effect it could have and the value attached to its contents, the Commissioner of Police decided to issue a Press statement in which he expressed his dissatisfaction concerning the handling of this matter, since certain newspapers publicized it to that extent without trying to ascertain the truth, in so far as it may have been on the side of the S.A. Police, before publishing it, and in which he announced that he has directed that the allegations contained in the memorandum be investigated and in which he indicated that those members of the committee who had made these serious allegations, would be given the opportunity to substantiate them. Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner immediately appointed a senior police officer—Brig. Grobler, the district detective officer of Johannesburg—to investigate the allegations of this committee. He immediately contacted the three Johannesburg representatives, viz. Dr. Coleman, Prof. Koornhof and Mr. Tom Mashinini, as well as their attorney, Mr. Tucker. Not one of these three was prepared to speak to the brigadier without an attorney being present. Of course, they are fully entitled to insist on that. They then met—in May last year—and it then transpired that not one of these three committee members had any experience or any personal knowledge of these alleged irregularities which they had put forward in their memorandum. Furthermore, at that stage they were advised by their attorney, Mr. Tucker, not to make statements. Since that meeting in May, not one of those three committee members has come forward or contacted Brig. Grobler in order to make a statement, as he requested them to do. The attorney Mr. Tucker parried the request to reveal the names of the possible complainants on the pretext that the information could be obtained from court records, criminal and civil. He wanted the brigadier to study these records and obtain evidence from people who alleged that they had had personal experience. However, he did not wish to reveal the identities of these alleged complainants and he also claimed that these complainants divulged the information confidentially and that they feared harassment by the Security Branch and furthermore, that permission had to be obtained from the complainants before he would be prepared to reveal their identities. During the investigation it was also found that some of the complainants whose names were later furnished to Brig. Grobler by the attorney Mr. Tucker denied in their sworn statements to Brig. Grobler, after he had driven thousands of kilometres in order to obtain these statements that they had requested anyone to complain on their behalf; they declared that they did not know attorney Tucker and that they had no charge whatsoever against anyone in the Security Police.

The attorney Mr. Tucker’s assertion that he first wanted their permission before revealing their identities is enough to arouse suspicion. Notwithstanding the fact that nine of the so-called complainants had at that stage already gone abroad to undergo military and political training, he handed in statements from those people. Brig. Grobler wrote a letter to the attorney Mr. Tucker, to confirm that the alleged complainants would not be harassed by the Security Police. Thereupon he received a letter from Mr. Tucker informing him that the three committee members concerned were not prepared to make statements, since they feared possible prosecution in terms of section 27B of the Police Act. What does this section of the Police Act require? All it requires is that one should tell the truth about the Police. Nevertheless, these people were not prepared to make statements, since they supposedly feared prosecution in terms of this section. They were therefore not prepared to allow any statement which they might make to be verified. However, they would be prepared to assist in the investigation, but they were not prepared to make statements themselves.

Mr. Speaker, from 1 June to September last year we received five sheaves of unsigned and undated notes from Mr. Tucker, the attorney. He referred to these notes as “statements”. But not a single one was signed; nor were they dated. Mr. Tucker referred to them as “bundles of allegations”. These notes came from 88 people. But do you know what was striking about this, Mr. Speaker? The allegations contained in the notes were of a stereotype nature and were drawn up in such a way, that the existence of a system of interrogation emerged from them. The notes in no way complied with the requirements of a statement in that essential details, such as time and place, alleged assailants and detailed descriptions of how the alleged assault was supposed to have been committed, were entirely lacking.

The fact that an experienced attorney like Mr. Tucker submitted these notes as statements, and furthermore, as the legal representative of the committee, allowed the media to describe these notes as statements, thereby misleading the public, lead me to believe that these notes were deliberately drawn up for propaganda purposes, and that they were never intended to serve as the basis for a police investigation. [Interjections.] These are the friends of the hon. member for Houghton. She would do well to be quiet for a while. [Interjections.] An example of this is the way in which the details of these notes were given to the Press by this committee on 30 September 1982. Once again the statement they issued was published in the Press before they had the decency to come and deliver it to me at my office. I had to hear about this after the Star and the Pretoria News were already being sold in the streets.

What was the summary that was provided? There was, inter alia, a summary of assaults which had allegedly been committed. Unfortunately time does not allow me to divulge this to the House in detail. I refer briefly to some of them—

And so it goes on. The result was that a report emanating from a South African reporter, the Guardian’s representative here, appeared the following day in the Guardian in London. This was a report concerning this statement which included inter alia the following paragraph—

This is the kind of report which is blazoned abroad by these people. We had those cases investigated. I have already divulged details with regard to people who are abroad. I could give hon. members many details concerning these people, who have repeatedly been found to be liars in specific court cases, people whose evidence has been rejected. I could give details with regard to 43 dossiers—dossiers which we had opened by the Police to investigate these matters—of which the results were the following. In 30 of these cases the Attorney-General refused to prosecute. Eleven of these were closed because they were invalid. One was closed as being untraceable, and in one case—the case of Barbara Hogan—a prosecution was instituted. However, in this case, both the accused members of the Police Force were found not guilty.

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

I regret that my time has almost expired, I cannot reply to questions now.

Brig. Grobler discovered that in two of the cases concerned, the people had never even been detained by the police. One man was taken into custody by the uniformed branch on an alleged dagga charge, and another because he had allegedly taken part in a strike. In five of these cases there were not even allegations of assault against the police. However, these were submitted to us as charges. One girl’s charge was simply that she had not been interrogated immediately after her arrest by the police. In various cases some of the complainants said that they did not know such an attorney; they had not given any instructions to such a man. That is why I say that these allegations I am making with regard to this attorney and the committee—the members of the committee whose names I have mentioned—are serious allegations which certainly demand further attention. Some complainants alleged that they did not even have any knowledge of this organization. I referred 80 of these notes to the Director, Security Legislation— the other leg of my portfolio. He has no information on 27 of them, since they had been held in terms of section 22. In 30 cases these former detainees, who are now supposedly complainants, did not make a single word of complaint to a magistrate or inspector of detainees. Not one of them laid a single complaint to the effect that they had been assaulted or ill-treated in any way. In 11 instances of complaints made to the magistrate or inspector, the Attorney-General refused to prosecute. In eight cases the Commissioner found that the complaints were completely false, that they were unfounded and that absolutely no evidence to support them could be found. I have already referred to the case of Barbara Hogan.

An analysis of the DPSC’s published statements and/or documents, their official standpoints, their association with certain people and/or organizations, as well as their sensational, Press-orientated behaviour, leaves me in no doubt that this organization is a pressure group that serves the enemies of South Africa. They publish calculated, poisonous propaganda against the Republic of South Africa using well-known communist terminology, and they are, in fact, already a support organization for the communists and the ANC in the Republic of South Africa, and I shall treat them as such. I shall reply in full to the hon. member for Houghton on another occasion with regard to all the questions she put to me today. I just wish to conclude by saying that there are elements in South Africa, apart from those I have identified for the hon. members here today, in church circles, in other organizations and in certain sections of our Press where reports are deliberately published—and I shall qualify this on another occasion—who act to the benefit of the radical leftist communist onslaught on South Africa, to the detriment of the Republic and of our security forces. These reports are deliberately published with that benefit in view. [Interjections.] I have in my possession the details on which I base my standpoint, and I shall go into this once again on another occasion. I wish to say to the hon. member that she can go and tell her friends that things cannot continue in this manner. All the efforts made by the law and by the security forces simply cannot be ridiculed all the time. They cannot always be portrayed as ridiculous. Somewhere a limit has to be set. I request all responsible people or people who occupy responsible positions, as well as those whom I have identified now, to stop for a moment and ask themselves: Am I really making a contribution in the interests of South Africa, or am I being deliberately destructive?

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time since I last had the privilege of participating in the activities of this House, due to a series of trying afflictions. I should like once again to give hon. members the assurance that I appreciate this opportunity. To you, Sir, and all my colleagues who thought of me during that time, I want to express my sincere appreciation for their support and encouragement and now also for their welcome. I shall consistently refuse to participate in any group or action, inside or outside this House, that professes hatred. I stand were I stand because I uphold and believe in certain fundamental differences. I am not one who runs away, nor do I break away. However, one has one’s own conscience and one’s fundamental standpoints and in the course of my speech I shall refer to this again.

While listening to the proceedings in this House after a long absence, a saying of Langenhoven’s occurred to me. He said—

Why then do you not do so?

I am getting to that, I want to begin by referring the hon. the Prime Minister to his statement yesterday in connection with the Seychelles affair. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that I do not hate him. I also want to tell him that in my time I have worked very hard for him. I do not hate him, but unfortunately history has willed the present situation that we must differ. I want to do so in civilized words and in a civilized manner. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that I find the statement he made yesterday unsatisfactory and very unfortunate, and I want to tell him why.

The first point is in connection with the UN Commission. In his speech of 1 February the hon. the Prime Minister said the following—

The hon. the Prime Minister also referred to the finding whereby he and his Government were absolved by the said Commission. I do not know whether he did so deliberately or whether it was merely an oversight on his part, but I have here a report which appeared in Die Transvaler under the following headline which states the contrary about the Seychelles affair—

This is what Die Transvaler of 9 December 1982 has to say—

The 15 March report is the report to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred, but this is the second report, and usually a second report carries more weight than a first report. What I feel a little unhappy about is that the hon. the Prime Minister was silent on this, and that the record is therefore incomplete. Certain statements were made here which directly implicate the Government—

This came from an organ of the NP. I consider it unfortunate and contradictory. I must therefore complain to the hon. the Prime Minister. I must make a friendly but earnest appeal to him to try to do the honourable thing under the circumstances. This matter must be rectified; we cannot publish it abroad in this form.

We can take this matter further in the discussion of my Vote.

The second point about which I feel unhappy, is the hon. the Prime Minister’s reference to the court finding in Pietermaritzburg, namely that he was also absolved of complicity. However, I read in the report—

This is a court finding; it is not I who say so. [Interjections.] It is also in conflict with a part of the hon. Prime Minister’s statement.

No.

Oh yes, most definitely.

We can discuss this further at a later date.

Very well.

Tell us about the Coloured mercenaries.

There is a surprise awaiting that hon. member; when the relevant Vote comes up for discussion, we shall have a great deal to say about that.

With reference to the pronouncement by Langenhoven to which I referred, “Langs die grootpad”, there are certain beacons, figures and persons whom I have always looked up to and who are of importance to me. This also illustrates the differences in the points of departure,· viewpoints and interpretation putting into effect of policy of that side of the House in comparison with this small group. I want to start with the hon. the Prime Minister. Let me quote his standpoints as reflected in Skietgoed—

Now this is the point—

The word is “parliament”, not “voters’ roll”. [Interjections.] If hon. members want to read this for themselves, they need only refer to this. [Interjections.] If words mean anything, surely they tell us something. [Interjections.] While I am discussing this point I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Innesdal. When he spoke yesterday I thought “he may be small but he is certainly no coward! He is the only member on that side of the House—except for the one other person who made a remark here this afternoon regarding what happened before the congresses—who had the courage to say yesterday in his speech that a dramatic change had taken place in the NP. [Interjections.] That is our problem. [Interjections.]

But you walked out before that change took place.

I am getting to that. [Interjections.] I also want to indicate the standpoints of other people who shared my fears—before I left—and who still do today.

Jaap Marais.

No, the master builder of all political figures in South Africa, Prof. Piet Cillié. His warning is also a reaction to the hon. the Prime Minister’s reference to my hon. leader’s speech. There were also other people, long before him, who expressed their concern regarding the creation of new areas of friction as a result of such a policy, and one of them is Piet Cillié, and I shall quote to you what he had to say—

These are recipes for civil war, and he has had nothing to do with the AWB. [Interjections.] He has had nothing to do with the AWB, but people like him were concerned. [Interjections.] I can go on and quote Dr. Verwoerd, the Federal Council of the party, as well as the hon. the Minister of National Education and the hon. the Minister of Law and Order—no, he did not say so. I can give a list of people who expressed their concern and fear regarding integration and a mixed parliament. It is stated here, but I do not have the time at my disposal to quote it all.

What will be the by-products of these new guidelines and dispensation? [Interjections.] The by-product will be depoliticizing of the highest authority of the nation in the country. If these plans are implemented, then by 1 January of next year it will be totally depolitized. The nation will no longer have any say. The parliament will be nothing more than a puppet show. [Interjections.] This will be followed by denationalization. One will not be able to refer to one’s white skin, because that will be taboo. One will have to forget it. One’s culture and tradition will no longer be sacred, one will have to forget them. One will then become merely one of many people—the hon. member for Innesdal also referred to this. In this country which is seeking freedom we shall all be nothing but numbers. I am no. 11 193 and Curry is no. 11 192. [Interjections.] Numbers! Numbers! What worries me, is what Stalin once said, namely that if one can denationalize, depoliticize and sever from their church and parental influence a single generation of the youth of a nation, one can conquer that nation without bloodshed. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information that I do not share his standpoint and lack of confidence. He says we must make all these concessions so that the day they take over, they will feel sorry for us. [Interjections.] I want to tell him I am not impressed by his confidence. I suppose he is descended from someone else, because history has shown that my forefathers believed in certain things and also by the grace of Providence, managed to achieve them.

I am sorry I have so little time. I want to conclude with a single reference to one of the great figures along this road—I mean the main road and not the byway. If this man had still been alive today, I would have been willing to bet that he attended last week’s debate in this House before he said what he did. How true his prophetic statement was. Forty-five years ago he gave chapter and verse concerning what took place in the debate this week and what has taken place in this country since February of last year. I refer to Dr. D. F. Malan. It would seem he knew his foster son better than we did, because he prophesied correctly. He said—

Take note!

The Government wants to do this—

The Government will do this—

That is what the members in these benches have done. They have rejected it “now”, as Dr. Malan also did. He only had one more member than we do. He had 19 members when he walked out and we have 18.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. member for North Rand that we are very glad to see him back in this House after his serious illness. We are glad to see that his health has improved sufficiently for him to return to the House.

It is clear to me that the hon. member for North Rand has not quite caught up with events in the current political dispensation, that he has completely misunderstood certain matters and that he is rather confused about the concepts “House of Assembly” and “Parliament”. That is all I should like to say about the hon. member for North Rand.

I should like to refer briefly to the speech made in this House yesterday by the hon. member for Jeppe. That hon. member frequently says we must play the ball and not the man.

Like “Nak”!

In addition, the hon. member for Jeppe promised right and left, both inside and outside this House and the country, that the fur would fly in this House on the Seychelles affair. The first page of the CP’s official mouthpiece states categorically that the Government was implicated. I have it here. Speaking of fur flying, let us consider what happened in this House yesterday. In his despicable attempt to get at the hon. the Minister of Defence personally, the hon. member for Jeppe assailed the integrity of the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force and his commanding officers in an atrocious and reprehensible way. I repeat: In his despicable attack on the hon. the Minister of Defence, the hon. member for Jeppe assailed the honour and the integrity of the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force and his commanding officers directly and in an atrocious and reprehensible way in that he implicated them in his attempt to get at my colleague. Every allegation the hon. member made in his speech was a direct reflection on these officers. His attempt to implicate my colleague failed just as dismally as did the newspaper report I referred to earlier and about which I shall say a few words presently.

I want to give the hon. member the good advice to leave the Defence Force out of the party political arena. The Defence Force belongs to all of us and we must all try to keep the Defence Force clean.

The hon. member also saw fit to mention that my colleague had apologized to him because he had called him the “Hulley of the CP”. I am not so sure my hon. colleague did the right thing. However, the hon. member for Jeppe conveniently neglected to mention why he was in my hon. colleague’s office. My colleague’s predecessor, the hon. the Prime Minister, during the years when he was Minister of Defence, had an understanding with responsible spokesmen on defence matters of the various opposition parties that he would inform them about sensitive matters in the country’s interest on a confidential basis. The present hon. Minister of Defence has pursued this good custom established by his predecessor, to good effect. In the light of what the hon. member for Jeppe said in this House, and in the light of the way in which he discussed sensitive Defence Force matters in this House, I believe it will no longer be possible for the hon. the Minister of Defence to maintain a position of confidence with the hon. member for Jeppe, because did the hon. member for Jeppe not try here yesterday to involve the South African Defence Force in petty and reprehensible politics? I also want to appeal to the hon. member for Waterberg to relieve the hon. member for Jeppe of his responsibility as chief spokesman on defence matters. For the sake of the Defence Force he must ask the hon. member for Jeppe to resign as chief spokesman on defence matters after his disgraceful behaviour in this House yesterday. [Interjections.] Perhaps we should make representations to the former hon. member for Randfontein, Dr. Connie Mulder, because he may have more influence in that party in such a case.

I should now like to discuss the report which appeared in the CP’s official mouthpiece of 24 December, and I want hon. members to guess the source of the information used in this report. If only it had been the hon. member for Jeppe! The source of information is none other than commission of inquiry of the Security Council of the United Nations into the Seychelles affair. That is the source of this report that appeared in Die Patriot. [Interjections.] I assume that in future that party will be consistent and will continue to accept all UN findings, decisions and resolutions. I assume that party will now also accept the UN’s statements on apartheid and our so-called illegal action in South West Africa and the many other resolutions accepted by that body with regard to the Republic, because once one has used a body as a source of information one must continue to believe it and use it. That is all I have to say about the hon. member for Jeppe.

I now come to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Apparently he is someone who has major problems.

Not apparently, definitely.

All the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s problems are the result of a single action, namely a boycott action, an action by that party because it does not want to participate in the machinery which is being created in an effort to find a solution to the problems of South Africa. I once gave the hon. member very good advice in this Parliament. [Interjections.] I was aware that the hon. member for Green Point had a secret admiration for me, but I did not think it was so great that he would prove it by applauding me. When the PFP announced that it would not participate in the President’s Council, I told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and he can go and look for himself in Hansard of 5 August 1981 (col. 231):—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs devoted the greater part of his speech to defending the hon. the Minister of Defence against the CP, so I do not want to react to what he had to say in too much detail, especially since some of the aspects I want to refer to have a bearing on this.

We on this side of the House are deeply concerned about the way the security of this country is being handled. Therefore, I shall criticize the Government when I believe that action is being taken which places us in jeopardy. For this reason I want to say at once that the repudiation of the hon. the Prime Minister by the hon. the Minister of Defence, in saying that South Africa would get involved with the MNR. was most disquieting, in my opinion. [Interjections.] However, we shall have to study the speech of the hon. the Minister of Defence and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will also have to react to it at a later stage.

My reason for saying that the hon. the Minister of Defence has repudiated the hon. the Prime Minister is that the hon. the Prime Minister said in his speech earlier during this same debate that it was not the Government’s policy to get involved in acts of destabilization in our neighbouring States. This is what the hon. the Prime Minister himself said.

I believe that we in this House should try to ascertain whether South Africa really is guilty in any way, in the light of the suspicion which exists in our neighbouring States, as well as in the West, that we are involved in this. I think we should try to examine this matter.

There are two events in particular, I believe, which have given rise to this view that South Africa is using its power to bring pressure to bear on its neighbours, economically and military. The first one to which I want to refer is the much debated attempt at a coup d’état in the Seychelles. It was found that the Cabinet had not been informed of the proposed coup. However, it does not follow automatically that for this reason, the Cabinet has no further responsibility. The fact is that the Cabinet does have a further responsibility. This incident in the Seychelles did South Africa enormous harm, and we have not had any assurance from the Government or from the NP that there will be no repetition of such irresponsible actions; on the contrary, I believe that there have been similar irresponsible actions since that event.

Such as?

I shall come to that. However, I first want to come back to the incident in the Seychelles. While I accept that the Cabinet was unaware of this, it is a fact that certain members of the Security Service knew very well what was being planned; so did certain members of the Defence Force. There have been repeated quotations in this debate from the Supreme Court judgment in this case. Therefore I do not wish to waste the time of this House by referring to it again. However, we all know what it says.

I believe that the hon. the Minister of Defence should try to reply to certain questions. Certain questions have been put to him, questions which have not been answered.

†In the first instance I want to know in what sections and in what capacities Brig. Knoetze and Brig. Hamman were employed. I believe the hon. the Minister owes this House an answer to that question. To whom were they responsible at that time? Did they act independently of their commanders at that time, and did their actions constitute a breach of SADF general regulations and of the military disciplinary code? I believe the hon. the Minister owes the House answers to these questions. Who gave the authorization for the weapons to be issued to Hoare, and did the issuing of those weapons take place in contravention of SADF and Treasury regulations? If it was so, what action has been taken against these officers or against the person or persons responsible for that authorization? I do not think it is unreasonable to put any of these questions to the hon. the Minister of Defence. I think in all reasonableness that the Parliament of South Africa and our South African society are entitled to those answers. If no action has been taken, does this mean that anyone can draw an AK 47 rifle in order to attack our neighbours? Where is the line to be drawn if no action is taken against such people?

A more important and perhaps more interesting question is this: What would have been the case if members of the Defence Force and the Security Service had supplied weapons to people who were not going to attack the Seychelles but were in fact going to attack installations inside South Africa? I say that if the Government and the Security Service did not know what was going on, it could just as easily have happened that the attacks could have been directed not at the Seychelles but at institutions or persons within our own country. That is an indication to me that there is something very, very wrong with our security services and the information that is made available to those in authority.

*The third incident to which I want to refer is the raid or movement across the border to Zimbabwe in which three men were killed. In this case, too, it was said that these persons had acted without permission. I accept that this is so, that they acted without permission. I have no reason to doubt that. I must say, however, that from the point of view of our neighbouring States, such an explanation is extremely difficult to believe. Had the situation been reversed, I would also have found it very difficult to believe, and I believe that the hon. the Minister of Defence, and any member of the Government, will agree with me. That raid was simply regarded as a hostile act against that country, and it was also regarded as an attempt to destabilize that State. It is a very great embarrassment to South Africa, and it is extremely damaging to our international position. Hon. members on the other side of the House may say: That is what you say.

They could also say: That is what the leftist liberal Press says; or: That is what the communists say. However, this is not so. I have here a document which was recently published, a journal of political science called Politicon. This magazine contained an article written by Associate Professor Deon Geldenhuys. I just want to quote from it briefly. He says—

He goes on to say—

If this is so, then it is important that we should know what steps have been taken as a result of those two incidents, in order to prevent any repetition of such behaviour.

†What worries us is that both of these incidents are the result of a lack of discipline in both the South African Defence Force—this was said by the leader of the Defence Force himself—and in the security services. This is even far more critical: If the Security Services failed to bring both the planned violations to the attention of the authorities, then they placed the safety of the State in jeopardy and they cannot be trusted. They failed in two incidents which led to South Africa’s international embarrassment, and if they cannot be trusted, they cannot be relied upon. I would say that if the Security Services cannot even protect us from amateur stupidity by our own people, how can we rely on them to protect us against the real professionals? In this country we have invested massive amounts of money in defence and armaments to the taxpayers’ detriment. The stakes are very, very high. I want to know what the Government has done to sharpen our security and personnel clearance measures. I want to know this because we cannot end this debate without having received answers to these questions.

If Dolinchek could have planned a coup right under our noses and soldiers could cross our borders to fight private wars, then others may well be selling our future without even the Security Forces being aware of this and, if they are not aware of this, the Government, too, will not be aware of it. The result will be that we shall be taken in. We have a massive security system with very wide-ranging tentacles, but recent events indicate to me that the personnel do not have their priorities right, that they are undisciplined and that in themselves they put the country at risk. I wish the hon. the Prime Minister were here, but I understand he cannot be present. Unless the hon. the Prime Minister or somebody at a very senior level deals with this, the public’s confidence will not be restored.

There are other pressing problems which I believe we should deal with in this debate. The hon. the Prime Minister announced that South Africa’s Development Bank would be operational by September this year. We all know and I think we all agree that we should like to get involved with our neighbouring States. We should like to see them prosper. We should like to see them wealthy as the hon. the Prime Minister himself has said. I should like to know whether that bank is going to be made available to assist neighbouring countries such as Zimbabwe and Zaire or whether we are going to limit the activities of the bank only to countries which will form part of the NP’s constellation of States. I should very much like to know whether we are going to open it and I believe this is important. We in South Africa find ourselves in a period of lost opportunities—which opportunities may never come our way again.

We know that Marxism thrives on uncertainty, conflict, poverty and a lack of opportunities, and I say the best way to get Russia or Marxism even more interested in Southern Africa is by not doing everything possible to stabilize the area economically and in every other sense.

The Reagan administration has committed itself to finding solutions for Southern Africa in co-operation with Southern African States. Here again perceptions are vitally important because we know that the USA is already being perceived, by many in Africa, as being far too close to—not my own words—“the apartheid regime of South Africa”. We have very little time, in fact, to come to terms with our neighbours, not only very little time to resolve the Namibia issue, but also to come to terms with Zimbabwe, Mozambique and, hopefully very soon, also with Angola. The balance at the moment is a very delicate one, and it would be tragic if South Africa were to be the one to upset the apple-cart. The hon. the Minister is nodding at me in agreement, but some of the words he used today about assisting what I call minority groups in bordering States—which he may call majority groups in bordering States—is the kind of rhetoric that is going to help to upset the apple-cart.

What I want to say finally is that the most compelling reasons for absolute caution and statesmanship is the danger we face of opening up a new military front on our northern and north-eastern borders. The results of the escalation of the conflict in that part of the world would not only be disastrous for those countries, but also for South Africa. It would suck in, willy-nilly, the major powers and may well give Russia the only excuse it needs to get massively involved in the military conflict in Southern Africa. We in the Opposition benches feel very strongly, in fact demand from the Government …

Demand?

Yes, we demand—that is our right, because we are here to ensure the safety and protection of the whole of the South African society—that this Government desist from any action that would increase the risk of the safety of South Africa being jeopardized, and we want the assurance that the greatest care will be taken to prevent any further escalation of the conflict with both Zimbabwe and Mozambique.

Mr. Speaker, in the seven minutes available to me … [Interjections.] … I want to begin by referring to the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition in support to his motion of no confidence. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition saw fit to move a motion of no confidence in the Government and basically advanced four reasons for his lack of confidence. When one analyzes those four reasons, one finds that they consist, firstly, of a number of unfounded and unjustified allegations made by other people which he uncritically repeated in this House, and then the hon. leader added that he did not know whether they were true. In spite of that he quoted them. [Interjections.] He went on to say that he himself had advanced very good reasons on occasion why these allegations were unfounded and untrue. In spite of that he quoted them in this House as grounds for his motion of no confidence in the Government. He went on to put a number of questions to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government. The Opposition has every right to ask questions, of course—I am not denying that—but when one is moving a motion of no confidence in a Government, one really needs much more justification than a number of questions. [Interjections.] Moreover, the hon. leader moved the motion of no confidence before he knew what the replies were going to be. So it is blatant opportunism and nothing else. [Interjections.]

One should not ask questions before one knows what the answers are!

It is the loud laugh that bespeaks the vacant mind.

Ha, ha!

The hon. member for Waterberg made use of a number of suppositions. When he was asked, at one stage, “Who said that?”, his reaction was “I said ‘if.” In other words, he makes a supposition, and on the basis of this supposition the hon. member is prepared to support the motion of no confidence in the Government. All the hon. member did was to set up a number of straw dolls and to shoot them down again. Having done that, he believed that he had scored points against the Government: All the hon. member did was to shoot down the straw dolls which he himself had set up. The hon. member said absolutely nothing about the realities of South African politics. The hon. member made no contribution whatsoever concerning possible answers to the challenges with which we are faced in South Africa. Now I want to tell the hon. member for Waterberg in all kindness that more is required of a party leader in South Africa than just semantic exercises.

The hon. member for Rissik made a very important admission this afternoon, apart from all the other things he said, concerning the standpoint of the hon. members of the CP. They allege that they left the NP …

I was expelled.

… because of the fact that the Government is advocating a tricameral Parliament instead of three Parliaments. This is the latest reason they are advancing for their departure from the NP. Now the hon. member made a very important admission this afternoon. He said that the Government came up with this approach of a tricameral Parliament a year after they had left the NP. [Interjections.] Then they could not possibly have left the NP because of that! The hon. member for Rissik has made a very important admission, therefore, in respect of their allegation against the NP. [Interjections.]

I should like to come to the question: What is really at issue in South Africa? The hon. the Prime Minister rightly pointed out that the basic issue in South Africa has never been a struggle between White and Black. The hon. member for Pretoria Central also pointed out, quite rightly, that some White people are among the most important and most dangerous enemies of South Africa. I want to make the statement, therefore, that what is basically at issue in South Africa today, and that the greatest challenge facing all of us as we are sitting in this House this afternoon, is to preserve Christian, Western principles, norms and standards in South Africa. What is basically at issue is the preservation of a First World State on the Black African continent with a large component of the Third World.

This raises the question of what norms are being postulated by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Waterberg. The norms postulated by these hon. members are, on the one hand, that the demands of the leftist radicals should be given in to, and, on the other hand, that the norms of the right-wing radicals should be elevated to the norms of the Government in South Africa.

Those are not norms.

The one thing we can least afford in South Africa today is radicalism, whether of the left or of the right. The reality of South Africa is that we shall achieve freedom, security and prosperity for all the people of the country, otherwise it will mean the downfall of all the people of South Africa. That is the reality of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism accused this party of negativism. He said we were cynical and sceptical and that we lacked a spirit of optimism.

†As unemotionally as I possibly can I want to explain why I believe we all have reason to be cynical and sceptical. My conviction that the Government will not lead us wisely or successfully over the next 10 years is well illustrated by its decentralization approach and the circumstances that surround it. Everybody accepts that there can be reason for industries to be moved to areas which have potential, provided the reason is economic. However, when the motive is ideological and economic the market control mechanisms then cease to function and, I believe, the economy can be seriously prejudiced. It is therefore important to us to ask whether the decentralization plan is economically or ideologically motivated. An investigation of this takes one down fascinating ways.

Although the hon. the Prime Minister did not support the decentralization argument at the Good Hope Conference with ideological arguments, there have since been other occasions in front of other audiences when his motives have been spelt out far more specifically. For example, the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, at Worcester, argued for regional development “to carry out separate development to its logical conclusion”. He is quoted in Hansard as arguing that the link between economic and political and constitutional issues mean that the distribution of economic activity “could not be left to market forces alone”. The evidence that the prime motive for the strategy of decentralization is ideological and not economic is overwhelming. The strategy is founded on separate Black States as the justification for apartheid. These States are not possible unless the present geographical distribution of the various race groups can be stabilized. This explains influx control and the Government’s commitment to removals despite world-wide condemnation.

Continuing commitment to apartheid can be put no better than by those people closely concerned with it. Dr. A. D. le Grange says—

Or listen to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development—

He adds that the most effective way of controlling influx is to create job opportunities in and near the Black States.

I think I am right in saying that the hon. the Prime Minister undertook in East London that he would devote the rest of his career to making a success of this policy. Therefore one must ask: Why the determination to pursue the decentralization plan? The reason is that although apartheid has failed the Government refuses to abandon it and continues to prop it up. It is changing its methods, but the goal remains the same and is as unattainable as ever. Its analysts identify the reason for apartheid’s failure in the methods used. They now seek new methods to achieve the old goals and they rationalize that the root cause of failure is the refusal of private enterprise to establish itself in and around the Black homelands. This is essential, they argue, for without job opportunities in or near these regions nothing can abate the influx of Blacks to metropolitan areas. Can the situation not be comparatively easily rectified, they ask? After all, the limit of the country’s arsenal of carrots and sticks is the wealth of the nation itself. Dr. Jan Lombard has described the problem very succinctly. He says—

I think the inference is quite clear. Ideological goals transcend economic considerations. The new industrial decentralization plan is merely a vast, expensive, wasteful and desperate attemp to get grand apartheid to work. It is meant to place industry and consequently work, wealth and opportunity where apartheid requires it to be. The Nationalist establishment has long realized that South Africa’s economy has to be strong and growing to retain any sort of stability through a period of rapid change and that this can only be achieved by releasing private enterprise from the bureaucratic fetters that have prevented it from performing well for years. I think we have moved a long way from the ham-handed approach of Mr. Vorster to the private enterprise system. It is now to be wooed and won with a heady brew of profits, patriotism and government support. But there is a price to pay. In return, private enterprise must make a success of a decentralization programme without which grand apartheid remains a precarious and indefensible structure. In the words of one Government official—

This is the signpost that should indicate the parting of the ways. Whereas the entrepreneur is prepared to venture his assets on his assessment of the market, he regards the Government’s ideological plan differently. Firstly, he mistrusts any enterprise with a three-decade record of failure. Secondly, he feels Government policies will have to change, and this could leave him high and dry. Thirdly, his venture lacks economic self-sufficiency otherwise it would not be necessary to give him these incentives. Fourthly, he knows that initial costs are not nearly as important as ultimate costs of production. Ultimately his better placed rival will prevail. Lastly, veld factories will cause him unending managerial difficulties. This accounts for the magnitude of incentives offered.

The possibility of profit or loss supplies an impersonal discipline to business decisions, but when a Government promotes an economic policy for ideological reasons an economic analysis becomes impossible. Costs are unquantifiable and indeterminate, lost in a tangle of incentives, preferential rates, rebates, tender preferences, extended lines of communication, weak infrastructure and a distorted market, and no cost benefit analysis of a policy like this from the State’s point of view is possible.

Who will bear the costs of ill-judged decentralization? The answer is the public in the form of high taxation, higher prices, inability to meet foreign competition, increased tariffs, low growth rate, recession, unemployment, and, of course, ultimately, and overriding all else, inflation. Entrepreneurs will have to carry their share in the form of businesses that will fail. What the Government lacks—and so, of course, do its distinguished academics—is an understanding of the strength and weaknesses of private enterprise. Even a healthy business is quite a fragile plant. It probably makes 2% to 4% on turnover, and it cannot be moved hither and yon at somebody’s whim. It is not a mobile gold mine that can be moved around.

The background which I have painted should indicate clearly what will happen. There will certainly be sound applications for decentralization but in addition anybody whose business is in real trouble will be a candidate for decentralization. The taxpayers must expect to support a lot a lame ducks. If we only think of price control, Mr. Speaker, we should realize that Government officials will be quite incapable of telling the oranges from the lemons among the applicants. The interesting time arises, of course, when a decentralized industry threatens to fold, either before or after the assistance period, because then the Government will and must continue supporting it. In fact we know it is already doing this.

Claims that the incentive package is the best in the world. I believe are correct. They are enormous. As an example I have taken an enterprise with a total capital employed of R2,4 million, operating in the PWV area, and I have asked myself what it would cost the taxpayer to move this enterprise to an area where it would receive maximum decentralization benefits. This factory needs premises to the value of R400 000, and the balance of R2 million is in plant and current assets. It employs 800 people.

I have assumed the interest subsidy will be 12,8%—that is 80% of an agreed interest rate of 16%, which, I think, is reasonable. It is 1% below the prime overdraft rate. The relocation costs I have assumed amount to R200 000. The factory is entitled to R500 000, so I think this reasonable. Unquantifiable costs amount to R100 000. Over ten years the subsidy would be R500 000 in respect of premises, R1,2 million on the balance of the project, and R7 million on labour over seven years at R110 per worker per month. That amounts to R9 million. To that can also be added power, rail and harbour rebates, tender preferences and tax benefits on wages. What for, Mr. Speaker? To move a factory from the PWV area to some place where it should never be. Can one imagine anything more inflationary? 800 people working for this factory in the PWV area, cease to work for it and become unemployed, while the factory employs another 800 people in the area to which it moves or, alternatively, the original 800 people accompany the factory to its new location, which means that it does not employ more people from the new area. This is utterly absurd. [Interjections.]

If this enterprise had remained in the PWV area and had made a 25% return on capital employed during the same ten year period, it would have made a profit of R5,5 million. The Government could have taken over R2 million in tax instead of contributing R10 million towards this operation.

Mr. Speaker, I have based this calculation on the structure of an actual factory which is receiving decentralization incentive benefits now.

The hon. the Prime Minister said at the Good Hope Conference that the policy could cost the exchequer an additional R100 million per year when it was in full swing. The Rand Daily Mail correctly replied—

We gather, however, that the bulk of the funds—up to R650 million a year by 1985 and R1 000 million a year by 1990, if the figure of the Department of Information is correct—will come from the Development Bank of Southern Africa. It is hoped that the funds for this will be contributed in loan form from abroad. Unless this money is put to good use, the loan will be a disaster and not a windfall. The borrower of last resort remains the South African Government and ultimately in some shape or form that loan will have to be serviced by the South African taxpayer.

There is no one that can doubt that in certain circumstances industry should be given incentives to decentralize but the goal should be to establish five or six centres which will develop agglomeration advantages which, to some extent, will be able to counterbalance the PWV area, and not to distribute factories over a scattering of Black hamlets. For example, in the Cape there should be only three areas at which industry should be concentrated, namely the Western Cape, Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage and East London-Berlin-King William’s Town. No industry should be assisted unless there is a fairly high degree of certainty that by the end of the assistance period it will be viable. Growth points in and around the Black homelands should get no better incentives than the five or six areas of major development. Then it will be up to the entrepreneur as to where he establishes his plant. Hidden subsidies to the PWV area should be phased out over a period.

This scheme will require a complete reversal of influx control policy and a positive approach to Black urbanization. There have already been approximately 3 million removals with more to come. The fragile ecology of the Black homelands just cannot stand this.

One is increasingly aware of the fact that what one is really discussing is where the poor should live and whether South Africa is one country or many countries. It is simply not true to say that the most inexpensive way of housing the poor is in rural slums. That is far and away the most expensive. It inhibits food production, permanently damages the ecology, is grossly inefficient in respect of labour management, is socially disruptive and inhibits the development of an informal economy. To attempt to ameliorate this situation by subsidizing industrial enterprises located in defiance of every economic principle is wasteful of scarce capital resources and fraught with grave risks to the economy.

To sum up, there are sound social and economic reasons to bring about a better distribution of industrial development but what we are seeing in the Government’s decentralization plan is an attempt to use these reasons to realize apartheid’s blueprint for South Africa. This remains its dangerous obsession. The country will end up with an inefficient and wasteful distribution of its productive resources, an obligation to underpin decentralized private industry, a distorted and not a free economy, uncontrollable inflation with eventual stagnation, unemployment and social unrest, and with political accommodation with Blacks being more difficult to achieve than ever. This is a sad paradox. We have a Government which on the one hand has decided that the future of our society depends on the ability of our free enterprise system to generate the wealth and opportunity that we need for peaceful change while, on the other hand, the Government completely fails to comprehend how incompatible its ideological obsession is with the environment private enterprise needs to create prosperity, a prosperity without which peaceful change is impossible.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.