intimated that he had exercised the discretion conferred upon him by Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills) and had permitted the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to reply to the speech which the hon. member for Brakpan made in this House yesterday afternoon in the course of which, just as he did last week, he saw fit to launch a shameful and scandalous attack on the hon. the Minister of Manpower. [Interjections.]

Where is the hon. the Minister of Manpower? [Interjections.]

Before I sketch the factual position, and before I react to the statements by the hon. member for Brakpan, please allow me two general observations, Mr. Chairman. I shall muster all my self-discipline not to sink to the level of debating which is maintained by hon. members of the CP and which makes a laughing-stock of public office. Consequently I shall try to protect the dignity of the office which I am privileged to occupy, as well as the dignity which this highest Chamber merits, as something precious.

My second remark, Mr. Chairman, is of a personal nature. We on this side of the House who used to be intimate friends of the hon. member for Brakpan, are just wondering what has happened to his personality. What has become of the good breeding that was a characteristic of his? I leave the hon. member for Brakpan to ponder these questions, in the hope that he will be able to thrash out the matter with his own conscience. [Interjections.]

The argument of the hon. member for Brakpan was to the effect that the hon. the Minister of Manpower supposedly enriched himself by the write-off of a certain amount of money of an irrigation board in which, according to the hon. member’s estimate, the share of the hon. the Minister amounted to R190 000. I shall come back to this amount later.

I contend that this is grossly untrue, and that the hon. member for Brakpan is guilty of a total misrepresentation. In the first instance, I contend that at the time of these actions and, indeed long before that, everyone in that vicinity, as well as the department, were aware that the hon. the Minister was a farmer in that area and that he drew from that river for irrigation purposes. I contend, therefore, that at that stage the Department of Water Affairs were fully aware of the hon. the Minister’s involvement in that particular scheme. As riparian owner before the construction of the scheme, he was entitled to the normal scheduling procedure which was undertaken by the irrigation board itself. This was not done by the Government or by the department, but by the irrigation board itself. This has been common knowledge ever since 1970. The only reaction at the time to this writing off of the amount in question came from the Sunday Times. I therefore find it strange that the hon. member for Brakpan is now siding with that newspaper, which is forever trying to score points off everything that the Government does.

I therefore contend, Mr. Chairman, that not only everyone in that area, that not only everyone in the hon. the Minister’s constituency, but also the department itself, was aware of the fact that the hon. the Minister was an irrigator in that scheme.

I want to make a second statement which, I believe, is very relevant. There is a big difference between the takeover of a scheme by the Government on the one hand, and the writing off of capital on the other. These two things are not connected. They are not connected at all. The takeover of an irrigation scheme is done by means of a proclamation in the Gazette. In this case the particular proclamation appeared in the Gazette in 1971. What happens then is that the department takes over the full operation of such a scheme. What is important, however, is that the burden of debt involved in the takeover is also operated by the department—not taken over, but operated. The normal interest and redemption over a period of 30 years is consequently built into the tariffs by the department. All that happens is that in such an event the department does not impose a Government rate. Government rates are not imposed as long as an irrigation board still has any debt.

Mr. Chairman, I want to read to this House what gave rise to this action. I quote from what the then Secretary for Water Affairs, Dr. J. P. Kriel, submitted to the then Minister of Water Affairs, Mr. S. P. Botha. I quote as follows—

To him, who, as Minister, is the head of the department. He goes on to say—

That is what the Act says, the Act made by this Parliament, the Parliament of which the hon. member for Brakpan is a member. The report goes on—

Mr. Chairman, this is what the Secretary for Water Affairs submitted to the hon. the Minister at the time.

I want to come to a second point now and that is the question of writing off. Writing off of this nature is not done by the Minister. Writing off is done by Parliament and by Parliament alone. The Minister has no writing off powers whatsoever. Now I want to put this question to the hon. member for Brakpan: If I happen to be scheduled with an irrigation scheme and that scheme has financial problems and petitions Parliament for a write-off, should 1 not agree to that and, in the process, allow the other 99 farmers excluding myself to go under?

No, you need only declare your interest.

I submit that it is the task and the duty of the Minister to evaluate impartially the submission made to him and referred to the Select Committee, and make his recommendation accordingly. The board—and this is important, too—is a legal person. An irrigation board is a legal person. It negotiates loans and imposes rates with the approval of the department. The board, which is a legal person, negotiated the loan for the system of canals built there. It imposes the tariffs on irrigators for the operation, the interest and the capital for the scheme, with a redemption period of 30 years as laid down. The Minister did not negotiate the loan with the State. As an individual irrigator, the Minister was not responsible to the State for that loan. The board, which was the legal person, had to repay that loan to the State, and not the Minister. The total schedule of the irrigation board in such cases constitutes the security for the loan. No irrigation scheme schedule of any nature is linked to a person. It is linked to the land. It was pure coincidence that the Minister of Water Affairs was also an irrigator in that area at the time. That schedule was not linked to the name of S. P. Botha. It was linked to the land.

What further action was taken? Parliament was petitioned in 1970, but the petition was held over until 1971 due to there being insufficient time available. The department supported this petition and in its submission to the Select Committee made an important input. Before the department submits anything to the Select Committee, it consults two agencies. It consults the Treasury and it consults the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture is consulted to make sure that the rate that has to be imposed is far too onerous for the resources of those irrigators and that they cannot make an economic living. Consequently it contributed a very important input to the submission made by the then Department of Water Affairs. To a great extent the Treasury is consulted to obtain its approval for the writing-off of such loans.

I now quote from the submission of the department—

This will involve, inter alia, that Government rates may be varied to suit the circumstances; in other words, increased in years of good rains and reduced in times of drought when irrigators are not able to pay their rates.

What follows now is very important: The recovery of the capital expenditure on the scheme does not extend over a particular period, but an indefinite period.

What is the arrangement? When a board negotiates a loan, it has to repay it within 30 years, but when the department takes over a scheme, that capital liability does not fall away—of course not. All that happens, is that the department evaluates the scheme in terms of its lifespan, and that can be 80 years. It then builds the capital involved into the tariffs. I may point out to the hon. member that in 1972-’73 the tariff was R11,55 per hectare per annum. This increased to R52 per hectare per annum in 1983-’84.

Consequently I submit that the department made an important input to the Select Committee in respect of this matter in order to prove to the Select Committee that irrigators could no longer make ends meet.

The Select Committee evaluated the petition and the submission of the department and found that the matter had ample merit. The Select Committee then recommended to Parliament that the write-off was to be effected. It was a unanimous decision of the Select Committee. I may point out that Mr. Fanie Herman was a member of the Select Committee at the time.

Several other write-offs were recommended on that same day; not only this one. On 7 June 1971 Parliament approved the recommendation of the Select Committee without a debate—once again unanimously.

Consequently I want to repeat my initial statement. The hon. member has made use of totally defective and inadequate information. What is more: He could have obtained that information. He went to ask certain questions to my department although there is a parliamentary team here from which he could have obtained the information very easily. He saw fit to go to the official in charge at Louis Trichardt to try to obtain figures there knowing the arrangement is that inquiries by MP’s are dealt with either by the Director-General or the Minister. Knowing that, he saw fit to go to an official up north for information. I want to submit, therefore, that he availed himself of a lack of knowledge and totally inadequate information.

Furthermore—this is important—he cast a gross reflection on the integrity of members of the Select Committee. He underestimated their ability to evaluate the matter on merit. Thirteen years after the event he raised a matter in Parliament. Therefore I submit that he cast a serious reflection on an instrument of Parliament. [Interjections.] What is more serious, however, is the fact that he cast a reflection not only upon hon. members of the Select Committee, but on this Parliament, of which he is a member, as well. In other words, he questions the ability of both an instrument of Parliament and Parliament itself to evaluate the merits of a case. I believe this was a ploy. I believe it was meant to get at a person, and I find the conduct of the hon. member absolutely reprehensible. [Interjections.]

Hear, hear!

Mr. Chairman, a number of hon. members have participated in this debate since my last reply. I should like to refer briefly to their participation. In my opinion the hon. members for Smithfield and Middelburg and the hon. member Mr. Van Staden dealt very effectively with the contradictions in the conduct of the CP. I thank them for doing so. The hon. member for Bloemfontein-North made a positive contribution on urbanization and decentralization, with which I am in full agreement. The hon. member for Randfontein correctly pointed out our conditions for dialogue, as well as the benefits attached to it. The hon. member for De Kuilen rightly referred to the obsolete concepts of the official Opposition whose policy is lying in political ruin everywhere in Africa. The hon. member for Standerton once again, in his characteristically thorough way, stated his approach to freedoms for peoples. The hon. members for Maitland, Prieska and Vryheid objected with justification to a few speeches and standpoints from the ranks of the Opposition. I do not want to say that this applied to all members on the Opposition side, because some hon. members kept their criticism on a high level. Some hon. members, from whom we have just heard, we found to be disappointing and disillusioning.

I want to tell the hon. member for Brakpan that I am personally very disappointed in him. The hon. member knows what I thought of him, even after he decided to differ with me. The hon. member knows what position he held in my estimation. I am astounded. That is all I can say.

The hon. member for Springs adopted a very correct approach to the latest report of the President’s Council.

The day before yesterday the hon. member for Lichtenburg raised a few points here. He let me know before the time that he would not be here yesterday, and consequently I want to deal briefly with those points now. He put this question to me. Are the guidelines of the NP and the Government the point of departure or the terminating point? Any beginning is a point of departure, and the hon. member cannot, just as I cannot, determine where South Africa and our history will end. I want to give him some advice today. He should rather remain the calm person he was when he was under our influence. It would suit him better. He is the second hon. member in that party whom I held in very high esteem, and I hope he is not going to deviate from that course. If he wants to differ, let him differ. The proposals, Sir, are a point of departure. Any reasonable person will tell him that they are a point of departure, and let me tell him too where I hope they are a point of departure. I am not omniscient. I do not even know whether I will be here tomorrow, and neither does he. However, I hope and believe that the guidelines are a point of departure to better attitudes between Whites and Coloureds. If he wants to misuse them, he should rather leave it to other people to do so. It does not suit him.

Then the hon. member asked me whether the pamphlet which was being distributed in Soutpansberg, met with my approval. But it is an extract from the speech which I made at the federal congress of the party. The speech might just as well have been circulated in its entirety there, and it was. It is also available to the hon. member. He could also have received a copy. In fact, he did, and he read it. He is merely asking this question to try to create another dodge. [Interjections.]

The hon. member said the CP did not accept a multiracial Cabinet. However, the hon. member did.

No.

Yes, Sir, he did. [Interjections.] The hon. member was a prominent member of the party when an elucidation was furnished on 12 April 1978, on behalf of the Government, of the meaning of the 1977 proposals, and in that elucidation my predecessor, quite rightly, said that the Council of Cabinets would function like an ordinary Cabinet. That Council would draft the legislation, and what is more, this would be done under the chairmanship of the President, who would have the final decision. There was also a provision that there would be seven non-Whites in that Council of Cabinets.

But it did not have any executive power.

Yes, it did, my predecessor said so here in so many words. [Interjections.] The hon. member must not try now, in conflict with his entire personality, to seek out loopholes of this kind. It will not pay him in the long run. He will not get away with it, even in the most credulous company.

Except with Daan. [Interjections.]

The hon. member then asked me whether, as Prime Minister, I was prepared to have the same pamphlet distributed among Coloureds and Indians. Yes, of course. Why not? It is all stated in my speeches, which have been printed. The Coloureds read them too. The proceedings and discussions at all our congresses were held in public. Even the differences which were expressed there, and the standpoints of people who held other opinions, were stated in public. My speeches and the party’s policy statements are available to members of all population groups if they wish to read them. They may differ with them, but they are available.

I want to leave the hon. member at that now. I think that he and the hon. member for Brakpan should go and tell one another over a cup of coffee: “We have a reputation to keep up; let the two of us decide today that, whatever other people want to do with us, we are going to keep up that reputation”. I am making an appeal to the two of them. It is not too late.

And what about the hon. member for Barberton?

I did not think the hon. member for Barberton will descend to such a level. He does differ with me, but he states his case on another level.

I come now to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He asked me why the Indians and Coloureds could not reply to the same question on the same day in the referendum. Does he mean on the same day as the Whites?

Yes.

That cannot happen. I cleared the matter with the Coloureds and Indians, and all of them agreed with me that it should not happen. There are a number of reasons for this. Their circumstances differ; their people’s circumstances of employment differ in many respects, and in addition the question which will be put to them will of necessity have to differ from the one which will be put to the Whites. They cannot reply to the same question. In general those leaders and I agree with one another on this score, and we shall clarify the matter further with one another. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I shall deliberate with those leaders on their affairs and with him.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also wanted to know whether I was prepared to do away with discriminatory legislation. But it was said during the time of my predecessor already—it is as old as the hills—that we would eliminate unnecessary discriminatory measures.

But you did nothing.

I shall now furnish the details to that clever advocate at the back there, who is always so presumptuous.

That is not what Piet said at Palm Springs either.

This prospect was held out by my predecessor and even in his time we began to remove discriminatory legislation, even legislation which dated back to the days of Queen Victoria. Surely the hon. member is aware of this. The Master and Servant Act, a measure which caused us a great deal of trouble in the international sphere, as well as other measures, were repealed during the time of my predecessor. We also had the Wiehahn Commission and the Riekert Commission on labour legislation, and no fewer than five measures, by means of which unnecessary discriminatory practices were eliminated, were passed by Parliament as a result of the recommendations of those commissions. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware of this, because he was here in this House. Why, then, is he asking me such a question?

I want to know what other measures …

We also amended the Group Areas Act in respect of sporting facilities. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is aware of it. At present there is legislation before Parliament to amend the Liquor Act. I am mentioning only a few examples, because he did, after all, ask me to mention a few.

What discriminatory measures are necessary?

I should like to see Parliament pass a measure which discriminated permanently against that hon. member. [Interjections.] In addition the hon. the Leader of the Opposition brought up the question of Indians in the Free State again. Surely I have already told him that even if all the old legislation dating from the days of the Boer Republics in the Free State and North Natal were to be abolished, the Group Areas Act and its principles would still be applicable to the Free State and North Natal as they are applicable to the entire country. I am quite prepared to consider the passage and movement of Indians through the Free State, but I am only prepared to do so in consultation with the elected leaders of the Free State, and not with self-appointed leaders. He should rather leave this matter in the hands of those people who know and represent the interests of the Free State. What I have just said applies, in the same breath, to the arguments of the hon. member for Rissik. That is just about all I want to say to him, except that he asked me to dismiss the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. The hon. member was probably joking. We all know that he does not crack many jokes. But in this case he was probably joking, and that is consequently how I look at it. However, I want to tell the hon. member that not only do I have the fullest confidence in my colleague; I also have the greatest appreciation for his capacity for work, his dedication and his competence. He is a man of international repute, a man who is held in the highest esteem in a great many quarters in the outside world, a person who is a credit to South Africa, and the hon. member for Rissik is not worthy of untying his shoe-laces.

At least my facts are correct. You are condoning his errors.

Order!

The hon. member had a great deal to say here about nationalism. I have stated on occasions in the past that I do not allow political pipsqueaks to dictate to me how to be a Nationalist and how to serve the Afrikaner cause.

†I now want to deal with the hon. member for Durban Point. He is also interested in the battle of the Bergs.

The effect of it on reform.

Why then did the hon. member not decide to take part in the fight in the Bergs? He has a message to convey to the people there, has he not? Surely, if he believes in his message he should come forward and practice what he preaches. The hon. member also raised the question of local option. I want to warn him that he is over-stressing local option to such an extent that it can only create chaos should we decide to follow his advice.

*If the hon. member were to look at the oral evidence on ethnic classification and local option given by the NRP before the Commission of Inquiry on the Constitution, he will see the absurdities which his people put forward there. One of the absurdities was that one should take the local options so far that if a person had certain rights in Graaff-Reinet and were then to move to Richmond, he could no longer have them. [Interjections.] Of course that is the case. It is stated in this way in the evidence. The hon. member would be well-advised to drop it. There is much to appreciate in the patriotic standpoint of that party, but then they must not spoil it with absurdities of this kind.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier said that the urban Blacks could not be dealt with in the same way as the independent homelands. But who said they could? Why is the hon. member arguing with me about this? Surely he knows that I adopted a standpoint during the no-confidence debate and explained what the Government was doing. What I did say was that we should not sever the natural ties of those people with their compatriots in the independent homelands, and the hon. member will agree with that, i.e. as I know him and if he wishes to be loyal to his past. And he has quite a commendable past, Sir. We made considerable use of his services, but somewhere along the line he lost his bearings completely. In any case, surely no one has ever made that allegation. So why did the hon. member raise it?

He went on to say that if my standpoint was that of a national concept (volkerekonsep), it made no sense to accommodate the Coloureds in a separate chamber. Surely the Coloureds are not a people, and surely we agree with one another that they are not a people. I have said so here repeatedly. They are a population group which consists of various communities. They say so themselves. A person like Prof. Van der Ross said this in a book which he wrote. But in addition we have always proceeded from the standpoint that provision should be made for these communities within the same State context, and that is the pattern according to which the Government operates. There may be other patterns, but we believe that the one we are following is the best one. The hon. member then went on to say that there was no other country in the world in which there was statutory discrimination.

On the grounds of race and colour.

Yes, on the grounds of race and colour. Is the hon. member quite certain of his statement?

I said as far as I knew. [Interjections.]

I am telling him now that there are such laws in Australia.

Can you give us the reference to that?

I am not talking to the hon. member for Groote Schuur now, and I shall tell you why, Sir. That hon. member very seldom makes a speech here in this House. When he has something to say, he says it by way of a Press statement, and even then he is wrong.

Don’t you also make Press statements?

Yes, but not deliberately.

I have exactly the same right as you have to do it.

That is correct; the hon. member does have that right. But I am dealing with the hon. member Prof. Olivier now.

Give me the reference.

I shall give the information to the hon. member Prof. Olivier. The hon. member for Groote Schuur can write it down if he wishes. Since the hon. member Prof. Olivier seems to have called in secretarial assistance now, I shall try to give him the information. For example there is C. M. Tatz’s “Education and Land Rights” and A. Pittock’s Aboriginal Land Rights” in Racism: The Australian Experience by F. S. Stevens. The hon. member should go and read those articles. He will find the information there.

I think we should sever our sporting ties with them.

No, they have already severed their sporting ties with us. [Interjections.]

The hon. member then put questions to me in connection with the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act. I should like to say something about them today. Incidentally, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also put questions to me in that regard. During the past two years I have had a number of talks with various religious denominations in connection with the laws on immorality and on mixed marriages. I really went out of my way to consult church leaders to the greatest extent possible on this matter—both individually and collectively. They were extremely serious talks, but occurred in a pleasant atmosphere. The fact of the matter is that the churches have sharply divided standpoints on this matter—very much so.

I hope that I am stating this correctly now. However, I shall be the first one, if I have made erroneous statements, to try to rectify them because I do not want to become involved in a dispute with the churches unnecessarily.

The churches are predominantly opposed to immorality because it is repugnant on Biblical grounds. That, at least, is the impression I get. The Christian state, they say—and we agree with this—consequently has the task of making immoral acts punishable.

When we consider the Immorality Act, it is clear that it does not deal only with the specific cases in terms of section 16. That Act also deals with brothels, procuring, sexual offences, drug abuse, prostitution, soliciting, immoral acts between men, etc. We have even received proposals—not from churches; from individuals—as to how this Act could be made more acceptable; acceptable in this sense that it should not embarrass us on racial ground in the international community.

In connection with mixed marriages, some churches express vehement opposition to the Mixed Marriages. Act. Others, including the largest Afrikaans church, which represents almost 56% of the Whites, admit frankly in their discussions that there is no reason to allege on Biblical grounds that a mixed marriage is sinful. This is in line with what I, too, have already said.

Some Black churches are also opposed to the Mixed Marriages Act; strongly opposed to it. Equally large Black churches say, however, that the law should not be abolished. All churches of importance with whom I have spoken, with the exception of a few of our well-known English churches, expressed their opposition to mixed marriages on the ground of the fact that they are undesirable; undesirable in the climate and social conditions in South Africa. That is why certain synods adopted certain resolutions, which are known and which I have with me here. My overall impression is that we are dealing here with a matter on which people are not only sharply divided but with a matter which, by dealing with it on a party-political basis, could easily stir up emotions either way, which cannot be in the interests of South Africa at home or abroad.

†I come now to my own attitude. I expressed my own view on this matter to the churches as follows. I said the laws concerned and in their present form originated from representations made by churches, women’s organizations and a petition to Parliament signed by 250 000 people some decades ago. This was not done simply because of a whim of the Government of the day. It was done after proper representations by responsible bodies and people. In the second place, I told them that the laws were not intended by the Government to humiliate any group or race but, in the special circumstances and social conditions in South Africa, to guard against making conditions more difficult. I also stated, however—and I have already done so in public—that I do not believe that the maintenance of the Mixed Marriages Act is a prerequisite for the existence and the maintenance of the White man in this country. Moreover, I have already stated in public and I want to repeat today that I am opposed to these immoral practices and that we should guard against them. However, the Government does not believe that these laws are guarantees for the survival of White South Africa.

In the third instance—and I referred to this a moment ago—churches representing 56% of the White population and important church denominations among other population groups declared themselves opposed to mixed marriages. Two of the churches informed me that they represented a few million people. In the fourth instance, I do not want to act as a judge in respect of the different points of view among the various church denominations. I do not feel that I am capable of doing so. I am not a scribe like the hon. member for Rissik. I am not a theologian. I wrote to the churches and I suggested to them that they should come together in an effort to provide the Government with a possibly unanimous attitude on these matters and advise us in this regard. At the same time I warned against any tendency to allow public propaganda on these subjects, and I still do so. I am still hopeful that our churches will find it possible to discuss these matters further with one another. However, at the same time I want to appeal to the various denominations not to seek confrontation with the State. The State has a duty to perform and, if called upon to do so, we shall not shirk our responsibility in this regard.

In conclusion I want to say that I will be prepared to refer these two Acts to a Select Committee of Parliament if all parties undertake to approach this matter on a non-party-political basis and in a spirit of responsibility. I am also prepared to afford the various church denominations and other people an opportunity to give evidence. The Government will then consider the report of that select committee on its merits. I must say, however, that if the present agitation and threats of breaking the law continue, I cannot see any sense in referring this matter to a Select Committee. That is all I have to say at this stage about this very difficult matter. I am pleading for balance, I am pleading for appreciation of the difficult situation with which we are dealing in South Africa. I have the highest respect for the fact that my own church has some strong ideas and feelings about this matter.

*As for immorality, I wish to state my opinion at once. I think it should be opposed by the State as well as by the churches. However, I want to point out that the State cannot keep the souls and consciences of people in South Africa on the alert. In that regard the churches and families have a far greater task than the State itself.

The hon. member for Barberton wanted to know among whom the referendum would be held first. Among the Whites. The Whites are taking the initiative—they want to establish a new dispensation—and therefore they must be given the opportunity to do so first.

The hon. member for Barberton said that he had a feeling that I was threatening the Indians, that I was intimidating them. No, that is not true. I am in fact pleading with them to accept the new dispensation. If they wish to exercise another option, the two of us are certainly not going to stop them; are we?

Including that of a homeland?

But the Coloureds do not want a homeland; that is the point.

And the Indians?

The Indians will not choose a homeland. The Indians state that their interests are bound up in this State, the Republic of South Africa.

And the urban Black people say precisely the same thing.

I say there are dangers attached to advocating a homeland for Indians and one does not know (a) where; (b) what its international connections are going to be and (c) how to bring it into existence in practice. The hon. member does not know these things either.

I do know them.

I want to take the matter further with the hon. member for Barberton. Who gave the Indians permanence in South Africa? Surely the hon. member knows. I observe that he is nodding his head; he is honest enough to nod his head. Surely he knows that Dr. Verwoerd gave them permanence. Surely it had been NP policy to repatriate the Indians. He also knows that Dr. Verwoerd said that that was an obsolete policy which had not succeeded and that the Indians should receive permanence here. Then provision was made for them in group areas where they were able to obtain freehold rights, including freehold rights as farmers in certain rural areas. They were admitted as a permanent part of the population of the Republic of South Africa. He asked me where the idea had originated of our doing the same with the Indians as we wanted to do with the Coloureds. The hon. member need only read Dr. Verwoerd’s speeches. He said that we would follow precisely the same pattern with the Indians as with the Coloureds, and since that time that has been the direction of this party. In addition, the hon. member, in his sober moments, agreed whole-heartedly with it … [Interjections.] I mean “sober moments” in a good sense.

There are still a few hon. members to whom I should like to refer.

†The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central came to light with his old wild story again. He is still busy with that wild goose chase. I do not want to reply to the hon. member. The responsible Minister will do so when his Vote comes up for discussion. All I want to tell the hon. member is that if he intends to be a responsible member of Parliament, he has only one of two options. If he has evidence that something stinks as far as the Government’s administration of those funds is concerned, that a member of the Government being implicated, he must move for an investigation to be done by a Select Committee and he must lay his charges. If he is not prepared to do that, he must approach the other instrument created by Parliament, the Advocate-General and bring his information to his notice. I hope he will be more successful than Mr. Etheredge.

Birds of a feather. [Interjections.]

That is a compliment, actually.

I think Mr. Etheredge acted in an extremely irresponsible way, because he did not have a single item of proof to back up his story.

I merely asked for the Auditor-General to be able to audit. That is all.

The hon. member has one of two options. If he reads what the hon. member for Yeoville and the then hon. member for Constantia said about information in connection with oil supplies, he will see that he is being contradicted in his own party. The hon. member should drop this matter now. He is creating a specific image for himself in this Parliament. [Interjections.]

An oily image.

The hon. member for Umbilo started with the sad story that in South African politics too little was being done too late. That is not, however, very original. The late Dr. Malan already said that in his day.

*He said that written over South Africa’s history were the words: “Too late”. In that sense he is right if he says that we as a country frequently do not act when we should. However, we are not only bad. We have our good qualities as well.

†That is why the Government is coming to the fore with positive steps to regulate our relationships with the Black man in South Africa, the Black peoples, and with the Coloured people and the Indians. He should read the speech I made in the no-confidence debate. If he were to do so, he would see that he is not right when he says that we are not doing our duty as far as the various Black peoples are concerned.

I know what you said.

In respect of the film Gandhi he said that the Minister should have thrown open all the theatres without application. No. We do not want chaos in South Africa. Those hon. members talk about local option, but I can tell him that one would have major problems in many places if one did that. Besides, we do not allow ourselves to be dictated to from abroad as to what we should do in this country.

Hear, hear!

Let us understand one another well now on this point. I know he agrees with me in his heart.

But the Minister said he would grant the authority on application.

Yes, he said he would deal with it on merit, and then only for the premières.

That is what my friend was talking about.

Very well. Then it is probably not too bad. [Interjections.]

Perhaps I should not take matters much further, but deal briefly with only two other matters. The hon. member for Yeoville discussed the question of privilege here. No normal person would want to encroach upon the privilege of members. This House has its own rules, and these have to be complied with until the House itself changes them. However, this House did something else as well. This House passed laws. It passed laws on defence in terms of which certain restrictions were imposed upon people. It passed laws in connection with the police which laid down certain restrictions. It passed laws in connection with the procurement of oil supplies in terms of which restrictions were also imposed. Now I want to put only one simple question and I would be pleased if someone could help me with it if my reasoning should be warped: What right does this House have to subject the entire country to restrictions in respect of security matters, without subjecting itself to those restrictions?

Yes, it has got every right.

In the first place I should like to quote what the then hon. member for Constantia said in this connection—

In the second place the hon. member for Yeoville spoke about the need to display the utmost measure of self-control in regard to strategic and security matters, and said that we should subject ourselves to this. He went on to say—

I make the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central a present of this.

I shall deal with a few other matters later, if there is still time. This afternoon I want to make an appeal to our people. South Africa is in a state of war in the economic sphere, and none of the parties sitting here will succeed in ending that war in its totality. That war is being waged on the initiative of Russia and its satellites, which wish to bring Southern Africa under their control because it fits in with their grand strategy of eventually encircling China. For that reason they must obtain warm water harbours in the Indian Ocean and they must have Africa’s minerals at their disposal. Neither the PFP, the CP, the NRP nor the NP will be able to overcome Russia’s desire to succeed in this scheme. Consequently we are being subjected to economic warfare.

Secondly we are being subjected to merciless propaganda war, of which I have proof in my possession. Even the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the chief spokesman of the PFP on defence, as well as the newspapers in South Africa, are quoted to prove the Russians’ case against South Africa. We are being subjected to a merciless propaganda war. Not only is it the object to break the Government—yes, that too—but to control South Africa.

Thirdly, we are being subjected to an internationally orchestrated and organized terrorist onslaught which is not only calculated to isolate South Africa, but to disrupt the country and rob the security forces of their effectiveness.

Fourthly, we are being threatened by a well-planned conventional onslaught on Southern Africa for whenever the time for it is right. We in this country, every South African who means well with his country, is obliged, if he is patriot, to ensure that in whatever he does, he does not play into the hands of those who wish to deprive us of our fatherland.

Mr. Chairman, before I deal with the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister I must just refer to what seems to have become a rather unedifying set of challenges and counterchallenges and accusations. I refer to the allegations by the hon. member for Brakpan against the hon. the Minister of Manpower for things he allegedly did in his previous capacity as Minister of Water Affairs, and the counter allegations of the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries against the hon. member for Brakpan. These are serious personal charges from both sides. We on these benches do not want to enter into the debate or the merits of it, but we are concerned that this should not set the tone or pattern of future debates in this House. We wonder in the circumstances whether the acting Leader of the House should not decide that this whole matter, the charges on both sides, should be referred to a Select Committee of Parliament so that the matter could be resolved once and for all. We put that to the hon. the Minister as a way of at least saving some of the status and dignity of this House and preventing this feud continuing.

I hope the hon. the Prime Minister in his further participation in this debate tomorrow will deal with certain salient features in regard to the South West African situation. Since last we met the members of the Minister’s Council in South West Africa have resigned, the National Assembly has been abolished and a new Administrator-General has taken over as the Government’s representative. Quite clearly there is reason for serious concern among many South Africans about the situation which persists in and around that territory.

I ask the hon. the Prime Minister whether during the course of this debate he can tell the House whether the Government has any plans for setting up an interim administration in South West Africa and if so, what these plans are. Secondly, we like to know whether the Government remains firmly committed to achieving internationally recognized independence for South West Africa on the basis of UN Resolution 435, thirdly, has any progress been made—one hears rumours that progress is slipping away again—in removing the obstacles that stand in the way of achieving such an independence settlement for the people of Namibia?

I now come back to the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister yesterday and also to aspects of his speech today. He spent much of his time yesterday trying to link the current policy of the NP as far as Coloured representation is concerned with the traditional policy of the NP for the Coloureds. I must say to the hon. the Prime Minister that the one good thing about his new policy is that it is different from the old policy. Whatever his new policy is, the hon. the Prime Minister must accept that ever since 1935 or 1936, whether it was Dr. Malan, Mr. Strijdom or Dr. Verwoerd, whether it was the declaration of the federal council of the NP of 1961 or of 1970, it was never in the past the NP’s policy that Coloured people should be directly represented in the Parliament of South Africa. I do not want to debate this point now. The hon. the Prime Minister knows and he can read all those declarations. That has never been the policy.

The hon. the Prime Minister went out of his way again to try to explain how he was involved in an “opheffingstaak” of the Coloured people of South Africa. I do not want to get involved in that debate. We shall come back to it in due course. However, I must say to the hon. the Prime Minister, who has been here for 35 years, that the Nationalist Government’s treatment of the Coloured citizens of South Africa during the period from 1948 until right into the late seventies, will be recorded as one of the most shameful and sordid chapters in the history of South African politics and of race relations in South Africa. I leave it at that for this time; we can debate it in due course.

Two points have emerged clearly from the hon. the Prime Minister’s speeches. The first is that the hon. the Prime Minister’s hurried announcement of a referendum was really nothing more than a by-election stunt, a desperate move by the hon. the Prime Minister to try to deflect the attention of the voters away from the serious defects in the Government’s policy and performance and to try to prevent the NP from losing Waterberg, Soutpansberg and Waterkloof. That is what it was about. Secondly, if one puts the hon. the Prime Minister’s speeches together, it is quite clear that he is continuing to backtrack away from real reform in South Africa. If ever one wants evidence of this, one can find it in the hon. the Prime Minister’s—and I say this with all deference to the hon. the Prime Minister—pathetic explanation of why the Government would continue to prohibit Indian citizens of South Africa from living in the Orange Free State. I found it embarrassing to hear a Prime Minister of South Africa advancing the reasons that he did. It was also embarrassing to note, especially yesterday, the way in which the hon. the Prime Minister is still trying to woo back some of those lost souls who have gone to the CP, even if it means putting reform in South Africa into reverse gear. I would have thought that he would have used this debate as an occasion to say that we are back on the reform track. But that he has not done. The hon. the Prime Minister has had some glorious opportunities. He should have repudiated the pamphlet put out by the hon. the Minister of Manpower in Soutpansberg. He should have said: “I do not accept that pamphlet. That pamphlet is not a reflection of NP policy.” How can the hon. the Prime Minister take a pamphlet like that, which is as “verkramp” as the pamphlets that are put out by the CP, and then say: “These are my words?” I say in all fairness to the hon. the Prime Minister that he must put the hon. the Minister of Manpower’s pamphlet next to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information’s pamphlet and he will find that we are talking about two different constitutional proposals. I expected the hon. the Prime Minister to repudiate the hon. the Minister of Manpower’s pamphlet in order to show that he was back on the track of reform.

I want to come back to the referendum. It is clear that the hon. the Prime Minister has shifted his grounds on this issue. There is no doubt that in a series of statements he led the public to understand that a referendum would take place if there were any drastic departures from the 1977 plan. Sir, we accept that it is the prerogative of the hon. the Prime Minister to change his mind. It is the prerogative of the hon. the Prime Minister to have a referendum in terms of the Referendums Act. But we put it to the hon. the Prime Minister: what has happened to cause him to change his mind? What has caused him to rush into this House late in the afternoon after the budget speech and announce a referendum? What has happened since he told this House on 15 April that not only would he have a referendum if there were drastic changes of policy, but, and this is important; he would have a referendum before there was any legislation. He came back to that point later on and said that before there was legislation he would have a referendum in South Africa. I put it to the hon. the Prime Minister: What has happened to cause him to change his mind? What happened to cause him to change his mind since he addressed the Nationalists in Parow in June last year? There, once again, he said there would not be a referendum.

He never said so. He said the opposite.

He did say it. I have all the quotes here. What has caused him to change his mind since he addressed the federal congress of the NP in Bloemfontein in September last year? The hon. the Prime Minister then said—

The fact is that the Prime Minister has changed his mind. What are his reasons for it? Can you believe it, Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister now says—

But, Sir, every party in this House is agreed that the Westminster system must go. Way back in 1959, when the Progressive Party was formed, this was the essence of its policy. Now, all of a sudden, the hon. the Prime Minister discovers that because the Westminster system is wrong there has to be a referendum. Sir, there is absolutely no reason for having a referendum on the Westminster system. What there is good reason for is to have a referendum on what is going to replace that system in South Africa.

*It is ridiculous to say that because the new system deviates from the Westminster system, a referendum must be held.

†Having hastily announced a referendum, when the Opposition pressed him to say what would be the question and when the referendum would be held, he said we could not have a referendum as long as there is a drought on in South Africa. But was there not a drought in South Africa on 30 March when he announced there was going to be a referendum?

You know nothing about the drought. All you know about, are your beach problems …

Now, suddenly, five weeks later according to the hon. the Prime Minister the drought becomes a key issue in drawing up a time-table for the referendum. But did not the Prime Minister on 30 March know that there was a drought in South Africa? I am putting it to the Prime Minister: What game is he playing with the voters of South Africa? I suspect the hon. the Prime Minister’s eye is not on the weather, not on whether it is going to rain. His eye is on the by-elections, because whether we have a referendum, when we will have a referendum and what the issue are matters which are going to be determined not by the rain, not by the weather, not by the Westminster system but by the votes are going to be cast, in Waterkloof, Soutpansberg and Waterberg.

Yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister displayed the same arrogant attitude that he displayed way back in 1977 towards the Coloured people. A referendum should be used by a Government to get national endorsement of a new constitutional system which is already the product of negotiation and agreement amongst the various groups in a society. What did the hon. the Prime Minister say in 1977 … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sea Point found him in somewhat of a dilemma today and consequently we had a lot of hot air. Last week he could not answer a very simple question that was put to him by the hon. the Prime Minister. The question was whether his party was against a referendum or not. He did not deal with it today as he promised he would. The reason for that is perfectly clear and obvious. It is because they painted themselves into a corner by electing not to take part in the constitutional run-up to a new dispensation. Now, however, they are ducking and diving and putting up a smoke-screen suggesting that we are hedging on reform. The hon. member had the temerity to say in his speech last week—

As far as the White people are concerned the Prime Minister spelt out yesterday that there would be ample opportunity to discuss this question in this House, that the proposals would be referred to a Select Committee and that thereafter the public would be placed in a position where they could hear all the views in the run-up to the referendum. The hon. the Prime Minister has indicated that he wants broad concensus as far as a new constitution is concerned, and I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition supports him in that. To say that we are bluffing the Whites is malicious. When he says the Government is bluffing the Coloureds I say it is an insult to the Coloured leaders. Who is that hon. member to suggest that the Coloured leaders are incapable of dealing with this matter themselves? The Coloured Labour Party does not want to have anything to do with the PFP. In fact it despises the patronizing attitude of the PFP. Against that it has accepted the good faith of the hon. the Prime Minister and of this side of the House, and have come forward fully prepared to search for peaceful change in the country. I think we can say that the hon. member tried a double bluff and was caught out twice.

*I am not going to devote more attention to the hon. member. One of the most important and, incidentally, one of the most dramatic events in South Africa’s political history occurred recently in that a chronic impasse between the Whites on the one hand and the Coloureds on the other was settled. In Eshowe in January this year we saw a demonstration of this when the Coloureds indicated that they were going to take part in the process of constitutional development. Let us look at a few newspaper headings in this regard. The Evening Post of 5 January says: “Labour decision will change the face of politics”. Rapport said: “Keerpunt vir die Kleurlinge” and the Sunday Times. “This moderation must be rewarded”. The article continues—

Here, all of a sudden, rigidity is substituted by flexibility, conflict by negotiation and despair by hope and expectation, for South Africa as a whole, a much better prospect. It is common knowledge that this side of the House brought about that breakthrough and that it is the hon. the Prime Minister who ended the political logjam. Of course it took a long time to cut the knot. But complicated problems require to be dealt with circumspection and patience. In the process the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, with his characteristic acumen, tirelessly but successfully devoted his energies to putting forward and conveying the Government’s view honestly and fairly. I have reason to say that one of the crucial factors in the acceptance of the proposals by the Coloured leaders was the personal characteristics of the Prime Minister. It is a feature of his style that he creates trust and integrity. Thus it was that the Labour Party a party which all of us acknowledge as being the strongest among the Coloureds, entered the debate. They have moved away from boycotts and ideas of shooting everything down. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the English Press and of the other enemies of the country. They are still hysterically trying to pass the Labour Party off as unrepresentative, or trying to incite them to refuse to participate.

Of course, every aim is achieved at a price, and as the saying has it: “You cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs”, we too have paid a small price in this case in that in this process perhaps the weakest and the most dangerous political party in the history of South Africa with representation in this House—dangerous and weak as regards both their policy and their representatives—had its origin I refer of course, to the CP. In my view they share the Opposition benches with the second weakest Opposition Party in the history of this country—the PFP. I am going to try to prove it, Mr. Chairman.

Is the HNP better than us?

Surely you ought to know that, Daan. After all you are the HNP expert.

These are things which hon. members of the CP and the HNP must sort out among themselves. As far as I am concerned both those parties are equally weak. However, the HNP does not enjoy representation in this House. The two parties naturally have certain characteristics in common. The representatives of both parties are supporters of a policy which serves themselves rather than the broad community. On the one hand hon. members of the CP propagate a policy the hidden goal of which is really to try to acquire a few seats in this House, and that by propagating a policy of conflict, selfishness and consuming hatred, irrespective of the price the rest of the country has to pay for that. They practise short-term politics, Mr. Chairman.

As an example of this I refer to the ridiculous policy they are advocating with regard to the Coloured population. I agree with Die Burger that the hon. member for Lichtenburg will shortly become the leader of the CP. After all, he is the father of the so-called chequerboard policy. In fact, he advocated this as long ago as March 1982 at Kuruman. Now I hear that Connie Mulder also went around with the same story. [Interjections.] This chequerboard policy of the hon. member for Lichtenburg is now being offered as a solution, something which looks alarmingly dangerous to me. To me it shows great similarity with the idea of the final solution which was the order of the day in Europe in the 1930’s. In addition to that, we are surely now also hearing sounds of implied violence. One is immediately reminded once again of one of the most frightening periods in the history of the Western World. The same political philosophy which in the thirties propagated final solutions, made use of violence as an integral ingredient for achieving its aims.

The policy in respect of the Coloureds of the CP is a fundamental denial of the realities of the South African situation, such a pie in the sky, that in fact one recoils from analysing its implications. In terms of unrealities there are also a few other things one should like to put to those hon. members for their consideration. They can, for example, go and buy an island and send the Coloureds there. Better still, why do they not request the Coloured leaders to imagine that they and their followers already have a full say in our country on matters of common interest? Why do they not ask them to sell that to their followers? These proposals would at least have had a cost benefit. However, they would unfortunately have the same disadvantage as the Coloured policy of the CP. namely its total unacceptability to the Coloured community. Can any proposal have any right of existence at all if, from the outset, it is not accepted in any manner or form by the communities involved? Such a proposal is one that can only be forced down their throats.

You are now talking just like the old United Party prior to 1948.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rissik can talk about the old United Party himself. [Interjections.] However, it is an exercise in futility, an exercise which will end in chaos. [Interjections.]

Order!

In motivating this dangerous political fantasy with its hyperfragmentation, the current leader of the CP uses one of our national states, namely kwaZulu, as an example. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Uitenhage maintains that the various population groups do not accept our policy. That question was also put to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in connection with the new guidelines of the Government. His reply was that if the other population groups do not accept the policy of the Government, the Government will continue trying to convince them to accept it. We shall do the same as the Government is going to do as regards Mr. Buthelezi and the other state leaders who at this stage do not yet want to accept the policy of separate development.

The hon. the Prime Minister took me to task in very harsh terms. I take cognizance of this. I want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that I have the greatest respect for him, and he knows it. I still do. I just want to say to the hon. the Prime Minister that he will recall that I visited him and he knows that he and I discussed these matters very seriously and very thoroughly. He knows how profoundly upset I was about the rift. He knows how profoundly upset I was because of the confidence I had in him as a political leader in South Africa who rejected power-sharing with all the power at his disposal. There is ample proof of this. This is the atmosphere in which we discussed this matter with one another. He knows this and he knows that I also said certain other things to-him. I should be glad if he would bear that in mind. I do not want to pursue this matter any further.

I now want to come back to the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. He and I were also very good friends. He is one of the people who stopped greeting me when he and I began to differ politically. However, I shall not pursue that matter. The hon. the Minister said it was general knowledge in the Soutpansberg that the hon. the Minister of Manpower was the owner of the farms Hayoma and Skull Point. That is not the point. Just ask members of this committee who were MPC’s and members of the city council what the point is. The point is that the members of the Select Committee should have known. They must have had official notification that the main figure in this drama owns one-sixth of the scheduled land. That is the point. Here I see the name of Dr. J. W. Brandt of South West. Did he know that the farms Hayoma and Skull Point belonged to the then Minister of Water Affairs? There are other names too. There were also Mr. Douglas Mitchell, Mr. Bill Sutton, Mr. Wainwright and the present hon. Minister of Law and Order. Did he have official knowledge of the fact that the then Minister of Water Affairs was the owner of those farms? [Interjections.] Did the hon. the Minister know that? Answer my question. [Interjections.] It is a very easy question to reply to.

I cannot remember every detail after twelve years. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries said that I had cast a reflection on the Select Committee and Parliament when I said that the main figure who had to take this decision and who was instrumental in persuading these people—the then Minister of Water Affairs—was the owner of those two farms and that he did not inform Parliament of the fact. I maintain it is a reflection on the main figure and not on the Select Committee or Parliament. [Interjections.] I shall read it to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries spoke about my scandalous behaviour, but he neglected to read a document which formed part of the documentation of that Select Committee and to which the signature of the then Minister of Water Affairs, dated 22 March 1971, was appended. I want hon. members to read his Hansard and see whether the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries did in fact refer to that document.

Here it is among my papers, man.

Why then, did the hon. the Minister not refer to it? [Interjections.] I shall tell you why. Paragraph 7.9 of that document reads as follows—

Does the hon. the Minister know what an irrigator is?

I have read that.

Let me proceed with the quotation—

In other words, the then Minister of Water Affairs should, be “totally relieved” of his one-sixth share in the cost “connected with the construction of the canals”. That is what he said. Then the hon. the Minister went on to say that the debt had merely become a State debt. It must be wonderful to have such a State debt and to owe R190 000 as part of that State debt, and the debt is never paid!

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

No, I am very sorry. After all, the hon. the Minister knows I have a matter of 10 minutes at my disposal.

Let us take a look at that State debt. It was R1,143 million in 1973. Do hon. members know how much it is now? At the moment that debt is R1,894 million. I have the facts.

Must we now begin mentioning the names of people who owe the State money?

No, I am not asking that.

If we did, we could get nearer to you than you expect.

The hon. the Prime Minister is one who calls for clean and correct administration.

That affair did not occur while I was Prime Minister. I did not know about it.

I agree.

Under whose Prime Ministership did that occur?

I agree with all that, but the hon. the Prime Minister knows now. He knows now that that hon. Minister did not declare his interest. That is the problem. The hon. the Prime Minister may go and ask the former MPC’s and the former members of the city council what happens to a person if he does not declare his interest when he is a member of a public body.

You do not have a case.

John Wiley even declared his interest.

Then the hon. the Minister said that other schemes had also been written off. That is quite correct, but what are those other schemes? Here are the other schemes that the then Minister wrote off: Minon Graft, R45 000; Schweizer-Reneke, nothing; Ohrigstad, nothing—these are schemes he took over—Steelpoort, nothing; Rouxville West, R27 000 …

Read the schemes which were dealt with on the same day.

… Reenen, R1 410; Rademeyer, R10 000 and so on. But then one comes to Njelele, R1,143 million. Notice the difference.

You are engaged in a vendetta.

Why are you so spiteful?

I am not spiteful. I am merely saying that that hon. Minister who is also the Leader of the House, has become a tremendous embarrassment to the hon. the Prime Minister. I also maintain that the hon. the Prime Minister should propose the appointment of a Select Committee. We shall support it.

Why do you not propose it?

I shall also propose it. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs has requested the appointment of a Select Committee regarding the matter of the casinos. [Interjections.] Very well, we shall propose it. If the Government does not want to propose it, we shall do so. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Brakpan did not say anything at all in his second speech which had not already been dealt with very effectively and adequately by the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. In fact, all the hon. member did was to cause this question to arise: Why, since he is so indignant about the facts he mentioned here, did he wait 12 years before raising them in this House.

I have just heard them in Louis Trichardt.

There is only one reason which is perfectly clear and that is that the hon. member for Brakpan is now waging a vendetta against the hon. the Minister of Manpower after the hon. the Minister had made a fool of the hon. member in the debate on the Manpower Vote last year. I leave the hon. member at that, because I do not believe that anything he said now warrants any further comment.

†On the front page of The Cape Times of Tuesday, the 19th of this month, there was a report under the heading “South West Africa—Bishop’s call for South African Exit”. I challenge the hon. members of the official Opposition to clarify their stand on this report unequivocally, because I believe that we are entitled to know where the official Opposition stands with regard to the statements made in this report.

The first statement I refer to is the following—

The Government of the Republic of South Africa is certainly not over-keen on maintaining a military presence in South West Africa/Namibia, and for obvious reasons, the first of which is the direct financial costs involved. The second is the drain on the South African economy. Thirdly there is the weakening of South Africa’s ability to defend other areas, and fourthly the fact that lives of young South Africans are at stake. Furthermore, the South African Government is prepared to implement Resolution 435, and has in fact repeatedly confirmed its commitment to Resolution 435, but the South African military presence in South West Africa/Namibia cannot be withdrawn, and Resolution 435 cannot be implemented, because of the Cuban and Marxist military presence in Angola. There is growing appreciation for this fact in certain international circles. The appeal of the Synod of Bishops should therefore not have been directed at the South African Government, but instead at the Cuban Government, requesting the Cuban Government to withdraw its military presence from Angola.

The second statement that I refer to is the following—

That is exactly what the South African Government is actually striving to achieve. Independence for South West Africa/Namibia has been the declared policy of this Government for years. In fact, numerous steps have already been taken in an earnest endeavour to achieve independence for the territory and its peoples. Independence cannot be achieved by acting in an irresponsible manner. Irresponsible and premature action would have the effect of finally destroying all hope of lasting independence for the territory and its peoples.

The third statement is this—

Again, for years the South African Government has been, and still is actively engaged in seeking freedom for the South West African/Namibian peoples through the goodwill and co-operation of the negotiating table. On the other hand it is Swapo’s openly stated aim to subject the territory and its peoples through the barrel of a gun. The negotiations conducted by the South African Government have consistently been thwarted by, firstly, the actions of Swapo and, secondly, the excessive and unrealistic demands of the UNO. In the meantime the negotiations were regularly abused militarily by Swapo.

The fourth statement is the following—

I ask: Violence by whom? The only violence perpetrated against the people, communities, property and land in South West Africa/Namibia is by Swapo. Is the concern of the Synod therefore about the effect of violence on Swapo? If so, why should the South African military presence be withdrawn?

The fifth statement in the report is the following—

Where did the South African Government or the South African Security Forces commit any of the deeds mentioned? On the contrary, the South African Government and the Security Forces provide schooling and education, they provide health services and they provide housing and other facilities for the people of South West Africa/Namibia. They also protect them against the violence and harassment of Swapo. It is Swapo that stands indicted of all these deeds.

The sixth point is—

I say there is no South African occupation of the territory. South Africa is administering the territory following the granting of a mandate to the Government of the Union of South Africa in 1920. South Africa is fully prepared to withdraw from the territory after independence. It is the stated standpoint of the South African Government that it is for the peoples of South West Africa/ Namibia to decide on the future constitutional dispensation of the territory, and not for Swapo through the barrel of a gun. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the views of this party in regard to South West Africa/Namibia are clear and I do not intend to debate that this afternoon other than to say that I am sure it is not necessary to warn the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister of the danger of the rumours which are going around about an internal election and the misrepresentation or possible misinterpretation and exploitation of this as an attempt at UDI, which I know is not the policy of South Africa. That is, however, a danger and I think we have to be a little more patient and not rush into any form of internal election at this stage unless it is clear that an international settlement is a very long way away. I know that the hon. the Prime Minister is going to deal with this matter tomorrow. So I intend to take that no further.

I want to refer to what I regard as perhaps the most important statement the hon. the Prime Minister made yesterday or today. It relates to the issue I dealt with in both my previous speeches, that of the climate of reform. It was not new, but I welcome the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister said very firmly, clearly and deliberately today that “die riglyne is ’n vertrekpunt na ’n beter toekoms”. This to me is a crucial statement which will play a major part in the consideration of the constitutional changes which will come before the House shortly. This approach is of vital importance to those who have to judge and come to a decision one way or the other in regard to support of opposition. The fact that the Government accepts that the guidelines are a starting point towards a better future is of vital importance. With that one sentence the hon. the Prime Minister has done a lot to reconfirm the determination to go ahead.

On the issue of local option, I am afraid the hon. the Prime Minister was misled by his quotation, which emanated from questioners on the Schlebusch Commission who tried to create a quite wrong impression of what we meant by local option. I do not intend to take that any further today except to say to the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government that I do not mind what they say because we know, and history will show, that the ultimate answer to the diverse and heterogeneous structure of South Africa will be based on local option. Whatever you say about it, however you want to play politics with it, the hard reality of South Africa’s social structure makes it inescapable. If we are to have harmonious co-existence and peaceful neighbourliness between groups as well as mutual friendship this can only come about if it is based on local option.

They will just give it another name and come back with it.

I want to turn now to a matter which has not been discussed in any depth so far—it was touched on by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—namely the position of the non-homeland Blacks in South Africa. In the latest report of the President’s Council it is forecast that if the growth rate tapers off there will be 75 million Black residents in South Africa by the year 2050, of whom 56 million will be in the industrial sector. That is 56 million out of a total population of 90 million. If population growth is not stabilized and does not taper off there could be a population of 170 million. 56 million Black people living in the urban and industrialized areas of South Africa cannot hang in a vacuum without some sort of accommodation within the political structures of the geographic area in which they live and work. It is common cause among all the Nationalist intelligentsia, opinion formers and journalists that the present proposals for the non-homeland Blacks cannot provide a solution. I refer, for instance, to a recent article in Rapport by Willem de Klerk, the editor of that newspaper whose surname is known in this House. I do not want to quote the whole article because I do not have enough time, but it expresses disappointment on the inadequacy of the recent announcement that was made on this. He concluded—

I think it is common cause that this is a “dooie perd”; it is dead. I therefore, welcomed the announcement of a Cabinet Committee, but obviously a Cabinet Committee cannot consult properly with non-homeland Blacks. It cannot meet all the local leadership and local Governments. It consists of Ministers who are extremely busy men. They must have an agency, some structured body, that does the actual consultation and gets the communication off the ground. I want to come back to what I have advocated over and over again, namely that there should be a commission on which Blacks themselves will be represented and which will be a part of the negotiating process. I do not think that we can afford to go ahead with the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians and allow the negotiations with the non-home-land Blacks to stall or to lag behind. I say this because they are going to be an essential part of the security of South Africa’s future. There must be accommodation for them. I do not say it must be on the same basis necessarily, but we should now be visibly working on the process of negotiation. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development cannot do it. He does not have the time. He has a full programme and a tremendous work load. There must be a mechanism, an agency to get this communication and consultation going. I believe it must be a commission on which Blacks themselves serve so that we can get on with the job and that it be seen that this is happening. I shall leave it there at that at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point raised a number of important matters in his speech. At the commencement of his speech he also referred to the climate for reform and I should like to elaborate on that during the course of my speech.

Today the political scene in South Africa is dominated by the search for an orderly constitutional dispensation in which the population groups can continue to exist and co-exist in peace. After all, this is the major question of our time. How does one create a secure future for Whites, Coloureds and Blacks in South Africa?

Today, however, this search for a meaningful solution is being hampered because there are people who are oversimplifying the problems of South African society. This constitutes a real threat, since it could lead to a futile search for oversimplified solutions.

There is another danger as well, and that is that various population groups will assess the constitutional questions only in terms of their own continued existence. By not taking the existence of other population groups into account, one cannot reflect on one’s own continued existence in a meaningful way.

However, there are other people who wish to assess our constitutional questions only in terms of a humanistic interpretation of justice without reference to the realities of South African society.

Neither of these schools of thought which are embodied mainly in the policies of the CP and the PFP, in my opinion augur well for the future. I am convinced that we can only show progress in the debate on the future of South Africa and lead our people to the acceptance of a viable dispensation if we refrain from a simplistic approach to our country’s situation with regard to its population and if we continued to take the factual data into consideration. That is why I believe that the impasse of petty party politicking we have fallen into at present, particularly in the political debate with Dr. Treurnicht’s party, can make no positive contribution to finding any positive solutions.

No argument concerning who said what and where, is going to determine the course for the future, only the reply to this question will do so: What does reality demand of us?

Furthermore, we can only achieve success when that search is linked to the demands of Christian justice.

However, what are the realities we shall have to take note of in our search for a peaceful future?

Present demographic data indicates that since the beginning of the ’seventies there has been a levelling off in the growth rate of the White population. Statistics show that by the year 2000 the population profile will consist of 75% Blacks, 12% Whites, 8% Coloureds and 2% Asians. Therefore, not only are the Whites becoming a proportionately smaller section of the population, but also a more senior section of the population. Surely this is a reality which has far-reaching consequences for the development of the South African economy, for the position of the labour force in the S.A. Defence Force, for the provision of employment in the labour sphere, for the education and training of the people of South Africa.

If one looks at the realities on the constitutional level, one notices the presence of the Coloureds and the Asians. For many years they have been accepted as South African citizens by the South African Government. Yet they have no political rights. They have been excluded from the decision-making process which also affects their interest and expections. It is a reality that among those people there are growing demands for recognition. There have to be institutions in which they can express their own reasonable aspirations in an orderly way. A constitutional dispensation which keeps the Coloureds and the Asians subordinate permanently, such as that which the CP is advocating, is like a house built on sand.

Surely what you are saying is not true.

This also bears the seed for revolutionary activites, which could destroy any dispensation.

Furthermore, it is also a reality that South Africa cannot be isolated from the world. The technological developments of our time do not allow this. It is also true that our relations with Western countries are going to be determined increasingly by the degree to which we can succeed in normalizing relations between peoples in South Africa.

Pressure from the West is becoming heavier all the time, and the time and opportunities for the population groups of South Africa to reach an agreement, are running out.

Furthermore, it is also an irrefutable fact that Russian neo-colonialism is reaching out to our country as well. At this very moment the young men of our country are engaged in a war on our borders. Who is so foolish as not to see this reality, as not to perceive the gravity of the times?

These, Mr. Chairman, are but a few of the realities we are faced with, a few of the realities which show us that we are living in grave times, and which make petty party-political fraternal quarelling sound like Emperor Nero fiddling while Rome burnt.

Everyone who, faced with the realities of South African society, can claim that South Africa can simply continue as in the past, is not only reckless, but is also gambling in an irresponsible way with the future of our children. In South Africa there is no longer the time, nor is it the place for slogan politics or emotional politics. The present juncture demands of us that we should effect reform, that we should develop an effective system of government which will accommodate the aspirations and expectations of all reasonable people in South Africa without this giving rise to the destabilization of the community.

However, we should not only effect reform because the realities have forced us to do so. We should do so because justice demands it, because it is right and fair.

With the referendum in the offing, the South African nation will be faced with the inexorable choice, as we have been many times before in our history: Either listen to the voice of the demands of our time and of our Christian conscience, or succumb to the passions of selfishness, self-indulgence and shortsightedness.

Mr. Chairman, it is clear to me that Prof. Wimpie de Klerk has had a tremendous influence on the hon. member for Springs.

Those are the realities of our time.

I have here the booklet of Prof. De Klerk and in it I have read about the “truths and realities of South Africa”. That was the first question put by the hon. member. The second question was in respect of Black numbers. The hon. member made projections in respect of these numbers as well. Prof. De Klerk said—

It is abundantly clear that the hon. member has been influenced by this to a very large extent. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Prime Minister said that the NP’s guidelines were a point of departure to better attitudes. Yesterday the hon. the Prime Minister told the Indians and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this House that agitation to open the Free State to Indians would cause unnecessary friction. The hon. the Prime Minister also said that he would like the existing character of the Free State to be preserved. The hon. the Prime Minister, who is not present here at the moment, said in advance that the Indians would not be welcome in the Free State, since they would harm the character of the Free State. However, I wish to ask the hon. the Prime Minister: What about the daily Black influx to the White metropolitan areas, in the Free State as well? I wish to ask the hon. the Prime Minister: What about the daily influx of Black people to the Western Cape? The hon. the Prime Minister has refused in advance to allow the character of the Free State to be harmed by giving Indians access to it, but at the same time he allows R9 million to be spent on creating an infrastructure for a new Black city on the Cape Flats. I wish to place on record this party’s strongest objections to the building of another Black city on the Cape Flats. With the approval of the hon. the Prime Minister, the Government is harming the character of the Cape Flats. [Interjections.] I also wish to say today that the phenomenal growing support for the CP in the Free State was directly responsible for the standpoint which the hon. the Prime Minister adopted yesterday. [Interjections.] He had to do something in order to retain the support of the Free Staters, since the hon. member for Smithfield, inter alia, could not succeed in doing so. I also wish to say that it is time the Whites of the Western Cape made a stand against this part of South Africa becoming Black.

The hon. the Prime Minister has given the Indians a choice in respect of the Government’s reform plans. He said that the Indians had to choose between maintaining the status quo or joining forces with their neighbouring State kwaZulu or accepting the Government’s new dispensation. The hon. the Prime Minister has held talks with Indian leaders. Is this the question he is going to put to the Indians in a referendum—whether they would prefer to maintain the status quo, whether they wish to join forces with their neighbouring State kwaZulu, or whether they wish to accept the Government’s new dispensation? Yesterday he put those three questions to us. What are the implications of the offer of the hon. the Prime Minister that they could join forces with the neighbouring State kwaZulu if they so choose? The implications are that the present self-governing State of kwaZulu, which will consist of 10 areas if the 1975 consolidation plans are accepted as a guideline, will be augmented by 289 Indian group areas. Therefore a kwaZulu Indian State consisting of 299 different areas could arise. KwaZulu could be extended to Vryburg, Kimberley and Louis Trichardt. There are an additional 733 ha on the Cape Flats in which we find three group areas for the Indians. This too, could become part of that national State of which the hon. the Prime Minister held out a prospect. I see the hon. members opposite are laughing; I also think it is a ridiculous suggestion; it is just as ridiculous as the way in which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information presented the CP’s policy viz. that there will be a homeland for Coloureds with more than 600 areas. It was a ridiculous example the hon. the Minister gave, just as ridiculous as the choice the hon. the Prime Minister is giving the Indians in respect of kwaZulu.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that the Indians could have self-determination in a separate freedom, but that they could only obtain that freedom together with the Zulus. Why is the hon. the Prime Minister offering the Indians a geographic home together with the Zulus? Why does the hon. the Prime Minister not give the Indians the choice of a separate national State? The Indians are a nation with its own language, culture and traditions, a nation that has retained its own character in Southern Africa over many years, people with knowledge, expertise and initiative, people who can develop their own national State and finance it themselves. The Indians could be a model of our policy, and also of the Government’s policy in respect of the Black people, a model in respect of seperate freedoms, a model which could be held up as an example to the world. Why does the Government’s standpoint on the Indians differ from its standpoint on the Tswanas? The Tswanas came by land from Botswana to South Africa and they have been given a homeland in South Africa, but the Indians, who came here by sea, have to be accommodated in a Chamber in the same Parliament.

According to the guidelines of the Government, there is one country, one nation consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Asians, one legislative authority and one executive authority. Whites, Coloureds and Indians share the same geographic area. The Indians are part of the same South African nation. Nevertheless, the hon. the Prime Minister said that the Indians were unwelcome in the Free State.

That is untrue.

The hon. the Prime Minister implied that the character of the Free State would be harmed. [Interjections.]

Mr. Rajbansi made representations for the Indians to be allowed admission to that province. If the hon. the Prime Minister becomes the new President. I assume he will appoint Mr. Rajbansi as leader of the Indian majority party in his Cabinet. The hon. the Prime Minister and Mr. Rajbansi, who have divergent standpoints on this matter, will serve in the same Cabinet. At the moment the White Chamber has 178 members. The Coloured Chamber will have 92 members and that of the Indians, 46 members. Therefore there will be 315 members in Parliament. If Mr. Rajbansi and Rev. Hendrickse, who will probably be the leaders of the Chambers, are included in the new President’s Cabinet, they could reach an agreement with one another. Their Chambers could then decide unanimously that the Free State and Northern Natal should be opened to the Indians. This would mean that it would be possible for 138 Members of Parliament who were legally elected, to be in favour of opening the Free State and Northern Natal, plus the 36 members of the PFP and the NRP, who would not have any objections to the opening of those areas either. [Interjections.] The result would be that 174 members, plus members of the Cabinet of the new Parliament, would be in favour of opening the OFS and Northern Natal … [Interjections.] … whereas 141 members of the CP and the NP would be opposed to it. This means that the hon. the Prime Minister may find in his new dispensation that the minority of the Members of Parliament support him when he says that Indians are not allowed into the Free State. [Interjections.] He may find that a minority of Members of Parliament support him when he says that the Group Areas Act and the Immorality Act should continue to exist, that Black people should not be incorporated in a fourth Chamber, etc. That would mean a minority Government in South Africa. We ask: Is that justice? We say: A minority Government is the best recipe for a power struggle in South Africa, the best recipe for revolution in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, when one hears a squeal, one may know that the thrust went home. In the time available to me I want to address myself briefly to the hon. member for Rissik. He asked me to resign.

The thrust went home.

He asked me to resign. He advanced reasons for this. He is fully entitled to ask whatever he likes, of course. The reasons he advanced were that I was over-anxious to cultivate the friendship of the Americans and that I was too inclined to dance to the tune of the Americans. America actually determines our policy, if I understand the hon. member correctly.

Yes.

He also said that we did not inform our people in 1977 concerning the standpoint which I have on occasion adopted in public, namely that the reason why we did not use the term power-sharing in 1977 was because—I am being quite frank, because this is the truth—we realized that the PFP interpreted the concept of “power-sharing” as “a unitary State based on a concept of one man, one vote”. Therefore we were afraid that if the term “powersharing” were used in that sense—or in any sense—it could cause confusion.

Can you really get away with that?

It is not a question of wanting to get away with it. [Interjections.] I am simply saying what the position was. [Interjections.] No, I was not in the Cabinet Committee at that time. Dr. Mulder was there, among others; he was one of the esteemed members. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Rissik said that we should have informed the public in 1977. Dr. Mulder’s department did publish a brochure at that time, and I think the hon. member has forgotten about the book which Dr. Mulder’s department published for Dr. Mulder. He was the responsible Minister at the time, not I. They have asked so many questions about publications which we are issuing now, but they have completely forgotten that Dr. Mulder was Minister of Information at the time, and as Minister of Information he approved a brochure. I want to recommend that the hon. member read the brochure.

I have got it. [Interjections.]

Dr. Mulder was the responsible Minister at the time and he served on the Committee on the 1977 proposals, and under him the public was officially informed by him, as the hon. member said should be done. At that time it was his responsibility, after all. How did he inform the public? In the brochure he quoted approvingly from a speech by Mr. Vorster, as follows—

This is Mr. Vorster—

Yes, within the framework of the policy.

Not as citizens of another State, but as full citizens of South Africa. These are the same words as Dr. Verwoerd used, exactly the same words—within the context of our State and not on the basis of partition. [Interjections.]

No, within the framework of the policy. [Interjections.]

The hon. member must take his medicine now. There are a lot of things which they refuse to take, but today they are going to take a few home truths.

[Inaudible.]

I never interrupt the hon. member. The hurt and the pain he must keep for Waterberg.

Dr. Mulder, at present an esteemed member of the CP, also told the public of South Africa—

Dr. Mulder was not satisfied with “co-re-sponsibility”. He used the word “seggenskap”. I read on—

The hon. member for Rissik talks about honest politics, he talks about decency and he talks about the truth. Here I have the brochure in which these words occur. The responsibility for publishing it lay with an esteemed member of the CP, and the word it uses is “seggenskap”. Now they can dodge the issue and they can twist and turn, the way they are doing in Waterberg and Soutpansberg at the moment, and they can play on people’s racial feelings as well, which is an ugly thing to do, but they will not get away from the word “seggenskap” which was chosen by an esteemed member of their party when he was the responsible Minister. The hon. member challenged me to say why I had not used it in 1977, but some of their own members used it, as I have shown.

That is not all. I am going to take them a little further back. They were members of Parliament in 1976—not all of them, but certainly the hon. member for Rissik. Here I have a document entitled “Department of Information, Republic of South Africa—report for the period 1 January 1976 to 31 December 1976”. It was tabled in this Parliament. Dr. Mulder was the responsible Minister at the time and he approved it. The report says—

That was in 1976. I was in America at the time, where I was trying to represent this country to the best of my ability. I was fighting for South Africa in America, but the annual report of the Minister of Information says that one cannot change world opinion except by moving away from racial discrimination. Here is the book. It was tabled in Parliament. It says we should not misrepresent matters; we should stick to the truth. Here is the book. The Minister who was responsible for it is an esteemed member of that party today. Surely we are talking the truth. Surely we are adhering to our standpoints.

I want to go further. While I was in America, Dr. Mulder, as Minister of Information, made the following statement in the no-confidence debate on 25 January 1977—

That is a good way of putting it—

I do not know whether he was quite correct, but that is what he said. It is recorded in Hansard. I quote further—

He went further, and that was very interesting indeed. I thought he was being a little rash in saying what he said then. In March 1977 he came to the Sullivan principles. The so-called Sullivan principles—the hon. member has attacked me on America, after all—came from a number of American companies which had undertakings in South Africa and which did business or owned factories here and had a share in the industry in this country. These American companies were anxious about certain labour practices in South Africa. From time to time they brought pressure to bear on us. They said from time to time that if we refused to introduce changes—I am speaking quite frankly now—they would have to withdraw. So they submitted six principles to me as ambassador there. I warned them that they should be careful and that they could not insist on principles and practices which were in conflict with South African legislation. However, I had no alternative and I told them that I would submit their proposals to the South African Government. That was my standpoint as the South African ambassador at the time. After all, the hon. member referred to my relations with America.

What was the standpoint of the then Minister of Information, however? While the ambassador warned that the companies should be careful not to come into conflict with South African legislation, the then Minister of Information said in this House on 4 March 1977—

What were the six points? [Interjections.] Remember that the Minister of Information at the time, who is today a supporter of the CP, commended the Americans for this statement. The six points are the following—

1. 1. Non-segregation of the races in all eating, comfort and work facilities.
2. 2. Equal and fair employment practices for all employees.
3. 3. Equal pay for all employees doing equal or comparable work for the same period of time.
4. 4. Initiation and development of training programes that will prepare, in substantial numbers, Blacks and other non-Whites for supervisory, administrative, clerical and technical jobs.
5. 5. An increase in the number of Blacks and other non-Whites in management and supervisory positions.
6. 6. Improvement in the quality of employees’ lives outside the work environment in such areas as housing, transportation, schooling, recreation and health facilities.

Were they accepted?

The then Minister of Information accepted them. He commended them.

He only commended them; he did not accept them. [Interjections.]

At that time, the Minister of Information was also the Minister of the Interior. We received a visit from Mr. Donna-Fologo, a Minister of an African State, who is married to a White woman. The Minister of Information invited him to South Africa and the Minister of the Interior—who was the same person—granted the visa. That was what happened there. It was a Black Minister of an African State with a blond-haired White wife. On the steps in front of the Union Building, newspapermen took beautiful pictures of her, the guest of the man who is today an esteemed member of the CP. We could go on in this way. [Interjections.] Their hypocrisy is catching up with them. This is not all. We must give them some more medicine. The esteemed member of the CP also said the following—

This is what was said by an esteemed member of the CP, a former hon. Minister of Information and of the Interior. Subsequently he became Minister of Plural Relations as well. On 1 September 1976, he went on to say before the Johannesburg Afrikaanse Sakekamer—

On another occasion in this House, on 4 May 1976, he told about the progress which the Department of Information was making in training South African non-Whites. He said—

The hon. member for Rissik cast a reflection on the work I was doing in promoting South Africa’s international relations. I am not here to judge my own efforts, but it may interest the hon. member to read what someone—and I think the hon. member has a high opinion of this person—once wrote to me in a letter. I was overseas at the time, doing a bad job, as the hon. member implied. This person is a great friend of the hon. member’s and he has a high opinion of him. This friend wrote to me—

There is yet another matter, namely South West Africa. Here the hon. member for Lichtenburg is sitting. I have never made a personal attack on anyone. It is something I do not do. I just do not like it. [Interjections.] I have never attacked Dr. Connie Mulder personally. The hon. member for Lichtenburg will not deny that he and Dr. Treurnicht received letters from me dated 11 November and 21 December 1981. Every Cabinet Minister received them, as the receipts show. And what did I say in those letters? I sent every Cabinet Minister the constitutional principles of South West Africa as submitted to me by the five Western powers. I analysed those principles, I pointed out the dangers in those principles and I said that the hon. the Prime Minister wished them to be discussed by the Cabinet at the first Cabinet meeting after the holiday in 1982. And he saw to it that this was done. He brought up the subject around 20 or 21 January. These have not been Cabinet secrets up to now. It was my letter, not the Cabinet’s. I wrote it. The hon. the Prime Minister brought up the subject and afforded every Minister an opportunity to give his opinion on those principles. The hon. member for Lichtenburg knows that what I am saying now is the truth.

Was that the Cabinet?

This was the Cabinet. After the Cabinet had decided—and I may say that the decision was unanimous—to accept those principles, the American Government was informed that the Government had accepted them. But now the hon. leader of the CP alleges that he did not go along with the decision. Now just see how clever he is, Mr. Chairman. Now he says …

Who?

Dr. Treurnicht. Can I repeat what he said?

Repeat what I said.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg went along with the Cabinet decision.

I am asking you to repeat what I said.

The hon. member went along with the decision. That is my allegation.

But tell us what I said.

You tell us what you said, then. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member deny that he went along with the Cabinet decision?

But now you are betraying Cabinet confidences. [Interjections.]

Does the hon. deny that he went along with the decision? [Interjections.] You see, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is dodging the issue again. [Interjections.] During the discussion of my Vote in this House last year, I made exactly the same statement—and it is recorded in Hansard—as I am making here today. Then no one objected. Not one of those hon. members objected when I said in this House last year that there had been a unanimous Cabinet decision on the matter.

Yes.

Now Dr. Treurnicht comes along, however, and says that he did not participate in Resolution 435. That is true. He was not yet a Minister. That was in April 1978. However, the fact of the matter is that it concerns the new constitutional principles for South West Africa, which the Cabinet accepted unanimously—I repeat, unanimously—in January 1982. That is a fact. It was stated here last year, and they will not get away with it. Now hon. members of the CP say that I am misrepresenting their policy.

Of course.

Where am I misrepresenting their policy, Mr. Chairman?

622 casinos.

What is it now? What do they want to do with them?

622 casinos.

No, I did not say that. I did not say that at all. I said the CP had a chequerboard policy. In fact, it was a word used by the hon. member for Lichtenburg. [Interjections.] Then I went on to point out the implications of their chequerboard policy. I did so at Thabazimbi, and I am going to do so again; I shall go on doing so, because it seems to me that it is working. [Interjections.] Now the CP is talking about goodness knows how many thousands of hectares in the North-Western Cape. There are 4 000 people living there. Who is distorting things now? Who is trying to squirm out of it now? What I said was that Dr. Treurnicht had categorically rejected a homeland for Coloureds at the Transvaal congress at recently as November 1981. This is something which he cannot deny. [Interjections.] He cannot deny it. It was recorded on tape, and subsequently published and distributed in a special pamphlet. He rejected a Coloured homeland. The fact is that at the time, hon. members of the CP agreed with us that there would be a mixed Council of Cabinets. There is no other word for it; they can talk and protest as much as they like. They agreed with us, and two of them sitting in this House signed a recommendation to the effect that a mixed President’s Council should be established, which was to make recommendations. It also said that there should be the widest possible consultation in order to bring about a new dispensation.

Of course.

Of course. So they admit it. However, they cannot demonstrate in any sphere that they still adhere to what the former Minister of the Interior and of Information said in this House. They applauded him at the time. They cannot get away from the fact that they applauded him in this House. There are other facts, too, which they cannot get away from. None of us can get away from them; neither the PFP nor the CP nor the NRP nor the NP, nor any other party which may come to sit in this House. No one can escape from that. What is that fact which no one can escape from, Mr. Chairman?

A certain number of people live in this country, as well as certain communities and groups of people. No one can do anything to change that. The hon. member for Kuruman referred to the influx of Blacks to the White cities. It is true. However, how long did we labour under the illusion that that influx could be checked? How long did we deceive ourselves into believing that this could be done? How long did we derive comfort from an illusion? However, I am no longer prepared to do so. I will not put up with the abuse heaped on this country by the world. In fact, my record is there for all to see how I conducted myself on certain occasions—with all due respect, not always in the easiest of circumstances. However, just as I shall not hesitate to tell the world that it is lying when it abuses and slanders the Whites of South Africa, as it is in fact doing, I shall not hesitate to tell our own people, as long as I am able to do so, what I think their failings are, and where they must not make mistakes.

The fact of the matter is simply that we have to contend with serious problems. Whether we like it or not, and whether we are fighting a by-election in Waterberg or not, is of no importance. That by-election, too, must come and go. However, South Africa must continue existing. Our people, too, will remain, and so will the consequences of the drought. The terrorist onslaughts will remain, as will the pressure brought to bear on us by the whole world. The danger of sanctions, too, will remain. All the dangers facing us at the moment will remain. The problem of South West Africa will remain. The problems associated with our heterogeneous population will remain. Blacks are going to receive further training, whether the CP likes it or not. Coloureds and Indians are going to develop further, and the Whites are faced with the challenge of continuing to seek viable solutions, in accordance with what they believe to be right and fair. President Kruger said that we should take from our past what was fine and noble and build our future upon it. In saying that, he was implying that there could also be ugly things in a people’s past on which one should not build one’s future.

Therefore I want to say to hon. members of the CP today that they must not elevate the ugly into the norm. It is not necessary to love and to preserve one’s own heritage by hating others and by showing enmity towards them … [Interjections.] … nor by referring to them in a humiliating way. There is no Coloured or Indian leader of any standing who wants this policy of the CP or who takes any interest in it. [Interjections.]

Order!

My appeal to the CP is a serious one. It is that they should take cognizance of all the facts of South Africa. It is actually necessary that all parties in this House of Assembly should sit back and reflect on this so that we may have the benefit of the best ideas of all in order to achieve those ideals which we share. We all want freedom of speech, we all want freedom of religion, we all want private ownership, we all want a democracy, we want everyone to live in an orderly, stable society; surely we all want to preserve those norms which the PFP, the CP, the NRP and the NP say are sacred to us and are worth upholding, but how are we going to preserve them if we carry on in this way? That is where the danger lies for South Africa. We have the ability, we have the technology, we have the raw materials and I believe we have the will to make this country of ours a great country. I also think the people of Waterberg will show us that they have the will to take the right step at the right time in the interests of South Africa and of the values which we all say we uphold.

Mr. Chairman, I think we have all listened with great interest to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information, especially to the latter part of his speech from which it appeared that something positive may well be emanating from this debate. Up to now, I am afraid that very little that is positive has been produced by this debate. I am not at all interested in his point-scoring with the CP in regard to Dr. Connie Mulder. That is a private row. However, what does interest me is the forward direction which he hopes all of us will take from now on. I think I hardly need assure him that hon. members on these benches will support him and his Government in every forward step that they take. We hope very much indeed that they are not going to be deterred from this, no matter what the voters in Waterberg and Soutpansberg think. I say this because they happen to live in a remote corner of South Africa and do not have the slightest understanding of what modern industrial South Africa requires.

The only positive thing that emanated from the hon. the Prime Minister’s speech was his announcement that he was going to propose the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to consider the possibility of amending or repealing the Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act.

Provided! Be careful now!

I am always very careful where the hon. the Prime Minister is concerned, Sir. The proviso was that the parties that participated in that Select Committee did not make party politics out of this matter. We have no intention of making party politics out of it. All we want is an improvement in the law as far as this matter is concerned. We also want an improvement in many other laws which the hon. the Prime Minister has not mentioned at all.

I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information has left the Chamber because I largely wanted to discuss a matter that concerns him today. However, the Prime Minister said that he would not allow overseas countries to dictate to South Africa about the policy we should follow. We agree with that. We are not asking for discriminatory laws to be removed because overseas countries ask us to do so. We on these benches have been pleading for change for many years and we have done so because we believe that racial discrimination is intrinsically unjust, economically unsound and politically untenable. Those are the reasons why we want discrimination in South Africa removed. However, having said that the demands of overseas countries do not affect South Africa, the hon. the Prime Minister then said that the hon. member Prof. Olivier was incorrect when he said that no other country had statutory race discrimination. He used Australia as an example and he mentioned two books. I think that the hon. the Prime Minister must get a new speechwriter because his present speech-writer is behind the times. Australia abolished statutory race discrimination as far back as 1975. The Federal Government of Australia passed a law, the principal section of which provides as follows—

That is the chief provision of the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 of the Australian Federal Parliament. We would be very satisfied if the hon. the Prime Minister would introduce exactly the same Act into this Parliament. [Interjections.] We would settle for that. [Interjections.] I also want to tell the hon. the Prime Minister that though there were States that tried to have land laws that still discriminated against aboriginals, those laws were tested in the Federal Supreme Court and found to be invalid, and that was only last year. So the hon. the Prime Minister is incorrect in using Australia as an example, and there is no other example in the Western World that I can think of. [Interjections.]

Holland.

No, the hon. the Minister is quite wrong. Holland has no such laws. On the contrary, they have outlawed such laws. [Interjections.]

Give us a reference, Pen.

However—and I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information is not here now—whilst we do not allow overseas countries to dictate our policy, I do think that we ought to take very careful note of the stepped-up campaign to isolate South Africa, and this is obvious. It is happening in the UK where a much more sophisticated form is manifesting itself, where well-known persons who have announced their intention of visiting South Africa are sigled out immediately for a concerted campaign to dissuade them from coming to South Africa, and these campaigns succeed, because to the person concerned it is just not worth coming to South Africa and being faced afterwards by a barrage of criticism politically and otherwise. My fear is that this is going to continue and that this country is going to end up isolated culturally and academically, and that would be a very serious state of affairs for South Africa.

In the United States the campaign to force disinvestment from South Africa has also been stepped up. Already three State legislatures have actually passed laws calling on companies that have investments in South Africa to disinvest, and also making it illegal for the pension funds of those States to be invested in any companies that continue to invest or do business in South Africa. This is spreading from State legislatures to city legislatures as well, and already there have been several such laws presented to city legislatures, laws which will be reintroduced this year, having failed last year. I do not think that we should ignore these symptoms of the increasing attempt to isolate South Africa.

There is an even more disturbing feature, and that is the attempt to cut off, from S.A. Airways for instance, air communications between the RS A and other countries. The hon. the Prime Minister should know—and I am sure the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information does know—that there was a resolution passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations a few years ago requiring that all member States should deny their air space to South Africa. Fortunately, so far only the Black States in Africa, the Arab bloc and Thailand have done so, but the non-implementation of this resolution has been due largely to Article 5 of the Chicago Convention of the ’forties which established the International Civil Aviation Organization known as ICAO. The convention is binding on all signatories, and Article 5 lays down that there shall be a right of innocent passage, by non-military aircraft, through the air-space of member States belonging to ICAO. What the African States, however, have been pressing for—and they are becoming more influential and, numerically more powerful too—is for the amendment of Article 5. They know that Article 5 can be amended by a mere two-thirds majority of the General Assembly of ICAO. I believe that these are the matters that the hon. the Prime Minister should be worried about. They are also matters that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information should be worried about.

There are things we can do about this, and one of the first things that the hon. the Prime Minister can do, is to give an instruction to every hon. Minister in his Cabinet to pass on further instructions to every official in those departments to refrain from any provocative act that simply adds fuel to the fire and enables the organizations working against South Africa to recruit to their causes people who otherwise would never belong to any radical movement, but who are so incensed by the provocative actions of South Africa that they support these movements. I think that is the first and elementary thing which South Africa can do to try to prevent this increasing move towards isolation.

The other, of course, is more fundamental. It means obviously the removal of race discrimination. There is no doubt that as long as laws such as the Group Areas Act, the Race Classification Act, and the pass laws remain on our Statute Book and as long as there are wholesale removals of Black communities from Black spots with all the attendant misery that goes with them, so long these organizations overseas will be able to recruit large numbers of people who are not communist-inspired, who are not part of the “total onslaught” against South Africa, but are simply civilized people who reject many of the actions which occur in South Africa. I hope very much that the hon. the Prime Minister will see to it that steps are taken, firstly, as I say to try to avoid any further provocative action such as the ones we have experienced over these two months in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton will forgive me if I do not react in detail to her speech, because she addressed her questions directly to the hon. the Prime Minister who, I assume, will provide her with the necessary replies. However, I should just like to tell her that judging by the statements of the hon. member for Rissik, I am afraid that he will probably also attack her in the same way as he attacked the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Information for having presented a very ugly, negative image of South Africa and in that way attempting to get the voters on his side. I think that the hon. member for Houghton, although I agree with her in this connection, will find herself in the same boat. I think the hon. member for Rissik will probably want to reply to the hon. member in this connection in due course.

I remember clearly that when the leader of the HNP announced that they would not participate in the election in Soutpansberg, the reason he gave was that they wanted to destroy the hon. the Minister of Manpower. For that reason they did not want to be involved in a three-cornered contest. I also remember clearly that Dr. A. P. Treurnicht stated emphatically that they would not play the man, they would play the ball.

Of course.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg says of course. I have had the privilege of being a member of this House since 1974. I speak with conviction when I say that I have never before seen people attacked in this way, seen hon. members act with such venom towards a person as the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Brakpan have done during the past two days. As far as I am concerned, what the hon. member for Rissik did, the manner in which he attacked the person of the hon. the Prime Minister and his attack on the person of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information regarding his ability to put South Africa’s case, is absolutely deplorable. I want to tell the hon. member for Rissik across the floor of this House that I really did not believe I would ever see the day when he would practise politics in that way.

I also want to say this in connection with the vicious attack on the hon. the Minister of Manpower by the hon. member for Brakpan. If that is not playing the man, then I do not know what the words mean. I ask myself why hon. members are prepared to do this. The answer is inevitable: Because in this way these hon. members seek to hide their political nakedness as regards a viable policy. What are the facts? The facts are that the CP saw fit to break away from the NP, and the reason they gave for this was the matter of so-called power-sharing. That is what was initially at stake. As far as I am concerned, what was at stake was an assumed meaning of the word power-sharing. Today I ask myself: Why is it necessary to continue to debate in this House concepts like power-sharing and a homeland for Coloureds? It has been indicated repeatedly that the concept of power-sharing was in fact embodied in the 1977 proposals. What do we find in the 1977 proposals? Let me give one example. It was accepted in the 1977 proposals that there would be an electoral college that would elect the State President. This therefore meant joint decision-making. In addition, in 1977 there was the Council of Cabinets, and the Council of Cabinets had to initiate legislation on matters of common interest. That Council of Cabinets was a mixed council. We need not elaborate any further on this. There was therefore joint decision-making, and therefore also joint responsibility. Now I want to state categorically: Can anyone in his right mind who can understand Afrikaans tell me that joint decision-making and joint responsibility do not contain an element of power-sharing? Surely this is so. Surely there is no doubt about it. Why, then, should we still have to argue about the concept of power-sharing?

I want to tell the hon. members of the CP that what is important in this connection is that it is not true, as they are trying to gull the public into believing, that this concerns decision-making by a Coloured Minister or an Indian Minister on all matters affecting Whites. I have said on a previous occasion that I accuse CP members of telling the public half-truths. And these are the people who attack hon. Ministers and accuse them of not explaining their policy fully and correctly. [Interjections.] I shall give examples. I have done so on a previous occasion as well. What do those hon. members do? They tell the public at large that there will be a mixed Parliament and a mixed Cabinet and they will make decisions about the Whites. I maintain that this is an absolute half-truth. What are the facts?

Tell us the whole truth.

I shall tell that hon. member what the whole truth is. The fact of the matter is that there will be a Cabinet Committee within the Cabinet …

We also say that.

No, the hon. members do not say that. I have indicated that the hon. member Mr. Theunissen did not say so. I have seen a document in his handwriting in which he did not say so. I do not want to discuss this matter now. There is no doubt about this. I want to proceed. In the cabinet of the future, in terms of the constitutional proposals, only the Cabinet Committee consisting of Whites will take decisions and initiate legislation on group-specific matters, and that legislation will only go to the White Chamber.

What are group-specific matters?

Group-specific matters are matters such as education. I am getting to that. The hon. member knows this just as well as I do. I know what the standpoint of the hon. member for Rissik is now. He now wants to tell me that there are only three group-specific matters and the vast majority of matters are matters of common interest.

Of course. Am I right or wrong?

Of course he is right. However, we are not discussing numbers. What is the point? I want to ask the hon. member for Rissik: What are those things on which the continued existence of a nation and its right to self-determination actually depend?

All facets of its way of life.

Over the years when that hon. member still sat on this side of the House he always emphasized a person’s right to govern himself, his right to live separately and his right to have one’s own schools. That is what is at issue.

It is far more than that.

Surely it is quite clear that matters of common interest such as finance, defence, foreign affairs, etc. affect all three of the population groups living here. Because they affect all three, they have a right to voice an opinion on them.

I want to refer briefly to the matter of a Coloured homeland. Surely hon. members know—it is not necessary for me to say so—that it has literally never been the policy of the NP to create a homeland for Coloureds.

That is correct. I have already said that in this House.

Very well. It is simply not practicable. The hon. member is acquainted with the election manifesto. Now, in 1983, Dr. A. P. Treurnicht, the leader of the CP, comes along and says it is possible. I want to ask, in all fairness, what has happened within a period of two years for it suddenly to become practicable to establish a homeland? We can debate this matter, but the most important fact remains that the Coloured population do not want a homeland. Hon. members must not say now: But what about the different Black population groups? Historically the different Black ethnic groups have their own territory and they therefore want to accept those homeland areas.

As far as the Coloureds are concerned it is a fact that they do not want to accept the idea of a homeland. It does not matter whether the hon. member for Rissik or the other hon. members of the CP argue that such a homeland should be on the Cape Flats or in the western part of country. It is pointless suggesting areas where such a heartland could be established. The fact of the matter is that the Coloureds do not want it. [Interjections.] To put it bluntly, we have to work out a dispensation that is feasible.

What does the NP want to do? It is clear that through its policy the NP wants to ensure the continued existence of the Whites, but because it has a Christian basis and is a Christian matter, the NP also wants to see to it that the continued existence of the Coloureds and the Asians is ensured. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Prime Minister asked me why we did not nominate candidates in Waterberg and Soutpansberg. However, if one looks at the level to which the debate has descended in the battle for those two constituencies, I am extremely glad that we are not involved in it, because we would never have been able to descend to that level.

Do not underestimate your natural ability.

The NP and the CP will forgive me if I briefly cast my mind back to the time when I was new in politics. One day, while I was canvassing in Northern Natal, the NP organizer turned up there. I hid behind the curtain and listened to the NP organizer explaining that the man’s beautiful little girl would be sitting next to a Black child on the school benches if he were to vote for the SAP, and also that his house would be given to Blacks if an SAP Government were to come to power. Now we have the same kind of battle, only with different words and different concepts. However, it is the same kind of battle as the one which I initially encountered in politics.

†However, I do not want to get involved in this. These by-elections will fortunately pass and I hope that some of the time that is being wasted can be made up.

I want to refer to two matters of importance to South Africa. The first is another aspect relating to the non-homeland Blacks, namely the question of security of family life measured particularly against the facts and figures disclosed by the report of the President’s Council on demographic trends in S.A. and the challenge which this has long offered the Government in South Africa. I refer to the failure of the Government to foresee and plan for the magnitude of this challenge. We have to realize that existing ideas and attitudes can never solve the problem of urbanization. Removals are no solution. Taking people from where they are and dumping them somewhere else is no solution. The hon. the Prime Minister knows the solution. He has talked about economic development, the creation of employment and the creation of new growth points. What worries me is that it is not happening and there is no sign that it is going to happen at a speed that will overtake the speed of the population explosion. It is no use having beautiful dreams, blueprints or ideas. There is no indication that the Government is accepting, not the challenge which I accept is being looked at—but the tempo at which the counter-measures have got to be taken.

What I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister is whether he has any new ideas on how to increase that tempo. One of the essentials of a peaceful and stable South Africa is stable family life for all the races. Even though we know of this shortcoming, we still have the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation considering removals from here, there and everywhere. Surely this is not the time to think in terms of removing people unnecessarily? Stop illegal squatting, yes, that one cannot tolerate. One cannot simply allow property to be taken over, but where people do have housing, where people are settled, we should not start moving them now. We should instead start using the energy that is being generated by removals to provide new housing. I raise this matter because of its extreme importance to our future.

The other issue that worries me is that the whole movement towards confederation seems to have become bogged down. The hon. the Prime Minister announced a summit conference. This was held and everybody understood—the hon. the Prime Minister himself indicated as much—that this was going to be a major step towards the establishment of a confederation of South Africa. It became simply an economic planning conference that dealt solely with economics. It was not the step towards the creation of a stable and structured confederation we expected. I raise this because, as important as economic development in the homelands and the independent States is, the Government itself has emphasized over and over again that economic and political development must move side by side. In the one case the economic progress is not keeping up with population growth. Here we have economics going forward terribly slowly, while the political parallel, the confederal structure to bind the States of Southern Africa together, is not even getting off the ground.

Who said that?

I say it. I say there is no sign of it making progress. When we did have a summit conference it simply became an economic multilateral discussion. I believe that while we are now moving towards progress between White, Coloured and Asian relations, the issue I raised in my last speech in regard to the non-homeland Blacks as well as the parallel development of the confederation are vital and integral parts of that political development. One cannot have one leg without the other if one is going to have stability.

I want to round off the discussion, because this is my last opportunity of speaking on this Vote, by getting these three concepts linked firmly and clearly together, namely the constitutional one for White, Coloured and Indian, the position of the non-homelands Blacks and the confederation, i.e. the three legs of a stable future. I am afraid that we have become so bogged down, particularly when I listen to the never-ending fight between the CP and the NP, that it almost seems as though the other two have just been forgotten. All that is being talked about, all that is being debated, is the fight about “magsdeling”.

Of course, there has to be power-sharing. I believe that ultimately the Blacks must come into the structure; not necessarily on the same basis, but unless they too participate in the decision-making process, which affects everyone, there is no stable and peaceful future for this country.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, there is another thing which I hoped would change, but which has not changed. That is the practice by the Government of governing by exemption and by permit. There are so many examples of instances of this nature. Unfortunately I do not have the time to deal with them all. We have laws, however, which the Government realizes, are not working. Instead of getting rid of them they resort to giving exemptions. That is what leads to incidents such as the Gandhi issue, which I do not want to deal with now. There are literally hundreds of examples of issues being dealt with by way of exemption or permit. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that we should reverse that whole process now. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, what I find surprising about the hon. member for Durban Point, is that he has succeeded in sitting on the fence for so long without falling off. He and his party have been setting the table for so long before deciding one way or the other, that they should really be careful that when they are ready to sit down to the meal, it is not already all over.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, I share the hon. member’s sentiments with regard to housing being one of the most important challenges of our time. It is indeed a question which ought to be given real attention.

However, I wish to confine myself to another subject, viz. regional development. I submit that no constitutional dispensation which does not have as its basis a healthy economic structure, that does not give each section of the population equal access to the general prosperity, cannot in the long term ensure a stable and peaceful co-existence. In view of the present distribution of economic activities, where, for example, 80% of the industrial production occurs in the four metropolitan areas, as opposed to an alarming underdevelopment in certain rural areas and in the national States, and in view of the distribution and growth of the population, where, for example, there is a depopulation of the rural areas—excluding certain strategic border areas—as opposed to more than 145 000 Black workers entering the labour market annually, the present regional development strategy offers the only solution to the creation of essential employment opportunities and the more equitable distribution of income among all the population groups. Having taken these things into account, Mr. Chairman, the repeated attacks by the official Opposition on this strategy, as if it were an unnatural and dangerous disruption of the economic process, which is being applied to the detriment of the existing metropolitan areas, is, in a word, astounding.

The fact of the matter is, as has been spelt out repeatedly and confirmed by measures which have been initiated, that these areas will continue to make an important contribution and that the aim is, as far as possible, to recover—at least in part—the establishment costs in these areas, which at present are being borne by the community as a whole, in these areas themselves. The natural factors, which led to this economic overconcentration in the first place, continue to exist. Therefore regional development will merely assist us to escape the detrimental affects of such overconcentration with regard to transport, housing, the supply of water, the abnormally high price of land, etc.

Only by way of regional development can equal access by every sector of the population to the general prosperity be ensured. Only in this way can the exploitation of the full potential of presently underdeveloped areas in terms of raw materials, labour and opportunities be achieved. One asks oneself: Why the resistance from the PFP? To get the answer, one need only take cognizance of the fact that, with one exception, all those hon. members represent metropolitan areas apparently do not wish to realize that once again this is not simply a matter of principle, but purely one of personal political gain, and that all the hon. members of that party share the contempt of the hon. member for Houghton for the rural areas. Just by way of exception, one would ask the hon. member for Albany, who unfortunately is not present here at the moment, whether he agrees with their attitude to regional development or whether he concurs with the hon. member for Houghton in her contempt for the people of Waterberg and people in the rural areas. I do not think we should be too concerned about that because the people in the rural areas fortunately have just as much contempt for them.

Successful regional development in the Southern African situation is the key to peace, stability and prosperity. In order to implement it successfully and to achieve the best results, it is essential that regional development be approached on an inter-State level across State borders, on a partnership basis between the State and the private sector and with the full involvement of the inhabitants on the local level. The present regional development strategy and comprehensive framework for co-operation in Southern Africa resulting from the summit conference of the hon. the Prime Minister in November 1982, offers, commendable model for healthy development and economic cooperation between States. It does indeed create the necessary structure and means for successful regional development by making provision for co-operation between States and local involvement on the necessary partnership basis.

Regional development promoted in this way entails far more than mere industrial development, although the latter does, in fact, constitute an important component. In terms of this the key role of agriculture, mining, commercial and service sectors and tourism is recognized. The greatest degree of potential for development in various regions is indeed to be found in these spheres, and they are being actively promoted.

Furthermore, the present strategy is an ongoing and revised process which makes provision for regular adjustments to ensure maximum effectiveness. Its success in practice since coming into operation on 1 April last year has been extremely encouraging. For example, impressive results have been achieved in the sphere of industrial development in which 24,6% of the labour force, excluding agriculture, is employed, despite the recent negative economic trends. The hon. member for Maitland mentioned the figure yesterday. I wish to repeat briefly that from 1 April 1982 to 28 February this year, 701 projects have been approved by the Decentralization Board in the Republican sector of the eight different regions alone. When these projects have fully been developed, they will represent capital investments of R1 452 million and they will create the following employment opportunities: White, 3 977, Black, 42 288, Coloured, 5 662 and Indian, 4 021, a total of 55 948 employment opportunities in one year. What is particularly encouraging, is that taken until 30 November last year, there will be 62 of these projects with a capital investment of R64 million which include 2 787 employment opportunities in region D, which was identified as a result of its underdevelopment as being a top priority region. To these figures must be added the considerable contributions of the various development corporations of the various national States. With the expected improvement in the economy from the fourth quarter of this year, this positive development will definitely be accelerated considerably. There can be no doubt that this far-sighted regional development strategy launched by the hon. the Prime Minister is the only way in which the essential economic basis for a secure and prosperous South Africa can be achieved. As such, it deserves the support of all of us.

Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to react to or associate myself with the speech made by the hon. member for East London City.

Earlier on, in the course of the reply of the hon. the Prime Minister, he saw fit to admonish us in the CP benches, evidently for the way in which we were debating. Surely we are all fully entitled to do so. However, I want to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Uitenhage earlier today when he was referring to his interpretation of the policy of the CP. He went on to link it directly to the so-called final solution which was offered in Europe in the ’thirties. No one can misunderstand what he meant thereby. He could only have meant one thing: That he equated our standpoint and our policy with the extermination policy followed with regard to the Jews in Nazi Germany. I do not even intend to react to that, to react to such absolute nonsense.

I want to remind the young hon. member of the fact that in years gone by when I was a young Nationalist, we heard those very same arguments being advanced about the old NP of the that time, when we were referred to as Malan Nazis. The hon. member fits perfectly into the milieu of that time when Afrikaner nationalism of the time was also reviled as being Naziism. I want to address a polite request to the hon. member: Stop this total misrepresentation of our policy. I want to address an appeal to him. I am told that I should put an end to my hatred; I do not hate a non-White, a Black man, a Coloured or an Indian. I am addressing an appeal to the NP, because its members are generating hatred of their fellow-Afrikaners in the hearts of the Brown man, the Indian and the Black man. This is what the members of the NP are doing, just as the enemies of the NP aroused hatred against the NP and blackened the name of the entire Afrikaner people all over the world. Today the NP is doing the same thing against its fellow-Afrikaners in the CP. [Interjections.] I want to sound a warning. I believe many of us feel unhappy about this—especially the hon. members on the opposite side—but nowadays the NP is no longer the exclusive spokesman of the Afrikaner people.

As little as you or the hon. member for Rissik are.

Yes, of course, nor do I claim that right for myself. So much for the young hon. member for Uitenhage.

Tell us about the AWB. [Interjections.]

Before proceeding, I want to apologize to the hon. the Prime Minister for the fact that I shall be present in the House tomorrow for a short time only. When the hon. the Prime Minister referred to my speech in his reply, he mentioned the standpoint of Dr. Verwoerd concerning the Indians. I accept that Dr. Verwoerd in his time took the final decision on our behalf to grant full citizenship in South Africa to the Indians. I am nevertheless of the opinion that it is wrong to argue that it was the standpoint of Dr. Verwoerd that the Indians as a group would be treated in the same way as the Coloured people. I repeat: When we are debating these matters, it is not important who said what where or when. [Interjections.] So just give me a chance. It can be used as an argument, but I appeal to hon. members: Let us argue this matter on principle. I want to repeat the question I put to the hon. the Prime Minister: Is there any reason based on principle why one’s view of the Indian, whose culture, language and philosophy of life are no closer to those of the Whites than the language, culture or philosophy of life of a Zulu or a Tswana, should be different in the way one views the future of one’s country? Why should we be prepared to accommodate the Indian who, as the hon. member for Kuruman said, was an immigrant from across the seas, in one common political dispensation along with White and Brown … [Interjections.] … whereas we are not prepared to accommodate the Shangaan, who has merely moved across the border from Mozambique? Why should an exception he made in the case of the Indians, a group of 800 000 people, as compared to the inhabitants of Soweto who number more than 1 million today. [Interjections.]

My time is limited. I have spent a few days in Soutpansberg. We are being accused of telling half-truths. Our leader is being accused of having kept his people in Waterberg on a starvation diet. [Interjections.] If ever a campaign of disinformation has been conducted, it is the one I experienced in Soutpansberg. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked the hon. the Prime Minister what his view of the nature and function of the President’s Council was. The hon. the Prime Minister then referred the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to his speech, i.e. the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister, in Bloemfontein. That is correct, but I shall appreciate it if the hon. the Prime Minister would send a copy of that speech to the hon. the Minister of Manpower, because in Messina the hon. the Minister of Manpower is telling the people: This President’s Council, chaps, has nothing to do with the legislature; it is merely an advisory body.

No, man, that is not true.

But this is what he is saying in public, and I wish the hon. the Prime Minister would draw his attention to the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister said at Bloemfontein that the central legislature existed of the President, a tricameral Parliament and a President’s Council. The hon. the Prime Minister said it was part of the legislature. So I ask: Why is the NP conducting a campaign of disinformation in the Bergs as far as our people are concerned? [Interjections.]

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

No. Please sit down. Why does the hon. the Prime Minister allow the NP in Soutpansberg to suggest in a pamphlet that the NP is telling the whole truth concerning the new dispensation to the voters of Soutpansberg, while not a word is said about the Brown people or the Indians in that pamphlet. [Interjections.] It is a campaign of deceit and of disinformation, but that party is not going to get away with it.

I want to conclude. What I find strange, is the attitude of both the other two Opposition parties in this House. The hon. the Minister announced that a referendum was in the offing. To anyone interested in politics, it is very clear that the question put in the referendum will be linked to or based on the published guidelines of the NP, as spelt out by the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] And in those guidelines the hon. the Prime Minister stated clearly that the Black people would not be accommodated in this dispensation. [Interjections.] The official Opposition refused to participate in the discussion of the new dispensation if the Black people could not be accommodated in that dispensation. To anyone with common sense it is clear that any possible question in the referendum, concerning a dispensation for White, Brown and Indian, will not include the Black people. Why have they now, all of a sudden, developed an inability to say at this stage what their standpoint will be in that case so that everyone in South Africa may know their standpoint, because the questions are going to be based on the known guidelines of the Government? This applies to the NRP as well. Initially I gained the impression that the NRP was looking forward in a spirit of jubilation to an opportunity of voting “Yes” along with the NP. Now, all of a sudden, we learn from the hon. leader of the NRP that he has certain reservations. Now they first want to see the new constitution. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall come back to the hon. member for Barberton in a moment. By way of introduction I just want to say that we in this country are facing an onslaught against us in the time we are living in, an onslaught by Soviet Russia aimed at appropriating this country on its road to world domination. The methods being followed are the incitement of social and labour unrest, civil strife and terrorist attacks on the RSA. The methods of the ANC also include the sowing of suspicion, discrediting leader figures and sowing dissension amongst our people. It is one of their objectives, and they state this very clearly, that the downfall of this Government must be effected since this would facilitate their task of achieving their ultimate objective. In these circumstances our Government and our leader must provide leadership. He does not derserve what is happening in our ranks. The actions of our esteemed leader have been fair, correct, calm, composed and very just at all times. What is happening in our country at the moment, is causing jubilation in the ranks of our enemies because this is exactly what they want to happen: There must be confusion, division, fraternal quarrelling and the incitement of feelings leading to rebelliousness and the polarization of thinking and of groups promoting destabilization, unrest, conflict and eventual chaos.

The difference between the NP on the Government side and the Opposition parties is that the NP must come forward with solutions to be implemented, ones which can work in practice. What is the situation in South Africa today? We have a complex population structure of peoples and population groups. As far as the Blacks are concerned, all groups have already accepted self-government—that is important. Four groups have already accepted independence, and we are guiding the rest as well on the road to independence, but as far as the Indians and the Coloureds are concerned, we in South Africa have been following a certain road, and until recently the hon. members of the CP have been accompanying us on that road. This road was clearly spelt out by the hon. the Prime Minister in his introductory speech. There was the Theron Commission of 1973, the Cabinet Committee which followed, the constitutional plan of 1977, which the hon. members of the CP supported and on the basis of which we fought the election. During that election we attained the biggest majority in history. Then followed the Schlebusch Commission. In the election of 1981, too, we still had the hon. members of the CP in our midst and at the time they appended their signatures—I have here the election manifesto on which their leader’s signature appears—to the statement that the creation of homelands for the Coloureds and Indians was impracticable politics. Two of those hon. members served on the commission which led to the establishment of the President’s Council. But before there had been any recommendations from that President’s Council, before we had received anything on which to take decisions, they saw fit to leave our ranks. In 1977 they endorsed the principles contained in the new guidelines. They also endorsed them at the time of the 1981 election. Then they walked out before we had received the recommendations of the President’s Council. I want to put it to the hon. member for Lichtenburg that they left the party despite the fact that no jot or tittle had been changed in the programme of principles of the party as rewritten in 1934 by the late Dr. D. F. Malan. The hon. members of the CP know that only the NP congresses can change these principles, and to date no changes have been effected. They did not have the courage of their convictions to remain within the party and to put differences which existed to the party congresses. During the 1981 election, however, they rode into the House of Assembly on the back of the NP and subsequently turned their backs on our leader, and this he did not deserve. Those hon. members are political hitch-hikers, elected to the House of Assembly on the basis of a manifesto on which they subsequently turned their backs.

The difference between the PFP, the HNP and the CP on the one hand, and the NP on the other is that the NP takes realities into account. The PFP regards all matters concerning the people of the country as matters of common concern. The HNP and CP, on the other hand, regard all matters as group-specific matters. We, the NP, who take reality into account, realize that there are group-specific matters pertaining to each group but also matters of common concern which cannot be dealt with by one group alone.

The guidelines are characterized by a sustained search for justice and for the retention of that which is one’s own, while granting the same opportunity to all other people. The NP is coming forward with a system that meets reasonable demands and endeavours in the direction of independence and self-realization. These guidelines are acceptable to the Whites, because no claims and demands are being met at the expense of their rights, demands, identity and survival of the Whites in this country. That would lead to confrontation. These proposals—and this is very important—also offer an acceptable, practicable, fair dispensation to the Coloureds and Indians. Any denial of their rights would likewise lead to confrontation in this country.

The answer for South Africa is to be found in an understanding which will do justice to the reasonable demands of each group in the country. The answer for South Africa is to be found in the mutual acceptance of the right of each people and group to exist in freedom, prosperity and peace in South Africa without domination. The survival of the Whites is also the quarantee for the survival of all minority groups in South Africa. The National Party is realistic because, on the one hand, it guarantees White self-determination by means of separate schools of their own, separate residential areas of their own, a separate community life of their own, separate government institutions and voters’ rolls of their own, and is prepared, on the other hand, to guarantee the the right to self-determination of other peoples and groups by granting them what it demands for itself. The NP is prepared to do this because it is Christian, right, honest and just, because it prevents friction and envy, because it prevents domination and consequently confrontation and revolution. Only along this road can the security, peace and prosperity of all in South Africa be guaranteed. Consequently the NP is a practical party. Consequently it is keeping abreast of the ideal and possible, the desirable and the reality.

The ideal dispensation would be one in which all population groups could govern themselves according to their wishes within their own territory. This is desirable, but not possible. The CP wants to realize the impossible. What are they engaged in in South Africa? What point is there in coming forward with a policy—and also asking the voters to support it—when it is quite unacceptable to the people for whom it has been designed? Consequently it is incapable of implementation.

On this occasion I also want to pay tribute to our hon. leader. I think everyone in this House owes him a debt of gratitude, he who is guiding us in these difficult times with a firm hand at the helm.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.