as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Select Committee on Pensions.

Report to be printed and considered.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Taking into consideration the world depression, the new decline in the gold price since February this year and the serious drought, the recent performance of the South African economy is gratifying indeed. What is particularly heartening is the fact that the balance of payments on the current account is making even better progress than we expected earlier this year. At a seasonally adjusted annual rate, it showed a surplus of more than R2 billion during the first quarter of 1983, compared with a deficit of R6,5 billion during the corresponding quarter of last year—a favourable turnabout, therefore, of more than R8 billion within a year. This dramatic improvement has to some extent resulted from a moderate increase in the price of gold over this period, but must to a very large extent be attributed to the official fiscal and monetary policy. This policy has in large measure been responsible for the fact that as a national economy, we have been living more or less within our means over the past three quarters, in sharp contrast to many other countries.

Further good news is the fact that the official net gold and other foreign reserves rose by R2,2 billion during the 10 months up to the end of April 1983 and that the rand appreciated by approximately 4,7% in terms of the dollar and by 8,4% on average in terms of all other currencies over that period. On the other hand, the downturn in the business cycle of the domestic economy is continuing and the real economic growth rate is still negative for the moment, especially because of the drought. Moreover, the inflation rate is still too high, in our opinion, as is evident from the rise of 12,8% in the consumer price index between May 1982 and May 1983.

However, I should like to draw attention today to a few of the very latest economic developments and their implications for fiscal and monetary policy.

To begin with, I must point out that most countries in the world are still in the grip of a serious economic depression. There are indeed encouraging signs of a recovery in the United States, but in Western Europe and Japan the new revival has been extremely sluggish so far. It now seems as if the economic revival in the world as a whole will not gain much momentum before 1984.

It is understandable, therefore, that the economic situation in the developing countries of the Third World is precarious. Everything is going wrong for them simultaneously at the moment. Their exports remain low because most commodity prices have not yet recovered. On the domestic scene they are faced with economic stagnation and high unemployment, aggravated by drought in some cases. Their supplies of goods are virtually depleted, as are their foreign currency reserves. Their foreign debt is so high that in many cases they cannot even pay the full interest on it. As a result, their foreign creditworthiness has been destroyed and they have to keep relying on emergency loans and foreign charity. Many of these countries have inflation rates of around 100% a year or even higher. In many cases, the already low standard of living of the population is declining even further.

The international debt crisis is far from over, therefore. This is a source of great concern to international bankers and monetary authorities. All possible assistance is being rendered, and a great deal has already been achieved by means of this international rescue action. But the danger still exists that certain banks may not pull through and that this may start a chain reaction of bankruptcies. International banking is built on confidence, and if the confidence disappears, the house of cards quickly collapses.

What is encouraging, though, is the success which the United States and the United Kingdom have achieved in the fight against inflation in recent years, mainly by means of a strict market-orientated monetary policy. This has enabled them to join the ranks of West Germany, Switzerland and Japan as countries with relatively low inflation rates. The following rises in the consumer price indexes of a number of countries clearly indicate what is happening. The first figure refers to the 12 months ended December 1979, and the second figure to the 12 months ended March 1983.

Admittedly, this success in the fight against inflation in the major industrial countries has been attended in the short term by recessionary conditions, serious unemployment and negative or extremely low growth rates. It has also resulted in a drop in imports and low international commodity prices. The consequences for the developing countries, which are very dependent on exports of these commodities, have been catastrophic. And because they have not always exercised the necessary financial discipline and have resorted to excessive borrowing abroad, they have found themselves in a crisis situation. The high real interest rates in the industrial countries have also added to the burden of debt of the Third World, of course.

†For South Africa, these international developments also had, and still have, unfavourable effects. Most of our exports were affected adversely and the “terms of trade” turned against us: We had to export more to pay for the same amount of imports as before.

The decline in the gold price from a peak of over $850 per ounce in January 1980 to below $300 per ounce in June 1982 naturally had particularly serious implications not only for our balance of payments but also for our domestic economy and State revenue. Fortunately, however, we were able to read the signs reasonably correctly and took early corrective action in the shape of what we call our policy of “consolidation and adjustment”. The adjustments we had to make were not easy and the policies we applied were not always popular. However, they certainly proved effective and today we are reaping the benefits. We have avoided the pitfalls of the international debt crisis and our international credit rating has, in consequence, been still further enhanced.

Nevertheless, the gold price remains relatively weak and has shown considerable volatility in recent months. On the London gold market the gold price rose from an average of $427 in the last quarter of 1982 to $465 in the first quarter of 1983. In the course of the first quarter, however, it declined sharply from $492 in February to $420 in March. Subsequently, it averaged $433 in April and $437 in May, before declining to near the $400 level early in June. The main reason for the relative weakness in the gold price is clearly the process of disinflation which has persisted in the main industrial countries during the past year. The major successes scored by many of those countries in the fight against inflation must be welcomed by all of us in the Western World. In the long run, strong and stable currencies in the leading Western countries must redound to the benefit also of South Africa. In the short term, however, it clearly serves to depress the gold price and to delay our next domestic economic upswing.

The volatility of the gold price is also making the task of the monetary authorities more difficult. It not only has a direct effect on the current account of the balance of payments and on domestic monetary conditions but also affects expectations regarding the likely appreciation or depreciation of the rand in terms of other currencies. These changed expectations produce sharp and substantial changes in short-term capital movements into and out of the country. To avoid unduly sharp and disruptive fluctuations in the exchange rate, the Reserve Bank has therefore had to apply normal central banking techniques of “intervention” in the foreign exchange market. Thus, it has at times bought large amounts of dollars to prevent the rand from appreciating sharply, and at other times it has sold dollars from its reserves in order to avoid an unduly sharp depreciation of the rand. The result has been fairly large fluctuations in the net gold and other foreign reserves. After rising by nearly R2,5 billion during the seven months up to the end of January, the net reserves declined by R533 million in February and March. In April they rose again by R284 million. Later figures are not yet available but the Reserve Bank experienced a decline in its own foreign reserves of about R300 million during May.

Nevertheless, despite the volatility of the gold price and the foreign reserves, and notwithstanding the reduction in exports and the recent increase in imports brought about by the drought, the balance of payments position and outlook remain excellent. As I explained in a Press statement last week, this has enabled us to indicate to the International Monetary Fund that we do not plan to take up the further credits to which we are entitled under our loan agreement with that institution and that, in fact, provided our net foreign reserves rise satisfactorily, we may begin to make early and voluntary repayments of the funds we drew under that agreement last November. Any such repayments that may be made will be modest and are subject to negotiation. We are not in any way compromised on this matter at the moment.

The continued recession in the domestic economy, greatly exacerbated as it is by the drought is, of course, a serious matter. Now that the recovery in the United States is under way, however, we can look forward to the next upswing with increased confidence. To predict the precise date of the lower turning point is impossible but I remain confident that 1984 will be a year of rising economic activity and positive growth for the South African economy.

Our main concern at present is the stubborn rate of inflation. At 12,8% our present rate of inflation is nearly three times the average rate of some of our main trading-partner countries. It is not that our own inflation rate has increased over the past two or three years; the disparity has arisen because of the sharp decline in the inflation rates of these other countries. However, the implications for South Africa are clear: If we do not reduce our own rate of inflation significantly in the period ahead, the rand will, despite its present strength, inevitably tend to depreciate again in terms of the main currencies of the world, with fresh inflationary implications. Such a vicious circle of depreciation leading to inflation, further depreciation and so on, must be avoided.

One of the main reasons why the rate of inflation is still as high as it is in South Africa, is the rate of increase of the money supply over a fairly protracted period. In 1980 and 1981, for example, the broad money supply—the so-called M2—rose by 27% and 25% respectively, largely because of the expansionary effects on private sector and bank liquidity of the sharp rise in the gold price and in our other exports in 1979 and 1980, and the resultant large balance of payments surplus.

These high money growth rates went hand in hand with the depreciation of the rand in terms of the United States dollar, from $1,35 in January 1981 to a low point of 85 American cents in October 1982. This served to cushion the domestic economy, including the mining and agricultural sectors, against the adverse effects of the world depression and the accompanying decline in the gold price and in most primary commodity prices. It also helped the balance of payments to withstand the buffeting it received from the external storms. It inevitably built strong inflationary pressures into the system, however—pressures which are only now beginning to diminish.

In the course of 1981 and the first half of 1982, as the gold price declined and the balance of payments moved into substantial deficit, the monetary authorities consciously followed a policy of restraining the money supply expansion by permitting financial markets to tighten and interest rates to rise. This policy was instrumental in reducing the money growth rate to 17% in 1982 and contributed materially to the decline in imports and the marked improvement in the overall balance of payments since the middle of last year. The latest figures show an increase in M2, the broad money supply, of 19% over the 12 months to April 1983.

What are the policy implications for the months ahead? There is clearly a need to reduce the rate of growth of the money supply still further. The criticism sometimes heard that our policies have been too restrictive is totally without foundation. If anything, our “mix” of fiscal and monetary policies may have been too expansionary and accommodative. The economy as a whole has remained relatively liquid and between the middle of 1982 and May this year virtually all interest rates declined sharply. If further confirmation of this is needed, it has been provided by the sharp rise of share prices on the Stock Exchange and the boom in the real estate market since the third quarter of last year.

In the field of fiscal and monetary policy we shall therefore adhere to the strategy set out in the budget. Despite the need for increased drought relief and other unavoidable additional expenditure, we shall try to keep the deficit before borrowing as close to the budget figure of R2 082 million as possible. We shall certainly avoid any net recourse to bank credit as a means of financing this deficit. In particular, we shall endeavour to avoid drawing down the Stabilization Account or other Government deposits with the Reserve Bank, or using net Reserve Bank credit in any other way, since this would be tantamount to “using the printing press”—which is a sure recipe for inflation.

Evidence of our determination to reduce the money growth rate can be found in the success of the recent Treasury tender issues of short and long-term Government stock, which raised the full R300 million required, and the subsequent sale by the Reserve Bank of a further R400 million of “tap” Government stock issues.

In view of the levelling off tendency shown by the net foreign reserves in line with the weakening of the gold price since February, the success of these official financing operations inevitably involved a reversal of the earlier downward tendency shown by interest rates. In recent weeks, therefore, most interest rates have risen moderately, including the prime overdraft rate of the commercial banks which, after having declined from 20% in October 1982 to 14% in March this year, increased to 15% earlier in June and is now, in some cases, 16%. Our policy with regard to interest rates is clear. We have no desire to raise interest rates as an end in itself. But we are determined to curb inflation and to strengthen the balance of payments and the net foreign reserves still further. And to this end we must avoid undue money creation for the financing of public and private sector spending. If such avoidance necessitates a rise in interest rates in response to market forces, as happened in recent weeks, we shall permit such an increase, since the alternative of keeping interest rates down by creating even more money would clearly be inflationary. Any such attempt to keep interest rates low would also be self-defeating, since inflation is bound to raise nominal interest rates in the end. We cannot afford to put the cart before the horse.

The only sound way of reducing nominal interest rates is to reduce the rate of inflation first. Given appropriate financial policies, nominal rates will then fall naturally in response to supply and demand. That, indeed, is the ideal we are aiming at.

When it comes to inflation, there is an easy tendency on the part of hostile and superficial critics to “blame it all on the Government”. Such an attitude is plainly unacceptable. The only possible way to conquer inflation is by a concerted and sustained onslaught by both the public and the private sectors.

I venture to say that as far as fiscal policy is concerned, the Government could not have done more, having regard for the manifold demands of a developing economy, than it has done in recent years. Monetary policy I have dealt with. The dilemma here is that if the monetary authorities take too drastic measures—and it is quite easy from them to do so—the growth rate will be still lower, and the unemployment position still further exacerbated. We have to strike the best balance we can.

The Government has set a fine example by refraining from granting general salary increases in the Public Service this year. And the Public Service, in its turn, has shown a fine sense of responsibility and restraint in accepting the position with good grace and understanding. For that it deserves every credit.

It is seriously to be hoped that the private sector will do likewise. There can be no doubt of the grave inflationary effects of the excessive wage and salary increases paid throughout the private sector in the last few years.

In my budget speech in March I named one or two matters of first-rate importance to the problem of inflation—matters which affect the private sector in every respect as much as the Government sector—and I propose to pursue these matters as early as possible in the parliamentary recess with the private sector.

To sum up, it is clear that in a world fraught with an unparalleled debt crisis and other deep-seated economic problems, and in a domestic economy adversely affected by serious drought conditions, we in South Africa are batting on a “sticky” wicket. We shall therefore have to keep our heads down, follow the flight of the ball carefully and play the correct shots. We are determined to do just that.

I am confident that, provided we resist the temptation to follow unduly expansionary financial policies and determine to live within our means, we can look forward to both a further strengthening of our balance of payments and a reduction in the rate of inflation. To crown it all, we should then be well placed for a period of rapid real economic growth.

*Finally, I should just like to say a few words about two senior officials of my department; one of whom is being promoted, while the other one is retiring.

At the end of my budget speech in March, I mentioned the fact that Mr. E. W. (Naas) van Staden was to retire as Registrar of Financial Institutions at the end of June. I should like to welcome Dr. R. W. (Robbie) Burton as the new Registrar as from 1 July 1983. Dr. Burton has been a member of my department for several years, he has a good grounding as an economist, and he will, I believe, perform his task as Registrar with honour and dignity and in a way which will benefit us all. We welcome him.

When it comes to saying good-bye, it is much more difficult to find the right words. Mr. W. J. W. (Mickey) van der Walt has indicated that he wishes to retire before the end of this year. I do not think there is anyone in this House or even outside who does not know Mickey van der Walt—sometimes too well! As Commissioner for Inland Revenue, he has in recent years been demanding his pound of flesh, and no more than his pound of flesh, from the wealthy and the less wealthy, from the famous and the notorious, from celebrities and the man in the street. He managed to perform this unpopular task in such a way that one almost paid one’s debt with a smile and almost thanked him for accepting it! This has always been Mickey’s special quality.

He had the gift of conversing and negotiating with friend and enemy and of reaching an agreement with them, even though it was sometimes one-sided, and no one who was acquainted with all the facts could ever accuse him of unfairness. Mickey was strict, but never unapproachable or unsympathetic. These are the qualities which a Commissioner for Inland Revenue should have.

Although he will be with us for another few months and there will be ample opportunity to take leave of him and Mrs. Van der Walt in a suitable manner elsewhere, I should like, on this last occasion during the present session, to wish Mr. and Mrs. Van der Walt a long and well-earned retirement on behalf of the Government, and, I am sure, on behalf of all my colleagues on the other side of the House. Seldom in one’s career does one encounter such a knowledgeable but at the same time such a humane person as Mr. Van der Walt. He has carved a special niche for himself in the heart of everyone who knows him.

Mickey, we thank you very sincerely and we wish you all the best and God’s richest blessings. May you and your family know only peace and joy for as long as you may be spared. We all regret the fact that you wish to retire.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start where the hon. the Minister ended. I want to welcome Dr. Burton and say to him that his job is an extremely responsible one in our eyes. Perhaps the remarks the hon. the Minister made about the problems in the international banking sector are applicable here, because our financial institutions have over the years acquired a very high reputation. In no small measure is that high reputation due to the legislation which is applicable to them and to the manner in which that legislation is administered by the office of the Registrar of Financial Institutions. Therefore, in welcoming Dr. Burton, we are confident that he will discharge the responsibility we have given to him with distinction.

I would like to echo the remarks made by the hon. the Minister concerning Mr. Mickey Van der Walt. My problem with him is that he makes one feel that it is to some extent a privilege to pay income tax and sometimes even sales tax. It is that image which he has created for the department which I think is an extremely important one. Under his leadership that particular department has acquired a new image in South Africa. No one can take that away from him, namely that he has done more than anyone I can recollect to make sure that that image is a human and understanding one and one on the grounds of which people can communicate. I think that has been very important for the department. He goes away, not only with the knowledge that people regard him as being highly qualified technically, but as a good administrator of that department. Perhaps even more important, he has created that human image for the department which he is handing over to his successor. When the hon. the Minister says that he is sorry that he is going, my approach is that I agree, but at the same time I hope that he is going to be available to us in other capacities in order to serve the country, which I think he has been very happy to serve for so long. So we do not really say goodbye to him, but look forward to seeing him in other capacities where he will continue to serve the people of South Africa.

In reacting to what the hon. the Minister has said I should like to deal with a couple of specific matters.

Bonus bonds!

Yes, I will come to bonus bonds. The hon. member need not worry. [Interjections.] I will not disappoint him. But may I take my turn as to how I am going to deal with matters.

Firstly I want to come back to the question of the banking sector. Our reputation in respect of the strength of the banking sector needs to be watched very carefully, particularly as we are now entering a more open market situation where the possibility of open foreign exchange positions arise. Therefore the responsibility for keeping that under a degree of watchfulness is important. I would not like to see a situation where in any way any one of our banks or financial institutions were to detract from the very fine image that we have. One of the important aspects of this image is that South Africa can say to anybody from whom it wants to borrow money abroad that we have never ever defaulted on a loan, that we have never ever defaulted on a capital payment, that we have never ever defaulted on an interest payment and that we have never asked for a rescheduling. There are very few countries in the world that can equal that record. [Interjections.] I think to try to see this matter on a party basis is a little small of hon. members on the other side. I think our good record is due to the country’s financial strength. The position was the same under different Governments, Governments before this one. So, really, let us not be small about this. This is a country’s achievement. It is not a political achievement.

The second point I want to make relates to the issue which the hon. the Minister raised in regard to the international trading situation and how we are dependent upon the revival of the economies of other countries. The reality is that ours is an open economy. It is dependent for more than half of our gross national product on trade. Therefore the international situation is of grave importance to us. I want to make the point that it is not only of great economic importance, but also has very serious political implications which those people who want us to be isolated should perhaps bear in mind, because we cannot afford to be isolated in this world, either politically or economically. That is important.

An hon. member interjected earlier and wanted to know whether I was going to talk on bonus bonds. I never like to disappoint anybody, Sir, and I certainly do not intend to disappoint him now. Mr. Speaker, you ruled that this debate was the occasion to discuss this and I therefore respond to that invitation. I want to make it quite clear that the hon. the Minister must now respond fully on this. The question which has been asked and which is unanswered remains, namely what has changed since the scheme was first introduced which can cause any reconsideration of the scheme to take place? I want to ask specifically of the hon. the Minister of Finance, because he is the one in charge and responsible for this, whether he is going to allow the CP to dictate directions and policies to him in regard to this or any other matter? The only reason why this is possibly being reconsidered is because of the CP and because the Government is afraid that it might lose some votes to the right. That is the answer which the hon. the Minister has to give us. We are telling the hon. the Minister to ignore the CP because the CP does not represent the broad picture of the South African community.

The hon. the Minister also has to tell us why the proceeds of bonus bonds cannot be channelled into the Special Defence Fund. Why cannot there be legislation to do it? There are other bonds which are called defence bonds. Where is that money going to? I think it is going into the central pool. I believe that there should be defence bonds and that there should be bonus bonds. Those people who do not want to invest in them, need not invest in them. My hon. colleagues sitting on my left and who are right of us politically, need not have to buy bonus bonds if they do not want to. It is their privilege to choose. The reality is that there are thousands and thousands of people in South Africa who want them. This is not equivalent to a lottery because there is no stake that is wagered that can be lost. The money invested is returned by the State and it is returned together with tax-free interest. The State merely contributes a further amount over and above the interest paid for the drawing of prizes. If the hon. the Minister is against this, then why is the wagering on horse racing, where in fact a stake can be lost, permitted in South Africa? Despite this, however, there is a suggestion that one cannot buy bonus bonds. I say with great respect that this situation cannot be allowed to continue. Certainty has to be introduced into the matter and we have got to come to an end about this.

The other matter that I want to touch on and which I should like the hon. the Minister to deal with relates to agriculture and to the Land Bank. Agriculture is in a difficult position in South Africa. We all know that. The drought has hit the farmers and the Land Bank plays a crucial role in assisting the farming community. It is therefore unhappy to note, to say the least, that the Auditor-General’s report contains a reference to the activities of the Land Bank which we now have to discuss here in a different context. The housing loans that are granted are over a period of 40 years at 3%. The money is borrowed from their pension fund at 6% and, in fact, Government stock returns yields of 12% and more. The Land Bank gives a subsidy on that 6% of 3%. It gives a further R2 million to the pension fund and it gives another amount of R390 000 in respect of the housing subsidies. If one for example takes a housing loan of R100 000, that actually means at prevailing interest rates that we are giving a man who pays a marginal rate of tax—and the top man pays a marginal rate of tax—virtually R10 000 almost tax free at the marginal rate. One must see that picture in relation to the two flats that were bought in Cape Town, bought at a total cost, after fitting them out, of R550 487. The two flats were purchased for R511 801 and a further R38 688 was spent in fitting them out, giving a total cost of R550 487. There is a levy of R7 000 a year, and what does the managing director pay for living in one of those flats? He pays R145 a month while the two clerks who come down with him and who share the other flat, pay R200 and R400 per month respectively. Any other official who stays in the flat pays R13 a day. However, what is interesting is that while one pays R145 a month for a flat that costs over R250 000 one actually receives R55 a day while down here in Cape Town. The other officials get R37 and R32 a day. The other officials pay 30% of their allowance for occupying it. The question is asked: Why does the managing director pay only R145 a month? The answer that was given is that it is a “board decision”. It may be a board decision, but the reality is that it is R145 a month when one is receiving R55 a day allowance and when the flat is worth more than R250 000. The other officials who are staying in another flat, officials who are the juniors and who earn less and who receive smaller allowances, pay a higher amount of rent. How one can justify that is utterly beyond us.

It is corruption.

Then one asks oneself the question: Why this particular flat? I quote here what has been said and I leave it to the judgment of members in this House and of the public as to what this means. I quote—

I leave that to the judgment of this House and to the judgment of the people of South Africa. However, what I say to the hon. the Minister is that it is he who is responsible for this situation because he is responsible for the Land Bank to this Parliament. Accountability is to us through him. We say to the hon. the Minister that if these flats are not sold, then it is his decision that they are not sold and that this matter is being perpetuated. That is the reality of the situation.

But, Sir, let me go on to another matter which also concerns finance. Let us go on to another matter. Sir, this budget contains a number of appropriations relating to South West Africa. The independence of South West Africa is an issue which is internationally being discussed and debated and negotiations are going on which are of concern to everybody, and most members of this House would like to see an internationally recognized settlement; would like to see free elections and as the outcome of those elections a democratically orientated regime, friendly towards the Republic. The question of who would win a free election must therefore be of great concern, and the question arises as to the alternatives which voters will have in such an election and to what extent the existing conditions and past events will influence those voters. It is not for a politician from the Republic to make things more difficult than what they are already, and I certainly do not intend to do that. Yet South Africa’s interests are involved and there is a financial matter which has to be raised and needs to be dealt with.

A document dated 16 May 1983 and purporting to come from the Department of Finance of South West Africa has recently been made public. The authenticity of the document has not yet been challenged. I do not know whether it is authentic or not, but it has not been challenged, whereas there has been enough time to do that, although the method of acquisition of the document has been queried. The Republic contributes cash and has security and other interests in South West Africa, and so cannot allow the statements contained in this document to pass without comment. Either the document must be repudiated as being incorrect or if it is correct assistance must be given, and if possible assistance must be obtained for South West Africa from other sources if assistance cannot be rendered in toto from the Republic. The reality is that in an election people are going to choose between two systems. Swapo on the one hand offers promises and when the time comes for its implementation, if Swapo ever were to come to power, and it is then realized that the promises cannot be realized the voter will have no chance of changing his mind because once Swapo is in it will be too late to get them out. The democratic parties will be affected by local conditions, and whether they are part of them, whether they have approved of them or not, will be utterly irrelevant. If democracy is to survive in an election, if there is to be a settlement, then I believe urgent action is required on this document.

Let us look at some of the things stated in this document. For instance—

Let me quote another passage—

Who is the author of that document?

The document that I have is purported to be signed by the Secretary of Finance of South West Africa. As I have said, I do not vouch for its authenticity, but as yet it has not been refuted.

Did he draw it up?

That is what is alleged, Sir. This is a matter which has been public for quite a little while. The document goes on—

It goes on to make it quite clear that the problem is that South West Africa cannot finance itself, not even with the assistance from the Republic. Then it sets out what the reasons for the problem are said to be. They say here, and I quote again—

Then it goes on to say that the other people indeed want to move up to the same level, which is beyond them. It also says—

Consequently the allegation is that this has not happened.

Then it goes on to deal with the structure of government in South West Africa. It states the fact that it is found that the institutions that have been created—to give just a few examples—are of such a nature—ethnic institutions, of course—that there is not adequate control over the finances, and which makes this one of the major problems that exist there. It goes on to quote in detail what South Africa’s advice has been, as conveyed by our Department of Finance, and it also shows that in accordance with the percentages in respect of the gross national product, and I quote again—

That is the allegation …

Oh, no.

The hon. the Minister should read this document; he should not merely say “Ag nee”.

Do you say that the Secretary for Finance of South West Africa said that?

That is the allegation which is made in respect of where this document originated. The issue is …

I will deal with that.

Yes, the hon. the Minister must deal with it. If he has not yet read this document I submit he should have read it.

I know more about documents in South West Africa than you will ever hear of in your life. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is interjecting now. Can he tell me whether he has heard of this document before?

I shall deal with you.

Never mind your threats. Have you heard of this document before?

Just wait. I shall deal with you.

Have you heard of it? It seems to me you have never heard of it. [Interjections.] The entire South Africa knows about it; yet the hon. the Minister of Finance knows nothing about it, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister of Finance comes along with his threats, Mr. Speaker, but the reality is—that is the tragedy of it all—that there is a problem for South Africa because we must remember that the problem of South West Africa is a problem for us. Yet the only answer given to this by the hon. the Minister of Finance is to say that he will deal with me, and that while the whole purpose of this debate is to prod the South African Government into action in order to preserve South African Whites in South West Africa.

[Inaudible.]

Sir, I am not afraid of the hon. Minister’s threats. His threats are meaningless. To me they mean nothing whatsoever. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville has just delivered another long diatribe about bonus bonds, and of course he also tried to make political capital out of this matter. The fact is that he is the hon. member who asked a question about this on the Select Committee on Public Accounts. He is the one who began it all; now he is reproaching other people. He set this whole affair in motion, and I want to tell hon. members the reason for this. [Interjections.]

The fact is that the hon. the Prime Minister issued a detailed statement on this matter, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Minister of Finance, on a previous occasion and again yesterday, during the discussion of the Finance Bill, also explained the matter very clearly. During question time last Friday the hon. The Deputy Minister of Finance also replied to him very fully. I really do not believe that anyone can be that stupid. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I actually want to talk about the expensive flats of the Land Bank; flats purchased by the Land Bank. On Tuesday, 14 June 1983, the report which the Select Committee had agreed to was tabled here in this House. I am now quoting from this report as follows—

This motion was passed unanimously by the Select Committee. The next day, 15 June, a report on the Land Bank appeared which contained some of the evidence given before the Select Committee on Public Accounts in this connection. I have no fault to find with this. However, the next day, the 16th, it was reported under banner headlines in the Argus—

In Saturday evening’s Argus, on the front page, a further report appeared under the headline—

The hon. member for Yeoville has again made mention of this. In that report the following appeared—

However, what is the evidence? The hon. member quoted it. He said—

They did not say “it” or “the officials”. They did not say “the Land Bank” either. They referred to “the agents”. This entire matter is all aimed at one thing. These are the people who have such a lot to say about good human relations! However, this is not the point at issue and the Select Committee did not have anything to say about this either. It expressed an opinion on the luxuriousness of that flat.

Let us go a step further. On 20 August we read the following in a leading article—

But what are the facts? This afternoon I should like to furnish hon. members with the facts. In this connection I should like to refer to the evidence given before the Select Committee. I am quoting from the manuscript evidence, because this evidence has not yet been printed. The evidence proves that members of the NP were the first to broach this matter, through the hon. member Mr. Aronson. The hon. member repeated this matter three times and I should like to quote this. After he had dealt with the matter in detail, he asked the following question (page 22)—

At a later stage Mr. Aronson said (page 23)—

On page 24 Mr. Aronson again asked—

At that stage Mr. Aronson was in fact the hon. member who was discussing the matter. Much later, on page 29, we find in the evidence what the hon. member for Yeoville had to say. What did he say? He said—

[Interjections.] Why did the hon. member for Yeoville not tell us this? I do not like having to say this to him. However, if one considers the entire matter, one realizes that the impression being created outside is that only the PFP is now the watchdog in this Parliament. Over the years I have been here, I can attest to the fact—hon. members opposite cannot deny this—that members of the NP are every bit as much the watchdogs of Parliament as the PFP claims to be. [Interjections.] That is all I have to say about this matter, and I am sorry that I have to become personal, but this episode reminds me of what one of my colleagues once said: The hon. member is the bridegroom at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. [Interjections.]

During the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill I pointed out that in his speech that day the hon. member for Yeoville was agitated and tense about the Government’s constitutional proposals. I also said that the hon. member and the PFP were in a tremendous dilemma because it was general knowledge that there was grave dissension within the PFP. On Monday, 13 June, the hon. member again confirmed this by way of a notice of motion on the Order Paper through which he wanted it to be an instruction to the Select Committee on the Constitution to make provision in the Constitution Bill for the rights and freedoms of the individual. According to The Cape Times of 16 June 1983, the hon. member made the following comment—

May I now assume that the hon. member accepts the principles contained in the Constitution Bill? After all that was what he said in The Cape Times and I have not seen this repudiated by him anywhere. However The Cape Times followed this up with an editorial in which inter alia the following statement was made—

The PFP’s referendum crisis has really developed into a public circus. Anyone who is at all interested in politics knows how great the dilemma is in which they find themselves. The PFP found itself plunged into this dilemma because of the Government’s decision to hold a referendum. The PFP is now paying the price for its boycott approach, which, inter alia, led to its stupidity in boycotting the President’s Council.

In their disjointed efforts to seek a way out of the dilemma of indecision in which the party is caught, leading PFP members are contradicting each other left, right and centre and tension between the more moderate elements on the one hand and the more radical elements on the other is clearly perceptible. This may lead to a parting of the ways or could at least cost the hon. the Leader of the Opposition his head.

Although the PFP has not yet decided whether it is going to vote “yes” or “no” to the Constitution Bill, although hon. members of the PFP are serving on the Select Committee which has to try to improve the Constitution Bill and although six hon. members of the PFP have each placed a notice of motion on the Order Paper for that to be an instruction to the Select Committee, those instructions contradict each other every time. What happened in this process? The upshot was that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on Soweto Day of all days, issued a statement in which he said that people should not participate in the new constitutional dispensation. Once again the boycott mentality of the PFP triumphed. The left-wing was again victorious and decided on behalf of the party to reject the Constitution Bill unequivocally.

There is a far smaller role for the PFP to play in the new dispensation because in the transition to a consensus-seeking style of government there will be less opportunity and room for the sort of obstruction politics practised by these wild PFPs than there is in the present system. Now that I have chided the hon. member for Yeoville a little, I want to ask him and those who think as he does to get rid of these left-wing radical elements. This is a prerequisite if the PFP wants to play a significant role in the future of the country. The Government’s decision to test the new dispensation by submitting it to the will of the people was a political masterstroke and this could result in an even greater crisis for the CP than that facing the PFP and may even be more decisive for its survival. It is already obvious that members of the CP realize the nature and the extent of the impending crisis which they will undoubtedly be facing. The truth of the matter is that the CP is rapidly on the way to losing its right to exist. Once the voters have given the expected strongly positive decision in favour of the Government’s policy of reform and the new constitutional dispensation has been introduced, the question which occurs to one is: What will remain for the CP? The position cannot be undone even if the NP were subsequently to be defeated at the polls. There would simply no longer be any hope of returning the country to the policy of Coloured and Indian homelands. Total resistance to the entire principle of joint decision-making, resistance to which the CP has committed itself, will in this case be meaningless and absurd. On the other hand, in view of the referendum it will have to change and to reform itself drastically so that it can continue meaningfully in the new dispensation or it will have to admit to itself that it no longer has a leg to stand on and admit defeat. No one could accuse the CP of being lacking in opportunism and of having unbending principles. But whether it will be at all possible for them to bend their policy while retaining a measure of honour and credibility so as to accommodate the expressed will of the people in favour of reform, seems to me highly doubtful. In that case its disappearance from the political scene is inevitable. Mr. Speaker, I want to state unequivocally that anyone who wants to be a part of the new policy and wants to play a significant role in it, belongs with the NP, because the NP is the only party equipped to and capable of representing the White man and his interests properly under the new conditions.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Smithfield said that the CP no longer had the right to exist, but I feel if we bear Waterberg and Middelburg in mind, we may very shortly find that the NP no longer exists.

The hon. the Minister very clearly spelled out to us certain things he and his department intended doing, but we have to ask ourselves what the effect of this budget will be on South Africa. Will it bring happiness and satisfaction to all the voters in the future? Are we going to experience the financial and economic prosperity which was envisaged? Will we have full employment in all respects? When we refer to full employment, are we using this term in its internationally recognized meaning? What is our economic growth going to be in future? Are we going to succeed in combating inflation? I say no: because this was a camouflaged budget owing to the hon. the Prime Minister’s attempt to drag the question which should be asked in the referendum into it. I also want to refer to the behaviour of certain of the hon. the Minister’s colleagues in the Cabinet and the untrustworthiness they have been guilty of during their terms of office. It is going to make things very difficult for the hon. the Minister because his colleagues were only out to make personal attacks on hon. members of the CP and not to discuss the policy being followed in their departments.

I asked the hon. member for Vasco to be present in the House, but since he is not yet here, I shall go on to other matters. I shall return to him later.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance said the other day that I had praised the hon. the Minister. In the hon. the Minister’s absence I said that the Minister had avoided inflation as far as possible by means of the fiscal and monetary measures which he adopted. The hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism and the hon. the Minister of Manpower and the rest of the Cabinet did not, however, play their part. However, I have finished quarrelling with the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. Economists, businessmen, bankers and the HSRC say that the population of South Africa is becoming poorer. They say that the Whites in particular are becoming poorer. The Government wants to do away with discrimination.

Are you opposed to that?

The hon. member for Pretoria Central and all the other people say that we have to do away with discrimination. The purpose is to silence people abroad and to satisfy them.

Not at all. Rubbish.

There is a large gap, both economically and financially speaking, between the various population groups. Because the non-White population groups cannot be uplifted all that rapidly, the Whites have to be pushed down. [Interjections.] Why do we have discrimination in connection with wages? The wage gap is being drastically narrowed and for no good reason. This is being done without there being any proper increase in productivity. During the past year there was a negative economic growth rate of 1%. As a result of this negative growth rate of 1% and the fact that our population growth was 2,5%, this meant that the welfare of the population diminished by 3,5%. This is a fact and hon. members cannot argue about it. In 1983 we are going to have a negative growth rate of 3%. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members cannot continue to give a loud running commentary on the speech of the hon. member for Sunnyside. They must give him an opportunity to make his speech.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In other words, during this year the White population and all the other population groups are going to become more than 4% poorer. What did Prof. Sampie Terreblanché, the head of the Department of Economics at the University of Stellenbosch, say about this? He is not an unimportant person in NP circles. The NP sets great store by what he says. In Die Vaderland of 22 October 1982 he said the following—

This is the same professor who advocated that there had to be a redistribution of wealth. What bothers me, is that he may not be a voice crying in the wilderness. According to the 06h45 news on 21 June the chairman of the President’s Council said that the implementation of constitutional change would probably take place gradually in this country. He also said that there should be no doubt about the Government’s intention to achieve its goals with all the means at its disposal. Even the impoverishment of people can be such a means. [Interjections.] We cannot get away from that. The Government will use all the means at its disposal. All the means includes all the means under the sun which are at the disposal of the Government. This includes the Defence Force, the police and private individuals. According to the news the chairman of the President’s Council also said that there should be no hesitation in, or any attempts to prevent, the establishing of a more humane nation. Consequently there should also be a nation now. What are the guidelines? The Whites, Coloureds and Indians must become one nation. The CP is opposed to this. The CP will inspire the people of South Africa from Cape Town to Pietersburg and beyond. That is what the CP stands for. The hon. member for Fauresmith need not be afraid. The CP knows where it is going. The CP is still going to rule this country in the future. [Interjections.]

The Human Sciences Research Council published a report in March 1983. It is an important, large and respected body. The Government uses this body constantly. The best talent available in the Public Service in South Africa is concentrated in the HSRC to do good things. What did Dr. Ina Snyman say in that report? According to Die Transvaler of 17 March she said the following—

This is the situation. It is not the CP or I who say so.

That has nothing to do with the White-Black policy.

The hon. member is quite right, but it does have something to do with money and people’s survival. This includes Blacks, Whites, Coloureds, Indians and all other races. What do we find in South Africa today? Personal savings have reached a record low. I have to spell out these things. I know the hon. the Minister of Finance is doing his best. I do not want to put all the blame on him, but he is the political head of this department, and I therefore have to address these things to him. In certain sectors productivity has ground to a halt.

These pointers I have mentioned are usually the precursors of non-growth in economic activities. These conditions I have just spelt out, may point to a further recession. This indicates to us that it will still take another year before we can expect further growth and an upswing in the economy. In 1980 and 1981, during the tremendous growth in our economy, our policy-makers failed to handle matters correctly. That is why it is difficult to rectify matters now.

I now come to the hon. member for Vasco. Sir, you did not allow me to elaborate on this matter yesterday. That was quite correct because it falls under another order of the day. I pointed out that I was going to ask for a commission of inquiry to be appointed because the hon. member for Vasco did not tell the truth and misled this House. I have thought about this matter. I did not realize that I would be able to discuss it in this debate today. [Interjections.] I am very glad to have this opportunity because in the past the hon. member has always been extremely polite and decent to me. There is not another hon. member in this House who has treated me better than he has. We have always been polite to each other. After I had pointed out in a previous debate that mixed training was taking place at Chamdor in Krugersdorp, the hon. member said in his speech (Hansard Friday, 24 June, col. 10251)—

To which I replied—

The hon. member then went on to say—

Unethical? But he is impugning a man’s character here. The hon. member went on to say—

What are the facts? Yesterday I told the hon. member for Vasco that he was wrong and that he had insulted me. However, the hon. member did not have the courtesy or the good manners simply to tell me he was sorry. What was the question? The question I put to the hon. the Minister of Manpower—I am glad the hon. the Minister is here—was the one the hon. the Minister replied to on 9 June, in column 1514 of the Questions and Replies. My question was—

To this the hon. the Minister of Manpower replied—

1. (a) The centre concerned was initially established in terms of the Black Employees In-Service Training Act, 1976, and is deemed a group training centre in terms of section 31 of the Manpower Training Act, 1981. Group training centres, in addition hereto, are autonomous bodies, which programme training for all population groups.
2. (b) During 1982, the latest specified period in respect of which figures are available, 80 Whites, 106 Coloureds, 18 Asians and 1 788 members of Black population groups participated in group training programmes at the centre.

The hon. member for Vasco accused me of telling lies in this House. The hon. member is an honourable man. The hon. the Prime Minister said that the NP adhered to Christian and civilized standards. Is it Christian and civilized of that hon. member to accuse me in this House of telling lies in this House and acting unethically? What actually happened? The hon. member for Caledon became extremely personal when I was talking to the hon. member for Vasco across the floor of this House. The hon. member became extremely angry. The hon. member for Vasco does not want an hon. member to reprimand another junior member. It seems to me as if they are even told in their caucus: Attack them personally. Do not come up with counter-arguments to their arguments. There are a few hon. members here who, no matter what one says about them, will continue to present arguments, but there are a few other hon. members, like the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare, who can only become personal. It is a pity he is not here because I should like to have addressed a few words to him. He is, after all, the leader of the NP in the Free State.

Now I want to make a final appeal to all hon. members. Let us argue, let us weigh up standpoints against each other, let us weigh up facts against each other, and let us act in a civilized and Christian manner and not carry on like this any longer. If the hon. member for Vasco would just admit that he was wrong, I would be satisfied.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. member for Sunnyside adopted such a sanctimonious attitude that I feel he should rather have looked over his shoulder at the hon. member for Brakpan and tried to teach him the lesson he wanted to teach the hon. member for Vasco. I feel sure the hon. member for Vasco will deal with the allegations of the hon. member at a more opportune moment.

The hon. member for Sunnyside had a lot to say about integrity here and said that we should play the standpoint and not the man. Today he repeated the standpoint here which his leader proclaimed the other evening at a public meeting in the Strand. The leader of the CP owes this hon. House an explanation. I am now going to repeat what the hon. member said … [Interjections.] Would the hon. member please speak louder and not sit there gasping like a fish.

Who are you quoting?

I want to quote the hon. member for Waterberg …

From which newspaper?

From Die Burger. [Interjections.] All I want to know is whether what was reported was correct, whether it was reported in Die Burger or in The Cape Times. The hon. member for Waterberg addressed a meeting in the Strand and said—

With reference to what the hon. the Vice-State President, Mr. Alwyn Schlebusch had said, namely that the Government had to implement its constitutional reforms with all the means at its disposal, the hon. member for Waterberg asked—

Did the hon. member for Waterberg say that? [Interjections.] The hon. member says he did. Now the hon. member must rise to his feet and have the courage of his convictions to motivate here in this House what he said on that occasion. [Interjections.] In a typical Tom Langley way the hon. member for Waterberg created the impression that the Government was going to carry out a coup d’état in South Africa. Surely that is the inference we have to make from what the hon. member said.

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

No, Sir. I only have 15 minutes at my disposal. The hon. member for Waterberg pretends that it is my inference when I say that what he said there implied that the Government would carry out a coup d’état. But what does it mean if the leader of a political party, a sanctimonious clergyman like the hon. member for Waterberg, comes along and asks: “Does this mean that the Government will also use the police and the Defence Force?” What is this but an attempt by the hon. member to sow the seeds of suspicion that the Government is going to carry out a coup d’état in South Africa?

A second question I want to put to the CP is, since their standpoint is now so drastic, if we hold a referendum on a democratic basis, whether that hon. leader and his party will abide by the majority decision of the voters?

I shall reply to you on that.

Very well, then the hon. member must give us a reply to that. We on this side want to tell those hon. members that South Africa is indisputably on the road to reform and the Government will succeed in this because it has the will to accomplish the things it believes in in South Africa. That is why the hon. the Prime Minister will go to the highest authority in the country, to the people, the White voters, to get their permission to implement the new constitution.

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

No, Mr. Speaker.

You are afraid.

Man, your mad Aunt Agatha in the zoo is afraid.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the remark the hon. member has just made parliamentary?

Order! The hon. member for Turffontein must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. We in South Africa are experiencing a total onslaught from the left and from the right, but it will not succeed. The CP with its appendage, the AWB, and the PFP with its appendage, the Black Sash, will not get the Government to change its standpoint. This side of the House stands by the Government because the Government has certain responsibilities resting on its shoulders, the responsibility to do what is right and in the interests of South Africa and its inhabitants. The hon. “blue-eyed boy” of the “liberal establishment”, the hon. member for Rondebosch, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, has driven a wedge between his contribution, his standpoint, and the real facts of South African politics. Through his own doing he stands remote from the real situation and the political debate in South Africa. That is why we are suddenly receiving a flood of notices of instructions to the Select Committee on the constitution. There are no less than six of them, and they come from people who after their boycott efforts failed, are now trying to slip in through the back-door in an attempt to make an impression on the voters of South Africa, to create the impression that they are also making a contribution in respect of the new constitution. But surely they must realize that the principles of that constitution have already been accepted by this House. That is why these notices of theirs, which all assail the principles of the constitution, contribute nothing to politics in South Africa. When they had an opportunity to make a contribution, they bungled it. An article appeared in the Sunday Times under the headline: “A massive PFP bid to improve plan”. This, Sir, is to my mind a last effort on the part of the Sunday Times to prop up the ailing PFP in the political scene in South Africa. The Sunday Times wrote as follows—

Sir, they want to slip in through the backdoor, and the hon. member for Yeoville, like a typical political pedlar, comes here and peddles his old “Act of Dedication” of 1973 and on the basis of his “Mahlabatini Declaration” of years ago he now brings a motion to this House to see whether they can effect any change. Sir, you can take a look at that old document they went about peddling in politics. We find exactly the same wording in this motion of the hon. member for Yeoville. However, at that stage the hon. member for Yeoville said, in connection with the “Act of Dedication”, that the public’s imagination had been excited by that act of dedication by the provincial council members of the United Party of the Transvaal.

Where were you then?

That is why I am sitting here today. At that stage the party to which that hon. member belonged had 19 members on the Transvaal Provincial Council. However, today they do not even have enough members to qualify for the status of official Opposition. That is how they inspired the public with a string of words that meant nothing and were not even worth the paper they were written on.

I should like to refer to two accomplices of the PFP in politics. In the first place there is their youth movement. Shortly before the celebration of Republic Day according to the Cape Times of 1 June 1983 their youth movement here in the Western Cape decided: “No cause to wave the flag”—

They went on to say—

Did you celebrate Republic Day?

I have many other reasons to celebrate Republic Day in South Africa; many other reasons. It is a strategy of the Communist Party to manipulate liberalism for its own ends, and there are clear signs that certain supporters of the PFP very obviously lend themselves to being instruments and aids for organizations of that kind. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, here in my hand I have a Christmas card of the Black Sash of South Africa. The Black Sash sent us a Christmas card in which they wrote the following—

Mr. Speaker, these are the kind of people with whom the hon. member for Bryanston now wants to know whether I am satisfied. However, I wrote a letter to the Black Sash and I asked them why they did not add the following to their list—

When one puts things in this way, Mr. Speaker, the only reaction one gets from hon. members of the PFP, is a flood of criticism. After all, the Black Sash is adopting the same course as they are.

I will agree with your points if you will agree with the other points of the Black Sash. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, there is another man who goes about in this country making all manner of allegations. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston cannot carry on as he is doing now. He must control himself. The hon. member for Turffontein may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, there is another man in South African politics who is going about making all kinds of allegations. I have here with me the evidence of Bishop Tutu, which he sent to us under the heading “The Divine Intention”. I am quoting from it—

In this document Bishop Tutu says the following—

He then goes on to say—

Mr. Speaker, one just wonders …

You are part of the evil.

Hear, hear!

Then hon. members of the PFP say “Hear, hear”. This is the sort of person with whom the hon. member for Pinelands associates. [Interjections.] This is exactly what hon. members of the PFP are doing. Then they are surprised when they go to people outside and are rejected by the people in every election. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville whether he also agrees with the standpoint of Bishop Desmond Tutu and the hon. member for Pinelands. I am asking him this although I know that he will not reply to my question. He does not have the courage of his convictions to do so because he is in a political party in which he does not belong, and he knows that. One just wonders how long South Africa will still put up with such flagrant, radical incitement, particularly at a time when we want co-operation between Whites, Coloureds and Asians in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Turffontein. I do not, however, intend to deal with them in detail in the short time available to me.

I should like to begin by associating myself with the remarks made earlier in respect of Mr. Micky van der Walt. Unfortunately I have never before been in a position in which I have had to deal with him professionally because I have never earned enough money to need to do so! [Interjections.] I have, however, known him for a long time. We have been personal friends, and I know he is someone we will sincerely miss in the circles of administration. I should therefore like to place on record not only my personal appreciation but also that of my party for the work he has done for South Africa and for the onerous task he has performed so well.

This has been a long session and it is going to be much longer but I think any fair observer would come to two conclusions about the session. The first is that the reactions of the Government to the threat of righ-wing confrontation, the challenge from the right, has been a defensive one. It has been uncertain and evasive, often apologetic and sometimes it has been in complete disarray. The Government have made themselves sitting ducks at the very time when they should be giving direction and leadership to South Africa. They have left it to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and a handful of middle and back benchers to explore the ratified realm of power-sharing, joint decision-making and so forth while the rest of the team seems to have run ragged. On the other hand, however, the other two Opposition parties have both proved themselves disastrously irresponsible during this session with the CP exploiting the generations of indoctrination and “bangmaakpolitiek”. They have been going back to the old “basterplakaat” and “gogga maak vir baba bang” stories—the exploitation of the fears and the prejudices in respect of people of colour. Of course, they are the stepchildren of the Government. They have learnt their lesson too well.

Alongside them the PFP embarked on an equally reckless course of negativism breaking everything down without suggesting practical alternatives and apparently not caring about the vacuum they seem to be seeking to create in this country and about the consequences of their actions.

More than ever before this session has demonstrated and revealed South Africa’s need for a voice of responsibility in Opposition politics, and throughout the session this party has tried to provide that voice. It has been a lone voice but even our opponents concede that is has been a positive one. If people think at all, most of them comment that at least the NRP always talks sense. [Interjections.] You see, Sir, most people do not want to hear sense in politics. I thought that the Progs would fall for that. People do not want to listen to sense because it does not make for newsworthy stories such as confrontation politics does. It is much easier to shout invective rather than to make people think.

I make no secret of the fact that some of our own supporters would like us to join in the viturperation of the PFP and of the CP and, as we have just heard, of the NP. We must remember, Sir, that there is a long history in South Africa of our supporters who have been humiliated, insulted and isolated in their own communities, even in their own churches. They have been denigrated as “Kafferboeties”, “Afrikanerverraaiers” and “hanskakies”. They remember what has been done to South Africa in the name of apartheid. To them it is a pleasure to take retribution. To them retribution is sweet because of what they have lived through and suffered. However, they have remained true to South Africa. They have been prepared to put South Africa first and to do what is right for the future of South Africa at a time of critical decision rather than to exploit the situation in order simply to shout and scream and insult people.

On Friday the hon. the Prime Minister called for national unity. This is reported in Die Burger of 25 June—

Of course he is correct. Although he did not mean this period when he said it, he is absolutely correct that the golden years of South African history were from 1934 to 1939 under a United Party Government of moderates when people were drawn close together in South Africa. One of the two objectives for which the NRP was formed was to rebuild a moderate centre in South African politics, one which could create a new Republic offering security and hope for the future. Simply to compete in a war of mud-slinging and of inane, puerile, childish interjections which we hear from the PFP … [Interjections.] … particularly the war of the sty in which the hon. member for Bryanston wallows, will achieve none of these objectives.

What the hon. the Prime Minister was really thinking about was NP unity. He was thinking in terms of NP unity, but I want to say that nothing could be more disastrous for South Africa than a NP/CP re-unification. It could only produce a totally paralysed Government that would destroy South Africa. I call on the hon. the Prime Minister …

How do you know what I mean?

I have only heard the hon. the Prime Minister talk in terms of NP unity, unification behind the NP, and I believe that the kind of unity South Africa really needs is not one confined to the doctrinaire ideologies of a political party, but one based on broad South Africanism stretching across party lines. If that is what the hon. the Prime Minister meant, if that is what he means, then I am 100% with him in that objective, but if he was referring to unity within the ideology of a political party, of the Government party, then I cannot go along with him.

We need a unity across party lines and across racial lines which enables people to work for a common objective without sacrificing the diversity of their own attitudes. An hon. member of the CP quoted somebody earlier this afternoon who is regarded highly in NP circles and for whom I have great respect, although we disagree politically. I refer to Prof. Sampie Terreblanche, not the Terre’Blanche of the AWB. Three times in one article this Sunday—I am going to quote one of them—he referred to this issue of unity across the lines of party and colour. He said in an article in the Sunday Times—

In two other paragraphs he makes this same point, which I want to re-emphasize. The sort of unity South Africa needs is the unity of a common objective without the conformity of ideological strait-jackets. That is why this party has remained committed to retaining its own identity, because to lose it and disappear would be to destroy the last independent force of responsible and moderate South Africans able to influence by a positive contribution the attainment of a common goal.

Everybody will agree that the keys to a secure and peaceful future are probably common cause. What is in question is how to achieve those ends. I would say that the first key is constitutional reform which can be supported by moderates of all races. The second would be a strong economy which can remove social and economic imbalances and discrimination. The third would be a social structure providing for human dignity and the opportunity for all to be recognized. The next would be the maintenance of law and order and the protection of the individual under the law. Then there would be international respect and co-operation between South Africa and especially our neighbours.

Your policy does not reflect that.

This is not the occasion for a detailed constitutional debate. The Bill on that is before a Select Committee at the moment. We believe that the new constitution is a hesitant step in the right direction, a starting point for bringing other groups into the political process at every level of government.

It is interesting to note how we have been crucified by the PFP and its Press for this attitude, but it is ironic that other bodies such as Assocom, the FCI, the Chamber of Industries, and the Handelsinstituut have all given the same sort of qualified support. Indian and Coloured leaders and spokesmen for the American Government do not get crucified. Only the NRP does. However, the PFP, which is most vociferous, speaks for less than half of its own supporters. [Interjections.] According to an opinion poll it speaks for less than half of its own supporters.

The crunch is coming for them.

When the PFP had not yet made up its mind, about 50% of its supporters wanted to support the constitution. After it had made up its mind to oppose it, more of its supporters wanted to support the constitution. When the NRP had also not yet seen it or decided on its attitude, we had about 50% indicating support for the constitution. When we took a line on it, that 50% went up to 70%. The English-language Press, which is 100% opposed to the constitution, produces the biggest percentage of support from its readers. So, at least we of the NRP are in tune with our own people.

If you have so much support, why is the NRP such a tiny party?

Sir, I am not prepared to waste time on that sort of hon. member. We know his record and the level of his participation in debate.

Our attitude is on record and I am not going to repeat it. Our amendments were submitted to the Select Committee today. There were some 20 amendments. That is not the gimmick politics of the PFP with its instructions which will all be ruled out of order and cannot be debated anyway.

Which of them do you not agree with?

We have submitted our objections where they belong. They are before the Select Committee and they will be dealt with there. Where are the amendments of the PFP which is making such a “positive contribution”? What amendments of theirs are before the Select Committee? They are not there yet. They are at the bottom of the Order Paper and therefore will not be debated.

We shall talk about this again in August. This is the time for a general debate and for straight talking with the Government. It has had the courage, to take what has been for the NP a traumatic step into a new era. The Government then left it to a few members to explore the consequences of this step in the terrified atmosphere of power-sharing whilst the rest of the party has gone over to the defensive. I believe the hon. the Prime Minister must tell his own party to stop fumbling and bungling and to face the consequences of the course he has chosen for that party, to project and to propagate it instead of apologizing or explaining or denying it. There are hon. members who would like to go out as missionaries to sell it.

We are doing it.

Some are, but very few. My appeal is that this should be an instruction to everybody, namely to sell and not to explain and to apologize.

One could deal with many of the conflicts in that party, but I do not have the time to do so. We have one Minister announcing the acceptance of the Rikhoto court finding and another saying that they are going to shift all the Blacks out of Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu. One could go on with example after example of the split personality of that party, but the issue before South Africa today is too serious to play around with nit-picking, or trying to score political points when there are crucial decisions to be taken.

During this session we have discussed economic opportunity, which is the key to a stable society, and the recognition of human rights in respect of which the Government has a long way to go. In this respect the NRP differs greatly from both the Government and the PFP. The Government is still blindly committed to ethnic uniformity by statutory decree. The PFP is committed to statutory enforcement of a compulsorily open society, compulsorily open in every field. Neither gives an option to the people. One has either to be totally separate under the one or totally integrated under the other. There are no easy answers, but the only system that can work in South Africa as it is today—I make no apology for coming back to it—is the flexibility of local option, with an important proviso, namely that where the local option is exercised for exclusive rights, equivalent areas or facilities must be provided for those who want to share. You cannot have exclusivity without also providing alternatives. On these two legs, this is the only answer and the one to which this Government, as long as it is in power, will have to turn. This is something even the official Opposition will have to learn. The only system in which people will have a choice of living as they wish without interfering with the right of others, is the system of local option.

Tell us about Constantia.

I am not going to be diverted. I could spend five minutes making a monkey out of that hon. member, but I promised myself that I would not allow myself to be diverted.

There is also the question of the maintenance of law and order and what goes with it. There is still the weakness we have in our system of section 29 of the Internal Security Act. However, stability is an absolute essential if we are to make progress. There are also our international relations.

For better or for worse—I want to conclude with this—South Africa has started on a new course, but the NP cannot take South Africa to its destination alone. I refer to the hon. the Prime Minister’s call for national unity. I agree with it, if by that he means the sort of national unity which I outlined across party and community lines. However, this cannot really be achieved unless the pillars of racial rejection, the humiliations of the left-overs of apartheid that brought South Africa into the confrontation position in the first place, are replaced by a new approach to human relations.

The hon. the Prime Minister knew this when he started on this road, the road to shared responsibility. He knew the price was the unity of the monolithic National Party, and he must know in his heart of hearts now that there is no turning back. The unity he seeks means that many of the hangovers of apartheid will have to be expunged from the record so that there can be a unity in diversity, a unity to which this party is committed, but committed on the basis that I have outlined. On that basis I believe there is a challenge before every South African to act responsibly, to act in the interests of South Africa, to place South Africa first, to stop playing cheap politics and to stop distorting and twisting. The facts must be put before the people to enable them to make a calm and clear judgment when the time comes.

Mr. Speaker, generally speaking not one of us on this side of the House has difficulties with the concept of the hon. member for Durban Point of a broad national unity in South Africa. If hon. members opposite were to take note of what we on this side of the House have said with regard to national unity, they would have seen that the broad concept that the hon. member tried to enunciate here, viz. that in South Africa, in the midst of the reality of ethnicity, there must also be broader aspects of consensus, is part of the NP’s vision of the future for South Africa. The NP in 1983, in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, stands as a proactive party, and in this way faces the problems of South Africa. In contrast, the CP, in my humble opinion, is a reactive party. When we look at the future of South Africa, this is the essence of what we are faced with, viz. that we must anticipate the problem and not try to enter the future in 1983 with a reverse gear approach. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Durban Point said that there were no final answers. I want to say to him that there are no final answers with regard to his own party’s standpoint relating to “local option” either. If a PFP city council were to do something at a specific place that the hon. member regarded as wrong, his whole argument of local option would fall flat because then he and his party would not say that the people in that specific area should be compelled to do certain things against their will and with the possibility of conflict. That, too, is the argument I should like to put to the hon. member for Durban Point with regard to the removal of discrimination. The NP states bluntly in 1983 that it does not intend making petty apartheid big again in South Africa. In contrast to that, there is the policy of the CP. We intend maintaining the basis of self-determination and separate co-existence of peoples and communities here as a practical recipe in accordance with which we can move forward in all spheres in South Africa, politically, economically and socially.

What is petty apartheid?

Petty apartheid is what the hon. member for Waterberg wrote in an article in the ’seventies—I have the cutting before me—about the problems that will be experienced when a White man and a Black man have to stand in the same queue in a post office. That is the kind of thing … [Interjections.]

Order!

I say to hon. members of the PFP that we are filled with grave concern …

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

No, I do not have the time now. We are filled with grave concern about the direction that politics in South Africa is taking under the leadership of those people. Now the hon. member for Durban Point may say that we in the NP are afraid to launch out on the road of change and of challenge in South Africa because we are looking over our shoulders and have to keep explaining due to attacks by the CP. I want to state here today as clearly as possible that we speak about national unity, we seek the unity of all those people who endorse the standpoints of the NP in the interests of South Africa. The NP stands for a unity in South Africa which extends across all borders with regard to specific norms that we wish to preserve. It does not negate and destroy the ethnic diversity (“volkereverskei-denheid”) as a reality on which our party is based.

What is a “volk”?

We simply say that we look at the reality of the future in South Africa. The NP will not deny the self-determination of people and peoples, but we are not prepared to help destroy the future of our children in this country in accordance with a rigid, absolutist recipe such as that held out to us by the CP.

If the history of South Africa were ever to have to write the word “sorry” across the P. W. Botha era, history would add two words, the words “too late”. I charge the CP today with knowing, as surely as we on this side of the House know, that in many respects South Africa has moved into a crisis situation on all fronts, a crisis situation due to threats from outside, pressure from the outside world, due to terrorist activities internally, security problems we are struggling with in the interior and economic problems that make it impossible for us to do everything that has to be done. Although the hon. members of the CP know this, they bluff the population into believing that we are trying to sell people out in South Africa. The NP does not have such an absolutist view of South Africa as they do. To us it makes a difference whether the Christian norms and values are preserved in South Africa. In other words, it matters to us how many Christians there are in South Africa, irrespective of colour. It matters to us how many people there are in South Africa who are in favour of the free market system and want to live in accordance with it, whatever their colour. It matters to us how many people there are in South Africa who wish to preserve our norms of civilization, decency and propriety. To make a general statement, we do not negate the separate existence of people, peoples and communities. By holding up those very ideals, we can build a future for our children. If there is any man in this country who will in future be blamed for not having done what had to be done because he concerned himself with petty politics relating to the race policy, it is the hon. member for Waterberg, the leader of the CP. I should like to say to the hon. members of the CP that the standpoint of Dr. A. P. Treurnicht, in the way he conducts politics in South Africa, is one of the most inhibiting factors in this country, where we have to take our people with us on the inevitable, absolutely essential road of reform. One day, when history has to pass judgment on the leader of the CP, it will not even be asked what portfolios he occupied along the way. I challenge the hon. members of the CP to draw up a pamphlet to indicate the achievements and monuments left by Dr. A. P. Treurnicht while he was Minister or Deputy Minister on this side of the House.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that he was a good Minister.

When the hon. leader of the CP had the opportunity, within the NP, to come forward with practical standpoints, when he had the opportunity to make practical contributions with regard to the solution to our problems, he remained silent; he said nothing. I say to him that he will go down in history as one of the most important inhibiting and retarding factors, as Dr. Willem de Klerk put it. Dr. Treurnicht is a master of the Afrikaans language of the present, but he is a slave of the Afrikaner thinking of the past. If we look at our country in 1983, we look ahead and not back. One of the tragedies in South Africa is that history is not going to ask how fine Dr. Treurnicht’s words sounded. Nor is history going to ask how good he looked on a platform. History is not going to ask what impression he made on the unthinking people. History is going to ask whether he and his party rose above their own petty interests.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

History is going to ask whether he and his party faced all the facts. History is going to ask whether they were able to evaluate the facts of South Africa in the context of the total picture.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

History is going to ask whether they were able to interpret the facts.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

History is going to ask whether they showed balance.

Yes.

Yes.

History is going to ask whether they correctly interpreted the interaction between people and peoples.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the CP are answering “Yes” to this in a chorus. Why, then, do they practise exactly the same practical politics as the HNP, although they say that they and the hon. member for Waterberg read politics correctly? [Interjections.] After all, hon. members of the CP say that everything is being done for the Black people. Their own people also say so. [Interjections.]

But you say that the White people are apartheid dogs. Tell us a little more about that.

The hon. member for Langlaagte is running away already, of course. The hon. member for Sunnyside said today that the standard of living of the Whites was deteriorating as that of the Blacks increased. Surely that is not true, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Rissik attempted ad nauseam to incite emotions with regard to the concept of integration and the concept of the co-existence of people. [Interjections.] Hon. members of the CP …

Order! Did the hon. member for Langlaagte say that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana was a “hanskakie” (renegade)?

No, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that.

Mr. Speaker, I said it.

Order! The hon. member for Jeppe must withdraw the word “hanskakie”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Order! The hon. member for Innesdal may proceed.

History will ask whether Dr. A. P. Treurnicht conducted his politics with a vision of the future or whether he perhaps saw himself as a leader with a reverse gear vision. I contend that the hon. member for Waterberg is a leader with a reverse gear mission. He has a self-imposed vision of leading his people back to the level from which we are at great pains to try to lead them away. After all, we know that we are on the road to development, while the hon. member for the CP and his party keep moving backwards in reverse gear. [Interjections.]

I found yesterday’s TV debate on change so symptomatic of the way in which the hon. the leader of the CP conducts politics. I sat before my TV set and wrote down his exact words. He said inter alia—

And now follows what will be taken most amiss of Dr. Treurnicht and those who follow him in South Africa. He goes on to say—

These are such nice, praiseworthy clichés about what we will need. Whereas we are struggling with the real practical problems and where the hon. member for Waterberg could have been a partner in the creation of a future for his people, he has failed hopelessly. The hon. member for Lichtenburg himself admitted in this House that some of the things he had to do were not done because they were practical problems. I concede that. Now, however, they sit there knowing what the problems of South Africa are, knowing what a crisis we are faced with in many respects, and nevertheless they sow suspicion against the leaders that have to lead us on the road ahead. In the television interview last night the hon. the leader of the CP went on to say—

Surely that is not true, Mr. Speaker.

Of course it is true. [Interjections.]

Surely we cannot still be engaged in politicking of this nature in 1983. In 1983 the realities demand of us what we are in fact doing and presenting as solutions. The realities do not ask us what we still have to investigate. The realities do not ask us to run around from platform to platform with the political arguments of 1948, using them to arouse people’s emotions. I contend that the CP is nothing but the new HNP. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Rissik who in his heart and soul was in fact a member of the old HNP, knows that I am right. [Interjections.] One need only look at all the things that hon. members of the CP say. [Interjections.]

Order!

We need only read their newspaper and look at everything they say to know that that is true. After all, they say that everything is being done for the Black people and that we are on the road to integration. According to them we are going the way of Zimbabwe. They allege many other things, too, some of which I quoted here earlier. Their political arguments are typically, word for word, those of the HNP. However, I believe that ultimately the voters of South Africa, however they may share our concern about the future, will know what the real truth is. Concern is a virtue, but its little brother, panic, is fatal.

I should like to contend here today that there are several hon. members of the CP who, I believe, look at the future with sincere intentions. In their heart of hearts, however, those hon. members no longer believe that many of the things that have to be done, can be done. No one in this country will tell me that a person like the hon. member for Barberton, with his intellect, does not know in his heart of hearts that these follies they are running around with, follies like a Coloured homeland, and other things they try and make politics out of, can in fact work. I say that if a person conducts that kind of politics with that attitude and that knowledge, then he is being irresponsible towards one’s country and towards one’s future. Each one of us in this House has an obligation to the people at large, not to tell them the things they want to hear, but to tell them what the realities are and to tell them too, why we are prepared to face those realities squarely. Dr. A. P. Treurnicht has become the political darling of all our enemies. He has become the leader of many people who believe that we no longer have a future. [Interjections.] I want to say to the hon. member for Rissik that I say to my people in my constituency: Man, if you do not believe that we have a future in this country, then it is in the interests of your own people that you leave.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Has the hon. member for Rissik the right to say that the hon. member for Innesdal must stop telling lies?

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

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

May I address you in that connection. Sir?

No. The hon. member must withdraw that expression.

I withdraw it, Sir, but I just want to say … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Innesdal broadcast the untruth that the hon. member for Rissik is a member of the HNP?

Order! That is not a point of order. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to debate the issue of whether it is a point of order or not, but I say that it is quite obvious. [Interjections.]

Albert, that is a lie.

Order! Did the hon. member for Kuruman say that what the hon. member for Innesdal said, was a lie?

Yes, Sir.

The hon. member may not use the word “lie”. The hon. member must withdraw that word.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it, and substitute the words “gross untruth”.

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the hon. member for Rissik had signed an HNP membership card. I am talking about his political activities. I say that from the outset he has been with Mr. Jaap Marais in his heart and soul and in his whole being, and he knows it. [Interjections.] Had it not been for the fact that I have a sense of political decency, I would have quoted verbatim to the hon. member a telephone conversation I had with him … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Rissik may not say “it is a gross untruth and you know it”. The hon. member must withdraw the words “and you know it”.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, it is astonishing to think that there are White people in South Africa who think that the White man has to hurry to stake a claim for himself in his own country. I do not have the time to embroider on that, but I want to ask those hon. members: Stand up and tell us whether you agree with the philosophy of the Oranje workers who are trying to seek a little piece of land for themselves in their own country. [Interjections.] They must stand up and tell us where they stand with regard to the AWB and their politically aggressive approach with regard to the future of our country. [Interjections.]

When we in the NP look ahead, we say that there are certain political shackles that we must free ourselves of. We also say that there are certain sacred cows that we must get out of our way. We in the governing party are not afraid, in the interests of our own rights and in the interests of the preservation of our own identity, to …

Commit suicide!

… take the audacious steps that are in the interests of the preservation of those values in the political, economical and socio-economic spheres we believe should be preserved for our children in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I always listen very attentively to what the hon. member for Innesdal says. One day he and I are going to bring about the age of enlightenment in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon. member made a very interesting speech and, inter alia, he raised a few points to which I should like to react very briefly. The hon. member said that they did not want to make petty apartheid big in South Africa. To me, the important question is this: What are they going to do with the petty apartheid? I want to suggest that we kill that petty apartheid immediately. We must get rid of it. We in South Africa must no longer be able to talk of petty or grand apartheid or any form of apartheid. If we wish to make progress with regard to reform and peace and stability in South Africa, we must get rid of all forms of apartheid as soon as practicable.

The hon. member says that the number of Christians in South Africa is very important to him. I agree with him; it is important. However, what is far more important than the number of Christians in South Africa, is the degree of Christianity in South Africa, because we shall be judged by the Christianity that we practise in building up our country, in the system of reform and in the constitutional systems.

The hon. member’s whole attack on the CP is based on the racist remarks which underlie all attacks of the CP on the NP. I have said this before: It does not differ in any way from the very same racist language the NP has been using all these years in respect of the PFP and other parties which tried to get away from racism and apartheid in South Africa. It is the same insults, the same racism and the same gross language that was used against us.

†For the purpose of my speech let us accept the contention of the Government that there is a total onslaught on South Africa. Let us accept that part of that total onslaught is the Marxist global strategy of gaining control of Southern Africa for its own purposes. Let us accept those two suppositions of the Government for the purposes of this discussion. I shall also accept that if that is so, then South Africa obviously needs an effective total counter-strategy to deal with that onslaught. If that is so, then I think one can accept that the new constitution should form the basis, should be the major part of such an effective total counter-strategy against the total onslaught on South Africa.

I want to pose this question: Is the new constitution proposed by the Government in effect part of an effective counter-strategy to that total onslaught or is it not? Is the new constitution which the Government is proposing for South Africa not the very opposite of an effective counter-strategy? Is it not possibly going to be a boost for the so-called total onslaught on South Africa? Is it not going to be an advantage to those who want to attack and undermine South Africa? Is it going to be an instrument in the hands of our enemies?

I should like the Government to put these questions to themselves, because I think that if they do so calmly and soberly, they may come to the conclusion that the new constitution will not be an advantage in the fight against the enemy, that the new constitution will not be an effective instrument against that onslaught, but that it may in future be the very basis for an effective onslaught on South Africa.

I should like to put just a few simple questions to the Government in this connection. There are many other valid and pertinent questions which could be put. I should like to put these questions and if the Government cannot answer them, I should like to supply the answers because I am a very generous sort of guy. The first question is: Will the new constitution unite rather than fragment our society? That is a very important question. Surely, when one is producing a new constitution for the country, one of one’s main aims must be to unite the various groups and fragments within the society. The question is whether this constitution achieves the uniting of our society. Unfortunately I have to say no, in no circumstances because right from the outset the Government set about producing a constitution on the basis that 70% of the population of the country was pointedly excluded from that process. The Blacks in South Africa were pointedly excluded from the process of seeking and finding a new constitution. What has the consequence of that been? It has not been to unite Blacks and Whites in South Africa in a common cause. The consequence has been the biggest boost for polarization amongst the races in South Africa we have ever had. The consequence has been the strengthening of Black militancy in South Africa. The consequence has been to unite Blacks against the Whites in South Africa, and not to unite Blacks with Whites in South Africa. If one looks at the structure the new constitution proposes, one sees that the entire structure is based on race and compartmentalizes racial groups in separate constitutional institutions and separate systems. Once again, that is incapable of uniting people. The opposite is absolutely true: It will inevitably lead to division amongst people. It will inevitably lead to suspicion and prejudice amongst people. If one wants to unite people in South Africa, if one wants a single South African nation committed to this country and its interests, one has to have a society which is not plagued by measures such as the race classification legislation which has the effect of dividing people, dividing them and then labelling them and placing them in separate compartments in regard to every aspect of their lives. So the answer to the first question, unfortunately, is: No, this constitution cannot unite South Africa.

The next question is whether it will stabilize our population. South Africa has an unstable population. Tens of thousands of people, for labour and other reasons, are constantly moving around our country, or wanting to move around our country. Will this constitution stabilize our population? The stability of family life, the stability of the family unit and of the community, are important requirements for the stability of the nation. No, Sir, it will not do it, because this constitution does not say that every South African will in fact have freehold title in South Africa. It does not say that in future people will be free from the disruption of mass removals. Therefore I have to say that this constitution will not stabilize our population.

Will it engender a common loyalty to a common fatherland? If anything is important in the creation of a new constitution it is to ensure that it engenders a common loyalty to a common fatherland. All the great constitutions that have been devised to date have had that as a very important aim. What has, however, happened here? We produce a constitution for a complex plural society but it is not produced by negotiation between the components, it is not the product of negotiation but it is a constitution superimposed by the representatives of one of the minority components within that society.

That is not true.

Then we produce a constitution which does not guarantee, as a fundamental issue, equal citizenship for South Africa’s people. That is an absolutely fundamental requirement. One cannot achieve common loyalty if there is not common and equal citizenship. We have asked for a Bill of Rights. What is more important than a Bill of Rights to persuade all the citizens of the country that one really sincerely means it when one says that this constitution is there to protect the rights of all the people, to give the people equal opportunity and to give them security as citizens of one State and one nation? As far as that question is concerned, the Government’s constitutional proposals do not meet that requirement and the answer once again is “no”.

Will it bring interracial peace? That is an extremely important requirement in the South African society. It is interracial discord and tension which lie at the root of many of our problems and which are undermining our security. When we produce a new constitution, we want to create by means of that constitution interracial peace between the people. This constitution cannot do that. One of the things it fails to do, is to say specifically that the society and the country we are going to create in terms of this constitution will be free of all forms of discrimination based on race, colour and other considerations. That is a very important consideration. One cannot achieve that and maintain measures such as the Separate Amenities Act on the Statute Book. There is going to be a mixed Cabinet in Pretoria. As long as the White, Coloured and Indian members sit in that Cabinet, they are a non-Black entity divided from Black South Africans. But when they walk out of that Cabinet meeting into a park, they are no longer a part of non-Black South Africa, but are then part of Black South Africa. When they walk through a park, they must realize that they are then seen as Black. They are then not part of the White, Coloured and Indian non-Black entity but become part of the Black entity. If they get on a train, they must remember that whereas they sat next to Indians and Whites in the Cabinet, they cannot hope to do so on the train and that they will once again be part of Black South Africa. You cannot expect the people of South Africa to achieve real interracial goodwill under those circumstances.

Will the proposed new constitution build confidence? How can a constitution where the courts are denied the right to test the actions of the President and the Government, engender confidence in the people it serves. Will the constitution effectively counter Marxism? I think that in South Africa our constitution must be an effective counter to the advance of Marxism. How can one achieve that if the constitution does not provide for equal education and for the right of people to study together? How can the constitution do that if it does not guarantee equal access to economic opportunity for all our citizens? How can the constitution effectively counter Marxism if it rests on the maintenance of the Group Areas Act? How can it be an effective counter to Marxism when all the laws that handicap Black South Africans and prevent them from achieving the full potential of their talents remain on the Statute Book? It is just not possible.

The problem is therefore the following. No matter how many questions one asks, sane, intelligent and simple questions, to test the validity of this constitution and to establish whether it can achieve peace, prosperity and stability for South Africa, whether in fact it is the sort of thing that will fill us with hope and will be something to look forward to, the answer to all those questions is unfortunately a definite no. One asks oneself the question why this is so. Why after all these years, all the discussions and all the efforts are we faced with this incredibly unfortunate and unhappy situation? Why is it that when we do try to create a new constitution, that constitution does not meet any of the reasonable aspirations and hopes of South Africa and all its peoples? The only answer one can possibly give is that at the basis of all this the reason for this failure is the fear on the part of the Government for real reform. The Government knows that there has to be reform and it wants to bring about some reform, but it fears real reform. It fears the consequences and implications of real reform for its own ideology and its own policy.

Then there is also its fear of the right wing. The Government has an inordinate fear of the right wing in South Africa. This fear of the right wing paralyses the Government. There is fear of the CP because of the minor gains that that party has made at the polls.

That is nonsense. Just rubbish.

That hon. member’s whole speech spoke of fear of the CP. This Government has a fear of the future. It fears a common multiracial future for South Africa. The Government is fearful that the success of real reform will prove once and for all that the Government was always wrong and on the wrong path in following the path of the ideology of apartheid.

At a time in the history of South Africa when we need courage and guts on the part of the Government, we are faced with a dithering party, a party of fear, a party which cannot hope to lead South Africa into a future of peace and prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston asked a thousand and one questions and furnished the answers himself. That is, the answers he wanted to give. I should like to try to reply to a few of the questions the hon. member asked.

His main argument was that the new constitutional dispensation would supposedly not be able to satisfy anyone in South Africa. In the first instance, he said that it excluded 70% of the population of South Africa. He said that we were not getting away from discrimination and that we needed a total counter-strategy since, as he put it, the new constitutional dispensation would not unite all the peoples of South Africa. What is the real test of that argument of his?

Surely the first test is the fact that for 35 years now this side of the House has had a mandate to implement a certain relations policy in South Africa. This policy has, as its first objective, the granting of self-determination to the various peoples in this country. The NP has done this.

Which peoples?

The hon. member must not try to make me digress from the point. He knows that the Xhosas have their own State and that they obtained their independence. The same applies to the Vendas, as well as to other groups. That policy is being implemented. Today there is not one of these Black peoples, the so-called 70% who, according to the PFP, are being excluded from the decision-making processes in South Africa, who would say that the freedom they have acquired should be denied them. However, it is being blazoned abroad that Black people have no say and that they do not participate in decision-making processes. That is the position according to hon. members on that side of the House. The hon. member must accept the pattern that has already been created. This policy is being pursued for the very purpose of escaping this dilemma so that, firstly, there will be no domination of one group by another and, secondly, that each people will be given an opportunity of expressing its own right to self-determination. The hon. member is aware of that.

I find it so very odd that for years now the Opposition parties in South Africa have been saying that, whereas the NP has an answer as regards the Blacks, they have no answer as regards the Coloureds and Indians. Now that an answer is also being given as regards the Coloureds and Indians, however, they are asking why we do not include the Blacks, too. We have already given them the answer as far as Blacks are concerned. Surely the hon. member for Bryanston is aware that separate freedoms and separate independent States are not the final answer. A constellation of States has yet to be established, and a confederal relationship between all these States is being created in order to establish a common loyalty to Southern Africa among all the peoples and in order to best develop the economic viability of the whole of Southern Africa.

The hon. member said that there was no one in South Africa who was satisfied with the proposed new dispensation. He said that this new dispensation was playing into the hands of our enemies. Let us consider for a moment what the Coloureds themselves have to say about the new dispensation.

What did Curry say?

I shall quote him, too. If only that hon. member and his party would follow the example of a David Curry, who does not adopt a boycott attitude, South Africa would be much better off. He must not let the Coloureds start showing us in South Africa what course to take. Let us see what Mr. Sonny Leon had to say. According to Die Burger of 13 October last year he said—

According to that hon. member we are busy creating a schism. Mr. Leon went on to say—

There is the hon. member who will allow no form of discrimination or differentiation. Everyone must be here. Yet a prominent Coloured leader, a member of the President’s Council, says here that he no longer has any quarrel with the Whites and that a Parliament with three chambers is much better than the old form of representation the Coloureds had through Whites in this Parliament. According to the hon. member for Bryanston, that is schismatic, however. Let us consider for a moment what Mr. Abram-Mayet, a member of the Committee for Economic Affairs of the President’s Council, had to say. This was his experience of things in the President’s Council. How much more will this not be their experience of things in their own chamber and in the Standing Committees? Mr. Abram-Mayet said—

That is the reply given, but according to the hon. member for Bryanston, we are engaged in creating a schism in South Africa. The hon. member for Bryanston asked: What does Mr. David Curry say? I shall quote what Mr. David Curry had to say about this matter.

He said that it would never work.

Where did he say that? When did he say that?

At Stellenbosch.

Mr. Curry said—

According to the hon. member for Bryanston, however, we will not get these people to co-operate: We are dividing South Africa. I wish to quote further what Mr. David Curry had to say in Rapport of 27 February of this year—

That is what Mr. Curry had to say. That is the biggest fear hon. members of the PFP have. Under the new dispensation, the moment the Coloureds and the Asians speak on their own behalf, the basis of PFP propaganda will fall away; their role in this House of Assembly and in South African politics will have become irrelevant. The only bit of credibility they have had as yet, is that the public have thought they were speaking on behalf of the non-Whites. However, they would not longer be able to pretend to be speaking on their behalf. I just want to read what Chief Gatsha Buthelezi had to say about the PFP and about Dr. Boraine’s son. He said—

And the hon. member speaks of polarization! It is their attitude, however, which creates polarization in South Africa. He went on to say—

Mr. Speaker, that is the reply to our hon. friends opposite.

Quote to us what Gatsha has to say about the Nats. [Interjections.]

He told us that we were not creating unity in South Africa. We are aware that there is a diversity of peoples, and we therefore want the various peoples and groups to speak on their own behalf. The hon. member for Bryanston and his cronies are trying to create the impression that they are able to speak for the Blacks. They are, however, speaking for the radicals. That is why on 16 June this year, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—though one expected him to act responsibly—again advanced the same argument the hon. member for Bryanston raised here. He said that 70% of the population had no say, and that for that reason people should vote “no” in the referendum. However, he consistently maintains that there is nothing sinister in what he said. Even certain daily newspapers use those very words and say that there is nothing sinister about the statement by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. If, then, he is so inept, so ignorant about and so insensitive to South African politics, that is no excuse at all. Surely he should have known that he could not say something like that, particularly on that day. That is what those hon. members want, however. Of course, the statement the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made was a calculated one, and that is also the danger facing South Africa.

When we really get down to writing the history of this country one day, we will find that there was, first and foremost, only one political party that tried to bring about prosperity in South Africa and, secondly, that tried to bring about peace among the various peoples of South Africa; only one party that tried, in the third instance, to guarantee the safety of all in this country. History will not have that to say about the PFP. The NP will be the party to which history will give this testimonial; the NP, whose achievements over the past 35 years, and in the future, will go down in history. This party has made South Africa strong and great. This party has made South Africa secure, since it has never begrudged any person or any group in South Africa a place in the sun.

Firstly, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the CP I should also just like to address a word of thanks to Mr. Micky van der Walt, who is now leaving the department. Unfortunately I have never had the privilege of discussing my personal problems with him. He did, however, discuss the problems of my voters with me, and I found him to be precisely the kind of man the hon. the Minister says he is. I want to express my regrets at the fact that now that I am in a position to go and see him personally, he will no longer be there. I therefore hope and trust that it will be in the same positive spirit that the hon. the Minister will grant me an interview. Our best wishes also go to Dr. Burton, who is to succeed Mr. Van der Walt. I have already had the privilege of meeting him at his office. I want to wish him a happy, fruitful and very successful term of office in the department.

Thus far we have listened to quite a number of debates in this House; debates that have dealt with a variety of subjects. Apparently the debate this afternoon has once again gravitated towards the new constitutional dispensation. I just want to make a few references to hon. members who have already participated in the debate.

The hon. member for Durban Point spoke about the fear we have—particularly hon. members of the CP—in regard to certain situations. According to him that is the reason why we adopt the standpoint we do. The way he put it, and with the evidence at his disposal and the support of his party, he reminded me of the old adage about the brave little mouse, but that bravery came from within—from a full stomach.

I also want to refer to the hon. member for Innesdal. The hon. member for Innesdal described the hon. the leader of the CP as a slave to Afrikaner thinking of years gone by. He said that with acclamation. I just want to tell my hon. young friend that I am no amateur at this game. It is not by the intonation and emphasis in one’s voice that one wins an argument. As a more senior member, I want to tell the hon. member that I personally voluntarily declare myself a servant to past Afrikaner thinking, and I shall defend it and expand on it with vigour. [Interjections.] In the past Afrikaner thinking was based on faith. It was also based on justice. The hon. member is laughing at me.

Because you are so wrong in your understanding and interpretation of these things. [Interjections.]

That is unfortunately the problem of that hon. member’s party. They argue on the false premise that they have the sole right to truth, understanding and common sense. [Interjections.] I reiterate that Afrikaner thinking of years gone by was based on faith, and it gave this country the Republics of the Orange Free State and the Transvaal, which we would never have had without the faith of an Andries Pretorius. We would never have had them without the attributes and the characteristics of such a fearless and faithful man who, when 10 000 Zulus charged at him, had only had 468 men in his laager. If he had been afraid and had decided to adapt or die, he would have said: I have to save the lives of these women and children. If he had done that I, as one of his descendants, would not have blamed him. However, he acted out of a sense of calling, a sense of faith. He decided otherwise, and he won, and the Republics of the Transvaal and the Free State were established. I could advance the same arguments with regard to Vegkop. I could also advance the same argument with regard to the loss of our republics. For 59 years, we had to wait in faith, trust and loyalty, and then the Almighty said to us: I am going to give you more than I took from you. I am going to give you one big, united South African Republic, instead of the two I deprived you of. I say that I willingly, enthusiastically and with acclamation declare myself to be a servant of that Afrikaner thinking for as long as I am sitting in this House. [Interjections.] The hon. member for De Kuilen and I are by no means amateurs at this game. I just want to tell the hon. member that I find the quotation about Mr. Sonny Leon saying that the Coloureds and the Whites in this country had found one another a little selective. I know of other statements by Messrs. Curry and Hendrickse that prove the contrary. There is also the matter of what Gatsha Buthelezi said about the PFP. [Interjections.] I do not want to go into that in detail. I also know that Gatsha Buthelezi said that the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. If I had to choose between him and the hon. the Leader of the CP, I would choose Dr. Treurnicht time and again. [Interjections.] We shall not advance that kind of argument. We should leave that to the amateurs.

What do the Coloureds say about your policy?

That is just a little game to try to make an impression, and then to believe that one has won an argument.

What about a Coloured homeland?

Mr. Speaker, there are many Coloureds who are in favour of a Coloured homeland. [Interjections.] For one reason only—and one only needs a little common sense, and not a newspaper cutting to prove that—and that is that to any responsible leader, complete freedom is worth more than partial freedom or being someone’s henchman and getting a bigger salary. Do not advance such childish arguments here. [Interjections.]

We are living in a time when differences of opinion have arisen, even among our fellow-countrymen. We have been accused of being a fifth column, of having broken away, of being deserters, cheats and liars, but I want to say in all earnestness that in the past there have also been people who have been banished into the political desert. This happened twice to General Hertzog, as well as to Dr. Malan. They were in the political desert, but they returned. Those who banished them into the political desert, did now know that in that desert was a bramble bush, honeycomb and a trickle of water under a crack in the rock. They survived and they returned and told King Ahab: On behalf of the people we say to you, this city you have tried to build by your own hand and by your own volition, will not survive. I am absolutely convinced that these words of mine will be confirmed in the forthcoming referendum. [Interjections.] This is the message that is going to come from the people, from those who are adhering to the Afrikaner thinking of years gone by and trying to be guided by it: This city of yours will be destroyed. This is the message the Government will receive. [Interjections.]

I am not begging anyone to share my convictions. Everyone has a right to his own standpoint, and I should also therefore be granted the right to adopt and proclaim my own standpoint. I regard the 1980s as that period in which the greatest onslaught has been made on the identity of the White man, and on the Afrikaner in particular, in the history of this country. This time it has not come from outside. It is not a total onslaught from without, but from within …

Treurnicht!

You are a “sot” (twit).

… from the point of view of our political dispensation, from our media, and finally, sad to say, from our own church. It is an onslaught on the philosophy, the way of thinking, the view of life of the White man and the Afrikaner in this country. In the political sphere we are being subjected to a process of depoliticization.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Waterberg permitted to refer to another hon. member as a “sot”?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I said that an onslaught was being made on the political front by a process of depoliticization with a view to subtle denationalization, to taking the sting out of any attempt by the people to organize themselves politically. This is taking place with a view to ultimately reducing us to Whites, Coloureds and Asians, to a lot of individuals with numbers. That is why we are so often accused by that side of the House of being racists when we speak about the Afrikaner … [Interjections.] … and we are playing around here with concepts like “people” and “nation”; we should rather speak of a “nation” than of an “Afrikaner people”. [Interjections.]

How many nations are there in South Africa?

I have already dealt with that.

This process, which is part of the onslaught, dates from the political era of Louis Botha. I am referring to the attitude: Conciliation; tame them; make them an offer; if you cannot beat them, join them; become part of a larger empire. This was followed by the holistic idea of Smuts, the idea of a larger whole, since you are then stronger because there are more of you. Numbers count, and then one is stronger. This process is also being implemented today: Achieve conciliation, and when one has achieved conciliation one has to accommodate. If one offers someone something, one has to make him a Minister and give him equal rights, although, for the time being, not as far as residential areas and mixed marriages are concerned, but that will come, too, that is certain. One cannot be so unfair and unjust as to invite a man to one’s house and then discriminate against him. If I were still sitting on the opposite side of this House, I would have disputed that on the basis of the lack of logic and the lack of ethics and justice towards the people concerned. We are deliberately misleading them, and our children and their children will not see the results now, but in a decade or two we will find that this experiment with integration, with holism, with conciliation, with a false concept of co-operation has been one of the greatest mistakes we have ever made, and one of the greatest failures ever in our politics.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for North Rand invokes the Afrikaner thinking of the past. As a student leader in Bloemfontein he played a major role in Afrikaner life. It is a pity that now, in the evening of his life, he has ended up on a false trail. We heard here this afternoon how he began to be led astray in politics. That was after he had become politically lost. He says that he declares himself to be a slave of Afrikaner thinking. I want to tell him that he cannot teach the NP anything about Afrikaner thinking.

Ask Albert about that.

Afrikaner thinking built the NP, but it is not running away from the NP now as the hon. member is doing.

Only the name remains; you have dropped the principles.

Afrikaner thinking does not run away from the NP. It does not run away from the way it has cleared through the middle of the NP. However, the hon. member for North Rand is running away from what he helped to build up over the years. He says that when one speaks about an Afrikaner today, one is called a racist.

No, that is what you say.

I want to say to the hon. member that that is untrue. I want to say to the hon. member that the true Afrikaners stand on this side of the House; not with him and his colleagues.

I want to ask the hon. members of the CP to stand up here and spell out what the CP has done for the country in its short but disastrous period of existence.

We won Waterberg.

Apart from an extremely destructive role, they cannot point to anything else. Has the CP made any positive contribution to the government of the country or the solution of national issues? They cannot mention a single thing in this regard. Everything they do—and we heard this again this afternoon from the hon. member for North Rand—is negative, destructive, shortsighted and selfish. Their whole political outlook is rigid, narrow-minded and blunted. The speech by the hon. member for North Rand made us realize this afresh. [Interjections.] The word “narrowmindedness” means in Afrikaans “bekrom-penheid”. The word “blunted” means in Afrikaans “afgestomp”. That is exactly what they are. They are “verkramp” and “bekrompe” to the point where they are scarcely alive.

Since they broke away, the CP have only acted destructively. They will go down in the annals of our politics one day as the breakers of South African politics. They break away and they break down. They are busy from morning to night bedevilling, by what they say, the good relations painstakingly built up by our Government between Whites and people of colour. The hon. the leader of the CP said in a speech made in the Peninsula that he had a good relationship with Brown people and said that he greeted them. One is amazed that the hon. the leader still has the courage to greet Brown people after having affronted them by saying that they would be the fifth columnists of the new dispensation.

That is how they break down good relations. The CP has destroyed the Afrikaner unity that was built up so painstakingly by a series of NP Prime Ministers, from Dr. Malan to Mr. P. W. Botha. Now they are working like moles in Afrikaner organizations and in cultural organizations to fragment Afrikaner unity further and incite Afrikaners against one another, and make them antagonistic towards one another.

Here in this House, too, they act destructively. They are breaking down the policy of the Afrikaner in the most ugly, unsavoury and venomous fashion we have ever experienced in this House. They are doing so before an official Opposition which takes great pleasure in the spectacle of fraternal strife in Afrikaner ranks. They are slandering and blackening the names of hon. Ministers who sacrifice everything for our country and its people’s welfare. The hon. the Minister of Manpower, who has done so much to normalize labour relations in this country so that we have labour peace and quiet in this country again, is being undermined by their gossip. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development, who has done a gigantic task of improving White-Black relations in this country, has become the target of venomous attacks by that party. In this way they carry on blindly with their destructiveness.

The hon. members of the CP came a long way with us as far as the constitutional reform is concerned. There is a long history in this regard of acting together, talking together, of acceptance and undertakings on their part and words of honour and signatures on black and white, by which they stand condemned. But now, all of a sudden, everything is objectionable to them, and there is nothing good in the whole plan. One sometimes gains the impression that the CP do not mind bringing down the walls of Jericho, so long as they can derive political benefit from doing so. Indeed, one gains the impression that the leaders of the CP put the interests of their party above the interests of South Africa. They do not mind destroying South Africa as long as they can achieve blind political benefit. Without valid reason, the leaders of the CP broke away from the NP and then had to fabricate reasons to justify their step. It took months to seek and fabricate points of difference. Up to the present they still have no alternative, except for a ridiculous, long-rejected, impractical idea of a Coloured homeland. Due to lack of an alternative, they are now hijacking NP principles and policy with the ridiculous story that the NP no longer stands by its old principles. The Treurnicht faction has no alternative.

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

I am sorry; unfortunately I do not have sufficient time. The Treurnicht faction has no alternative and is exploiting people’s fear of change. Every grain of insecurity is exploited, whereas they have no answer themselves. At one time or another they are going to be found out. They are not the saviours of the Whites as they think they are; their politics of hatred will hasten the demise of the Whites in this country. They will not save or secure the Whites. The NP will do so. The NP is already working out a just dispensation for the realities of South Africa in a spirit of faith and great understanding not only for the Afrikaner, but for all the people of the country. In that, and in that only, lies the salvation of the Whites.

I now turn to the hon. member for Rissik. In a previous debate the hon. member ventured to attack newspapers of Nasionale Pers, Die Volksblad and Beeld. At the time I did not have the opportunity to reply to him. Accordingly I should like to do so now. The hon. member for Rissik would do well to stand up here and tell us to what he attributes the fact that the entire Press in South Africa, the Afrikaans Press and the English Press, reject so totally the CP and everything it stands for.

They are all liberals.

Apart from the CP’s own miserable little newspaper with its stolen name, there is not a newspaper in this country that has a good word for the CP, its narrow-minded politics or its leaders. Sir, when I say this, you must bear in mind that South Africa has a powerful Press. This is a Press which can be measured in terms of world standards in most respects and that is free and independent to support whom it likes. In the newspaper offices in this country one finds highly intelligent, well-trained and responsible people, people with a fine insight into and good judgment as regards the political scene in South Africa. Not one of them has a good word for the CP. They all reject the CP and its politics unambiguously and in the strongest terms. After all, they cannot all be on the wrong track. If that is not damning, then I do not know what damning means.

When Dr. Malan broke away from Gen. Hertzog at the time of fusion, he had newspapers that went with him. However, the CP left with nothing. Why did the CP leave without any newspaper support? Because newspapers realize that the CP is on an unrealistic dead-end road, a road of conflict, a road that will not promote the interests of South Africa and that will not solve the problems of our country.

The hon. member for Rissik praises the English Press and says that thus far this Press has presented a far more effective image of the CP than the Afrikaans Press.

I agree with him.

How stupid can one be. Does the hon. member for Jeppe not realize that the English Press is playing a game with them? The English Press has no love whatsoever for the CP. That Press does not take notice of the CP because it wants to promote the standpoint of the CP. The English Press gives the CP publicity because it wants to fan the flames of division in the ranks of the Afrikaner. Are they so stupid that they are unable to see that? Is the hon. member for Rissik so naïve that he cannot see that? Is he so naïve that he feels flattered that the English Press is playing a very transparent game with him and his party?

The hon. member for Rissik aimed his attacks specifically at the newspapers of Nasionale Pers and Die Volksblad and Beeld in particular. It is a compliment to these two newspapers that they are singled out. This shows us that they are a thorn in the flesh of the CP. Die Volksblad and Beeld have unmasked the CP and shown it up in all its nakedness, and have done so effectively that one can understand why the hon. member for Rissik attacks these two newspapers so vehemently. The hon. member for Rissik is the last person who should criticize a newspaper like Die Volksblad. Die Volksblad was fearlessly championing the National idea when the hon. member for Rissik was still a “bloedsap” who rejected National principles. The fact that the National idea was able to triumph in this country is largely thanks to Die Volksblad and its sister newspapers, that helped to make the people of South Africa receptive to this idea. The hon. member for Rissik makes the contentious statement that Die Volksblad and Beeld are the most unscientific journals in South Africa. I want to reply to the hon. member on that score. What criterion is the hon. member using? Judged by journalistic standards I contend that the newspapers he is attacking so vehemently are difficult to beat as far as sound, correct and balanced news coverage is concerned. Die Volksblad and Beeld are two of our most influential newspapers in this country and enjoy very high credibility, due to their sound and balanced news coverage, but above all because journalistic fairness, justice and decency are at all times upheld as the golden rule by these newspapers. I have worked for them. I know what I am talking about. In so far as the CP is newsworthy it can rely on these newspapers reflecting it and not failing to mention it. However, the CP and the hon. member for Rissik must not expect their rhetorical CP propaganda to be promoted by these newspapers.

I want to make a further statement by way of conclusion. I contend that the news coverage the CP gets in our Afrikaans newspapers is too good for them. It is totally out of proportion to the importance of the CP as a political party. I think our newspapers take far too much notice of the CP and its spokesmen.

Why?

They lack the newsworthiness to justify so much publicity and they lack roadworthiness too. I shall tell the hon. member for Barberton why we and the newspapers take so much notice of them. We want to expose them to public contempt as a destructive breakaway party.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to react to the speech by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North. In a certain sense his speech, as well as the debate, typify the unbelievable problems we are faced with in South Africa. While the NP and the CP are hurling superficial reproaches at each other and while we have a constitution before us which excludes 70% of our population, the reality of the South African society is manifesting itself in the Black residential areas surrounding Durban.

†It is this aspect which I should like to touch upon because the reality of the South African situation has been reflected in the unrest, which, as we sit here, Mr. Speaker, is being experienced in two large townships on the outskirts of Durban, Lamontville and Chesterville. Those two townships are sealed off at the moment. They are sealed off by road blocks, and access is only allowed to some of the cars which belong to residents. Buses are not allowed in. There are allegations that cars carrying passengers are not allowed into the townships. It is alleged that numerous police patrols are active in and around the two townships, with tear-gas canisters being thrown at random. There are reports that Hippos and police vans patrol day and night, and that numerous incidents have occurred, in which people who have in no way been involved in any uprising or trouble making have suffered as a result of tear-gas being used.

There are reports of asbestos roofs being broken by tear-gas canisters. One of the residents found two tear-gas canisters that had been thrown into his car. The position is that even the residents of Lamontville and Chesterville are all being searched at the entrances to those townships. There are allegations of the police confiscating parcels and liquor. There are also allegations of sjamboks being used on people who do not cooperate immediately when being told to do so. [Interjections.] I emphasize that these are allegations; unconfirmed allegations, because the Press is not allowed in and the public in and around Durban have no idea of exactly what is going on 10 miles outside their city. There are allegations that confrontation is being caused by the police, not necessarily throught police brutality but as a result of their mere presence. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Law and Order, who is in the House now, to investigate this matter. I ask him to go to Durban personally. I urge him to do that. The situation in those two townships is critical, and it affects White and Black in and around Durban.

The situation is critical because, as a result of the presence of the police there, a position has developed in which confrontation is being evoked on the part of the residents of Lamontville and Chesterville. The mere presence of the police at this stage, Mr. Speaker, is defeating their own own object. The police hope, through their presence, to create calm and order but we are told that their very presence there is giving rise to more and more problems. I should therefore urge the hon. the Minister of Law and Order to go to Durban as soon as possible in order to investigate matters himself.

That is a specious argument.

A specious argument? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Benoni has no idea where Lamontville and Chesterville are. [Interjections.] As a result of what has occurred in those two townships people are being held at the C. R. Swart police station, people who have allegedly been the victims of assault. These rumours, unless investigated by the hon. the Minister of Law and Order, for example, will spread wider and wider and become more and more exaggerated.

These are all rumours spread by you. [Interjections.]

The Press is not allowed on the scene. Cameras are confiscated. This is the very situation, Mr. Speaker, which creates alarm and panic, not only amongst the people inside Lamontville and Chesterville, but also throughout the greater Durban area.

This problem began when the rent increases were announced, increases of up to 70% in some instances. It became worse with the death of a certain Mr. Dube, and it is in those circumstances, circumstances in which some of those residents are being asked to pay rent increases of up to 70%—although those increases have been staggered now—that a poignant irony is revealed. In the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill, the Second Reading of which has already been agreed to by this House, we find that in the preamble one of the national goals to which we are being asked to devote ourselves is, among others, to further private initiative and effective competition. If we look at the realities of Black South Africa in the light of what is stated in the preamble to the Bill to which I have just referred, all I can say then is that it is completely mindboggling. Any society which finds itself economically in dire straits because of discrimination and because of closed doors to the market place must have a completely different conception of the free market system and of free enterprise from those people who are sitting in the pound seats—at the moment, of course, the White society. Hon. members on the Government side who have a knowledge of their own history will recognize this fact. In the ’forties there were prominent cultural and political leaders who were calling for socialism. For example, there is the late Oswald Pirow who in the ’forties called for the nationalization of the goldmines, key industries and large capital including banks, as well as industry and large farming enterprises. This happened only some 30 or 40 years ago at a time when he felt that his community was not receiving a fair share of the economic cake. At the moment we know that the majority of South Africans have a different perception of the concept of free enterprise to that of ourselves as Whites. We know—and we saw this only three weeks ago at the conference at Hammanskraal—that there are elements among the Black community who are not only asking for social democracy or a redistribution of wealth but also for an out-and-out socialist system. In this draft constitution of ours we are creating a bone of contention as far as the entire economic system is concerned by assuming that the concept of a free market or of free enterprise has wide support in our country. Last night those of us who were able to view the television programme “Verslag” will have heard Prof. Wiechers mention this very same point. He said by incorporating the notion of the promotion of a free enterprise system into the preamble, we were creating a further bone of contention because we would not possibly get the majority of people to become enthusiastic about it until they had equal access to the market and until the discriminatory laws that prevented them from competing on an equal footing were abolished. Hon. members of the NP and those who know the history of the party will also know that in the ’thirties Dr. Malan made similar noises to those that we are hearing today from the leaders of Black communities as far as the redistribution of wealth is concerned. The hon. member for Durban North regards the word “redistribution” as a swearword. It is a word which Afrikaner nationalism used and promoted and relied upon when it was trying to get its share of the cake.

Not in the same sense at all. You are talking nonsense. [Interjections.]

I mention this, Sir, because this is a very real aspiration which the Blacks have at the moment as well. I believe too that it becomes worse when some of the large and responsible bodies in commerce and industry make statements to the effect that they want to enshrine the free enterprise or free market system to an even greater extent in our constitution. They want to introduce an even more clear-cut bone of contention into the constitution.

Mr. Speaker, we have to take another look at the preamble to our constitution. We cannot assume that the sentiments that are expressed there have the support of the majority and, if they do not, they will aggravate the situation rather than improve it.

Mr. Speaker, if the PFP had formed the Government of this country today, one can only wonder what they would do if something were to happen similar to what is apparently happening in Durban at the moment, a situation which the hon. member for Durban Central has taken cognizance of. It is very easy to harl accusations at the Government across the floor of this House with regard to, in the first place, the occurrence of events of this nature and, in the second place, the inappropriate handling of those events. However, it is very clear that the hon. member for Durban Central has not, in any event, grasped the responsibility that government, in the true sense of the word, entails.

In the Third Reading debate I want to say a few things about the policy of the NP Government and refer in particular to one facet thereof as expressed in the regional industrial development plan and the idea of de-concentration, which was established some time ago, and which is beginning to take shape. Success in the implementation of a plan of this nature—this applies to any decent plan—cannot be concealed under a bushel. That is simply not how it works. One would like to broadcast it so that more people could take note of it. One wants other people to perceive it. What is more, it is the nature of man to want to share success and everything it involves with his fellowman. However, this can only take place if people have the right mental attitude.

The NP is a jealous party. The NP jealously guards against being deprived of what belongs to it and what it has worked for. It jealously guards against the fragmentation and decay of what it has built up and cherished over many years. The NP is a jealous party, and this befits any political party. I so often gain the impression that the PFP has never had that experience. This means that over the years they have failed to be constructive within the context of the party and in the interest of the people they supposedly serve.

Although the NP is a jealous party, it is not a selfish party. To the selfish person the word “something” means everything. To the NP “something” means a fair share, and to speak about a fair share, and not begrudging other people a fair share, merely means, as I said at the outset that the mental attitude of the party must be right. In what it does and puts forward as its policies, the NP thinks that it is possible to move in the direction of a fair dispensation in which there will be something for everyone. The intention is to move away from a dispensation in which nothing may be left for anyone.

If we want to develop the policy of the NP and give effect to the concept of separate development for the sake of everyone in this country and not at the expense of people, it will become more and more clear that interdependence …

But you dropped separate development long ago.

The hon. member for Jeppe has never even understood what separate development means.

You have not even fought an election; I have.

It will become increasingly clear that the expression of interdependence will and can be the key to success, and that interdependence is not a word that is maliciously used to frighten people in an effort to prevent them from keeping an appointment with the future. C. Fred Bergsten, the director of the Institute for International Economics, said recently—

We must know that if we want to succeed in our plans, we have to recognize the fact that we in this country will also become increasingly dependent on, inter alia, the Southern African economy. Only if we utilize this idea and fact of interdependence correctly, will it be possible for success we have achieved in this country with the plans we are implementing, to lead to greater success. We must also bear in mind that success that we achieve in this country will also lead to growing resistance from the left and right political flanks. The success we are achieving with the idea of development of the national States from the homeland idea towards independence is surely one of the several reasons which are making the voters aware that this is something that is working. This is the reason they prefer the NP to the PFP at the polls. Can we ever, then, expect support or even just a word of acknowledgment from the PFP for what is being done as a result of the policy we are pursuing. As they themselves know full well, the flame of the PFP is gradually fading into obscurity due to the success we are achieving.

You are stealing their fuel.

The CP has many problems in this respect too, apart from the hon. member for Jeppe, who is one of its biggest problems. Has one of the hon. members of the CP ever said a positive word since February 1982 about the policy we are implementing and which they, too, are responsible for?

That is not true.

Not one of them has sounded a positive note since they have been in that position. Nor can we expect that of them, of course, because the idea has taken root in their minds that if they sound a positive note, it could mean that they would have to say something favourable about the hon. the Prime Minister and the Carlton Conference, that they would have to say something favourable about a Dr. Koornhof or a Mr. Pik Botha, and after all, that may not happen.

People’s resistance will decline when we can present tangible proof that our policy is succeeding and that we are in fact uplifting people socio-economically. That process of upliftment is taking place and is succeeding. A growing number of people are realizing that civilized norms and standards must be upheld. A growing number of people are realizing the benefits of increasing the socioeconomic welfare of people and communities. It is not possible for us to have all this happen and to enjoy it in a state of separation. By recognizing that it cannot take place in a state of separation, by recognizing that groups of people are dependent on one another, one creates the possibility for more people to share in more and to flourish, without running the risk of disappearing from the scene. After all, the Afrikaner did not sacrifice anything when on numerous occasions he had to seek advice from Englishman and Jew, in the economic sphere, among others. After all, the Afrikaner cannot lose anything if he trades and negotiates across borders. On the contrary, the Afrikaner has gained a great deal. He has gained power which he did not have before. He has become economically stronger. New doors have opened to him without his having to sacrifice his language or his own feelings and values. After all, the NP policy has not resulted in the Whites, the Afrikaner in particular, sacrificing their right to exist or disappearing from the scene. On the contrary, he has established himself more firmly and has developed. The fact that a First World and a Third World rub shoulders in South Africa entails many problems. That one knows, particularly if one is a member of the Government. Let us see past those problems to what is happening around us. Let us consider the almost unlimited area that is lying fallow in regard to which co-operation in our mutual interest can be seized on and utilized in every imaginable sphere to the benefit of many people.

By way of renewed and adapted efforts to promote regional industrial development and de-concentration, there has been a sudden breakthrough. The weak aspect of development has now begun to gain strength. Just as the longjumper has first to find out which of his legs is the stronger, so that he can use it to jump furthest, we have now reached the point at which we have strengthened that development leg, and this increasing strength of our development plan will enable us to surmount many of our problems. We must just guard against becoming trapped in the so-called proven techniques of doing what is expected of us in this country. In our special and unique circumstances, the technique of achieving our aims may require radical adjustment which will include the whole system of government. I advocate a more flexible and regular evaluation of the development pattern with regard to industrial establishment and deconcentration. We must guard against lapsing into a rigid plan such as the incentive measures announced on 1 April 1982. The practical implementation of our plans will soon bring out the problem areas. When that happens, there must be prompt re-evaluations, followed by decisions. In that regard I have not the slightest doubt that the responsible people will do this in a responsible way.

We may not spend funds in an irresponsible way. We must do what it behoves us to do while we still have time to do it. Tremendous pressure will be exerted on the hon. the Minister of Finance in this regard in future. Border industrial and regional development will demand enormous sacrifices. One need only consider the transportation of workers from one point to another to get to their homes and places of employment. Surely it is better that that distance should be made as short as possible and their transport services as convenient as possible? A tired worker has never been a productive worker, after all. I should like to quote from the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Bus Passenger Transport in the RSA. I can give hon. members the assurance that this report makes very interesting reading. Among other things a few points are mentioned in Chapter 4 which we would do well to consider. The first point is—

The next point is—

Another point is—

A final point is—

Thus there are several points in this report that could be quoted with reference, too, to interstate traffic which, in the nature of the matter, forms part of our problem and part of our campaign to convey people between their homes and places of employment. What is important in this regard is that as regards financing in order to achieve these aims, tremendous pressure is going to be exerted on the country’s coffers. The hon. the Minister of Finance will have an extremely important role to play in this regard in the time ahead.

If we were to look back one day on the period since the NP came to power in 1948, there would certainly be many pronouncements. The last thing we could expect would be to hear from the official Opposition that what we had achieved in the form of our policy had been successful. Precisely because we are succeeding with the plans we put forward, the pressure from the official Opposition and also from the outside world, will become increasingly greater.

However, this must in no way cause us to doubt the correctness of what we are doing. It is a matter of what we want to achieve. If we can ensure civilized norms and high standards for people in this process—and this does not only apply to certain groups of people—then, in the nature of the matter, we shall have succeeded. Then we shall be able to say that it was all worthwhile. The CP only harps on one issue, that of the Afrikaner and the role played by the Afrikaner, without taking into account anything else that ought to play a role in this setup.

Surely that is untrue.

That is the game these people are playing. The CP talks about self-determination but not a word is said about the self-determination of other people. Their plan is centred around the self-determination of the Whites.

The NP is laying a table for more than just the Whites in this country. We know that just as we would not be satisfied with the crumbs from the table, no one else would be satisfied with them either. We believe that in the process we can achieve a fair dispensation for everyone.