as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on Rent Control.

Report and proceedings to be printed and considered.

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on the Alleged Granting of Concessions.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

Mr. Speaker, when I gave notice of a further instruction to the Select Committee earlier today, it was the seventh of a series of instructions which the official Opposition had thought to place on the Order Paper in order that they could be debated in the House. The reasons for our action are clear. This was a positive attempt to use legitimate parliamentary mechanisms in line with the stand which we made clear from the first intonation of new constitutional proposals and then on the Bill itself.

I believe that any objective person looking at those seven instructions will see them for what they are, namely positive attempts to improve the Bill. The reaction from the Government to the notices of motion in regard to those instructions is most interesting. First of all, all these instructions are placed at the bottom of the Order Paper, which suggests to me that the Government is afraid to debate key issues of difference between this side and that side of the House. Secondly, there is the almost hysterical reaction of hon. members on that side of the House, led, as always, in hysteria by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. It is quite amazing that when we are discussing a matter as important as a new constitution for South Africa and when we are using a legitimate parliamentary mechanism in order to try to improve that, that hon. Deputy Minister and his colleagues, ably assisted as always by the NRP slithering around on their fence, have been the ones to condemn by outcry and by laughter. In other words, they say that this constitution is a laughing matter, and I think this is disgraceful. [Interjections.]

The main reason why they came with these hysterical outbursts was because the instructions we have placed on the Order Paper give the lie to the parrot-cry of the PFP being a boycott party. This is what they cannot stand. They do not like it, because every time we participate, every time we debate and every time we question, every time we even challenged them to take part in a television debate, they run away from it. [Interjections.] I want to tell this House that the public are becoming aware that this is a smokescreen and that the real boycotters are that side of the House who refuse to participate and to debate these key issues we have before us.

The final instruction, which brings to an end the instructions we have attempted to debate in the House, deals with joint sittings and decision-making. It highlights the fact that the official Opposition is opposed to three chambers, based as they are on race and ethnicity. This is nothing more and nothing less than the entrenchment of apartheid and in fact give apartheid the kiss of life rather than the kiss of death which it so richly deserves. When we have tried to make that point members on that side of the House have reacted by saying that we believe in “one man, one vote” in a unitary system.

Don’t you?

No. Let me read to hon. members from our policy. I quote—

Is that clear to that hon. Deputy Minister? [Interjections.]

Tell us what you stand for.

All right. I am so glad the hon. member asked that. He falls for it every time, that silly man. I quote again, as follows—

The PFP also stands for—

It also stands for—

We have tried to make that point many, many times.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am sorry. I have very little time.

As we come to the end of an extremely busy and very hectic session, there is one thing that must surely strike all of us who sit in this Chamber day after day. Whilst Parliament is engaged with very serious and heavy matters, it is always in danger of isolation, of insulation, from the world outside of us and from other pressures and realities. It is so easy to think this is the only place where things are happening or need to happen. Internal dissent continues to increase no matter what we may think about it in our somewhat protected cocoon. Black and White race relations deteriorate. They do not improve. South Africa, it seems to me, at times can burn while those of us who sit here continue to fiddle. One of those pressures that is becoming quite acute is obviously the international pressure.

I want to refer here to a speech that was made this month by a very important man who is third in line in the American State Department, a man by the name of Eagle-burger. He made this speech on 24 June 1983. He made a very quotable speech and it would be easy for the Government or for the Opposition to quote large parts of it in favour of its own position. I concede that immediately. I cannot read the whole speech, but I would say it is one of the most important speeches that have come out of the most powerful nations in the world regarding the situation in Southern Africa and therefore repays a very careful study. There are one or two things which jump at one out of the text. The first is the following—

He then goes on to state his views at some length, almost in the same words quoted by the hon. member for Turffontein yesterday, words that he ascribed to a South African, and really in very radical language. I do not have the time to quote all of it, but he does make the following point—

This is, of course, very similar to points that we have tried to make many, many times. It is not a question of when; it is only a question of how. Is it going to come peacefully or is it going to come the way of violence? A great deal depends on the Government of the day as to how it actually comes about. Mr. Eagleburger goes on to say—

Again, the message is quite clear. There are other quotes, but I shall end off with just one more, namely—

That is another basic plank of our own policy and once again it receives an echo from a powerful nation, from a very reasonable man who has written an extremely worthwhile speech. I want to say that there is one other interesting quote here. It is in the form of a question, and I should like particularly the hon. the Prime Minister to give attention to this. He says—

Now, Sir, that is a very interesting statement, and it is important that the Government, the Prime Minister in particular, during this session of Parliament to tell the country what his game plan, to use America jargon, is, in other words his time-table, his strategy. He should spell it out more clearly for us. I know the hon. the Prime Minister is going to take part in this debate. So we look forward to some information in this regard, also about what the Americans call the bottom line, his overall objective. What does the hon. the Prime Minister see 10 years down the road? What does South Africa look like according to his own understanding? He must have a goal, a vision and an aim. So we would like to know from him—South Africa deserves a reply—where he is taking South Africa, what his game plan, his bottom line is. Do the Americans know something we don’t know? Is there more than one game plan: One for international consumption and another one for local consumption? Is this the so-called hidden agenda we have heard about so often from foreign diplomats and businessmen? Sir, this is not good enough. It is our country and our future which is at stake. So we expect the hon. the Prime Minister to tell us how he sees South Africa. To crystallize it let me put a couple of questions.

Does the Government still stand by the objectives enunciated by Dr. Connie Mulder? I understand the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs will also participate in this debate. So I hope it would be possible for him to answer this question. I have already asked it several times in the course of this session. Dr. Connie Mulder made it very clear when he was a Minister of that Cabinet that in the ultimate objective there will be no Black South Africans. Is that still the objective of the Government? They must not mess around and stall. We deserve to know. Secondly, does he accept that a constitution which excludes Blacks permanently, and I want to underline “permanently”, cannot work? In other words, the White-Black coexistence problem cannot be resolved unless Blacks have a part in the constitution, or does he feel that a constitution which excludes Blacks offers a permanent solution? Thirdly, does he accept that Coloured and Asians will never accept a constitution which is based on the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act and all their degrading consequences? In other words, will these Acts be phased out in time? Is that the game plan? Is that the objective, the bottom line, that we are moving away from basic apartheid? Our perception of the NP during this session is a party which is lethargic, nervous and unenthusiastic, governed it seems by an overwhelming fear for their right wing. Are we correct in this perception? Is the problem that the caucus pulls on the Prime Minister and says: “Don’t go any further”? Or is it the Prime Minister himself who have started to stumble? I ask him to tell us what has gone wrong with the whole question of reform.

Mr. Speaker, before I cross swords with the hon. member for Pinelands, I should like to inform this House of a few matters of general importance, matters which fall under my department.

You will also allow me, Mr. Speaker, to tell the hon. member for Hercules, and I am certain I am speaking on behalf of all of us how pleased we are to see him up and about again and back in this House. He gave us quite a fright, and therefore we are pleased that he is in our midst again and able to participate in the proceedings here.

With reference to motion of which I gave notice at the beginning of the proceedings, I should like to make a few observations for the information of hon. members. On 21 April 1983 the hon. the Prime Minister announced during the discussion of his Vote that the Government would be prepared to refer the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act to a Select Committee, if all political parties undertook to approach the matter in a spirit of responsibility and on a non-party political basis. As I indicated on 24 March 1983 during the discussion of the Vote of my department, negotiations were conducted with the leaders of the Opposition parties in Parliament in connection with participation on the basis laid down by the hon. the Prime Minister.

I should now like to announce that the hon. the Minister of Justice and I, who are jointly responsible for the implementation of the aforesaid Acts, obtained the consent of the leaders of all the Opposition parties in the House of Assembly to this basis. The motion of which I gave notice today was also cleared with them. All parties—I should like to emphasize this—reserve for themselves the right to state their general principles when the report of the proposed Select Committee becomes available, and do not relinquish that right.

For the purposes of the proceedings of the Select Committee, however, they will abide by the conditions inherent in the terms of reference. The wording of the terms of reference makes it clear that it is not the aim of the inquiry to overthrow the existing order and measures which regulate group rights and group relations.

A second matter to which I should like to refer is the procedural measures in regard to the referendum which was announced. The Government is at present considering far-reaching amendments to the existing Referendums Act. Owing to the progress that has been made with the issuing of identity documents, we have reached the stage at which it is possible to give consideration to a new role for these documents during a referendum. Unlike the situation one has with general elections, one is dealing in a referendum with a general poll, which is not necessarily connected with electoral divisions. Because this is so, it is possible to devise methods which will make it far more convenient for the voter to cast his vote at the referendum than during a general election.

In addition it is possible to ensure in the case of a referendum that citizens who are entitled to vote are not prevented from doing so owing to technicalities. Against this background the Government has decided in principle to amend the Referendums Act in order to provide that during a referendum the voting does not take place on the basis of voters’ lists but by way of voters producing their official identity documents. The idea is that the identity document of each specific voter will be stamped when he casts his vote and consequently that he will be able to cast his vote at any polling station which is convenient for him. This will make it easy for voters to cast their votes, and eliminates most special votes, which are normally necessary as a result of people having moved.

For some time now I have been having discussions in regard to this matter with the representatives of all the Opposition parties represented here in the House of Assembly. Although we still differ on many points, we have made so much progress that all the parties agree that the possibility should at least be thoroughly investigated. Moreover, it is unanimously felt that it would be good thing if a Select Committee of the House of Assembly considered the proposals the Government has in mind. Consequently it is my intention, when Parliament re-assembles after the coming recess, to introduce an amending Bill and move that it be referred to a Select Committee.

In the meantime, however, the voting public must accept that the identity document is going to be the basis of the referendum that was announced. That is why it is of cardinal importance that everyone who wishes to vote in a referendum must ensure that he acquires an identity document in time. The Department of Internal Affairs has calculated that there are approximately 150 000 potential White voters to whom identity documents have not yet been issued. If these persons would apply for such documents as soon as possible, the department will be able, before the end of October, to issue identity documents to everyone whose completed applications reach the Department before the end of September. I am therefore making an appeal to those voters who do not yet have identity documents to attend to this matter as soon as possible. The department will make an announcement soon informing the public about a campaign which is going to be launched in order to facilitate and expedite such applications, and about the best way of attending to this matter and submitting such applications. In the meantime I am also making an appeal to the political parties present here to encourage and help their voters to whom identity documents have to far not been issued, to acquire such documents. In this way we can effectively eliminate the backlog which has arisen as a result of the fact that many people have not yet applied for identity documents, and it will be possible to provide everyone who wishes to participate in the referendum with an identity document in time. Special arrangements have been made in the department to dispose of these matters more rapidly than in the past.

I come now to the hon. member for Pine-lands. In his introductory remarks he complained about our laughing at the stream of instruction motions emanating from the ranks of the official Opposition. We are laughing at this because we consider it to be a ridiculous use of the instruction rule for childish politicking, something for which the instruction rule was not designed. We are laughing for another reason too, which is their clumsy attempts to escape from the harm they have suffered because they have allowed the opportunity which they had from the beginning to make inputs in the planning surrounding the constitutional dispensation to slip, in that way earning for themselves the description of “boycott party”. [Interjections.] This sudden interest on the part of hon. members in the new dispensation is not bluffing anybody. They are not in the least bit interested in it. They want one society in South Africa. The differentiation built into the new dispensation is totally unacceptable to them. The hon. member for Bryanston proved this yesterday in his speech. What we are dealing with here is politicking in order to build up a case to drum up support among their party members for a standpoint which their own party members do not even wish to support. They have to make out a case which can unite their party members behind their boycott of the new dispensation. Now they are trying to draw all kinds of red herrings across the path politics is taking. I see the hon. member for Houghton is shaking her head. I am pleased she is honest.

The hon. member for Pinelands is trying to get away from the fact that his party stands for “one man, one vote”. I concede that they stand for “one man, one vote” in a federal State.

For every woman as well.

I wish to ask the hon. member, in the absence of his leader—I should like to put this question to him as well—whether the boundaries of their federal State will be drawn with due regard for ethnic and population differences and racial differences. [Interjections.] He says “No”.

Inter alia.

There you have it, Sir! [Interjections.] I asked the hon. member for Pinelands whether they would have regard to such things and his reply was “No”.

Yes.

There he is confirming it. The hon. member for Bryanston, however, said, by way of an interjection, “inter alia”; in other words they will inter alia take population differences and racial differences into consideration. [Interjections.] Then the hon. member for Bryanston is the person who uses disinformation to try to imply in this House that there are groups and sections in the NP! Here before the people of South Africa they are revealing that they are speaking with utter duplicity in regard to the basis on which their federation is going to be established.

You simply do not understand it.

I should like to put a second question to the hon. member. Am I correct when I say that Soweto and Johannesburg will probably fall into the same federal State?

It is possible.

What does Horace say?

The hon. member for Pinelands says that he agrees that it is probable. Then surely the inhabitants of Soweto and the inhabitants of Houghton are going to be one common voter’s roll. I should now like to remind the hon. member that there are more Blacks than Whites in that area. In fact he is aware of this.

Is that so? You astonish me!

If he were now to tell me that it is not a logical inference that such a State, in respect of which we have agreed that the Blacks will be in the majority, will give rise to Black majority rule in that federal State, then he would surely be being dishonest with himself. Consequently he is admitting that there will be a Black majority. That is why we are right when we on this side of the House say that the inevitable outcome of that hon. member’s policy will be a minority of Whites in every federal State, and in the federal Parliament as well. If one draws the boundaries more widely there is no area anywhere in South Africa in which Whites are in the majority. That is why the logical consequences of their policy are Black majority rules and White minority participation in a system in which there is no inherent security for the Whites. [Interjections.]

The hon. member actually devoted his speech to the speech made by Mr. Eagle-burger of America. I want to give him the assurance that he will, in the course of this debate, receive an authoritative and comprehensive reply and reaction from the Government to that speech. For that reason I do not wish to elaborate on it now.

Who will do so?

The hon. the Prime Minister himself is expected to do so. However, I wish to say briefly and in general that the NP is not prepared to be forced by anyone into accepting integration in South Africa and relinquishing its absolute insistence on effective protection of group rights. This Government will never relinquish that, no matter who is exerting pressure.

Perhaps it is fitting to ask at this stage of the session what valid conclusion we can draw from the approach by the respective parties to the realities of our time. If we consider the PFP it is clear that they still refuse—we have just had another illustration of this—to face up to the most important reality of the diversity of peoples and groups. I want to give them credit for not budging an inch from their blind dedication to the principle of “one man, one quote” on common voters’ rolls in a federal State. They do not deviate an inch from the standpoint that all legislation which distinguishes between groups is evil. They do not deviate an inch from their view that there is no place for political institutions of their own for the respective peoples and population groups in South Africa. The PFP consistently advocates full integration on all levels, so much so that they would also like to throw membership of their party open to everyone.

Of course.

That hon. member agrees. They are sitting in this House as a party which states to the White electorate: “We are not interested in looking after your interests per se. We are not representative and do not wish to be representative of you. We want to be a party for Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Blacks”. That is correct. I observe that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is reacting affirmatively.

We wish to be a party for all South African patriots who are democrats. [Interjections.]

The CP on the other hand these days vehemently resists any form of structured (geordende) co-operation between peoples and groups. The reality of common interests does not suit their exaggerated dogmatism. As far as their own interests are concerned, they agree with us that there are in fact such group-specific interests and that there should therefore be group specific structures. As regards common interests and joint deliberation on common interests, they have become HNP. I wish to mention two examples by way of illustration of this point. In this House they objected to members of other peoples and population groups being appointed to the Tourism Board. They said it was integration and that it would mean the end of the White man. We had the absurdity here that although the two main figures of the CP in this House applied legislation and signed permits allowing persons of colour to attend White universities for years, they are now resisting in the strongest possible way the confirmation of a provision which has been on the Statute Book since 1969 and which they applied. Even the view of our former Prime Minister, Mr. Vorster, in regard to a joint say, the appointment of persons of colour to boards and committees, the sharing of facilities which cannot be duplicated—all these things and far more are now vehemently labelled as integration and the undermining of White interests. And then they even have the opportunistic temerity to bandy Mr. Vorster’s name about!

The CP is ostensibly pursuing a form of absolute separation, an absolute separation which they know is not attainable because common interests form part of the reality of South Africa.

May I please ask a question?

No, I have very little time. If there is any time left, the hon. member may put his question at the end of my speech.

In this process they are making use of deplorable misrepresentations to the electorate.

The NRP is struggling with the realization that it is becoming extinct and that its hour of truth has arrived.

However, I do not wish to devote too much attention to the Opposition. During this session up to now we have been forced to listen ad nauseam to irresponsible Opposition politics, which is like a ball and chain around the leg of South Africa on its way into the future. It is necessary, against the background of all misrepresentations, to reconfirm the essence of the NP’s approach to the realities of South Africa.

The NP was born of the need of a people to be themselves and remain themselves, to maintain themselves against others, to develop their language, traditions and culture, and to regain what was then their lost freedom. [Interjections.] The question being asked is: What people? I am referring to the Afrikaner people. Many of the initial ideals of the NP have been realized. The Afrikaner has come into his own in a fatherland which he has to share with others. Because he did come into his own, the NP was able in later years to broaden its base of support, and today the NP no longer represents the Afrikaners, but also a very large percentage of English-speaking South Africans.

The basic point of departure of the NP—to serve as a political instrument for the preservation and promotion of what is its own—still remains the point of departure and the foundation stone on which the NP has been built. Today, just as strongly as ever before, the NP advocates unashamedly, that the freedom, prosperity and security of the Whites in South Africa are not negotiable. It wishes to ensure this by way of self-determination within group-specific political institutions, by way of a group’s own community life, its own schools, its own residential areas, and by way of ensuring that the Whites have their own power base. [Interjections.] But—and now I am going to reply to the hon. member and this is an important but—never in its history has the NP stopped at its own interests and its own security. An inseparable part of NP thinking and conduct is its dedication to the simultaneous promotion of the interests, the prosperity, the security and the freedom of all other peoples and population groups with in the territory we inhabit in Southern Africa. [Interjections.] To the extent to which the NP, particularly since 1948, has progressed along the road of the liberation of other peoples and population groups, so the problems of South Africa have undergone a substantial change.

The challenge of our time is no longer how to give everyone in South Africa political rights. They already have them or are rapidly on the way to obtaining them. There are still many problems which I readily concede and acknowledge are there, but we are irrevocably on the way to a political coming of age for everyone in South Africa. It is irrevocably part of this party’s objective that every inhabitant of South Africa will have and enjoy full-fledged and effective political rights.

The real challenge is to find a way to coordinate the interests of the diversity of peoples and groups in South Africa and to maintain the rights of every people and group in conjunction with one another in order to prevent the one from obtaining rights in a way which destroys the rights of another. The real problem as a result of what this party has accomplished in the course of its history is no longer whether people should obtain rights, but is to cause the exercising of those rights that they already have or are in the process of acquiring to take place in such a way that it will be conducive to a solidarity in Southern Africa and that there will be no conflict with one another when those rights are exercised.

It is necessary for all peace-loving inhabitants of South Africa to seek diligently for formulas for co-operation between peoples and groups over the wealth of matters which are of common interest to everyone—co-operation in a way, however, which does not threaten the security and the self-determination of the participants. That is what we ought to be debating in this House.

The NP is not only prepared to participate in this search for co-operation, but is at present harnessing all its strength and resources to this end. Its objective is to find an understanding among the responsible members of the respective groups, an understanding which will make enduring co-operation and good neighbourliness possible.

Before we can achieve this, there are certain prerequisites, the NP says, which will have to be complied with. I wish to point out a few. Firstly there is the maintenance of a system which makes effective provision for self-determination on a group basis so that each group will be able to maintain itself and to be safe and to feel safe.

The second is the development of a co-operation model which, guarantees the sovereignty of both the Republic of South Africa as well as the various Black peoples upon acceptance of independence.

Thirdly, the accommodation of groups for whom sovereign independence is not attainable, with retention of the principle of self-determination on a group basis. This is what we are doing with the Coloureds and Asians. This is what the Black peoples are doing with other groups which are also in their midst but not really part of their people. We must find a way, because sovereignty and a State of its own is not attainable for every sub-group in this country. The CP knows this, their supporters know it; they are being farcical if they hold out this prospect to these smaller groups.

If we wish to succeed we must, fourthly, succeed in eliminating the supposed disadvantages associated with independence, such as the lack of economic prospects. For that reason the Government has come forward with the Development Bank, if I may point out one example of how we can improve the economic prospects of everyone in South Africa on a decentralized basis.

Fifthly there is the development of a fair and workable formula for the problem of political rights of members of peoples who live and work permanently in the territory and area of authority of a neighbouring State—the so-called urban Black problem, but which is not unique to us, because there are a number of our citizens too who live in some of these Black States. We must find formulas to deal politically with such people in such a way that this basic pattern of self-determination is not disturbed in any way, but so that they, too, may come of age politically. We readily concede that we do not have all the answers to this yet. Hence the appointment of a Cabinet Committee.

What is necessary in the sixth place is the ultimate acceptance of independence by those national States who continued to content themselves with limited self-government. Until everyone accepts independence, we do not yet have the final pattern to ensure successful and lasting and peaceful coexistence in South Africa.

What is finally necessary is the maintenance and expansion of economic growth coupled with a strong ability to maintain order and security internally and externally. That is why so much emphasis must be placed on the maintenance of our military capacity, and on decentralization.

Hon. members will probably be able to add to this list. The fact of the matter, however, is that we are making progress in respect of all these prerequisites for good neighbourliness, progress despite the attempts of the collective Opposition to prevent it, progress despite constant denigration by the Opposition Press of the Government’s best intentions. Recently, in a leading article in The Star, reference was made to our decentralization incentives as “bribery”. It is a deed of disloyalty to South Africa to describe what can lead to development for people as “bribery”.

An inherent part of these prerequisites is the NP’s plan of action, the safeguarding of established White rights and the promise of full-fledged opportunities which this entails for all the other peoples and population groups. If we comply with these prerequisites, then an understanding which ensures lasting co-operation, peace, prosperity and security is not only possible, but within our grasp.

The Opposition Parties must stop setting up skittles falsely purporting to be NP policy and bowling these over themselves. If they wish to argue with us, and they have every right to do so, they must accept us as we are and they must not put words in our mouths or ascribe objectives to us which are not true. It is a blatant untruth to allege that the NP advocates White “baasskap” and domination over others, as the Progs are alleging. It is equally a blatant untruth to allege that the NP stands for mixed Government and the destruction of the self-determination of Whites.

Hon. members may differ with me if they wish, but I want to ask whether it is not time the PFP in particular adapted itself to what has already been established in South Africa. An intelligent academic like the hon. the Leader of the PFP surely does not really believe that everything which has been brought into existence under the NP regime can be undone. Why does he not accept the independent Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Ciskei and Venda as part of reality? Why does the PFP not accept the self-government of national States as a reality? Why does it not accept the reality, even though it would like it to be different, of the power bases for the respective peoples and groups which exist and which are growing, power bases which those peoples and groups want? Why do they not accept the will of these people instead of trying to cram their will down the throats of those people?

We are not the people who really have to accept a change of course. They must cease their nagging at us to change. They are the people who must change. They must realize that their dream of one united South Africa, with everyone living happily together in one society, is not attainable and cannot become a reality. It is as unattainable as the CP’s Coloured and Indian homelands, with sovereignty of their own. Similarly, Black Coloured and Asian leaders must realize that the Whites are prepared to do a great deal for the sake of good relations, but that the Whites are not prepared to jeopardize the freedom and the position which they occupy and have legitimately occupied and acquired by means of all kinds of experiments which offer no security for their established rights.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would just like to associate myself with the hon. the Minister’s reference to the inquiry into the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and mention that we have agreed to participate in the inquiry, but we have also declared that our approach would be a party-political one. We have a specific standpoint in regard to those Acts, and on the basis of that standpoint we shall be participating in the discussions and any amendments to those Acts.

The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs said a few things I can agree with him about. The one is that the Government still has many problems in regard to the questions facing this country and that any political party that came into power in South Africa would be faced with those problems. In other words, the Government is not minimizing the problems, and neither are we. We accept the fact that the Government does not have the final recipe for solving the country’s problems.

I also want to say that the Government definitely does not have the final answer to the problem of relationships in South Africa either. Nor does it have the final answer to the question: “Where does the Government stand on the question of the various peoples and those who lay claim to self-determination?” That is an answer it does not have. It is on this cardinal question, and not on the basis of the gossip-mongering, that we disagree with the Government. On occasion speakers on that side of the House have repeatedly said we simply wanted to leave, without having had any case to back us up. The hon. member for Kroonstad must rather ask what he had to say in the Parys constituency about the composition of the new Government under the new dispensation. We openly disagreed, did we not? We can disagree with one another, but it is wrong to say that we have no reason for doing what we did, at least in our own eyes, because we did indeed have a sound reason.

The question about whether we are going to have a mixed Government for South Africa or not is a very important one. I want to disagree with the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs who implied that it was a specious argument, a false accusation and a lie to allege that the Government now advocates a mixed Government. But what else will it be? It will be a mixed Government. Ask the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. He said that his successor could be an Indian or a Coloured and that would be a Minister of Joint Affairs. The hon. the Minister of National Education said that there could be a kind of macro-Minister, a macro-policy Minister, and that he could be a White, a Coloured or an Indian. In other words, he is a member of the Cabinet, a member of the Government, the Government of the country. Then, surely, that it is a mixed Government. The hon. members of the NP reproach us, however, for broadcasting wrong impressions to the world at large.

Compared with 1977, what is the difference?

In 1977 the NP, to which I belonged at the time, said by way of its spokesman, the hon. the Minister sitting right here in front of me now, and in writing too, that the White Parliament would retain all its powers and that the existing Ministers would retain their portfolios. There 17 of them at that stage.

The hon. the Minister rightly took the PFP to task for its standpoints. He rightly pointed out that according to its view, if the country were to be divided up into certain geographically delimited regions, everyone would have to be regarded as basically equal and there would virtually be no region in South Africa where there would be a White majority. We agree with him. That is why we want to join the NP in moving away from such an arrangement, an arrangement in terms of which one gives people representation in a central body on the basis of “one man, one vote”, or at least equality within the same region. On that point we agree with the Government, but we also want that extended to the political control over Whites, Coloureds and Indians so that one does not introduce a neo-federal system in terms of Government policy. They reject a federation, but what they are advocating is in essence a federation, and it does not even have a geographic basis. The CP says there is no sense in talking of full self-determination for the various peoples if one does not give consideration to a certain measure of geographic structuring and to geographic … [Interjections.]

Where?

Those hon. members now asking “Where?” put me in mind of a former Chief Whip of the NP who, when asked by this side of the House where the Coloureds would live, replied “On earth, Sir”. As far as that is concerned, the hon. the Minister says we are engaged in a farce, whilst yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Bloemfontein North was getting all hot under the collar here and saying some very unfriendly things about us. Hon. members opposite complain about the way we act towards them. If members of the CP have acted in an undignified fashion towards other hon. members in this House, I repudiate it, but then hon. members opposite must not profess so piously that they are never guilty of an unfriendly word. Anyone who listened yesterday to the speech of the hon. member for Bloemfontein North would not be able to say that his was a speech that could be described as oozing love and friendliness. Hon. members say we are engaged in a farce. They say that the idea of the Coloureds having their own geographic base, their own fatherland, is a farce. Let me, however, ask them: Do they consider the independence of a self-governing area like Qwaqwa to be feasible?

Yes, because they are a people and because they have historically had a certain land area. [Interjections.]

Very well, let us now look at the realities of the situation. What are the realities in connection with Qwaqwa, the South Sotho? Once the envisaged consolidation of Qwaqwa has been completed, Qwaqwa will have 74 000 ha of land.

They want it.

How many people qualify as citizens of that State? There are a mere 1,7 million of them. What further reality are we faced with? The further reality is that there are citizens of the South Sotho population group living in about 300 towns. Notwithstanding that, the NP Government says that it can become a self-governing national State. What I am saying is that if the Brown people had 100 000 morgen of group areas and a rural area of 2 million morgen …

Where?

If hon. members do not know that, they should not be participating in this discussion. What I am saying is that if we take all these facts into consideration and then still say that it is a farce to give the Coloureds, who are already established in large areas, in fact more firmly established than the South Sotho, their own system of Government, then all I can say is that the Government’s idea of making Qwaqwa an independent national State is a farce. If the Government wants to proceed with that, however, we shall give it all our support. What we are saying is that they must not turn back now. At the same time we are saying that if they regard this as an achievable reality, it is even less of a problem to give the Coloureds their own father-land.

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

No, unfortunately I still have quite a few small matters to deal with.

Quite a few hon. members flung reproaches at the CP. Sir, that is something we can take because we have an answer for it. There is, for example, the accusation that our politics will cause conflict and confrontation in South Africa, even bloodshed. Those are the allegations that are made. Hon. members most certainly have the right to make allegations, but whether they are well-founded is, of course, another matter. In speaking about confrontation, conflict and bloodshed, our standpoint is that we do not seek confrontation. In fact, it is only a fool who would seek confrontation. What we are seeking is approval for a policy of self-determination and individual freedom, and as far as possible—and we shall pursue that possibility—within an individually defined area for them to live in. Then there would be areas in which the Whites would govern and there would be areas where the Brown people would govern themselves, and so too, the other groups. At the same time we are saying that one cannot always shy away from conflict. In fact, it is sometimes essential in order to stop evil from triumphing or to deal with a dangerous concept. In such cases conflict is not only necessary, but also salutary. I know that hon. members opposite are very fond of linking the CP to violence, as if violence, a struggle or our proclaimed intention to fight, mean that we are going to take up arms. Hon. members can forget about that. If they happen to condemn violence in the political sphere, let me say that the CP also does. We have repeatedly said, from public platforms, that if any White person speaks of violence in the political context, he must know that there are a large number of people at his back who would say that if he finds violence permissible, they do as well. We need not argue about that any further. [Interjections.] I have said enough about that. That was heard on a radio broadcast, and when the hon. the Minister of Manpower tried to back up his challenge in Soutpansberg, we went from platform to platform—in Louis Trichardt as well—and spoke about it. So it is not my fault if hon. members have knowledge of that.

I am saying that there are non-negotiable matters, non-negotiable principles, by which one must be prepared to stand or fall. Once that was the NP’s standpoint too, a concept the hon. the Prime Minister employed in the ’sixties. A question we would now like to ask is: Would people want to stage a revolution and cause bloodshed because the Whites claim individual freedom and their own geographical area? Would people want to stage a revolution because of that? And also, do they contemplate starting a revolution because we envisage separate freedoms for separate peoples? Is that why people want to mount a revolution against us? Surely that is ridiculous. Surely that is just another form of tyranny, and an intolerable form of imperialism that those people are advocating. I also ask why, if the NP adheres to its standpoint that Blacks should not be included in one Parliament together with Whites, Coloureds and Indians and if the NP continues with its efforts to introduce its new dispensation, which would mean that the representatives of 800 000 Indians will jointly govern not only the Whites, but also the Zulu people, as long as that Zulu people has not yet become independent, such a situation would not lead to conflict and confrontation? Let me also say that in the proposed constitution there is indirect entrenchment of the White majority party in the House of Assembly, and my contention is that that is a latent conflict situation.

Now you are being foolhardy.

But do not do anything that would give rise to that. The hon. member for Innesdal has a lot to say. Let me point out to him that what I am now saying here I said to the responsible Minister five years ago when I told him that that situation would develop, because at some stage or other the Coloureds and the Indians would say that their numbers justified their having a greater portion of representation in the electoral college to elect the State President and in the President’s Council. That question was put to the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs. If I am wrong, he can deny it. I think, however—and this is according to information that I have at my disposal—that he has admitted that with such a numerical shift in the composition of the population, one would have to make an adjustment to the composition of the electoral college for the election of the State President. I accept it as such. I do not want to ask the hon. the Minister to endorse anything that is unreasonable. If he does not agree with that, however, and if that was not his answer, I nevertheless contend that that is a built-in conflict situation.

Listen to him gossiping again.

Who says anything about gossiping? We are busy debating a matter, are we not? [Interjections.] Surely the Republic of South Africa has certain non-negotiable rights and interests when negotiating with the outside world, and we support the Government when it resolves not to be led by the nose by each and every foreign institution. The demands made from those quarters are, however, such that even the Government cannot comply. This means that we end up in a conflict situation with countries abroad and that we must be prepared to say—in an extreme case, a threat—that even though they threaten us with boycotts, South Africa would nevertheless accept that situation. That is, however, still a conflict situation.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein North said a variety of things. I believe I have briefly though adequately replied to his rebuke in connection with our adoption of an unrealistic political course. He referred to Afrikaner unity that was crumbling and to cultural organizations that were supposedly being disrupted by us. Those were not his exact words, but what he said did amount to that. He also referred to a fraternal feud in Afrikaner ranks, etc. On the strength of that there is a question I want to ask. Was Dr. D. F. Malan a schismatic because he rejected the course adopted by Gen. Hertzog in 1933? Regardless of whether one agrees with his standpoint or not, this is and remains a debatable point. At that stage, however, he adopted a minority standpoint. The representatives who backed him up were also in the minority. Now, with hindsight, we say that he was right. [Interjections.] The mere fact that one adopts a standpoint, even a standpoint that points to a parting of the ways …

Which was mere opportunism.

What is it that the hon. the Minister is saying about opportunism? Mr. Speaker, we are faced by the ridiculous situation of hon. members of the NP, in one and the same breath, referring to the CP’s opportunism and to its inflexible principles. I do not think, however, that these two aspects are reconcilable. Here, however, we also have that farcicality. Opportunism has now simply become a term of abuse used by hon. members of the NP. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, in South Africa today there is much more at stake, as far as the Whites and the non-Whites are concerned—and this includes the Afrikaner people—than there was in 1933; at least in my humble opinion. This is my own judgment of the situation. In my humble opinion there is a great deal more at stake now than there was in 1933. Even there we disagree with hon. members of the NP. We could be wrong, of course, but then hon. members of the NP must at least give us the right to disagree and to make our own mistakes. I must just say, however, that we would pay very dearly if hon. members of the NP were free to make their own mistakes.

That is exactly what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, there is true unity and there is also false unity. One can have organizational unity without having unity of principle or unity of objectives. One can have sham unity. One can have enforced unity. One can even have immoral unity. One can have unity centering around some leader; in this one could be right, but one could also be wrong. Let me emphasize that one will not unite the Afrikaner people in a joint effort at political suicide. [Interjections.] Let me also say emphatically that we will not obtain unity by way of a political policy of power-sharing and multiracial government. That will not give us unity in the ranks of the Whites. One will not obtain unity by way of the systematic elimination of a sovereign White Parliament and an individual Government for the Whites. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the NP try to make out that there is tension between the White and non-White groups in this country.

That is true. Of course it is.

I am not going to ask the hon. the Minister whether that is true. Rather ask me, Mr. Speaker, whether it is true. I know what my attitude is. [Interjections.] I now want to ask hon. members: What is the quality of the relationship between the NP, with its official standpoint and its constitution, and the Coloured Labour Party? Is it an ideal relationship when leaders tell one that they do not agree with one but will actually be participating—or words to that effect—in order to change the system into one of “one man, one vote”, with the Blacks included? [Interjections.] That question is also directed at the hon. member for Virginia. Where, then, is the wonderful harmony between the NP and the Labour Party which is the Coloured majority party? Also, is the Government completely ad idem with a Black leader such as Dr. Phatudi? Does he agree with the Government? He does not after all accept the policy of independent Black States.

If reference is made to the non-Whites’ negative attitude towards us, let me ask hon. members what they think of what I am now going to say. It concerns a person who, on behalf of the Government, has to handle what is probably one of the most sensitive of all the departments. I am referring to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. What was said by the man whom the hon. the Minister called his bosom friend?

That is right.

I quote—

I am not saying that is right, but I am just illustrating to hon. members what the attitude of a certain Black leader is. After all, mention has been made of attitudes and relationship. What is that man’s relationship or attitude towards the Government? I am not blowing my own trumpet now. [Interjections.] I see the hon. member for Kimberley South is enjoying this very much, but I also enjoy it when a Black leader, who knows where I stand and who does not agree with me, says—

Sir, for the sake of the Chief Minister’s reputation, I shall withdraw that. All I want to say is that hon. members should not conduct this sort of politics. With its policy the Government is not kindling any love in the hearts of those people. The way in which the hon. the Minister is handling matters has not engendered any love for him either. There are very serious doubts. Let me tell him that I appreciate the religious tone he adopts at times, but even the religious tone he adopted at the meeting of the Zulu people, when he told them “God bless you”, does not go down with them. They say: “It is blasphemous.”

You do not know what you are talking about. Bring us the proof. [Interjections.]

If I do not know what I am talking about, that hon. Minister did not know what he was talking about when he labelled me one of the greatest schismatics in South Africa … [Interjections.] What was the hon. the Minister’s motivation? He referred to the 1960 church conference, the Cottesloe church conference. He quoted that as proof. With all due respect to the Minister, let me tell him that he does not know what he is talking about. For eight years I was editor of the church magazine, and at one synod meeting after another …

You adopted the same attitude at the time.

… there were motions of confidence for the standpoint I adopted. The hon. the Minister does not know about that. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Innesdal scoffed at me quite a bit here. He referred to me as a slave to Afrikaner thinking of years gone by, if I understood him correctly. Then he added a few more little embellishments. I should like to quote him correctly. I do not want to put wrong words in his mouth. A slave to Afrikaner thinking of years gone by …

Obsolete Afrikaner thinking.

Obsolete Afrikaner thinking?

Order! The hon. member for Innesdal had his turn to speak yesterday.

The word “obsolete”, in that specific context, does not appear in his Hansard, but I accept that that was the hon. member’s intention. I just want to tell him that there are certain past trends in Afrikaner thinking that most certainly cannot be ascribed to us, least of all to me. There were, after all, joiners and defeatists (“hensoppers”) in the ranks of the Afrikaner.

That means you, Albert.

There were, after all, people like Bram Fischer. He was an Afrikaner, was he not?

Order! Firstly, the hon. member for Jeppe addressed the hon. member for Innesdal as “Albert”. That is not done in this House, He must take note of that. Secondly, did he not say that the hon. member for Innesdal was a “hensopper”?

I did not use the word. I said “like him”.

But the word was used.

If you find fault with that, I shall withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally, Sir.

The hon. member for Waterberg may proceed.

I am referring to Afrikaner thinkers of the past. Gen. Louis Botha was a man of noble and preeminent qualities, and he was also a good general. He did, however, hold to a specific political viewpoint, that of conciliation politics a system which was not only rejected in his time, but also subsequently. His standpoint in regard to the way in which conciliation between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people would take place was not accepted. Dr. D. F. Malan rejected it. He expressed himself as being very strongly opposed to it.

There are orientational pronouncements of past Afrikaner leaders that I find significant.

What did Dr. Verwoerd say about a Coloured homeland?

Dr. Verwoerd said that any endeavour to achieve a multiracial set-up, particularly in the administration of the country, would necessarily lead to an uninterrupted civil cold war at the very least. The hon. member ought to see the significance of that. That is exactly what the Government is now incorporating in its system.

What did Toynbee say?

I could also tell the hon. member something about Toynbee, but he is just trying to distract me with his question. I also want to refer to other orientational pronouncements. In later years, when he spoke about the “volk”, Dr. D. F. Malan used the following expression: “’n Aansienlike deel van die volk, Blankes en Nieblankes”. That is an expression he used on occasion. I would not endorse it in exactly those terms. That was, however, a part of Afrikaner thinking. The same person, however, said on occasion, and with this I find myself in accord—

I find myself in accord with that. I think it is a very sound standpoint.

I can also refer hon. members to the standpoint of Adv. Strijdom. That is the person about whom NP canvassers in Waterberg said that 1958 was the last time NP policy had been heard in Waterberg. Unfortunately time will not permit me to quote in full, but hon. members would do well to go and read Adv. Strijdom’s last message during the 1958 elections. He said—

These days hon. members on that side of the House will say that it is racialistic to speak in those terms. Adv. Strijdom also said—

That is the kind of language used in 1958. In present-day terms the language would perhaps be adjusted slightly. These days we would not speak of apartheid, but of separate development. It is, however, an echo from the past that I link up with. The same applies to standpoints of Dr. Verwoerd and others.

I would also have liked to refer to statements of the hon. member for Smithfield. I would also have liked to quote further examples to the hon. member for Innesdal. Since he links me up with obsolete Afrikaner thinking of the past, in all humility I just want to say that he apparently pays regular visits abroad and finds himself in company—I am not saying he endorses everything that is said in that company—in which he does not politically feel at home. He then brings that politics into this House and into South Africa. He must have a look at the political philosophies of Americans, liberalists, that he is trying to infuse into the politics of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I was impressed by one aspect of the hon. member’s speech, namely his appeal to us not to become personal with each other in this House. He asked that we should not make personal attacks on each other. I was impressed by the undertaking he gave in this connection and also by the fact that he said that he would repudiate any hon. member on that side of the House behaving improperly towards other hon. members. I feel a little cynical about the appeal by the hon. member, because yesterday or the day before yesterday he referred to another hon. member in this House as a “sot” (fool) and was told to withdraw the word.

So far he has not said “gorilla” or “orang-utan”. [Interjections.]

I also feel cynical about the hon. member’s attitude and the correctness of it when I hear him cast suspicion upon the Christian approach of a serious-minded man like the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development—that was what it looked like to me—by saying the Black people do not accept it. He questioned it in that way. [Interjections.]

I also felt cynical about the hon. member’s seriousness as regards the appeal he made because of the way in which he referred to the hon. member for Innesdal. He could have attacked the hon. member’s standpoint but why did he have to attack the hon. member personally?

The hon. leader of the CP said that in 1982 the hon. members of the CP had a reason to walk out. Of course. We accept that, otherwise they would not have walked out. However, they already had that reason in 1977, and the question is: Why did they not walk out then? After all, we know that in 1977, according to the proposals at that stage, there would have been a mixed Cabinet or a Council of Cabinets. We know that the hon. Prime Minister said that that Cabinet would have the same powers as the other Cabinet at that time. We know that in the 1977 proposals it was stated clearly that the Government was in favour of co-responsibility. Why did the hon. member and his followers not walk out in 1977? His credibility would have been far greater if he had left then.

The hon. member for Waterberg also said a few words about unity. In this connection I want to agree with him because he had something to say about false unity. That is true. The NP also experienced some of that false unity but, fortunately, February 1982 came along and put an end to it. We then had a new spirit in the NP and we also had a new leader in the Transvaal. Today he made a leader’s speech and a fighter’s speech and we are proud to say that one can follow a leader such as he at all times. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Waterberg also referred to Qwaqwa and placed the possible independence of Qwaqwa in the melting pot. I want to warn the hon. member today. He must not try to achieve his political aspirations by questioning the independence of the Black peoples in South Africa. [Interjections.] If he does so he will be impeding a political process which, in the interests of everyone in South Africa, should not be impeded, especially as regards the political interests of his own people.

The hon. member said that 72 ha of land had been set aside for Qwaqwa. I just want to tell the hon. member that he does not have the final consolidation proposals and he does not know what the situation is. It will be different to what it is now. However, it is farfetched to compare the position of Qwaqwa with that of a Coloured homeland. [Interjections.] We are dealing here with a barren piece of land where only 50 000 Coloureds are living, whereas 2,5 million Coloureds are living in the rest of South Africa in 640 different group areas. I think such a comparison is absolutely ridiculous and laughable.

I was impressed with the remarks the hon. member made in connection with a conflict situation and confrontation. I am very glad that the CP has adopted this standpoint and it gives us pleasure to take cognizance of it. I feel this is the sort of language we should use. I now want to put this question to the hon. member for Waterberg: Is he prepared to reject unconditionally and totally the AWB which is in favour of an Afrikaner dictatorship in South Africa? [Interjections.] I repeat my question to the hon. member: In the light of his speech, is he prepared to reject the AWB and everything it stands for, inter alia, an Afrikaner dictatorship in South Africa, totally and unconditionally?

They have first to be investigated.

The hon. member for Waterberg says they have first to be investigated, but I say that is nonsense. There are also other things in connection with the AWB that are being investigated. The matter I am putting to him now is not at issue. There are no problems in this regard and the situation is very clear. I am asking him whether he rejects the AWB.

I reject an Afrikaner dictatorship.

I am very glad to hear that the hon. member rejects an Afrikaner dictatorship, but does he also reject the AWB which is in favour of it? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Waterberg throws up his little hands in exasperation.

The hon. member also said something about Chief Minister. Buthelezi. I want to get to that, but it will take me little while to get there.

The population of South Africa is heterogeneous. It is the most heterogeneous population in the entire world, and that is why South Africa is in fact the most difficult country in the world to govern. We have Whites in South Africa who are not heterogeneous. We have Coloureds in South Africa who are not heterogeneous. The Black people are divided into ten different population groups in South Africa. In my humble opinion there are three possible political alternatives for South Africa.

The first is “one man, one vote” in a unitary State and all the variations on that theme of which the PFP is in favour. The hon. leader of the NP in the Transvaal pointed this out very clearly and the hon. members of the PFP need not feel bad about it. We on this side maintain that every expert on constitutional law or political science will say today that the ethnicity of a nation is of real political importance and that for this reason constitutional effect has to be given to it. That is why we reject that alternative totally.

In the second place, there is the possibility of domination by the Whites of the Blacks or the Blacks of the Whites or any group of another group. When one has a situation of domination and one’s policy is to perpetuate it, the only political question in South Africa is who is master and who is servant. If it is one’s policy to perpetuate this domination it is a fact that the man who is master today may be servant tomorrow. We also reject that alternative.

The third alternative is the one the hon. the leader of the NP in the Transvaal discussed today when he spelled out the policy of the NP in such a precise and forceful manner. It is the recognition of the diversity of groups in South Africa, an acknowledgement that there are various groups in South Africa. Once we accept that, it is necessary for the peace, prosperity and happiness of everyone in South Africa that the various groups reach agreement with each other in four basic respects.

The first aspect is the degree of separation that will exist among the four different groups. In the second place, there is the recognition of each other’s living space. In the third place, there is the recognition of each other’s self-determination and all it entails. In the fourth place, there is the way in which matters of common interest have to be dealt with by the four different groups.

When we consider this situation, then it is quite clear—this is also our point of departure—that this is the way in which one acknowledges the diversity of groups in South Africa, the existence of separate communities in South Africa.

In order to be able to do this—this is what I want to discuss today—it is necessary to clarify these matters among the various groups by means of agreements or contracts.

A national convention?

There has to be consensus among the various population groups and nations in South Africa on the four points I have mentioned. In reply to that interjection by the hon. member for Jeppe, I want to say immediately that neither the NP nor myself is in any way in favour of a national convention, and I shall tell him why. If one were to hold a national convention in a country where the population is as heterogeneous and the group interests are as divergent as in our country, I am of the opinion that when one set out all the various interests it would be quite impossible in practice to reach any kind of consensus or to arrive at a compromise. We reject it…

May I ask you a question?

No. If I have time later the hon. member may ask his question.

The success of the NP in the sphere of constitutional development has in fact been achieved by concluding contracts. We need only think of the independence of Transkei. This involved contracts—in actual fact more than 60 of them—incorporating this independence and the other matters I have mentioned. This was a contract signed by Blacks and Whites. It was a contract that determined the separateness of the various groups, that recognize the living space of each of them and determined how the area common to those people and ourselves should be demarcated. In this case it was done by means of contracts that spelled out all the details. Those contracts also acknowledged each other’s right to self-determination and all it entailed. It was an exercise in consensus between Whites and Blacks. This is the NP’s way of solving the problems of South Africa. This White-Black contract, this White-Black consensus, grew in South Africa with the independence of Bophuthatswana, Ciskei and Venda.

According to the perception of the NP and the CP it is important that this process continue in regard to the other Black nations that have not yet become independent. This is our policy and we are trying to ensure that contracts are entered into with the other Black nations. However, there is something that is very important. Before one enters into a contract with someone else, before White leaders can sit at a table with Black leaders, before they can negotiate with the Black leaders on the things I have mentioned, a few prerequisites have to be met. The most important prerequisite is that there has to be trust between those Black leaders and ourselves. When agreement has been reached the Whites and the Blacks will sign that contract and that will secure and ensure the future of us all.

In this sphere trust, respect and regard between Whites and Blacks are required to be able to bring about this situation. Leaders enter into contracts on behalf of countries and the relationship between leaders is of the utmost importance. No Black leader will enter into a contract with a White leader if he thinks that that White leader or the party of that White leader is discriminating against him. No Black leader will enter into a contract with a White leader who he feels despises him as a Black. The fact of the matter is that in spite of the selective little quotation made by the hon. member for Waterberg today, the perception of people of colour—no one can deny this—is that the hon. member for Waterberg and his party look down on Black people and on all people of colour in South Africa. [Interjections.] This is the perception of the Black people in South Africa. Perception is a reality. The hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. members of the CP should try by positive means and friendly overtures to change that situation. It would redound to the good of South Africa. However, the hon. member for Waterberg has not made any statement to nullify this perception. I want to ask the hon. member for Waterberg a question. Does the hon. member feel that Whites and Blacks should sit together at one table and negotiate with each other on the future of all of us in South Africa?

I am not prepared to withdraw the map of the Boland.

I asked the hon. member a clear and simple question and the hon. member could have given a clear and unequivocal reply to that question. However, as so frequently happens, he gave a reply that was neither one thing nor the other. The hon. member for Waterberg is a symbol of opposition to many Black people in South Africa today, someone with whom they will not negotiate, someone with whom they will not sit around a table. The hon. member does not want to sit around a table with them otherwise he could have taken the opportunity to say so this afternoon in the presence of everyone. If one were to ask most Black people in South Africa today whether they were prepared to enter into a contract with the Jaap Marais’s and the Andries Treurnichts, they would laugh one to scorn and say: Never ever. The actions and the history of that hon. member are such that they do not have the confidence or feel free to do so. When I made this point a while ago at Ellisras, a man stood up and asked me: Do you want the signatures of Whites and Blacks on the same document? To which I replied: Yes. He then asked me: What about Dingaan? My reply on that occasion was, inter alia, that there comes a time when a person enters into a contract or signs a document and his signature does not mean a thing. The Dingaan episode is a tragic one in the history of South Africa. In that case a White leader negotiated with Dingaan honestly and sincerely and entered into a contract with him. They then signed that contract. While they were preparing to celebrate this fact it is well-known that Dingaan said at Ungungundhlovu: “Kill the Boers”, and a tragic incident took place. However, that contract remained valid, because on the basis of that contract the Voortrekkers later laid claim to Natal and got it.

I think we should take a look at integrity in politics. We should consider what a person’s signature in fact means. In this connection I want to refer to the 1981 manifesto of the NP. Over a period of years the NP Government through Dr. Verwoerd and Mr. John Vorster adopted a certain standpoint in connection with the Coloureds of South Africa. This manifesto was actually the charter of the NP in respect of the Coloureds and the Asians. This manifesto contained two promises to the Coloureds and the Asians. The first promise contained in this manifesto was that the Coloureds and the Asians would be given joint responsibility as regards general matters.

But not the right of joint decision-making.

The second promise contained in that manifesto was that the NP would not expect the Coloureds to establish an independent homeland for themselves. This was what the manifesto stated. This matter did not suddenly materialize. This charter of the NP was the culmination of a long history, the clear standpoint of Verwoerd and the clear standpoint of John Vorster. The following words appeared on the front page of the NP’s manifesto—

Who, then, signed it?

Where does that document say anything about power-sharing?

Here is the signature of the hon. member for Waterberg. [Injerjections.] The question we have to ask ourselves today is a vexed and thorny one indeed. However, I want to ask the following question. Does the signature of the hon. member for Waterberg mean as much to the Coloureds in South Africa today as the signature of Dingaan meant to Piet Retief and his people? [Interjections.]

My signature does not appear on any document in favour of power-sharing. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Pretoria Central, as he has quite clearly just done here, compare the hon. member for Waterberg with the dishonourable Dingaan? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member said contains an insinuation which no one can fail to see. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria Central may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I have motivated my standpoint in this connection quite clearly and that is all I have to say in that regard. [Interjections.]

I come now to the conclusion I want to reach in this speech. That is that the behaviour of the hon. member for Waterberg over a number of years, particularly his behaviour towards people of colour, has been such that he has disqualified himself as a leader of any standing among the Whites. He has also disqualified himself as a leader who could in any way assure the White man of a future in this country. [Interjections.] In contrast, however, we have the NP, and we also have the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to point out with pride that the hon. the Prime Minister’s integrity, his status and his prestige are such that he means something to the White man as well as to all the other groups in South Africa. He is in a far better position than any other leader, particularly the hon. the leader of the CP, to ensure peace, prosperity and happiness in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder whether hon. members of the NP, including some of the leaders of that party, have a death wish. Hon. members of the NP know perfectly well that when this referendum is fought they are going to have to win. They will simply have to win because if they do not win, it is going to be, I believe, the beginning of the end for the NP. Yet, Mr. Speaker, bearing that in mind, I am utterly amazed at the action of certain leaders of the NP during the course of this session of Parliament. I refer in particular to the hon. the nominated member, the hon. the Minister of Finance. While the only potential ally that the NP has in the coming referendum is the NRP, he makes the statement that he is going to release a secret plan to knock the NRP out in Natal. Now, that is certainly a good way to win friends and to influence people.

The next point I should like to make, Mr. Speaker, when I say I wonder whether they have a death wish, is with reference to the debate here this afternoon. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs raised the point here today that the NRP was really of very little consequence because it was dying. We have taken a long time dying, and people have been saying we were dying for a long time. Surely, however, if one wants somebody’s assistance, even if it is only relatively small assistance, one does not go out of one’s way to say that he is dying, and be as offensive as possible. In connection with the question of voting in the referendum, I will not be going into the whys and wherefores of the whole matter because a Select Committee will be working towards changing the voting system. Nevertheless, I wonder at the wisdom of changing a system that people have been using for the last 70 odd years, for this referendum. I do not know whether that is so wise. This, to me, seems to give an indication that there is something of a death wish on the part of the NP. I do not, however, wish to waste much time on this. I merely wanted to raise the point as a matter of interesting observation.

We in these benches are very pleased that the hon. the Minister has announced that there will be a Select Committee appointed to investigate the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. So far as we are concerned, I am quite sure that we in these benches will do our utmost to be cooperative on an apolitical basis as far as that is humanly possible in regard to such a highly political matter. As regards the Select Committee to amend the Referendums Act, that is of course what we asked for right at the very beginning. The hon. the Minister at the time indicated very clearly that he was not very enthusiastic about it, but he has now decided to change his mind. So, quite obviously we are happy about that.

The hon. member for Pinelands—I am sorry that he is not here—can never resist an opportunity gratuitously to take a swipe at us. It is rather a pity because I had no intention whatsoever to say anything about the PFP in my speech this afternoon. However, when people attack, what must one do? One must be reasonable and reciprocate. So far as the hon. member for Pinelands is concerned, I feel he is trying to misrepresent the situation when he says that PFP policy in respect of the franchise does not mean “one man, one vote” and majority rule. Can any hon. member of the PFP give a forecast of the likely result of an election under their system of franchise? How many Blacks are there likely to be in the Parliament, how many Whites and how many Coloureds? Surely, if they are politically knowledgeable, they will have a rough idea. They also know that it is no good saying that there will be no difference between Blacks and Whites and that Blacks could vote for Whites and Whites could vote for Blacks. We know that, but, human nature being what it is, it is quite obvious that the majority of Blacks will vote for Black representatives. Certainly, from the statements one hears, they would not vote for the Progressives because they indicate quite clearly that they are not very fond of them. I do not think they would vote for the NP because, as has been said, the NP is not really their cup of tea.

What about the NRP?

I doubt whether they would vote for us either. I admit that. So, Blacks would generally vote for Blacks and Whites for Whites. Can one of the hon. members of the PFP therefore give an indication of what our Parliament would look like under their policy? How many Blacks, Coloureds, Indians and Whites would there be in it? It would be of some interest to know that.

There is one further point I should like to make in passing. The hon. member for Durban Central rather surprised me with the statement he made. He said he was opposed to the incorporation of the free enterprise concept in the constitution. I thought the PFP supported free enterprise.

Never! They are social democrats.

As far as I can gather, I have to have some reservations about their support of free enterprise.

That is their domestic policy.

They are in favour of a social democracy.

Yes, I know that that is the policy of the hon. member for Yeoville, but I did not know that it was also the policy of the other members of that party. They seem to have a variety of policies.

The leader of the NRP in his address yesterday concluded by making a very valid point to the effect that unity in diversity should be the aim of us in this Parliament. I believe that basically all the hon. members subscribe to the concept that, if it is practical and possible, we should aim for unity. Our national motto is “Unity is Strength”. The hon. the Prime Minister over the weekend spoke on television about unity and so forth. So I think everybody, except of course the irresponsible types, believes that unity is good for South Africa. We of course subscribe to that too. We do not believe in a unity that is merely one of the melting-pot. We believe that one must take cognizance of the different communities. They should have unity by binding them together in a love of South Africa and respect for our differing traditions and the country as a whole. I do not believe we will ever get that unity in South Africa unless there is respect by all for what I choose and other people choose to call “the golden rule”. That rule is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Certainly it is not original, but it is a golden rule which is known throughout the Western World and probably the other world as well. I believe many hon. members in the House do try to live by that.

Beyond doubt South Africa over many years has not put that golden rule into practice. This is why we are in a somewhat parlous position today in that we are more divided in many ways than we have ever been in our history. I believe that having seen the error of its ways the Government is now trying to reverse the process that it has followed over such a long time. However, we in this House can only go so far to get rid of the unpleasantnesses and mistrust which have precluded unity in South Africa in the past. If we are going to achieve any sort of unity at all then we are going to have to have the cooperation of the media of South Africa. In a critical time such as this the question of expediency must go by the board. I know many political parties think in terms of expediency, but today we believe—and I think any thinking man believes—that it is imperative that we have an objective Press who do not confuse the public but who puts the picture clearly to the public, giving both sides and making it clear that it is expressing the public’s right, which is the right to know. I would make this point here and now that the public’s right to know in so far as the Press is concerned is not the public’s right to know what the Press wants them to know. This I regret to say is a tendency which is creeping into the newspaper world these days. This is why one finds very unbalanced reports coming into some newspapers.

In so far as newspapers are concerned the South African Press is probably the freest Press in the sub-Saharan area. If it does not take notice of the fact it may even one day be successful in achieving the objective of its liberal bosses and their policies could come into being. Sir, if that did happen, do you know what the first thing would be to happen? The first thing that would happen would be that the Press would have its hands tied and probably its throat cut as well, as has happened in a great deal of the rest of sub-Saharan Africa.

The Press has great power. There is no question about it. The power it has is a very dangerous sort of power because it is power without responsibility. It has no responsibility to a constituency. It only has some sort of responsibility to shareholders and it would seem to me that even that is limited by the number of newspapers that are going broke. They do not seem to worry too much about that. They have to amalgamate to stop themselves from bankruptcy. Nonetheless, they themselves have no constituency and no responsibility, but great power. They who cry the most about the freedom of the Press are themselves applying a censorship today in respect of certain aspects with which they disagree.

John Wiley II!

I am sorry, I am not John Wiley, but I have a certain admiration for him. If the hon. member for Parktown is so blind that he cannot tell the difference, I am surprised. The point is that they are applying a censorship today which people are already noticing. I have had it expressed to me on many occasions. People say: “I do not buy the paper, because one cannot read news in it, it is prejudiced and biased.” That I am told. Such being the case some of the newsmen are damaging the credibility of the Press and they are damaging the belief that the Press should be free. These are rights that have been built up and accepted as Western norms over a very long time through honourable Pressmen who believed in putting the story across without fear or favour and, of course, protecting their sources. I am afraid this is not what is happening today with some Pressmen. There are many honourable and many good Pressmen in South Africa. There are, however, also some who look upon themselves as little kingmakers. They are the people who are a danger to the country and a danger to their own profession. As far as I am concerned, this type of person is the type who encourages terrorism. They are the ones who are responsible for the dangerous acts which are taking place in this country. [Interjections.] The hon. members of the PFP are a weird lot, Sir. They know that I have only a few minutes and yet they deliberately try to waste my time and they are succeeding, unfortunately. I believe that in this country in order to achieve change we do need the Press in spite of the hard words I have said about some of its members, and I emphasize “some of them”. We do need the Press, and I call upon the media, on behalf of all moderates of all race groups in these critical times of constitutional change to present these constitutional proposals fairly and balanced from both sides. If they do that, they will be doing South Africa a real service.

Mr. Speaker, I should very much like to give hon. members a brief exposition of the water situation in our country and, in doing so, perhaps steer the debate into quiet waters, although there is no surplus of water. However, permit me to begin by making a remark about the speech by the hon. the Leader of the CP. I listened to him very attentively. Hon. members are aware that I am not an Afrikaner by birth. My father became an Afrikaner and he made one of me, too. I am very grateful for that. My forebears were the 1820 Settlers who established themselves in the Eastern Cape. This is a history of which I personally am very proud. Because I became an Afrikaner I nevertheless felt a need to study the history of the Afrikaner very thoroughly, and in the process two specific characteristics stood out above any of the others. The first is that the Afrikaner is not afraid. His history is full of examples of fearlessness and daring. Listening to the hon. members on that side of the House I gain the impression that there are members who have totally lost this characteristic. There is a second characteristic, too, a second exceptional characteristic. The Afrikaners have the ability to deal ruthlessly with leaders that split their ranks. Those hon. members should just go and read the history of the Afrikaner. [Interjections.] I want to say this to the hon. member for Waterberg today, and I say it in deadly ernest: He must beware of that day. He will not escape it. [Interjections.] It is obvious that I have touched on a very sensitive nerve with these few remarks I have made. [Interjections.]

I now want to give hon. members a very brief summary of our water supply situation at the present stage. In this regard I want to deal with agriculture. In many parts of our country we have had to introduce substantial cuts in respect of agriculture. Indeed, in most parts there is already a restriction of 50% or more, and we are at present considering further restrictions. I am fully aware that this entails hardships and personal financial loss, and I wish to express my regret in this regard. However, this is unfortunately something that we as human beings can do nothing about. However, at the same time I wish to express my thanks to all irrigators for the wonderful co-operation we have had in our water conservation campaign.

In general, the position at the majority of State water schemes in the Transvaal, the Free State, Natal and the Cape, excluding the Western Cape and the Orange River system, is poor. In fact it varies from poor to critical. The new water year of many of the schemes begins on 1 October, and as regards the expected dam levels at that time, there are going to be several schemes that will have either no water, or very little water, for the summer. As hon. members are aware, 50% restrictions have already been introduced with regard to winter quotas in the majority of regions. As usual, just before the beginning of the water year, advisory committees will meet to determine, in co-operation with the section engineer in question, what quota can be awarded after the water that is essential for the survival of man and beast has been reserved. Every province has its areas which have been more or less hard-hit and it is difficult to single out regions. Generally speaking, the only hope is that the dams will begin to fill up early in the summer season so that larger quotas may be awarded in due course. It is my belief that this will indeed happen.

As I see the matter, irrigation farmers who are going to have only small quotas at the beginning of the summer season have only two choices. They can either be conservative and only plant what can be taken to maturity by the small quotas, or they can use the whole allocation to plant and then hope for rain and a rapid and sufficient filling of dams. Perhaps the conservative approach should be encouraged at first with a prospect, for the cash crop farmers, of supplementing planting if larger quotas, as is to be hoped, can be allocated later in the season after the dams have filled sufficiently. However, I want to stress that there is no hope of supplementary water unless there is early supplementing of water in the dams.

I now want to discuss the question of urban water consumption.

†Mr. Speaker, indications are that the present drought conditions are substantially worse than can be expected once in 200 years. In fact, my department feels that in some places this drought can be described as one in 500 years. It is most exceptional. Should sufficient rains not fall during the next rainy season, widespread disruption of the economy is of course possible. In fact, I think that one would be safe in saying that it would be inevitable. However, we have not yet reached the point in time where things are absolutely desperate. A statistical analysis of the situation that was carried out by the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries shows that our chances of getting through the drought without its causing more harm than has already been caused because of the present water restrictions are better than 95%.

The Department of Environment Affairs has in recent months often been the target of “I told you so” snipers as well as others who charge us with negligence in not providing for contingencies such as this. According to the critics, we could and should have made provision for droughts of this magnitude, but as the old saying goes, talk is cheap. I now want to reiterate with all the emphasis that I can muster that no-one—I repeat no-one—could have foreseen the compass of the present drought situation and even if it could have been foreseen, it would still not have been feasible to have built sufficient storage capacity to cushion the impacts of droughts of this severity. It would have been neither practical nor economical because it would have entailed the storing of large quantities of water over long periods with corresponding large losses because of evaporation. The critics seem to forget that in the long run it will still be the water consumer who will have to foot the bill. Furthermore, the capital needed for this kind of long-term drought insurance would have to be invested at the expense of other more deserving causes.

When adversity strikes in the shape of unplanned for events, alternatives are obviously called for. The imposition of water restrictions is such a stopgap albeit not a popular one. As a son of the arid Karoo, I am well aware of the discomfort and hardships caused by water restrictions. I can, however, at the same time vouch for the necessity and efficacy of such measures. Short of resorting to wildly uneconomical ad hoc schemes, this is the only way in which it can be done.

*If, then, I begin by dwelling on the supply position from the Vaal River, I want to point out that unfortunately we have not been able to achieve the target of a 20% saving in all cases. Thus far we have not been able to achieve this, and that is a great pity. I have therefore been compelled to direct this morning that a notice be issued to all suppliers of water for urban consumption from the Vaal River that the backlog built up will have to be eliminated before 1 September. This will of necessity mean that economies of more than 20% will have to be effected and this will imply more stringent restrictions and also, perhaps, tariff adjustments.

However, it is a pleasure to be able to say that the emergency scheme being constructed for the provision of water to Escom and the Sasols in the Eastern Transvaal Highveld is progressing satisfactorily. Indeed, I think we are ahead of schedule and we shall be able to have water there in time so that Escom and the Sasols will not come to a standstill. I want to associate myself with the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs when I say that power conservation could also result in water conservation. This will necessarily relieve the pressure on our limited resources.

I want to make a second remark in this regard. It was a wise decision to build the Tugela-Vaal scheme. If we had had that scheme we should only have had 20% water left in the Vaal dam, without any possibility of supplementation from any source and that would inevitably have meant that we should have had to close down our power stations in September/October or thereabouts. Therefore this was a wise decision and I want to pay tribute to my department today for this exceptional farsightedness and insight they displayed in this regard. At the same time I think we owe Natal a word of thanks, since they had the water available to use for this particularly important system.

†I should now like to come to the position in Natal. I want to place on record my appreciation to the people of Natal for the way in which they have responded to the urgent appeal to conserve water. It is absolutely remarkable that we could achieve a saving of more than 50%, which just illustrates to us what can be done in the face of adversities.

I had a meeting in Natal last Friday with the Administrator, the Executive Committee, members of Parliament and the Provincial Council, the Natal Agricultural Union and several other instances. This meeting was very constructive and responsible and the main aim was to discuss the problem and the exchange views to try and augment the critical water position. As far as the Durban-Pietermaritzburg area is concerned. I stated very clearly that we have a 95% chance of getting through this drought with the present restrictions. Delegates were, however, unanimous in their appeal that we should urgently investigate the feasibility of a diversion scheme from the Mooi River to the Umgeni system. This is being done at the moment and I hope to have the result of this investigation within a month. We will then have to decide whether such a scheme is possible and whether it is viable. It will be possible to build such a scheme within four to six months.

The situation in the Newcastle-Dundee area is very serious.

*However, I decided to have a scheme built that has been planned and budgeted for the 1984-’85 financial year. At present the department is negotiating with the Treasury to advance the availability of funds for this scheme.

†This scheme entails a weir in the Buffalo River, pumping stations and pumping mains to the Ngagane purification works. In this way the yield of the Chelmsford Dam on one of its tributaries can be supplemented. This, together with the raised Chelmsford Dam can then also supply Utrecht, Dundee, Glencoe and Nqutu. This scheme can also be completed within four to six months.

*I have singled out only a few areas where the situation is perhaps most serious. There are several other areas where the position is almost critical. I have not discussed the situation in the Eastern Cape. Therefore there are several other areas I could single out, but time does not allow me to do so. Suffice it to say that the water situation in the country in general is absolutely critical. I also wish to point out that the situation in certain Black States is giving rise to grave concern. The Department of Co-operation and Development has taken various steps to relieve the emergency situation there.

It is therefore clear from the a foregoing that every drop of water in South Africa is precious and must be used with the greatest possible circumspection. However, I do not want to end on a negative note. Hon. members will see an announcement in the Gazette on Friday in which we announce new purchases of water. It is a great pleasure for me to be able to announce today that we have a considerable amount of surplus water in the Orange River. I have decided to authorize a second round of water sales in the Orange River system from 1 July 1983. Full details of this will appear in the Gazette of Friday, 1 July 1983.

I thank the House for this opportunity. I regret having to sound a negative note on an occasion such as this when we are on the point of adjourning for the first part of the session. However, I have no alternative but to spell out the realities to hon. members with regard to water in this country. I have no alternative but to outline for members the critical situation we are faced with. When we return to our constituencies this will enable us to put the situation to our voters so that we can attempt to obtain their cooperation for our conservation measures.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umbilo does not appear to be in the House. He attacked the PFP in his speech but obviously he is not interested in hearing any answers from us …

Did you ask him to be here?

You do not have to be so rude. Keep quiet.

The hon. member for Umbilo is obviously also not interested in hearing about the water position in Natal. I shall leave him and his tiny and irrelevant party where they sit.

The hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries painted what I think is probably one of the grimmest pictures we have heard relating to a future outlook with regard to the water situation in this country. He has painted a very bleak outlook for farmers and he has said to us that there is a possibility of widespread disruption of the economy unless an improvement takes place in the relatively near future. We all know that people are already suffering in the country areas and we all know that when there is a lack of water, food production drops, and when food production drops there is famine in the land and people suffer incredible problems of life in a situation like that. I am not going to make any statements in relation to past actions, but what I want to say to the hon. the Minister is that I hope that he will summon the widest possible expertise to help the country out of this crisis. I want to tell him that this party will support him in every single step he takes to relieve the farmers in their plight and industry in their difficulties. The hon. the Minister can look for nothing but absolute support from us in whatever efforts he takes to avoid disaster for this country.

It can be said without any fear of contradiction by any fair observer that in the past weeks the PFP, since the tabling of the Government’s constitutional proposals, has fulfilled a multi-faceted role in this unfolding process. We have been highly critical of glaring shortcomings. We have reacted negatively where we have honestly perceived the destruction of values which our country has treasured for generations. It is our patriotic duty to act thus. The PFP has also been constructive and positive and has made suggestions which, if adopted, will redound to the benefit of the citizens of the Republic for years to come. Every single one of the suggestions put forward by the PFP demonstrates a will to participate in the development in a manner calculated to further the prosperity and happiness of, to coin a phrase, all in our midst. We are not boycotters. Certainly we are not boycotters of debate. But can we say the same of the Government? Can we say the same of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning or even of the hon. the Prime Minister? Of course we cannot! It is they who are the boycotters.

On Friday, 10 June, the hon. member for Yeoville gave notice of a motion instructing the Select Committee on the Constitution to incorporate in the constitution elements of a Bill of Rights, protecting the freedoms of citizens and of communities in our country.

Your Act of Dedication rubbish.

The hon. member for Turffontein supported the Act of Dedication when it was first published and he was a member of a party that propagated that Act of Dedication. He was a public supporter of it and he is on record as having supported it.

I never supported it, and you know that.

On Monday, 13 June, three days later, the motion was moved to the bottom of the Order Paper, making it clear that the Government was refusing to debate any of the issues in open forum before the Select Committee commenced its sittings. I ask myself: Why? Is it because of the content of the motion? Is it because the NP disagrees for instance, with aspects that the motion covers? Let us look at an example. Is the Government in favour of the freedom of the Press and of media communication, or is it not?

The party is but I am not.

That hon. member is honest. He says he is not in favour of the freedom of the Press. I do not believe that that is the standpoint of his party, however.

No, it is not.

If it is, I ask: Why cannot this freedom be enshrined in the constitution? Why should this basic human freedom be left to the whims of political legislators? To take it even further, I want to pose the following question: Why, if we look, for instance, at the motion of which the hon. member gave notice, can the Government not accept, as many Western countries have already done, that it should be the right of every citizen to pursue the gaining of a livelihood?

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

Not at the moment, no. I would be grateful if the hon. member waited for a while so that we can see how things go. [Interjections.] If this right is accepted—the right of pursuing the gaining of a livelihood—why not can it be written into our constitutional framework?

For the last several years the Government has denied that it practises race discrimination. What is so bad, I ask, about outlawing race discrimination forever by forbidding it in terms of our constitution? [Interjections.]

On Monday, 20 June, the hon. member for Sea Point gave notice of a motion.

Why did you not take that matter to the President’s Council?

The reasons why our argument was not taken to the President’s Council were made plain at the time. The hon. member should know that the forum in which we choose to speak is the forum for which we were elected; not a forum which is a nominated one; not a forum which has excluded 70% of the population of the country from its deliberations. Those are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that were made clear to the hon. member for Turffontein months ago. We choose to speak in the supreme and sovereign Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. That is our right, and also our duty.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member? [Interjections.]

No, you may not. On 20 June the hon. member for Sea Point gave notice of a motion, the essence of which was to provide for the separation of the offices of the head of State and the head of Government, and further that the Cabinet and the head of Government should resign if they ever lost the confidence of Parliament. This principle is presently not contained in the current constitution.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Turffontein allowed to call me a pig?

Order! Did the hon. member for Turffontein make that remark?

Mr. Speaker, when a person behaves himself like a pig it is difficult not to tell him that he is a pig. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: May the hon. member for Welkom agree with the hon. member for Turffontein that I am a pig? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I did not agree with him. I said that surely the hon. member for Jeppe did not look like a pig. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Welkom did say that the hon. member was a pig.

Order! The hon. member for Welkom gave an explanation of what he said. I accept his word for it. The hon. member for Sandton may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. As I have said, this principle is presently not contained in the Constitution Bill at all. At the moment, if Parliament loses confidence in the Cabinet or in the head of Government, it is Parliament which is dissolved—a glaringly undemocratic process. The suggestion by the hon. member for Sea Point is therefore a positive move to improve the legislation and to bring political participation closer to the electorate. Yet, this motion too languishes at the bottom of the Order Paper, and will not be debated in this House. Why does this happen? Do hon. ordinary members really wish to destroy their own value in this forum? Do hon. members here present really want to hand over government on a plate to an executive which it cannot, without massive upheaval, remove?

Yet, to mention another effort which we have made, I want to refer to the following. On Wednesday, 22 June, the hon. member for Berea gave notice of a motion the purport of which was to introduce proportionality into the proceedings of Parliament, and even in regard to the election of members. The draft constitution acknowledges proportionality in the make-up of the various houses of Parliment, but there it stops. While professing to move away from the Westminster system the NP have opted to retain some of the very worst elements of that system—the element of winner take all in the decisions to be taken by the legislators. In doing so the NP are seeking to entrench White Nationalist domination to the exclusion of all other viewpoints. However, despite these tactics of frustration employed by the Government, the PFP, in the interests of all South Africa, has not given up.

On Friday, 24 June, I gave notice of a motion calling for the introduction of a constitutional court to act as the final authority for interpreting and enforcing the constitution and its conventions. I believe that such a vital task should not be left in the hands of a party-political president, whoever he may be, but rather that people, communities and political parties should be able to seek redress on matters relating to the constitution in a forum divorced from politics. I have support for this. Prof. Du Toit of the University of the Orange Free State has said: “Die weiering om ’n konstitusionele hof in te stel, is onverklaarbaar”. Dr. Erasmus of the University of Stellenbosch has said: “Howe behoort ingespan te word in regsvrae oor die presiese afbakeninge van eie en algemene sake”. What I am trying to say is that these and other matters, issues of the greatest public importance, should be debated in public and in all forums. Yet, every attempt to bring these matters to the attention of South Africa and the legislators is being blocked by the NP. What is worse is that some of these matters, if they are not included in an instruction, cannot even be debated within a Select Committee because of the rules of the Select Committee. That cannot be denied.

Yet, the Government clings to the false cry that it is the PFP who are the boycotters of institutions, of debates. Let us look at the position. Debate on the major issues in this House is stifled and matters brought positively to the attention of the House have been stopped from being discussed. Who has stopped them? The NP Government, the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister have. By refusing to pass instructions introducing major improvements, the Government has prevented debate on some of these issues in a Select Committee. Yet we are told that we are the boycotters! Who are the boycotters? Who are stifling debate? It is the Government.

Finally, my hon. leader has offered to discuss and debate the constitution and our realistic alternatives with the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon. the Prime Minister on television.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member keeps on suggesting that the Government places the instructions at the bottom of the Order Paper. Is this not in accordance with the rules … [Interjections.]

You should know better. You were Chairman of the provincial council …

Order!

That is not true and it is not a point of order.

Order! The hon. member is making a point of order.

Is it not true that the time for private member’s motions in this regard has expired and that preference is now being given to Government business? Therefore the hon. member’s suggestion is actually a reflection on the rules of the House as applied by you, Mr. Speaker.

Order! The hon. member for Sandton may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. My hon. leader has offered to debate these issues with the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on South Africa’s television service which is a powerful medium which can be used to get through to every citizen of our country. It is a medium which can educate every single citizen and inform him on precisely what the issues involved are. However, neither of those two hon. gentlemen have had the courage to take up this challenge. Who, I ask, are ducking the judgment of the people of South Africa? It is not we, but the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, who do not have the guts to risk a debate in the forum of public opinion!

May I suggest the reasons for this. The first reason is that the NP Government does not have a Prime Minister nor any Minister who has the confidence to stand up, either in logic or in intellect, against the leader of the PFP in open debate. [Interjections.] Not one of them has the logic or the intellect to face this man publicly. They do not have the guts. The second reason is that the NP position in regard to nearly all the issues that we have raised by means of instructions and notices of motion is morally and constitutionally indefensible. That is why they do not wish to debate these matters.

Let us remember that it is the PFP who are making these matters public and it is the NP who are desperately trying to throw a blanket over this debate and to silence us on these matters. I ask again: Who are the boy-cotters? The answer is clear.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sandton made a speech in connection with the instructions they have placed on the Order Paper. Let us just consider for a moment what is at issue. The debate on the Second Reading of the Bill under which these instructions fall, lasted 12 hours and more, and there is not one of the aspects in connection with which they have placed instructions on the Order Paper which was not debated during the Second Reading. The hon. members will admit this. After all, there was nothing they did not raise.

That is not true.

Then the hon. member for Sandton must tell us what we did not discuss.

What about the Constitution Bill?

It has been discussed by various hon. members on different occasions. Even if the hon. member is right, the principles were discussed during the Second Reading. There was an opportunity to discuss the principles of the Bill in full.

What is the purpose of an instruction? The purpose of an instruction, according to the way it has developed in this House and has become the practice here is to be able, in the case of a review for the purposes of the Committee Stage as well, to amend the relevant clauses in such a way that the principle may be adapted in order to accommodate that amendment. How does this take place in practice? In practice, when an Opposition Party draws up an instruction, they approach the responsible Minister and tell him that they have something they feel they can convince him of. They ask the relevant Minister whether he wishes to concede on this issue and move the instruction himself. Or they ask him whether they have to move the instruction. After that it is debated in this House. Usually it is not debated for very long. The hon. member for Sandton will also grant me that. However, what is happening here in practice?

We would like a debate on every instruction.

Did the hon member for Sandton or any of his hon. colleagues at any stage approach the hon. the Minister personally to discuss the possibility of an instruction or any of these aspects with him? The hon. member for Yeoville says he did. Is the hon. member for Yeoville saying that he discussed the possibility of giving the Committee such an instruction with the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning?

Surely you know one does not make private discussions public. [Interjections.]

The hon. member need only say yes or no. I do not want to know the contents of his discussions with the hon. the Minister. After all, the hon. the Minister did not admit or deny this. [Interjections.]

What else did the hon. member for Sandton say? He said they were prepared at any time to debate these matters in public. He said they would very much like to debate them. However, they are not prepared to negotiate on these matters. No, they want to debate them in public. The hon. member for Sandton did not take the trouble to go and discuss his instruction with the responsible Minister.

I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he at any stage took the trouble to request an appointment to discuss the merits of any aspect of this Bill before it was debated in this House.

It is already National Party policy.

Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at any stage try to do so before the federal congress?

Yes, many times.

Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition request appointments to debate the merits of the matter with the hon. the Minister?

I discussed it, but all they did was rebuff me. [Interjections]

I am not referring to the debate now. I am asking whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition requested specific appointments to debate specific matters? I maintain that those hon. members talk about negotiation but that they do not know the meaning of the word. They are not prepared to negotiate. They would like to debate matters in public for political gain. [Interjections.] The hon. member is making such a noise, but all his party is doing at the moment is going around the country trying to peddle something to the people. It seems to me they are selling mirrors like the pedlars of old used to do and are saying: “You must look into this because you will see something in future. We do not know exactly what it is.”

I want to discuss something with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He will remember that in Hansard, col. 7065, he said that to draw up a constitution and to bring about constitutional development in a peaceful evolutionary way in these times was one of the most difficult challenges one could imagine. In column 7065 he also said that under these circumstances one could not arrive at an ideal constitution. The hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning stated quite clearly in his speech—Hansard, 16 May 1983, col. 7051—that as far as the constitutional position and the future of the Black people of our country were concerned, the position had not yet been finalized and could not be finalized without consultation and exhaustive investigations. The hon. the Minister did say that after all.

[Inaudible.]

This afternoon nothing has been said except that a great deal has still to be discussed. The other point I just want to mention here is that a fundamental premise was also stated during the Second Reading. I am quoting from Hansard, 16 May 1983, col. 7053—

Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is also able to subscribe to this statement. Is it not a sound premise? If in terms of this a Cabinet Committee was also appointed and obvious attempts were made—even if in his eyes they were totally inadequate—he should at least admit the bona fides of such attempts, namely that the Government is not merely saying something and not doing anything about it, but that it is trying to implement what it has said in order to prevent really difficult problems from arising. However, I think the trouble with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is that he thinks too rigidly in terms of the ideal model. It is a good thing to consider ideal models, but we have to progress from day to day and take decisions from day to day. The choices do not simply lie between right and wrong, but also between right and right and even between wrong and wrong from time to time. I want to quote to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition something written by Robert Pirsig—

I honestly think we should see whether many of the things they do to us in terms of choices from moment to moment, are not also in fact truth. The PFP deals with its objections by means of a few ideas which they spell out. Yesterday the hon. member for Bryanston spoke about this, but essentially their objections amount to two things. The one is that the Blacks are being excluded from the dispensation and the other is that the NP has effective control of a total constitutional setup in which it enforces its policy, which includes discrimination. I think the trouble is that this hon. member refuses to give the mechanics of what is on the table more of a chance or to look at the mechanics of how this dispensation will in fact work more openly and with an open mind. I want to say at once however, that we should not interpret Westminster incorrectly. Today the hon. the Prime Minister is not only the leader of his own party but also the head of Government. In other words he has two functions, namely to represent his people as a member of Parliament and to govern in the overall interests of everyone in the country, in other words all his subjects. However, it goes without saying that this is a difficult task because he also has to consider the general interests with reference to the interests of the group he represents. In the mechanics of the new dispensation Coloureds and Asians will in fact form part of a Government that also has to govern in the general interests and they will also make an input with regard to the particular interests of the people they represent.

Is it a mixed Government?

There are members of all groups in this Government, and in a certain sense it is a mixed Government, but it is not a mixed Government—in terms of the reply given by the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs as well—which is aimed at destroying the identity of the Whites and this is what he told the hon. members. What I am trying to say is that if we consider what is happening here, then the hon. the Prime Minister is not suddenly coming forward and saying that he is now campaigning for Coloured and Asian rights. All he and the Government are offering the Coloured and the Asian communities is that they are opening a door to enable them to enter as well and acquire representation in Parliament. This is a door which will also enable them to participate in the Government itself. It goes without saying however that every hon. member can still put the case of his power base and the interests of his electorate, as against his idea of what the general interests are. The Coloureds—let us see how this applies if the Labour Party is part of this dispensation—will have to be champions of their own people’s rights and this is what they will do. We cannot fight for them in the same way as they can fight for themselves, and they cannot represent the Black people in this country either. As a matter of fact, they cannot actually represent anyone effectively except their own power base. This is the meaning of any political system. On the basis of their standpoints they will probably try to open a door in some or other way so that Black people, to the extent to which they do not have an effective say, will also acquire an effective say in terms of the standpoint of principles of the Government I have quoted. They can then enter and in turn fight for their own affairs. In what way? This we shall have to see in the future. However, we shall have to confirm the principle of the dispensation.

I want to emphasize that P. W. Botha should not be seen as the champion of Coloured rights, but that we have to accept that in the future he will continue to champion the rights of his own power base, his own group, namely the Whites he represents.

There is another point I should like to discuss with the hon. the Leader. When I refer to the mechanics, we can spell out two scenarios for ourselves. We can spell out the one they are so fond of spelling out, and do so blatantly. This is to say: The NP is the majority party, it has the majority in the electoral college, it elects the President and the President is a Nationalist. He selects his Cabinet to suit himself. He also introduces the legislation. If he does not get support for it, he refers it to the President’s Council which is loaded with Nationalists. The legislation is then passed. That is the dispensation. That is a possible scenario and I admit this readily.

The Constitution Bill also allows for this.

Obviously the Bill allows for such a possibility, but the hon. the Leader must also be fair. If that was the motive—this is the first point—why should we go through all this drama, if we can achieve all this in the system we have at present?

There is also a second possible scenario. The second scenario is that matters do in fact proceed to the stage where P. W. Botha is elected President. Let us argue from this basis. Now he has to elect his Cabinet. Surely it is not unlikely that he will hold discussions with the leaders of the majority parties in all three Chambers before he elects his Cabinet.

And if Andries Treurnicht is the President?

If the hon. member for Waterberg is the President, we shall probably have had a revolution, but then it will not matter what dispensation we have. This would also apply if he became the head of Government under the present dispensation. This is a very personal view, and I do not want to suggest that this is the hon. member for Waterberg’s aim. I hope he accepts it as such. [Interjections.] I do not know whether it is irresponsible. In any case it is a very real view.

The second scenario is that he is going to negotiate. In the same way that he talks to the leaders of the NP in all the provinces before he makes appointments, he will also have to go to the majority party leaders in the various chambers. He will have to negotiate with them in respect of the composition.

Let us assume that he in fact does this and that he appoints his Cabinet on the basis that it also meets with their approval in the same way that it meets with the approval of the leaders of the NP in the various provinces today when he appoints his Cabinet.

[Inaudible.]

I really only have two minutes left and there is no time to reply to further questions.

When legislation is introduced, it is surely not improbable that they will seek consensus at Cabinet level. They will probably negotiate with each other there and accommodate each other. It is surely not improbable that when it is discussed in open Parliament, in the three Chambers, there will already be consensus on the standpoints of principle at least while differences on the details can be dealt with by means of committee work on the Standing Committees. In fact, therefore, the process will function smoothly.

I want to deal briefly with one final point. This concerns participation under the new dispensation. We had the Eshowe Congress where the Labour Party rejected-the proposals, before they had seen the Bill. They nevertheless said that they were going to participate in this dispensation. They will come in on the limited guidelines they have and they will use that small door which has been opened for them to fight for their rights. They say they will do everything they can to make full use of the opportunity which has been afforded them.

But what is the PFP doing? The PFP has been doing nothing but waiting—they are waiting to see the Bill. As soon as they have seen the Bill they will reject it in spite of the fact that they are coming up with instructions to debate it further. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has seen the Bill and we have debated its Second Reading stage. If we accept that the instructions are never really going to be moved, all that remains are the minor amendments of details in the clauses. That is committee work. Will the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tell us whether he has already decided that they are in fact going to participate in the new dispensation? I am asking him this question because the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said on a previous occasion that this is one of the matters they will have to consider—in the light of the question whether the Opposition will in fact be able to play a positive role. The time has come for the hon. Leader of the Opposition to tell us whether he is in fact going to participate. He must also stop creating the impression that the Labour Party which has decided to participate are “sell-outs”. He has no right to create that impression and he and his party will have to rectify this matter in future.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to enter into a debate on the draft constitution with the hon. member for Rand-burg who has just sat down. However, I do want to make one point. The hon. member explains the avoidance by the NP of debate on the instructions by saying that we have already had the Second Reading debate and that we have already discussed the Bill for 13 hours. We have had a 13-hour debate on a constitution for South Africa! That is clearly not sufficient time to debate a matter of such importance. Had the NP produced a constitution that was the result of negotiation with all the peoples in this country, that constitution would have generated loyalty and support. However, the kind of constitution that they have produced on which there has been a 13-hour debate can never create loyalty. The fact that the NP on its own came forward with a draft constitution a few days before 10 May of this year must inevitable mean that that is a constitution which every other group in South Africa will reject. It is only the NP that supports that draft constitution. No other group in South Africa supports it. Even those people who are going to participate in it and who have already expressed the desire to do so, have said that they are going to participate in it in order to destroy it.

May I ask a question?

I am afraid I do not have the time. I wish to discuss another matter. Yesterday my colleague, the hon. member for Durban Central, made the point that while the superficialities of South Africa are occupying the attention of this House in the form of argument between the CP and the NP, the realities of life in South Africa are very different from that petty debate. At this very moment along the borders of the constituency which I represent, two Natal towns are sealed off almost entirely from the outside world by policemen in camouflage uniforms at roadblocks while military and police vehicles patrol the streets of those towns. Those are the towns of Lamontville and Chesterville and those two towns are in fact in a state of undeclared martial law. Angry individuals from those two towns are coming out of those towns with horrifying versions of what is going on there, and I am informed that large numbers of affidavits are being made in regard to police action in those towns. The Press is unable to report properly on what is happening there and I am given to understand that an ugly situation is developing. [Interjections.] The exact truth is difficult to establish but certain facts have been mentioned with a regularity that bears the ring of truth. I suggest that it is time that the hon. the Minister of Law and Order took note of the situation and explained to this House exactly what is happening there. He should also visit those towns immediately. The information that I have been given includes the following. I can give hon. members some of the information, but I cannot deal with it all. A certain brigadier in the police, Brig. Sherman, has stopped buses going into Chesterville. There are road blocks and at the road blocks inhabitants are brusquely searched for liquor and food, which in many cases are taken away from them. In many cases the liquor is consumed by the policemen there, who become intoxicated. Secondly, there is indiscriminate use of teargas, day and night, and canisters are discharged from vehicles into houses and into the streets.

Have you confirmed those reports?

I am informed that houses are being broken into by policemen and people violently assaulted for no reason. At least two children have died…

What did they die of?

My information is that the children died as a result of teargas canisters dropping near them. The hon. the Minister of Law and Order has given an answer to a question in this regard this afternoon. At this stage I cannot dispute what he has said, but I just want to say that at the post mortem on those children no private doctors were in attendance.

Another fact that I have been given, is that a man was shot in his mother’s home with a police shotgun and that his leg was shot off. His name is Mr. David Mvuyane. He lives at 4263 Mhlongo Road, Lamontville. He is now in ward S1B in King Edward Hospital in Durban. I think this is enough identification to verify the truth or otherwise of what I am saying.

I am also informed that police dogs are set upon innocent people and upon taxi drivers and passengers in those townships. I also have information that young Black men have been taken from their homes to the Mayville police station and to the Ridge Road radio station and tortured there with electricity and rubber tubes over their heads, among other things. I also have information that some youths have been tied across the bonnets of Landrovers and driven through the streets of Lamontville and Chesterville to prevent, as the police say, people throwing stones at the windscreens of those landrovers. In addition, I have information that the S.A. Police have taken over the Chesterville community hall, where they are now encamped.

There was a Press conference in Durban last night and I have here a telex containing information given at that Press conference. I do not intend to read it all, but I just want to read one or two of the portions in this telex. It reads, inter alia—

I quote further—

A considerable portion of the information—there is much more, but I cannot go into all of it—comes from very responsible people. It comes from dedicated community workers in those areas. What I want to ask is what does the hon. the Minister say? What is the hon. the Minister’s explanation? Can the hon. the Minister tell us how many policemen are in Chesterville? Can the hon. the Minister tell us how many policemen are in Lamontville? Can the hon. the Minister tell us why they are there? Can the hon. the Minister tell us what trouble there was in Chesterville? I believe that we must get answers to these questions. The reason is that when the Government passes laws which restrict the power of the Press to report on certain matters, then the hon. the Minister, with respect, has a greater duty to keep the public fully informed. Particularly when Pressmen find it either impossible or very difficult to get into these areas, the hon. the Minister has a greater duty to keep us fully informed. It is not sufficient for the hon. the Minister to sit there and shake his head, as he did yesterday as if the hon. member for Durban Central was just talking nonsense and that nothing like that was occurring at all. I remember the same attitude on the part of a Cabinet Minister a few days before 16 June 1976. I was a member of the Progressive Reform Party at that time and we were urged by race relation workers, in telegrams, to bring to the attention of the Minister and to impress upon him that Soweto was very angry and ready to erupt. But what was the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reaction? He said that the matter was not serious. In fact he said: “Die hele saak is op ’n laer vlak afgehandel; dit is nie van belang nie.” That is what he said in a written note.

I now want to tell hon. members what has happened in Lamontville this year. I and two of my colleagues went to see the relevant Deputy Minister when rent and service increases of over 60% were to be introduced in Lamontville. We held discussions with him and we warned him that things were ready to erupt in Lamontville. We asked him to please withhold the increases or to introduce them in stages. He assured us that we were quite wrong and that everything was under control.

That is not true. That is a deliberate lie.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw the words “deliberate he”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw those words.

In fact, we even said to him that we were concerned that what would happen once again was that the increases would be made, violence would erupt and only then the authorities would back down, after the violence. And that is exactly what happened. The flames went up in Lamontville in the Administration Board, one of the community councillors was murdered and the administration backed down after the violence. The question I want to ask the Government is the following: Will this Government never learn? Will it never learn from past events and will it never learn from its own advisers? Never has history at any time in the story of mankind been so generous with its warnings and so clear in its examples to this Government. Never has any régime before had the benefit of so many flashing signals and never has any Government so obstinately ignored them. There was the Turfloop University unrest near Pietersburg and the commission under Judge Snyman. His report spelt out clearly the great dangers of apartheid institutions. Then there was the Erica Theron Commission which put its finger on the Group Areas Act, the Population Registration Act and all the other apartheid legislation as a simmering cause of frustration and violence in South Africa. Then there was the Cillié Commission on Soweto which clearly identified apartheid legislation as being the main cause of the racial unrest building up in South Africa. But what did this Government do about these reports? What does it do about its own appointed experts’ views? With stupefying ineptitude and incomprehensible obstinacy it pursues its apartheid way apparently oblivious of or unconcerned about the dangers that are building up in South Africa.

The Government would do well to remember that at the time of the Soweto riots it was the Zulus in Natal who behaved with the most restraint and the greatest discipline, but they are being provoked now and I have no doubt that Natal will reap the whirlwind of the seeds that are now being sown. We demand a comprehensive answer from the hon. the Minister of Law and Order. We in Natal want to know exactly what it is all about. We want to know precisely what is going on there. We want him to go there to find out and we want to know what the cause of the armed occupation of Chesterville is. There has been nothing in the Press about any violence in Chesterville. We want to know whether the houses are being forcibly entered by the Police and, if so, why and how many. We want to know if people are being detained, and, if so, how many and why. The Government passed the Protection of Information Act last year and now hardly any of this sort of thing can be reported on. Parliament must now be informed. The hon. the Minister is responsible for all these Acts and he is responsible to the people of South Africa. This kind of occupation of towns by the police is not an everyday occurrence in South Africa and for that reason it needs to be fully explained.

Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to the hon. member for Pinetown for not being able to refer to his speech at all. However, my time is too limited, even for the matters I want to discuss.

To begin with, I should very much like to discuss a matter which is of great importance to me; a matter which for many years has been close to my heart. I requested that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture should be present on this occasion, but I take it that he is unfortunately unable to be here. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries, who was formerly Deputy Minister of Agriculture, will take cognizance of my arguments. The matter which is of such importance to me, is the phenomenon of the depopulation of our platteland, a matter about which I am gravely and profoundly concerned.

I have before me a schedule reflecting the latest statistics. They apply to the situation up to the end of March this year, and we learn the following from them. All sectors in South Africa have reflected excellent and significant growth, with the exception of the agricultural sector. In the field of mining, the total number of economically active people in the country in 1970 was 680 000 as against 820 000 in 1980, viz. an increase of 140 000 in ten years. In the manufacturing sector the number of economically active people in 1970 totalled 1 million, as against approximately 1,5 million in 1980—once again an increase of almost 500 000 over a period of ten years. The number of economically active people in commerce and finance was 897 000 in 1970 as against 1 294 000 in 1980—an increase of almost 400 000.

Now I want to deal with the problem sector, Mr. Speaker. I refer to agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Let us look at the following figures. In 1960 there were 1 687 000 economically active people in agriculture, in forestry and in fisheries in South Africa. In 1970 this figure showed a gratifying increase to 2 482 000. From 1960 to 1970, therefore, there was an increase of 795 000 in these sectors. Now, however, I come to the disturbing aspect. In 1980 those 2 482 000 economically active people in these sectors declined to 1 299 000. Therefore from 1970 to 1980 there was a drop of 1 200 000 economically active people. This is in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Together with their families this number represents an estimated 5 million people that have left the platteland.

From 1960 to 1980 the manufacturing industry grew by 800 000 workers. This is of course quite in order. However, earlier in the session I said in this House that I had the feeling that commerce and industry in South Africa are being cosseted at the expense of agriculture.

When we consider the available statistics we see that all working people in South Africa have received salary increases over the past two years. However, when we look at the revenue of our country’s farmers, it is evident that that revenue has dropped. The farmer’s production costs increase steadily but nevertheless in effect his income has dropped.

Recently the price of milk was increased by approximately 7 cents per litre. Do hon. members know what effective increase dairy farmers receive from that increase of 7 cents? It is a mere one cent; one miserable cent. Therefore I contend that commerce and industry are being benefited at the expense of agriculture.

The income of the workers in the engineering industry, the construction industry, and indeed, that of every industry in South Africa except the country’s farmers, has increased.

I now wish to discuss the attitude of the NP and the Government to the South African farmer. This is something I am really concerned about. [Interjections.] If I am asked to motivate my concern, I can only refer to a speech made by an hon. member of the NP in this House a month or two ago on Friday, 27 May 1983. The hon. member of the NP who made the speech is a very neat man; neat in person and in appearance. He is also a neat man as far as his speeches and his presentation are concerned; he is neat in the preparation of his speeches. When a person is neat and thorough in the preparation of his speeches, it means as far as I am concerned that he has duly considered every statement he makes; that he has weighed his every word, therefore such a person speaks on the basis of his convictions. I regret to note that the hon. member concerned is not present at the moment. I did inform him that I required his presence here. I refer to the hon. member for Caledon. On the occasion of the debate to which I have just referred, the hon. member for Caledon said certain things in connection with the South African farmer. I regard him as the mouthpiece of the NP, of the Government, as far as the South African farmer is concerned. I quote (Hansard, 27 May 1983, col. 8121)—

They are “boerehaters”!

What, in essence, is the hon. member telling the South African farmer? he is telling him that he is inadequately trained. If the hon. member was referring to the South African farmer who has not had the privilege of sitting for a university agricultural degree or obtaining an agricultural diploma at an agricultural college, but instead had no alternative but to begin farming early in life and learn to know and apply farming practices through the hard school of practical experience, then I want to say that that farmer is fully trained in South African circumstances. He went on to talk about the non-functional farmer. What does that mean? the South African farmer does not measure up to the function he has to perform, which is to produce food and clothing for the population of South Africa, for export to Africa and for export to the rest of the world. However, the facts prove the contrary. South Africa is one of the few countries the farmers of which were able until recently to produce enough to enable South Africa to export to other countries in the world. What else did the hon. member have to say? he speaks about lazy farmers. Could one accuse a farmer of anything worse than laziness? he went on—and this is astonishing—to speak about the “frequently prosperous producer”.

According to him the South African farmer is inadequately trained, non-functional, lazy and, notwithstanding all these shortcomings of the South African farmer, he goes on to say by implication that farming conditions in South Africa are so favourable that the farmer can be lazy, untrained and unfunctional because, despite all these poor characteristics, he is still prosperous. [Interjections.] The south African farmer will take cognizance of this.

Just as the farmers in South Africa are taking cognizance of these standpoints of the NP and the Government, in the same way the voters of South Africa as a whole are taking cognizance of the arrogance of the Government. I was sorry to hear from the hon. member for Randburg this afternoon that if the hon. member for Waterberg were to become President, there would be a revolution. Does he realize that there are hundreds of thousands of people who had never thought of such a thing? However, the hon. member put the words into their mouth; just remember, the day such a man comes to power, you must start a revolution. [Interjections.] That is irresponsible in the extreme.

I want to say that the CP is doing well. We are finding evidence for this throughout the country. Recently I found it in this House, too. Out of desperation, speaker after speaker on the Government’s side has been addressing this party. [Interjections.] Therefore one is not surprised to note what political commentators are predicting. Mr. Laurie, a well known political commentator, said the following, according to a newspaper report—

I want to say that that is at present a reality. I read further—

What have the recent by-elections shown us?

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

No, I am not prepared to answer questions. In 1977 the NP obtained a total of 76,6% of the votes in the four constituencies Waterberg, Soutpansberg, Carletonville and Waterkloof. Last month the NP vote was 43,7%. What does that tell us? An additional figure also reflects the growth. In these four constituencies the Opposition parties gained 6 000 more votes than the NP. The conservative front—the CP and the HNP together—gained 196 more votes than the Government party. [Interjections.] We could continue presenting such proofs.

I now come to the blue book, the political gospel of the NP which I have become so fond of recently. Already I have used and quoted almost every verse in the book carefully and with appreciation. Today I just want to quote verse 40. I quote—

The answer is—

Right from the outset the Whites are insulted. [Interjections.] After all, the Whites in South Africa are not people who regard themselves as superior to others. We do not begrudge anyone what is theirs. I quote further—

Then comes the key part—

We have to adopt a mendicant attitude. According to this booklet, we must ask them whether they will be prepared to govern the country together with us. [Interjections.] I want to ask a counter question. If they say that they are not prepared to do so, what is the alternative put forward by the NP? Will the country be governed or will it not be governed?

I want to conclude by telling the Government that the CP is doing very well. [Interjections.] If hon. members’ eyes and ears are open, they will find proof of this. We are also aware of the leadership struggle behind the scenes in the NP. [Interjections.] The struggle is between the leader of the NP in the Transvaal and the Deputy Chief Leader of the NP, viz. the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. That struggle took place behind the scenes after the débácle of the Waterkloof meeting of the NP. The people decided they had to look ahead. [Interjections.] That is information that has come to our ears. These two hon. leaders who are sitting eyeing one another and who mistrust one another are further paralysing the NP. However, that suits us. [Interjections.] I have a solution for them. Since I still have a modicum of feeling for my old party, I do not want the party to split in two as a result of this leadership crisis. We want to beat the NP as it stands today, in our own right. Therefore I have a solution for the NP. Since the NP believes in consensus and discussion, I have a compromise candidate for them. This will spare both candidates the pain of defeat. This compromise candidate, whom I believe will go down well with the NP, is the hon. member for Durban Point. [Interjections.] In that way the NP will at the same time obtain several extra voters, and a personality struggle will be avoided. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude by referring to what the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries said about the hon. the leader of the CP. He said that the day would come that the people would reckon with the hon. the leader of the CP. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the people of South Africa, the White Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people, are saying today in their thousands: “Thank you, Andries Treurnicht, because you appeared on the scene and because you and the CP have given us back our own White pride in ourselves, our feeling and assurance.” In the future of South Africa Andries Treurnicht will become the man to be reckoned with. He is a leader who has come to stay. He is going to reach the highest political rung in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Meyerton will for obvious reasons have to excuse me for not reacting to his speech, except that I just want to borrow one expression he used. He said that an hon. member who has prepared himself well, has weighed every word he utters. Mr. Speaker, if after an absence of five years one stands up in this House to make a speech, you will all understand that one feels somewhat nervous. You will also understand, Mr. Speaker, that if one stands up in this House and notes that a person who, like oneself, came to this House for the first time in 1974, has in the interim become the Speaker and therefore, as it were, the person in charge of this House, then one’s anxiety is tempered somewhat and one feels a little more at ease. Accordingly, although it is a little late in the year, I wish to convey to you, Mr. Speaker, the wholehearted congratulations of myself and my family and I want to wish you and your family all of the best. I am quite sure that hon. members will agree with me when I say that if anyone were to ask me for my impression of this place and ask how I find it after so many years, I would have to reply that one of the finest and best impressions one gains, is the able, rigorous and just—but also human—way in which you handle the proceedings in this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, everything I have said concerning you, including the fact that you came here for the first time in 1974, also applies to the Deputy Speaker. I say this from the heart, and if there are hon. members here who think that I am currying favour a little, or that I may expect a little more favour in future, I want to tell them here and now that they are not necessarily right.

I should like to use the time at my disposal to do two things: Firstly I want to convey a word of thanks, and secondly, I want to put a request to the hon. member for Lichtenburg. I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. members of the NP who elected me to this position. When I turned up here on the day before the election, I happened to meet the hon. the Prime Minister, and he shook my hand and extended a hearty welcome to me. He also told me that he would be at his post the next day to vote for me. You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that when the hon. the Prime Minister and the other hon. members did in fact do so the following day, it made one feel, on the one hand, a little small, but on the other, it also made one feel proud. I think this feeling is only human and who am I not to be human? The fact that the hon. the Prime Minister and other hon. members voted for me underlines the serious nature of the task of a member of the House of Assembly and I, too, are aware of the serious nature of my task. Accordingly I wish to say to the hon. the Prime Minister and to the other hon. members in this House that I shall do my best and if, with help from Above, my best is good enough, then I shall be good enough for this task as member of the House of Assembly. I also wish to express my sincere thanks to all the Opposition parties. As far as the CP is concerned, I do not think it can be disputed, but rather that it is a mere statement of fact, that the rigid and somewhat claustrophobic policy of that party has also made a significant contribution towards our having been able to win Waterkloof, and towards there being one CP member fewer and one NP member more. I therefore thank the CP for that. The hon. members must not try to distract me from making my speech now, but after all, we know what happens if things are a little claustrophobic and one makes them more and more so.

As far as the PFP is concerned, I just wish to say the following: The hon. the Leader of the PFP, who is unfortunately a somewhat wrongly placed member of the group who came here in 1974, told me that they, too, went to vote in the electoral college on that day, but that they voted against me. In the first place, therefore, I want to thank that hon. member most sincerely for the fact that they voted against me, but I also thank them for the fact that they did go and vote. You see, Mr. Speaker, there are at present a million or more people who, at the moment, do not have a good dispensation or a good political setup in this country as far as the franchise is concerned, and when I say that I refer specifically to the Coloureds and the Indians. Therefore it would really have been ridiculous and illogical of the PFP if they, who do have the franchise, had not used it, and if they had acted in terms of a boycott mentality. Therefore I am very grateful to the PFP as well.

This brings me to my second point, viz. my request to the hon. member for Lichtenburg. I have known the hon. member for Lichtenburg for about 30 years now since our university days. I have come to know the hon. member as a very decent person and a very human person, a person of good character. I mean what I say. I could also have said that he was a very intelligent person and that it is just a pity that over the past year or so he has not been using that intelligence. [Interjections.] I say that in lighter vein. More seriously, I want to say that the hon. member for Lichtenburg is also highly regarded and respected in his own party. I know this for a fact because it is so. However, another senior member of the CP, the hon. member for Sunnyside, for whom I also have respect, spoke last night, and I want to quote from his unrevised Hansard. He said—

On 1 April 1982, not long after the flaking off or tearing away of the CP, the hon. member for Lichtenburg said the following (Hansard, Vol. 100, col. 4084)—

I want to associate myself wholeheartedly with what those two senior hon. members of the CP said. I have no problem with that.

A great deal is being said about Christianity. It was referred to by the hon. member for Sunnyside, the hon. member for Innesdal and, believe it or not, the hon. member for Bryanston as well! He spoke about Christianity, and quite rightly too. The CP emphasizes Christianity and Afrikanerhood, and I find no fault with that either. That is not my problem. However, my problem is that having sat in this House for a week, I listened to a debate on education and teaching. In this debate an hon. member of the CP said the following with reference to an hon. member on this side of the House (Hansard, col. 9582)—

Not all Afrikaners are so well acquainted with history that they all know what “Et tu, Brute?” means, but the Afrikaner does read his Bible and knows what it means when the cock has crowed. I quote from Luke 22, verse 55—

That was after Christ had been taken captive. Verse 55 reads as follows—

Verse 57 reads—

According to John 18 someone had struck Christ in His face at that stage because he did not like His replies to the questions of the High Priest. Luke 22, verse 58, reads as follows—

Verse 59 reads as follows—

Verses 60 and 61 read as follows—

Another problem I have is that one can address the Afrikaner using metaphors drawn from the weather. One can compare him with lightning (“bliksem”) and thunder (“donderweer”) and it does not sound too terrible or serious to him, but one must not call an Afrikaner a traitor. In the AngloBoer War of 1899-1902 the concept “traitor”, in whichever form one expressed it or worded it, acquired a more despicable connotation in the Afrikaner’s ideas and mind. A day or so later I was sitting in this House and I heard another hon. member of the CP say the following, referring to an hon. member on this side of the House who had been vehemently attacking the right wing of the political spectrum in this country—

I have problems with that.

I was listening today to the hon. the leader of the CP when he said that if his people said certain things he would repudiate them. In passing, my nervousness has almost gone.

I said that I should like to put a request to the hon. member for Lichtenburg. I said this because I think a great deal of him and of his character, and also because I think a great deal of him as an Afrikaner. I want to say to him that if the leaders in this House do such things, then the followers outside will be far more inclined and likely to do so. I am not going to tell the hon. member for Lichtenburg that he must repudiate his people. Nor will I tell him that he must dissociate himself from them, because in politics it is sometimes difficult to do such things. What I want to say to the hon. member for Lichtenburg, I mean sincerely, and that is why I asked him to be present. I appreciate his complying with my request. When the Afrikaner hears about the cock crowing and he reads his Bible, when he hears about the Piet de Wets and he thinks back to his history, these remarks do our Afrikanerhood and our Christianity no good. They are ugly, wrong and destructive.

I call upon the hon. member to state frankly that he agrees with me. He must confirm what he and the hon. member for Sunnyside said. I do not believe it is controversial. I think it is a very reasonable request. If I were to succeed in this and if that friend of mine. Ferdi, à la the radio programme, were to succeed in trying to put into effect in practice in this House those things that we say, the Christianity we preach, the Bible to which we like to refer, then my friend Ferdi and I will be making a good contribution for the sake of our country, this House, and other people, as Christians and as Afrikaners.

Mr. Speaker, it falls to me to welcome back to this House officially in this debate the hon. member Dr. Vilonel. I welcome the contribution he has made to this debate, but I could find it in my heart to hope that in future he will make a somewhat more positive contribution than simply to carry on with the sterile debate between the hon. members of the CP and the hon. members of the NP. It is sterile to debate whether we should go back to Verwoerd, Strijdom or Malan or even further back in our history. The debate in this House and the real debate in South Africa is the pace of reform, and that is what is important in the South African context today.

It is interesting that we should have a new constitution that we are debating predominantly in this debate, because we have said from time to time that we do not believe that real democratic principles are very evident in the new constitution that is in front of us. The hon. member Dr. Vilonel is an illustration, I think, of perhaps what we are talking about in that, through no fault of his own, he is an indirectly elected member. He is not elected by the public of South Africa, he does not have a constituency to which he is responsible except to this House. We did not agree with that principle in the past and we certainly will not agree with it in the future. [Interjections.]

The responsibility I have in my party is for mineral and energy affairs. Before getting into the main theme of what I want to talk about, I believe I have some unfinished business with the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. During the debate on his Vote we dealt with job reservation. I want to read out to this House section 12(2)(a) of the Mines and Works Act, Act No. 27 of 1956. It reads—

1. (i) Europeans;
2. (ii) Persons born in the Union and ordinarily resident therein, who are members of the class or race known as Cape Coloureds or of the class or race known as Cape Malays; and
3. (iii) the people known as Mauritius Creoles or St. Helena persons or their descendants bom in the Union.

Paragraph (b) reads—

If this is not job reservation alive and well in South Africa, I do not know what is. It is also harmful discrimination. This Government keeps telling us that they do not believe in harmful discrimination, but if ever there was harmful discrimination, this is it.

We had the Wiehahn Commission and they recommended that this particular definition and the attendant regulations in terms of the Act be deleted and replaced by a non-discriminatory definition of a competent person. What has the Government done about this? Precisely nothing. They issued a White Paper and in that White Paper they said that they agreed with the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission. They said—

They go on to say—

What safeguarding measures? Who is to be safeguarded? Is this the same safeguarding we always hear about where you must not trouble race relations, or are these safeguards only related to protecting the privileged position of the White mineworker? I believe that is what it is. I believe that the hon. the Minister owes this House an answer as to why, after two years of being in agreement with the Wiehahn principle, we still have job reservation on the Statute Book of the department of that hon. Minister. I believe it is another illustration of what has happened this session. We have had the fight going on between the CP and the NP and real reform has suffered. If that hon. Minister wants to make a contribution to real reform, he must get rid of this particular provision from the Statute Book.

I wanted to deal with Koeberg, but I do not think I am going to have the time. However, I do want to refer to the Salem debate we had in this House. Some follow-up questions are necessary at this stage. This is some four months after we have had that special debate and I believe the public are still as uninformed as they were then. Where is the money that was stolen from us? I am now talking about the 30,5 million dollars. Presumably most of it is in Greece, but what about the 10 million dollars that was paid to Mercabank? Where is that? The hon. the Minister, in a reply to a question today, said that the investigation was difficult because everybody is overseas. But that 10 million dollars went to Mercabank and was paid into the account of Mr. J. P. J. van Vuuren. Where is it? Why was an investigation only set in motion two and a half years after the theft of the oil? Why has no charge been laid with the police right up until today? Who is this mysterious investigating team? Who is investigating this loss of 30 million dollars?

On 27 April 1983 the hon. the Minister said in the House that they would in fact be reporting in full, but we are still waiting. I want to prophesy that in the end no material sum will be recovered. A veil of secrecy has been drawn over this whole affair and I do not believe that that veil of secrecy has done this Government or this country any good. It is time, I believe, that we had more information and that we had some more positive action.

I now want to deal with more general matters. I want to start by saying that on 20 May this year, at 16h33 in central Pretoria, a bomb exploded. As a result of that bomb exploding 19 people died and over 200 people were injured. This is the worst deliberate and appalling act of terrorism in South African history. Doubtless the terrorists were trained and supplied by people in countries supporting the communist ideology and blame for this disaster must be laid at their door. But I believe that we in this House must ask ourselves the additional question: Does the blame stop there? Does the blame stop with the communists or is there further blame to be assessed? Should one not ask what turns a young man into a terrorist and an assassin? Why does communism have so many recruits as willing material from South Africa? I believe specifically that hon. members on that side of the House must ask themselves these questions. We must ask ourselves: What have we done in this session of Parliament to slow down the steady flow of recruits to communism? What have we done in the interests of reform? The answer, I regret to say, is precious little. We have done nothing to save our country and our children from further acts of terrorism. Our raids into Maseru and Mozambique are treating the symptoms, but not the disease. Apartheid is the disease, and it continues remorselessly on. What action of this Government finally decided those young men who were responsible for the horror in Pretoria to tread the trail of terrorism? What persuaded them to leave South Africa for training? I believe hon. Ministers on that side of the House must ask themselves: Could what I do add to the exodus of Blacks? They should ask themselves: Am I by my actions creating a terrorist? Could I in some way be guilty of being a recruiting agent for the ANC? If the answer is yes, then I say to those hon. Ministers that they share the responsibility for the death toll in Pretoria.

You are the handmaidens of terrorists.

Unfortunately this blast was a foreseeable event. I want to quote what the hon. Leader of the Opposition said in the non-confidence debate of this year when he said …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Welkom entitled to say that we are the handmaidens of terrorists?

Mr. Speaker, I said that because someone who, in this House … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

What I was saying, was that the hon. Leader of the Opposition said on 31 January this year (Hansard, col. 31)—

What does create these terrorists who go to the ANC for training? According to a report by the Surplus Peoples Project which came out in January this year, no less than 3,5 million people have been moved.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Community Development a question. Unfortunately I notice he is not in the House now. If he had to be uprooted from his family home of generations, and removed to a bleak and inhospitable area, with no job, with perhaps his sisters and brothers dying of want, what would his feeling be towards those responsible for moving him? If he had been a squatter at Crossroads or at KTC, and seen his family left without shelter night after night, seen the shelters he erected being ripped down, and finally seen his nearest and dearest being loaded into vans and driven off, what would he have felt then? There are appalling actions of apartheid applied by hon. Ministers of the NP, actions in respect of which one can quote from document after document after document. One does not have time to repeat all the facts that one has at one’s disposal. I have here a newspaper cutting, one of many, this one headed “Doctor and his family told to leave beach”. Yet another cutting from a newspaper tells us of a Coloured woman who has the problem that she is no longer an Indian and that she can therefore no longer live in the house left her by her husband. So it goes on, Mr. Speaker. Those hon. Ministers must take responsibility for their actions.

The simple fact that the police, under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister of Law and Order, who is sitting here in the House now, between 1976 and 1982 shot dead 1 259 people excluding, of course, those shot during the 1976 Soweto riots—is already of a sufficiently disturbing nature. That means that a person was shot dead every second day during that period. This year the rate so far has increased to a level which causes us to look at a possible total of over 240 victims. I would ask the hon. the Minister of Law and Order whether what his Police Force do could not create terrorists. [Interjections.]

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I cannot do better, I believe, than to quote from a leader in the Sunday Express of 12 June this year. The editorial of that newspaper on that particular day stated the following—

The editorial then goes on to say—

Mr. Speaker, after the Nazi regime came to an end many people claimed not to have been Nazis, but there were nonetheless Nuremburg trials. It is not impossible that one day we will have apartheid trials in this country. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I have been a public representative for almost 18 years now and I have been in this Parliament for more than 13 years. What we have just heard, however, is one of the most shocking and most disgraceful speeches I have ever listened to in my life. [Interjections.] It is merely a manifestation of the sick reasoning in the ranks of certain elements in South Africa. [Interjections.] It is a manifestation of a sick spirit of surrender, and of a guilt complex that is plaguing those people. I want to tell that hon. member that the speech he has just made was to the credit of neither his party nor South Africa.

It is not a question of credit but of your disgraceful policy.

That speech is the kind of speech used against this country in public forums by its enemies. That hon. member is the kind of person who washes his dirty linen in public.

Have you not been doing precisely that during the past two sessions?

He is the kind of person who gives ammunition, assistance and support to the enemies of this country, the enemies of civilization, the enemies of law and order, the communists. To me, that hon. member’s actions are akin to those of a mother who besmirches and blackens the name of her own children to others behind their backs.

The Nationalists are certainly not my children.

I want to tell that hon. member’s leader that he will have to speak to him, since I think this kind of speech borders on disloyalty to South Africa.

Rubbish!

As far as I am concerned, the patriotism of that hon. member is questionable.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister made the allegation “dit grens aan dislojaliteit”. May he cast a reflection on the loyalty of hon. members of the House? Should he not be asked to withdraw that?

Order! The hon. the Minister said that it bordered on disloyalty to the State. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister may proceed.

For the sake of the hon. member for Hillbrow, I want to say that in my opinion, that speech and the actions of that hon. member border on treason against South Africa.

No, you cannot say that.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon. member made an outrageous statement here. He spoke about the Nuremberg trials, the Nazi trials, and said that one day apartheid trials would be held in this country. Does the hon. member know what he is implying?

Yes.

Sir, I want to place on record the strongest condemnation you will permit me in parliamentary language against the base, mean and despicable insinuation made by that hon. member in associating and comparing members on this side of the House with the actions of Nazi Germany. It is a disgrace. I cannot imagine that any patriot or any loyal South African could link the Government of the day to the actions of Nazi Germany.

You do not know just how comparable you are.

If it were not for this Government, he would not have the freedom to make such a speech in this House. I say that I think he is a disgrace to South Africa. That hon. member has become the victim of the Mafia clique in the PFP and he is trying to imitate them. The hon. member for Bryanston and the hon. member for Yeoville—they often disagree with me and we have often said harsh things to one another and attacked one another in this House—are still too patriotic towards this country to use the kind of language the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central used. [Interjections.]

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before we adjourned for dinner, I was reacting to the speech of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. The hon. member quoted from an edition of the Sunday Express earlier this year. The hon. member used certain words, and I should like to know whether this was part of the quotation, or whether they were his own words.

†The hon. member did not mention whether he was quoting or whether he was using his own words. I was unable to get the article during the supper break. The hon. member said—

Are those the hon. member’s own words or is it a quotation?

It was in the editorial.

He also said—

Is that still a quotation from the article?

Yes, it is.

I quote further—

Is that still part of the quotation?

Yes, it is.

I am not asking that hon. member. I am asking the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central [Interjections.] I quote further—

I said that.

Is that where you started, “after the Nazi regime came to an end”?

That is you.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Pinelands entitled to refer to me as a Nazi?

Did the hon. member for Pinelands refer to the hon. the Minister as a Nazi?

Sir, I have not.

All the hon. member for Pinelands said was “That is you”. He did not say that the hon. the Minister was a Nazi.

I was referring to the Nazis, whereupon the hon. member said “That is you”.

What did the hon. member mean by saying that? I think the hon. member should withdraw that.

I am quite happy to withdraw that.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The hon. member went on and said—

That is him.

The hon. member began his speech by saying that what he found alarming, was the fact that people were going over to the ANC and returning to this country to commit sabotage. He also said that the actions of this Government forced Black people to leave the country and to undergo terrorist training and then return to South Africa. Does the hon. member think that the PFP’s policy will put an end to the total onslaught and the communist onslaught on South Africa?

It will have a much better chance.

In a previous debate the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information spelt out very clearly that the demands of the radicals in the world, of the ANC and the communists, could never be satisfied by any party represented in this Parliament. Nor will that party’s policy satisfy the communists and ward off the onslaught on South Africa. That hon. member spoke about “forced removals”. The hon. member said that every second day someone was shot dead by the police. Does the hon. member want to intimate that the police do so unnecessarily? They put forward as a charge against South Africa the fact that people are shot by the police. Do they want to intimate that this is done wilfully?

I would say they shoot far too quickly, yes.

Oh, they shoot far too quickly?

That is right.

Do you therefore hold them responsible for unnecessary shootings?

Absolutely.

Mr. Speaker, now we have it on record that that party accuses the police of taking people’s lives unnecessarily and in an irresponsible manner. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is levelling that charge against this Government, and will have to answer for that one day.

There is a link between the ANC and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Colonel Gadaffi finances and supports those people. I ask that hon. member why he is playing into the hands of the Gadaffi’s and the ANC? He is allowing himself to be used as a propagandist and as a henchman of the Gadaffi’s, the communists and the ANC in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may not say that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is allowing himself to be used as a henchman of the communists. The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to address you on this point, I want to say that I by no means wish to intimate that the hon. member is a communist, or that he is willingly allowing himself to be used by the communists. My point is that his conduct in South Africa, what he says and what he suggests is Government policy, promotes the objectives of communism in South Africa. It is true that he is probably doing this unwittingly, but it nevertheless does further the cause of the enemy of South Africa.

I accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation, but the hon. the Minister did say that the hon. member allowed himself to be used as a henchman of the communists. The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw that he knowingly allowed himself to be used as a henchman.

We in South Africa must beware of suggesting that this Government’s actions further communism and terrorism in South Africa, since by saying that, we are assisting the enemies of South Africa in their onslaught on us. However, people do not ask: Why is there terrorism in Israel? Why is the Palestine Liberation Organization there? What is going on in Lebanon? Surely they do not have a Nationalist Government and apartheid there? However, that hon. member listed everything this Government has done, and said that those were the reasons there is an onslaught on South Africa and why people become terrorists. [Interjections.] That hon. member must tell me where the Irish Republican Army comes from. Why is there terrorism in Ireland? After all, they do not have a Nationalist Government and forced removals there. They have police there, too. What about Central America? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must tell me why London and its suburbs burnt and why there was racial unrest there. Is the Nationalist Government in power there? Were there forced removals there? [Interjections.] What happened in Chad? There is no National Government in power there. [Interjections.] There is something I want to know, and I am very serious about this. The hon. member said in this House: “Surely there will be a day of reckoning”.

That was in the editorial.

Yes, that was in the editorial. However, then the hon. member added—and I want hon. members to listen very carefully to this—

[Interjections.] The hon. member is implying here that the policy of the present Government is equal to the Nazi policy in Germany. He is implying that the actions of this Government are equivalent to the actions of the Nazis in Germany.

*The hon. member is implying that this Government perpetrates crimes against people. [Interjections.] Certain member countries of the UN decided that apartheid—what they call the policy we pursue here—is a crime against humanity. Does the hon. member agree with that?

Absolutely.

So the hon. member says the policy of this Government as it is implemented here is a crime against humanity?

Yes.

You are disloyal.

But it is your policy.

I cannot imagine that it is patriotic for a party that regards the policy pursued by this Government in this country as a crime against humanity, as has been acknowledged by those hon. members, to sit in this Parliament under the protection of the Chair, as well as under the protection of the Government. [Interjections.] I do not believe that there are people anywhere in the world that are so disloyal to their country that they would say that the policy of the government of the day is a crime against humanity.

Harry, how can you sit there? [Interjections.]

I want to appeal to the sense of decency of the hon. member for Yeoville and ask him whether he agrees that this Government’s policy is a crime against humanity. [Interjections.] I also want to ask the hon. member Prof. Olivier whether this Government’s policy is a crime against humanity?

I shall reply when I have the time. [Interjections.]

I think we have now reached the parting of the ways in this country. In all fairness, I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees that the policy of this Government is a crime against humanity. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not smile. We now have this on record in our Parliament. I asked hon. members of the official Opposition whether they regarded our policy as a crime against humanity and they replied in the affirmative. This matter is going to be used against us by our enemies throughout the length and breadth of the world.

He first has to consult his caucus.

I am asking him as one Afrikaner to another, as one South African to another, as one Parliamentarian to another: Does he agree that the policy of this Government is a crime against humanity? [Interjections.] There is no reply. I want to appeal to the leadership, the quality of leadership and the courage of the hon. member, and ask him to provide leadership in this House this evening, since this is a serious matter in the national interest and in the interest of our national self-respect. [Interjections.] I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Is the policy of the Government a crime humanity? Is it a crime?

Is it not a crime?

Answer. It is your party that says that.

I shall reply to the question of the hon. the Leader. I say that the Government’s policy is by no means a crime against humanity; it is an honest attempt to allow every population group in this country to attain self-realization. Now I ask the hon. member whether he agrees that the Government’s policy is a crime against humanity.

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

The hon. the Leader has already put a question to me and I have replied to it, but I shall give him the opportunity of putting another question to me.

Are you saying that it is not a crime to remove 3,5 million people against their will to a place they do not want to be? [Interjections.]

In other words, the hon. the Leader is saying that it is a crime.

Yes, it is a crime.

In other words, the hon. the Leader is saying that the policy of the Government is a crime. [Interjections.]

You are afraid. [Interjections.]

Order! I think it is time we create order out of the chaos. I want to put it clearly to hon. members that I have allowed this debate to continue in this vein long enough. Hon. members may not shout at one another across the floor to the extent that eventually no one can be heard, not even the hon. the Minister who is speaking. Order must now prevail in this House. The hon. member for Kimberley South said to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: “You are afraid.” He must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. He is very brave.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

What I find so illuminating—I should like certain hon. members on that side of the House to listen carefully to what I have to say—is that the same groups in the world who say that apartheid is a crime against humanity, say that Zionism is also a crime. I am telling the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he now finds himself in the company of those who say that Zionism is a crime.

In all fairness: I asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition a few questions this evening. He then asked me a question, and I replied to it. He then put another question to me, and I replied to that as well. I am now asking him: Is the policy of the Government a crime against humanity?

I will be speaking tomorrow afternoon. I shall reply to all the questions then.

The hon. the Leader need not wait until tomorrow afternoon; he can reply to that now. [Interjections.] There is a slogan used abroad by the enemies of this country, for example, the PLO, supported by people like Gadaffi and people who say that Zionism is a crime, whereby they subtly want to bluff the world that the policy of this Government—separate development, apartheid, or whatever one wants to call it—is a crime against humanity. I regard it as the responsibility of every politician in this country, and particularly a person in the position of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to say whether he agrees that the policy pursued in this country is a crime against humanity.

I am not speaking this evening.

The hon. the Leader does not want to answer me.

Man, you are an embarrassment to humanity.

The hon. the Leader has a problem. He is a captive in his own party. When I asked whether this policy was a crime against humanity, the hon. member for Pinelands, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and the hon. member for Berea shouted: “Yes, absolutely.” The hon. member for Houghton did so, too. However, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want to answer me. I know that the hon. the Leader is in an embarrassing position now, but I ask him once again whether he disagrees with the hon. member for Pine-lands. The hon. member for Pinelands said that the Government’s policy was a crime against humanity. Does the hon. the Leader disagree with him on that score?

I shall give a very clear reply tomorrow.

It is obvious that there is discord and different standpoints in that party. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Parktown is laughing himself silly now. The hon. member for Pinelands said that this Government’s policy was indeed a crime against humanity, but the hon. member for Yeoville, who is a patriot, does not want to react. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not want to tell us this evening whether he agrees with the hon. member for Pinelands.

What a brilliant speech you are making!

The hon. member for Houghton must not try and assist him. We have already heard from the Houghton clique in that party. We have heard who the people are who really set the tone and who take the lead in that party. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a captive between the two extreme poles in his party. The leftist radicals, under the leadership of the hon. member for Pinelands, set the tone in his party. I am telling the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he is failing as a leader this evening and that he is letting South Africa down. He is letting South Africa down this evening, since he is not prepared to deny here in the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa that the policy this Government pursues is a crime against humanity. I cannot imagine an Opposition that could be so disloyal, that could let its country down to that extent, and that is so unpatriotic that it does not want to say that the policy pursued in its country is not a crime against humanity. By making this kind of admission here, they lend credibility to the onslaught on South Africa and the accusations levelled at South Africa. I say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I think this is an historic occasion for him this evening, since he is letting South Africa down. He has let South Africa down this evening. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition had neither the moral nor the political courage this evening to repudiate certain elements in his party.

They are Marxists.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must remember one thing: The people who say that the policy pursued by this Government is a crime against humanity, are the same people who say that Zionism is a crime. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Two hon. members on that side of the House during the last sentence or two of the hon. the Minister said that hon. members on this side of the House were Marxists.

I have already given a ruling on that point earlier this session. An hon. member is not entitled to call another hon. member a communist, but there is definitely a difference between being a communist and being a Marxist. A Marxist is a person who stands for the principles of Marxism; so one cannot draw a marked Comparison between Marxism and Communism. Marxism refers to the creed of Karl Marx. It is therefore not unparliamentary to call a person a Marxist. He may be an exponent of Marxism as such, but one cannot call him a communist because he may not be a communist.

Mr. Speaker, is it then in order to call hon. members Marxists in this House?

I am not ruling that as being unparliamentary. However, I shall rule it unparliamentary if an hon. member calls another hon. member a communist.

Mr. Speaker, and if hon. members refer to other hon. members as being Hitlerists, what would your ruling be?

I shall decide upon that when that comes up. I want the hon. member to understand very clearly that Marxism as such is the creed of Marxism, the policy of Marxism as propagated by Karl Marx. It is not the same as communism as such.

Mr. Speaker, after the turbulent speech of the hon. the Minister, I think it is time that a more peaceful atmosphere prevailed in this House. I want to say straight away that I associate myself with the hon. the Minister in his rejection of certain statements which emanated from the PFP benches here this evening. This afternoon and this evening speeches were made which will definitely find an echo in the outside world and particularly in the anti-South African foreign Press. I should like to say that the CP rejects the PFP standpoint that the policy of separate development is a crime against humanity. That is a complete untruth. The truth is that it is a liberating policy and that it is the right course for the NP Government and for conservative-minded people in this country to act in a liberating way towards all of the peoples in this country through the policy of separate development. Consequently, to make the allegation, as the PFP did this evening, that the policy is a crime against humanity, is an objectionable statement. Next I want to say that the attack made by the official Opposition on the S.A. Police in connection with what happened in Durban did not meet with our approval either. The CP standpoint is that we should wait until we have received a full report from the hon. the Minister of Law and Order before we react to it in a condemnatory or other fashion.

When we arrived here in Cape Town at the beginning of the year, none of us would have thought or expected that so many dramatic events would occur in the political sphere as did in fact occur. I believe that we all expected to have an exceptionally busy session. Of course, we also knew that the political debate would be primarily concerned with the new constitutional proposals of the Government. We realized that this was in fact going to be the era in which the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning would play a special role. However, not one of us expected so much tension and excitement as we experienced during these six months. I believe that this was primarily caused by the rash conduct of one of the most senior members of the Cabinet; conduct which led to the entire constitutional programme of the Government going wrong. I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister and his chief lieutenant in regard to the implementation of the new constitutional dispensation felt very unhappy when the tranquillity which they expected we would have, and which indeed we had to have so that the constitutional dispensation of the Government could be implemented according to plan, was in the end totally disrupted.

To tell the truth, the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning created an impression of self-confidence when we arrived here in Cape Town at the beginning of this year. How could it have been otherwise, particularly after a result such as the one in the by-election in Stellenbosch in November last year? The two hon. leaders of the NP in the Cape then felt, of course, that all was well again in South Africa. I think that one thing is certain, however, and that is that the Transvalers and the Free Staters did not share that feeling of self-confidence with the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] The hon. the leader of the NP in the Transvaal, and his chief adviser, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, did not share that self-confidence with the hon. the Prime Minister at all. And they had very good reasons for not doing so. I want to allege that after the election result in Germiston District, and also after the election results in Parys, and particularly in Bothaville, there were no more peaceful moments for the Transvaal NP. [Interjections.]

I think that we can really accept it as correct that the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had intended to have the new constitution passed by this House by the end of May of this year. In fact, matters developed in such a way that at one stage we heard rumours that a referendum was not even going to be held any more. [Interjections.] Of course the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was also of that opinion. [Interjections] Alas, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Manpower, with his untimely challenge, caused the carefully laid plans of the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to miscarry completely; he quite literally disrupted everything. [Interjections.]

The by-election in the Bergs contained a special message to the hon. the Prime Minister. This was that the voters of Waterberg and Soutpansberg, of Carletonville and even of Waterkloof, said that the hon. the Prime Minister had to keep his promise and that a referendum had to be held. They demanded that the people be accorded their right to state their opinion clearly by way of a referendum. [Interjections.] We also know, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. the Prime Minister suddenly, with almost unseemly haste, announced the referendum. Surely we know that the hon. the Prime Minister, on the same day the hon. the Minister of Finance was to make his budget speech here in this House, even stole his thunder with the dramatic announcement that a referendum was to take place. [Interjections.] We all know the rest of that story, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Order!

In order to ensure a favourable outcome in the by-elections in the Bergs took a favourable course, the hon. the Prime Minister sprang to work and tried to influence the course of events in his favour. However, we now know what the result was. The voters did not, after all, allow themselves to be taken in by the conduct of the hon. the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] Rumours were also doing the rounds that the Government wished to implement the new constitution Act on 31 May 1984 and that the life of the present House of Assembly was going to be extended for a further five years. This last possibility is of course a wonderful message to most of the hon. members of the NP, for if there is one thing which those hon. members have feared recently—it was as visible on their faces as a measles rash—then it is a general election.

We wish to state candidly that the question of whether or not a referendum was going to be held, as it was handled by the hon. the Prime Minister, left a bitter taste in the mouth of the voters of South Africa. I can state today that there is not nearly the same enthusiasm for the referendum of Prime Minister P. W. Botha as there was for the referendum of a Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd, when the people had to vote “yes” or “no”. One can also say that there are sufficient reasons for this, and that there are many factors which have contributed to that lack of enthusiasm today. One of these is that the constitution which is now being offered to the people of South Africa is not in fact a constitution. It is a mockery. It is nothing but a monstrosity. It is a mockery of true democracy in this country. [Interjections.] I maintain that the constitution which is now being offered is not a constitution. Indeed, it is nothing but …

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

I am not prepared to reply to a question now. I maintain that this constitution makes a mockery of the democratic rights of South African voters. It is not a constitution. It is a snare. It is a snare in which the White voters are going to be trapped. The Coloureds and the Indians are going to receive a veto power with which to pin down and veto the Whites in the exercise of the sovereign rights which they have as a White people. [Interjections.] It is a snare into which the Coloureds and the Indians are being drawn with false expectations because both White and Coloured voters will be caught in a constitution from which they cannot escape. It is of no avail hon. members such as the hon. member for De Kuilen invoking the evidence of a Mr. Sonny Leon and a Mr. Curry here. That hon. member makes one laugh. It seems to me he is not acquainted with the standpoints of the Coloureds and Indians in our country.

Are you?

I want to come back to another matter. Last Friday the hon. the Prime Minister held a meeting in Nelspruit and he was reported in Die Transvaler as having made the following statement—

It has been confidentially ascertained that the hon. the Prime Minister, if he receives the green light in the coming referendum, will proceed to implement the new constitution. The Prime Minister hopes to do so on 31 May 1984. If these rumours are true, then it means that the new constitution is going to be implemented without a general election having been held. He can only do so by extending the life of the present House of Assembly by five years in terms of section 101 (6) and (8) of the new constitution. We maintain that if the hon. the Prime Minister does this, he is violating one of the most inalienable democratic rights which have been acquired by South African voters through convention and practice, namely to constitute a new House of Assembly every five years by way of a general election. The CP will at all times respect this inalienable right of the South African voter. [Interjections.] We maintain that the South African voter has every right at this early stage …

Order! I cannot allow three hon. members of the Conservative Party to speak simultaneously, and I cannot allow the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs to join in the discussion.

But they are provoking me.

The hon. member may proceed.

I am grateful for the loyal support from my benches, but I believe that I am quite capable of dealing with the NP. [Interjections.] The South African voter has every right to exercise his inalienable right every five years in a general election, where he will then receive an opportunity to reject the NP if he so wishes. He has every right to do so. That is why we now wish to request the hon. the Prime Minister to tell the South African voters, before the announcement of the date of the referendum, that he intends affording them this opportunity of expressing their opinion on every detail of the Constitution Bill in a general election prior to April 1986. [Interjections.] We trust that the hon. the Prime Minister will, at the very first opportunity that presents itself, announce that he will afford the South African voter an opportunity of casting his vote in a general election before the term of this House of Assembly ends in May 1986.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member Mr. Theunissen will understand if I do not devote the short time at my disposal to his speech. I want to refer to one or two other speeches that were made.

I want to say that the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs sounded like a cracked gramophone record this evening, going on and on about the policies of the NP and wanting to know whether those policies are crimes against humanity. I want to tell him that certain aspects of the NP’s policies definitely are such crimes, such as its policy of removing millions of people and dumping them in impoverished areas, in rural areas where they are unable to earn a livelihood. I also refer to the policy that has resulted in over 200 000 people being sent to gaol for pass offences for the crime of looking for work in urban areas. These policies are crimes against humanity. The policy of removing over half a million people under the Group Areas Act is a crime against humanity. I want hon. members to know that there is nothing equivocal whatsoever about the feelings of this party as far as those aspects of the NP’s policies are concerned. We do not identify South Africa with the National Party. The NP represents a very small percentage of the total population of South Africa. Hon. members ought to know that.

Over the last few days I have been enjoying watching Wimbledon but in between I unfortunately have also had to watch the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development presenting part of the NP’s policy. On Sunday I was very interested to see the hon. the Minister tell us about this new “great success story” of the NP, which will result in a two thousand million rand scheme of deconcentration and development in the rural areas. The hon. the Minister told us that something like 777 companies have applied to be part of this scheme. I think he is a little premature in talking about the “great success story”. I want to tell him that application is one thing but actual investment and establishment is another thing. Most important, viability is a third and most important aspect of deconcentration.

Why are you always negative? [Interjections.]

I am not always negative. [Interjections.] We have to see whether these enterprises are able to compete with the existing enterprises in the established industrial areas. What is very relevant as far as this subject is concerned, in terms of the use of scarce resources in South Africa, is what it is going to cost the country to establish these enterprises which are far from the markets and far from the sources of raw materials. It has been revealed that it costs anything between R30 000 and R40 000 to establish and create a new job in a rural area and very much more if there is no existing infrastructure in that area.

It brings infrastructure and it improves conditions there.

Yes, but it costs money to put in that infrastructure whereas in the existing metropolitan areas the infrastructure is there already. I should remind hon. members that industries are not located by accident. They are located because of certain elementary factors that determine the location, the proximity to the market, the availability of raw materials, infrastructure and the availability of managerial and skilled labour and not just the availability of unskilled labour. This is what hon. members do not seem to understand.

The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs was very indignant about the editorial that appeared in The Star last week which he said was unpatriotic, which of course is the new popular word every time one criticizes the NP Government. He was very annoyed because he said they accused the Government of bribing industrialists. I am going to quote from an advertisement which appeared in The Flying Springbok which I picked up on a plane only a couple of nights ago while coming back to Cape Town. This is what it says in encouraging industrialists to go into the rural areas. It says, and I quote—

The going rate, I understand, is about 16%—

I believe that those industrialists in those rural Black areas will have their entire wage bill paid. The article also refers to a rental subsidy of 80% of a market-related rate for leased factory buildings and a 60% rebate on the transport cost of manufactured goods, etc. It also refers to housing loans for key personnel at 40% of building society interest loans. If that is not bribery, I want to know what bribery is. I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development that that is the reason why he has 777 applicants to participate in this R2 000 million scheme. Somebody has to pay for that. Who does he think that somebody is? [Interjections.] That somebody is the South African taxpayer. He is the person who is going to pay at the expense of course of the existing metropolitan areas. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in Britain when they attempt to decentralize, they do not try to do so on the basis of ideology. They try to do so in order to get a better spread, but they do not talk about too many Indians here or too many Blacks there. The Government is developing a policy for the express purpose of keeping Black people out of the Urban areas. That is what it is all about. It is nonsense from beginning to end to talk about overdeveloped metropolitan areas in South Africa,

You have ideology on your brain!

The hon. the Minister has ideology everywhere. [Interjections.]

There is one city in South Africa which has more than 2 million people, only one, and that is Johannesburg. There is no other city in this country with over 2 million people. Do hon. members realize that there are between 20 and 30 cities throughout the world that have populations of between 8 million and 12 million people and that there are several cities that have a very much higher population than that? Those are the large metropolitan areas and it is considered a mark of progress to develop large metropolitan areas. I am prepared to bet my bottom dollar that if the PWV area or the Port Elizabeth area or Durban or the Western Cape area had populations consisting only of White people of 2 million or 1 million or 500 000, which is all they have, nobody would be talking about these overpopulated metropolitan areas. It is based entirely on ideology and it is entirely on ideology that it is bound to fail. It is going to cost this country millions and millions of rand.

The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development who is being very talkative now—I wonder if he would stop having a private conversation and listen to me for two minutes.

It is not worth it.

Well, then, get outside if you do not think it is worth it.

It is not worth it.

Go outside. I am not talking to you.

No, I am paid to sit here. [Interjections.]

And I get paid to criticize the hon. the Minister and the hon. Deputy Ministers.

But you are not paid to talk nonsense.

Well, just listen and you will hear that it is not nonsense. I should like either the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister to answer a few questions on this famous Rikhoto case. I have read the Bill which the hon. the Minister intends introducing tomorrow and I do not want to anticipate a debate in that regard. However, there are a few points which I believe to be important and which are not covered by the headline which the hon. the Minister had in the Rand Daily Mail the other day which proclaimed: “Dr. K. spells it out on migrants”. He certainly has not spelt it out to me and so I should like him to spell it out to me in words of one syllable because, obviously, Sir, I am very dense in this respect!

The hon. the Minister has told us that he is not going to circumvent the court’s ruling. In point of fact, of course, to a great extent by translating into law what the position is as far as housing is concerned, he is going to circumvent the law. However, let us leave that to one side for the moment. In reply to a question from me, the hon. the Minister said that he estimated that more or less 144 000 people could qualify under the Rikhoto judgment. However, in the next breath he went on to say that only about 5 000 would qualify.

No, I did not.

The hon. the Minister says he did not say that. Well, the Press has reported him as having said it but if he did not say it, I am pleased, because I should like to know how he reduced the number of people who could qualify from 144 000 to 5 000 even in terms of the accommodation situation. Was that for the benefit of the CP? Did he think that they were going to be so worried about the “Swart stroom” coming into the urban areas that he had quickly to water down the number of people who could come here? Will the hon. the Minister tell us whether or not he has instructed the Administration Boards to get on with the job of issuing the permits? So far, the number of pass books that have been stamped according to the Rikhoto judgment is, so I gather, just over 200. I think the figure is 220. Has he instructed them to go slowly until the law is passed in August or has he told them to get on with it? I ask this because, according to the Press report, he said that the judgment was going to be implemented “strenuously and fairly”. However, there is nothing strenuous about stamps in 220 books. My information is that people have been told to come back at a later stage when things are more settled. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether those people already in the areas before the cut-off date will be legalized. I ask this because in one breath he said yes, and in the next breath he said that he could not legalize those people who had come in illegally. That is one thing we want to know. Then too, are the people in the process of qualifying to be allowed to continue the process to qualify both in terms of the 10-year qualification and the 15-year qualification? I ask this because qualifying means more than the sight to have one’s family live with one, though, that is a very important priority. However, it also means that a man can look for work outside the urban area in which he finds himself at present without going through the most complicated rigmarole before he is allowed to do so. These I think are important questions and people want to know the answers.

I am sure the hon. the Minister ought to know how difficult it is for a man who lives outside the urban areas to take up work. All the rigmarole which came about since 1968 onwards when nobody was allowed to enter an urban area except as a contract worker, has to be complied with. This is a most difficult procedure. People cannot leave the tribal areas without an attested contract. They cannot move from a white rural area unless they get a document signed by the farmer on whose land they have been living and signed by the branch of the local Agricultural Union as well before they can come in. As far as Black women are concerned it is a closed door entirely. They may not come in to take a job even though they have found an employer anxious to employ them. This happens in our free enterprise society, so-called. Does anybody wonder why at Hammanskraal last week there was a decided veering towards an attitude of Marxism, its theory and practice? I would go further and say a veering towards Black socialism, away from the free enterprise system. This happens purely and entirely because Black people have no benefit from the free enterprise society. They are restricted at every turn as far as employment opportunities are concerned.

What worries me most of all is that the Government is oblivious of this. It is not only in Lamontville and elsewhere in Natal that there is trouble; there is trouble brewing in every Black township where the Government is contemplating putting up rent and services charges in the urban areas. I want to warn the Government to think not twice, but three times before they go ahead and hike up the service charges and the rent for houses in the urban areas.

There have been various researches done, and I want to quote from a recent piece of work done by Prof. Keenan of the Social Anthropology Department at Wits who revealed that in Moroka—as we all know, Moroka is a part of Soweto, a small township but significant—the percentage of families below the household effective level rose between 1978 and 1981 from 25% to 39%. That is a very important figure, and hon. members should realize that one cannot simply hike up these rents and expect people in times of recession, in times of unemployment, in times of inflation, to meet these rising costs. In another area which is also part of Soweto, 50% of the families were below the household effective level in June 1982, and according to Prof. Keenan the situation is deteriorating.

I must admit to being more depressed about the situation in this country than I have been for a long time. I am not talking about crisis periods like at the time of Sharpeville or crisis periods such as after the Soweto riots in 1976, but here we are in 1983, and we are faced with new constitutional proposals which offer no improvement whatsoever on the situation, and a Government which appears to be utterly oblivious of what is happening throughout South Africa among the Black communities.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to attempt to reply to the hon. member for Houghton. I think the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs spelt out their position very clearly today. The speech of the hon. member for Houghton is so typical of the kind of speeches which one hears in the anti-apartheid lobbies of the United Nations. In fact, they are tremendous on the exploitation of discontent to South Africa without offering workable solutions. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and those hon. members identified here this evening who call South African policies a crime against humanity, will still pay the price for their answers or their lack of answers. I should like to leave the hon. member for Houghton there specifically, as I do want to discuss finances with the hon. the Minister of Finance, and the accusations which were revealed and made here today and yesterday by the hon. members for Pine-town and Durban Central. If those accusations about police activities in Lamontville and Chesterville in Natal are found to be accurate, then this party will insist on a full investigation of the Police Department and insist that appropriate action be taken in that respect. These accusations are very serious indeed. I have seldom heard such an irresponsible speech as the one that was made by the hon. member for Durban Central yesterday. If those accusations are found to be unfounded, I say that the hon. member for Pinetown and the hon. member for Durban Central should not be surprised if they are labelled the political arsonists of South Africa. That would aptly describe those people who have a vested interest in setting fire to the assets of South Africa. I must say that we look forward to a statement by the hon. the Minister of Law and Order, whether it be in this House or in public, so that he can allay the fears of the public in respect of the accusations made by those two hon. members.

You will accept his word and not ours, of course.

No, Sir. I believe that a proper investigation must be conducted because of the seriousness of the accusations made by those two hon. members.

Will you go and look yourself?

Hon. members should not try and defend those two hon. members now. I believe those charges must be brought to the proper authorities’ attention and that they must be thoroughly investigated. Those are the most serious accusations that have ever been made against both the Minister of Law and Order and the Police Force. Those hon. members will be held accountable for those accusations.

Will you apply local option as to whether they are true or not?

That interjection does not warrant a response.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries who made a speech here earlier this afternoon, that whilst we welcome the water relief measures which he has indicated for South Africa and for Natal in particular, they are purely short-term measures. The use of the water from the Mooi River and the water schemes in the Dundee area are purely short-term measures. We would like to recommend to the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Minister of that department that the long-term solution of water viability in Natal is not to be found in building an additional dam in the Umgeni River at Inanda or in the diversion of the Mooi River. The long-term answers, as feasibility studies have shown, are to be found in the damming of the water of the Umkomaas River and the redistribution of that water in Natal. Nevertheless, we do appreciate the efforts being made by the Government in respect of water relief in Natal. However, we would like to urge the Government to give serious consideration the immediate implementation of the recommendations of the commission which investigated the water resources of Natal, with specific reference to the damming of the Umkomaas River and the redistribution of that water.

*I should now like to refer briefly to the speech by the hon. member for North Rand yesterday. He addressed this House in a dramatic and emotional manner about the philosophy and the contributions of the greatest leaders of South Africa. I merely want to make the point that in my opinion the CP misjudges the intentions and the contributions of the greatest leaders in the history of South Africa.

Who are they?

I am thinking of people such as Gen. Smuts, President Pretorius and others. I just want to say to hon. members of the CP that the sacrifices and contributions of the leaders of South Africa over the last 350 years were made with a view to establishing a firm foundation for South Africa. We must build on those foundations. To try and revert to the past merely in an effort to make political capital is not in the spirit of what those leaders have done. I think to use those contributions and sacrifices of those leaders of South Africa here for party-political gain is in fact to abuse them. They are part of our history and constitute the foundations on which we must build now. Today’s challenges are different from the challenges of the past, but the attitude of those leaders was always to find real solutions to the problems of that time and of today. I do not think that it would be fair to those leaders to use their contributions for one’s own political gain. We are all proud of the contributions of our forefathers in South Africa. I think it is wrong for hon. members of the CP to exploit them for their own political gain. The hon. members of the CP should realize that the exploitation of our history and our historic national leaders will never be accepted by the average person in South Africa. There has to be moderation. We are all proud of our traditions and history in South Africa. We in the NRP will hold it against them if they misuse that history for their own political gain.

†I should like now to address myself to the hon. the Minister of Finance who will be delighted to know that we are going to give him a problem to solve in replying to the debate. I want to address myself specifically to a measure that was introduced in 1914 in South Africa and is still with us today. That problem is the marriage tax that is imposed by the hon. the Minister and his department by way of joint taxation. The hon. the Minister will know that this is not a new problem but it does require a new approach and a new solution. The marriage tax, in other words, the joint taxation of married couples in South Africa, does affect the fortunes of over 650 000 couples in South Africa. Taking into consideration the paltry amount that it contributes to the revenue of the State coffers, I believe that the hon. the Minister would be doing South Africa a favour if he saw his way clear to removing the joint taxation that is imposed on married couples in South Africa today. Those 650 000 couples in South Africa are only contributing R120 million to the State coffers in South Africa. We must measure that against the total revenue raised by direct and indirect taxation. To give hon. members an idea of the miniscule contribution in terms of revenue, the estimate for 1983-’84 is that direct income tax will give the hon. the Minister R5,3 billion. Indirect taxation i.e. general sales tax will contribute R3,95 billion to the coffers. In comparison, the hon. the Minister is using the marriage tax in South Africa to raise R120 million. When one considers the benefits to South Africa in terms of the R120 million compared with the disadvantages to South Africa, then we believe that the disadvantages are greater than the advantages. It was a White Paper of this very Government that recommended in 1981 that we should make greater use of women power in South Africa. When one examines the statistics, one finds that one third of the female university graduates in South Africa remain at home today because of joint taxation as imposed by the hon. the Minister’s department. That one third of graduates are pharmacists, doctors, psychologists and other highly professional people. They cannot afford to go out to work because of the punitive measures in terms of joint taxation in South Africa taken against married couples. What is actually happening is that we are forcing these women to stay at home while there is a shortage of professionally trained and skilled people in South Africa. We spend millions of rand recruiting people from overseas to do the kind of work which these women should be doing in South Africa. The hon. member for Umhlanga says that it would not be a bad idea to keep these women out of the house. I should like to put it another way by saying that I believe it is beneficial to have them at work. I believe the hon. the Minister should take a serious view of the position and I should like to urge him to make every possible effort to review the position of joint taxation in South Africa. When one considers that 41% of married women do work in South Africa, one can see the magnitude of the burden on such families.

With the graduated scale of taxes we have in South Africa, one finds that the magic figure at which excessive taxes are paid through joint taxation is the annual income of R12 000 for both husband and wife. That represents approximately R1 000 per month. On the basis that the average woman in South Africa today earns approximately R450 per month, it leaves the husband with having to earn only R550 per month for them to enter the category of increased taxes through joint taxation. When we consider that the average family income for Whites in South Africa is now R1 200 per month, one can see what a punitive measure joint taxation is in South Africa. In fact, we would say that it is a total disincentive for the productive utilization of both women and men in South Africa. Not only does it affect the female partner in this case, but it also affects the incentive of the married man to work harder than he does. I know of many cases of doctors, lawyers and engineers who take every Wednesday and Thursday off simply to avoid excessive taxation at the marginal rates applicable in South Africa.

Is 50% an excessive rate?

Of course it is. It has a depressive effect on productivity.

Above R40 000?

I know medical specialists and orthopaedic surgeons who are only prepared to work three days per week in order to avoid excessive taxation. [Interjections.] The problem is that the hon. the Minister does not understand the question of the cash flow in the professional field in South Africa. Every February and August—I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance to verify this—the banks are inundated with requests from professional people for overdrafts in order to pay their provisional taxes. That is counter-productive. The hon. the Minister knows that the overdraft rate today is at least 22%. Those overdrafts are utilized in order to meet tax commitments. Professional people in South Africa are not prepared to work the hours they should be working simply because of excessive marginal rates of taxation. What the hon. the Minister is doing with the maintenance of joint taxation for married couples is to apply a punitive measure against the institution of marriage which in fact should be encouraged in South Africa.

I want to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister to do what is necessary for South Africa, i.e. to abolish the joint taxation system we have. I believe that the contribution these women and their husbands can make to improve the asset value and therefore the GDP of South Africa will far outweigh the minimal R120 million the coffers collect.

Where do you get that drivel?

From the statistics, from the hon. the Minister’s own department. That R120 million is less than 1% of the revenue raised through direct taxation.

I want to say in conclusion that, if one considers the contribution these women can make in the work-place, one will see that it totally outweighs the disadvantage of foregoing the minimal amount of R120 million the hon. the Minister will collect. They will contribute to greater productivity and the provision of skilled services in South Africa, and those skills have been acquired at very considerable cost to the whole of the economy. We know that it costs over R10 000 to train a pharmacist or a doctor in South Africa. In fact, the figure for a doctor is R30 000. The services of those people are put on ice because of the punitive marriage tax which the hon. the Minister maintains in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban North will appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister of Finance will reply to his arguments tomorrow; all the arguments he raised here in respect of financial matters. So now, I wish to refer briefly to the remarks made here earlier by the hon. member for Houghton.

At the beginning of her speech the hon. member stated that there were certain aspects of NP policy which indeed constituted crimes against humanity. Giving examples she referred to the keeping of Black people in rural areas and to restricting their entry into the towns. In turn I should like to remind the hon. member for Houghton that every single Government of South Africa since Union, including the present Government, has found it necessary to maintain a measure of partition in what are sometimes called reserves, sometimes homelands; now, in some instances, homelands and independent States. It has been Government policy throughout to give geographic anchorage to the Black people of South Africa in the reserves from which they originally came. [Interjections.]

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, every single Government and every single commission of inquiry, of which there have been quite a number, have found it necessary to maintain pass laws and influx control; otherwise we would have a most abominable situation of Black people streaming into the urban areas without jobs, without housing, and without any future whatsoever. [Interjections.] Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to remind the hon. member for Houghton that the policy under which she was originally elected to this House, the policy of the party under whose banner she sat here for at least the first six years, embraced the very same policies and principles to which I have just referred.

Not only the hon. member for Houghton, but also several other hon. colleagues of hers in the PFP today, were elected to this House under the same policy I have just mentioned, viz. the recognition of the anchorage of Black people in homelands and the restriction on their entry into the urban areas. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate that obviously in the light of the work with which I have been entrusted, I am conservation minded. I find that I am constantly on the lookout for endangered species. That is to say, I find myself constantly on the lookout for living beings who find themselves in an environment which is totally strange to them, or which is dangerous to them, or even rejects them. I honestly believe therefore that, as the result of some years of experience, I am also in a position to identify—to identify very clearly—endangered species. Indeed I believe firmly that I have a particular ability to identify them. [Interjections.] Even if I do not have the unique ability of saving them, often from themselves, I have nevertheless warned some of those hon. members who sit in the PFP and in the NRP that they are an endangered species. I have sounded that warning at one time or another during my political career. Therefore it is easily noticeable how the PFP has these days become an endangered species! Hon. members of that party cannot possibly flourish in the current political climate. Their “pink” complexions are paling. They wane and they wilt. They will undoubtedly perish. That will indeed happen sooner or later, Mr. Speaker. They are in fact like fish on dry land! [Interjections.] Perhaps the hon. member for Pretoria East Dr. Theo Alant and his committee should be asked to look into their situation, Mr. Speaker. They should be asked to give serious attention to the matter of survival of the PFP. [Interjections.] They are all so completely and absolutely out of step with the South African way of life, with the South African community, and with the South African political environment, that, I believe, many of them even regard each other as being endangered species.

There is not a single Black leader of any standing who supports their policy. [Interjections.] There is not a single Black, Coloured or Indian who will accept with them joint responsibility for their policy.

And they are terribly excited with apartheid! Is that what you think?

That is because they had no share whatsoever in formulating the policy of that party. Not one man of colour helped draft PFP policy.

Who drafted yours?

Today, even business leaders such as Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, once that party’s financier, utterly reject their attitude towards constitutional change. Mr. Oppenheimer warns them that they should get rid of their negative attitude. They are in South Africa today, to quote words used many, many years ago about celebrated American liberals by Teddy Roosevelt: “the nattering nabobs of negativism”. [Interjections.]

Even the United States State Department, for many, many years the sworn enemy of South Africa, particularly under the Carter regime, and also its spokesmen, have recently shown a refreshingly greater insight into our problems and the remedies we offer. Their strategy and their outlook, and also their insight, is far better than those of the lackeys of the English language morning and evening newspaper groups in this House. [Interjections.] Those hon. gentlemen opposite prejudge, criticize and boycott all efforts at bringing about evolutionary constitutional change. They have no constructive role whatsoever to play in the South Africa of the 1980s. But, as we have seen tonight, to South Africa’s shame, they have a capacity for harming their country. They criticize and pass judgment on the verdicts of courts as if they had been sitting there on the Bench to hear the evidence and evaluate the facts. The hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central are known for their comments on judgments handed down by courts. Yet they plead in their own constitution, and in their policy, for an independent judiciary. Actually, I think the thing that they fear most is the free and independent judgments of our courts!

They undermine, deride and discredit the security forces of the Republic. They run down the national service system and they criticize our right to hit back at the enemies across our borders. They never encourage and never praise our sportsmen and sport administrators for their efforts to bring about an end to South Africa’s sporting isolation. Instead, by their attitude and by their utterances, one gains the impression that they rejoice in our predicament and admire Hassan Howa and his friends for their bitter antagonism to South Africa’s sportsmen and sportswomen.

The official Opposition has become an Opposition that has lost its way. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on assuming office made a promise to the hon. the Prime Minister of constructive opposition. He has broken his promise. To the electorate, the Progressive Party many years ago made a promise of effective opposition. That promise is also broken when the Government years ago announced, for example, a new deal for Blacks, they asked: What about the Coloureds and Indians? Now that the Government says that we have a new deal for Whites, Coloureds and Indians, they ask: What about the Blacks? [Interjections.] For years and years, they regarded themselves as the spokesmen for the Coloureds and Indians. Now that platform is to be taken away from them and the Coloureds and Indians will be able to speak for themselves. They are unable to be trusted. We have had many examples of how they have betrayed the trust placed in them.

The hon. member for Sea Point made his telephone call overseas after a private briefing by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Information. Those hon. members of the PFP who sat on the Select Committee on the Constitution agreed to a course of action but then came under pressure from the Boraines and Suzmans in their caucus, as a result of which they boycotted the President’s Council. Now, all of a sudden, they are showing a great interest in the new constitution because they see that South Africa is on the path of reform and is going to have a new constitution. They have realized the problems that their boycot attitude has created for them.

In the field of defence, they plead for an alternative to military service. Their chief Defence spokesman refers to “slave labour” in the Defence Force. They refuse to say whether they regard the war that South Africa is engaged in against terrorists across our border as a just or an unjust war. In the fields of law and order they sow suspicion of the armed forces. The best exponent of this is the hon. member for Constantia. They cast suspicion on the Police. We have heard a typical example of that tonight in the speech made by the hon. member for Pine-town.

When it comes to patriotism they are singularly lacking and conspicuous by their absence. For example, when universities refuse to celebrate Republic Day or students refuse to stand to attention when Die Stem is played or when the National flag is hoisted, there is not a single leader of the PFP who ever condemns that attitude. When the Wits students signified recently that “Die Stem” would not be played on their graduation day, not a word was said by any leader of the PFP. If there were to be an award ceremony for un-South African activities or attitudes, then I say that the PFP would get an Oscar.

I wonder if I may refer now to the hon. member for Pinelands. I am sorry that he is not here. He lives in a fool’s paradise, politically speaking. He said not so long ago that the balance of power would soon be in the hands of the PFP. He also said that the PFP would pick up another 40 to 45 seats at the next election. He is guilty of wishful thinking and even one of the P.E. newspapers that support him, said under the heading “Wishful Thinking” that the hon. member for Pinelands did not know what he was talking about. They will follow the same path as that of the NRP which also made a prediction before the last election! I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands whether he associates himself with the pamphlet that was handed out to schools in the Pinelands constituency during the past week. This pamphlet, under the heading—

was issued by the Young Progs of 74 Howard Centre, Pinelands. It continues like this—

Is he going to reply tomorrow?

I hope he answers tomorrow. I have heard explanation from him from time to time that he will answer tomorrow. Tomorrow never comes!

I want to conclude by saying this: There was a member of Parliament in this House for many years who sat with me in the same party. I crossed swords with him on many occasions. Nevertheless, I think he was generally considered to be a skilful politician. I refer to Japie Basson. I refer to the speech he made not long ago in the President’s Council, where he warned that what the official Opposition was trying to do, was to whip up the worst form of group racialism here in South Africa by inspanning English-speaking people on the side of other colour groups against the Afrikaner and the Government. If what he has said is correct, then I think it is absolutely shocking. I have seen evidence here tonight and I have also seen evidence in recent months to prove that this is the pattern that we can expect in politics in the months leading up to the referendum. However, I want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that when it comes to the referendum the people of South Africa will judge the earnest policies and strivings of the Government led by the hon. the Prime Minister in trying to create a better and new dispensation for all of us living in South Africa. The moderate people in South Africa will support the NP in its efforts to save South Africa from what could be a terrible fate, too terrible, as some people have said, to contemplate, and to set us on a new path of reform for a better and a safer future for all of us living in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to the speech made by the hon. member for Houghton in which she referred to the 3,5 million removals. In what was the most extraordinary euphemism that one could possibly hear, these removals are now described as “geographic anchorages”. [Interjections.] Here we have 3,5 million geographic anchorages! It would be funny if we did not know what was behind all this and if we had not seen people like the Fingoes being moved from the Tsitsikamma with the people trying to hang on to their few pitiful possessions as they were flung on to vehicles and dumped in the veld. Then we call these “geographic anchorages”! It is that sort of silly expression that enables hon. members on that side of the House to live with the sins they commit.

Last night I watched television and Gen. Viljoen told me that if the ANC were denied bases in adjoining territories it would be impotent. We were told of a terrorist war that was total. We were told of terrorists gaoled. We were told of crowds gathered outside the courts. We were told of an amount of R50 000 that had been given by the municipality to aid the victims of terrorist atrocities. We were also told of the strategy of the Kremlin for world revolution. The effect of that telecast on me was to fill me with despair. We have a Government that has lost the initiative completely. It reminds me of nothing more than a trapped beast, powerful and vicious but unable to break out of its cage, and the cage in which it is trapped is its own apartheid ideology. That is what makes that cage. Robbed of imagination, robbed of intiative it defiantly persists with all the policies that are responsible for our present predicament. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries has just confirmed the Government’s complete inability to deal with the problem that we have.

If we stand back a little and try to look at the situation as an educated young Black may, what do we see? We must look at the matter objectively and not comfort ourselves with talk of immense reservoirs of Black goodwill or that the Black is not a natural communist. We have relaxed on these beliefs for too long as we have applied our apartheid policy. Let me quote what Blacks are actually saying now because it is important. They say—

This is what they are saying. Before one condemns their susceptibility to revolutionary socialism, it is worth remembering, Sir, that in the 1920s and the early 1930s the Afrikaner nation might very easily have turned to socialism had it not been for the threat of an overwhelming Black majority that was even more deprived then than it is now and was competing for scarce work opportunities with them. It was a natural reaction. Nobody says that it was not. It stemmed from feelings of injustices suffered and opportunities denied. These were feelings that arose despite the fact that the Afrikaner owned the bulk of the land in the country and despite the fact that he had full political rights. It was not until the moulding of the Afrikaner into the economy at all levels and until he began to recognize the free enterprise system as something which was to be used and not seized, something that was worth much more than the sum total of its capital assets, that his attitude changed.

The work of the President’s Council has established very clearly that in 37 years’ time there will be something like 66 million people in this country and only 5,5 million or 6 million of these will be White. The NP behaves as if it will still be running an authoritarian White minority Government at that time. They lack courage to look the facts in the face. This is the “positiewe benadering” about which we are always told. By its stewardship for 35 years, by its rigidity, its lack of imagination, its callousness and its obsession with grand apartheid the Government is preparing the way for the destruction of all that it holds dear in this country.

The Government’s courtship of the private sector from Carlton to Good Hope now stems from a dire necessity. In one important sense it has done more harm to the private sector than in previous 30 years of NP rule. Its public affair with the private sector after years when the private sector was only tolerated as an unfortunate necessity has led Blacks to associate the private sector with the NP Government. They regard them as one and the same thing. What are they saying about private enterprise? I quote again what the Black statesman said—

Now the Government has produced a half-baked constitution which if it was 100% successful and met all the Government’s ambitions for it, would still leave the 70% of the population which is Black in exactly the same political position as it is at the moment, but more angry, more bitter, more polarized.

The Federated Chamber of Industries and Assocom did not endorse the new constitution, but expressed satisfaction that at least the Government was now concerned with a process of reform. Anybody who saw the SABC-TV announcement of this fact, however, could only have been left with the belief that they had endorsed the new constitutional proposals. Our Black nationalist, angry and bitter, and who has been excluded from the political reform plans says—

He is convinced that there is no difference between the NP Government and free enterprise—they are “kop in een mus”. If he has any doubts left at all, they are resolved by the preamble to the new constitution from which he has been expressly excluded. There he reads that the Whites, Coloureds and Indians who will govern according to the new constitution stand united in pursuing certain goals. One of these is to further private initiative and effective competition. Free enterprise is an integral part of the new constitution, as far as he is concerned, which has spurned him, and in consequence he turns his back on it.

It is extremely important that private enterprise sees its role and objectives clearly in a period of transition from White minority domination. It must convince Coloureds, Blacks and Asians of a few simple issues. First, that private enterprise, rejects the constitution based on racial discrimination. Two, that although the private enterprise system operates in South Africa, it can in no way be identified with South Africa’s authoritarian system of government. Three, that private enterprise requires a free and democratic society in which to achieve its potential. Four, that it works under protest in a regime where opportunity is restricted on grounds of race. Five, that a free market mechanism cannot function efficiently in a society distorted by ideological considerations. Six, that the labour unions, free to bargain for their members, are part and parcel of the free enterprise system and incompatible with communism. The free enterprise system is on trial in South Africa. If it is not perceived by the majority of the population as an asset of great value, able to improve their lives and better than any other economic system and as something which they can share, it will be discarded. This will be no temporary economic set back. It would mean that South Africa has lost the one great asset which sets it apart from all other African countries to the north of us. We need a diverse and vigorous economy that can give us the strength to ride out the difficult times we are in.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to express my concern about the attack that was made on the S.A. Police in this House today. The police in South Africa have the unenviable task of seeing to it that justice is done to Whites, as well as to people of colour, and they have to do so without landing up in the crossfire. This is a task performed by people who really make sacrifices. What I am asking for in this House is that our approach to the S.A. Police should please be a sensitive one. I think we could contribute a great deal to improving conditions—including working conditions—for the police. The police do not make the laws; they merely implement them. Nowadays they are experiencing tremendous problems in implementing those laws.

Tonight I want to speak about the particular problems that arise when people do not comply with the law. I want to speak about the intrusion by non-Whites, and Indians in particular, into White residential areas. For years now they have been living in White residential areas and disregarding the laws of the land. In Johannesburg, and particularly in Mayfair in my constituency, Indians have recently intruded into White residential areas. These people simply disregard the Government’s laws. I find it an even greater shock that the hon. the Minister of Community Development has instructed the Group Areas Board to have an area where intrusion has already taken place investigated. Unauthorized persons have already occupied White residential units there. When an investigation is held, everyone must be equal before the law. The intruders must first be removed before the Group Areas Board can meet. We must realize that if people transgress the law day in and day out, and no action is taken against them, this could give rise to tremendous chaos in this country. The White housing crisis is greater in Mayfair than in any other neighbouring residential area. The Black housing crisis in Soweto is no greater. I want to issue a warning that today people are encouraging Blacks to occupy residential units in other areas. If Indians are permitted to invade the White area of Mayfair, and no action is taken against them, one asks oneself whether Blacks are not entitled to invade a residential area like Lenasia, where 150 houses are standing vacant at present. They would occupy areas such as Protea, Roodepoort and others because the law is not being implemented. This is a serious matter. I just want to give one example. How can one have a group area in Mayfair, which has been declared White by the Government, investigated when people are living there illegally? When an area is declared a group area or expropriation takes place, it should be in the public interest. One population group should benefit at the expense of another population group. There are 150 Whites there, and 50 have already been moved out of their houses.

Why? Because one pays up to R100 000 or even R150 000 for a house in Mayfair. It cannot be proved that that is the value of those houses. It is a political demonstration. It is an occupation of convenience. The wealthy Indians want to show that they can ignore this Government. But what is worse?

Boraine.

I have learnt that in a serious speech one does not take any notice of the hon. member for Kimberley South or that Sap man from Turffontein. I want to make one prediction this evening. When I made my speech, a large section of the Indian community said that they agreed, since the houses in so-called Mayfair East were not for poor Indians, but that they did not agree that the less affluent Whites are put out of their houses by the wealthy Indians. That was their evidence. Moreover, a Mr. Bahm from the Transvaal Indian Council wanted a turn to speak, and the chairman quite rightly asked him whom he represented, but Mr. Rajbansi also stood up and said he was also going to give evidence. There was chaos. There were approximately 70 Indians and 50 Whites present. Mr. Rajbansi wanted to start speaking after Bahm was not given a turn to speak, and Salutsi no longer wanted to give evidence, but then the Indians rushed to the front and simply said that Rajbansi represented no one. They told the Indians to come out. They told the chairman of the Group Areas Board: “Sit! Your Minister has already negotiated with the Indian Council and has already told the Indian Council they can have Mayfair”. I do not want to say that that is the truth. I do not even want to imply that that is the truth. That is the evidence the Indians gave, however, The Group Areas Board was mortified as I have never seen anyone mortified before. I was ashamed to think that a man in that position, a man of that station in life, had to experience the mortification of not being able to tell the people to sit down and come to order. They ignored him and told him to keep quiet. That was unparalleled chaos.

Now that is consensus politics!

Now I am telling hon. members this evening that things cannot continue in this vein. One reads in Die Vaderland that the Whites and Indians of Mayfair tackled one another. That is not true. My people did nothing.

You are an “opstoker” (instigator).

You will see who is an “opstoker”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “opstoker”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

This evening I am informing the Government and that Sap supporter that all the Indians will be out of that area on 13 September. We are going to demand that the Government remove them.

Well I never!

The hon. member is right when he says that, and he will see it happening. I will go with those people to show them where they live. I demand that the police and the Government protect people. They must protect White people in their homes; or must those people do it themselves?

Who are the people you are talking about now?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to warn that hon. Minister that he must keep out of …

Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the hon. member what people he is speaking about; the people he wants to take with him on 13 September.

Mr. Speaker, all I am asking is for that hon. Minister to sit down. Let him rather occupy himself with issuing instructions to the police to remove those people from Mayfair.

Yes.

I am warning the hon. the Minister of Law and Order that he must not, however, simply give the police instructions to leave those people alone.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Langlaagte said that all those people would be removed from Mayfair on 13 September. He also said that he would accompany the people who are going to remove them. All I want to know from the hon. member is who those people are he is going to accompany when they undertake that removal.

Very well, Mr. Speaker, I shall reply to the hon. the Minister on that. The police are going to do it. His own police are going to do it, and I am going to accompany them, since the hon. the Minister does not want to do so himself. [Interjections.] That is precisely what is going to happen, since the hon. the Minister of Law and Order is not doing his duty, and also because the hon. the Minister of Community Development refuses to go to Mayfair himself. I shall accompany the police myself. I am not afraid to do so. [Interjections.] I shall go with the police and show them where those people are hiding. If the hon. the Minister of Law and Order thinks that he will succeed in scoring a few political points off me in this House, he is making a big mistake. He should rather confine himself to maintain law and order. Unfortunately my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Minister of Law and Order can be grateful for that. If I had had more time at my disposal, I would have dealt with him properly. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention whatsoever of reacting to what the hon. member for Langlaagte had to say.

Nobody ought to react to his tirade.

As far as I am concerned, the hon. member for Langlaagte is …

[Inaudible.]

I am not talking to the hon. member for Kuruman now, Mr. Speaker [Interjections.] As befits an hon. member of this House, the hon. member for Langlaagte initially meted out praise to the police. At the beginning of his speech he also created the impression that he had some understanding of the difficult task the police have to perform and the position they find themselves in. When the hon. member for Langlaagte eventually gives way to such a violent emotional outburst, however, an outburst such as the one we have just witnessed …

It was the hon. the Minister of Law and Order who gave way to an emotional outburst. [Interjections.]

… it is quite clear that it is not possible to hold any normal discussion with him at all. He will therefore have to forgive me if I simply leave him at that. When one makes such irresponsibly emotive utterances, however—utterances which I believe the hon. member for Langlaagte himself will eventually regret—this does not, in any event, justify any kind of reaction or discussion at all. [Interjections.]

It is already quite late in the evening, Mr. Speaker, but I nevertheless want to address a few words to the hon. member for North Rand and also the hon. the leader of the CP, the hon. member for Waterberg.

In his speech earlier today the hon. the leader of the CP tried, amongst other things, to explain why it was indeed possible for a Coloured homeland to be brought into being. He based his argument on the fact that the Government, has, for example, provided for the independence of Qwaqwa. The hon. the leader of the CP also asked several questions about this. His argument was that if independence could be granted to Qwaqwa, there was surely no reason why the Coloureds could not come into their own in an independent homeland. Without going into this extensively, or examining it in greater depth, I do nevertheless just want to give the hon. the leader of the CP this straightforward answer.

It has repeatedly been stated in this House that the difference lies in the fact that historically the various Black peoples have had their own geographic areas. Besides that the Black people, as a specific ethnic group, want to settle themselves in those specific areas. So offering that to the Black people does not create any problems at all. As far as the Coloureds are concerned, however, hon. members of the CP know as well as I do that this is a population group consisting of various separate groups. On the basis of this fact alone it is the Government’s point of departure that the Coloured group as a whole cannot be typified as a people. That is the first reason. The second reason is …

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

No, not now. I have only 12 minutes at my disposal. I am not going to answer any questions, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Very well. Wait till we get to Middelburg; then you will see. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the leader of the CP ought to know, even at this stage, that the Coloureds do not, in any event, want their own homeland. What Coloured has ever told him that he wanted his own homeland? [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is simply that we cannot argue that we should, for example, send a special task force to dump the Coloureds into a homeland. I am quite prepared to accept the fact that the hon. leader of the CP would not resort to using the AWB for that purpose. We can therefore say what we like; the fact of the matter is that the Coloureds themselves have no interest in obtaining their own homeland. That is the problem the CP is faced with. [Interjections.] The hon. the leader of the CP also made a big fuss about the fact that Chief Gatsha Buthelezi preferred him to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. I do not find that very strange at all. Chief Gatsha Buthelezi knows as well as we do—the hon. leader of the CP must please excuse me for saying this—that there is a very strong possibility that if the hon. the leader of the CP were to come into power …

That is indeed a possibility.

The hon. member says it is indeed a possibility. Very well, in that case there is an equally strong possibility of a revolution in this country. [Interjections.] That is the truth. There is then an equally strong possibility of a revolution.

Shame on you!

You are a real jingo.

Order! Hon members must give the hon. member a chance to go on with his speech.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May an hon. member say that the hon. member for Virginia is a jingo?

That is not actually unparliamentary. The hon. member for Virginia may proceed.

If hon. members think they can shout me down, they are making a mistake. I am merely expressing a personal conviction. I now want to complete my argument. I want to allege that that is naturally the reason why Chief Gatsha Buthelezi would support the leader of the CP, because in doing so he knows that he has a very good chance of achieving his own ideal, which is to assume eventual leadership of South Africa as a whole. That is true, Sir. On the other hand, Chief Gatsha Buthelezi knows that orderly constitutional development, as a result of this Government’s policy, would mean that the Coloureds and the Asian would be drawn away from the Black alliance and that he would therefore not be able to satisfy his ambitions. To put it plainly, that is the reason why the hon. the leader of the CP is Chief Gatsha Buthelezi’s choice [Interjections.]

I want to go further. [Interjections.]

Order! I shall not allow the hon. members for Jeppe, Koedoespoort and Kroonstad to make any further remarks in this debate. The hon. member for Virginia may proceed.

The hon. member for North Rand has been in this House for much longer than I have, and as a junior member I want to tell him, with the utmost respect, that we did not like the arrogance with which he addressed all other members here in his speech. I am being honest and sincere when I say this to the hon. member. He also made a great fuss—I hope I am quoting his words correctly—about “being a slave to. Afrikaner thinking of days gone by”.

How lovely!

The hon. member said it repeatedly. Now hon. members over there are saying how lovely it is. I should like to ask the hon. the leader of the CP whether he also declares himself to be a slave to Afrikaner thinking of days gone by.

I made my speech this afternoon.

I accept the fact that he has said so. [Interjections.] If they now declare themselves to be slaves to Afrikaner thinking of days gone by, I want to ask them whether that is not the reason why they have become so hidebound in their thinking. They have been enslaved, and that means that they are fettered, but meanwhile there are Afrikaner leaders like Dr. Verwoerd whom they say they are found by when it suits them, but when it does not suit them, they reject certain statements of his. Dr. Verwoerd made specific statements about a Coloured homeland, statements which the hon. the leader of the CP is quite familiar with. I now want to ask: Are they also slaves to that? No. I want to go further. I want to tell the hon. member for North Rand and his hon. colleagues that that party is toying with emotions of the Afrikaner people. It is the easiest thing in the world to do. I refuse to believe that those hon. members are more mindful of what is basic to the Afrikaner people than hon. members on this side of the House. I refuse to believe that those hon. members can lay stronger claim to fighting for the Whites. As if we on this side of the House are not doing so. Those hon. members must not try making the Afrikaner a slave to the past. The Afrikaner does not want to be a slave to the past. The Afrikaner does, however, want to nurture those good and beautiful aspects of the past and base the future on them. That is indeed true. One cannot, however, enslave oneself, because if one were to do so, one must become hidebound in one’s thinking and then one cannot adapt. Do those hon. members want to tell me that the thinking of, say, the previous hon. Prime Minister was identical to that of, say, Dr. Malan? Fundamentally it was perhaps the same, yet it was adapted to the demands of the times. It is merely hidebound thinking for those hon. members to say that they are completely bound up by, devoted to and enslaved by past thinking.

Let me go further. The hon. the leader of the CP referred, amongst others, to Dr. Malan and cultural organizations. He pointed out that at the time Dr. Malan favoured a specific concept and asked why the CP could not do so today. There is a basic difference. I want to issue a warning this evening—I have already said this on a previous occasion—that we should restrict our politics to a certain level or certain spheres where it belongs. I have tried to indicate that there is a difference between culture on the one hand and politics on the other, but there are indeed certain links. I want to issue the warning that if it is the intention of any party in this country to misuse certain cultural organizations or education for political gain, this will not be in the best interests of education or cultural development. [Interjections.] If anyone, however, in the full knowledge of what he is doing, allows another political group to misdirect these organizations, he is also guilty of not meeting his cultural obligations in this country. I think that we should assume responsibility for this. I fear that we run the risk of having a political party attempt to collar certain specific organizations, thereby involving education and cultural organizations in politics.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Virginia devoted the greater part of his speech to the CP. I want to assure the hon. member that while the NP and the CP are fighting about who is fighting for the Afrikaner, we on this side of the House are fighting for the Afrikaner and Englishman, for the Whites and the Blacks, and for the poor and the wealthy. Therefore we are fighting for all South Africans.

The hon. member also referred to the Black man who lives in his own territory and who wants to live there. We should like to have more evidence of that. The hon. member and the Government fail to tell us what their constitutional plans are as far as the urban Blacks are concerned. Already millions of Blacks are living in the urban areas and they are streaming to the White cities in their thousands because of conditions which are unacceptable to them in the homelands or where they are living at present. Are they going to condemn the Black man to a life in which he has no political rights in the country in which he lives, or are they going to establish an urban homeland as well? We on this side of the House are waiting for the Government to tell us what its plan is as regards these people, who are South Africans, too.

†I should also like to refer to the hon. member for Durban North, who levelled quite a few accusations against two hon. members of my party concerning the speeches they had made and who told us what should be done in their regard if they were proved to be wrong. He also said that he would support the idea of an inquiry by the hon. the Minister of Law and Order if they were proved to be right.

What is the position of the NRP? What will happen to the NRP? First of all it appears to me that nobody in Natal really cares about this party any more because it seems to be completely unaware of things that are happening in Natal, which they claim to represent. Is the public taking absolutely no notice of the NRP at present? If the two hon. members of our party are proved to be correct, will we be able to accuse that party of total negligence concerning the people of their own province? I want to leave that party at that.

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

No, unfortunately I am restricted to only ten minutes.

I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister of Finance is here. I should like a little of his attention, because it was he who was concerned during the budget debate about my argument in respect of what exactly the Government was doing in respect of the quality of life of the people of South Africa. He disagreed with me, as it was his right to do. However, he employed an argument which constituted an attack on me. It is now routine for the NP to become personal. He launched a personal attack on me. I do not think it behoves the hon. the Minister to do that. It is not his style.

I quoted the figures.

You attacked me personally.

Look at my speech.

I did. The hon. the Minister can read his speech again. He attacked me personally, but it did not behove him to do so. I will certainly not reply in the same way.

He responded in a way which has now become a tradition with the NP and to which I should like to refer as the “yes, but …” syndrome. The speech of the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs today was an example of the “yes, but …” syndrome. The more positive our arguments and the more definite the evidence proving the failure of the policies of the NP Government, the more we hear “yes, but …”. Figures show, for example, that there is alarming evidence of malnutrition in South Africa, but immediately the answer is “yes, but …” Among certain groups of our population in certain areas there is an incidence of infant mortality which is not acceptable, but all we hear is “yes, but …”. There is always an argument which reflects the “yes, but…” syndrome.

This “yes, but …” syndrome is an example of the Government’s failure to come to terms with our problems. The “yes, but ….” syndrome will solve none of our problems. I should like to give the hon. the Minister an example. If I have a patient and I have to tell him that his wife is suffering from an incurable disease, it is not going to help him at all if I tell him that he should not really worry and then say, “Yes, but another patient of mine and his wife suffer from an incurable disease”. It is of no help to him if his wife still suffers from an incurable disease.

I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that the future of this country of ours, South Africa, will be decided not on the basis of what is happening in other countries but on the basis of what we do in South Africa. I think the hon. the Minister will concede that. Therefore, to “yes, but …” is not going to help us. The number of people starving in Mozambique will not add one meal or one calorie to the diets of our malnourished. The number of infants dying in Chad will not bring to life one infant who has died as a result of the measles epidemic in Port Elizabeth. He must just realize that.

We speak about the developed and the developing or undeveloped nations in the world, and we compare these two groups. In South Africa, when we speak about the people who are developed, we speak about the Whites, and when we speak about underdeveloped or developing people, we are speaking about the Blacks. Comparisons are made. There is no doubt about it. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Finance who is the holder of the purse-strings and all hon. members of that side of the House as well as all hon. members of Opposition parties should make a special effort to improve the quality of life of our underprivileged people. No new constitution, no military might, no religion, will help us or save this country if we fail to do this. We have to improve the quality of education, basic health services, housing and sanitation, to mention only a few. I still believe that the Government is failing in this important task and I think that the hon. the Minister has a very important role to play in respect of these priorities.

I am very pleased to see that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation is present in the House because I want to develop this argument of mine in order to prove to him that what I am saying is true. I will be very grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister will listen to my arguments and then tell me whether I am right or wrong.

There is no doubt that from an early age the ambition of many a young girl is to become a nurse. There is no doubt about it. This is one of the most noble of professions requiring the utmost dedication. Once a girl has the necessary educational qualifications, she can apply to the training hospital of her choice to be trained as a nurse. In South Africa, this is what every White girl can do as well as Coloureds and Asians and a number of Blacks. However, some Blacks are not permitted to do this. A Black girl with the necessary educational qualifications cannot be trained to become a nurse in the Western Cape. She has to apply to be trained elsewhere and, quite possibly, because she lives in a different area, she will have to be away for about five years before she can come back to her home. She has to leave her home and her loved ones for three years and six months for general training. She has then to follow a one year course in midwifery and the nearest training institution to her is in Port Elizabeth or East London or even Transvaal. Some four years and six months to six years later, if she specializes, she can come back to the Cape but she is not allowed to work in a hospital here to serve her own people. She can work in day hospitals and a few other institutions or in an old aged home. That is where most of them end up. A qualified Black nurse is not allowed to nurse her own people when she returns to the Western Cape. This is Government policy. The hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare has told us repeatedly that the policy of the Government is that Whites should nurse Whites, Coloureds should nurse Coloureds and Blacks should nurse Blacks. These nurses cannot practise their profession legally because it is against the policy of the Government for them to do so in the Western Cape. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether that is fair and whether that shows quality of life. I believe that this is one of the reasons why so many accusations are made about the policy of that Government.

May I please ask a question?

I am sorry, I have no more time.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to react at any length to what the hon. member for Parktown said. The hon. member spoke of incurable diseases. I think that hon. member and his party have an incurable deficiency of love for their country. Their actions are clear evidence of this. He spoke about the health record in Africa. The hon. member knows very well that we have an excellent record, in comparison with that in African countries, when it comes to the problems he mentioned. [Interjections.] This evening I came to the conclusion that the hon. member for Sea Point was a much better and much less dangerous Leader of the Opposition than the present hon. leader of that party. Under its present leadership that party is doing great damage to this country that we all love. This is due to the present hon. leader’s lack of leadership. The fact that he associates with certain leftist elements within that party is evidence of that lack of leadership, and it bodes ill for those of us in this country. [Interjections.] I know very well when there is trouble in the PFP, because when there is trouble they send in the hon. member for Bryanston; he is the lightning-conductor. He is like a little plover; if one approaches the nest or the eggs, he makes a noise and tries to chase one away. He is their lightning-conductor, their little plover. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Meyerton, on the other hand, is the little wagtail of the CP. If he starts jumping up and down, one knows there is trouble in their ranks.

Hon. members now want to imply that we in the NP are having difficulties with unity in our party. I do not know where they get that story from, because since those hon. deserters have left the NP, there is great unity in the party. I do not believe there is any lack of unity in the Cabinet, nor amongst the 126 members on this side of the House. The hon. members opposite say their numbers are going to increase, but their numbers are not going to be augmented from this side of the House. I challenge them to show me one hon. member on this side who, after their scandalous conduct in the House, will cross over to their side. I challenge them to show me one hon. member on this side who will cross over to join their ranks.

Hon. members on this side are patriots. For South Africa’s sake they stand firm. Amongst us there is stronger unity than ever before. We stand for South Africa.

I now want to say a few things about the referendum. Hon. members say we are acting contrary to the will of the people. On the same question of people and/or peoples in South Africa having a joint say, the NP achieved its greatest ever victory in 1977. In 1981 the NP achieved another victory. At the NP’s federal congress there was overwhelming support for the idea of people having a joint say. In the referendum we are going to achieve a resounding victory; of that I am sure. Hon. members opposite are living in a dream-world if they say they are going to win in the referendum. That will simply not come to pass. Those hon. members are going to have a rude awakening when they fall out of bed. [Interjections.]

In the course of this session the hon. member of the CP have proved to us that they are the fellow-travellers, the allies of the PFP. In conjunction with those people they want to do harm to South Africa. They say they speak for the Afrikaner. The elderly member for North Rand says they speak for the Afrikaner. That is a lie; it is not the truth. On this side there are 126 hon. members, of whom 120 are Afrikaans-speaking on the CP side there are only 16 hon. members. We speak for the Afrikaners.

This morning I took the trouble to consult the minutes to find out how many times this session a vote has been taken in the House. There were 63 divisions. What strikes me is that those hon. members, who say they speak for the Afrikaner, voted with the Progs on 24 occasions. [Interjections.] What I find strange, in their proud record, is that since 10 May—in other words from the by-elections up to the present day—they voted with the Progs in 13 out of 15 divisions. In the two remaining divisions they did not vote. They consequently did not vote with the NP on a single occasion. That is what the so-called champions of the Afrikaner do. They do not vote with us; they vote with the enemies of this party. For them the NP is enemy number one.

There sit the separatists and the AWB people. To those people who are so protective towards the AWB, let me just say that the Russians or the communists finance any party or body that inclines towards the left or the right. I think that the AWB’s conduct qualifies them for assistance from the Russians in the destabilization of this continent. South Africa is shocked by those peoples’ conduct. In South Africa we are experiencing problems with terrorism and with attacks on the police. [Interjections.]

My time is very limited and I therefore want to go further. The most scandalous conduct I have witnessed here took place under the leadership of the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition. The PFP is a dangerous party. During the debate on the Defence Vote we saw them singling out the S.A. Defence as the scapegoat in South Africa. Yesterday evening the hon. member for Durban Central spoke about the “scandalous” conduct of the police. Now the scapegoat is no longer just the Defence Force, but also the police. The police are now the enemies and not the people who maintain law and order. They say the police must be taken off the scene. They ask why the police are there. The police are there to maintain law and order and to protect those hon. members. They are there to protect the hon. member for Durban Central. If the disturbances were to spread to Durban Central, that hon. member would be shouting just as loudly as the hon. member for Houghton. For those hon. members to succeed in their objectives, it is necessary for them to bring the Defence Force and the police under suspicion. It is scandalous and not in the interests of our country.

Mr. Speaker, the type of argument we have just heard from the hon. member for Vryheid is the sort of argument we are getting used to in this House. To try to link the CP with the PFP because of the voting pattern over the last month or two is completely ridiculous. Quite often I think I prefer debating with the CP because at least they do make an attempt now and again to debate the issues before us.

Something we have become used to in the House from the Government side is the use of catchwords. Whenever they do not want to debate an issue, they think up a catchword. We often hear, for example, the catchword “boycotters”. I think my colleague the hon. member for Sandton dealt with very well with that today … [Interjections.] … and if that hon. member is too stupid to understand what the hon. member spoke about today, perhaps he can get someone with a lot of patience to go through the Hansard and to explain it to him.

We also hear other catchwords. For instance, we hear that we are “unpatriotic”. It is a completely different issue to be patriotic to South Africa and to be patriotic to the NP. Criticism of the National Party is not being unpatriotic to South Africa.

There are another two catchwords with which I would like to deal in a little more detail tonight. The one is that the PFP are “left-wingers” or “ver-linkse radikale”, fellow-travellers of Marxism. It is also said that we have an unrealistic policy. I will come back to this later.

Let us first look at Marxism and what it really is. I think it is generally accepted that if you are a left-winger, you follow a policy which embraces elements of socialism or elements of Marxism. Now what are the actual accepted elements of Marxism? First of all there is State ownership of the means of production. I do not have the time tonight to go into detail on that, but this party has continually asked the Government to divest itself of ownership of the means of production. On that score we therefore are not leftwingers.

Secondly, there is a centrally planned economy. The hon. member for Houghton has covered this tonight, when she dealt with deconcentration and decentralization benefits that are being offered. I do not think people are aware of the amount of money that has already been spent for these ideological purposes. The Government cannot convince us that there are as many deconcentration, decentralization and growth points as the Government maintains. There are some 150 of them at the moment in South Africa. This leads to inefficiency in production which, again, is a sign of a centrally planned economy, a Marxist type of State. On that issue we are certainly not to the left of the Government.

The final issue, and perhaps one of the most important of the lot, is the large bureaucratic sector. There are very few people who can disagree in this country in respect of the size of our bureaucracy. With the new constitution that is going to be introduced we are probably going to have three or four departments developing where in fact we have one at present. There is every likelihood that our bureaucracy is going to increase dramatically. Again, this is a sign of a centrally planned economy and again a sign of a socialist or Marxist type of State. So I am forced to conclude that on that issue also we are certainly not to the left of the Government.

This brings me to one conclusion only. The only reason why we are labelled left-wing or Marxist is because we are not racists. That is the only reason. It is because we recognize the fact that each and every person in this country has a claim to full citizenship rights. That is the only reason why we are labelled left-wingers, Marxists, etc. There is not one other reason for putting that label onto us. It is a label that the Government uses to evade the real debate.

This brings me to my next point, namely the question of an unrealistic policy. This ties in with the question of citizenship rights for everybody in the country. I ask hon. members: How can one ever hope to sell a policy to any other population group unless one acknowledges that they have full and equal citizenship rights? They simply will not buy it.

What do you mean by that?

The same rights that you have and anybody else enjoys; no special privileges and no special rights, but exactly the same rights. [Interjections.] Try to sell that to the Black man. Those hon. members know exactly what he will tell them to do. Try to sell it to the Coloured man and he will tell them what to do with it. Try to sell it to an Indian and he will tell them what to do with it as well. As far as being unrealistic is concerned, the argument completely escapes me. The hon. member’s policy involves some different type of citizenship for other people. We are completely realistic. It is a concept we can sell and we know we can sell it. It is not a concept that we have drawn up on our own. Flowing directly from that concept there are of course a number of other issues. For example, there are the other elements of our policy, namely federalism, a minority veto, the testing power of the courts and a bill of rights. Not one of those elements infringes the rights of any person or any individual. Which one of those infringes that hon. member’s rights or those on any individual? In fact, those elements of our policy guarantee, ensure and safeguard the rights of the individual.

Nonsense! Look at what happened in Zimbabwe.

That is a completely ridiculous argument and the hon. member knows it.

Before I finish off and in the minute or two left to me tonight I should like to respond very briefly to something the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries said in relation to sport. For him to blame us for the situation in which South African sportsmen find themselves is completely bizarre, as my hon. colleague says here. The position in which they find themselves is entirely the fault of the Government. The Government set the whole affair in motion with affairs such as the D’Oliveira affair or the Japanese jockey affair. It had absolutely nothing to do with us. The position our sportsmen are in is entirely the Government’s fault. [Interjections.]