Mr Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to take part in this discussion of the hon the State President’s Vote, which, if history takes the course which it would appear set to do at present, will be the last Vote with which he will deal in Parliament.

I wish to associate myself with the good wishes and the gratitude expressed by the hon member Dr De Beer with regard to the degree of recovery and the health of the hon the State President. I am very pleased about that and grateful for it, and I hope things will go well with him in the future.

I, too, wish to pay tribute to him in my own way. I have only known him for as long as I have been serving in Parliament. I was in the first year of my parliamentary service when the hon the State President was elected Prime Minister. The voting process took place in such a way that I also had an opportunity to cast my vote in his favour. In that sense, I also feel co-responsible for the hon the State President’s term of office.

At an early stage in his term as Head of Government of this country, it already became clear to me that, as I read him, he had two very great needs. The first was a need to build a nation, including a need to bring people together. This crystallised in his speeches at Upington, Springbok and other places. They were pronouncements regarding the Christian love by which we should allow ourselves to be led. At that time I became filled with a great deal of hope, learnt a great deal and gained a sense of direction. Those pronouncements themselves influenced my life to a very great extent. I want to tell him this, and I say it with gratitude.

The second need which he very clearly had, was a need to be in control of the situation. He wanted to build a nation—in terms of his statements he still wishes to do so—but I cannot help gaining the impression that he wants to do it his way.

In order to understand the hon the State President’s term of office, it is necessary to understand the key words “inclusion” and “control”. I want to say to his credit that he was always frank and honest about what he wanted to achieve. I never had any doubt about his intentions. He tackled everything he did with conviction and honesty.

The need for inclusion brought us reform. The proactive nature of reform found its manifestation in the tricameral Parliament, but that manifestation also gave rise to bureaucracy. This gave rise to duplication. It actually gave rise to a proliferation of duplication in respect of representation, infrastructure and services.

What I understood to be his need to be in control, found expression in the development and extension of the State Security Council. I know that in his opening address at the beginning of this debate the hon the State President raised an objection, actually, he issued a warning, that one should not project the incorrect impression to the outside world, but security has developed into what may today be called “securocracy”. I was faced with a dilemma in that regard, because by looking at it, one could see that this body which was meant to be a monitor, had to a large extent become the decision-maker or fellow decision-maker of the hon the State President. Inclusion and control, reform and security, bureaucracy and securocracy, or however one wishes to look at it, always have an effect on one another.

When I left the NP, I mentioned that aside from my objections to the ideology of the group, I had problems with the inability which I discerned on the part of the Government to adequately coordinate reform and security, to actually integrate them and to employ them in the coordinated pursuit of a single broader national or State objective and policy. Security always went hand-in-hand with reform, so to speak, and was never specifically geared to building reform. Reform and security began to have an effect on one another, and they are still doing so. The more security is managed in isolation from the reform objectives, the less it is specifically directed at the reform objective, the more security comes under pressure. The more action is taken in terms of security, the greater the frustration becomes and the more reform is required.

The result has to a large extent been an absence of security in politics, accompanied by the actions of a physical misuse of the system— ironically, still due to the conviction that this would be in the general interest.

This became clear from the suspension of basic human rights, from the delegation of parliamentary authority to legislation by way of regulation, and specifically from the elimination of the courts insofar as the limiting of State authority and the protection of the individual against the possible misuse of State power are concerned.

To the very end these two needs, namely the need for inclusion and the need to be in control, have influenced the career of the hon the State President. It is ironic that in the same way as these two needs which could not be integrated, plunged the country into a state of emergency, the hon the State President’s own career was plunged into a crisis, which has since been resolved.

His need for the inclusion of others in order by so doing to achieve a greater integration of the whole, led him to make an offer. He requested his caucus to elect a new leader-in-chief on the basis of the separation of the two offices of leader-in-chief and State President.

The caucus reacted. They elected a new leaderin-chief in compliance with this request, but then rejected the basis with the statement that they wished to integrate the two posts.

They want everything!

The dilemma lies in the way in which the need for inclusion has emerged from the need for control, without the offer being made on the basis of consultation, but in my view we cannot call the actions of his own party anything other than foul play.

What do you know about clean?

A day after the new hon leader-in-chief was elected, I issued a warning that the leadership would end up in a crisis if a definition of the relationship between the two offices was not given quickly. This is what happened. It is difficult to determine what the significance of what the hon the State President has done, will be in the longer term. I wish to state categorically that I am convinced that he did everything with the best will in the world and with good intentions.

The continuing state of emergency really just serves to confirm my view that the crisis continues to exist. I think that in the future course of history it will be possible to judge the hon the State President positively. We shall have to wait and see how we progress into the future.

However, the hon the State President’s need for inclusion has become a source of hope to me and to many other people in the country. Even my break with the NP could not really detract from the personal loyalty which I still have for the hon the State President to this day. I should like to reaffirm that on this occasion.

I shall play my part in history by attempting to make a contribution in future towards ensuring that matters do, in fact, develop in such a way that history will judge these past 10 years positively.

It is clear that his programme has not been finalised. I think the announcement that negotiations are to take place in Cape Town today between a delegation led by Mr Dhlomo and the hon the Minister of Justice with regard to the release of Mr Nelson Mandela, is further evidence of this. I wish to thank the hon the State President for this initiative, and I hope that it will turn out successfully. This could be a further key to unlock the future for which we are all searching, even if we do often search in different ways.

It is also true that this debate actually deals with accountability and the direction of the Government itself, and that is really why the new hon leader-in-chief of the NP is present at this debate, even if he is not to give account at this stage.

†The new chief leader of the NP has been built into the reformer that he is not. It is largely of his own making. The good-news-hungry world, here and abroad, made use of his, what I would term, forked-tongue rhetoric to create an image of him that he is not. The hon member Dr De Beer called for the true F W de Klerk to stand up. I do not believe that he is what he is being presented as. Obviously we are entering a campaign period. We are moving towards elections, and it would suit him to be presented thus. As a matter of fact, I do not think there is another way in which he can really counter the inevitable advance of the DP than by perpetuating to an extent this image, but it is dangerous.

He said again last night … [Interjections.] Hon members will find out exactly what I am saying if they will give me the opportunity. Last night he said again that we were on the eve of a period of renewal and reform, but he did not give us any details. There is no indication of any direction or any measures that are to come. I do not believe that he can really do it. I do not believe he can shed his ideology of group. Expectations are being created that he cannot satisfy. Having said earlier this year that he is not ideologically obsessed with group, he continues to say in other words that it is simply a reality of our society. He is confirming his ideology. There is a grave danger for the future of South Africa if expectations are created which cannot be fulfilled.

*To identify the Population Registration Act, the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act as stumbling-blocks, creates the expectation that they are to be repealed. It is not only the words that bring hope, but it is also the expectation flowing from the words which really gives rise to this hope.

He must feel tremendously uncomfortable. It is almost as if he is being dressed in a suit of clothes in which he feels ill at ease and which do not fit him. Some people who know him, know that they do not fit him, namely hon members of the CP and our party. It is time he made his measurements known to his tailor. It is not in his interests for this to continue. He is being pushed towards a Rubicon which he cannot cross and with regard to which we all run the risk of drowning. He must tell us whether he is going to remove this legislation or whether he is going to play with other mechanisms in order to deal with this.

It is no good fighting with the CP about Boksburg whilst maintaining, on the Statute Book, legislation which makes us the Boksburg of the international community. It is no good granting permits to people to live in residential areas which are zoned for people of another colour if this has the result that the international community will only tolerate us by permit and on certain conditions. It is no use persisting with racial classification if the world is going to classify us for a type of treatment in terms of which we are singled out and treated differently from the rest. Fellow South Africans are receiving the same treatment from us as we are receiving from the rest of the world.

Ironically, the growth of the DP will be indirectly proportional to the Government’s ability to place the future of the country more closely within our reach. In that sense we are in a Catch-22 situation, but we do not mind if the Government takes us forward. We are prepared to make some sacrifices if, by so doing, we are able to reach the future. We see no sign of this. [Interjections.] That is why we are today experiencing a wave of support for the DP. We are going to enter this election and win even more seats than I had expected. [Interjections.] For this reason I wish to declare to the whole world that we are going to obtain far more support and win many more seats than even I had expected. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, apart from the few words of praise which the hon member for Randburg addressed to the hon the State President, I find little in his speech with which I can agree. I found it interesting how much attention the hon member devoted to the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP. It is clear that that hon member and his party are filled with a chilling dread of the image which already exists of the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP among the public. That is why he paid so much attention to him. The hon member for Randburg is the last one who can talk about leaders of the NP, being in a situation in which he is a one-third leader of a party which has only just come into being, and a party which in any event is simply a reincarnation of the old PFP. [Interjections.] I shall come back to that later in my speech, however.

It is now nearly ten years since the hon the State President, who was then Prime Minister, made a speech at Upington in the North-Western Cape on 28 June 1979. He pointed out at that time that we were living in a fast-changing world. He emphasised that the policy of the country had to be adjusted regularly in order to adapt to changing circumstances. We can see the truth of what he said, all around us today. We are living in a totally different South Africa to the one of ten years ago. For example, those who listened to his speech at Upington at that time could never have dreamt that a Parliament like this one would be conducting joint debates here today, inter alia with regard to Black political participation in the central Government. No one can deny that everything has changed dramatically. Neither could anyone deny that that change was inspired by one person, namely the hon the State President.

He advised us of this change that day in Upington. He said:

In so doing he made a commitment to the country and all its people— the highest commitment one can make—to devote his life to the interests of his fellow-man. What is more, he has honoured that commitment. Why was the hon the State President in a position to do what his predecessors—including those who were in power before 1948—were unable to do, namely to alter the course of the country and place it on the road to a new future? In my opinion there is a fundamental reason for this. He had the capacity to grasp the reality of our country, to define it in clear terms and to make use of it in the sphere of statesmanship. He was the man who afforded recognition and acceptance to the existence of multi-ethnicity, and of minorities in the country. He pointed out to us that the White man was not the only minority in the country. All the other population groups are also minorities in their own right. He said that those minorities had to be protected, but he added that the various population communities were economically interdependent and that this had to be acknowledged. Through the recognition of interdependent minorities which had to be protected, a new era of constitutional development came into being. By so doing, the hon the State President placed us on a course on which there is no turning back. All the CP’s efforts in this regard, their speeches, their plans with regard to homelands, heartlands and “volkstate”, and what have you, are just so many exercises in futility. Nothing will come of them. Even if the impossible were to happen and the CP were to win an election, they would not be able to implement their plans. If they were, in fact, to attempt to implement them, they would fail miserably. Boksburg is proof of the hon the State President’s correct insight into the economic interdependence of the various communities of our country. The economic interwovenness of the people of our country is an insurmountable obstacle in the path of the implementation of the CP’s plans.

The CP is the overt manifestation of unrealistic leadership, which stands in sharp contrast to the realism and the practical insight of the hon the State President. The approach of the DP also attests to a lack of realism. They do not acknowledge the existence of minorities, which are entitled to protection of their political rights. I simply cannot understand how people who live in this country, who have the capacity to observe their environment, people who have eyes to see, can believe that this multiracial country, this country with so many racial groups, could become non-racial and at the same time be democratic and peaceful. I wish to make the categoric statement this morning that a dispensation which at this stage leaves the existing groups completely out of account politically speaking, cannot be regarded as justified, much less democratic. Let us look at whether what I am saying, is true. Suppose the DP were to come to power and begin to implement their policy. Surely the existing groups would not disappear, as with the waving of a magic wand. The White group, least of all, would disappear. Surely it is entirely unrealistic to believe that. What would then become of such a group? It is true that its group values, such as its language, its culture and its religion would be protected, but it would not have political group rights. It would have voting rights, yes. Those voting rights would be equal to those of all South Africans, yes, but owing to the heterogeneity of the population, their voting rights would be worthless, because such a group which is not recognised as a minority whose political rights must be protected, would permanently remain an unprotected minority which would be excluded from effective decisionmaking. Their voting rights would be equal, but of unequal value, and that is not democracy. You see, the mistake that is made, is to attempt to make certain constitutional principles which serve democracy in a homogeneous society, applicable to a heterogeneous situation. That will not work. Once again we are dealing here with unrealistic leadership, which stands in sharp contrast to the hon the State President’s approach.

With regard to the economy, too, the application of the DP’s school of thought would be catastrophic. One of their advisers, Prof Sampie Terreblanche of Stellenbosch, has acknowledged this. In an article in Business Day of 10 March this year, he conceded that the implementation of Democratic Party policy in South Africa would in all probability kill the goose that lays the golden egg, namely the taxpayer, who is already bearing such a heavy burden. Although such a thing would be foolish from the point of view of the promotion of entrepreneurship and from other points of view, the professor nevertheless apparently believes that this is what should happen.

We are dealing here with a case in which the demands of reality must give way to exaggerated moralism and blind ideological prejudice. Apparently the DP, like Prof Terreblanche, are aware of the consequences of their policy. They, too, know that the White voters would summarily reject them if this were to become generally known. For this reason their newspaper advertisements are at this early stage adhering to the tactics of the old Independent Movement— the voters are being pacified with generalisations.

However, we, too, have learnt our lessons. We shall repeatedly spell out in clear terms that the DP’s policy would result in unbridled Black majority rule, with all the consequences of this, for us all. [Interjections.]

The hon the State President is the father of what is known in our country today as reform. In the process he has often been the victim of unfair misrepresentations and distortions. I wish to mention an example. When this tricameral Parliament was still in its formative stage, and during its implementation, it was made clear that this was a point of departure in a process of reform. It was never suggested that it was an end in itself. The impression was never created that the political process represented the end of the road for Black political rights.

It was made clear throughout that Coloured people had no political rights at that stage, and that our Indian community had none to speak of, and that something had to be done about this. It was our express standpoint that this had to be done quickly so that attention could be paid to the more extensive and more difficult challenge of the further political accommodation of South African Blacks.

However, those opponents of the hon the State President in whose ranks the hon member for Randburg is now sitting, repeatedly stated that Blacks were being excluded by the Government and the NP from further political development at the central level. Through that flagrant untruth a disservice was done not only to the hon the State President, but to the country as a whole. We have paid a high price for this by way of unrest, bloodshed and international action against us. The political development process in our country would also have progressed far further today had it not been for this.

Fortunately, the hon the State President and the Government did not allow themselves to be deterred by this.

Today we are still striving towards a negotiated, democratic political dispensation which is acceptable to all and within which everyone— including Blacks—will have a say in decisionmaking from the local level up to the national level. We are striving towards a system in which minority groups will share power in respect of national matters, but will have maximum control over those matters which intimately affect their own groups. This is a reconciliatory approach, which at the same time is also a commitment to negotiation for a new, just South Africa.

This has been made possible by the insight and judgment which the hon the State President had already begun to display in the previous decade when he correctly evaluated the South African situation. When the history of this era is written, the hon the State President will stand out as that leader who was willing and able to irrevocably alter outmoded thoughts once and for all, in the interests of all South Africans. This morning I associate myself in advance with those future generations who will honour him for this.

Mr Speaker, the hon the State President sketched the important and relevant events leading up to the situation regarding the independence of South West Africa/Namibia. The leadership of Swapo has by its actions in the past week justified the suspicions of the hon the State President and South Africa regarding its intentions to disrupt what could have been a peaceful election leading to the independence of South West Africa/Namibia.

The loss of life and limb, the hurt and the injury to those who suffered as a result of Swapo’s actions, rest squarely on the conscience of Swapo’s leadership.

The standpoint of the hon the State President and the South African Government is amply justified when today the powers of the world have seen Swapo’s intentions to be disruptive rather than constructive and move towards a peaceful South West Africa/Namibia.

This brings me to the issue of the justification and demonstration of good faith by South Africa in allowing the people of South West Africa/Namibia to make their own decisions, rather than have what we had in Zimbabwe as the Lancaster House Settlement. Therefore I join those who have paid tribute to the hon the State President, the hon the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and of Defence and the team who negotiated the implementation of Resolution 435 of the United Nations.

Having said that, I would like to return to the South African scene and admit to hon members in this House that I have always, together with my colleagues and elders in the Indian community, taken advantage of every opportunity presented by the decision-makers of this land to participate in exercises which would eventually lead to a South Africa situation acceptable to all of its population groups.

When the provisions in the Group Areas Act concerning local government were formulated, Verulam was the first local authority in the Republic of South Africa to reverse what was the intention of the Group Areas Act to meet the situation of the majority of people of that town. It was also the first local authority, an entire municipal area, that was given into the hands of the Indian community. Our exercise of power in that municipality showed the Natal Municipal Association, our White contemporaries in local authority, that given the opportunity we would rise to the occasion and prove ourselves to be equal in relation to government.

I wish now to relate to the hon members in this House my participation in the South African Indian Council, which was purely an advisory body to the then Minister of Indian Affairs. Our participation in the South African Indian Council also proved a point to the powers that be—that that was an inadequate forum in which to express ourselves and to get the desired results for our community. Therefore, when the opportunity arose for members of colour to participate in the late Prime Minister Vorster’s Inter-Cabinet Committee, the members of the Executive Committee of the South African Indian Council and selected members of the Coloured community and Cabinet Ministers participated on a face-to-face basis.

Perhaps it was not a statutory function that was allocated to this Inter-Cabinet Committee, but we certainly got across to the Cabinet Ministers and the Prime Minister at the time the difficulties experienced particularly by people of colour and the Indian community, as well as the relief that was required. Certainly there was a measure of relief extended to us.

The first President’s Council followed in 1981, and our participation in the President’s Council allowed us to come across a broader spectrum of political opinions and persuasions. For me it was a pleasure to participate in the first President’s Council and to be able to put across the difficulties and disadvantages people of colour had to go through in this country to members of the White community.

Then, as a result of our participation and the report of the constitutional committee came the dispensation which we are participating in today. It was indeed due to the wisdom and guidance of the hon the State President that we have had this opportunity in the tricameral system to speak to other hon members eyeball to eyeball and face to face. We can now tell hon members exactly where we think there should be improvement in this country in order to bring evolutionary peace, acceptability and accommodation for people in South Africa of all political persuasions.

The history in South Africa of the retention of discriminatory laws in the South African Constitution and institutionalised discrimination has hurt this country and its people and has dented our image in the world.

I, together with my colleagues of colour, am here to help assist the Government to do whatever is possible to bring ourselves to the level of complete or at least near-complete acceptability in relation to the world situation. Therefore we have grasped the opportunity with our presence here to bring to the hon the State President’s attention that we need more to be done in South Africa for all its people.

I believe that the tricameral system has served its probationary period. Incoming MPs and Ministers must now apply their minds to the abandonment of the tricameral system. It should be replaced by a unicameral Parliament with representation for all our people.

I am reminded of the wisdom of the chairman of the SAIC when he presented evidence to the Schlebusch Commission that before one brings the Coloured and Indian communities into the system, accord should be sought with the largest population group of South Africa, viz the Black people. Therefore, when we speak here of humanity and of human desires we have not been delegated by and do not have the authority to speak for the Black people. However, we speak from a humanitarian point of view as to what we believe to be in the best interests of the people of South Africa, of our beloved country.

I want to be the first to concede that there have been improvements and there has been relief and achievement under the hon the State President.

It would have been unheard of ten years ago that people of colour would be ambassadors for South Africa to the outside world—that in other parts of the world people of colour would be manning the embassies and doing their best under the disadvantages of the lack of understanding for the South African situation.

I have said before—and I want to repeat it at the risk of repetition—that South Africa needs a great indaba, a great get-together of people of all political persuasions to find a dispensation for South Africa acceptable to all of us.

I realise the hon the State President has lost his support to the right because of his forward mobility to find answers for South Africa. I say with respect to those who have distanced themselves from the common good of South Africa that they are going to be in a world of folly. They are going to distance themselves from the world which is going to be our biggest ally in all respects. I do not want to see—as a South African— the day that we are going to remain the polecats of the world. Therefore let us by our God-given wisdom apply our minds, efforts and endeavours for a South Africa that is going to be said by the people of South Africa to be our South Africa and that we belong to South Africa. We will defend ourselves to the maximum and the last for what we believe to be true and the best for South Africa.

Are you doing national service?

I would like the hon member to know that I speak from the bottom of my heart.

Are you doing national service?

I feel for you White people— particularly you people who are going in the wrong direction.

They must please reconcile themselves to the South African situation. They must not believe themselves to be the only population group with the right to enjoy privileges. [Interjections.] They must not.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must please keep in mind that there is a difference between interjections and a repeated shouting of the same subject.

†The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a demonstration of the fact that the truth hurts those people who do not want to face the reality of the situation in South Africa. These kind of utterances, incidents in Boksburg, Carletonville and Brakpan and the implementation of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act make it so very difficult for the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Cabinet of this country to face the outside world. Therefore, for the sake of good sense I plead that it is time that South Africans found one another. In the words of Omar Khayyam: “The moving finger, having writ, moves on.” Let us write a new chapter in the history of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I only have eight minutes at my disposal and I am consequently not going to react unnecessarily to the speech of the previous speaker.

This debate has developed into a farewell debate; with the theme being an uninterrupted tribute to and evaluation of the hon the State President’s term of office during the past year. In order to contribute to the evaluation of his term of office too, I should like to add a few points regarding which the hon the State President will, in my opinion, also be remembered.

When the hon the State President accepted one undivided South Africa, with one citizenship, as far as I was concerned he took away the moral foundation on which the NP’s policy has rested in the past. The criticism which the world had always levelled against South Africa regarding a small White minority which was dominating a non-White majority, suddenly became true. Everybody became South African citizens in one country, but the Defence Force, Police and political power are in the hands of a small minority group of White South African citizens.

In the past Dr Verwoerd could tell the outside world that it was the NP’s policy to give everybody in South African their own country and citizenship, so that everybody would have the franchise in their own government bodies. Whether or not one agreed with that, the moral fairness of that could not easily be attacked. Nowadays the best one can do when one is abroad, is to say that we are moving towards a franchise for everybody, as well as a possible Black majority rule, and a possible Black State President—as the hon member for Westdene said. Just give us time is the only argument one can advance. [Interjections.]

As far as I am concerned the effect of this is that at the moment we have struggling young people in this country who, in their search for a morally just solution to South Africa’s problems, are competing to go and talk to the ANC or to join the AWB.

In the second place, as far as I am concerned, the Afrikaners are divided. They have literally been torn asunder. The gatherings at Donkerhoek and the Voortrekker Monument symbolised this. I attended the Transvaal Congress where it was defiantly said that those who did not agree should get out. It is ironic that it was the hon the State President’s teacher Dr Malan who said: Bring together those who belong together on the basis of their inmost convictions! [Interjections.]

I am afraid that the differences which exist today are fundamental differences of principle regarding power-sharing and self-determination. Unity will only be achieved if power-sharing as a solution for South Africa finally fails, and the self-determination of peoples again comes to the fore as is happening in the world at present.

After the Second World War in reaction to Nazism there was a move away from nationalism towards the more international and a search for the communal. South Africa, with Dr Malan’s 1948 policy, was moving in exactly the opposite direction. What is ironic is that precisely the opposite is happening today. Not an evening goes by when we do not hear on the news about an ethnic struggle for self-determination somewhere in the world.

In Israel it concerns a homeland for the Palestinians, in India the Sikhs are fighting for self-determination and a homeland in the Punjab, in Russia there are ethnic riots because different groups are demanding rights. The Serbians are fighting and threatening to bring Yugoslavia to a state of collapse. This is also the case with the Basques in Spain and the Tamils in Sri Lanka. In Africa most wars and clashes have an underlying ethnic foundation. In this day and age the NP has come along and is leading South Africa in the opposite direction towards power-sharing and joint government. It was this which gave rise to friction and a counter-reaction in Lebanon, Cyprus, India and the rest of the world.

During the Easter recess I read up on Gen Hertzog and Dr Verwoerd and their problems. The basic problems they were wrestling with and with which the hon the State President wrestled during his term of office, have not changed. It remains the problem of different peoples and different groups of people living in one country and seeking political rights. If one wants to govern democratically in such a country, numbers must play a role and there is no protection for the minorities. This was what Hertzog, Verwoerd and the hon the State President wrestled with.

The total number of people has increased, but the ratios have not changed. The hon the State President came out of that school. He opposed Gen Smuts. He said Dr Malan was his teacher, and he served in Dr Verwoerd’s cabinet. The Citizen of 31 July 1980 reported the hon the State President’s speech, made in the Aula at Tukkies in 1980, as follows:

Today he is adopting Gen Smuts’s approach and he has stood the a policy of Hertzog, Malan and Verwoerd on its head. What new facts and insights has he gained which they did not have?

I am not referring to short-term solutions, when he appoints one Black MEC and establishes a tricameral Parliament with White domination, calls it power-sharing and thinks he can solve the problems in this way. Mr Ian Smith and Mr Mudge tried to do the same thing in Zimbabwe and South West Africa, respectively. The question is what his long-term vision was when he deviated from the established thinking of previous leaders, without the problem having really changed.

I am aware that politics can be hard and, in his case, cruel. Mr Harold MacMillan said that he did not know of a political leader whose career had not ended in tears. I am still checking this against historical facts. I am also aware that history sometimes repeats itself. Our people say that the mill grinds slowly but it grinds exceeding small.

I submit that the hon the State President will also be remembered for the way in which he achieved this position and the way in which he lost it, as well as for the fact that there were astonishing similarities. However, the hon the State President knows the rules of the game, because he said of Dr Connie Mulder in the NP caucus that he did not kick a man who was down, but that that man should not try to get up. I do not know whether the new hon leader-in-chief of the NP shares that philosophy. I did notice that the hon the State President thanked the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning for the way in which he had deputised as State President, but that as far as I know, he has not yet publicly congratulated the hon leader-in-chief of the NP on his election.

The hon the State President and I can both wish the information debacle had never happened, but I want to predict that as long as there are still uncertainties and so many unanswered questions, the matter will not be laid to rest. The historians, who will hopefully be more objective than we are, will not be able to put the events in 1978 regarding his election and what followed on this in perspective either, while so many questions remain unanswered.

I also want to take this opportunity, which may be the last, to make my own position clear. When I was elected to this House the hon the State President congratulated me on a friendly note, and I appreciated that. I have discovered that many hon members assume that the only motive which brought me to this Parliament and made me a member of the CP, was bitterness in connection with the Information debacle.

The Bible says in Romans 12 verse 19 that one must not avenge oneself, but must leave this to God. I submit that revenge can never be a permanent incentive and motivation. If it is one’s only incentive in life, it will eventually destroy one. Over against that there is idealism and an ideal, which is a stronger motivation than revenge can ever be. Hon members can go back in history to see to what heights the pursuit of an ideal has led and motivated people.

I am in this Parliament because I would like to believe that I, like other hon members, am pursuing such an ideal; an ideal for my people and for the other peoples and groups in South Africa, which I believe I can only achieve through the CP. That is why I belong to the CP. [Interjections.]

Having said this, I want to say that this does not mean that I cannot carry on doing everything in my power to ensure that the Information debacle will eventually be seen in the right perspective in history. I want to tell the hon the State President that the matter will only be laid to rest when clear, final answers are given. He, and Mr Justice Erasmus, are the people who can give these answers.

In an interview he objected to the fact that commissions have now become inquisitions. At the moment we have six of them. Was the Erasmus Commission not pre-eminently an example of a commission which abandoned all legal rules and became such an inquisition? He must take care that some of these commissions do not go the same way.

I should like to quote from an interview which was held with Mr Justice Erasmus on 9 March 1979. At that stage several people’s careers had already been destroyed, and they were made to look like criminals in the eyes of the population. He said:

That was on 9 March, three months after the start of the commission. At that stage two reports of the commission had already been published regarding which important decisions had been taken.

I want to ask the hon the State President whether he still stands by his findings that one Minister tackled a project like The Citizen on his own, spent millions of rands and neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Finance nor the Minister of Defence, who would have seen the forms, knew about it. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the hon the Minister of Defence and all the officials concerned, including Dr Neil Barnard, who during the past two weeks have been extensively involved in events in the north of South West Africa, I should like to thank the hon the State President and all other hon members who complimented us and expressed their appreciation. I want to thank them for their appreciation, because the fact of the matter is that when South Africa is unified in the action it takes in regard to foreign relations, this naturally strengthens our negotiating position. That is why it is really encouraging for my department and for the Defence Force to have such a large degree of unanimity on this question throughout our fatherland. That is as it should be, too, because the people fighting in the SADF are of White, Coloured, Black, Asian and Indian descent.

Listen, Koos!

That is how we should view South Africa’s defence. That is also how we should view matters when we negotiate and conclude agreements with others. We really do need that unanimity. The hon the State President mentioned a few important events during his 40-year-long involvement with South West Africa. I can assure hon members that the two examples he gave were extremely critical events, but there is a great deal more that he is too modest to mention himself. Some time or other history will, in fact, tell the story.

“I have now finished with South West Africa. I have had enough.” He then told the Minister of Defence, the present hon State President, and I: “You can carry on with them if you wish. I am finished.” Those were his words. In a single sentence that gives hon members an idea of the degree of frustration this long, difficult and complex issue elicited from a former Prime Minister.

I should therefore like to make an appeal—to the CP as well. One cannot speak lightly about this complex problem which dates back to 1915 when South African troops took South West Africa from the Germans. One cannot argue about South West Africa if one does not accept certain basic points of departure, ie that it is not, and never was, part of South Africa. One therefore cannot conduct South African political debates—least of all here in Parliament—about South West Africa. I now want to caution the CP. One is increasingly going to find the parties of South West Africa hauling them over the coals and telling them: “Please keep your nose out of our affairs.” I want to give them that advice here today. The South African Government, all Prime Ministers and subsequently the hon the State President—there were CP members who were members of the NP at the time—surely made it clear that we could not elect a government for South West Africa. It was a foregone conclusion that before South West Africa became independent, its constitution would have to stand the test of a majority vote in the territory on the basis of one man, one vote. Those are the basic facts. Not the CP, nor I—in fact no one—can change that. I again want to make that point very clear.

I welcome the noticeable change, in tone and substance, in the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, compared with that of the hon member for Soutpansberg. I also welcome the fact that he is beginning to see that he should give support to important elements of the SA Government’s actions. I am not being snide about that.

I just want to ask the hon member for Soutpansberg, however, when he again speaks about Pearl Harbour, please to do us a favour and do a bit of checking up on his facts and his knowledge of history before making such a dramatised comparison. Let me sum up the basic facts for him in one sentence. In the case of Pearl Harbour the military hardware or elements were sunk at sea. In the case of South West Africa the military hardware was deployed and did its job. That is the simple fact of the matter. How he can see any similarity in that is something he must explain to us.

At the request of the hon the State President I want to give the House the latest update on South West Africa. At the moment it is estimated that since the night of 31 March approximately 1 600 Swapo members illegally crossed the Angolan border into Owambo. Of that number, 276 were killed in skirmishes and 22 captured. According to confirmed reports that reached me this morning, approximately 350 Swapo members, who have since headed back to Angola, were tracked.

I want to state very clearly that we are dealing with approximate figures. One does not make a detailed count, except in the case of those who have been killed or captured. That is why we speak about approximate figures. Consequently it is estimated—I repeat estimated—that there are approximately 900 left, whilst more than 600 have been killed or captured or have returned.

Caches are still being discovered by the security forces, including rucksacks, uniforms, etc, which have been buried. There are still events that one needs to keep an eye on. There has been a report, for example, that on 7 April 1989, a week ago, a Swapo convoy was en route from Mongua in Angola to Ongiva. According to the report— let me again sound a cautionary note and say that as yet there has not yet been full confirmation of the source— the convoy consisted of the following: 25 Star vehicles, ie heavy 10-ton Russian vehicles, all of which—except those carrying loads—transported Swapo elements. Six vehicles were towing 130 mm guns, three towing 152 mm guns and seven towing ZU 23 mm anti-aircraft guns, with nine vehicles carrying unknown loads.

I must point out that this information was obtained two days prior to the Mount Etjo Declaration being released on 9 April 1989. I must mention the report on the convoy, however, because I believe that if the other side hears that we know of their movements, their activities will possibly be inhibited and they will not proceed with any further aggressive plans because they have learnt, by this time, that they will encounter the resistance capabilities of both Swapol and the SA Security Forces. On 12 April the Swapo leader said that the assembly points on which South Africa, Cuba and Angola had agreed were a trap and advised Swapo not to go to the assembly points. I think it is in Swapo’s own interests for the Swapo leadership to start realising that the sooner they ask for direct discussions to be held with the Swapol or SA Defence Force commanders, the sooner they will resolve their difficulties in regard to getting everyone to the north of the 16th parallel. [Interjections.] Why do I say that? The Mount Etjo Declaration contains these very important provisions in paragraph 11 of the Schedule which reads as follows:

This is the process of getting Swapo back into their bases north of the 16th parallel and restoring the situation to what it was on 31 March 1989-

Here a pincer movement has been created from which Swapo cannot escape. The sooner it gives the assurance that Swapo members who illegally crossed the border have returned to bases north of the 16th parallel, the sooner will the South African troops be able to return to their base. They will not return to their base until Swapo has complied with this. This agreement was concluded between South Africa, Cuba and Angola. It is an unswerving agreement and creates a pincer effect for Swapo.

We do not want to be unnecessarily revengeful. The sooner the Swapo leadership realises, however, that it has not succeeded in its basic objective, that it cannot succeed and will not succeed either, the better, and the sooner it realises that, the less loss of life there will be.

What was that basic objective? The basic objective, from the South African Government’s point of view, was very simple. Swapo had to be prevented from establishing military bases in Namibia, thus enabling it to boast of having a military force to be reckoned with, the establishment of the military bases enabling it to intimidate the local population. I think there is a considerable misconception about matters such as the length of the border in the north of South West Africa, about the geographic situation and about the Ovambos.

Even if one placed 100 000 Untag units and 100 000 Defence Force units on the border, there would be no possibility of preventing individuals from crossing the border. In case hon members do not know it, there are Ovambos living north of the border. Those are their uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces. They visit one another. There is no way in which one can prevent that. With all due respect, it would be as impossible as our own security forces in South Africa themselves guaranteeing that no terrorists would cross the borders from Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Swaziland or elsewhere.

I take it the CP will be satisfied with the way in which our South African Police are dealing with the security of this country. In South Africa there are only two policemen per 1 000 members of the population. Do hon members know what South West Africa has, at the insistence of South Africa? They have five policemen per 1 000. That is more than twice the number of policemen that South Africa has. South Africa, this Government, negotiated that after 1978. Those 6 000 policemen, more than twice South Africa’s per capita police force, dealt with the illegal infiltration on 1 April.

What is now important is that when the question of South Africa releasing additional troops to assist Swapol cropped up, it was a burning question that almost brought us into conflict with the world at large and with Mr Ahtisaari. With the approval of Mr Ahtisaari, however, we could succeed in having restrictions on our own security forces lifted and having them released from their bases.

What are the facts? The first small Swapo groups crossed the border on the night of 31 March. By approximately a quarter to eight on 1 April the first tracks were seen. By nine-thirty the first contact had been made. Is that indicative of unpreparedness?

I should like to ask the CP to express some desire to share in the prowess of the security forces. I am inviting the CP to do so. Are they not proud of the fact that the SA Defence Force, by virtue of its opposition and the successes achieved over the past two years, directly allowed me and Foreign Affairs to seize the ball, in diplomatic terms, and eventually negotiate a timetable for Cuban withdrawal?

Do they not want to share, with South Africa, in the victories achieved by our security forces? [Interjections.] Do they not want to join the South African Government in the diplomatic victories we have achieved? Are they not proud of that? [Interjections.]

Can they not give recognition for the fact that when Resolution 435 was to have been implemented, an Administrator General appointed by South Africa was in control of the territory, 6 000 South West African police were primarily responsible for the maintenance of law and order, South African troops had never once been reduced in number, and were only to be reduced six weeks later, that they could be released from their bases within hours to assist the South West African Police Force and that they are still there, with the approval of the world at large, with South Africa being commended for having complied with its international obligations?

Once more the security forces have gained a victory. Once again we have gained a diplomatic victory because the SADF and the Department of Foreign Affairs co-operated and complemented each other, my colleague and I understood each other completely, boarded the aircraft together, jointly participated in the negotiations and because our respective officials and heads of department engaged in joint planning.

It is not only the hon the Minister of Defence and I who did this work. What about our officials? If the CP came to power, would it fire Gen Geldenhuys? Would the CP simply fire Dr Barnard and Mr Neil van Heerden and all the senior officers serving in these three Government institutions? Or would they tell them: “We— the CP and I, Thomas Langley—have a better idea involving Pearl Harbour. Get lost”? [Interjections.]

How idiotic can one be? How ridiculous can the CP become in South Africa? How much longer must South Africa put up with this idiotic display? That is the question I shall be asking in the coming election. That is the answer they will be getting when the history books are written.

Let me conclude. On the night of 31 March this Government knew what we would have to do if Swapo hoodwinked us. I asked the hon the Minister of Defence: “What if we are being hoodwinked?” His reply was: “Then I give you this assurance. I have made provision for the fact that if we were to be hoodwinked, we would promptly stifle all such attempts.”

A sufficient number of policemen were deployed. There were 2 000 policemen on that border. There were patrols. The very day that members of Swapo came across, their tracks were discovered. Within an hour or two contact was made. From that moment onwards Swapo simply took to its heels. On Saturday, when Dr De Cuellar made a weak-kneed attempt to foil our plans at the last moment, we foiled his plans with the meeting we held with Cuba and Angola. From the newspaper headlines and the overall positive publicity throughout the civilised world, one can deduce that South Africa has emerged from the whole affair as a regional power that one can rely on.

In the light of these facts it is becoming increasingly ridiculous to threaten South Africa with sanctions. It is becoming increasingly important to give this regional power a chance, as the hon the State President said yesterday, to play its full economic role.

In conclusion I invite my CP friends to share with us in the victories of our Defence Force. Come and share with us in the achievements of Foreign Affairs. Come and share with us in determining a new future for South Africa which must be based on an understanding of the aspirations of others, but also on appreciation for and pride in one’s own achievements.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition asked me what we were getting up to with Russia. I have one short reply to that. I am serving South Africa’s interests in every discussion I engage in—it does not matter with whom! Let me put it to him very clearly today: We are not naive enough to think that we can escape America’s efforts at imposing sanctions by getting the Russians to buy from us. No, Sir! If the Russians, however, indicate of their own accord that they do not believe in boycotts, must I tell them on behalf of the CP: “No, boycott us! Do not buy my farmers’ maize! Do not buy our oranges and coal!” Is that the conclusion I must draw?

We are well aware of the Russians’ motives, but if the CP has not yet discovered that major shifts are occurring in Russia, they must now start taking note of that fact, because Russia has already withdrawn from Afghanistan and has already played a silent role in helping to draw up a timetable for the Cuban withdrawal. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I have nothing to say about the speech made by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He was busy exhorting the CP to come along with him in his patriotic efforts on behalf of South Africa. The hon leader of the DP in Parliament has made it clear that we back the implementation of Resolution 435 and I leave the subject at that.

Recently I attended a conference in Bermuda entitled “South Africa: From Conflict to Resolution” which was organised by the Aspen Institute in America. I was there together with other South Africans, a few hon members of this House from different parties, as well as other South Africans from outside the parliamentary scene. There were about ten or eleven American congressmen present as well. I am not disclosing any details of that conference, as it was a closed conference, but I think that my colleagues who were with me will agree that one thing was made absolutely clear to us, namely that the question of sanctions by America against South Africa is a fait accompli. There is no longer any discussion on it. The existing sanctions will stay, unless considerable changes take place within this country.

The issue now, however, is whether those existing sanctions are going to be extended, and the Dellums Bill is of course the instrument whereby that would be done. It was passed by the last Congress, not by the Senate but by the House of Representatives, and has not yet been presented again to the new administration, but will very likely be. That will of course mean total disinvestment from South Africa by all the remaining American companies, of which there are about 138 left in this country.

The Bill will have enormous economic repercussions, because it will also mean that no American individual or company will be allowed to own any equity in South Africa at all, and that will mean that hundreds of billions of rands’ worth of shares will be thrown onto the Stock Exchange, to our great disadvantage in South Africa.

Because of that I was sorry to read a report in The Star of 12 December 1988 which stated that the hon the State President had met two senior Democratic Senators, Senator Boren, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Senator Nunn, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services. They reported on that meeting as follows:

That is South Africa—

Unfortunately it is clear that the hon the State President’s behaviour at that interview with Senators Nunn and Boren has made it highly unlikely that these two influential Senators will use their influence to prevent the imposition of the stronger punitive measures which are presently being contemplated by the American Congress. I am sorry that that took place.

It is generally accepted—indeed I think the conjecture has now turned into general acceptance—that the hon the State President will retire gracefully—or as gracefully as his volatile nature allows him to—just before or after the next election which is due later this year. He has therefore a few months before he vacates his elevated position to win a few of what is known in America as Brownie points—that is to say, actions which will earn him some good marks.

I would like to offer him some suggestions as one ageing, veteran parliamentarian to another. Under section 2 of the Public Safety Act the State President is responsible for the declaration of a state of emergency. This the hon the State President did over the entire country in June 1986 and the declaration has, of course, been reinstated annually ever since. That is to say that for 33 months, over 1 000 days, South Africans have languished under ferocious emergency regulations which have, inter alia, resulted in the detention without trial of thousands of people and the resultant strong condemnation of the entire Western world which accepts due process as the basis of their judicial systems.

The official figures of those who have been held for more than 30 days during the 1 000 days are roughly 20 000. Unofficial figures, of course, are much more that that; they are double that number, and indeed some estimates are as high as 50 000 people, including many children under the age of 18, who at some stage or another have been locked up without trial. As we know, thankfully, the number of people presently detained under the emergency regulations has been reduced to a couple of hundred and there are very few children included in that number. However, heavy restrictions have been placed on those who have been released so that they really lead what I have called in the past a twilight existence, unable even to earn a living.

The number of people who were released was a result of the widespread hunger strikes by detainees. I believe we can thank our lucky stars, if we have any lucky stars left, that there have, so far anyway, been no deaths in detention of detainees on hunger strikes. Believe me, Sir, that would ensure not only overwhelming support for the Dellums Bill in America but the extension of the presently fairly mild sanctions imposed on South Africa, by the EEC.

I want to say it would be an excellent farewell gesture from the hon the State President if during the short remaining life of this Parliament and of his Presidency he used his powers under the Public Safety Act to terminate immediately the state of emergency; to lift censorship of the media so that the public’s right to know what is going on in South Africa can be satisfied; to release the remaining couple of hundred detainees; to unban all those non-violent civic associations that have been prohibited from pursuing their political objectives; and to release people from the crippling restrictions which have been imposed on them after their release from detention.

I would like to ask the hon the State President if he would not like to go down in history as the man who gave his freedom to Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu and to their fellow prisoners. I want to tell him that this, above all, is what he would be remembered for both here in South Africa and throughout the world. In other words, I am urging the hon the State President to use his remaining period of office to return South Africa to some semblance of a democratic state instead of the securocratic banana Republic that it has, alas, become. [Interjections.]

I am prepared to say at once, because I do always try to give credit where it is due, that there have been changes which have been more than cosmetic during the past ten years during the hon the State President’s term of office. There have been changes— the removal or repeal of the pass laws, the repeal of that disgusting section 16 of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the recognition of Black trade unions, the acceptance at long last of the permanent urbanisation of Black people and changes thereafter in the housing policy. Most of those changes, by the way, came as a result of economic pressures and not because of a change of heart of the hon the State President. However, the foundation-stones of apartheid remain, such as the Race Classification Act, the Land Acts that prevent Blacks from buying land outside of the Black homelands or the restricted townships in the urban areas and, of course, the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act.

If the hon the State President could restore normal democratic practices, like habeas corpus and free association, if he announced the Government’s intention to proceed with all deliberate speed to dismantle apartheid and to seek common ground across the political spectrum, across racial boundaries, for a negotiated settlement in this troubled land of ours, I believe that would have a most dramatic effect in defusing unrest inside South Africa, in instilling hope inside South Africa, and in returning South Africa to her rightful and respected place among the polity of nations in the Western world.

Leaving aside the effects on the personal reputation of the hon the State President, I believe that all such actions are a prerequisite to restoring our ailing economy to health and to reaching the required state of growth that will provide the employment opportunities needed for the 400 000 odd new work-seekers who come onto the labour market each year. One does not need a crystal ball to envisage the future of South Africa if we are subjected to the ongoing deprivation of foreign investment capital, if we continue to be denied access to overseas markets by our exporters and if we are prohibited from importing the advanced technology we need to ensure our competitive ability in the world markets. Under such circumstances the future of South Africa is bleak indeed. We will be reduced to taking in each other’s washing as the only means of survival.

I believe it lies within the hon the State President’s power to go out on a high note, to be remembered as the man who put South Africa back on the road to acceptance by civilised countries. In this way he will have answered the query in Alice in Wonderland, which is“How doth the little crocodile improve his shining tail and pour the waters of the Nile on every golden scale?”.

Mr Speaker, I gladly associate myself with all the well-wishers and the sentiments expressed to the hon the State President.

Allow me to express my deepest sympathy to the families of the three young men who died so tragically this week in an accident. They were members of the South African Cape Corps.

Nowadays everybody is talking about reform but in my mind it is of paramount importance that those things which were taken away from us must be returned before we can talk about any reform.

Apartheid started in Jan van Riebeeck’s time in his relationship with the Khoi-Khoi.

Before 1948 apartheid was to a great extent an unwritten custom. After 1948 apartheid was implemented singlemindedly, consistently and ruthlessly and was enforced with the aid of legislation by the governments of Malan, Strijdom, and Verwoerd.

The greatest political struggle took place over the removal of Coloured voters from the common voters’ roll. It lasted from 1951 to 1956. In March 1951 the Separate Representation of Voters Bill was introduced in Parliament and passed in the usual way. It became Act No 46 of 1951. The then United Party took the case to court and the Cape Supreme Court found the Act valid in October 1951. In March 1952 the Appellate Division found the Act invalid because it had not been passed by a two thirds majority as a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament.

The Government refused to accept the Appeal Court’s decision and passed the High Court of Parliament Bill in April 1952. In August 1952 the High Court of Parliament met in Pretoria and declared the Separate Representation of Voters Act valid. A few days later the Supreme Court declared the High Court of Parliament Act invalid.

The Government appealed but in November 1952 the Appeal Court also found the High Court of Parliament Act invalid. In July 1953 Dr Malan introduced a new Bill to a joint sitting of the Assembly and the Senate. With dissension in the United Party, he hoped to obtain a two-thirds majority for the new Bill. However, he failed in September 1953 and again in May 1954.

In May 1955, Mr Strijdom introduced his new plan to remove the Coloureds from the common voters’ roll. He increased the number of appeal judges from five to eleven. He increased the number of Senate members from 48 to 89 in such a way that the Government had 77 senators to the Opposition’s 12. With the enlarged Senate the Government obtained a two-thirds majority at a joint sitting for the South Africa Act Amendment Act, Act No 9 of 1956, in February 1956. The Separate Representation of Voters Act was validated and the non-White franchise was no longer entrenched.

Some months later, the Separate Representation of Voters Amendment Act, Act No 30 of 1956, was passed. In May 1956 the Senate Act and the South Africa Act Amendment Act were challenged in court. The Cape Division found that the Acts were valid. In November 1956 the Appeal Court also held that the Acts were valid by a majority of 10 to 1.

While talking about apartheid laws, I briefly want to refer to the history of these laws. I would like to point out three different kinds of apartheid, namely social apartheid, residential apartheid and cultural apartheid. In 1949 the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act came into being. Fortunately, it has been removed. There was also the Immorality Act. In 1950 there was the Population Registration Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act followed.

Residential apartheid is characterised by the Group Areas Act, the Blacks Resettlement Act which came into being in 1954, and the Blacks (Urban Areas) Amendment Act in 1955.

Cultural apartheid is characterised by Acts like the Black Education Act and the Extension of University Education Act.

It is my firm belief that we have never before in the history of South Africa been so close to the middle of the road. I make an honest appeal to all the powers that be that with this new middle-of-the road concept by which we can accommodate all the aspirations of the people to the left, as well as the people to the right, we will go forward as one united nation and one strong South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I am not going to elaborate on the speech made by the hon member for Macassar. I merely want to say that I think there are today more hon members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament of South Africa than there ever would have been under the system of a common voters’ roll.

†Allow me a very short remark to the address of the hon member for Houghton. By referring to her own country as a banana republic she made me doubt her capability as a good ambassador for South Africa. [Interjections.]

*I have here the constitutional guidelines of the ANC. This is an extension of the Freedom Charter, which must serve as a basis for discussions in South Africa. These constitutional guidelines of the ANC are on the table against the background of an international climate that has turned its back on violence as a means of achieving political change. Even as far as the Russians are concerned, we have it in writing that they now apparently no longer advocate violence as a means of achieving political change, but favour negotiation. Naturally the question that arises is whether or not one should negotiate with the ANC.

When the National Council Bill—at that stage it was known as the National Council—was debated in Parliament, it was the standpoint of the NP, under the leadership of the hon the State President, that everyone was welcome to take his place at the negotiating table, provided he denounced violence as a means to bring about political change. That was the standpoint of the NP then, and it is still its standpoint today.

In other words, this is the precondition for participation in the negotiations. Obviously the ANC also has conditions for participation in the negotiations, and there are three of them. Firstly the ban on the ANC must be lifted, secondly Nelson Mandela must be released and thirdly the state of emergency must be lifted.

However, the reason there is a ban on the ANC is precisely because the ANC has chosen violence as a option. Nelson Mandela is in prison specifically because he propagated violence as a means of bringing about political change. There is a state of emergency in South Africa precisely because the ANC did not renounce violence as a means of bringing about political change. In other words, the ball is very clearly in the ANC’s court.

It is interesting that in the midst of an international climate that has turned its back on violence, there has not yet been any significant reaction from the ANC itself. In fact, at the end of 1985 there was a change of policy in respect of violence in the ANC.

This policy was that it would no longer only be hard targets that would be attacked, but also soft targets. In an ANC publication, Newsbriefing No 41 of 13 October 1985, the following directive was given:

For this reason, and as a result of this shift in strategy, the American State Department, in line with the Pentagon, was also obliged to list the ANC as a terrorist organisation. Until now the only reaction to come from the ANC was an appeal by Oliver Tambo in Moscow for Russia to give further support to the armed struggle.

In other words, until the ANC visibly dissociates itself from violence as a means of achieving political change, it is not welcome at the negotiating table.

What about Swapo?

What is very important is that the Government, under the guidance of the NP, should work out a strategy for when the ANC renounces violence and moves closer to the negotiating table. That delicate situation will have to be dealt with, and the Government will have to be prepared for this in advance.

We must bear one thing in mind. The ANC is not going to come to the negotiating table because the Soviet Union asks it to do so. The ANC is not going to come to the negotiating table because world opinion is opposed to violence. The ANC is going to come to the negotiating table as a direct result of effective steps taken against it under the guidance of this Government over a period of years. [Interjections.]

The ANC has previously been described as the most unsuccessful liberation organisation in the world. Thanks to initiatives taken by this Government, the ANC is today restricted to two bases in Angola, more than 1 000 kilometres away from its revolutionary targets, and thanks to agreements that have now been entered into, the ANC will also have to move out of Angola to Tanzania. No revolutionary organisation can operate successfully over this distance. In other words, one should expect that as a direct result of effective security measures taken against it, the ANC will now move towards the second option, and that is to enter into negotiations.

In these guidelines of the ANC there are a few traps one should be aware of in advance if the ANC were to choose the second option. One should remember that the ANC is not a unified organisation. The ANC basically consists of three groups. It consists of the old guard, or the Rivonia Group, which includes Mr Mandela. Then there is also the radical group, namely the Soweto Group dating back to about 1976. There are also the Marxists. Before one can enter into meaningful discussions with them, one must know who the authors are of the various constitutional provisions.

There is something that bothers me. I am not going to tax hon members with the content of these guidelines, but I think one should take note of them in good time. What bothers me is that when we use the concept of democracy and when Marxists and possibly also the ANC use this concept, we are not referring to the same thing.

It is exactly the same!

Sir, it is not the same. In the Marxist idiom democracy is not an inclusive concept, but an exclusive one. Democracy in the context of Marxism means participation in the running of the country by the revolutionary parties. And here we have constitutional guidelines from (h) to (m). I want to reiterate that I do not have time to quote them all, but I do want to quote provision (1) to hon members:

I quote further:

But what does provision (j) state? Everyone will be tolerated, but in terms of provision (j), and I quote:

The question is now: What does the propagation of ethnic or regional exclusiveness mean? According to this definition Inkatha can be banned in terms of the ANC’s concept of democracy. According to this, anyone who strongly advocates the own affairs concept, as Parliament is constituted at present, could be banned under the ANC’s concept of democracy. In other words, when the ANC advocates the second option, we must be aware, in good time, of what they mean by certain terms, and I think we have an obligation to prepare a strategy beforehand in order to deal with this option.

Mr Speaker, what is significant today, as was pointed out to me by my senior colleagues, is that in the past, when the hon the State President’s Vote was being discussed, all the Ministers would come together in this Chamber to listen to the debate. There is nobody here today, and one gets the impression that they are actually scornful of the hon the State President. [Interjections.]

When the hon the State President was recovering, he appeared unexpectedly one evening on television, after there had been undercurrents in his caucus. In that television interview he said that there would not be an election before delimitation had taken place, and that as South Africa could not afford it at the moment, an election would take place at a later stage. I got the impression that the hon the State President was adopting the “I would rather die fighting than live in shame” attitude. But what happened a few weeks later when the hon the State President stood in this very Chamber, with a dagger at his back, and announced that an election was in the offing?

There is one more thing I want to say to the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP. He said we were afraid to put forward our views in this Chamber. I want to put it to him quite clearly that the CP—no matter where it stands—will put its case as it sees fit, irrespective of who is present.

The hon the leader-in-chief also said here that when the election comes, we should clearly spell out our policy. I want to tell him this. The CP will, as in the past, put its case. However, the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP must now tell us whether he is going to abolish the Group Areas Act and other legislation which he called hurtful legislation, and he must also tell this to the people. He must not beat about the bush. During his participation in this week’s debate he was asked whether he intended standing in Vereeniging. His answer was that if he stood, it would be in Vereeniging. He must not say “if”; he must say “yes” or “no”. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the boycott in Carletonville. In the past a great deal has been said about the Carletonville boycott. However, who organised the boycott in Carletonville? Let me refer here to the Weekly Mail of 2 March 1989, and to save time I shall quote only the following names: Cosatu, a restricted organisation, the National Union of Mine Workers, Church organisations, the Transvaal Indian Congress, and later the Unemployed Workers’ Union. [Interjections.] That is right the Unemployed Workers’ Union. The trade union should look to the interests of the unemployed, but it does not do so; it encourages boycotts.

Who supports the boycotts in Carletonville? [Interjections.] The Nationalists and the Nasionale Pers. [Interjections.] They are the ones who support these boycotts. [Interjections.] What led to these boycotts?

You people!

The CP quite simply implemented those Acts of the NP which the NP were too afraid to implement. Why do they implement them in the towns where they are in power, and why are there no boycotts in those towns? This is something that was started by the NP, and they hope to benefit from it. I want to state quite clearly today that businesses in Carletonville which are dependent on Black trade will immediately have to move to Khutsong and carry on their activities there. [Interjections.]

That would only be fair, and the Blacks would not have to travel that distance to Carletonville to do business there. I want to make this point very clear today. If the CP allowed itself to be blackmailed, as the NP does, where would we draw the line? If the CP allowed the signs to be taken down in Carletonville, there would be increasing demands made, and if we did not give in to those demands, they would boycott again. We would therefore have to give in until we no longer existed. The CP will not tolerate this.

A great deal has also been said about assaults in Carletonville. From May 1988 to October 1988 there were 85 assaults of Whites by Whites. During the following three months there were 82 assaults. That was prior to the election, when the CP grabbed a few Nationalists by the throat and told them to come to their senses. During the same period there were 35 assaults of nonWhites by Whites. This figure decreased to 30. Where are these assaults they are talking about?

I should now like to dwell on what the hon member for Germiston District said. At a meeting in Pretoria he said that 170 questionnaires were handed out, and that the information obtained was processed. Figures were mentioned of how many people had lost money and how many were unemployed. In the Carletonville Herald of 24 March it was stated that about one third of the 170 questionnaires—he says 170— were processed and analysed. The Herald also stated that a total of 25 people had already lost their jobs and that a further 60 could possibly lose their jobs. If this is the view of the hon caretaker-MP for Carletonville, I feel sorry for those Nationalists.

Furthermore he says that the mine-workers vote and do not pay tax. I want to tell him unequivocally that if the mine-workers in Carletonville, who constitute the main purchasing-power in the town, were to withdraw from the pro-NP businesses, those business would shut down immediately—it would take no time at all. Furthermore I want to tell that hon member that he should concern himself with his own constituency. He should tell his people what is going on in Windmill Park and elsewhere. He should leave Carletonville alone. I also want to tell the poor hon member that I hope he is not going to leave politics as he did the Defence Force, or for the same reasons.

Next I want to tell the hon member for Edenvale that she should get her facts straight. In her speech on 11 April the hon member said that Mr Derby-Lewis had contacted the chairman of the management committee in Carletonville. The chairman then said: “I do not want to speak to that Englishman.” I want to tell the hon member that she should get some pick-me-up tablets. I believe there is a new one on the market, Salusa 47. She should drink them so that she can get into the swing of things. [Interjections.] I want to state clearly today …

Order! I do not know what the hon member is implying here, but I think he should rather leave that subject well alone. It is not a suitable topic for discussion in Parliament. Whatever it is about, the hon member must drop the subject.

Mr Speaker, I want to state very clearly that Carletonville had already made these decisions before any other CP town council had made any decisions. The chairman of the management committee, Mr Koos Nel, does not allow himself to be dictated to by others. He does what he wants to. Signs have now been put up in three more parks after petitions were received from the voters.

I want to put it very clearly: It is the voters of Carletonville who decide, and who, when the general election is announced, will again decide whether they want a CP-MP or a Nationalist who will again make their town as Black as it was before.

I want to conclude by saying the following. We— the CP—will use the general election which is at hand to hound these Nationalists until their tongues are hanging out. Some of them will return, but more than half of them will no longer be here, because they do not tell the voters of South Africa the truth. They distort the truth in South Africa and do not tell tell the voters what course they are adopting for South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I am glad to see that the hon the State President is back with us and physically in good health. I am surprised that he has not taken any notes at all. If he intends to reply to the debate, then he must be relying on a phenomenal photographic memory.

A few weeks ago Archbishop Desmond Tutu was speaking about South Africa in Zaire, right in the heart of Africa. What he said was largely predictable and most of us could agree with much of what he said, although we oppose his stand on sanctions. What was unexpected, however, was the warm praise which Dr Tutu heaped upon the hon the State President. Here was a bitter opponent of apartheid acting in a Christian spirit, holding out a twig for reconciliation, even if not quite yet an olive branch. Sadly, in contrast to previous denunciations of the famous critic by the hon the State President, there was no presidential reciprocity of this gesture.

Two years ago I expressed the hope that the hon the State President would do the logical thing to further the reform processes which he had had the courage to initiate.

A place in history awaited him, I suggested, as the man who would take the opportunity to lead South Africa from the debilitating miasma of apartheid into a prospect for peace and prosperity. History beckoned, but sadly the opportunity was spurned. Intra-tribal interests supervened over national interests.

The slight setback of 1987 caused such haemorrhage to the governing party that reform ground to a halt. The courage found at Witbank ebbed away. The process of adaptation was halted and it almost seemed that the nation was to be left to tear itself to pieces and die. Adapt, we were told, or die, and adaptation stopped.

An old man, a true South African patriot, continues to be held immorally in detention. Excuses pour forth, but the injustice continues. The precondition imposed upon a man who for nearly a quarter of a century could not possibly have advocated violence, contrasted directly and dramatically with the indecent haste with which the Nazi-supporting protagonist of political violence, Robey Leibbrandt, was released by a government of the party in which the hon the State President was even then an important figure.

The killers of Steve Biko were permitted to go free, even after overwhelming evidence was adduced of the crime of culpable homicide, simply because they were not prosecuted. Indeed, since the gross and inhuman negligence by the policemen and the doctors involved resulted in Biko’s death and since they must be held to have intended the probable consequences of their act of omission and of commission, they were in fact and indeed the murderers of a decent, young human being. Was any promise extracted from these killers that they would not repeat their offences?

Then one must consider the four killers in South West Africa who received presidential protection. By his action in this connection the hon the State President actually confirmed the guilt of the killers. Yes, this is so, for unless the hon the State President was passing a vote of no confidence in the impartiality and the competency of the Supreme Court of South West Africa, he would not have done what he did. After all, it is unthinkable that the court would convict or the Appellate Division confirm the conviction, if appealed, of persons who are innocent.

Even at this stage the hon the State President has an opportunity to let justice run its proper course. If he does not do that it will be the hon the State President himself who promotes anarchy in our country, because when law fails, anarchy will prevail. The families and friends of the victims could well be provoked, if they lose faith in the courts of justice, to be driven to seek satisfaction by other means. Surely the hon the State President and his Cabinet ignore at great peril to the nation the old adage that without law and due legal process there can never truly be order.

The spirit of reform received its rudest jolt when the Government pushed the Group Areas Amendment Bill through the House of Assembly. Naturally, they were in turn startled by the bitter hostility bordering on naked hatred which this unleashed in this very Chamber. The Bill was withdrawn and perhaps it did serve some purpose if it made the hon the State President and his colleagues realize that apartheid has indeed fallen on evil days.

Apartheid today rests on four horrid pillars, namely the Land Acts, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, the Group Areas Act and the racial factor in the Population Registration Act. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, the hon member for Waterberg, is of course absolutely right when he declares that his friends in Boksburg and elsewhere are merely carrying out the policies of the NP which put these statutes into operation. These four statutes present serious obstacles to the reconciliation which we all seek in South Africa. This has been admitted by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon the leader of the NP in Parliament.

These obstacles, however, not only prevent reconciliation, but also tie behind his back the hands of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who tries very valiantly to bring South Africa back into the circuit of civilisation.

Worse still, they constitute insuperable obstacles to the success of the “Groot Indaba” which both the present and the future hon State President propound, and that indaba will not even get off the ground until Mr Mandela has been released. History still beckons to the present hon State President, Mr P W Botha. He still has time, as the hon member for Houghton has pointed out, before he lays down the burdens of his office to lead this country once again onto the path of genuine reform. He still has time to initiate the essential steps which would promote true reconciliation and introduce harmony into our country.

This country is a great country. It has tremendous potential. It does not have to continue to be riven. But as long as the policy of apartheid remains, as long as the attitude of supererogation remains … I do not accept pious platitudes that racial discrimination must go as long as the Group Areas Act remains, and I shall tell hon members why, Sir.

I am a South African. At the present time I am obliged to live 23 km from my place of work in Cape Town. I am not so youthful or energetic that 46 km of travelling every day is something to be sneezed at. If I wish to go and live closer to my place of work in Cape Town, it will not be possible, because of the existence of the Group Areas Act. Because the Group Areas Act is an Act of naked racial discrimination, for as long as that Act remains, there will be racial discrimination.

For as long as the Land Acts remains there will be racial discrimination.

What is racial discrimination? When one distinguishes between people purely on the grounds of race, that is racial discrimination. Until that is removed and until the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act by which the councillors of Boksburg are able to practise disgusting racial discrimination is removed there will not be the opportunity for real reconciliation. Again I invite the hon the State President, if he is interested, which he does not seem to be, to take the steps now which can save the country and to lead this great nation of ours on the path of peace and prosperity.

Mr Chairman, during the course of my address I will touch on some of the issues that were raised by the hon member for Reservoir Hills, but I will not be following on him directly.

*However, I want to react directly to a few things which the hon member for Carletonville had to say. The hon member for Carletonville let a very important cat out of the bag here this morning. After they had begun to experience trouble with regard to the business world as a result of boycott actions, and the people there began to suffer, they said please, we did not tell the Black people that we did not want them to buy here; we merely do not want them in certain places which were accessible to them previously. That hon member said this morning that those businesses which were dependent on the Black buyingpower, that thing that the hon member Mr Clive Derby-Lewis says is just a myth, must take their things and move. They must move to a Black area because the CP is not interested in having them in Carletonville. I hope the people of Carletonville will take note of the fact that the hon member for Carletonville wants businesses which rely on the Black buying-power, to leave.

Those people must forfeit that convenience and advantage of those shops. He once again mentioned a further matter here, namely a very small bikini behind which the CP is trying to hide their shame. He said that the CP was merely enforcing NP laws. It is therefore merely the NP’s policy which they are enforcing and which we are too afraid to enforce. There is a gross misconception surrounding the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. [Interjections.] That Act does not prescribe what amenities should be open or closed. That Act is merely a piece of enabling legislation. [Interjections.]

Then repeal it!

Give us a chance. We will come to that. It gives …

What does it enable?

The Act enables a local authority to decide which amenities should be open or closed. It does not state which must be open or which must be closed. [Interjections.] We shall return to the whole question of the devolution of power— the other matter behind which those hon members are hiding. The fact of the matter is that it opens up the local option for local management. Therefore, the Act does not say that something must be closed. It gives authorisation to arrange matters, and if someone then closes places which were once open, he is not enforcing NP policy, but he is reversing a process which is already underway.

I want to make a final remark about the hon member for Carletonville. A man who does not have arguments, sinks to the level of the personal and drags people’s personal situations into the matter, and attempts to be insulting on a personal level. That is a style which we reject with contempt. [Interjections.]

Let us talk about the other question— the question of devolution of power. The CP says that they only use devolution of power to enforce things, but they are misusing devolution of power horribly at local management level and distorting and prostituting it. What are they doing?

There is a central politburo within the CP which prescribes to local authorities how they should arrange matters. After all, they held a conference on 12 November 1988 for their elected town councillors and gave them instructions there. I think everyone should take note of the fact that not Boksburg, Carletonville or any other town council simply acts of its own accord. They act on the strength of an undertaking which candidates had to endorse before the election to the effect that they would implement CP policy; that they would commit themselves to that in all matters. They act in accordance with instructions which they receive from the CP’s central politburo with regard to what must be done.

Was that not an NP law?

What are you insinuating?

Exactly what I am saying—that they prescribe to town councils.

Mr Chairman, I raise the point of order that the hon member who is speaking at the moment, is referring to the CP and saying that we have a politburo. A politburo—I mention it while an hon member here says yes—is unique to a communist party. A communist party is banned in South Africa and I do not think he is allowed to say that.

Order! I have the point of order. What did the hon member for Springs mean when he said that that hon member’s party had a politburo? Was he insinuating that they are a communist party?

Mr Chairman, I am not insinuating that they are a communist party, but that they are centrally controlled like a communist party.

The fact of the matter is that they are prescribing centrally to those town councils—some are moving a little faster and some a little slower. I do not think it was a coincidence that a string of CP-controlled town councils implemented certain measures last week, such as the closing of theatres and civic centres.

What is interesting is that the chairman of the management committee of Bakerton, the Indian residential area in Springs, was invited to a function in the civic centre where it was announced that the civic centre was being closed to him! [Interjections.]

The point is that the CP cannot expect the Government to ignore this and dismiss it as being a purely local affair, if it turns the principle of devolution of power upside down and centrally prescribes to town councils, especially not if the interests of Whites, who suddenly find themselves unemployed, are affected, as well as the interests of South Africa, with regard to disinvestment and sanctions. It is a fact that there are threats in my own town from big, big international companies which say that they will have no choice but to withdraw, if they are subjected to the same conditions that exist in Boksburg.

Repeal the Act!

Those are the facts! The point is that the CP must not complain if we take action in order to prevent them from moving backwards and adversely affecting the interests of White people as well as those of South Africa. Then the Government has a duty.

Mr Chairman, I now want to resume a debate with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly with regard to a different matter. During the no-confidence debate, I asked the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether or not he would take action if substantial information was brought to his attention with regard to irregularities in CP-controlled local authorities. I challenged him. I am quoting from Hansard, column 418, of 10 February this year:

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition reacted by saying that he would pay attention to it. I want to tell him that in the meantime enquiries have been made with regard to this matter, specifically in Pietersburg. We now have information to the effect that the chairman of the management committee took options on erven while they were still residential, and a profit has already effectively been made which has doubled the value of that place.

I no longer have much time at my disposal, but I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that we are awaiting his request that an inquiry should be launched. We have nearly enough information to take the initiative ourselves to launch an official inquiry. Neither would Pietersburg be the only town council that would enjoy our attention if the investigation were to take place.

The issue is not one of whether or not corruption exists, because that is part of the imperfect life we live. What is important, is how one should act if this comes to one’s attention. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, in the eight minutes at my disposal, I will unfortunately not be able to reply in detail to what the previous hon member said. He referred mainly to the speech of the hon member for Carletonville and to my hon leader.

I want to make the statement that the hon member for Springs is sitting here on borrowed time. He will definitely not return to this House, because the results of the town council election in Springs has already indicated this very clearly. During the debate of the Transvaal Provincial Committee in Pretoria, I referred to a matter which was enjoying the attention of the Advocate-General, namely the purchase of radios for civil protection. The Administration of the Transvaal gave me the assurance that all the necessary information from the side of the province would be placed at the disposal of the Advocate-General. I want to make an urgent appeal to the hon the State President to authorise an urgent investigation into similar possible favouring with regard to a radio contract for which the tender closes next Friday. It is a tender of the government of Lebowa, and the contract number is LT 5349. According to my information, the specifications of the contract are stipulated in such a way that only one local firm, namely Philips of Pietersburg, will be able to tender for this contract. This boils down to one-sided favouring. In my opinion, an urgent judicial enquiry into the whole system of tendering provisions for the supply of radios to Government bodies is urgently required.

I would like to touch on a matter which has become an important topic of discussion in my constituency, namely the initial meeting of the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP on Wednesday, 1 March 1989 in Nigel, under the chairmanship of the hon the Deputy Minister of Education and a respected guest, former Minister Hendrik Schoeman. This meeting took place in the town hall of Nigel which, as a result of a previous decision made by an NP town council, is reserved for Whites. It was not the decision of a CP town council, as the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP alleged formerly.

This East Rand Vaal Triangle get-together was a sorry failure with regard to attendance and support. However, what was so tragic, was that Mr Hendrik Schoeman, of weather forecaster and “Spies en Plessie” fame and former Minister of Transport Affairs, when he introduced the hon the leader-in-chief, requested the hon the State President in an unsolicited manner, to leave. This took place at a time when the hon the State President was recovering from a serious illness. It also took place in the presence of the hon the leader-in-chief, and he did not make the slightest attempt to repudiate Mr Schoeman.

I personally would like to apologise to the hon the State President, also on behalf of the community and prominent NP members in Nigel for this crude and unsympathetic attitude of the new hon leader-in-chief and Mr Schoeman who came to Nigel to vent his frustrations. [Interjections.]

The Government accepts that apartheid is outmoded and that the principle of free association in the economy as well as in other areas can, in fact, be applied, but at the same time that segregation in residential areas, schools and racial groups can be maintained.

These are contradictory standpoints. Surely, this cannot work, and one of the two must give way. The principle of free association is forfeited by virtue of the statutory distinction between own and general affairs. For that reason the CP says it is an unreal and unnatural division which cannot be maintained.

Furthermore, the NP says that with regard to the future the Government insists that groups should not dominate one another in a unitary state, and that such a prohibition must be written into any agreement. In other words, that is the recognition of group rights that we are constantly hearing about.

However, the question is, how can group rights be enforced, because Chief Buthelezi and others with whom agreements must be reached with regard to a new Constitution, reject group areas and group demarcation and advocate an approach of one nation with one man, one vote. Surely, it is true that the recognition of the rights and freedoms of the individual, his equality with all other members of the nation and his freedom of association, as the Government proposes, is already being undermined, while the Government wants to protect it.

The question is whether or not the NP is really being honest when it peddles these concepts in the highest forums of our national government. No, the CP is telling them that the integration policy, as it is envisaged by the State, rests on an extremely shaky foundation and as a result of that, it cannot be justly implemented.

Equality, freedom of association, elimination of discrimination or apartheid and the division of wealth and income which the Government has adopted as a slogan, demand that the requirements of credibility be met. We are telling the hon the State President that he must reject the maintenance of group rights and the demarcation of group residential areas and schools, because only then would his policy be honest.

They would then have a system with a justifiable foundation, without misleading anyone, but we also want to tell them that the Afrikaner will have lost and his continued existence will have become a chimera. Equality and apartheid in one State contradict each other and are mere sophistry. That is where the hon the State President stands today with regard to the Afrikaners who, as a people, refuse to sacrifice their identity and character.

The CP cannot help thinking back to the utterance of the hon the State President in Bloemfontein, in which he referred to the greatest onslaught against the Afrikaner in history, and to their lamentable disunity and disruption. He also said that only the leaders of the NP and the CP would be able to make a decisive contribution towards the unity of our people. My question to the hon the State President is, an onslaught by whom?

The basis of our disunity lies in the fact that the vast majority realise that the course which the NP has taken under the leadership of the hon the State President, places the continued existence of the Afrikaner in jeopardy. Are the words of the hon the State President’s mentor, Dr D F Malan, not extremely relevant when he said the following at the Congress in 1948? I will only quote a part of it:

The real situation today, seen in the light of the NP’s course and of what the hon the State President has chosen, is that the heritage of the various peoples in South Africa is being diminished to a mere share. The identity of a people no longer matters. It has become a group—a minority group with even fewer rights in a country, but at the same time with very many more duties.

This simply cannot be. For this reason the words of my hon leader, Dr Treurnicht, are of vital importance to the hon the State President. They must choose between the Afrikaner and what is alien to him. [Interjections.] It is not yet too late. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, just a brief remark in respect of the hon member for Nigel. I think his attempts and those of his party to sow dissension in the ranks of the NP by trying in a dubious way to take up the cudgels for the hon the State President are, to say the least, questionable. We cannot accept this. We will also bear in mind that the hon member for Nigel said that the NP should abandon the policy of group rights and own residential areas.

Before I come to the Vote of the hon the State President, I merely want to say that it is a very great privilege to speak in this debate, and in due course I shall come back to the Vote under discussion.

I want to come back to what the hon member for Lichtenburg said yesterday in this House. I see he is not here. In consequence of what he said I should like to put a few questions to hon members of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. The hon member for Lichtenburg said that the CP’s policy was crystal clear. I am not going to ask questions across the floor of the House, but I am going to make certain statements, and if they are wrong, hon members must say so. There are many rowdy members over there at the back and they can simply tell me if I am wrong.

In the first place the CP is in favour of a “volkstaat”. I assume that is correct.

An Afrikaner state.

Afrikaner state is also in order. Let us stick to the word “volkstaat”. This would seem to be correct. In the second place they will try to negotiate this “volkstaat” where possible. Am I correct? It would seem so. This would seem to be correct, because there is no negative reply. Then, in the third place, we have heard the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly say on several occasions that the unification of all groups to the right of the NP is also their objective. I assume that is also correct.

Proceeding from these correct standpoints I should like to quote what a prominent rightwinger wrote as recently as two years ago, just after the general election. This is a learned person who is quoted approvingly by the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. I am quoting:

According to this quote the lesson to be learned from this is the following:

Then this right-wing friend of the Official Opposition goes on to say:

He says the following, and I think this is the key:

And then comes the proviso—

This was said by none other than Prof Hercules Booysen, a former colleague—I think—of the hon member for Losberg, at present a prominent member of the Oranjewerkers, and to the best of my knowledge he was also in the forefront of the festival of the Afrikaner-Volkswag in December of last year.

Where the 60 000 people were!

Where the 60 000 people were to whom they did not give these facts. I believe that this Prof Booysen is a member of a secret organisation in the CP, but I shall not pursue the matter and this after the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly tried to haul the Government over the coals regarding its purported links with the Soviet Union.

However, I want to go further and say that they also blame the hon the State President for being instrumental in the division and the secession of the present CP from the ranks of the NP, but that is not true. It is not true, because the concept of power-sharing which, according to CP policy, was the actual reason why they left the NP, was in fact already NP policy while those hon members were still members of the NP.

In 1974, according to a newspaper headline of that time, it was said: “Wit en Bruin sal mag deel, sê Vorster”. [Interjections.] I want to go further and say that the CP either accepted power-sharing as a principle out of conviction or they did not have the courage—if they were opposed to it—to reject it. They were therefore lacking either in political insight and judgment in respect of power-sharing or in political integrity.

Then we must also look for another reason for the secession of the CP from the NP. I want to go so far as to say that the dissension was caused by considerations of personal interest and not by disagreement on principles. I want to advance proof of this. If we look at the results of the 1981 election, we see that the HNP got 33% of the votes in the Transvaal and 25% of the votes in the OFS. Let us take a look at the majority of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly in 1977. At that stage it was 4 700, and in 1981 it was 1 400. The HNP was snapping at his heels. [Interjections.]

Let us look at other prominent hon members of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly. [Interjections.] Let us see how matters stand in Barberton. In 1977 the CP majority was 4 600, but in 1981 the HNP had caught up with them and the majority had shrunk to 1 400. [Interjections] Let us look at Lichtenburg. In 1977 the CP majority was 6 600 and in 1981, with an HNP member as an opponent, the majority was 2 800. That was the reason why the CP broke away, not because the hon the State President drove them out. It was feared that this would cast a reflection on the hon the leader of the Official Opposition’s leadership in the Transvaal.

In conclusion, in the time I still have at my disposal, I want to dwell very briefly on the concept of Black urbanisation. The concept Black urbanisation was formulated by means of an ideological foundation in a speech Gen Hertzog made in Pretoria in 1913 in which he said that in order to ensure the survival of the Whites, it had to be ensured that a majority of Blacks did not settle in White South Africa. He qualified that statement by adding that if this were not done South Africa would have no choice but to give Blacks a say in matters of common concern.

I do not have the time to discuss in detail whether we have succeeded in segregating the Blacks effectively, but I shall content myself with saying that it was frequently the Whites themselves— mainly for selfish considerations—who ensured that the policy of Gen Hertzog did not succeed. To prove this I shall quote a single historian, namely E H Brooks, who said:

Through his initiatives and what he has done since he took over the leadership of the Government in 1978, first as Prime Minister and then as State President, the hon the State President has reversed the existing tendency to force an ideology onto reality, by adapting the ideology to the prevailing circumstances. This is what the hon the State President will be remembered for and honoured for in the annals of South African history.

Mr Speaker, I hope the previous speaker will forgive me for not reacting to him.

Before proceeding to the point that I would actually like to raise, I would like to refer to an inconsequential party and a so-called leader. All I can say to the hon the leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives, is that the voters will decide. Unfortunately, he and his whole party are not here again today. However, I will stand in Addo; I am not running away from my constituency. I understand that that hon member is looking for a constituency.

Secondly, I want to challenge them to put their candidates in the field under the name of their party and not to be shy of their name in the Port Elizabeth Management Committee by-election. I think the hon member for Yeoville dealt very adequately with the hon the leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Representatives. I want to tell that hon member that he need not worry; he will not have to put up with him next year. All that one can say about him and his party, in the words of Martin Luther King, is: “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity.”

The hon member for Kempton Park spoke about the whole question of the flag and the need to have symbols of unity. However, listening to her speech about the whole history and the background of the creation of the flag, I can only say that those are the very reasons why that flag is not acceptable to me. That flag symbolises White history. It symbolises White values. To us it is a symbol of rejection. To us it is a reminder of an attempt to strip us of our dignity and humanity. It represents to us the whole system of racism and apartheid, the policies of this Government.

I do not know if I understood the hon member for Kempton Park correctly, but I heard her say that there had not been any protest against the flag in 25 years. At the tender age of 12 years, when I was in standard five, on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Republic in 1971, I organised my first boycott. Maybe that is where it all started.

We stayed out of school the day before Republic Day. We refused to raise the flag. We refused to sing the anthem. To this day the flag is not raised at the majority of our so-called Coloured and African schools. The same applies to Die Stem. Die Stem has beautiful words, probably the most beautiful words of all anthems in this world but I cannot identify with it. I can sing,

*I am prepared to respond to that. I am prepared to go and fight for my country, but I am not prepared to fight for apartheid and for a policy of racism. To me that is impossible.

Die Stem contains the following words:

How can I identify with that? I simply cannot!

In the Wednesday, 12 April, edition of the Evening Post the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was quoted as follows:

There is an election in the offing!

Precisely! The hon member for Overvaal is quite right. [Interjections.] It is not every day that I agree with him. I quote further:

Now I ask: How can I stand up and sing, in all sincerity, “dat die erwe van ons vaad’re vir ons kinders erwe bly”? Those of us who are sitting here on this side of the House have all been dispossessed.

†Are hon members able to understand why I cannot identify with their flag—now and in the future? I have stated this before. To this day I have never stood up for the flag and I have never sung the national anthem. I am not prepared to and I will not.

The hon member is quite correct in the sense that the flag should be a binding factor. I agree with her when she says that it should be a symbol of unity of which we can all be proud, irrespective of our political differences. This is precisely why we need a new flag and a new anthem for a new South Africa.

*However, this would require us to come to an understanding and to decide together on this new flag. To us it must be a symbol of what we are striving for, of our ideals and our positive qualities. It must not remind us of the hurt, oppression and bloodshed of the past. We need it urgently.

I studied in America for four years. I was very jealous of the pride the Americans take in their flag. In every school building, church or court one sees the American flag. Every meeting I attended began with “I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the American …” How I envied them! How I longed to have a flag with which I could identify! However, we must come to an understanding in order to take a joint decision on the flag. It must be a flag with which we can all identify. It must mean something to all of us.

I am pleased that the hon the State President has recovered sufficiently to be present here today. However, I want to set something straight. That Sunday evening when the hon the State President appeared on television, he said that he had never spoken about a 1992 election. For the sake of the record I wish to quote a letter addressed to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives and quoted ad nauseam on television by Freek Robertson on the evening of his resignation from the Cabinet:

1. (a) voorsiening te maak vir ’n afsonderlike maksimum termyn van vyf jaar vir elke Huis;
2. (b) voorsiening te maak vir die beperking van die ampstermyn van die Staatspre-sident tot vyf jaar of soos tans tot met ’n gesamentlike ontbinding van al drie Huise, wat ook al die kortste is; en
3. (c) die gevolglike nodige redaksionele wysigings aan te bring.

This had to do with the postponement of the White election to 1992 so that the Government would have a five-year period in which to carry out its mandate. I want to leave it at that.

†The determination of our future is neither the sole right, the privilege nor the prerogative of the NP alone. This land and the future belong to all of us and together we have to determine that future. It really is possible. I sincerely believe that the majority of South African organisations inside and outside this Parliament, as well as the South African people, support common goals.

The hon member Dr Geldenhuys referred to the ten-point programme of the ANC. I would like to say to him that it is very similar to that of the LP, as well as those of the New Unity Movement and numerous other organisations outside. Briefly these ten points consist of the following. South Africa should be one nation and one South Africa. I think that we can identify with that. We should have universal suffrage granting all people over eighteen the right to vote. A national identity and a common loyalty to South Africa, as well as a Bill of Rights and affirmative action to ensure that the rights of the individual are paramount, are mentioned. This has been stated by the LP as well.

The hon member Dr Geldenhuys referred to the whole question of the ANC renouncing violence. I would like to ask the Government whether they really believe that it is at all practical to request the ANC to first renounce violence before they will talk to them. There has been such a history of distrust between people in this country that I believe that it is essential to meet with each other so that we can talk to each other and reach that point at which we can renounce violence on all sides. A relationship of trust has to be built up. I would like the Government to have another look at that.

The hon member Dr Geldenhuys read what I consider to be rather selectively from the Bill of Rights as contained in the ANC’s ten-point programme and I would now like to quote them:

1. (h) The constitution shall include a Bill of Rights based on the Freedom Charter. Such a Bill of Rights shall guarantee the fundamental human rights of all citizens, irrespective of race, colour, sex or creed, and shall provide appropriate mechanisms for their protection and enforcement.
2. (i) The State and all social institutions shall be under a constitutional duty to eradicate race discrimination in all its forms.
3. (j) The State and all social institutions shall be under a constitutional duty to take active steps to eradicate, speedily, the economic and social inequalities produced by racial discrimination.

The paragraph that the hon member Dr Geldenhuys referred to is paragraph (k) which reads—

I agree with that. I do not think that we should allow the people of the future South Africa to create racially exclusive bodies that can incite people or cause people to hate one another. I do not believe we can allow such things. Dr Geldenhuys is incorrect when he says that this provision would outlaw an organisation such as Inkatha, because Inkatha is neither a racially nor an ethnically exclusive body.

In the fifth point in the ten-point programme, regarding the economy, the ANC talks about a public, a private, a co-operative and a family sector. We in the LP talk about free-market economies with social responsibility.

In terms of land it is said that there needs to be a land reform programme.

*It is an irrefutable fact that 87% of the land in this country belongs to a minority of people. We shall have to look into that.

†In view of the Development Trust and Land Act and the Group Areas Act we are going to have to look at a land reform programme.

There is also the whole question of the workers, who have a right to protection. We go on in this ten-point programme to read of a minimum wage, civilised working conditions, etc. Point no 8 says that women shall have equal rights, both in public and in private. Point no 9 says that the family, parenthood and children’s rights shall be protected. On the question of international affairs it is said that South Africa must be a non-aligned country with affiliation to the OAU and the United Nations Organisation, and that South Africa should support world peace.

I believe that these are common goals. I do not believe that there are fundamental differences as far as these goals are concerned. There will be differences in terms of detail, but those differences must be discussed when we get to the table. However, they must not only be discussed when we get to the table, because we have to make contact with one another right now to try to break down all that distrust which has built up among all of us over the ages.

While we share common goals with these organisations we do have differences in terms of strategy. The LP differs with the ANC on the question of the use of violence; we reject violence as a means of change in this country. We differ with the UDF in terms of participation. Whereas we believe that true participation can bring about change, the UDF and other organisations out there refuse to participate. We know where we are going, but where is the NP going? We have asked the NP the following question repeatedly, but have yet to receive an answer. Can we get an unequivocal statement from the NP in terms of what they are going to do with the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Race Classification Act?

How can we, in this day and age, still justify an Act like the Race Classification Act. If we look at the Department of Home Affairs: Annual Report 1988 we see on page 11 that the following number of applications for reclassification were approved:

So it goes on. How can we justify this? According to these figures 350 so-called people of colour became White last year alone. How can we support such a ludicrous and ridiculous situation?

We, unlike the NP and the CP, are not concerned with the degree of application of ungodly laws. They are immoral and must be repealed. Until such time as the NP tells us where they stand their so-called good intentions are not worth the paper they are written on. I want to appeal to the hon the State President to go out with a bang by releasing Mr Mandela and other prisoners and getting the indaba off the ground. Martin Luther King said that the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. Where does the hon the State President stand? Where does the hon leader-in-chief of the NP stand? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, apart from the destruction of District Six, and although the hon the State President will be remembered as the father of the tricameral Parliament—undoubtedly one of the biggest problem children that any government leader has ever had to accept responsibility for, and since then one of the most divisive factors in South African politics—and although he will also be remembered as the person who made South Africa one of the most repressive and unfree countries in the world, he will also, however, be remembered for the fact that he was the person who began to slaughter the sacred cow of apartheid. [Interjections.] He was prepared to abolish hurtful apartheid measures and laws, on condition that the process would not jeopardise his Government’s hold on power. Influx control is one of the measures he abolished. Here, however, one should immediately add that it was also the same hon State President who enthusiastically introduced and applied the hated and racist system of the Coloured labour preference area in the Western Cape. All Black housing was frozen in the process in an effort to make the Western Cape as unattractive as possible to Black people.

†In the seventies not one single house for Black people in the Western Cape was built over a ten-year period. Scrapping the Coloured preference labour policy and influx control in the Western Cape is not enough to restore freedom of movement to the Black people. [Interjections.] Unless land is available on which they can settle, they have no freedom to move or settle— and then they squat. When legislation preventing Indians from settling in the Orange Free State was abolished, it was discovered that they still could not settle in the Free State because there was no land set aside for Indian occupation in terms of the Government’s policy of group areas.

In spite of the scrapping of these policies, Black people in most of the Cape Province to the west of Port Elizabeth, and northwards to Upington, still do not have any freedom of movement! Outside Cape Town in the Western Cape Black people can only legally move to and settle in Black townships in Paarl, Kuils River, Stellenbosch, Strand, Worcester and Hermanus—if they are lucky enough to find space in these townships. Ninety-nine percent of White towns in the Cape in the area I have specified do not have any land available where Black people can settle. Members of this Government have stated that they want to keep it like this—White.

If the Government insist on separate group areas then it is also their duty—if they allege that separate can be equal—to make the necessary land available in every city, town and “dorp” in South Africa for Black residential purposes. I stress that it is more important to make land available than to make houses available. People can cope and build their own structures but they need the land first.

Why should any new White immigrant, for example, have the right to live anywhere in South Africa and the chance to take up any job offer anywhere in South Africa, while South African Blacks are being denied these opportunities? What else can this be but pure racism?

I ask this Government and those Government members of Parliament who have received requests for land for Black settlement being made available in their constituencies, for example in Kraaifontein, Grabouw—I could name many areas in the country where a Black person cannot live and where they have made appeals to those MPs—to respond positively. If they do not respond positively they are merely applying influx control in disguise and they are proof that apartheid is not really dead but that it has really just gone underground.

The statement by the hon member for Wellington that he will not have a Black township in the Kraaifontein area is racism. If they want apartheid then they must have a place for every race to live in in every town in this country. To say he will not have a Black township in Kraaifontein is racism. Unless this Government changes that policy it will be accused of hiding behind the scrapping of influx control but still applying restrictions on the movement of Black people in the country of their birth.

Mr Chairman, permit me, on this occasion, to congratulate Jannie Meyer’s team on its victory over Western Province yesterday evening.

This afternoon this hon member launched a personal attack on the hon the State President. That is how we have come to know him, and I shall come back to him in a moment. Firstly I just want to quote him a passage I came across in an American magazine called Family Protection Scoreboard:

He would give no one credit for that, would he, because his whole make-up attests to an absolutely cynical view of life.

Because the hon member and I have come a fairly long way together, and in my view have had a reasonably good relationship, I would like to take up the cudgels for him this afternoon. That hon member is an outstanding politician whom we cannot do without in the political arena, because he has previously been of assistance to me in elections. Every time he has canvassed for the PFP in George he has won me votes, and I do not want him to leave politics!

What is going to happen now on the eve of the DP’s decision about his membership? This afternoon I want to lodge a plea with the hon member for Yeoville to allow him to become a member, because he will not be returned to this Parliament again as an independent member. I am begging the hon member for Yeoville this afternoon to give him political asylum this week-end. He must please give positive consideration to the hon member’s membership.

He must not do what I think is happening at the moment, and that is that the hon member for Cape Town Gardens wants to stand in Claremont to make room for Dr Worrall in Cape Town Gardens, and therefore does not want the hon member for Claremont to become a member of the DP. Please allow him to stand in Claremont. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member for Yeoville that they surely cannot turn him away, because in the DP they already have people who hold the same views as that hon member. In this regard I need only refer to the hon members for Greytown and Durban Central, the so-called Dakar visitors that the PFP drove out of their party at the time. There are also those who are allegedly “soft on security”. The hon member can therefore not be turned away; he must be allowed to become a member of the party. [Interjections.]

If he is not permitted to become a member of the party, then they must have two factions in the DP, which I want to call the Dakar visitors and the Yeovillites. That is not something the party can afford!

Permit me to relate what happened after that hon member resigned from the PFP on 17 August 1987. Let met refer to Hansard, Wednesday, 2 September 1987, col 5061, where the hon member for Yeoville gave a description of that hon member. This week-end, of course, a decision has to be taken on his membership! I quote:

The hon member, however, will have to swallow his words this week-end! Let me quote further what Mr Jan van Eck said about the hon member for Yeoville in the same speech:

The hon member for Yeoville’s reaction was as follows:

I am asking the hon member to remember these words of his during the coming week-end. [Interjections.]

With reference to the hon member for Yeoville’s party, I can only say that I was extremely disappointed last Saturday, 8 April, to see how retired Defence Force officers were misused in an attempt to achieve that party’s political objectives.

That hon member for Claremont is negatively disposed towards any democratic institution. He uses a democratic institution such as this Parliament in an attempt to promote the aims of extraparliamentary institutions. [Interjections.] I can refer hon members to statements he made, inter alia at the PFP congress in 1986, where he advocated selective sanctions against Government supporters, or at the opening of Parliament in 1987, when he boycotted the opening and asked people to wear bands on their arms.

Mr Chairman …

No, I am not going to answer. That hon member broke away from the PFP because he cannot submit to party discipline.

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I did not boycott the opening of Parliament in 1987. The hon member ought to know that.

Order! That is not a point of order.

That is not a point of order. Sit down please! [Interjections.] I am telling hon members that that hon member cannot submit to party discipline, and the hon member for Yeoville knows it. I want to predict here this afternoon that this week-end the hon member Dr Zach de Beer cannot approve the hon member for Claremont’s membership. If he were to do so, they would have problems in the party, because then the hon member for Yeoville would leave.

While people like the hon member for Claremont were bringing this Government into disrepute, our hon Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, under the guidance of that hon State President, moved out into the world in an attempt to free South Africa from its isolation by opening new doors in Africa. [Interjections.] We purposely moved into Africa, and I shall come back to that point.

This Government did not engage in petty politics, because South Africa has the potential to become one of the most prosperous parts or regional powers in the world. Then we must not boycott; we must join hands and co-operate to make South Africa a better place for all its people. Whilst he was head of State over the past 10 years, the hon the State President’s philosophy of life focused on establishing a constellation of communities. We must not allow this ideal of his ever to fade.

It has always been his view that it is no use living in relative prosperity when one’s neighbours are living in misery. This applies to Africa too. He is the one who believed that in Africa there was more goodwill than ill-will, and locally too. He believed that this goodwill should be utilised and exploited to bring prosperity to all his people. The hon the State President also conveyed to Africa his life’s philosophy of good neighbourliness which he manifested on the local front.

This Government did not, however, grant assistance in the form of hand-outs by making financial contributions or dishing out either food or arms; this Government helped people to help themselves. This Government granted assistance in the form of medical services, scientific services, technological services, agricultural services and veterinary services. I need only refer to the fact that today medical students from 10 African countries have bursaries to study at Medunsa. This Government believes in helping people to help themselves.

South Africa is a country with so many singular difficulties that we must do everything in our power to carry this light of ours out into Africa. Our people want international interaction in the academic, technological and sports spheres.

Well, what about the academic aspect?

We also want to travel internationally to make provision for the hon member for Overvaal, who is so long-winded. We must break the isolation that exists. I think there are two ways in which we could help in our efforts to break this isolation in the face of world opinion which is against us.

The one is to continue with reform. I have no illusions about that. Secondly we must show the world that we can live in peace with our neighbours and that we are an interdependent part of this continent.

The sooner we can arrive at what I want to call a larger Nkomati Accord in Africa, the better for all the people of this continent, because for two decades now the international community has pumped more than R4 billion per annum into Africa, but they have not taught Africa to stand on its own two feet.

†Today partnership is more attractive than receiving aid. The Republic of South Africa is a power-house producing 75% of the region’s economic output and 80% of its exports and accounts for 50% of its imports. The South African transport system is the economic lifeline of the region and carries 85% of the region’s foreign trade and 70% of all Africa’s rail-freight. The South African economy employs more than 1 million workers from foreign states. Its total trade with Africa is about R4,8 billion per year.

*It is this kind of co-operation that holds the key to progress and prosperity in Africa. Today South Africa reaches out its hand to darkest Africa. Whilst other people were sleeping or gossiping, this hon head of State and his Government worked day and night to carry the light of Southern Africa out into Africa.

Mr Speaker, I believe that at no time in the history of this country of ours were such great demands made on the hon the State President by so many organisations in South Africa and many more nations and institutions outside South Africa. The hon the State President will certainly go down in history as the father of reform in multi-national South Africa. For generations to come South Africans and others abroad, fair-minded people, will regard the hon the State President as a great son of South Africa.

With reference to the last speaker, I would like to take this opportunity of cautioning his electorate of George lest they do not heed the legitimate demands of South Africans.

Returning to the hon the State President, his successes are, in my view, mainly his own. On the other hand his failures, as has been witnessed in the past decade, are not entirely his own doing. If the necessary co-operation and encouragement was not wanting from sections of his own group, he would certainly have attained greater heights. It is painfully sad that not all his colleagues steadfastly stood by him in his policy of adaptation. Opposing groups within Afrikaner ranks have hampered political progress to date and today South Africa and all its people are poorer for it.

Our first priority must be the development of South Africa’s potential.

It is accepted that South Africa has tremendous potential. One of the greatest potentials and assets in this country is the Black people of this land. As a precondition for the realisation of this goal there must be a halt to the infighting and internecine strife. If the Whites continue knocking down one another among themselves, there will be serious consequences.

One of these could be for control of South Africa to fall into foreign hands. Let us not discount this, for the darkest hour is before the dawn. The Afrikaners’ intolerance of one another on the one hand and towards other groups on the other hand is indeed short-sighted and not conducive to political progress or for that matter economic or social progress. It is a sign of weakness and a sure recipe for self-destruction.

May I observe—I do this in all earnestness—that the Whites should seriously consider reaching out and bridging the gaps among them. It will be suicidal not to do so. Only then will the Whites be in a more favourable position to form a firm association with the Blacks who form the largest section of the population of this land.

I would like to point out the the NP has within its own ranks members of Parliament who are rightist in outlook— the like of the CP—and to its left— the like of the DP. There is a growing number of MPs in the NP who to all intents and purposes more liberal than those in the former PFP.

What is also interesting about this liberalists in the NP—and I say this with a deep sense of conviction—is that they are more responsible and more realistic. I wish to heartily congratulate the newly appointed ambassador to the Netherlands, Mr Nothnagel. There are several others of his calibre in the NP.

I should now like to address another matter briefly. Very often when we discuss extraordinary issues from this forum, some ordinary yet important issues go unnoticed. They may be ordinary but they are imperative to mould human society and are as necessary as air, water and sunlight. If the numerous Government, provincial and local authority departments will adopt a colour-blind attitude in their human and personal relations and in their day to day dealings, a new era will dawn in South Africa. For this, a positive change of heart, on the part of the personnel in the various departments towards those by whom they give service is necessary, particularly towards people of colour.

Let mutual respect and goodwill prevail everywhere, on buses and trains, in the workshops and on factory floors, in supermarkets and marketplaces, in parks, gardens and on beaches. I must hasten to admit that there have been some positive changes on the part of the administrative personnel in recent years. I am gratified that change for the improvement of race relations was set in motion. However, I must state emphatically that this change is not altogether satisfactory. I should like to indicate therefore that a considerate, caring and helpful attitude on the part of the administrative personnel will help significantly to transform South Africa for the good of all its people.

It is highly necessary that due recognition of an individual as a human being irrespective of class, colour or creed, is given. It is this important ingredient in personal relationships that is overlooked. It may be due to the syndrome of oversight, prejudice, race superiority, class distinction or any other. If good feeling prevails between members of one race group and another, particularly in this racially torn land, it will augur well for the future of a united South Africa. This recognition of every individual as a human being will do more to cement the goodwill, irrespective of race, than any happening since the landing of Jan van Riebeeck at the Cape in 1652.

It will not be out of place to illustrate the point I want to drive home with a story told of George Washington who, on meeting a Coloured man— of slave descent—in the road who politely lifted his hat, lifted his own in return. Some of his White friends who saw the incident, criticised Washington for his action. In reply to this criticism, George Washington said: “Do you suppose that I am going to permit a poor ignorant Coloured man to be more polite than I?”

In South Africa the people of colour are not altogether poor or ignorant. There are many among them who are not an iota less than you or me. “Racequake” is far more disastrous than an earthquake if left unchecked. Therefore, all of us have a sacred duty in this land of “racequake”.

Mr Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity, as one who has crossed swords with the hon the State President both in Parliament and in the political hustings for close on 40 years, to say how pleased I am to see him restored to good health and to express the wish that his good health will continue for many years to come.

Both the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke extensively on South West Africa/Namibia. I do not intend doing that, save to restate some salient features of the attitude of the DP. First of all we are in favour of independence for South West Africa. Secondly we accept Resolution 435 as an appropriate route for achieving that independence. Thirdly we commend the Government for its efforts to conclude agreements which have led to the start of the implementation of Resolution 435. Oddly enough—perhaps not so oddly—I also commend the hon the State President for adhering to the agreement entered into by the erstwhile Prime Minister, Mr Vorster, and his Cabinet in spite of the fact that the hon the State President has repeatedly said he does not particularly like Resolution 435. However, be that as it may, he stuck to an agreement on behalf of this country.

If we look back at what has happened, it does not mean that the DP would support everything that has happened in the administration of South West Africa over the past 41 years. I would believe that the Government itself would look back on such things as the Odendaal Plan, the application of certain apartheid policies, the attempt at administrative incorporation in the late 1960s and perhaps the failure to bring Swapo and the internal parties together to the conference table as features which were not good policy for the administration of the territory. Nevertheless, they are history and although we live with the consequences of that history, we would hope that the implementation is continued and that in fact Namibia becomes independent in the shortest possible time.

We recognize that in the implementation phase we have entered into a difficult, dangerous and very sensitive phase. It behoves all of us, save those people who want to wreck the process, to be sensitive to these circumstances and not to play party politics and seek White votes during the election campaign in South Africa at the expense of the lives of young people in that area and the future of Namibia and of South Africa.

We reserve the right to criticise the Government but we will be mindful of our responsibility and the sensitivity of the occasion in doing so. It is not South Africa’s function to dictate or to prescribe to the people of Namibia as to what their future government should be. The responsibility of South Africa is no more than to see that the conditions are created whereby the people of Namibia can make that decision at free and fair elections.

The hon the State President announced an election a short while ago. We are delighted that the election will come earlier rather than later but let me add that an election without a redelimitation for the House of Assembly after 9 years of shifting population is against the spirit of the Constitution and a violation of the democratic concept that Parliament, when elected, should fairly represent the people who went to the polls. Various reasons have been advanced for it. I suspect the main reason is to try to reach some agreement as a result of the election of the new leader of the NP.

The reality is that the Transvaal will be grossly over-represented. The second reality is that the rural voters will be grossly over-represented and the city dwellers will be grossly under-represented at this election. For many city constituencies a vote in the towns will be equal to one-third or one quarter of a vote in the rural areas. That is no way to have democracy in this country.

What I want to emphasize on this occasion is that it also means that on this occasion we will enter into an election campaign with the voters’ rolls as they are at the moment, not reflecting the realities of the people who live in the constituencies. I want to make an appeal to the hon the State President to have the Government do something about this as a matter of urgency.

Recently the State spent R4,6 million on cartoons in a PR campaign to get people to vote in the municipal election. I believe that right here and now there should be a massive radio, television and press campaign launched by the Government to see that the voters’ rolls are up to date so that we can have a reasonable election when it takes place later this year.

All of these things are the consequences, of course, of a letter which the hon the State President wrote to the caucus on 2 February 1989. I am sure that the hon the State President as an astute politician will have realised that it was not just a letter from a man to his party, but that it had serious constitutional implications. He would not have written it casually. He must have realised that when he said that he believed the two posts, that of the State President and that of leader of the party, should be separated, that when he used the words “die Staatspresi-dentskap word dan in ’n besondere mate ’n samebindende krag in hierdie land”, he was saying something which went far beyond party politics; that it went to the very nature and function of the State Presidency of South Africa. It raises such issues as the method of election, the ongoing mandate, the form of accountability and the extent to which the State Presidency represents just a section of the people or the nation as a whole.

I would hope that the hon the State President will have learned from his experience when he said that the State Presidency and leader of the NP cannot be linked into one office, that this is either a reflection of a defect in the present Constitution, or else that it is an indictment of the NP. I hope that the hon the State President, before he retires, will spell out his reasons for having had this point of view. This is an important contribution to the whole process of constitutional reform. We look forward to the hon the State President telling us as South Africans why, in fact, one cannot be the leader of the NP and the State President of South Africa at the same time.

Following upon the hon the State President’s resignation as leader of the party and the election of the hon the Minister of National Education as new leader, certain speeches were made in this House at the beginning of the session and elsewhere which can be interpreted as widely heralding a new and hopeful era in South African politics. I refer to the speech made by the hon the Minister of National Education, and to a lesser extent the speeches made by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

At times there has been a mood of euphoria in the interpretation of these speeches. Once again I want to ask the question of the hon the State President, because it is a question which only he can answer as he is in the unique position that, although he is no longer leader of the NP, he is still head of the Government of South Africa in which these various colleagues serve.

I want the hon the State President to tell us whether these speeches reflect the mood of the Botha Cabinet, the policy of the administration of which these people are members, or whether they reflect a move away from the Botha era.

Let me read some of these statements to hon members. They state: “Our goal is a new South Africa, a totally changed South Africa, a South Africa which has rid itself of the antagonism of the past, free from domination and oppression. The people of South Africa anxiously await a message of hope.”

I would like to know whether they have not been receiving a message of hope from the NP all of these years? I quote further: “The NP is against the domination of any one group by others. White domination, as far as it exists, should go.” It goes on to say that: “The NP is not ideologically obsessed with the group concept.”

I raise these points because only the hon the State President can tell us whether these statements reflect the view, attitude and policy of the Cabinet of which these gentlemen are members, or whether these statements reflect a break from the policy, views and attitudes of the Cabinet under the hon Mr P W Botha. They cannot be both; they must be one or the other. I believe that only the hon the State President can say that these statements and views do reflect the attitude of the present Cabinet.

I ask this and I believe that it is necessary, because the hon the Minister of National Education, after his sudden flurry, has seemed to have gone to ground. He has become strangely reluctant in recent weeks to say exactly where he stands on a number of critical issues relating to apartheid.

We have to stop playing games. I believe that the process of negotiation has been delayed for too long and it will continue to be delayed and the state of emergency will continue unless the Government of this country says unambiguously that apartheid in all its manifestations and forms must go and that it will sit down, without preconditions, with fellow South Africans to negotiate a new constitution based on full citizenship in an apartheid-free South Africa.

If this is done, the Botha era will end on a high note. If it is not done, the Botha era will deserve the indicting finger of history.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point asked the Government for a campaign to draw the attention of voters to the fact that they should register. I have been informed by the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry that such a campaign is already under way.

We have in the DP a so-called new party. So far most of its senior members have spoken in this debate. One would have thought that this being a new party this House and its members would have been told what the exact difference between the old PFP and the new DP is. The name has been changed to that of the Democratic Party, and the voters have every right to ask how this party differs from the party that the hon member for Sea Point led for a number of years.

We have received no answers and one would have thought that this new party would have grabbed this opportunity with both hands to tell the electorate of South Africa what they stand for. They tell us that the tricameral system is a failure, but they do not tell us what they are going to put in its place in order to rectify the so called mistakes made by the tricameral system. They have never told us what their alternative to the tricameral system is, except to say that they will have universal franchise of all adult South Africans.

What sort of franchise will you have?

I want to say that it may be a party with a new name but the utterances and statements of its members are the same as those of the PFP of old. The PFP may have been laid to rest but its ideas, phraseology, jargon and even its cliches remain the same. Even its sobs, laments and wails as expressed in criticism of Government policy remain the same. Not one iota of PFP policy has changed; this is just the PFP in a new guise.

One is reminded of the words of the biblical patriarch Isaac when he said this to his son Jacob who tried to disguise himself as his brother Esau:

“The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.” Nothing has changed. It is just a very thin and transparent disguise of the old PFP. It still tries to portray this Government as the oppressor of the poor, the needy and the aged. It still tries to portray this regime as a covetous one without understanding and without compassion for the underprivileged.

Hear, hear!

They say: “Hear, hear!” That was one of the old cliches of the PFP. I thank those hon members for giving substance to my statement in this very audible manner.

Surely the tricameral Parliament has laid certain foundations of understanding, goodwill and appreciation of each other’s point of view which may augur well for the future of democracy in South Africa? Testimony to this was given by several hon members of the other two Houses, but the two White oppositions have not given any credit for the work done by the tricameral system. They view this tricameral Parliament as an instrument to implement measures of oppression and deprivation. However, what do they seek to replace it with? Is it a national convention to which all interested parties will be called and where a new constitution will be drafted by consensus? Am I wrong? Is it consensus?

I want to ask them this: Will they find consensus between themselves and the members of the CP sitting opposite them? Will they be able to find consensus between those parties who believe in radicalism, socialism and an autocratic government and those parties who believe in democracy and capitalism? I do not think they will.

What they are trying to tell the voters of South Africa is that once this constitution has been drafted and once they have had their elections then peace will descend on the valley. When the boat of power reaches the shore there will be milk and honey on the other side. Some sort of land described in the words of the theme song of The Wizard of Oz: “Somewhere over the rainbow way up high there’s a land that I heard of once in a lullaby.” That is the sort of constitution they strive for.

*I want to come back to my CP friends. A very important statement was made here this morning by the hon member for Carletonville. The hon member said that those businesses which were dependent on Black buying-power in Carletonville should move to the Black area of Khutsong. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon member for Overvaal and the hon the leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly whether this is official CP policy. Is it official CP policy? The hon the leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly must tell me. If he does not tell me it is not, I must accept that it is official CP policy, and that the hon member for Carletonville has now let the cat out of the bag. [Interjections.] I must accept that.

Are you the cat or the bag?

The hon member for Overvaal is not willing to deny or contradict that statement of the hon member for Carletonville.

Now the cat has no bag!

I must accept, and I am going to proclaim in the election which lies ahead of us, that that is official CP policy.

Order! The light-heartedness is quite acceptable and I understand it very well, but if an hon member tells another hon member that he is the cat that has been let out of the bag, he is going too far. Which hon member said that?

Mr Chairman, I merely asked whether he was the cat or the bag.

Mr Chairman, I said the cat had no bag.

Order! Was the hon member referring to the hon member for Kuruman?

No, I was not referring to the hon member. I was referring to what he said. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Kuruman may proceed.

This party, the Conservative Party of South Africa, wants to revive the apartheid of 1948 in a modern milieu, and then they think this can happen without economic misfortune. They believe that one can have all the benefits of an integrated modern economy, together with the conveniences of the old 1948 apartheid. They think one can flee from the burning issues of the day by hiding away like a mole in the cool greyness of the past. [Interjections.] They want to solve the issues of today by warming up the failures of the past. These people are not willing to face up to the realities of South Africa. The late Mr Koos du Plessis composed a wonderful verse to describe these hon members. It went like this:

[Interjections.] I want to make the following statement to the CP. Nowhere in the world has an ideology remained standing against the laws of the free market. Not even in Soviet Russia! Even they were compelled to acknowledge that truth, and to their detriment they had to acknowledge that the free market system could not simply be shifted to one side without harm being suffered. To negate that the buying-power of Black labour is soon going to become the biggest buying-power in South Africa, is to close one’s eyes to the facts. All the CP is doing in the areas in which they are in control is to impoverish the White businessmen, to cause the values of their properties to diminish, as well as the value of their investments. [Interjections.] This is the favour the CP wants to do the Whites of South Africa.

I say today that the voters of South Africa will deal in the appropriate manner with these hon members in the coming election. [Interjections.] They will not escape. They will have to answer for the forces they have unleashed and set in motion to impoverish their own people.

Mr Chairman, in this debate on the Vote of the hon the State President, I would like to refer him to a portion of a speech he made in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, 3 December 1988. [Interjections.] I beg your pardon, it was 3 May 1988. [Interjections.] If the hon members of the House of Representatives can promise me that, I will not say anything further about them in this Chamber. [Interjections.]

†I will soon make known more revelations!

*I quote as follows from Hansard, 1988:

What did the SABC say that morning?

Much is implied by these words of the hon the State President. [Interjections.] In the meantime I would also like to congratulate him on his return and to wish him well for the future.

The hon the State President gave this message on that day when things in this House were becoming rather heated. On that afternoon too the hon member for Addo was told how presumptious he was.

Shame!

Yes, shame, I am coming to that hon member.

When you and the hon the State President are at the Wilderness, I am here!

Order!

Mr Chairman …

Order! Would the hon member for Bishop Lavis please wait a while. The hon member for Addo cannot comment all the time. When an hon member is standing here on the podium he has freedom of speech. While the hon member for Addo is sitting there, he does not have the same freedom of speech. The hon member must contain himself; otherwise I will have to take more stringent action. The hon member for Bishop Lavis may proceed.

Much is implied by those words of the hon the State President. At that stage he did not say anything further. Before long we will have an election and he will possibly retire. I should like to ask him, and I hope I am not asking too much, whether he could clear up the mystery of what he meant that day when he spoke these words. I would appreciate it if he could perhaps, since we are participating in his debate for the last time, give the Coloured community that message.

I would also like to mention something peculiar which happened yesterday. It reminded me of a report in the Sunday Times a few weeks ago under the headline: “Hendrickse refuses to deal with PW”. [Interjections.] They should not be ashamed now. In that report he said that the hon the State President had treated him like an “underdog”.

Am I not right in saying that he is the leader of a great, strong, powerful party; the leader of the Coloured community? Now the leader of the Coloured community comes along and says he does not want to negotiate with the hon the State President, because he treats him like an “underdog”. If it is not true that the hon the State President treats him like an “underdog”, I am convinced that the hon the leader of the LP should apologise for that statement in that report.

Have you always been such a fool?

If that is not the case— the message we get is that the hon the State President treated him like an “underdog”, and people deduce from that that he has been treating him in a shameful manner—I ask the hon the State President to set the matter straight without fail. It is no problem. I know the hon the leader of the LP is always eager to apologise when he has been wrong, and I firmly believe that he will once again apologise for what he has said. [Interjections.]

I would like to touch on another matter in thanking the hon the State President for the pensions. At that stage there was no negotiation, since the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Representatives has said: “I am going to become radical”. Negotiations stopped there, but I would like to thank the hon the State President for intervening and agreeing to increase our people’s pensions from R176 to R200, and from start to finish it has applied to everybody and everybody could benefit from it.

“Dankie, baas.”

Do not trouble yourself. I am willing to say thank you. The LP is willing to apologise for causing a debacle. [Interjections.] I would like to thank the hon the State President for the increase in pensions, because if it had not been for his intervention, I am sure our people would still be standing in the same spot.

I would like to touch on the following matter.

†I want to touch on the ministerial representatives. At the time when these ministerial representatives were supposed to be appointed, one moment they were going to be appointed and the next moment it was off, and of course we then found that they were appointed afterwards. I am still trying to find out what they are supposed to do. [Interjections.]

You do not know?

I honestly do not know. I am glad that the hon Chairman says that I do not know, because one finds that these ministerial representatives have become glorified election agents …

Would you also like that job?

That hon member should not speak about the job. That hon member knows where he stands about that job. [Interjections.] One does not find them doing anything. They have become glorified election agents and one will find them acting as glorified party organisers. [Interjections.]

I think that now that we have Deputy Ministers, it is time to dispense with the ministerial representatives. During the last election they were even election agents and they used the taxpayers’ money to drive from one polling station to another. I think it is not correct to use the State’s money for that purpose. I feel that when one starts using State money for a purpose for which it should not be used, the time has come for that post to be dispensed with. Secondly, the hon the State President has now also appointed two Deputy Ministers. I would be very happy if it would be possible to dismiss these people.

Mr Chairman, this is the first opportunity for the CP to react to the recently announced increase in the petrol price of 5 cents to 7 cents per litre on average. We say in this regard that the announcement was made some months before the election is to take place because the Government knows that, if it were to make such an announcement shortly before the election, it would be a political embarrassment to it. In the second place, there is no doubt that this increase in the petrol price, which is the third in eight months, will cause inflation to soar uncontrollably. In the third place, it is once again the consumer, farmer and industrialist who are the victims of price rises in South Africa.

I want to tell the hon the State President that I join his wife in being grateful that he has recovered to such an extent that he is able to cope with his activities under this Vote. He will be remembered for many things in South Africa but I hope that he will pardon me for telling him today that he will also be remembered for the fact that he divided the Afrikaner people with his power-sharing politics. [Interjections.] I hope he will pardon me if I tell him that the Afrikaner people turned its back on him at Donkerhoek on 16 December 1988. I hope he will pardon me for saying that his own party caucus stabbed him in the back as Brutus did to Caesar. This must have hurt him more than any CP victory so far.

The NP caucus did not even invite him to their important caucus meeting where they decided to reunite the offices of State President and party leader. The hon the State President has left his mark on South African politics, a leftist tracks mark, it is true, but we hear people say that F W cannot leave any mark at all.

I should actually like to discuss the contradictions, and therefore the lack of credibility, in Government statements …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member entitled to refer to an hon Minister as F W?

Order! The hon member for Losberg may proceed.

Sir, I used it proverbially. I want to refer to the contradictions in the policy and statements of the NP about South West Africa and especially those of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He said only a few days ago in this Parliament that progress was being made with the SWA problem. I ask him, however, whether it represents progress if we think that in 1975-76 we were only a few kilometres from Luanda for some nights and now, 13 years later, we are fighting against Swapo in South West Africa? Does he accept responsibility for this retrogression too?

The hon the State President spoke about the military component of Untag in yesterday’s speech but Untag is surely not a peace-keeping force, such as the UN has in Cyprus or the Middle East. Surely it is only a force to monitor the election in South West Africa. The hon the State President realised the truth of this as early as 1979 when he said the following in Parliament as a result of a conversation with Mr Ahtisaari. The hon the State President on that occasion asked him what he would do if Untag were deployed in South West Africa and there were a sudden cross-border attack into South West Africa. The reply was then furnished by one of Mr Ahtisaari’s officials who said: “We will withdraw to base because we are not a peace-keeping force; we are a monitoring force.” I congratulate the hon the State President on his farsightedness in being able to say this. Our question to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs today, however, is why he did not act in good time on 31 March 1989 when he had been warned as early as 1979 that this could happen. Nevertheless I shall spend more time on this later.

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said in the Interpellation debate of 11 April 1989 that the Cubans were withdrawing according to plan. He said they were actually ahead of schedule. But’ what does the USA say? According to yesterday’s TV news they said that they were suspending their contribution to Untag because the Cubans were not withdrawing as agreed. In contrast to this the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said in the Budget debate: “There is also objective evidence that Cuban withdrawal is continuing according to the schedule.” Now no longer ahead of schedule but according to schedule. What did we hear from the media only days ago, however? In the first week of April Cuban soldiers were observed 600 metres from the South West African border and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs says that they are withdrawing ahead of schedule.

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs says that Angola and Cuba are complying with their obligations in terms of the agreements. In terms of paragraph 5 of the Geneva Protocol, Angola and Cuba had to ensure that Swapo did not penetrate south of the 16th parallel. There can be no question of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs being correct if he says that Angola and Cuba have fulfilled their obligations. They had to ensure that Swapo did not move south of the 16th parallel.

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs says that the Government was prepared for any contingency in SWA and that it was prepared for this. An SWA police officer said only last weekend, however: “Ons sal ons nie weer so onverhoeds laat betrap deur Swapo nie.”

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said in the Budget debate:

His sentence immediately following this in Hansard is:

What does this mean? It means that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, according to his own admission, knew that they would come across. He warned that they would come across but took no preventive measures against this. Only after Swapo had come across—in his own words— steps were taken but then it was too late. I want to remind him that a capable man like Lord Carrington resigned as the Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1982 on the basis of the fact, as he put it, that they had not adequately reported the “intentions of Argentina” on the invasion of the Falkland Islands to the Cabinet and therefore he had to resign. This case is exactly the same. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs knew and had issued a warning but had taken no preventive measures.

What better proof is there of the deficiencies and shortcomings which existed in the agreements, up to and including 1 April, than the fact that the deficiencies and shortcomings of previous agreements had to be rectified in the Mount Etjo Agreement.

I should like to refer to yet another example. On 1 July 1989 only 1 500 South African soldiers were permitted to be in SWA. At that stage 47 000 Cubans were still permitted to be in Angola.

I wish to conclude. I want to tell hon members today that they are irrevocably changing the military strategic position by the way in which Resolution 435 is being implemented—to the detriment of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Losberg is one of the CP intellectuals. He boasts of being a legal expert, but now I hear—they tell me so in his constituency—that he is more of a right-wing expert than a legal one. He says that 10 years ago South Africa’s soldiers were in position on the outskirts of Luanda and from there they ran away until today they are in South West Africa. I think it is an absolute disgrace to refer to South Africa’s soldiers in this way. The hon member knows that South Africa’s soldiers fought against the Cubans in Luanda. The hon the State President has drawn my attention to the fact that the Cubans are at present leaving Angola, while our soldiers are now in their bases. However, this shows the hon members exactly what they are geared to. They are geared to an everlasting war because they know that the policy of partition, which is humiliating to other people, can only be maintained in this country by an everlasting war. We are going to hound hon members of the CP from platform to platform because of what the hon member had to say about South West Africa and the war. We are going to hold what the hon member wants to do to our young men in South Africa, to want them to fight an eternal war, against the hon member from one day to the next in this coming election.

The hon member for Losberg is the same member who asked a question a year ago, and I quote from the Patriot of 25 March 1988. It was before the municipal elections. In this edition the Patriot reported that the hon member had asked the hon the Minister of Education an urgent question in the House of Assembly. They quote the hon member’s own words:

That is what the hon member asked. A few months later the CP won the municipal election in Potchefstroom, and when the University of Potchefstroom applied for a certain guest house to be made available for non-Whites, the CP town council approved. What did the hon member for Losberg do about it? He watched how the CP municipality of Potchefstroom allowed mixed education and mixed residence of students on that campus. He did absolutely nothing about it. He sat and watched.

He should be aware, though, that what he did there, his voters will hold against him. In his election promises he promised them that they were going to clean up that area, and in the meantime he undermines CP policy. He does absolutely nothing. He sells out the Whites of Potchefstroom, and he does not have the courage to take action against the town council of Potchefstroom, which is defeating CP policy here. For that we shall hound him in that constituency specifically, from one platform to another.

I want to leave the unpleasant and turn to something which is far more pleasant. The fact that the hon the State President nominated me as the first Free State MP, makes the respect and admiration I have for him, so much more personal. Peace, prosperity and safety—that is the slogan the retired leader-in-chief of the NP has made his own. That is also the framework of objectives within which he still strives for the best interests of South Africa as head of state.

For 53 consecutive years the hon the State President served the NP with love and commitment, and with all the talents which he received from the bountiful Giver. He always put the interests of South Africa first according to the slogan under which the NP was established in 1914. To him the NP is the political vehicle that enables him to serve South Africa’s interests best.

In 1935 the young Free State student was invited by the then chief secretary of the NP of the Cape, Mr F C Erasmus, on behalf of Dr D F Malan, to join the party as organiser. He was also chief information officer, Cape leader and leader-in-chief of the NP. His loyalty to the NP and its leaders was and is irreproachable. He took ruthless steps against disloyalty.

The eagle rises when the storm brews. Many of his colleagues have referred to him in this way. Slackness and fear are not part of his make-up. His zest for work is legendary. He cannot tolerate strugglers and toilers. He is pre-eminently a decision-maker. Prior to making any decisions, he always consults as widely as possible. However, when the decision has been made, no matter how difficult, he ensures that it is carried out promptly. In crisis situations he remains as cool as a cucumber. Doubting Thomases and the undecided are very wary of him.

His administrative abilities compel admiration. He manages the carrying out of decisions with ruthless precision. Beware those who drag their feet! All those who know him, know that he can adopt a standpoint with conviction. As becomes a good democrat, he goes along with the decisions of the majority even though he might differ. He has no respect for passivity.

He has always been held in high regard as political question-putter and debater. During decisive debates he has often caused the political climate to swing in the favour of the NP through an accumulation of logical arguments.

As a believing Christian and family man he has crept into the hearts of millions of people. He is a respected leader, even outside the ranks of his own party. The NP will cherish Pieter Willem Botha as one of the greatest leaders the party has produced since its inception in 1914. [Interjections.] Party colleagues will remember a beloved leader in the words of Theodore Rooseveldt:

Mr Chairman, following upon the hon member for Sasolburg this afternoon, one would have expected him to take away everyone’s fear regarding the rise in the petrol price, because Sasol was to be developed to provide South Africa with cheap petrol. However, I wish him well.

Firstly, we are addressing the hon the State President’s Vote this afternoon and I must at the very outset take this opportunity to extend to him our compliments for the manner in which he, as a great general, stepped out with his army to charter a new destiny for South Africa.

In his doing just that, I am of the view that he has risen above being a political leader and a political son for the survival of South Africa. In this he has earned much of what even the outside world has said, namely that he has taken with him not only South Africa but also the whole of Africa.

Very recently I had the occasion to have a discussion with a professor from America who was a State guest of South Africa. He asked me one or two pertinent questions, and one of my responses to him was that he should take South Africa away from Africa and then tell me what was left. He was not able to give me an answer. However, he then said that he believed that time was up for South Africa, but I replied that I had taken this course because I believe in my Creator, and as such we all believe, because every day we ask Him to guide us as we go on. I told the professor that my Creator said to me that I would never come too early, nor would I come too late, but I would always come on time. He should let that be his deciding factor.

I wish to say to the hon the State President that what speak louder than words are the actions, and because of the actions that he has taken timeously, I believe we should grasp the opportunities now and carry on from there. Before us, at the end of this tunnel, I see this light.

A recent survey which was conducted by the HSRC was very interesting for us all in South Africa, as the shift caused by the reform actually spoke for itself. If one had followed this survey one would have found out that 42% of people of colour in South Africa voted in favour of the hon the State President as a leader. This is a very significant departure from what one would have been looking at five or ten years ago. I think that in itself is an indication of the great achievement that the hon the State President has achieved for us. We wish the hon the State President everything of the very best.

Having said that I want to say that this joint meeting is certainly a historic one. It comes at a time when many major developments, in more than one direction, are taking place in and around South Africa. There are the peace initiatives in Angola, the British Prime Minister’s visit to Africa, the reconsideration of disinvestment from South Africa by the international community and the continuing fall of the gold price. The fall of the gold price is coupled with increasing unemployment which is certainly a matter for deep concern. I must point out that this phase of change at the different levels of Government and in the political scene in South Africa, together with the attempt at clean administration sparks off some concern and confusion. I do hope that at some time or another we will be able to find ways of addressing these problems.

Having said that I wish to point out that if this country and its Government components honestly want to bring about goodwill, stability and participation for all of its people in an arena where constitutional change can take place with full participation there are two very important components that need to be addressed first. The first is to provide enough money to do that and the second is to provide enough residential land for the people of colour.

Unless this goal is achieved I am afraid this tricameral system may very well fall in one big heap. Some of the biggest wars in our country and around the world have been fought on land issues. One great Black leader recently said in terms of disinvestment and related things that when one shoots a zebra on the white stripes, the black ones also pay. I believe that is very true. We are jointly here in South Africa and we have a joint responsibility.

It may be accepted that the direction of movement in the political and economic sphere will for some time to come be steered by the Whites of South Africa. However, the reality lies therein that the Whites cannot do without the Blacks, neither can the Blacks do without the Whites. Therefore there should be an honest engagement of a partnership for prosperity in all directions, viz political, economic and our very existence and survival on the southern tip of Africa.

Although we have noted and accepted the changes that are taking place in South Africa as previous speakers have mentioned regarding the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, the Immorality Act and others, I must state that since entering the political field I have encountered many difficulties. Yet I accept that these changes have been observed, also in writing, and have been felt.

In my constituency my political stance changes from area to area. In the one area called Westville one finds the university and the very well-to-do people who reside there. On the other hand a few kilometres away we have an area called Welbedacht which has no local authority, roads or water, no town planning scheme or even the basic health and other amenities.

If I go to Welbedacht and address my people— which I do on many occasions because that is priority number one in my constituency—I cannot tell them I helped to repeal section 16 of the Immorality Act, the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act or curfew regulations. They will tell me: I want water, I need a decent house, a decent road, health facilities. Therefore I say with deep conviction that that is what matters. We cannot deviate from the day to day issues, from the very realities that the people of South Africa need for their survival, and that is basic.

Once those issues are addressed we will create a kind of a harmony, take away the frustration and maybe we can bring about goodwill and understanding so that we may be able to sit together and speak about the many national and international issues that confront our communities.

I want to make a plea to all the Ministries and departments in this Government that they must not turn us away, not feel that these are small issues because they say the mighty land and the mighty ocean are made up of many small pebbles and many little drops of water. If these little pebbles and drops of water are not addressed now they will become mighty oceans and a great land. Great wise men have said: Do not raise arms against the troubled waters of the sea. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, initially I would like to comment on the statements made with regard to South West Africa. I must say that I feel the whole matter has been handled with considerable responsibility and I convey my congratulations to those two hon Ministers who were directly involved— the hon the Minister of Defence and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs—for the manner in which they handled a very difficult situation. I am quite satisfied that South Africa will emerge with a credibility of which we will all be proud, and one which will be accepted by the international community at large.

Mr Chairman, I wish to add my name to the list of those speakers who have paid tribute to the hon the State President. I too am pleased to welcome him back into this Chamber, and it is pleasing that his Vote is being discussed in such an atmosphere of appreciation for the many years he has served this Parliament. I do not wish to be presumptuous but I want to extend to him all good wishes on a possible future retirement.

I also want to record my thanks to the hon the State President for the courtesy which he has always extended to me whenever I have required to see him and discuss matters with him. I appreciate that very much.

I feel it is also relevant on this occasion to recognise the role of the present hon State President and the part he played in restoring the SADF to what it is at the present time. It is a well-known fact that many aspects of the defence department were in a shambolic state when he was appointed Minister of Defence in the midseventies. It was under his guidance and direction that the groundwork took place which laid the foundation for the formidable Defence Force that we have today and which commands so much respect on the African continent. May I also add that law-abiding citizens of this country are most grateful for that.

I must be forgiven for using this opportunity to record as well the hon the State President’s contribution to the reform measures that had been initiated under his leadership and which I had the privilege and pleasure to support. One realizes that the NP paid a high price for these reform initiatives.

I was pleased to hear the statements of the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives which symbolised to a nicety how he and other hon speakers felt, and acknowledged the fact that, but for the introduction of the tricameral system, they would not be speaking from this podium.

One is aware too that the significance of broadening the base of parliamentary representation only became a reality on the introduction of the 1984 Constitution. It is for this reason that due regard must always be paid to those persons, spearheaded by the hon the State President, who were responsible for initiating the initial concept of this reform movement. As I have said on previous occasions, the present Constitution will only be complete when all groups are represented.

One accepts that mistakes have been made. I think, however, that these can be regarded as teething problems. Perhaps one of the greatest mistakes was the fact that the Government failed to appreciate that adjustments were necessary in regard to the application of the tricameral system. [Time expired].

Mr Chairman, it is always a privilege to follow on the hon member for Mooi River. I would very much like to endorse his good wishes and his salutations to our hon the State President.

*Concerning the credibility aspect which the hon member for Losberg mentioned here, I should like to speak about the credibility of a certain newspaper or rag which, according to the hon member’s own submission, has not been registered as a newspaper. [Interjections.] This newspaper costs 75 cents. It is approximately 15 to 25 cents more expensive than an ordinary newspaper. I suppose the difference in price makes up for the excise duty on the amount of nonsense contained in this newspaper. [Interjections.] One can also not buy this newspaper across the counter in the usual way; one cannot buy it like a packet of cigarettes, because one has to buy it in packs of 13, 26 or 52 copies and then only by way of a subscription.

After the serious drubbing which the CP suffered in Jeppe and the dramatic departure of the hon member for Overvaal, the Patriot has now made Jeppe and me personally its prime targets. Let us test them according to the truth and credibility of the realities we are facing.

Before the municipal election the Patriot announced with great fanfare and in banner headlines: “Jeppe se KP’s wil kiesafdeling red!” The report read as follows:

Hear, hear!

We heard the “Hear, hear!” I now want to strike a bargain with the hon CP member who said that. Should the CP of Jeppe have more than 500 subscribing members, I am prepared to contribute R1 per member to its election fund for each paid-up and registered member exceeding the figure of 500. Perhaps the CP can also give us R1 for every member with whom they fooled the voters.

Looking once again at their members, at the stark reality of the election and at the facts, we note that two months later when a municipal election took place—would hon members believe it—they could attract barely 1 500 votes in all of Jeppe. In other words, they have members who are not prepared to support their own party. What kind of credibility crisis are we dealing with here?

Furthermore, we are dealing here with the NP which has made a comeback and has mopped up all the seats! Not one of those municipal wards remained. What is …

[Inaudible.]

No, wait a moment, I still want to add something. The tragedy is that we improved our position by 100% with regard to that opposition. This also happens to include the percentage of my own majority in comparison with the previous majority obtained by the hon member for Overvaal when he was still the NP member for Jeppe.

In order to demonstrate their dynamics and growth in the constituency further, a letter appeared in the Patriot of February 1989. This letter came from Malvern in the heart of the Jeppe constituency; this was indicated very clearly in bold print. It appeared under the following heading: “Swing to CP evident.”

†This voter from Malvern writes:

*Therefore no one will blame me for assuming that this survey concerned Jeppe and since it is in glaring contrast to the reality of our own observations, I made a few enquiries. I drew the following conclusion. Yes, hon members will understand that I was very surprised to receive the following reply to a letter which I wrote to this voter. I quote from it as follows:

This person had resigned from the CP even before the report appeared in the Patriot, and furthermore there is the question of 1987 being compared with 1989. This former CP supporter is deeply disillusioned and realises that the CP’s promises and Cloud-Cuckoo-land policy are aimed at misleading trusting people. He is very welcome in the NP should he want to join us.

The CP and the Patriot should check the date and the relevance of this letter. Surely they keep records.

Recently the CP in Jeppe undertook a survey in the suburb of Doornfontein. They came to the appalling conclusion that only one White family remained in White Doornfontein. What a shocking indictment against me!

We all know that that area is experiencing a tremendous influx of people. But really, only one family in the whole suburb! That is a bit much. I had to investigate and could draw only one conclusion. Apparently the CP canvasser had ended up on the Ellis Park rugby pavilion and with a beer in one hand he started counting the White families with the other. In his befuddled haze he could only see the Ellis Park superintendent’s cottage with the one White family living there. That shows what happens when the right hand no longer knows what the left hand is doing.

The Patriot did not mention that Doornfontein was subject to urban renewal and that it was mainly a trading, sporting and educational area. It also concealed the fact that there are hundreds of White students living in hostels and other residences and at least a hundred aged people in homes and elsewhere.

I want to stress the contrast even further by mentioning that this week we registered 15 new members in that area in which ostensibly only one White family had remained. What is the CP trying to do? They cannot fool those of us in Johannesburg, but they are once again driving the poor, trusting plattelanders distracted with their shameful untruths. It is the same as the Hillbrow and Durban beach syndrome which they tried previously. No, the CP’s gimmick is obvious. We are going to teach them a lesson in this election.

The same report went on to refer to the miserable CP acts of intimidation in Malvern. I quote as follows:

This was how the family moved in. Here we are once again dealing indirectly with the hangman’s noose gimmick of Mayfair. Do hon members think that the pathetic human barrier formed by the CP and AWB could work? The chain was ignored and they simply moved in over their heads. Instead of a protest meeting, a ratepayers’ meeting was held and at this meeting—which I unfortunately could not attend— the following memo in which I set out my philosophy about an approach to this matter, was read:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it serves no purpose to utter threats concerning circumstances centred on the Group Areas Act and Jeppe. We would do better to look at facts. The most recently known fact is that there was a by-election in a ward in Newcastle and that the CP increased its majority in the sense that we obtained 61% of those votes last Wednesday whereas the CP drew 59,9% of votes cast in October. The point at issue was the Group Areas Act and the NP action in connection with it.

South Africa has been without a permanent Minister of Manpower for almost four months. On 4 March this year the hon the State President told Mr Alf Ries that this matter would receive his urgent attention when he resumed his duties. Unfortunately the hon the State President has problems with his Ministers of Manpower. We suggested last year that Mr Pietie du Plessis’s salary should be reduced to R1. We argued that he was a superficial although sometimes effective political demagogue and nothing more. We were proved right as we had also been proved right in the case of Fanie Botha.

It is small wonder that the hon the State President wishes to rationalise in this area. I think, however, that Manpower is too important a portfolio to do without a permanent Minister. Consequently the CP suggests that this matter receive the highest priority.

This is the eve of the third election according to the 1980 delimitation. Because this is the case, and as a delimitation will probably take place in 1990, it necessarily follows in the interests of democracy that an election be held again in 1991; otherwise there would be no sense in the coming delimitation if future by-elections have to take place according to the old borders of constituencies.

The fact that we definitely find ourselves in an electioneering atmosphere is becoming clearly visible and audible through that faithful old standby of the NP, the SABC-TV. One wakes in the morning to the sound of NP propaganda and one goes to bed at night to its strains. [Interjections.] If it is not Otto Krause who becomes euphoric about the so-called rejuvenating performances of the NP, while the ageing syndrome is obvious to all who have eyes to see, then it is the hon leader-in-chief of the NP who himself becomes euphoric about NP dreams and then wants to become eloquent about the euphoria of other political parties. It is almost the same as a very good old friend of mine wrote in a letter I received this morning, that we are in the position today of the goose being on trial and the fox a member of the jury.

On the eve of an election the hon the State President should take a number of irrefutable facts into consideration. As the State President he is associated with a party of which 61 hon members are potential members of the fourth force and hon members must recall that the leader of the fourth force is Ouboet Wimpie. As a newspaperman expressed it so effectively:

[Interjections.] Nevertheless we are certain of one fact and that is what Wimpie says today, the hon leader-in-chief says tomorrow. If one misses his tracks, one need only cast about for those of Wimpie.

As the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs disclosed certain private conversations today, I also want to inform hon members of a private conversation of Adv Vorster’s. It was a message which he sent the hon leader-in-chief of the NP who was a Minister at the time:

He should think of the credibility of the party with which he remains associated although he has recently been making sounds that, in accordance with the recommendations of the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council, he wants to become a supra-ethnic figure at this late stage.

He should also note that the hon the Deputy Minister of Defence did not deign to reply yesterday to the very valid allegation that the Opposition had received no briefing from the hon the Minister of Defence on events on the northern border of SWA. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who made Siegfried Mynhardt look like an amateur here today, accuses us of disloyalty to the Defence Force.

He ought to know the extent of our loyalty to the Defence Force. The hon the State President and the members of the Defence Force are aware of it. We are criticising the political leadership of the Defence Force. The hon the State President knows that our chief spokesman took up the matter with him personally. Although the hon the Minister of Defence gave the hon State President to understand that the necessary steps were being taken, no briefing has taken place up to this point.

On the question of sanctions and disinvestment we were not the ones to invite the USA “to do your damnedest”. We were not the ones who did that. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs always makes such a fuss about knowing what is right while the rest of us have no sense of duty.

I want to give him another example of how he encouraged sanctions. A senior USA political analyst recently said that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs had created great expectations in Geneva before the hon the State President’s Rubicon speech. Then came the Rubicon speech, which was an absolute disaster to those who were trying to prevent sanctions against South Africa. Then he makes such a fuss of the fact that he is fighting the institution of sanctions.

Furthermore his negotiations with the representatives of the Soviet Union are amazing. The Communist Party was banned in South Africa. It is the guardian and patron of the ANC. We do not talk to the ANC but, strangely enough, the ANC first has to renounce violence before we will talk to it. Nevertheless we are prepared to talk to the serpent in its breast. How is one to understand this? How is one to understand the type of morality coming from the side of the NP?

Order! I did not altogether understand that. Did the hon member say the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was the guardian of the ANC?

No, I said the Communist Party was the guardian and the patron of the ANC.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The Communist Party is the serpent in the breast of the ANC. We ask hon members to consider the credibility of the NP. They are still trying to squeeze political advantage out of Boksburg and Carletonville. Take only this Great Hall as an example. Do hon members know that the hon members for Reservoir Hills and Springfield are not even permitted to cast their votes from the benches in which they are sitting and then they talk about apartheid signboards! Here we have human apartheid notices. One is not permitted to vote if one is not in a seat indicated by the NP Government. Surely the Prohibition of Political Interference Act has been abolished.

This goes hand in hand with the mandate which the NP asked for in the 1987 election, that is to negotiate so that the Black people could also be included in decision-making bodies without domination of one group by another. This mandate was certainly not carried out. The Government did manage to get legislation concerning the great Indaba onto the Statute Book but nothing has come of it except that we heard yesterday about negotiations on negotiations with Inkatha and about the first steps in the process of delimitation of areas with Ucasa. The question is further from what power base these negotiations were conducted. Was it the power base of the NP leader-in-chief or that of the hon the State President? Once that question is answered, what mandate will the NP now ask the voters to give them?

The next problem is the finding of the SA Law Commission that there is no formula to be found to protect groups—although there is for individuals. We have just seen the people of Georgia in the Soviet Union erupting from domination after 72 years of merciless communist government and claiming their full right to self-determination.

These aspirations, this ethic, is deeply rooted in the fibre of a people. The Afrikaner people is such a people, regardless of the language spoken. We believe that the hon the State President is trying to take this into account. Any group or party which ignores this and says that we are “of no consequence” does so at its own risk.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Before the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition started his speech, one of the hon members said: “There goes the yapper again.” I ask you whether this is permissible.

Order! I did not hear that, and hon members are to raise points of order immediately because it is very difficult to deal with them some time afterwards. I shall nevertheless try to help the hon member by asking if any hon member said that.

Yes, it was said, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.] I suggest that it was the hon member for Sunnyside.

Order! I asked whether an hon member had said that. No hon member … [Interjections.]

Go on, say it now! [Interjections.]

Order! No hon member has come forward and admitted that he said that. I accept this. I call upon the hon the Deputy Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Representatives. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege to have a third opportunity to participate in this debate of the hon the State President. At the start of my speech I should like to address myself to the hon the State President and thank him for several singular accomplishments in the course of his career.

Firstly I want to say thank you for what he did for Coloured soldiers in the SA Defence Force. I quote what he used to say on occasion:

I believe that our people in uniform are very grateful to the hon the State President for the approach he adopted because it came at a time when their loyalty and their rights were being questioned.

On another occasion the hon the State President took steps that were to the benefit of the sportsmen and sportswomen of South Africa. Since I am closely involved in sport and the creation of sporting opportunities, at both the national and international levels, I want to thank the hon the State President for his decision to allow a Coloured school team to participate in the 1980 Craven Week. That was a mistake in our history. And it is acts such as these that will help facilitate our return to international sporting circles.

I also want to thank the hon the State President for the lesson in discipline we have learnt from him. I remember well what a good sense of humour the hon the State President displayed, particularly in a debate in which I participated. I also want to convey my best wishes to Mrs Botha for her colourful and loving contribution to South African society.

It is easy to criticise people and to condemn them for their mistakes and recklessness. The hon the State President has been a bridge-builder in South African society, and I believe it is now easier for people to cross rivers on the bridges he built.

I think that at the start of the life of this Parliament the LP paid homage to the hon the State President for his reform initiative when we unanimously elected him State President of this country. I think this is a milestone in the history of this country, something that will be difficult to repeat.

I should like to express our party’s disappointment at the increase in the petrol price. This comes at a time when our people are already struggling, and I do not believe we can afford this in view of the current state of the economy. An increase in the petrol price causes a chain reaction, and it is specifically the less well-off who are affected.

Nor do I understand why the DRP wants to use this debate of the hon the State President to get at the LP. Let me say that we will not drag the hon the State President into our election. I think it is mean of them to try to do so. It is a pity that one never actually finds them in the House. Repeatedly they come here with accusations and then disappear.

They remind me of naughty boys who throw stones onto roofs and who, when the people appear, are nowhere to be seen. This is typical of the DRP!

I want this Parliament to take note of the fact that when the storms are raging, they furl their sails. They are not there. They are nowhere to be found, but we shall settle scores with those hon members who act with such bravado in the House.

I must point out that we have always stood for South Africa. We have always stood for what we regard as our home. We have never hesitated to be bridge-builders in South African society. We have never shrunk from meeting our responsibilities in South African society or in international politics.

There is a difference between this office and the previous office of State President. The difference is that the State President is now the head of Parliament and the Government and not the leader-in-chief of the NP. That is why we can use this platform to show him respect in that capacity. At present the State Presidency is a new symbol in South African life, and I believe that is a symbol that should remain. His position must never be linked to a party. I want to warn the NP about this. If this is abused in the future, they will again have the LP to deal with, as has happened in the past. I hope the leader-in-chief of the NP will take note of the fact that this symbol must be a cohesive factor in South African society as a whole.

I also want to say that as this Parliament comes to an end, one cannot underestimate the role of the LP in the reform process. I believe that during the existence of this Parliament the LP has helped to give impetus to reform, although we have been through very difficult times. Sometimes we were critical and it was sometimes our duty to clash head-on with the NP in the interests of a broad democracy, in the interests of justice and in the interests of a secure and stable South Africa. This is the challenge we accept. This is the challenge we accept at present, and we shall continue to assist in the introduction of a new dispensation.

It is true that we are almost at the end of the life of this Parliament and are looking towards a new life and new opportunities that must be created. I believe that the NP must have the courage to lead South Africa to safety, but I also want to issue the warning that it is no use the NP continuing to govern selfishly and purely in its own interests, since the situation will be no better because this would mean that a large part of our society would again be left behind.

It is true that it is a very difficult problem to arrive at a political dispensation in the South African context, but in this Parliament there are enough parties and hon members, and there are enough communities and people in South African society amongst whom there is such a high degree of consensus that we can, in fact, move forward. If we do not do so, we will have to pay that price ourselves. I am also very grateful to be able to say that the hon the State President has not left the task for future generations in South Africa to perform, but has himself accepted the responsibility of leading future generations in South Africa in a new direction.

It is true that the LP has a responsibility, not only to the Coloured community, but also to South African society as a whole. I am glad the hon member for Bishop Lavis is back.

I believe he will realise that he has a responsibility, not only towards his party, but also in the broader context of creating a safe South Africa. If he and his party merely intend remaining the opposition in this House, that is fine, because then they can do so. I believe that after the next election there will not even be an opposition.

I want to ask his hon leader whether he has already been back to his constituency in Walvis Bay. Has he gone to see how his people are, what the situation is with regard to their security and what the situation in South West Africa is? No, Sir, he is too afraid to move outside his own safe cocoon. [Interjections.] Let him come to Mamre. I shall beat him with my eyes closed in Mamre. I shall beat him with my eyes closed. I shall give him a motorcycle and he can begin his election campaign with that. [Interjections.] However, my challenge to him is that they will get nowhere because once again they are merely being selfish and want to promote their own interests. There is no place for them in South African politics. [Interjections.] One does not get very far on a motorcycle either, because one has very little fuel to travel. [Interjections.]

It is true that we must now move towards reaching a safe harbour for everyone in South Africa. We shall have to accept certain principles. We shall have to accept that we have to reach consensus in South African society and create a new order. I merely want to say that consideration must also be given to the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela. Consideration should be given to the abolition of all discriminatory legislation within a given time-scale. The lifting of existing restrictions on all organisations must take place. A central non-discriminatory education system must be accepted and equal opportunities must be created so that everyone can share in the wealth of the country. If we have those points as a basis for negotiation and as a starting point, I believe we shall find a place in Africa.

We cannot cement a relationship with Africa if we cannot even cement a relationship with the children of Africa or with those born in Africa. We shall have to take our place in the African community, not outside our borders, but in the African community within our borders. The children of Africa will have to be absorbed into Afrikaner society so that we can all find a safe harbour.

Mr Chairman, it is always a privilege to follow on the hon the Deputy Minister. I also want to take the opportunity to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister on his appointment to the post which he holds. I shall revert later to the LP and a few remarks which were passed.

After so many tributes to the P W Botha era, there is actually very little scope for anyone to improve on this debate. We on this side of the House welcome every word of credit and appreciation. I hope the hon the State President will permit me to be so bold as to say in lighter vein that the sudden love coming from certain directions almost prompts one to say “beware the Greeks bearing gifts”. Nevertheless we greatly appreciate this recognition.

You know what you said about him when you yourself were still a member of the SAP!

I should like to make only one comment as regards the hon member for Addo. One thing that I really do not want to do is to become involved in a debate on the flag or the national anthem. I think the hon member should accept just one fact. People from the Coloured community also fought and died under this flag. Coloured representatives in the old Parliament of South Africa also approved of the adoption of this South African flag. Concerning the example which the hon member chose in comparing the USA flag on the question of shedding blood, has he forgotten that the Civil War which was fought against people of colour in America took place under the American flag? How many thousands of Red Indians were not killed under the American flag? The example which he chose is therefore not the best.

I should like to make a few comments on the DP. It seems to me that they have already been thinned out to such an extent that I wonder whether this does not represent the number of members that they will return after the next election. I want to add immediately that, if one takes an arrangement of flowers and removes all the flowers and does a rearrangement, that arrangement may look somewhat prettier but the flowers remain exactly the same.

My colleague the hon member for Umlazi was right in saying that it was “a shop-soiled product in new gift wrapping”. That is all the DP is.

The question which we are putting to one another is what the slogan “non-racial, multiparty state” means. Hon members should note that it is easy to talk about a “non-racial, multi-party state” while not a single person of colour has been included in the hierachy, the leadership or the advisory bodies of that party. They are all liberal White paternalists.

Through the agency of the hon member for Randburg we have received the final draft of the so-called DP objectives and policy. If one looks at the preamble to this DP policy, one sees in the first paragraph that all South Africans have a common desire for peace, freedom, justice and prosperity and that this forms the basis for agreement at national level. Then they talk about cultural variety, diversity and about the natural and human resources of South Africa which should be used for the benefit of all.

They speak about confidence and mutual understanding as regards a common vision of the future as the foundation for peaceful negotiation. I want to state that any right-minded person will not be able to find fault with the words which are used in this preamble. In my opinion they are hollow, meaningless generalisations.

If we go further, however, we get to the DP policy programme. I should like to quote one point from that. Hon members must listen very carefully:

Then support it!

If we omit the words “a common voters’ roll”, we are in full agreement with the hon member! Nevertheless the point at issue is the formula which has to be found to give all people in South Africa universal franchise. I want to state that this franchise will definitely not be given on a group basis when mention is made of “every level of representation”. I assume that it will be the first, second and third tiers of government. [Interjections.] The hon member for Randburg confirms that! I want to state that this DP standpoint comes down to only one thing and that is one man, one vote in South Africa on a common voters’ which can only have one result, and that is majority government in South Africa.

This is apparently the final DP surrender of the rights of groups and communities to participate in a political process in South Africa in an orderly manner. I want to state that the National Democratic Movement with its UDF-Idasa alliance has gained the upper hand in this amalgamation. The hon member for Yeoville will have to take the floor and explain to us whether what I have said here now is right or wrong.

Do those hon members think for a moment that the voting public of South Africa will accept this DP manoeuvre? The document therefore implies majority rule and, if one continues reading, one sees that they are paper guarantees which are not even worth the paper on which they are printed. That bunch of people who have now formed the so-called new party have only one point in common and that is their prejudice against the NP. There is no other bond among them. Only their prejudice against the NP has bound them into one party.

They now have a preamble and they have spelt out principles and a policy but now we are waiting for the interpretation of that policy. As sure as I am standing here today the hon member for Yeoville’s interpretation is not the same as that of the hon member for Randburg or even the same as the policy of the hon parliamentary leader of that party. [Interjections.]

I want to call another event to mind. A previous occasion also saw an effort to form such a party. That was when the old United Party threw in the towel and Sir De Villiers Graaff came up with his “Save South Africa” effort. That was when the Kowie Marais Committee was appointed and they came up with 14 principles. Those 14 principles were so wide open that a wagon and oxen could be driven through them. Immediately afterwards two separate political parties were formed based on exactly the same objectives and principles. The only difference at present is that they have amalgamated three parties now instead of having two separate parties. We shall await the interpretation of this document which we have received with great interest.

The question, however, is who will gain the upper hand in its interpretation. Will it be the leader of the DP, Dr Zach de Beer, with his blue-blood, liberal Prog standpoints? Will it be Dr Denis Worrall with his—as we know—vague standpoints? Will it be the hon member for Randburg with his extraparliamentary emphasis? Will it be the so-called “fourth force” which is scrambling back so feverishly to the retention and protection of group rights in South Africa? Will it perhaps be the “Van”, Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, playing “footsie-footsie” with the ANC and the SACP? They will have to draw lots to establish whose standpoint will ultimately be the standpoint of that party.

Let me get to another point and that is the economic policy of that party. This is yet another flat tyre on which this party has to drive. Dr Sampie Terreblanche is the great “guru”, the great adviser on economic policy. He talks about a redistribution of wealth. I want to quote to hon members what appeared about Dr Sampie Terreblanche in the English Press:

That is the stable from which Dr De Beer comes—

Let us see what they have to say in this document about their economic policy. I want to deal with only one paragraph.

You must read everything!

They say:

Now the bit to accommodate the Terreblanches—

I want to state that that party will also flounder regarding its economic policy because one has to make a choice regarding that economic policy. One either stands by capitalism and the free-enterprise system—as I believe Dr De Beer, the parliamentary leader of the DP, does—or one leans to socialism and Sampie Terreblanche’s redistribution of wealth concept. One cannot advocate both simultaneously.

Now— the man of morality and high principles! I am referring to the hon member for Randburg— he stood on this podium again today and was almost boasting when he said that they were coming back with more seats than he could have imagined in his wildest dreams. Mention was made of as many as 40 seats if one listens to Dr Denis Worrall.

Hon members’ memories are certainly very short. Surely we recall the turbo-charged campaign when there was boasting about the 52 seats which the then PFP would win, when what emerged was a meagre 19 seats for them in this Parliament.

To have standpoints of high principle without spelling out a clear alternative policy will not help at all. The hon member for Randburg’s principles are so high, for instance, that he participated actively in the creation of the tricameral parliamentary system during the 1983 referendum and, in the debate which preceded it, the hon member for Randburg was one of the leading figures in putting forward standpoints on what this dispensation had to look like.

Now that he has left and been reduced to joining the Idasa, Boraine and Slabbert circle, has paid visits overseas and stands arm in arm with Joe Slovo posing for photographs, he, the man of high principles, wants to remain part of this system but he says that his party is not to participate in the election for the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. If the hon member feels so strongly about his principles, why does he not do the honourable thing, leave this parliament and join Van Zyl Slabbert and Idasa where he actually belongs? His sanctimoniousness is starting to irritate us here in Parliament because political moralising spells only trouble for any political party.

A second point which I should like to touch upon is the admission of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives that the initiatives of the hon the State President in particular enable him to participate in this parliamentary forum and to state his point today. This is certainly a laudable admission which we affirm with great acclamation.

The further tribute from the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Representatives was similarly a wonderful gesture. The argument that the pace of reform is decelerating in South Africa is simply not true, however. I want to concede immediately that we could accelerate the pace of reform. We can debate this. The action of the NP Government under the leadership of the hon the State President has indicated no deceleration whatsoever in the pace of reform.

The standard CP question, as recently raised by the hon member for Lichtenburg, that we now have to say where the NP is heading with South Africa, can be addressed at the same time. The momentum of the hon the State President’s style and daring cannot be stemmed, with or without him. The zeal and tenacity with which the hon the State President brought about political participation for the Coloured and Indian communities were only the start of reform and we cannot stop there. We have only to affirm it with great praise, appreciation and acclamation.

Surely further substance was given, under the hon the State President’s leadership, to the TBVC countries and more powers to the self-governing areas, with jurisdiction over thousands of hectares of land. Recognition of the permanence of Black people in our urban and rural areas outside the context of the national states has become a reality. Mechanisms have been introduced to broaden democracy as regards those communities too. Examples are legion. Let us look at the multiracial regional services councils which work. Look at the multiracial provincial governments. We have just sat in the provinces and we saw they worked. Local government elections for Black people were introduced with great success. There was concerted action on the side of leftists in South Africa suggesting that this was a trick and did not mean anything. I have a document here of the MEC in the Transvaal who said that it was estimated that there were 2 103 000 potential voters in the Transvaal and that 1 734 000 of these, in other words, 82,9%, were registered for the election.

In the PWV area the percentage vote in that municipal election was 18,2% compared with 34,6% for the rest of the Transvaal. In other words, participation in decision-making processes throughout South Africa is still being continued under this hon State President and this Government. Neither is the deliberate intention to bring about participation at the highest level lacking on this side of the House and in the Government.

This evolutionary process of reform is taking place responsibly and under strong and capable leadership. The basic guidelines which I want to affirm here today with acclamation and which have come from the hon the State President and the Government are, firstly, the accommodation of our diversity which has not been elevated to an ideology but is merely recognition of the reality of South Africa. If colour plays a part, according to the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Representatives, it is merely because it is part of that reality. A point I do wish to confirm and which that hon Minister mentioned is that, when colour is abused to benefit oneself at the expense of other people, it should be rejected and we must get away from it. I concede this fully. If we think, however, that we can merely throw colour out at the window, I am telling hon members that we are not viewing the realities of South Africa with our eyes open.

The second very important point is that the process of reform does not erode existing, recognised, Christian values and civilised norms. The last extremely important point is that orderly government is not going to the wall under the NP.

Mr Chairman, with these words I thank you and we wish the hon the State President everything of the best in his reply to the debate on this Vote.

Mr Chairman, I wondered how to react to the bit of DP-bashing by the hon member. I must say that he was a little better than the hon member for Umlazi.

Fortunately he said in his final sentence that security was not being forfeited by the NP. That is precisely my charge against the NP. No security is possible under the NP Government. It is the duty of the State to ensure the security of its citizens. People demand security and they demand security through justice. [Interjections.] The people of Natal are begging for that, but after 1 000 days of a state of emergency the figures show that law and order in Natal have broken down completely.

What are the facts? Hon members must listen carefully. In and around my constituency alone—halfway between Durban and Greytown—397 people were killed in 1987 and 680 people in 1988. Every week-end 13 people die in and around my constituency. This is not order, much less law because there were definitely no more than 13 prosecutions for all those murders. One simply cannot pile 1 000 corpses on a heap and all you hear about it on Monday morning is: “Seven people have died in unrest-related incidents in Pietermaritzburg”.

This is simply not good enough. We are dealing here with people’s lives and the preservation of the whole judicial system. Let there be political differences, because politics is in fact the way to settle differences in a civilised community. However, when no action is taken against violence, politics cannot replace violence.

Is it not ironic that after more than 1 000 days of a state of emergency the situation is so bad that a Chief of KwaZulu has to send a petition to the hon the State President to intervene. I quote:

This petition was drawn up by Chief Maphumolo who has approximately 285 000 subjects. He went on to say:

†He is aware that in the 1 000 murders that have taken place in the past two years, there have been virtually no prosecutions and even a smaller percentage of convictions of offenders.

*These findings which are spelt out very clearly in his petition are also confirmed by other observers and researchers. I personally saw policemen who acted in a totally undisciplined way and could hardly be distinguished from the mob during incidents of violence. I never mentioned this in public because I discussed it with the hon the Minister, the Deputy Minister and officers. However, I would be neglecting my duty if I did not start telling people what is happening in Natal. Until Monday I still believed that there could be a turning-point. Unfortunately I heard on Tuesday morning that the situation had returned to its old routine after a short period of discipline.

The hon the Minister of Law and Order knows this. I feel strongly that there should be law and order. It is of cardinal importance that every policeman should be respected as a protector against the perpetrators of violence and that the courts should be the final arbitrator.

All this I discussed with the hon the Minister and his officers in Natal. I also discussed this with communities who have lost all confidence in the Police and who must return time and again to beg for protection. Only the day before yesterday 500 women from Mpophomeni marched to the police station in Howick to beg once again for protection because they know that if they mobilise, violence will simply increase. Over the past two or three years I told the hon the Minister time and again that something was drastically wrong in the situation. The figures speak for themselves.

Every week-end people call me and tell me exactly where incidents of unrest will take place. I contact the police and they are always at the scene and it always ends in violence with people dying and afterwards it is said that they cannot find witnesses. Where are the video cameras which were present in the case of little Stompie? Why are they not there? If people were warned and we must go and pick up the corpses the next morning, how can it be said that they cannot prosecute? That is simply not good enough.

The hon the Minister also knows that we are always trying to get the warring parties together. The Government say that they are in favour of negotiation, but when it comes to the crux of the matter, when we have people in a negotiating situation, the hon the Minister sees fit to detain those people. I am referring specifically to the case of Skumbuzo Ngwenya. I made a plea to the hon the Minister after he attended a meeting with 10 other people who negotiated a peace plan, and he was taken into custody and detained for 16 months by the hon the Minister. He was freed after a hunger-strike. He is a free man and all the information, of which the hon the Minister said I had no knowledge, did not even constitute half a charge against him. The Government says it is in favour of negotiation. The KwaZulu delegation said it themselves:

The mayor of Pietermaritzburg said:

This is the Government that talks about negotiation.

Nor am I the only person who is pleading with the hon the State President. I have several other pleas with me, for example pleas to the hon the State President by the Cathedral of Holy Nativity in Pietermaritzburg, a request by the City Centre Clergy and other requests by other organisations.

I also know about other cases where the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister were requested to visit Pietermaritzburg in their personal capacity to receive information from sources other than the usual. I beg them to visit Natal if they are interested in knowing how their departments are being run there and in speaking with ordinary members of the public. We can help them with that.

From the hon the State President’s reply to the previous petitions, as well as the reply I received from the hon the Minister of Law and Order, it is clear to me that there cannot really be such a settlement by negotiation as long as the NP is in power.

Why do I say that? Firstly it is very certain that the Government is committed to the whole ideology of race and that it therefore excludes by definition everyone who opposes it and who is not prepared to operate within racial structures, as part of a total onslaught. What it is in fact doing is by definition to exclude more than half of the people of South Africa from the negotiation process.

The hon the State President said in his reply to one of the petitions:

The subject of the petition was the removal of people who were included in a negotiation process! The hon the State President also says:

One can, of course, agree with these sentiments but as I explained, there should be action against people who commit violence—and not against the possibility of violence and because the hon the Minister thought they wanted to commit violence, nor because the hon the Minister thinks that they differ from him ideologically. For this reason there can be no possibility of negotiation.

When will we ever learn from the example of South West Africa? The DTA were miles ahead of the NP as far as purposefulness was concerned in their real wish for a non-racial democracy. The hon member for Turffontein does not know what that is. It simply means a constitution which is not based on race, although there might of course be ethnic differences. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the tricameral Parliament which has been so widely criticised is a vehicle in the process of constitutional evolution. Seen from this point of view, it is not entirely without merit. Is has for the first time brought into Parliament members of the Coloured and Indian groups. These two groups, together with the Blacks, of course, were without representation at the highest level of government until 1984. The omission of Blacks at that point in time …

Order! Hon members may not stand in the aisle. The hon member for Cavendish may continue.

The omission of Blacks at that point in time was a calculated blunder as subsequent events proved it to be. The tricameral system therefore is an important bridging mechanism.

We all agree that it was wrong to have excluded Blacks from the constitutional dispensation of 1984. The present Government is seriously gearing itself to also involve the Blacks at the highest legislative level. Once this is achieved, it will no doubt meet many of the aspirations of the Black community.

It must be conceded that proper structures have to be developed among the Blacks. Although the 1988 October elections have not been a total success, there is every indication that with genuine willingness on the part of both the Government and the Blacks themselves, it is an important initial statutory structure.

Through these numerous municipal structures and RSCs an important opportunity has been made available for Blacks to enunciate their needs and become involved in negotiation at those levels. Already there are Black MECs and their membership is bound to increase on the Provincial Councils in the future. The question of Black involvement at parliamentary level is of course crucial.

In order to make progress the present political log-jam has to be broken. If I were to share my experience with my Black compatriots, I would tell them to become involved and find a solution or help in finding a solution. The freeing of Nelson Mandela and certain other political prisoners should be given serious consideration. The Western powers should help admonish the ANC to renounce violence. This applies to other radical organisations as well. The Blacks should not ignore good advice in selfrighteous indignation. They too must make a shift from the too ideological a standpoint to a more pragmatic one, which would help to resolve the present impasse and also find a constitutional settlement.

I would suggest that an all-party indaba should be approached with urgency. The KwaZulu/Natal proposals need to be looked at with greater concern.

Mr Chairman, for the past two days I have been listening attentively to most of the speakers in this debate, and I should like to begin by reacting to some of the remarks made by certain hon members.

In the first place there was the hon member Dr Geldenhuys who made a speech about the ANC and its composition and the conditions the ANC has ostensibly made for discussions on a constitutional level. What struck me about the hon member’s speech was the distinction he tried to draw between the so-called “old school” in the ANC and the “young radicals”. Those were more or less his words. Then he said the Rivonia men—including Mr Mandela—were members of the “old school” and not of the “young radicals”.

In my opinion what the hon member was trying to do here is very clear, and that is to detach from Mr Mandela the label “radical” and to make him more acceptable to the South African public, so that when he is released by the Government shortly, he will at least be accepted and the Government’s decision to release him will be more acceptable to the public.

We in the CP want to condemn these statements most strongly. In our view Mr Mandela is just as radical as any other member of the ANC, and this attempt to draw an artificial distinction to make him more acceptable in the eyes of the public is unacceptable to us. [Interjections.]

With reference to the comments made by the hon member for Springs, I want to say that this hon member claims that there is a proverbial central politburo in the CP which prescribes policy and conduct to town councils. [Interjections.] What is interesting is that I am in possession of a letter from the NP constituency board of Florida, which does precisely that. This letter prescribes exactly to the NP members of the Roodepoort Town Council that they must form a caucus and that they will be expected to implement NP policy. [Interjections.]

All we are saying is: Look at who is talking! The NP spokesmen stand here, and accuse the CP of doing that—without any proof—yet we have written proof that the NP is doing precisely what they are accusing us of doing. [Interjections.]

With reference to the comments made by the hon member for Kuruman, I want to tell the hon member that he is treading on very dangerous ground. I see the hon member is not in the House this afternoon, but the remark he made about the boycotts, viz that the losses businessmen are suffering are the result of the implementation of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, is a very dangerous standpoint, because in effect the hon member is allying himself with the boycotters. The hon member is granting legitimacy to the boycotts carried out by organisations such as Cosatu and others who organise these boycotts. In doing so the hon member and his party are their bedfellows. We want to tell the hon member and his party that during the coming general election we are going to inform the voters of their standpoint that it is the fault of the implementation of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act that businessmen have suffered losses as a result of illegal boycotts. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Jeppe spoke about the “unreliability” of Die Patriot. This is another interesting irony, because a certain P C wrote in an edition of Die Nasionalis, with reference to a speech I had made in Parliament, that at one stage I had ostensibly wanted Indians to be forced to use Christ’s name during the official prayers in Parliament. That is devoid of all truth. Any hon member who read my speech that dealt with that subject knows it is an untruth. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members are making too many interjections. The hon member may proceed.

I should like to tell the hon members of the NP that this is characteristic of Die Nasionalis. In a more recent edition of Die Nasionalis, a certain WHO wrote that I had indicated in public that I did not want anything at all to do with the AWB. The truth is that I did not say that. [Interjections.] I did not say that. I never said more or less from a public platform than my hon leader-in-chief had said. This is a specific allegation, however, and it is interesting, because a short while previously the hon member for Maraisburg had indicated in a letter to the local newspaper that is circulated in Roodepoort that I had had an alliance with the AWB for the 1987 election. Can hon members see the total untruthfulness of these reports in NP sources? On the one hand I am presented as being involved in an absolute alliance with the AWB, and on the other—when they see that does not work because it is untrue, and I said it was a blatant lie in a letter I wrote afterwards—Die Nasionalis says that I have publicly dissociated myself completely from the AWB. Hon members can therefore see the complete untruthfulness on the part of NP propaganda. [Interjections.]

I think that when the NP history during the past seven years since 24 February 1982 is recorded, it can possibly be done on the basis of the following significant characteristics. In the first place there was a complete about-face in policy. Note that this was not a mere change or adjustment, but a complete 180 degree about-face in policy. Secondly there was distortion of parliamentary procedures and thirdly the misuse of mass media in misleading the public. In the fourth place there was selective implementation of the law. In the fifth place there was a lowering in the status of the Constitution and in the sixth the contempt of democracy. In the seventh place there is the impoverishment of the Whites and in the eighth increasing lawlessness. In the ninth place there is a clear blurring of moral norms and a significant increase in permissiveness. In the tenth place there is a complete inability and unwillingness to withstand hostile foreign pressure.

With regard to the complete about-face in policy, hon members will remember how for the more than 34 years before 24 February 1982, the NP presented a people’s right of self-determination as a political principle that could not coexist with a policy of power-sharing.

A propaganda pamphlet that was drawn up and published by the new hon leader-in-chief of the NP and the present hon Minister of Finance during the late seventies—as far as I could determine—is only one example of this. In contrast with that, hon members will remember the dramatic events of 24 February 1982 when the hon the State President suddenly made power-sharing the new policy of the NP. This astonishing about-face can be recorded on the basis of later statements made by the hon the State President. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me to speak in this Vote. The hon the State President must be the Government leader in South Africa who has made the biggest contribution to extending human rights. Apart from the liberation of the slaves, he has done more than all the heads of. State together. Numerous speakers were dissatisfied because the hon the State President had not gone far enough with reform and they felt that reform had come to a standstill. In fact the contrary is true.

Let us analyse the reform process since 1981. In 1981 there was the introduction of free organisation and association in labour; in 1984 there was the establishment of a new constitutional dispensation, the abolition of permits for non-Whites to attend White universities and the introduction of a uniform system of taxation; in 1985 there was the repeal of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act which made the formation of mixed political parties possible, and the repeal of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act; in 1986 there was the restitution of common South African citizenship, the issuing of uniform identity documents to all South Africans without reference to race, the establishment of multiracial provincial executive committees, the granting of full property rights to Blacks, the abolition of influx control and related measures, the transfer of full property rights to Black local governments, the abolition of special courts for cases between Blacks, the throwing open of central business areas, the throwing open of hotels, cinemas and theatres, the scrapping of provisions with regard to colour in the Liquor Act, the admission of Indians to the Orange Free State and Northern Natal and the removal of discrimination with regard to immigrant selection.

Let us take a look at the reform that took place in 1987: The provision with regard to colour in the Mines and Works Act was repealed, a Joint Executive Authority was established for KwaZulu and Natal and other regions were authorised to do the same, multiracial regional services councils were established and the devolution of powers and functions from provincial governments to local authorities took place in terms of the policy of the devolution of power.

In 1988—last year—provision was made for a national forum for negotiation in terms of the Promotion of Constitutional Development Act. This legislation makes provision for all South Africans to have an opportunity to participate in the planning and preparation of a new constitutional dispensation. Black South Africans will obtain a say in government processes on an interim basis. Healthy relations between everyone and respect for everyone’s human dignity, rights and freedom will be promoted.

Announcements were made about an amendment to the Constitution which will provide for Black Ministers in the Cabinet, Black representatives in the electoral college for the election of the State President, Black representatives in the President’s Council and the reintroduction of the office of Prime Minister.

There was the publication of a Bill which provides for the introduction of directly elected legislative and executive regional councils for Blacks outside self-governing territories; urban train services were thrown open; provision was made for open residential areas and free settlement areas and for non-racial political participation in the local government processes by residents of open areas. In addition a general local election for all communities was held in October.

This reform is a continuous process that emanates from our basic principles of no political domination of any one community by another; the inclusion of all communities in the political decision-making process; justice, equality and opportunities for all communities; the elimination of any form of discrimination and the protection of human dignity.

It is a harsh reality that one finds all the elements of confrontation in South Africa with all its diversity. We have a heterogeneous population, diversity in religious groups and economic differences in the population. Against this background, and under the leadership of the hon the State President, we are establishing a Constitution which will comply with all the peculiarities of our problems. Who could have predicted 10 years ago that we would debate across the dividing lines of colour in this House today?

In this way we shall continue to broaden democracy by means of constitutional development and in so doing to comply with the aspirations of our Black population. With the establishment and further development of regional services councils, all groups on the third tier will receive full participation. In an adapted form, these structures can be used in a constitutional dispensation.

Mr Chairman, it is a great privilege for me to stand here and participate in the Vote of the hon the State President for the first time since I entered Parliament. I want to wish him everything of the best and pray that the Lord will grant him the strength to live for a long time to come. I want him to know that the two Churches in my constituency prayed for him while he was ill. It was the AFM Church and the Full Evangelical Church. They prayed for him every evening. We believe he has meant a lot to us because he was the only one who dared to make access to Parliament possible for Coloured people. We wish him strength for the future.

I wish to quote a few things the hon the State President said in his speech last year on 5 February (Hansard, col 3):

These are wonderful words the hon the State President used. These are wonderful words and I do not know whether they are also going to be conveyed by the new leader. I heard here today how they praised the hon the State President. I do not know why, but some of the people who first attacked him so vehemently, are praising him now that they hear he is going to retire. I say things about a man while he is still alive. Once he is dead, I say nothing about him.

Today I wish to ask the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP what he is going to do with the Coloured people. I wish to quote something. I have been ill, otherwise I would have quoted it previously. I was extremely perturbed when I read it, because the NP are the people who wanted to have progress in the country. They brought us here and placed us, as the hon the State President explained, on the road to reform. However, the hon the leader-in-chiefs wife painted such an odd picture of us. I then became very perturbed. When the hon the State President spoke to us in the House after we arrived here, we were still covered in dust. We were bitter because all these years we have been outside. We expressed our feelings and told hon members we were not angry with them when we said these things. We are their friends and we are fond of them, but we tell them what the Afrikaner has done to us and our people. This is the only opportunity we have to say these things to hon members. We told them we were not angry with them, we would always be their friends.

The hon the leader-in-chief must know that if I tell him these things today, I will always be his friend, but it hurts me. The hon the State President said we run the Afrikaner down, but there were Afrikaners who said in previous years that they did not wish to sit next to a Coloured person in the train, because that Coloured person stank of fish. That is what they said. [Interjections.]

Today we sit together and nobody stinks of fish. I want to say that if some of my people stink of fish, then some of their people also stink of fish. That is so, but not I. Here we hear that we are dregs.

†She said about the Coloured people:

*This hurts me deeply, and I ask the hon leader-in-chief of the NP to tell me what he is going to do about this. Has his wife apologised to the Coloured people? We stand by them in this country. My people died for this country and the hon the State President himself paid tribute here to those who gave their lives. My people have also given their lives. This is what hurts me, and the hon the leader-in-chief will have to tell me that before I can work with him in the future.