Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

That notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No 22 the hours of sitting on Friday, 4 May, shall be:

08h30-12h45;

14h15-15h30.

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, this is probably the last time the Leader of the Opposition can address the Prime Minister of the country on his Vote. Indeed, when one considers the new constitutional dispensation that is to be implemented later this year, one realizes that this matter is still the subject of an investigation by a select committee of this House and we are trying to gain clarity as to the precise procedures and arrangements whereby this Vote will be debated.

When we consider the present hon Prime Minister in relation to the previous Prime Ministers of the NP, I believe that the verdict of history will be that the present hon Prime Minister has been the most successful. [Interjections.] There could be a great deal of argument as to why this is so and what the reasons may be, but I believe that if one were to try and define it one could say that it was so because the hon the Prime Minister has attempted to accommodate change and the demands of change, while to a large extent his predecessors tried to delay it. I believe, too, that the success of the hon the Prime Minister is due solely to his having succeeded in outlining our challenges in South Africa more sharply, rather than to his having produced solutions for them. This applies in regard to both our internal and our external situations. I shall refer to this in more detail later.

At this stage I want to bring up a matter that has to be cleared up, a matter that has remained unresolved since the no-confidence debate. I refer to the role of the State Security Council in political decision-making. The hon the Prime Minister will remember that this matter was referred for discussion under his Vote when during the no-confidence debate there was a possibility of a misunderstanding between us. I believe this is also an opportune moment to state my party’s position on sensitive security matters. The hon the Prime Minister has in the past reacted rather testily to probing questions from the Opposition on these matters. Mr Chairman, I must put it quite clearly that I do not mind being controversial in this area if I believe it to be in the country’s interest. However, I do believe that such controversy should not be based on avoidable misunderstandings.

Perhaps I can illustrate the approach of the official Opposition to matters of this nature by referring to two kinds of allegations that have come to my attention. One type of allegation refers to the State Security Council and another to the Strategic Fuel Fund. As far as the latter is concerned, I am aware that this constitutes the subject of an investigation by the Advocate-General. So, I am not going to go into the merits of the allegations. I will simply be talking about the procedure which we adopt on matters of this kind.

Coming to the SSC, the allegations which were made were to the effect that that council is the real decision-making body on matters of fundamental policy and that the Cabinet, the NP caucus and Parliament are simply acting as a rubber stamp for it. The second allegation that was made was that the military dominates the activities of the SSC and, thirdly, that the SSC will effectively be the secretariat for the new executive State President. These were the allegations I brought to the attention of the hon the Prime Minister. These are allegations that were made publicly either in respected academic journals, newspapers or seminars. They directly affect the dignity and the status of Parliament in the relation to political policy and decision-making. The Prime Minister is the person who can respond authoritatively in public to these allegations and I believe it is the responsibility of the official Opposition to demand that he does so. The allegations concerning to SSC are of the same kind that were made concerning South Africa’s role in the Angolan war, destabilization of our neighbouring territories, the attempted coup in the Seychelles, etc. In short, these are public allegations, and no amount of private or confidential briefing is going to undo this. The hon the Prime Minister can ignore, deny or confirm this kind of allegation publicly, but it is the duty of the official Opposition to get a public response from the Government and to state its own position in relation to that response. No amount of insults or abuse will deter us from doing so.

Coming to the allegations concerning the SFF, we have a different problem. These allegations came to me privately and anonymously. They were of an extremely serious nature and appeared to come from an authentic source. They involved the expenditure of public money in an irregular manner on a vast scale in a strategically sensitive area for South Africa. I believe that unsubstantiated allegations of this kind should not become part of an attempt to get short-term party-political gain, particularly if it is to be at the expense of the taxpayer. Consequently I believe it is the correct thing to do to seek a confidential briefing with the Prime Minister in order to draw his attention to these allegations. I did this and I urged the hon the Prime Minister to have them investigated as soon as possible. Within days the hon the Prime Minister announced that he had referred these allegations to the Advocate-General for investigation. Having acted in this way on anonymous and private allegations rather than public allegations, does not mean that the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister is involved in any kind of cover-up. On the contrary, private allegations have now become part of an official investigation which must report back to Parliament, and I urge those who have relevant information to make it available to the Advocate-General.

However, I believe there are two issues involved here. The one is specific allegations being investigated by the Advocate-General. All power to his arm, and I would ask the hon the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that this gentleman has all the help and assistance he needs to facilitate his investigations. The second issue is a much broader issue, namely whether public money has been expended in a wasteful or irregular manner and, if so, whether this could have been avoided with stricter and better control. If newspaper reports on this have any substance, the amounts involved are astronomical. I believe this is a matter which directly concerns Parliament, and I therefore believe it should be dealt with by a select committee of Parliament. I want to ask the hon the Prime Minister why such a committee should not be appointed forthwith. I believe in fact that such a committee, in its deliberations and investigations, could be of assistance to the investigation of the Advocate-General.

This then is the approach which we adopt on matters of security. If it is public, it needs to be dealt with publicly because it is a public allegation. However, we have no intention of exploiting sensitive security matters for short-term party political gain. Having said that, let me add that we have every intention of probing and questioning the Government for any form of complicity or any form of dereliction of duty. We will do so whatever the reaction from the other side.

*I now want to refer to the foreign situation of South Africa. One could say that at the moment South Africa is enjoying the most favourable foreign atmosphere since the establishment of the Republic. The signs of this are well known to all of us; for example, the Accord of Nkomati, the negotiations with Swaziland and Botswana and the breakthrough made as regards the announcement of a visit by the hon the Prime Minister to West Germany and possibly to other countries as well. It is to be hoped that we shall gain more information in this regard from the hon the Prime Minister. I believe that, apart from party-political differences, and measured in terms of objective standards of international diplomacy, these are breakthroughs with which any Government could be satisfied. I believe that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his deputy and also the staff of the department deserve credit for the work done in this regard.

Having said that, I still believe that our top foreign priorities in the immediate future are still South West Africa/Namibia and Angola, and I hope that we shall see similar breakthroughs there, too.

I want to make two remarks about the more favourable international situation for South Africa. Firstly I have a remark to make about our neighbouring states. I believe that it is better to conclude peace with one’s neighbour when he is on his feet economically rather than when he is on his knees economically. I say this not only to the Government of the Republic but also to the neighbouring states themselves. They must realize that it is better for us to have a Southern African region where there is economic prosperity rather than a situation which increases the economic dependence of the neighbouring states on the Republic. By that I mean that it would be ironic if South Africa’s peace treaties were chiefly to serve to increase its economic burden instead of alleviating it.

My second remark relates to the breakthrough to the West. These new breakthroughs must be seen as the calm in the midst of the storm rather than as the end of heavy weather. It is now the time to seize new initiatives in order to exploit and stabilize the new favourable atmosphere, rather than to rest on our laurels. However we may see this, these new initiatives must in the nature of the matter apply to the domestic situation. Therefore our breakthrough at the foreign level has focused—and will increasingly focus—attention on our domestic situation, and it is this domestic situation that I wish to discuss briefly.

1984 is the year in which constitutional dispensations end and begin in South Africa. I believe that all the attempts at constitutional development we have had thus far emphasize just one overwhelming fact, viz the unsatisfactory and untenable position of the Black man. When I say this I am not expressing an opinion about the merits or otherwise—we can discuss that, too—of the constitutional developments that have taken place. However, if they are weighed up against the total situation, one fact stands out like a sore thumb, viz the unsatisfactory and untenable position of the Black man. In the midst of this unsatisfactory situation an extremely dangerous process is taking place. The Black man is increasingly being drawn closer as a South African worker, but repudiated as a South African citizen. The Government sees him as a fellow worker in the South African economy, and as such says to him “Integration is in order”, but when it considers him as a follow citizen in South African politics, it says to him “What you can look forward to is enforced segregation”. That is the oldest and most well-known formula for struggle and conflict in any society. In South Africa it will mean just one thing: The workplace will be the battlefield where the Black man will fight for his political rights. What will the consequences of this be?

Firstly, the relationship between employee and employer—and, therefore, to a large extent, between White and Black—will increasingly become politicized in disparate ideologies, viz capitalism for the employer and socialism for the employee. The hon the Minister of Defence has already referred to this in passing in a speech made before a children’s village of the Apostolic Faith Mission on 23 April when he said:

He added that this was an extension of the socialist onslaught. So much for the first effect of this.

The second will be that the employer will increasingly have to assume the task of bringing horn to the Black man his loss of South African citizenship. He will do so when forms have to be filled in when he employs a Black man, when he enquires about his status, when he arranges his leave, etc. All those measures, which will increasingly be transferred to the employer by the authorities in order to administer influx control, will result in the employer reminding the employee of his loss of South African citizenship.

The third consequence is that every effort by the authorities to stabilize the constitutional position of the Black man will at the same time be seen as steps aimed at making him a stranger in the country of his birth. This was one of the dilemmas encountered in the establishment of the new local authorities for Blacks, seen against the background of the referendum and the constitutional dispensation. Whatever merit those measures may have had—they did have merit—the reaction was that this was a quid pro quo for the loss of citizenship and participation in the common state system.

Elementary common sense tell us that this cannot and will not work. We need urgent new initiatives in this field. What can those initiatives be? Whatever the deficiencies of the new constitutional dispensation, one aspect has captured attention world-wide: For the first time the NP has recognized that a common governmental system, based on common citizenship of White, Coloured and Asian, must be worked out. That is what has captured people’s attention, the idea of a common system of government based on common citizenship. The Government is telling the Coloureds and Asians to join the Whites in seeking a new constitutional formula on the basis of a common South African citizenship. It has been said repeatedly that the new dispensation is merely a point of departure, or the beginning, and that it cannot be said that it is the end. It is necessary to seek new measures and new formulas, but based on the principle of common citizenship of White, Coloured and Asian. Why can the Government not say the same thing to the Black man? After all, as a South African he has been in Southern Africa longer than the Coloured and the Asian. There would be absolutely no change as regards the basic constitutional dilemmas which the Government has to struggle with in any event. Minority vetos, self-determination of groups, race discrimination and domination are all problems which exist in the present and also in the new constitutional dispensation. If the CP has done anything it has at least ripped away that fig leaf the Government tried to hold up in arguing that one could not apply the logic which applied in the case of the Coloured, to the Black man as far as constitutional dilemmas were concerned.

Compare for example the question of a Coloured homeland and Qwaqwa. If we look at it objectively, the CP wins that argument. Purely in terms of the elementary laws of logic, they win that argument. [Interjections.] The Government is being driven into a corner in this regard, and highly intelligent Ministers like the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning come to this House and flounder about using ridiculous arguments. Indeed, it is embarassing to see such intelligent people being compelled by political circumstances to be caught up in ridiculous arguments. [Interjections.] Just as the Government is not surrouending the White man’s estate by following the path of common citizenship together with the Coloureds and the Asians and, together with them, seeking new constitutional formulas equally it would not be surrendering if it were to do the same with regard to the Black man. Common citizenship simply means that we recognize a political principal as a point of departure. It does not mean that we accept a political formula as a final solution. The political formulas that we in this House have rejected, are clear, namely the Westminster system, the system of one man, one vote based on majority decision-making, race discrimination and domination. The fact that we reject these formulas need not, however, necessarily mean that we have also rejected the principle of a common citizenship. Acceptance of this principle would mean that we could join in seeking new formulas and political solutions. I believe that if the Government were to take this symbolic step, it would really be possible to work at a new South Africa. Indeed, we know that the question of citizenship is intimately related to, inter alia, an effective urbanization policy for the Blacks, and that is an urgent problem faced by the Government. However, the steps taken in respect of such an effective policy are directly linked to the citizenship status of the Black man. They are also linked to an acceptable system of local authorities. The steps that may be taken to stabilize the situation at the level of local authorities is directly related to the standpoint adopted in regard to citizenship and also a feasible housing policy, and we know that this is going to be one of the crisis points in the future.

If the issue of citizenship is not resolved we shall continue to flounder as far as these critical areas are concerned. Why? Because no solution is possible in any of these spheres without the co-operation of the Black man, and he will not grant his co-operation on the basis that he has to forfeit his South African citizenship. Let us state the argument the other way around. Say for the sake of argument the Government were to succeed entirely in making all the homelands independent on the basis it proposes. In that case we should still be saddled with an urbanization problem, perhaps an even greater one than at present. We should still be saddled with a problem of local authorities and a housing problem which would probably be still greater than the present one. Apart from that we should spend millions of rands in an effort to realize that policy, and even that would not help us to succeed. Here is a report entitled “Cost of homelands influx control R3,5 billion a year”. If there were a possibility that it would succeed, one could say that we have to pay for it. But it is not even succeeding. In fact, in many instances that money is simply wasted. Let me give an example. It is ridiculous that a person like President Sebe should acquire an aircraft costing a few million rands which he hardly ever uses, while his people are dying of hunger around him. I believe that control of this kind of thing should be exercised in some way, because that money does not come from him, but from South Africa. The same argument we use in regard to South West Africa, viz that money there disappears in a bottomless pit, must be applied in this regard because we desperately need the money for development in South Africa.

If the Government were now to adopt this new initiative in respect of Blacks as well, it would immediately change the nature of the constitutional instruments it has already created. That is the important point. If the Government takes the step of bringing about a common citizenship, the status of self-governing bodies such as urban Black authorities would change overnight. Why? It is one thing to say that one will be compelled to use a homeland authority to facilitate one’s loss of South African citizenship; it is something else entirely to say that one is going to use it to improve one’s chances of South African citizenship. It is a question of perspective. In terms of one principle one can obtain co-operation, but in terms of a different principle relating to the same matter it will be difficult to obtain that co-operation.

There is a more favourable international climate for South Africa. We shall not soon have another opportunity to exploit it decisively for the sake of our internal situation. Hesitation and half-heartedness, falling back on old and worn-out formulas and hollow slogans will convince nobody. It is pointless saying that there is a Cabinet Committee; it is pointless saying that there is going to be a constellation of states. The hon the Prime Minister is now for the last time giving an account of his Vote, and he can make this an historic occasion by taking this initiative. In 1910 a constitutional dispensation was launched. In terms of that dispensation Blacks had South African citizenship, but no rights. Now, in 1984, we are again entering a new constitutional dispensation and in terms of that dispensation Blacks are going to have rights but no citizenship. We have been struggling with the same problem for 74 years now. During the recess I read Paton’s book about Hofmeyr. Now, I do not want to say that there are points of correspondence between the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and Hofmeyr, but the dilemma faced by the then Smuts government is exactly the same dilemma that is going to face the present Government, viz that when it is confronted with a crisp and clear issue, it is unable to give a clear answer. Common sense tells us that it is pointless being “Coloured verlig” and “Black verkramp” as far as constitutional development is concerned. If one wants to be “verlig”, one has to cut the Gordian knot and be “verlig”. It is pointless tinkering with initiatives at one level while they are being smothered at a different level. The nature of the problem is unchanged, whether it concerns with the Black man or the Coloureds. The constitutional dilemmas we face are the same. Therefore it is the hon the Prime Minister’s responsibility—and it is a difficult responsibility—to take the initiative in this regard. This is not a question of a specific constitutional formula or task, but a direction that is indicated. It is a simple question, viz whether we in South Africa can seek formulae to coexist on the basis of common citizenship, yes or no. This applies to everyone. If, then, we say “yes” with regard to the Coloureds and the Asians, the answer must also make sense as far as Blacks are concerned. To us it makes no sense. That is the problem that all of us and our children will be saddled with and we cannot avoid it. We cannot vacillate as far as this is concerned. I foresee that a situation could arise that the Government will increasingly find itself in the political dilemma that the old UP was trapped in when Dr Malan was in the opposition benches. The opposition was able to stand up and ask straight forward questions, but they were unable to get straight forward answers. To a certain extent Hofmeyr symbolized and personified that dilemma. With all his intelligence, with all his insight and with all his so-called liberal ideas, he was unable to answer “yes” or “no” to simple questions asked by the opposition. Once again the time has come for us to get a simple answer from the Government. Is it prepared, now and in the future, to negotiate a new constitutional dispensation for the Black man, based on common citizenship—yes or no? That answer will determine whether we shall have peace in our internal situation. That answer will determine whether our initiatives at the foreign level will be of an enduring nature and whether we shall really be able to form part of the international community and whether that acceptance will continue. However, if we avoid that answer, or do not give it frankly enough, this new favourable climate will be of short duration.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the Opposition did not make any new point whatsoever of which this House had not already taken cognizance on a previous occasion. His principal point was that since we now had a common citizenship with the Coloureds and the Asians we should cut the Gordian knot and have a common citizenship with the Black man as well. I cannot understand the hon the Leader of the Opposition being able to say here in 1984 that the Government has not cut the Gordian knot, because that is just what the Government has been doing over the past 30 years, viz defusing the situation and establishing citizenship for each ethnic group in South Africa. This has been taking shape to an increasing extent. Despite the great progress we have made with our ethnic policy, the hon gentleman now wants us to reverse the entire process and to start from scratch. This is allegedly the very thing which is causing the trouble. Here we have the old imperialist, liberal school of thought that one should lump everyone in South Africa together. Surely this has been proved to be unsuccessful.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition congratulated the hon the Prime Minister on being the most successful Prime Minister. This is correct; he is successful. However, why is he successful? He is successful precisely because he is heeding that school of thought which established an ethnic policy in terms of which there cannot be domination in South Africa. That is what the hon the Leader of the Opposition is aiming at. He wants a repetition of all the old disputes we have had in South Africa over the past 70 to 100 years, the very dispute which the National Party Government has defused.

The new point with which he has now come forward, is that as far as differences in citizenship are concerned, the employer will have to be the one who will constantly have to explain to his employee why the employee is not a South African citizen. I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Opposition this: What does the employee in South Africa want? In the first place, he seeks work, and, in the second place, he wants to make progress. Let us consider the progress the Black worker in South Africa has made under the so-called policy of apartheid of the Government. On 15 June last year the Sunday Times published certain figures taken from a Volkskas publication. I quote:

They quoted the salaries and wages and drew attention to the progress which had been made. They said tremendous poverty still existed amongst the Coloureds and the Blacks, but what is of importance is the following:

It is supposedly going to be so difficult for the employer to explain to the employee that he is a different citizen to a South African citizen. The test is, however, whether the Blacks are going to progress and have progressed as regards the narrowing of the gap between the earnings of those people and those of the Whites.

It is quite clear that the hon the Prime Minister is firmly at the helm of the South African ship of state. He is making South Africa indispensable to the development of Southern Africa. The gateways to Southern Africa are being opened by the hon the Prime Minister; gateways which used to be closed to us. In fact, no one has ever denied that certain circumstances are responsible for this situation. South Africa is not the only country suffering from an economic recession; our neighbouring states are experiencing it too. In those states, too, drought and unemployment prevail. In addition there is the threatening violence which compels African leaders today to see to their own interests. It is becoming unnecessary to clash with South Africa. It is better to co-operate with South Africa. The hon the Leader of the Opposition, too, used words to this effect.

A greater degree of maturity and a greater sense of realism than before are to be found amongst many African leaders today. They are displaying a desire to live in peace with their neighbours, as it is becoming advantageous to them to do so. We also know that no significant economic assistance to those states has been forthcoming from the communist countries. Stagnation and famine are the prospects for the future of those people when they receive only military assistance from the communist countries. No country in the world can afford continuous internal conflict; likewise not a single country can afford perpetual conflict with its neighbouring states. This can only further exhaust struggling economies.

Despite the doors which have been closed in our faces and despite territories which have allowed themselves to be used for launching violent attacks on innocent South Africans and people under our protection, the hon the Prime Minister and his Government persevered in the following things: Firstly, in making military preparations and doing it in a way which enables us to hit back hard and remorselessly in order to prevent Southern Africa from being destabilized altogether. Constant endeavours have been made to conclude non-aggression pacts in order to prove that we do not harbour any ill-will against anyone. We also persisted in making offers of assistance in numerous spheres; assistance in combating locust plagues, and even assistance in the sphere of the most involved technical and scientific research information which we want to make available to our neighbouring states for the betterment of the millions of people of Africa.

Moreover, the Government has been following an internal relations policy—one which has been formulated here—in order to make provision for a system of one person, one vote for every adult in this country, a system that eliminates domination and guarantees self-determination to every group. This is the visible progress we have showed on this front—on the economic as well as the political front. All of these things have consequently given rise to a greater preparedness to be associated with South Africa.

The attempts at isolation are being thwarted by this very thing. Consequently the emancipation of the Black man in the political sphere need not of necessity take place on the level of power-sharing only, as the hon the Leader of the Opposition in fact suggests. Inherent in power-sharing with the Black man is the danger of conflict and of a different kind of domination. Joint voters’ rolls are not the answer either. Likewise a non-racial state in South Africa does not provide the answer. For the Black people with their greater numerical strength in South Africa the division of power is also a form of power-sharing. Today the Black man is able to acquire power without any kind of interference on the part of the White man. No danger of domination exists. Previously such power was exercised over the Black man by the White man. Today opportunities exist for the Black man to exercise that power himself. This process of emancipation is in fact being continued. It means equal treatment to all people and to all groups. Indeed, this is the road the Government has taken; a road which is not being deviated from [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not think a Leader of the Opposition has ever complimented the Government of the day like the hon the Leader of the official Opposition did today when he said that at present South Africa is enjoying the most favourable atmosphere abroad since becoming a Republic. This did not simply happen. The expert statesmanship of South Africa’s Government leaders in their dialogue with leaders of Africa has assisted over a long period in making Southern Africa ready for co-operation and peace. No previous Prime Minister has done so much, or has dreamt of doing so much as the present hon Prime Minister has done to open doors in Southern Africa, and even outside Southern Africa. Through the actions of Mr P W Botha the layer of ice surrouding Southern Africa is beginning to crack. This year doors that have always been regarded as being closed, have opened to us, and South Africa has begun to break out of its political isolation.

As a result of the reform actions and the peace initiatives of this Government, doors in Europe have even begun opening for us. This is proved by the invitation the hon the Prime Minister has received to visit West Germany. All this is happening because the Government’s policy of reform is gaining more and more ground internally, and growing credibility in the outside world.

Whilst a while ago it looked as if South Africa was entering a final phase of isolation and international hostility, McMillan’s winds of change have turned and are now blowing from the south, this time fanned by South Africa. A part of the world regarded by many people as a focal point of international conflict is now showing signs of wanting to defuse itself. South Africa, which has for a long time repeatedly been accused by its enemies of destabilization, has amazed the world by signing the Nkomati Accord and the Lusaka Agreement. One does not want to be, and may not be over-optimistic, because one realizes that our enemies are not going to capitulate, and that the onslaught on South Africa is continuing, but, like the CP and the HNP, one must be deaf if one does not hear the new, favourable winds of change blowing in Southern Africa.

There are positive things happening. A man like President Kaunda of Zambia arranged the Lusaka Conference, and he is now hoping to be the host for a comprehensive conference of Southern African leaders. It has even been reported that politicians in various African states are involved in a plan to propagate membership for South Africa in the OAU when that body meets later this year. The hon the leader of the CP, however, says that the Nkomati Accord is a mere piece of paper which may as well be torn up. What a foolish and shortsighted view! I shall tell you why I say this. We are already reaping the first fruits of Nkomati. If we look at the overwhelmingly favourable world-wide reaction to the Government’s new initiatives, South Africa’s international position has undoubtedly improved, and overseas pressure on South Africa has decreased. The allegations of destabilization that have repeatedly been made against us have been dealt a fatal blow, and a new image of constructive, peaceful assistance to our neighbouring states and of co-operation with our neighbours has been created.

Nkomati was a severe setback for Russia. The Soviet Union’s inability to provide meaningful economic assistance, as well as military assistance, has strongly come to the fore with the latest events. There are Western experts who believe that the Nkomati Accord and the Lusaka Agreement are the worst setbacks the Soviet Union has yet experienced in Southern Africa.

For the USA, Nkomati is as good as a triumph because they would like to see it as a successful result of their policy of constructive engagement. Western interests have been promoted by the creation of greater stability and peace in Southern Africa. Linked to this, are better prospects for investment in, and trade with, Southern Africa. The Minister of Finance of Swaziland, who has recently returned from an overseas visit, says that it is surprising how much interest there is in Europe for investment in Southern Africa. That is after Nkomati.

We are all concerned about our internal security, not so? The hon members of the CP often have a lot to say about that. As regards out internal security, we just want to tell them that we have already achieved great success in combating the activities of the ANC, not only from Mozambique, but also from other neighbouring states around us. The ANC has never been in a weaker position in South African politics than it is now, and the political climate has never been less favourable for the ANC than it is now. This is as a result of the initiatives of the Government. Indeed, it seems as if the ANC is done for. Already the ANC is under pressure from African leaders to abandon its revolutionary objectives and to concentrate on the furtherance of civil rights. Chief Minister Buthelezi recently predicted very correctly that the ANC’s position will deteriorate as the peace initiatives in Southern Africa expand. That was a very correct prediction.

Nkomati has even given us a bonus in the search for a solution to the South West African question. The tension that existed in Angola and in South West Africa has decreased, and the achievement of an internationally acceptable settlement in South West Africa has been facilitated.

Another important bonus of Nkomati is the fact that regional co-operation in Southern Africa has been given a tremendous boost. New impetus has been given to the development of the Limpopo basin in co-operation with Mozambique, Botswana and Zimbabwe. The planned project to utilize the Sabie River and the Olifants River together with Swaziland and Mozambique, is also showing greater viability for South Africa. More water is so important to South Africa; of course we know that South Africa desperately needs water. If we can get more water for South Africa in this way, it is of the utmost importance to us. All this is the fruit of Nkomati. However, the leader of the CP is singing in the same choir as the leader of the HNP by belittling the Nkomati Accord. I maintain that this hon Prime Minister will still go down in the annals of our country as the man who made breakthroughs for South Africa to Africa and Europe.

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the second half-hour.

Sir, I listened attentively to the hon the Leader of the Opposition and to the two hon speakers on the Government side. May I just at the outset that the hon the Leader of the Opposition quite rightly pointed out the logic inherent in the standpoint and reasoning of the CP. He is therefore also correct in saying that we are correct. What I am implying, in saying this, is that an ambiguous policy is untenable, ie that one can have a policy …

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

No, Sir. The hon member for Brits must give me a chance. Sir, I have said that the hon the Leader of the Opposition was correct in saying that one could not have an ambiguous policy and then expect to be praised for consistency. For example, one has a policy with regard to Black peoples on the one hand, that of creating separate national states for them, while on the other one has the realization of the political rights of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians in a common unitary state, hoping that one group will not dominate the others. But the prevention of domination of one by the other is in no way resolved in the new constitution.

We disagree with the hon the Leader of the Opposition, however, when he says that just as power-sharing between Whites, Coloureds and Indians would not affect the right to self-determination for the Whites, so the right to self-determination for the Whites would not be affected if the Blacks were also included. We want to state the obverse by saying that in as much as the Whites are being denied this right to self-determination under the new constitution, even less will remain of their right to self-determination when Black people are introduced into one and the same political pool.

Mr Chairman, at this stage I want to say a few words about the Nkomati non-aggression pact. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, those hon members should rather allow me to say what I want to say and not simply latch onto a single sentence from a speech.

This non-aggression pact contains statements with which we in the CP agree in principle and which we welcome. On reading through the accord it struck me that it was in fact strongly worded, with the exception of a phrase here and there which one could comment on. For example, it contains forceful statements on sovereignty, territorial integrity, sovereign equality, political independence and the inviolability of the borders of all states. No one can find any fault with that. In addition there is the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states and also the principle of the right to self-determination of peoples, although I think one could debate a subsequent phrase, ie that involving the principle of equal rights for all people. The question which could be asked here is whether this envolves equal rights within separate communities, within a separate political context, or whether this involves equal rights transcending any boundaries. I take it, however, that it does not mean equal rights transcending all boundaries in a unitary state in Southern Africa. Then there is the principle of refraining from using force against the territorial integrity and political independence of other states. These are important points of emphasis spelt out in this non-aggression pact with, which we in this party agree wholeheartedly. I briefly want to sketch the main features of the Conservative party’s standpoint in this connection. Like all other parties we demand unqualified recognition of the sovereignty of the Republic of South Africa. Secondly the RSA must participate in normal international and diplomatic activities, and the touchstone in this process is the true interests of the RSA. We reject and oppose any form of interference in the internal affairs of the RSA, and I think we all agree on this. We also oppose any attack on our sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence. At the same time we respect the political independence and the territorial integrity of other states. In our programme of principles we state that we consider the decolonization process in Southern Africa to have been completed; in other words, that we recognize and accept the states, which came into existence in this process, as sovereign states. Against this background we are in favour of non-aggression pacts with other states. This is stated in the programme of principles we accepted as far back as two years ago. We are also in favour of the RSA granting any assistance, particularly development assistance, it is capable of granting to other states. This is not the confused picture the hon member for Bloemfontein North tried to paint of our standpoint. He would do well to take cognizance of our overall standpoints. However, we add that this should not be done at the expense of the dignity, self-respect and interests of our own people. I am referring to dignity and self-respect because there is a way of rendering assistance which really does not redound to the credit of the country trying to gant the assistance, because it may look like servility or may appear to be totally counterproductive.

Whatever agreements there may be between the RSA and any other state, the RSA retains the right to defend itself or to combat subversion. We also refuse to give any status to terrorist organizations, as if they had any rights in terms of any international conventions.

Anyone has the right to look critically at this accord. It is not a peace treaty. After all, we were not in a state of war with Mozambique. It is therefore technically correct to say that it is a non-aggression pact. No one would therefore hold it against us if we were to look critically at the relevant accord and also at similar accords that may be entered into in the future. A purely negative and cynical attitude towards a non-aggression pact as such would be wrong and also counter-productive. For the benefit of the hon member of Bloemfontein North let me say that I also said that in the very same speech from which he only quoted the part about the “little piece of paper”. Having said that we reject a negative and cynical attitude as counter-productive, we also want to say that we do not share the euphoria of certain bodies that act as if peace has now descended upon us. No treaty—and I do not think I am saying anything anyone would argue with me about—is in itself a guarantee that it will be honoured. This accord, and similar accords which may yet be entered into, are not in themselves a guarantee that they will be honoured either. The circumstances that compelled Mozambique to enter into this accord are well-known to all of us, and they may change. In that respect the warning issued by the hon the Leader of the Opposition was justified. If one enters into an accord with someone because he is in trouble, and his circumstances change, his need for such an accord may vanish overnight and then he can begin subverting the treaty. Material needs are therefore not a lasting guarantee of good neighbourliness.

Allow me to point out certain doubts I have regarding certain matters surrounding the Nkomati Accord. As it stands it does not represent last word on the matter, every thing that happened and everything that is on the agenda for the future. There is no mention of harbour facilities in it. Nothing is said about medicine or fruit that has been delivered. Of course we are not opposed to this. How can one be opposed to it? Nothing is said about trade and pipes being delivered either. We do, however, have some doubts about a few matters.

Firstly, according to Die Burger of 7 March of this year, Mozambique’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Joachim Chissano gave the undertaking that his country would continue to grant political, moral and diplomatic support to the ANC. I think this is a matter in connection with which we want certain assurances.

Article 5 of the Nkomati Accord reads as follows:

A very significant statement is made in this connection in the Defence White Paper. I quote:

The White Paper goes on, and I agree:

It goes on to say:

Greater support and co-operation with the ANC (and SACP) and Swapo, both internally and internationally. In view of this one would like to ask a question. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mozambique, who spoke on behalf of his Government abroad, said he undertook to grant diplomatic, moral and other support to the ANC. If the ANC is an extension of Russian imperialism, as our Defence force tells us it is, if it is an integral part of the South African Communist Party and acts as its military wing, then we should like to know where we stand as regards Mozambique’s ability and goodwill when it comes to implementing the letter and the spirit of the Nkomati Accord. [Interjections.]

I also want to refer to a second matter. In terms of the Lusaka Agreement of 15 years ago African states committed themselves to fighting apartheid and avoiding relations with South Africa unless South Africa foreswore its “sinful” ways. The question now is where we stand, as far as Mozambique is concerned, seen against the background of the Lusaka Agreement. How does one reconcile this with the Nkomati Accord? These are not questions I am asking by way of accusation, but rather questions in regard to which I believe we should get clear information, and I hope the hon the Prime Minister can furnish this information.

I should like to ask another question. Is there still a treaty between Russia and Mozambique? It is well-known that Frelimo came into power in Mozambique with the assistance of Russia. So is there still a treaty between Mozambique and Russia?

Another question we should like to ask is whether the Russian fleet used harbour facilities in Ncala, and whether they still use them if they did, in fact, use them in the past.

That is disgraceful.

What is disgraceful about it? [Interjections.] In addition, what is the nature of the friendship treaty between Mozambique and Cuba? Is the treaty available for public scrutiny, and would it be a factor in the negotiations regarding the withdrawal of Cubans from Angola?

Article 6 of the Nkomati Accord reads:

I am stating this because I feel that it would be appreciated if we could get assurances in this connection that would set our minds at rest.

The idea of a joint security commission is nothing new in the annals of our history. In the treaty M W Pretorius concluded with Moshesh, provision was made for a similar border treaty and for surveillance in regard to that border. I feel, however, that it is still of interest to know how far the security commission can go in monitoring South Africa’s military and security activities. In this connection I should like to be reassured because we are concerned that if the opportunity were to arise this could pave the way for spying on South Africa’s security position.

†I now wish to refer to the speech made by the hon the Prime Minister at Nkomati, and in particular to the following statement:

I submit that it is one thing to co-operate; it is one thing to give economic and financial support, to encourage and to contribute towards development; it is one thing to have trade agreements but I submit that it is something totally different to pool energies and resources. One cannot pool mineral and agricultural resources, industrial plants and military power. One cannot pool those resources without destroying the very basis of your country’s sovereignty and its power to protect its sovereignty. [Interjections.] One cannot pool one’s resources and still have them at the nation’s disposal for its own economy, its own industries, its financial well-being and for the defence and the protection of the country’s sovereignty. [Interjections.]

*We believe that if every non-aggression pact with African states were linked to the offer “to pool energies and resources”, this would be fatal for South Africa. I assume that we view these terms differently. [Interjections.] If, in talking about one’s country’s resources—and one can understand this to mean its mineral resources, its water and other thing—the intention is to pool these resources so that they become a matter of common concern on which joint decisions should be taken, this could lead to a catastrophe.

Mr Chairman, I should like to express my appreciation for some of the standpoints concerning the Nkomati Accord adopted by the hon member for Waterberg here today. From what the hon member said it is clear to me that he and his party strongly support the Nkomati Accord in principle. The hon member adopted a further standpoint that I also agree with, viz that he recognized the sovereignty of the surrounding neighbouring states. This means that all the parties in this House recognize the sovereignty of a country like Mozambique.

I am very pleased that the hon member adopted a very clear standpoint relating to the principle of development aid, even development aid to Mozambique. This means that there is a considerable degree of support in this House for the Nkomati Accord. In this regard I wish to point out that the Government agrees wholeheartedly with the hon member’s remark about development aid, viz that it should not merely consist of hand-outs and so on but should comprise development aid which does not lead to the undermining of the self-respect of the people accepting or receiving the development aid. Nor does the Government believe that one should simply issue hand-outs and then think that by doing so one has achieved anything in this part of the world. It is the standpoint of the Government that as far as the other countries in Southern Africa are concerned, we must as far as possible become involved in joint projects on the basis that they are in the interests of that country as well as in the interests of South Africa. Joint projects can be tackled not only by governments but also by the private sectors of the various countries, or the private sector on the one hand and the Government on the other.

I also agree with the hon member that an atmosphere of euphoria should not develop with regard to the Accord. It is important that we should realize at all times that we must not think that all possible problems in Southern Africa can be resolved by the conclusion of an Accord such as this one, but we should realize at all times that for our part we shall have to ensure that we comply with our obligations in terms of the Accord and that the other party complies with his obligations as well. The hon member made certain remarks which gave me the impression that if he were to argue about the Nkomati Accord in public, he would be in the position of being able to sit on two stools, the “yes” stool and the “no” stool. However, I want to say to him that the Government makes the rigid assumption that as far as the principle of the Nkomati Accord is concerned, the hon member for Waterberg and his party are on the side of those who support the Government. In a statement issued on behalf of the hon member for Waterberg and Mr Jaap Marais it was said that the CP and the HNP should join forces in Potgieterrus in order to put a stop to the Government’s disastrous foreign policy. I take it that that reference in the statement to the Government’s disastrous foreign policy specifically did not refer to Nkomati. Am I correct in saying that?

Go on with your speech.

In the statement issued on behalf of the two parties it was said that the parties should stand together in Potgietersrus to put a stop to the Government’s “disastrous” foreign policy.

To what statement are you referring?

It is a statement issued by Mr Ferreira, the MPC for Potgietersrus, which was reported in the media on 17 April. We assume that that statement did not refer to the Nkomati Accord. If I am wrong in saying that, then hon members of the CP must tell me so.

The hon member asked certain questions to which I shall try to reply. I think that he is entitled to replies. In the first place, he referred to section 5 which is concerned with propaganda, and to a statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mozambique. As far as the Nkomati Accord is concerned, we are undoubtedly experiencing a transitionary phase. When this agreement was concluded, it was not foreseen that there would never be any differences between the parties. Nor was it foreseen that there would not be reason to complain from time to time. However, to ensure that any possible infringement will not lead to the cancellation of the agreement, a specific mechanism was incorporated to deal with objections. Moreover, the parties can contact one another directly in this regard. I want to say to the hon member that the Government, too, is unhappy about that.

In addition, I want to refer to the joint security commission and certain questions asked by the hon member in this regard. He asked whether it would not be possible for the South African security systems to be spied on as a result of the actions of the joint security commission, or words to that effect. I should like to give him the assurance that that is by no means the case. As regards the activities of that security commission, it will not be possible for us to spy on Mozambique, nor will it be possible for Mozambique to spy on us here. What can, in fact, happen is that specific complaints can be investigated. I also wish to give the hon member the assurance that not only as far as that is concerned, but also in general, relations between South Africa and Mozambique are working very well at present.

The hon member also asked a question in connection with any possible agreements that Mozambique may have with Russia or with other countries, including other countries in Africa in particular, which may be opposed to South Africa and which seek to overthrow the Government within South Africa. Specifically because there is a possibility of agreements with countries which may be conducting a campaign against South Africa or which may seek to overthrow South Africa’s present system by way of the ANC or in any other way, section 6 was included in this agreement. That section provides that the parties state that there are no agreements with other countries that conflict with the essence of this agreement. Accordingly, we are quite convinced that we can rest assured as far as this matter is concerned.

There is another remark I want to make in this regard. I have visited Mozambique personally on more than one occasion recently and what was said to me there gave me the impression that an effort was indeed being made by the Mozambiquan Government to obtain wide support for the Nkomati Accord among the population of Mozambique. We are satisfied as far as this matter is concerned.

With those remarks I just want to ask the hon member one more question, and in my opinion, when we have done so we shall have disposed of the matter of the Nkomati Accord. I should just like to know from the hon member whether I am correct in assuming that the hon member totally rejects the standpoint of the HNP in this regard as not being in the interests of South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon member must tell us across the floor of the House whether he totally rejects the standpoint of the HNP or not.

What standpoint are you referring to now?

The standpoint of the HNP is that it is wrong in principle to enter into an agreement with Mozambique because, as they say, communists or Marxists are in control in that country. They say that that is wrong in principle and they reject the Accord in principle. Is my inference or summary correct when I say that that hon member totally rejects the standpoint of the HNP? [Interjections.]

Our programme of principles states that we are in favour of a non-aggression treaty.

Then we are right to accept that he rejects the standpoint of the HNP in this regard. I am very grateful for the clarity provided by the hon member in this regard. [Interjections.]

I should like to discuss another matter with reference to the hon member for Waterberg. A very interesting article appeared relating to an interview he granted the periodical Leadership SA which was published this year. In this article the specific words of the hon member for Waterberg are quoted.

Did you read the article or the newspaper report?

I have the article before me.

Oh, really? Well, that is very good. [Interjections.]

He says, and I quote:

Mr Chairman, to me of course these words uttered by the hon member are tantamount to a sly dig at Mr Vorster. We take cognizance of that, of course. However, the hon member for Waterberg went on to say:

That was in 1970, and here he is referring specifically to 1970. The question here also concerns 1970. To this the hon member replied:

Then, Mr Chairman … [Interjections.]

Order!

Then, Mr Chairman, the hon member for Waterberg was asked why he had not joined the HNP in ,1970. To this he replied:

Mr Chairman, I think we can sum up the situation as follows. The hon member for Waterberg says that he rejected in principle Mr Vorster’s pragmatic attitude or approach or policy. Therefore he was dissatisfied with it. That is point No 1. Point No 2 is the following. The hon member says that he agreed with certain political accents of the HNP. Point No 3 is the following. The hon member says that because the style of the HNP was wrong, because it was not his style, he decided not to join them. [Interjections.] Therefore there is no question of a principle here. As far as the hon member was concerned a principle was not at issue here. It was simply that the HNP did not suit his style. His style was somewhat different. [Interjections.] Now I want to know from the hon the leader of the CP why, when he was my leader in 1970, in 1977 and in 1980, he did not say to me: “Louis Nel, I just want to say to you that you must know that I do not like the principles of the NP; it is only due to their style that I am not with the HNP”? [Interjections.] When I had to look to the hon member for Waterberg for leadership, he should really have told me where he stood. However, he did not do so. At the time he said nothing about this. [Interjections.]

Order!

Now I just want to put the following question to the hon member for Waterberg: Where, in fact, are his principles today? I also want to ask him—and this is another very important question—whether the style of the HNP is acceptable to him now. [Interjections.] No, Mr Chairman, we should like to know that. According to the hon member for Waterberg, in 1970 there was only a difference in style. Therefore the principles of the HNP were acceptable to him in 1970. In 1984 those principles are still acceptable to him. Is the style of the HNP also acceptable to him now? [Interjections.] Surely that is a simple question, Mr Chairman. Where does the hon member stand as far as the style of the HNP is concerned? Where does he stand as regards their style of racism, their style of arousing hatred, their style of the creation of divisions in this country, a style that can only lead to emotions in South Africa being aroused to such an extent that the future of the White man in South Africa is endangered as a result of that style? Is that style acceptable to him now? [Interjections.]

In this regard we on this side of the House wish to state very clearly that those who remained in the NP are the men who differed in principle with the HNP in 1970. They are the men who differed in principle with the HNP in 1977. They are the men who still differ in principle with the HNP. Therefore they are not the people about whose political integrity we need to ask questions today. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, firstly I should like, on behalf of this House, to congratulate the hon the Prime Minister heartily on his election as chancellor of the University of Stellenbosch.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, I myself have heard all the NP Prime Ministers I have known say that Stellenbosch is the Mecca of Afrikanerdom. So this is a very important matter as far as I am concerned. We therefore heartily congratulate the hon the Prime Minister.

I also, on behalf of all of us, want to congratulate the hon the Prime Minister on the Nkomati Accord. I want to say today that in future that Nkomati Accord will be the great beacon on the road through Africa to the West. To us our hon Chief Leader and Prime Minister, who has been sitting in this Parliament for the past 36 years now, is a towering figure, a towering giant who has been active in politics for almost 50 years now. We want to thank him for his vision, which is not one that only encompasses South Africa, but also Africa. We also want to thank him for that vision of his.

In contrast we have two Opposition leaders, one of whom leads the English jingos. They are the people who have never wanted to share anything, the people who saw to it that the Afrikaners became poor Whites. They did not want to share anything. Because they did not want to share anything, they lost three-quarters of the British Empire, In speaking about those two leaders, let me tell them that in comparison with our leaders, they remind me of an I and an F, but then I do not even dot the I.

I now want to exchange a few words with the hon member for Waterberg. He created a great fuss about division, amongst other things about the sharing of power. He does not want to share. What, however, did he do then? He then caused a split, and do you know who it was that he split up? He split up the Afrikaner politically.

Just like Malan.

I shall be coming to Malan in a moment. He split up the Afrikaner within the context of his church and found fault with Nationalists and with Christianity. There is one thing I want to tell him: Please reread the parable of the publican and the Pharisee before you make pronouncements about other people’s religion. I say that he is dividing the Church. He is dividing the party. [Interjections.] Let me tell the hon member what Dr Malan did. When there was a threatened split in the Church, he took the lead and brought the Church back together again. He brought Afrikanerdom together politically. In 1908 he built up the Afrikaner’s cultural organizations from scratch and developed them into assets for the Afrikaner. The hon member for Water-berg is causing division in all these spheres, because he has no respect for them. He is incurring debt. Another thing Dr Malan never did was leave posterity with any debts. In his time his party never owed a single cent. It met all its obligations and paid its debts. With their tortoises and their Press the hon member and his party are in debt to the tune of more than a million rand. Whose money is it? It is money they extorted from Afrikaners? I know what I am talking about. The HNP bankrupted many farmers here in the Western Cape. They begged them into bankruptcy. Are they going to continue steering that course. They have, in any event, taken over everything from the HNP, boots and all. They have taken over the HNP’s policy and its principles. There is only one thing the CP refuses to take over; they simply will not have Jaap. If I were to give Jaap some advice today, I would do so in the words of Dr Malan: Jaap, Jaap, in Heaven’s name, wake up—there is a wolf in your fold! [Interjections.] There is a wolf in sheep’s clothing in his fold. [Interjections.]

I want to talk to the hon member about gimmicks. When the hon the Prime Minister addressed a meeting in Natal, and a Black man with a bomb was apprehended, he said it was a gimmick. Apparently it was a gimmick the hon the Prime Minister initiated. Let me tell him that the hon the Prime Minister is not a man who makes use of gimmicks, he is a man of action. Let him tell us, after a judge sentenced the man in court, whether it is still a gimmick. What does he say now? [Interjections.] He has never apologized to the hon the Prime Minister.

What about your ANC gimmick?

Is he saying the ANC is also a gimmick? I have discovered that the hon member for Waterberg is a gimmick. [Interjections.] The hon member himself is a gimmick. He devotes his attention to gimmicks. He was newspaper editor, but he made a gimmick of the newspaper. He was the NP leader in the Transvaal, the great, mighty party. He made a gimmick of the NP leadership in the Transvaal. He also served in the Cabinet, and as far as I can gather now, he was nothing more than a gimmick in the Cabinet.

Order! I cannot allow one hon member to refer to another hon member as a gimmick. The hon member must withdraw it.

Sir, I accept your ruling, but the gimmick reference in relation to the hon the Prime Minister has never been withdrawn.

Order! I do not want to take issue with the hon member about that, but he must withdraw the words.

Sir, I accept your ruling and withdraw them.

I want to conclude now, or else I shall be coming across more gimmicks. [Interjections.] Over the past two years I myself have found that a tortoise does not, in point of fact, even grow any bigger than its shell.

Mr Chairman, I want to leave the hon member mr Van Staden to his gimmicks and come back to the subject now under discussion.

To start with, I want to join the hon the Leader of the Opposition in acknowledging the importance of this occasion.

†This is the last time that the Prime Minister’s Vote will be debated in this House in its present form and therefore this occasion is in my view a historic occasion. With the hon the Leader of the Opposition I should like to give full credit to the hon the Prime Minister for his courage in initiating the political reform which has led to this becoming the last debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote. I should also like to given him full credit for introducing the new dispensation at the cost of splitting the NP itself. What is more notable is the fact that the hon the Prime Minister is not exactly a Young Turk as one speaks of Young Turks in politics, and neither am I. He is not a Young Turk, like certain members of the official Opposition, who is inspired by new visions and dreams. It is ironic that the hon the Prime Minister is the only member of this House and of the Government who was elected in 1948 and who has helped, step by step over a virtual lifetime in Parliament, to build a Governmental edifice to which he himself has contributed in all its detail, an edifice which was based on the philosophy of separation in every field of life in South Africa. Now, with the responsibility and authority of leadership, he has to face the inexorable reality that South Africa has passed that sort of simplistic solution to its problems. Therefore he deserves all the more credit that he, as a person who helped to build the edifice, should have the commitment to start to dismantle some of those elements of the edifice which have crumbled with the passing of time.

On the eve of a new phase in our political history I think it appropriate and necessary to look very briefly at the era from which we are emerging. I do so not in carping pettiness or in exploitation of the past, as with regret my friends on my right, the CP, do when they look to the past, but to learn lessons from the past with a view to the future. I think that is the important aspect about the past: what lessons we can learn from it, however unpleasant it may sometimes be. We have moved as a country and the Government has moved as a Government through the “baasskap” era of apartheid in the forties and the fifties and through the attempt to give it moral justification under the title of separate development, and finally—maybe in desperation—moving towards total geographic partition with no Black citizens, exclusive White political power and a nightmare spiderweb of laws to try and make it all work. The wheel has turned full circle in many of these fields, and I want to say openly and give credit for it that the hon the Prime Minister’s public image and support at this moment in politics stands higher than any of this predecessors. This is based upon recognition of the fundamental changes in for instance labour relations, economic planning and opportunity, sport, central business districts and the use of amenities, etc.

This was particularly the case in the last few months with the new diplomatic initiatives of the hon the Prime Minister and his Government which have gripped the imagination and which I believe have given new hope to moderates in South Africa across colour lines, including many Black moderate leaders. We welcome these initiatives and my colleague the hon member for Umhlanga will refer to them. All I want to say now is that it is what emerges from this debate, from the response of the hon the Prime Minister to this debate, that will ultimately determine the success or failure of his diplomatic initiatives. More than all the work and the diplomatic efforts which have been put in, it is the picture which emerges from the hon the Prime Minister’s approach to the road ahead which this debate will help to highlight.

I want also to say that with everything running for him—a massive referendum majority and even a sympathetic element in some of the Opposition Press—there is one field in which I think the hon the Prime Minister is disappointed. He has failed in one of his short-term objectives, namely the political unification of moderates within the NP. He should not be worried or resentful about this. I think he has achieved something more important for South Africa, namely broad national support for specific objectives, for instance for the reform process, our security, our foreign policy, the maintenance of law and order, the free enterprise system and for peace in South and Southern Africa. He has received support, sympathy and backing across party, racial and language lines from the ordinary person, from commerce and industry, and certainly also from my party. As South Africa knows he also received it in the referendum. That to me is more important than party-political gain, progress or opportunism. That support unfortunately excludes the CP.

I want to say too to the hon the Prime Minister that I believe he and South Africa, but his party in particular—we have seen signs of it again this afternoon—must learn to live with the CP. Like the poor that will be with us we will have to learn to live with them. [Interjections.] As expedient exploiters of the indoctrination of the dead past they represent that dead past and have limited growth potential. I think we should ignore them and get on with the job in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon the Prime Minister’s support also excludes some of the spiritual leadership in the official Opposition, living in an ivory tower unrelated to the reality of South African life. What South Africa neither needs or wants at this time of change and progress is that all opposition in South Africa comes from the extremes on the left and right in White politics, and moderate opinion is stifled in a rigid one-party power structure which destroys the independence of co-operation from moderates and ignores the barriers to greater political unity across party lines.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon member, but his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon Chief Whip for his courtesy. I want to refer to four of the barriers which I see to the political unity of moderates. The first one is history. I am referring to historic hurts, resentments, antagonisms and suspicions from the past, which I wish were not factors but which unfortunately are facts of life which die hard, and only then through complete conviction.

The next barrier is what we see here in these debates, namely the eternal looking over the shoulder at the right wing and the broedertwis that goes on between the NP and the CP. I believe it is far more important for moderate Coloured and Indian leaders to win the elections in August for their Chambers than it matters who wins Potgietersrus. I believe that is unimportant. However, it is important that Coloured and Indian moderates win their elections in August. If the Government loses Potgietersrus, so what? It will not be the end of the world, but it can mean the end of the reform process if the Coloured and Indian elections were dominated by radicals. The NP and its speakers have to choose between the rhetoric of reform and the rhetoric of fear.

The third barrier is the certainty that political reform cannot succeed if socio-economic reform and poverty lag far behind it.

Fourthly, I believe that the Government fears facing up to the vacuum in its policy structure, and that is the position of the non-homeland Blacks. I make no apology for coming to this once again—that missing element without which the whole reform process must flounder. Like water on a stone we will keep dripping away at this until we break through, and already there are signs— as usual not within the NP but amongst its opinion formers—that they are in agreement with us—as happened with our policy of confederation. For instance, in the Vaderland of 8 March we read the following:

We read further:

The article goes on in this trend, shooting down one holy cow after another of NP policy in regard to Blacks in South Africa. It talks about “ekstra-territoriale bevoegdhede as nie net prakties onwerkbaar nie, maar wat ’n regsnagmerrie is”. The signs are therefore already there that changes are going to come about. We welcomed the appointment of the Cabinet Committee to deal with the problem of Black policy, but we have pleaded ever since that it cannot work alone, and that too has been shown to be correct. Here is another report in Rapport of January this year under the heading “Theron-kommissie vir Swartmense nodig”. We believe the Government must give an instrument to the Cabinet Committee to do the spadework That must happen if it is going to work. Give it another name, any device you like, but get on with the job of filling that vacuum, because there is tremendous goodwill and feeling for a solution. This is often frustrated by the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development’s bureaucrats, junior oficials, who in our negotiations and discussions with the non-home-land Blacks are the people who are accused of undermining the credibility of the Government itself in that they stand in the way of the sort of solution that it is hoped to achieve. I appeal therefore to the hon the Prime Minister to instruct an end to the stupid statements that are made, an end for instance to stupid statements about Khayelitsha. Unfortunately I do not have time to deal with them all now. It is not pink liberals or leftists who are upset, but it is pure idiocy for the hon the Deputy Minister, in the face of the housing shortage, to talk of moving thousands and tens of thousands of happily settled people some time in the future. [Interjections.] Marianhill is an example of how it should work. He knows that I was involved in that. I came to him with the offer of housing received through Mr Frank Martin. By negotiation and being positive … [Interjections.] … Mr Frank Martin got the offer in writing from the church. He passed it on to me and I went to that hon Deputy Minister with it. I did not play politics with it like the PFP did. I did not try to score points with it, and I am not doing so now. All I am saying is that that is the way to tackle this sort of problem.

So it is that other blockages, which I do not have time to deal with, exist in approaching the problem of the non-homeland Black policy.

The other field is the question of confederation, which I will not have time to deal with in detail. There are three requirements for that to work. The first is common South African nationality and I again have quotations from the Government’s own Press accepting that that is essential. The second requirement is free access to a common economy, with only essential socio-economic limitations. Thirdly, there should be a structured system of multilateral joint responsibility going beyond the EEC system in Europe, but retaining self-determination by its members as a basis.

I accept that the Government has problems in pursuing meaningful dialogue. There is for instance the leader of the largest Black group, Chief Buthelezi, who sulks and postures in the corner into which he has painted himself and refuses to participate except on his own terms. He chose to flirt with the PFP and with others in the Black Alliance. He chose to flirt with the ANC externally. It was his own choice, to participate in the referendum, and the fact that he has found himself isolated on the sidelines is no reason for him now to pour out his frustration and bile against the NRP, the one party that has tried hardest to help kwaZulu and the Zulu people. However, the NRP is not prepared to lick anyone’s boots or to support majority rule on a common voters’ roll. I want to reject Chief Buthelezi’s venomous attacks with contempt and warn him that he is not enhancing his standing by using the uncontrolled language he does. Let him rather sort out his own problems with his own students. Let him learn that leadership includes the ability to face and to take criticism without squealing, without calling out your youth brigade and saying: “They are criticizing me, clean them up.” He should realize that his problems are more with Black radicals than with White moderates. The Government has problems with than sort of situation, but I appeal to it to get on with the building of a confederation structure which will earn the acceptance of the homelands because it will be seen not to be just a theory or a never-never thing, but something which is actually happening. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Point will pardon me if I say that I should like to deal with the speech made by the hon member for Waterberg, who is not present in the House at the moment. The hon member for Waterberg touched upon a few matters, and in my opinion he raised an astonishing matter. He spoke about a common pool which one could share or could refuse to share with adjoining countries. He referred to common sources of energy and resources such as water, etc. When the hon member for Waterberg and other members of the CP were still members of the NP, we were all constantly under the impression that there was no one with common sense in the politics of South Africa who differed with the idea that all assets, regardless of the country and the territory in which they were situated, were assets which ought to be utilized for the people of Southern Africa and that we should not try to turn this into a bone of contention.

I should just like to tell the hon member for Waterberg, who represents an agricultural constituency, that like other hon members in this House I eagerly go through the advertisements in all our publications to see what we are doing in South Africa. We see here in the publications for Blacks, advertisements of clothing for sale, clothing made from wool produced by our farmers. We see in these publications for Blacks advertisements for foods produced by farmers in the Waterberg constituency and in other constituencies in the country. Here, for example, we also have advertisements for meat. In the same way there are advertisements for milk and other dairy products.

The point I want to make to the hon members of the CP is that in South Africa and in Southern Africa there is no such thing as assets which belong solely to the Whites, anything which belongs solely to the Black people or anything which one can compartmentalize geographically as belonging to the one and not to the other.

I want to put it to the CP that their entire argument of power-sharing is defeated by the economic power-sharing which is part of the reality in South Africa and which we as National Party acknowledge. We, as the National Party, say that it should be expanded. The raw materials of South Africa are utilized by all people to the benefit of all people. The National Party says that is correct. In fact, many of the raw materials occur on such a large scale in the Black states that I think the hon members of the CP are going to have a fit once they begin to realize this.

Furthermore it is our standpoint that entrepreneurial skill is a common asset when it comes to the economic development in South Africa. Entrepreneurial skill, too, extends beyond all boundaries and includes Dr Anton Rupert, Mr Sol Kerzner, Mr Habakuk and every other entrepreneur and industrialist. Let me pay the hon member for Langlaagte a compliment now: I include him in that list. Business is carried on by entrepreneurs across all boundaries. Surely that is fit and proper. [Interjections.] Ultimately it is to everyone’s advantage.

I should like to ask the hon members of the CP not to cause a wonderful effort such as Nkomati to miscarry by asking questions with which they wish to achieve one thing only, namely to create mistrust. The essence of what the hon member for Waterberg said was whether one could really trust other people in regard to matters such as these and whether one was not going to be let down. If it were true that all the Black people within South Africa and that all the Black states around South Africa are inherently opposed to us, are inherently our enemies and not to be trusted, I would say that there was no future whatsoever for the Whites in this country. That is why the NP Government is endeavouring to ensure that everyone in our wonderful country, South Africa, is able to benefit from the fullest utilization of all the assets and that everyone is able to make progress.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition referred to the position of Black people in South Africa. He said it was not enough to have appointed a Cabinet Committee. I should like to tell him that his speech might have given one the impression that he was telling the general public, and people outside South Africa as well, that the Government was ignoring the reality of Black people in South Africa outside the Black states. That is not true. It is not only a reality to which we are giving consideration, it is also a reality with which we are dealing constitutionally. That is why talks are being held in which the Prime Minister, the Cabinet Committee and several other Ministers are involved. These talks are in fact concerned with seeing how we can try to accommodate the citizenship problem and the constitutional position of those people. Therefore it is quite wrong and a distortion of the facts to wish to represent the situation as being that we do not care at all and that to us on this side of the House it makes no difference at all.

We live in a wonderful world. As other hon members have probably been doing, I have, as a result of numerous newspaper reports during the past few months, been reading the book Megatrends, by John Naisbitt.

I honestly believe that this is a book which everyone in South Africa ought to read. It will most certainly be recorded in world history as being, scientifically, one of the most phenomenal works on the destination towards which the Western World is moving. When one has read this book, and has taken cognizance of the directions indicated there for the America of the future, the question which involuntarily arises is this: What is the position in regard to the South Africa of the future?

Apart from the fact that this book deals with the change-over of the USA from an industrial society to a so-called information society, there are several other facets of American society—and, by implication, the world as a whole—which are going to be dramatically affected by this small microchip which I have here in my hand.

Last Thursday I paid a visit to a factory in Pretoria. To me it was one of the most astonishing things to look at this small microchip and realize that today we are able to store up to 250 000 symbols or figures in this single microchip. Since the appearance of this microchip, the entire world has undergone a complete metamorphosis. A metamorphosis which is still continuing in a dramatic way, inter alia as a result of the way in which information is nowadays being made available, and also owing to automation and the enhancing of our technological skills in almost every sphere of life.

In South Africa we find the strange situation that although there are large numbers of people in this country who still have to emerge from a relatively underdeveloped background—in our own judgment of course—into a developing industrial society, we are actually going to find now that a large number of those people are in fact going to skip the normal industrial development phase. There is no doubt that we in South Africa, if we really wished to solve the massive problem of poverty, if we really wish to get to grips with the overwhelming problem of illiteracy, and if we also wish to solve the massive problem of the upliftment of people really successfully, will have to master the technological developments in the world on a large scale, and that in an adapted way we shall have to do things far more rapidly here in Southern Africa than they are being done in many other places in the world, particularly with a view to the education of large numbers of Black children, and of our own children, all of them in their own schools.

Because I know we have a good Government, that does things properly, I should therefore like to make the following plea here: We should, on a dynamic scale and to a greater extent than has been done up to now, endeavour to achieve a greater degree of computer literacy and computer training in our schools.

I found it very interesting to learn that the author of this book maintained that one of the major problems that was being experienced in the USA was the fact that vast numbers of children throughout the education system of the USA went out into society without being prepared for the highly technological world awaiting them.

I believe that we should prepare everyone in South Africa, White and Black, in a dramatic way for the demands which the highly technological world is going to make on them, as well as for the opportunities it is going to afford them, particularly with a view to solving in a very dramatic way all the problems of South Africa, away from the political sphere, on a socio-economic level.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Innesdal is always a very interesting speaker to listen to; particularly during the last few years while he seems to have moved almost light years away from where he used to find himself 10 years ago when he first came to this House. He is to be complimented on many of the provocative ideas that he sometimes introduces into debates in this House.

I only want to comment on two of those. The first one is his reference to the need for all South Africans to realize that we have to live together—whether it be food or whether it be production whether it be land or whatever else, Black needs White and White needs Black. On that point I do agree with the hon member 100%.

The hon member then went on to suggest that the hon the Leader of the Opposition was unfair in his comments about the NP’s lack of interest in political rights for Blacks. Of course, when we consider the first aspect, namely, that we have to live together, whether we are talking about food or jobs or land, we have to be concerned about political rights for all the people because they are not simply going to be content with food and with jobs, important as these items obviously are. The hon member for De Kuilen, however, made the point on the other hand that all a worker needs is a job. He also said that the Black middle class had improved but I shall come back to this matter later. I say that political rights are vitally important and form as integral a part as the other rights to which the hon member referred.

The hon the Prime Minister has received many compliments today, and I think it is true to say that in almost every case he is well deserving of them. The hon the Prime Minister will know that over the past few years many hon members on this side of the House have gone out of their way to compliment him on his leadership and the new direction that he has taken. It is ironic, however, that the measure of his success is in direct proportion and relation to his movement away from the policies with which he entered this House in 1948. I should like to give just two examples in this regard. The hon the Prime Minister will agree that he is on record in Hansard of this House as having said that his party would never move in the direction of power sharing—it was the division of power rather than power sharing. We all know because it has been established many times across the floor of the House that insofar as Coloureds, Indians and Whites are concerned there is a definite measure of power sharing in the understanding of the NP as far as the new constitution is concerned. I do not think that point needs to be debated. Secondly, there are no two ways about it that the NP has been regarded over a period of many years as a party of isolationists in respect of its international position, almost as though one could live in some sort of vacuum on the southernmost tip of the African continent. Now that the hon the Prime Minister has succeeded in his diplomatic coup in moving beyond the borders of South Africa into Southern Africa— we also know about his forthcoming visit to Europe and elsewhere—this is a definite movement away from the past, and we congratulate the hon the Prime Minister in this regard. If I have been at all logical in the comments I have made thus far then logic demands that we should all be encouraging the hon the Prime Minister to move away as fast as he can from outdated and unworkable apartheid policies because his stature, his success and his popularity as a leader in South Africa can only increase accordingly. I want therefore to urge the hon the Prime Minister to continue along the road that he has been following over the past few years, particularly in terms of moving away from the outdated and unworkable policies of the past.

The next point I wish to refer to is one that has already been referred to by certain hon members who have already spoken but I should like to take it a little further. We shall be meeting under very different circumstances in this Parliament next year and, unless I am badly mistaken, the hon the Prime Minister will be the executive State President of South Africa. However, let us assume that I cannot make that sort of statement now and let me rather say that somebody is going to be that person. Someone is going to take over that office and there will not be a Prime Minister as we know him today. We all know the various changes that are going to be introduced. However, one of the enormous advantages of our system today is that the Prime Minister of South Africa has to account to the Opposition in this House in terms of his own portfolio. Rightly or wrongly he may infer that we are talking nonsense and that the charges we make are unfounded. He may even agree that some of the points we, make are important and he may respond in that regard. That is his right, but it is our right in this House to call the hon the Prime Minister to account. That is an enormous responsibility for any Opposition party and particularly, I would suggest, the official Opposition.

I want to ask the hon the Prime Minister, when he speaks in this debate, if he will address himself to this: What is going to happen next year? Is it going to be possible for Opposition parties in this House to summon, as it were, the State President to give an account of Ids office? Will he also move into the other two Houses? What form is that going to take? Is it in the hands of the Executive State President or can this be the demand of this side of the House? If not, then I would say that this is a very, very sad day in parliamentary custom, convention and tradition because the essence of our policy, the very essence of our system is that the hon the Prime Minister and his Cabinet members are accountable.

The hon the Prime Minister must of course accept not only praise and credit where it is due, but also responsibility. I recall that a long time ago, long before I came into politics more than 10 years ago, I was sitting in at an interview with the hon the Prime Minister’s predecessor, the late Mr John Vorster. He turned to a Black colleague who was sitting with me and asked him: “Are you accusing me of being a racist?” This Black colleague of mine said: “No, I am not suggesting that you are a racist but I am saying to you that the policies of the government are racist.” There was a very long silence and then there was a long debate as to whether this was so. I am suggesting to the hon the Prime Minister that there is credit to be given, and we do it gladly. There is, however, also responsibility that the hon the Prime Minister must accept. I have time to give only two small illustrations of what I am driving at. Let us take for example the allegation that in respect of Mr Solomons who recently died tragically because of a motor car accident, people were more concerned about his race classification than the extent of his injuries.

That is a deliberate lie.

It may be a deliberate lie, but I am suggesting that it was an allegation. Whether it is true or false, what is true is that there is race classification on the Statute Books in this country. The hon the Prime Minister must accept responsibility not only for his enterprise and his enlightened movements but also for those. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I think the remark the hon member for Pinelands made regarding the death of Mr Solomons is beneath contempt and I shall not reply to it because certain assurances have been given from the highest quarters of the Government and the province and I can do no more than reiterate them.

*The hon the Leader of the Opposition referred to the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, and said that in this constitution only rights were being granted, but no citizenship. But that is not true. We have granted citizenship to many Black people, but I am not going to dwell on the point. The point I want to insist on making is that rights have been granted. The fact 6f the matter is that immediately before making that remark, the hon the Leader of the Opposition referred to President Sebe, who had purchased an aircraft. I want to put it as follows: The Government does not deny President Sebe the right, as president of an independent State, to handle his affairs as he sees fit. I suggest that the hon the Leader of the Opposition, as a responsible Leader of an Opposition, should bear that in mind, because to our way of thinking the Ciskei is as independent as any other independent country in the whole world. Apparently hon members of the PFP still regard the Ciskei as part of a colony. I want to ask the hon members please to take this matter seriously.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition had the temerity to say that the NP was coming forward with absurdities. That attitude of the hon member is absurd.

I also want to refer briefly to certain remarks made by the hon member for Waterberg. I did not inform him that I would react to his speech and consequently I understand why he is not present. The fact of the matter is that one of these days the hon member is going to contract a political marriage with the AWB and HNP, and the pastor or clergyman who will officiate at that wedding is Prof Boshoff. I am referring to the establishment of the Afrikaner-volkswag on 4 and 5 May. [Interjections.] If one thinks of what the word “pool” means, one gets a wonderful idea of how the AWB, CP, HNP are going to pool their resources in the Afrikaner-volkswag. I have no objection to them doing so; they have every right to do so. What I do object to is that they are trying to frighten people in an intimidatory way by alleging that the reason for the establishment of the Afrikaner-volkswag is that there is a crisis. The origin of this political crisis is that two-thirds of the enfranchised citizens of this country voted “yes” for a new constitutional dispensation. That is the so-called crisis. To them the democratic course of a polling process is therefore a crisis. They have a fear-stricken mentality. The NP is not fear-stricken about the future of the Whites. Not at all. We know that the future of our people depends on the will of God.

During the referendum there were many people who prayed for the correct outcome. We believe in all humality that the correct decision was, in fact, taken. We also believe that the decision is an indication to us that we should implement that policy, and we shall do so. We are a people with faith, and my people are not frightened people. We do not believe in crises, but in faith, confidence and guidance. [Interjections.]

The Whites, Asians and Coloureds will proceed with the new dispensation. It could be established within six months. I want to issue the warning that we shall not accept any undemocratic attempts to block this process from anyone in this country. Whatever the Afrikaner-volkswag does now, and whether they want to be the catalyst to bring those three parties together, is their own affair. But democracy in this country will not be destroyed.

A few references were made to the constitutional position of the Blacks, and I also wish to refer to this matter briefly. We are dealing with consolidation and putting the final touches to these states. We are also bringing Black local authorities into existence and granting freedom to as many people as possible. As we make progress new problems crop as the hon the Leader of the Opposition correctly remarked, up and I want to refer to a few of them.

The first is that we have now reached the stage where we have to give attention to the Black people and communities outside the national states. It is a fact that we have Black communities in our country who have traditional, ethnic, constitutional and cultural links with their peoples. The fact of the matter is that at present we are not making it easy for them to preserve these links. We must devise a method of preserving these traditional and historic links. For that reason I should like to request that consideration be given to the establishment of an organization that will ensure that it is possible for the rendering of a service to take place extra-territorially. This may possibly tie in with the earlier remarks made by the hon member for Durban Point. I wish to advocate the establishment of such an organization, because I believe that rendering services to the citizens of a state is the privilege and duty of that particular state. In addition, it is also the right of the citizen to receive such services. Therefore I believe that we should now perfect the system of rendering services and put it into operation in a formalized and feasible way.

I should like to present an example of the rendering of services extra-territorially. Suppose an independant state wishes to render services to its people in Atteridgeville, which is in my constituency, and it requests the municipality concerned as its agent to pay out social pensions or child care grants, for example. I do not think there is anyone in this House who will not concede that this is a sound and commendable idea. However, there are certain details that have to be worked out and in this connection we should investigate the possibility of creating an organization to work out the details. I should like to mention certain facets in this connection.

In the first place, if services should be rendered by a Black municipality, there is a financial implication, namely that the independent state requesting such a service will probably have to reimburse such a service. The second aspect I want to mention is that there will probably have to be a monitoring effect, which will give the independent state the assurance that its money is being spent according to agreement. The third aspect is that the Government of the Republic of South Africa will most certainly have an interest in the matter, because certain regulations are affected and consent has to be granted in certain cases. Consequently I should like to request the hon the Prime Minister to give attention to the possibility of bringing such an organization into existence. I think that such an organization would be in the interests of everyone. If such an organization could be established, rendering services extra-territorially, we will be strengthening the cultural, political and social ties which are on the point of dissipating. I think this would be such a flexible modus operandi and presents such promising potential that we should most certainly give attention to this possibility. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, if one listened to the hon member for Pretoria West, particularly to the first part of his speech, it was very clear that he was very nervous about the by-elections that were going to take place, and also probably a general election, and about what was then going to happen to him in Pretoria West. That hon member is sitting on a political time-bomb, on a powder-keg, as far as his own constituency is concerned, and it is very clear that he is very worried about his own position in Pretoria West. [Interjections.] That is why it conjures up marriages and ostensible dangers which he himself must then try to eliminate.

We also noticed the terms he used in respect of Prof Boshoff. I think they were used in a derogatory sense.

In regard to the AFM as well.

Yes, in regard to the Apostolic Churches that have pastors. [Interjections.] We shall indeed take thorough cognisance of this.

I want to return to the hon the Deputy Minister.

Which one? There are so many.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. He began, in a very favourable and friendly and restrained manner, for him, to reply to my hon leader. The latter part of his speech, however, disclosed two aspects, and we shall come to his letter in a moment. The first is his party’s nervousness at the fact that his party is beginning to lose seats in South Africa.

Waterkloof.

Yes, in Waterkloof the number of votes polled by his party declined pathetically in comparison with the 1981 election. [Interjections.] We shall refer to Soutpansberg, but we do not want to anticipate matters. The tangible nervousness of that hon Deputy Minister is remarkable, however. [Interjections.] His problem is that he does not know whether or not he should link the CP to the HNP, and that is what is upsetting him because he wants to link them up but then he cannot decide whether he should do so. He does not know what to do now. [Interjections.] He is like a horse with a bit on one side of its mouth only. I just want to tell him that my leader stated the standpoint of the CP clearly and unambiguously today in respect of the Komati Accord—and I would be pleased if Hansard would omit the “N” from Nkomati in the report of my speech—and in respect of our relations with other independent African states. [Interjections.] He need only go and read it and then he need not ask any further questions. For that matter, he can read it behind the closed doors of a home meeting in Koedoesrand and in Waterkloof. We do not have two different messages for the various sectors of the population of South Africa. [Interjections.]

The second aspect which emerged from the speech of the hon the Deputy Minister was his unbridled rancour towards the leader of the CP. You see, we were expelled from the NP … [Interjections.] … but that hon Deputy Minister was expelled from the NP as a result of his behaviour towards, at that stage, his provincial leader. That is his style, however, and the hon the Prime Minister should take cognisance of the fact that there are such people in his party. At one stage the hon the Prime Minister said it was ostensibly John Vorster that stood between him and Louis Nel, and subsequently John Vorster was no longer there to stand between him and Louis Nel.

And then he made him a Deputy Minister.

Yes, then he made him a Deputy Minister. [Interjections.] When we were still all members of the NP, that hon Deputy Minister gave a luncheon in his home in Brooklyn, Pretoria to which he invited Americans, and White and Black Pretorians. I see he remembers that luncheon because he is looking at me now.

It was in 1976?

That is correct; in 1976. Then at that luncheon in his own home he discussed some of his colleagues in the NP with Americans and Blacks.

And they continue to sit next to him!

And he discussed the present hon leader of the CP, and he told those Americans and those Blacks: “Andries Treurnicht must get out of the NP”. [Interjections.]

I deny that. [Interjections.]

I am almost finished with the hon the Deputy Minister. He referred obliquely to what my hon leader supposedly said about Mr Vorster in an interview with Leadership South Africa. I do not know whether he has a copy of the interview with him, but my hon leader said:

What is wrong with that?

Read a little further.

Surely the hon the Deputy Minister has read the rest himself, and we have already discussed this matter. I just want to tell him that I do not think that anyone on that side should try to trifle with John Vorster’s name. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Opposition paid the hon the Prime Minister several compliments, and I think quite rightly so. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon the Minister of Health and Welfare entitled to say what he has just said? I do not even want to repeat it. Let him tell you himself what he said.

Sir, I said that Daan van der Merwe was the biggest bloody manipulator (knoeier) in this House.

The hon the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Rissik entitled to ask the Minister of Health and Welfare: “Are you at least sober today?”

The hon member for Rissik must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Langlaagte entitled to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that he is a back-stabber?

Sir, I said they were all back-stabbers.

The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon the Leader of the official Opposition complimented the hon the Prime Minister which in my opinion, from his point of view, were the correct compliments to make. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, with all due respect to the hon member for Soutpansberg, let me say that the contribution he made attests to the utter bankruptcy of the CP. Let me tell him why I am saying this. They say they were expelled from the NP. Let me comment on that by way of just one single sentence. It is a downright lie, because those people elected to walk out themselves. I shall leave the matter at that.

Sir, may I ask the hon member a question?

No. I have only ten minutes at my disposal for my speech. The hon member for Soutpansberg said that the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs’s contribution attests to his nervousness about …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member entitled to say that an hon member’s statement is a downright lie?

The hon member must withdraw the word “lie”.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brits used the same words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

The hon member’s statement is a downright untruth. The hon member says that the fact the hon the Deputy Minister spoke the way he did in his speech attests to nervousness. The fact of the matter is that the hon member is forgetting that the CP and the HNP are currying favour with each other in a way that borders on the ridiculous.

Are you afraid of it?

No, we are not afraid of that at all, but it one is not blameless oneself, one should not make such accusations.

The hon member for Soutpansberg also thought fit, on the basis of what another hon member said, to refer to the cultural organization which is to be established, the Afrikaner-volkswag, and Prof Boshoff. I want to state as a fact that when the CP walked out on the NP, they politically divided a large portion of the Afrikaner people. Let me also say that that party is now, in the same way, creating cultural divisions in Afrikaner ranks. It is envisaged, is it not, that the leader of the CP and the leader of the HNP should be speakers at the inaugural meeting of the Afrikaner-volkswag. It is surely also true that Prof Boshoff and others have acknowledged that this organization cannot be divorced from politics. I want to content that in the annals of history the leader of the CP will be known as the person who, together with his followers, caused a split in the political sphere and drove in a wedge in the cultural sphere. We definitely do not need that. We have cultural organizations engaged in cultural activities in a manner approved of by those people all these years. I think the time has come for those gentlemen also to reflect on the course they are adopting. I shall leave the matter at that.

The hon member for Rissik is often inclined to ask: Where is the NP heading? He has done so repeatedly. In the short time at my disposal I now want to make a few remarks about that. The major objective, in my view, is to ensure the survival of the Whites, the Coloureds, and Indians and the various Black ethnic groups by acknowledging the human dignity and right to self-determination of each and, secondly, to achieve the right attitude towards, and relationship with, one another so as to work together, in the process of acknowledging one another’s independence and autonomy, for maximum security, peace and progress. That is the reality of the situation. It is as simple as that. Briefly, so that the hon member for Rissik can also understand it: We need one another in this country if we are to ensure the survival of all of us. It is towards that goal that the NP is working and striving. Let us tell one another: To achieve that the NP has not jettisoned any principles. That there have been adjustments, and that the method or policy has been changed specifically to maintain those principles and achieve those objectives, is true, and we do not in any way apologize for that. Present-day realities require any responsible Government to take action on that score. Idealism will have to be coupled to and tempered by realism. That is nothing new. If the hon member for Rissik is asking where the NP is heading, let me refer him to speeches made by the hon the Prime Minister on 5 February 1980 and on 23 March 1979. In those speeches it is clearly stated where we are heading. This has not changed at all. In regard to the changes that these hon member latch onto, let me point out that the NP is not a party of stagnation. The NP has never been a party of stagnation, and never will be either. The NP is a creative party. It is a party of renewal and development, in the words of the hon the Prime Minister himself. Not one of its predecessors had any doubts about that either. I am now referring to NP leaders in the days when hon members of the CP still found themselves in NP ranks. Since 1948 one NP leader after another has adopted precisely the same standpoint, ie that the necessary adjustments continually have to be made.

If we were to take this matter further the hon member could, of course, ask me what the position was in regard to the question of discrimination. That is, of course, something those hon gentlemen so easily latch onto. I am now referring to the so-called question of unnecessary or offensive discrimination; the question about whether apartheid is dead. The exploitation of the process of the abolition of discrimination is, as far as I am concerned, just as offensive as some kinds of discrimination by means of which people’s human dignity is encroached upon. I think one kind of apartheid is indeed dead. About that there is no doubt. I am referring to the carricature of apartheid drawn by our enemies who seek our downfall. [Interjections.] The kind of apartheid that the hon the Prime Minister advocates in his own words involves the mutual recognition of one another’s rights. That is what the concept of separate development means. The difference between unnecessary and hurtful discrimination on the one hand and necessary discrimination on the other does, of course, give rise to questions that do have some validity. I therefore want to try to answer them, and let me answer in the words of the hon the Prime Minister:

In another speech of his the hon the Prime Minister again put it in the following terms:

Here we encounter the difference between necessary discrimination on the one hand and unnecessary discrimination on the other. We have it here in the words of a leader. Let us, however, compare it to what is being said by the hon the leader of the CP. From him we have never heard clear pronouncements. This afternoon we witnessed an effort, on the part of the hon leader of the CP, to make a pronouncement in regard to the Nkomati Accord. I leave it to each and every hon member of the House, however, to decide for himself on the clarity of the hon member for Waterberg’s exposition. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Virginia devoted his speech for the most part to the CP. I intend to speak about Natal. There we are in the fortunate position that we have no representatives of the CP in Natal.

Not for long, old friend. Not for long. [Interjections.]

We are in a position, Mr Speaker, where we can give more attention to the problems we have to deal with. We do not, therefore, have the time to give attention to the senseless quarrelling between the CP and other political parties. [Interjections.]

†I should like to address myself to the political and constitutional future of Natal; not because I want to take up a so-called Natal stand but because the future of kwaZulu and of Natal will be a major issue, in my view, in South Africa’s constitutional development. Natal and kwaZulu will always be an integral part of South Africa. Despite that, however, it remains an area with its own significant features.

What sets it apart is the unusual nature of the interaction between Natal and kwaZulu. In Natal there is only one homeland with which to deal, and that is politically a very powerful one. It makes its influence felt in Natal in a way that no other homeland influences any other province. At the moment kwaZulu is fragmented into approximately 40 separate areas. If the plan for consolidation into 10 areas is to succeed, between 300 000 and 500 000 people will have to be moved and resettled. I do not believe that we can afford this and that we can carry that cost politically or otherwise. Many of Natal’s White agricultural and business leaders and interests are opposed to consolidation because they believe, for example, that it will affect the sugar industry and therefore detrimentally affect the province as a whole.

The people of kwaZulu and Natal have always had common interests. If health services, education services, transport services and industrial development generally are to function properly, this can only happen if there is the greatest degree of co-operation and interaction among all the people of that region. For planning purposes, it can only work if the region is taken as a whole.

These facts that I have stated are known because they have been stated time and time again by commission after commission. However, what is of great concern to many Natalians is that having identified these features there now seems to be no political and constitutional plan to deal adequately with these problems. On 3 April of this year, according to The Natal Mercury, Chief Gatsha Buthelezi had this to say:

On the other hand, Sir, the Government appears to proceed on the assumption that kwaZulu will take independence. The average Natalian is perplexed and wonders how these contradictory points of view are going to be resolved. The one says that it will never take independence and the other proceeds on the assumption that there will be independence. If the Zulus are going to remain South African citizens, how are we going to get out of the existing constitutional cul de sac? As I see it, the new dispensation will not assist in coming to grips with the Natal/kwaZulu problem because it does not affect 77,4% of Natal’s population, namely the Blacks. The Buthelezi Commission found that fewer than half of the Whites and even fewer Indian and Coloured South Africans believed that the present situation of the social and political separation of kwaZulu/Natal could last indefinitely.

I ask the question: What is the constitutional future of Natal and kwaZulu? The fact that some prominent Natalians openly supported the Government in the referendum, as well as some of the utterances that they made, led to speculation in Natal that they had knowledge of Government plans for the region and that they were aware of some secret agenda that existed. [Interjections.] Hon members of the NRP and other hon members may make disbelieving noises but the fact remains that these speculative rumours are doing the rounds in Natal. Because of the insecurity the question arises whether the Government has plans for the kwaZulu/Natal region. Is the Government going to proceed on the assumption that kwaZulu will become independent? I believe that if this is the case it will have dire consequences for the whole region. The potential of the region can never be realized if it is to continue in the fragmented way in which it exists at the moment. The present uncertainty has already resulted in a considerable lack of investment confidence in respect of kwaZulu.

Another alternative that one hears about is the possibility of finding a formula in terms of which Natal and kwaZulu run the province jointly so that in a future constellation of states Natal and kwaZulu will form one integral part of the confederation. Is this a possible alternative that the Government has in mind or is it purely speculation?

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

No, I do not have the time.

Alternatives are being discussed and mentioned because there appears to be a lack of certainty as to the direction in which Natal and kwaZulu will be moving. Another alternative is the one which is known and which is the one proposed by the Buthelezi Commission. The Government as until now virtually ignored the report of that commission. I should like to ask the hon the Prime Minister whether the report of the Buthelezi Commission has been locked away permanently or whether it is nearby so that it can be pulled out so that perhaps part of it or the whole of it can again come under consideration. Is that still a possibility? Have we heard the last of the report of the Buthelezi Commission or have we not heard the last of it?

Unfortunately, I believe, for both Natal and kwaZulu the hon the Prime Minister and Chief Buthelezi do not appear to be on speaking terms at the moment. Some blame Chief Buthelezi and others blame the hon the Prime Minister. Not much can be achieved by apportioning blame. At the time when one can almost not keep track with the number of agreements and accords with neighbouring states, it is a sorry state of affairs if the leader of the biggest ethnic group in the country and the Prime Minister of the country seem to be unable to get together to discuss the future of an important area like Natal/kwaZulu. Very little progress can be made unless the leaders of the area do discuss the future, do get around a table. It is time, I believe, that we have what the Daily News called a Ulundi Accord.

Fresh winds need to be blown into the constitutional future of Natal and kwaZulu. The Buthelezi Commission on page 315 of its report found the following:

I believe that in order to enable the region to exploit its potential fully in a climate of stability, an indication is needed from the Government as to whether it is prepared to consider new policy initiatives for that region.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Central broached the question of homeland development, and the development of kwaZulu in Natal, totally from the point of view of his own party. The hon member is trying to suggest that the NP Government is trying to force independence on kwaZulu. Nowhere has the Government implied anything of the sort. The fact remains that kwaZulu is a self-governing national state, regulating its own affairs in an area which the Government did not create, but which has traditionally and historically been part of the natural domain of the Zulu people. It is also a fact that the Zulu people itself accepted that self-government, that total autonomy, The Zulu people—including Chief Buthelezi—act within that context. KwaZulu acts as a self-governing state, and in so far as it does so, it accepts this aspect of the Government’s policy.

The hon member for Durban Central also made a second mistake—a mistake his party is very fond of making—that of thinking that as long as kwaZulu prefers to remain a self-governing state, and not to accept independence, he can try to suggest that for Natal and kwaZulu a dispensation ought to be adopted other than that for the Republic as a whole. Let us clearly reiterate here, once and for all, that until such time as kwaZulu decides that it wants to petition this Parliament for independence, it will remain part of Natal and Natal will remain part of the Republic of South Africa, and the whole of Natal, in eluding kwaZulu, will be subject to the legislation of this Parliament. When all is said and done, that is also our objection to the Buthelezi Commission. With the appointment of the Buthelezi Commission, the point of departure was that the whole of Natal should be treated in one and the same fashion and that it could be regarded as an entity separate from the rest of South Africa.

I am very grateful to the hon member for Durban Central for having broached the question of homelands, because I also want to refer to that aspect, specifically on the basis of a question the hon member for Rissik put to the Prime Minister on 1 February of this year. On that occasion the hon member questioned the estimated costs of their party’s homeland or heartland policy, thereby broaching a matter which is of cardinal importance to the electorate in general, and Natal in particular, when it comes to assessing the Conservative Party’s policy. For surely the CP is continually telling the voters of the dangers—as they see it—of the Government’s policy in regard to the Coloured and Indian communities. When they speak of so-called dangers embodied in Government policy, they have the advantage of Government policy which has been set out in fine detail and which was debated in detail in the House of Assembly and in public during last year’s referendum. So it is only fair that the CP’s alternative to the Government’s constitutional proposals should be clearly defined.

The CP, after, all, claims that it is the alternative Government. Some of them are even bold enough to predict that the change will come in the next election. If a price must, therefore, be paid for Government policy—as the CP alleges—the voters surely have the right to ask what the price of the CP’s homeland policy would be.

This is of particular importance to us in Natal, because in two respects we are even worse off than the Cape, which will largely have to bear the brunt of the CP’s Coloured homeland policy. Firstly the Whites in Natal, like the Whites in the Cape, are in a minority position in relation to two non-White population groups. In Natal the Whites, numerically speaking, are relatively in a far more unfavourable position. Secondly, Natal does not have the extensive land area that the Cape does. We cannot afford sacrificing certain regions on the altar of unworkable theories. With its 91 000 square kilometres, Natal comprises a mere 8,1% of the total surface area of South Africa, and kwaZulu accounts for 35 000 square kilometres of that—more than one-third of the surface area of Natal.

If one looks at the CP’s policy in regard to the Indian population, one sees that they are amazingly reticent about it. There are at least a few guidelines in their programme of principles and policy approved by their congress on 2 August 1982. I want to refer to three of them. In paragraph 2.2.1 mention is made of the establishment of own authorities for and by Coloureds and Indians, own authorities which can develop to full self-determination in scientifically determined geographic areas of jurisdiction or heartlands. Secondly, Coloured and Indian authorities can extend their areas of jurisdiction by purchasing adjacent White land. Thirdly, when all Black national states and the Indian state have obtained independence … In other words, one thing is very clear from these passages quoted from the Conservative Party’s programme of principles and that is that the approaches in regard to the Coloured population and the Indian population are exactly the same. In this document it is stated in one and the same breath. So some of the pronouncements that Conservative Party leaders have made in connection with the Coloured homeland can be applied to an Indian homeland. The first question is where such an Indian homeland would be established. According to Hansard, col 4493, on 12 April last year the hon member for Lichtenburg was good enough to tell us:

Secondly, the hon the leader of the CP, in Leadership South Africa, to which the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs previously referred, said:

In other words, the homeland for the Coloureds will be in that area where the majority of them are already living. Now we must apply the same criteria to the Indians. According to the 1980 census 523 000 of the 800 000 Indians live in the Durban-Pinetown-Pietermaritzburg area. This represents approximately 66%. So if the hon leader of the CP’s criterion must be applied, the core of the Indian heartland must therefore be the Durban-Pinetown-Pietermaritzburg area. [Interjections.] This means that as the core of their Indian heartland they are simply going to relinquish the third largest industrial complex and the largest harbour in Africa.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Order!

Secondly, let us ask ourselves how big this Hindustan is going to be. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte must please restrain himself.

In this connection the hon member for Lichtenburg has given us a very clear guideline. In the very next sentence he goes on to tell us:

He is referring to the areas in the Cape, in Kimberley and in Port Elizabeth:

This means that the hon member for Lichtenburg is drawing a parallel between the population density of Lebowa and that of the Coloureds in Kimberley, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. If population density, which in the national states averages approximately 40 per square kilometre, is part of the CP’s rationale in regard to their homeland policy, this means that Natal must relinquish 20 000 square kilometres of its remaining 56 000 square kilometres to their Indian heartland, with Durban-Pietermaritzburg as the core. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon member for Umlazi. I see that the CP’s policy has already met with his approval. It seems to me that we are making very sound progress. The hon member has already conducted a study on an Indian homeland, but apparently he does not see his way to undertaking a study on the costs of the new dispensation. I wish the NP good luck if it is going to pursue that path. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Virginia said that the NP was not a stagnant party. I agree wholeheartedly with him. That is true. However, over the past two years the NP has become a party of abdication and capitulation, and it has accepted the idea of a mixed Cabinet and a mixed Government. The Afrikaner nation is no longer all-important to the NP, since, as the hon the Prime Minister said, the Whites and the Coloureds are one people now. That is the direction the NP is pursuing now. [Interjections.]

On Thursday, 23 February, during the Part Appropriation, when I wanted to refer to his meeting at Tzaneen, the hon the Prime Minister said that I should rather raise the matter during the discussion of his Vote. I therefore wish to refer to that meeting at Tzaneen on Wednesday, 8 February, now. What happened there? I have here with me a tape-recording of that meeting. I also have a report on the proceedings from Beeld. Beeld reported the proceedings absolutely correctly. Apart from what appeared in Beeld, a mouthpiece of the NP, I also want to tell hon members what is on the tape. The hon the Prime Minister said:

Later the hon the Prime Minister said:

The hon the Prime Minister went on to say:

That was after he had been interrupted:

Then someone in the meeting shouted “Fine!”, and then someone asked: “What about Mr Van der Walt?”. Then the hon the Prime Minister replied: “Mr Van der Walt is not in the Cabinet this evening”.

With reference to the CP the hon the Prime Minister clearly stated at that meeting that we could have asked for a select committee to investigate the matter. What has happened now? On 26 April 1983 the hon member for Brakpan moved a motion here in this House, and I have the Hansard report on this before me. It was given to me the next morning in Tzaneen with the remark: “Look at what the Prime Minister says here in Hansard”. The hon member for Brakpan requested in his motion that a select committee consisting of nine members nominated by Mr Speaker be appointed to investigate and report on the conduct of Mr S P Botha, the former Minister of Manpower. The debate on that took the entire afternoon. The official Opposition went even further and asked that a commission under the chairmanship of a judge be appointed so that if the members of the CP wanted to commit character assassination, it should come to light before polling day.

When I raised the matter here at a later stage, the hon the Prime Minister told me that we were talking a lot of nonsense and that we had not proved anything. However, we asked for a select committee to investigate this matter. Why did the hon the Prime Minister blatantly state later at that meeting that we had not asked for a select committee? The hon the Minister of Internal Affairs was the chairman at that meeting, and he should at least have told the hon the Prime Minister that what he says on two different occasions should correspond.

Reference has been made to gossiping, and I ask the hon the Prime Minister to state the true facts now. I have already said previously that the hon the Prime Minister is not my leader. However, he remains my Prime Minister, and I want to respect him as such, but then he must not act as he did at that meeting. I therefore ask him to refrain from acting in that manner. [Interjections.]

In a multinational country such as South Africa, fairness, prosperity and justice can only be brought about by separate development. The various groups must govern themselves in their own homelands or areas. That is the CP’s policy, and, in fact, also the policy the NP pursued for 33 years. We were happy and content with that in this country. What have we experienced recently, however? Whites have been completely crowded out in their own areas. Influx control has been stopped completely. It seems to me that the Government no longer implements influx control. I invite the hon the Prime Minister to go with me to any branch of the O K Bazaars on a Saturday morning. [Interjections.] One simply cannot get in there. Or is this perhaps the way in which apartheid or separate development is finally going to be done away with? In the years when the CP and the NP still acted as one party, homeland development was our policy, and it is still the CP’s policy today. The homelands must be an absorptive power so that we can keep the groups in this country apart, and so that there can be prosperity for everyone. In the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs said that the repeal of all hurtful discrimination remains the Government’s objective, and that it would ardently strive for this. An hon member said a moment ago that we harp on discrimination, but let hon members opposite rise and tell us what hurtful discrimination is. Hurtful discrimination in whose eyes? Does this only apply to Coloureds and Indians, or does it also include the Blacks? What is going to be abolished, how is it going to be abolished and when is it going to be abolished? We should very much like to know. The hon the Prime Minister and the NP have saddled a horse they cannot ride. The referendum has passed, and the new constitution was rushed through by way of the guillotine. All the clauses that were very relevant and which we would like to have discussed, could not be dealt with because we were not permitted to say anything further. Other peoples discuss for many years to have a constitution approved, but the NP steamrollered its constitution through and we still cannot find out what is going to happen in September. Are we going to meet, when are we going to meet, and for how long are we going to meet? What is going to happen with the committees? I see that the newspapers are beginning to prescribe now. Dr Wimpie de Klerk said a while ago that he was the pioneer who was paving the way, and that the NP was following. Before the referendum the hon the Minister of Law and Order was really the mouthpiece of the ANC, and I should very much like to know from him whether he could tell us how the various budgets are going to be dealt with in terms of the new dispensation. Are there going to be joint sittings, or how is it going to take place? This is all being hidden from the public, however, and they are not permitted to know.

The hon the Prime Minister promised clean administration, and I should like to raise a matter related to this. The SABC is being used … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sunnyside and the CP like to compare themselves to the NP before 1982. The PFP dreams that one day it is going to become a great party like the NP. Now and then the NRP thinks that the NP has taken over certain aspects of its policy. Why does one encounter these misconceptions on the part of Opposition parties? For the purposes of the record, one should rectify these misconceptions. The reason for this is obvious: The Opposition obviously is not familiar with the essence, the history and the vision of the NP. Fortunately, the voters are familiar with this. Why has the NP grown from strength to strength for 70 years since 1914? Why has the NP been in power for 36 years since 1948? Why does the NP still have a two-thirds majority after nine elections? There are three reasons for this. Firstly, the NP is a party with principles and a policy. Secondly, the NP is a party with top-class leaders. Thirdly, the NP has a vision of the future for South Africa and all its people. To prove this, I should like to quote what some of our leaders have had to say with regard to certain important matters of policy, statements we still stand by, in contrast with the CP, the PFP and the NRP, whose spiritual forefathers, the United Party, rejected the policies of the leaders at that stage.

Adv Strijdom, the then NP Member of Parliament for Waterberg, as Prime Minister, said the following on 17 January 1956, 28 years ago, in Hansard, col 43:

His successor, Dr Verwoerd, spoke about the political future of the Coloureds, the Indians, as well as the Black peoples on 7 April 1965, 19 years ago, and what he had to say, differs fundamentally from the standpoint of the CP. In other words, the CP differs with Dr Verwoerd on this important aspect of policy. What did Dr Verwoerd say on that occasion? He said (Hansard, 7 April 1965, col 4180):

Adv Vorster, Dr Verwoerd’s successor, said 10 years ago, on 30 August 1974 (Hansard, col 1897):

He went on to say (col 1898):

Now only Gen Hertzog, the founder of the National Party—it is not necessary to speak about him—and Dr Malan remain. Now I should like to quote from the Volksblad of 1 May 1979:

[Interjections.]

On various occasions the National Party, by way of its chief leader, has also clearly outlined the future for South Africa. On 3 August 1981, the hon the Prime Minister discussed four alternatives (columns 42-43). I quote:

That it is the path of destruction. He says that the second school of thought is the liberalistic school—

That, too, is a dead-end street. It is the path of the PFP. I quote once again:

That is a dead-end street as well.

What does Jaap say?

The hon member is asking me: “What does Jaap say?” I shall reply to that with pleasure. Die Burger of 9 August 1983 says:

[Interjections.] What does Mr Louis Stofberg have to say? I quote from Die Transvaler of 30 August 1982:

[Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, although we are dealing with a negative and cynical Opposition, the NP does not see the future as an unbearable burden, but as a wonderful opportunity.

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

No, Mr Chairman, I am not going to reply to questions now. Our hon Prime Minister has not only made us aware of the total onslaught on South Africa and Southern Africa, but he has also developed a total national strategy against the total onslaught, which includes a national goal, an economic strategy, a military strategy, a diplomatic strategy, as well as constitutional development in South Africa, so that we can govern in everyone’s interests. The NP has put a creative process in motion in the political sphere, as well as in the international sphere in South Africa and in Southern Africa, a process which will be continued in the years ahead.

That is why, as far as the future is concerned, it is true that when one looks at the CP, the PFP and the NRP, one can state with great boldness that the next 70 years also belong the NP, because it is a party that is built on principles, a party that has top-class leaders, leaders with foresight.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I cannot follow the hon member for Bloemfontein East as regards his prophecies concerning the next 70 years. Unfortunately I lack the wisdom and insight for that. Since his speech was largely devoted to a feud between the NP and the CP, something which does not really concern us, I should just like to point out that although I agree with his points of view as regards statements about a Coloured homeland, he need not use the PFP as a peg on which to hang his attacks on the CP. He should rather abandon that tactic.

At this point I just want to refer briefly to the start of this debate this afternoon. The hon the Leader of the Opposition once again defined the predominating issue in South Africa as being relations between White and Black. That is where the crux of the problem lies. He stated clearly that even if we were able to resolve fully the questions relating to the Coloureds and the Asians—important as they may indeed be—this only touches on the periphery of the real problem. The real problem is relations between White and Black in South Africa. That is the crucial problem.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition went on to state very clearly that we could not on the one hand become increasingly interrelated with one another, become increasingly dependent on one another for our total existence, while on the other hand simultaneously practising ostrich politics as far as citizenship and political rights are concerned. Therefore I find it disappointing that the hon member for De Kuilen displays not the slightest grasp of that problem; not the slightest grasp. He failed to show that he had even an inkling of the problem sketched here by the hon the Leader of the Opposition. What the statement by the hon the Leader of the Opposition amounts to is that the policy of the Government has already provided a solution to the dilemma, whereas the hon member for De Kuilen—and of course, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning too—know that in the past the Government’s policy has not resolved the problem of the insistence of Blacks resident in the Republic on participation in the political system. If the hon member for De Kuilen does not know it, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning does.

The hon member for De Kuilen went on to speak about the progress in the economic …

He concedes that the constitution does not provide the full answer as far as political participation is concerned.

That is correct. I am coming to that. The remark made by the hon member for De Kuilen about the economic and educational progress that has already been made will, more than any other factor, increase Blacks’ insistence on political participation. It will not reduce that insistence.

It has often been pointed out in this House that insistence on political participation is a function of the permanence of people. If people are permanently resident in an area for generation after generation then there is no rational way in which they can be denied a claim and a right to political participation. In those circumstances, where the element of permanence is present, no theoretical process of depriving them of their citizenship will solve the problem, nor will any academic drawing of borders solve the problem. No rationalized justification on the basis of the existence of different peoples will remove that problem from reality nor will any half-baked measures or appeal to the desirability of the preservation of an exclusive right of self-determination get rid of the problem. Accordingly that is my reply to the hon member for Waterberg, because the problem does not concern the exclusive right of self-determination of Whites. The fact of the matter is simply that Black and White are interlinked here and will become inter-linked to an increasing extent. If there has to be an exclusive right of self-determination— I have said this here on more than one occasion—then in these circumstances it can only be achieved if there is eventual total separation between White and Black. That separation would have to be accompanied by an acceptable arrangement as regards the distribution of land which would have to be acceptable to all parties. Therefore the realities of the matter are that both of these objectives are totally unobtainable. We can continue with the fallacious arguments and the ostrich politics of the need for the preservation of an exclusive right of self-determination for the Whites, but in the light of the realities and the facts of South Africa, that will not be capable of achievement. The facts of the matter, or the realities that we in this country have to live with, are therefore irreconcilable with the expectations created by such a policy. It is and will remain nothing but a chimera.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition said time and again that the struggle in this regard was to retain the co-operation of the Black masses in this country—those Black masses who are permanently resident in the RSA, not only in respect of the political system that they also have to accept and maintain, but also in respect of the economic dispensation in which they live. If we are unable to retain the co-operation of the Black man we shall not be able to preserve our political system or our economic system. The hon the Leader of the Opposition has pointed this out time and again. Therefore the point is that we shall have to do everything in our power to strenghten the hands of those Black leaders who live in the RSA and who believe in peaceful change, as against all the other elements who believe that it is only by means of violence that a solution can be found. For that reason I find it a pity that there has been this estrangement between the hon the Prime Minister and Chief Gatsha Buthelezi. That Chief Gatsha Buthelezi is a leader of his people and a leader who is highly regarded by many people is beyond doubt, just as the hon the Prime Minister is indeed the leader of the Whites of South Africa at this stage. Therefore I also regard as highly irresponsible the kind of attack that the hon member for Durban Point regularly makes on Chief Buthelezi. I find it irresponsible in the extreme and it attests to the utmost intolerance and shortsightedness.

Therefore the point is that we must give the Blacks in the RSA faith and hope that the dispensation in which and under which they live and will continue to live can satisfy their aspirations as well. This can only be achieved if we give those Blacks a vested interest in both the economy and politics—in other words, as regards our total civil life which in the first instance, of course, involves the issues of citizenship and civil rights. In conclusion, then, allow me to make three remarks in this regard. We must get away from the idea that a possible constellation of States is going to solve that problem of ours. I know that there are still people who discuss the idea of a constellation of states. The idea of a constellation of states could well have merit but it cannot be used as a method of satisfying the problem of the political aspirations of those Black people who reside within our territory.

In the second place I want to refer to the remark made by the hon member for Pretoria West in connection with service. What that has to do with the satisfaction of the political aspirations of those Blacks to whom I have referred, I really fail to see. It is neither here nor there. With all due respect the hon member for Pretoria West, I must say that it seems to me that all this is yet another formula with which we seek to escape reality.

In the third place I want to refer to the work of the Cabinet Committee to which the hon member for Innesdal also referred. I really hope that that Cabinet Committee will consider in depth the position of the Black man within the Republic of South Africa and that in considering the problem it will not feel itself bound by the preconceptions and attitudes of the NP and NP policy. We look forward very expectantly to what the Cabinet Committee may come up with.

In conclusion I just wish to say that I listened with great interest to the hon member for Umlazi. What I cannot understand about him is that he and the Government are prepared to speak about regional development in the economic sphere and to try and take all possible steps to promote regional development, but when the Blacks and the Whites of Natal ask that they be put in the position to work out their own specific salvation on a regional basis, the NP Government says that that is totally unthinkable. I cannot understand such a lack of logic.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Prof Olivier would probably not mind my putting a few questions to him on his contribution today.

First I should just like to say that I, too, regard this as being an historic debate and that I am grateful for being able to participate in it. After all, this is the last debate on the Vote of the Prime Minister.

The hon member Prof Olivier will agree with me that in order to effect change in a country a Government is required. Surely that is clear. That Government in turn needs a power-base, and its power-base is its voters. Is that correct?

It is correct.

If it is correct, and if the electorate is a White electorate as is the case at present as far as the House of Assembly is concerned, surely the voters decide on the speed at which change is to be effected. If for a continuous period of 36 years those voters have been saying no to one Opposition Party after another, and do not want to follow the policies of those Opposition parties …

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

I shall give the hon member the opportunity of putting a question to me as soon as I have completed my argument.

If the voters say that they want to follow the policy and philosophy of the NP, would it not be unwise of a Prime Minister to distance himself to any great extent from the policy that has been spelled out over the years? The hon member Prof Olivier may put a question to me now.

Mr Chairman, the hon member would probably concede that the NP, too, has changed its policy on many fronts and in many directions on account of the way it has been leading the people. So, could it not possibly happen that through statemanship …

I regret interrupting the hon member, but I know what the essence of his question is.

The hon member Prof Olivier is correct, but only in so far as it has never been the policy of the NP to have to move away from the fact that minorities can be dominated by majorities. This forms part of the foundation and philosophy of the NP.

I am sorry that the hon the Leader of the Opposition is not present in the Chamber at the moment, because today he dragged something into this debate which I really find regrettable. I regret his having involved labour in this debate since labour is a very sensitive matter. Particularly at this stage it is an extremely sensitive matter. The hon the Leader of the Opposition has offered his cooperation—he said we should seek a solution together—but we are unable to believe them as we have created three opportunities for them to co-operate. They could have utilized the President’s Council as an instrument of co-operation, but they did not want to do so. Next we submitted a new constitution and all the Opposition parties, except the NRP, opposed it by forcing a division at every Reading. At the referendum they once again failed miserably. How are we to co-operate now in finding a solution?

Now I want to refer to another aspect. I want to thank the hon the Prime Minister of something he has done, viz to create a strong feeling of trust between the Government and private initiative in South Africa. He did this by means of three conferences which he himself convened, viz the Carlton Conference, the Good Hope Conference and the Anti-inflation Conference in Pretoria.

Three hundred of our leading businessmen put in an appearance at the Carlton Conference. Many of them attended the conference because of their curiosity and to weigh the honesty, perseverance and leadership of the hon the Prime Minister, the Government and the Cabinet. The Prime Minister satisfied them because two years later, 600 of our leading businessmen attended the Good Hope Conference. The hon the Prime Minister in blazing new trails in South Africa can rely on one group of people, viz the businessmen of South Africa, the leading as well as the smaller industrialists. In my constituency there are a considerable number of industries which are not very large. I have been informed by them that they now see their way clear to move forward.

The first time I entered the parliamentary dining room I wondered why two paintings of Prime Ministers hanging in the dining room were larger than the others. I subsequently discovered that those two were Prime Ministers who had introduced new dispensations. One of the Prime Ministers introduced the Union and the other a republic. I am convinced that we shall hardly be able to have a sufficiently large painting painted of the present hon Prime Minister because he, too, is introducing a new dispensation.

Confidence prevails in the business world of South Africa. Businessmen have come to realize one thing, viz that the hon the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are not selling anyone down the river, nor are they throwing in the towel, but that they are looking after the interests of everyone—including those of the businessmen—in the interest of peace and prosperity. Business leaders such as Dr Wassenaar used to be critical, but people like him and others have ranged themselves behind an hon Prime Minister and a Cabinet in which they have full confidence. In 1979 the hon the Prime Minister had discussions with 300 leading businessmen, as also happened in 1982. In 1985, three years later, it would be appropriate to arrange another such meeting in consequence of the breakthroughs which have been made across our borders. I think it would be well if these business leaders could be briefed on the international situation at such a conference.

Upon the return of the hon the Prime Minister from countries in Europe and elsewhere which he may possibly visit, our business leaders would sincerely appreciate being informed of what is happening behind the scenes and of what is in the offing. The White voters of South Africa have been following the NP over the years as their interests have always weighed most heavily with the NP in spite of the allegations of the Opposition parties.

The hon member for Soutpansberg said that we were going to lose seats. However, what he forgets is that if this were to happen it would not be the first time. We also lost seats in 1970. In 1977, however, we returned stronger than ever before. Why? Because the voters we had lost before came to realize that they were no better off. That is why they returned. Some of them returned in 1974, but most of them returned in 1977. That year we were returned with the largest majority ever. I want to tell the hon member that we shall again talk to those voters and shall tell them that many of the things presented to them are not really the awe inspiring facts as they are presented to them. In my constituency I have many CP and HNP sympathizers. I am aware of that, but this does not mean that I now have to surrender because of the possibility of Roodeplaat possibly becoming CP or HNP. I have never surrendered.

I want to conclude by wishing the hon the Prime Minister everything of the best and to tell him on behalf of all the businessmen in my constituency that we are foursquare behind him.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Roodeplaat was the first speaker on the Government side who made this debate sound like a discussion of the Vote of the hon the Prime Minister. I was beginning to wonder what hon speakers on the Government side would have talked about if the CP and its Leader had not been here today, because it seemed as if we were the subject of discussion rather than the hon the Prime Minister. [Interjections.]

Sir, the new dispensation will be given substance when the constitution is implemented. This consists of a single sentence comprising a few words, but it embodies pages and pages of human drama. What causes many people to shrug their shoulders nowadays in an attitude of “I really do not know”? What is causing people to speculate and wonder? What has caused division in every sphere, including that of the Church, the cultural sphere, between family members, relatives and friends, and in the political sphere? What has been the cause of division in the ranks of Whites, in the ranks of Coloureds, in the ranks of Indians and in the ranks of Blacks? Only one thing is responsible for this division, and that is the 1983 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

Who is responsible for the creation of this instrument of division? I maintain that the unity and solidarity of the various peoples has been destroyed by this. It has become a bone of contention. Instead of power-sharing there is going to be a power struggle.

I should also like to refer to the brochure entitled “Constitution in a Nutshell”, compiled by four MPs. If what is stated here is true, then it is certainly not what was originally intended. As far as legislation is concerned, they say that a general affair goes to the Houses where they argue the point, after which the matter goes to a joint select committee. I quote:

Then, after consensus has been reached, we have a unanimous Bill.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member entitled to attack an Act of Parliament here? [Interjections.]

Order! I shall give my ruling on this point of order at the end of the hon member’s speech. The hon member may proceed.

After consensus has been reached, the Bill is referred to the various Houses and then various steps follow. However, the best is yet to come, and that is that if consensus has not yet been reached, further steps are taken, and in this connection it is stated:

[Interjections.] It was not we who spoke about “roei en stoei”. It was the four MPs responsible for the compilation of this document who made these allegations.

In a magazine published by the attorneys’ profession, Prof Marinus Wiechers, professor of constitutional and international law at Unisa, said the following about this constitution:

I must point out that this professor is not a member of the CP. He went on to say:

He also said something else which was very interesting, namely:

The man who will have to get this new constitution to work will have to be able to hold his own. It is not only the professor who says this either. I could quote the opinions of many other people on this.

The constitution was presented to the voters and they accepted it, although the majority of them did not know what they were voting for. [Interjections.] As a matter of fact, to this day many of them still do not know what it is all about. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development confirmed this. People have said frankly that the NP would never accept a mixed Cabinet and a President’s Council. I even know about a speech, made by the wife of a Minister, in which she gave women the assurance that they need not be concerned about the fact that it is not written into the constitution that the State President will always be White. This has been entrenched, built in, but because of the outside world it cannot be said openly. [Interjections.] The hon the Prime Minister has said that the Coloureds are not a nation or a nation-in-the making, but what does the Rev Hendrickse say about this? He says “Die Kleurlinge het by ’n fase van selfontdekking gekom.” In Rapport of 26 February 1984 Arthur Booysen said the following:

In this we see the spark of self-determination and the spark of a separate identity among the Coloureds. [Time expired.]

Order! I should like to give my ruling on the point of order raised earlier in the hon member’s speech. I want to point out to hon members that in terms of Standing Order No 128 no member may reflect upon any statute of the same session. Since the relevant Act was passed during the previous session, it is therefore in order for the hon member to refer to it.

Mr Chairman, the mistake which the hon member for Germiston District makes is that she has not yet accepted the results of 2 November, and I am not going to refer to her any further.

I should like to draw attention to the public political conduct of one of my voters, Prof Carel Boshoff, and I want to do so with reference with certain newspaper reports. I want to make the statement that Prof Boshoff is actively involved in politics and that he has a record of having abused the platforms of cultural bodies, which are supposed to be outside politics, for the promotion of his political aims.

I personally met Prof Boshoff and his wife for the first time in 1981. Prof Boshoff was attending a meeting of the NP branch of which he was a member, and he asked me certain questions. The inference which I personally drew from his questions was that he way trying to embarrass me. He questioned, for example, the participation of a natural scientist in public politics. At a public meeting which we arranged for ladies during that election campaign, Mrs Boshoff unequivocally stated that that was the last election in which she would vote for the NP.

Prof Boshoff and his friends in Sabra pretended for a long time that Sabra was a scientific and research organization. That gave them a pretext which they used on many occasions to advocate their own political philosophy. They created many of these occasions themselves.

I want to refer briefly, for example, to an occasion which was reported on in the Sunday Times of 19 June 1981, concerning a national youth congress which was held in Nylstroom. According to this report, one speaker after another launched a well-orchestrated attack on recent proposals concerning constitutional and economic development, without referring to the NP or the Prime Minister. It was said that Coloureds and Indians should be encouraged to remain in the areas where they had traditionally lived, namely in Western Province and Natal. These areas should become cantons which would elect representatives to their own separate Parliaments. A further statement which was made there, according to Beeld of 15 June 1981, was that the Coloureds would soon outnumber the Whites, but one knows that this statement is completely untrue.

Young people who have attended such youth camps have told me that they were subjected to political indoctrination at those camps and that for quite some time afterwards, they continued to be bombarded with literature sent to them through the post by the Oranje workers.

I want to illustrate further how unscientific Sabra’s approach is. I refer to a report in Beeld of 12 August 1981, according to which Prof Boshoff and Prof Olivier, in giving evidence before the President’s Council to state Sabra’s standpoint on the new constitutional dispensation, simply said, when asked whether they believed that Indians and Coloureds would accept separate states: “Nothing is impossible.” I say that this is a brazen statement by a person who pretends to be chairman of a scientific research organization.

I could give many more examples of statements made by Prof Boshoff as chairman of Sabra. However, my time is limited.

On 30 July 1982, the hon the Prime Minister spelt out his guidelines for a new constitutional dispensation in Bloemfontein. In September of that year, I read in Beeld that Sabra had clarified its future approach. Firstly, it was said that Sabra’s activities were being separated from those of the Vereniging van Oranje-werkers, that the Oranje-werkers represented “’n bepaalde aksie”, while Sabra “nie met regstreekse skemas gemoeid is nie; Sabra spits hom meer op wetenskaplike navorsing toe”. In the second place, one read that Sabra would not be holding any youth rallies for the time being. Thirdly, it would concentrate in its research on decentralization and on the Prime Minister’s industrial development plan in support of the national and independent states in South Africa. Fourthly, Sabra would not work on any political models, but would concentrate on a development plan with practical proposals.

Subsequently, the new constitution was published on 5 May 1983. We know that basically, that draft constitution simply consisted of the constitutional guidelines which had been cast in the form of an Act and that nothing had changed. Then we read that in July 1983, Sabra had approved a study document in which the constitution was condemned. Now one asks oneself: What had happened in the interim to cause Sabra, which in September 1982 had not found it necessary to study the constitution, to make a study of it all of a sudden? Prof Boshoff s explanation was that the constitution had a bearing on inter-group relations and therefore lay within Sabra’s field of study. The constitutional proposals were outside the sphere of inter-group relations, therefore, but the constitution was not. He also said, according to Die Burger of 6 July 1983, that Sabra did not normally concern itself with politics, but that it had to do so on that occasion.

Sabra has been proved to be unscientific in many respects, and a well-known scientist recently said to me, with regard to the scientific character of Sabra: “As far as science is concerned, Sabra is a can of worms looking for a lid.” [Interjections.] I am referring to Prof Boshoff’s performance at a Day of the Vow, when he also misused the platform for the propagation of political views. Furthermore, one could quote from what he said at an ASB congress, where in actual fact he was simply propagating the standpoint of the CP under the cloak of his chairmanship of Sabra. During the referendum campaign, he worked actively for the no vote, on the pretext of stating the standpoint of Sabra which was a scientific organization.

Prof Boshoff is a professor at the University of Pretoria. When one is on the staff of a university and one participates actively in politics—if one wishes to stand as a candidate, for example—one has to resign immediately. How is it possible, in the light of this, that the University of Pretoria has a professor on its staff who, as an active politician, addresses more meetings than most hon members of this House? I want to ask the University of Pretoria to reply to this in public, because we have to approve the budget of the University of Pretoria one of these days, and then one must know how to vote. [Interjections.]

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, one of the most urgent matters in these times must be the phenomenon of world-wide terrorism. I submit that terrorism, almost like piracy in the past, has become a cancerous phenomenon, which is undermining the orderly government of the international community. It does not matter whether it is the ANC, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Irish Republican Army or any other organization. When the hijacking of aircraft of international airlines became almost the fashion as a means of blackmailing Governments, other organizations or individuals, the Governments of most countries of the world—in the West as well as the East—consulted with one another and agreed to take steps to combat and put an end to this “disease”, with the result that the hijacking of aircraft has virtually come to an end. In my opinion, terrorism is a comparable evil. It makes little difference whether it takes the form of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s conduct in 1972 at the Olympic Games in Munich, or the bomb attacks by the ANC in Pretoria and in the streets of Durban, or the bomb attacks of the Irish Republican Army in London; not to mention the latest shooting incident outside the Libyan Embassy in London. These are all manifestations of the same problem.

It lies within the power of the leading countries of the world—in the East as well as the West—to show that they are serious in rejecting terrorism as an international phenomenon. Just as they have succeeded in putting an end to large-scale aircraft hijackings, they can agree to take concerted action to put a stop to terrorism as well. If this is to be done, however, the ambiguous attitude towards terrorism shown by certain countries will have to end; the attitude of rejecting certain kinds of terrorism on the one hand, while other forms of terrorism are tolerated, accommodated or recognized in an apologetic way. Terrorism undermines stability. It undermines the growth of all population groups. It undermines the quality of life. I believe, therefore, that one may rightly ask Britain, West Germany and other countries whether they admit that the ANC is a communist terrorist organization.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: When the hon member for Klip River was referring to the South African Communist Party, an hon member on the other side said that this was the CP. Is it permissible for an hon member to make such a remark? [Interjections.]

Order! Who made that remark?

Mr Chairman, I only used the abbreviation SACP, which hon members of the CP themselves have used in the past.

Order! The hon member was not referring to the CP as such, therefore?

No, Mr Chairman, I was not.

They are at a much lower level than that. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Klip River may proceed.

Mr Chairman, as I have said. Dr Youssef Dadoo is chairman of the SA Communist Party. He is also chairman of the ANC.

Mr Chairman, arising from the previous point of order, the hon member for East London North said that the CP was at a lower level than the Communist Party. Is he allowed to say that? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Klip River may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: I should like to have your ruling on the point which has just been raised by the hon member for Barberton. The hon member for East London North said that the CP was at a lower level than the Communist Party of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! What exactly did the hon member for East London North say?

Mr Chairman, I said nothing about the Communist Party. Nothing. [Interjections.]

Coward! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for East London North may proceed with his explanation.

Mr Chairman, before I continue I want to say that the hon member for Barberton has called me a coward. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members should not try to turn the proceedings of the Committee into a joke. If hon members think that I am going to allow that, they are mistaken, and that applies to every hon member. Did the hon member for Barberton say that the hon member for East London North was a coward?

Yes, Sir, I did.

The hon member must withdraw that at once.

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon member for Klip River may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I was referring to various members who served in the leadership of both the Communist Party and the ANC.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! I have already given my ruling. If the hon member for East London North wishes to say that a party is at a low level, he may do so. He is not referring to any hon member.

Mr Chairman, I understand that you are still waiting for the hon member for East London North to explain what he said.

I have already given my ruling. The hon member for Klip River may proceed.

If I remember correctly, Sir, the hon member for East London North has not yet given a full explanation.

He has given an explanation.

If it appears in Hansard, I accept it.

Order! The hon member must not try to enter into a conversation with the Chair in this way.

Mr Chairman, I am just saying that if it says so in Hansard, I accept it.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I do not think that your ruling depends on what it says in Hansard. You have given your ruling and every hon member is obliged to obey it. I suggest that the hon member should now be called to order and asked to do so. [Interjections.]

Order! I regard the remark made by the hon member for Brakpan as a reflection on the Chair. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I have no wish to cast a reflection on the Chair. I am merely saying that I did not hear the hon member for East London North give an explanation of his remark.

I am satisfied that the hon member for East London North …

If you are satisfied, Mr Chairman, I shall leave it at that.

Would the hon member allow me to finish my ruling first? The hon member for East London North gave me an explanation; I accepted it, and that is the end of the matter.

What was it? I did not hear anything.

Order! The hon member for Brakpan objected to the fact that I had given a ruling. I regard it as a reflection on the Chair and I am affording the hon member for Brakpan the opportunity of apologizing.

Mr Chairman, I said that I had not cast a reflection …

Order! That is not the point at issue. I regard it as a reflection on the Chair and I now afford the hon member the opportunity of apologizing.

Mr Chairman, with great respect, may I please address you on this point? [Interjections.]

Order! I have given a ruling in respect of the hon member for Brakpan. The hon member for Soutpansberg must resume his seat. [Interjections.] Order! As far as the hon member for Brakpan is concerned, I now ask him for the last time to apologize to the Chair and to the Committee.

Mr Chairman, I apologize to the Chairman and to the Committee.

The hon member for Klip River may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I was busy mentioning …

Well done Chris, well done Chris!

Order!

You really told him nicely.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: The implication of the hon member’s remark is that I told the Chair what to say. I think that those hon members not only owe an apology to the Chair, but that you should also name them. [Interjections.]

Order! I heard the hon member for Langlaagte say to the hon the Minister: “You told him just what to say.” Under no circumstances can I allow that.

Mr Chairman, I said that the hon the Minister had told “him” what to say. To whom do you say I was referring?

The hon member could only have referred to one man, and that is the person in the Chair.

If you think so, Sir, I cannot blame you.

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte must withdraw his words unconditionally.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Mr Chairman, I regret to raise another point of order, but after you had given your ruling, the hon members for Soutpansberg, Rissik and Kuruman very clearly looked at the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and said: “Well done, Chris, you told him what to say.” I request you to make your ruling applicable to those three hon members as well.

Order! I ask the hon members for Kuruman, Rissik and Soutpansberg, as well as the hon member for Brakpan, whether they used those words.

Sir, I did not use the words attributed to me by the hon member for Innesdal.

The hon member for Rissik?

Sir, I said: “Well done, Chris.”

Order! The hon member must withdraw that. My ruling was that the hon member for Langlaagte had to withdraw it and the hon member for Rissik must withdraw it too.

Sir, I withdraw it.

The hon member for Soutpansberg?

Sir, I did not participate at all in the exchange that took place by way of interjections.

The hon member for Brakpan?

Sir, I said: “well done, Chris.”

Order! The hon member must also withdraw that.

Sir, I withdraw it.

Order! The time of the hon member for Klip River has unfortunately expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise in order to afford the hon member for Klip River an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Umhlanga for the gesture shown by him.

I was trying to indicate the interlocking leadership between the South African Communist Party and the ANC. I was indicating that Dr Youssef Dadoo is chairman of the South African Communist Party and he is also a member of the National Executive Committee of the ANC. He also serves as a member of the Revolutionary Council of the ANC. Mr Moses Mabeda is the chief political commissioner of the ANC and he is also the secretary-general of the South African Communist Party. Mr Reginald September is a member of the South African Communist Party, he is a member of the national Executive of the ANC and he is also a member of the Revolutionary Council of the ANC. I should also like to mention the names of Mr Joe Slovo, Mr Stephen Tslamini, Mr Alex Lavuma, Mr Albert Louis Sacks and Mrs Rachel Simons, all of whom are members of both parties and serves on the committees of both parties.

In 1980 the South African Communist Party reaffirmed its unequivocal commitment to the cohesion and unity of the world communist movement. It stated that it was its duty to strengthen its ties with the Soviet Union. It vehemently condemned the Western so-called “imperialist” powers of the United States, Britain, France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Japan and Israel.

*I should like to refer somewhat frivolously … [Interjections.] Perhaps I should rather say that I wish to refer somewhat lightheartedly to the Biblical statement that there is greater rejoicing for the one lost sheep that has returned than for the 99 sheep that have never been lost. I trust that the Opposition will forgive me if I convey my appreciation in a friendly spirit to the hon member for Sea Point for the very positive attitude which he recently adopted in a television discussion on the attitude of the British Government towards the ANC office in London. [Interjections.]

With the signing of the Nkomati Accord and the Swaziland Accord, very important milestones were reached on the road to a peaceful and orderly society of a diversity of people and nations in Southern Africa. It was an important milestone in the combating of terrorism in Southern Africa. It was also an important milestone in the creation of the foundation for economic development in Southern Africa. I want to give the hon the Prime Minister personally full credit for the fact that this milestone has been reached. There was nothing fortuitous about it. If other countries were involved in the preparations, it was as important intermediaries, but full credit must be given to the hon the Prime Minister, who made this success possible as purposeful leader and chief architect of a properly co-ordinated Southern African policy.

†Let us consider for a moment what the effect of a possibly successful ANC or terrorist-led revolution in South Africa would be. Would it bring social justice to the masses in South Africa? Would it enhance political and economic stability? Would it ensure peaceful co-existence among the various Black peoples or nations of Southern Africa? Would it improve the quality of life of Blacks and would it enhance democracy?

I would like to quote from the April issue of Reader’s Digest from an article headed “African Stability on the Brink”. This article was written by a journalist of international repute, David Lamb:

What authority are you quoting?

I am quoting from an article by David Lamb in the April issue of Reader’s Digest headed “African Stability on the Brink” [Interjections.]

I now want to quote Mr Edem Kodjo, the Secretary-General of the Organization for African Unity, when he addressed a group of African leaders in 1978, and said:

One important aspect of Africa’s coups d’etat is not how many there are but how small their impact is on the average citizen. I can quote much more, but suffice it to say that the position in Africa is not being enhanced by what many Western countries perceive as a possible widening of democracy. In a multi-ethnic and multinational society such as Southern Africa, we must find specific solutions to our problems and we agree that the National Party has unequivocally taken the lead in this respect by providing a forum in which all the residents of South Africa can participate in meaningful decision-taking on matters affecting their future. [Interjections.] This policy has been given the initiative … The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central knows full well that Blacks have power to take decisions on important issues affecting their lives. In the national states Blacks can elect their own governments. In urban areas Blacks can also now elect their own urban councils that can participate in meaningful decison-making. [Interjections.]

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

Unfortunately my time has expired. [Time expired.] [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Klip River has made an interesting speech. I do not intend to respond to him because much of what he has said I will be covering during the course of my own speech. He addressed the hon the Prime Minister on a note of urgency and concern, and I too should like to address that hon gentleman in that way.

South Africa stands on the brink of breaking out of the international isolation in which it has found itself over the past few decades which, let me hasten to add, I think to a certain measure has been self-imposed. However, with a little vision and determination the prospects at this moment look more encouraging for South Africa to once again take its rightful place in the community of Western nations than they have looked for many a long day. Inevitably the focus of attention is on the hon the Prime Minister. It is he who has assumed a pivotal position in the Southern African context. This has come about because he is seen to be the leader, the Prime Minister, and the head of a country which through its economic and military strength has become the dominant power in the region. The focus of attention is furthermore on him because he is seen to be the man who could well be responsible for the ultimate systematic dismantling of apartheid and discrimination in our society. Hence the hon the Prime Minister’s success in his endeavours to bring about peace and stability—I commend him for his endeavours—in Southern Africa and any further efforts he may make to win international understanding for those efforts, will in no small measure be related to his success in maintaining the momentum of reform that was initiated last year with the passage of the Constitution Bill and the subsequent referendum.

The hon the Prime Minister’s forthcoming European tour is both timely and welcome. I should like to express our sincere thanks to Chancellor Helmut Kohl whose invitation has done much to make this tour possible. We trust that this tour and this invitation will be an ice-breaker. We hope that other nations will follow suit because we welcome a more intensive dialogue with Europe. After all, the values that we want to see maintained in South Africa and extended across the continent of Africa, are the very values that originated in Western Europe. There is no shadow of doubt that up until the recent past the whole of Southern Africa was sinking into a maelstrom of conflict and violence, but now the prospects have measurably brightened for peace and development to replace that vicious cycle. Heaven alone knows that this subcontinent can certainly do with brighter prospects!

There is no doubt, as I said earlier, that the hon the Prime Minister is in a pivotal position to usher in a new era of hope. In doing so I believe he can strike a double blow for reason within the global conflict that currently afflicts us. Southern Africa has been caught in the wash of conflict between North and South and between East and West. The North/South conflict is that of First World versus Third World, the “haves” versus the “have nots”, the wealth of the industrial nations versus the poverty of the developing nations, with the latter, I might say, claiming that the former was made at their expense and today demanding a pay-off. The East/West conflict is the clash of ideology between communism and capitalism. That is a conflict that we are well aware of, and I think we are doing much to face up to it.

The post-colonial hiatus saw Europe scrambling away from Africa, and that left a vacuum which Russia eagerly rushed in to fill. The legacy of this involvement has been nothing other than increased conflict, violence, economic stagnation, poverty and, indeed, starvation. Against this background, the Accord of Nkomati—for all the derogatory remarks that may have been made about it—and the agreements in Angola are a ray of hope. They hold out the prospect of once again securing Southern Africa for the Western sphere of influence.

Furthermore, I believe that a normalization of relations in Southern Africa can provide the platform for progress towards the resolution of the North/South conflict. That progress requires that the past colonial powers in Southern Africa should shoulder some of the responsibility for development in their former colonies, and here the hon the Prime Minister’s proposed European tour can be of crucial importance. According to reports the hon the Prime Minister will be visiting Portugal, Belgium, Germany and Italy. These are all countries that have been deeply involved in Africa and, with the possible exception of Italy, certainly in Southern Africa. If through the hon the Prime Minister’s and South Africa’s efforts greater stability can be achieved in sub-Saharan Africa, it should surely also be possible for the hon the Prime Minister to persuade the past colonial powers to shoulder a portion of the responsibility for real development in their former colonies. I think this is a message that the hon the Prime Minister could well take to those countries.

The benefits to our country that will be derived from the creation of such a climate of reconstruction and development are obvious and they speak for themselves. However, I regret to say that the missing link in this initiative—and it is a key link—appears to be our very old and dear friend, the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is the European power with the greatest interest in Southern Africa, and I say to myself that surely Great Britain above all should not only be involved in this initiative but also be playing a leading role. However, what do we find instead? The hon member for Klip River has also referred to this. We find that the relations between our country and Great Britain are at the moment particularly chilly. Unfortunately—and the hon member for Klip River has also indulged in this—there is a certain amount of “Brit-bashing” that goes on in certain quarters, and I do not think that this is the time to do it. I also believe that relations are not helped by a vacillating and inconsistent policy towards South Africa on the part of the British Government. Here I want to refer again to the ANC’s presence in the United Kingdom and I want to say that we in this party reject the arguments that have been tendered by the British Government, namely that the ANC is free to operate in the United Kingdom provided it acts within their laws. We stand incontrovertibly opposed to the harbouring within the borders of our country of any organization that perpetrates any act of terrorism on any other society, and from that standpoint we will not deviate. [Interjections.] Possibly, with great sadness, the Libyan crisis has brought the reality of the situation more starkly to the notice of the British Government, and I hope that we can look forward to a more positive and definitive stand on this issue from them.

At this moment opportunity is knocking, opportunity which can be of mutual benefit and advantage to both Britain and South Africa. It is an opportunity that can have far-reaching effects on Southern Africa, and the way to grasp that opportunity is through some straight talking between the two countries.

In conclusion I should like to remind the hon the Prime Minister that whatever he says and does now under this Vote and between now and the time when the new dispensation comes into operation, will influence the reception he gets in Europe. It will have a direct effect on the expectations that he has awoken both internally and in our neighbouring states. Because of those expectations the hon the Prime Minister today shoulders an onerous burden, and I want to assure him we in this party will do nothing to put obstacles in his way or do anything that will stand in the way of the success of his mission. We say to him: Go with determination; go with vision, go in the name of all in South Africa, and we wish him godspeed.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the hon member for Umhlanga that due to the hon the Prime Minister’s unabated efforts the prospect for peace in our subcontinent is much better than it was some time ago. I am also sure that he will have a very good tour later on this year and we also wish him godspeed.

*I should like to endorse the remarks made by hon members who have congratulated the hon the Prime Minister on the Nkomati Accord. I concede that one should not expect too much of the accord, but I can assure hon members that it is greatly welcomed in the Lowveld in particular. On the occasion of the signing of the accord, the hon the Prime Minister stated the principles that we uphold with regard to inter-state relations. The first one is that states with different political systems can live in peace with one another if they have the will to co-operate in their common interest and to maintain good neighbourly relations. The second one is that each should recognize the autonomy of the other and should accept the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of the other. The third principle is that only peace can bring the necessary stability and create the climate which is essential for economic progress. Only when there is peace will an atmosphere be created in which the respective private sectors can cooperate. States can only co-operate in an atmosphere of peace. The will to live together in peace is a prerequisite for inter-state cooperation, therefore.

It is illuminating that the Nkomati Accord came after the agreement with the kingdom of Swaziland, which re-affirmed the fact that just as hostilities may escalate, creative peace can be promoted by means of the right attitude. In the earliest years of the independence of African States, and many hon members have referred to this, African leaders believed that a form of socialism was the key to economic progress and an ordered society. The idea of a market-orientated economy was rejected because it was believed that it would only benefit those who were already wealthy and would widen the gap between rich and poor. The IFO Institute for Economic Research in Munich recently published an analysis, based on World Bank statistics for 76 less developed countries, 34 of which are in Africa, indicating the connection between economic systems and economic policy on the one hand and socioeconomic progress on the other. They found that countries with a predominantly market-orientated economy did better, not only as far as economic growth was concerned, but also with regard to income distribution, community care and the provision of basic requirements. Over a period of 20 years, market-orientated less developed countries have on average experienced a higher economic growth rate and per capita growth rate. While socialists allege that a market-orientated economy for less developed countries make those countries vulnerable by reducing them to mere suppliers of raw materials to industrial countries, a study indicates that these countries have in fact succeeded in increasing their share of the processing of raw materials. The per capita food production and the per capita calory intake have also increased. There is a growing disillusionment with socialism in African countries and a growing willingness to take cognizance of market forces. This may lead to a realization of the fact that Africa cannot always blame its colonial period, since that belongs to the past, but that some self-examination is called for. This in turn will create the opportunity for peace and stability. No state can develop in isolation, and inter-state relations and commerce are essential.

In South African politics, we are also concerned with the question of how the various peoples and population groups can live together in peace and freedom without one of them constituting a threat to any other and how they should be able to promote common interests. This is why it has always been the policy of the Government, of the hon the Prime Minister as well as his predecessor, to try to establish friendly relations and to cooperate with our neighbouring states. The hon the Prime Minister said the following as far back as 22 November 1979, at the Carlton Conference:

If I understood the hon member for Waterberg correctly, he objected to the following sentence in the hon the Prime Minister’s speech at Nkomati:

After all, we are faced with one party which has a source of labour, for example, and another party which needs labour. If we read it in the context of the speech, we also see, and I quote:

In the context of the speech, therefore, it was meant to be “mutually beneficial”.

As far as our own internal TBVC countries are concerned, the hon the Prime Minister referred to a confederation as follows during the no-confidence debate in 1980 (Hansard, col 249):

It did not stop at words. Under the hon the Prime Minister’s leadership, summits were held with the TBVC countries, there were regular discussions at ministerial level as well as at the level of officials, and interstate committees were established to develop cooperation in posts and telecommunications, agriculture, transport, health, education, etc. The Small Business Development Corporation followed, as did the Development Bank. A new approach to regional development and decentralization of economic activities across borders followed, and this was approved and accepted by all interested parties, even though it involved a differentiation of benefits.

This is not a process of re-colonization of independent states. Nor is it a recognition of the failure of constitutional development or an attempt to reverse the process of the creation of self-governing or independent states. It is not a process of political unification either. The characteristics of the confederation are not in accordance with that. I believe that the hon the Prime Minister’s initiatives are succeeding. The world has taken cognizance and will take further cognizance of the sincere intentions of the RSA and its ability to play an important role in this subcontinent. This is a role which it can only play on the basis of political stability, stability which is based on the desire to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of all peoples and groups. This can only be done within the framework of the policy of this hon Prime Minister and this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, I must admit that I do agree with a lot of what the hon member for Nelspruit has said, particularly with his statement that international co-operation brings about peace, and also an opportunity of investigating the socio-economic problems of this subcontinent. That is also why I intend to devote my speech to the question of South West Africa.

The State President in his address on the opening day of Parliament, in January this year, said that without financial and economic assistance by South Africa, and also without South Africa’s contribution in the field of security, the people of South West Africa would find themselves drifting aimlessly in international affairs. In the no-confidence debate the hon the Prime Minister drew attention to the financial assistance and the guarantee of loans provided by South Africa, stating, inter alia, that this was one of the most generous foreign aid programmes in the world. According to the hon the Prime Minister it has as its prime objective the establishment of a situation in which the people of South West Africa will be able to decide their own future. It goes without saying, however, that the Republic of South Africa will not continue to bear this heavy burden, the hon the Prime Minister added. This speech casts gloom and despair in most parts of South West Africa.

When we look at this year’s Budget, let us look at the minimum assistance which South Africa is giving to South West Africa. Direct budgetary assistance in the various Votes comes to some R325 million, of which R318 million is a direct transfer to the South West African Central Fund. In addition to that there is indirect financial assistance. There will be an overpayment from the South African Customs and Excise Fund of more than R50 million. Then there is also the loss of some R90 million suffered by the SATS in South West Africa. The minimum will therefore be in the vicinity of R465 million.

What actually happens to some of our funds in South West Africa? Second tier ethnic authorities were created in terms of the Administrator-General’s Proclamation AG8/1980. This proclamation was published in the South West African Gazette after consultation with the DTA Council of Ministers at that time, and also with the National Party of South West Africa, which controls White administration of that territory.

According to my enquiries while in South West Africa no officials, whether in finance or elsewhere, were consulted when the then Administrator-General, Dr Gerrit Viljoen, made this decision. It was a political decision of which the financial consequences were never considered. In fact none of the second tier ethnic authorities, with the exception of the Whites, had a sophisticated and educated staff to control the funds allotted to them as set out in terms of the Exchequer and Audit Proclamation No 85 of 1979. Even when the reports of the Auditor-General were put before these ethnic authorities they neither understood them nor acted upon them. Certain powers were given to the second tier ethnic groups. General affairs—just note— were left to the central Government, while own affairs, namely education, health, social and administrative services, were allocated to the second tier authority.

In the 1982-83 Budget the sum of R153 million was distributed to them. Sooner than expected financial tragedy overtook the South West Africa Administration. On 15 November 1982 Proclamation AG163 was issued announcing the appointment of a commission of inquiry into alleged irregularities and misapplication of property in the second tier ethnic authorities and also in the central authority of South West Africa. This commission was headed by Mr Justice Thirion. There have been numerous newspaper reports on this subject, of which I have a large bundle in front of me, as hon members can see, giving details of corruption and malpractice. I will, however, only quote one because it summarizes it all. The one I am going to quote is a report that appeared in the Eastern Province Herald of 21 December 1983. The heading reads: “Malpractices in South West Africa Ethnic Governments”. The author of this report is Tony Weaver. I quote from this report, as follows:

In no circumstances can the maladministration by second tier ethnic governments be condoned even though they had unqualified staff. Neither can the actions of the Administrator-General, Dr Gerrit Viljoen, now the hon the Minister of National Education, be condoned. He carries a share of the responsibility for the financial chaos pertaining to South West Africa in not consulting his officials. Surely it must be the duty of the hon the Prime Minister to institute some action against the hon the Minister of National Education for his lack of foresight and inefficiency in proclaiming AG 8. He is as much an accessory by having created the instrument of maladministration. Surely the hon the Minister of Finance too has not exercised the proper controls in terms of the Exchequer and Audit proclamation. The onus will rest on the incoming State President in South Africa in the new dispensation to ensure that proper financial control is exercised over own affairs to prevent a repetition of maladministration as has been found in South West Africa.

What is the financial future of an independent South West Africa/Namibia? The hon the Prime Minister has said that South Africa will not continue to bear the burden of half the expenditure of the South Western African administration. The total gross domestic product of the territory is between R1,5 and R2 billion per annum. About 40% of this amount comes from the mining of diamonds, uranium and copper by three multinational companies while commercial agriculture and fishing constitute about 10%. The subsistence agriculture of Ovamboland where the majority of the population lives has to be supported by the wages of Ovambo males who play a leading role in the labour field. This small tax base will make it difficult to maintain even the present slow rate of development.

How is South West Africa going to exist? The answer that comes readily to mind, of course, is that this will have to be financed by means of grants or loans from other countries either as development assistance or on a market oriented basis. There is no doubt whatsoever that some financial assistance of this nature will be forthcoming but whether it will be sufficient to bridge the gap is very doubtful. The World Bank in its annual publication World Development Report gives details of the total flow of external capital to developing countries. Of course, South West Africa is not included in this. We have now to look at the population size of other countries to find those comparable with South West Africa. Only seven countries have populations below two million, and the average net inflow of external capital to all seven of these countries in 1983 totalled only R102 million. Apparently South West Africa will need a minimum of R400 per capita per annum in foreign aid after independence in order to balance its budget yet Botswana received only R92 and Mozambique R13 per capita. Funds provided by South Africa have up to now been given unconditionally but most development aid granted to developing countries today will be subject to strict conditions. This demands financial discipline which appears to be lacking in South West Africa. Will the Development Bank of Southern Africa be able to help?

In conclusion we should like to know what is going to happen to the public enterprise sector assets that belong to South Africa. What will be the future of Walvis Bay? What will be the relationship between the South West African public enterprise sector and its respective South African bodies? Take for instance the SATS. I have heard it asked in South West Africa: Will SATS withdraw all its rolling stock and traction units and leave the railways there without any means of operation? What will Escom and the various development corporations do? What will South Africa’s role be in the South African Customs Union and the rand monetary area? Who will be responsible for the payment of debt to the Public Debt Commissioners and who will fund the large number of refugees who may wish to return to the territory? Will the large multinational mining groups withdraw if nationalization is imposed? There are many questions which will be asked, but there is one basic question. Will South Africa still provide foreign aid?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bezuidenhout read his speech so quickly that one could barely understand it. A comment from this side was: What on earth is the man speaking about? One feels that that really summarizes one of the most amazing speeches for a long time in this Committee. The hon member is saying by implication that as far as South West Africa is concerned, it is a bottomless pit into which we are pouring money, and so on. One wonders what the hon members thinks should happen if South Africa were to withdraw its financial assistance from South West today. One can hardly imagine such irresponsibility. He went on to say that the ethnic authorities that have been established are a lot of people who cannot even read a balance sheet. This comes from an hon member who inherently wants a system of one man, one vote, but he insults the ethnic authorities by saying that they cannot even read a balance-sheet.

Just because they are not White.

Yes, that is the only reason: They are not White. [Interjections.] On the basis of that statement of his, he tries to draw an analogy with the new dispensation and says that the State President will have to keep an eye on the expenditure on own affairs in the other Houses of Parliament. Apparently he thinks that these people will not be able to read a balance sheet either and that they will therefore have to be watched. Can you see what absolute intolerance and arrogance there is in the ranks of the liberals? [Interjections.]

I did not intend becoming angry this evening, and I therefore rather want to speak about the orderly settlement of people in South Africa. It is no idle dream, but a prerequisite for the meaningful continued existence of all people. That in the process of orderly settlement, people had to be removed and resettled, is obvious. In the process of consolidation, too, it was necessary that people be removed, and not only people of colour, but Whites as well. Over the years we have become accustomed to the terminology we see in newspaper headlines and the regular statements we have heard from certain sources concerning so-called forced removals. Recently there has been an intensified onslaught to internationalize these concepts in the political field. Therefore, without expanding on this much further, I want to ask the hon the Prime Minister this evening whether he would not use the discussion of his Vote to say precisely what the Government’s standpoint is on these alleged mass removals, since we dare not allow South Africa’s name to be blackened internationally concerning this subject about which so much nonsense has been spoken recently.

I do not wish to elaborate on this any further, since I should like to refer to one of the State Departments which the hon the Prime Minister administers, and that is the National Intelligence Service. The hon the Leader of the Opposition raised the questioned of the State Security Council again today, and I do not think I am doing him an injustice by saying that he left somewhat of a cloud hanging over the matter. I do not want to expand on this, since the hon the Prime Minister will probably deal with it himself. A while ago certain hon members from all the parties were invited as guests to participate in an informative visit to the National Intelligence Service. I do not want to make revelations, or analyse the activities of this service this evening, since whilst one wishes to pay tribute to the people in this service, one does not wish to make their task more difficult with one’s good intentions. After all, a large part of the activities of this service is secret, and they can only remain effective if they are kept secret.

I do, however, want to pay tribute this evening to this group of dedicated men who necessarily have to remain faceless. Often even their children are not permitted to know what their fathers do. The greater the successes they achieve, the greater the secrecy has to be. One can hardly imagine the frustration of finding that one’s greatest achievement may not be made known. If one does not have the inner strength to deal with this, it could destroy one.

The question now arises as to how these men remain so motivated. The high morale of the Russian KGB, with a manpower of a few hundred thousand, is due mainly to government protection and pride as a national institution. In the Soviet Union special commemorative stamps are issued in honour of the KGB. In contrast, intelligence services in the West are presented as dishonest thuggery, which consists mainly of telephone tapping. I think South Africa is also guilty of being shamefully ignorant about the intelligence profession.

This evening I want to pay special tribute to our people who man our Intelligence Service. They have the quality to adapt to a lifestyle which often demands solitude and seclusion. What is most striking about these men upon getting to know them better, is their high ethical and moral norms, their absolute dedication to their task and, moreover, their deep Christian convictions, which they are not shy to confess at any time.

Dr Barnard, the dynamic Director-General of the Intelligence Service said on the occasion of a C R Swart lecture at the University of the Orange Free State that the intelligence profession has unique problems. Members of the Intelligence Service have to learn to live with most of these, and for some there are unique solutions. Thanks to the compensation to be found in the satisfaction which is usually gained from intelligence work, the seasoned member of an intelligence service graciously accepts the anonymity his career imposes on him and he knows how to deal with the lack of public recognition and mention. For any person it is a heavy demand to lead an anonymous life. The only reward is the knowledge—often no more than a solitary knowledge—that service to the country has been rendered in a significant and courageous way. Motivation, encouragement and individual appreciation are therefore an important responsibility of management.

That is why we are so grateful that this service falls under the hon the Prime Minister, since he has the necessary understanding and appreciation for it, and with his organizational ability, he uses it in conjunction with the families of people in the security services in the highest interests of South Africa. He deserves our gratitude, and not doubts, which are based on ignorance. I therefore wish to ask the South African Intelligence Service this evening to continue to tell the Government at all times what it has to hear, and not what it wants to hear.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by endorsing the remarks made by the hon Chief Whip. Some of us have also been privileged to be the guests—in the positive sense of the word—of the National Intelligence Service. We should like to place on record that we were particularly impressed by the national service—in the positive sense of the word—which the National Intelligence Service renders to South Africa. These are men of integrity who try to make evaluations objectively in the interests of South Africa. We know that the activities of the National Intelligence Service are misrepresented in certain circles, but as far as we are concerned, we are satisfied. In fact, we should like to wish the staff of the National Intelligence Service every success in the useful task which they perform in South Africa.

This has really been an interesting debate this afternoon. What I found particularly interesting was that while the hon member for Germiston District was speaking, when she was quoting from the pamphlet called “The Constitution in a nutshell”, which was prepared by three respectable members of the NP, the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development found it necessary to raise a point of order and to object by saying that what the hon member for Germiston District had quoted from the pamphlet cast a reflection on the new constitution of South Africa. [Interjections.] I do not know whether the hon the Minister believed that the contents of this pamphlet cast a reflection on the constitution of South Africa or whether it cast a reflection, perhaps, on the intelligence of the members who were responsible for its contents. This is just by way, however.

I should like to refer to the member for Pretoria East.

The clever member.

An extremely intelligent member, especially at times. He launched an attack on the scientific basis of Sabra. He has every right to do so, but there was a time, not so long ago, when Sabra was a recognized scientific State-subsidized organization. I wish to quote what Sabra’s standpoint was in those good old days, when it still maintained highly scientific standards and was subsidized by the State. I quote:

I quote further:

Who said that? [Interjections.]

We are getting all kinds of suggestions here about who is supposed to have said this. This was said at a time when Sabra was a highly scientific organization, subsidized by the State. [Interjections.] Who said it? The hon Dr Gerhard Viljoen said it. [Interjections.] At that time it was still scientific; it was still correct. It was not yet a can of worms looking for a lid, as the hon member for Pretoria East called it. However, when Prof Boshoff reaffirmed exactly the same standpoint of Sabra in 1983, it had suddenly become unscientific and had changed into a bucket of worms. [Interjections.]

And they withdrew the subsidy to Sabra.

Yes, then they withdraw the subsidy.

I just want to say a few words about the hon member for Virginia. He objected vehemently today to the fact that Afrikaans political leaders were to address an Afrikaans cultural organization which is to be established. From this the inference is drawn that that cultural organization is going to be used for certain political purposes.

It is true.

The hon member says it is true, but now I ask him in all courtesy: Is it a phenomenon which is alien to several Afrikaans cultural organizations that political leaders of the NP should address them almost on a regular basis? [Interjections.] Was there anything strange about that? Is it in order for an Afrikaans cultural organization to be blatantly utilized, inter alia, to promote the proposals of the NP in the referendum campaign?

Which one is that?

The hon the Minister knows that as well as I do. [Interjections.] In that case, however, a cultural organization is not being used to promote the political interests of one party, but when any other political leader who is no longer a member of the NP dares to take an interest in cultural affairs, that organization is immediately denigrated as an odious institution. [Interjections.] The simple fact that Prof Boshoff is chairman of the Voortrekker Movement is now being attacked and questioned every day, but in the good old days when a recognized leader of the NP, Dr N J van der Merwe of the Free State, was the leader of that same organization almost for decades, it was quite in order. Then it was in order for a political leader to be the chairman of the Voortrekker Movement.

He did not politicize it.

The hon member for Pretoria West now says that he did not politicize it. But in what respect has Prof Boshoff politicized the Voortrekker Movement? [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow a constant stream of loud interjections. The hon members must please contain themselves.

Mr Chairman, I want to warn the hon member for Pretoria West. He expressed certain views in this House this afternoon about how he saw the future of the so-called urban Black vis-à-vis the homelands. He must be careful, however, because there are many hon members on his side of the House, those who are preparing the way, who do not speak the same language as he does. It may be necessary for him to make another choice, as he has already had to make a choice on a previous occasion. He will have to decide whether he has to change his views or whether he is going to break with the NP. Because what is actually at issue? To us it has always been a question of the preservation and perpetuation of a White people in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, there is the well-known story of the clergyman who left the text of his sermon on the pulpit, and when another clergyman found the sermon there the following week, he saw that at one point he had written in the margin: “Argument weak. Shout like hell.” The whole argument of the hon member for Barberton reminded me of that marginal note this evening.

I simply cannot understand, and I shall be obliged if the hon member for Barberton will explain to us, how Dr Boshoff can still do his academic work at the theological faculty in spite of all the other activities he is engaged in. [Interjections.]

Order! I appeal to the hon member for Rissik not to make interjections with his back turned to the Chair.

He is going mad.

This evening I should like to make a few remarks about the new dispensation …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member Mr Vermeulen entitled to allege that the hon member for Rissik is going mad?

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

With a view to the new dispensation, which will be implemented in less than five months and in terms of which we shall have a Parliament consisting of three Chambers, I should like to make a few remarks about the Indian community in South Africa. To begin with, however, I want to convey a word of appreciation to the NG Mission Church which has for many years, together with other denominations, performed a monumental task in South Africa by ensuring that where Christian as well as Moslem children and families live in the same community, there is communication among these people. I want to state categorically this evening that in the dialogue with Islam the DR Mission Church in South Africa occupies a unique position. Generally speaking the dialogue that takes place between Moslem and Christian is inevitable unless it is deliberately avoided for various reasons. It would be unnatural if we were to avoid this most essential dialogue that has to take place between Christian and Moslem. It would be totally in conflict with Christ’s last injunction, when he said that his disciples should go out and preach His Gospel to all peoples, languages and nations. That is a text we all know very well.

You know nothing about the Moslems.

I shall be dealing with that hon member. Moreover the dialogue is very often avoided because there is a fear that in the course of such a dialogue conflict may occur among the various individuals. [Interjections.]

Order! When I requested hon members not to make interjections so persistently, I was also referring to the hon members Dr Vilonel and Dr Welgemoed and the hon member for Langlaagte. If they are not prepared to comply with my request they must withdraw from the Chamber.

Others think that one would not be faithful to one’s own religion if one did not attack and humiliate the other. That, too, is a faulty assumption. With the greatest respect, we do not want to quarrel about the Lord, but rather to bear witness about Him and tell what He does for us and means to us. In the course of this dialogue we must also listen to one another and listen very carefully to what the other person is saying to one. In this way we shall understand one another better and will get rid of many misconceptions that exist among the various communities. We believe so many things about one another because we too seldom speak and listen to one another in a spirit of honesty and love. This does not mean that we must reach a compromise in the religious sense of the word, because in this regard a compromise is unsatisfactory. If I am in earnest as far as my faith is concerned, then I shall speak in an effort to convince my friend, but I shall also listen to him so that I may understand him better. Therefore I shall also realize that my friend is as much in earnest about his faith as I am in earnest about mine. So much for the religious aspect.

In the political field precisely the same principles apply, viz mutual respect and appreciation for one another. South Africa is at present on the threshold of a new dispensation which it is to enter within five months, and recently two thirds of the voters of South Africa said “yes” to that new dispensation. One of the most important components in the new dispensation is the Indian community of South Africa. The greater part of the members of the Indian population group belong to the Islamic faith. Their faith links them to the greater Islamic world. There are many Indians in my part of the world, as there are in my other regions and cities in the country, that regularly visit the Arab countries, that is to say the Islamic world. Respected members and leaders of the Indian community are among these visitors. I assume that there are not only religious links between those people, but also economic links, business contacts and bonds of friendship. Just as very good relations between South African Indians and their co-religionists in the Islamic world are extremely important, good internal relations between South Africans and Indians are equally important.

Are we all one nation?

I can say to the hon member for Pietersburg that I am coming to that in a moment. Members of the Indian community who are going to form part of South Africa’s new tricameral Parliament within five months can play a cardinal role in the open discussion and in the forging of commercial and diplomatic links between South Africa and the countries of the Islamic world. Now, we must not forget that one out of every three Africans south of the Sahara belongs to the Islamic faith. Accordingly, in our endeavour to establish sound relations with the Islamic states we ought to give high priority to those relations. [Interjections.] I should be obliged if the hon member for Brakpan and the other hon members over there would listen. What I have just said, the hon member for Brakpan said in 1979 during the discussion of the Vote of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this House. It is as well to take a fresh look at what Advocate Strydom said about relations south of the Sahara when he was in power. He said inter alia that we should not only forge bonds of friendship and economic links, but that constitutional links should also be established with countries as far north as the Sahara. Remember: One out of every three Africans south of the Sahara belongs to the Moslem faith. Therefore I find myself in good company when I advocate good relations with the Islamic world. Together with the hon member for Brakpan I say this evening—and I quote him verbatim (Hansard, 5 June 1979, column 7847):

In the same speech the hon member for Brakpan referred to the way Moslem families in the Transvaal had supported farmers financially during the Anglo-Boer War. I can add that in my part of the world many of the old Indian shops to be found everywhere on the platteland kept many poor Afrikaner families going during the Second World War. It is general knowledge that President Paul Kruger—and I say this for the edification of the hon member for Pietersburg— had good Moslem friends. That was also mentioned by the hon member for Brakpan. Last but not least, that hon member said in his speech in 1979—and hon members must listen very carefully now:

What does that mean? [Time expired.)

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brits will appreciate it that in the few minutes I have at my disposal I neither want to become involved in the political broedertwis between the NP and the CP nor do I want to follow him into the sensitive and interesting area of relationships between the followers of Christ and the followers of Islam. I leave that to him for the moment.

I want to direct a few comments to the hon the Prime Minister against the background of events surrounding this debate. This is clearly the last opportunity we will have to debate the Vote of the hon the Prime Minister before the introduction of the new dispensation. This debate is taking place in a fascinating and important phase in the politics of South Africa. This phase is being marked by two events, one which has already occurred, and one which is about to occur. There is no doubt that the event that has already occurred, the Nkomati Accord, is very significant in its own field. In September of this year, we understand, the next event will occur. That will be the formal introduction of the new constitutional dispensation. So we meet here bracketed by these two very significant events. If time permits me I shall deal with both of them. I do, however, want to make a few comments in connection with the Nkomati Accord which is significant both from a practical and a symbolic point of view. I do not believe we should underestimate the symbolism of what took place at Nkomati on 16 March this year. It is clearly not an answer; it is not a panacea for all the problems of Southern Africa. However, we should not underrate its importance and significance.

It has certainly reduced regional tensions which existed before. It has certainly created a new climate in Southern Africa; a new climate, which, we hope, will permeate the whole of South Africa as well. I want to put it to the hon the Prime Minister that it is desperately important for us to watch how we use this new climate; how we use the time given to us in this new climate in order to resolve some of the pressing outstanding problems of Southern Africa. The extent to which we use this climate will also determine how long the Nkomati Accord will stay an accord. I want to put it to the hon the Prime Minister that we have an opportunity, and I also want to point out a few of the things which, I believe, we should do in this climate. First of all one would hope that the accent would switch to the socio-economic development and upliftment of all the individuals and the peoples of Southern Africa. In the end stability depends in a very important way on the socio-economic conditions which exist in this area. I hope that some more of our energies are going to be directed towards the upliftment of people, to housing, to education, to pushing back the frontiers of poverty, to combating the problems of urbanization as well as the problems of the people living in the rural areas. I hope the hon the Prime Minister will be able to enlarge on some of the plans which the Government may have in order to utilize this new climate for improving the socio-economic conditions of the people of this region.

I also hope the hon the Prime Minister will indicate to this House how he is going to use this new climate to get on with internal reform. There have been degrees of internal reform in some areas but much still remains to be done. The most critical area of internal reform is the one of getting rid of apartheid and discrimination, particularly in respect of Black citizens of this country. The question of Black citizenship and the rights which go with citizenship are critical to the on-going good relationships among the people of Southern Africa. This is an issue with which we have to deal, and we have to deal with it against the background of the new climate to which I have just referred. One would want to hear from the hon the Prime Minister whether he sees this as a priority. The hon the Leader of the Opposition raised the question about the citizenship of Black people. He raised the question of how those people who are permanently integrated into the economic structure of South Africa are going to participate in the decision making process, both at regional and at national level.

The hon the Prime Minister appointed a Cabinet Committee last year. Can we have a report on the progress this Cabinet Committee has made? We had the Select Committee on the Constitution. We have also had the last of the so-called Koornhof Bills, the Orderly Movement and Settlement of Blacks Bill. We do not ask for that particular measure but we do want to know what has happened to the amendments which, we can assume, are going to be put to this House in respect of the movement and the settlement of Blacks, particularly in the urban areas. We cannot continue in South Africa with the present legislation in respect of urban Blacks. Therefore we should like to hear from the hon the Prime Minister what has happened to the third of the so-called trilogy of Koornhof Bills. What has happened to the Cabinet Committee looking at the problems of the Blacks in the so-called urban areas? More particularly, however, I want to ask the hon the Prime Minister whether in terms of a future constitutional dispensation he has a vision of the kind of structures in which Blacks who are here permanently are going to participate in the decision-making process not simply at local level but also at regional and national levels. This is absolutely critical and we should like to know whether as we move into the new era the leader of the Government has a vision of how this is going to be dealt with or whether we are going to continue to be fed with the mumbo-jumbo of the past that national aspirations can be fulfilled in independent states. I ask the hon the Prime Minister to deal with these matters.

The third important point is the one critical outstanding foreign relations issue in Southern Africa, namely the resolution of the South West African independence issue. This has been eating away at us year after year. I do not deny that it bristles with difficulties. In his speech earlier, this session the hon the Prime Minister indicated the cost in terms of money, manpower, loss of production, risks to international goodwill and the lives of young people that are being lost. We want to ask the hon the Prime Minister to give us an indication whether in terms of remaining outstanding issues on foreign relations he sees this as one of critical importance and of top priority. I joined other hon members over the past few days in visiting the operational area with the hon the Minister of Law and Order, and we had the privilege of meeting some of the young men doing combat duty there. One was impressed by their spirit, their competence and the standard of their equipment. There is no doubt that these young men have won many battles. But can the Government say that it has actually won the war? More important than this, is the Government which is responsible for the administration of South West Africa satisfied that it is winning the peace? Lots of exciting things have happened that have set up a certain momentum. Earlier this year we had the Lusaka Agreement which led to the formation of the Joint Monitoring Committee. We had the progressive disengagement of South African Forces in Southern Angola. We had the hon the Prime Minister’s powerful statement in the House during the no confidence debate, and we had the subsequent release by the Government of Toivo Ja Toivo. All of these things generated a certain momentum as well as fresh hope that there would be a settlement in South West Africa/Namibia. I believe that this is an issue of critical importance. We should like an assurance from the hon the Prime Minister that nothing will be done to cause this momentum to fade away. We would like to know that everything is being done to maintain the momentum toward the peaceful resolution of the problems of that territory.

There have been statements galore from capitals throughout Africa and the world in recent times but, following his statement in the no confidence debate, I believe that the hon the Prime Minister should tell us in specific terms whether there has been any progress on the issue of the possible withdrawal of Cubans from Angola. This has become a critical issue as far as Government policy is concerned. Secondly, we should like to know whether any real progress is being made towards peace in the South West African/Angolan area because peace must be a prelude to the implementation of Resolution 435. Thirdly, we should like to know whether the Government is taking any formal steps to start the implementation of Resolution 435. These are three interrelated matters. In view of the urgency of the situation as well as its complexity, I believe that the hon the Prime Minister should take this Committee into his confidence on the extent that progress is being made.

In conclusion I should like to say that the hon the Prime Minister and his Government have shown a certain boldness in the negotiations that led up to the Nkomati Accord. I hope that the hon the Prime Minister shows the same boldness in negotiations that can resolve after many, many years the problems surrounding South West Africa so that there can be peace and stability not only on our eastern border but on our western flank as well.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point asked certain penetrating questions concerning a political dispensation for Black people in South Africa. He also asked certain penetrating questions concerning the implementation of Resolution 435. I am convinced that the hon the Prime Minister will give him an adequate reply to those questions.

I want to return to one of the aspects to which the hon member for Sea Point referred, namely the entire matter of the Nkomati Accord. To begin with, I want to refer to a critical question asked by Die Hervormer, the official mouthpiece of the Reformed Church in South Africa, with reference to the Nkomati Accord. The question reads:

In addition to this critical question it is also being whispered in certain circles that through the Nkomati Accord the Government is actually collaborating with communists to the detriment of South Africa. The hon the Leader of the CP also asked certain critical questions concerning the accord and I shall also refer to them later on.

I maintain that there is in fact a common basis for negotiation with Marxist states in Southern Africa. I want to point out briefly that such negotiations are not to the detriment of the Republic, but to its advantage. I also want to point out that negotiations with a Marxist state in Southern Africa are in fact an important counter to Soviet expansionism in Southern Africa.

There is a common basis for negotiation with a Marxist state, and this is without any doubt the economic realities of South Africa, and in particular a specific economic reality, and the hon member for Nelspruit also referred to this in his speech earlier this evening. I think it is becoming increasingly clear that a Marxist or socialist approach to economy is in fact failing throughout the world. It is a fact that socialism is not even making the grade properly in the Soviet Union. In this regard I could perhaps refer briefly to one factor. Collective farming on state farms which constitute 98% of the available agricultural land, cannot even begin to meet that country’s agricultural needs. In contrast the small farms in the hands of the private sector, which constitute only 1,5% of all agricultural land in that country, produce one-third of the country’s meat and milk, one-third of its vegetables and 50% of its potatoes.

In Western Europe socialism as an economic system cannot make the grade either. In this regard one could refer to Sweden. Strictly in accordance with the scientific definition of socialism “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” the state took everything the people earned and distributed it among those people it felt had a right to it. It goes without saying that this led to low productivity, and key industries had to close because the Swedes could not become competitive on the world market.

I do not think the consequences of a socialist approach to economy have been more devastating anywhere else than they have been on the continent of Africa. Here I want to refer specifically to Mozambique. After Mozambique became independent it was governed according to a Marxist or socialist blueprint. The consequences were catastrophic. According to the World Bank the country’s gross domestic product showed a growth of 2,6% per annum between 1960 and 1970, but had a negative growth rate of 8,6% between 1970 and 1979. I think the people in Mozambique begn to realize from bitter personal experience that socialism did not keep poverty and misery from the door and was in fact conducive to a decline in the economy. This realization in fact gave rise to a common basis for negotiation with these states and these negotiations constitute advantages for everyone involved. The economic relations which may result from these treaties, the increased use of Maputo habour, the expansion of the tourist industry and the establishment of business interests by the private sector could lead to this Marxist state being built up economically on a non-socialistic basis.

The economic salvation of Africa lies in its being built up economically on a non-socialistic basis. In this regard I want to refer to a report which appeared in the Press under the headline “Kerke wil Afrika-state help”. According to this report four church organization are going to raise R106 million internationally during the next five years to combat famine in 20 African countries. This is all very well in the short term, but in the long term this is not the answer for Africa. The answer is to help these states to help themselves and this can only be done if the economies of these states are built up in a non-socialistic way.

In this connection I want to refer to the declaration for the promotion of private investment which was issued by the Government of the RSA and the TBVC countries on 23 July 1980 as a result of the initiatives of the hon the Prime Minister. The issuing of this declaration set Africa an example that is well worth following.

Another very important result of these negotiations between the RSA and a Marxist state is that this state can in fact escape from the grip of Marxism. Countries which came into power with communist support receive very little economic assistance from their so-called liberators. I do not want to go into details but this was specifically the case in Mozambique. A total of 230 million dollars was promised to Mozambiqe in the form of economic aid. Only 25 million dollars of this amount came from the Soviet Union. In contrast they received armaments to the value of 300 million dollars. This country has also realized that the Soviet Union is a broken reed to lean on.

In this connection I want to refer to an aspect touched on by the hon Member for Waterberg, namely whether any non-aggression pacts exist between Mozambique and the Soviet Union. There is such a non-aggression pact. It was concluded in March 1977 and was to last for 20 years. That treaty provided that if the security of either of the two states was threatened the other would intervene. However, South Africa has undertaken hot-pursuit operations in Maputo in spite of this treaty, and they elicited no reaction from the Soviet Union. This merely emphasizes that the credibility of the Soviet Union in Africa is beginning to wane.

In conclusion I want to point out that these states realize that their salvation lies with South Africa. Hence these negotiations. The moment such negotiations are commenced, they should be seen as a crack in the wall of Soviet expansionism because this accord clearly provides that the territory of a state may not be used as a springboard for terrorism against another country. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, on this occasion I do not want to cross swords with the hon member for Randfontein. There is much in his speech with which I agree, and those aspects I want to debate with him I shall rather leave for a later occasion.

On this occasion I want to refer to the speech of the hon member for Brits. I do not intend to enter into a religious discussion with the hon member for Brits, or to start a religious argument with him. I am absolutely convinced, however, of the soundness of my theological facts when I say that in his speech this evening the hon member for Brits should actually have referred to the Hindus and not to Islam or the Moslems. It is a scientific-Christian fact that although the Christian Church does everything in their power to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ home to Islam, very little success is being achieved—and all the scientists of religion will agree with me, in particular Dr Greyling of the University of the Western Cape, or is he with the Bybelgenootskap. Because those people, owing to their convictions, are completely unreceptive to the Christian message, very little is achieved in proclaiming the Gospel to Islam.

That is heresy.

If only the hon the Deputy Minister would rather keep quiet and not be so quick to speak of heresy, because he does not even know what I want to say. If he were to read works on missionary science, he would not be so quick to say it is heresy. [Interjections.] The breakthrough achieved by Christians amongst the Hindus is achieved because their faith is actually a “religious vacuum”. The majority of Christian successes are achieved amongst the Hindus. I am not thereby saying that we should not do missionary work amongst the Moslems, or that we should not speak to them, but I am merely saying that the successes achieved by the Christian Church are most specifically achieved amongst the Hindus. On that basis I want to argue this evening that although we have a calling to do that work, our success actually lies with the Hindus. I just want to remind hon members of the fact that I did not write Church history. The Church history of North Africa teaches us, however, that the religion that drove Christianity out of North Africa—except for the Coptic religion of which there are still remnants in Egypt—was Islam. We must therefore be very careful in any religious discussions we initiate with them. This should more preferably be done amongst the Hindus, because there some success is achieved. Now, however, I want to leave the matter at that.

I want to link up with the hon member for Bloemfontein East. This afternoon in his speech he again began with that all too familiar appointment with the future. In that regard he has come to imitate the hon the Prime Minister who, on several occasions, has made the statement about the NP being the party which has that great appointment with the future, which is future-orientated. I want to contend this evening that that claim is nothing new and not original either. History proves this and tells us that from the time of Jan van Riebeeck, each White leader in the country—those in the previous century, but in particular those in this century, specifically NP leaders—have had an appointment with the future. Each of them had an appointment with the future in the context of their people and the country as it was at the time. The importance of that appointment was to be found in the recipe for the future that was offered to those people and to the country at the time. That recipe for the future must specifically be of fundamental importance to the Whites—I do not mind if hon members of the PFP again refer to me as a racist. Here on the southern tip of Africa this evening we still have a group of Whites that has self-determination and freedom. They are the last in Africa. So the recipe for the future, presented by any political party, is of fundamental importance to the Whites, because it involves the assurances and guarantees, involving his and his descendants’ future in the country, embodied in such a recipe. [Interjections.]

Since 1947, specifically after the publication of the Sauer Report, the NP, under the leadership of Dr D F Malan, accepted the policy of separate development, a policy which had not yet been spelt out in detail at that stage. After all, questions are now continually being asked about what the details of CP policy are. Dr Malan, however, came along with the framework of separate development, winning the election in 1948, although with a minority vote. And we are grateful that he won the election with that policy, at that stage, because it was vital as far as the Whites were concerned. That policy embodied, as far as the Whites were concerned, the guarantee and the assurance that there would be a future for them in this country on the basis of separateness. The Whites’ freedom and self-determination were thereby guaranteed, and with that policy the NP won one election after another. A multitude of people were attracted by that policy, and Dr Malan’s ideal, of bringing together what, by inner conviction, belonged together, was thus realized. In my opinion, however, along the way the NP became the bandwagon for people to climb on who did not, by inner conviction, belong together, and the bigger the NP became, the bigger became the problem.

Since the NP deviated from the policy of separate development, and with its acceptance of power-sharing with Coloureds and Indians—which means political integration— it has accepted a partnership policy that several previous NP leaders rejected. Dr Verwoerd, who is universally regarded as one of the greatest leaders the NP ever had, warned that bowing to a partnership policy would be the beginning of the end. He also said that “every endeavour directed towards multiracialism”, ie the implementation of the partnership idea, “would necessarily lead, particularly in the administration of the country, to uninterrupted civil war (at the very least cold war) to ensure personal survival.” Dr Verwoerd therefore warned against a partnership policy. A great fuss is now being made of the fact that he supposedly warned against homelands. On 20 May 1959 Dr Verwoerd said the following here in the House (Hansard, vol 101, col 6227):

In the long run I would prefer to have a smaller White state in South Africa …

He was speaking of the Blacks.

Are the Coloureds and the Indians Whites? Dr Verwoerd was speaking of a White state.

You are quoting him out of context.

I am not quoting him out of context; I am quoting him factually. [Interjections.] Dr Verwoerd went on to say:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I think one can agree with the hon member for Koedoespoort that Dr Verwoerd was generally known as the architect of separate development. However, when Dr Verwoerd argued against partnership he was referring specifically to the Blacks, because he envisaged homelands for them specifically, and I shall prove that. I happen to have the relevant excerpt from his speech before me. On 10 April 1961 Dr Verwoerd said (Hansard, vol 107, col 4191):

Not outside our State, within our State. I read on:

As if the new constitution does not do those things. Surely it gives them the power of decision over the education of their own children, over their own community life and similar matters. Dr Verwoerd went on to say:

The hon member for Koedoespoort would do well to listen to this, because this excerpt totally contradicts what he said here. I read on:

What else is the new constitution doing for Whites, Coloureds and Asians? This is typical of the CP’s method of quoting selectively to suit themselves. In a speech before the Uniale Kleurlingraad in November 1961, Dr Verwoerd specifically—and I am going to quote it again now—rejected a Coloured homeland. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has dealt with this matter in the House ad nauseam. If three Parliaments have to decide jointly on matters of common concern then they function as a single Parliament, and whether one calls them three Parliaments or three Chambers, they function in exactly the same way and they are one Parliament. That is why we call it that, because constitutionally, too, it is far wiser to call it that.

However I wish to discuss a different matter. I have before me an edition of Die Patriot. In it is stated:

I agree that all of us in politics have a duty to the voters to give them the truth, as far as humanly possible, about our own policies so that the electorate may form a sound and reasonable opinion concerning what they are voting about. However the problem is that Die Patriot does not do what it says here. Instead of the truth, it publishes distortions of the truth. I concede that there can be differing perceptions and that bona fide mistakes can sometimes be made, but the constant campaign of deception waged by the CP and its organs really cannot be excused under those two heads. Die Patriot goes on:

I now come to the point. After this decision had been taken it was announced in the Press that it would be attended to by a committee under the chairmanship of Dr Connie Mulder, one of the members of which would be the hon member for Jeppe. I now wish to ask the hon member for Waterberg whether he remembers the following words:

If the hon member for Waterberg no longer recalls these words I want to say to him that it is a motion he moved in the caucus and his fellow proposers were Mr Schlebusch as leader of the Free State, Dr Horwood as leader of Natal and Mr Chris Heunis on behalf of the Prime Minister. Moreover, the motion was unanimously accepted. The person who condemned that hon member as a man who made public life unpleasant and did violence to the truth has now been appointed by him as chairman of his information committee.

That is not all. Who is the other member? The other member, as I said, is Mr Koos van der Merwe who in fact acts as editor of Die Patriot and who compiles the CP’s gutter papers such as this little Rosettenville newspaper of theirs. I now wish to quote from the Sunday Express of 15 February 1981:

[Interjections.]

Order!

That, then, is the quality of the people who distribute the CP’s information: Someone who, as the hon member for Waterberg himself said, did violence to the truth, and the only serving member of Parliament who to my knowledge has been described as an unintelligent and dishonest witness by a judge of the Supreme Court in this country.

Tell us what you said about Jan Grobler.

Order!

I replied to that point long ago and it is not relevant now. What is relevant is that the hon member for Waterberg himself is now sharing in this devision and deceit of which he accused Dr Connie Mulder at the time.

There are other things that I want to ask the hon members.

May I put a question to the hon member? [Interjections.]

Order!

What do the Indians say about Farrarmere? Tell us about Farrarmere.

I do not know what the hon member is referring to. If he wants to say something he can do so in his own speech. I can say to him that there are no Farrarmere Indians. Farrarmere is a White suburb of Benoni one half of which falls within my consituency and the other half in the constituency of the hon member for Brentwood.

What about the Indians in …

There are no Indians in Farrarmere. [Interjections.]

I have already asked the hon member for Waterberg whether he recalls that motion of his. I also want to ask him whether he recalls what he said at Pietersburg:

He went on to say about Mr P W Botha:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Benoni devoted his full speech to the CP, and I am sure he will understand that I do not intend to respond to his remarks in that regard. During this debate so far—and I think this is also the case in many parts of South Africa—there has been general agreement that the peace control that have been reached with neighbouring countries are both welcome and of great importance. Equally, Mr Chairman, I believe it is agreed … [Interjections.]

Order! I am now making a final appeal to hon members not to converse so loudly. If I catch another hon member ignoring my ruling, I shall be obliged to take steps against him. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens may proceed.

Mr Chairman, in the final analysis, I believe, it is also agreed, however, that peace and prosperity in South Africa will depend on good relationships among all the people of this country. It is in this context therefore that I should … [Interjections.]

Order! I order the hon member for Langlaagte to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting for having disregarded the authority of the Chair.

[Whereupon the hon member withdrew.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Langlaagte and the hon member for Barberton …

Order! I have already ordered the hon member for Langlaagte to withdraw from the Chamber.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for those two hon members to threaten me continuously from their seats? [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member please explain what he means?

Mr Chairman, those two hon members are threatening me by shaking their fists at me and saying: “I shall get you. I shall get you.” [Interjections.]

Order! Which two hon members did that?

Mr Chairman, it was the hon member you have just ordered to withdraw from the Chamber and his benchmate, the hon member for Barberton.

Order! Did the hon member for Barberton threaten the hon member for Benoni?

Mr Chairman, I did not threaten him. I cannot threaten a man like him. [Interjections.]

Order! So the hon member for Barberton did not threaten the hon member for Benoni.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: While the hon member for Langlaagte was withdrawing from the Chamber a few moments ago, he addressed a remark to the hon member for Benoni in which he referred to a particular population group. I do not want to repeat the term used by him with reference to that population group, as I believe that it is neither worthy of myself nor of this House. He addressed the statement to the hon member for Benoni that people of that population group had bribed him—that is the hon member for Benoni.

Order! I shall investigate the matter and report to this House in due course. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I should like to appeal this evening to the hon the Prime Minister to take a fresh look at some of the Government’s policies affecting Blacks in the Cape Peninsula. I am extremely concerned about the frequent confrontations that have taken place between the various authorities on the one hand and the Black communities in this area on the other hand over the past decade. I am equally concerned about the growing anger amongst Blacks in respect of certain aspects concerning the development of Khayelitsha, and the potential that exists for confrontation and violence on a greater scale than ever before in this regard in the Cape Peninsula.

One needs to ask how this situation can be improved, and first of all I should like to suggest certain basic facts with which, I should imagine, the hon the Prime Minister and other hon Ministers will agree. Firstly I believe there is an acute shortage of housing for Black people in the Western Cape. This shortage has been estimated by the Administration Board at 8 000 units at present. Secondly, despite the Coloured preference area policy the Black population of the Cape Peninsula has more than doubled over the past 20 years, even if the so-called illegals are not taken into account. These so-called illegals probably constitute an extra 30% to 50%. This doubling in the growth of the Black population in the Western Cape was in fact mentioned by the hon the Deputy Minister in a statement he made about two years ago.

Thirdly, I should suggest that the increasing Black population in the Cape Peninsula is here to stay. This was again confirmed by the hon the Deputy Minister in debates in this House earlier this year.

We look at these three facts, Mr Chairman, and then at an event which took place in March 1983, when, out of the blue, the development of Khayelitsha was announced by the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development. That annoucement was controversial purely on the ground of town planning, to which objections were raised by a number of knowledgeable people in that field. It became especially controversial when suspicions arose that the settled residents of Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu were to be forced to move to Khayelitsha in due course. Since that time there have been various statements made by the hon the Minister and by the hon the Deputy Minister. I believe that they have actually compounded the problem because many of those statements were ambiguous and caused confusion rather than helped to clear up the matter. They caused uncertainty, apprehension and anger.

Why do the residents of the existing townships object to moving to Khayelitsha? I should like to mention some of the reasons for this. First of all, many of them have lived in the existing townships for decades. They were born there, they went to school there, they grew up and it has become their home. Secondly, they have established homes there and they have invested time and savings in those homes. Thirdly, there is the question of high commuting costs which affects their ability to pay for other essentials in life. Fourthly, there is the long commuting time which involves travelling in darkness. This is an added danger, it involves fatigue and it also involves adversely affecting their family and community lives because they have less time at home. Of course, inadequate parental supervision is an element of this problem as well. Finally, they object to the element of compulsion in that they lack a freedom of choice.

The magnitude of this removals programme is enormous. One is speaking about 160 000 people which, as my hon colleague mentioned last month, is the equivalent of the White population of Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage combined or of the White population of Bloemfontein and the Goldfields in the Orange Free State. It will mean a massive removal of people by any standards, and the implications are enormous. The eyes of the international community are focused upon forced removals in general. This was mentioned by the hon member for Tygervallei earlier this evening. I might add that the eyes of the international community are focused particularly upon Crossroads, as they have been for many years. Confrontation would be a massive setback for South Africa at a time when a favourable climate has been developed. Locally, insecurity, frustration and anger have been caused, and efforts to move these people will undoubtedly be met with fierce resistance.

We need to ask ourselves whether this move is going to be long term or whether it will in fact ever take place, and I should like to take a look at some of the figures involved. As of now the population capacity of the existing townships is about 130 000. The numbers in those townships at present are in excess of that figure but that is on account of gross overcrowding. When we reduce this figure to more manageable levels we can talk of a current population capacity of about 130 000. By the year 2000 the Black population in the Cape Peninsula will be of the order of 390 000. This is an estimate given by the Chief Commissioner for the Western Cape in September 1982. Khayelitsha is planned to hold 250 000 people by the year 2000. This means that even if Khayelitsha is full, there are still going to be about 140 000 people as an overflow which is greater than the existing townships can hold. Therefore, there is no reason why anyone should be moved because there will be no houses for them to move to.

The hon the Prime Minister is in a unique position. He is head of the Government and he is also leader of the Cape National Party. I believe that he can this week strike a dramatic blow to improve race relations in the Western Cape without even changing the essence of the Coloured labour preference area policy with which I need hardly add I heartily disagree. The hon the Prime Minister can do this firstly, by giving an assurance that there will be no forced removals, direct or indirect; secondly, that existing townships will be maintained and improved and new facilities provided where required to improve the quality of life; thirdly, by permitting 99-year leasehold because the permanence of these people has been acknowledged and this will enhance the attractiveness and success potential of self-help schemes; and finally, by instituting an investigation into the establishment of an industrial area adjacent to Khayelitsha. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I shall not be responding to what was said by the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, who spoke about a local matter, but I do just want to say that it is quite clear that in its pronouncements on problems of this nature the PFP often presents very facile solutions, without really taking the facts of a specific matter into account. The hon member offered a solution to a problem which, in his view, could be solved quite simply, but I am convinced that it is not that simple a matter. I want to leave it at that, because we know that for the settlement of Black people, particularly in the relevant area, there is not as obvious a solution as the one he is suggesting.

When one listens to Opposition Party speakers in a debate such as this, one necessarily comes to the conclusion that the hon members have an extremely difficult task, particularly in the era in which we are living and in the present climate in this country. From the matters which were touched upon in an effort at presenting criticism, it was quite clear that no substantial criticism could emanate from that quarter owing to the success the hon the Prime Minister has been able to achieve to date.

We know that the hon the Prime Minister accepted his task in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. We are all aware of the circumstances surrounding his acceptance of this task, after certain events we are all aware of and further subsequent events. I think that everyone is agreed—it has previously been discussed in the debate—that exceptional successes have been achieved, in various fields, at a very difficult point in time. When successes are achieved, however, it is very difficult to level criticism that really makes any impression.

In saying this, I think one should also emphasize the positive aspects. The fact remains—even in political life—that actions and results speak much louder than any political discussion or criticism that can be furnished. I believe that in the present circumstances the tangible results and the success achieved speak much louder than any argument that can be raised or standpoint that can be put. It is significant that even in those very difficult circumstances the electorate— not very long ago—again underlined that support and confidence. In the course of the debate the necessary recognition was given to the subsequent successes that were achieved.

I want to refer briefly to the standpoints adopted here, particularly by the hon the Leader of the Opposition when, amongst other things, he referred to the conduct of certain Black leaders. He referred, amongst other things, to Mr Sebe. By implication he stated that those people were not competent to govern properly. I do not know why the PFP is adopting this course. They are alleging, by implication, that those people have not yet progressed far enough to govern judiciously, yet they want to allow that to happen in this country. I cannot resolve this contradictory approach. If they attach such scant value to the judgment of Black people, why does the PFP want to give them a greater say? That is definitely not a consistent standpoint. It is merely part of the political debate.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs referred to the remark of the hon member for Waterberg, to the standpoint he adopted towards Leadership South Africa about not supporting the HNP because he did not like its political style. It is not, however, strange for the hon the leader of the Conservative Party to have given this answer, because he does not have a choice. It is nimble footwork, because the hon member cannot furnish any reason for not supporting their policy. The simple reason for that is that the hon member was one of the co-drafters of the HNP constitution.

That is a blatant lie.

Order! The hon member for Rissik may not say that the hon member for Welkom is telling blatant lies.

Sir, I withdraw it.

The hon member was, after all, in that team for a few days. He then thought the matter over and subsequently changed his standpoint. Is the hon member for Waterberg saying unequivocally that he was in no way involved with the drafting of the HNP’s constitution at the time?

I had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

I accept the hon member’s word. There are nevertheless many people who allege that the hon member was indeed involved in drawing up that constitution. [Interjections.] Circumstances were somewhat different when the hon member left the National Party, because then he had the hon members for Meyerton and Rissik guiding him. At that time he did not have that guidance.

Whatever the political game may be, all true and responsible patriots would direct their future actions towards ensuring that relationships with our neighbours are not disrupted. A great deal has already been achieved, and I do not think one would be acting responsibly if, in South Africa today, one were to play political games that could distort matters that are of great significance to this country and its future. There are developments embodying great promise, and official Opposition speakers, and others too, have acknowledged and accepted that they do indeed embody great benefits for us. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this afternoon in his introductory remarks the hon the Leader of the Opposition made friendly references to me. These were followed by the hon member for Durban Point, who couched his friendly remarks in virtually the same terms. Other hon members, on both sides, who participated in the debate, did the same thing. Let me say at once, however, that while I want to thank them for the testimonial and express my appreciation for it, and that I, as a human being, am grateful for the fact that there is appreciation for what one believes one is doing to the best of one’s ability, I cannot agree that I am the most successful Prime Minister of South Africa. I think that is too much of a mouthful, and that it is exaggerated language. When one looks back over the line of men who occupied this office prior to me, one realizes that South Africa has been a country favoured by Providence in that it has had men of tremendous stature occupying this office since 1910. Apart from political differences which might have existed with some of these Prime Ministers, the fact remains that South Africa has produced some of the greatest men of this century as Prime Ministers. I do not want to be so vain as to regard this tribute paid to me as being correct. I thank hon members for the spirit in which it was done. I have appreciation for that. However, I repeat: Whether or not one agreed with them, Gen Botha, Gen Smuts, Gen Hertzog, Dr Malan, Mr Strijdom, Dr Verwoerd and my immediate predecessor, Mr Vorster, were all men of stature intellectually, spiritually and in the field of leadership. I should like to pay tribute to them as men who were greater than I can ever dream of being. Consequently, whereas I thank the hon the Leader of the Opposition and the hon member for Durban Point, as well as other hon members, for their kind remarks, I just want to say that nothing we have been able to establish in recent times and nothing which South Africa may achieve in future, would have been possible without the work of those men who laid the foundations of modern South Africa.

†The hon member for Durban Point also referred to my leadership in the sense of having instituted and having made the new dispensation possible. I do appreciate his remarks. I openly said in public that I on my part appreciate the contribution he and his party made in making this possible. I want to repeat that here this evening.

I was not able to follow the hon member well when he referred to the ideal of a unity of moderates in South Africa and when he said that we must not be disappointed that we could not achieve it politically.

In the NP.

Yes. I have never confused party unity with national unity. I have made it plain on many an occasion in the past that there is a difference between national unity based on certain fundamental beliefs and attitudes as to one’s country and its security, prosperity and happiness on the one hand, and partly unity, which is something different, on the other hand. I must however say that a multiplicity of parties can also be detrimental to national unity. We must take cognizance of the fact that it is not necessary to establish small parties only for the sake of achieving certain smaller goals and then believe that we are certain that we are serving the ideal of national unity. There are countries in the Western world—I will not name them specifically—where there are a multiplicity of parties, and this has weakened the government of those countries to such an extent that they cannot today contribute towards upholding the necessary standards of civilization. These countries are weak, they have a change of government every few months, they are unstable and because of that the decent forces in those countries often suffer.

*Consequently we in South Africa should be on our guard and ensure that we do not, simply because we are cross with one another or because we have certain prejudices or seek to achieve certain minor objectives, become so obsessed with the possibility of establishing parties for our own purposes that by doing so we endanger national unity and the stability of our country.

†I do not accuse the hon member of doing this but I do hope that while they took the courageous step a few months ago of putting national unity and the interests of South Africa before party unity and party interests, they will remember that in future. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Yes, there will of course be those who will read ulterior motives into these words of mine.

It is a matter of courtship.

There is no need for me to indulge in courtship for the sake of the party, because my party has a two-thirds majority in this House. If, however, what was said by the hon the Leader of the Opposition is true, viz that I am a leader who achieves success, surely people should at least listen to me, and that includes those who are only capable of being silly. [Interjections.] I am dealing with serious matters, and if the hon member is looking for a place where he can display his silliness, he should really go to a circus. I am sure they will welcome him there. I cannot understand why that hon member always has to make himself objectionable, because a silly adult is an objectionable human being.

I merely wanted to help you.

Take this thought with you and see whether you cannot acquire more dignity during the night.

I reiterate that I should like to see all balanced South Africans coming together in one political organization in which we could conduct a debate with one another free of party considerations when we have to deliberate on issues. In saying this to the hon member for Durban Point, I am at the same time saying it to the CP. There are hon members in the CP who know that I personally regret their having left the NP. They know this because I have told them so personally.

I have reached a stage in my life when it no longer matters to me what people say of me. At this stage in my life I can be really objective in considering South Africa’s interests, and I say it is not in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of the security of the White man in this country, it is not in the interests of the security of the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking South Africans and other minority groups in the country, nor is it in the interests of good relations with other population groups such as the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks that we should continue in the way displayed in some speeches this evening. [Interjections.] It is not in the country’s interests, and the sooner we pull ourselves together, the sooner these galleries will become fully occupied once again and the sooner will the people again show interest in the debates of Parliament. The public objects to the sorry revelation of irresponsibility towards one another in this House displayed by some hon members.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 22.