Mr Chairman, in his speech the hon the Leader of the Opposition referred to the question of the procurement of oil. He said inter alia, and I quote him (Hansard, 25 April):

I deem it necessary, Mr Chairman, to make a statement in regard to this matter. I had been under the impression that I had made this matter fairly clear in a reply to a question put to me earlier in this House. Apparently that was not sufficient. Accordingly I wish to state clearly that the whole matter of alleged irregularities in regard to the oil trade began some time ago to enjoy the attention of the Government. This resulted in an investigation by the National Intelligence Service and the reference of the Salem incident to the Attorney-General. Apart from this, the same investigation brought to light other facets of the trade in oil. According to the report submitted to me, no evidence of corruption could be found.

Subsequently, in private discussions and in correspondence, the hon the Leader of the Opposition informed me that he had been supplied with documentation containing serious allegations. The origin of the documentation in question was not known to him. However, he regards the matter as a delicate one and as one which ought not to be exploited for the sake of short-term political advantage. Indeed, the aim of the correspondence was, and I quote from the letter of the hon the Leader of the Opposition:

What the matter raised by the hon the Leader of the Opposition amounted to was that more money had been paid out for the supply of oil than the actual contract price. Then, in a subsequent paragraph of his letter, the name of the contractors are mentioned, and in addition, certain documentation is attached in support of the allegations. These allegations by the hon the Leader of the Opposition, supported by documentation, suggest that contractors have been benefited improperly.

He then goes on to say in his letter that he believes that a prima facie case for the Auditor-General has been made and that his report must be sent to a select committee of Parliament for investigation. He concludes his letter as follows, and again I quote him:

Having considered the allegations in the letter in question, in conjunction with the documentation, I was—and am still—of the opinion that the functionary of Parliament who should, in fact, deal with this matter at this stage is the Advocate-General, because as an extension-piece of Parliament he is competent to investigate the alleged dishonest handling of public money and unlawful or improper enrichment or preferential treatment at the expense of the State or of an institution or body handling public money. After all, the Opposition agreed last year that the Advocate-General Act be so amended that provision be made for such matters in the widest possible sense. A few days later I wrote to the hon the Leader of the Opposition—that was after receipt of his letter—to inform him of my decision, viz that I had referred the matter to the Advocate-General to be investigated and reported on to Parliament. I also referred to the Advocate-General the documents I had received from the hon the Leader of the Opposition. Notwithstanding the fact that the investigation of the National Intelligence Service had found no evidence of corruption I referred that report, too, to the Advocate-General.

On 9 April this year a contented and satisfied hon Leader of the Opposition wrote to me as follows:

Please note, Mr Chairman, that this is a specific undertaking by the hon the Leader of the Opposition to refer to the Advocate-General all existing and future information that may be relevant to this matter. I also wish to point out that this letter unreservedly attests to overall agreement with my decision and actions.

On 11 April 1984 I made the following statement in this House as requested by the hon the Leader of the Opposition and in reply to a question put to me (Hansard, Questions and Replies, 11 April 1984, col 891):

There was no follow-up question, no indication, verbally or in writing, that the hon the Leader of the Opposition did not regard my conduct as efficient and correct.

In this letter from the hon the Leader of the Opposition—the letter of 9 April—and in his first letter, no mention is made of his in fact having in mind two different matters for investigation based on the same facts— one matter for investigation by the Advocate-General, the other for investigation by a select committee of Parliament. Yesterday he said here that he was happy with the investigation by the Advocate-General but that on the strength of the same facts, on the strength of the same allegations, and with the same parties involved, he also wanted a select committee appointed.

No, they are not the same thing.

Well, is there new evidence then?

The one is a broader issue than the other.

Wait now. I shall now reply in full to the hon the Leader of the Opposition. He should just display a little patience. Am I correct—this is my question—in saying that he has obtained no new facts or information since corresponding with me? If his answer is in the affirmative, the following question arises: Why has he substantially changed his attitude? In his letter he congratulated me on the steps I had taken, but now he wants a further investigation. Why is he now demanding a parallel investigation? Who is exerting pressure on him? [Interjections.] Is his caucus or are members of his caucus exerting pressure on him? Or the media? Or is it simply a question of politics?

This is what happens when I act correctly.

If his answer is “no”, in other words, if he does have new information, why does he not honour his undertaking in his letter of 9 April that he and his colleagues will bring to the attention of the Advocate-General all information and evidence that they may have in their possession or which may come into their hands and is relevant? I do not know why the hon the Leader of the Opposition is suddenly so upset. Probably he slept badly last night, and at his time of life one should not sleep badly. What does the Advocate-General Act say? In terms of section 5 of that Act, which was passed by this Parliament, he has to report to Parliament, and on the receipt of such a report Parliament had the right to say what should be done about such a report. What is more, the same section goes on to provide that if it is a confidential report it must be referred to a select committee of Parliament for consideration and report to Parliament. In other words, provision is made for a select committee. Therefore this matter will be further dealt with by Parliament itself, as prescribed by the Act. That is my reply to the hon member.

With reference to a further question asked by the hon the Leader of the Opposition I want to say that I am satisfied that the Advocate-General possesses all the powers necessary to carry out a proper investigation. He can direct people to appear before him to submit evidence and submit documents. He is assisted by a senior advocate plus such persons as he may deem necessary for the performance of his task. That is my answer to the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon leader of the Conservative Party, the hon member for Waterberg, expressed a few ideas here about the Nkomati Accord. I could infer from what the hon member said that in fact he agreed with this kind of treaty; that he agreed with it in principle; indeed, that he regards it as sound practice that such treaties be entered into wherever possible. Therefore I also assume that the hon member agrees with me that a treaty such as that already entered into with other countries, inter alia with Swaziland—copies of which are available to this House—represents the correct approach. I appreciate that that is his attitude; that he goes along with that and that he approves of it in principle and supports it. Moreover, by his presence there he attests to his interest in the concluding of that treaty.

The second part of the hon member’s speech was more specifically concerned with catch questions. These catch questions in fact cast a somewhat different light on his attitude. It seems to me as if the hon member was not addressing me in this regard, but was addressing someone outside this House. Therefore I shall leave it to him and Mr Jaap Marais. I know that Mr Jaap Marais is a difficult customer, and I sympathize with the hon member.

It is the same with a treaty as with a programme of principles or the twelve-point plan. One endorses it and then one carries it out, or else one endorses it and then withdraws from it in spirit. I cannot answer for anyone in this life, neither people who sign treaties nor people who endorse programmes of principles or twelve-point plans. [Interjections.] What I do know is that if the people who signed the treaty with Swaziland and the treaty with Mozambique on behalf of those countries and on behalf of the Republic of South Africa have the will to put the content of those treaties into effect and implement them in practice, they can succeed. It is for that very reason that we made provision in the Nkomati Accord for a security commission to which complaints may be conveyed and which will be able to investigate those complaints and report to the respective Governments. Therefore there is an interaction among various bodies. The reports are based on the confidence that it is in the interests of each of the various States that such an accord should come into being.

Let us consider the matter from South Africa’s angle. My contention is that the Nkomati Accord, if it is a success, will be of tremendous value, particularly to the Northern and North Eastern Transvaal, and more specifically for the citrus industry. We have practical experience in this regard. The hon member will recall that when he was still in the Cabinet, the interests of the citrus industry often came up for discussion. I cannot imagine how there could be better circumstances than the smooth conveyance of certain products on the railway line to Maputo and the use of that harbour by the citrus industry. Therefore it is in the direct interests of the citrus farmers of the Northern and North Eastern Transvaal.

Hear, hear!

In the second place it is equally important that the Cahora Bassa Scheme, which will make available for those particular regions, which are highly developed regions, approximately 10% of the electricity we use, should work. This energy can only be utilized to the benefit of the Northern and North Eastern Transvaal.

What is more, the railway line between Johannesburg and Maputo can still carry far more than it is carrying at present. Therefore increased use of that railway line can be to the benefit of South Africa. Moreover, the trade which could be promoted between Mozambique and the Republic of South Africa could in general benefit the Republic of South Africa.

I gained the impression that the hon member made a somewhat snide reference to apples that had been delivered and to medicine. When he suddenly realized what he was doing, he pulled himself together. I did not deliver the apples; they were delivered by the Deciduous Fruit Board and the farmers, of their own accord. I think it is a wonderful gesture on their part for the sake of hungry children. As far as the medicine is concerned, I do not apologize. It is a practice of the Government to help with medical supplies where it is able to do so. There are still other benefits that could derive from the accord. If there is a sound relationship between the two countries this could, for example, improve the position with regard to labour. We know that good workers come to our mines from Mozambique and that the more we are able to use them, the better for our mining industry.

Permit me to say here and now that we do not support or shelter elements subversive to Mozambique. Therefore I cannot understand the hon member’s complaint as regards the possibility that our affairs may be prayed into. The commission which is to be established certainly has nothing to do with it. We signed this accord as honest people, and we intend carrying it out as honest people, carrying it out rigorously, to the letter and the spirit, and we expect the same of the authorities in Mozambique.

Although I do not wish to reveal what was said in the course of the private discussions between me and President Machel, I did say one thing to him that I want to repeat here. It is something he endorsed. I said to him that I did not believe that South Africa could or would want to afford to play Father Christmas to other countries. I said to him that I did not believe in the methods of providing aid which have been adopted in Africa on a large scale over the past number of years. I said that we lacked the funds for that and that if we did have the funds we should prefer to use them for the work of development within the Republic and in the interests of its immediate neighbours. I informed the President that it may well be in Mozambique’s interests for the private sector in the Republic to participate in development projects in Mozambique on a larger scale—in their own interests as well as in the interests of Mozambique. I undertook to speak about this to the private sector, and I did so a few days after the signing of the Accord. I, togehter with the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and some of our officials, met leaders from the private sector and reported to them what had been discussed there and what was stated in the Nkomati Accord. I said to President Machel: “I am not for aid because I do not believe in it, and I am not for handouts”. I went on to tell him that I should be prepared to request the co-operation of the private sector on two conditions. In the first place the private sector should be given assurances as regards the issue of nationalization; otherwise they would not enter a country with a view to development projects. In the second place they would want assurances as regards their physical safety.

That is the whole story. The hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, as well as the hon member for Nelspruit and the hon member for Randfontein, have elucidated the matter sufficiently, so that it is unnecessary for me to discuss it further.

The hon member Mr Van Staden conveyed certain congratulations to me. I want to thank him for that and for his friendliness towards me over the years. Now I also understand what a “foefie” is. Apparently the hon Chairman does as well, because he prohibited the use of the word.

The hon member for Innesdal expressed certain ideas with reference to a book which appeared recently from the pen of a well-known author, a book on the technological age and the progress being made with computers and other electronic apparatus. I agree with him that this is a matter deserving of the attention of all of us, particularly the education authorities. It is also true that Africa, which has already fallen behind the West due to this technological age and the progress in that sphere, could very well fall even further behind. It is for that reason that we in the Republic of South Africa emphasize training and education to such an extent that the number of matriculants and graduates in our schools and universities increases every year. That is why South Africa is doing everything in its power to meet the demands of the times in this century. I do want to point out to the hon member that that book was largely written with American conditions in mind, conditions which cannot be compared with those in Southern Africa.

†The hon member for Pinelands wanted to know whether the State President will in future be in the same position as the Prime Minister is today, where he has to deal with questions and policy matters in Parliament.

*If I understand the new dispensation correctly, the offices of State President and Prime Minister are being united. Thus we shall no longer have a non-executive State President but an executive State President. I hope that it will be possible to make provision in the rules of Parliament for the State President to be present in a House at times although he will not be a member of any of the Houses, and will be able to make speeches, address the Houses, answer questions on his policy and, on occasion, take part in debate. It seems to me that that would be the appropriate procedure, but it is for the Parliamentary authorities to make provision for that.

†The hon member then made the mistake so many people make when in reference to me he said that I have now suddenly changed my attitude in respect of views I held earlier. Let me say at once that I am not one of those people who believe that one should never change one’s views when facts are placed before you. I do not believe that. I was not prepared to deal with power-sharing and representation in this House under the Westminster system. I specifically said that under the changed system, it will be a different matter. That is why I will be prepared in terms of the changed system which will be implemented shortly, to take a different attitude. What is wrong with that? It is a new system; that is the point.

*We are not sticking to the old Westminster system of “one man, one vote” because the system of one man, one vote in one common body will, as I have said in the past, lead to Black, to non-White domination. It will be a repetition of the mistakes of Africa. However, a totally new system is now being introduced, a system in terms of which minority rights will be ensured and in which own rights, rights which are important for community life, cultural life and those things which are precious to every community in the population, are preserved. Surely, therefore, it can be seen in a different light.

Is it not true that your attitude and that of your party towards the place of the Coloured and the Indian, together with the White man, is different to what it was before?

I am coming to that. However, before dealing with that and with other matters connected with it, I also want to refer to another matter raised by the hon member, namely the very unhappy incident as published in the Press concerning the late Mr Vivian Solomons.

*I count myself among that section of the South African viewing public who had the greatest appreciation for the late Mr Solomons. In general I think we were all proud of him. From various quarters I heard how members of the public had expressed their appreciation for the way in which he had acquitted himself of his task. We were all shocked to hear of his death. To me, personally, it was also a shock. The newspaper that took advantage of his death to make sordid political propaganda, however, was guilty of scandalous conduct. I hope that the editor and board of directors of that newspaper will give their attention to this matter. In fact, I demand it of them. The Government will most certainly not leave the matter at that because, as I said by way of an interjection to the hon member, it was “a blatant lie”, and I say it again now.

The facts were placed at my disposal this morning and I want to place them on record here, for the sake of the truth. At 11h34 on 13 April 1984 the South African Police called an ambulance from the General De La Rey Memorial Hospital in Lichtenburg to the scene of the accident. The ambulance left at 11h36, with Mr M Viviers as ambulance driver, accompanied by a nursing assistant, M P Strydom. The accident had occurred near the home of another nursing assistant, D J R van Rensburg, who had been on the point of leaving for the hospital to go on duty. She immediately rendered assistance to the injured person and accompanied the ambulance back to the hospital, where they arrived at 11h45. The patient was taken to the White casualty section where senior sisters M N N Basson, C C Geyser and E Swanepoel assisted him while Dr D W L C Meyer was called. They used suction to clear the injured person’s air passages and applied emergency intravenous therapy in the form of a Ringers solution. Dr Meyer arrived at 11h55. The patient’s pulse was good, but his pupils were dilated and fixed and did not react to light. There was a deep wound on the right hand side of his skull, and he was also bleeding from his ears and mouth. He was in a deep coma. In view of the serious condition of the patient, Dr Meyer himself arranged with Dr Viljoen, a surgeon from Klerksdorp, for the treatment of the patient in the Klerksdorp hospital. The ambulance conveying the patient to Klerksdorp left Lichtenburg at 12h15 and was driven by Mr B C W Lottering. His instructions were to take the patient directly to ward B10. He was accompanied by a senior nursing assistant, J C Potgieter, who administered the intravenous therapy during the journey and constantly applied suction to clear the patient’s air passages. At 13h20 the patient arrived at the White casualty section of the Klerksdorp hospital where the patient, together with a letter from Dr Meyer, was handed over to the casualty sister, Elsa Baird. The patient at that stage was still alive, but was still in a deep coma. The ambulance driver, Mr Lottering, and two porters, Messrs Fourie en Stadler, immediately took the patient to ward B10 where he was received by Sister Snyman and placed in a 2 bed ward. She and Senior Professional Nurse Nieuwoudt, who had previously worked in the Intensive Care Unit, tried to resuscitate the patient and applied suction to clear his air passages. Sister Snyman then used a radio paging system to summon a medical practitioner and also had Senior Sister Holthuis of the Intensive Care Unit called. The latter came immediately and reached the patient at approximately 13h30. By then, however, he had already stopped breathing.

The above information proves absolutely that a lot of people gave concentrated attention to this unfortunate victim and did so with the utmost care. Two members of the editorial staff of this newspaper spoke to Dr Viljoen, who gave them all this information. In spite of that, the news was presented to us in the way it was, which I consider to be base and despicable. What is even more despicable is that after the Minister of Health and Welfare had also issued a statement on behalf of the Government on what our policy was, and the member of the Executive Committee of the Transvaal in charge of hospital services had also issued a statement, a morning newspaper in Cape Town this morning published a base and despicable cartoon on this incident. I think it is so despicable that it is beneath the ability of any decent person to pass judgment on it.

†I will deal at a later stage with the other matters the hon member raised.

The hon member for Durban Central raised the matter of Natal’s future and also the Buthelezi Commission. I do not criticize him for raising these matters, but I differ from him in one respect. I ask him: Why raise the point in that way? Does he want to deal with Natal as diverse from the rest of South Africa? I have a feeling that even the hon member himself thought he was on dangerous ground because he said “I do not want to take a stand for Natal”. Let me tell him that Pretoria is not forcing any Black people to take independence. We have stated so over a number of years. What is more, the Zulu people themselves accepted self-rule voluntarily and their leaders are welcome to discuss their future with the Government when the opportunity arises. Under all circumstances we will make provision for such meetings. Finally, there is no plan to sever Natal’s relations with the rest of the Republic of South Africa.

Before I deal with the matter concerning Chief Buthelezi, let me remind the hon member that the hon the Minister of Finance, as Natal leader of the National Party, member of the Cabinet and specifically Minister of Finance, made a statement on behalf of the Government on 9 March 1982 in which he clearly stated the Government’s attitude to the Buthelezi Commission. If the hon member has no copy of that, I will make it available to him, but I think he must have a copy. He nods his head. Therefore he must have one. Why then ask me the question about the Government’s attitude? [Interjections.] Surely, the hon the Minister said that he was speaking on behalf of the Government. [Interjections.] Let me quote a few of the things the hon the Minister said at the time. He said:

*As long ago as 1982 we adopted that standpoint.

†I now come to Chief Buthelezi. It is a well-known fact that on two previous occasions differences arose between the kwaZulu Government of Chief Buthelezi and myself on certain matters and that we could not proceed with them. Eventually the King of the Zulus approached me and we met on two occasions where we ironed out the problems. He went back a satisfied man, together with those who accompanied him. Never therefore did I at any stage refuse to speak to leaders of the kwaZulu government.

At a later stage the Cabinet Committee appointed by the Government to deal with unsolved matters regarding our relations with our Black population groups outside the national states, decided that it would like to meet with the leaders of the TBVC countries and also with the leaders of the self-governing states. Then, on 16 January 1984, through the Commissioner-General we received the following message:

That was the message from the Chief Minister. He did not want to take bread with me. But that was not the only food we had available.

*So he invokes Zulu traditions for the discussion of national affairs with me. All I can tell him is that I do not begrudge him his Zulu traditions, but then he should apply them consistently. I have my traditions as well, and one of them is that I am not prepared to he down so that someone can trample all over me. However, I let him know that he was welcome to come and see me if he so wished. That was my message to him after the above-mentioned message from him.

With or without bread.

Quite right— with or without bread. That hon member could have had the bread. We would not have buttered it for him though. On 2 February 1984 I then received the following reply:

I do not know where he got that impression. The letter went on to say:

That is how the matter stands at present. In the meantime discussions with all the other Black leaders have taken place, and I have had personal meetings with the Black leaders of the independent states, of the TBVC countries. They preferred to hold individual talks with the Cabinet Committee, and we complied with this request. We also met the other leaders. They consented to the holding of talks, and Chief Buthelezi is welcome if he wishes to participate in those talks. I am most certainly not going to beg him to participate.

Give Pik a chance.

Actually we should use that hon member. Chief Buthelezi might even get out of Zululand if that hon member goes anywhere near him. [Interjections.]

The Cabinet Committee is continuing to hold talks with leaders from the urban communities as well. This is an on-going process. I shall leave the matter at that, because I think I have now replied fully to the hon member; perhaps too fully.

The hon member for Pretoria East raised the question of links between Black population groups and national states as far as the rendering of services was concerned. It was an interesting viewpoint which he expounded here, and I suggest that he take it up with the Cabinet Committee. In fact I shall ask them to discuss the matter with him, and to see to what extent consideration can be given to it.

The hon member for Virginia, the hon member Mr Van Staden and the hon member for Pretoria East raised various matters. They referred inter alia to the disadvantages of a division in the cultural sphere and possibly in the ecclesiastical sphere between Afrikaner and Afrikaner. Let me say at once, however, that since 1910, political unity among Afrikaners has never been a reality. This is an historical fact, and I need not express an opinion on it. If the hon the Leader of the Opposition is favourably disposed towards me again, he will agree with me on this score. [Interjections.] I see he is still a little dissatisfied with me, but I shall give him a chance. His mood will subside. As I have said, Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners have never all been united in one political party, except at the time of Union. But less than two years later they were divided.

In addition I have no objection to Afrikaners, when they belong to a church or to a cultural association, nevertheless retaining their own political opinions. Why should I object to that? What I do want to make clear this afternoon, however, is that Afrikaners in cultural organizations—while retaining their own political convictions; something which they are indeed fully entitled to do— do not have the right to exploit cultural and church organizations for party-political purposes. I do not think they have the right to do that. For years we were accused … [Interjections.] Just wait; I shall come to that in a moment. I am going to deal with that shortly because I want to take the Opposition to task a little. For years there were people, in circles outside the NP—and I am even prepared to mention names—who did not spare the church and the cultural organizations of the Afrikaner in the process of humiliation and disparagement which they adopted. This availed them nothing, however. The Afrikaner went ahead in this country in spite of it. There is only one element that can break the Afrikaner in this country, and that is the Afrikaner himself. It is when the Afrikaner, like a baboon shot in the stomach, pulls out his own intestines. We must guard against that. We must keep our cultural bodies—those things that promote our language and our art, that promote what is fine and good—for example the Voortrekker Movement and the FAK and other cultural organizations, out of our party-political quarrels. We must also keep our church out of our party-political quarrels. This is an entreaty I am making here today. When we begin to do this to one another, we have no future in this country, and we shall only have ourselves to blame for it. I am speaking to all Afrikaners today, because I am sometimes accused by some people who differ with me politically of having turned my back on my people. This is such a vile accusation that it is not worth while taking any notice of it. During the present session of Parliament some members in this House even took advantage of the fact that I had spoken English at Nkomati. This was done in an attempt to make a personal attack on me. What pettiness! [Interjections.] I was attacked here in Parliament for doing so. Surely hon members know this to be true. [Interjections.] That hon member must not pretend to be stupid now. [Interjections.]

Order!

I hope all Afrikaners will realize how serious the times in which we are living are. Since we realize this, and since we also perceive the dangers of our times, I also hope that we shall not underestimate the opportunities. Never before, as Afrikaner people, have we been confronted by such opportunities to make a contribution to ensure greater happiness for all people in South Africa.

Our country needs leadership now. That leadership is not vested in a single person. A Prime Minister comes and goes. A Prime Minister is there for a few years and is then gone. The leadership must emerge from our concerted actions, from our collective will and through the expulsion of mistrust from our midst. That is why I agree with these hon members when they advocate a different attitude in this sphere.

The hon member for Umlazi also referred to the question of kwaZulu and Natal. He is not here today, but I want to congratulate him on his speech.

The hon member for Sunnyside is dissatisfied with a speech I made in Tzaneen. Let me say that I am also dissatisfied. I have not seen those reports, nor have I heard the tape recording, but I have investigated the matter since his complaint. I compared the notes I had in my possession with the report of the speech, and I find that I omitted two important sentences, namely: The accusation was 12 years old without a select committee having been requested. That was the first sentence I did not use. Secondly: The select committee that was in fact requested, was in the form of a condemnation in advance. I did not use that sentence either. In this sense the hon member was therefore correct, and I beg his pardon.

Now that is a great leader.

The hon member for Bloemfontein East correctly pointed out the National Party’s record of service in our history, and after that the hon member for Germiston District followed with a condemnation of the constitution. She said that the 1 360 000 voters who voted, did not understand what they were voting for. Only she understood. The hon member may keep on thinking that if she likes. Sometimes it is blissful to live in such a dream world.

The hon member for Klip River emphasized the danger of terrorism. Let me assure him that I am in full agreement with him. The Western nations must mutually display a new attitude and be prepared to combat all forms of terrorism. The West, the Free World, is mutually too divided; there is too much political opportunism in the way terrorism is being dealt with. This leads to incorrect action; it leads to half-hearted action, and in the meanwhile international terrorism is strengthening its grip on the entire world. We do not understand one another properly in this connection. Consequently I agree with the hon member.

I come now to a matter that I wish to dwell on for a while this afternoon. The hon the Leader of the Opposition again raised the question of our relations with our Black peoples. On the occasion of the no-confidence debate earlier this year I briefly stated certain points of departure, which I do not wish to repeat here in full this afternoon, but merely wish to refer to briefly. I said that the basic tenets of the school of thought which I stood for had been ratified in the referendum. In contrast, the policy of the Opposition parties, the PFP and CP, had been decisively rejected in the referendum. I want to go further, however. After the referendum I availed myself of the opportunity of extending a hand of friendship to those who had lost. I did not boast of my success; I asked for their co-operation in a positive spirit, and I am doing so again this afternoon. In that speech during the discussion of the motion of no confidence I asked, inter alia, what the cornerstones were on which we based our policy. Firstly, I said that private enterprise and effective competition should be promoted in this country, and that balanced development should also take place in the undeveloped parts of the country. I also said that there should be co-operation between the public and private sectors. In terms of this policy we are attempting, with a population policy as reflected, inter alia, in the report of the President’s Council on this matter—it is a thorough piece of work—and that of the Economic Committee of the President’s Council, which produced an equally important piece of work, and by means of our policy of regional development and decentralization, to bring home the concepts we stand for in the economic sphere to the entire population of South Africa. That was why we established the Small Business Development Corporation. That is why we have some of these people on our Economic Advisory Council. That is why we go out of our way to make it possible for them, too, where it is in any way possible, to endorse these systems, in contrast to the dream and the great bluff of communism.

In the second place, I said that our ethnic policy was based on the idea of the recognition of the plural structure of the Republic of South Africa, and the rights of minorities. Whoever disregards that plural structure and the rights of minorities is playing with fire in this country. How does one wish to deal with this plural structure and minorities? One can only deal with it on the basis of political decentralization and devolution of power.

On this point we are not alone in the world when it comes to the decentralization of political power and the devolution of power. Just read modern books on the trends in the USA, read about what is happening in France, read about what is happening in Germany, read about what is happening in other Western European countries and about how there is a gradual move in the direction of the devolution of power and the decentralization of political power.

What is the name of the book?

The name of the book is “Ignorance” and the hon member wrote it. [Interjections.]

Order!

Secondly, there are the structures of deliberation on matters of common concern. In a country such as this there must be structures of deliberation on matters of common concern. Thirdly, there must be the rejection of a system of one man, one vote in a unitary or federal state, because if one accepts that, there is no hope for minorities in South Africa.

Fourthly, I stated that the preservation of Christian values and civilized norms and the rejection of the communism were prerequisites. Fifthly, there was the preservation of the freedom of our State and the recognition of the freedom of our neighbouring states.

In this way I, together with my Government, are seeking solutions for South Africa, and we do not have all the solutions at our disposal. To want to allege that, is to try to lead the people astray. Not one of us sitting in this Parliament, whether we are acting as individuals or conjointly, have the solution for tomorrow and the day after tomorrow in our hands. We are all of us, in one way or another, seekers after formulae and recipes and opportunities on the basis of which we can make a happy South Africa possible.

What has always been a guiding principle for me, is what is stated in the programme of principles of my own party, and I am proud of this:

†We expect of every member of the party to place the interests of the Republic of South Africa above those of any race or country or nation or above those of any other from which he originates.

*It is a wonderful objective which the party set itself years ago, but I am not saying that we have always complied with it. What person ever complies with all his ideals and objectives?

†This, in short, is my Government’s attitude as to our future actions. I believe that what has been said about politicians in general ought not to be applied to us, namely: “Why is it that political leaders never have the answers until they write their memoirs?”

*I am trying to avoid that. I have no intention of writing books to place my reminiscences on record. The mandate I have set myself is to seek opportunities to make a small contribution towards taking South Africa further along the road towards a destination where all its children can live happily.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition told me that I must not again tell him that I have appointed a Cabinet Committee. Of course I shall tell him again. I appointed a Cabinet Committee in which I have confidence. I have confidence in their motivation, in their competence, in their diligence and in their ability to negotiate with other people. I expect results from this committee, and at this stage I have no reason to believe that they will not produce results. The hon the Leader of the Opposition said, moreover that the Government was drawing the Black man closer as a worker, while we were rejecting him as a citizen. You know, Sir, it is nice to have a slogan.

Particularly if it is true.

I am speaking to the Leader of the Opposition. I shall speak to the lesser lights in a moment. The hon member must keep his light burning in the meanwhile, otherwise it may go out.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition said that we were rejecting the Blacks as citizens. But surely that is a false and superficial representation. Let me now put the following question to him: Would the PFP undo the independent TBVC countries if they were to come into power? If I have to make an inference from previous remarks that he made about one of them, it seems to me he does have such an intention. If, on the other hand, he says that he will not do so, surely it is not true to say that I am not dealing with them as citizens. Surely they were also citizens of South Africa. Surely we did not deprive anyone of their citizenship if it did not take place in terms of agreements.

Not with the citizens themselves.

The hon member cannot have it both ways. We are talking to one another like decent people now. I do not talk to scrags. I am talking to the decent people right opposite me. As decent people we tell one another that we dealt with these people in a way which made them equal to.

I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Opposition a second question: Would the PFP undo the self-governing national states if they were to come into power? Will the hon the Leader of the Opposition not give me an indication by nodding or shaking his head?

I shall reply to that.

If he does not wish to do so, then surely we also dealt with their citizens, admittedly not fully; but still we did so in the fight of decentralization and the devolution of power.

Thirdly: Would he dissolve their local authorities which they helped to establish by means of legislation? Would they undo the concept of local authorities with a higher status than that of municipalities? If not, the hon the Leader does not have the right to say that we are not dealing with them as citizens. They did not have these rights, and the NP Government did not deprive them of those rights. Black people did not have self-government, independent government or local government before the NP came into power. That was the result, the legacy of an empire which caused one catastrophe after another in Africa. I want to repeat: No citizenship was altered without agreement. Furthermore I want to say that all persons born in the Republic of South Africa are of course citizens of the country, whether they are Black, Brown or White. I have never made a secret of this. Do not tell the general public again that I have said we are one people, for then it is a lie.

It is lang Dawid de Villiers who said that.

What does Lang Dawid de Villiers have to do with this debate? Whether he is tall or short, what does he have to do with this debate? [Interjections.]

Order!

Let the hon member be, Sir. It is merely another one of his sudden impulses.

The difficult question of citizenship and political rights, together with the protection of the rights of minorities, can in my opinion be solved in a confederal context, while at the same time the principle of the devolution of power can be established. I think it can be done. In this connection I just want to refer in passing to the hon member Prof Olivier, historically a good and old friend of mine. The two of us came a long way together. Oh, well. Surely he is a clever man and ought therefore to know that there is a big difference between constellation and confederation. I have already explained here how I see these two concepts. The hon member must not talk about a constellation when he should be talking about a confederation.

I want to emphasize that a distinction must be drawn between proprietary rights and political rights. I hope the hon the Leader of the Opposition will not start a dispute with me about the matter, because one finds examples throughout the Western World of a distinction being drawn between proprietary rights and political rights. Not even in a country like Great Britain are these two things associated. Perhaps the hon the Leader has no faith in the Cabinet Committee, but I want to tell him that this committee is making progress, and all I want to ask him is to try not to disparage the Cabinet Committee as he tried to disparage the President’s Council. In regard to the President’s Council, he balked and refused to budge. If he has any proposals to make in this connection I ask him to submit them to the Cabinet Committee. But then he must also be prepared to appear before the Committee so that he can be examined. [Interjections.] Very well. I really do feel sorry for him. [Interjections.]

Order! The Cabinet Committee is not sitting now.

We, as a Government cannot be expected to do everything at the same time. This country must also be governed and administered. The Government has to deal with foreign matters, with security matters and must also struggle with economic problems with which we are burdened from extraneous sources and as a result of droughts. The Government cannot give attention to everything at the same time. The Black people, the Black population groups in South Africa, are in a far better position in comparison with other countries in Africa as regards health, education, housing, recreation, protection and nutrition, and it is time we stood up and presented our country to the outside world as it really is, and stopped presenting only the wretched side of South Africa like a lot of belly-achers.

In August 1982 I requested that renewed attention be given to interstate relations between the RSA and the TBVC states. The result was the 1982 summit meeting, and it was a great success. A multilateral interstate working group is monitoring progress on an on-going basis. Naturally the hon the Leader of the official Opposition is not interested in that. He just wants to get into the headlines. He does not believe in this hard work, day after day. The SA-TBVC area is divided into eight development regions. Six of these meet on an inter-state basis by means of regional liaison committees. Development initiatives are dealt with in a regional context as well as on multilateral bodies. Today the multilateral dispensation already consists of 42 bodies, supplemented by six regional bodies. In 1983 they held 72 meetings on matters of common concern, and significant progress has been made in the establishment of this multilateral dispensation, as I shall indicate.

I now wish to refer to only one example, because I do not have time to refer to all of them, and this example is the Development Bank. This bank is already firmly established in rented accommodation in Sandton and has a board of directors of which all of us are proud. In the meantime the Department of Community Development is looking for a suitable site for the permanent establishment of the bank, a site which, according to a resolution adopted by the Governments of the member states, should be close to where it is now. The establishment of the bank already numbers 198. Besides experienced staff from previous development institutions appointed by the RSA, such as the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Economic Development Corporation, the Bureau for Economic Research and Benso, the bank has succeeded in recruiting skilled staff from the private sector. Regular contact with all participating states is maintained on the highest level by the executive head and the senior management of the bank.

I want to thank Dr Simon Brand sincerely for having accepted this position. I did not think we could easily have found a better person than him. Under his guidance we can look forward to the future of this bank with great expectations. Since I have mentioned his name, I also want to thank him for all the years he acted as chairman of the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister. Whether he will be able to keep it up, is a matter I shall have to discuss with him later. However, I wish to thank him sincerely for what he has already done in bringing this bank into existence and I wish him every success with it in future.

This bank has already taken over the administration of 80 loan agreements to the value of R360 million, loans which previously were concluded in respect of development projects between the RSA, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the TBVC countries. In addition, the bank has already taken over the preparation and evaluation of 33 development projects with an estimated value of R600 million which are still under consideration.

Naturally, South Africa cannot maintain this bank on its own, and I hope that we shall deal with the bank in such a way that more and more outside parties in the Western world will also take an interest in the activities of the bank. In fact, one of the most prominent persons in the Western world told me in my office: “You are moving in the right direction; we are very interested in cooperating.” The same applies to the rest of Southern Africa. The hon the Leader of the Opposition should not make unsubstantiated statements, therefore. After all, this is a gigantic task which has to be undertaken and accomplished.

Meanwhile, we are also proceeding with the consolidation schemes, because we are keeping the promise made by the late General Hertzog and General Smuts that 7¼ million morgen of land would be purchased and added to the Black national states. Do you know how much progress we have made, sir? Only 80 000 ha remains to be purchased before the programme is completed. Can we not devote some attention to the things we are accomplishing in South Africa? Can we not be a little more positive? Why must we always be voicing complaints? For this reason I must seriously question and reject the statements made by the hon the Leader of the Opposition.

He raised another matter, namely the question of the State Security Council. The hon member for Tygervallei also referred to the activities of the National Intelligence Service, and I want to say a few words about these. However, I want to do so in a different context. I endorse the remarks made by the hon member for Tygervallei about the officials of this service, who do excellent work for the State. In saying this, I also want to thank all officials of the State for their contributions, which are sometimes made under difficult circumstances. They deserve our thanks.

†While some political observers optimistically believe that the era of the cold war is behind us, it remains a fact that there is still tension among the world’s superpowers, while on a local and regional level armed conflicts complicate the political scene. The Republic, being a medium power with limited resources, does not stand isolated from the world and its complexities. It must, in the midst of these and in trying circumstances, see to it that its interests are duly served and its safety and survival ensured. Where national interests, national security and national survival are at stake, it is of crucial importance that there should be national faith in and national support for these ideals and their achievement. In the dangerous and fast-developing world we five in, it is imperative that there should be accurate, timely and objective intelligence.

*The hon member for Tygervallei rightly pointed out yesterday that the communist world was actually far ahead of the Western world in this field. The countries of the communist world have built up their intelligence services almost 100% to serve the purpose for which they were established. The Western World is denigrating its intelligence services. This happened in America, and that country paid dearly for it. It also happened in Britain. It often happens in the Western World that the names of intelligence officers are bandied about in the media and that those people have to pay for it with their lives. However, this does not happen only in other countries. It has happened here in South Africa as well, where the name of an employee of one of our intelligence services was made known and he paid for it with his life. He was shot dead like a dog. These people work under stress and tension, tension in their families as well. I think that Parliament owes it to them to tell them that they have our unanimous support. We cannot expose their activities in public or in the public Press. There have been court cases in which justice has been done to them and in which judges have ruled that the media which had contravened the law should be put in their place. I am glad about that.

There is the closest co-operation between the National Intelligence Service, the Military Intelligence Service and the Security Police. They in turn co-operate with the Department of Foreign Affairs where necessary. In addition, a weekly meeting is held at which information is evaluated. No unevaluated information is ever made available to the Government. They sort things out among themselves and only then, when everything has been evaluated, is it made available to us. They do not try to tell the Government what it would like to hear. Our security and intelligence services tell the Government what it must hear. It is not always pleasant. I ask the country today to give its firm support to these services, their heads, the staff and their families. I personally meet them from time to time because I want them to feel that the Government supports them. I hope that I do so on behalf of the entire nation.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition asked me certain questions about the State Security Council. The Secretariat of the State Security Council is linked to the National Intelligence Service for administrative purposes, but by agreement it is a small organization in its own right which serves the State Security Council and which co-ordinates the various services so that they may co-operate on an equal footing in collecting and evaluating information. Certain publications have appeared dealing with the activities of the State Security Council. However, allow me to say first that the secretariat of the State Security Council is under the leadership of one of our most reliable officials, a person who with his balanced approach commands the respect of all who come into contact with him. I want to thank him for the way in which he and his staff perform their task.

It is said that the secretariat of the State Security Council is dominated by the Defence Force. Let us examine the facts. The Department of Foreign Affairs supplies 11% of the staff; the Prisons Service, 1%; the National Intelligence Service, 56%; the SA Security Police, 11%; the SA Railway Police, 5%; and the SA Defence Force, 16%. Where is the domination? Apparently someone had a dream one night; he began sucking his thumb and the next day he wrote about the domination which allegedly existed. Meanwhile, the whole idea of the State Security Council is to enable those Government institutions which are concerned with security to consult with one another in a co-ordinated manner. Then one Mr Rothberg—his name is quite appropriate—wrote an article in which he told the world how South Africa’s security system functioned. But what did he know about it? What he knew about it was based on hearsay. In my opinion, his aim was in the first place to sow dissension in a subtle way among the members of the Cabinet; but he did not succeed. In the second place, it was an attempt to portray the National Security Service of South Africa as an autocratic organization. However, the same kind of service exists in every other Western country. I cannot give my opinion of this Mr Rothberg, because I am unfortunately not acquainted with him, but hon members should look and üsten carefully, and they will see who the people are who try to create misgivings about our security services. One finds them in the company where they belong. They are definitely not on South Africa’s side.

I have now described the composition of the secretariat. In spite of this, the reaction is: “Oh no, the State Security Council meets and takes decisions, and then the Cabinet is confronted with these decisions.” This Par-üament unanimously passed the Act in terms of which the State Security Council was instituted, and this was done after all parties had sat on a joint committee. The hon member for Durban North and Sir De Villiers Graaff were among the members who co-operated to make the Act possible.

And just look at them now!

Was that hon member not in favour of that Act? Let him show his bravery now! [Interjections.] What is the composition of this council? It is composed as follows:

During my term of office I have increased the membership of this council, although my predecessor kept the council as it was in terms of this provision. I have expanded the council by appointing to it, as additional members, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the Minister of Co-operation and Development. [Interjections.] Just listen to that, Mr Chairman! I must honestly say that I am very tired of this kind of behaviour. I do not feel like replying to such inane and superficial remarks. One would have said that one was addressing a bunch of children! [Interjections.] Who else serves on this council? Parliament provided that the following officials should serve on it:

We regularly bring in people to advise us. What happens then? This group meets every 14 days, at fixed times. Its recommendations are submitted to the Cabinet in the form of minutes. The Cabinet takes decisions on them. The Cabinet also has the right to change them. After all, we know that in terms of our system, all matters are discussed by members of the Cabinet and that we do not vote. This is a body which advises the Cabinet and which co-ordinates matters with regard to the action that should be taken.

Now there is yet another man who has written about this. His name is Prof Geldenhuys. I have no quarrel with him; I do not know him either. I have never seen him, of course, and as far as I know he has never been near any of these meetings. What he knows about the subject, therefore, only he can say. He has written about these matters twice. In his latest book, The Diplomacy of Isolation, he writes as follows:

Note these words:

It was formalized five years ago. He goes on to write as follows:

Exactly the opposite of what he said in the first place. Now we are required to take notice of such people, and I have to waste my time in order to inform the hon the Leader of the Opposition and the public about these matters.

I want to make it clear that I am not prepared to sacrifice the security services of South Africa; not the Police nor the National Intelligence Service nor the Defence Force. Without them, after all, this Parliament would fall a victim to the forces of chaos. As long as I am Prime Minister, I shall stand by these institutions, I shall protect them and I shall defend them when they are attacked.

There is yet another matter which I should like to raise, Mr Chairman. This is another matter which gives rise to great difference of opinion among political parties, in discussions as well as in debate. It is one facet of our policy with regard to the Coloured population, namely the new idea of the establishment of a Coloured homeland in South Africa.

By way of introduction, I just want to say the following. The Black nations had historical territories around which their national states were able to grow. It was not necessary, therefore, to establish national states for the Black nations where none had existed before. Historically, they claimed certain areas of South Africa as their own. It is true that much was done under colonial rule to change this. However, there have always been historic territories around which Blacks have been able to develop their states, as well as the 7,25 million morgen of land, of course, which was to be added to their territory in terms of a solemn pledge by the White man. I have referred to this before. Then there are certain remaining areas, which have to be acquired with a view to relocation so that the consolidation may be more complete.

Just allow me to say at this stage that I have actually forgotten to deal with one matter, and I want to deal with it before I proceed. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens made a speech here last night in which he mentioned the question of Khayelitsha as one of the examples of people being removed. I just want to make a short statement in connection with the removal of persons.

The development of a residential area for Blacks at Khayelitsha is being presented in such an unfavourable light that the Government’s policy in respect of the development of Black communities in general is being called into question.

It is necessary to place the matter in perspective. Firstly, the objective is not the forcible removal and uprooting of people, but the organization and upliftment of communities in order to improve their circumstances of life. The fact that Black communities often live in deplorable circumstances is conveniently overlooked. Basic facilities such as water supplies, sanitary services and health services are lacking, and because of physical obstacles such as limited land and faulty location, adequate provision of these is not always possible. The results are unhygienic and unsafe slum conditions. In the interests of the communities themselves, this undesirable situation cannot be allowed to continue. This is a problem throughout Africa and it is also a problem in other parts of the world, including the mighty United States.

In the second place, development is not taking place haphazardly, but is being embarked upon with the aid of modern planning and organizational methods. Quite frequently, this leads to the decision that the development of new residential areas with all the necessary facilities is the only practical alternative.

Thirdly, the impression which is being created that the Government acts unilaterally is incorrect. All the parties involved are consulted, and all alternatives are properly considered before any final decisions are taken. The Black community concerned is also consulted in the matter.

In the fourth place, there is no question of summary and forcible resettlement. The development of new Black residential areas is a long-term project. In addition, it is done on a voluntary basis, and trouble only arises when malicious elements start interfering and misleading the people.

The Government’s declared objective is to improve the quality of life of all the inhabitants of the Republic. The provision of the necessary basic facilities such as acceptable residential areas is an extremely demanding task, because of the growing population and the tremendous increase in urbanization. It is not being made any easier by those who criticize and obstruct every endeavour of the Government.

Now I wish to address the hon member for Cape Town Gardens in a kindly way. This hon member is a young member in this Parliament and he should take some advice from me. He can keep his convictions, but he should also confine himself to the tasks which he has been elected to perform and he should not try to take over the work of the Department of Co-operation and Development. He should also smile now and then. [Interjections.] He should show some sense of humour and try to look a little friendlier. This would very definitely help to ensure more co-operation.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Prime Minister take a question?

Yes, certainly.

Will the hon the Prime Minister please indicate whether in his view the townships of Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu fall within the definition of slum conditions to which he has just referred?

I am coming to that.

*What happened in the Cape Peninsula? There was an increasing spread of squatter conditions in this area, which were not only a blot on the Cape Peninsula, but also posed a threat to the people who lived and still live in those squatter conditions. What is more, it poses a threat to the established communities of South Africa and the Peninsula. None of us can deny the existence of these conditions.

Then the question of land arose. Attempts were made, from a planning point of view, to find land in various parts of the Peninsula. The area of land does not increase, and as far as the process of urbanization is concerned, one cannot find suitable land simply by putting one’s finger down on the map. From a planning point of view, we struggled to find land where the Black population of the Cape Peninsula could be settled. Eventually I took the trouble myself of travelling through the area with colleagues of mine and with officials, looking for a way of out of our dilemma, because we could not settle the Black population of the Peninsula in Langa and Nyanga. That would have been impossible. This is sub-economic housing on a limited scale which cannot absorb the numbers. In the second place, there are people who have the right to live here in terms of section 10 of the urban areas legislation. We had to look for a place where a community could be built, therefore.

Eventually it was decided, having regard to all planning considerations, to choose Khayelitsha, and to prepare it by providing services, and to start developing the community when the services were there. This would at the same time provide the Black community with a residential area near the sea, and they also feel a need to be near the sea. We shall now proceed to develop that community in a systematic way. They will not be transferred overnight. They will not be forcibly removed to that area. There must be economic housing in Khayelitsha, there must be proper services, there must also be self-building schemes, and there must be sub-economic schemes in order to accommodate the Black communities of the Peninsula. This forms the basis of that project.

I want to make an appeal to the media. However, I know it will not serve any purpose, because there are people whom one can beg and implore to see reason, but they will persist in their attitudes. I appeal to sensible people, therefore: Give us a chance, we mean well by the Black communities in the Cape Peninsula, just as we mean well by the Black communities elsewhere in the country. Stop agitating every time people have to be removed.

This is not unique to South Africa. Allow me to relate a certain incident. When I was Minister of Housing, I visited housing schemes in Europe. I also paid a visit to the so-called “new towns” in Britain. There they showed me a big block of flats which had been built. It consisted of hundreds of flats, but inside the complex of flats there was a small house which had not been demolished. I asked them what it was, and they told me: Look, we removed the other people. It was difficult, but we removed them. However, this old lady refused to go, so we built all around her. By building all around her, they forced her to leave.

Surely every country in the world has housing problems of this nature. We know that where there are backward communities, they are inclined to cling to the places where they are living. Throughout my years in the service of the public, I have experienced the fact that people are reluctant to move. It is quite difficult enough for the department and its officials to accomplish this task; please help us by not agitating so much and not causing so much trouble. Come to the department for information and you will find it there.

I hope that all Black communities in the Peninsula—that is my reply to the hon member—will eventually be properly settled in such a community environment with all the facilities and other things that are necessary to make community life possible.

You have not answered my question.

Of course I have.

I wanted to know whether in your view the present communities of Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu fall within the slum conditions …

No, but it is essential, from a planning point of view, that these sub-economic groups …

They are not sub-economic.

Of course all houses in Nyanga and Langa are sub-economic.

All of them?

Yes, all of them. There is not a single private property there.

Have you been there recently?

Yes, I have been there and therefore know exactly what I am talking about.

*Allow me to tell the hon member that one cannot establish Black communities there at once. One has to establish them where one is able to provide proper schools, proper clinics and proper other facilities. They will not be removed tomorrow. They may be the last to be removed, but from a planning point of view, it is in the interests of the Peninsula and its Black inhabitants.

May I ask another question?

No. The hon member must first smile before I shall reply to a question by him. [Interjections.]

The hon member is smiling now.

All right. He can try me tomorrow, but he must keep on smiling.

*As far as the Black population is concerned, there were national states which could be expanded and to which populations could be removed in order to create bigger communities. Before I proceed with the rest of my argument, I should like to raise an important point. Between 1948 and 1 February 1983, the Government spent R8 489 million on the development of national states. Between 1936 and 31 March 1983, approximately R700 million was spent to make consolidation possible in terms of the 1936 undertaking. As I have said, we are now fast approaching the moment when this promise will have been carried out. It is a laborious process, it is a lengthy process and it is a process which calls for patience. Sometimes it also leads to privation and suffering for the Government as well as the people who are affected by it. However, we want to keep those promises. Now people come along— and they may have the best of intentions— and contrary to all policies of the past, contrary to all policies followed by one Prime Minister after another in South Africa, they want to establish a Coloured homeland. I do not even want to talk about the Indians, for when I have given the facts, we shall see how impossible an Indian homeland is. I asked my office to work out a few scenarios for me in co-operation with other State departments. They had to consult economists within and outside the Public Service. Secondly, they had to consult a number of academics. Thirdly they had to obtain information from the provincial administrations, and, fourthly, they had to obtain information from divisional councils and city councils. Finally, they had to work out the scenarios on the basis of such a state being established within 10 to 20 years. All this information has been processed and the four scenarios have been submitted to me.

Scenario 1 is in respect of the Cape Flats and includes the area to the south of the Bellville railway line up to Muizenberg; to the east up to Somerset Strand and the Stellenbosch Divisional Council area. The direct cost involved would be: Urban infrastructure, including housing, land, services, city centre—based on Mitchell’s Plain costs— R5 000 million; social substructure, including health and education facilities, R1 500 million; extensions to existing communications and electricity supply, R500 million; creation of additional jobs in industries, R10 500 million; agricultural development— how the existing agricultural development in this area could be taken any further, I do not know—R200 million; buying out of Whites, the Cape Divisional Council, Bellville and Kuils River, R3 000 million; indirect costs, such as removal incentives, R1 000 million; and administrative expenses and loss of efficiency, R1 000 million. This gives us a total of R22 800 million which will be required just to establish a homeland for Coloureds on the Cape Flats. Such a state would be hopelessly inefficient and unacceptable to Coloureds as well as Whites, and one could not sell it.

Scenario 2 deals with the area between Atlantis and Saldanha, in other words, the area from Mamré, Atlantis up to an area to the north of Wellington, to the west of the Berg River up to Velddrif, including Malmesbury, Moorreesburg, Vredenburg, Saldanha, Hopefield, Darling, Riebeek West and Riebeek-Kasteel. The direct cost involved here is as follows: urban infrastructure—based on Atlantis costs—R5 000 million; social substructure, including education and health facilities, R2 000 million; extensions to existing communications and electricity supply, R500 million; extensions to water supply, R200 million; creation of additional jobs in industries, R7 000 million; agricultural development, R500 million; buying out of Whites, R4 000 million; removal incentives, R1 000 million; and administrative costs, R1 000 million, amounting to a total of R21 200 million. Such a step would greatly disrupt the economy of the Western Cape and would have an unprecedented effect.

Scenario 3 involves Namaqualand, namely the area around Springbok, Okiep, Naba beep, Port Nolloth up to the Oranje River, including rural Coloured area such as Koma gas, Concordia, Steinkopf and the Richters-veld. Urban infrastructure around Springbok, R5 000 million; social substructure, R3 000 million; communications, R3 000 million; water supply, R1 000 million; job creation, R13 500; agricultural development, R1 000 million; buying out of Whites, R3 000 million; removal incentives, R2 000; and administrative costs, R2 000 million, adding up to a total of R33 500 million. Then we said: No, this scenario is not acceptable either. In any event, the people will not go there. Let us create a different homeland. Let us take the Western Cape in two parts …

What about George?

The hon member is welcome to drive through George, but not to spend the night there. [Interjections.] Then I said: Let us take the area from the Oranje River all the way down to the West Coast to Atlantis, as I described it a short while ago, and we combine those two scenarios and we add the Cape Flats as well. Even then not even half the Coloureds would be living in such a homeland. However, this will not be an argument, because it will be said that the Blacks do not all live in their own states either. I concede that. With regard to the idea of the Cape Flats plus the entire West Coast up to the Orange River— a long strip up the coast—including the Coloured rural areas, I get a grand total of R89 800 million.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Prime Minister whether that research which has been done for him can be made available to members of this House upon request.

I shall make these documents from which I have quoted available to the hon member. What he will do with them afterwards I cannot guarantee.

What I want to emphasize today is that our previous Prime Minister wrestled with this problem and probably investigated the matter in their own way too. That is why all our Prime Ministers and Governments since 1948 have rejected it. General Hertzog rejected it completely. General Hertzog held different views with regard to the Coloureds, different even from the views I hold. He said that the Coloureds belonged with the Whites. As for general Smuts, his standpoint was the same.

Now the CP wishes to impose these enormous financial burdens on the country after all these years. In a period in which we are having to contend with droughts, in a period in which we shall probably have to import maize to the value of R1 000 million, in a period in which our balance of trade can easily be upset, in a period in which our gold price is refusing to rise, in a period in which development projects are being called for, in a period in which we have to construct waterworks in South Africa to be able to feed the growing population by the end of the century, in a period in which there are still large-scale housing shortages, we have to impose these extra burdens on our country—and this in spite of the fact that the Coloured population does not want it and that the Whites do not want it either. The Whites rejected it by a 66% majority in a referendum last year.

When shall we come to our senses in this country? Why are we creating these artificial divisions about matters which we know to be impracticable? No, let us rather tackle the obvious things now and let us do so with confidence and not in a spirit of fear. Let us serve South Africa in the firm belief that we have a task to perform in South Africa, that the task we have to perform is that of providing leadership.

Mr Chairman, I do not blame hon members, particularly the more elderly ones, who are leaving the Chamber now after having listened to the hon the Prime Minister for some two hours. I forgive them. I know what they will miss but I think they have a need which has to be satisfied.

There are a few things I should like to react to immediately, and to some very briefly. Firstly, there is the issue of the apples. I must say to the hon the Prime Minister that I believe ordinary South Africans welcome the use of surplus fruit for that purpose. I think they welcome the attitude of the Deciduous Fruit Board. Whereas it is our desire obviously to feed our own people first there is little doubt that some people in the world are hungrier than others. I do not believe that anybody who objects to the gesture on that particular occasion is a humanitarian. I just do not see it. I hope that in the future there will be similar gestures to that of the Deciduous Fruit Board.

Secondly, I listened with some interest to the hon the Prime Minister in regard to what he said about dialogue with the Chief Minister of kwaZulu, Chief Gatsha Buthelezi. I must say—I say it not only to the hon the Prime Minister but also to Chief Buthelezi—I think dialogue is very important, especially in South Africa. People should talk to each other. We should not look for points not to talk to each other. I think we should rather look for points to talk to each other than to seek to find reasons why we should not indulge in dialogue. I say that very sincerely to both the hon the Prime Minister and Chief Buthelezi.

Thirdly, I was a little surprised at the question which the hon the Prime Minister directed to the hon the Leader of the Opposition as to whether he wanted to reverse the independence of the homelands. I know that the hon the Prime Minister has a copy of the PFP’s constitutional policy which contains a specific statement that it is not the intention of the PFP if it comes into power to reverse the process of independence because it is for those countries to decide for themselves what they would like to do. These are accomplished facts. If, however, they want to come into federation with us or want to have some form of co-operation with us, then we shall be quite happy to sit down to discuss the matter with them. That is a fact and the hon the Prime Minister has been well aware of it for some considerable time.

In regard to the question of the appointment of a select committee of this House on the oil question, I think the hon the Leader of the Opposition will deal with that in detail. I do, however, want to say just one word to the hon the Prime Minister. This House is the custodian of the public money, the custodian of taxpayers’ money. The recognized procedure when there is a question of doubt as to whether there has been a wastage—put it no higher—of public money is that a select committee shall investigate the matter. That is why I believe the hon the Prime Minister should seriously reconsider this matter and consider agreeing to the appointment of a select committee.

I also want to make a remark in regard to removals, to which the hon the Prime Minister paid some attention. There can be no objection to the development of new areas for occupation which are so attractive that people want to go and live there. Removals of whole communities, which are projected as being compulsory, and where the people have no choice, are, however, not in the interests of race relations in South Africa and do South Africa’s image in the world no good whatsoever. [Interjections] I believe the hon the Prime Minister should seriously consider that.

I also want to refer to another matter. I do not ignore anything that the hon the Prime Minister says because he does not say it lightly, particularly when he is in a good mood. I understand he was in a good mood last night. Whatever his mood was today—I do not think it was so bad today although he got a little cross occasionally—I am told that he was in a good mood last night. Because he does not say anything by accident I want to ask him to explain what he meant because I do not think that last night he was merely indulging in wooing the NRP. I do not think he was, because in my opinion they do not need any wooing. However, he said the following (Unrevised Hansard, 25 April 1984):

Bearing in mind the new constitution and the fact that the hon the Prime Minister, if he becomes the State President as everyone, I think, assumes, will have a Cabinet, such a Cabinet will include people from the Coloured Chamber who may well be opposed to the ideology of the NP but who will sit in the same Cabinet. What does the hon the Prime Minister actually have in mind? Will he tell us tomorrow what he means by “politieke organisasie” where people can participate and debate without having to give up their party affiliation? I do not believe that the hon the Prime Minister said this by accident; I think there must be some other reason for his saying it.

The other matter that I want to deal with—the hon the Prime Minister also touched upon it—is something about which I suffer tremendous frustration in this House. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is looking at me and he is also part of the source of my frustration. I tried to persuade this House that there should be a national economic policy and that we should try to deal with the problems that will be threatening us in the years ahead because of the population explosion. I tried to persuade the hon the Minister—I said this to the hon the Minister of Finance and this Minister agreed—that we cannot have constitutional change unless we have social and economic change at the same time. Then the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning got up during the Budget Debate and said that if he had time he would reply to me and deal with the matter I had raised. However, he spoke for half an hour but never found the time to reply to me. The hon the Minister of Finance, on the other hand, did not deal with it at all.

I undertake to give you all those replies when we discuss my Vote.

Very well, but I want the hon the Prime Minister to get involved in this. It does not matter how many accords we have; it does not matter how much peace we have with our neighbours, something which is highly desirable; it does not matter how much constitutional change we have in South Africa. Unless we actually deal with the social and economic problems of South Africa at the same time and solve those problems we are going to destroy part of the good work that is being done in other directions. The issue that we and the hon the Prime Minister have to face—and I ask for his intervention in this regard—is that there is a threat of poverty and unemployment with an ever-increasing population. There is a need to have a real economic policy which offers not only attainable solutions to the problem but is seen by the population as a whole as acceptable and is perceived by the less privileged as a viable alternative to the policy of communism and socialism and as a means of fulfilling their aspirations. It is that debate which the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning have run away from. I do not want the hon the Prime Minister to run away from it, and I do not think he will. I want him to get involved in it because this is an urgent need in South Africa. The reality which we have to face, whether we like it or not, is that an affluent First World ship cannot stay afloat indefinitely in a turbulent sea of Third World poverty and unemployment. However, that is what we are trying do do and we cannot do it; it is not possible to do it.

The hon the Prime Minister said we should compare the lot of Blacks in South Africa with that of Blacks in other parts of Africa. He is quite right but the reality is that the contrasts in South Africa are not made with other Third World countries; they are made within the country itself. The disparity in respect of wealth, income and living standards is a major destabilizing factor. There is a mass of figures, of research and of statistics on this. Everywhere people are debating and discussing poverty, unemployment and the problems of South Africa in that context but we do not find a proper policy lead in this regard from the Government and neither do we have the necessary debates in this House.

It is that appeal that I make to the hon the Prime Minister. Having dealt with the question of living in peace with our neighbours, having started a movement in respect of the consitutional needs of South Africa, I ask him to become involved in the real problem. That is the problem of getting jobs for all our people, the problem of filling the stomachs of the people of South Africa so that we can have economic and social stability too in the years that lie ahead.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Yeoville rebuked the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, and then he said that he really wanted the hon the Prime Minister to react specifically to what he had said. I therefore do not think that I need to react to that. I think the statements he made were addressed specifically to the hon the Prime Minister.

However, there is one statement the hon member made—in fact, it was on the basis of the reply of the hon the Prime Minister to the hon the Leader of the Opposition—with regard to the question of the independent states. He states the standpoint that the official Opposition accepts those states as realities until those states themselves decide otherwise. However, I want to use the arguments of the hon member for Yeoville to take the argument a little further with the hon the Leader of the Opposition. The problem that arose in the speech of the hon the Leader of the Opposition concerning this aspect lies in the fact that he referred to a newspaper report in which, inter alia, it is stated:

The hon the Leader of the Opposition went on to quote examples in order to illustrate what these costs are supposed to entail. He said that this was money that was being wasted. Inter alia, he said that it was ridiculous that someone like President Sebe of Ciskei should acquire an aircraft that costs a few million rands, and that he hardly ever used that aircraft, whilst his people were dying of hunger around him. He added that he thought that some form of control should be exercised over something of that nature.

The only inference one can make from that statement of the hon the Leader of the Opposition—apart from the fact that I find it difficult to understand how the aircraft of the president of Ciskei could have anything to do with influx control, of course—is simply that the hon the Leader of the Opposition feels that those states should be brought under control. How does one bring them under control without nullifying their independence? This was the inference one necessarily had to make from this statement in the speech of the hon the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that that was what the hon the Prime Minister was reacting to, and it was on that basis that he put the relevant questions.

I should also just like to come back to a certain aspect in the speech of the hon member for Germiston District. I understand that unfortunately she cannot be present this afternoon. However, I am sure that the hon member for Rissik is capable of listening to this argument of mine. He will probably tell her about it.

I should really like to thank the hon member for Germiston District for the fact that she paid me such a compliment—me and some of my hon colleagues—by once again bringing up this booklet, which we compiled at that time for the purposes of the referendum. It would appear that this booklet has had a tremendous impact, and that hon members of the CP are still concerned about it. I do not know precisely what she was trying to prove with the quotation she read out from the booklet. I have somewhat of a problem with that. However, I want to give her a little advice. That is that she would do well to go and learn to read again. In the unrevised copy of her Hansard, which I have here in my hand, the words she read out here in the House do not correspond with the words that appear in the booklet. She simply read the headings as though they constituted part of the text as well, and she even added her own words. She adapted it a little as she went along. Inter alia, she said that the constitution was presented to the voters and that they accepted it, although most of them did not know what they were voting for. We have heard these noises from the ranks of the CP before, but this is also a tremendous indictment of the CP itself and of the voters of South Africa by the CP. On the one hand, this booklet was freely available. Hon members of the CP could never prove that there was anything misleading in the booklet. The information in it was therefore at the disposal of the voters, and hon members of the CP were completely free to speak to the voters about it. Yet the voters are uninformed. They do not know what they voted for. That is what the hon member for Germiston District is telling us and what has been echoed by the other hon members of that party. This makes one wonder whether the hon members of the CP still believe in democracy if, after a campaign such as the one we had, they can come and tell us that the voters were not capable of judging, since that is in fact what they are trying to tell us.

May I please put a question?

I am sorry, but my time is a little limited, and I should like to come to another substantive point.

I want to deal with the concept “self-determination”, since this concept is used in many debates, as well as in the House itself. In fact, the hon member for Waterberg, amongst other things, used the concept “self-determination” again during this debate and elaborated on it. I should like to make three points with regard to the concept “self-determination”.

Firstly, I want to make the point that self determination is not absolute. Self-determination is not something that simply exists or does not exist. If one reads the unrevised Hansard of the hon the leader of the CP, he in fact implies this when he says:

He is, in fact, implying that self-determination is something which is relative, which is going to be present to a lesser or greater extent. It is not something that has to be present in absolute terms, or otherwise it is lacking.

This, in fact, brings me to the second point I wish to make in this regard, and that is that the opposite of self-determination is not subordination, or rather that it is not the only alternative to the word “self-determination”. On the one hand, the implication is that if one does not have self-determination, other people rule over one. If one’s self-determination is prejudiced, other people are going to rule over one. There is a third form, however, viz when self-determination is, in fact, present, not to the absolute extent to which it is usually assumed, but when it is still effectively present.

This brings me to the third point, and that is that the extent of self-determination can be increased by co-operation on the one hand, and it can be destroyed by conflict on the other. It is very clear how this aspect is present in any society. The constitution we have already accepted is, in fact, an instrument with which to settle the conflict that could arise among the three groups involved in this, and which will be able to replace that conflict with co-operation. Through it, the extent, the depth and the quality of those things that are being determined can be extended, increased and enhanced so that the ultimate wealth the people of South Africa will have will be much greater in extent than if we were to revert or lapse into conflict, in which we would find ourselves in the position described by Thomas Hobbs as “war by everyone against everyone”, and in regard to which he said that life under those circumstances would be “poor, nasty, brutish and short”. This is what we are trying to avoid, and with the co-operation that is going to be created by the new constitution, we can increase the extent of that self-determination. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I shall leave the hon member for Helderkruin to the hon member for Germiston District; she will deal with him effectively.

I am very grateful that the hon the Prime Minister touched on the extremely fruitful subject of a separate state for the Coloureds. I am also grateful that he said that he would place the information, which came to light as a result of that investigation, at our disposal, because on the basis of that we shall be able to have a very fruitful discussion. I want to give the hon the Prime Minister the assurance that we shall not say anything about it outside that we shall not say here in Parliament too.

With regard to the information the hon the Prime Minister has now furnished, I just want to say that it is a pity that not one of the four scenarios he mentioned was the correct one in terms of the CP’s policy. [Interjections.] As I interpret it, the amount mentioned by the hon the Prime Minister is an extremely inflated one. However, I want to say that even if one were to divide that amount by 20—because as the hon the Prime Minister said this would take 20 years—one would arrive at amounts not much higher than those set aside for the Coloured population in the Budget at this stage.

There is a second point I want to mention to the hon the Prime Minister. He did not tell us the cost of his policy. In the system the Government is going to embark upon, the Coloureds are also going to need infrastructure. They are also going to need job opportunities. They are going to need schools and houses. After all, those things are not going to cost nothing at all in the Government’s envisaged dispensation. [Interjections.]

I want to make a further statement. Separate development and a state for a people are not more expensive than integration. We learnt this with the Black states. It is not more expensive to build a house in Bophuthatswana than in Soweto. It is not more expensive to supply water in Bophuthatswana than in Soweto; on the contrary, the very opposite is true, because providing the Wit watersrand with water from the Free State is far more expensive than supplying water to them where they are.

In addition, the figures mentioned by the hon the Prime Minister do not take the amounts which are to come from the Coloured population into account. I want to tell the hon the Prime Minister that the creation of a homeland is, in fact, the establishment of an ethos to inspire the people themselves to contribute more to their own prosperity and the building up of their own fatherland. The hon the Prime Minister did not take any of those things into account. For that reason we should very much like to discuss this matter further with the hon the Prime Minister.

There are two further matters I should like to broach. The hon the Prime Minister said that historically the Black people have had their own land. I want to ask him whether the land the Coloureds obtained yesterday, the day before yesterday, last year and 10 or 20 years ago is not history today. Today it is, after all, historically their land. I want to mention another fact of history, and it is very painful for me to do so. Historically the Whites have had a fatherland over which they had alone authority. It is essential for the Whites of South Africa— a need for them—to have their own father-land, and we do not begrudge this to other people. That is why all the land the hon the Prime Minister referred to was purchased, and we are prepared to do this specifically in order to have our own fatherland. As a result of the actions of the hon the Prime Minister, by the end of this year the White man is going to be in the position of no longer having his own fatherland. This is also a fact of history.

We would have joined the chorus of those hon members who praised the hon the Prime Minister if he had taken the initiative, as he did in the past, of saying that in order to ensure a White fatherland for the Whites, South Africa created states that did not exist before. It created those states and established them. If the hon the Prime Minister had done that, we would have considered him a success, a man of stature, but we do not consider him a man of stature when he accepts the policy of the PFP and the NRP. We do not think this is a matter of resourcefulness; we think it is the road to capitulation. If the Government wants to strive to bring about peace with its neighbouring states, and peace in general, this is the right thing to do, particularly if it is a real, bold move towards peace without any semblance of falsity. I think that if the non-aggression pact now signed with Mozambique were to fail, South Africa would probably be able to survive, provided we bore in mind that the possibility existed that it might fail and provided we bore in mind the approach and the aims and methods of the communists who are at the root of the troubles in Southern Africa. We have to remember that the communists are not dead; they are still active and have not given up yet. A person who is an expert in communism, not only academically speaking, but also from personal experience, having had to leave his own fatherland because it was taken over by the communists, said the following to a colleague of mine: “For the communists war is war; negotiation is war and peace is war.” If we were to remember this, were to bear it in mind and were to prepare ourselves for it, South Africa would probably be able to survive if such a non-aggression pact were to fail.

I want to tell the hon the Prime Minister, however, that I am utterly convinced that there is one failure South Africa cannot afford under any circumstances, and that is a failure in South West Africa. There are two reasons why South West Africa is different to any of these other states. In the first place, since 1919 South West Africa has been administered by South Africa, in terms of a mandate, as an integral part of South Africa. In the second place, our children’s nieces and nephews live in South West Africa. Our flesh and blood live there and the most Afrikaans part of the population live in South West Africa. That is why I say this area is different I want to tell the hon the Prime Minister that in 1975 the RSA was secretly in Angola with its defence force. I was privileged to visit Ruacana and Calueque along with other members of Parliament during the second half of 1975. While we were there we did not realize that a war was being waged and that South Africa was waging that war successfully. It took place in secret, and as a result of the success South Africa achieved, the Organization for African Unity voted on the issue on 19 January 1976, and the vote was 22:22, which could be interpreted as favourable to South Africa. This has never happened since. It happened because they thought South Africa was on the road to victory. Then the Americans left us in the lurch and the RSA withdraw its forces. President Kaunda then said that it was a myth to believe that South Africa was strong. I am quite convinced that the 1976 riots resulted from this. An important cause of the 1976 riots was the withdrawal from Angola. Now I want to tell the hon the Prime Minister that if South Africa were to withdraw from South West Africa and Swapo’s flag were to start flying there, this would unleash emotions in this country that cannot be gauged in advance. South Africa cannot afford this under any circumstances. Now we hear that there is talk of South Africa withdrawing from South West Africa because of it being too expensive or too this or too that. An election, involving all the people in South West Africa and resulting in a single government, as is envisaged, can have but one of two results. The first is that Swapo would win, with the disastrous consequences this implies. The second is that the internal parties would win, and this could not work either because it has already been tested and has failed in the National Assembly and the Council of Ministers. In other words, the Government has allowed itself to be driven into a corner where it has to choose between two alternatives, neither one of which can work. In the process two sets of promises have been made and expectations created, one to the peoples who believe in the right to self-determination, a promise made by the Government, and the other to the others who believe in the right to self-determination in a unitary community. For that reason I want to ask the hon the Prime Minister to take the initiative now and to accommodate both these ideas in terms of the position in which the Government has allowed itself to be placed, ie by telling those peoples who believe in self-determination that they are being given the chance to decide and if they decide to do this, they will be allowed to do so. The peoples who believe in amalgamation, or whatever, in a unitary state, or within a unitary community, must be allowed to have this. Today we know that the Whites in South West Africa do not want to be part of a unitary community. In the second place we know that Swapo does not enjoy any support among them; in other words, any result of such an election would not reflect the will of the majority of the Whites. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Lichtenburg tried to get off lightly by alleging that the scenarios to which the hon the Prime Minister referred represented inflated figures and that none of them were scenarios of their choice. Since the CP began with its idea of a Coloured homeland, we on this side of the House have battled to find out what, in actual fact, the CP scenario was. We on this side of the House would like to be responsible enough to tell our people what the CP scenario for a Coloured homeland at the southern tip of Africa is.

Today there is probably not a right-minded person in South Africa who does not agree with what Jacques Guilleme Brulon said recently in an editorial in the French newspaper Le Figaro. His central idea was that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. Under the headline “Pretoria’s hour” he wrote that year after year, in spite of international scorn (“hoon”)—and I want to add in spite of Jan Hoon and his people too—South Africa has succeeded, with determination, in gradually restoring stability to the southern tip of a continent which seemed about to be swallowed up in the outer darkness of Marxist-Leninism. He went on to say that South Africa’s determined endeavours have borne fruit surprisingly quickly. The country, which only yesterday was still surrounded and beleaguered by an impressive red tide, today finds itself in a position where, even if it cannot lay down conditions, can at least invite its opponents to negotiate. He also said that at a time when Pretoria had singie-handedly achieved two major successes against Marxist-Leninism to the east and to the west of its territory, it would be foolish for us to side with his and our enemies. Even more than the deployment of Cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe, the two negotiation initiatives launched by Pretoria would be a victory for the West as a whole if concrete results were to follow. He went on to say that in the process one had to give South Africa a chance to implement its initiatives. Here we have the truth in the words of a Frenchman. After so many years of effort, of fighting and wrestling with the complicated constitutional problems of our plural society and all the international complications this has caused, there is a faint light on the horizon, hope in the hearts of our friends abroad, in the hearts of our African neighbours and in the hearts of members of the PFP, for otherwise their leader would not have paid tribute to the hon the Prime Minister for what he had done in this connection. There is also hope in the hearts of members of the NRP and all the other people in South Africa who would like to see peaceful solutions here. This is like the first rains on a well-prepared wheat-field, the first hope of a good harvest, a harvest that belongs to those people who prepared the ground: Our leaders of the past and our present-day leader, the hon P W Botha, and their supporters who made it possible for them to take these initiatives.

Today we are picking the fruits of this and are proud of our achievements. But, unfortunately, in a democratic set-up there are also those unreasonable people who are not part of the solution of the problem, but who are part of the problem itself, people who are only interested in themselves and their own interests and care little about the interests of others. In Rapport of 22 May 1983 we read:

Then we read that Dr Treurnicht concluded his Second Reading speech on the constitution as follows (Hansard, 16 May 1983, column 7096):

He concluded with a verse from the “Lied van Jong Suid-Afrika". In this way he tried, in regards to the ideals of the Afrikaner people which stands firm, to convert the symbol of peace in South Africa into one of strife, strife, strife. The Afrikaner is being forced to struggle, to fight, for the rights we are supposedly being denied.

What is this struggle? Let us consider it for a moment. In Beeld of 9 March 1981 we read:

This was Dr Treurnicht’s statement in a speech in 1981. He also said the following, amongst other things:

I quote further:

Now he has a conflict. Unfortunately I do not have the time to quote what he said in connection with the dilemma in which he finds himself specifically because he has changed his plan in regard to the homeland question about which the CP is making such a fuss at the moment. Do you know what he said, Sir? He said that he felt like a man who comes face to face with a lion and who, under the circumstances, is looking for a tree. If they were to tell him “there is no tree”, his reply would be “but there has to be a tree”. This is his conflict. He is looking for trees. He is looking for a tree to get him out of his dilemma. I should also like to point out how expensive those trees are that he wants to plant. The hon the Prime Minister also pointed that out to him, even if he thinks the figures are inflated. He is looking for an extremely expensive, impractical and impossible tree to climb into because he is in difficulties. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I trust the hon member for Swellendam will excuse me if I do not follow his track but I have another row to hoe. [Interjections.]

As the first speaker in these benches following the hon the Prime Minister I should like to thank him for the kind words which he expressed about our leader and our party in regard to the assistance which we gave in the referendum. We are appreciative of these few words. We have had a few brickbats from other people, and I rather suspect that possibly some of the backlash of that was in fact in the Pinetown by-election. We had a few knocks from our own people because of our close co-operation with the NP at that particular time. However, we are not unduly worried about a few knocks. After all is said and done, the old UP and the NRP have become somewhat inured to knocks. We have had a lot over the years.

And you get smaller and smaller.

As we get smaller and smaller we get tougher and tougher. [Interjections.] The point I should like to make is that we of the NRP are not ambitious politicians. We like to think of ourselves as honest South Africans who look to South Africa’s interests first, not to the interests of our party and certainly not to our own individual interests. Therefore we again can support the hon the Prime Minister when he suggests that the moderates should have a unity of purpose. We agree with that. Whenever there is necessity for this unity of purpose then the NRP, if it believes in what is being put forward, will support it. If it does not believe in it, of course then it will obviously oppose it. That also does not necessarily mean that we concede the point that anybody might make that the NRP are “bywoners” of the NP, or yet that we are ready to join them, as the Press so frequently keep saying.

I should like to add my comments to those of the hon member for Umhlanga and the hon member for Klip River in respect of the attitude of the pusillanimous British about the ANC and the providing of a home for this body. As all in the House know, I am British born, British educated and I fought for the British for seven years. I can assure hon members that I cringe in shame sometimes at what the British do. The double standards that they apply in respect of the ANC frankly horrify me. I sometimes wonder where are the guts, where is the spirit of Dunkirk, where is the spirit that fought the Battle of Britain and took them from the bottom to victory. They just seem to have lost it. However, I do not know whether that is so, because recently in the Falklands battle they did very well. There is spirit among the people. Possibly it is some of the politicians who have no guts. That may be the case. I get a little perturbed because I feel that if a country such as Britain does not have the sort of morality which is necessary to keep this world on the straight and narrow then we are in a sorry plight.

There is something else that I find really quite amazing. This country, possibly more than most, is the one who should appeal to the sentiment, if nothing else, of the British people. There are more than 1½ million, nearly 2 million people of British descent living in this country. Do they mean nothing to the politicians in Britain? I would hope that my attitude as an ex-Britisher and very much a South African will go back to Britain and that they will know what ex-Britishers or South African people think of their attitude.

I should like to address the hon the Prime Minister on one aspect of his Vote and that is the President’s Council. The present President’s Council’s life is coming to an end and I should like to take this opportunity of saying that I think they have done an excellent job and have served a magnificently useful purpose. I say that because they have handled a number of quite intractable problems and have come forward with some very reasonable answers. Furthermore, I believe they have achieved this success because they have had people of different political persuasions, and from different racial groups sitting together as equals. This is an important aspect, I believe. They sat together and they were given a problem I am sure that in many instances they were diametrically opposed in their attitudes or opinions when they started but, because they sat together as equals, trying to thrash out problems and because they felt that they were being constructively used, they achieved good results.

I make quite a considerable issue of this, Mr Chairman, because I believe that the very fact of having had such success with the President’s Council has assisted in giving credibility to the new constitutional dispensation that is to come into being in September. People have seen that the heavens do not fall when Coloured, Indian and White people try to thrash out their problems and resolve them together. As a consequence, credibility has been given to this new constitution.

However, we in this party do not believe that we have come to the end of the line constitutionally. We believe that this new constitution will give us time to resolve further problems, and I think the hon the Prime Minister is as appreciative of the fact that there are further problems as anybody else, possibly more so than most. The particular problem to which I am referring is the question of our Black population, particularly with reference to the non-homeland Blacks. Although the hon the Prime Minister has made a considerable issue of the question of the Cabinet Committee that is going into this, I feel that no matter how generous and accommodating a plan and proposal they come forward with, it will not be acceptable to the Black people; for one reason only, and that is that they will feel that they themselves have not sat around as equals, participating and making decisions. This is the problem and this is why I feel that although one cannot doubt the bona fides and the good intentions behind this, from my own experience in having to work with Coloured and Indian people in Natal, we found that no matter what we did, if they were not part of that decision, knew the background to that decision, knew the difficulties, they would not accept what we came forward with. This is why I believe that whether it be done under the aegis of the President’s Council, whether the Cabinet Committee be enlarged or whether another body is formed, it is going to be vitally important to give what decisions are made credibility by ensuring that all who are gong to be affected by those decisions have an opportunity of making their presentations clearly to all concerned. It makes quite a difference when people know the background to one’s problems. Very often people do not understand that one cannot give them what they want; that it would destroy the whole process and that they would make no progress at all. Had they, however, been part and parcel of the whole process of arguing the matter they would understand and they would co-operate. Then one would probably be able to find an acceptable solution.

Mr Chairman, I should like to respond to two matters to which the hon member for Umbilo referred. Firstly, I think it definitely takes something for a man to say what the hon member for Umbilo, as a British-born citizen, said here. I think it really takes something for him to have referred, as he did here, to Britain and its attitude towards the ANC. I therefore think that we cannot but express our appreciation for the ideas the hon member raised here and for the attitude he adopted. We can certainly agree with the hon member about that. I think it most definitely also confirms his own feeling of patriotism for South Africa. We thank him very sincerely for it.

Secondly, I want to refer to his approach to the problem of the so-called urban Blacks and the work being done in regard to them by the Cabinet Committee. It is certainly quite clear—and this has been said repeatedly—that this Cabinet Committee, as the hon the Prime Minister, in fact, reconfirmed this afternoon, also consults with both the Black leaders of the national states and the urban Black leaders in regard to the Cabinet Committee’s terms Of reference. It is therefore not an in-group discussion, without regard to the inputs of Black leaders about this specific subject. And when all is said and done it is not, after all, the end of the discussion either. I therefore think that in this regard the hon member is articulating unnecessary fears about the handling of the specific matter by the relevant Cabinet Committee.

I should like to deal with a subject which, I think, relates to a matter to which repeated reference has been made in this debate today. It relates to the overall administration effort of the Government. I think one can view the endorsement of the effort in the light of the acclamation accorded it by the hon the Leader of the Opposition. It is also discernible in the hon member for Durban Point’s reaction yesterday, and in the reaction of other hon members opposite. It attests to the acknowledgment of one thing, and that is the efficient administration of South Africa by the present Government, and more specifically by the hon the Prime Minister, and under his leadership.

In this respect, I think, there is one thing we must take particular note of. Extensive mention has been made—in fact, critical and negative references—of the concept of the total onslaught, particularly from within the ranks of the official Opposition during the past year. They frequently referred almost jokingly to the concept of the total onslaught. Even quite recently, too. The hon member for Rissik is giving me such a funny look, Mr Chairman. He himself, however, has made negative remarks about the total onslaught.

Rather tell us what you think of Prof Geldenhuys. He is, after all, one of your friends.

He is not one of my supporters. Nor is he a supporter of this side of the House either. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, recently, too, the following question has frequently been asked: Now that the peace initiatives are being implemented, what has become of the total onslaught? The very things that are happening confirm, I think, the fact that on the basis of the total onslaught the realization has taken hold that there has to be a total strategy in South Africa in order to ward off that total onslaught. What is therefore materializing before our eyes at this stage are specifically the results of this total strategy, furnishing proof of the fact that the Government was aware in advance of the fact that the total onslaught had assumed such proportions that it was no longer directed at one specific aspect of the national economy, but at the national economy as a whole. For that reason the Government developed a strategy—an on-going development—in an effort to obtain a final solution for the total onslaught. As I have previously said, we are already picking the fruits of that effort. We have witnessed that in recent months. One finds it gratifying to note, for example, the extent of the co-ordination between the military and diplomatic offensives in the overall peace effort in Southern Africa. For us this is a model of good administration. It stands revealed as a phenomenal fact that we cannot argue away.

This afternoon we again saw, here in the House, in what an efficient way administration was given substance in the hon the Prime Minister’s speech. The mere orderly progression of the hon the Prime Minister’s speech must surely have left an indelible impression on each and every hon member of this House. Not only did it elicit my admiration, but it also gave me a feeling of security to know how this country was being administered in the present climate.

There are also many other examples in this connection. I have spoken about the present peace initiatives and about the success achieved in this connection. It is often said that there has to be some conflict between the diplomatic and military elements. The point I want to make, however, is that there had to be co-ordination between these two elements to ensure that the peace initiatives could be launched. I think that is proof of the specific existence of that co-ordination.

One can, however, go back further, and I should like to make six points in confirmation of the fact that there is judicious and systematic administration in South Africa today.

Firstly, there is confirmation of the build-up of a systematic, expert and judicious military capability for South Africa. It specifically came into being under this hon Prime Minister and has been the order of the day for a period of a decade or so now. It has enabled us to establish a military capability that serves as an essential element in the total strategy.

Secondly, there is the establishment of a co-ordinated security administration system. So often negative comments are made by the other side of the House about this security administration system. I think that each of us should ask himself: In the times in which we are living at present, what would we have done if there had not been the efficient security administration system we have today? What would the position have been, for example, if there had not been this essential co-ordination between the various elements of the security constellation in the State Security Council? I, think we can all say with certainty that a decade or two ago we would perhaps have been able to get by without it, but that in the times we are living in today we cannot get by without an effective security administration system. What I am saying is that this has specifically been developed over the past two years, since 1978.

Thirdly, as a further example of the total strategy there has been the effort made to obtain the co-operation of the private sector. Several hon members have previously referred to this in the debate. There was the Carlton Conference, the Good Hope Conference and other occasions of this nature. One specific beneficial result that has already manifested itself, is the successful co-operation between the private sector and the Government sector in regional development. What does a man like Mr Raymond Parsons, the executive director of Assocom, have to say? With reference to economic regional development he had the following to say in an article last Sunday:

That is confirmation of the success already achieved in this sphere.

Fourthly, there is the development of multilateral co-operation, the establishment of the Development Bank and, extremely important, in the past year the formation of the substructure for a confederal set-up. I do not want to elaborate further on that, because a great deal has already been said about it.

Fifthly, there is the establishment of the Cabinet Committee to specifically investigate the position of the urban Blacks.

Sixthly, there is the development of the new constitutional model. Surely this was not something that materialized out of thin air. Specifically as a result of efficient administration this was eventually endorsed by an Act of Parliament. It was also tested and endorsed by the people in a referendum. In what more democratic way could we have obtained confirmation for the implementation of the new constitutional model than specifically the way in which it was done? I am asking any hon member to tell me in what more democratic way in which we could have implemented this new dispensation than specifically the way we did do so?

What I am saying is that all this is confirmation of a systematic approach in regard to the handling of the unsolved problems of South Africa. I think that if a monument were ever erected to portray the present era under the leadership of the present Prime Minister, it would have to represent the phenomenal effort to address and try to solve the problems of South Africa, regardless of whether, in the end, we win or lose, or whether we survive in this country or not.

Mr Chairman, in following up on what the hon member for Johannesburg West said, I should like to state that in principle we can find no fault with the essential emphasis on a total strategy having to be designed to meet the onslaughts against South Africa. What we are indeed opposed to, however, is the idea of a total onslaught against South Africa being misused to smother internal political debate and to deny us the right to disagree with the Government on the domestic front, it being said that it would lead to confrontation if we did disagree with the Government.

In response to what the hon member for Swellendam said, I should also like to say that he is correct: We are irrevocably committed to the struggle. That is nothing new. There is nothing strange in that. To tell the truth, those were current expressions in the NP’s vocabulary when it was a small minority party in South Africa’s politics, when it had one representative in the Transvaal, then had 19 in Parliament and later 43. So the hon member need find no fault with the idea of a struggle.

I should like to express my appreciation for the fact that the hon the Prime Minister responded to certain points I raised. To some extent for his own amusement he did refer to the discussion with Mr Jaap Marais, just barely intimating that I had said a few things here for Mr Jaap Marais to hear. Of course he got to hear about it. It was the intention that it should reach him. It was also addressed to the hon the Prime Minister, and he was kind enough to respond to it. Other people are also reacting to it. One cannot find fault with that.

I want to tell the hon the Prime Minister that when we were placed in the position of having been invited, by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to attend the Nkomati meeting, we had to assess how our presence there would be interpreted. We found it necessary to issue a statement in that connection, and we issued the statement before there were any discussions or any intention to hold discussions with the HNP. One of the points we mentioned in the statement was:

I do not think anyone has any fault to find with that.

No. I did, after all, say that you agreed.

Thank you very much. So much for the reference to Mr Jaap Marais.

It would appear that the governing party was slightly bothered by the idea of our now being engaged in discussions with the HNP, because we discern a certain amount of fear, in the governing party, about the possibility of agreement being reached with the HNP. What are the facts? Hon members on the Government side know the facts too. They also have certain figures. They know that in nine by-elections in the Free State and the Transvaal, the CP drew an average of 4 090 votes, as against an average of 4 900 for the NP. This gives an average difference of approximately 900. If one has a majority of only 900 in a constituency in South Africa, one knows that it is a marginal constituency. There is also another truth that hon members are aware of and that is that in the six by-elections in which the HNP has participated, the HNP drew approximately 10 700 votes. If one were to add 10 700 votes to the number of votes obtained by the CP, in the nine constituencies contested by the two parties, we drew an average of 5 277 votes. This means an average of 331 votes more than the NP obtained in the nine by-elections. I can therefore understand hon members feeling a little anxious, because we are fighting to win. We are fighting to win in Potgietersrus and we are going to see what we can do in Rosettenville.

The hon the Prime Minister took some delight in certain signatures, but I do not think that he will take the question of signatures too far. His signature—and let me say at once that I do not think that his signature was ever forged …

I was on the point of charging your little publication with fraud, but then the whole thing went bankrupt.

There was no forging of his signature; it was just a question of his not being very happy about where the signature appeared. His signature appeared in a book that the leaders of the NP publicized. There was the erstwhile Prime Minister, Mr B J Schoeman, the present Prime Minister, Mr M C van Rensburg and Mr Willie Maree all of whom endorsed the publicizing of that book with their own signatures. The book was entitled And now, the future.

May I ask you a question?

Just let me complete my argument. We accept the hon the Prime Minister’s statement that he did not place his signature squarely under Mr M C Botha’s article, but neither did I place my signature squarely under each and every point … [Interjections.] To tell the truth, it was the hon the Prime Minister who said, last year, that I had not drawn up that document. He said in the House that I had not drawn it up. If one endorses the publicizing of a book with one’s own signature and does so without any reservations, one is telling the world that the book should be read, that it is worthy oi being read and that it is the standpoint of the NP. In that book mention is made of separate homeland areas for the various peoples, with the Coloureds being considered a people.

If the hon the Prime Minister wants to talk about signatures, let me go further. His signature is in the book. The book talks about “die moontlikheid om die Kleurlinge en die Indiërs, elk met uiteenliggende gebiede …”. Mention is made of “uiteenliggende gebiede”, and not these pseudo-scenarios that the hon the Prime Minister dished up here. Mention is made of “uiteenliggende gebiede”, as are all the NP’s homelands that have been made into self-governing states by the NP. That idea is endorsed in this book and has been blazoned abroad in the name of the NP. It contains the hon the Prime Minister’s genuine signature. The hon the Prime Minister refers to pronouncements in the past…

What does Paul Kruger say?

We do not need to quote Paul Kruger. We need only quote the hon the Prime Minister. The hon member for Kroonstad would do well to go and conduct a further debate with the hon member for Jeppe in Kroonstad.

On occasion the hon the Prime Minister warned against the United party’s pernicious policy that wanted to set South Africa on a course of internal collision and disruption, with the White sovereign Parliament eventually being nudged out of the position it had hitherto occupied. With his leadership in this country, and with legislation pushed through in Parliament with more than a two-thirds majority, the hon the Prime Minister has done exactly what he accused the United Party of. The sovereign White Parliament has been shoved off its podium. Why do hon members make such a fuss about a Coloured homeland? We know that they did not regard it as practical politics, and for the NP it is impossible, of course, but the hon the Prime Minister must go and read what he said on 17 May 1961 (Hansard, Volume 108, col 6583) when he was still Deputy Minister of the Interior. At the time he did not find Dr Verwoerd’s idea about a state within a state at all strange. He did add, however— and I give him credit for that—that it was not necessarily the party’s policy, but he also said:

Now we must make the sacrifices, not to prevent integration, but to have it implemented in the highest political body in the country. The NP has taken away the White man’s government and made it a multi-racial Government. A multi-racial Government means political integration. It means signing away the White man’s right to self-determination.

Mr Chairman, a while ago I dealt leniently with the hon member for Waterberg. However, he is the last person to speak of signatures. [Interjections.]

Order! I have given the hon the Prime Minister the floor and nobody else. I call upon hon members to show the hon the Prime Minister the necessary respect and to afford him the opportunity to reply to what the hon member for Waterberg had to say.

If, as the hon member professes, he knows his book, he will know that Mr M C Botha, who wrote the article concerned, stated explicitly that he did not have the Coloureds in mind when he wrote that article.

It is in black and white.

It is in black and white that he made that statement. Why does the hon member keep silent about that? After all, he is the sanctimonious champion of the truth.

The truth is written in the book.

I am speaking now, and I maintain that the hon member told a half-truth. Secondly, the hon member worked on this system along with us up to the time when he got cold feet and made a volte-face after he had subscribed to the programme of principles, after he had subscribed to the election manifesto of 1981, after he had subscribed to the twelve-point plan and after he had gone a long way with us in the Cabinet. Subsequent to that he got cold feet and did not want to bear the responsibility along with us. [Interjections.]

Thirdly, there is no question of the White man’s right to self-determination being surrendered at this juncture. It is written into the new constitution that there are certain affairs which are reserved for this White House, in which the hon member has his seat. If the hon member feels so strongly about these affairs, why is he participating in this system? [Interjections.]

Fourthly, I put the hon member to the test before the Transvaal executive and he lost. I also put him to the test before the caucus of the party and there, too, he lost. I went on to put him to the test in the referendum and he lost. He is not the man he professes to be, and then the hon member shouts at me across the floor of this House. He is a destructive person, a sly person (“jakkals”) and a wily person (“Tweegatjakkals”). [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order, may I ask you for your guidance on the admissibility of the terminology of the hon the Prime Minister of South Africa?

Order! It has been ruled on various occasions that “tweegatjakkals” is permissible. However, the hon the Prime Minister must withdraw the word “jakkals”.

In that case I call it double talking and I withdraw the word “jakkals”.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Waterberg has just given us a very good illustration of the questionable politics he and the members of his party have been conducting in this House for the last two years.

There is one particular problem we have with the hon member for Waterberg. He originally left the National Party not because of his complaint that the hon the Prime Minister and this party were ostensibly on a so called road of integration but because he refused to support a motion of confidence in the supreme leader of this party. Since then he, together with the members of his party, has systematically been back-pedalling and trying to find excuses for why they are sitting where they are sitting today. Firstly they made a terrible fuss about power-sharing, and when they were no longer able to wave the flag of power-sharing, they said that we were leading South Africa on a road of integration.

You are singing your swan song in Ermelo.

Surely that is a political lie. I want to ask the hon member for Barberton whether he is very happy where he is. His name does not appear as one of the patrons of the AVW but I see that the name of one of his good friends from Piet Retief, Mr Werner Weber, does appear there. Does he feel happy about the fact that a respected Afrikaner and Calvinist such as Mr Werner Weber is a patron of such an organization? I hope he sleeps peacefully in the hope that that person will bear his Calvinistic view of the world and his status as an Afrikaner in mind.

I want to refer to the speech the hon member for Waterberg delivered here yesterday. To us it was an excellent example of the Treurnicht style. It was a typical example. Let us look at what happened yesterday as far as that hon member’s speech was concerned. In his opening sentences, in which he associated himself with the hon the Leader of the Opposition, he told this side of the house that one could not have an ambiguous policy and then expect to be commended for one’s consistency. That is how he began his speech.

Now let us apply the criterion of consistency to the speech he delivered yesterday. Then we shall be able to establish who is guilty of ambiguity in this House. His speech conerned the Nkomati Accord. The first noises we heard in this House from the CP in this regard were discordant notes and came from the mouth of the hon member for Brakpan. His only reaction to that accord and the ceremony that took place there, the only reaction he vented here, was to blame the hon the Prime Minister for speaking not Afrikaans, but English. Since when does that party object to the other official language being used on an international occasion?

The CP do not even speak Afrikaans at their champagne breakfasts. I have before me a report from the Sunday Times of 26 February this year about a function a number of CP members and their leader arranged for the Sunday Times. Let us look at what the reporter Cas St Leger wrote about the meeting:

These are the people who raise objections when the Prime Minister of South Africa uses one of our official languages at an international occasion.

I want to come back to what the hon member for Waterberg said here yesterday. He spoke about the Nkomati Accord and spoke ambiguously. That is his style. If this side of the House, or perhaps one of his own supporters, were to confront him and tell him “Remember, you are not in favour of the Nkomati Accord”, he would be able to quote from Hansard …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to bring to your attention the fact that the hon member for Brits and the hon member for Springs, who are sitting next to us, are constantly making remarks and seeking to make conversation with us, thus tempting us to contravene the rulings of the Chair. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon member for Brits seeking to make conversation with the hon member for Rissik?

Sir, may I explain? Hon members here described my hon friend who is sitting next to me as a paunchy little man. I accuse the hon members for De Aar and Langlaagte of that. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to know what is going on. The hon member for Rissik is levelling an accusation at the hon member for Brits, but the hon member for Brits says that the hon member for De Aar referred to another hon member as a paunchy little man.

Mr Chairman, I did not say a word. That is an infamous lie. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! Did the hon member Mr Theunissen say it was the Prime Minister who said it?

I said they thought it was the hon the Prime Minister who was speaking.

I call upon hon members to refrain from indulging in such childish trivialities. Hon members are “hon members” and not paunchy little men. Hon members must please behave themselves accordingly. The hon member for Ermelo may proceed.

I was saying that if the hon member for Waterberg were confronted with the accusation that he was opposed to the Nkomati Accord, he would be able to quote from his own speech in yesterday’s Hansard and deny it emphatically. He could, for example, quote the following:

He could also say:

That is the one point he would be able to make. If, however, Mr Jaap Marais were to accuse him of identifying himself with the contents of the Nkomati Accord, he would be able to deny it equally emphatically and use the same Hansard to prove it. What did Mr Jaap Marais have to say about the presence there of the hon member for Waterberg and his other colleagues, and their support for the ceremony? I quote from a report on his speech:

So Mr Jaap Marais is opposed to negotiating with Marxists. I quote further:

It is Mr Jaap Marais who said that. I quote further:

Surely the speech the hon member for Waterberg delivered yesterday was aimed at the by-election in Potgietersrus. As you know, he now wants to reach an agreement with Mr Jaap Marais, but he has a problem with the Nkomati Accord because he was present at the signing thereof. As a result he has to make different noises in the same speech, and this he has now done. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Ermelo will pardon me for not reacting to his speech. I notice that the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development is present in the Chamber. With reference to the touch of humour we had here yesterday in connection with the point of order raised by the hon the Minister, I want to congratulate him on his being awarded the highest civil honour by the President of the Republic of China, as I read in Die Burger this morning. With reference to yesterday’s incident, the humour, as far as I am concerned, is to be found in the designation of the award—I believe the hon the Minister will forgive me—viz “The Decoration of the Order of the Brilliant Star”. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on this award.

This Vote bears the stamp of farewell, because what we are in fact doing here is saying farewell to the last White Prime Minister of the last sovereign White Parliament. How long it will take before there will be another sovereign White Parliament in the future, which will have to replace the envisaged mixed Parliament, is very difficult to predict at this stage. The hon the Prime Minister is now breaking a golden thread of renowned NP Prime Ministers who helped to create for the Whites a sovereign home in this land of ours.

In bidding the present dispensation farewell, one is inevitably also standing at the sickbed of the once mighty NP, a party which has become sick because it has gathered in and around it some of the biggest liberalists, humanists, moralists and integrationists. [Interjections.] It is a party some of the members of which are still drifting about aimlessly in the stream of political integration. Dr Malan once sounded the following warning in the form of questions:

The Government’s recognized policy of partnership requires coalition government. It is going to be a multiracial coalition constituted from the three majority parties of Parliament—three parties with different policies and principles. As far back as 1933, however, we saw that a coalition even between two White parties could not work. Coalition requires concurrence, consensus, agreement and especially concessions and compromise. The hon member for Randburg is in full agreement with this in the Dec 1983-Feb 1984 edition of Buurman. He says:

Consequently it is government by concession and compromise in order to achieve concurrence. In this, so Dr Malan said in 1933, there is no place for principles and policies. When at that stage he insisted on the maintenance of principles and policies he was kicked out of the Cabinet.

The NP has an illustrious past. Under the leadership of formidable Afrikaner leaders it built up a strong, sound state. Inter alia, leaders of the NP led the people away from the politics of conciliation which boded no good for the Afrikaner nationalist. Under the leadership of great men of the people it shaped and developed the policy of separate development, and this has been the only policy capable of withstanding the test of decades in a multinational country. This party was mighty at one time. It grew and was nurtured by pure nationalism. This party was near to the heart of the people, because it lived with its people and knew when its people were hungry—figuratively and literally. Consequently it also knew when small White children were hungry within the boundaries of this mother city and elsewhere where it was in power. The hon the Prime Minister had a very important share in building this party. Right from the start he defended the policy of separate development fearlessly. As a young Deputy Minister he made a farewell speech at the Cape congress of the NP. I have before me a photostat copy of that speech, from which I want to quote a few brief extracts, as follows:

Subsequently in the same speech the hon the Prime Minister said:

From this last sentence I quoted one need only omit the name “Verenigde Party” and, in the light of what the hon the Prime Minister said here today, amend it to read as follows:

Somewhere along the road something has happened. The cobwebs of liberal friends, liberal politicians and liberal business friends have taken full possession of the thinking of the hon the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] Somewhere something has gone awry. Act No 110 of 1983, our new Constitution, is the hon the Prime Minister’s last will and testament to the Afrikaner and to White South Africa.

The hon the Prime Minister received a rich heritage; the rich heritage of his famous predecessors. This evening I ask him this: In the name of God, what are you going to leave us? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am certainly not going to react to what the hon member for De Aar has just said. [Interjections.] When one has the opportunity and the privilege … [Interjections.]

Order!

When one has the opportunity and the privilege of participating in a discussion of the Vote of the hon the Prime Minister, it is not necessary to speak about him as a person, because he has performed so many exemplary deeds one could speak about; deeds which attest to someone who clearly has the welfare of everyone in South Africa at heart. However, before I express a few thoughts on decentralization aid and industrial development—these are, in fact, measures that have been stimulated by the initiatives of the hon the Prime Minister—I want us first to take note of the political climate in which these measures have to be implemented.

It is no use our having mechanisms created in this country, whilst Opposition parties make pronouncements in which they show their dissatisfaction by saying that our country is the victim of maladministration and that Cabinet Ministers are not competent to handle their portfolios. In this way, they are trying to discourage all prospective investors in South African industries. The position of the present Prime Minister and the present Government in comparison with that of 15 or 20 years ago differs considerably, particularly in the respect that numerous principles that were accepted years ago, about which great national speeches were held and which have now become of fundamental importance to our permanent continued existence in South Africa, have to be implemented now. An example of this—and I think this is the crux of our new constitutional dispensation—is contained in section 2 of the principles of the NP, which deals with the impartial maintenance of the rights and privileges of every section of the population.

In order to carry this into effect, the hon the Prime Minister has staked his political career, to the extent that a number of his followers have turned their backs on him. The hon the Prime Minister has already said on occasion that a number of people will fall off the wagon in the process, whilst others will climb on. Now we must take cognizance of the pronouncement history will make on these people who have fallen off the wagon, as well as on others who have never really been part of the team.

The PFP has been running alongside throughout. Sometimes they even wanted to run on ahead, but at present they are pretending to be the only champions of people of colour in South Africa. What will history have to say about them, however? History will say of them that when this Government was attempting to bring about stability with regard to people of colour, they boycotted it. I can understand that we cannot count on them, because they themselves have so many problems. This reminds one so much of the pilot who got into difficulties. When he bailed out with his parachute, he forgot which string to pull. In his free-fall halfway to the ground, he was passed by a man going in the opposite direction. He shouted to him: “Do you know how a parachute works?”, and the other man said to him: “Sorry, old chap, I work in a dynamite factory”. [Interjections.] I think this is an ideal illustration of people who work in a dynamite factory as regards the policy they propagate in South Africa.

Members of the CP, who assisted us in drawing up this new dispensation and who applauded when we spoke of equal treatment for other population groups and who have now got cold feet with regard to their own plans, will learn from history that they let South Africa down when there had to be reform in South Africa. Their half-hearted participation in the peace initiatives of South Africa will also go down in history. To a large extent, this has already been dealt with here today. However, I just want to say that if the Press is reporting correctly, the hon the leader of the CP, when he was confronted by Mr Jaap Marias on his return, said that he would not have gone to Nkomati if he had known what the agreement entailed. My information is that he had, in fact, been informed about it beforehand. [Interjections.] He knew what it contained. [Interjections.] If that was not the case, he knows now what it entails, and I want to ask him whether or not he would go now. If he says that he would go, he loses the support of Mr Jaap Marais, and he told us a moment ago why he cannot lose his support. If he says no, he would incur the wrath of everyone in South Africa who is striving for peace initiatives with our neighbouring countries.

What will history have to say about the NRP? It will say that they were not prepared to get on to the wagon with us because they disagree with our methods. However, at least history will say that they were prepared to hitch up their political wagon to that of the NP and least move forward.

No, we are leading now. [Interjections.]

It may only be a little donkey cart, but at least it is coming along. Against this background the hon the Prime Minister is leading South Africa to political stability and he is also taking the initiative in bringing about economic stability in our country. In this regard I should like to refer to the innovation in respect of our decentralization policy and industrial aid. This innovation has as its objective to further private initiative, to limit Government participation only to services and to create a favourable climate so that private and local development can take place. Since the new measures came into operation on 1 April 1982, 1 682 applications amounting to R39,06 million have been approved. Of particular importance is that in this process employment opportunities for 128 000 people have been created. This is of further importance if one compares this with the previous period of 21 years when 192 990 employment opportunities were created. In South Africa we need to create 1 400 employment opportunities a day. Although we admit that these measures will not be adequate to create sufficient employment opportunities, at least the mechanism has been created to increase the number of employment opportunities. Employment opportunities created in the PWV area are calculated at R45 000 per employment opportunity, as opposed to the figure of R3 000 to R15 000 per employment opportunity in the decentralized areas.

Another advantage is that there will be an even distribution of a healthy economy throughout South Africa. An immediate cash flow will also be available to our industrialists. South Africa is an arid country and this fact adversely affects our development. However, we have rivers with surplus water such as the Orange River, we now have the opportunity, by way of resettlement and the creation of new industries, to accommodate new industries along the Orange River as well. We are quite satisfied with industrial development in this country, but thorough attention will also have to be given to the development of agriculture in South Africa. I am not only saying this in respect of emergency aid, since this is already adequate. In this regard, our sincere gratitude goes to the Government and in particular to the hon the Prime Minister, who is in charge of this. Thorough attention will also have to be given to agriculture in our future development plans, however.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 22.