announced that a vacancy had occurred in the representation in the House of Assembly of the electoral division of Sundays River owing to the resignation of Mr F D Conradie with effect from 1 February 1987.

as Chairman, presented the Seventh Report, 1986, of the Standing Select Committee on Transport Affairs, dated 8 September 1986, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Transport Affairs, dated 24 November 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time

as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report, 1986, of the Standing Select Committee on Mineral and Energy Affairs, dated 13 October 1986, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the Fifth Report, 1986, of the Standing Select Committee on Mineral and Energy Affairs, dated 13 October 1986, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the First Report, 1986, of the Standing Select Committee on Defence, dated 3 November 1986, as follows:

presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning, dated 11 November 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning, dated 12 November 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Seventh Report, 1986, of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs and Tourism, dated 20 November 1986, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs and Tourism, dated 19 November 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs and Tourism, dated 19 November 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Environment Affairs and Tourism, dated 19 November 1986, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Education and Development Aid, dated 25 November 1986, as follows:

presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, dated 19 November 1986, as follows:

presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, dated 1 December 1986, as follows:

presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, dated 1 December 1986, as follows:

presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Justice, dated 1 December 1986, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Communications and Public Works, dated 1 December 1986, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Communications and Public Works, dated 1 December 1986, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Communications and Public Works, dated 1 December 1986, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Communications and Public Works, dated 1 December 1986, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the Fifth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Communications and Public Works, dated 1 December 1986, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Trade and Industry, dated 26 January 1987, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Trade and Industry, dated 26 January 1987, as follows:

laid upon the Table the Report of the Joint Committee on Sanctions and Boycotts, 1986 [C 11—86], dated 27 October 1986.

as Chairman, presented the Report, 1986, of the Select Committee on Pension Benefits, dated 27 January 1987, as follows:

In the circumstances your Committee requests the House to appoint a Select Committee at an early stage in the next session to form part of a Joint Committee to resume the enquiry.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move :

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

As the hon the Leader of the National Party is not present, I must assume he is being represented here today by one of the two crown princes opposite. I do not know which one it is, so I will address myself to them collectively. They will know who it is I mean, and know who it is I hope will get the post. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon the Leader of the National Party has arrived here now and the other two gentlemen are therefore relieved of their responsibility. [Interjections.]

This is not the first occasion upon which the Leader of the Official Opposition has introduced a motion of no confidence in a National Party Government, but never before in 39 years has it been more appropriate and more justified than it is on this occasion. [Interjections.] Let us get the situation in perspective. Although this Government, as the result of the restricted political representation and misshapen constitutional structures which there are in our country, may control the levers of power, the fact is that that Government sitting opposite, is a minority government whose policies are rejected by the vast majority of all the citizens of our country. [Interjections.]

I believe that the coming election is going to show that, in spite of all the Government’s abuse of power for party political purposes, that Government will not even enjoy the confidence of the majority of the White citizens of South Africa. With its party supporters disillusioned, dispirited and divided, spending their time apologizing to one another, the era of NP dominance in the Parliament of South Africa is fast coming to an end.

Regrettably for all South Africans at this time when the future of South Africa is balanced on a knife edge, we are saddled with an incompetent, wasteful, bullying Government whose policies have failed and whose ability to lead this country back to stability and harmony is utterly discredited. That is our charge against this Government.

At a time when people look for a message of hope, the Government’s remarkable behaviour shows that it has no real plans for the present and neither does it have a clear vision for the future.

The policies of this Government were supposed to produce peace, progress and prosperity for the people of South Africa. Instead they have ended up by isolating our country, damaging our economy, dividing our nation, jeopardizing our future and undermining the living standards of millions of ordinary South Africans.

This wonderful country of ours is in a mess, thanks to the incompetence of a Government that has lost its way; but mercifully for all of us in South Africa, it is starting to lose both members and supporters.

During this debate members of the PFP are going to expose this Government’s shabby record and point out how its policies and behaviour are jeopardizing the future well-being of all of us.

The State President, in his Opening Address to Parliament, gave a marginally optimistic view of the economy and especially of the improvement over the last two quarters of last year. I hope, for the sake of the people of our country, that his optimism is justified. I have no doubt that this Government is going to produce a variety of statistics between now and the election to tell the public how well things are going with the economy.

However, for the pensioner, the housewife and the family breadwinner as well as for millions of South Africans who do not live on graphs and statistics there is a different reality. It is a reality of financial insecurity, of economic hardship, of a daily battle to make ends meet and of deteriorating living standards. For the ordinary South African the reality is that inflation is running at an all time high. The buying power of his earnings and the value of his savings are being eroded by nearly 20% per annum.

Retrenchment is becoming commonplace and unemployment is at an all time high. Among Coloureds, Indians and Whites unemployment has doubled over the past year, while 30% of the Black labour force is unemployed—and this percentage is even higher in areas like the Eastern Cape. Nearly 70 000 jobs have been lost in the building industry alone in the past four years. Civil summonses for debt are being issued at the rate of 80 000 per annum. Businesses are failing at the rate of 240 per month and personal insolvencies increased from 100 per month in 1983 to 354 per month in 1986. Fixed investment in the manufacturing sector, the barometer of growth and business confidence, dropped by nearly 50% from over R4 billion in 1980 to just over R2 billion at the end of 1985.

In the wake of these deteriorating economic factors there are also deteriorating social conditions for the people of South Africa. I shall only mention one. I believe that the level of crime—and especially crimes of violence such as murder, rape, housebreaking, robbery and mugging—has risen enormously. People no longer feel safe in the streets of their suburbs; indeed, they no longer feel safe even in their homes. The blame for the major part of this sorry state of affairs, we believe, lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of that Government.

You see, Mr Speaker, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the South African economy. What is wrong is that the way in which the Government has managed the affairs of this country combined with its failure to resolve the key political issues has undermined the confidence that there should be in the future of this country. If ever one wanted proof that the Government’s policies have failed, one merely has to look at the state of emergency. I believe that to any objective observer the state of emergency is incontrovertible proof that the Government has failed to solve our country’s problems.

The state of emergency, with its police powers, its abrogation of the rule of law, its assault on civil liberties, its muzzling of the Press, its denial of information to the public, its restrictions, its bannings, its gaol-without-trial is proof that the National Party, after 39 years in office, is incapable of governing this country by democratic means.

The emergency regulations have replaced political policies and authoritarian powers have replaced “government by consent” as the basis of law and order in our country. The Government has imposed a form of law and order in our country, but does it realize the price that South Africa is paying for this unnatural and enforced form of stability? Does the Government realize what it is doing to the very fabric of our society? I fear that as long as this Government is in power, the people of our country will not be able to enjoy again even the limited freedoms and qualified democracy which we once knew in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, the state of emergency is stamping its authoritarian imprint on the character and quality of our society in an indelible way. We run a very real danger that, as authoritarianism becomes the norm and not the exception, more and more White South Africans will become less caring about democracy—because they are less accustomed to it—and less jealous about personal liberty and the rule of law. On the other side, Black South Africans, in increasing numbers, will see Government structures as oppressive and Government agents as oppressors.

Does the Government realize that behind its facade of peace the process of polarization is continuing? Does this Government realise the extent of the damage it has done to the concept of a free Press in South Africa—to the functioning of the Press, its quality, its role, its status; indeed, to the very concept of a free Press of which South Africa could rightly be proud in the past?

Does this Government realise the damage that the state of emergency is doing to even the limited parliamentary democracy that we have in South Africa? How can Parliament function properly when MPs are denied access to information about what is happening in their country?

That is right.

How can they make sensible judgments when they do not know how their fellow South Africans think and feel on key issues affecting their daily fives? How can MPs possibly call the Government to account when they do not know what the agents of the Government are doing or how they are behaving? The Government has clamped a dangerous blanket of ignorance over the people of this country.

What do White South Africans today really know about what is taking place in the Black townships? What are the feelings of Black people on the one hundred and one issues affecting their daily fives? How do we know what their feelings are? How do the White voters know what the Black people feel about education and local Government, about rentals, about housing, and about transport?

What do we know and what do the White voters know about the Blacks’ attitude towards violence and negotiation, towards Inkatha, the ANC, the UDF, or the PAC— or even their attitude towards the National Party?

How are the police and other officials behaving? There is a blanket of secrecy.

How many thousands of people are still in goal without having been tried? How many of these people today are children? For how long has each of these people been in goal?

What are the human stories, and what are the political implications behind the terse, single-sentence reports issued by the Bureau for Information? The Bureau for Information, with its censorship, is dehumanising us all: We do not know the human, the personal and the political import behind the stories!

This article that I have in my hand, for instance, reads:

We have instances such as happened at Laaiplek at the beginning of this year. How is it possible that a small, sleepy village like that suddenly erupted into racial violence? At first no mention was made of it by the Bureau for Information. Only afterwards, when people kept enquiring, did they admit that it had been an error and that they should have mentioned it. However, how is it possible that in that quiet backwater of South Africa there could have been racial violence leading to the death of South African citizens? What do we know about it?

As far as kwaNobuhle is concerned, a report was issued by police sources on 4 January to the effect that 1 500 people had walked calmly along the streets at 4 o’ clock in the morning, stopping at several houses, taking furniture outside and burning it. The motive for the march was reportedly

Do any of the hon Ministers opposite know the story behind that? Do they know what it was about? Are they aware of the actions of the authorities on that occasion? Do they know the political import of what has taken place?

Do they care?

Do they care, as the hon member asks? What is notable about the kwaNobuhle incident, is the police’s failure to investigate the murders and other incidents of violence that took place on that occasion. My colleague, the hon member for Walmer, interviewed the families of the bereaved five days after the murders had taken place and was told that the police had not at that stage investigated the incident.

He also took a statement from one of the young people there, who told him the following:

Do we know what is going on in our townships?

Some people were also killed in Chesterville. The Bureau for Information acknowledged the attack. A spokesman said that four people had suffered serious injuries. I quote:

That is the terse statement, but there is no indication that anybody has said what has followed since then. The fact is that of the four people who were injured, three have subsequently died. It has never been announced that these people have died, and that other people are still in hospital in a serious condition.

So it goes on and on. A conference on psychiatry was held recently at the University of Cape Town. As you know, Sir, the papers were banned. They were scientific papers on the psychiatric effects upon individuals of detention, violence and conflict situations. I would like to mention examples of what was banned.

There was a study by Robin Friedlander, a Johannesburg psychiatrist, which stated inter alia:

What is important, however, is the following—

Should we not be aware of this?

She tells this story, but adds:

I have selected these examples even-handedly to try to indicate that there is a human story and the political message that should be conveyed to all of us, instead of the terse statements we get from the Bureau for Information.

The Government has called an election under the state of emergency. Let me say immediately that we in the PFP are going all out to win as many seats as we can. [Interjections.] At the same time let me say that any election held under the state of emergency regulations is not going to be a free or fair election. [Interjections.] Quite apart from the restrictions that are placed on what can be said by and published about a political party there cannot possibly be a free and fair election if the voters who are to take part in that election are kept in the dark about what is going on in their country. [Interjections.] What is even worse is that they have to depend on the selective information which the Government and its agencies feed through to them. When one adds to this the pro-Government propaganda work that is being done by the Bureau for Information and the constant attempts by the SABC to brainwash the public one realises that opposition parties go into this election with their hands tied behind their backs.

When is the State President going to lift this state of emergency? When is he going to release the thousands of people, some of whom have been in gaol for over seven months without a charge being laid against them? When is he going to remove the muzzle which he has clamped on the Press?

The Government has said that it became necessary to declare a state of emergency. That was their excuse. They said they did not like it but it became necessary. If that is so then we charge the Government for failing to create the conditions in which it will be unnecessary. They cannot have it both ways. If a government which has ruled for 40 years has to resort to these kind of measures to maintain stability, peace and law and order we believe that that government deserves to be thrown out of office. [Interjections.]

What does the Government do in these circumstances? As its policies collapse and it fails to take the democratic route it thrashes around and looks for somebody else to blame.

It attempts to shift the spotlight away from its own failures to issues such as “the outside world” or “the revolutionary onslaught”. This is the new technique, the lightning conductor technique.

Let us take a look at the outside world issue. South Africa does have enemies in the outside world. We in the PFP, in particular those of us who have gone overseas to fight sanctions, know that there is selective morality and self-interest, domestic political considerations and there is moralistic self-indulgence in many of the pro-sanctions stances that are taken. Indeed, I believe there is a combination of arrogance, presumption and naïvete that boggles the mind in the USA Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986.

Having said this, our charge is that the Government is that it has played right into the hands of South Africa’s enemies time and time again. It has pulled the rug out from under our friends time and time again. The Government has created a climate of public opinion abroad in which sanctions became inevitable through its inept management of the reform process, its heavy-handed repression and its failure to get rid of apartheid and follow through with reform. What is more, that hostile climate of opinion will persist as long as the Government continues to drag its heels on reform and balks at the real political issue of political rights for Black citizens of this country.

If hon members do not want to listen to this from me I suggest that the Government ponders seriously the underlying reasons for the resignation of Dr Denis Worrall as South Africa’s ambassador in London. I ask them to ponder seriously the statement of a South African whom we were all applauding yesterday, Graeme Pollock. He says our isolation is because we have not taken certain political initiatives and, if we want to get back, the Government must take critical initiatives in the field of political rights. [Interjections.]

The second issue is the question of the revolutionary onslaught. Once again it is common cause and not a matter for dispute. There are communists who are always willing to foment revolution in order to achieve their ideological aims. There are people who have turned to violence. We know that. There are others abroad whose plan it is to encourage revolutionary change in South Africa. We all know these things. Nevertheless, the root causes of the conflict situation are not to be found beyond our borders but right here inside South Africa. They have to be resolved right here inside South Africa by South Africans.

The tightening of the apartheid screws by successive National governments and the failure of this Government to follow through with fundamental reforms have prepared the ground for revolutionary conflict in this country. It is this Government that has prepared the ground. Once again our charge against this Government is that it has played into the hands of revolutionaries and that it has undermined the people in South Africa who want non-violent change. It has undermined the moderate, non-violent leaders of South Africa.

This situation has not developed overnight. The current level of conflict reflects the escalation in the intensity and volume of the resistance to the policy of the Government. It is but the latest in a long series of confrontations between the Government and the people.

The hon Ministers on that side of the House will remember all the commissions that were appointed whenever there was a confrontation. They should ask themselves how many times they took the advice that those commissions offered them.

Over the years the policy of apartheid has been the prime cause of resentment and bitterness among the Blacks in South Africa. Added to this is another dimension, namely the failure of the Government to deal with the fundamental issue of Black political rights. I am now talking of Black political rights in Parliament, Black political rights in the sovereign legislature of South Africa. This has caused our Black fellow South Africans to lose faith in the constitutional process. As a result Black South Africans not only do not have confidence in the National Government but to an increasing extent do not accept the legitimacy of the Government or the constitutional structures which rule over them.

Today the Government faces not only a crisis of confidence but also a crisis of legitimacy. This latter crisis, the serious crisis of legitimacy, will not be solved, and neither will the instability and conflict that flow from it be removed until Black citizens of this country participate in the structures of government at all levels, including this Parliament. That is fundamental.

The Government will say that it has offered to negotiate, but this Government has not managed to get the process of real negotiation off the ground. I am not talking of chats about various variations on the apartheid theme. I am talking about tough negotiations over real alternatives by the representative leaders of all sections of our people. That is what I am talking about. I am not talking about selected people having discussions about variations on apartheid.

The Government has said that it has offered to negotiate and that it is not its fault if people do not come along to take part. However, this begs the issue. If the process of negotiation is essential in order to secure peace and stability and if the Government is unable to get that process going, then I say this Government must make way for somebody else who can. [Interjections.]

*We ask why it is that so many Black leaders refuse to become involved in the negotiation process. I am talking about in-depth negotiation and not about soft-soaping. Why does a leader like Chief Minister Buthelezi stay away? He is a man who is committed to non-violence.

There are two predominating reasons for this. The first reason is that no Black leader with significant support is interested in negotiating about a new constitution which is only a modernisation or a refinement of apartheid. They have no interest in that at all.

Why do Black leaders, such as Chief Minister Buthelezi, insist on the abolition of the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act as the prerequisite for negotiation? Why are precisely those two Acts singled out as the prerequisite for negotiation?

One must simply read the State President’s speech at the opening of Parliament last Friday and take cognisance of his point of departure, viz that race must be the basis for constitutional structures. One must take cognisance that he is committed to the principles of the Group Areas Act. He indicated at the NP Congress that there would be no interference with the principles of this Act. “Solank ek leier van die land is, sal daar nie aan die beginsel van die Wet op Groepsge-biede, grondbesit en eiendomsreg getorring word nie.” [Interjections.] That is what he declared.

Earlier this year when there was a dispute and he expressed himself on the criticism of the hon the leader of the Labour Party in respect of the Group Areas Act, the State President took matters further, however. He said—

He went on to say:

No, Sir, the question of race remains the nucleus of the National Party and of the State President’s new constitutional dispensation for South Africa.

In addition it is clear that the State President does not see the Group Areas Act only as a way of enforcing the separation of residential areas, but as the basis for constitutional reform and development in South Africa.

I want to say that just as the State President was proved wrong in respect of the pass laws, Black citizenship, the Coloured labour preference policy and apartheid in respect of sport, work, theatre and facilities, I believe that he, or maybe even his successor one day, will discover how wrong they were with reference to the apartheid of group areas in South Africa. By clinging in this desperate way to outdated apartheid concepts which form the basis of the Group Areas Act, the State President is retarding the pace at which constitutional change is taking place in South Africa.

I am impressed by what three Stellenbosch academics said according to a report in this morning’s Burger. The State President can laugh, but what do these gentlemen say, these gentlemen who were among the Government’s advisers at one stage? They were good Nationalists! Let us look at what Prof Sampie Terreblanche said:

[Interjections.] What did Julius Jeppe say? He referred to—

Then Prof Fourie said:

It is not the Progs who say that, Mr Speaker. The people advising the State President in this way are formidable members of the National Party. [Interjections.]

†Mr Speaker, the second reason why the Government is failing at negotiation is because Black leaders know—even if White leaders do not understand this—that just as there can be no solution to the issue of Black political participation unless all of our citizens take part in the negotiation process through their acknowledged leaders.

Just as the millions who support Inkatha have to be brought into the process, so there can equally be no solution unless the millions who support other significant political organisations are brought in as well. It is not a question of those leaders being either for or against those organisations; it is simply that an organisation such as the ANC, for instance, is a political reality which cannot be wished away. The ANC is a political reality in South Africa.

I want to ask the State President whether he believes there can be a lasting political solution to Black political participation without also involving the ANC in this process. The hon member for Innesdal says there cannot be because that is what he states in his article. Apology or not, I believe he is a man of courage, and that statement will stand.

Does the State President believe that meaningful negotiations on the issue of Black political participation can take place as long as Mr Mandela and other political prisoners are in gaol? Does he believe that meaningful negotiations can take place as long as this situation continues? Once again, Mr Speaker, the hon member for Innesdal says in his statement that such negotiations cannot take place.

Let me, however, take it further. Does the State President agree that for moderate Black leaders the release of Mr Mandela is a prerequisite for negotiation? Now, this is not what the hon member for Innesdal says. This is what is stated by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. This is what he said to the Afrikaanse Sakekamer in a speech last year. [Interjections.] He said:

[Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said this; not anyone else. He said:

[Interjections.] How does one face the scrutiny of the Press while one is sitting in gaol? [Interjections.]

What is he saying to those people? He says: “Let me tell you that a martyr is much more dangerous than a fanatic”. Well, he will know about fanatics. Whether he knows about martyrs, I do not know. [Interjections.] That, Mr Speaker, was what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said. I do not believe he said these things because he supports the ANC. He said these things because he knew it is a reality. It is a reality, Sir, from which we cannot escape. [Interjections.]

The fact is that successive National Party Governments have failed to deal effectively with the issue of the ANC. This has been an issue in South African politics for the past 30 years. They have failed in this respect just as they have failed to deal effectively with the issue of Black political rights. Indeed, the Government’s strategy, I believe, has been counterproductive.

By keeping Mr Mandela in gaol and by keeping the ANC banned in South Africa the Government has succeeded not only in internationalising our domestic politics but also in pushing millions of ordinary South Africans into the arms of the hardliners and the communists who operate freely beyond our borders. That is a consequence of the strategy of the Government.

Getting negotiations involving the leaders of all sections of our people under way is to our mind the most important and urgent task facing our nation today. If the obstacle to this process is violence then the Government must devise a strategy for persuading people to move away from violence. They must devise a strategy that works.

If the obstacle is communism then the Government must devise a strategy for getting people to abandon the communists. They must devise a strategy which is likely to succeed. More particularly, if the obstacle to negotiation is apartheid then the Government must abolish apartheid and not blame other people. [Interjections.]

The Government is leading the people of South Africa—the vast majority of whom do not want either violence or communism or apartheid—down a constitutional dead-end street. It must think again.

For instance, has the State President thought of trying to talk with Mr Mandela, of trying to talk with him as South African to South African, as leader to leader? Has he ever thought of trying to determine the extent of common ground and trying at least to establish a basis for peaceful negotiation?

Mr Speaker, quite frankly, I tremble for my country when I think of how this Government is fumbling and procrastinating on the critically important issue of political rights for Black citizens.

Now, after months of procrastination— during which the State President as the party leader enjoyed playing games with the voting public—he finally announced an election on 6 May. I took very careful note of the mandate which he said he wanted although I do not think it has anything to do with mandates. If the State President wanted a mandate to govern, he should have gone to the voters of all three Houses. Is the Government not elected by Parliament, or is the State President simply saying that he wants to let us know where the power really lies?

I suspect that the election has very little to do with mandates. It may have something to do with retirement one of these days and the succession stakes that are involved. I suspect that it has more to do with the problems and the tensions within the National Party than it has with the interests of the voters of South Africa.

Perhaps, without realizing it, this country has been fighting an election since the middle of last year—the State President will know the date; some people say it was between 12 and 17 May but I would say that it was at the end of June when we adjourned—when we actually went into election mode. We really noticed this when we watched the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs who changed— almost as if the hon the State President had flicked a switch—from a serious-minded and competent exponent of international diplomacy into a tub-thumping, arm-shaking, political actor. [Interjections.] That was fascinating; it was a sight to behold. We saw a welcome signal.

Since then, the Leader of the National Party, who is also the hon the State President, with his long experience as a party organizer has been playing White election politics and, in the process, has been abandoning real reform in South Africa. He has been running away from reform.

Go and read between the lines of almost any Afrikaans journal in South Africa. Listen to what the businessmen, even the supporters of the Government, are saying. Listen to these gentlemen from Stellenbosch. Listen to what happened when Mr Wynand Malan resigned from the National Party. Listen to the people who are backing and supporting him. Listen to what Dr Denis Worrall is saying. Mr Speaker, it is a message that, for whatever reason, the Government has abandoned that reform process which we thought it had set in motion last year. It has done a number of things over the past six months which have had nothing to do with the wellbeing of South Africa, but everything to do with the party politics which the State President—as the Leader of the National Party— has been playing. With an eye to the election he has put political reform into cold storage and today we know the reason for that farcical session of Parliament in September of last year when we came here to consider important matters dealing with Black political rights. They were gone, just like that! They were either with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, or they had gone into cold storage.

Then there was the disastrous Federal Congress of the National Party in Durban, a congress which, when it was all over, even the commentators on behalf of the National Party wanted to know had been all about. Why was it held? It was held to abandon that exciting concept of togetherness and to go back again ignominiously to the concept of self-determination and separate identities based on the philosophy of Dr Verwoerd.

By this time there was an orchestrated attack, a two-fisted attack, by the Government and the SABC on the outside world and the ANC, not in order to bring more light onto the subject—and we desperately need light on this terribly difficult question—but merely to whip up some pro-Government sentiment in anticipation of a general election.

Then there was the State President’s remarkable decision to appoint no fewer than 10 new Deputy Ministers. I have no doubt that the doubling of the number of Deputy Ministers—bringing the total, I think, to 38 Ministers sitting in this House—had nothing to do with the needs of the State. It was an unjustified and horrible waste of taxpayers’ money. If there was some need to appoint competent people—they should perhaps have gone outside the ranks of their members here—we want to know where were the Nothnagels, the Malans, the Van der Walts and the Wessels’, because these people, in this House and in their own party …

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must refer to hon members according to their constituencies as far as possible.

Mr Speaker, I will refer to them according to their constituencies, but I want to know where these people were. All of them have not only shown an ability and a certain amount of skill, but they also have one remarkable quality in common, namely that they have the ability to think for themselves and not always toe the party line slavishly. No, I do not believe that these appointments had anything to do with the needs of the State. They were awards to the faithful, pro-P W Botha retainers in the NP in order to stiffen up the NP’s election team at the taxpayers’ expense.

Then the State President convened a meeting of businessmen in Pretoria. In retrospect one sees this as another patent attempt by the Government to try to win back support from the business community which it had totally alienated during the course of last year. The State President, in his New Year’s Eve address, mentioned the things which had been discussed, coming from his side. However, I think he knows and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning knows that the businessmen there had some pretty blunt things to say about the slow pace of reform. They had some pretty blunt things to say when they told the Government that it had to take initiatives in the field of Black political rights. I ask the State President to name a single change he has made in Government policy as the result of the representations made by the businessmen on that occasion. I ask him to name a single way in which Government policy has been affected and changed.

Furthermore, there was the unwarranted sacking of Dr Koornhof as chairman of the President’s Council and his remarkable appointment as South African Ambassador to the USA. This was nothing more than a blatant attempt to suppress the report which the President’s Council was about to produce on the Group Areas Act. That is what it was all about. It was an attempt to try to delay its publication until after a general election. I want to ask the State President whether he is going to ask the new President’s Council to produce that report. Is he prepared to have it produced before the general election or is he going to wait until afterwards?

However, it is more than this. It is a blatant misuse of the Foreign Service of South Africa. I believe that that appointment in those circumstances must have an impact on the morale of the hard-pressed members of the Foreign Service. Why remove a competent career diplomat who was doing an excellent job in remarkably difficult circumstances and replace him with Piet Koornhof, the chairman of the President’s Council, merely to satisfy the political whim of the State President? I think it is all wrong. I would have thought that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, on this occasion at least, would have stood up to the State President. [Interjections.]

Then we had the next move early in December, that being the new Press censorship regulations. There had been Press censorship regulations that had been shot to ribbons by court judgements. They were so badly drafted that they were leaking like a sieve. They were changed time and time again but in the middle of December, suddenly there were new Draconian regulations dealing with the press. I do not accept that those ghastly regulations can possibly be justified on security grounds. I believe that they are a part of the Government’s continuing vendetta against the press which refuses to be subservient and servile to the Government. They are also an attempt by this Government to control the news and views during the election period. [Interjections.] This was a blatant misuse of Government power for electoral and other purposes.

Then, earlier this year we had the unseemly spectacle of the dispute between the State President and the Rev Allan Hendrickse. I must say I find the State President’s petulant reaction to Rev Hendrickse swim at King’s Beach unbelievable. I find it remarkable that a swim in the sea could have created a Cabinet crisis. Mr Speaker, it shows that this Government, under the leadership of the present State President, has no sense of priorities and no real commitment to fundamental reform if this is what can happen.

It is petty and ridiculous!

During the summer season, tens of thousands of people have been breaking the Government’s beach apartheid laws. This has been happening right around the Cape Peninsula. Tens of thousands of people have been doing it with the full knowledge of the Government, with the knowledge of the police, with the knowledge of the inspectors, with everybody’s knowledge. Yet, no action was taken against any of those people. The truth is that this Government has neither the courage to enforce its beach apartheid nor to repeal the apartheid laws. All it can do is try to bully people into submission.

What a sorry state of affairs at a time when we were looking for bold, visionary leadership from this Government. What do we see? We see pettiness, churlishness and confusion. We see aggressiveness, yes but not of confident men but of men who have lost their way.

*Have there been any positive or encouraging developments during the past few months? I do not want to end on a negative note. There were positive and encouraging developments, but they all took place outside the Government sphere. I should like to mention three positive developments.

The first was the meaningful statement made by the General Synod of the DR Church about apartheid and enforced separation. The DR Church decided to throw open the membership of this church to people of all race groups. Regardless of what we may say or do about this, of necessity this decision of the DR Church will have to have a profound effect on the political attitudes in this country. This was a Rubicon that was crossed.

The second encouraging development was undoubtedly the kwaNatal-Indaba. As we say in English, it was: “The only show in town.” It was encouraging. The Indaba was an object-lesson to all South Africans. It proved how, in an atmosphere of mutual trust and with the recognition of mutual interdependence, people from different race groups— with divergent political standpoints—could reach consensus, not about a new style of apartheid, but about a future free from apartheid and about a constitution which is free from apartheid structures. My colleague from Berea will have more to say about the Indaba in due course. At this stage, however, I must say that the Minister of Home Affairs did not only the people of Natal, but also all citizens of South Africa, a disservice in his summary rejection on behalf of the National Party in Natal of the recommendations of the Indaba. The reaction of the State President in his Opening Address at this session of Parliament was equally disturbing. While on the one hand he endorsed the concept of negotiation, on the other he rejected the non-racial philosophy that is the basis of the Indaba proposals. He gave clear indications that regardless of whatever the people of kwaZulu and Natal may desire, the Government will only permit them to base their future on the principles of the National Party.

The third encouraging development is the way in which the ordinary citizens of South Africa are prepared to accept a non-racial, “shared” society without apartheid. Their fear of the removal of apartheid is disappearing. One sees this in church life, in sport, in trade and industry, in the sphere of education, in restaurants, theatres and cinemas. It is amazing to see how quickly people forget their fears and push aside their prejudices. It is amazing how quickly people forget that there was ever any such thing as apartheid in South Africa.

†I think of the way in which the people of the Cape Peninsula have just ignored the Government’s beach apartheid, and how a matter which was an issue of raging political controversy has now been resolved in a natural way—a completely natural way!

I think of how, one after the other, White schools, White parents, have been asking for the right to admit children of all races to their educational institutions. That is happening on a massive scale throughout the country. [Interjections.]

I think of the gallant fight that people of all races in the mixed suburb of Woodstock are putting up right now against the Government’s intention of proclaiming that suburb under the Group Areas Act. It is a wonderful thing to see people standing together in the face of the Government juggernaut.

What is positive is the opinion polls that show that White voters, to an increasing extent, are rejecting ethnicity as the basis for future constitutional models. When one reads, for instance, in Rapport of 14 December 1986 of the survey that was done, one sees that in spite of the fact that 49,6% of the voters support the NP while a mere 18,6% support the PFP, 37% of the people— Rapport’s poll shows this—want the PFP’s non-racial federal solution whereas only 27% of the people want the Government’s solution. Therefore, although these people are voting nationalist, they have already passed the Government and its old-fashioned thinking by constitutional formula for South Africa. The State President may also care to know that 31% of his own party’s supporters prefer my party’s plan to his! [Interjections.] What kind of party is it when nearly one third of his supporters reject their own party’s plan and support the plan put forward by the Official Opposition? [Interjections.]

The tragedy is that this Government, in spite of all its talk about reform, is trailing way behind public opinion. This Government is trailing behind public opinion instead of leading it! I believe that, in a sense, history is passing the Botha Government by. This is why both the NP and the country are in the state they are in today.

We in these benches are encouraged by what we see happening among the people of South Africa. We believe there is a vast reservoir of goodwill that can still be harnessed in spite of everything that this Government has done to the people over the past 39 years. We intend to harness that goodwill and turn it into a mighty tide that is going to sweep this Government from office! [Interjections.] In its place—this will happen sooner than those smiling hon members think—there will be a new government of which this party will be an integral part.

It will be a government that really does believe in parliamentary democracy, and not one that just pays lip service to it. It will be a government that really does believe in economic and social and human freedom, and not one that just pays lip service to it. It will be a government that believes in the para-mountcy of the rule of law. It will be a government that rejects apartheid and commits itself to real reform. It will be a new government that will negotiate a new constitution in which all South African citizens can participate as South Africans. I predict, Sir, that it will be a new government that, for the first time in 39 years, holds out the prospect of bringing peace to our country, of bringing stability to our society, and of bringing security to our people in the only way that is lasting not by states of emergency, or by apartheid or by the heavy hand of the security forces, but through racial harmony based on justice for all South Africans!

It is against this background—I believe hundreds of thousands of voters will say this too over the next few months—that we say to this Government: “You have served your purpose; now move out of the way and let South Africa move ahead.”

Mr Speaker, if there is anyone in this House or outside who has up to now doubted the wisdom of the decision to call an election, that person will immediately stop doubting if he witnessed this performance of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.] I want to say one thing to him, and I am doing so in all fondness: I think his speech was uninspired and lacking in imagination. It was an inventory of what he has against the Government.

Where is his vision for South Africa? [Interjections.] Where is his plan for how South Africa has to change from the terrible place he described to us into the paradise he said would come into existence the moment he assumed the reins of power in this country? [Interjections.] I want to ask him courteously to make use of this debate. If he does not want to give it to us, let his right-hand men then give us an opportunity to take just a peek at the vision he has for South Africa. After all, it is a simple fact that when one takes a stand against a government and alleges that that government is unfit to govern the country as a result of whatever reasons one advances, one must at least propose something meaningful in its place. We know the individuals. He need not sell them to us; he would be wasting his time doing that.

Perhaps it is possible that a tremendous inspiration has come over him during the past few months, and that he has in fact come forward with something different. However, it is no wonder that it is being said that the PFP stands for “pack for Perth”. [Interjections.] Last year two prominent hon members of the PFP abandoned the sinking ship. It was that ship that was supposed to lead South Africa to new havens, to a new country with a peaceful future—something which we on this side of the House ostensibly cannot succeed in doing. I ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition: Where is his vision? He occupied our time for an hour, and gave us an inventory of what he considers to be wrong, but he said nothing about his vision.

†The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said a lot of things about the Bureau for Information, as well as the SABC and its so-called propaganda. I can interpret that in only one way: He is telling us in advance why he is going to lose the election. He is hedging against his imminent defeat. [Interjections.]

With reference to the bureau’s activities he asked the question: What do the people of South Africa see? What do they know about what is going on in the townships? I will immediately concede that there is an awful lot of hardship and suffering that we do not know of. [Interjections.] We can well imagine it, however. Moreover, it is not confined to the Black townships in South Africa. It is to be found throughout the world’s developing nations, for a number for reasons. However, whilst conceding that there are certain things that we and members of the general public are not aware of, there is one thing we all do know, and that is that since the state of emergency was announced, fewer people have been killed. [Interjections.] I do not want to stand here boasting with statistics about dead people, but it is a fundamental fact that since the introduction of those measures, fewer people have died and there has been a gradual restoration of normality in those places where law and order have been restored. That is a fundamental fact which we must all take cognizance of. It is extremely dangerous, however, to start quoting why we say there is a degree of normality returning, because the moment one identifies those areas in which things are beginning to go well, one is really inviting the forces of destruction to concentrate all their efforts there. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is clutching at straws. I do not think it was fair to quote a cricketer, who was lured into making a statement, in this House. [Interjections.] We all have an immeasurable admiration for Graeme Pollock but let us remember him as the great cricketer and forget him as a person commenting on constitutional development in South Africa. [Interjections.] What he is doing, is something so alien …

Order! Hon members must give the hon the Minister an opportunity to make his speech.

I just want to conclude on this point by saying that it is doing a disservice to a great sportsman to try to involve him in a political debate.

I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition a question. He referred to elections in the other two Houses. Once again it would appear that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is arrogating the right to speak on their behalf. The State President clearly stated that he had consulted them and that they had opted not to hold an election now. If I remember correctly, even the Cape Times conceded that point to them. Yet, like a typical old-style colonialist, he thinks on behalf of people of colour and, regardless of what they say, he knows better. [Interjections.]

*The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition raised a point by saying that Government spokesmen would, during the next few days, quote a long series of statistics to demonstrate how well things were going with the economy. He is making a mistake. It is simply not honest for anyone to stand up and to say that everything is going well with our economy. It depends, however, on what one’s orientation in life is, and upon what one’s concept is of the situation in which one’s country finds itself.

And the cause!

I shall indicate it. In the State President’s opening address he identified the economy as one of the three crucial issues which will be dealt with in the election. Unfortunately it is the case that the entire international political campaign against South Africa is primarily based on economic actions which have a very definite effect on our ability to develop the economy of our country to the full.

We have a series of problem areas in our economy, and I want to begin by saying and admitting this from this side of the House, because this is what we are occupying ourselves with for hours every day.

Our growth rate is too low; that is a fact. Our inflation is too high; that is a fact. Our unemployment is a destructive factor in our economy; that is a fact. We have spent hundreds of millions of rands to try to rectify this. There is a terrible lack of fixed investment in South Africa. This is a matter which we are profoundly concerned about. There is tardy growth in private consumer spending. One of the factors playing a role here is the fact that people’s personal available income is insufficient to really get the economy going by means of spending. Nor are they inclined, in view of the fact that their personal available income is so low, to make use of the great deal of cheap credit which is available at the moment.

Whose fault is that?

We have low productivity in South Africa. It is a source of intense concern for anyone making a study of the South African economy. In the nature of things we have a lot of problems in agriculture as well.

These are seven of the main problem areas which are easy to identify, but because we heard such simplistic arguments from the opposite side in the past in debates in this House, one can just imagine, at the beginning of this short session what is going to happen during the remainder of the session, now that an election is in the air. We shall see. Every argument from the opposite side of the House will propose that one is able to render more services, to do more things for one’s people and at the same time also find it easy to curtail taxation drastically. That will be the recipe of the arguments from that side. [Interjections.]

This is ridiculous!

We on this side of the House want to try to adopt a different approach, at least in our economic debates. The hon member for Yeoville says it is ridiculous. In that way he expressed a damning judgement of his own speeches. He need only read his own speeches, and he will see for himself.

You yourself do not even believe what you are saying.

We shall hear the hon member, alas, with his “I’ve got it all for you” menu lavishly supported by a whole array of points. I look forward to listening to it.

Well, you have nothing …

There is the other argument, too, that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition put his foot into, and that is the “abolish apartheid” cure. That solves all our economic problems at a stroke, and all the other problems into the bargain.

We shall ask them, as we did in the past, to show us the so-called “costs of apartheid”—which are supposedly unnecessary.

I just want to give the hon member a friendly reminder. There is something in the “townships” about which—or so he insinuates—he knows more than we do, such as “people’s education”. I do not want “people’s education” for my children, but if other people, as an expression of their self-determnation, want another kind of education for their children, then as long as it is not rebellious and revolutionary I cannot adopt a fundamental standpoint against it. Accordingly I want to say to the hon member that one can abolish apartheid, as he defines apartheid for the purpose of his argument, but in the process one will not abolish the fundamental diversity in the community of South Africa. If one were to be so foolish as not to incorporate those realities in one’s constitutional structure and supporting structures then ultimately one would have the chaos that is so typical of multi-cultural countries in the rest of Africa. It is pointless saying that one recognises groups if one does not protect those groups by law or in some other way. [Interjections.]

Are you not in favour of the abolition of apartheid?

I am in favour of the abolition of discriminatory measures. However, I am not in favour of there not being, in the constitutional structure of South Africa, a legally valid way in which I, as a White Christian Afrikaner, can insist on certain rights. It must be possible to do this through the courts and not simply in a laissez-faire way, as the opposition wants it done.

There is another argument that we are going to hear ad nauseam from the other side of the House, and particularly from the right-wing parties. It is a fallacy relating to taxation. I should like to know from the hon member for Sunnyside and the hon member for Sasolburg whether they have yet had the opportunity to investigate this issue, that we debated last year, any further. No doubt we shall again hear about an unholy conspiracy to ensure that large companies do not have to pay tax. Surely that is an infamous lie! I want to ask the hon member for Sasolburg whether he will not consider keeping the blatant untruths out of his election propaganda this time. It is unseemly to disseminate lies and distorted statements in pamphlets. [Interjections.] There is another point that we hear from the platforms of the right-wing parties. [Interjections.] Sir, I am struggling to make myself heard.

Are you too high and mighty to take interjections?

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, I am quite prepared to tolerate civilised interjections, but persistent shouting compels one to raise one’s own voice, and it is not a pleasure to debate in that way.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Kuruman must comply with the ruling I have just given. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I want to refer to what we shall be hearing continually from the HNP in particular, but also from the CP. It is that South Africa has been plunged into debt. What is the truth of the matter? I shall provide a few facts in a moment. I want to ask the hon members to inform their propaganda writers in depth on these matters so that we may be able to conduct a decent debate on a high level in regard to this matter. In contrast to that reaction, what we shall have on this side of the House is a coherent handling of fiscal and monetary policy.

After years of study by the Central Economic Advisory Service we effected a dramatic change in the management of this country’s finances last year by switching to a system of priority determination and the accommodation of those priorities within specific expenditure frameworks in an anticipatory cycle of five years, where year 1 is always this year’s budget. On the expenditure side, therefore, we are engaged in a process of getting our priorities straight and in that way adapting our expenditure to our resources. At the same time we looked at our resources.

The English edition of the report of the Margo Commission has already been completed and the Afrikaans translation is at present being done. As soon as it is finished it will be handed over to the State President and we shall be making an announcement shortly on the further handling of the recommendations of that commission.

I want to take this opportunity to convey my sincere thanks to that commission for the enormous task they have completed in the very short space of two years. Therefore, as far as both expenditure and revenue are concerned we are about to enter an entirely new dispensation as regards the meaningful and effective management of the finances of the Republic of South Africa. I therefore contend that we must not judge the State’s role in the economy solely on the basis of the state of the South African economy, because we do not live in isolation. The South African economy cannot escape the effects of international economic trends. I wish to make the point that within the space of two decades, drastic changes have taken place in the world economy, and this has had its effect on South Africa.

It is a fact—the hon member for Yeoville will probably laugh about this again—that the turning point of those two decades coincided with the dramatic rise in the oil price in 1973. When one analyses the economy of the world and of the great powers, one notes that certain very important changes took place in the decade that followed that drastic increase in the oil price.

Firstly, the ratio between our exports and our gross domestic product declined sharply. We therefore had to start developing other alternatives. Our rate of exchange weakened. There was a shift in the growth of industrial countries because they no longer needed our raw materials as much. This is because their growth took place in the service sectors and in the field of advanced technology.

After the shock of the oil price, industrial countries drastically reduced their rates of inflation. This strengthened their rates of exchange relative to ours and this made it unnecessary for people to buy gold, diamonds and platinum as a fence against inflation in their countries. This necessarily had a very adverse effect on our economy.

In addition, arms and oil embargoes were imposed on us. Fluctuating exchange rates became commonplace. Over the past three to four years—in this regard I just want to give the hon member for Sasolburg a little information—we have seen the most drastic change in the international movement of capital. Let me quote a few statistics from the 1984 report of the IMF. In 1983, $51 billion was lent to developing countries by international banks. The following year this figure declined to $14 billion, and in 1985 it dwindled to a mere $3 billion. In 18 months South Africa has repaid $3 billion in foreign commitments. During 12 of those 18 months all the banks in the entire world lent a mere $3 billion to all developing countries. At present virtually nothing is being lent by the international banks. In fact, during the first half of 1986, developing countries throughout the world repaid the net sum of $7 billion to banks.

Now the impression is being created that only South Africa is under pressure to pay off its overseas commitments. That is simply untrue, because throughout the world international bankers have virtually seized the assets of developing countries.

As a result we have undergone an adjustment process internally as well, but then we had the gold bonanza. Together with the 1980 gold bonanza we had rain, the maize grew and we had record harvests. That gave us a breathing space of four years, and in that time it was unnecessary to adapt continually. Subsequently the gold price declined sharply and the rain stopped. This imposed a very severe process of adjustment on South Africa. There was a major capital outflow which had an effect on our economy. Moreover, there was a very considerable increase in security and social expenditure, in an effort to eliminate fundamental problems in South Africa.

In such a process something has to give, because one cannot protect one’s people against an adjustment process of this kind. It is impossible to protect one’s country against that. There are various policy options, and every policy has advantages and disadvantages. As the expression has it, there are “trade-offs”. Some of the developing countries, like the South American countries, decided to protect their people, although that would promote inflation. Countries like West Germany, Britain and the USA, which had considerable welfare resources, decided to maintain a low growth rate; they were prepared to accept increasing unemployment because they are able to keep their people alive. In this way their inflation rate declined, although it went hand in hand with an extremely high unemployment rate. We in South Africa tried to achieve these adjustments by way of a balanced policy.

We therefore have a higher rate of inflation than we would like. We have higher unemployment and a lower growth rate. This is so because by way of our package of policy options we sought to strike a balance among the various aspects. Therefore something in the economy had to give and the result is what I have just described.

The Government could perhaps be accused of having effected adjustments in such a way as to promote a high rate of inflation. It is true that we yielded in this respect, but we knew that there was a limit to the extent of unemployment one could permit in South Africa in order to counteract inflation. We in South Africa do not have the welfare systems that other countries have; therefore it is an extremely ticklish problem to decide up to what point one can take unemployment before one has to accept that one cannot get the better of the high inflation rate as result of one’s policy package.

Therefore this Government cannot take credit for the present higher rainfall and the benefits it brings; any more than we should have taken the blame for the problems when it did not rain. Nor can we take credit for the higher dollar price of gold and the benefits that accrue to us from that. Similarly, it was not our fault when the dollar price of gold dropped.

We are at present in a position in which our fiscal and monetary policy package are working together to guide our economy through its most drastic adjustment process. Yes, we have made mistakes. Perhaps in the exchange transactions we selected an incorrect aspect, the disadvantages of which were greater than the advantages. It is logical that that could have happened. However, I now contend in all honesty that an analysis shows that our policy package as a whole contributed towards our getting off fairly lightly in this extremely difficult time.

Since the middle of 1985 we have been experiencing an upswing. It is true that it is from a low base and it is a very modest upswing that even goes to sleep now and again, and falls behind the rate of inflation. It stumbled in the first half of 1986, but by the third quarter began to move upwards again. We believe that the statistics relating to the fourth quarter, which are to be released shortly, will also reflect a moderate recovery of our economy.

For the 1986 calendar year we had a real growth rate of 1%. [Interjections.] Yes, that is too little. We would have preferred 3%, because that was what we were working towards, but we must be grateful that we did have a positive growth rate of 1% and not a negative growth rate of 1%. [Interjections.] It is inadequate.

I see that hon members of the opposition parties regard what I have just said as quite comic. The simple truth is that my colleagues and I are constantly in touch with the best advisers outside the normal circle of advisers in South Africa. We meet them at meetings of the Cabinet committees and privately in our offices. We ask them for their vision of what they would do to guide the economy to a higher growth rate. [Interjections.] Thus far I have not heard of a better policy package. When we hear something good, we have the grace and humility to accept it. That is the simple truth.

We do not impose an economic policy with a mere stroke of the pen while sitting behind a desk. We follow a comprehensive process— and I shall be dealing with it in this House— to determine the economic policy down to the finest points before recommending it to the Government. That is the truth, and I ask that this be recognised by people who are intellectually honest when they judge the economy.

Where are your figures?

I do not wish to provide figures now because I shall do so during the Part Appropriation next week.

We have done well in difficult circumstances as regards the current account of our balance of payments. Now, in January, we are, for the first time, in a position to begin to build up our reserves a little. In the past we had a very hard time of it trying to build up our reserves, and this is necessarily reflected in our rate of exchange as well.

I now want to look at the whole issue of inflation. If one listens to hon members of the Opposition parties and reads what they write, one gains the impression that inflation need only be defined and placed on a platform for one to be able to charge at it and cut it to pieces or shoot it to bits. They give the impression that everything would then be over. [Interjections.] I shall ignore that remark.

Inflation is a many-facetted, extremely complex issue in the South African economy. We can do as the Opposition does—particularly the CP—and go and tell the people what they are not going to do. We can tell people what does not cause inflation today. However it is not so easy for us or for any expert to say today how the inflation that we are experiencing at present is made up. [Interjections.]

I want to warn people against a simplistic approach to inflation. I do not want to use our opinions in this regard because we are at present engaged in a trilateral study being undertaken by the department, the Central Economic Advisory Service and the Reserve Bank. We are going to combine the results of this investigation and enter into debate with experts from other sectors of our economy because we must get to the bottom of this issue of inflation. [Interjections.]

Today I want to express my gratitude to a newspaper that is usually not well disposed to those of us in the Ministery of Finance, namely Business Day. I want to express my thanks for the level of debating on the whole issue of inflation in Business Day. They have published four guiding articles on this complex matter. I want to quote a few extracts from them to hon members to show them what a complex matter this is and to show that in this election we shall be able to reply to people who suggest that getting and nailing the bug is merely a matter of decision-making.

Firstly I want to quote Prof Philip Moore:

It is not an object. He goes on:

This is an extremely important statement. He goes on to say:

This ought to be a lesson to us, and that also goes for the debates we conduct in this House—

This is a golden thread running throughout this argument. I also have several important quotations, including one from Prof Geert de Wet and Mr Aubrey Dickman.

There is no doubt that protective measures taken by a government to carry its country through difficult economic and financial adjustments often result in inflation. We are also guilty of that, but then we must find other ways of financing these demands of security and social investment in South Africa in order to ensure our long-term stability. This must be done so that we do not create money but finance it in a healthy way. If we finance it in an unsound way then we are guilty in this regard.

I wish to conclude by saying that as regards this sensitive and complex matter of inflation I believe that we are going to have from that side of the House—we on this side of the House undertake not to conduct the debate in that way—both here and from the election platforms, an exploitation of the situation, one which in my opinion requires more attention or should be approached with greater responsibility than merely making political capital out of it. You will see, Sir, that this party is a future-oriented party and not an election-oriented party. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, there is one point on which I agree with the hon the Minister of Finance, and that is that Graeme Pollock is a very good batsman, but I think he would agree with me that Thys Lourens and Jan Wilkens are much better politicians than he is. [Interjections.] He spoke about a vision of South Africa. It is specifically a question of that vision of South Africa, and I shall presently be linking up with that.

A further point that is very important is that the hon the Minister probably fired the first shots to indicate what a preservatory or conservative pose the NP was going to adopt in the general election. Around one corner the party even tried to pose as a supporter of apartheid; it should just be given a slightly different name. During the election we shall probably again have posters purporting that separate development is National Party policy.

The hon the Minister warned us that we should not, in advance, make propaganda in regard to certain economic and financial matters. Sir, the NP is doing it for us. In an information document the NP boasts, for example, of what it has done for thousands of schoolchildren and their parents who are going hungry whilst the Government wastes money. In the document reference is made to several schemes such as the granting of aid to unemployed, welfare assistance to farmers in drought-stricken areas and emergency aid. A very extensive piece of arithmetic is done! It is stated that so many adults and so many children were involved. In total, help was apparently granted to 39 587 people, with the colossal amount of R3 279 648 having been spent. [Interjections.] If one does a bit of arithmetic, this comes down to a per capita amount of approximately R84,00 for the year as a whole. [Interjections.]

An R4,3 million, however, was spent on that little song. We do not have to debit each of those who participated in the making of the song with the full amount, but what they received was a per capita amount of R15 000. If one calculates the overall expenditure on the song and divides it by 51—that is perhaps not quite fair—one finds that R84 000 was spent on having one person sing! [Interjections.]

In passing I also want to refer to the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. He should be very careful if reading about the resolutions of the sinod of NG Church. If he finds any comfort in this, let me just tell him that he should read the whole document. He would then discover how many theologians, one after the other, explained that they were not adopting a resolution against apartheid as such, but only against certain facets. He should therefore go and read the whole document. Let me assure him that it contains a great deal that is unclear and a great many ambiguities and even contradictions.

It is not the time for it now, but I just want to say that I am prepared to appear on a platform with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition or some theologian to speak about those resolutions adopted by the general sinod. [Interjections.] Any hon member, in fact any theologian, can extend an invitation to me; I shall meet any of them on a platform to discuss that report, that is if they have done their homework the way I have done mine. [Interjections.]

Let me also tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that I think the PFP has reached the very end in the chain of consequences of a liberal philosophy. I shall tell hon members why I am making this statement. At the congress which the PFP held at the end of last year, when the party extended its hand to Black supporters so that Whites, as it were, could be encouraged to support the PFP, a Black speaker—I am referring to Dr Motlana—was a participant. He said:

†When the hon member for Houghton said:

the response was one of total rejection. There could be no compromise.

*Sir, that is an obsolete party. It does not speak on behalf of any people or any real ethnic group in South Africa. It no longer acts—this links up with what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said—with the interests of a specific people; it is now simply a party “for the people”, and those people constitute the whole …

Wait until 7 May!

Sir, I would very gladly join the hon member for Houghton, on the day after the election, in having a look at the scoreboard! [Interjections.]

I should like to move as a further amendment:

1. (a) to restore law and order in South Africa and to combat the spirit of revolution which is being stirred up against us from within and from outside the country;
2. (b) because of their ineffective foreign policy, to protect South Africa against uncalled-for and unfair inteference in our domestic affairs; and
3. (c) to strengthen the economy of South Africa by means of increased productivity, the creation of employment and thrift to the benefit of all; and

A very serious question in this debate, Mr Speaker, is what kind of a showing the National Party, as the majority party, makes. What kind of a showing does the National Party make? Where is it taking South Africa, if anywhere at all? It is a party that tells us it is on the move. They say they are moving. They do not, however, know where they are moving to. [Interjections.] The credibility of the National Party, I believe, lies in smithereens. [Interjections.] I should like to mention a few examples to illustrate this statement of mine.

The hon member for Randburg is sitting here diagonally behind me looking at hon members in the Government benches opposite. I do not have to speak on his behalf. He will speak for himself. He is certainly not sitting here on this side, however, because he retained his faith in the course being adopted by the National Party!

I now come to my second example. A year ago, when the former Leader of the Official Opposition, Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, announced that he was leaving politics, he subsequently stated, in a newspaper interview, how many National Party MPs had approached him asking him please not to leave because they apparently still wanted to continue discussions with him. They even mentioned certain figures to him. I think it was anything in the region of 35 to 45. [Interjections.] The name of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was also mentioned. Dr Van Zyl Slabbert was told: “ Do not leave; Pik still wants to talk to you this week-end.” [Interjections.] That was what was going on in National Party ranks. [Interjections.]

Let me go on to refer to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. At the end of last week, that hon Minister made a speech. In that speech—according to a report in today’s Business Day—he said:

Mr Speaker, I do not know what people the hon the Minister was speaking about. [Interjections.] I do not know whether he is a National Party mouthpiece. He says they are no longer a political party; they are now a peoples’ movement. [Interjections.] What people is that? What political party is that? A political party that wants to bind people together with the force of conviction and with a unified policy and principle? That party, he says, does not have a policy. NP stands for no policy! [Interjections.] The National Party says it no longer has a policy, Mr Speaker. It is simply going to carry on in this fashion and hope for the advent of a peoples’ movement. [Interjections.] Can one imagine a dyed-in-the-wool politician in South Africa venturing to say he does not have a policy; his party is now simply a peoples’ movement. What does South Africa look like?

Surely one cannot, with this heterogeneous population of ours, simply speak of a people! Is that now meant in the ethnic sense, or is it simply a people as national as Saambou Nasionaal is national? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on occasion Mr John Vorster referred to a certain political party that was like a nanny-goat with twins, but with only one teat. The two little lambs, by the way, were a white-piebald and a black-piebald. Now that has me wondering. According to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs it appears to me that that nanny-goat has no teat at all. After all, his party has no policy. So where must those little lambs get a drink? [Interjections.]

I now refer to the hon member for Houghton. The hon member for Houghton appeared before the Press Club here in Cape Town. There she said that some National Party MPs had told her they were more radical than she was. Well, Mr Speaker, that is of course difficult. That is really very difficult!

Pik is, after all, one of them too!

For people on the Government side to be more radical than the hon member for Houghton is really very difficult. Then the hon member went on to make a projection. She said that if, in a general election, the PFP won say 50 seats, with about 35 members sitting on the Government side, they could take over the Government …[Interjections.] Well, let us then say 55. Those people are very optimistic. I do not know where she is going to get all of them from. Somewhere between Waterberg and Table Mountain? [Interjections.] Whatever the case may be, the hon member for Houghton made her projection. If she could— in accordance with her projection—get approximately 35 or so seats from the Government side, and with approximately 55 of their own, they would govern South Africa. That is, of course, the only way in which the PFP would ever come into the picture as a possible government in South Africa. [Interjections.]

What does the National Party look like today? It has had supporters who have the given the party large sums of money. Here in Cape Town there is a businessman who says he paid R200 000 for a meal offered to him by the State President. R200 000! And according to him there were 40 people present. I do not think all 40 of them paid.

Here is Dr Louis Luyt, a man who says he has only voted twice in his life and that was in two referendums. That is a man who supported the National Party and who says that from now on he will preferably be supporting the Progressive Party. I am sure they will welcome him with open arms. [Interjections.] Prof Marinus Wiechers “was wrong to have supported the Government’s tricameral system”.

So they fall away to the right and the left. The truth is confirmed, i.e. that a political party that drives along the middle of the road, like someone walking the middle of the road, is run down from both the left and the right.

A prominent Nationalist from the Orange Free State appeared with us before 8 000 people in the Skilpadsaal in Pretoria and referred to the “yes”-vote he had cast in the referendum. That man was ashamed because he felt he had betrayed his people. He said that he had told his children to vote “no”. [Interjections.]

That is what is happening in those ranks. That is how that party obtained votes in the days of the United Party, with an old United Party member telling them he had voted for the United Party but that fortunately his children were Nationalists. Now that story is catching up with them.

I want to go on to refer to the extraordinary large number of National Party MPs who are retiring. Taking a good look at them, the reasons are not in all cases age or a threatening indisposition. The reason—which is forthcoming from the National Party itself—is that that party no longer has any fibre.

Shall I refer to Dr Dennis Worrall? [Interjections.] That hon member is speaking diagonally to the back of me. I would like to look him in the eye. Tell me why Dr Dennis Worrall wants to get out. He will perhaps be standing in the hon member’s province, but not for the National Party. In all probability he will still be standing against the hon member’s party. The writing is on the wall. [Interjections.]

I quickly want to refer to the hon member for Innesdal and say that I think that the hon member did some heavy soul-searching. We all have a measure of understanding about that. Listen to what he says: “In the name of liberation we can destroy apartheid”.

†I want to ask: Why use the concept of liberation? Liberation is a typical idiom of the leftists. Does he want to destroy separate voters’ rolls? Does he want to destroy separate schools, separate residential areas, separate Houses of Parliament and separate national states for the various ethnic groups? Does he want to destroy those?

*Sir, sometimes there is talk of apartheid in those quarters. They, too, are suddenly opposed to apartheid, as they are opposed to colonialism. They nevertheless keep it intact because they know that the conservative voters in South Africa are going to cook their goose in the general election. [Interjection.]

The hon member for Innesdal went on to say:

†I noticed that the hon member qualified his statement by saying that the ANC would not be included in the negotiation process unless they rejected violence. I wish to give him credit for that.

Mr Speaker, let us forget about negotiating with the ANC. An estimated 10 000 ANC fighters are being trained in the northern parts of Angola—apparently by East Germans and other advisers. There one sees a movement financed by Russia, the Labour Party of Great Britain and the World Council of Churches.

The following are well-known statements from the left and even from the South African Communist Party. The Central Committee of the South African Communist Party declared in 1985:

According to these people—

This is the South African Communist Party speaking to the ANC.

The ANC bluntly called for the murders of Blacks co-operating with the Government. The ANC’s watchword is: “Make the country ungovernable”. In September 1985 Oliver Tambo said:

Why do I quote these excerpts? The ANC is not a respectable political movement, a type of parliamentary opposition that honours specific rights of different peoples. The ANC is not a purely nationalist movement for Black peoples. It embodies naked anti-White hatred. It is committed to violence and terrorism of the most bestial nature. Its leader is a stooge of Russia, and there can be no accommodation of ANC demands.

*There is no sense in embarking on any form of negotiation with the ANC.

I also want to refer to a term used by the NP nowadays, and that is that they have embarked upon “the broadening of the democratic base”. Let me now ask at once whether this means the granting of political rights to members of all peoples within their own ethnic and state contexts. If that were the case, we could endorse the broadening of the democratic base. [Interjections.] The alternative is, however, whether it means maintaining a unitary state, an undivided South Africa, a unitary state with common citizenship in which all, from the lowest to the highest levels, participate in the decision-making process. Does it mean equal rights to every citizen and equal representation, proportionally, with everyone in the same Houses? Does this mean proportional representation in Parliament? Does this mean equal representation for Blacks by way of an own Chamber?

This brings me to the hon the Minister of National Education who, in an interview with Leadership, expressed himself on the question of the so-called fourth Chamber. He said:

What does the hon the Minister tell us?

Exactly what the Federal Congress also said.

I am quoting the hon the Minister because, after all, he is a leader in that party.

This means that the NP does not have a policy. The cannot spell out how the Black people are going to be involved in the constitutional and the democratic process. The NP cannot tell us. In principle it has relinquished White self-determination at the highest level. If one established a multi-racial Cabinet, one would no longer have a White Government governing the White community of South Africa. One would already have relinquished it.

Now they want to negotiate with the preponderance of Blacks for a place in the sun for the Whites in South Africa. Let me ask a question. How is the NP going to keep the majority of Blacks out of Parliament, if they are to participate in legislation on general affairs? How is the NP going to keep them out of Parliament if those people, according to repeated statements by the State President and speakers on that side, have to participate in decision-making up to the highest level? How does one keep them out of Parliament, because surely one cannot create a separate Parliament for them in the same country? Is that not true, Sir. A separate Parliament cannot be created for them. They will be brought into this Parliament. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development said, by way of an interjection: “You are stating the obvious”. In other words, it is “obvious”. It goes without saying that these people will have to be brought into the same Parliament. The hon the Minister of National Education says there is no sense in a fourth Chamber. What we are now asking is whether it is perhaps the intention to convert the three chambers that exist at present into one chamber. If one then brings in the Blacks, would that perhaps be a second or third Chamber and not a Fourth Chamber!

These are questions to which we want answers. These hon members are welcome to get up and give me the answers. Those answers the electorate will want from the Government on 7 May.

The sixth!

The seventh is the day on which the result appears. How is the Government going to keep the Blacks out of the Cabinet if they are to participate in government and be part of joint decision-making at the highest level? If there is no fourth Chamber, how is the Government going to bring the Blacks in? After all, according to the NP they ae going to participate in decision-making at all levels—not only in the local authorities, regional services councils, regional government or in the provincial executive committees. The Blacks are also going to have seats in this Parliament, the highest authority in the country.

Another question: Are the Black people going to have the same number of voters per constituency as the Whites.

Where is Jaap going…

Sir, that hon member is “besig om in Lydenburg te ly met ’n “y”. Will he tell us whether the Black people are to have the same number of voters per constituency, on a country-wide basis, as the Whites will have? In other words, will the Blacks also have proportional representation?

Not in this Parliament.

Oh, not in this Parliament! Are we not dealing with numbers here? In answer to the question : “How is one going to avoid Black majority rule in South Africa?”, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said that he did not want Black majority rule either. He says we are not dealing with numbers. We are dealing with consensus! If one were, on the basis of Huntington’s four-legged model, to give each one of the four groups in this country one leg, one would be dealing with numbers. Then one would be dealing with one White as against three non-Whites in that set-up.

Old Chris did not know any mathematics.

Even if the Blacks, Whites, Indians and Coloureds had an equal number of representatives—we scale them all down to the numerical level of the Indians—I still ask: “What would the future President’s Council look like?” And I also ask: “What would the State President’s electoral college look like” At the present moment the ratio is 50:25:13—ie 50 Whites and 38 non-Whites. What happened with the election of Mr Speaker is now history. The division was 52:36. What would happen if one brought in the Blacks? After all, according to that side of the House, the Blacks must participate in decision-making at all levels.

One of the most important things is the election of a State President. One would not be able to exclude the Blacks from that. How is one going to include them? If one were to give them only as many votes as the Whites, ie 50, it is very clear who the next State President would be. Then the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs would be right, because one would then unavoidably have a Black State President, “policy” or not.

I quickly want to refer to the National Statutory Council, which the State President mentioned again. I think I am correct in saying that that Council, if it ever gets off the ground—I seriously doubt whether it ever will—will immediately start with a Black majority. I should like to focus the attention of hon members, and specifically that of the hon Leader of the Cape National Party on an information document of the Cape National Party entitled NP Policy—The Facts. In it there is a question about the National Statutory Council: “What is envisaged by the National Statutory Council?” The answer is:

I thought there may have been a printing error and I then consulted the English text. The English text also states: “and of the independent states.” Sir, perhaps that is a small printing error, but that is now the kind of confusion we are subjected to.

Why do you not read the Bill?

Would the hon the Leader of the Cape National Party tell us why he did not read the Bill? It is here in black and white. He says those are the facts. Hon members must interpret this in whatever way they want to, but those are the facts.

Even if we were to exclude the independent states, what would happen? I wonder how one would go about telling the Black people—remember, one honours their independence—and their striving for independence that one had spent millions of rand to make a large portion of land their own state, available to them, that one had allowed them to obtain their own government and their own constitution, but that one was not happy about that and again wanted them to join one so that they could draw up a constitution for “us”? [Interjections.] Surely that is ridiculous!

If one takes all these representatives into consideration, there is only one body representing the Whites—it does not, in fact, even represent the Whites—and that is the RSA Government; and in the RSA Government one has Rev Hendrickse and Mr Rajbansi. One would not be able to omit them from this National Statutory Council.

In other words, one begins with that right away: The body which has to represent the Whites is already a mixed body, and to that one adds very large numbers of Blacks in that National Statutory Council. Where does one then find oneself? One is immediately at the mercy of a Black majority. That is the democracy for which the NP stands.

The CP says there is only one course: It is the course the NP effectively and purposefully adopted, and perservered in adopting, a course that proved extremely successful, for example that of establishing not only independent states and homelands, but also self-governing states—ten peoples, four of which are independent and six of which accepted self-government; and one self-governing state said it was even prepared to accept independence too. That is the road on which the NP placed us. We say that that is the only recipe that is going to prevent one people from dominating another. That is the only recipe that would ensure that there is an own father-land for Whites over which the White Government itself can govern. That is the only recipe that will eliminate Black majority in a totally united South Africa.

The CP says: Partition, ethnic development, independence and each people having its own government.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Waterberg has once again passed up a wonderful opportunity. One would have expected the hon member for Waterberg to use this opportunity to state explicitly the policy he wants to present to the voters.

Are you deaf?

At the end of his speech the hon member said it was the policy of his party to establish separation— everyone should have his own territory and everyone should have his own institutions. The hon member for Waterberg is not the only man in South Africa, however, who has tried those things. Our history of the past 50 years and longer attests to efforts made by successive governments in South Africa in trying to apply such a policy in South Africa. [Interjections.] It was not successful.

The hon member for Waterberg is trying to sweep the sea back with a broom! The fact of the matter is, the hon member for Waterberg and his party are no more keeping the realities, the factual situation in South Africa, in mind than are the friends on their right-hand side, the PFP. No one doubts that we are a multinational, a multicultural, country. No one doubts that we differ immensely from one another, and that there is normal differentiation among the separate groups and people in South Africa. No one doubts that. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member for Waterberg, however, that stronger political leaders than he—and I do not regard him as very strong—have tried the same things in South Africa that he wants to apply. [Interjections.]

Are you talking about Louis Botha?

Yes, the hon member can go back to the late Gen Louis Botha. He can go back to Gen Hertzog and Gen Smuts. They all tried to make absolute separation possible in South Africa, and it did not work. [Interjections.] That hon member …

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Rissik may not make a constant stream of remarks. He must give the hon the Deputy Minister an opportunity to make his speech. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I listened the other evening to a television interview given by that hon member. What was his reply to the questions that were put? One of his replies was that despite what he said he should like to do, viz to bring about absolute separation, he would also have to talk to and negotiate with people.

The question was even put to the hon member as to what his standpoint in respect of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates would be if South Africa would be unfortunate enough for him to come into power after 6 May. Would the hon member co-operate with them, or would he summarily abolish those bodies on the strength of the majority he would have in this House? What is the answer? He puts all the questions to this side of the House, but he is the man who should provide the answer. He wants the alternative, and I say the only way in which the hon member for Waterberg and all those hon members who stand with him will be able to enlist any support in South Africa, will be by exploiting the basic antipathy, the racial feeling and strange feelings of the people. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon member for Waterberg one question today. Are he and his party not playing exactly the same part as those who are projecting an incorrect image of South Africa? I am talking about those people who always say: “Too little, too late”; those who say we are oppressors. I want to ask the hon member for Waterberg whether he and his party—perhaps not deliberately— are not creating the impression that we in South Africa are oppressors of human rights. I want to ask the hon member for Waterberg and his party to stop playing that little game in this country, because no more than we want revolutionaries in this country, do we want revolutionaries on the side of those who say that there cannot be cooperation with the Black man because he is an inferior kind of individual.

Who says that? [Interjections.]

I am not saying the hon members do so deliberately, but that is the impression one gets. When one wants to cooperate with the Blacks in the same country and take them along with one, they create the impression that we as Whites would defile and besmirch ourselves if we were to cooperate with those people in any way. [Interjections.] I say the hon member for Waterberg …

Order! If hon members want to put a question, they must rise in accordance with the rules and ask for permission to put a question. The hon speaker will then decide whether or not he wants to reply to the question. I am not prepared to permit this senseless shouting in the House. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

That is why I say that we in South Africa …

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister?

No, Sir. The hon member has made enough interjections. I know exactly what the hon member wants to ask. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister?

No, I am not going to reply to any questions. The hon member has had sufficient opportunity to make interjections. [Interjections.] The hon member for Waterberg wants to know in which direction we are heading. What is going to become of the President’s Council? What is going to become of a possible fourth Chamber if we want to include these people?

The NP has said repeatedly that structures have already been created for these people in this country. We are in favour of the creation of a national statutory council which can serve as the point of departure where the leaders of these people and other leaders can discuss the future course with us. This side of the House made it very clear, however, that we believe certain things, which cannot endanger anyone’s position, must be done in this country. We are minority groups, each one with its own traditions and way of life. It is not the approach of this side of the House to endanger the position of any minority group in South Africa.

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

No, Sir, I shall not reply to any question put by that hon member. He is trying to create the impression that because we talk about the broadening of the democracy, it will eventually amount to a kind of one man, one vote situation.

How are you going to prevent that?

The hon member knows it can be prevented by way of the decentralisation of power and authority to groups, by the creation of own bodies, and also by means of structures through which we can talk to the people and can decide on the vicissitudes which affect everyone.

But they are more than you …

The hon member for Waterberg said to us, for example:

“Look at the NP today. It is losing support.” [Interjections.] He even referred to a person who gave the NP R200 000, and was no longer doing so. [Interjections.] What is the name of that person? [Interjections.] I should like to have the name of that individual who supposedly gave R200 000, and refuses to make any contribution to the NP today.

At last year’s CP congress the hon member for Lichtenburg said the following:

They do not create the impression that they want to oppress people. I continue:

I ask the hon member for Lichtenburg: What about the normal increase in numbers? What is he going to do with those people? It is either ridiculous or an empty promise to the South African public to suggest that one can stop developing or expanding Black residential areas. What about the promise that was made by an hon member of that party when he said in Parliament his approach was to make Soweto the most beautiful city in South Africa? I ask the hon member for Lichtenburg whether his approach is that only Whites may own land? That is what that hon member said at his congress.

In the second place the hon member said only Whites could belong to trade unions. That is what the hon member said, according to Sapa. [Interjections.] If it is possible to do this kind of thing in South Africa—according to the hon member it is possible—he is doing one thing, and that is to put a match to a tinder-box in this country. [Interjections.] In addition the hon member says it is his policy that Coloureds and Indians should get their own homelands. Nothing has been spelt out about these homelands. One would have expected the hon member to do so today. The election of 6 May is close, but the hon member did not make use of that opportunity to do so.

The unanswered questions are not on the side of the NP. They are on the side of the CP.

How many of our questions have you answered?

The credibility of the NP is not at stake. [Interjections.] Those hon members are trying to establish one political party in South Africa. They are not even capable of doing so with the HNP, never mind all the people of South Africa who are so divergent. The only way in which the CP and its followers can succeed is by seeing to what extent racial feelings can be roused in this country.

As far as the future is concerned, we on this side have no lack of confidence in the NP. We know the voters of this country will not leave the NP in the lurch. There was a clear tendency in by-elections and in the 1983 referendum. We won another resounding victory in the last by-election, viz the one in Klip River, despite a fierce right-wing onslaught. If the voters’ roll was not so incomplete, not only would there have been a percentage vote of at least 60%, but also a runaway victory for the NP. As the hon member next to me said, it was an excellent victory in any case.

The NP has the support of moderates and sensible people and the left-wing and right-wing political fringes will have to be satisfied with the political crumbs of this country. There has never been as strong a national feeling of unity among Afrikaans and English-speaking people as today. We want no foreign intervention in our internal affairs and will not subject the country to foreign whims. Nationalism extends much further today than the Afrikaans language barrier. There is a South Africanism afoot which provides inspiring strength for the future. No healthy-minded South African prefers isolation in respect of the outside world, but no self-respecting South African can let himself be blackmailed by sanctions and terrorism. Nor can we permit ourselves to be dictated to concerning the internal arrangements we must make for our continued existence. Least of all will South Africans be blackmailed by supporters of a take-over of power.

I found it interesting to listen to the hon member for Waterberg launching an attack on the ANC as well. It is a good thing that at least he realises that we have to contend with onslaughts from outside, but where does that hon member stand in the struggle to offer real resistance against that threat from outside.

Did you negotiate with the ANC or not?

No. The hon member knows what my standpoint is and he knows what the standpoint of this side of the House is. How many times have we not said that there would be no talks with these people unless they renounce violence. [Interjections.]

Order!

What does the big brother say?

I am very pleased that I am not the political brother of that hon member, because if I were his political brother, I would know that there was no futher part I could play, that time had run out for me and that I would have to leave South Africa to the future generation. The hon member for Kuruman and many members of his party can play a positive part in South Africa if they want to. They are not putting South Africa’s real interests first at the moment, however. The problem is that they are too busy with themselves. They are seeing which positions they can get in this House. If they were prepared to put the interests of South Africa first, they would not assume the attitude they are assuming here today.

South Africans who listen to blackmailers are either scared of them or agree with them. The NP believes that we must make our own decisions and we have bound ourselves irrevocably to negotiation for the future. We shall never deviate from this.

Why?

This is being done with a view to co-responsibility for the Blacks in this country.

We must negotiate in such a way that the minority groups will always feel safe. We must negotiate in such a way that one form of domination is not replaced by another. The process of democratization must not be stopped and replaced by a political order which has no respect for democracy. We must negotiate in such a way that the diversity of our population structure is not replaced by a so-called unitary community which has no hope of successful survival.

In the Western World we believe we must live and let live. This system must not be replaced by a communist or Marxist oppression. We negotiate in such a way that the free capitalist system is not replaced by a system of the so-called redistribution of wealth and of land. That approach will mean the end of private initiative. We must also negotiate in such a way that the nationalisation of banks and of the mineral wealth and its transfer to all the people of the country —this is the policy expressed by the Freedom Charter of 1955 and which is proclaimed by the ANC—will not take place in South Africa.

†The Freedom Charter made provision for the national wealth of our country, the heritage of all South Africans, to be restored to the people.

*We know what that means.

It means Black rule.

Of course that is what it means. Everyone knows that and that is why I say it is not what we should do.

†We are not fighting those who want orderly change and renewal. Today we are fighting the revolutionaries and those terrorist organisations who are Soviet-aligned— those who believe in violence, intimidation and civil war. We on this side can never be the partners of the ANC because we are the partners of decent, peaceful and peace-loving South Africans, regardless of race or colour.

We are not only committed to reform in the political field but also as far as education, agriculture, the socio-economic field, land tenure, freehold title and third tier government are concerned. In every sphere of our national life we are prepared to have change and to have renewal. It is the Government’s policy to fight unemployment. We want to create more jobs and more opportunities.

We want to train our people, especially the Blacks. We want to promote the establishment of a strong middle class among the Black population. That is a priority. I believe South Africa should show the way to the rest of Africa.

A higher standard of living can only be brought about by the utilisation of all our resources, Whether they are human or otherwise. One can only do this in a free market system.

Wherever Marxism has been applied it has only brought about misery and poverty. The people of Africa do not need arms—they need work and food. When the Western world with all its good intentions leaves Africa in the lurch I believe that we in South Africa will not shirk our duties. This country will not only offer the torch of freedom; even more important, it will provide the beacons of peace and prosperity.

*I think that is what the NP offers South Africa. That is why I find it a pleasure to be a member of this party. I think the future of this country can only improve despite all the onslaughts and despite the lack of patriotic action by many of our friends on the opposite side of the House.

Mr Speaker, in the last two speeches we have clearly seen the tragic pattern which we expect in the coming election struggle. On this side of the House we hear about the Red Peril and the Black Peril from the hon the Leader of the CP. From the hon members of the governing party, like the hon the new Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs, we are receiving defensive and evasive answers here at the start of the debate. That is only with the exception of the scrap of the old United Party policy which he advocated!

†However, I do not want to follow that debate.

I do not believe it has been easier at any time than it is today to motivate and justify a motion of no confidence in the present Government because that Government carries the full responsibility for every field of the administration of South Africa. The Government is responsible for its disastrous record of political and economic mismanagement.

It is responsible—not entirely but to a large extent—for our international isolation and is responsible for a situation where two of our most respected and most able ambassadors have felt that they must resign their positions.

The Government is responsible for the lack of internal and international credibility in itself and, through that, in the whole of South Africa.

It is responsible for its chicken-hearted hesitancy and backtracking on reform since 1984. Up to then we saw some movement but then suddenly there was a marking time and a backtracking.

As a result group relations in South Africa have reached a new low.

There is a feeling of instability and insecurity. The Government was certainly years too late when it appointed 9 000 extra policemen because crime was becoming uncontrollable. There is subversion and terrorism. This is again not the sole fault of the Government but it has failed to provide the basic security force which could perhaps have dealt more effectively with it. I do not blame our security forces. I blame the Government for waiting too long to bring our Police Force to a level of strength where it could cope, thus making it necessary for us to take interim emergency measures to maintain stability.

It is in fact a trail of failed objectives and with it often plain ordinary stupidity and ineptitude which have made us a laughingstock among thinking people.

I do not want to continue in this way to repeat what others have said or to elaborate on that, because it is there for everyone to see. Every South African can see it. I would rather devote my time in the tradition of this party to critical and positive debate.

We recorded in our first no-confidence speech in 1978 that we would criticise when necessary and support the Government where it acted in South Africa’s interests. In this debate the only figures are on the critical side. I find hardly anything scored up on the positive side.

As far back as in 1978 we offered South Africa the Natal plan for local government, which was the very first signed constitutional agreement between three race groups in this country. That was a positive input which the Government then vetoed.

In 1979 during the no-confidence debate I called for a new government of national reconciliation. We thereafter made what I believe was an important input into the debate that followed on a new constitutional dispensation. In the end much of our policy was incorporated in skeletal form in the various commissions and committees in which we played our full part.

I believe we made a significant contribution in the referendum to the ”yes” majority. The hon the State President himself paid tribute from the Union Building steps to the part we had played in that referendum. I have no regrets or second thoughts about the “yes” vote. What was wrong was not the “yes” vote; it was the inability of the Government to breathe life and momentum into what that constitution started. It accepted the skeleton, but it did not give it the flesh and the life and the blood to make it real and to make it work. In all this time it has not even been able to get negotiations with the Blacks off the ground, as it promised in that referendum. The one ray of light, the Natal-kwaZulu Indaba, where intergroup negotiation took place, has now been put on a back burner while the Government fights a White tribal election over its own internal problems and quarrels.

In the meantime, however, this party has again come forward with a positive input. Over a year ago my leader started a new initiative called an Alliance of Moderates. Now we call it an Alliance of Realists because that is the term preferred by those we are talking to. This alliance transcends colour and party lines. Only 10 days ago there was a pilot meeting held in Pretoria at which we were present and where the representatives of eight homelands, urban councils and organisations came together. Three other bodies, Coloured and Asian, accepted the invitation but their representatives were unable to attend the meeting. The State President will know why it was not possible for them to attend the meeting that weekend!

That meeting unanimously resolved to meet again soon and to expand and strengthen the initiative which was started there. To me it was a confirmation of the faith that I have in the only hope that South Africa has, namely that a solution will come from grassroots. There is no longer any credibility in constitutional proposals which emanate from the Government itself. Such proposals must come from the grassroots.

This is no election stunt. After the election I still hope to play a part. My leader has set out three simple points of agreement as a possible basis. “Bring saam wat saam hoort.” This refers to an alliance of realists. Secondly, I believe that problems can only be resolved by the indaba principle of negotiation and consensus; and, thirdly, that real reform will only start when Blacks are included in Parliament.

Reconciliation is not unique. It happened, for example, at the end of the Anglo-Boer War under Generals Botha and Smuts in “Het Volk” and again in 1933 between Genl Hertzog and Genl Smuts when they reached their seven-point agreement. I believe that only an alliance or a coalition of all race groups that believe in peace, negotiation and evolution will be able to restore hope to South Africa. Therefore I move as a further amendment:

In the last few minutes left to me, Mr Chairman, I should like to talk on a more personal note because this is the last no-confidence debate in which I will speak. Perhaps this is in a way a declaration of faith. I would like to refer to the driving force which has motivated me during 38 years of politics and 31 years in this House, working for the sort of South Africa in which I believe, where all can live in harmony and peace and with mutual respect for one another’s language, rights, culture and traditions, and in a common loyalty to South Africa.

As a 16 year old student I heard Jan Christiaan Smuts—South Africa’s greatest statesman—speaking at the Rand Easter Show of a greater South Africa, of his vision of a federation of Southern Africa. It made a deep impression on me. That vision remains today. I little thought then that, a year later, that same leader would call on South Africa to join the free nations of the world in the Second World War. So there was another task and we went through that war. Most of us spent five and a half years—some more and some less—fighting to defend democracy and freedom against the scourge of Nazism’s false dream of world domination and totalitarianism. When South Africa responded, the Government, as was its democratic right, voted in this House to opt for neutrality. However, others chose violence and terrorism. They blew up post offices and railway lines. That is history. In the meantime South Africa became one of the most respected among the small countries in the world.

I recount this not to reopen old wounds but as a base to say to this House that the lesson of it was that, despite the very deep bitterness over what had happened in South Africa when we came back from the war— particularly Afrikaans-speaking soldiers who had been refused the right to marriage in uniform in some churches and whose children were refused baptism because their fathers were in the forces—we tried to rebuild, through politics, the sort of South Africa for which we had fought. We put aside the bitterness—as enemies have often done after a war and allies become enemies as happened after that war—and came together to work for a better South Africa. A little while ago the Government at last recognised and honoured the part that we had played as servicemen in that war, but that was not so when we first returned.

As I say, I am speaking on a personal note. When I came back from Austria by train and was on my way to see the 22-year-old son I had never seen before. …

Twenty-two months old!

Twenty-two months old, yes. [Interjections.] Sorry, Mr Speaker, I had not been away quite that long! [Interjections.] On that trip, however, I was approached by two civilians. They travelled in the same compartment with me and spoke with me. Both urged me to enter politics. I refused then because I wanted to build a new life for my family and myself. Three years later, however, the very leader who had inspired me when I was a young student of sixteen years, fell from power and I volunteered my services to the party which he was leading. As a result I had the unforgettable privilege of working with him, driving him— only the two of us alone for many hours—to meetings in distant places. In the process I learned to know the depth of his love for and his loyalty to South Africa. I also learned from him about his philosophy of holism. Those memories are unforgettable.

Now, Mr Speaker, the time has come for me to withdraw from the political activity to which I have given 38 years of my life. Together with my wartime service this covers a period of nearly 43 years. I withdraw for personal reasons. I believe it is time for me to give some personal attention to the wife who has raised my children, who has run my business, and who has looked after my constituency and its organisation. Whilst I have been coming here she stayed at home for 15 of those years. I believe it is now time I gave something back to my family. I admit that the accumulated stresses and frustrations of Parliament have also played a part and the time has now come for me to move on but what I learned and believed in at the start has not changed except to adapt to changing circumstances.

During the past ten years I have seen no chance of this Government being changed in a normal election. Therefore I have tried to use the only instrument available which has the power and is able to bring about change. That is the Government itself. By way of argument and debate, by way of co-operation and reason I have tried to persuade the Government to put South Africa on a new course and on a new road. I have tried to influence the direction of change and to indicate the course we have to take. I have done so because I still believe that confrontation and vituperation are counterproductive and have the opposite effect to that of changing people the way one would like them to change.

Now others must carry on with that task. The price my party and I paid was high. We were insulted and belittled by the media and even by some of our own followers. We were labelled as fellow-travellers of the Nats and as Nat tools. I was one of five men placed in the first rogues’ gallery of those who had to go, according to Mr Joel Mervis, over ten years ago. I was prepared to take it all because I believed history would show that we were correct in those circumstances. The result was that we could make an input in order to get the process of change off the ground and past the starting point. I believe, too, that the NRP will continue to influence the future. I shall also continue to try to make a contribution in whatever way I can, without the constant pressures and strains of Parliament.

I might add that I do not intend to crawl into a cave to hibernate. I still believe that South Africa’s true destiny can be achieved.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I should like to say that I have tried to meet the challenges of that great poet and down-to-earth philosopher, Rudyard Kipling, in one of his most famous poems. I suggest hon members on the Government side should read it and apply to themselves some of the tests he listed. I want to quote only the following:

The other one applies particularly to politics and is one which I am proud to have met:

I believe that that is the test of the sincerity of a politician—not to respond in the same way.

I have also tried to fill the unforgiving minute with 60 seconds distance run. So now, in conclusion, in the words of another poet whose first name is carried by the first Coloured Springbok cricketer in South Africa, Omar Khayyam, I want to say:

Mr Chairman, when I came to Natal 31 years ago the hon member for Durban Point had already been in Natal politics for a considerable time. Over these years we have always been on opposite sides of the political fence, except for a very short time at the time of the referendum campaign.

I believe that a brief tribute to the hon member would not be untoward. I have come to respect him over the years as a very worthy opponent and I think that all of us in this House will be sad to see the hon member go. In many respects he has been an example to young people joining the ranks of this Assembly of what a worthy member of the House of Assembly should be and how he should participate in debates and in the ordinary run of the affairs of this House. [Interjections.]

*In many respects our respective political careers in Natal moved in opposite directions. When I arrived in Natal, we had two seats and the hon member for Durban Point’s party was the overwhelming majority party in the province. It did not seem as if it would ever be possible to break the stranglehold of the old United Party in Natal. Today we are unequivocally the majority party in Natal and the hon member for Durban Point’s party will be very lucky to retain two seats after 6 May. The representatives of those two seats will be forced to adopt the policy of the Progressive Party to such an extent that they will eventually be nothing but PFP members.

The hon member said that he had paid a price for the year he had spent in politics in Natal. I can understand that. Over the years we have also seen that that price was paid in a loss of support for the old United Party and later the New Republic Party. But what we must sympathise with him about most is that he must leave his party and his province’s politics against a background of the selling out of the soul of that party to the PFP. [Interjections.] To any man who has spent his life in politics that must be the most bitter pill of all to swallow.

Of course I am referring to the alliance which had been formed with the PFP for the forthcoming election. [Interjections.] I am not the only person who thinks this. Recently the hon member for Constantia—in consequence of the discussions between the NRP and the PFP in the Cape—said on TV:

Consequently if one now goes back to the previous election which the NRP fought in Natal, and one looks at the pamphlets which were distributed to the voters in Natal at that stage, one sees that they were based on the principle of group identity. As far as the internal affairs of Natal are concerned, the NRP gained the confidence of the voters of Natal and won 14 of the 20 provincial seats on the basis of the following principle which I want to quote from the document It Is Time For The New Republic of the NRP. This is what a voter for the NRP wants for Natal:

This was the publication of that party in 1981.

Let us now listen to what the present leader of the NRP had to say about this subject in the last debate and which he participated in this House. [Interjections.] I am quoting from the speech of the then member for Mooi River, Mr Sutton, on Wednesday, 6 February 1980—almost seven years ago to the day:

Then someone on this side said:

Then Mr Sutton said:

This man who waxed so lyrical about the power base that belonging to a group gives one, said the following on Friday in the Natal Mercury:

The group concept the State President is insisting on! Now it has suddenly become the State President’s concept. It is no longer the essence and the soul of the NRP. That is what they told us six or seven years ago. [Interjections.]

Now I say we can sympathise with a leader of a party who in the twilight of his political career sees his party selling its soul to those people that it said was a danger to the South African society. [Interjections.) Why did the NRP sell its soul? It used the confidence which the voters of Natal had in it—confidence specifically with regard to regional government because the NRP had the majority with regard to regional government in Natal to introduce an Indaba. Then it allowed the PFP to hijack that Indaba. It allowed the PFP to take the initiative away from it in that Indaba and to imprint its own policy and views of “one man, one vote” on that Indaba. [Interjections.] Other members on this side of the House will deal with the findings and recommendations of the Indaba.

I want to get back for a moment to that party to which the NRP sold its soul. I want to ask hon members to look for a moment at how that party sees the future in Natal. In this same report on the Indaba in which dismay is voiced on the conditions which the State President set with regard to the Indaba—or any other negotiation process—the hon member for Berea said:

Well and good. But he goes on to say “… involving all the people of Natal and kwaZulu.” In other words, as far as that party is concerned, the participating components of this Indaba are no longer even allowed to decide separately whether or not they want to participate in this new system of government, this new provincial system. According to PFP policy they must all be lumped together. We understand that this is inclusive in the proposals of the Indaba, but the PFP standpoint is that based on the fact that a number of organisations sat around a table and decided on certain proposals without any authorisation from their respective organisations—only those individuals met there—a “one man, one vote” system must be applied to the whole of Natal to get those Indaba proposals implemented. Why? Because there is no longer a champion for minority rights in the PFP or the NRP. [Interjections.] Those hon members can laugh about this. I challenge them to laugh about it when they face the voters of Natal in the forthcoming election campaign.

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

No, I am not prepared to allow a question. The far right-wing parties in South Africa are not champions for minority groups in this country. They absolutetise the rights of the Whites at the expense of all other groups in this country. The parties to the left of the NP, on the other hand, have abandoned all claims to being champions for minority groups. Now all they are interested in is the rights of the individual, protected by a so-called Bill of Rights.

Consequently the conclusion one reaches is that only the NP remains as the champion of minority rights in this country. That is why I say that South Africa as a whole needs an election on 6 May—particularly in Natal, because the people of Natal must be told that they have been sold out by this little party which was their choice for regional government in 1981—which has now been taken over by the PFP, a party which in any case has never the choice of Natal’s voters.

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

No. My time is limited.

There is a specific reason why the PFP has now requested a referendum for all voters. It is simply because they do not have the courage to ask the White voters or the Coloured voters or the Indian voters of Natal separately. They are now trying to hide behind a smoke-screen: It must now be a general referendum.

We are definitely not going to ask the voters of Natal to give a final answer on the Indaba on a “one man, one vote” basis. Consequently we are going to make use of this opportunity on 6 May to obtain the verdict of the voters of Natal. It is obvious why the PFP is trying so hard to make the Indaba an election issue. Through their media they have tried to create the impression that the Indaba—the simple negotiation process—was attacked by the NP. This is not the case. Hon members on that side of the House cannot make a single quote in which any hon member on this side of the House attacked the Indaba, the negotiation process, as such. [Interjections.]

Questions were asked and doubts were raised on the proposals which came from that Indaba. Doubts were raised regarding the overhasty way in which the concept of consensus to which the hon member for Durban Point referred, was summarily jettisoned when it became apparent that certain deputations at that Indaba were not in favour of the proposals of the PFP inspired members.

Now they are trying to drag the Indaba in as a smoke-screen to rescue them in this election. But the Indaba is not going to rescue them when the voters of Natal ask them where they stand with regard to the preservation of minority rights. It is not going to save them when the voters of Natal ask them where they stand with regard to law and order in this country. It is not going to save them when the voters of Natal ask them where they stand with regard to negotiations with a communist dominated ANC. Those hon members are afraid of the voters of Natal. They are afraid of the separate minority groups in Natal or anywhere else in South Africa and that is why they are trying to force a “one man, one vote” solution on us.

Mr Chairman, as a member who was privileged to be involved in the discussions and negotiations with the hon members of the NRP in the formation of the alliance which has been agreed upon, I should like to respond to some of the points the hon member for Umlazi has raised.

Firstly, however, let me make a few remarks on the developments that have taken place. The agreement which has been reached is not as sudden as it may seem to some outside observers. This is the end result of developments and tentative discussions which started as long as eighteen months ago. [Interjections.] It is, in other words, the result of ideas, thoughts and contacts that have been germinating for some time.

Secondly, I should like to note that I was most encouraged by the positive atmosphere which developed during these discussions. I was most encouraged by the fact that, in spite of strong party loyalties that have developed over previous years, and in spite of hard words that have been exchanged in contests in the past, broad patriotic considerations were placed above narrow party-political nit-picking in these negotiations. A positive attitude of give and take was displayed in an effort to find issues we agreed upon and in an effort to find common ground. That is negotiation politics about which the hon the Minister who is leader of the NP in Natal is scornful. [Interjections.]

The third point is that in our discussions, in our attempt to find common ground, we did indeed find common ground. We were able to unite on the common ground of the principles which crystallised out at the Natal indaba. Our alliance is not a cynical arrangement of convenience. Rather, as we said in our various statements, although we will retain our separate identities we will make common cause during this general election on the basis of key principles. The alliance is rooted in those principles. We will make common cause on the basis that a new, non-racial constitutional dispensation is needed for South Africa; that, moreover, it is needed urgently; and that the way to achieve this new, non-racial constitutional dispensation is by negotiation at indabas held both regionally and on a national basis. We will go to the electorate on the basis that support for either party to the alliance demonstrate a clear-cut commitment to reform—real reform!

The final point I wish to mention is that the public reaction and the reaction of workers in our party at various levels, has been extremely encouraging; in fact, the reaction has been overwhelmingly positive. I believe a new mood has been created. More and more White South Africans have realised that there can be no peace under apartheid, and they will vote accordingly on 6 May. [Interjections.] Obviously, the NP will try to break this down. They will try to find points to exploit. They will do their best to discredit it. They have been doing so, and the hon member for Umlazi tried again this afternoon, although not convincingly. Their concern may be appreciated. Anyone who is familiar with the history of South African political parties will know that alliances and pacts between separate parties are something fairly rare in South Africa. Although they are rare, however, they have always been significant.

The first alliance between two parties arose after the October 1915 general election between the South African Party and the Unionist Party. Neither one had a majority and they came together to form a government. That led to an amalgamation of those two parties in November 1920. That alliance formed the government of South Africa from 1915 through to the general election of June 1924. It was displaced in the June 1924 general election by another alliance, namely the pact formed by the National Party and the Labour Party in April 1923 and which in the 1924 general election brought a new government to power. That government ruled South Africa for another ten years or so until it was displaced by another alliance, this time the coalition between the South African Party and the National Party which was subsequently welded in their fusion in December 1934. The United Party which was born of that alliance governed South Africa for another 14 years until 1948 when it, in turn, was displaced by another alliance, namely that between the Herenigde Nasionale Party or the Volksparty of Dr Malan and the Afrikaner Party. They fought that election as an alliance and came to power in May 1948. They later amalgamated to form the National Party in November 1951. [Interjections.]

Therefore, it comes as no surprise at all to see the strong reaction which the development of this latest alliance has caused. The reaction is amusing. [Interjections.]

I wish to take this opportunity to express my enthusiasm for this alliance between our two parties. This latest alliance means that for the first time in nearly 30 years, the NP Government is going to be …

Order! There is a running commentary from my right. This must please stop. The hon member may continue.

As I was saying, this alliance means that for the first time in nearly 30 years the governing party is going to be confronted at the polls by a united, reform-minded opposition force. Coming at a time…

United on which principles?

I have stated them; the hon the Minister was not listening. [Interjections.] It will be on the basis that non-racial government must be brought about in South Africa, and that it must be negotiated. Those are the principles; moreover, that the group basis of politics will not bring peace. That is the principle. [Interjections.]

Coming at a time when the NP’s traditional constituency has never been more deeply divided, we believe that this alliance is going to bear considerable fruit on May 6.

Of all the qualities that are required of a great and wise leader, the greatest is that of vision. However, what did we get from the State President on Friday? As is written in the Book of Proverbs in the Old Testament “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has branded this NP Government as an …

Order! The hon member for King William’s Town must also lower his voice. The hon member may continue.

Our leader has stigmatized the Government as an incompetent, wasteful and bullying Government whose policies have failed. One of the fundamental reasons for that failure is a lack of vision offered to unify South Africa to. There was no vision at all in the State President’s speech on Friday. It was a case of ANC bashing, empty electioneering and an attempt to rally White voters into a xenophobic laager. This should not surprise us, however. It was perfectly predictable that these would be the tactics to which the NP would resort, because it dares not formulate a vision at this time; because it is paralysed by its own internal contradictions.

If it were to try to formulate, clarify, spell out or commit itself to a single vision of where South Africa should move, it would immediately precipitate an ever bigger crisis in its ranks than it already has, because in the ranks of the NP—just as in the old United Party in its dying days—are people who are bound together by old issues, old ethno-cultural ties and for historical reasons, but whose concepts of what needs to be done to secure the future of this country differ hugely from one another’s.

The NP today is like a donkey sitting on a fence trying to keep both ears on the ground at the same time. While it is immobilised in this way, I believe a fundamental historical process is unfolding in the hearts and minds of the electorate, and it is a process which is going to reveal itself in this election. There is a decision facing all White South Africans, and every member of the NP as an individual has to face up to the same decision. It is a question of the survival of the White man in this part of the African continent.

The choice is between, on the one hand, sharing with all the other diverse people who live in this part of the world with us as full fellow-citizens and, on the other hand, holding on to the status quo of White domination, whether one does it crudely like the CP or by trying to be subtle by means of constitutional manipulation like that resorted to by the NP. The fundamental dividing line lies between sharing and dominating. The choice cannot be avoided, and as the choice is made so the chooser must walk down one of two divergent roads. One road is our road, that is the non-racial road. The other road is that of partition on a racial basis.

As this choice is faced and made, we will see the further growth of the two fundamental forces which exist already—the non-racial democrats, that is ourselves, and the racist partitionists. In the final analysis these two forces will have to reckon with each other after the so-called centre has dissolved. The centre is a myth. There is no centre between having race discrimination and not having it, or between sharing power and not sharing it. No party can succeed in trying to reconcile those two opposite directions. As the old United Party also found out in its dying days, no party can succeed in attempting to be all things to all men.

The NP have not yet seen this, or if they have, they dare not admit it. They do not know it yet, but they are doomed, just as the United Party was doomed before the 1974 general election. [Interjections.] By 1977 that party had collapsed like a rotten pumpkin. Although the disintegration of the NP will take longer because they have the glue of power and patronage to hold them together a bit longer, the crumbling process is already in motion, and the election on 6 May is going to shock that party to the core.

*The NP came into power in 1948 owing to a historical wave of Afrikaner nationalism. That is a fact. However, every wave has its peak of optimum power, followed by a slow surge forward, and finally it ebbs. [Interjections.] The ebbing phase comes before the next historical wave. [Interjections.]

I now want to make a prediction. The next historical phase which is on its way is that of a spirit of national union, of uniting in the name of a broad South Africanism which will be accompanied by the total eradication of the evil of apartheid. [Interjections.]

The NP is the party which led South Africa into the greatest delusion of its history, namely the epic delusion of apartheid. What future can there be for a party which, after decades of an outdated policy which they themselves created and implemented over the years, is still clinging to the same outdated principles?

The message which the PFP is now going to convey to the electorate and the outside world, and to all who care to listen, is that the NP is not a reform party. The NP must be written off. The basic policy of that party has been obsolete for a long time, and the party and the men behind that policy must simply be unseated. The leaders of that party are far too hide-bound to be able to lead South Africa in a new direction. The only way is to get rid of this Government. What history needs now is men who, as the poet MER put it, have the courage to go back to the place where they took the wrong turning, in order to seek out the right way.

†We shall ask the voters in considering their votes in this election to recall the words of Dag Hammerskjöld and then to pass their verdict. He said “Only he deserves power who every day justifies it.”

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Constantia made a very bold statement here this afternoon in saying that we received no vision from the State President. I want to tell him that before this party of his gets itself into a euphoria about taking over the Government at the next election they should take a look at the by-election results of the past few years because the voting public has proved the contrary of what they are trying to tell South Africa today. [Interjections.]

What is also most interesting, is that this hon member went to great pains to explain the so-called alliance between the PFP and the NRP. To me it appears to be a very unholy alliance. He talked about public encouragement. I think that is a hollow cry because for every public representative of the NRP in Natal who has been positive about the alliance there have been others who have joined the NP and are, in fact, candidates for the NP in the coming election. I predict that in the end more NRP supporters will vote for the NP than for the PFP. [Interjections.] The excitement of the PFP is only shared by one member of the NRP, viz the hon member for King William’s Town. The rest are not so keen or not interested at all.

*Elections remain interesting phenomena and an election is sometimes accompanied by remarkable events. So far in this debate it has been confirmed that opposition parties are so near the point of exhaustion that one wonders how they will last until 6 May. The PFP is in total ecstasy. Its members are already counting the seats they are going to win—35 to 40! I want to ask the hon members what seats they are counting. Are they counting seats the PFP will win or those which may possibly be won by their alliance with the NRP or are they counting all the independent seats which may possibly be won? After all, they are now standing back for every independent. If an independent crops up somewhere in opposition to the Government, the PFP immediately makes room for him and requests him to stand. [Interjections.] There is even hope for the hon member for Bryanston. He need only stand as an independent and the Progs will retire for his sake! [Interjections.] I merely want to say that, if there is really no room in the PFP for a patriotic, positive, good South African like Horace van Rensburg, there will definitely not be a vote for that party.

What about Harry?

That is what I want to know too. What does the hon member for Yeoville have that the hon member for Bryanston lacks? [Interjections.] I cannot quite reconcile this. That party has been taken over by the radical elements; they have edged out everyone from the old UP who went to co-operate with them from positions of leadership. Only one remained—Douglas Gibson—who is to stand in Bezuidenhout and I think he is unlikely to come to Parliament. The most peculiar is certainly the NRP.

†That party has entered into this unholy alliance with the PFP. The most amazing fact is that the leader of the NRP, Mr Bill Sutton, who has negotiated the whole deal and who has convinced his National Federal Executive to go into this alliance, is not even a candidate in the election himself. That is the trust and faith he has in this alliance. He puts up the hon members for Mooi River and King William’s Town—I feel so sorry for them— the hon member for King William’s Town should actually stand as a candidate of the PFP and have done with it. [Interjections.] However, the leader of the NRP, Mr Bill Sutton, does not have the guts to test the alliance that he has agreed to with the PFP.

This alliance is, however, not too strange. I think people forget about the fact that these two parties have actually been formed on exactly the same 14 principles of Mr Kowie Marais. When we told them that they really belong together they said that they have different interpretations of those principles.

Now I want to put a question to the NRP. The hon member for Constantia repeated this afternoon that one of the principles that they have agreed upon in the alliance—hon members must listen carefully because they will find this in Hansard—is that they will fight this election in order to work towards a non-racial, negotiated government. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition the other night on television made the following remark—I asked the SABC for the script but they told me it is not available and I must come and listen to the tape. I am going to do that and then we can verify what I am going to say now. [Interjections.] If I am wrong the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition can correct me, but he made the following statement when he was asked whether the more conservative elements in the NRP would also be happy with the alliance:

Did the hon the Leader say that?

Not exactly.

Perhaps not exactly but it is basically what he said, the gist of his words. I want to know this because it is important. I honestly do not believe that the NRP, the way I have understood their policy, stands for in any way for the moving away from ethnicity. [Interjections.] The basic philosophy of the NRP is that it accepts ethnicity and the existence of different groups in South Africa. The only point where they have differed with the Government in the past is that they maintain that everybody in South Africa, all the groups and all the communities, should become part of one united South Africa.

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

No, Sir, the hon member can make his own speech.

Surely an alliance of two parties—is the other point I want to make about the NRP— does not only mean that they have a mutual enemy. They must surely also have some mutual policy or philosophy. The NRP will have to tell the voters of South Africa that they have chosen a colour-blind political party, the PFP, instead of the NP. On the basis of this argument I want to say that more NRP members will support the Government than the PFP. [Interjections.]

The crux of the matter in South African politics is that a formula must be found—we are also battling to find that formula—to cater for South Africa’s diverse multicultural composition. However, the fact that must be recognized—and that is where we differ with the PFP—is that there must be built-in protection for minorities otherwise nobody will support such a policy—not even the Black minority groups in South Africa.

Lastly, the final sharing of power will have to be arranged between these various bodies politic, it does not matter whether their composition is based on group, ethnicity or something else. A number of bodies politic must be established in South Africa and the NP does not argue with that. But we differ with the CP on the following: The Government has accepted that a formula must be found for the sharing of power, also at the highest level of government. However, the PFP says that we must redivide South Africa and form new geographical federal units within which race and ethnicity have no say whatsoever. They also say we must grant political rights within those geographical units on a colour-blind basis.

Now the NRP will have to face the electorate in this alliance and explain to their supporters how they must support a policy which is so different from what they stand for. The NRP is basically built on the principle of ethnicity and I say that this is an unholy alliance which cannot be successful.

*The voting public of South Africa will therefore once again turn its back on the opposition parties because they will not speak honestly to the people and as there will be an alliance of two parties which do not honour the same standpoints. This will resemble the days of the old United Party and that is why the people will vote for the NP again. [Interjections.]

Let us take a quick look at the HNP and the CP. I think it will be a two-round fight for these two parties to reach an agreement. The hon member for Waterberg has already lost the first round. He organised a congress of unity for all rightist groups in South Africa but this was a dismal failure.

The second round still lies ahead. I wish to contend that the two parties will ultimately come to an agreement but the hon member for Waterberg will be the loser because Mr Jaap Marais’s formula for the distribution of seats will be tabled again and I think it will ultimately be the formula according to which those people will tackle the election. [Interjections.] The hon member for Waterberg has been discredited among his own people as well as among all the lightest groups in South Africa. There, too, the NP will once again benefit.

The Government has grown accustomed to all the attacks it has to withstand. These attacks are often not aimed at South Africa but against the NP itself in most cases. Here I am referring to the UNO, the Commonwealth, the Organisation for African Unity, the Afro-Asian Bloc, Western countries and communist countries. This also applies to political parties in South Africa like the PFP, the NRP, the CP and the HNP as well as other underground organisations like the ANC and the SA Communist Party with the UDF as its front. All have one goal in view which is to demolish the NP in South Africa. [Interjections.]

We have news for hon members of the opposition parties and the people of South Africa will prove it once again: The NP Government stands between the success and failure of the future of South Africa. [Interjections.] I find it strange that these people are so obsessed to get at the NP and its leaders that they are absolutely blind to any positive aspects. It is strange that only criticism and no acknowledgement of successes is heard from the side of the Opposition.

Not a word of comment comes from the side of CP and HNP opposition parties or wherever-I must add we have not yet heard the HNP-about the improvement in the security situation. No mention is made that there has been a decrease in loss of life. All we hear from the hon Leader of the Official Opposition is how horrendously the Security Forces treat Black people. They receive not a single word of credit for the enormous problems they have to deal with.

Add to this the economy of South Africa. In his Opening Address the State President referred to the training programmes for workers. He mentioned that R450 million had been spent and we hope to have half a million South African workers in training by the end of March.

The State President also referred to the situation in the South African community. He said that R1 billion had been spent on housing and community facilities with a further R400 million being envisaged for this. As regards educational matters, R6 billion had been spent but one hears only negative comment.

†Coming back to the hon member for Durban Point—I find this truly amazing. I want to say that I have the greatest respect for the hon member for Durban Point. I think he has made a tremendous contribution to South African politics but I was amazed this afternoon to hear that even he has climbed on the bandwagon regarding the so-called halting of reform in South Africa.

He said that the Government was responsible for all the wrongs in South Africa. Certainly the Government is responsible because it is the Government, but surely credit should also be given where credit is due. That, however, we did not hear from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition or the hon member for Durban Point. [Interjections.] The general theme of debate from the Official Opposition side was that the Government was backtracking with regard to reform. That is not true. Why do people not give credit to the Government for all the reform issues which have come onto the Table during the past number of years? Under the present State President more reform has taken place in this country than in the past 50 years, even under the United Party Government before the NP came to power. The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act has been scrapped. The Immorality Act has been amended. The pass laws have been removed. [Interjections.]

Order! The Chair would like to hear the hon member who is addressing the Chair.

The Government has accepted the permanence of the urban Blacks. Home ownership has been granted to Black people. [Interjections.] All these things have been done, and they are not even part of all the constitutional reforms brought about, which I shall deal with shortly.

*This afternoon I sat listening to the hon member for Waterberg and am sure there were also supporters of his present who must have travelled a great distance to come and listen to the hon member. It is small wonder that Mr Jaap Marais cannot get on with him. He merely repeats the same old tune over and over; he is not prepared to listen to anyone; he is like someone in blinkers. One makes suggestions to him and attempts to debate with him, as we have tried debating with him over the years, but nothing penetrates. He simply keeps straight ahead noticing nothing. [Interjections.] A donkey in blinkers also keeps straight ahead in a furrow when ploughing; he turns neither to the right nor the left. [Interjections.]

The hon leader of the CP obviously did not listen to the State President. This Government is not offering excuses. This Government says—this also applies to the Official Opposition and they would do well to listen— it is irrevocably committed to the road of reform in South Africa. In association with the Government and other people who are sympathetic toward the Government we on this side of the House regret the perception which is being created that reform has come to an end. What I am saying is said with the greatest respect toward people who can no longer support the NP. Here I am referring to the Malans and the Worralls, the academics at Stellenbosch and whoever. If those people are to succeed in creating a perception that this Government has called a halt to reform, they are injuring not only the NP but South Africa. [Interjections.]

Surely there are certain facts regarding constitutional development in South Africa. It is certainly a fact that democracy has been broadened, especially under the leadership of this Government. The hon leader of the CP wants to know what this means. Just as in all his old speeches to which we have listened over the years, he puts up his own Aunt Sallys and knocks them down. Nevertheless he does not refer to what the State President said; he should take another look at what is in that speech.

You tell us!

The hon member for Soutpansberg should also make a speech as it will be the last time that we will be listening to him. [Interjections.] CP supporters in Soutpansberg, whether they are to win or lose against the NP, are fed up with the hon member for Soutpansberg; they definitely do not want him. [Interjections.]

Tell us where the previous hon member for Soutpansberg is!

The hon member for Brakpan will go the same way if he is not careful. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to tolerate those interjections and uncontrolled shouting a moment longer. Hon members will now either be quiet or be obliged to leave the Chamber. The hon member for Turffontein may proceed.

The proof of the pudding lies in the eating. In discussing constitutional change, any right-minded person examining the dispensation which has come about as regards Whites, Coloureds and Indians will admit that it is a telling example of the success of the reform we have brought about in this country. [Interjections.] Hon members can laugh about it. There are definitely people in Parliament at present who previously had no political rights but now participate in governing processes in South Africa.

What about Black people? We can understand this as we are also concerned. We also wish to know what the final result regarding Black participation will be. The hon member for Waterberg is very agitated about Black participation but surely he knows that certain structures exist which cannot simply be wished away. As an example there are the TBVC countries and the six self-governing states and there are local authorities which have been instituted.

Furthermore, the Government has said very clearly that it accepts it is not the only or final solution regarding the position of Black people; consequently it has spelt out clear guidelines. [Interjections.] Sir, permit me to repeat what the State President laid down as a point of departure because the impression is created by the hon member for Waterberg that the Government will simply obtain a mandate from the voters and then sell out the White man. [Interjections.]

Sir, you can hear what the reaction is. That is the tragedy of South African politics.

Let us examine what the State President said. I should like to quote him and those hon members should not neglect to convey this message to their people. The State President said:

[Interjections.] Surely that is a clear point of departure laid down by the Government!

We agree with the State President. Our message to him is to proceed and not to take any notice of those people as they have no contribution to make to politics.

You are going to lose!

I shall not lose; I think it more likely that the hon member for Lichtenburg who is in trouble. [Interjections.]

I shall close by saying that we on this side of the House cannot support one of the proposals or amendments emanating from the Opposition parties. We say to the Government: Proceed! We shall hold the elections and ensure that all of us here will return. Perhaps there will even be a few additional new members. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Turffontein always ensures a bit of amusement in this House, particularly with his double-talk. He reproached the hon leader of our party for knowing only one direction, but just take a look at what that hon member has on his slate. Beeld reports as follows on what that hon member said as recently as 24 February 1982 with reference to an election contest in the Johannesburg city council:

Where is he today? He is heading the group that is in favour of throwing facilities open!

That is not true. [Interjections.]

In addition we saw the tragic situation in which this hon member, who was a member of the United Party for a very long time, belittled the heirs of that party, the NRP, in such a way, and, in fact, tried to make fun of them. I do not think it was done in very good taste. [Interjections.]

I merely want to tell that hon member he is still in a middle-of-the-road party. He must be careful, because he is going to be trodden under foot from either side. If, in addition, he tells this side of the House that the effort in the Skilpadsaal on Saturday was absolutely worthless, I challenge him and the NP to hold a meeting and to get 8 000 or more people there. They cannot do that! [Interjections.]

It is almost five years since the NP made its left turn and accepted the principles of power-sharing and one government in one country. For some time afterwards a number of hon members on that side of the House still firmly believed that separate development was the policy of the governing party. As late as 1983 the hon member for Hercules wrote in a document that the new Constitution Act reaffirmed the policy of separate development. The hon member for Potgietersrus asked his voters in a letter whether they had forgotten that separate development was still the NP policy. The NP proclaimed on posters that separate development was still its policy. [Interjections.] Subsequently the hon member for Bloemfontein East also said separate development was still 100% his policy.

If I asked how many hon members really believe this afternoon that separate development is still that party’s policy, I wonder how many would put up their hands. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I say not one of them believes it any more, [interjections.] With the election at hand I wonder whether they should not beat the old drum of separation once again, especially in the Transvaal rural areas. [Interjections.] Perhaps they will have to tell the voters the Group Areas Act is not at issue at all; it is still a sacred cow. After all, Mr Chairman, the hon member for Randburg, who is opposed to that legislation has left the National Party. Surely that means that that sacred cow still exists. Perhaps, in addition, they will have to tell the voters that they will clamp down on offenders of the Group Areas Act; that they will clamp down on them now, as indeed they said before the referendum, when they got the then Minister of Law and Order to support such a standpoint on television.

And Pen Kotzé as well! [Interjections.]

Perhaps they will even try to lead the White voters up the garden path with great verbosity and all kinds of cunning—as we heard here this afternoon— with quasi-slogans and clichés such as “powersharing without domination”. Bless my soul, Mr Chairman! What does that mean? [Interjections.]

Ask Reverend Hendrickse!

We have not received a single explanation from hon members on the opposite side about how power-sharing without domination works. [Interjections.] Not only is it impossible; that is precisely what causes conflict. That is precisely what causes revolution. Getting one’s hand on the power within such a unitary state causes conflict—conflict from the side of a majority group which does not have the power at the moment. [Interjections.]

Perhaps hon members on the opposite side should go and read the article written by Prof M T W Arnheim as early as November 1985—an article which appeared in Finance Week under the heading “Power-sharing failures”. In the article Prof Arnheim wrote inter alia as follows:

Mr Chairman, in this new dispensation in which the Government wants to talk to the people, as the State President put it, this Government has plunged the Whites of this country into a tremendous morality crisis, and apart from a morality crisis, the Government has plunged itself into a credibility crisis. How is one going to find a moral basis for a constitutional dispensation in an undivided country with one nation and one citizenship for all, and at the same time prevent the Whites from losing their power totally, or at the same time ensure that the Whites’ power is entrenched in some or other way in a subsequent dispensation. That is not defensible. It is flagrantly unfair. It is unacceptable. No one can defend that.

In a leader in Beeld of 12 December 1986, this problem was highlighted very specifically. Under the heading “Kwetsend”, Beeld wrote as follows:

That is the Government’s dilemma! In the case of one constitutional dispensation, as this Government envisages, there is no formula according to which a minority group can enforce political rights. We can forget about that. It is going to fail. One need only look at Africa north of the Limpopo River. There are plenty of examples of this there. The proof of what I am saying is there.

What is the alternative, Mr Chairman? The alternative resides in partition. It comprises the separation of each people in its own territory, which is large enough eventually to be inhabited, cultivated, controlled and protected by the relevant people itself. Only then will every people be able to establish itself as a community which can establish good relationships with other peoples—as equals which can establish relationships in the shape, for example, of an inter-state conference or of individual agreements. What is very plain is the fact that no people can continue to exist without a country that is its own. [Interjections.]

I know there will be left-wingers on the opposite side who will ask me immediately where that country is. Where is that territory? Let me tell them. Their memories are very short. There was no doubt about this in 1961 and in 1966, when Dr Verwoerd said that this Republic was a White Republic, and part of the White domain of the West. Have they forgotten that? Only Whites had the vote, a White government and a White republic.

We did not steal this country from anyone, after all. How many sacrifices of blood were not made in the course of three centuries’ history of my people, which yearned for freedom and justice every time a republic was established. Think of them: The Republic of Gosen, Stellaland, Vryheid, Natalia, the Orange Free State and the old Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek. These are examples of ideals which a people aspired to, only to be betrayed by this Government now.

We on this side of the House say no, a thousand times no. We can never be held to account for the betrayal of a people. There are the quitters, the capitulators. They are the people who are betraying a people’s greatest ideals. We tell them today: Write their names down as they wrote down our names in the caucus years ago. Then we can put their names before the people to judge, because the choice has to be made now. The choice is for the people or against the people in what is possibly the very last election of Whites by Whites to the House of Assembly of the Republic of South Africa.

This all-important battle, which is going to determine the destinies of peoples and nations in this subcontinent, takes place on 6 May. We want to tell the voters: White man, you who associate yourselves with the endeavour and the ideals of the Afrikaner, the hour has come for you to decide either to reduce this country to a market of the world or to elevate it to a home for your children. [Interjections.] That is your choice on 6 May. [Interjections.] We tell our people among the general public, do not make a mistake, do not let your children and your grandchildren reproach you for a fatal, wrong choice. May they rather refer to you as my people, my leaders, who fought to the end for freedom and for justice.

The irony of the issue in this election is that in principle the Government has already accepted the entrance of Coloureds, Asians and Blacks up to the highest level here in Parliament. One has only to look at the State President’s advertisement in February last year.

Now that party is coming to the White voters of South Africa and asking for a mandate for this. It is asking for the permission of the people to appoint a Black member of the Executive Committee of the Transvaal, John Mafusu, to the second tier of government. This Executive Committee member revealed clearly in an interview with De Kat that, with ANC leaders such as Nelson Mandela, he was charged with high treason in 1956. That MEC is quoted as saying he is still the same man as the one under whose hands the ANC was banned.

Who are their bedfellows? [Interjections.]

The question is whether the voters of South Africa can trust a government which appoints such a man to an executive position in the Transvaal. [Interjections.] This Government has lost its credibility completely. If this Government shakes your hand, make sure you still have all your fingers.

The State President gave a few reasons for wanting to go to the people. He said:

We have no problem with that. We want to stand more strongly against that spirit of revolution. He also said:

That is not the issue in this election. In the third place he said:

Who is responsible, however, for the economic dilemma this country is experiencing? Despite the explanations given by the hon the Minister of Finance of a multifaceted inflation problem, one of the greatest problems is overspending by the State. Let us look at the overspending in the most recent past. There was unnecessary and luxury State accommodation as well as the appointment of 12 additional Deputy Ministers and everything associated with that. Public money is used for arsenals with weapons, armoured cars, helicopters and hundreds of security men to protect closed NP meetings behind barbed wire. There was also the creation of a senseless pop song by the Bureau of Information at a cost of R4,3 million, etc. In addition there was the obsession to effect parity in salaries without the necessary productivity. Surely it is inter alia the recipe for high inflation which means that the electorate of South Africa must become impoverished. The voters of South Africa must, in fact, decide on that on 6 May.

The greatest dilemma of the Government party in this election, however, is its forced equivocation in its efforts to keep in with both sides. A few of the latest examples are the hon member for Randburg, who left the party because of a difference concerning the rate of constitutional reform, the Group Areas Act and certain security matters. The hon member for Innesdal, who is in favour of the abolition of all separation measures, is also in favour of negotiation with the ANC and the release of Mandela, but he is quite happy to stay in the NP and accept a nomination in Innesdal. Where does the NP stand? The hon member for Innesdal is further to the left than the hon member for Randburg, but he remains quite happily in his seat in Innesdal and says: “Ons staan vir één beleid gesamentlik, en dit is vir die toekoms van Suid-Afrika”.

Leave that to the voters. [Interjections.]

It is an absurd situation and the voters will pass final judgment on 6 May.

Order! I did not hear very well, but the hon member referred to quitters. To whom was he referring?

Mr Chairman, I was referring to the hon members on the opposite side.

Order! Will you withdraw that, please?

I withdraw it.

Order! If I am correct, the hon member also referred to certain traitors. To whom was he referring?

Quitters is another word for traitors, and I withdraw that too.

Mr Chairman, since the State President announced the general election in the first half of this year in his New Year’s message, a certain image of the various parties that want to participate in this White election has been transmitted to the voters. The predominant image which is being transmitted by the opposition parties in our country is one of a disorientated group of people who by means of an amalgamating action, want to get together some kind of alliance or other to see if they can tackle the Government. There was a skirmish between the two alliances on the far left and the far right to see who would be the Official Opposition after the election. There was no attempt whatsoever by any of these parties to present themselves to the voting public as an alternative government. The ultimate goal of the participating parties is to see which of the two groups are going to become the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

The right-wing radical fusion group is now arguing about a division of seats or an amalgamation. The most vehement quarrel is now in progress in their particular group. Present here are hon members who predicted that the hon member for Waterberg would concede once again, as in the past; that he would once again do an about-turn and comply with the demands of Mr Jaap Marais. I am saying in this House, however, that the hon member for Waterberg can no longer afford that kind of image among the electorate, especially the right-wing electorate. Mr Jaap Marais will have to surrender for the first time in his political career; he will have to concede. The CP will not allow him to stand in Waterberg. It is a seat which he has contested for quite a few years. He will not, however, have the opportunity to stand there again. The right-wing radical parties cannot allow Mr Jaap Marais to have his way and contest a mere ten to fifteen of the “best” seats, concentrating all their workers in those ten to fifteen constituencies.

The HNP expects the CP to help it in constituencies in which the HNP is putting up candidates, but it will not—as it has shown in the past—assist the CP organisation in a constituency in which a CP candidate is standing. That is the dilemma. That is why I say that the right-wing radical party of the hon member for Waterberg has eventually seen what it is dealing with, and eventually Mr Jaap Marais will have to concede. Policy and all! Whether he has to repatriate the Indians from South Africa or not. Whether they should allow the AWB to participate in the democratic process, or not. The HNP has no choice. It is a defunct party, which has come to the end of its career. I think that in this election that party will finally make its exit from South African politics.

Furthermore it is interesting to look at the antics of the hon members of the extreme right-wing parties. I am thinking specifically of the hon member for Rissik. We have asked the hon member umpteen times already to make himself available as leader of the CP in the Free State, somewhere in a Free State constituency. But what is happening? He does not want to accept the invitation to stand in some Free State constituency in order that we might test his brand of distorted politics. No, he plans to run away from Rissik to a “safer” constituency somewhere in the Transvaal. I do not know where he is going to find it.

There is no such constituency!

He is the leader of the CP in the Free State, yet he is running away from Rissik.

Where is the hon member for Sunnyside going to stand? Does he see his way clear to making himself available in Sunnyside again, or where is he going to run to now?

As far as the hon member for Kuruman is concerned, I think he has enough insolence (domastrantheid) to stand in Kuruman again. I will say that much to his credit.

Order! The hon member for Kuruman is not “insolent”(domastrant). The hon member Dr Odendaal must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw the word “insolent”.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I just tell the hon member that I am going to win in Kuruman against whoever is opposing me.

Order! Has the hon member Dr Odendaal withdrawn his words?

I have withdrawn them Sir.

These days, Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman is the great thinker and philosopher of the right-wing radicals.

He and Jan van Zyl!

He is the one formulating the policy of the right wingers. Now the hon member for Kuruman says he wants to stand in Kuruman and win that seat. That is why I want him to stand up in this House and elaborate on what he has said in previous sessions concerning the right-wing parties’ Coloured homeland policy. He said that no additional land should be made available to the Coloureds. It took literally years to get such a declaration from the mouth of the hon leader of the CP. Now that hon member for Kuruman gets up and says that no extra land is going to be made available to the Coloureds. Only the group areas where they are now living will form the Coloured homeland, the Coloured heartland, the Coloured fatherland—or whatever you want to call it. The right-wing radical party said the same thing.

We should also like to find out from the hon member for Kuruman, when he rises to speak here this evening or tomorrow, or whenever he participates in this debate, what he is going to tell the voters of Kuruman with regard to the political rights of the Blacks or the Coloureds or the Indians or any other group which finds itself within the borders of the RSA, the White fatherland. Will those people have political rights within White South Africa or not? Will they only have political rights within their own fatherlands, their homelands, their heartlands? [Interjections.] Will only those Blacks and Coloureds and Asians in those homelands have political rights? What about those outside those homelands and within the RSA? That is the essential question, because that party has already told us that they do not stand for a radical removal of people: Partition does not mean that people are going to be moved on a massive scale from one residential area to another. That, I think, is a foregone conclusion.

We in this country of ours, South Africa, will, however, have to know one thing: What about the political rights of the other people who live within the RSA? Will they have no political rights whatsoever? Will the Whites alone have to take all decisions concerning those people, and themselves bear the responsibility, as in the past, for the decisions which they have taken on behalf of other people and concerning other people? What will the position be? Therein, Sir, lies the very significant difference in the philosophical approach of the NP and that of the right-wing radical party.

Our goal is that everyone at this southernmost point of Africa should have full political rights. Nor have we for a moment deviated from that standpoint. There may not be any people in Southern Africa who do not have political rights—full political rights. Our approach is, however, that this group character, or the cultural diversity, or the ethnic composition of the population, or whatever one would like to call it—certainly very significant differences exist—should be the basis upon which political rights have to be granted to these people. That is why the State President undertook to elaborate in detail his policy with regard to the Blacks inside South Africa—the “urban Blacks” as they are called in everyday language—so that we could also in this regard go to the electorate to tell them that these were the structures as we saw them and that political rights should be exercised within this framework.

I myself am very fond of comparing our situation in Southern Africa with the situation in Europe. About 15 years ago a need existed there for a constitutional structure within which independent groups—in that case there were independent nations and peoples and states—could consult with one another about things which concerned all of them, for example, economic affairs such as tourism, imports and exports, in order to defend themselves against the Eastern Bloc countries. Such a need had arisen. Certain functions could be differentiated, within which those people wanted to take decisions together on a basis of consensus.

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

Of course!

I just want to ask the hon member whether these states of Europe are sovereign independent states?

Yes, they are all sovereign independent states, but notwithstanding the fact that they were sovereign independent states, they felt a very great need to establish a European parliament, in which they could make decisions together. [Interjections.] That constitutional set-up is structured in such a manner that the Germans, who comprise roughly 90 million people, cannot enforce a decision in the European parliament and cram it down the throats of the Belgians who comprise only five million people. [Interjections.] In that situation the rights of the minority groups are protected. I believe that we can learn from this, and I am therefore saying that we can of course envisage a model along those lines which is adapted to South Africa’s circumstances. I believe it would be very fruitful for us to take a look at this system, the structures and the methods which are being applied there, in order to allow joint decisionmaking to take place without one group dominating another. That is the essential question with which we shall be going to the electorate. That is the most important issue with which we should go to the voting public, because it is the burning issue namely: What about the Blacks? What about the constitutional rights of these people?

The NP will not shirk its responsibility of putting this question frankly and in a straightforward manner to South Africa’s voting public. Since the election was announced, the NP has put up its candidates in a disciplined manner, as becomes a party that wants to govern. In some individual constituencies party political election struggles are under way concerning the nomination of candidates, as befits a party which wants to govern South Africa and which is prepared to take the responsibility for the government of this country upon its shoulders and keep it there.

In contrast to this the opposition parties are at the moment in tatters. No one knows who is going to put up candidates where. There are alliances and the PFP has swallowed up the NRP boots and all. Absolutely nothing is left of the NRP. [Interjections.] We know that the same process is also under way on the right-wing radical flank. The poor HNP is going to be swallowed up boots and all by the CP. There is no doubt about that. [Interjections.] There is no room for small parties that are struggling to keep their heads above water, as is the case with these groups. It is going to happen in South Africa, and in this process in which they are trying to slit each other’s throat and snarling all kinds of humiliating and insulting words at each other, what is the image which is being transmitted to the voting public? I ask who else but the NP can govern South Africa?

Mr Speaker, the hon member Dr Odendaal will forgive me if I do not comment on his contribution to the debate. He will appreciate that there is not much I can contribute to the argument between him and the CP.

I want to share a few thoughts with the new hon the Deputy Minister of Information.

Which one?

The new Deputy Minister. [Interjections.]

The first relates to what I call the deliberate campaign of disinformation being pursued by the bureau and the disgraceful way in which the Press is being treated. The media centre, which has to approve any item of news related to unrest and security force action, has become a complete farce and is now the laughing stock of the Press. It is totally discredited and is succeeding only in keeping South Africans in the dark about what is going on in South Africa. Incomplete and unsatisfactory reports are issued which are misleading, and I believe that this situation is totally unacceptable.

For instance, the Cape Times quoted a bureau statement on 21 October 1986 that the Monday before had been quiet with only a few incidents in which petrol bombs and stones had been thrown at private homes resulting in little damage.

Order! Hon members are really talking too loudly.

This is vague in the extreme and conveys no real news or information to the reader.

On 22 December 1986 there was a report that there were incidents of stonethrowing in the Eastern Province and Natal. Again, no details were given and the people of this country were left in the dark as to what had really happened the previous day.

On two consecutive days, 17 and 18 December last year, the bureau reported isolated incidents of stonethrowing, arson and petrol bomb attacks. Those were the exact words used on both days. No details were given and, in the event of harm to individuals or property as a result of arson, which is a very serious matter indeed, readers were not enlightened in any way, as the State controlled the flow of news in an incompetent and unsatisfactory way.

On 10 January this year, the bureau reported that schools in Black townships in the Western Province, the Eastern Province and on the West Rand had been set alight by radicals. That was all they said. The report did not mention which schools, how many there were or the extent of the damage. The Eastern and Western Cape and the West Rand cover an enormous area where millions of people live, and for the bureau to issue statements of this vague and incomplete nature is simply not good enough. I believe, however, that it is typical of Nationalist incompetence and arrogance.

In a way, it is similar to allowing the hon the Deputy Minister to appear on television without having been properly briefed. How he thinks he can wander into a television studio to be questioned by two journalists without even having read the emergency regulations which provide for the privilege of this Parliament to remain intact is beyond me. Then to allow the uncertainty to remain for more than a week thereafter by issuing confusing and conflicting statements is in my opinion nothing short of neglect of duty.

A further example of the media centre’s incompetence relates to a report I heard on the Update programme of Radio Today on 9 January this year. It was to the effect that a report on the bombing which had taken place at the OK Bazaars in Eloff Street in Johannesburg earlier that day had been submitted to the bureau, which had advised the SABC to telex details to Pretoria for perusal. Have you ever heard of anything so fatuous? Radio Today is an actuality programme. To transcribe the report would have taken ages and the item would have lost its immediacy. It was therefore not broadcast. The jumble of redtape which controls incidents like this is quite idiotic and boggles the mind. How are officials expected to perform efficiently when regulations are worded as sloppily as they have been and are changed regularly?

With typical NP authoritarianism the Government is attempting to control the thought processes of the population of this country. These regulations and the practices of the bureau should be halted immediately and the freeflow of information be allowed and indeed encouraged. The truth has never hurt anyone and for it to be suppressed and controlled is reminiscent of the actions of frightened tyrants and despots.

I want to refer to two incidents regarding the police and their handling of the Press. I am aware of a foreign correspondent who was visiting Cape Town last month and was telephoned by a senior police officer in the early hours of the morning to have the newly promulgated regulations relating to banned organisations read to him. He had not requested this courtesy and was mystified the following morning when he telephoned his wife in Johannesburg who told him that no-one had sought his whereabouts. How did the police know where he was? It is bad enough that the hon the Minister of Home Affairs keeps foreign journalists in a state of constant tension by playing games with their work permits but to be under the surveillance of the police in the dead of night makes one think of an East European Communist country.

Another example of this heavy-handed Eastern European type of activity is the presence, on most Thursday nights, of the police at the printing works in Springs on the East Rand where the Weekly Mail is printed. I would not be surprised if they wore raincoats and felt hats. I hope that someone will tell us why this sort of intimidation is necessary.

Now I want to return to the hon the Deputy Minister of Information and have a word with him about the infamous “Info Song”. I want to know from him why the bureau persists with this discredited and potentially dangerous project. I hope he will advise this House what his intentions are with regard to this song. I notice that it is still being played on the radio and screened on television. I have tabled a question which is to be answered next week concerning the details of the cost of this project, but I hope he is going to make a contribution to this debate during the course of the week and explain to the country, and the voters of this country in particular, why he continues to squander taxpayers’ money on what was known as “Louis’s Liedjie”. If he does not watch out it could very well become known as “Stoffel’s Song”!

“Stoffel se Skoffel”. [Interjections. ]

This project has been discredited and I have no doubt that there is hardly a person in this country who would disagree with me. However, the bureau persists with the programme on the radio and on television and it appears in newspaper advertisements from time to time. When one looks at that song it is interesting to note its opening words. They read as follows:

Those are the opening lines of the song. I have no objection to what is expressed in those words as they project the image and the thrust of PFP policies and attitudes. They do not reflect the policies and attitudes of the NP.

If anybody does not believe me I would recommend that they ask the hon Chairman of the Minister’s Council of the House of Representatives whether he has a say in where he may swim. They should also ask the hon member for Rylands in the House of Delegates whether he has a say in where he may take his family for a cup of tea in Blouberg. They can also ask the Swans in the Navy at Simon’s Town whether they have a say in how they may be trained with their colleagues of another colour.

I believe the Info Song is a lie as it does not reflect the reality of the bullying apartheid policies of the NP. I also believe the song is highly dangerous and has caused enormous upset to a large number of people. Press reports indicate that two homes have been petrolbombed and gutted—a blind man died in one of the houses and four others were injured. The bureau even considered providing police protection for the other artistes involved in the recording. Why did those who evolved this ridiculous project not think of the implications before recklessly proceeding with it?

There have been suggestions that other hon Ministers and other departments were involved in the idea behind the song and I wonder who really was responsible for it. I trust that the hon the Deputy Minister of Information will come clean when he takes part in the debate and give us the background of the song, what the exact costs were and all the implications of it.

What possible good effect has it had on race relations in this country? How many more people have to die or have their homes burnt down before the song is abandoned? I believe the hon the Deputy Minister owes this House an explanation as to why he persists with the song. I hope he will give it in clear and unambiguous terms.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.