announced that in terms of Rule 23(4) he had referred the following draft Bills which had been submitted to him, together with the memorandums thereon, to the Standing Committee on Private Members’ Draft Bills:

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

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, there is no doubt that the election that is at hand can, in many respects, be decisive for the future of our fatherland. For a proper evaluation of the implications of the coming election, and also of its result, I think it is essential for us to realise that the election is not merely a matter of a choice between the National Party and other political parties, but that the choice is basically a different one—something which, I believe, is very important. The question involved is whether we in South Africa have the ability to maintain a democracy.

It is also a question of what kind of democracy it is possible to maintain in the circumstances prevailing in South Africa. In my opinion it is also, amongst other things, a choice between peaceful reform and destruction of the country by violent means.

I do not apologise for the fact that the National Party, and I as a member of that party, were leaders in regard to reform in every sphere of life—constitutional, economic and otherwise. Nor do I apologize for the fact that it is still this party’s endeavour—and will also be in the future—to restructure this country in an orderly fashion so that we can establish a society here in which people can live and dwell in peace.

Thus far you people have made a fairly bad job of it! [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred here to security action. In this regard I want to make only one specific remark, and that is that security action is essential with a view to supporting or underpinning the reform process. It is therefore not a substitute for what we ought to do in that sphere.

The electorate will have to make the final decision, and I want to add that I think that I understand the meaning of that choice. They will have to pronounce judgment on reform. They will have to do so in regard to security, in regard to the security of all people and all groups, and also in regard to stability. If they did so they would choose in favour of the party which has the track record in that specific context, ie the National Party. They would also have to decide about whether they believed in political stagnation; whether they wanted to vote for surrender or capitulation; whether they wanted to vote for uncertainty or instability. It is very clear that in exercising these choices we shall have to take a look at the realities of our country—as things are, in fact, and not as we would like them to be.

Here I refer specifically to the hon the leader of the Conservative Party. No one would dispute his statement that in an ideal state people and nation ought to be equivalent, with a country of their own for that people or nation.

The reality of South Africa, its ethnic diversity, is different, however, and no one can change that. The question is whether South Africans are able to live in the reality of God’s creation.

The hon the leader of the CP’s solutions are so simplistic that they can be summed up in one sentence—domination without representation. That is all I want to say about his speech.

Now I come to the antithesis of the hon leader of the CP, ie the PFP. A second sentence in the hon Leader of the Official Opposition’s speech which was released firstly reveals the fundamental policy of the PFP and, secondly, underlines the fundamental difference between his side of the House and this side of the House. It starts off by stating that this Government is a minority government. That is a correct statement against the backdrop of the overall population of South Africa …

That is what I have said.

I am quoting the hon member.

What is important is that the hon member wants to change this minority Government into a majority government on the basis of a universal franchise within the same bodies, without the protection of minority rights. [Interjections.] In doing so the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is evidencing certain errors in his reasoning, errors which I should like to deal with today.

The first of these errors is that such a system can be maintained in an extremely diverse society such as that in South Africa— diverse in its peoples, cultures, languages, levels of development, etc. The system propagated by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition ignores the fundamental characteristic of South African society, ie its diversity. Any party which propagates that runs the risk of destroying any democratic system. [Interjections.]

The second basic error on the part of the hon Leader of the Official Opposition is that the only democracy that can apply is a majority democracy on the basis “winner takes all”.

The third error in his reasoning is that one can transform a multiracial, multicultural society, by means of a political system, into a non-racial society. [Interjections.] It is a myth to accept that the existence of groups would disappear if the PFP were to come into power. It is a myth to accept that the efforts made by groups to obtain power would come to an end with a specific political system. The group-nature of society is a reality and cannot be wished away.

You are an exponent of racial hatred.

I am not, but I am not naive enough to deny the existence of various races in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The next point I want to make about the Official Opposition concerns its pre-debate performance. What happened in the past week before this debate commenced? An argument developed in the ranks of the PFP about what proceedings they would attend or not attend. Those are the facts. That was what PFP members were engaged in doing.

You do not know what you are talking about.

I understand that the hon member for Yeoville does not know what is going on in his party.

The hon the Minister must say “the hon member”.

I did say “the hon member”.

The fact of the matter is that the PFP has become politically irrelevant. I charge the hon members of the PFP with having seized upon the Natal-kwaZulu Indaba as an election topic and elevating it to the reason for the election alliance between themselves and certain leaders of the NRP. I emphasise the words “certain leaders” of the NRP.

Who?

I want to ask the hon leader whether the agreements which his party concluded were the same in all the provinces. Do the agreements differ from province to province and, if so, what are the differences? The public of South Africa wants to know these things, because members of the public have to go and vote for the hon member’s party.

Last year, after the abolition of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act, the PFP initiated a large-scale campaign to extend membership of that party to other population groups. It was announced with great fanfare. Since then the endeavour has been shrouded in silence. That is perhaps the reason why the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition seized upon the NRP—or rather what remained of the NRP—as its new election partner.

I think the Indaba in Natal is a classic case-study of how a distinction can be drawn between, let us say, the opportunistic approach of the PFP and the Government’s balanced formulation of standpoints in regard to that Indaba. [Interjections.]

The majority and minority reports were handed to me on 13 January 1987 by a delegation from the Indaba. [Interjections.] During the informal discussions about how the Government would handle the report, I put it very clearly, as our standpoint, that the Government would preferably—and I want to emphasise this—have wanted to make its standpoint on the Indaba proposals public after it had consulted the initiating parties, ie the Government of kwaZulu and the provincial executive committee of Natal. The Government first wanted to do that before adopting a final standpoint. [Interjections.]

I also made it very clear on that occasion … [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, I really do appeal to you; I want to continue with my speech in an orderly fashion.

I also made it very clear on that occasion that the Government would evaluate the proposals on the strength of the following aspects: The representative or non-representative nature of the delegations; the mandate that the delegations had for adopting specific standpoints at the Indaba and appending their signatures; and the Government policy on relevant principles, including all financial, economic, social and political implications of the proposals for Natal and for South Africa itself. For that I make no apology to anyone. [Interjections.]

I state unequivocally today: Apart from the content of the Indaba, in my view the Indaba process represents an important exercise in the development of consensus; and I link up with my hon colleague, the leader of the NP in Natal, in this particular regard. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister must be granted a reasonable opportunity to deliver his speech. The hon the Minister may continue.

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

No, Sir, I do not want to answer the hon member’s question. [Interjections.]

The Government regards negotiation with and between various parties and groups in South Africa, at the national and regional levels, as the corner-stone to finding solutions to the country’s problems. That is why it is proposing institutions within which those negotiations can take place at regional and national level. In this way mutual understanding and trust are being created which, in my opinion, could lead to improved attitudes being cultivated in our country so that we can allow the constitutional development of the country to proceed peacefully.

There is an illusion prevalent in the country—it is being actively propagated—that negotiations involving the Government are not succeeding because they are not seen to be taking place. The success of negotiations should not necessarily be gauged by the degree to which they are seen to take place or by the vociferousness of those people taking part in the negotiating process. I want to contend that the success should be measured by the results obtained from those negotiations. If we employ that test, let me contend that phenomenal progress has been made in regard to reform in a wide range of fields in this country.

The implementation of the 1983 Constitution was such a very important event. After the implementation of that Constitution, the Government also purposefully proceeded with negotiations in regard to the future dispensation for Black communities in South Africa. The result of this was that fundamental decisions were taken, decisions which were transformed into legislation in this House last year. That is in no way the end of the road, but it underlines or endorses the Government’s desire, its ability, to move ahead, by way of negotiation, in the structuring of society.

Diametrically opposed to the successes of the Government one finds the PFP’S opportunistic petty politicking and—this important—the violence of the ANC and its fellow-travellers. [Interjections.] Every opportunity, both inside and outside the House, is seized upon to speak in derogatory terms about self-governing states and to describe the leaders of those states as puppets of the Government, but when the PFP needs those leaders for the purposes of misusing them within the framework of their own little schemes, they do not hesitate, like the inexperienced, niggardly, amorous young batchelor, Jas of Koöperasiestories, to go ferreting about. We must have a look at what that ferreting about has given rise to.

The success of negotiations is of tremendous importance to us. Let us look at the efforts of the Official Opposition, measured against the success the Government has achieved with its reform initiatives. They sit there with a runaway leader who no longer believes in the parliamentary process, and there is extreme disunity within their own ranks. [Interjections.]

Let us have a look at that. The left-wing of the Official Opposition, which took over the reigns at their most recent congress, wants to talk to the “real leaders”, not so.

Tell us about Jannie Momberg!

They said who the “real leaders” were. The “real leaders” are the ANC, and they pay visits to Lusaka. They describe the UDF as the people who have the sole right to speak for the Black communities within our country’s borders. [Interjections.]

Rubbish!

Who says so? [Interjections.]

The hon member’s leader says so. [Interjections.]

It is untrue!

The hon member for Houghton says the Communist Party, the ANC and the PAC must be unbanned.

How does this explain the Official Opposition’s euphoria about the Indaba? The ANC and the UDF were, after all, not there. They did not accept the invitation. Let me then just ask whether they negotiated the Indaba proposals in Lusaka or with the UDF. The reason why they were not present was that Chief Buthelezi and Inkatha took part in the Indaba.

This hijacking politics on the part of the PFP in using others, such as the NRP, for its own personal gain, manifests itself in the pressure it exercised to have the Indaba take premature decisions before the process of seeking consensus had been concluded. They did so with a view to the election which lay ahead.

To the outside world, however, they present the sanctimonious, false image that the Indaba proposals represent the final step in reaching consensus. Conveniently the minority reports, and the fact that certain participants in the Indaba changed their status whilst they were participating, are ignored.

They did, however, go even further. Some of the floundering NRP leaders were so efficiently taken in tow by the PFP that there was a split in their party. The hon member for Durban Point could therefore, in his farewell address, move a motion of condolence for his own party.

Around the Indaba as such—and I join Chief Buthelezi in condemning this—small little political games are begin played, and this is being used as a catalyst for an election alliance between the PFP and certain NRP leaders, without any mandate whatsoever. It is a PFP trick for short-term opportunistic political gain, a trap into which a few leaders of the NRP, such as the poor Mr Frank Martin and others, have fallen.

This misuse of the Indaba is taking place in spite of Chief Buthelezi’s appeal that White political parties should not make it an election issue. In line with my undertaking, when the proposals were handed over to me, I wrote to Chief Buthelezi. I asked him to convey his standpoints about the Indaba to me.

In reaction to this I received a communication from him referring to resolutions of Inkatha’s Central Committee. I should like to reveal three cardinal aspects of his letter to hon members.

Firstly it is stated that a study of the proposals have to be made and that Inkatha and the kwaZulu government would only then express an opinion on the matter.

Secondly he states that discussions first had to be held, across a broad spectrum, with political leaders in all the communities, about the proposals themselves.

Thirdly he appeals to all White political parties taking part in the election “not to make the Indaba proposals a political football in the election.” [Interjections.] He goes on to state:

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will concede that the representatives of the kwaZulu government and Inkatha at the Indaba were the main actors on that specific occasion. If these parties did not, however, want to express an opinion on the content of the proposals before having given them thorough consideration, why then the overhasty actions on the part of the PFP-NRP alliance in summarily making the Indaba proposals the basis of an election agreement?

The PFP’s complete contempt for minority rights is further reflected in its request for a joint referendum to decide about the Indaba proposals. This means that the rights of minorities are being ignored completely. I want to contend that such a step is going to lead to the even further polarization of the groups in Natal and that the positive attitudes in that province are going to be tainted. [Interjections.]

The PFP-NRP alliance compels the Government, in spite of Chief Buthelezi’s request, to adopt a standpoint on the content of the Indaba discussion. [Interjections.]

I want to state unequivocally that the Government’s framework of principles for future constitutional development are based on the following four underlying standpoints. Firstly all groups must participate in the political process at all levels on an equal basis. Secondly, given the factual situation in our country, it is primarily groups that are competing for power, and this must of necessity mean that the political institutions that we develop must avoid the domination of one group by another. It is in the interests of every citizen and every group that there should not be any group, anywhere in our country, which does not feel itself to be catered for and does not have full political participation and the protection of its interests and values.

Thirdly there is the principle that there shall be power-sharing, in regard to matters of common concern, between all groups, up to the highest level of government. Fourthly groups must have an opportunity, in accordance with their own choices, of regulating legislative and executive structures for self-determination at all levels of government. Without in any way going into any detail, I want to indicate that cardinal aspects in the Indaba proposals, as formulated at present, will have to be assessed on the basis of these guidelines. There is a fundamental difference between minority protection in a majority model and efficient group participation on the basis of power-sharing. The Indaba model does not adopt the approach of the equal participation of groups, but rather that of limited protection of minorities.

That is why the majority party will be dominant in all institutions, with provision only being made for mechanisms by which minorities can retard majority opinion or, when the cultural interests of a group are involved, make use of the courts to stop the process.

In accordance with the latter approach groups, on the other hand, have an equal say and take joint decisions on a basis in accordance with which numbers are not decisive. Each group therefore has an effective veto or can decide on the important matters, and a single group cannot dominate the others.

The Indaba proposals do not, therefore, make provision for efficient power-sharing, nor do they offer all the groups sufficient protection against domination.

These are fundamental elements of any model that attemps or professes to take the group basis of society into account, and the mere provision of mechanisms for the protection of minority interests cannot balance out this basic shortcoming.

In addition to the aforementioned, certain matters, which were not taken into account or addressed by the Indaba proposals, can be mentioned.

The financial and overall economic implications of the proposals, which could be far-reaching, have not yet in any way been taken into account; in fact, they have not even been calculated. On the contrary, the Indaba’s economic committee found that the region did not have sufficient funds available to finance the proposed functions and that the central government would therefore have to be depended upon for extended subsidization for the province of Natal-kwaZulu. [Interjections.] This consequently leaves a question-mark dangling over the other proposal, ie the proposed autonomy of the Natal-kwaZulu area.

If one looks at the experience with democracies throughout the world, one finds it striking that all countries, or more correctly, chiefly countries which have model democracies, are highly developed industrial countries.

The so-called “democracies” in developing states—I say this with all due respect—do not have the value consensus, well-developed infrastructures and large revenue resources which are a prerequisite for a successful democracy modelled on Western lines. [Interjections.] Most Third World or developing countries cannot afford the luxuries of the Western models. South Africa is largely also a Third World country.

What is more, in no way do the proposals address kwaNatal’s representation and participation in central government. It goes without saying that this aspect is of cardinal importance because it has specific implications for the eventual new dispensation, at central level, in which all the political entities will have to participate.

It also goes without saying that it has implications for matters such as the division of functions, financing, and also the principle of differentiation between the respective regions of our country. Naturally these are all matters which will have to be negotiated. So much for the content of the proposals surrounding the Indaba.

I want to conclude by emphasizing once again that at all levels the Government welcomes discussions between groups seeking peaceful solutions. That is why I associate myself fully with the standpoint adopted by the leader of the NP in Natal in the specific context …

Lovely! [Interjections.]

… when he said that the Indaba presented an opportunity for a frank exchange of ideas and the spontaneous growth of a joint commitment to finding solutions in that region of our country. [Interjections.] That is why I find it a pity that the process, which was initiated with so much promise, was precipitated as a result of PFP manipulation aimed at achieving petty political advantage in an election. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

No.

†What is more, it is clear to me that the composition of the Indaba, with the presence of interest groups having no mechanism available for properly consulting their power-base about the proposals, merely clouded and hampered the process itself.

Are you formally rejecting it?

Hence the reservations about the extent to which the organizations which have in fact participated, really had mandates to negotiate the proposals and append their signatures.

It is clear to me that one of the lessons of the Indaba is that only Government institutions, including political parties and groupings, should play the final role in any constitutional reform, and not people who have no power-base or public responsibility.

The kwaZulu government and the Executive Committee of Natal, linking up with the Government’s initiatives, took the lead in that connection, and we are therefore on the threshold of the establishment of a joint executive authority for the region. Both the Chief Minister of kwaZulu and the Administrator of Natal share the conviction that the creation of this institution will allow for an even greater spirit of co-operation and realism to take hold in kwaZulu and Natal. I undertake to take all the practical steps possible to expedite this.

The question that arises is whether the Indaba proposals have reached deadlock. The Government is accused of being the cause. I just want to say that that is not true, because the Government has committed itself to peaceful constitutional negotiation as an ongoing process. Secondly the Government does not act prescriptively as far as regional solutions are concerned, as long as such solutions take the realities of the affected communities into account. [Interjections.]

The delegates to the Indaba accepted six basic points of departure. I do not now have the time to go into that in detail. I just want to indicate that the Government accepts the basic point of departure and acknowledges the interlocking nature of the interests of kwaZulu and Natal. I also believe that the Government has no fault to find with these realities as a starting point for dealing with matters of common concern. I just want to point out that I believe that it is in everyone’s interests for us to allow the process of peaceful negotiation to continue, that we should not simply cloud the issue with petty politicking, that we should not play into the hands of the perpetrators of violence who do not seek peaceful solutions. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning dealt here mainly with two subjects, and I propose to deal with one of those two very briefly. With the other subject I should like to deal a little more in detail, after which I want to continue to address myself a little more at length to the hon the Minister of Finance and his speech of yesterday.

I must say one thing about the Indaba, however, in relation to which, I believe, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has entirely missed the point. In this respect, I believe he is certainly conveying the wrong impression with his address both inside and outside of Parliament. People outside are also going to read the speech he has delivered here today.

I must tell you, Sir, that moderate people inside South Africa—people of all colours— as well as moderate people outside of South Africa who indeed want to see peaceful change in South Africa and who oppose revolution regard the Indaba as one of the most hopeful signs that South Africa has seen for years. [Interjections.] It shows that moderate people of goodwill can have negotiation, can talk, can get together and can try to work out solutions. I want to tell the hon the Minister that if he has ever done a disservice to South Africa and to the cause of peaceful negotiation in South Africa he has done so today. [Interjections.] He has done so today, Sir.

He is a typical Nat! [Interjections.]

The second thing I should like to mention—this emerged from the trend of his speech and was unfortunately also, I believe, the trend of the speech of the hon the State President in his Opening Address to Parliament on Friday, and also the trend of speeches delivered by the hon the Minister of Finance and others—appears to be indicative of the whole tenure of the election campaign, namely that it is said now that this is not a fight between two or more political parties but that it is now a fight of a quite different nature. If I have noted down the words of the hon the Minister correctly he says this fight is not one between parties; this is an issue in relation to whether we have the power to keep democracy going.

Not only … [Interjections.]

Ah! Only! Only! [Interjections.] Then he goes on to say that it is a fight between peaceful reform and violent revolution. I want him to tell us here and now—if this is a fight between peaceful reform and violent revolution, and we are, he knows, on the side of peaceful reform— where he stands. [Interjections.] Where is he? Where does he place these hon gentlemen here? Are they part of the violent process of destruction, part of the violent revolution? Is it only he who is in fact in favour of peaceful reform in South Africa?

We are happy in our own fatherland!

You see, Sir, the State President can decide to call an election. The hon the State President can decide when to hold the election. The State President can, however, not decide where the battlefield is and what the exclusive issues are to be. We are not going to allow ourselves to be forced into a situation in which he paints us into a corner in order to try to associate us with the things of which he disapproves. We know, Sir, that whatever talents the hon the State President has—and I have respect for a lot of them but, just as he has, I too have a long memory—there are other facets about him which we cannot but remember. I remember, for instance, what happened when, in the days of the old United Party, we were making progress and gaining victories one after another in the Transvaal. Then along came the Oudtshoorn by-election. [Interjections.] Does the hon the State President remember that Oudtshoorn by-election? [Interjections.] Suddenly, Sir, the masterly mind of the Cape leader of the National Party was activated and he started the most racist election campaign we had ever had in South Africa, and by doing so he completely reversed the tide. [Interjections.]

Sir, he is trying to do it again! He is really trying to do it again! There is, however, a difference between the Oudtshoorn by-election then and circumstances today. I believe his tactics are going to fail today because in the first instance the people of South Africa know him better today than they knew him in the days of that Oudtshoorn by-election. Secondly, the issues are far more serious today. The public see through them much more readily than they did in the days of Oudtshoorn. There is not going to be an election now in which those terms will be dictated, because the State President has decided that he is going to fight the election against the ANC.

I had the “pleasure” of listening to the Leader of the AWB who told me to my face that the choice in South Africa was between the ANC and the AWB and he asked me where I stood. This is exactly the same approach. [Interjections.] Yes, I went to listen to him and to question him and does the hon the Minister disagree with the question I asked him? He must tell me.

I don’t know what the hon member’s question was.

He does not know! Maybe, in his heart, he is actually with Mr Terre’Blanche. [Interjections.] Maybe that is what it is all about. Maybe that is what is really behind this whole story. I put a question to the hon the Minister of Finance yesterday because I thought that he was one of the New Nats. I have his unrevised Hansard here. His answer to my question: “Is jy nie ten gunste van die afskaffing van apartheid nie?”, was remarkable. I asked that yesterday because I thought he was one of the New Nats, but more fool me! I imagined that a nice fellow from Florida trying to woo verligte votes in Florida—and there are many of them—would say: “Of course I am against apartheid”. But oh no! He is not against it anymore but says: “Ek is ten gunste van die afskaffing van diskriminerende maatreëls”. He is not opposed to apartheid.

What has happened to this new young Nat since he has achieved office? Where has he gone? How has he deserted the Albert Nothnagels, how has he deserted the Wynand Malans and the other colleagues whom I do not want to name because they will get into trouble if I mention their names? He was one of them. He sat in the same place as the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time when they were working out who was going to be the next Prime Minister of South Africa. He was one of his lieutenants. He was one of that little group of so-called verligtes, of left-wingers, of New Nats. But the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has lost him as he is losing the others in South Africa and he is going to be isolated and left on his own. That is the tragedy.

I want to tell him that when he is isolated, he must remember that some of those New Nats who have left still have respect and regard for him and will forgive him for having to stand there all alone.

We are now in somewhat different times. One of the problems that the Government faces, is that it actually has to deal with the things that are troubling the people. What is troubling the people? The people of South Africa are asking: “Where is the Government leading the country?” So far in this debate we have not heard one word as to where they are being led. May I ask, Sir, what are the ultimate objectives of the Nationalist Party policy? The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning did not tell us.

The tragedy is that the public of South Africa do not know where the Government is leading them and are worried that the Government does not even know where it is going. That is what is even more serious— that they do not know their ultimate objective or where they are going.

I want to ask the hon the State President, when he takes part in this debate, as I assume he will, to tell the country where we are going to be in the year 2000. How does he see our constitutional development? How does he see South Africa and how does he think we are going to get there? That is what the people in South Africa want to know, not this patchwork activity which has been going on until now.

Secondly, the people are concerned about security issues. Maybe, if one does not know exactly what is going on, it may lull one into a sense of false security. Maybe it will give one a short-term feeling of happiness if one does not know what is going on outside, but there is still the nagging doubt at the back of any intelligent person’s mind as to what is really happening out there in the townships.

They also want to know how things are going to develop in South Africa and what the long-term security prospects of South Africa are. That is what they are looking for in this election. They do not want these strange cries that we hear now from the Ministers when they speak. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who spoke just now should know better than to make remarks of that nature.

There is a third issue which is worrying people, and that is the question of safety. Crime is becoming an issue in South Africa. There is an escalation of crimes of violence due to the instability that is creeping into our system. One only has to listen to the news bulletins or read the newspapers to find out the level of crime existing in South Africa at the moment and how concerned people are about it. We only have to look at the list of burglaries and car thefts and we only have to look at how many people get robbed and mugged every day of our lives. We only need to consider how the insurance industry, for example, has had to put up their premiums tremendously. They have attached conditions which are extremely difficult to fulfil for many people, and nothing is being done about it. We have to look at that situation, but we also have to look at the growth of the security industry. Those who can afford it are building enormous walls around their houses and are installing electronic gadgetry. They also have private guards.

However, I wish to ask the hon the Minister of Law and Order about the ordinary middle-class South African who cannot afford these fancy gadgets. How does he protect himself against crime? How does the elderly lady who is living in a flat on her own protect herself against crime? How do all the people who do not have these means protect themselves? This is one of the fundamental functions of the State, Sir, and you with your background have some knowledge of it. The reason why people got together in primitive times was that they could, as a community, see that they were protected against crime and against attacks by other people. If that function of the State fails—it is rapidly deteriorating now—then the Government has failed in one of the major functions calling for the very existence of a government.

Then there is the economic issue. Now this one is really the most fascinating of all, because there is no doubt that the public is concerned about its living standards. People are disturbed about the fact that their disposable incomes are dropping. They are concerned about rising inflation and the fact that unemployment has reached a level where it has never been before in South Africa. They are concerned about the lack of confidence which is being shown by both the consumer and the investor. They also find themselves in the rather strange situation in that the hon the Minister of Finance and his advisers are advising them to borrow money, but they will not do so despite the attractive interest rates that are available. Why? It is because they do not trust the hon the Minister. They know the interest rates are going to be higher in a year’s time and they are not going to be caught as they have been caught by him and his predecessors.

There is complete resentment against the level of tax rates in South Africa which is regarded as a disincentive to work. There is resentment against the high level of GST and other indirect forms of taxation. What is more, there is an even greater dishonesty in that the tax in respect of the regional services councils is being held back until after the election when another tax is going to hit the people of South Africa. A tax based upon employment as well as a tax based upon turnover is also going to hit us. Why do we find that coming after the election and not before the election?

In the same way we are going to have a little budget next week in which, no doubt, we will be handed out a few little “pasellas”. However, the real budget, the total budget as to what is really involved, is going to be kept over. An interesting comment was made on this very point about why the hon the Minister does not have a budget. The comment was made by a prominent economist whose name I can give him, and I shall quote it from the paper if he wants it. He said:

That is a prominent economist in South Africa, one the hon Minister has periodically consulted. That is where we stand at the moment. What is fascinating—and this really is fascinating—is that the hon the State President, in addressing hon members at the Opening of Parliament, made the following statement in regard to inflation:

I agree. I agree completely that inflation is a matter that affects every citizen of South Africa. However, let me ask the hon the State President some very simple questions. Why choose inflation as being a matter that should be kept out of the election and out of party politics. What about security? Is security not also a matter that affects every South African? If inflation should be kept out of party politics, why did that hon Minister just a few minutes ago drag security matters by the heels into this debate? What did the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs do the other night when he brought security matters into this debate?

When it suits one to try to mobilise people behind you, then one says: “We are only going to debate certain matters, and not others.”

Let me ask the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs about sanctions and disinvestment. Are those matters that affect all the people of South Africa? Can he say in this House that he disapproves of the attitudes and actions that we have taken towards sanctions and disinvestment?

I will reply to that.

If what he said the other night in his famous speech that the National Party is no longer a political party and what this election is all about was correctly reported, then what he should have said is what the State President said about inflation. He should have said: “Disinvestment is a matter that affects every South African and we approve of the attitude that the Opposition has taken. Did he say: “Punitive measures against South Africa affect every South African and should be kept out of the election”? Oh no, Sir! They do not want those issues out of the election! They want to refer to those issues in order to stir up a kind of pseudo-patriotism to try to mobilise people on those issues. Then the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has the audacity to say that these issues are not issues between the political parties; there are other issues; and he then drags these issues in.

I do not blame the hon the State President for trying to keep inflation out of this election. If, after 39 years in office my party had made such an unholy mess of the economy of the country, I would also try to keep it out of an election. It is not only I who say that they have made a mess of it. Let us refer to the words of an eminent person such as the Governor of the Reserve Bank. I am sure that the State President is not going to say that he should not be believed. I quote from The Star of 4 November in which Dr De Kock says “we blundered”, and by “we” he is referring to the authorities. He talks about how in the 1980’s the benefits of the gold boom had been squandered, and The Star reports as follows:

This was a bank seminar—

Under whose administration, may I ask, was that? The Governor goes further and says:

We must note, he says “Reserve Bank advice”. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs can smile; it is not his department, after all. I quote further:

[Interjections.] If the hon members do not like that quotation, I can refer them to the Reserve Bank’s Quarterly Report. What does it say? It says:

That is the understatement of the year, to put it mildly and in the most conservative fashion! [Interjections.]

Let us be realistic. The reality is that inflation is an election issue. Inflation and economic policy are issues in this election. They are major issues concerning the electorate.

I did not help that, in virtually all its hourly news bulletins this morning, the SABC ignored, for example, the speech made by my hon colleague, the Leader of the Official Opposition, and decided to highlight—I emphasize, “highlight”—a statement made by the hon the Minister of Finance. The hon the Minister said—and he said so proudly!—that South Africa had a 1% growth rate last year. [Interjections.] What that hon Minister did not tell South Africa or this House, however, was that in per capita terms there was in fact a negative growth rate last year. I ask the hon the Minister: Was there not?

Of course, yes. [Interjections.]

Yes, that is right. So let the SABC say in its next bulletin that South Africa had, in effect, a negative growth rate of 1,5% last year. [Interjections.] When we consider the figures in real terms and when we start comparing 1986 with 1985 and 1984, we see a very simple situation. In 1985, during which there was this 1% growth rate in absolute terms … [Interjections.] In 1986. In 1986 there was a 1% growth rate. If, however, we go one year back we can see that we had a negative growth rate during that year and are now hardly making up the leeway which we had before. That is the truth of it! One cannot measure economic growth except in per capita terms because one has to take into account the reality that the country’s population is increasing.

When we talk about an increase in the population, let us also talk about unemployment. You know, Sir, one of the most remarkable things is that, despite the fact that we have had a population increase of some 2,5% per annum, there are in fact fewer people at work today than there were three years ago. I ask the hon the Minister of Finance: Is that not a fact? Does that show the success of an economic policy? Is that something which is going to be blazoned abroad on the SABC news at eight o’clock tonight? Oh, no, Sir, there will not be one word of it.

You see, Sir, there are some statistics which are killing and which will never be quoted by the SABC or the hon the Minister. I can quote one simple one: Over the period 1980-85 the economically active Black population increased by 2,5% per annum, while the rate of jobs created increased by a mere 0,7% per annum. [Interjections.] This meant that over a five-year period three out of every four Black workseekers got no work. So, if hon members want to know why there is instability in South Africa today, if they want to know why there is violence in South Africa, and if they want to know why people are prone to agitation in South Africa, there sits the person to blame—the hon the Minister of Finance! He and his party have created an economic situation in South Africa that has been a breeding ground for unrest and instability and has, in fact, impoverished our people.

That is what the hon the Minister has to tell the electorate. That, however, is also the issue that the hon the State President does not want to fight an election on!

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Yeoville has raised some very important issues this afternoon. He raised the issue of inflation and said that the Government should also raise it during the coming election. I am pleased he has made that point. Let us look at the issue of inflation in South Africa. That hon member comes to this House with all his complaints and criticisms, but how often does he truthfully look at the real causes of the problems in South Africa today? [Interjections.] Let us look at the causes of inflation.

It could be said that high Government expenditure is a cause of inflation. Would the hon member agree? I shall leave that until a later stage. We shall talk about high Government expenditure later.

There is another cause of inflation in South Africa, and that is the low productivity of our people, our machinery and our capital assets. That is a major cause of inflation today. Many of the reasons for this cause of inflation come from within the private sector itself. One need only look at the Reserve Bank figures—and I have stated this repeatedly in this House—to see that the productivity of labour and capital in the private sector has declined progressively over the past 15 years or so. The statistics show that quite clearly.

It is not because of the Government that this has happened. What then has been the cause of it? Could it be that wrong priorities have been set in the private sector? Let us just take a look at what the private sector has built and at how it has expended its capital over the past 15 years, and relate that to the real needs of the people of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Let us take a look at union action in South Africa in recent years.

Are you attacking the private sector?

When that hon member spoke, I sat quietly in my bench and listened to him speak. I appeal to him to show me the same courtesy and to sit quietly while I have my say. [Interjections.]

What about union action? Hon members of that party have called for a reform of the labour laws, something which the State President and this Government have done in recent years. However, what has been the net result? Today the labour unions are demanding a minimum wage, which even the Americans say is a bad thing for employment. Black Americans come to this country and ask: “Why do you have a minimum wage”, because it denies a man with very little education at least an entry into the economy. Labour unions have, however, given rise to this phenomenon in South Africa. [Interjections.] They do not allow incentive bonus schemes which are designed to increase productivity on the work floor. This is what the labour union movement has been doing in South Africa recently. Then there is the other matter of excessive social demands on employers, and that party is at the forefront of those demands that employers give more and more social welfare benefits to their employees. In some cases it is a question of sheer bad management among some of our organisations in South Africa today. These are some of the causes of inflation.

We in this party accept that the economic growth rate is too low. I agree with the hon member on that. I have said repeatedly in this House that it is far too low for the rate of population growth in South Africa and that something has to be done about it.

But why is our economic growth so low? Consumer demand is down at the present time and our factories are standing idle. There is a lack of capital investment in new areas of production. The hon member for Yeoville asked whose fault it was. [Interjections.] The hon member will say that it is due to a lack of confidence in this country; a lack of confidence in this Government. [Interjections.] Why, then, do that party and that hon member not realistically face up to the tremendously negative effects on our economy in recent years of the acts of terrorism and violence by radical forces such as the ANC and the UDF, which some hon members sitting in those benches opposite associate with and support? [Interjections.] That is the truth of the situation in South Africa today.

Who supports the ANC? Come on … [Interjections.]

Let them search their own hearts.

I was pleased to hear the hon member say that the ill-conceived actions of international banks had been harmful to the South African economy. I was pleased to hear him say that. I wish he would talk more loudly about the negative effects which such actions on the part of these ill-informed people are having on South African society.

Let that party stand up and tell the world loudly and clearly what sanctions and disinvestment campaigns are doing to the standard of living of the Black people of this country. [Interjections.]

We have! [Interjections.]

I would like to discuss Government spending now. Surely the public has a right to know the tremendous cost of the recent reforms instituted by the Government. [Interjections.] The Official Opposition, the media represented here in the Press Gallery, the business sector, industry and commerce are constantly harping on the need for reform in South Africa. They are constantly telling the Government to move faster and get on with the job, but have they worked out what it is costing the South African taxpayer? Have they worked out what it is costing the economy of South Africa? [Interjections.]

There are constant calls for more housing for Blacks and Coloured people. Those hon members constantly call for equalized education and health services for all races, for parity in public service salaries, wages and social pensions.

Are you against that?

I am not at all against it.

Then what are you talking about? [Interjections.]

I am trying to bring some reality into this debate. I want to mention some of the facts which the people have a right to know.

The hon member for Yeoville said the Government should spend more money on security, and that we should have a bigger police force because of the crime rate. That hon member is always telling the Government what it should do and how it should spend its money, and then he complains about the condition of the economy. [Interjections.] Has anybody in the opposition benches or in the Press Gallery ever taken the time to investigate the cost of these reforms? The truth is that the Government is reforming South Africa and is being called upon to fund increasingly expensive programmes at the very time when the political forces which are determined to destroy our Western way of life are undermining our confidence in our economic ability to meet these costs. The Official Opposition cynically aids and abets these forces purely as an act of political opportunism and expediency.

To illustrate my point I wish to take a closer look at the Natal Indaba proposals. Before going into any detail, I just want to say that this party unequivocally believes in constitutional reform through the medium of negotiation between all the groups in South Africa.

But on your terms!

Surely the bona fides of the Government are borne out by the fact that last year Parliament passed the National Statutory Council Bill. The legislation to bring about political reform is in place.

It was not passed.

We in these benches are waiting for the big indaba, or the “indaba nkulu” as the Zulus say. [Interjections.]

He says Parliament passed it.

Order! I cannot allow private conversations across the floor. The hon the Deputy Minister may continue.

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

I am not going to answer any questions from that hon member. [Interjections.]

Order!

I would like to submit that, while hon members in these benches sit quietly with good manners listening to the hon member for Yeoville, when one of us gets up to rebut him and challenge what he has said, he acts like a rude hon member in this House. I have told him this before. [Interjections.] I beg your pardon, Sir. He is an hon rude member!

I make so bold as to say—this is a personal view—that the “indaba nkulu” to which I refer has been frustrated by the kwaZulu Indaba, which was conceived by the NRP when it still controlled the Natal Provincial Council as an act of desperation in an attempt to remain politically relevant in South Africa. [Interjections.] Unfortunately the indaba has been hijacked by the PFP, and now it is very apparent that the leaders of the NRP have failed not only their own members but also their party principles and policy, and have capitulated to the majority rule principles of the PFP. [Interjections.]

We are going to get you in Amanzimtoti!

Much has been said about the indaba proposals as being a solution to the problems of Natal. There has been an enormous Press campaign to sell what I would call the sizzle of the indaba. I believe that up to November last year R700 000 had been spent on advertising campaigns to sell the sizzle of the Natal Indaba. But what about the meat in the hamburger? What about the details? The Press has said that we must not make an election issue of the indaba. The PFP members have said that we must not destroy the consensus. How cynical and how naive can those people be?

In terms of the Bill of Rights—and I refer to clauses 8(4) and 15(2)—all education in the province must be made equal within one year. The same applies to health services. This is just one of the indaba proposals. There are many others and I believe the people of Natal have the right to know what the economic consequences of these proposals will be. May I say that I am led to believe that the report of the economic committee was reluctantly tabled after the Bill of Rights and the constitutional proposals had been finalised and agreed to. I believe there were moves behind the scenes—and the people have the right to know this—not to have the report tabled but some delegates insisted.

What did this economic report reveal? Existing Government expenditure in the region exceeds income—that is of all taxes—by something like 22%, the shortfall being met by the Central Government. This does not include the police force, the justice department and the regional defence expenditure which are proposed by the indaba and which should be borne by the Natal-kwaZulu region. The Bill of Rights demands equalisation of education and health facilities within one year. To do this would bankrupt Natal overnight.

The Durban Chamber of Commerce became concerned about these economic implications and commissioned the Central Merchant Bank and the Bureau of Economic Policy and Analysis of the University of Pretoria to investigate what they called the implications of fiscal parity in kwaZulu-Natal. I have the report and I wish to summarise it by reading from a report headed Economic realities and reform” in the Durban Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce’s Information Digest of 24 January this year. I quote:

Does this not also apply to South Africa in general—the financial and economic realities of reform? I believe this statement puts the present reform programme and the economic situation in South Africa in the correct perspective. What is required today is realism and not the woolly-minded idealism we get from hon members of the PFP.

I am glad to see that the hon member for Durban-Point has just come in. Yesterday he said, and I quote:

Across colour lines.

Yes. I have a great deal of respect for that hon member and this is his last session. He and I spent a very enjoyable evening in the Latin Quarter of New Orleans in 1963 when I first met him. It was he who got me involved in politics …

We all make mistakes!

… and we have come quite a long way together although our paths have separated. I agree with the hon member but what I would like to submit is that the coalition of realists is not to be found in the indaba’s proposals. From what one reads the proposals are rather a coalition of dreamers.

The hon member is a very experienced politician and he must be aware of the role of the various participants in the indaba. Can he realistically say that true consensus was reached by the participants in the indaba? Surely it is politically realistic for the public to know—they have a right to know—exactly who signed the report. Who agreed with the content of that report? Who were their constituents if indeed they had a constituency? Did they have a mandate from their constituencies or was that report signed by many people who represent only themselves? [Interjections.]

You are desperately worried!

I want to ask that hon member: Who opposed that report? They said consensus had been reached but that is not true. Who opposed that report?

The National Party.

We opposed it but we were observers. I am talking about the signatories to the report within the indaba. Who withdrew from the indaba and what were the reasons therefor? This is the truth and the people of Natal have the right to know what the truth is about the indaba.

I want to refer to the Natal Agricultural Union’s position paper dated 20 November 1986. This union represents 5 400 members and the hon member for Mooi River, I assume, and myself are two of them. The union was a delegate to the indaba but withdrew to become observers. I would like to quote the following to show what the reasons for their decision were:

They did in fact withdraw and surely realists must accept that the indaba’s proposals did not receive the approval of Natal’s 5 400 farmers. There was no consensus on their part.

I want now to quote from the Natal Municipal Association’s position paper, dated 14 November 1986. They represent all the local authorities throughout the province of Natal. I quote:

It goes further to say … [Interjections.] The hon member may laugh but I want to tell him that this is the truth and it is about time that people in Natal knew the truth about this. I quote again:

The paper goes further:

We talk about democracy and consensus and this is the truth of what happened at the Natal Indaba. Once again the realist must accept that the indaba’s proposals did not receive the stamp of approval of the Natal local authorities.

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

I have very little time!

Does he not accept the indaba at least as a basis for further discussion and negotiation?

My hon leader will answer that question. It is a very good question as we do like to be positive. He will give a reply later.

I would like to address myself to my ex-colleagues sitting in the NRP benches. I have refrained for the two years that I have been in the NP from attacking the members of my former party because I love them dearly. I say that from the bottom of my heart—I really do mean it. [Interjections.] The PFP may laugh, but some of us are in this game of politics for the good of South Africa and we are where we are because we believe in what we are doing for South Africa. We are not cynical people as so many hon members of that party are.

In addressing them I wish to establish my bona fides as having a right to discuss the aims and principles of the NRP because I was a founder member of that party. I regret that the hon member for Umhlanga who is the Chief Whip of the party, is not here at the moment. He knows how I felt in 1977 when Sir De Villiers Graaff invited the members of the caucus of the United Party to go to Lionel Murray’s constitutional committee and express themselves as individual members of the caucus on the constitutional future of South Africa. The hon member for Umhlanga asked me if I would mind if he came along to listen to what I was going to say because I asked to appear before that committee.

A waste of time!

“A waste of time” you may say, my dear, but we will see what problems … [Interjections.]

The hon my dear!

My hon dear! [Interjections.]

If the hon member for Umhlanga thinks back he will remember that I stated that no future constitutional dispensation would bring peace and stability among South Africa’s very complex and diverse people if it did not entrench the right of all groups to their own political power base because this power base would ensure by virtue of its veto powers that no one group could ever in the future be dominated politically by another group in South Africa.

This principle is the very soul of the NRP, and I should know that. Those hon members will remember that I stood on platform after platform and attended party seminars to propagate this principle which is the soul of the NRP.

I want to remind the hon member for Durban Point of a pamphlet which the NRP distributed in 1977. It acts on the cover “Do you have a future in South Africa?” On the inside there is a photograph of the hon member for Durban Point and underneath that it says “yes”. It is signed by the hon member. Further on it reads as follows:

It goes on to say the following about security:

It says the following on racial harmony:

[Interjections.] I want to ask the hon member for Durban Point if he can honestly say that a South African coalition of realists can realistically hope to achieve peace and prosperity in South Africa without the acceptance of those proposals. I am sure that he will agree with me.

I now want to address a comment to the hon leader of the NRP in Natal. I want to ask him when last he saw this document that I have here? Its title is “The Aims and Principles of the New Republic Party”. My time is running out …

Hear, hear!

Hear, hear? It is hard facts that we have to face today. The document states:

It goes on to say:

It goes further to talk about separate voters’ rolls and refers to—

Those hon members have to stand up before the members of the NRP and explain to them the proposals of the Natal Indaba which is a capitulation to the PFP policies. [Interjections.] They are not the principles of the NRP.

Mr Speaker, in his speech this afternoon the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning hit his own wickets without having even one ball bowled against him. The election on 6 May is concerned with only one thing and that is the extension of democracy in order to make place in this Parliament for the additional representation of approximately 20 million Black people. The hon the Minister will now have to get down to brass tacks. He has to tell the members of his party to spell out, here in Parliament and to the electorate, how he is going to accommodate the representatives of 20 million Black people in this Parliament without there being any political difference between the quality of representation of the Brown people, Indians, Whites and Blacks, and furthermore how he is going to tell the White people they are going to have self-determination. That is the core of the matter. The hon the Minister and his party must please spell this out to us.

To determine properly the extent of the damage done by the NP Government—the new Progs—to the principles and ideals of the Afrikaner people and those Whites that value highly their Caucasian heritage, one must compare the leadership of the late Dr Verwoerd with that of the present State President over the past eight years.

The pure and clear principles of a Hendrik Verwoerd were anchored in and grew out of the best characteristics of our European civilisation, and he saw them realised in the White people that came into being here in Southern Africa and which struggled in this southern land to be a free and independent people in an own, independent fatherland. Dr H F Verwoerd, with his particular intellectual talents, and friendly, unwavering, idealistic leadership, freed our people from the last bonds of the slavery of British domination, and in that same process tried to liberate the other peoples that had also been enslaved by British imperialism, into an own fatherland.

In contrast to the leadership of Hendrik Verwoerd, we are now saddled with the most miserable, and yet very desperately dangerous, eight-year leadership of the present State President, who is leading his people inexorably, throughout subtle (“listige”) wordplays and actions, towards abdication …

Order!

Mr Speaker, if that was unparliamentary I shall withdraw it.

Order! Then the hon member should not use the expression if he thinks beforehand it is going to be wrong.

Mr Speaker, I did not know beforehand that it was going to be wrong. However, if that is your ruling I shall withdraw it.

Order! I am talking to the hon member, not the hon member to me. The hon member must withdraw the word “listig”.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

I want to say that the State President is leading our people towards abdication in a psychological state involving a guilt complex about life and history, as well as a lack of will so that in a state of doubt and uncertainty they will “hensop” and “join”.

All the principles and policies our predecessors created with care and expertise, are no longer sacred cows to this Government. However, they had no qualms about getting themselves into Parliament on the basis of those same measures and that earlier thinking.

The NP is not a sacred cow either. The NP is a party in which the flame of nationalism has been smothered by the liberals, and in its place is a smoking, stifling cloud. This soulless political organism is not a sacred cow either. The NP is not a sacred cow. It is not a sacred bull; not even a sacred ox! [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to allow the hon member to carry on in this vein. The hon member must withdraw the references to “sacred bull” and “sacred ox” because of their connotations.

Mr Speaker, may I address you on this point?

Order! I am asking the hon member to withdraw those two references and to proceed with his speech.

I withdraw them, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.]

On 6 May we shall expose this kind of game the NP plays as we have done for the past five years. [Interjections.]

Over the past few years the people have been told of a total onslaught on their existence. That total onslaught has been made with the help of the liberals who lived within the National Party and the Afrikaner establishment. This is the Trojan horse that has brought South Africa to where it is today. [Interjections.]

The State President’s election manifesto is just as misleading. This new National Party is responsible for our pathetic international position, the country’s desperate financial and economic conditions, the insecurity of our lives and our possessions, and the mental state of doubt and lack of direction. [Interjections.] The NP's disloyalty and lack of credibility stick out like two sore thumbs. [Interjections.]

I want to mention a few examples. I am very pleased the hon the Minister in the State President’s Office entrusted with Administration and Broadcasting Services is here today. This hon Minister, when he had left Parliament and become Vice-State President, said many things about the previous dispensation on the platforms of South Africa. He said, inter alia, the following in a speech:

He went on to say:

Let us have a look at what Adv Vorster had to say about that. I quote:

Mr Vorster then said:

Pure nonsense! [Interjections.] Mr Vorster said:

Now I want to tell this hon Minister—I do not know where he is going to stand in the election—that I challenge him to meet me on a platform in the constituency in which he is going to stand. [Interjections.] He will then have to take out the NP documents in which it is stated that under Mr Vorster’s rule, or beforehand or afterwards while we were there, we accepted power-sharing with Brown people, Indians and Blacks. Come on! Do it! [Interjections.] I challenge the hon the Minister, who now holds the post of “night watchman”, to do it. [Interjections.]

This hon Minister is now in charge of broadcasting affairs. I want to say that the NP is being kept going by Mr Freek Swart of Die Burger, that is by newspapers, the SABC, and television. This is all that is keeping the NP going. [Interjections.] That hon Minister should return to the public platform; we shall hold him to account for the things he has done in South Africa over the past few years. [Interjections.]

The other two hon members I wanted to talk to are not here today; they are conspicuous by their absence. I wanted to ask the former hon Deputy Minister of Information whether it was true that he spent R4,25 million of the taxpayer’s money on making a song that could just as well have been the theme song for the construction of the Tower of Babel. [Interjections.]

Sir, I request that this Parliament appoint a select committee to investigate what happened in connection with that song. [Interjections.] I am saying this because a few years ago the NP frontbenchers sitting there were, with great delight, at the forefront of taking Dr Eschel Rhoodie from one prison to another throughout the world. They took great delight in doing this. They hounded him, to his personal injury and disgrace, as far as the Appeal Court, until the Appeal Court had to take a stand regarding his position in respect of approximately R80 000. I believe, Mr Speaker, that we have to test the State President on the contents of the speech he made here on the steps outside the then Senate when he was elected Prime Minister in 1978—that speech of his regarding clean administration. [Interjections.]

In fact exactly the opposite has happened! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, this brings me now to the hon member for Innesdal who is not present here today either. [Interjections.] The various liberals in the ranks of the National Party—and please call me to order should I use unparliamentary language, Mr Speaker—remind me of penguin eggs, of penguin chicks. I must say it has become fairly hot for those people in the National Party. They will have to leave it. The hon member for Randburg has left but the hon member for Innesdal has crept back into the shell. He is back in the shell because he knows that Innesdal is not the same kind of constituency as Randburg. I want to point out here today that this hon member writes letters. Yes, every now and then letters are written. If it is not Rev Hendrickse that writes a letter, it is the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the hon member for Innesdal. I want to suggest that he write a letter to the voters of Innesdal, too, to tell them the objective of his political standpoints with regard to South Africa. I want to say the same thing to the State President. He must go out and spell out his objective for South Africa. Dr Verwoerd would have been able to do so. The hon the State President’s predecessors did so. He, too, must spell out his objective for South Africa; he must state clearly where he wants to go with South Africa. [Interjections.]

It is now being claimed that Mr Japie Basson is back with the National Party. That is not true. The National Party is back with Japie Basson. [Interjections.] After all, because these neo-liberals do not have the courage of their convictions they do not take a stand on matters of principle—to leave the National Party and go out into the cold. Japie Basson did it. I put it to this State President that at that time because he did not have the courage of his convictions he did not walk out with Japie Basson.

Order! In this House the State President is referred to as the hon the President or the hon the State President.

Mr Speaker, at that time the hon the State President did not have the courage of his convictions. He differed with Dr Verwoerd in exactly the same way as Japie Basson. However, he did not want to walk out. I maintain that there are many more men in the National Party caucus today that have the same feeling as the hon member for Randburg. He is not the only one. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Innesdal is of course very brave when he speaks in America. He is also very brave when he has to testify before the British Parliament. However, when he comes here he has to write letters. I want to ask whether the hon member for Innesdal has written a letter to the British members of Parliament to tell them of his about-face. Has he written to all the people on the magazine Inside Africa to inform them of his present standpoint? When we were expelled in 1982, when we said that power-sharing with the Brown people and the Indians would lead to power-sharing with the Blacks, these hon members sat in the National Party caucus and told the people at large that we were the ones that were wrong, that we were the people deviating from National Party principles.

It is my contention that the writing is already on the wall for the National Party. We shall drive them from the Soutpansberg to Table Mountain. We shall make them answer for what they have done to South Africa. [Interjections.]

They cannot even have a meeting in the Soutpansberg! [Interjections.]

I maintain that the National Party is fleeing apartheid. They should just take another look at what the Sauer Commission said about apartheid at that time. What was apartheid according to the Sauer Commission? Those hon members are fleeing their own past. They are travellers to nowhere. I believe, however, that enough real nationalists remain in South Africa and they are prepared to fight for the ideals and the principles of our fatherland and of our people, until we are victorious. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, if there had still been anyone who doubted the desirability of holding an election in South Africa, I believe the hon member for Rissik has now finally removed any doubt. After all, the hon member for Rissik was not elected by the voters in his constituency …

Mr Speaker, on the point of order: While the hon member for Rissik was speaking, the hon member on the Government side said that he was a “dikkop”. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member say anything like that about the hon member for Rissik?

Yes, Mr Speaker, I did say that. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Vryheid must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may continue.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Rissik was not elected by the voters in his current constituency. He was not elected under the banner of the party which he now represents.

He still supports the mandate he received from his voters at the time! [Interjections.]

It is interesting to hear that the hon members of the Conservative Party still prefers to stick to the pre-1982 principles of the National Party. I would just like to ask them why they found it necessary to spell out a whole new manifesto of principles and policy. Why then was it not good enough for them to stick to the old one that Dr Malan had drafted orginally?

The hon member for Rissik talks of “travellers to nowhere”. He talks of a government which does not know where it is heading. I wonder where the hon member is heading to on this, the eve of the election, because he left Rissik but he was unable to reach Heilbron. We do not know where he is now.

He drowned in the Vaal River!

It is clear that the hon member for Rissik’s speech contains nothing new. It contains no argument which he has not previously raised in this House and on which we have not previously given comprehensive replies ad nauseam.

Spell out your policy for us. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May an hon member say to me: “Koos, stop barking”? [Interjections.]

Order! I have heard the hon member. He must resume his seat. The hon the Deputy Minister may continue.

Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: The implication of telling an hon member he should not bark is that he is a dog.

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may continue.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is an hon member by way of such a statement entitled to make the insinuation the hon member for Jeppe mentioned?

Order! Which hon member made that statement? Did an hon member make that statement?

Mr Speaker, I said so. When the hon member for Jeppe speaks, it sounds as if he is barking. I did not imply that he was a dog.

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may continue.

Mr Speaker, I appeal to you for your protection.

Order! The hon member for Jeppe must contain himself! I have given my ruling.

I would like to address myself to a different issue today

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Your predecessor ruled specifically in this House that one may not refer to hon members in language that compares one to animals. There were quite a few unpleasant incidents in your predecessor’s term as a result of the conduct of certain hon members who, in some or other way, referred to other hon members as animals by insinuation.

It went to such lengths that your predecessor gave a specific ruling in this regard. If your ruling were to be taken any further by whatever side of this House, there would be a repetition of the previous situation. Consequently I would suggest that you now give a ruling to the effect that the hon member withdraws what he said by way of an insinuation.

Order! I want to assure the hon member for Soutpansberg that I appreciate his argument. Since I have taken the responsibility of the Chair upon myself, I have been very mindful of a situation such as the one that has now arisen, and I did not give the ruling lightly. I listened to the hon member’s Chief Whip and asked the hon member who made the remark for an explanation. As an honest member of this House the hon member’s explanation about not having any reference to an animal in mind, must be accepted. The word “bark” may also be used in other contexts. The hon member gave the explanation, I accepted it and gave my ruling. The hon the Deputy Minister may continue.

Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: I refer to the MP as a sacred cow and you ordered me to withdraw it.

Order! I have given my ruling and I am not prepared to go back to that ruling I have given. The hon the Deputy Minister may continue. [Interjections.]

Bark away!

Mr Speaker, in support I should like to point out that very often one would, for example, speak of a sergeant-major barking out a command. In other words, I want to make the point that the word “bark” can be used in many contexts without any reference to an animal.

†I should like to revert to the original theme of my speech, and that is the situation which we are faced with vis-á-vis the possibility of negotiations with the ANC. This is very often a point that is mooted. The ANC gives as its reason as to why it reverted to violence in the first place as being the fact that there were no peaceful avenues open to them. Whether that was true at the time or not, is not relevant now. The point is that since then many channels for peaceful negotiation have been opened.

Name one.

There is an open invitation to all people with a peaceful mind to enter into negotiations with the Government about a future dispensation in which all people will be accommodated. [Interjections.] If there was at any time any credibility in that claim of the ANC, it has since lapsed. The Government has not put any other conditions upon negotiations than those stated clearly by the hon the State President on Friday when he said:

However, he said that this was only possible on the condition that:

I think that is eminently reasonable, and therefore the moral grounds—if there were any at that time—which the ANC had have lapsed. Therefore the struggle which they wage against the Government of South Africa is nothing but a violent revolutionary struggle. The set of rules applying to such a violent revolutionary struggle differs from that which applies to an ordinary democratic process. These two processes are discernible in South Africa today. On the one hand there is a democratic process mainly among the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, which is not totally absent in the ranks of the Blacks and here the official policy of the Government is to promote the development of the democratic process. However, on the other hand, one has this naked, violent revolutionary struggle in which the aim is to overthrow the Government. In such a struggle publicity does play a major role. Some of the recent wisdom on revolutionary struggles can be found in the works of Carlos Maringele. He says, inter alia:

In other words, propaganda plays a very specific role in a revolutionary struggle—this struggle to demoralise the people and government of a country. I will return to this point later.

It was against this background that the curbs on the Press were imposed in December. This was done in order to deny these revolutionary organisations this vital means of advancing their struggle.

Allegations were made against the Bureau for Information. I want to state categorically: The Bureau for Information does not act as a censor of information. What it in fact does is to assist the media, under the conditions in which we find ourselves, to be able to get their information as easily as possible.

I would like now to return to the speech of the hon member for Johannesburg North in this House yesterday.

The first issue on which the hon member took the Bureau to task was that the Bureau was busy with a so-called “deliberate campaign of disinformation”. Let us consider what disinformation means. Disinformation actually means that one gives wrong information to lead a person on a wrong trail. However, the speech of the hon member for Johannesburg North did not specify actions of that nature. He said that we give only the barest outlines of certain events. We only mention that a certain number of incidents took place. We do not give the gory details as well. There was no proof of misinformation in the sense that wrong information was given. Yet, he calls it a “campaign of disinformation”.

Do you deny you have given wrong information?

The point that I am making is that the hon member for Johannesburg North makes that statement but backs it up with arguments which do not support his statement. If he has any evidence of where the Bureau gave wrong information and it was not subsequently put right, then we can talk again.

I will give you the details.

I say that in his speech yesterday the hon member for Johannesburg North misinformed this House.

This links up with what I said just now. The revolutionary organisations use the Press of the target country in a number of ways. Firstly, they use it as a source of intelligence. Let us take, for instance, the bombing incident in Church Street, Pretoria. It was not necessary for the responsible parties to get any feedback from their own people, because in the next morning’s news they could read everything they wanted to know about the incident—that it did, in fact, take place, where it took place, how many casualties there were, what mistakes were made, and how the action could have been carried out better. They could even learn the level of terror that that bomb had created. They did not need any intelligence; they simply used the media reports for that purpose.

Another thing I have personally seen happen before is that these organizations sometimes—indeed, they do so often—use South African Press reports as supporting evidence of their own levels of activity. They make a collection of South African Press reports and then go to their sponsors and say to them: “Here you can see, straight from the horse’s mouth, how good we are”. [Interjections.]

There is yet another facet to this. If the gory details were always to be supplied, there would be a message in them for the population. This message is: “If you do not behave in the way we want you to behave, then this is what will happen to you next.” In this way the gory details become, in fact, the very essence of the propaganda of the revolutionary organizations. [Interjections.]

I should like to turn now to the statements made by the hon member when he referred to the song. On the one hand, in quoting part of the song, he said: “We have no problem with this; this is PFP policy.” On the other hand, however, he made the following statement: “This project is a lie because it does not reflect current NP policy.” If ever, Sir, an hon member gave the bureau a clean bill of health, then it was this hon member when he said that the song the bureau put out was not NP propaganda; and indeed, the function of the bureau is not to spread NP propaganda. [Interjections.]

Let us consider this for a moment. The hon member himself said that the parts of the song which he quoted reflected PFP policy. It does not only reflect PFP policy, however. It also reflects the genuine desire on the part of the majority of people to work together to build a better future for South Africa. That is the heartfelt desire of the majority of people in South Africa. In fact, the message is so fundamental that one could translate it into the words, Ex Unitatae Vires. I have no problem, therefore, with the fact that the PFP sees no threat in the song to its own policies, because it was never designed to be a threat to the policies of the PFP or any other party. It is a very simple human message of hope and peace.

This brings me to another point. On the one hand, the hon member for Johannesburg North says: “This is a thoroughly discredited project”. He calls it a “discredited project”. Now one asks oneself: Why was this project “discredited” in the first place? It was because many institutions, especially the media, who did not like the author of the project discredited the project in spite of the generally acceptable nature of the message it carried.

The hon member for Johannesburg North rounded his remarks off by referring to the fact that some artists had been intimidated, some had been attacked and some houses had been burned. One blind person in fact died in these attacks. He then went on to ask: “How many more people have to die or have their homes burnt down before the song is abandoned?” He calls this a dangerous project. [Interjections.] If the message that was brought forth was in fact in accordance with PFP policy, then how can this be a dangerous message? In what sense can it be a dangerous message? [Interjections.]

What is more, the hon member for Johannesburg North condemns the bureau and the Government for persisting with the song, but not one word of condemnation does he utter regarding those people who did the attacking. [Interjections.] This is a peace song but the opposition answers with petrol bombs and intimidation. We are the wrongdoers because we are spreading a message of peace whilst they are not condemned for committing arson, threatening lives and killing people. Is this the level to which the PFP has sunk in its efforts to discredit the NP and in order to score … [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The argument which the hon the Deputy Minister is advancing is that the PFP has sunk to the level of petrolbombing people’s houses. [Interjections.] I do not believe it is correct for us to allow the kind of sophistry and twisting of the rules of the House which the hon the Deputy Minister is now engaged in.

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I shall repeat what I said for the benefit of the hon member so that he cannot misunderstand me. By condemning the dissemination of a peaceful song and not condemning those people who reply with arson and murder, the PFP have sunk to a new low in their efforts to score a few political points. I say this because as long as they can find a way to discredit this Government or any arm of the Government, the consequences of it for the well-being of South Africa are totally irrelevant in the eyes of that party. I want them to disprove that point.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Deputy Minister will excuse me if I do not follow his trend. I had rather hoped that considering all the time he spent on his song, he would have actually sung it! He did everything else in relation to the song other than that. [Interjections.]

It is normal at the time of an election for opposition parties to criticise the Government and to make promises about what would happen if they were elected to rule the country. They would make everyone happy except those who were thoroughly unreasonable or incorrigibly lazy. They would be happy and prosperous.

As for the governing party, they say: “Return us so that we can continue the good work we have been doing and thus continue to make everybody happy and prosperous.”

Tell us about the alliance.

I shall come to that. [Interjections.] These are perfectly normal and logical activities, except that in South Africa for nearly 40 years no opposition party has had the opportunity to put its theories of government into practice. The governing party has, of course, had the same amount of time in which to achieve the nirvana or paradise they promised everyone way back in 1948. After all these years of enjoying virtually total authority, the Government today clearly admits that they have made a mess of things and that they now need time to repair the mess they have made of this beautiful, great and potentially wealthy country. They are asking for and require more time to put things right because they want to reform everything. As they have been there for 40 years, they are the people who have made all the blues and got us into the mess.

They ask this in spite of the fact that a huge majority of South Africans are totally dissatisfied with their racial policies, they have taken South Africa from its position as one of the lowest taxed countries in the Western World to that of almost the highest; they have almost ruined the economy, creating massive unemployment and an enormous number of bankruptcies; they have completely ruined our overseas credit rating which in the past was one of the highest among the smaller nations; they have made us the polecats of the world; and, what is even worse in some ways, they have made the South African passport an unacceptable travel document throughout a great deal of the world, which was not the case in the past.

In spite of all these awful consequences of their government, we are now being asked to give them a further blank political cheque for a few more years. No real reason has yet been given for this election other than that they wish to close ranks against the outside world, and that they wish to carry on the reforms that the majority of people in this country do not accept as being real reform anyway.

We in these benches believe that real reform can only take place when the Black majority in this country are part of the decision-making of this land, and that means that they must participate in this Parliament, not as “bywoners” but as full, freely elected members, the same as everybody else.

One man, one vote? That is how we are elected.

Yes, one man, one vote.

But that is your policy. You have a one man, one vote policy.

All that the Government has offered so far has been that they want to revamp the President’s Council and put Blacks in it with advisory status, as is the case with the present members of the President’s Council, and they wish to create a national statutory body which will run in some form of tandem with the executive of South Africa.

Quite frankly, as I understand the situation, no Black leader with any credibility or real constituency is prepared to accept that. They have stated unequivocally that they will not accept it or, in the case of one or two, have laid down preconditions that jailed political leaders and prisoners be released so that they will be able to participate in discussions about the future of South Africa. As we see it, the Government’s power-sharing plans cannot even get off the ground, and certainly will not become airborne unless they are prepared to opt for a release of political prisoners and an open agenda for Blacks to come into Parliament and genuinely share in decision-making. All of these points are totally contrary to Government policy, yet they want to call an election about the participation of Blacks—somehow or other—in South Africa.

So you want to surrender!

Put up your white flag!

On the other hand, we in Natal have, by a substantial majority across colour and political lines, reached a consensus on how we wish to be governed on the second tier. Such consensus was achieved after months of negotiation, giving and taking points here and there.

I would like to comment that this question of the indaba, together with any possible electoral arrangement we in the NRP may have made with the PFP, must be worrying the Government enormously. Do not ask me why. If it does not worry them at all, as the hon the Minister says, then why are all those hon members making such a big issue of it? [Interjections.] Why are they talking about it hour after hour if it does not worry them? Of course it does. [Interjections.] I shall try to accommodate them and allay their fears.

The Natal Indaba was another NRP initiative to get together with the kwaZulu government. It was an attempt to break another of the political logjams in South Africa. I believe the intention was largely achieved in that simple democracy and group cultural protection are accommodated by consensus. The NP under the leadership of the hon the Minister of Home Affairs chose to throw this out lock, stock and barrel as not providing adequate protection for them. The real reason is probably that it would undercut their powers of domination.

To ensure that all understand what this indaba was all about I should like to explain in a few words what actually happened. Basically without going into all the details there were to be two houses, the lower house being one of party proportional representation on a one man, one vote basis. Thus house would have the power to initiate legislation, provide the Prime Minister and the executive and appoint members to standing committees. The second house was to be composed of five groups—with equal representation—of an Afrikaans background, an English background, an Asian background, a Black background and a fifth group to be composed of all those who did not want to be classified as being of a specific background. The important point which I believe is of interest to all members of this House is that the functions of that house would be to review all legislation from the lower house which they could accept or reject as in a senate system. They would have a right of veto of all legislation that would diminish the cultural rights, the language rights or the religious rights of any group. They would be able to appoint members to the executive and they would be represented on standing committees. In the event of a dispute on the validity of a rights veto— the protection of group rights or cultural rights—they would have the right to take the matter for decision to the courts of South Africa. This was the compromise worked out by reasonable people of all race groups who truly wished to share government and have a system in which domination was minimal and cultural rights were protected.

Some may well feel that group rights are not adequately protected but the majority, although not totally happy with the outcome of this indaba, believe that they could live with the results. There were no total winners and there were no total losers. It was a compromise and that is what negotiation is all about. I suspect that the hon members on that side of the House do not understand the noble art of compromise. They must win all and they must be able to dictate the terms. This is possibly the result of 40 years of government.

The hon members for Umlazi and Turffontein spent most of their time arraigning the NRP for having entered into an electoral arrangement with the PFP not to oppose one another in the forthcoming election and indeed to assist each other wherever possible. The hon member for Turffontein went so far as to suggest that such an arrangement was— I cannot remember the exact word—either immoral or indecent or something like that and was only supported by the hon member for King William’s Town. It was further stated that we had been negotiating this deal for the past 18 months.

By the Progs, not by me.

No, the hon member implied it was negotiated for 18 months and it was not.

The hon member for Constantia said so.

As far as I am concerned—I have had discussions with my colleagues—discussions were only started on this matter in September last year.

Then somebody is lying.

For the benefit of hon members I would refute certain of these things. The NRP is federally constituted and thus all provinces have to have majority decisions to enter into such an agreement. They must also have the Federal Executive’s approval. All provinces held either Executive or Head Committee meetings to discuss the matters and in all provinces substantial majorities were in favour of such an agreement. In Natal the Head Committee approval was in excess of 80% and the Federal Executive also approved it by a substantial majority. I believe it is important to make this point clear because allegations have been made by the hon member for Turffontein that it is only the hon member for King William’s Town who is in favour of this. [Interjections.]

In Natal in particular it was a condition that we fight seats agreed upon as the New Republic Party and not as an alliance and that we fight on our own policy and adhere to our principles on law and order and the protection of group rights. We also fight on the basis that the Natal Indaba is acceptable to us. This again was ratified by our Federal Executive. We believe that group cultural rights can be protected by the proposals of the indaba and we see no conflict between the two.

Of course there were dissidents and some people left the party. I might add that we expected that and anticipated that that could be the case. All parties have their reactionaries who cannot accept change and we knew that that would be the case. [Interjections.] Yes, we have had to modify our group protection policy to accommodate the changing circumstances relating to ethnicity. The very policies of the NP have made ethnicity a word that stinks in the nostrils of humanity. Therefore we have had to endeavour to accommodate group protection rights by other means than ethnicity and that is why there is reference to a Zulu background, an English-speaking background or an Afrikaans background. We are, however, still adamant—I make this point clearly and unequivocally— that minorities of all colours must be protected from unjust domination. I want to repeat that we refer to background rather than to race.

We realise that this arrangement with the PFP will put a number of NP seats in jeopardy and at risk, and we can understand their denigration. However, we are a true reformist party that believes its duty is to join other reformists of all colours or political creeds in trying to get rid of the apartheid albatross that has been placed around our necks by the NP Government.

I would like to react to a few points that were specifically made, one by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—I regret the fact that he is not here. He said that the outcome of the Natal Indaba was given to the kwaZulu Government and to the Natal Executive Committee for their evaluation. If ever I have heard anything cynical it is that. The Natal Executive Committee is an NP organ—that is “finished and klaar”; nothing more and nothing less—appointed by the NP. They are therefore giving it to themselves to evaluate. The delegates of the kwaZulu Government were responsible for the indaba and they have evaluated it as a consequence of the debate that took place. I have never in my life heard anything as cynical as the hon the Minister’s effrontery in saying that he had given it to the Natal Provincial Executive to evaluate trying to give the impression that that would be an impartial body knowing the needs of this province. They appointed the people. They could not win Natal so they stole it from us by a legislative ploy and they gave this to them to evaluate.

You agreed to it! [Interjections.]

I did not agree to it.

You were in support of it!

Please!

The hon the Minister also made the point that Chief Minister Buthelezi had asked for the indaba not to be used in White elections.

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

No, I am not prepared to answer the hon the Deputy Minister’s question.

Chief Minister Buthelezi asked that the matter should not be used in the White elections. I am sorry but it is such a major issue that it cannot be avoided.

With those few words on the indaba I hope that I have clarified a number of points for the record, if for nothing else.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Umbilo is a good friend of mine and we have spent many hours together in the Executive Committee room in Natal. It is quite clear that he is very sensitive at this particular stage. I received a few looks from that direction—he wanted to tell me that he is going to stand against me in the constituency of Port Natal. I will therefore not disclose all my ammunition to him this afternoon in the event of his being accepted by the PFP. [Interjections.] However, I do not think he will be acceptable to them because I believe they have many spectacular playboys available, and I am not at all referring to our present ambassador in London. [Interjections.]

What I want to tell the hon member is that I have no doubt that he will still regret the decision that he took at the indaba in allowing himself to be taken on tow. He and his party say that they are standing on their own feet but this statement will not go down. They have entered into an alliance with a party that has very definite ideas and the candidate who will be standing for the NRP will be tainted with those ideas. It is quite clear that it is in fact a take-over that is taking place. [Interjections.] The fact remains that I have a high regard for the hon member for Umbilo and I do not wish to quarrel with him this afternoon.

When I accepted the invitation extended to the NP to attend the indaba I stated, inter alia, in my letter the following:

Senior members of the NP regularly attended the indaba meetings and I received weekly reports on its progress. In my statement of 30 November 1986—this was after a majority decision had been taken at the indaba—I also said the following:

I have my full statement available. I believe that hon members on that side of the House should take the opportunity of obtaining a copy from me and then form a judgment.

I have it!

I am obviously not referring to the hon member for Berea who is so prejudiced that I did not even think of him when I extended this invitation. [Interjections.] In the statement made on 30 November I also regretted the premature enforcement of a majority decision.

I want to state my position very clearly. The NP of Natal desires an accommodation of the legitimate aspirations of all the people within the Natal-kwaZulu region.

Just do not swim on our beach! [Interjections.]

The Zulu people comprise 80% of the total population of the region. I respect the Zulu people as a proud, disciplined and generally law-abiding nation with strong and capable leaders who are perceived to be pro-free enterprise, anti-ANC, anti-communist, and opposed to violence, sanctions and disinvestment. [Interjections.]

The indaba, both in concept as a negotiating forum and in terms of its current proposals, has attracted considerable attention. As far as the principle of negotiation is concerned, the NP has a strong pro-indaba attitude. However, after careful analysis it has been found that the present set of indaba proposals fail to provide the answers to so many constitutional, economic and practical administrative problems that they cannot be accepted. [Interjections.] However, while rejecting the present proposals as they stand, I firmly believe that negotiation must continue.

Is it on behalf of the Government that you say this, or on behalf of yourself?

I am speaking on behalf of the Government.

Are you saying that the Government rejects it?

How unfortunate it is that the indaba has now been made a real political issue in White politics.

You made it so! [Interjections.]

It has become a real political issue in White politics as a result of the decision of the PFP and certain NRP leaders to fight the general election using the indaba as a political platform. [Interjections.] I want to quote from an article which appeared in The Pretoria News on 1 December 1986. It also appeared in The Argus and in other newspapers. It says the following:

One can go further. In Business Day of 20 January the following was reported:

Furthermore, in another article, also published on 20 January, the following was stated:

It is quite clear that the indaba has been used to create this alliance and I want to say a little more about this. I wish to reject categorically …

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

Mr Speaker, my time is limited and I shall not reply to any questions now.

†I categorically reject efforts by the PFP-NRP alliance and other organisations such as the Indaba Support Group, to categorise the electorate into pro-and anti-indaba groups, based simply on whether one unconditionally supports the present set of indaba proposals or not. I want to emphasise that qualified support or rejection of certain of the present set of indaba proposals does not mean that one is against the indaba as such. The electorate must not allow the indaba process to fail because the PFP-NRP alliance wish to hijack the indaba concept for their own selfish political ends. [Interjections.]

*Hon members on that side of the House know they are guilty. They also know we are going to unravel the facts, and analyse the proposals of the indaba.

We are going to bury them.

That is why they are so sensitive as soon as one begins to examine the contents of the proposals a little more closely.

I consider it necessary to refer to a few things which happened at the indaba. [Interjections.] Things happened which were not conducive to honourable negotiation, and these must be singled out in order to prevent a repetition of such occurrences in future. I want to refer to only one of this series of events. A committee which was appointed to arrange liaison with the medium, became a so-called “image management” committee. Behind the scenes the so-called momentum of the indaba became the most important consideration. There were indaba support groups, all kinds of stickers and T-shirts, and expensive advertisements. Rallies were planned, and were held. [Interjections.] Last but not least, the possibility of an indaba alliance, or even an indaba party, became stronger and stronger.

All these things happened while there was still no question of an agreement on structures. I have no objections in principle to the formation of new parties and alliances, but that was not the purpose of the indaba. It was not for that reason, either, that the non-political organisations in particular came to occupy their time with in the Durban city hall. Some of those organisations lodged a formal objection. When it was realised that it would not be possible to take everyone in tow, it was uneasily resolved that the support groups would function in an artificial way, separate from the indaba.

Why didn’t you stop the indaba?

In November the Municipal Association of Natal, as a result of the direction in which the indaba had begun to move—the hon the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology referred to this—decided to change its status of its delegation to that of an observer. In a strongly worded statement the Natal Agricultural Union also dissociated itself from the direction that had been taken. The MP was just as concerned about the course of events, but made no public statements.

The most tragic victim of this steam-roller tactic which the PFP applied in the indaba, was the NRP delegation. [Interjections.] Whereas they had, at the beginning of the indaba, made a constructive contribution in accordance with their party principles, they abandoned their party principles entirely towards the end, motivated entirely by a spirit of opportunism. [Interjections.]

In retrospect it appears that it was deemed important, later in November, for the so-called momentum of the indaba to be increased. On 28 November 1986 a provisional vote was taken. Delegates could vote in their personal capacity if they wanted to consult their organisations first. The final reports of the committees that had to investigate the issues of education, finance and local government with a view to decisions on structures had at that stage still not been submitted and discussed. The final vote was only to have taken place a week later. Nevertheless the media was called in that same afternoon, and it was announced that consensus, with a few dissenting votes, had been reached. The details of the plan were published. [Interjections.]

Apparently it was accepted that the committee reports preserved no consideration in the final approval. There need be no speculation about the influence of all the publicity on members who still have to consult their organisations.

Who wrote this for you?

I know more about what happened there than you do! [Interjections.]

I want to know who wrote that for you! [Interjections.]

After the plan was announced, did any organisation …

Tell us who wrote that!

I wrote it myself! [Interjections.]

*After the plan was announced, any organisation or inhabitant of Natal was entitled to react to it. I also reacted.

Let us refer to a few cases now. For example I am referring to education. In this respect the hon member for Pinetown played a very decisive role there. [Interjections.] Let us now refer to these proposals, Mr Speaker. A single, integrated education department, controlled by the new authority, is being envisaged. Whites, Coloureds and Indian schools are therefore being done away with. According to the Bill of Rights financial parity in schools has to be achieved in one year. An equal division of finances is therefore being recommended. I have been informed that this implies that expenditure on White education has to be curtailed by 75%. This will of course entail a drastic lowering of standards. For the rest qualified teachers will be distributed to where their services are required the most. The education committee therefore found as follows, and I quote:

The committee consequently planned, and I quote further:

Apart from the disruption of the teaching profession, everyone in Class 1 would be provided with free education, and the indaba found, and I quote:

And the hon members here in this House can obtain further particulars about what happened in this regard from the Natal Rhodesians.

In regard to private schools the Bill of Rights provides that State-aided schools may only distinguish between scholars on the basis of sex and language. This means that schools in which ethnicity, religion of any denomination plays a role in admission, will receive no subsidy.

Oh, that is nonsense! [Interjections.]

It therefore goes without saying that in the case of private schools even high fees could be construed as meaning discrimination against Blacks in particular, so-called “bastions of White privilege”. Consequently their subsidy will be jeopardised.

Oh, that is utter nonsense!

The Bill of Rights prohibits every form of discrimination on the basis of economic status.

Have you read the education report?

You did not give it proper consideration. [Interjections.] Yes, of course I have read it. I have read it properly. [Interjections.]

You are talking absolute tripe! [Interjections.]

Order!

I wish to consider now some of the other proposals contained in the report. The first chamber of the proposed legislature is to be elected by universal franchise—one man, one vote—on a common role with proportional representation of political parties. Mr Speaker, I wish to be fair and I am trying to deal with this matter objectively and correctly. The report states that the experience of Western European democracies suggests that it is unlikely that any single party will have more than 50% of the seats in the first chamber if the proportional representation method is used. The question is whether it is fair, reasonable and justified to compare the democracies of Western Europe, with their ethnically, linguistically and culturally homogeneous populations, with the situation in Africa, and particularly in Natal-kwaZulu. Where in Europe is the general population so heterogeneous? The ethnic, cultural, educational and language differences among the various sectors of the population in Natal-KwaZulu, create grave doubt as to the legitimacy of attempting to transplant a Western European model onto an African situation.

Are those your own words?

The report states further that the likelihood of a single majority party gaining 80% of the seats in the first chamber is remote, because of the apparent division in Black politics. That is what the report states.

Do you agree?

No. Is such a statement, based purely on present-day perceptions, which might or might not be valid, sufficient guarantee that minorities will not be dominated? For a constitution to effectively protect minority groups, it must be so devised as to contain cast iron, foolproof mechanisms to prevent domination of one group by another. The indaba proposals fall short in this regard.

They want apartheid instead.

The indaba proposals contend that the second chamber provides adequate protection for group rights. However, this contention is challenged on the grounds that the indaba proposals are vague and incomplete on the criteria for determining group membership, on the terms of reference of the Electoral Commission and by whom the Electoral Commission is appointed.

The voter identification procedures suggested in the proposals are cumbersome, ineffective and wide open to abuse by those who might wish to get representation in all five of the so-called groups in the second Chamber.

Order! Hon members must please lower their voices. I can hardly hear the hon the Minister speak.

The proposals fail completely to address the problem of the right of a group to participate in the decision-making process as distinct from the simple protection of cultural or linguistic rights. The proposals do not seriously examine the thesis that if a group sacrifices its political power base, it loses control over its own destiny.

The economic implications of the indaba proposals have not been thoroughly researched. Sources in the indaba have chosen to try to discredit well reasoned, academically sound and economically based arguments which sound a warning against overhasty implementation of the indaba proposals. These economic implications need to be canvassed much more thoroughly. The indaba proposals suggest the granting of far wider powers and functions to the regional second-tier government in Natal, far wider than in any other comparable region in South Africa.

The practical, constitutional, financial and logistic implications of such a situation for the rest of South Africa are not researched by the indaba and would need thorough investigation before the granting of such powers could even be contemplated.

The indaba proposals fail completely to address the problems that would be created in the context of South Africa as a whole if the Natal-kwaZulu region were to get a radically different constitution to the balance of the country and were to be subject to a bill of rights not applicable outside the province.

In fact, the indaba proposals are completely silent on how the new Natal-kwaZulu would relate to the Republic of South Africa. For example, how would citizens of Natal-kwaZulu be represented in the central Government? Would the people of Natal-kwaZulu be prepared to have different systems applicable at regional and national levels? For that matter, would South Africa be prepared for a part of the country to have a dispensation different from the rest?

What about Transkei?

They did not consider any of these flaws. The Bill of Rights has serious practical implications for local government in Natal. I believe the committee which was established to consider local government proposals met once or twice and has never yet made a recommendation. [Interjections.] Apparently Mr Frank Martin—he is the chairman of that committee—has not compiled a report yet.

You are wrong. [Interjections.]

Well, perhaps the hon member can inform us about that later on.

I refer to paragraph 15.2 of the Bill of Rights which could require that local government must adapt and change to comply with the Bill of Rights within one year. Similar implications, as I indicated, exist for education. I do not wish to speak about the merits or otherwise of the Bill of Rights itself at this stage, but recommendations that such potentially drastic changes should be made in such a short space of time surely rank as almost irresponsible in their magnitude and effect.

The Government has proved its bona fides with regard to the recognition of Natal-kwaZulu as a unique region. We all know about the joint executive authority. Surely it would be wise for this process to be completed and tested in practice before the next step is contemplated. So many questions of fundamental importance remain unanswered that it must be clear that the proposals of the Natal Indaba represent only the tip of the iceberg in the essential and ongoing task of seeking acceptable constitutional reform in South Africa. The manner in which the indaba was constituted is open to serious question. This is the final point I wish to make. The majority of delegations had no political mandate. Many delegations had no consistent point of view as this varied depending on the person representing them at any one moment. Other delegations made no contribution of any consequence at all while others were, in fact, simply a soapbox for a single individual with lots of time on his hands to express a personal point of view. [Interjections.] I am sure the hon member for Durban Central heard many speeches of that nature.

I submit that future negotiations should be limited to participants with legitimate political constituencies to whom the negotiators are responsible. I see the indaba proposals as a start and not as an end in themselves. I believe that once the electorate fully understand the implications of the present proposals they too will see that our cautious, guarded and responsible attitude is the correct one. [Interjections.]

It is interesting to record that another major political organization in Natal, namely Inkatha, has not—despite efforts in some quarters to imply they have accepted the indaba proposals. They too have adopted a cautious attitude and will only consider the proposals properly in June this year.

I think much has been said about the indaba and much has been written about it …

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

No, I am not prepared to answer a question now. Much has been said and written about the indaba without analysing its content. There are two aspects to the indaba. One of these is the principle of negotiation which this Government supports wholeheartedly. [Interjections.] There is another one. The proposals themselves, and the set of proposals which was submitted when the indaba was prematurely brought to an end, are not acceptable due to the various factors to which I have referred. Any hon member who takes the trouble to read the indaba proposals properly will see that these proposals are not well thought out. They are not well researched. A tremendous amount of work must still be done in order to give support to any proposal that may be formulated. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the speech made by the hon the Minister of Home Affairs indicated very clearly to all of us what a fragile thing this so-called negotiation with a view to a peaceful dispensation between White and non-White is.

What did not emerge from his speech, is that obviously he and his party have learnt nothing from the history of Africa since the Second World War when all these plans— just as thorough, with the same good intentions, with the same research, the same pleas, over and over, from Rhodesia to Algeria— have yielded absolutely nothing for the Afrikaners and the Whites. Just as those schemes and plans disappeared like magic, nothing will remain of these plans of the Government before long. Because the ordinary Afrikaners and Whites perceive this so clearly with their sound instinct, there is a rising tide against this left-wing policy of the Government and to an increasing extent the electorate is moving toward the right. This tide is unrelentless. There are three reasons in particular for this.

The first reason is that although this Government still talks about group context, just as the hon the Minister just has, miscegenation is becoming worse by the day. One can see this on the beaches, in the cinemas and in the residential areas.

A second reason, of course, is the terrible economic conditions South Africa is experiencing and which I hope we shall be able to discuss more widely on a later occasion. All I want to say this afternoon is that one of the reasons for these terrible conditions is that we have one of the most ineffectual Ministers of Finance in the whole history of South Africa.

I want to dwell on the theme the hon the Minister broached, viz the question of political rights of Blacks and Whites in one political dispensation. We reject this principle totally. The HNP says there is an indigenous Afrikaner people as part of a greater White people in South Africa. The implementation of this principle of power-sharing is going to destroy the Afrikaners’ hard-won-sovereign independence. That is why we reject this principle of power-sharing and all the plans that emanate from it. Because we are true-born Afrikaner-Nationalists, we shall never sacrifice our people’s sovereign political independence. In recent years the NP has indicated in which direction it is heading. We must give the NP credit for this. Rapport of November 1976 quotes “Dawie” of Die Burger—at the time still Prof Piet Cillié—as writing these striking words:

When one sees how the Government is struggling, it is indeed torturous and alarming even to them.

In the same way the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, when he was the Chairman of the Broederbond, said as early as 1978 in a “candid moment”, in a “moment of truth”, in one of John Pank’s programmes on television:

“Radical Black leaders”are the ANC and the UDF, after all. I do want to say this about that hon Minister: At least he was honest enough even at that stage to draw the line right through and to say that if we could not live with the “radical Black leaders”, there would be no permanence for anyone in South Africa in any case.

The hon the State President also left us in no doubt, however—we want to credit him with this—in March 1985, as on so many other occasions. I quote from Beeld:

He did not state any further qualifications. He said Black political communities—this includes the urban masses, therefore—must get political rights. He regarded the only question as being how. [Interjections.] That is the torture—how to get to the “how”. That is what we are seeing today—how the NP is struggling to get to the “how”.

Let us remember just for a moment that when the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said at the beginning of last year that a Black State President was unavoidable, he was rapped over the knuckles. Not long after that the hon member Dr Vilonel said very clearly in this House, however, when he was still sitting in his other seat:

These are the headlines above his speech.

The hon the State President did not repudiate or reprove him, however. We appreciate that, because in that way the hon the State President permitted it to remain on record that he also said it was not impossible for South Africa to get a Black State President. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of National Education was quoted in Beeld of October 1986. The heading reads:

I think the sub-editor involved actually meant that even “F W” talks about Ministers for Blacks, because “F W” is the leader of the right-wing in the NP; and if even the right-wing of the NP can talk in that way, there is no one in the NP who does not say that the Blacks should get total inclusion in a dispensation in which the Whites and the Blacks are equal in their political rights. [Interjections.]

In addition the State President said in his opening address for this session:

I do not think the State President …

Order!

The hon the State President …

Order! In this House the State President will be referred to as the hon the State President. The hon member may proceed.

I am sorry, Sir; I mean the hon the State President throughout.

I accept that.

The hon the State President said the framework was “comprehensively enunciated.” I must say we cannot agree with his statement, because until now we have been given only the vaguest possible indication of the direction in which this reform policy is heading. There was talk of a federal system, of a canton system, of city-states linked to a central government, of a national statutory council, of a state council, etcetera, but apart from the names we know nothing. That is why Beeld, the best newspaper published in Afrikaans today—journalistically speaking!—said in a commentary article on 23 January:

We endorse every word written by Beeld in that article. To the right and to the left and within the NP, the time has come when everyone wants to know exactly where the Government is leading us. Perhaps I can just give Beeld this piece of advice: They must not blame the Government too much for this. After all, those are the Government’s tactics. It has called the election now because after the election it wants to proceed more forcefully with its steps, whereas now, before the election, it must look as though it is actually calling a halt.

That is not true.

It is true. Those are only tactics.

That is not true!

Here is an hon member who says that it is not true. It is absolutely true. [Interjections.] The NP—and in this respect I agree with the hon members of the PFP—wants to and is trying to create the impression now, before the election, that they are a little more right-wing than there were a few months ago. That is why the hon member for Innesdal eventually decided rather to stay. As was reported in the Cape Times—

He is merely clever. He knows he can do this much more effectively within the NP, after the election. Therefore he has to remain in the Innesdal constituency. [Interjections.] The most important speech yet made by the hon member for Stellenbosch—I say this without prejudice to his other speeches—is the statement on which Die Burger carried a report a few days ago. It reads as follows:

[Interjections.] That is what he said, and with respect to my friend the hon member for Randburg, I think he made a mistake in leaving the NP, because there is no power base in politics between the NP and the PFP as far as being left-wing is concerned.

The most significant and most striking proof of the direction in which the Government is heading, can be found in the working document circulated among its sections by the Broederbond last year. A “Bekommerde Broederbonder” sent a copy to us and I want to refer to a few of the most important paragraphs briefly. [Interjections.]

On page 2 the Broederbond makes the statement that group areas can gradually become grey and eventually disappear.

In addition they deal with the question of a Black State President. They make it very clear that a head of government need not necessarily be a White man. They also claim that the majority of the Government members can be Black. [Interjections.]

In conclusion the Broederbond says the following in the last paragraph, and the Broederbond itself knows that this is the most important paragraph:

That is the Afrikaner people’s continued existence. Note that the hon the State President was very upset when the hon member for Innesdal indicated that he could not wait for the African National Congress and Mandela to be released and to renounce violence. The Broederbond, however, says here that the ANC must be brought in. That is who they are referring to here. They are the ones who must renounce violence, but even if they do renounce violence, they can still cause this constitutional dispensation to miscarry. That is what it says. [Interjections.]

The hon the State President and the majority of the NP—80% of them are members of the Broederbond, and the vast majority of the Cabinet are members of the Broederbond as well—did not reject this document, however. We now demand that during this election the Government will say where they stand in respect of the standpoints stated more broadly in places here than has been done even in public until now. We are aware that the public has not been informed about this. We do not know whether or not the colleagues of those hon Cabinet members and House of Assembly members who are not members of the Broederbond, have been informed about this.

I conclude by saying the HNP will ensure that every voter in this country is fully informed on which plans the innermost circles of the Government are using to destroy the sovereign independence of the Afrikaner people.

Mr Speaker, it was very interesting to listen to the hon member for Sasolburg. He is not a man who handles us with kid-gloves, and we are use to that by now. If one looks at the record of the hon member and his party, the HNP, one has to say that since 1970 they have never yet praised the NP, but have attacked it sharply and in the process joined in six battles with the NP, in 1970, 1974, 1977, 1981, 1983 and 1987, and today they have one representative in Parliament. If one calculates this on a percentage basis, the HNP has less than 0,5% of the representation in Parliament.

One now asks why they have not been successful during the past 17 years, because this cannot be termed a success. [Interjections.] They are just as far removed from reality as they were in Klip River when they said they were going to win. They lost by more than 3 000 votes then. In 1970 and in every election after that they said they were going to take over the government, but the hon member for Sasolburg is still sitting on his own.

They specialise in running us down. If one reads their newspaper, one sees how bad the Government, the Cabinet members and the hon members here are, but the voters do not yet see their way clear to voting for the HNP, because the voters do not want insults. They want a solution to South Africa’s problems.

The HNP must state what their policy is in this election in Sasolburg and elsewhere, and they will have to help the CP to present the solutions. The CP is unwilling to state this, but the HNP at least is honest. They state flatly: “I will not speak English and I do not want to know anything about John Vorster.”

The CP is nonetheless hastily crossing over to the HNP-side. They are already shifting so far to the right, but they are making another big mistake. They could have won a great deal if only they would have taken Jaap as their leader, but they did not want to take him. They outmanoeuvred him, and we after all see what is happening. I do not know what position they are going to offer the hon member for Sasolburg. [Interjections.]

Now we are looking at the CP as the partners of the HNP in this battle, although the HNP does not want them. The CP, however, needs the HNP. the CP has never fought in a general election. How did they leave the NP? The HNP said that it was not even going to go into an election together with the NP, but the CP waited until the election was past and then they bowed out. [Interjections.] They ran away after the 1981 election. The rode into Parliament on the NP’s back. [Interjections.]

Now we arrive at 1987. The CP told that we should hold an election now. We should give them the opportunity of taking over the Government. There they are and they are running now, one after another, looking for other constituencies. The hon member for Rissik wants to cross the Vaal River, but they are chasing him back. [Interjections.] The hon member for Langlaagte wants to emigrate. [Interjections.] He wants to lie low. The hon member for Jeppe is on his way out. Fortunately he is back. [Interjections.] The hon member for Soutpansberg is sleeping his last sleep. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sunnyside is looking for a seat, but no-one wants him. [Interjections.]

What about Wonderboom?

I do not know whether they are going to take him. The hon member for Kuruman has become the strong man there. Kuruman is gone.

He cannot swim.

The hon member for Meyerton is quiet, and we take leave of him in silence. The hon member for De Aar is taking wrestling lessons.

These are the people who said: “Give us a chance—we shall take over the Government”.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: You ruled that hon members have to be referred to as “hon members”. The hon member for Vryheid is referring to us as “people”. [Interjections.]

Order!

Very well, I promise not to talk about bananas again.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that. I am not prepared to allow it.

I withdraw it, Sir. The people of South Africa are looking for a realistic party. Why is more than 70% of the representation in this House comprised of NP members? The public is looking for a party that is prepared to face up to the problems of South Africa and to try and solve them whether it is popular or not.

The Whites in South Africa know that the revolutionary onslaught against South Africa cannot be fought off unless we receive the support of moderate Blacks and Coloureds in South Africa. We are not living in Europe, we are living in Africa and that is the reality which people like the hon member for Sasolburg cannot face up to. They should realise that their so-called heartland of the Whites, Morgenzon, is 73% Black. They have to realise that of Natal’s 6 million inhabitants, 5 million are Black, half a million are Asian and half a million are Whites. They have to realise that economic realities caused the Blacks to stream into White South Africa in such numbers; that more than half of South Africa’s Black inhabitants, approximately 10 million people, are permanently here in South Africa and have to be accommodated. A dispensation has to be worked out so that those people will not be without rights forever. This is the situation which the NP has to and is prepared to put in order.

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

No, the hon member has spoken for too long. The hon member for Sasolburg must realize that Blacks have to and are going to obtain political rights. We have reached the stage where we have to do this. Some people say it is happening too slowly—like my friend the hon member for Randburg—some people say it is happening too quickly. The fact is the people who are keeping the machine running are the NP. It is not the PFP on the other side who only have 15% of the representation in this House.

It is acknowledged amongst members of the Opposition that the question is not who is going to take over the Government, but who is going to be the Official Opposition. In this process they are looking for allies. The CP is courting the hon member for Sasolburg, because they want to become the Official Opposition. The PFP is courting the remaining NRP members over on the other side. The hon member for Durban Point is going to retire, as are the hon members of Umhlanga and Umbilo. Only the hon member for Mooi River—for whom we have great respect—remains as the leader of his party, because the hon member for King William’s Town is of course not coming back. [Interjections.] The Opposition to the right and to the left are not going to receive any additional votes and are now just trying to get one extra representative each. Also the hon member for Randburg says that he is not going to vote for the PFP. He does not see his way clear to going so far. He was my seat-mate and I do not want to quarrel with him now. [Interjections.] However, he knows that he is heading for the desert. His wife was wearing the right get-up for the Namib. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must not continue in that vein.

Very well, Sir. The situation that we are dealing with in South Africa is that everyone in the country wants peace. Whether we are Coloured, Black or White, we want peace. We also want prosperity, but one cannot have prosperity without peace. Everyone in the country is concerned about the security in South Africa and this is the situation that the NP has to deal with.

The division in the House today is between people who are for and people who are against reform. Today I want to state publicly that the NP, the party to which I belong, is in favour of reform. This is the kind of reform, however, that has to come about in such a way that the interests of the Whites and other minority groups are protected. Positions of dominance are not desirable, but we are not prepared to renounce our right to a place in South Africa. The NP will negotiate, and that is why we are not prepared to give up under any circumstances.

It is said: “Politics proposes but the economy disposes.” This is the reality of South Africa. The time for political dreams has passed and these words I direct at the hon members of the CP. They are involved in political dreams and a policy which cannot be implemented at a practical level. Economic power leads to military might to ensure stability. We should give priority to the fact that every person in South Africa will have work, decent housing and the proprietorial rights to a piece of land. It is important because we have to prevent dissatisfaction amongst people of colour which could become a breeding ground for communism. This is a matter which we shall have to pay serious attention to. The developing Black and Coloured communities have to experience and appreciate the value of free enterprise and economic freedom. The prosperity and welfare of all of South Africa’s people, regardless of colour, is important to the NP.

Mr Speaker, I do not think the speech of the hon member for Vryheid will leave anybody in doubt that the question of confidence in the Government is not even up for debate. That there is no confidence is evident from many things, not least from the speech last Friday of a tired old man for whom things have not turned out as he would have hoped and who now stands undecided and helpless.

I believe there is a spreading realisation that our future depends on negotiation. However, the Government’s commitment to White minority domination prevents negotiation. The hon the State President makes himself ridiculous when he says: “’n Geskikte staatkundige bestel moet voldoen aan die voorkoming van oorheersing deur een groep oor ’n ander.” His policy is founded on domination and the tricameral Parliament has been designed to maintain it. The system of own and general affairs ensures that the assets and structures of power remain in his hands. Furthermore, the concepts of groups and group areas without freedom of association are directed at nothing less than domination.

The hon the Minister of Home Affairs has said that the indaba has been able to produce no cast-iron safeguards against domination. The only cast-iron safeguard that the Government will accept is its own group domination. In this respect they are no different from the CP. Their adherence to domination is the fundamental thing that prevents South Africa from moving into a really constructive reform phase. It cannot take place under those circumstances.

Our Government is not uniquely inefficient, autocratic or careless of the rule of law. They are, however, unique in the exercise of legislated group domination based on colour. This is the very essence of apartheid. It is only natural for people to be nervous about negotiation but if voters could see where this Government’s policy is leading they would realise they have no choice. I will describe the situation in the Eastern Cape in an attempt to show them.

It is a pity that the terms of reference for the Kannemeyer Commission provided that the commission had to examine the incident itself. The Government thus focused the attention of the commission on the actions of the police only. Those responsible for the conditions which gave rise to the unrest— they are the hon the State President and his Cabinet—got off scot-free. Hon members must judge from the following description of events whether the Government or communists are more responsible for Black unrest in the Eastern Cape.

Typically the area suffered under the usual web of laws and restrictions which inhibit every aspect of Black lives but at least when the White municipalities managed the Black townships they promoted the interests of housing. In 1972 this was handed over to the administration boards and they fell under one incompetent ideologue after the other—I am speaking of M C Botha, Mulder, Koornhof and the present hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

Between 1972 and 1982 they built less than 7% of the houses that were required. Five years ago I told this House that in Little Soweto in PE 60 000 people had to share 36 taps. That township now numbers 120 000 people and they still have no services. That is the way this Government sucks communism into the country.

As far as Blacks are concerned the hon the State President crossed his Rubicon with the tricameral Parliament as it made clear their third-class status. They rejected the imposed Black local authorities and set about making them unworkable.

In February 1986 rentals and service charges in the administration board’s area were R12 million in arrear. It was estimated that the accumulated debt at the end of 1986 would be R20 million. I can guarantee that nobody knows what those figures are today.

The councillors are regarded as puppets. They are besieged in their offices and forced to live for safety’s sake away from their people. Still the hon the State President tells us the Black local government system is to remain. This is a sort of army-enforced consensus.

Development boards followed administration boards into limbo last year, leaving an administrative vacuum with nothing to fill it—nothing that is but the forces of law and order. People trained to enforce the law in a conventional framework find themselves responsible for making social, economic and political decisions which affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

The Ibhayi municipality is a rubber stamp confirming decisions made by the JMC on the advice of the police. Recently a police officer under whom the PE-Uitenhage Black townships fall asked me—this was when I was making representations about the Red Location—why I did not use the proper channels.

I replied that I had been to the town clerk and had asked to see the mayor. He replied “You are an MP. You should know that you must go through the JMC’s.” I believe there has never been a clearer comment on who runs this country.

New Brighton is surrounded by an entanglement of razor wire. This is a component of a strategy called “Operation Oliekol.” I quote with regard to this: “Areas are to be stabilised, neutralised and sterilised.” They will then move on to the next area.

The men at the hot spots—called to do a job for which they are not trained—find the checks and balances of orthodox administration inhibiting and conduct themselves in an increasingly irregular manner. This is illustrated by events in kwaNobuhle on 4 January of this year.

The background is tension and violence between Azanu, alias AMA Africa, and the Comrades. It would appear that the police succumbed to the temptation of playing one faction off against the other. This is just the type of irregular action characteristic of an anarchic situation.

I have statements here from 41 individuals. They include 13 statements from people alleging attacks on themselves or their property, statements from family members and witnesses to two murders and one attempted murder, and statements from people caught up in the armed crowd of vigilantes which at one stage was estimated to have numbered about 1 500.

Police involvement is alleged in 22 statements. It appears that the AMA Africa provided the ringleaders, who commanded two Citi Golfs, the blue Sabata taxi and the van from which the crowd was directed. They were the link between the crowd and the police and they were involved in and targeting attacks on people and property.

The following is a brief summary of the events of 4 January:

Orlween Pityana says the following:

That is an SAP personnel truck. He goes on to say:

He mentions them in his statement. He says:

In her statement Mrs Bertha Jobo says:

I think this affair highlights the complete breakdown of conventional government. The situation is largely obscured by the emergency regulations and I would like to call for a public enquiry into the events of that day. [Interjections.]

The Government cynically thrusts ahead with the removal of people under cover of the emergency regulations. From July to November last year 40 000 people—this was one of the biggest removals ever—were moved from Langa and Despatch to what is called “Tent Town” in kwaNobuhle. They had to pull down their own shacks. They were given transport and were dropped on bare sites where there were no services, toilets, water or drainage. They were subsequently given portable toilets, communal tanks that were filled by bowser for water, and they were given a tent, the use of which they had until they had re-erected their own shacks.

The authorities maintain that this removal was voluntary. In response to complaints that we received, we carried out a survey of 76 households. All of them said they had been forced to move. They also said that they had not wanted to move and that the authorities had threatened to demolish their shacks if they did not move.

A team which included three doctors carried out an inspection of the area and the doctors listed conditions conducive to the spread of typhoid, TB and gastric diseases. They described the area as “a time bomb”.

The questions that should be asked and answered are the following: Firstly, what steps were taken to try to accommodate those people by redevelopment of the areas from which they were taken against their will? Secondly, why were services not commissioned before the people were moved to the town? Those services can be put in far more cheaply beforehand than afterwards. As a contractor I know that. Thirdly, why was basic accommodation not supplied on each site, even if it were a concrete slab and a weatherproof shed? Why was that not supplied on that site as was done at Motherwell?

The Government appears to be quite blind to the impact of human relations on things like the climate for “vreedsame onderhandeling” and the climate for security and prosperity—indeed, the survival of its own people. They just go brashly ahead, and render these things impossible to achieve.

One must ask whether the Government has a strategy. I believe it has. It is a strategy of minority group domination, massive co-option and phony power sharing. This will fail because the human spirit will not tolerate such an insult and because the Government does not recognise the vulnerability of the economy to political issues. Two twelve year old Coloured children, for example, were arrested at the McArthur Pool in Port Elizabeth. Something like that has more impact on our economy today than a change in the bank rate.

Mr Speaker, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon member for Walmer. However, I am unable to provide many answers to his questions; I think the hon the Minister of Law and Order will see to that when he has a turn to speak.

In this debate I should like to associate myself with the hon the Minister of Finance and say something about inflation. Before doing so, I first just want to bring up something that is troubling me. A pamphlet is being distributed in the Transvaal constituencies with a view to the election. It does not state who is distributing them, but I assume it must be a CP pamphlet. I think my friend the hon member for Jeppe will correct me if I am wrong.

There is one reason I should like to dwell on this for a moment. In his Opening Address the hon the State President called an election. As far as the pamphlet is concerned, we apparently once again find ourselves in the by-election battle of 1984 in the Primrose constituency, when basically the issue was not about policy or standpoints, but a campaign against the hon the State President. The pamphlet doing the rounds—it comes from Primrose—is once again one of those which takes a large part of the truth, and then adds on untruths so as to reflect a half truth.

I do not wish to react to the contents of the entire pamphlet; I just want to mention one or two points raised in it. The first point that worries me a little is the reply to the question concerning what has gone wrong or where the problem lies. The matter of expenditure in the new dispensation is mentioned. Then the old point concerning the fact that R6,066 million was spent on renovating Tuynhuys for Mr P W Botha is again being raised. [Interjections.] I should like to ask for whom that building will have been renovated when another State President takes the place of the present hon State President there. [Interjections.]

There is another question I want to ask. The hon member for Lichtenburg is laughing, but I cannot see what the the joke is. Perhaps he spread those half truths. [Interjections.]

I should like to proceed and show that in a certain section of those pamphlets a whole series of figures is mentioned. In my opinion, Dr L A P A Munnik, the Minister who has now retired, dealt with these matters very well last year in a debate on his portfolio when he said that Tuynhuys was one of the oldest buildings in South Africa, and that it was time it were restored. My personal standpoint is that it is a good thing to restore and use buildings of that nature. Buildings like that should not stand vacant, since the cost of restoring and maintaining them is too high. If we can make use of them as well, they also serve an economic purpose.

I want to discuss a few more of these matters. The hon the State President is always brought into this kind of thing. For example, the cost of R3,3 million to modernise P W Botha’s office—not the hon the State President’s, but P W Botha’s—is mentioned. [Interjections.] The following statement reads:

If this is the level at which the election battle is going to take place, in my opinion we are back in 1984 when we fought that very dirty election in Primrose. I should like to request that hon members leave the hon the State President alone, and that we rather fight over our respective policies.

I now want to come to the question of policy.

He’s the prime target!

The hon member for Jeppe says that the hon the State President is the prime target. Very well, now we also know how to deal with this matter in the next 10 to 12 weeks.

I should like to conclude this section. We have heard the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. We have also heard the speech of the hon the leader of the Conservative Party. The contents of both those speeches consisted only of attacks. Of course, the same applies to the speech of the hon member for Sasolburg. I have not heard a single policy standpoint from any of them, except perhaps when the hon member for Waterberg said we should divide South Africa up. He must divide South Africa up if he wishes. We will then have an inflation rate of about 400%. I shall come back to the question of inflation later.

Come let us hear a little about your own politics!

The hon member Mr Theunissen must first undertake an election campaign before he comes and makes interjections here again. He now has the privilege of doing so. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, as well as the hon the leader of the Conservative Party, only launched attacks without in any way putting forward a standpoint or offering a solution. In this regard I want to associate myself with what the hon the Minister of Finance had to say. I want them to show me one single solution they have offered. [Interjections.]

I should now like to dwell for a moment on one of the most serious problems that exist in this country at the moment. That is the problem of inflation. Inflation is a problem. The hon the Minister of Finance spelt this out very clearly. I agree with him that inflation is a problem. However, I do want to say that if the Government is partly responsible for the problem of inflation, I accept responsibility. Let us look at the problem of inflation in this country, however. I maintain that it costs money to live in a country, and the price we pay in South Africa—with its particular circumstances in the African context-consists partly of inflation.

I should like to put it this way. On the one hand we in South Africa have to arm ourselves and take precautions against sanctions and boycott actions. This costs a great deal of money. All money spent on the stockpiling of certain strategic supplies in this country, is an expenditure or dividend item which we cannot obtain anywhere else. It lies in the fact it entails an advantage for South Africa. It has cost money, however. I should just like to ask hon members of the opposition parties—and I am now speaking to hon members of all the opposition parties together— whether it is correct that this Government has gone out of its way to make us self-sufficient for the the times we find ourselves in. If their reply is “no”, we know how to deal with that during the election campaign. [Interjections.]

Of course, my own standpoint is that the reply can be nothing but “yes”. Since we have therefore replied “ yes”, we have to add a certain number of percentage points to our inflation rate, since we are dealing here with dead capital which is lying unproductively and waiting for the opportune moment to use it again.

I should like to praise the far-sightedness of previous leaders—people who were in Parliament long before us, and who began this process—and express my gratitude to them. At present we are at least relatively independent as far as fuel is concerned. We are also relatively independent as far as technology is concerned. Where there are certain shortcomings in other fields of the economy, work is being done on that in earnest. To shout inflation onesidedly, however, without being honest and also stating the facts, is really not fair.

We are therefore going into this election campaign bearing in mind a number of points the hon the State President brought up in his address on Friday. I believe that the points the hon the State President touched on here, are in fact regarding those matters that are going to become of the utmost importance in the forthcoming election. In the printed copy of the State President’s Opening Address we all received, those points are set out in numeric order. For example, on pages 7, 8 and 9 of the text of his speech the economy and related matters are discussed specifically.

Let us take this further, however. I have pointed out that the hon the Minister of Finance set out a number of points here yesterday. I have here with me the report that appeared in Die Burger in that regard. In it reference is made to those aspects the hon the Minister mentioned here—amongst other things the problems of the growth rate, the inflation rate, unemployment, and so on. I agree that these things are problems for us. However, there are a number of speakers left who are going to take part in this debate. There are experts here, like the hon member for Walmer—an expert on the economy, and himself a big businessman. I therefore once again request that those hon members who are experts in this field give us advice. They must advise us so that we can see how they want to solve these problems. The hon member for Kuruman, the Chief Whip of the CP, is also still going to speak. He has a great deal to say about inflation. Let him also tell us how, in the present circumstances in which the RSA finds itself, they would solve the inflation problem immediately.

Are you completely stumped now? Must we come and govern the country now?

The hon member for Jeppe knows that if I say something to him, he is going to take up my time to speak because he will feel uncomfortable. I request that he remain dead quiet and go and look for a constituency. That will be better for him.

Perhaps you, too, should become a Deputy Minister. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Finance set out in full the the problems that exist, but I want to add another one, since I think the hon the Minister did not have the time to discuss it. This is the problem with our imports and exports.

South Africa has an exceptionally open economy, and I should like to demonstrate this in the light of a few figures. Approximately 50% of our gross national product is obtained by way of imports and exports. Such a high figure means that a country has an open economy. South Africa’s prosperity is therefore to a large extent linked to its imports, and to an even greater extent to its exports. Its general economic welfare is influenced phenomenally by what we do with our imports and exports.

Now the CP asks—me in particular—why the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs allows us to export so many goods to the countries north of South Africa. I know that they are going to ask me this again, so they must listen carefully now. If we do not do this—the CP must mention what I am saying now in their newspapers—more people in the Transport Services would have to be dismissed and more equipment would have to be shut down because the transport system is designed for, and intent on, serving the rest of Africa as well. Further dismissals and unemployment will ensue if we do not export to those countries.

As long as one gets the money, I support the idea of trading with everyone, irrespective of who they are. The prosperity of the CP supporters also depends on the imports and exports of this country.

The short-term upswing prevailing at present is largely built on exports. However, we are now also saddled with the problem of sanctions and boycotts.

I could give you examples from the Primrose constituency, from Isando, which is one of the single largest industrial complexes in South Africa. America’s steel imports from our country, which have been cut off, have caused a few hundred people in my constituency to be either unemployed or to be working half time.

I respect the people who are helping South Africa to utilise our exports to the full, but these exports now have a disadvantage. These exports have to go through other countries or through middlemen, and the cost is therefore increased. The same goes for imports. Last year I was privileged to visit abroad, and if one looks at the prices of certain computers in the shops in London as opposed to the price in South Africa, one notices that there is a great difference in price irrespective of the rate of exchange. These computers were still entering the country last year, despite the ban on their importation.

For us, however, the most important thing in this case remains to protect these employment opportunities by means of exports. I want to support my statement with the aid of figures from abroad. The total gross domestic product of the USA is only 14% dependent on imports and exports, that of Japan only 25%, that of France 32%, that of West Germany and Canada 41% each, that of Britain 45%, and that of the Republic of South Africa a little more that 50%. We must enter the forthcoming election battle in a responsible manner, particularly when we speak about our foreign trade. When we are asked why we export to this country or that, we must be sure not to embarrass those who export.

Every attempt at exporting on the part of South Africa brings about additional costs for some middleman or another, and that man in the middle is important to us. We must therefore not begin to harm the man in the middle. It appears that we simply followed a reconnaissance path to the Isle of Man, and look what ensued—simply because the previous Minister of Trade and Industry, the hon member for Piketberg, went and had a look at the possibilities. I therefore want to warn everyone to be somewhat careful when it comes to matters of this nature.

Employment opportunities remain important to us. Exporting is also important to us. I should therefore like to thank the hon the Minister of Finance and advise him even to extend his exporting activities by means of the A, B, C and D schemes which are being undertaken at present, and to increase the amount of money being voted for that purpose in the next budget in order to assist this exporting campaign further. After all, our internal trade does not provide sufficient capacity to accomodate that as well.

I should now like to quote the words of John Samuel Swire, who was a great businessman and who made his money in China, Japan and Hong Kong—what he had to say in his day regarding the trade of Russia. I should like these words to be our motto as well:

I believe this should be our attitude with regard to our export trade and what goes with it.

I also just want to point to the important “high” morality expected of Senator Lugar in the USA with the passing of the legislation pertaining to sanctions, as well as the result of his own legislation on sanctions, which was eventually amended—another speaker will probably discuss this in greater detail later in this debate—in that certain strategic minerals have been exempted from sanctions measures. I believe that the morality related to this is of such a nature that we ought to re-evaluate the Americans as trading partners. When one trades with people who manipulate trade in this manner, it is my belief that one should think twice before committing oneself further in any way. I therefore want to make a plea today for us to deal with our exports in as broad a manner as possible and involve as many countries as possible. After all, we have a problem in that field. At the moment approximately 67% of our imports come from five of our most important trading partners, whilst almost 60% of our exports go to five of our trading partners. I believe that this is too narrow a base if we want to ensure our export trade in the long term.

In conclusion, I just want to state that the effectiveness of the gross domestic product— and as I have already said, our most important problem is that of inflation—is being hampered, to put it briefly, by the problem of too many hands taking the domestic product, whilst too few hands are making a contribution. We shall definitely have to do something about that. I therefore hope that when the Margo Commission Report is released and the tax issue is dealt with, a contribution will be made to the enlargement of this cake. As long as more demands are made and we find ourselves in an unbalanced situation as far the gross domestic product vis-à-vis the contributions to it are concerned, we will continue to struggle with the problem of inflation. We can be sure of that.

The hon member for Lichtenburg said that the Government was not doing enough for the farmers. A moment ago he smiled and made remarks when we spoke about the inflation rate. I am satisfied with what the Government is doing for the farmers at present. The Government will do still more for the farmers when we can afford it. When we do in fact do so, however, the hon member for Lichtenburg must remember that the inflation rate will increase. We are spending money to keep people on their farms who, at this stage, due to circumstances beyond their control are unable to produce.

The hon the State President has also announced that R600 million is being made available for training and other aid programmes. That is R600 million that is being spent today, the results of which will only be felt in the medium and long term. This was an attempt to afford unemployed and hungry people the opportunity to earn something so as to be able to buy food, without having been productive. Yesterday the hon the Minister of Finance discussed the concept “productivity”, and the influence of productivity on inflation in full.

I want to ask the hon member for Sunnyside: Must the State vote R600 million to assist hungry people? What does he prefer: People with food in their stomachs, or a high inflation rate? I prefer to fill people’s hungry stomachs. The hon member for Sunnyside must not only criticise.

To solve the problem of inflation in this country, is very easy. To solve the problem of inflation worldwide, is also very easy. The accompanying painful results of such a solution is the problem, however. We could solve the problem of inflation this evening. If we were to solve the problem this evening, however, this country would burn tomorrow, since people—Whites as well—would then be unemployed on a large scale. That is what Mrs Margaret Thatcher and President Ronald Reagan have done. They have used the old technique from the time of Keynes. They have increased the unemployment figure.

If we were to use that strategy in this country with its special circumstances, however, we would have a revolution. I stand by the State President and the NP who say: We shall solve this problem gradually—as we grow.

In conclusion: We will not be able to solve the problem of inflation if we are unable to keep the population explosion in check. The hon member for Yeoville referred to the real growth rate. Everything we do is in vain, however, if we are unable to bring the population figure down so that the economic growth can keep pace with the number of people who have to share in the prosperity.

Mr Speaker, when the hon member for Primrose rose to speak, he aroused the hope in me that possibly he was going to spell out the policy of the NP. Unfortunately—and I was listening very attentively to the hon member—he fell into the same trap in which the hon Minister of Finance fell, namely that of giving an outline of problems without presenting any real policy solutions to these problems.

Now we are on the eve of a country-wide election for Whites, which is now being held after a record period of six years and which was planned to be eight years in 1983. The NP used the period since 1984 to implement its so-called reform plan. When the Government artificially extended the lifespan of the White Parliament—now the White House— in 1984 …

Order! Hon members must please lower their voices. The hon member may proceed.

… it forgot those things which the hon the State President on Friday gave as reasons for the election. These things are namely that account can only be given publicly if political parties are periodically granted the opportunity of presenting their policy and standpoints to the electorate.

Secondly, a democratic government should from time to time go to the country to give those by whom it has been elected, the opportunity of policy and standpoints. Furthermore, he pointed out that a large number of the names of those newly eligible to vote has been added to the voters’ roll. They are predominantly young members who have the right to participate in decisions on policy and standpoint that concern the future.

Now that the NP has come to an impasse in its power-sharing policy, especially in respect of the Blacks and the economy, the Government suddenly remembers that these things which it should in fact have remembered last year when it should have called an election in the normal way. Now an election is at hand.

There is also a second matter which is important today. This Government is at this moment confronting a motion of no confidence that has been moved, against which it has to defend itself. In all fairness, anyone would expect the Government to make use of this opportunity, and of every opportunity in public, of spelling out its policy to the voters; or of presenting the voters its policy standpoints concerning the road they are following with regard to South Africa and the people of South Africa. Its policy, especially its policy of power-sharing and its economic and financial policy, is at this moment of considerable importance to the people of South Africa.

Since yesterday we have been experiencing a very strange phenomenon, namely that the NP speakers—the hon members on the opposite side of the House—are standing up one by one to make a speech, yet they shy completely from the question of policy. [Interjections.] That is the problem we are dealing with today. [Interjections.]

I am going to prove a few of these things to these hon members. In the first place we have the situation that the hon member for Vryheid rises in this House and delivers one of his ridiculous speeches—without giving any substance to policy. [Interjections.] Then he speaks of one CP member after another who according to him will not come back to the House. Today, however, I want to tell the hon member for Vryheid that if there is one hon member here who is not going to come back to the House, it is the hon member for Vryheid. [Interjections.]

I want to mention another example. The indaba is now suddenly becoming so important, more than the other problems of the country, that two senior hon Ministers—both provincial leaders—have to stand up here and dedicate their speeches to the indaba, after other hon members also spoke about the indaba. The one tries to confess and profess towards the other that he does not actually want to contradict his colleague, but that they are in fact ad idem on this matter. Now I ask, Sir, what does the indaba actually have to do with the politics, in its entirety, of South Africa today? [Interjections.]

I now want to go further and refer to the hon Minister of Finance. This hon Minister is one who usually acts as though he were all-knowing. This hon Minister alone knows what is going on, and no one else knows anything. [Interjections.] This hon Minister is supposed to spell out the Government’s economic and financial policy in this House and to defend it so that the electorate will know exactly what they are dealing with.

What do we find now? The hon Minister must outline what the Government is planning in order to extricate itself from the economic crisis into which it has plunged the country. The hon Minister must also deal with the crisis of increasing unemployment, White impoverishment and bankruptcy, inflation, the high cost of living, tax pressure, etc, and then he should indicate how the country is going to be rescued from these things. The hon Minister, however, stands here and, unlike the usually omniscient hon Minister, he confesses to an endless list of their economic and financial shortfalls, deficiencies and debts. He says they are guilty of all those things, but that that is simply the way things are.

He says it is a fact.

It is a fact we are saddled with. He tells us about commissions and of the many discussions that they are holding with advisers who have to help them to put this problematical situation in order, but he does not tell us what the result is. [Interjections.] At last he still makes a few economic and financial promises concerning what will emerge. I just want to say, though, that the people of the Republic of South Africa, the Whites, are sick and tired of all the promises on the part of the Government that come to nothing.

I now want to come to the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs. This hon Deputy Minister stood up here yesterday without making any attempt to spell out in detail the NP’s policy of power-sharing with the Blacks, and without telling the voters how and where the millions of Blacks were going to be accommodated within one undivided state and government—one central government. He does not tell us how they are going to be involved in the highest legislative and executive authority within this unitary state and this central system of government. It is the sole exclusive right of the Whites to govern themselves and to take decisions in terms of all facets of Government. He does not say how this can be sustained within a single state and single government. He does not spell out how the Whites as a minority group will enjoy true protection in this unitary dispensation. He then comes along, however, and bewails the fact that the hon members of the PFP and the CP are not spelling out their policy here. [Interjections.]

This hon Deputy Minister—and this is also the problem which the hon member for Primrose is experiencing—forgets that it is the NP and their Government who are standing in the dock. They are the ones who have to face a motion of no confidence. [Interjections.] Not the opposition parties, and that is why the opposition parties have every right to attack the NP which is standing in the dock, facing a motion of no confidence, and to show them why there should be a motion of no confidence in them. It is the task of the Government party to defend itself in this situation. It is not the task of the opposition parties to rescue the Government by presenting them with their policy. They must come forward with their policy. They should say how they want to escape this motion of no confidence and what they are going to offer the voters, so that the electorate will not also move a motion of no confidence in them. [Interjections.]

It surprises no one that the hon members on the Government side of the House rise to speak without spelling out a policy. I appreciate the presence here this afternoon of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. At the moment he is the big man in the NP. As the one who like a state actor and performer, grabs America by the throat and wants to upbraid every foreign country for the unjust things they are doing in respect of South Africa. But the hon the Minister let the cat out of the bag. He said the NP’s election tactics were not to spell out any policy. He said, according to the newspaper report in front of me:

Now the most important part comes:

Now we are confronting a situation of “how we propose to survive”. He did not spell it out in this newspaper report, but the first thing he did spell out, what according to him, was what the PFP was offering the voters. Then he told us what the “racist” CP were going to do and then what the ANC and the Communists are going to do with South Africans. Then he said we were not going to allow ourselves to be dictated to by America. In this version of his speech one looks for his answer to the “how we propose to survive”. I find nothing in it. It does not tell the voters how the NP wants to make it possible for this country and its people to survive, because it does not want to speak about policy. Their tactics are of course that their policy should not be spelt out, because they get stuck when that policy has to be spelt out. We at least expected the hon the Minister, the strong man of the NP, to come forward with a policy so that the voters would be able to know where they were going. He said nothing more than that there would have to be negotiations with the moderates and that “people must banish racism from their hearts and enter into an alliance with moderate Blacks.” That is all. Is the hon Minister not prepared to stand up in this debate and to spell out to us how the NP wants to make it possible for us to survive, so that the voters can make the choice?

With his conduct the hon the Minister got the hon member for Innesdal into trouble. He is the hon member’s mentor and political leader. He is the man who went overseas and said that apartheid should be abolished because it is discrimination. He is the one who went overseas and said that there should be negotiation with the ANC if they renounced violence. The hon member for Innesdal was of the opinion that he could also say such things abroad. But then, he said that there should be negotiation with the ANC without their having to renounce violence and that Mandela should be freed. Upon his return he was, according to a newspaper report, quite arrogant about it. The report read as follows:

When the hon member stated so bravely that he stood by everything he had said about the ANC and Mandela, however, this hon Minister, left him in the lurch. He said that if the hon member did not write a little note, as he himself and Rev Hendrickse and others had done, he would be kicked out. He said he wanted to have nothing to do with him unless he wrote a little note of apology. Now I merely want to ask the hon the Minister whether he is prepared to spell out a policy to us in this House—not in a verbose and devious but in a straightforward way, which every voter can understand—how the NP wants to make it possible for South Africa and its people to survive.

Mr Speaker, I wish to begin by exchanging a few words with the hon member for Durban Point.

†Before doing so let me say that I think that we owe it to all hon members who have given notice that they intend retiring from public life to express our deepest appreciation and thanks for the work they have done over a number of years as members of this House. Public life is not a garden of roses, and we all know that. Sometimes, perhaps most of the time, it is a road of thorns. I think I speak on behalf of all hon members when I say that we wish them well and we hope that they will experience a happy life outside this House in their new occupations.

While I am referring to hon members who are retiring I have a special word for the hon member for Durban Point. I listened to him yesterday and I took the trouble to read the report of his speech this morning. Without trying to belittle him I want to say that I detected a note of bitterness in his speech— something that is quite foreign to the hon member’s actions in the past. It very seldom happened that the hon member acted as a bitter member of Parliament. He always rose to the occasion and acted as a patriot of South Africa although we differed with him on many occasions. I wish to pay a tribute to him today.

He referred to the co-operation during the referendum under his leadership. After the referendum I went out of my way to tell the hon member that I appreciated his party’s as well as his personal contribution. Apart from that I was Minister of Defence for 14 years and I had the privilege to co-operate with the hon member on many occasions. I wish to thank him publicly for what he did to make the security of our country his own and to rise above party political squabbles in that respect.

Having said that, I hope the hon member will not take it amiss of me if I tell him I think he made one terrible mistake after the referendum. He missed the bus on that occasion because I gave him the opportunity to lead his party in a positive direction. Today I can understand his bitterness to a certain extent because many members of his party are joining the Government in their effort to make this country safe for all peace-loving people. I leave it at that. I wish the hon member well. He will always be remembered as one of the respected members of Parliament.

*In his speech yesterday, the hon member for Waterberg put a question to me, which I want to reply to briefly. What I really want to do, if I am spared, is to have a little discussion with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition tomorrow on certain statements which he made and their consequences.

The hon member for Waterberg referred to my statement on the broadening of democracy. He then asked a few suggestive questions. The hon member is a master of suggestive questions and suggestions. We know him. He can conjure with language without saying anything. However, he can also leave impressions behind which are not always correctly based. In this vein, he asked whether it meant equal rights to every citizen, and equal, proportional representation of everyone in the same Houses. Does it mean proportional representation in Parliament? Does it mean representation in Parliament for Blacks by an own Chamber?

Surely the hon member has received replies from this side of the House to these questions and suggestions from this side of the House on numerous occasions. Why does he repeat it? If he had only read my opening address or had listened to it—I take it he did both, and if he did not read it, I hope that he will do it now—he will know that I discussed this matter and explained what we do not stand for.

[Inaudible.]

I am not talking to the hon former member for Jeppe now, Sir. I am talking to the hon member for Waterberg.

But you have changed your standpoint so often!

Give a clear answer for a change.

I shall of course give the hon member for Waterberg an answer. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, for example I stated expressly expressly that I did not believe in a community which in the political sphere, in the sense of the modern usage, seeks one dispensation with common voters’ rolls and franchises. That is what is stated in my opening address. What is more…

That is not my problem, Sir. [Interjections.]

No, but now we have solved at least one of the hon member’s problems. We are making progress. [Interjections.]

The trouble with the hon member is that he should like to associate this Government with something which he knows for a fact from his experience does not exist. [Interjections.] He knows, Sir, that one of the express standpoints of this Government is that there will not be a fourth Chamber. Surely he knows it! Not only do we tell him this; we also tell the Black leaders with whom we have talks.

But you once said there would be no power-sharing.

The hon member for Waterberg knows something else as well, and that is that if one were to try to establish a fourth Chamber, one would have to try to accommodate six peoples in that fourth Chamber. How is one going to accommodate them all in that fourth Chamber? Surely that is nonsense! [Interjections.]

The hon member also knows that this side of the House has never subscribed to the principle of proportional representation.

Now we are constituted as we are.

But surely it is not proportional representation. [Interjections.] This Parliament has three Chambers. The hon member still does not know what has happened and of what he has been a member! [Interjections.]

What about the 4:2:1 division? [Interjections.]

He is becoming weaker!

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member for Jeppe say, referring to the hon the State President: “He is becoming weaker”? [Interjections.]

Order! The time has arrived for this House to adjourn.