laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Part Appropriation Bill [B 39—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Finance).
2. (2) (a) Unauthorized Expenditure Bill (House of Assembly) [B 40—87 (HA)]—(Minister of the Budget).
   1. (b) Certificate by the State President in terms of section 31 of the Constitution, 1983, that the Bill deals with matters which are own affairs of the House of Assembly.

Order! The hon the State President has asked me for leave to make a statement, and I take pleasure in affording him an opportunity to do so.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, I announce that I have today appointed a commission of inquiry with the Judge President, Mr Justice G G A Munnik, as chairman and sole member.

The terms of reference of the commission are to investigate and report on:

1. (a) In which newspapers advertisements concerning the ANC appeared on 8 January 1987;
2. (b) By whom or on behalf of whom the advertisements were place;
3. (c) How much and by whom or on behalf of whom the newspapers were paid for the publication of the advertisements;
4. (d) What the source was of the funds that were used to pay for the advertisements, and especially also with reference to a report in the Cape Times of 5 February 1987, according to which the UDF gave a bank-guaranteed cheque for R100 000 for the placing of the advertisements;
5. (e) Whether Mr Chris Ball was in any way involved in the financial arrangements concerning the payment for the placing of the advertisements; and
6. (f) Any relevant aspect that may more fully explain the aforementioned matter.

announced that he had called a joint sitting of the three Houses of Parliament for Monday, 9 February, at 14h15 for the delivering of Second Reading speeches on certain bills.

Mr Speaker, may I address you on a matter concerning a possible breach of privilege in terms of Standing Order 25?

Sir, you did me the honour of allowing me to raise this matter with you earlier. May I refer to a report in today’s issue of Die Burger, under the byline of “Vryburger”, in which the following statement is made about the hon member for Claremont, Mr van Eck:

I have investigated this matter and it appears clear that the hon member for Claremont was present throughout all the stages of the proceedings in Parliament on Friday, both at the joint sitting and on the two occasions when this House assembled.

Mr Speaker, may I refer you to section 10 (3) (1) of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act No 91 of 1963, which creates the following offence:

May I just say very briefly that in my submission there has been publication in a newspaper; that the matter that was published was false in that the hon member was here throughout the proceedings on Friday; and that it is a libel on him for the following reasons. When one looks at this particular news report—especially the paragraphs preceding the sentence that I read out—one sees quite clearly that according to this writer the caucus of the PFP took a decision to attend the opening proceedings of Parliament. You will know, Sir, that a libel is any publication that tends or is calculated to affect the reputation of a person. The sting of the libel, in my submission, is that the hon member contravened the decision of his caucus deliberately. I would therefore submit that it is a libel and also, finally, that it is on a member, touching his conduct as a member. There cannot be anything that affects a member more directly than his attending the proceedings on the opening day of Parliament.

For those reasons, Mr Speaker, I ask you to rule that there is prima facie a case of breach of privilege.

Order! The hon member was kind enough to consult me in my office this morning. After considering the matter very carefully I have to state that I am not prepared to give precedence to a motion for the appointment of a select committee to investigate the alleged possible breach of privilege.

Mr Speaker, I must say that we have reached a strange and serious situation in this country when the hon the State President can make a speech on one day, involving, inter alia, the smearing of certain individuals in South Africa, and the very next day he can come before Parliament and announce that he is appointing a commission of enquiry in order to establish the facts arising out of some of the things which were said in yesterday’s debate. I do not want to go into detail on this at this stage—other speakers on this side will do so—but I want to say it is a pity that the hon the State President did not try to establish those facts before he made the speech yesterday smearing certain individuals in South Africa.

However, my time is limited and I want to deal with more important issues relating to this country which, at present, is in a state of great turmoil. Most decent South Africans are looking for a peaceful solution to the problems with which the country is beset. I think most peaceful South Africans realise that if that peaceful solution is to be found, it has got to be found by way of reasonable reform and reasonable negotiation. If ever there was evidence that this Government is not serious about real reform in South Africa—ie reform that goes beyond the narrow confines of the apartheid philosophy of the NP—that evidence was provided in this House on Tuesday by the concerted NP attacks on the Natal Indaba.

If ever there was evidence that this Government simply does not understand the meaning of negotiation in solving South Africa’s problems, that evidence was also to be found on Tuesday in the speeches of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and other senior members on Government benches who produced an orchestrated attack on the indaba proposals.

There are two points I want to make at this stage. The first that should be noted is that apart from a passing reference to the indaba process by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in his opening speech, I am the first speaker on this side of the House to deal with the indaba on this fourth day of this no-confidence debate.

The second point which I think should be noted, is that the concerted attacks on the indaba by senior members of the NP on Tuesday were directly in line with the rejection of the indaba proposals by the hon the Minister of Home Affairs—in his capacity as leader of the NP in Natal—on 30 November 1986 within 48 hours after those proposals had been made known.

On Tuesday there were embellishments, there was embroidery, there was some greater detail given, but the tenor of the speeches was exactly the same as that statement on 30 November, namely, that the proposals do not conform with Nat policy of representation based on race groups, and therefore cannot be acceptable; and that because they do not conform with that, they will lead to domination. We know the language so well: It was contained in the first statement on 30 November and it was repeated and reiterated ad nauseam here on Tuesday afternoon.

It is quite clear, therefore, that as far as the Government is concerned, it had made up its mind as far back as 30 November—48 hours after the proposals had been made—as to what they were going to do in regard to the Natal Indaba representations. [Interjections.] That was when—let us get this quite clear—the hon the Minister of Home Affairs in his capacity as leader of the NP in Natal, introduced the indaba into the White election as an election issue. That was when it was introduced as an election issue. The Government did it, Sir, not the NRP, and not the PFP.

If further evidence of this fact is required, that evidence is that the indaba proposals were formally submitted to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, as the responsible Minister in the Cabinet, on 13 January 1987. They were not presented by the PFP or by the NRP, but were correctly and formally presented by a delegation from the indaba consisting of the chairman, a respected academic, and the two sponsors of the indaba. [Interjections.]

To my knowledge, there has been no formal response to the indaba, through the appropriate channels, to the representations that were made. Instead the Government has chosen a highly political debate on the eve of a general election to make known its rejection of the indaba proposals. [Interjections.] So let there be no doubt as to who it is who has made this an inevitable issue in the forthcoming general election.

As far as the two White opposition parties in Natal are concerned, we were members of the indaba and were party to the acceptance of the principles underlying it. Our attitude was therefore clear.

We now have a situation, however, in which the Government has loudly, and now repeatedly, rejected those proposals. Inevitably, therefore, this must become an issue in the forthcoming general election.

I do not want to deal with the indaba proposals in detail. I do not believe that this is the occasion for that to be done. I believe that there will be numerous other opportunities in the post-election period for that to be done. I want to tell the Government, the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that the indaba will not go away. [Interjections.] The Government must not think that the hasty, ill-considered and superficial rejection of the proposals will be the last word as far as the people of Natal are concerned. It will not. However, I want to deal with the indaba process and ideals in broad terms because I believe there is an important lesson for the Government and for all of us in what took place during the deliberations on the indaba.

It was an interesting and fascinating exercise in negotiation. It comprised, as we know, a significant cross-section of middle Natal opinion—people of divergent views— and certainly in the beginning the differences were starkly manifested. As time went by, however, the chemistry of negotiation began to work and one could see and sense that people were finding each other. They were beginning to understand and respect each other’s points of view, as indeed one would hope would be the result of proper negotiations.

One of the first things they found after the first few months—and this, I think, is the real lesson that we and the Government in particular should learn—was that if Black, White and Brown people are sitting around a table, talking together and seeking a democratic, non-racial solution for South Africa’s problems, then one has to get away from apartheid, discrimination and a preoccupation with rigid, enforced group thinking based on race. That is the very first lesson one has to learn if one is going to negotiate across the colour line in South Africa.

The indaba, and even the NP surrogates who were there as delegates, realised early that apartheid was the problem and not the solution to South Africa’s problems. As delegates to the indaba, we realised early on that the fact that apartheid had been in existence for so long and that there had been discrimination and unbridled domination was the reason for the crisis situation which obtains in Natal and South Africa today. This situation is based on the divisions which have been created, and on discrimination and the unfettered domination of one group over others. That is what is rapidly bringing this country to its knees, and the sooner we realise that the better. Apartheid is the cause, and there is no use trying to get away from it.

The challenge of the indaba was to look for a reasonable, non-racial solution in a Natal-kwaZulu situation which would get away from rigid and enforced group separation while at the same time providing reasonable protection for minority interest groups.

We produced a compromise after lengthy deliberations which achieved a high degree of consensus. It was not ideal from the point of view of any single delegation, but it was the result of compromise and consensus.

It was a finely-tuned compromise, and that is also important because, if that tuning is interfered with, then the high degree of consensus which was attained will be destroyed. It was the result of negotiation and showed how negotiation works.

If one wants to prescribe enforced group thinking for any negotiation process, one might as well forget it. For the Government to indicate, as they did on Tuesday, that they reject these proposals because the group process has not—in their view—been properly entrenched in the indaba proposals, shows how totally unrealistic they are about the process of change and reform in South Africa.

How dare this Government condemn the findings and the recommendations of the indaba when, despite all their years of talking about reform, of talking about consultation, of trying to set up Cabinet committees and consultative bodies, it has failed abysmally to get any sort of assembly of representative South African opinion together to talk about reform and produce a new South Africa. [Interjections.] They have failed completely.

In the light of this rejection of what was a serious attempt to settle a situation on a regional basis and bring about reform, an attempt by people to find one another across colour lines, one cannot wonder at the reaction they received this morning from the Chief Minister of kwaZulu. He issued a statement in which he says:

He went on to say that he made these remarks—

He went on to say that he was—

Those words should be noted for that is the immediate reaction of a pre-eminent figure in the so-called moderate Black community in Natal to what the Government has now done.

This indication by the Government of its reluctance to recognise any kind of reform which does not conform with Government policy shows that it is forcing South Africa more and more into a siege situation.

There are some people who may say that White South Africa is being forced by Government policy into a White laager. I do not like the term “White laager” and I think it is a bad analogy. I believe a laager traditionally is a defensive situation from which one can fight oneself out. What the Government is doing for White South Africa, however, is not to lead us into a laager but into a bunker—we have been led into “Botha’s bunker”. It is a bunker reminiscent of Hitler’s bunker in which he and what he stood for were finally destroyed and devastated and from which there is no escape.

I believe for the Government to continue to refuse to discard its outmoded clinging to group thinking in South Africa is to encourage further group conflict and to make the horrors of the bunker situation a reality for White South Africa.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member allowed to introduce subjects such as Nazism, bunkers and Hitler into this debate in order to give a connotation to the South African situation which in my opinion is not correct?

Order! I am listening to the hon member very carefully, and if he goes too far, I shall deal with the matter.

Mr Speaker, I will not proceed with that but I would like to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that I was talking about the bunker situation into which we are being driven. However, if the cap fits he must wear it.

Now I want to refer to another matter and I want to deal briefly—I am sorry that time is very limited—with another example of our bunker situation. That relates to our approach to international affairs.

We have tried in this debate to highlight Government incompetence in a number of spheres. Nowhere is this incompetence more evident than in the field of foreign affairs as we look at the South African situation today. At a time when South Africa’s standing in the international community is at an all-time low, one would hope to see some sign of finesse or sensitivity in the conduct and handling of what is clearly a very difficult and a highly critical situation for this country. Instead, in the field of foreign affairs we see one piece of bungling incompetence after another as if we had some sort of diplomatic death wish.

Time does not permit a full debate on the very important issues of foreign affairs and one will have to wait until a debate takes place after the coming election.

In the meantime I want to say that what worries us when we look at South Africa’s situation in relation to the conduct of its foreign affairs is quite frankly the performance and style of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He is either out of touch with his own Cabinet colleagues or is suffering from some diplomatic or political schizophrenia. The hon the Minister is an absolute enigma. He does not lack experience; he is probably the longest serving foreign minister in the world at the present time. I am not sure who wins the race but he has been there for a very long time.

Genscher beats me!

Genscher beats him by only a short head perhaps. The hon the Minister does not lack experience—he is well-schooled in the world of diplomacy. One would expect him to behave with some sensitivity towards the critical situation in which South Africa is at the present time.

However, instead of performing as a polished and sensitive diplomat he is more often than not behaving like an incompetent amateur. Each time he opens his mouth his own credibility and tragically the international credibility of South Africa takes a further plunge. I want to cite some examples of this.

Firstly, there is the well-known one which is often quoted in this House. This is his stated belief last year at a Press conference that a future President of South Africa could be a Black man. That was followed by the ignominy of his being publicly slapped down by his party leader and his own feeble acceptance of that situation. Now, the other— almost a year later—he told another Press conference for foreign correspondents that he had “made a mistake”. The hon the Minister is becoming a foreign minister of mistakes or a mistaken foreign minister—I do not know which. This is what he is becoming.

One can cite other examples. There was his incredible performance in October when he tried by long distance telephone calls to US Senators to lobby them to vote against the rejection of the presidential veto on the sanctions issue. He used the ploy that South Africa would stop American wheat imports. It was an undignified and ham-handed tactic which it is generally conceded was totally counter-productive because it hardened attitudes against South Africa. That was another mistake.

The third example I would give was his impetuous rejection of the International Red Cross Organisation after the Red Cross Conference in Geneva had suspended the South Africa delegation from the conference. Although the International Red Cross Committee itself had challenged the validity of the suspension, this mistaken hon Minister of Foreign Affairs, in a display of misguided “kragdadigheid”, asked the International Red Cross Committee to withdraw its representatives from South Africa. What happened after that? Within a few weeks he changed his mind and said that the IRC Committee representatives could stay in South Africa. That was another mistake.

Then, towards the end of December, there was the Swaziland raid and the abduction of three people, including two Swiss nationals by the security forces. The hon the Minister sought to justify this abduction by saying on Network that these people had been involved in “making devilish plans against South Africa”. Despite this allegation, however, within a few days they were released and returned to Swaziland, in his words, “in view of the good relations between South Africa, Switzerland and Swaziland”. What was the mistake this time? Was it the abduction or the release of those people?

If one had time one could go on to deal with a number of other utterances of the hon the Minister where one day he says one thing and a few weeks later he has to retract, apologise, make a counter statement or give some other kind of explanation. I believe this is a dismal record of incompetence which adds to our belief that this country and this House must have no confidence in this Government.

Mr Speaker, I am not going to compete with the indaba between the Government and the PFP and NRP on the great indaba that was held in Natal. I just want to remark that when the hon the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology spoke about the subject he said, inter alia:

This is the first time we have heard an utterance of this kind from the Government benches. It is just a very great pity the hon the Deputy Minister did not go ahead and quantify that “tremendous cost” for us. We undertake, however, to inform the South African electorate about what the extent of the actual costs of the so-called reform means to the taxpayers of South Africa.

It is clear to us that both the hon the State President’s opening address and his speech yesterday bear the stamp of the coming election. It is also clearly apparent from those speeches that on the part of the Government a massive election onslaught can be expected against the ANC and the American Congress. [Interjections.] It is an old tactical manoevre that we are not unfamiliar with. We expected it and will come to grips with it.

There is something I find interesting. Last year, on occasion, the hon the State President intimated that if there were to be reform in regard to incorporating Black people into the central political dispensation, he would go to the people, either by way of a referendum or a general election. There is now going to be a general election, and we expected the hon the State President to seize the opportunity, specifically in this debate, to spell out to the South African electorate precisely what the National Party’s proposal for a future political dispensation is—including that in regard to the Black people.

What does the hon the State President tell us? I want to refer to what he said in reply to the hon member for Waterberg’s speech. He said he hoped the hon member for Waterberg had read his speech, and he said:

[Interjections.] We know, do we not, that the NP Government has repeatedly said there would not be a fourth chamber in this Parliament. We now want to know, however, what they actually do stand for. Or is the only reply which this mighty NP Government is giving us, the statement that it is going to negotiate?

What does the Chairman of the Broederbond have to say?

Sir, I shall come to this again at a later stage. What I really find strange, however, is the fact that the hon the State President specifically seizes this opportunity to give a long explanation of the ANC’s plans, of their communist ties—which all of us knew about already—and the lesson that he presented to the founders, the apologists and the co-workers of the SA Communist party allied to the ANC. That was perhaps necessary, but I believe that it was necessary quite some time ago, because we now find ourselves in a situation in which an hon front-bencher of the National Party writes a certain article in an overseas magazine. I do not, by the way, believe that he wrote that article in the heat of the moment. He must surely have reflected before doing the actual writing.

And Albert is such a cool customer!

He must surely have thought about the matter, particularly in view of the fact that he, in his capacity of National Party front-bencher, was specifically advocating what the hon the State President condemned. What I am now asking is how that is possible. How is it still possible—and I know, of course, that South African politics has become somewhat strange—for that hon frontbencher to find himself sitting in the National Party benches this afternoon.

He wrote a letter!

Yes, he wrote a letter.

I will not be told that the hon member for Innesdal changed his standpoint overnight.

Never! [Interjections.]

Now, of course, we hear from the National Party—and of course from the Transvaal leader of the National Party—that they in the National Party are people who advocate open discussion. [Interjections.] So they have held an open discussion with the hon member for Innesdal. Apparently an open discussion is therefore in order, but on one condition: It must not be made public. [Interjection.] Yes, it must just not be a public discussion.

We also know, from personal experience, that within the ranks of the National Party’s hon members here in the House, the hon member for Innesdal is not the only one with such leftist standpoints. We must, however, view the unsavoury spectacle of a National Party front-bencher going back on his knees after his great bravado in London and his having written his article. We should like to know from the hon member for Innesdal whether he has really changed his standpoint. [Interjections.] A mere two weeks ago he was telling us that what he had written there he would distribute from door to door in the Innesdal constituency. [Interjections.] We are now asking whether he is still going to do so.

Do not worry; you will never smell that seat! [Interjections.]

Is he still going to do so. [Interjections.] Or have those brave utterances of his now come to nought. [Interjections.] And if that hon member is still the National Party candidate in Innesdal, he must now tell us and the Innesdal electorate whether he has changed his standpoint or not.

Go and tell them whatever you want to. I will handle my own affairs there!

You see, Sir, the hon member has not changed his standpoint. [Interjections.] He has not changed his standpoint. I do, after all, know the hon member. For the time being, however—for the time being, till after the election—the National Party’s left wing is going to maintain a low profile. [Interjections.]

It is clear to us from the utterances of recent days, is it not, that the National Party now finds it absolutely essential to move suddenly to the right. In the process we hear some strange statements. I want to come back to the hon the State President’s reference to the Blacks, in which he said that the National Party had never believed in the concept of porportionality. What astounding assertion! I then asked how the electoral college for the election of a State President was constituted. Is it not proportional to the number of Whites, Coloured and Indians? I also ask how the electoral college for the election of a Speaker is constituted.

That is too complicated.

Is it not constituted on a proportional basis? Now we hear, however, that the National Party has never believed in that. The problem is that if one proceeded with that principle of proportionality, and one had to extend it to the Black man, one would lose control. That is the corner into which the National Party has painted itself.

Last year, in his opening address, the hon the State President announced representation for the Black people at all levels of Government, up to the highest level. We now want to know from the National Party whether the Black people are coming to Parliament or not. In the present constitutional dispensation the South African Parliament is the highest legislative authority. If the answer that we are given is that the Black people will not be coming to Parliament, whilst in the same breath it is stated that they will participate to the very highest level, also as far as the legislative authority is concerned, this can mean only one thing: This Parliament will be scaled down and will no longer be the highest legislative authority in South Africa.

Mention has been made here of the nebulous concept of a State Council. Is that State Council going to replace the legislative authority of the present Parliament? Those are questions which the White voters in South Africa are entitled to ask the State President and the leaders of the National Party.

Does the NP intend to hide behind ANC onslaughts or behind the economic boycotts of South Africa, keeping the party’s real hidden agenda in regard to the future dispensation for Blacks in South Africa under wraps till after the election? [Interjections.] That is what we want to know from the Government. They must reply so that we can have a frank discussion about it.

It sounds as if you people are in trouble.

We in trouble … Who is talking, Sir? Speaking of a frank discussion— my time is limited—as far as my constituency is concerned, the Bantu Affairs Commission has long since finalised its recommendations on the ultimate consolidation of KaNgwane— according to information furnished to me. When I telephoned him last year, the hon the Deputy Minister gave me the assurance that a Cabinet Committee was considering the issue. My inquiry specifically concerned the future of the principle town in my constituency, Barberton. My inquiry concerned whether Barberton was going to remain a White area or whether it was going to be incorporated into KaNgwane. Thus far we have not been able to get a reply. My conclusion is that we shall not be getting an answer before the election either. That report has been with the Cabinet Committee for months now. On behalf of the voters of Barberton, I am asking this Government please to conduct a frank discussion with them, too, and to state what their final recommendations are and what they are going to do.

They are going to incorporate Ventersdorp in KaNgwane. [Interjections.]

Are you going to except that?

Of course not!

I want to conclude by saying that we shall not fight this election on the basis of gossip-mongering. [Interjections.] I do not know why the hon the Minister of Manpower is laughing so nervously. I was not looking at him. [Interjections.]

We shall unequivocally put our standpoint to the South African electorate as we have always done, and I also expect the NP and the NP speakers to put their standpoint unequivocally. They must not do what the hon member for Potgietersrus did the other day at a meeting in my constituency. He told the good voters there that it was unadulterated gossip-mongering on the part of the CP that the Group Areas Act was not strictly being enforced in Mayfair and Hillbrow in Johannesburg. [Interjections.]

You now that is not true. That is not what I said.

The hon member says I know it is not true, but my people were at that meeting and challenged him to go along to Johannesburg and see what was happening. We are still waiting for them to accept that challenge. [Interjections.]

We warned the NP—that once mighty party—that if one took the first step along the road towards mixed Government with Whites, Coloureds and Indians, the next step would inevitably involve the inclusion of the Blacks. That was vehemently denied in this House and outside this House. And now? Now we are waiting for the plan, but it seems to me that it remains a plan.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Barberton is playing the prophet with big words, but forgetting that he embarked on the course of power-sharing in 1977. He sailed along merrily for five years until he became afraid of the storm clouds ahead and turned around. [Interjections.] He had a lot to say about open and closed discussions and discussions which should be made public. Why does he not tell us more about the abortive discussions they are having with Mr Jaap Marais? They are the great experts on the closed discussion, but the more one wants to close something, the greater the tendency for it to slip out. An amazing picture is unfolding as we read and see how correspondence is being leaked out in an insidious way between people who have the same policy.

I sat listening to the hon member for Sasolburg in the greatest astonishment the other day. He devoted half an hour to trying to prove something we readily admit: Yes, our policy has changed. No word was said, however, about what is of vital concern to him at present, viz whether they can reach an agreement with their kindred spirits who are so petty that despite policy agreements they cannot even extend a hand of friendship to people who think as they do.

But you are pleased about that.

As far as open and closed discussions are concerned, we know who are expert in covering things up and scratching them open at the wrong times. That is why they are where they are.

The hon member tried to suck venom from the letter written by the hon member for Innesdal. He must go and read the evidence given by the hon member for Innesdal long before he wrote that letter and long before discussions were held with him concerning his standpoint on violence. [Interjections.] That is why the letter cleared up certain misunderstandings that had arisen, and we regard the matter as being concluded. That hon member is a candidate and is going to win Innesdal for the NP. [Interjections.]

The hon member also referred to Barberton. I want to tell him that the report he spoke of was referred back by the relevant Cabinet Committee some time ago for further investigations and further information. [Interjections.]

Until after the election!

The hon member must tell us where he stands, because their policy is also that there should be meaningful consolidation. Where does he stand? How does he want to lead KaNgwane to independence; what exactly are his proposals? Has he come to give evidence? There is still time to say where we must do the necessary expansion. We on this side of the House have a completely open mind about this, and the people of Barberton need not be afraid that we shall not take care of their interests effectively.

I shall come back to the hon member’s speech later.

†I also want to address myself briefly to the hon member for Berea. He projected an image of the PFP sitting back and, quite correctly, awaiting Government reaction without forming any opinion of their own or taking any action with regard to the indaba. However, that is not true. Long before the report was handed to my hon colleague they formed an alliance with the NRP based on the indaba. We read it in every newspaper,

So what?

So? The PFP actually made it an election issue long before there was any discussion in this House. The hon leader of the National Party in Natal was quite entitled to comment on the indaba when he did. His party attended the indaba on an observer basis. Why was he not entitled to make any comment? However, the Government per se, quite correctly, withheld comment until it formally received the report. It then gave a very well-prepared and balanced reaction to it.

The hon member can try his best to say that the Government stands totally negative towards the positive aspects of what happened at the indaba. However, that is not true. He can read all the speeches which have been made from this side of the House and it will become clear to him. The Government is not guilty of making this an election issue.

The hon member for Berea also attacked us on what he described as our approach to negotiation. According to him we are only prepared to talk to those who agree with us. That is not true. [Interjections.] We have stated repeatedly that we are prepared to, and quite regularly, participate in discussion and negotiation with people taking opposite views to those of ours.

You mistake negotiation for consultation.

Order!

Anyone who wants to talk to us, as long as he is not a perpetrator of violence …

Order! The hon member for Berea may not keep up a running commentary on the hon the Minister’s speech. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Anyone who wants to talk to us, as long as he is not a perpetrator of violence, as long as he is not a terrorist and as long as he does not take part in illegal activities, is welcome to come and put his point of view.

Can he be a communist?

I have replied to that.

We do not negotiate on a closed agenda. That does not mean, however, that we do not have a standpoint. On the one hand we are accused of not spelling out our plan for the future more clearly, and when we do spell out our plan, we are told on the other hand that negotiation cannot progress as a result of the fact that we are spelling out our plan. Then apparently we are being prescriptive. It is a complete contradictio in terminis to accuse us on the one hand of not spelling out our plan and on the other to say that we only want to negotiate within the framework of our policy. Of course we have a very clear policy, as I shall indicate. We negotiate in terms of that policy and our objective is to convince the people whom we talk to of that policy. When the hon member negotiates, does he not go to the conference table with a standpoint?

He does not go with a policy, because he has none.

But then he must also know what his standpoint is! When he sits at a conference table, is his primary objective not to convince the other people around the conference table of his standpoint? Why is he kicking up so much dust? For goodness’ sake!

If I were to typify the debate as it is being conducted by the Opposition thus far, I cannot but conclude that basically it is intellectually dishonest. They ignore the full extent of what the NP can really say and do. They wrest certain aspects out of context to present a completely distorted view of the NP and its policy and they hold back important aspects of what we say and which contradicts their own rendition of NP policy. This is a transparent strategy aimed at destroying the confidence of the electorate in the Government in the coming election. [Interjections.] It is tragic that in the circumstances our country is experiencing, the opposition parties in South Africa have to sink to such levels to hide their lack of solutions to our problems. [Interjections.]

What does this distorted view of the NP look like? In the first place it is being professed that reform under the NP has come to a standstill. [Interjections.] I want to say that nothing is further removed from the truth than that. The NP is irrevocably committed to reform in every sphere of government. The NP states unequivocally that the status quo, the present state of affairs, especially in the constitutional sphere, must be changed fundamentally. The NP is constantly implementing reform steps which have been decided upon. In addition we are constantly planning further steps which will have to be taken, and we are constantly involved in dialogue and negotiation with leaders from all communities.

The election on 6 May is in itself part of the NP’s reform programme. The hon the State President, other Cabinet colleagues and I myself have stated this clearly over and over again: On 6 May we will be asking for an instruction, not only on the matters to which the hon member for Barberton referred, not only on security, not only on the question of foreign intervention, but also an instruction to proceed with planned reform. [Interjections.]

Surely we are making it clear that we are asking for an amended mandate in respect of Black communities’ participation in political decision-making. We said in the 1981 Manifest on the urban Blacks that where they are concerned, continued political association with their national states was being pursued. We have come to the conclusion that it cannot work. That is why we now say we are going to establish their own legislative meetings and own executive authorities for them. We decided this at our Federal Congress. [Interjections.]

After all, we did not stick rigidly to the standpoint of power-sharing without domination in respect of Black participation in 1981. Since then we have said we had come to the conclusion that total separation, total distribution of power in respect of Blacks is not practicable or attainable. [Interjections.] That is why we are going to the electorate and saying this is the direction we are asking you to support; give us a mandate.

There is no truth, therefore, in this talk that we are shying away from reform. Before we can proceed with changes, it is imperative that we give the electorate the opportunity to judge. That is why I want to say the coming election is an imperative part of the reform process. The White voters are just as important a component in the reform process, after all, as other population groups and the time has come for the White electorate to express itself on the fundamental questions, also in the sphere of constitution reform.

We shall spell out our policy fearlessly in this election. [Interjections.] We hide nothing.

Do it right now.

I am doing so! I am giving the hon member a lot of quotations that he can go can quote; he must merely quote me fully.

It is a misrepresentation to assert that the NP has lost its zeal in respect of reform. Naturally we differ on what reform entails. To the PFP reform means the destruction of the group concept …

Nonsense!

But I listened to the hon member for Berea. He said we must move right away from group …

[Inaudible.]

He said so this afternoon; go and read his Hansard. [Interjections. ]

What do they want to do therefore? They want to destroy the group concept. They want to draw a line as it were through group security as a fundamental prerequisite for a stable South Africa. Their congress decided by a majority that even the lip-service paid to it in their programme thus far should be stopped and abandoned.

To the PFP reform means the destruction of an own community life. They say that all measures that exist to ensure this should be repealed and abolished. [Interjections.] To the PFP reform means the creation a so-called “non-racial society”. [Interjections.] To them it means the complete remodelling of reality, since we are a racially diferentiated community.

Why? [Interjections.]

Reality is like that; it was created in that way. That is how it has been throughout history. No law created a race in South Africa. Races are part of reality, and as far as the PFP’s concept of reform is concerned, the NP says it is not reform, but the short-cut to a surrender to chaos. It is a surrender to a system which must and will lead to domination of minorities in some form or another. [Interjections.] Their proposals for reform will also lead to domination of the group of which they are members.

The hon members of the CP are afraid of reform. To them it is the great threat they are afraid of. [Interjections.] The NP tells them that by clinging to theories which are not practicable, it is becoming more and more difficult to find balanced, viable solutions in future. That is why we in the NP feel we are destined to take the course of balanced and planned reform, founded on the realities of South Africa. [Interjections.] The solution lies in new plans and thoughts within the framework of the recognition of the realities of our country.

What does that mean? [Interjections.]

Let me tell the hon member what it means. On the one hand it means that one has to maintain the built-in demands of a diversity of groups, and on the other that one also has to accommodate the reality of intertwined interests among people and groups in one’s system. We tell them that what could not succeed previously has far less chance of success in future. That is why there is no point in clinging to theories which did not succeed in practice under the best leadership we had, excellent leadership such as that of Dr Verwoerd and Mr Vorster. Without sacrificing one’s principles, one must adapt to the demands of circumstance and to the realities within which one has to work.

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

No, thank you, I am not going to reply to questions. [Interjections.]

In connection with the pace of change, I want to say that we should also like …

Order! Did the hon member for Jeppe say the hon the Minister was afraid to do so?

Sir, I said he was too scared to reply to my question. I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

With reference to the pace of change I want to say that we should also like change to take place more quickly. We are experiencing certain set-backs, however, and I want to mention a few of those set-backs briefly.

Intimidation is an obstacle on the course of progress and success in respect of change. Foreign intervention is an obstacle. Deficient co-operation and uncommunicativeness in respect of some Black leaders is an obstacle. We are trying hard to eliminate these obstacles. We are trying hard to eliminate that which is slowing us down in our endeavour to implement regulated change at an efficient speed. The time has come, however, for us not to say in such a desultory way that the NP must take the blame if progress cannot take place more quickly. The opposition parties sitting here form part of the obstacles, because everything we say is distorted. [Interjections.] They sow confusion about everything we say, and absurdities are spread abroad. This results, over and over again, in slowing down true success. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon the Minister say this side of the House distorts facts? [Interjections.]

Order! It is permissible in the sense in which the hon the Minister used it. The hon the Minister may proceed.

You distort the truth!

This brings me to the second characteristic of the distorted view presented of the NP. This is that the NP does not have a plan and does not know where it wants to go. Anyone who claims this is also guilty of intellectual dishonesty. [Interjections.]

Tell us what the plan is!

An objective analysis of the decisions taken by the federal congress proves the statement I am making. It contains a fixed projection and framework of short-term and medium-term plans and programmes, as well as clearly defined long-term objectives.

But no one accepts it!

The NP spelt out its convictions and ideals in that resolution in much greater detail than any of the opposition parties do so. In a nutshell: We want to maintain certain things, viz group security and an own community life which includes own schools and residential areas as far as possible; self-determination through the distribution of power and the extension of the own affairs concept; and own political and administrative structures and power bases on every level for everyone who has this already. [Interjections.] We want to maintain the House of Assembly, the House of Representatives, the kwaZulu Legislative Conference and all the other structures which have been established as a result of the initiative of this side of the House. [Interjections.]

We also want to create certain things. For the Black communities outside the national states, we want to create political structures for self-determination, in which they can take responsibility for decision-making in respect of their own affairs on the legislative and executive levels according to their own choice.

And when they do it they get put into detention !

We want to give metropolitan areas full autonomy and even independence if they want it. We want to develop self-determination for the Black communities outside the national states as well, by means of investigation into the distribution of functions and the availability of land and water. [Interjections.]

We want to create and develop new structures and bodies to take care of common interests, in which consultation and power-sharing without domination of one over another can take place on the basis of consensus decision-making. That is my reply to the hon member for Barberton.

But how will you do that? [Interjections.]

We shall do it with the National Council taking the lead. [Interjections.]

Promises, promises!

A joint council of state can be developed in which the leaders and legally elected representatives of all the political entities can take part in policy formulation on common affairs.

And decision-making?

Eyewash! [Interjections.]

We want to consider the judicial protection of group and individual rights with reference to a negotiated set of values and norms. [Interjections.]

How anyone can assert that this is not a fixed and clear framework is beyond my understanding. [Interjections.]

Now the hon members want to know exactly what the council of state will look like, and they want us to spell out all the details to them. [Interjections.] Let us test the PFP, for example. Where did they spell out a plan about exactly what their federal Parliament would look like?

[Inaudible.]

No, they did not. They cannot tell us how many states there will be.

How many states …

They cannot tell us exactly how they propose the State President should be elected.

You don’t understand negotiation.

By negotiation! [Interjections.]

That is the point! [Interjections.] If we say “by negotiation” the PFP says we have no policy. [Interjections.] What if we ask them, however, to “give us the opportunity to negotiate”? [Interjections.] We are so grateful to have the hon member for Walmer here. He always puts his foot in it, but his hon colleagues in the PFP are cleverer than he is, and they see the trap.

That is not what he said. [Interjections.]

Surely the fact that we are not spelling out blueprints, that we are giving a fixed framework, but saying we want to negotiate about detail first, is no proof of having no policy. [Interjections.]

It is!

What is a framework?

The PFP adopts the same attitude. [Interjections.] Do they no longer want a national convention? [Interjections.] They say “yes”. What do they want to do at the national convention? Is it going to be a rubber stamp?

Nuts and bolts! [Interjections.]

The PFP wants to work out the “nuts and bolts”, and we shall also work out our “nuts and bolts” by means of negotiation, and not do so one-sidedly and in a prescriptive manner. [Interjections.]

Why don’t you call it Turnhalle? [Interjections.]

I can do that with the CP too. All they ever do is gossip about the NP. When their own policy is under discussion, they merely make vague general statements about own independent little bits of fatherlands where there have never been fatherlands before. Prof Boshoff wants to give half of South Africa away and the hon member for Lichtenburg does not want to give anything away. [Interjections.] He says everyone should remain where they are and in that way he is going to create little patches of fatherlands.

They say we must spell out our policy. I ask them now for their plan with the millions of Blacks who will stay outside their father lands permanently in their White South Africa. Are they going to get a political say?

Not about the Whites!

Are they going to govern themselves?

Yes.

Up to which level?

Municipal rights. [Interjections.]

Municipal rights, yes. The minority of Whites will take all other decisions for those million Blacks on a permanent basis, however. And then they say they do not advocate domination. [Interjections.] They have no plan with the millions of Blacks who will live in their White South Africa on a permanent basis. [Interjections.]

Order!

The opposition has so little vision, is so vague and so full of generalisations, that they make no contribution to a constructive debate. Their total contribution—and this has been proved in this debate—is aimed only at denigrating the NP and not at a solution to South Africa’s problems. An opposition leader who was setting himself up as an alternative State President would make use of the opportunity before an election to spell out an election standpoint and say: Follow me, because this is what I believe in. All we have heard, however—and this applies to the hon member for Waterberg as well—is a lot of negative, denigratory remarks.

The last aspect of this distorted image strategy that I want to deal with, is that everything that is wrong in South Africa is the NP’s fault. This has been the theme throughout. We heard it from the hon member for Parktown last night and the CP also says ad nauseam that we promised peace in the referendum and just look at how much trouble there is.

That is quite correct.

The argument of the hon member for Parktown was that the NP’s policy was creating a fertile breeding-ground for the ANC and its supporters. That is not true. [Interjections.] In the first place, the inherent problems of Black cities, towns and schools cannot be solved by throwing open White residential areas and White schools. The root of the masses’ problems resides in there being too little land and too few houses. It resides in backlogs and poverty, in hunger and unemployment. The opposition members fight us in respect of all those problems whereas we are applying strategies to solve those very problems. The CP goes around saying that we spend too much money on the Blacks.

Do not listen to them.

Yes, and in its way the PFP fights us in that sphere as well.

The point at issue in the struggle of the ANC and its supporters is power. They want to grasp the power and will be satisfied with nothing less. If they were to succeed in obtaining all the power, the hon member for Parktown’s beloved values—which I share with him—such as freedom of speech, a free economy, private ownership and democracy would all be destroyed in this country. Despite this they play with fire and refuse to take a clear stand on this matter.

That is also my reply to the CP. It is not the new constitution that is causing the revolutionary onslaught.

Of course it is!

Do they think the revolutionary onslaught will stop if they come into power? [Interjections.]

We shall be able to deal with it. [Interjections.]

We are dealing with it effectively enough, thank you! [Interjections.]

†In the final analysis the crux of the political debate is the question of who exercises power where. At present there is an imbalance in this regard in South Africa. Millions of South Africans are not participating in political decision-making at all levels. The challenge which we face is to rectify this but to rectify it on a basis which will not destroy the existing rights and freedoms and which will not result in the domination of minorities. To this challenge only the NP offers a viable solution. The PFP’s formula for power-sharing does not offer effective safeguards to minority groups and will inevitably lead to a devastating power-struggle and group domination.

The refusal of the CP to accept any form of power-sharing is an irresponsible negation of reality. The NP strikes a workable and equitable balance between the need on the one hand for the effective protection of group rights and the sharing of power in joint structures on the other hand. There is no other alternative.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister has not really said anything new today but he has made one rather remarkable statement and that is that most of the criticism that is levelled against the Government arises out of backlogs, poverty and a lack of housing which are being experienced. I would remind the hon the Minister that this Government has been in power for 40 years and it has been during these 40 years that these backlogs, this poverty and this lack of housing have arisen. It is surely to be laid at the door of the Government and not of the opposition. However, I do not wish to reply much further to the hon the Minister and I think we should leave his arguments and attacks to be judged by the electorate in a few months’ time.

I think it is always true that the best form of defence is attack. We can therefore forgive hon members of the Government for lashing out wildly in all directions rather than trying to deal with the very heavy criticisms that have been levelled by this side of the House against the Government.

We must not forget though that this is a no confidence debate in the Government. It is the Government which this week is on trial. It is neither the PFP nor even any of the other opposition parties in this House. It is the NP which must face up to the critics and the public of South Africa. Thus far very real and substantive answers have largely been lacking.

Until about the middle of last year, despite all the laws that have restricted the right to publish material facts, the Press in South Africa has been regarded as relatively free, certainly in comparison with the Press around the the rest of Africa. This can no longer be said. Vast areas of public concern have been wiped off the pages of newspapers and television screens by ministerial and police decree. The prohibition on the reporting of news relating to the actions of the security forces, restricted gatherings, funerals and boycotts, “people’s courts”, unofficial civic committees and the arrest and treatment of detainees is virtually watertight. The police have the arbitrary right to censor, seize and even close down publications which they believe are transgressing their regulations.

On pain of heavy penalties “subversive” statements are banned. “Subversive statements” are so widely defined as to mean virtually any criticism levelled against the Government or the security forces. What is worse is that when the courts do intervene on the application of an offended party or newspaper and set aside some of the provisions, the Government moves swiftly to re-enact the same provisions, making them even more restrictive. So much so for our independent courts!

In an act of unparalleled cynicism the Government has exempted from these regulations the hon the State President, all Ministers and Deputy Ministers, Government spokesmen, parliamentary debates, and statements specifically authorised by the Government after permission has been sought.

What is the effect of this? The bad news has virtually been wiped off the pages of newspapers and television screens worldwide. The trouble in South Africa is now safely under wraps and the ordinary White voter can smile again for the news seems to be so much better. However, I ask hon members whether the news is much better? We should remember that in any normal country—this was previously so in our country—the Press is the streetlight of society. It is a restraining influence on corruption and the excesses of the Executive. When the street light is turned off the temptation to behave badly is very strong indeed.

Press freedom is not there for the benefit of editors or even reporters—it is there for the protection of the public. It is not so much the right of a newspaperman to report as it is the right of tax-paying citizens to be informed. An uninformed and blinkered public is one which is ill-equipped to meet whatever challenges present themselves.

This brings me to the election. The hon the State President yesterday offered talks with a Cabinet committee on the subject of freedom of speech being allowed to nominated candidates. We have no intention of accepting that offer. We are not going to discuss with NP Cabinet Ministers what degree of freedom of speech they will grant us. The PFP will certainly not accept guidelines laid down by Government such as those offered to the NPU members.

Freedom of speech is indivisible and cannot be allowed to be given only to the chosen few and not to everyone. It would be quite wrong to exempt candidates from the media regulations while banning other persons and the Press from enjoying the same freedom. These restrictions should be lifted altogether so that an informed public can make its choice in a free and fair election campaign.

Allow me to give an example of a public evil made possible by these regulations which presently apply. They allow the Government to dishonestly manipulate the news and deceive the public.

Order! I do not think the hon member is entitled to say “they allow the Government to dishonestly manipulate”.

They do allow the Government.

Order! I am not prepared to allow that. The hon member must please withdraw those words.

They allow the Government to manipulate the news as they wish.

Order! I asked the hon member to withdraw the word “dishonestly”.

Fine, Mr Speaker, if that is what you want. Yes, I withdraw it.

I say the Government has manipulated the news. Last week the Government allowed the Press to quote statements by Oliver Tambo, the ANC president. In a manipulative manner, however, the Department of Law and Order allowed the quotation of only certain selected passages—thus giving a false picture of what had been said by the ANC president.

I am no defender of the ANC but the truth is that this Government by deceit and by the manipulation of its own laws is trying to hoodwink the public to suit its own political ends. Such is the degree of political corruption practised at high levels and I do not believe there is anyone in this Government who can deny it.

However, media manipulation is not new to this Government. The State President knows that when he makes a personal statement it is read throughout the country. He knows that when he criticises someone that person’s character, business and family affairs can be badly affected. The State President knows that. He knows that he of all people in this country should weigh his words carefully.

However, during yesterday’s debate and acting upon what he personally admits as being hearsay, the State President …

Order! I have already pointed out twice to hon members that the State President must be addressed as “the hon the State President” in this House.

Mr Speaker, I beg your pardon. The hon the State President made a serious attempt to smear the character of Mr Chris Ball. He is the chief executive of a leading bank and a well-known critic of apartheid and the Government. I believe this was a disgraceful performance, ill-befitting a person who is the head of a government. [Interjections.] It is a case of character assassination now and investigation later, of smear now and a commission later. This is a commission to enquire into a matter which does not even contravene the law.

Order! I am not prepared to allow the hon member to use the word “smear” in that context. The hon member must withdraw it.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw the word “smear”.

Mr Speaker, are you giving a ruling that the word “smear” may not be used?

Order! I have given a ruling in terms of previous Speakers’ rulings. The hon member may proceed.

Call it “slander”.

I say that the hon the State President is guilty of a disgraceful slander. I will say face to face to the hon the State President that he is personally guilty of the same irresponsibility which he so often accuses the Press of practising. It is the hon the State President’s credibility which is at stake now. How would the hon the State President feel if I, under privilege of Parliament, said: “In leftist radical circles, some people say that the hon the State President has made this attack in order to gain financially personally”? How would he feel?

Perhaps they say it.

How would the hon the State President feel if, based on hearsay evidence, I posed the following question: Does the hon the State President or his family or any close friend hold any shares in any bank competing with Barclays Bank? That is a question.

The reply is “no”.

Do they perhaps have shares in Volkskas? [Interjections.] Where does the hon the State President and/or his family bank? What connection does he have with opposition banks? Could there be any motive, I ask, other than political vindictiveness which may have prompted this smear attack? Or was it just political vindictiveness?

If those questions were put to him, and I do not have any information, would he appoint a commission of enquiry to investigate these questions? I think not.

If people flirt with the ANC it is something different …

Prove it! [Interjections.]

The hon the State President has alleged that the action of placing an advertisement was an illegal action. Does he allege that?

Carry on with your speech.

The hon the State President is keen to interrupt me, but he is not keen to answer questions. What he is doing is to appoint a commission of enquiry to investigate something which he has not even said is an illegal act.

Whatever the answers to these questions are, no matter how innocent the accused party may be, some of the mud that has been thrown will stick. The hon the State President knows this. In bandying names of prominent people across the floor of the House the hon the State President has descended to the level of what I consider to be really dirty politics, and has done a disservice to the dignity of Parliament, let alone to his own dignity. Before the hon the State President brings this entire establishment into disrepute, I really think he should leave politics and get out of here. [Interjections.]

Allow me to move to another topic and to ask another set of questions. Recently, the same hon State President has required various of his followers and acolytes to apologise or write to him retracting various statements or standpoints which they have held. The hon the State President has required these apologies. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs gave one apology, and recently gave another a night or two ago during an interview. The Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives had to crawl along the floor in the office at Tuynhuys. The hon member for Innesdal is another example of those most recently involved. As Business Day so very aptly put it: “They can die on their feet, or live on their knees”. Those are the followers of the hon the State President. The hon member for Randburg courageously decided to remain on his feet. I venture to predict that the hon member for Randburg will yet survive that ordeal and will yet play an important role in politics in South Africa.

Others have been made to grovel. I wonder, however, about our Albert, the hon member for Innesdal. He has been cruelly forced to retract some of his stated and sincerely held viewpoints, on pain of political death. Public humiliation was the alternative offered to that hon member. “We will have to walk separate paths”, said the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We know what he means by that. He means the hon member for Innesdal is out. That is it. What is fascinating, though, is not what the hon member was compelled to retract, but rather what he did not retract. I will read some of the passages from his article which the hon member for Innesdal has not withdrawn and which still stand as his viewpoint and belief. I have the whole article here, if hon members want me to read it. In it the hon member for Innesdal says:

That statement still stands. It has not been withdrawn. I wonder what the Government feels about this opinion. However, he goes on to say:

The keyword is “Parliament”. This statement has not been withdrawn. Yet we know that Black representation in this Parliament has already been rejected by our hon State President. Only this week the Natal Indaba proposals were shot down, proportional representation has been jettisoned and a fourth House of Parliament has been rejected. How then does this statement fit in with Government policy? The hon member went on to say:

Sir, this statement contained in the article still stands—it has not been withdrawn—and it is in direct conflict with stated Government policy. Is there any hon member on the Government’s side who will attempt to reconcile this anomaly? Is there anyone who can stand up and reconcile the anomalies which I am mentioning here today?

The hon member went on to say something else. He said it was a myth—

That was what the hon member said. Yet we know, Sir, that this Government’s strategy is to do just that, as a major link in the policy to restore political control over the country. I ask: Who is right—Mr Nothnagel or the Government?

In this article the hon member made several other points relating to the negative role of the security forces and to the fact that no peace is possible without releasing Mr Mandela and without the involvement of the ANC. These points were made clearly by that hon member. Time does not allow me to debate these points. In any event, I agree with them wholeheartedly. All I should like to say is that the Government may have forced the hon member for Innesdal onto his “political” knees but they will not be able to suppress the freedom of that hon member’s honest mind. I wish him good luck.

In closing, I should like to quote, with approval, one last Nothnagel passage. It reads as follows:

This is actually rather a subtle piece because the hon member is talking not to the ANC but, in fact, to the Government. [Interjections.] This passage contains certain innuendos: firstly, that the Black people of South Africa are genuinely awaiting a real liberation; and, secondly, that they are awaiting a liberation at the hands of the ANC. In saying this, the hon member clearly says that a form of liberation will come and, furthermore, that in this liberation the ANC has an important role to play.

A third innuendo in the passage in which he says that one cannot build a future by avenging the past and that one cannot liberate people by destroying their country, is slightly more subtle. It contains a message not for the ANC but for the Government. It says that one cannot safeguard democracy by destroying it; that one cannot build a free society by destroying a free Press; and that one cannot force political conformity through the barrels of security force guns.

Sir, that is the hon member for Innesdal’s message in this passage, and to that I say: Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I was very amused when the hon the Minister of National Education expressed strong condemnation of the manner in which the hon members of the CP are making irresponsible statements and incorrect assessments of NP policy. I found it particularly amusing because in the earlier part of this no-confidence debate we found ourselves in much the same position.

I want to refer briefly to the speeches made by the hon members for Umlazi and Turffontein. [Interjections.] What I do want to say to those hon gentlemen and to hon members who may feel akin with their thinking, is that they must take care not to put their own interpretations, which may not be quite correct, on certain facts. They must concern themselves with true facts. It is a case of: Judge not, lest ye be judged.

I make an appeal to hon members that there should be no fabricated statements during the election campaign in relation to the electoral arrangement that we have with the Progressive Federal Party. The point is—and I want to make this absolutely clear—that the basis of the agreement between the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the leader of this party, Mr Bill Sutton, has been clarified. The arrangement is that where PFP candidates are standing the NRP will not stand, and vice versa. That is the essence of the agreement. I would therefore suggest, Sir, that a little truth be exercised instead of a lot of stupid, dirty election propaganda. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

You will be cut down to size (“Jy sal hokgeslaan word”), Koos!

We demand, Mr Speaker … [Interjections.] You know, Sir, when I hear the type of speech …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Stilfontein said “Jy sal hokgeslaan word”. He said this with the clear implication that I was an animal. [Interjections.] I ask for your protection, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to permit any more references or allusions of this kind in this House. Were those the words used by the hon member for Stilfontein?

Mr Speaker, that was what I said. What I meant, however, was that the hon member for Jeppe would be put in his place once again, as he has been put in his place by you previously. In any case, it is a recognized Afrikaans expression which is well-known and used widely. Sir, when I say to someone, “Ek sal jou hokslaan”, I mean I am putting him in his place.

Order! I accept the explanation of the hon member for Stilfontein. He is an esteemed member of this House. I appeal to hon members, however, not to continue in this vein, otherwise I shall feel obliged to take a different stand on this matter as well. I accept it for the moment, but I am making an appeal to hon members and accept that they will all acquiesce in this matter. The hon member for Mooi River may proceed.

Mr Speaker, the point I want to make is the following. This type of cheap electioneering speechmaking in this establishment from hon members on the Government side makes one realise that it is indeed time for an election, as an air of sterility and staleness is prevalent on those benches opposite. [Interjections.]

Much has already been said about the indaba, and a lot of criticism has also been levelled in relation to certain aspects of the indaba. I want to deal very briefly with one particular aspect. I believe it has proved one thing and that is that it is possible to attract credible Black leaders to the negotiating table if the credibility of those people who call for negotiation is held in high esteem. That is precisely what the position was when the NRP negotiated with the government of kwaZulu.

Those leaders were not afraid to be seen having discussions around a table with their White counterparts. It also reflects a very different attitude when government attempts to hold discussions because people are reluctant to be seen talking to government. This is of course a tragedy since it reveals that this Government has little credibility among Black leaders. The Government does, I believe, lose sight of the fact that the indaba established some very important principles. One of these was that it entrenched a principle in regard to the protection of minority groups. The Government’s outright rejection is ipso facto a rejection of the minority group concept.

I want to warn again that the indaba must not be misused for purposes of making cheap political propaganda during the coming election. Before condemning the indaba proposals outright, those hon Ministers who are concerned and who have expressed their opinion might at least have recognised the fact that what the indaba was all about was second-tier government only. I should, however, like to point out that the functions of any second-tier structure would in any case be limited to powers vested in it by Parliament. Let us be quite honest. The Government’s interpretation of reform is very different from the factual interpretation of reform as we know it. The Government sees reform in The context of scrapping certain discriminatory legislation initially introduced by itself. That is its interpretation of reform. That is “gister se politiek”. Let us look now at the future solutions that have to be found to get the country back on course.

If the Government persists that this is the basic concept of its reform initiatives, then all I can say is that the Government appears to be out of touch with reality particularly in regard to true constitutional reform. I must point out that the spirit of reform must be sincere and genuine if it is to be meaningful in any way.

The one thing that the indaba has shown is that Natal is far ahead of the Government when it comes to reform thinking and the reform process. Natal has little to learn from the reform techniques that the Government has displayed. No, Sir, the Government in its turn has a lot to learn from Natal as to how negotiation should be carried out.

Another thing is clear—the Government will have to change its style of negotiation with other race groups if it is to attract credible leaders to the negotiating table. Gone are the days when Government was able to negotiate on its own terms. Discussions will have to take place and must take place on a basis of joint decision-making. There is an enormous amount of goodwill among the various sectors of the community and unless this is capitalised on, we shall be losing an opportunity which is vital to the future of this country.

There are certain aspects of the hon the State President’s speech to which I would like to refer. Quite frankly, I was very disappointed with the general content of his speech. This is not a case of belittling the steps that have been taken to maintain law and order and the threats posed by the ANC last December; but the country is looking for a more positive message from its leader. It is looking for light at the end of the tunnel. It is looking for direction in the way we are moving. I regret to say that this was sadly lacking in the hon the State President’s speech.

What we must look at is that the relative stability that has been restored as a result of the state of emergency must not be allowed to lull the public into a sense of false security. On the other hand, we on these benches support actions taken against those who advocate violence and who endeavour to make the country ungovernable.

It was with regret that I noted the unequivocal statement of the hon the State President that there would be no fourth chamber in Parliament. A formula must be found for bringing the non-homeland Black into the decision-making process of government—the non-homeland Black being the Black who has no ties with any homeland.

I wish to turn briefly to the forthcoming general election. The three main issues—as I see them—that will dominate the political platform during the forthcoming general election, and which will have to be answered by Government, are: How did South Africa get into the mess in which it finds itself today; who is responsible; and how can we extricate ourselves from the present crisis situation? These are the questions that the voter must ask and must bear in mind when he goes to the polls on 6 May. How are we going to extricate ourselves from the present situation? This is an issue too on which Government speakers must yet elaborate during the course of this debate.

The process of constitutional reform will determine the future of this country. The Government’s lack of credibility militates against its ability to bring South Africa back on track on its own. It will have to look beyond the confines of its own party if negotiations on constitutional reform are to succeed and if the arm of negotiation is to reach out to those leaders who find themselves unable to be seen talking to the Government under present conditions. The need for moderate, thinking people to stand up and be counted is becoming increasingly urgent. Radical attempts to gain control of this country will only perpetuate the conflict and chaos already being experienced in many parts of the country.

Mr Speaker, I wish firstly to make a brief statement concerning our ambassador in London. I think we are all aware of the circumstances under which Dr Worrall vacated his post.

He served as South African Ambassador in Canberra from January 1983 to August 1984, and then as South African Ambassador to Britain from August 1984 to the present. Dr Worrall indicated that he would be returning to South Africa towards the end of next week, and that he would possibly participate in the political life of South Africa. I do not know what line he will follow or what course he will take. It is not for me to comment on that.

I merely wish to put on record my appreciation for the services he rendered to South Africa as Ambassador to Australia and the United Kingdom.

As regards his successor, the British Government this morning has granted agrément to his successor who is Mr P R Killen, at present Director-General of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Mr Killen was born on 1 January 1927 in Durban. He obtained his BA Degree at the University of Natal. He married Miss Elizabeth Anna Craig in 1952 and they have three children. He was appointed to the Department of Foreign Affairs in 1948 at the age of 21 years. From 1949 to 1954 he served as Third Secretary at our mission in Canberra, Australia. From 1954 to 1959 he served in the Department of Foreign Affairs in Pretoria as Second Secretary in the Political Division. From 1960 to 1961 he was South Africa’s Consul in the then Elizabethville in the former Belgian Congo, now Zaire. He was serving there at the time of the independence of Zaire. From 1961 to 1965 he was First Secretary at the South African Embassy in Ottawa, Canada. From 1945 to 1968 he served as Counsellor and Consul-General at the South African Embassy in London. From 1970 to 1973 he was second in charge at the South African Embassy in London, and from 1973 to 1985 he was head of the Africa Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs in Pretoria. Since 1985 he has been the Director-General of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

I am sure that this House and, indeed Parliament, would want to wish Mr and Mrs Killen everything of the best in the assumption of their new duties in London.

Hear, hear!

I wish now to refer to the quotations which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made from a statement, or rather from a report on a statement, which I had made to the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. He quoted what I had said, according to that report:

What is he saying to those people? He says: ‘Let me tell you that a martyr is much more dangerous than a fanatic’.

I do not blame the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, but unfortunately it seems to me that his report stopped just short of what I continued to say in my statement to the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. I checked the recording of my statement, and this is what I added:

*It is a pity that when the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition reads reports of what I was supposed to have said, he does not do so more comprehensively. Perhaps we could then save time and trouble in this House.

The hon the leader of the CP and the hon member for Koedoespoort quote from a report in Business Day. To my mind it is very interesting that the CP appears to be preferring the Business Day as their source of knowledge and information. That is to be welcomed, because we are a bilingual country.

We read all the newspapers.

Once again we have the position that the hon the Leader of the CP unfortunately did not try to make sure about what I had said. There were also reports in other newspapers about what I had said. He raised arguments and conducted a debate because I had ostensibly said last Friday evening at the NP meeting that the NP is not going to state its policy in the coming election. That was his main argument.

Up till now you have not done so.

Let us see what I said according to the Die Burger’s report on that meeting:

[Inaudible.]

I know what I said and Die Burger’s version is entirely correct. [Interjections.]

[Interjections.]

This debate indicates this very clearly. My predictions have already come true.

You can do better than that.

I shall quote further from Die Burger.

In other words, I stated clearly: We are not entering the election merely to state policy. We are going to state our policy, but we are also going to tell the voters candidly what this country has been confronted with in its struggle, internally and externally. We are going to state our policy and we are going to indicate clearly to the voters what the PFP, NRP, CP and HNP stand for. [Interjections.] It is amusing how they are now showing that they have been hurt. [Interjections.] I shall continue to quote from Die Burger’s report of what I said:

That is what we are going to tell this country. I also said:

That is what we are going to say to the voters. However, I am very grateful that the CP and the PFP are already so disgruntled and I already indicated that they have been hurt …

You are not even looking at us and then you say that we say it.

Order! I must point out to the hon member for Jeppe that I am not prepared to allow a nonsensical shouting across the floor of this House. The hon the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. In any case the hon member is carrying on like a “witgatspreeu”. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I just want to ask you whether you heard what the hon the Minister said? [Interjections.]

Yes, I heard what the hon Minister said. The hon the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.] Order!

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: You gave a specific ruling on references of things of this kind. The hon the Minister has grossly insulted me here, and I am now asking you to protect me. [Interjections.]

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The State President is a “witgatspreeu”! [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to allow that. The hon member for Jeppe shall withdraw it immediately.

Mr Speaker, what is the difference between what I said …

Order! The hon member will not argue with me …

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it. I say that the hon the State President sometimes carries on like a “witgatspreeu”. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member will withdraw that unconditionally and then resume his seat.

I withdraw it unconditionally, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Yeoville posed the following question:

I indicated to the hon member that I would reply. My reply is that of course I agree! I approve of the actions taken by quite a number of the hon members of the PFP; their addressing meetings and attending symposia abroad; their visiting parlamentarians in various parts of the world and pointing out to them that to impose sanctions would be unjustifiable, immoral and counter-productive, and would hurt the whole of Southern Africa. As far as the hon members who went abroad and assisted us in resisting the imposition of sanctions and in explaining the harmful effects of sanctions, are concerned, this is my reply: I not only approve of but also appreciate the contribution made by hon members of all parties, including those in the other two Houses of Parliament. That is my reply.

Unfortunately, the problem is not that easy. The hon members of the PFP tend to accuse this Government of being the cause of sanctions.

You are!

Yes, you are.

You see, Sir, there you are.

Yes, but you are.

I want to state emphatically here today that there is not a single party represented in Parliament—at least not in this House— that could satisfy the demands made by the USA and others to avoid sanctions.

That is not true. [Interjections]

I say there is not a single party that could have avoided it; that is an irrefutable statement of fact [Interjections.] We would otherwise have allowed ourselves to be manoeuvred ourselves into a position where we would have been blackmailed. If we were to have given in to particular demands, on what basis could we eventually resist their other demands? Do the hon members of the PFP know what those demands were, eventually?

Yes.

No, they do not. [Interjections.] And we will make sure that the voters are informed of those demands.

[Inaudible.]

I said that sanctions were unjustified particularly as this Government were in the process of implementing far-reaching reform measures. Let us look for a moment at the record of change and reform.

In the Act!

Sport was desegregated. There is no question about it and I trust that hon members will agree with me.

Not at schools!

We removed the White preference in the immigration legislation. We declared parity in education as a Government objective which will require many billions of rand. The Prevention of Mixed Marriages Act was withdrawn and so was the provision in the Immorality Act making it an offence to have sexual intercourse across colour lines.

[Inaudible.]

I ask the hon member just to give me a chance.

There are mixed trade unions. We changed the labour laws to make that possible in this country. Our labour legislation today is perhaps the most modern in the world, and the system of bargaining together with the tribunals and procedures for the settlement of disputes are working and functioning well. We abolished the influx control system and the pass laws, a move which entailed the repeal and amendment of no fewer than 34 different proclamations and laws.

Too late!

I could continue in this vein. From 1 July last year the system of provincial councils was abandoned and mixed executive committees appointed in all four provinces. [Interjections.]

Appointed!

They are not representative!

I am giving the salient features of the record of reform which this Government has instituted in a very brief period.

Now tell us what …

Mr Speaker, I cannot debate against a “katlagter”. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: You gave a ruling that no hon member in this House should be referred to as any kind of animal.

I don’t mind …

Order! The hon member for Houghton may not speak while a Whip is addressing the Chair. The hon member for Houghton must keep quiet.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: You gave a ruling that no hon member may refer to another hon member as any kind of animal.

But a “katlagter” is a bird! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister must withdraw the word “katlagter”.

I withdraw it, Sir.

†There is no question about this Government’s record of reform. We did not do this to please the world. This Government introduced and initiated reform because we considered it necessary and just, and because we saw clearly that it was time to extend democracy and that, unless we did so, we would not be satisfying our own concept and norms of fairness and justice.

What, however, was the reaction of the outside world to this? There is not a single leader in the democratic world outside this country who could not have stood up and said that there was sufficient proof of reform, and who could not have encouraged this country and the parties and leaders of this country to meet around a conference table and to discuss their differences and find their own solutions to this country’s problems. Instead, we were punished. When this Government made the most dramatic strides and advances in reform, the reaction abroad was one of vengeance and punishment. That is what has happened. [Interjections.]

What about the Portuguese, the German … [Interjections.]

There is not a single democratic party in this country that can tell me that it is able to satisfy the world’s demands, because it is expected of us to surrender this country to a Marxistic dictatorship. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Berea today gave a number of examples of my incompetence, and I ought to thank him because he has given me rather effective ammunition to use during my election meetings in Natal. Through him, therefore, I will show the voters of Natal the calibre of the PFP spokesman on foreign affairs. He paid me the compliment of saying that I was perhaps the longest-serving foreign minister. I want to predict that he will be briefest-serving foreign affairs spokesman in his party. [Interjections.]

His first point of attack—others have referred to it too—concerned my reference last year to the possibility that there could be a Black president of this country. I wish to give my response. I made that statement in reply to a question at a Press conference without having discussed it with the hon the State President or my colleagues in the Cabinet. [Interjections.]

Do you believe it?

I hope the hon members will permit me to complete my statement. [Interjections.] I accepted and respected my hon leader’s right to discipline me on the matter and I have continued in my job. That is my response.

Secondly he referred to the telephone conversations I had had with United States senators. I am very glad he raised this matter and I am not going to apologise for what I did. I want to tell the country what happened. I was called late that night by our ambassador before the vote was going to be taken in the US Senate and he in turn had been called by a very senior and very influential US senator who had said they needed two or three votes to get to the margin where President Reagan’s veto could be sustained. He asked me whether I could ‘phone a number of senators from what they call the “wheat-producing states” in the United States in an attempt to change their votes.

For a moment I was not sure whether I should do it and I asked the ambassador why he could not do it. The ambassador replied that the senator had said: “Please, if we lose the vote what would you say if your Foreign Minister did not even try?” He told me that I need not worry because they earnestly wanted to talk to me. That was why I called.

That same night I wrote a letter to that senator, which was delivered to him and for which he thanked me. However, the best way to dispose of any argument as to the wisdom of my action is to refer to a letter written to our ambassador by an eminent American. I quote from that letter:

I would rather not mention his name—

This is the opinion, not of me or my ambassador, but of a very prominent American.

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

No, Sir, I do not have time now.

†The hon member also raised the question of our rejecting the Red Cross, as he put it. Again it is a pity that he did not check his facts. We will certainly tell the voters how the PFP deals with facts. What happened was that Mr Shearar, our ambassador to the 1986 conference of the International Red Cross— it is held every five years—was entitled to participate in a debate where 46 countries attacked South Africa and wanted to kick us out. He repeatedly requested an opportunity to state South Africa’s case but it was refused. When the vote was taken he raised his hand to get an opportunity to speak and it was refused. The vote was then taken and it was decided to suspend South Africa. Out of protest he left the hall and wrote a letter immediately to the president saying that he demanded the right to speak in protest on the vote. He was of course entitled to do so but that was also refused. He then returned, took his seat and raised his voice to draw the president’s attention but he was ignored. He then walked out and gave back his conference registration card and reported to me. That was the sequence of events.

The Government then decided, having weighed up all the pros and cons, that we had been left with no choice but to ask the International Committee of the Red Cross to remove itself from South Africa. We did so because we thought that they had not put up a hard enough fight in Geneva to help us retain our rights. After we had done that their president wrote a letter to the hon the State President making representations and taking a stronger and more decisive stand on our rights. On the basis of that we agreed that they could remain in South Africa, and I have here the response of the president of the South African Red Cross Society. In a letter dated 3 December 1986 he wrote:

He went on to say:

This is the reaction of the president of the SA Red Cross Society, thanking us, calling the decision admirable and saying he trusts that this experience will have the effect of restoring our rights and maintaining and securing our rights in conferences of the Red Cross in the future.

To that hon member this spells incompetence. What is incompetent to him is every effort on the part of this Government to protect the interests of South Africa, to move ahead, to stabilise the country and to achieve progress in reform. Every success of South Africa grieves them. Another of their problems is that they are weak and soft on the law-breakers and hard on those who maintain the law. [Interjections.] This is a pertinent part of their policy and their outlook. They will not get away with it.

The Swaziland issue was also raised. What happened there was that security forces arrested and detained some persons whom they knew were involved in activities against the security of the people of this country. They were questioned. The Swazi prime minister and the Swiss Government then made representations to me and asked whether they could be released or returned. We considered these representations after the persons concerned had been questioned and members of my department accompanied them on their return to Swaziland.

What else did the hon member want my department to do?

Did you kidnap them?

I am not prepared to discuss that at all. [Interjections.] I did not kidnap them. Did the hon member do it?

What does the hon member suggest I should have done? I repeat: They were detained and questioned. Two governments made representations and after they had been questioned my department assisted in returning them. Where is the incompetence of my department or myself according to the hon member’s statement? [Interjections.] I am very happy about and welcome the hon member’s ignorant contribution today to this debate. We will use it fully in the election campaign that lies ahead.

I want to raise one more point. South Africa comprises 3,7% of the total area of Africa and accommodates 4,3% of Africa’s total population. However, we have 25% of all the building cement, 25% of railway lines, 33% of all trucks, 37% of the steel production, 40% of the iron ore, 42% of the uranium, 44% of the total number of tractors in Africa, 47% of the motor vehicles, 51% of the wool clips, 55% of all the telephones, 81% of the chrome, 87% of the antimony, 94% of the vanadium, 94% of the coal and 95% of the gold. What is most important is that while we have only 4% of the total population we contribute no less than 20% of the GNP of Africa as a whole.

*This country is a strong country. We have the minerals, the infrastructure, the expertise and the people; this country has all these things. All it needs is stability, and the Government is in the process of establishing stability. [Interjections.] They were no pleasant decisions that we had to take, but we did our duty by the country and all its people by taking painful decisions to restore peace and tranquility. The improved security position is already having a salutory effect.

Our country’s achievements cannot be questioned. Consider them. All I heard in this debate from the opposition parties was a pitiful weeping and wailing about how bad things were going in South Africa. In my opinion things are going relatively well in spite of sanctions and the challenges that have been levelled at us. This country still has a wonderful future ahead of it. We have a future in the form of negotiation to establish power-sharing, without domination or take-over. There is a future for all of us, and we can continue with reform, as the hon the State President said we would do. It is after all not necessary for him, every time he makes a speech, to produce a new miracle from his hat. We told the country that we were continuing with reform.

The Americans and the Europeans will find that sanctions were foolish. The demands of certain Black leaders will be scaled down, because they will see that sanctions are not breaking us. Our people will ensure that this Government is returned by the voters with an increased majority. [Interjections.] After the election South Africa can look forward to a new era of prosperity, understanding and of agreement among the leaders of all its communities.

Mr Chairman, I do not know whether it was the new hon Deputy Minister sitting over there who, as I got up to speak, asked me whether this was my swan song in this House. I think at this early stage the reports about my political death have been grossly exaggerated. I might just be with hon members again in the future.

I want to reply very briefly to what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said when he indicated that in practically every field of technology South Africa was way ahead of the rest of Africa. That is definitely so. It is also true that Africa is in a very serious situation of decline economically, environmentally and politically. However, I would like to suggest that an optimistic note may be sounded in the sense, that if we in South Africa can succeed, by the courageous promotion and pursuit of real reform, in moving towards a truly just and democratic society, we will be placed in the very fortunate position of being able to take the lead in a process of rehabilitation, not only of our neighbours but also eventually possibly the entire continent. With our advanced technology, achievements, knowledge and ability, we will be in a position to offer services to the entire continent and to assist them in the rehabilitation of their countries and to establish stable and prosperous countries to the north of us. I hope that that is in fact what the future holds, not only for our country, but also for the rest of Africa.

I used the words “a society of justice for all which can be achieved peacefully” because when one speaks to the average White, Black, Coloured or Indian South African— not the political activist who may have other motives and objectives—one finds that it is the sincere desire and hope of all true South Africans that we can achieve a society of true justice for all our people, and that that should be achieved peacefully. At the same time the vast majority of true South Africans are concerned about the security and stability of our society. It is wrong to think that the majority of people are prepared to countenance violence, disruption or anarchy. It is wrong to think that they see that as the only way of achieving their legitimate aspirations. The vast majority of true South Africans want a stable, secure future. They are opposed to totalitarian systems—systems such as communism which will deprive them of true freedom. They hope for a true democracy in which there will be real freedom of opportunity and participation for all in this country.

In my opinion, within that broad frame-work, there lies a tremendous opportunity, not just for the Government but for all of us, if we take the opportunity of working together with energy and determination to achieve a just and truly democratic society. There is still an enormous amount of goodwill among the other race groups in this country. That goodwill is crying out to be tapped and to be applied and used by the Government and all of us in the pursuit of just solutions to our problems.

Recently I have read a number of books and articles written by Black people. I have also listened to tape recordings of speeches that have been made in other parts of the world by some of our moderate Black leaders. I wish I could quote from many of them. Credo Mutwa, for example, has recently had a book published entitled Don’t Let My Country Die which is worth reading. However, I should like to quote the following few paragraphs from a report of one the speeches King Goodwill Zwelithini made overseas:

Time does not permit of it but I would have liked to quote positively and constructively from the Broederbond document from which the hon member for Sasolburg quoted. However, what does it illustrate? It illustrates a fundamental change of heart in the South African people, in the community in South Africa which in fact exercises power.

When one really studies the latest document brought out by the Dutch Reformed Church and compares it with what the position was only a few years ago, one will notice that it illustrates a fundamental change of heart. I should like to say that there is a change of heart. There is a desire to move forward, to bring about real change and to provide for justice, peace and prosperity for all the people in this country.

How can we achieve this? In the first place it is time for all the moderate groups over the entire racial spectrum in this society who believe in the things which I have spelt out and who believe that those aims must be achieved peacefully to come together on the basis of a broad programme of general principles. The time has come for them to be prepared to unite their efforts—militantly, if necessary—to fight off the challenges from the far left and the far right. The far left and the far right constitute a danger to this country and to our future. If we do not stand together in an effort to defeat them, they will errode the broad middle-ground which at this moment represents the vast majority of South Africans. I refer to industry, commerce, the churches and all the moderate political parties in this country. If we do not stand together now, it may one day be too late. [Interjections.]

In order to do that, it is up to the Government and all of us to set an example of a willingness to negotiate in order to achieve reconciliation at every single level of our society. We must move away from confrontation. We must sit down and talk, compromise, and reach agreement.

There has been no better example of how that can be achieved than what happened at the kwaNatal Indaba. There South Africans from diverse groupings, with diverse attitudes and policies, found that by coming together around the conference table they could iron out their problems. They could reduce the tensions, suspicion and prejudices. Through a process of growing understanding and the building of trust, they could reach agreement on fundamentally important matters. The people who think that the kwaNatal Indaba is lost to South Africa do not take into account the energy and promise, and the belief in integrity, which that has created. I believe that it will still have a very dramatic impact on our future.

Sir, I plead for negotiation rather than confrontation. I appeal to South Africans at every level to go out of their way to meet the other groups, to sit down and to talk to them about common problems. I appeal to them to be determined to reach agreements, even if it means a lot of give and take and compromise.

I want to make three quick, practical suggestions, Sir. I believe these are objectives the Government could pursue in terms of the principles and policies they have laid down as the basis for their reform movement. These do not necessarily represent PFP policy, and I will state briefly what we should like to see. Sir, I want to deal briefly with only three things since there is verly little time at my disposal. If you are prepared to give me longer time I am sure I will be able to deal with ten aspects. I will, however, deal with only three on this occasion. Firstly, Sir, I want to refer to the Group Areas Act. South Africans as a whole want to see the end of restrictions which keep them apart in situations in which they wish to communicate. Now, Sir, the policy of the PFP in this regard is clear. If we came to power we would open all residential areas to all races, and we would open all schools to ail races. That is of course not the Government’s policy, and I understand the Government’s problems in relation to this matter. What I am saying is that the Government can—in terms of the work done in the President’s Council and in terms of that report—make a meaningful contribution to the easing of interracial tension, providing for mobility, for taking the lid off this tension, as it were, by taking a few tentative steps in the direction of introducing freedom of choice and freedom of association so that people can be able to live where they wish to live if the communities so desire.

This, Sir, is not PFP policy, and I am not arguing against PFP policy. I am merely saying there are things that the Government can do now in terms of their own principles and policies in order to bring about progress.

I want to argue along the same lines in relation to schools. We would open all schools to all races. That is our policy. The Government, however, follows a policy of strict segregation of schools along racial lines. It is vitally important that our children be given the opportunity of growing up together when and where they wish in order to develop an understanding of one another, to communicate with one another and to develop the ability of co-operating with one another in the pursuit of common goals in the future. I believe the Government can, in terms of its stated principles—principles already embodied in legislation—accept freedom of association and extend it to parents, to school bodies and to pupils. This is after all one of the stated principles of the De Lange Committee already enshrined in legislation. Furthermore there is the principle of providing equal educational opportunities for all, and also the principle of enhancing and supporting private school education. I believe the Government could give encouragement to the establishment and the extension of as many private schools as possible in South Africa on a multiracial basis in order to provide for this. That would once again provide for an easing of tension and for an improvement in interrace relations.

The final suggestion I have is a very simple one. That is one pertaining to the very vexed field of law and order in which we witness so much tension, so much heartbreak, so much destruction and such enormous problems for our country, nationally and internationally.

I am not a lawayer, and I hesitate to speak about these things, Sir. I do believe, however, that there is one thing the Government can reintroduce into South African law. That is the simple measure of habeas corpus. That could contribute to reducing the suspicion and the tension and the criticism which South Africa has to endure in this particular field, because if the State can be required to produce the person—which is what habeas corpus essentially means—the Government can in fact provide for the next-of-kin and the friends of people in detention to see that their loved ones are alive and well and are not being ill-treated. This, Sir, is once again not PFP policy. We are against detention without trial. We are against the state of emergency. I do believe, however, that the Government can make a meaningful contribution to the easing of tensions by being prepared to accept that one simple suggestion, which would be a gesture appreciated by all in South Africa and throughout the world.

Mr Speaker, it is a very strange feeling to be rising to my feet on this side of the House. It is not something which I sought. I do not think it would have been easy for anyone with my political history. All my endeavours in politics were based on caring for my people and for my country, as well as for all the people who inhabit this country.

One could almost say that I was born into the NP. My parental home was staunchly Nationalist. I worked in the party since my early youth, and I continued to do so on the local level in Randburg. Here in Parliament as well I worked within the structures of the party throughout. That I am standing on this side of the House today, is not something which happened overnight. My standpoint is still the same today as it was yesterday. I always broached my thoughts and objections within the party structure, and in personal conversations with the party’s leaders. I am not referring now to discussions that were held this year.

My basic standpoint has always been that security is only to be found in fairness. That fairness cannot, however, involve only one sector of the population. Nor can it only be under the command of one sector of the population. It must be fairness to all and for all. Our security as individuals, but also as groups and as peoples, lies solely in that fairness. Beyond these walls lie confrontation and the sure way to conflict and uncertainty. I believe that we should choose to take a stand for human rights.

I have explained my differences with all parties in this House quite extensively to the leadership of the party, and also in published interviews and articles. However, I think it is also necessary to do so briefly in this House.

I believe that the NP finds itself in a transitional stage. It is a stage in which it is losing some of its ideology, but has not yet been able to succeed in replacing it with a policy. The party no longer has the directed vision which it had in the past in terms of different premises and the old ideology. It no longer offers a goal towards which its every act is directed. The high-handedness which we note at present in the party’s conduct can possibly be attributed to that.

The NP has—and quite rightly so—willingly and deliberately turned its back on a policy of geographical political separation. If that happens then there can be no other objective but one South Africa with equal treatment for all. Until that is placed foremost as goal and vision, the party cannot move ahead with planning and at a determined pace.

I agree with the cardinal premises of the party which have been adopted over the past few years, a belief in universal franchise without it meaning domination; that everyone should have an effective say on all levels of government, legislative and executive; and also that in one country there can be ony one government. It is because of this very standpoint that the CP broke away in 1982.

With these cardinal points in mind, it is not possible to have a goal other than one South Africa with equal rights for all.

When one drives onto a farm and you arrive at the farm-house and the dogs come running up to the car, barking, and you get out and bend down to pick up a stone or a stick, they fall back, merely to go and carry on barking in a rather more subdued way. I cannot help feeling that we dealt with the principles in this manner within the NP. We spell them out and discuss them loudly, but when we are asked to give concrete substance to them or when we are confronted with the substance of the principles, we fall back, merely to repeat it more quietly in another place.

In essence the goal of one South Africa requires only one strategy. It requires a series of processes in order to attain that goal.

It has certain implications, two of which I now want to single out. The first one deals with the threat to the country. There is no doubt that it is a serious threat and there is as little doubt that the State has the right and the duty to act forcefully against this threat.

As far as the foreign threat is concerned, and specifically foreign interference, I want to state immediately that I reject it. I reject it in the clearest terms. We do not allow others to prescribe to us, nor do we allow others to determine how we should act. We should find our own solutions here. I do not believe it is a subject which we have to debate any further.

There is also the internal threat which accompanies this. Here violence plays an extremely important part, and in this regard as well I do not think there are any differences of opinion in this House. Violence must be opposed. Violence must be rejected and cannot be brought to the conference table. That includes the violence of the ANC. In rejecting and dealing with violence I am also in favour of emergency powers. I have never argued with the premise that emergency powers are necessary. In fact I believe that the gap between peoples’ expectations and the Government’s ability to meet them, can only be bridged by the use of emergency regulations. To my mind this is almost axiomatic, but the rejection of violence does not mean that the politics underlying the violence can simply be ignored. It cannot simply be done away with nor can it merely be incarcerated or dealt with by merely imposing stricter security measures. It requires more than that, because the underlying politics will be nourished by such conduct and it survives if that is the only way of dealing with it. Such action, as the only action, I believe feeds and exacerbates the revolutionary potential.

In order to deal with it, a vision and a goal are also necessary—a goal within which dealing with security can occur. High-handed conduct such as the arrest of people who are already negotiating with the Government or are engaged in such discussions, is counterproductive. It is very clear that there is a lack of co-ordination in this regard in the system.

The fault does not lie with the security forces, but in fact, I believe, with the political leadership. Since the political leadership has not spelt out a goal and a strategy—a framework within which the security forces have to act and a goal towards which they must strive and in terms of which they should direct their conduct—the security forces are operating in a vacuum. I believe that it frustrates them as well. It contributes to a further destabilization of the whole environment because they themselves can experience that frustration. I think the security forces expect a clear political direction from the Government.

The PFP on the other hand, places so much emphasis on the “rule of law” that the impression is maintained that they are soft on security matters and see nothing good in the Government’s motives and conduct, but only see good in the forces of radicalism. They do not understand the reasoning with which the NP approaches the matter.

Both the NP and the PFP speak of reform. I see the newspapers reported that I had said that reform was dead. What I did in fact say was that the time for reform as Government strategy was past. Most extra-parliamentary communities for example are no longer concerned about the scrapping or otherwise, of discriminatory measures. To them it is no longer relevant. What is in fact relevant to them, is political and economic power.

Reform in the Government’s idiom is in other words no longer going to be achieved unilaterally or going to make a real contribution. The keys to the future lie in security management and negotiation, but both can then be directed to this one goal of one South Africa with equal treatment for all. Negotiation should also be distinguished from consultation, discussions and even mere attempts at persuasion. Negotiation goes much deeper than that.

†There is an impression that the NP wishes to play the game of negotiation, but that it continually—if I can use the example of a game of tennis—tries to serve an ace, and more often than not serves into the net. The opponent will not stay on the court if that is the process.

Equally though, it appears as if the PFP is constantly trying to arrange the game in such a manner that the other side serves the ace to them.

Negotiation is neither of these two. It is an attempt to keep the game going; to keep one’s opponent on the court. Negotiation does not mean prescribing the agenda, determining the course and manipulating the outcome. That is a certain way to failure. Equally, the PFP wishes to go the way of a national convention which is a sophisticated way of abandoning power and shedding responsibility.

It is important who comes to that convention. If it is only those with whom the Government wishes to speak today it will fail for the same reasons it is failing now. If not, it will mean that a power demonstration will have to happen within the Black community to determine who will speak at the convention. Then we will only have confrontation or the handing over of power.

Negotiation is in essence a process of which the outcome cannot be predetermined. It is essential, however, that the process is started and is started with all those political forces in play which are strong in the country and which holds a veto on the successful outcome of the process.

One cannot come to negotiation with non-negotiables, with that very strong, rigid and fixed position. That goes for everybody who wishes to negotiate. The aim is to achieve basic human rights—a specific goal; one country with equality for all and protection and security for all. However, one should be prepared to consider alternative mechanisms.

The second implication following from the acceptance of an overall aim of one South Africa, has to do with the concept of own communities. The NP had an open-ended approach to this matter as it is presently embodied in the Group Areas Act. Of late, however, that open-endedness has come to nothing when the insistence became clear: One has to subscribe fully to the underlying principles of group being defined as race or forget about it. No deviation from this was to be allowed, although the Act itself could be ameliorated in some manner. Ironically the abolition or not of the Act is not at all relevant, as I have argued.

When that open end became closed, it became impossible for me to stand in the coming election on the platform as a candidate of the NP. I could in no way defend the principle underlying the Group Areas Act. My conscience could not allow me to do it. The Group Areas Act is discriminatory, and has to go. However, it could go in a process, as was argued by the hon member for Bryanston. The continued approach on the basis of group or community equals race spells confrontation and disaster.

The PFP, on the other hand, too easily negates the importance of language, ethnic cohesion and the feeling of community. This smacks in some way of an unrealistic approach. The basic problem with both parties—in fact with all parties—is their dogmatism; their approach of “follow my way or else”, instead of one which says: “Look at the reality around you. Enter into negotiations and keep the main goal in mind”.

I believe that there is a new spirit in the country which is looking beyond present party boundaries towards a flexible approach which aims at a secure future for all. As an independent candidate, I am well aware that I cannot change the power structure in this House. Equally though, I believe that it is incumbent upon me to serve as a focal point for this new spirit which I feel and know abounds in this country. I will attempt to be that focal point without recrimination towards political parties represented here and will look forward to a new tomorrow. The new tomorrow we will only arrive at if we approach it on firm and on both legs—negotiation towards a common goal and a well-managed security policy also aimed at achieving this goal.

The PFP underplays security in its strategy. The NP underplays politics in theirs. One cannot walk on one leg only; at best one can hop, and that does not even resemble walking.

There is this new spirit which I believe to be the real centre of South African politics. It transcends political parties. It transcends parliamentary and extra-parliamentary politics. It transcends racial and cultural divides. I will prove it in this coming election.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Randburg remarked at the beginning of his speech that his standpoint today was the same as the standpoint he had yesterday. If that is the case then in terms of some of the statements he made here, he belonged in his “yesterday” to a party other than the party I belong to, because I really did not recognise in this party the standpoints he put.

He said that this party had ostensibly not replaced its previous ideology with a policy, it had not vision. How can he say that after the crystal-clear exposition which the hon the Minister of National Education gave here earlier this afternoon concerning the material respects in which the policy and vision of the NP has in fact been formulated with a view to submitting it to the test of the voters and receiving a mandate to continue with that policy and to work out further particulars by means of negotiation in that specified direction? [Interjections.]

In the second place, the hon member for Randburg stated that the problem in regard to the security situation, did not really lie with the security forces, but with the political leadership; that the political aspect had ostensibly been ignored and that attention had only been given to the security aspect. But that, too, is clearly at variance with the declared premise of the Government, namely that it was dealing with a security situation and had proclaimed a state of emergency, not as an end in itself, but in fact as a means of facilitating negotiations in future, and to make what was essential to bring about negotiated and bilaterally acceptable constitutional reform possible. It has always been the declared policy and standpoint of the NP that the security measures are merely there in support of and as an adjunct to the real political goal which has to be achieved. It is also a fact, though, that despite the security measures, the Government has gone ahead with this negotiating process, at times with great danger and difficulty for the Black negotiators involved in the situation, and that the Government will continue with the process until such time as an acceptable solution has been found.

In the third place the hon member also stated that the governing party, the party to which he belonged yesterday, was retreating before the need to give substance to principles, while we had in fact spelt it out very clearly here that, before more time and energy had to be expended on negotiating the details and particulars in respect of a new dispensation, we wanted to present the course of that new dispensation—the hon the Minister of National Education quite rightly pointed out that in various ways it was a “new course”, a change of policy—frankly to the voters in order to get a clear mandate and authority to negotiate the particulars and details on that basis. [Interjections.] The argument has repeatedly been mentioned here that were the detail spelt out now, we would still meet with a cynical reaction from the opposite side of the House, who demand that it be explained in detail and then complain that it is a “unilateral prescription” and not negotiation.

A fourth point which the hon member for Randburg made—this point was also emphasized in an interview which Finansies en Tegniek held with the hon member and which is reported in the edition of 13 January 1987— was that the Government misunderstood negotiation, and that negotiation went much further than mere discussion. He then stated here—as he did in that interview—that the NP starts the negotiating process by laying down non-negotiables. But what are the facts? The facts are that the Government, also according to the hon State President, has always said that negotiation implies give and take. Negotiation implies an open agenda, on which other parties as well can place there suggestions. As the hon the Minister of National Education put it earlier this afternoon, an open agenda does not mean an open mind and lack of a standpoint on the part of the negotiators. The fact that the Government is entering into the negotiating process with a specific standpoint and a policy which it makes known, is not an indication that it is reducing the negotiating process to non-negotiables, but simply that it puts a standpoint across frankly, as any responsible political leader and statesman would do, and that it is embarking on a process with a policy and a standpoint, and not merely an open mind upon which other people can force their standpoints.

One could examine some of the other points of the hon member for Randburg as well, but it is perturbing to realise that someone who was inside the NP for such a long time, can say so readily now (that his standpoint today is the same as it was yesterday). One could also deal with the question of the Group Areas Act, but I believe the hon State President explained very clearly in his contribution yesterday the context in which all reform of our policy in respect of own residential areas, and in particular the Group Areas Act, should be dealt with. He set out in crystal-clear fashion the other problems, the relevant interests, the potential tensions and conflicts which were inherent in this situation, and also indicated that the revision of such legislation was not therefore an issue which could be dealt with overnight, but one which had to be investigated thoroughly and with proper preparation before any steps could be taken in this regard.

It is therefore disappointing, but in a certain sense also encouraging, that the hon member for Randburg, who no longer feels at home in the NP, and who is now going to stand as an independent candidate is actually indicating what the extent was of his considerable differences in respect of specific standpoints of the NP not only now but also in the past.

I also want to give further attention to the matter which the hon the Minister of National Education dealt with. One of the repeated accusations which has been directed at the NP by implication and at times also expressly on the part of the hon member for Randburg and of many participants in this debate, is that the NP is dragging its feet with regard to reform, and that it has lost its will to reform. I think it is important that one should seriously analyse what could possibly be the misunderstanding and misconception which form the basis of this unfounded accusation. I want to contend that people who make this accusation, should examine the reform process with greater insight and analysis, in order to heighten their comprehension of the problems concerning the reform process.

This accusation is indicative of an unreasonable condemnation of the radical and wide-ranging extent of what has already been reformed. One need merely listen to the CP’s criticism of the NP in order to realise how extensive those reforms are. If one looks back on the past year—the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs also referred to it—there has probably not been a single year in the history of the Union or the Republic of South Africa in which more radical reform measures have been implemented. It was a scant seven months ago that the radical reform concerning the abolition of influx control, the pass laws and a whole series of Black labour laws was completed, and now people are saying that reform has been slowed down. Surely that is an unrealistic view and ungenerous assessment of what has already happened and is being done, also in respect of citizenship, property rights for Blacks and many other matters which have been dealt with over the last year.

These accusations also indicate a faulty insight into the complexity of—and the high demands made by—the reform process as such. I specially want to make an appeal to the thinking portion of our voters, the so-called intelligentsia, from whom these kinds of accusations emanating to realise and to look critically at the fact that in order to plan reform, to negotiate, to bargain, to administer and to implement, are some of the most difficult challenges in politics. For that a realistic understanding should be shown.

One of the most extreme indications of misconception is apparent in a leading article in the London Times of 31 January, last week-end, in which inter alia it was written of South Africa:

“Instant democracy” in a heterogeneous society in Africa! These words are probably one of the most flagrant formulations of the naive and absurd demands which the outside world, but unfortunately at times also people within South Africa, make on the Government in respect of reform.

†What does “instant democracy” mean? Is it democracy which comes about instantaneously or immediately without much negotiation, imposed by some authoritarian decision from above, or does it mean democracy which is instantaneous in its duration and only lasts an instant because it has been forced upon people and, like a straw fire, only flares up and burns out in a few seconds? “Instant democracy” which has been demanded of us by one of the most prestigious newspapers in the world is a denial of the very nature of democracy. One can have “instant autocracy” but democracy has a slow, laborious and evolutionary growth. The time schedule and the pace demanded of South Africa with regard to constitutional reform is much shorter and faster than the lengthy, time-consuming processes through which all other societies that have achieved a meaningful form of democracy had to move. They also had far less complicated demographic relationships than those which we have in this country.

*Those people who say that the NP has put a stop to reform, often say so because they never shared in the NP’s concept of reform, and because right from the start they understand reform to mean something quite different to what the NP understands it to mean. Critics of the pace of and the delay in reform generally conceive of something which would result in a one man one vote majority state. It can probably be implemented easily and quickly, but then it is also “instant democracy” in both senses of the word—also “instantaneous in its duration”. Such reform results in domination by the majority, the disregard of minority rights and the absurd fiction and dogma of a “non-racial society”, of which we have already heard so much in this debate. It is a denial of the most elementary reality in South Africa, of an obvious truth. Furthermore it eventuates in the eroded concept of democracy which the hon the State President spelt out and explained in his opening address.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question.

No, Sir, I cannot reply to a question now. If acceleration of reform means results such as these as I have just emunerated, then it is totally unacceptable and then we are not interested either in such a reform or any acceleration of it. It would a false reform, devoid of content.

I also want to refer to the allegations which are made from time to time that there are about twenty—if merriment prevails in weekend reporting, they even speak of forty—so-called “New Nats” in the NP caucus. They ostensibly have different interpretations of reform to the rest of their colleagues. [Interjections.] I wish to state it as a fact that the entire NP caucus consists of convinced and dedicated supporters of reform, people who are all in agreement with and are serious about constitutional and other reforms. Moreover, the caucus is under the direction of a chief leader who has displayed greater daring, perseverance, vision and initiative than any other NP leader before him. [Interjections.] He is a leader who has displayed a new dimension of leadership because he was prepared more than once to accept what were, in the short term, political risks for himself and his party for the sake of what he was convinced was in the constitutional interests of this country and its inhabitants in the long term. I am of the opinion that this is the best indication of the quality and consistency of the reform we are discussing here.

Constitutional reform is not an authoritarian government action but a democratic process which is dependent upon the support of the electorate. It is not an act of authority which can be implemented on the responsibility and authority of a managing director of a business undertaking or the decision of a company’s board of directors. Nor is it something which is based on the decision of an academic senate or a professorial departmental head at a university, who implements it within his area of jurisdiction.

That is why those who are impatient with the pace of reform should be reasonable and take into consideration the democratic process of persuasion involving the Government and its voters in respect of its reform programme. Therefore the Government is now, during the coming election, going to obtain a mandate from the voters through a process of persuasion as far as its reform process is concerned; particularly after it has made important policy adjustments, as the hon the Minister of National Education also put it.

Secondly the critics of the pace of reform should also have patience as regard the slowness of the reform negotiations themselves. It consists of a complex of difficult and time-consuming procedures. Leaders from strongly fragmented parts of Black population have to be identified and involved. Then there is the slowness with which leaders accept the responsibility and the risk of participation in negotiations. That is why it is also essential that the security situation should be such that it is indeed possible and attractive to people to participate in the negotiating process. That is why it is not possible to take the negotiating process …

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

No, I do not want to reply to questions because I have very little time.

… to take the negotiation process further, unless sufficient precautions have been taken and provision made for the maintenance of security, as well as of law and order.

We ask for understanding for the fact that the negotiating processes are slow because they require the establishment of reciprocal trust between the various parties and the negotiating process. It requires the development of understanding for each other’s standpoints. It requires the development of a preparedness to accept a measure of give and take. It is a process of convincing and persuasion, which does not happen quickly. It requires time to find a negotiated solution.

That is why it is important to emphasize, as the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said, that the importance of the negotiating process does not lie in its visibility or audibility, but in the success and viability of the ultimate results. Negotiations as such require time and we, from our First World agenda-orientated view of matters, should understand this. It is not a business meeting which is arranged for a certain time and place with points on the agenda from one to six which are disposed of point by point and lo and behold, the negotiations have resulted in a reform. It is a far more complicated and laborious process.

That is why the Government also understands and appreciates, as various hon members on this side of the House have stated, the positive contribution of the process of negotiation in an activity such as the kwaNatal-Indaba which also contributed to the development of attitudes and a willingness to negotiatiate.

In addition reform is inherently something which is to a certain extent destabilising and which creates uncertainty. That is why one cannot simply steam ahead like an express train along the tracks of reform, and why it is necessary to consolidate from time to time, especially after such a drastic year of reform as the past year. In that way one again has a stable foundation upon which one can steady oneself for further reforms. This is especially the case with an election, in which one goes candidly to the people and asks them to give one a mandate for this policy, with its new aspects which are being presented.

The pace of reform is also related to the State’s financial capabilities. The reasonable for socio-economic expectations which are created by the political reform process, also have to be satisfied and accommodated. The financial costs which have been spelt out here in respect of the kwaNatal Indaba’s impractical proposals and the financial costs of creating equal opportunities between First and Third World, and of bringing them closer together. Nor can these equal opportunities merely be unloaded or superimposed on the situation by financial expenditures from above; it must also grow from within. In this regard, too, there is a certain element of delay in the reform process.

†An important aspect of the pace of reform is also connected with the fact that the radicals cannot afford to allow success to be achieved by peaceful negotiation and therefore they are concentrating on trying to retard, undermine and break down whatever positive progress is being achieved by the reform process. This is also an aspect which has to be borne in mind with regard to the reform process.

*We in this country are engaged in an evolutionary process—because it will not be a quick, one-off reform—and we shall have to co-exist with reform for a long time. I want to appeal to people who participate critically and with interest in politics and statecraft to take into consideration the inherent question linked to the reform process, so that they do not come along with unrealistic businessmen like or academic demands or First World, agenda-orientated demands which undermine and therefore counteract reform in terms of the realities of the situation on which we in South Africa have to negotiate in order to achieve fruitful and viable results.

We trust with all our enthusiasm and powers of persuasion, that the voters in this country have sufficient insight and vision in terms of the future to give this party the mandate to proceed further along this road and to give substance to a process of reform in respect of which it tells the people candidly and clearly in what direction we are moving.

Mr Chairman, I listened very attentively to the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid. Obviously there are quite a number of things which he said with which I agree, for example the necessity to build up confidence in order to enter into successful negotiation, and the like. The hon the Minister said quite a bit about reform, which I can understand, but I am still waiting for him to tell us what the objective is of the reform which he is contemplating for the party. We can talk about reform, but I must say that I have absolutely no inkling and am totally in the dark as to the direction which that hon Minister—I shall deal with the other hon Ministers later—really wants to take with reform.

I listened with very great interest to the hon member for Randburg. I am acquainted with that hon member and I am not going to comment at this stage on the political philosophy which he set forth here and his views on the policies of the NP and the PFP. Nevertheless I think I can say on behalf of everyone in this House and everyone who has been acquainted with the hon member over the years, that he is an honest man who was not put off by the implications of his honest thoughts. I have great appreciation for that. I want to tell him that the course he is adopting will in many ways be a lonely one. I think that a person like me who in a certain sense has adopted the same course understands the sacrifice he has made and the sacrifice which he will still have to make.

I listened with great interest to the speeches of the hon the State President and the hon Ministers. It is clear that in this kind of discussion every party is actually engaged in laying down strategies with a view to the forthcoming election.

The hon the State President indicated to us by way of two speeches what the main points of the NP Government’s election strategy were going to be. I listened attentively to both those speeches and I expected and assumed that it would go without saying that the hon the State President would formulate and emphasize the important points of attack which he was going to use against the opposition.

In addition I expected the hon the State President as the leader-in-chief of the NP and the head of this Government to convey a message of hope, to create a future vision for our country and all its people and to outline the path along which he wanted to lead the people of our country to peace, harmony and prosperity. That is what I expected of him. In this regard, Sir, I was bitterly disappointed.

It is clear, in consequence of those speeches and the speech of the hon the Minister of National Education, that the Government is going to use the issues of pressure from abroad, the unrest situation and the use of violence by the ANC and its communist supporters against this opposition party in the election battle. I suppose the Government has every right to use those issues against us, but I do not know who it wants to impress, because after all, as the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said here, he and the Government are aware—as a matter of fact they are all aware—that as regards pressure from abroad, ie disinvestment and sanctions, the PFP has consistently adopted the attitude that it is opposed to them.

Our standpoint on violence is also quite clear. Time and again we have consistently adopted the standpoint in this House and outside that we are fundamentally opposed to the use of violence to bring about political change. Let there be no doubt about that; that is what this party stands for.

I waited in vain for an admission by the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of National Education that the policy adopted by this Government since 1948 has undoubtedly made a considerable contribution to the dissatisfaction and resistance among Black people. When one listens to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, it is quite clear that the tone of their debating is very different from that of the hon the Minister of National Education. The latter said that the story which we had proclaimed, namely that the policy which the Government adopted had contributed to that resistance and dissatisfaction, was not correct. That was the message he conveyed. The message of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid was quite different. By implication they said that they had been wrong. And they were wrong, Sir.

The hon the Minister of National Education spoke about education, but for 15 years this Government pegged down expenditure on Black education at R13 million per annum. For many years Blacks could not acquire freehold in their own states and urban areas. There was job reservation and various other things which denied the essential human dignity of these people. The hon the Minister cannot now say that these matters did not play any role. If we want to be honest we must say that the climate which exists today, and the lack of confidence which Black people have in this Government and in its good intentions, arises from and is a product of the policy which has been adopted for the past 30 to 40 years. [Interjections.] There are also other examples I could quote.

What have we basically heard thus far in this debate? The hon member for Randburg, the hon member for Mooi River and others spelt it out. In the first place there is a desperate clinging to and defence and rationalisation of the principle of compulsory residential segregation. I am not interested in the old story that we can amend the laws a little and that they are ostensibly not sacred cows. This means nothing. The fundamental principle which still applies, is enforced residential segregation. We can talk glibly about community life and so on, but this is the principle which still applies.

I want to return to what the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, the hon member for Randburg and others said. [Interjections.] If I understood the hon the State President correctly, he said that as long as he was the State President and the leader of that party, that principle would not change.

He also said that about power-sharing.

The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid must please listen to this. The hon the State President said that this was a non-negotiable principle. He also said that as long as he was alive and as long as he was the head of State he would not renounce that principle.

It is a sacred cow!

Very well! I shall return to this matter later—and to the other non-negotiable principles which the hon the Minister of National Education spelt out here in the House this afternoon. The hon the State President can try a hundred times to explain to us what all the wonderful things are which have resulted from the Group Areas Act and its application. He can allege this a hundred times. He may possibly try to convince himself. But he will never convince the hundreds of thousands of Coloureds and Indians who have fallen prey to that Act. Never! Never! He can go ahead and try. Therein lies the essence of this. That tree is known by its fruit, and that fruit is to be found in the rejection of the entire concept of the Group Areas Act precisely by those people who were affected by it in the first place—the rejection and the political implications of compulsory residential segregation.

I wonder whether hon members of the National Party have ever asked themselves whether the government has the right—the moral right, the ethical right—to tell people that they may buy land here but not there, that they may live here but not there. Does the government have that ethical right? Does it have the ethical right to do that on the basis of race or colour? Does it have that ethical right?

Then I also want to ask—if the government were to say that it had that ethical right— whether it has the ethical right to allow one group to impose those matters on all the other groups. Even if the Government were to contend that it had the first ethical right, it definitely does not have the second ethical right. It does not have the right to say that it arrogates that power. It may not do that. It does not have the right to decide with regard to all other groups in the country. That is also my reply …

We are in the process of doing away with that! [Interjections.]

Good grief! The basic underlying principles which the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of National Education put forward here in this House today, contain the concept of groups. I shall return to that later.

What did we get from the hon the State President in the second place? No answer to the question of the political future of the Blacks!

That’s right, Nic!

No answer to the question of the political accommodation of Blacks! Absolutely no answer! [Interjections.] Let us look back for a moment, Sir. Two years ago a special Cabinet Committee was instituted which had to carry through those negotiations and report on its activities at a later date. That was two years ago. At that stage the hon the State President also announced the possibility of a kind of forum. All we heard after that was that the Special Cabinet Committee had consulted a large number of people. But they do not want to tell us whom they consulted. They do not want to tell us what the consultations were about. They do not want to tell us what contributions those people made. They do not want to tell us how representative those Black people were whom they consulted. Last year, Sir …

The progress that has been made is a result of the activities in that field.

Nonsense! [Interjections.]

Last year the hon the State President spoke about a national council. A draft constitution was published and comments were invited. We are still waiting to hear what was said about it. Many comments were received. A huge pile of comments, Sir! From whom? From whom? What became of those comments? Where are they?

They are being processed! [Interjections.]

I was waiting for and expecting those comments to be embodied in other legislation. But there is nothing yet! There is absolutely nothing! Last year— if I remember correctly—the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was instructed to create a number of alternative constitutional models as a basis for discussion. What became of them? Where are they?

This year the hon the State President again referred to his national council. He also referred to the possibility of a State Council— a council of states, which will apparently be an adjunct or whatever to the national council. What is going on, Sir? This has been dragging on for two years now. For two years now the Government—according to all these indications—has been giving intensive attention to these matters. What are the results? We are still precisely where we were.

An instruction is going to be issued on this matter! [Interjections.]

We are still precisely where we were! We still have nothing!

Absolutely nothing!

Now there is supposedly going to be an instruction!

Unfortunately my time has almost expired. But I want to refer to one further matter. I just want to point out that the crux of the problem is actually those principles which the NP says are non-negotiable. These were spelt out by the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of National Education, namely that groups must participate in the political process as groups; that an individual’s participation in the political process can only be via his membership of the group; and that the constitutional model must be based on the principle of separate affairs—the right to decide on own affairs and joint participation in general affairs.

I listened very attentively to the hon the Minister of National Education and he said that it was our task to negotiate and to convince people. The point is not to convince people. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he considers these matters to be non-negotiable. As long as they are non-negotiable—the hon the State President said they were non-negotiable—he will not be able to achieve negotiations with Black leaders, because that is not negotiation, but a discussion and an attempt to convince, and nothing more. [Interjections.]

All I can say, now that we have almost reached the end of this debate, is that my question to the Government is: What is the course it is going to adopt in the future, with regard to the cardinal problem of the political accommodation of the Blacks? Then we have the ridiculous things which were mentioned here by the hon the Minister of National Education, namely independent city states. Guguletu, Khayelitsha, KayaMandi in Stellenbosch must now become independent Black states! If that is their solution, it will be the greatest tragedy if this Government is returned to office.

Mr Chairman, I listened with interest to what the hon member Prof Olivier had to say and I agree with many of his points although I cannot quite stretch my imagination to seeing Khayelitsha or Guguletu as independent city states. I hope that he is quite wrong about that although there is no knowing what they might come up with next.

I think we have a situation here where the Government itself does not realise the effects of what it is going to do. This has become very clear out of this debate. In this election they are going to use tactics which will further undermine their credibility in the eyes of the voting public to an extent where they will further undermine the will and the national spirit. Already among Black people and in overseas countries the credibility of our Government is very low. The voter is not going to buy this. He is going to look at this aghast—the manipulation, the tub-thumping about everything that is wrong outside the country instead of looking at what is going on inside the country. They are in fact putting the country into a great deal of danger. The Government itself is totally discredited and the people run around leaderless without the will to resist which they are going to need in the difficult years ahead.

The most transparent strategy is that the Government has chosen to use the state of emergency for NP electioneering, instead of reforming under its umbrella of law and order. It has chosen sanctions and world interference, which were brought about largely by their Rubicon policies, and blames everybody except itself. Instead of focusing inwardly on internal dissatisfaction, they are focusing outwards, exactly what they blame the United States for doing. They are desperately looking around for a scapegoat to blame for their own disastrous domestic situation.

Worst of all, they have chosen to misuse the patriotism and loyalty of South Africans by attempting to rally them to a false cause. The problem is inside the country, not outside. The bulk of South Africa’s population lives in Black townships. Solve the problem inside the country and we can then take on much more than what the ANC or any other external organization can throw at us.

All the “storm en drang” contained in the hon the State President’s speech yesterday simply confirms one’s belief that the policies employed by this Government are a miserable failure. It was all old hat. We have heard it all before, and it is not going to impress the electorate. In fact, they are going to ask themselves how they got into this situation and what is to be done about it. That is what is not being addressed.

The ANC can be caught offside with a few deft reform manoeuvres which will undermine their internal support almost immediately. Instead this Government has chosen to go into laager, and this will be calamitous for everybody in South Africa. Nothing can be calculated to undermine the justice of our cause and the will of our people to resist more than the Nationalists’ obstinate refusal to remove from the Statute Book those Acts which prevent, for ever, the loyalty and patriotism of the masses without which we cannot succeed against any enemy. We cannot succeed without that loyalty and patriotism, and it is available for the asking if this Government will make bold reform moves.

I should like to ask the Government whether one young life is worth the Group Areas Act. Is one young life worth the Blacks Land Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the race classification legislation? How many hon members in this House can stand up today and state their willingness to sacrifice the life of one member of their families for those apartheid laws? It is absolutely absurd that we go on and on about these matters when the threats to the country are so much greater …

My people fought wars for their sovereignty.

The hon member must just let us know whether he is prepared to die for the Group Areas Act. That is what I am asking.

For the survival of my people I will, yes.

The Group Areas Act does not guarantee the survival of your people.

Who are the hon member for Rissik’s people? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members can continue their discussion outside.

I am very glad the hon the Minister of Defence is in the House, because I wish to remind hon members of this House that for more than 20 years the official doctrine taught to officers on military courses has been the old 80%-20% law—80% civil action and 20% military action—and the personnel attending those courses have been warned repeatedly about the dangers of fighting a festering, economy-sapping border war whilst at the same time having to deal internally with insurrection. Yet, exactly that scenario most feared by our military strategists has been brought about by this Government. We have arrived exactly at that situation after 20 years. I say that this Government has let the SADF down. It has let the SADF’s troops down by its inability to deal with the political side of that very well-documented and authoritative doctrine of how to cope with insurrection, insurgency border wars and the like. We have simply failed to use our own knowledge because of the unwillingness of the NP to move away from its old policies fast enough.

I wonder whether the Government is aware of how much troops detest doing township duty. Do they realise the effect this has on the morale of people? It is their policies which are undermining the morale of people far more than any enemy can ever do. I say that the country and the voters of South Africa will not buy the Government propaganda this time around. The more the Government shows its propaganda on TV, the less the country will buy it. They are now aware that solutions are required; not just hotted up tub-thumping—“Pik pak die VSA”; that sort of headline.

Clenched fists.

That sort of headline really makes one wonder just how much the Government is achieving when “Pik” gets on to the US. It solves nothing in our own country. It has no bearing on the local scene whatsoever and it will have a negative effect on the voters. The people are getting wise. They recognize propaganda and the media manipulation.

We are not just any African country. The Government persists in comparing us with countries to our north. However, this is South Africa with centuries of living and building together, of standing together as comradesin-arms against a common foe. We have created our own language. The very spirit of the country lies there waiting to be taken up into a new approach to politics, which was put across so well by my new benchmate, the hon member for Randburg. I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating that hon member for a finely prepared speech at a difficult time for him. He expressed the views of very many of us in this House.

The Government now needs to break out of the stereotyped, bogged-down situation we are in now. The hon member for Sasolburg yesterday or the day before read from that most illuminating Broederbond document where there was a paragraph which said that it is only by taking risks that the survival of the Afrikaner people can be guaranteed. It is that boldness that we need.

I would like to correct one or two statements made by the hon member for Turffontein. I often think that the hon member for Turffontein tries just too hard. There are a number of Deputy Ministers who are going to fall by the wayside after this election so the hon member for Turffontein will get his chance. However, he tries too hard and the powers that be only see the “venynige”, unpleasant side of him they will wonder if they can really make him a Deputy Minister. For that hon member’s information …

Maybe he will become an Assistant Minister.

… the leader of this party will be contesting a seat. I hope he will have the good grace to stand up when the time comes and make the necessary apology. His remarks about our leader are quite untrue. Mr Sutton will be contesting a seat. He will contesting the seat of Caledon. There he will have a wonderful opportunity to put to all those farmers—I see the hon Minister of National Education is laughing about it— that the sanctions they are having to put up with were brought about by the policies of that hon Minister and his Government. Those farmers spent years in improving those markets to the stage where they were the top exporters of deciduous fruit in this country…

Why does he contest a seat he can never win?

We might yet surprise the hon the Minister. Our leader wants to address the Afrikaans-speaking people as near to Cape Town as he can—he has his duties here —so as to put it to them that this Government has brought ruin to them by its policies. That form of sanction busting is going to take place right through this campaign. People will begin to realize that their livelihood is threatened by the policies of that Government.

Mr Chairman, I should like to apologise to the hon member for King William’s Town for not responding to his speech. Unfortunately, in the very limited time at my disposal I have to deal with a particular question the hon member for Houghton raised yesterday in connection with the young people who have been detained.

*I should like to devote the time I have at my disposal specifically to this question.

I should like to make the point that two basic aspects are at issue here. In the first place, who are we dealing with when we talk about young people in detention? And in the second, if we find that we must detain them, what are the circumstances under which they should be detained?

As far as the first question is concerned, viz who we are dealing with, I maintain that it is very clear that we are not dealing with innocent little mites. Although they are minors, and although they are young children, as in certain cases they are, they are definitely not innocent little mites.

Prove it!

I should like to prove this to the hon member. I invite the hon member for Houghton as well as the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, who made the remark, as well as any other hon member who wants to, to come with me after this to watch a video recording which was made—it was not made by the SA Police or by any other Government body, but by an independent body which I am sure that hon member will accept as being bona fide—of children’s conduct in this unrest situation. I invite those two hon members, as well as any other hon member who wants to, to come with me to see the conduct of those children. [Interjections.]

It is not only the Government’s findings that are relevant to this aspect, however. Let us take a look at the verdicts returned in court. In 1986 a few verdicts were returned, for example Makhanje v The Minister of Law and Order in which the court ruled, after evidence had been submitted to the court, that a 13-year old’s further detention was valid on the basis of violence perpetrated by minors and children specifically.

[Inaudible.]

I shall come to that point now. In addition I refer to the case of Kinikini in which the court found a 17-year old guilty of murder and a 15-year old guilty of public violence. There is a whole series of other cases which will be heard in the Rand Supreme Court shortly with reference to the perpetrators of the so-called “people’s courts”, in which minors inter alia will be the accused. In other words, as far as that is concerned, there is sufficient evidence—not only that of the Government, but also objective judgement—of what we are dealing with here, viz children who are, in fact, perpetrators of violence.

Why do you not go and see and then decide for yourself? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if the hon member would like to ask me a question …

Order! I do not think we can have a running commentary. I should be grateful, therefore, if the hon members would help the Chair in this regard. [Interjections.] The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

I should like to refer to certain cases we are dealing with here, because I think it is important that this be put on record. With reference to the evidence we have in our possession, I shall present certain cases to hon members of children we have to deal with in this respect. In December, for example, we released a 15-year old who had been detained. The very next day he was the one who organised consumer boycotts and worker boycotts in his local community. We also have evidence of an 11-year old girl—an 11-year old girl! We have a sworn statement, confirmed by other evidence, that she was guilty of mixing petrol and fish oil and throwing it over someone, after which someone else lit a match, and set that person alight. An 11-year old girl!

In addition we have evidence of a 12-year old who acted as a magistrate in a people’s court.

What is the relevance of this? [Interjections.]

There is also evidence of a 14-year old who acted as a magistrate in a people’s court. We can go on in this way, enumerating piece after piece of evidence. I should like to ask the hon member for Houghton:

Must these people go scot-free? [Interjections.]

Of course not!

Must these people go scot-free?

No, and I have said so!

Inevitably the question is: Why do we not charge them? Why do we not charge these people as we should like to? That hon member knows just as well as we do, however, that we are dealing here with many cases in which we cannot get sufficient evidence to take the necessary steps to take them to court.

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

I am sorry, Sir, but my time is really limited. The hon member is very welcome to come and discuss the topic with me afterwards, but right now I should like to place our judgement on this matter on record.

Do you agree with assaulting them?

Constant reference is made, often by that hon member, of the fact that detention has a detrimental psychological effect on these children. I once again invite the hon member to come and watch some of this video material. The psychological effect the violence in the Black residential areas has on children is ten, a hundred or a thousand times worse than any detention in any prison which is under proper care and supervision. The effect of violence is never dealt with by the hon member or other hon members of the Official Opposition.

What part do the children play in this picture? Why are they taking part in the violence? They are doing it inter alia because they are responding to the calls addressed to them by the ANC. We can support this with plenty of evidence, and we can quote evidence of this from the past as well. [Interjections.] On 8 January 1985, Oliver Tambo said:

He also referred to the young people as “these relentless fighters for South Africa”. He described in which terms they should take part in the struggle. That was not all, however. He also asserted on 17 December 1986 that even eight year old children had entered the struggle, and were fighting the “racist” soldiers and police of South Africa:

I also want to make the point that it is true that the action of children definitely cannot threaten the existence of the State or the Government as such. What is at issue here is a disruption of the Black communities in particular, leading to violence and crime, and eventually to death. It is the State’s responsibility to function protectively in those communities. The Government knows that its task, if necessary, is to remove those who are responsible for stirring up unrest, from those communities.

I should like to confirm the point made by the hon the Minister of Law and Order yesterday: We are dealing with children. Because we are dealing with children, and because one knows children can be manipulated in these circumstances, it is important that we judge to what extent we can provide the best possible care in the interests of these children when they are being detained. That is why we looked at a variety of possibilities.

We judged, for example, what the best care was that we could provide. We took four important considerations in particular to heart. The first was that the children should be detained separately, not with criminals. In addition we judged it important to ask whether parents and guardians have access to their children, and whether the children have access to medical care and educational facilities.

Once we had taken these four considerations and others into account, had ascertained which were the best circumstances in which the children could be detained, once we had seen whether there was not another department which dealt specifically with Black social services and under whose care it would be better to place them, once we had looked at possibilities in terms of the Children’s Act, we came to the conclusion that the SA Prisons Service has a proven record as the institution best equipped to take care of these children in detention.

The SA Prisons Service has a certain record which confirms, assessed by independent sources, that it is capable of performing this task in the best way. In reply specifically to these considerations I want to state that in fact it is policy that youths arrested in terms of the emergency regulations are kept apart from sentenced prisoners and prisoners awaiting trial as well as from adult detainees in prisons. In the second place, youths are kept as close as possible to their parents’ homes or to their relatives. Parents are permitted regular visits—to them authority was obtained specifically for this from the SA Police—while they are in detention.

In addition specific regulations were announced when the state of emergency was announced on 12 June last year, to make provision for procedures which have reference to the medical or dental services of these detainees both inside and outside the prison, as well as the spiritual care, use of leisure, studies and voluntary exercising of prisoners. A number of other matters have also been described in the regulations to ensure that the greatest degree of care possible can be given to these children.

We are concerned about this matter, because ultimately we want to ensure that we are not co-responsible for children’s being influenced to become criminals later in life. In fact, we want to help children to return— to the extent in which they have deviated from it—to a normal, stable life. If we can make a contribution in this connection, I think it is an important contribution. We feel that the SA Prisons Service is best equipped to make such a contribution.

In conclusion I should like to make the point that it is a pity that a number of campaigns are evidently being launched at present to illuminate this subject from various perspectives. My deduction is that many of the campaigns launched by organisations such as the Free the Children Alliance, the DPSC and others to which the hon member for Houghton made reference, contribute to the perpetuation of the revolutionary climate in South Africa. I do not doubt that.

Unfortunately it is also true that through its participation in those campaigns, the PFP is participating in the perpetuation of the revolutionary climate. Seen as a whole, when one evaluates the whole picture, their eventual concern is not the interests of those children, but, in fact, the utilisation of the children to perpetuate the revolutionary climate. That is why I say the Government has a responsibility in the interests of the country and society as a whole, but also in the interests of the children involved, to give these children the best possible treatment.

Mr Chairman, it is sad to see an hon member who I thought to be a young, intelligent and forward-looking member of the NP—somebody with whom perhaps we could deal with some reason in this House—being brutalised by the system and by the position which he has been given by the hon the State President.

The hon member for Houghton referred in her speech to detainees. Now the hon the Deputy Minister starts talking about people who throw stones, about the murderers of Kinikini in kwaNobuhle in Uitenhage. The people who committed those murders were charged in a court of law and found guilty. They went through due process. Is the hon the Deputy Minister telling us that he has evidence that all the children who have been detained by the police during the state of emergency—I think they are from 12 years old and perhaps even younger, and upwards— were all guilty of stone-throwing, intimidation, murder, necklacing or whatever it might be? If that is the case, why does he not charge them in a court of law? I want to tell hon members that he does not charge them in a court of law because he does not have evidence of their guilt. I am totally convinced that if he had evidence of their guilt they would have been charged. I do not believe the Government want to detain people when they can charge them. They only detain them when they have no other remedy. If they had the proof they would have charged the children. I accuse the hon the Deputy Minister of drawing a red herring across this debate and not answering the allegations of the hon member for Houghton.

There are other matters that have happened in the debate thus far and I want to react to them before I get to the content of my speech. The first relates to the hon the Deputy Minister of Information and the song of his precedessor—“Louis se Liedjie”. I want to point out to the House how odd it is of an NP Government to spend no less than R4,3 million on a song when they can only find it in their hearts to put R1 million aside in the same year for the development of Walmer Township.

This township is desperately in need of development because it has been neglected for a long period of time as it was the target of a forced removal by this Government. For a long time no money was spent there. When that decision was reversed—and we welcome it—the Government could find only R1 million for it but it could spend R4,3 million on a song.

I now want to turn to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He is sitting opposite me looking somewhat stem and strict. Perhaps he expects me to grovel like some of the hon the State President’s Ministers. The hon the Minister made a statement during his speech that he approved of the process of indaba. Is that correct? During his speech he made it quite clear that while the Government did not agree with the end result they agreed with the process of indaba. I do not believe that that is correct and I think I can demonstrate that. If the process is approved of, why did the NP not participate? Why were they only observers at the process of indaba if they approve of the process? [Interjections.]

It is quite apparent that they only approve of negotiation with people with whom they themselves have chosen to negotiate. Nobody else is entitled to choose the people for the negotiation. It has to be the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who chooses with whom he wants to negotiate. He does not want the Blacks or anybody else to choose them.

Order! Hon members must please lower their voices.

This is the problem—this is why we have the violence in our society today. The reason is that negotiation is not seen to be taking place. Nobody other than the hon members on those benches believes that it is in fact happening.

I want to say that while we continue to have White minority rule—which is what we have got—then we will continue to have incidents such as we had in Cape Town today when a bomb apparently exploded in the streets in front of the residence of the hon the State President. There was an explosion at a bus stop in Main Road in front of Groote Schuur today. We understand from a Press report that it was a limpet mine. All I know is that my family told me that our house shook with the force of the explosion—and we are about a block away from where it took place.

I believe one person was injured in the explosion. We have heard not a word from that side of the House but from this side I would like to express our sympathy with the injured person and her family. I also want to state unequivocally that I am totally against this type of terrorism and I hope the perpretators are found and brought to justice. I hope justice deals with them.

However, one has to realise that every coin has two sides. One must ask oneself why we have the type of explosion that took place in Cape Town today. We have it because the majority of the population are denied any access to the democratic process in South Africa. They express themselves through violence and terrorism because they are excluded from this very Parliament. Because they have no voice in the highest law-making body in the country we have incidents like the one that happened today.

We talk about democracy and we hear about it often. We heard it from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and we heard about it today from the hon the Minister of National Education. I want to talk about democracy because I do not believe we have it in this country. Last Friday the hon the State President talked about it when he said that “die verdere uitbouing van ons demokratiese grondslag doelgerig sal voortgaan”. However, neither our Constitution nor our Government is democratic and they will not be democratic while we have an NP Government. What is democracy? My dictionary defines it as that form of Government in which the sovereignty of the State is vested in and exercised by the people at large. Yet the very constitution brought in in 1984 by that hon Minister very carefully ensures that this does not happen. He is so democratic that while I am speaking he sits talking to a deputy minister. First of all the Constitution excludes the largest section of the population from any sort of vote, yet he dares to call it democratic. It gives representation to only about seven million people out of the total population, and even thát representation is unequal. The White vote is all-powerful, while the vote of the Coloured and Indian communities is valueless. The vote of the Coloureds and Indians only gains power by grace and favour of the hon the State President. Let me cite three examples to demonstrate this. There are the two security Bills against which the majority of members of Parliament voted last session, yet they are law today. You, Mr Speaker, have recently been elected to this high position, and for this purpose one electoral college was formed from all three Houses. Again the Constitution carefully rigs the college to ensure that the will of the majority party in the White Chamber is done. The other two Houses might as well not attend. If all members of Parliament had an equal vote, I believe we would have a different outcome …

Order! I do not think the use of the word “rigged” in that sense is parliamentary.

I withdraw the word “rigged”, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.] What does the Government do in the face of all this? It bluffs, it blusters, it provides one-sided information to South Africa as a whole—we have heard a lot about that in this debate—and it uses bullying tactics. Just how much of a bully it is we see from a report of the Institute for Race Relations. In 1985 7 966 people were detained under emergency measures; 2 571 civilians were injured in Security Force actions and 2 436 people were detained in terms of the Internal Security Act. The hon the Deputy Minister who spoke before me referred to the intimidation in the townships, but what about the intimidation by this Government which these figures actually prove? We agree that there is a threat to this country. We agree that that threat comes from the ANC and from communists. However, the Government is playing into the hands of those organizations. We differ in how one must overcome this problem of the threats of force and the terrorism and the violence in the townships. We believe not in confrontation but in negotiation. We believe in peaceful negotiation, not in violence and terrorism. We in South Africa put South Africa first. I want to suggest that the members of the NP do not do that. I want to quote from a statement in Hansard made by the hon the State President when he was Minister of Defence where he said:

That was the statement he made. We have, basically as the result of that statement, a Boere Republic here today, not a South African Republic. However, as we have seen in this debate, there is a new Afrikaner emerging. He is intelligent and courageous and he sees the pitfalls of apartheid. He accepts the viewpoint of the Rev Johan Heyns and he will not cower when tongue-lashed by a bully of an hon State President. He will stand up …

Order! The hon member may not refer to any other member in this House as a “bully”.

I withdraw the word “bully”, Sir. I believe this new Afrikaner will stand up for the future of his children, but he is not in the Cabinet, Sir. They are the oldtimers, even if some of them are not so old, who are causing a vicious spiral of violence in this country.

More basic freedoms are going by the day. I am referring to detentions, bannings and Press restrictions which lead in turn to more unrest. This, in turn, means that there will be more radical leadership of opposing factions. There will be more strength for communism. A Tambo will ultimately be replaced by a Slovo if the Government continues on the same road that it is following at the moment. Ultimately, a take-over by radicals will occur, and then South Africa will truly become a wasteland. I am just as must against a government formed at the radical left as I am opposed to a government formed by a White minority.

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

No, Sir, I am sorry but I will not answer a question now; my time is too short.

The oldtimers are leading this country towards economic ruin. Let me give a small example of the sort of thing they do. On 2 September 1982 a company purchased a farm in the Southern Cape. This was ultimately taken over by the Government for a missile testing range. In 1982, R100 000 was paid for this piece of ground. Two years later the Government bought it for over R1 000 000. That, I believe, demonstrates how little this Government cares about or, in fact, looks after the taxpayer’s money.

The oldtimers are causing confrontation every day. Take, for example, the issue concerning the beaches in Port Elizabeth. Six months ago the Administrator of the Cape Province was asked by the Port Elizabeth City Council to open our city’s beaches. What action has he taken? Precisely nothing! He is abrogating his responsibility. I believe if he was an elected member, which he is not— like most of the people appointed by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—it would have been different. He should go because he is not fulfilling his duties and is not working at creating a peaceful future for us in South Africa.

We need to negotiate for peace. We need to take our proper place in the world. We want truly to place South Africa first—a South Africa that consists of free citizens of all colours and where there is freedom of choice, a South Africa which this Cabinet is incapable of creating. Therefore I have no confidence in it. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, today the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has once again pointed here to the great gulf that exists between him and our party. He approached the whole matter of the detention of children in an extremely simplistic manner. It was a simplistic approach to a complex matter. I should like to tell the hon the Minister and his hon Deputy Minister that when it comes to dealing with these criminals—children too—who murder innocent people and set them alight, they do not need to look over their shoulders; the CP is with them. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to the contribution made by the hon member for Randburg. He is someone who has become disillusioned with the NP. He has been disillusioned by four cornerstones of the NP, ie the questions of negotiation, reform and security and the party’s lack of vision and lack of a policy. By his leaving, the hon member symbolises the fact that there is no hope for the NP. When someone leaves a party, someone who has been tied to the NP since he was a babe in arms, shedding tears in front of the hon the State President when he did so, that is the beginning of the end of the NP, a party which has now become one of strange alliances. It is now a party with strange people in its midst, people who are sitting there and whose conviction it is that they will be getting a Black majority government.

In my contribution to this debate I want to confine myself to my hon leader’s amendment, ie that the House has no confidence in the hon the State President and his Cabinet.

When the hon the State President spoke the evening before last, it was a watershed in South African politics. It occurred the moment the hon the State President found himself in a dilemma and leaned across to the CP and said: “But I have told you, have I not, that there would not be a fourth Chamber” and the hon member for Kuruman said to him: “But you also said there would not be power-sharing.” Then the hon the State President’s dilemma hit him and he had to become aware of the irate cry mounting throughout South Africa: We no longer believe you! And the painful refrain is: We do not trust you any more either!

Was it not the hon the State President who initially said that power-sharing must not be promoted? Now it is his policy. How can we believe him? Is he not the one who initially said that Coloureds and Blacks must not be allowed to sit in this Parliament? Now they are here. How does he want us to believe him? Is he not the one who initially said that a tricameral parliament was not NP policy? He is the one. Now it is his policy. So how can we believe him? [Interjections.]

Is the hon the State President not the one who initially said consociation was not NP policy? Then he based the tricameral parliament on that concept. Was it not the hon the State President who said that Blacks would not serve on the President’s Council? Then he himself brought them in. How can we believe him again? Was it not the hon the State President who stood up in his bench and said that anyone who said that he had ever broken up a meeting was publicly a liar? Was he not the one? And the proofs are legion that in his lifetime he broke up more meetings than he ever held. How can we ever believe him again? [Interjections.]

Was it not the hon the State President who told untruths in this House at the time of the so-called Information scandal? How can we ever believe him again?

Order! The hon member is not entitled to say that and must please withdraw it.

Mr Speaker, I want to address you on that.

Order! The hon member must withdraw the words “who told untruths in this House”.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw the words, but I will repeat them outside the House. I do so, in any case.

I now want to refer to the Group Areas Act. Now that there is an election, the hon the State President suddenly comes to light here with great “koöperasiestories”. What I am saying is that what he said about the Group Areas Act is nothing short of “koöperasiestories”. Now, because there is an election, he suddenly says he will retain the Act and then simply enumerates a number of principles of the Act. He has, however, said in the past that it is not a sacred cow; and we know, do we not, that when he says that it is not a sacred cow, the cow is on the way to the abattoirs.

The next point is: Why did the hon the State President not tell us here that at the NP’s Federal Congress he said that he was going to abolish the Group Areas Act as far as the well-to-do White residential areas were concerned? Why does he now keep silent about that? [Interjections.]

Why does he keep silent about the fact that in the central areas of Johannesburg, and throughout South Africa, the Group Areas Act is not being implemented? Why does he keep silent about the fact that in the central areas of Johannesburg there are thousands upon thousands of Indians, Coloureds and Blacks living, contrary to the provisions of the Group Areas Act? [Interjections.]

No, Sir, as far as the Group Areas Act is concerned, let me tell you that the cat is out of the bag. We know that the hon the State President wants to abolish that Act, and we are now telling him that we no longer believe him because he has too frequently gone back on his word. [Interjections.]

Politically speaking, the hon the State President’s greatest lack of credibility, however, lies in the fact that he does not tell the people, does not tell Parliament, what the election is really about. Let me tell hon members what it is all about. The NP spelled it out during its Federal Congress. There it was spelled out, and that is what this election is about. There at the Federal Congress, in Durban last year, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said:

This includes Blacks:

And then he explains it:

I now put it to hon members: The legislative and the executive authority of the central government—surely that is Parliament and the Cabinet! In other words, Blacks are coming to this Parliament and into this Cabinet, according to the resolution of the Federal Council of the NP. [Interjections.]

Why did the hon the State President not mention that? Why does he speak about the security situation, about which we agree with him in any event? Why does he gloss over, as was the case in the referendum, the true objects of this election, ie having Blacks come to this Parliament and into this Cabinet, in accordance with the Federal Council resolution?

Now I come to the two crown princes. I want to start with the hon the Minister of National Education. That hon Minister jumped up very resolutely to begin his speech and said that the CP had had power-sharing since 1977. He ought to be ashamed of himself! In 1977 he himself wrote the information document I am holding in my hand here. Let me quote what he wrote.

Ah!

The hon the Minister says “Ah”, but here it is stated: “ … daar is dus nie sprake van magsdeling nie.”

Read the rest. Read the whole thing.

I am specifically going to do so! I shall do so right now. I quote:

[Interjections.] Now the NP has adopted a resolution at its Federal Congress which is precisely the same as this definition of power-sharing.

No!

The hon the Minister is shaking his head. Let me just tell him right now that I challenge him to join me in debating the question of Black political rights in the Vereeniging town hall. [Interjections.] I also challenge the hon member for Overvaal and the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid. [Interjections.]

Order!

They should come to the Vaal Triangle. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, are you going to protect me or not?

Order! Hon members must now give the hon member for Jeppe an opportunity to deliver his speech.

The definition of Prog power-sharing, as the hon the Minister presented it in 1977, is in essence identical to the resolution of the NP’s Federal Council. That is why the hon the Minister now finds himself—lock, stock and barrel—with the PFP definition. [Interjections.] There is something more I want to say about the hon the Minister’s talk of the “intellectual dishonesty” of his opponents. Let me tell hon members what, in fact, he told the youth, the Tukkies, on 25 March 1982:

That is precisely what they are now doing. [Interjections.] Then he hoodwinks—I wish I could use the other word—the youth of South Africa. He goes on to state the following:

I would be ashamed of myself if I were that hon Minister, with such a lack of political credibility. And then he has the gall to stand up and say we have had power-sharing since 1977!

I repeat my challenge to the hon the Minister. The election is about one thing only, and that is the entry of Black people into White politics. According to the NP document they are coming into the legislative and executive authority of the Central Government. At this stage Parliament is the legislative authority and the Cabinet the executive authority of the Central Government. There has consequently been an instruction from the NP congress that Blacks—because they constitute one of the groups—should come to Parliament and into the Cabinet. On that we shall be fighting the election. On that score I want to meet with the hon the Minister of National Education and the present hon member for Overvaal who, after 6 May, will be “overwal”. [Interjections.] Let us then debate the question of Black political rights in the White dispensation. We shall go from platform to platform and, against the backdrop of these statements, highlight the fact that the NP envisages bringing Blacks here.

If they bring the Black people in here, in one undivided South Africa with one central government, in that central government there will be many millions of Blacks and only five million Whites represented. Who would then be in the majority? Then surely we would have Black majority government, as the hon member Dr Vilonel, the hon member for Randburg and other hon members have said. The hon the Deputy Minister of National Health said so too, and I am very glad he is here now. I have learned that he allegedly said, at a house meeting, that we would be getting a Black majority government within three to five years. He thinks it is unavoidable. [Interjections.] Did the hon the Deputy Minister say that?

You know, Jan, you are a wonderful man …

The hon the Deputy Minister does not need to compliment me; his friends do so. Sir, I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he denies this. You see, he does not deny it, Sir. [Interjections.] He does not deny having propagated that. [Interjections.] That is why the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs says that we shall unavoidably be getting a Black State President.

I want to tell hon members that we are going to tackle the election on that score. It is a question of Black political rights shared with the Whites.

I want to say today that things are going very well with the Conservative Party. In the Vaal Triangle alone we have registered more than 10 000 voters. We have hundreds of workers; we have enthusiasm. Do you know, Sir, what the source of our enthusiasm is? The source of our enthusiasm is nationalism. That is the driving force behind the conservative, a force which will ensure that Dr Malan’s words, ie that nothing will stop nationalism, are realised. So nothing will stop the Conservative Party, with the driving force of nationalism to back it up, from forcing the National Party from the governing benches.

In accordance with Standing Order No 19, the House adjourned at 18h30.