Mr Speaker, since there appears to be some measure of uncertainty among hon members in relation to the motion adopted yesterday concerning the hours of sitting of the House, I should like to clarify the matter.

The motion relating to the hours of sitting which was adopted yesterday implies that Friday, 29 May, will not be a sitting day for this House. The House will, however, sit on Fridays in that part of the session following after 26 June and the ordinary sitting hours will apply as laid down in the Standing Rules and Orders of the House.

*I further wish to point out for hon members’ information that, in terms of section 18 (6) of the Standing Rules and Orders, Monday, 1 June, will not be a sitting day either.

Mr Speaker, I move:

1. (1) Sorghum Beer Amendment Bill [B 2A and B—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning).
2. (2) Constitutional Laws Amendment Bill [B 3A and B—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning).
3. (3) Universities (Education and Training) Amendment Bill [B 5—87 (GA)]— (Minister of Education and Development Aid).
4. (4) Defence Amendment Bill [B 126 and 126A—86 (GA)—B 31—87 (GA)]— (Minister of Defence).
5. (5) Cape Town Foreshore Amendment Bill [B 6—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Manpower and of Public Works).
6. (6) State Land Disposal Amendment Bill [B 11A and B—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Manpower and of Public Works).
7. (7) Town and Regional Planners Amendment Bill [B 21A and B—87 (GA)]— (Minister of Manpower and of Public Works).
8. (8) Professional Land Surveyors’ and Technical Surveyors’ Amendment Bill [B 22A and B—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Manpower and of Public Works).
9. (9) Valuers’ Amendment Bill [B 23A and B—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Manpower and of Public Works).
10. (10) Architects’ Amendment Bill [B 32A and B—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Manpower and of Public Works).
11. (11) Mediation in Certain Divorce Matters Bill [B 132—86 (GA)]—(Minister of Justice).
12. (12) Insolvency Amendment Bill [B 10—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Justice).
13. (13) Magistrates’ Courts Amendment Bill [B 17A and B—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Justice).
14. (14) Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill [B 19A and B—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Justice).
15. (15) Intestate Succession Bill [B 26A and B—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Justice).
16. (16) Agricultural Produce Agency Sales Amendment Bill [B 27A and B—87 (GA)]—(Deputy Minister of Agriculture (Dr A I van Niekerk)).
17. (17) Coal Amendment Bill [B 123—86 (GA)—B 8—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology).
18. (18) Mines and Works Amendment Bill [B 122A and B—86 (GA)—B7—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology).
19. (19) Credit Agreements Amendment Bill [B 24—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology).
20. (20) Merchandise Marks Amendment Bill [B 29—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology).
21. (21) Abolition of the Fisheries Development Corporation of South Africa, Limited, Bill [B 110A and B—86 (GA)—B 34—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Environment Affairs).
22. (22) National Parks Amendment Bill [B 13—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Environment Affairs).
23. (23) Environment Conservation Amendment Bill [B 16—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Environment Affairs).
24. (24) Tweefontein Timber Company Limited Amendment Bill [B 18—87 (GA)]— (Minister of Environment Affairs).
25. (25) Transport Advisory Council Bill [B 116A and B—86 (GA)—B 35—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Transport Affairs).
26. (26) Prevention and Combating of Pollution of the Sea by Oil Amendment Bill [B 14 and 14A—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Transport Affairs).
27. (27) International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties Bill [B 15A and B—87 (GA)]—(Minister of Transport Affairs).

Mr Speaker, Rule 40 of the Standing Rules and Orders lays down very clearly that proceedings in connection with a public Bill which lapsed owing to prorogation of Parliament may be resumed during the following session on a decision of each House providing a general election for any House or Houses has not taken place in the interim.

Consequently it is clear that when Parliament is prorogued under normal circumstances it is quite in order for a motion of this nature to be proposed when the same House reassembles at a subsequent session. It is actually the duty of the hon the Leader of the House to raise such a decision and propose such a motion. It is very clearly and unambiguously stated, however, that the House is not empowered to take such a decision after a general election of a House, in this case the House of Assembly.

The House is bound by its own rules and its own regulations. Its own rules simply do not provide for a motion as proposed by the hon the Leader of the House. The correct course to be followed in this regard is that the House, in terms of section 63 of Act 110 of 1983, should first change the rule concerned by means of its Committee on Standing Rules and Orders to enable it, notwithstanding the holding of a general election, to introduce such a motion that proceedings relevant to the said Bill be resumed at the stage reached in the previous session. The purpose of the provisions are obvious, namely that a newly elected House of Assembly may not be bound by a previous, dissolved House of Assembly. This is imperative. The House is bound by the rules and cannot change them before notice is given that the rules must be changed to provide the necessary authority to make this application. This is manifestly significant.

We are now dealing with a new House of Assembly of which approximately 62 members are new; more than a third of the previous House has therefore been replaced. Sixteen hon members now forming part of the Official Opposition and quite a number of hon members in the Government party have no benefit whatever of knowledge of the content of the standing committees’ discussions, of hearing evidence or of studying the memoranda. Even if an informal agreement had been entered into in this regard as alleged, it cannot be binding on the new House of Assembly.

In sum, the motion therefore simply does not comply with the provisions of Rule 40. This rule must first be changed before the hon the Leader of the House may be enabled to request a resumption of the procedures of the previous session. On those grounds, Sir, I say this motion is out of order and ask you to rule on it.

Mr Speaker, in reaction to the point of order I should like with respect to put to you the standpoint that the motion is not out of order because its introduction specifically runs:

This House is the master of its own rules and the motion is a direct request that the application of Rule 40 be suspended. This is inherent in the motion; consequently it does not conflict with Rule 40.

Order! Does the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition wish to add something?

Mr Speaker, I merely wish to add that this is no case of “notwithstanding”; that rule is imperative. In accordance with Rule 40 the House can only resume these proceedings after Parliament has been prorogued but may not do so if a general election has taken place in the interim. It is therefore impermissible to create a new rule now; it has first to be made and a fresh application can then be made in terms of the new rule.

Order! I have listened to the hon Chief Whip and the hon the Leader of the House. I shall rule on the matter tomorrow.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

1. (1) because its announcements on reform, in so far as they are already known, are fatal to economic recovery and growth and to political stability;
2. (2) because it has no long-term plan to check revolution effectively;
3. (3) because its abolition of certain laws, and its failure to apply others, pose a serious threat to secure relaxed and orderly community life; and
4. (4) because it has failed to spell out clearly the mandate sought by it, with special reference to the protection of peoples or minority groups and the prevention of a Black majority government for South Africa.

It is a privilege for me to move this motion.

The outcome of the election on 6 May is history. One can think back with mixed feelings to that part of our history and the mixed feelings will not only be on one side of the House. The NP returned to this House with an increased majority. [Interjections.] The fact remains however that the NP fared considerably better in 1977 and in 1981, with a larger number of representatives and a larger percentage poll in favour of that party. [Interjections.] The CP, which is five years old, a young party, held the two seats which it won of its own accord, and gained a further 20 seats. [Interjections.] I am saying that the party gained a further 20 seats, because when we were sitting in these benches, we were reproached by the other side of the House, ie for sitting here without a mandate. This young party polled almost 550 000 votes, as opposed to the 1 075 000 of the NP. I am convinced that this confirms that the CP—this young party polling more than half the number of votes polled by the governing party—is the party of the future in White politics. [Interjections.]

The 22 seats do not of course reflect the full story of the CP’s success. It is certainly significant that there were 25 000 votes per elected CP representative, as opposed to approximately 8 600 per NP representative and 15 000 per PFP representative. [Interjections.] I therefore make so bold as to say that the former Official Opposition also fared better than the governing NP. If the swing to the right continues as it has done during the past year, we shall definitely see a very interesting election result in 1989, if such an election is in fact held.

The CP espouses an idea which I consider to be a commendable one. That idea is a free White people under its own government in its own fatherland. The same right applies, side by side, to other peoples in Southern Africa as well. The CP states frankly that we have no desire whatsoever to maintain White supremacy over non-White peoples, nor do we want to dominate them. We reject the label of radicalism. There is no radicalism in the striving of a people for continued existence in freedom, and to be governed only by its own people. If that is radicalism, we would be radical, but it is not. The CP states frankly that we are right-minded, we are conservative. We are opposed to the egalitarianism of liberalism and the surrender of White political control through power-sharing. We advocate a Christian nationalism and we strive for it. We are, however, opposed to extremism, or radicalism—whether to the left or to the right. I want to make that clear … [Interjections.] Would those hon members just show me the courtesy of enabling me to complete my speech? I shall respect their leader.

They don’t know what it is.

We support a group nationalism, “volksnasionalisme”, as opposed to so-called state nationalism, or a one-nation state for various conflicting peoples. Together with the great reformer, John Calvin, we say: “The forcing together of disparate entities is tyranny”.

†Mr Speaker, we reject the idea of a non-racial society for the whole of South Africa. We do not deny the economic interdependence of various nations and peoples, or contact and mutual support between individuals and groups—we do not deny that. There is, however, no such thing as a non-racial society for the whole of South Africa. That is where we differ with the PFP. We are not merely a society of individuals, but we are different communities, peoples and racial groups. This is the reality in Southern Africa.

The Afrikaner people is no mere minority group. The Afrikaner people and the broader White community refuse to be treated as a minority group in their own fatherland. We are a separate community which is entitled to full political participation and we shall not be satisfied with anything less! We say that any so-called democracy, any so-called broadening of democracy which creates one nation out of different peoples and racial groups in one undivided state, is no true democracy, but the denial and the destruction of democracy.

In the case of South Africa the forcing together of disparate communities—19,6 million Blacks with 5 million Whites—in a system of joint decision-making with equal rights and opportunities is, I maintain, not democracy, but the loss of White control and the introduction of Black domination in this country. It militates against the natural and basic human instinct and desire to govern oneself and to have the opportunity to express one’s own national aspirations. We do not apologize for the ideal of separate sovereignty and separate freedom for our own people, neither do we apologize for our efforts to safeguard our own position in Southern Africa. That ideal will never be destroyed as long as we are a separate people.

*Now I want to ask this question: Is this a reverse-gear philosophy? Surely it is an absurd accusation to talk about a “reversegear philosophy” if a person claims the right, that one’s people have, to be governed only by one’s own people!

We are not practising a reverse-gear philosophy, nor a heroic self-destruction under the banner and the flag of reform. Now I should like to spend a little time discussing the word and concept “reform”, and its objectives.

“Reform” has become the great vogue-word of the NP. I want to point out that one does not understand the word “reform” to mean only “change”, but when one talks about reform, one also implies that something went wrong, that one made a mistake which one now has to rectify. That is why they talk about a “reformatory”. I do not know whether hon members on the opposite side want to make a “reformatory” of politics in South Africa! It presupposes that a mistake has been made which one now has to rectify. The NP is therefore implying that it made mistakes and that it now wishes to rectify them. It is implying that it was a mistake to implement separate development and that it now wishes to rectify that mistake. That is its reform!

I shall now make two statements. The CP is not opposed to the principle of reform. We are not opposed to reform as such; on the contrary, it is simply not possible for us to be.

The CP, if it comes into power—that is what it is fighting for; we are not simply fighting to remain sitting here, but to become the majority party in this House—will have to effect some of the most important reforms in this country. If we as a people wish to restore our own White government—we do not at the moment have a purely White government; we have a mixed government—reform will have to take place. If we want to experience really meaningful self-determination and not merely make an imput when the affairs of our people are being discussed, there will have to be reform.

If we want to prevent the destructive impoverishment and denigration of the Republic of South Africa into a Third World country— which will be our destination if we continue to follow the course of power-sharing as the Government proposes—reform will have to take place. If we do not wish to be crowded and even terrorised out of our own residential areas to an increasing extent, but wish to exercise the right to possess our own country, to live in it peacefully, to cultivate it and to enjoy it as a White community, there will have to be reform. The CP will accomplish it.

I repeat that we will have to bring about some of the most important reforms if we do not ultimately wish to lose all control over our fatherland. I am making this point because, as a result of certain indications from the Government, this is the direction which it wishes to move. It is headed for ultimate loss of control over our own fatherland on our part. There will have to be reform.

If we do not, with one indaba after the other in the name of reconciliation, consensus and free association, wish to head inevitably towards Black majority rule over the whole of Southern Africa, there will have to be reform.

The CP says to the Government, across the floor of this House: Your reform recipe of power-sharing entails in principle the surrender of power. It means the loss of exclusive political power; it means the loss of one’s own state and one’s own country.

Last year I had an opportunity to conduct a conversation with a former Israeli Minister. He asked me why we had broken away from the NP. My reply was: “We did not simply break away; we were kicked out.” I then told him that our reason for leaving the NP revolved around the principle of powersharing. I also told him that power-sharing, as we saw it, meant losing power. It meant that one was no longer in control.

†The sharing of power is the loss of power. One is no longer in control. Do you know what his response was, Sir? He said: “Of course, of course.”

*Precisely. Of course. That is a man who knows what power-sharing is going to mean in the Middle East, that is to say, powersharing between the Israelis and the couple of hundred million Arabs in the Middle East. He knows what that would mean. That is why I say that if one shares power, one loses power; one is no longer in control.

This thing the NP is advocating, does not satisfy other peoples. It does not succeed in buying off their efforts at a take-over of power. It does not guarantee our own people’s political self-determination; in fact, it does not even recognize us as a people. We are being turned into a minority group.

In the unitarian state our people are headed for submergence and domination by other peoples. We state this categorically—that is what we are headed for. We are not saying that the NP desires this; but we do say that the steps and announcements it is making, are in that direction. Of course there are those to whom this makes no difference. It makes no difference to them whether we are engulfed or dominated. According to some of them, this is in fact what they are seeking. This is what the supporters of the so-called Sullivan code want in South Africa. It is they who associate themselves with the ANC’s destructive anti-White efforts. They want such a take-over and submergence. It is of them that the Wall Street Journal of 16 September last year wrote:

There are also those, however, who know what is happening in the Third World, and who say:

These are people who have witnessed that support and the effects it has had, and who say that they are not prepared to subsidise such suppression, etc. It is also they who say that if South Africa embarks on a course of power-sharing between approximately 20 million Black people of the Third World, and five million people of the First World, South Africa is on the way to becoming a Third World state, under Third World control. For that reason they say that they are not prepared to invest in such a country. They are withholding or withdrawing their investments. They are disinvesting, and not because we do not yet have Black control in South Africa, but because they are afraid there is going to be a Black government in South Africa. Try asking the disinvestors to invest in the Third World! On one occasion our hon State President—this was on the news—asked them to do him the favour of investing their investments elsewhere in Africa if they withdrew them here. I think I am correct when I say that they expressed their sincere thanks.

The second point I want to touch upon is that we maintain that the Government has no long-term plan for checking revolution effectively.

First of all, however, I want to spend a little time discussing the NP propaganda that if the CP were to come into power-, South Africa would be plunged into a bloodbath. It is frivolous and irresponsible to make such a statement. It is simply an expression of political bankruptcy. Let us ask a few questions in this connection: Who is uttering the most threats in connection with and has the most to say about a bloodbath in South Africa? There are some NP people who predict a bloodbath in South Africa simply because we advocate a White government in a White fatherland.

In a well-known statement on South Africa in 1985 Oliver Tambo said:

It is interesting to note that this man does not speak about a possible CP regime in South Africa, but about “the current political crisis”. This is the crisis he sees under the NP regime. He says it is the beginning of a bloodbath.

One matter is very clear: Any party, whether it is the NP, the NRP, the PFP or the CP, which still attaches any value whatsoever to own values and own interests for a specific people and a specific community, and any party or government which still thinks in terms of national interests, group interests, group rights and particularly in terms of White rights in South Africa, is threatened with a bloodbath. Any party which thinks in terms of the rights of a specific people in differentiation from Black peoples, is threatened with a bloodbath. Any right which one claims for oneself to dissociate, in other words to associate only with one’s own, as well as any right which one claims in order to have one’s own schools, residential areas or separate representation and not to be on a common voters’ roll, is rejected with threats of hatred and bloodshed. This happens when any such right is claimed, for example the right to preserve one’s own community life and to protect it in law. Any such community or the statutory powers these things represent, are rejected with hatred and threats of bloodshed.

There is another question I want to ask. I want to add at once that it is a rhetorical question, because with it I want to admit something. The question is this: Will the NP allow itself to be extorted by Black revolutionaries with the threat of a bloodbath? It will not. Does it intend yielding to the threat of a Black uprising which will take over the entire country? Obviously not. That is why I say it is a rhetorical question.

But now we want to say something to the NP Government, if it should refuse to hand over White political power. After all the NP spokesmen say that they will share power, but they do not advocate a surrender of power. This means that the NP almost wishes to imply that it refuses to hand over White political power. If the NP refuses to allow our people to be submerged or dominated, the name of the NP will not indemnify it from these threats of a bloodbath and it will come into the same category into which it is trying to classify the CP, namely that if the CP were to persist with its policy there would be a bloodbath.

If the NP courageously resists such pressure and is compelled to use force to protect lives and the freedom of our people, it can count on the support of the CP. We agree that no government dares yield to threats of revolution or of a bloodbath when it has to defend the legitimate freedom of its people.

I think the pattern of revolution has already been spelt out, not only within South Africa, but also outside. The symptoms of this pattern have also been spelt out by what has happened in Iran and elsewhere.

I need not tire you with an account of those symptoms of revolution in the outside world and in South Africa. It is simply a fact that certain media have tried to create a climate of radical change, and that radical change is part of the revolutionary process. Religious leaders have pledged their support to left-wing forces. This is part of the factors that are conducive to a revolution. The youth have been manipulated to act as shock troops, and intimidation through violent deaths is rampant. We saw it here in South Africa, and it is also being seen elsewhere. Certain residential areas have been made almost ungovernable. The intention behind all these things was to create a climate of collapse, with the overthrow of a White government through the mobilisation of revolutionary forces as the ultimate objective.

I now want to make the assertion that measures for an emergency, and measures such as those the Government adopted to deal with the emergency, are essential. We have no quarrel with the Government on that score. To tell the truth, we experienced this last year in this House. When the previous Minister of Law and Order introduced security legislation, his strongest supporters were on this side of the House. This is merely for the sake of the record.

We maintain that unsatisfactory conditions must be remedied and justified grievances eliminated. We all agree on that. However, if we imagine that we will buy off revolutionary political demands with better living conditions, better houses, wages, transportation, schools and so on, we are making a very big mistake. One does not buy off the endeavours of revolutionary forces with the improvement of living conditions, even though that improvement of living conditions is also on the agenda, and is also essential. That is why I want to say—and there must be no misunderstanding—that these things are all very well. Legitimate expectations aroused in people who have received education and who are idealistic, are not what we are opposed to.

There is a misconception, however, that one will prevent revolution through education, through economic upliftment, through mixed schools or camps, and so on. The greatest inciters of revolution are not to be found among the illiterate and the destitute. They are in fact those who have seen visions, among whom expectations have been aroused and whose ideal it is to seize political power and control. They want to do this by gaining control over the Police Force and the Defence Force. Let there be no misunderstanding about this. What is at issue is not a small favour here or a small favour there. What is at issue is political power, and with it the Defence Force, the Police and the security forces. That is what is at issue, not a little committee here or there. What is at issue is not a mixed team or two, nor the development of a middle class, however important that may be. The issue is power, and who takes and implements the final decisions, in other words: Who has the power and the authority to enforce the laws? That is the issue.

The issue is not consensus because the principle of consensus can only work well in regard to non-controversial matters. I am now quoting a standpoint held by the hon member for Losberg. Differences in principle are the enemies of consensus. When one wants to achieve consensus, one subsequently finds oneself at a stage in which one can say: “We now agree to differ.” Conflicting endeavours to attain power are not resolved through consensus. Against this background I am convinced that Dr Verwoerd was speaking a very true word—one which is still applicable today—when he said:

I believe that this is, to this day, a statement which ought to be taken seriously.

Now we say that if White South Africa is not to abdicate politically, it cannot accommodate or realise Black political aspirations in the same structures which it occupies. A revolutionary Black power, and even the so-called moderates—just listen to the statements of Nkosi Buthelezi. Just listen. I think, too, that I am the first to address him by that title. Listen to what he says. He says he is not a moderate. Some people consider him to be a moderate. He is the man who says that nothing in heaven or on earth will deprive him of his citizenship of South Africa. With that he most certainly does not mean that he is merely interested in obtaining a little travel document. By that he means full political rights in a Unitarian state.

I say that revolutionary Black power demands the abdication of the Whites. It is not interested in power-sharing, unless it is able in that way to gain a foothold and so ultimately stage a take-over of power. Now we say that the power-sharing recipe of the National Party cannot check revolution. My contention is that the National Party cannot check revolution. They are promoting the success of revolution in that they are relinquishing the authority of the Whites on the highest level.

Calvin Woodward, in his book Understanding the Revolution in South Africa, said:

Now I say that the National Party has not strengthened the political position of power of the Whites. In principle it has weakened that position. The National Party has a large majority here in Parliament. This large majority in Parliament, however, votes for relinquishing the political power of the Whites.

Of course! [Interjections.]

The National Party has not strengthened the political position of power of the Whites. A weakened position of power of the Whites in an undivided country together with a preponderance of Black people is an invitation to a take-over of power. And when that power take-over is complete, it will be the final success of the revolution.

I want to make another point, Sir. This affects the abolition of certain laws, and the non-application of other laws. The Conservative Party opposed the abolition of certain laws. One of them was the Influx Control Act. We opposed the abolition of that law, and I do not think there is any doubt about it—it was a mistake to have abolished that Act.

That will be the day!

It was a mistake to abolish that Act. The so-called orderly urbanisation has degenerated into chaos. According to a report last year the influx of Black people to the Cape Flats alone was 26 000 per month.

How many was it prior to the abolition of the Act?

According to estimate the Black population of the Cape Flats at that time was already equal to the population of Botswana. [Interjections.] Sir, I know that one can look at this matter from more than one angle. [Interjections.] I shall look at it from the National Party angle as well. I shall try to look at it from their angle as well, because I know them. We know them very well. Perhaps too well. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, a person must have compassion, and on this side of the House there is no lack whatsoever of that compassion which one must have with people seeking work and accommodation, and for people who have to care for their families. There is no lack in us of compassion for people concerning whom reports appear that they are perhaps being evicted from shacks in the winter, while it is raining.

One must also ask who budgets for these services and these dwellings and who has to pay for them. One cannot simply pretend that this is irrelevant. What is the quality of community life and the standard of living in those places into which these people are moving? If 70 000, 80 000 or 100 000 people— someone said 240 000 in greater Crossroads— move into that area, they have not merely gone there as squatters. They have begun to create order there. I understand that a certain former Minister of the Government is even mentioned there.

The question that is being asked, however, is what quality of life exists there. What measures are being adopted there to create order?

It is a fact that an overconcentration in such areas creates problems in surrounding residential areas. Not only does it create problems in Crossroads itself, or Khayelitsha or wherever; it also creates problems in the surrounding White residential areas. Overcrowding in fact becomes an embarrassment, and the security of our people is increasingly being jeopardised.

I want to draw attention in particular to the chaos surrounding the statements on the Group Areas Act. What are we experiencing in this connection? An NP poster reads: Own schools, own residential areas; and then one thinks: “Yes, now we have returned to the old NP”. A spokesman refers to own community lives. The legislation on ownership and land tenure and the Group Areas Act are to remain however; and everyone says: “Hurrah, we have returned to the old NP”. But then the tune changes; one is told that the Act has already been amended 17 times, it will not make any difference if it is amended a few more times.

The President’s Council conducted an inquiry into this Act, and I think there is a report, although we are still looking for it. What is stated in the report? What are the recommendations? What is the Government’s decision concerning the recommendations? The hon the State President referred to the Group Areas Act as not being a sacred cow. Surely we know that such cows soon become dead cows. [Interjections.]

This puts me in mind of a story about cows that were being taken to the abattoirs by truck. It was a bumpy road, and they were being tossed about. Then one cow said to the other: “We shall never get to the abattoir alive.”

Those kinds of cows are soon dead cows. It is making provision—this is part of the problem we have—for the door to affluent White residential areas to be opened to non-Whites. The door is being opened, even if it is just a little way. We hear that it is possible to declare a single block of flats in a White residential area to be a non-White group area. The hon the Deputy Minister seated over there knows this.

In 1985 almost half of the flats in the Joubert Park area in Johannesburg, in the Jeppe constituency—this is the practice—were already occupied by non-Whites. I shall not tire hon members with figures, nor do I have them here. Hillbrow’s history is well-known, and I just want to quote a paragraph from Finansies en Tegniek of 13 February of this year:

Last year already estate agents were alleging that at least 1% of the properties they were selling in the posh suburbs of Johannesburg were coming into the possession of Black people. Companies were taking advantage of a loophole in the Act to locate their employees in properties which they were purchasing in White residential areas.

The question now is how much the Government is in earnest in regard to the application of this Act. We are not asking whether it is contained in the Statute Book or whether they say the Act will remain there. We are asking how earnest their approach is to the implementation of the Act. How earnest is the Government’s approach to White community life in Mayfair, Hillbrow and elsewhere?

If one were to declare Hillbrow to be a grey area, not because it is old and grey, but because it is being inundated by members of other groups because one has unlawfully allowed a situation to develop and now has to legalise it because one has to take the realities into consideration, the question is of course what the prospects for other residential areas are.

In conclusion I want to refer to the question of the mandate the NP alleged it received. After everything that has been said about the so-called clear mandate the NP received on 6 May, the question still is this: What is this mandate really? On occasion it was said that a mandate was being requested to negotiate with Black people on their participation in the government of the country. I think that was the way the NP put it. This obviously says nothing about what the Government itself is going to do or proposes to do in the negotiations, and what it is going to be satisfied with.

It could on the other hand mean that it is asking for a blank cheque, and the voters did not give the Government a blank cheque, unless the Government thinks the voters trusted it to such an extent that they said it could do whatever it liked. [Interjections.]

According to the hon the State President’s opening address he has now received support for a few things. He has received support for the Government’s evolutionary approach in respect of economic, social and constitutional development. I assume he wanted to allow emphasis to fall on evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary. We have no problem with that.

Furthermore he said he had received support for the Government’s premise that security, order and stability had to be a prerequisites to reform. We have no problem with that, for surely one does not need a mandate for that. Surely that is the duty of any government. One does not need a mandate for that. That premise is not an issue; it is a duty.

He said he had support for the acceptance of the group approach and the broadening of democracy and the stabilising of communities. The CP says that we feel even stronger about the group approach. We feel that he must talk about a national approach (volksbenadering).

He said that he now had support for the protection of minority rights and the self-determination of other groups. The CP says: We have even more. [Interjections.] According to him he now has support for the prevention of domination of one group by another. In that regard we are in fact adamant. In fact, that is our policy.

He said he now had support for his division of power in respect of own community interests and power-sharing among groups in respect of general and common interests.

That is where we see the most important difference. The hon the Leader of the House said that he hoped the CP would move away from a mere repetition of clichés, but the NP itself makes use of clichés when it talks about this support which it has, according to him, received.

I should like to refer to a few of these clichés. In the first place let us consider the protection of minority rights. The first question is who protects the rights of a minority, unless that minority, with the security forces at its disposal, can say that other people can do whatever they like, but it is compelling the recognition of its rights by force.

That is not the approach of that side of the House. Their approach is that of a democratic system containing equal opportunities and equal privileges. Who protects a people if its representatives and its own government is dependent for that protection on the consensus of people who are engaged in a power struggle with it? [Interjections.] Surely there is no guarantee implicit in that! Surely the answer is not that one declares one’s own people forfeited, and considers them to be only a small minority group. How does one regain power if one has pooled it with that of peoples that are in the majority by far?

This was the warning uttered by the previous Prime Minister, Mr John Vorster, who warned that one would not regain power if one let go of it. We ask how one is to regain this power if one has pooled it. How is one to regain it if one enters the same dispensation with a preponderance of other people and one states that a democratic approach will be adopted?

If hon members on the opposite side of the House talk about the devolution of power, we ask what powers subordinate bodies have in view of the final decision-making of the highest authority. What decision-making powers did the Government allow the control board of the Menlo Park High School to have when that body took a decision that was within its rights? We must give the hon the State President credit for then saying that those people had to decide for themselves. The hon the Minister of Education and Culture, however, threatened to introduce legislation to call that control board to order.

When the city council of Pretoria claimed the right to reach a decision on throwing cinemas open, it was not granted the right; then there was no devolution of power so that that municipality was able to decide. That same city council stated on more than one occasion that it was unable to take certain decisions because they were in conflict with Government policy.

Who takes the final decisions in terms of which local authorities operate? Who appoints the MPCs? Incidentally, let me tell the Government frankly that the coloured MPCs they have appointed for the provinces are not acceptable to the CP at all. [Interjections.] The Government appointed them from the top, and they were not elected by the legitimate electorate. Who appoints the MPCs, the Administrators and the chairmen of the regional services councils?

The NP is in favour of the prevention of domination of one group by another. Our reply to that is that we are even more in favour of it. But we state frankly that the Government will not prevent or eliminate that domination with what they are planning. It is no use their telling us there will be no fourth chamber, because they also say that joint decision-making will take place up to the highest level. That highest level is the level of the State President. How are they going to share power there? How is there going to be joint decision-making on the level of the State President? He decides alone. It is impossible, and therefore nonsensical, to say that there is going to be joint decision-making up to the highest level.

Their intention is perhaps the Cabinet or Parliament, but how are Black people going to participate in Parliament without participating in Parliament? [Interjections.] Two years ago it was said that Black people were going to be brought into this Parliament and into the Cabinet because there could not be another sovereign Black Parliament and another Cabinet in South Africa. The interjection then made by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning was: “You are stating the obvious.” [Interjections.]

We must therefore prepare ourselves for Blacks in this Parliament and in this Cabinet. In addition it is no use their telling us they have never been in favour of proportional representation, because they are now working with proportional representation in this Parliament. One hundred and sixty-six members were elected for the House of Assembly, 80 for the House of Representatives and 40 for the House of Delegates. They are therefore working with proportional representation.

Is the Constitution perhaps going to be amended so that the three groups are no longer going to be represented in Parliament according to their numbers? If the Constitution remains as it is, however, and the Government maintains its principle of equal treatment, equal opportunities and no discrimination, we ask them why they are not going to bring approximately 600 Black people into Parliament on the basis of their numbers. There must then be 40 Black members in every standing committee and approximately 200 in the electoral college for the election of the Speaker and the State President. In one way or another people are either going to be treated unjustly or endangered.

It is naive of the Government to allege that they do not work with numbers but with consensus. They do work with numbers. We need only consider how important it was to them to have the majority of the voters vote for them. In all fondness I want to ask the hon members to ask the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning (the hon member for Helderberg) and myself how important numbers are! [Interjections.] In the long run numbers are decisive. In the NP dispensation it is going to mean Black political power at the expense of White self-determination. Against that background it has been an honour for me to move this motion of censure.

Mr Speaker, as far as the cheering from the other side is concerned, I have always been aware of the secret admirers I have on that side, but I did not think there were so many of them. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke at great length here today, levelling a great deal of criticism and accusing the Government of all kinds of things. He gave warning that power-sharing and joint responsibility would bring about the downfall of the White population in this country. I want to remind the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that in 1981 he signed a document in which it was stated:

[Interjections.] His signature is appended to this document—for what it is worth. I want to go further. That hon member not only signed these documents, but also effectively propagated power-sharing during his time in the NP. In the 1977 proposals …

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he could indicate to us, in that document from which he is now quoting, where powersharing is mentioned?

The hon member’s conceptual framework is perhaps not wide enough for him to realise that joint responsibility and power-sharing are virtually synonymous. [Interjections.]

I want to go further and say that in the 1977 proposals a Council of Cabinets was proposed in which an equal number of Whites and Blacks would have seats. Here in Parliament Mr Vorster said that it would function just like the present Parliament. [Interjections.] Pardon me, Mr Speaker, I mean Coloureds and Asians. [Interjections.] The hon member wants to waste my time. That was merely a slip of the tongue. I am referring to Coloureds and Asians.

Here in Parliament Mr Vorster said that if the present Cabinet were an executive Cabinet, that Cabinet would also be an executive Cabinet. So there we have a classic example of power-sharing at the very highest level.

Is that all that Mr Vorster said?

To tell the truth, the hon member for Randfontein called it a magic formula. [Interjections.] I would not go as far as the hon member for Randfontein and say it is a magic formula, but I would say that it is a good formula, because it works. [Interjections.] It works in practice.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke the whole time as if he had never read the NP’s election manifesto, and I doubt whether he has, in fact, read it. Yet the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition came along here, criticising all the measures and standpoints adopted by the Government, without saying what his alternative is. In all courtesy let me ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether his alternative is separation.

Partition.

Is partition his alternative? [Interjections.] No, I just want to know whether that is so. I am asking a very reasonable question. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and I have a very good personal relationship with each other and we ask each other questions. I want to ask whether his alternative is partition, because I see that in the pamphlet it is stated that partition is the answer.

You make your speech. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Brakpan is afraid of answering me. They cannot give an answer. They are afraid to answer, because if they do, they are in trouble. [Interjections.] From the political platforms they said that the answer to all these problems in South Africa was partition and separation. Those are the facts. [Interjections.]

I now want to tell those hon members that they are living in a dream world. With that formula of theirs they are at least 30 years behind the times. [Interjections.] Pardon me, I now see they are 31 years behind the times and not 30 years. Mr Strijdom took the floor in this Parliament 31 years ago. He is one of the men whose principles they say we must hasten to return to. Just listen to what Mr Strijdom said in this very Parliament 31 years ago. He said:

He said:

Thirty one years ago Mr Strijdom said that if we wanted to be practical and realistic we could not proclaim a policy of absolute or total territorial separation or apartheid. Yet that is the formula that the hon members of that party presented to South Africa in the election as being a solution for the complex questions this country and this Government have to struggle with. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

We did not interrupt you. Behave yourselves now.

Yes, I know it is difficult for that hon member to behave with any courtesy …

Order! I am not prepared to allow hon members to shout across the floor of the House, calling each other by their first names or nicknames. I shall not permit this to continue in the House. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said here …

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member must acknowledge the authority of the Chair. I am not prepared to argue with the hon member. He must resume his seat and acknowledge the authority of the Chair. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, if the hon present member for Overvaal behaves himself now, I shall give him a whole cage full of bananas at the end of this debate. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister of Manpower and of Public Works ought to know better than that, too. I ask the hon the Minister to withdraw that reference immediately.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I want to ask you to give a ruling requesting the hon the Minister to apologise to the hon member for Overvaal. That was an insinuation about which you have previously given a ruling, stating that you would no longer tolerate it. I think that the right thing for him to do would be to apologise to the hon member for Overvaal.

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

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition more or less said here today, in effect, that the NP was talking about a bloodbath, that we were, so to speak, blackmailing them with references to a bloodbath, that the NP was saying that the CP’s policy would result in a bloodbath. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition then said that they were not the ones causing the bloodbath. He said that talk of a “bloodbath” was “political bankruptcy”.

Yes.

The hon member for Lichtenburg says “Yes”.

You are bankrupt.

I want to quote the hon member for Lichtenburg. Let us look at who is talking of a bloodbath. According to Hansard, 9 February 1987, col 534, he is quoted from Beeld of 21 April 1981 as having said:

He goes on to say:

There one has the one who advocates a bloodbath. [Interjections.] The hon member for Lichtenburg is the great propagator of a bloodbath.

What was your majority in the election?

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke at Komga in 1981. Since we are now talking of bloodbaths, violence and revolution, let us look at what he said:

I now want to ask him: What elements of the HNP’s policy have changed to such an extent that the CP now wants to enter into a coalition or amalgamate with the HNP?

[Inaudible.]

They are your coalition!

What suddenly happened? Why is this HNP policy, which they previously said would lead to Black majority government through violence, now so acceptable to them and why have they now so furtively been wooing Mr Jaap Marais and his party? [Interjections.] What has changed?

What was your majority?

My majority is a majority I obtained without any lies. [Interjections.] I gained that majority by telling the truth and by putting up a fight without any compromises, not by disseminating all kinds of misrepresentations, untruths and half-truths. [Interjections.] These CP “bull’s-eyes” represent the greatest concentration of half-truths and untruths that have ever been committed to paper in South Africa’s history. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke here about consensus decision making at the highest level. It is very clear to me, however, that the hon member does not understand the 1977 proposals, because they contain a very clear example of how concensus decision-making would take place. It is therefore very clear to me that the hon leader is not able to comprehend what concensus decision-making implies, ie that one can thereby eliminate domination.

The hon the leader accused the NP of many things. He should, however, have taken the trouble to read the NP’s manifesto. He spoke about group areas, and in that connection it is stated in that manifesto:

Has the hon leader not read that? The manifesto goes on to state:

Surely that is very clear. It is also stated:

Has the hon leader not read that? The NP’s objectives are stated in the following terms:

As far as the highest level of government is concerned, item 2.3.4 states, amongst other things:

[Interjections.] I know it is a bit beyond the comprehension of some of the hon members on that side of the House. The point, however, is that the hon leader has been alleging all day long that Blacks were going to enter Parliament. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon the Minister a fair chance to complete his speech, without these unnecessary interjections.

The point is that the hon leader has perhaps read this document, but he has not understood it. It is stated that structures should be created in which this power-sharing can take place. Nowhere is it stated that it should take place in this Parliament. That is the point. [Interjections.] The hon member for Lichtenburg need not laugh; I realize that he does not understand this.

I listened to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition today, and I must say that I agreed with a great deal of what he said. I want to take the House into my confidence today and say that there really are certain things about which I have, throughout the years and—I must confess—even today, agreed with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Whether you want to take this into account or not, Sir, on occasion the hon member said:

I agree with him:

Then the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says that it is only a coward who runs away.

Do you agree?

Then he says: Remain faithful to the NP. I agree with him. He then grew serious—and here I also agree with him—and said: Keep faith with God, your people and the NP, and if the NP were to collapse and there remained only two loyal supporters, ensure that you are one of the two. According to Die Transvaler he said this in Lichtenburg in 1981. I do just want to say that the hon Leader no longer says it today, but I still agree with what he said then. Both statements, what he says today and what he said then, cannot be true. I now want to ask the hon member when it was that he was not speaking the truth. [Interjections.]

The hon member also made a speech in Pietersburg during August 1979. There he said that Mr Botha was not “verlig” or “verkramp”, but that he was an honest, practical Nationalist who had the full support of the NP. I agree with him. He said that anyone who said that the NP under the leadership of Mr P W Botha was selling the Whites down the river, did not know what he was talking about. That’s the ticket! [Interjections.] He went further:

I, too, join in the applause. [Interjections.] He then goes on to use the following significant words:

I say “well done”, and I agree with him. He then concludes with a message to the then Prime Minister:

He did not, however, say what he had in his hand when he stood behind the Prime Minister! [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made a great fuss about the CP’s election successes. The scoreboard, however, indicates that when Parliament adjourned for the election, the NP had 116 seats. The scoreboard indicates, furthermore, that when Parliament reconvened, we were returned with 123 seats. That is progress, is it not? Seven seats do, after all, represent progress.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition alleges that the CP made headway. Let me tell him this: When, in 1982, the CP was conceived and born in sin, they received a great deal of support, but their support has not grown. What happened is that some of their supporters returned to the NP. The CP obtained only marginal support from the HNP. The source from which I want to quote in this connection is Prof Laurie. He says:

That, too, is a truth. [Interjections.] In support of this contention, he uses the by-elections since the inception of the CP. Prof Laurie goes on to say:

In vier gevalle was daar geen noemenswaardige verandering nie. In 12 gevalle het hulle egter veld verloor wat van 1% tot 10% wissel.

Here Prof Laurie states:

Prof Laurie also states that where there is a difference between the position during all those by-elections and the present position, it represents a movement away from the CP, because if one adds the votes in all the 21 constituencies, during the by-elections Rightwing candidates obtained 38,7% of the votes, but in the recent general election only 37,7% of the votes. [Interjections.] So that party is a party that is fading away. Their growth is an illusion. The seats they took now, they could also have taken in 1982 if they had resigned and tried to regain those seats in by-elections. [Interjections.]

We are going to fight until we have taken over the government!

Let us, for example, take a look at the hon member for Overvaal. He did not want to stand in the Jeppe constituency. I want to ask him when last he visited Jeppe. [Interjections.]

I want to go further. Bearing in mind the failed attempts at unity between the two parties, let me tell the House why, amongst other things, the HNP and the CP could not get together. The hon member for Lichtenburg really did say some terrible things about the HNPs.

Let me tell the hon member for Lichtenburg that I hold it against him, because I do not think we ought to talk to one another like that. I want to quote what the hon member for Lichtenburg said, according to the HNP mouthpiece, Die Afrikaner:

That is not true!

I hope it is not true, and I hope it was not true either. [Interjections.]

Order! I have already asked for these unnecessary interjections to cease. The hon the Minister is entitled to complete his speech with as few interjections as possible, and I ask hon members for their co-operation.

Today I want to say that what we see here before us today in Parliament reminds me of a puppet show. One sees only part of the action taking place, but one does not see who is pulling the strings above the level of the curtain. Today I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition who is the effective leader of the right-wing radical movement in South Africa: He or Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche? The leader of the AWB here in the Western Cape says that 80% of the CP members are also AWB members. We know that Mr Terre’Blanche draws larger crowds than the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. We also know that on Monument Hill he drew about three-quarters of the applause from the people there, as against the one-quarter of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

I came across an interesting thing, ie that in Hartbeesfontein a joint meeting of the CP and the AWB was held. It was a CP meeting, but the AWB decorated the stage and draped it with their flags. Mr Terre’Blanche and the CP candidate both spoke there and Mr Terre’Blanche said:

Mr Terre’Blanche made an appeal to the audience of approximately 150 people:

In other words, Mr Terre’Blanche was saying from the platform:

In my view this is going to lead to an untenable position. Mr Terre’Blanche envisages hijacking the CP—in fact, I think he has already done so. It is merely a question of time before he effectively takes over.

In connection with what would happen if they lost the election, the Government again came into power and, as he put it, chaos resulted, he said:

Please note, not the CP:

That is now the CP’s coalition partner—in my view the true leader of the right-wing radical movement in South Africa, ie Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche. I believe that the Official Leader of the Opposition is leading that Opposition under the control of Mr Terre’Blanche. [Interjections.]

AWB members have now entered Parliament, and those eggs hatched in the CP’s nest. The AWB members now sitting here in Parliament are members of two organisations. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition says he has no objection to such dual membership. They are free to be members of both. I do not, however, know whether he realises what the programme of principles of the AWB entails. On joining one signs an undertaking which reads:

Those hon members, however, are also members of the CP. How can they endorse the AWB’s programme of principles in which democracy and Parliament are rejected 15 times and in which, on no fewer than 12 occasions, the movement’s aim is declared to be that of establishing an authoritarian system in South Africa and doing away with capitalism? How can one endorse that, be a member of the AWB and sit here in Parliament as a member of the CP?

I also want to ask the CP who they elected as their indirectly elected member? They elected Mr Derby-Lewis who, in Pietersburg, was carried shoulder-high by Mr Terre’Blanche …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it part of the conventions of this House that hon members who have not yet delivered their maiden speeches should be attacked in this way?

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

They elected a member who, at Pietersburg, helped break up a meeting, and he was carried shoulder-high by Mr Terre’Blanche. There is a photograph capturing the scene. They relinquished Mr Daan van der Merwe, however, the non-residential leader of the CP in the Free State. [Interjections.] Where is Mr Jan Hoon, the Cape leader? They simply kicked him upstairs. Where is a faithful, life-long supporter, Mr Willie van der Merwe.

Order! I do not unnecessarily want to interrupt the hon the Minister, but I do not think that the President’s Council should be referred to in that way.

I mean the place up here, Sir. I meant it with all due respect. The big fight is being fought here, however, and not there, and a person can usefully be employed here. Now, however, the founder members, those members who stood by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, are being replaced or treated with contempt. They are being replaced by someone who is given orders by the leader of the AWB and carried shoulder high by him.

What I now want to know is who, in this puppet-show, gave the instruction for that particular person to be elected and not those old stalwarts, those old war-horses, who opposed us very effectively here. That is the question I want to put to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.] The big question is still: Who is the boss and who is the leader of the Conservative Party? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I want to go further. I said a moment ago that I did not come with untruths to this Parliament. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, however, said that he thought that the National Party itself had not paid for the 400 000 seven-single records. Here I am referring to the records on which the hon the State President’s election message was recorded.

Just quote me correctly!

Very well, Sir, I shall quote to him verbatim from this newspaper report. Here it is stated:

I put it to him that he surely knows that that is a blatant untruth. It is not true, is it. Surely he knows that the National Party cannot use State finances for election purposes. And did the hon the Leader of the House not repudiate him on this question too. [Interjections.] I want to know from him when he is going to withdraw that suggestion of his which is an untruth. [Interjections.] When is he going to withdraw that suggestion of his?

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon the Minister entitled to say that I have told a blatant untruth?

Order! Did the hon the Minister say that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows that he told a blatant untruth?

No, Sir, I said that he told a blatant untruth. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

We shall have a look at your Hansard!

Mr Speaker, I also wish to submit that it appears to me as if the Conservative Party’s present-day policy is being dictated by the AWB. I want to give attention to this whole idea of an ethnic state, because if one notes what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said today, when one reduces it to its essentials, one sees that it all comes down to a White ethnic state. It is, of course, difficult to grasp the essence of what he says, because he has a way with words. He did, however, say it in so many words here today. It comes down to the Boer state idea of the AWB. I therefore now want to put the following question to him. One of his senior hon members, in reply to a question about whether the CP supported the Boer state idea of the AWB, replied as follows:

I am quoting from a report in the Pietersburg Review of 3 October 1986. The hon member who used these words was the hon member for Pietersburg. He went on to say:

It is therefore not a matter of the methods or the form which this Boer state will take. That they accept. The hon member for Pietersburg says they do not differ about that. They do, however, differ about the question of the borders. I should therefore like the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, at some later stage, to tell us whether or not he agrees with what the hon member for Pietersburg is saying here.

Mr Speaker, I was a member of the House from 1958 to 1961 and the hon member for Houghton came here sometime before that, and I could not help being reminded of the debates that took place in those days between the old National Party of Dr Verwoerd and Mr Strijdom, and the then United Party. It was almost a replay of the records of the National Party which is now CP … [Interjections.]… speaking the language of Dr Verwoerd, talking of partition and separation but not being prepared to face the realities of an integrated South Africa.

On the other side of the House was the United Party, now the National Party which was in a sense prepared to look to the realities of South Africa but was not able to fashion a policy that would match that reality. [Interjections.]

That is where the National Party sits today— without a policy to match the realities of a united South Africa.

It would be appropriate, if not on the content of his speech then at least on the occasion, to offer my congratulations to the hon member for Waterberg on his first speech as Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.] As usual the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was polished and polite. From his perspective his speech was to the point. I believe, however, it contained certain basic flaws.

As far as the concept of partition is concerned, I suggest that he reads the Hansard record of the debate on the Tomlinson Commission’s report in May 1956. In reading the debates of those times one realises that the concept of partition of Dr Verwoerd died way before 1978 when the National Party was unable to reverse the flow of Black people from the then homelands into the industrial areas of South Africa. Until 1978 it was still a dream. However, after 1978 it was no longer a dream; the reality was a shared South Africa.

I will listen to future debates when the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition argues the case for partition. I want to know how he is going to partition a modern, industrial economy that is integrated both physically, demographically and economically, in a completely shared economic society. In that sense his speech was fatally flawed.

I listened to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition carefully and I think he revealed with chilling clarity all the fierce racial philosophy of the CP and the inherent dangers that this policy holds for South Africa.

It is difficult for me to believe that in a censure debate in 1987 the National Government is attacked by the Official Opposition from the right! It seems like a bad dream in South Africa!

It is very difficult to believe that this is happening. We have here a National Government that believes in race classification; in group areas; in group self-determination; in apartheid in schools, hospitals, housing, local government and constitutional structures— and it is actually being attacked in this Parliament by the Official Opposition for being too liberal! [Interjections.]

Does this reflect the reality of South Africa? What a sad day it is for South Africa to hear an Official Opposition in this Parliament calling for more separation instead of calling for more sharing! What a sad day when it is concentrating on the things that divide us rather than emphasising those things that still unite us! What a tragedy for South Africa!

When we listen to this we are saddened; but at the same time I believe that the hon members on my right in the Official Opposition benches reflect the chickens of the National Party’s policy of apartheid that are coming home to roost. [Interjections.] Those chickens of Dr Verwoerd are sitting in these benches 25 years later. That is the reality. That is what 39 years of apartheid indoctrination brings about.

We say to the hon members on this side that we in the PFP reject their racial philosophy and their race policies outright. We do not want to compromise at all. We will oppose both that philosophy and those policies at every turn. What we will also attempt to do, especially in the light of the two-way battle that went on between the hon the Minister of Manpower and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, will be to endeavour to counter the negative impact which the new Official Opposition will undoubtedly have on this House, by trying to keep the fact before all the members of the House that South Africa is one country with an integrated economy and, whether we like it or not, that all 30 million people of South Africa have a shared destiny. This is going to be more difficult because of the attitude and the philosophy of the Official Opposition.

There are many reasons why the Government deserves to be censured, but I want to make it quite clear that the PFP certainly does not support the reasons given by the CP and stated in the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s motion. So right at the outset I wish to move the following amendment:

1. “(1) because, by making the concept of race based on statutory race classification a non-negotiable element of any future constitutional structures, it is prejudicing the process of negotiation and damaging the prospects of a peaceful solution to our problems;
2. (2) because, by insisting on the principle of compulsory group membership and rejecting the principle of voluntary association, it is dividing and polarising our people still further; and
3. (3) because, in spite of the Government’s having been re-elected by the White voters, it has failed to produce any plans for real reform or to provide any effective programmes to deal with unemployment or inflation.”.

The National Party is now, after the election, back in office. It has more seats, but I wonder whether the hon members occupying those seats actually feel more secure than they did when they went into that election. They have some more seats, and I grant them that they were re-elected by the White voters, but I also suggest that in terms of structure they are more vulnerable as a Government and as a party than they were before. I believe that the National Party is much more fragile. They could not have lost as much of their Afrikaner support base as they did in Transvaal and still believe that they are not a fragile political party in the context of their politics. That is a reality. I believe that the coming months are going to show that the National Party, in spite of its victory at the polls, is ideologically more divided. When I think of the hon the State President’s address to Parliament yesterday, I think of the younger hon members and others sitting in the Government benches and wonder if they could actually have believed that there was going to be fundamental reform. I could see from their faces that they were being trapped once again in the philosophy of race. When under the pressure of the arguments that are going to come from these people the illogicality of Government policies is shown up—and our arguments will have the same effect—it will prove that that party is in a process of ideological disintegration.

If one of the objectives of the election was to trim back the size of the PFP—let us assume that was the case—which is the only party in this House standing unashamedly for nonracialism, the rule of law and representative parliamentary democracy then I concede that the National Party partially succeeded. However, while the National Party’s strategy of playing on the fears and emotions of the voters by elevating terrorism and violence together with the SACP and the ANC to the central issue of the election persuaded some voters not to vote for the PFP, the intensity of the National Party’s “Rooi en Swart gevaar” campaign and its exploitation of the siege psychosis that is developing among the voters of South Africa caused those voters to lurch towards the right. If it is any consolation to the Government to believe that it is easier to reform the growing, militant, right-wing, racially-oriented opposition then, as they say in my constituency, “mazeltov”!

Let me make it quite clear that as a result of the National Party’s tactics, which were successful as far as we were concerned—we concede that—I believe that for every vote the National Party gained from us it lost two votes to the people on the right, perhaps even more. In fact, the National Party is more or less just a halfway house. It is a political staging-post for people in South Africa who are moving from a rational point of view to the irrational, racist point of view of the hon members of the Official Opposition.

The PFP did receive a jolt at the election, but I want to make it quite clear that we are neither down nor out; hon members need simply look at the benches around me. We are going to come back fighting as never before, both inside and outside this Parliament.

So the extent that the National Party was returned to power and gained some seats it can call the election a victory.

I believe—the hon the Deputy Minister over there will concede this—that it was a setback for negotiation and reconciliation and for finding a basis for peaceful coexistence in South Africa. [Interjections.]

One should take into account the nature of the campaign. Quite apart from the surge of support for these people on the right, I believe that Black South Africans, who must have been listening and watching in their millions what was being done and said on radio and television, must undoubtedly be more frustrated not only with White politicians but also with the constitutional system through which fundamental changes can be brought about in order to meet their requirements.

Whatever we as White politicians might think of the election, it has left our wider society more polarised than ever before. [Interjections.] That is the consequence of the election. Ironically, I would say that possibly the SACP and the ANC or perhaps the Mandelas gained most as a result of the National Party election campaign strategy. By making these two banned organisations the focal point of its campaign the National Party ended up by raising the stature of the ANC, both internally and externally, and giving the SACP a status which it certainly does not deserve.

The election is over now and we are away from the rhetoric and back to the realities of the problems that have to be dealt with in this country.

In spite of the Government’s election rhetoric the basic problem facing our nation today is not the ANC or communism per se, but the unwillingness of the Government to abandon the essential elements of apartheid and to look for an alternative that is free from race classification and compulsory group membership and segregation. That is the essential problem. Those hon members know that partition cannot work and yet they are not prepared to face up to a non-racial alternative.

I say that the extent to which communism and the ANC are factors in our politics is a direct consequence of 39 years of apartheid rule in South Africa. [Interjections.] For 39 years the policy of apartheid has provided the communists with a political weapon which no political strategist in the Kremlin would have been able to dream up on his own. The insensitivity of successive Nationalist Governments to the aspirations of Black South Africans has repeatedly pulled the rug out from under moderate leaders and pushed Black South Africans into the hands of the extremists. That has been the tragic history for 39 years. The failure of successive Nationalist Governments to address the central issue of Black political rights in the Parliament of South Africa has been the prime cause of Black frustration and of the violence and counter-violence which we witness in our country today.

People may not want to believe me, but let them listen to speeches made by hon Ministers during the election campaign. The hon the Minister of Defense says:

Who has in fact been ignoring the political aspirations of Black people for 39 years? Which party tried to send them back to the homelands? Was it the PFP or the hon member for Houghton?

The hon the Minister of Finance said the following at Kraaifontein:

But who has been denying the Black person the vote for the past 39 years? [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs made some frank statements during the election:

*Which government is responsible for the legitimate grievances of the Blacks in the Black townships? Is it the Smuts government, the old United Party? No, it is not.

†No, we can go on and on with this. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that Whites had lived too well. He said:

He is right but what government has been denying Blacks for 39 years a share in the benefits of South Africa? It is the National Party Government.

The hon the Minister of Agriculture—he was only referring to a period of three years— speaking in Pietermaritzburg said:

Can one believe that after three years it is being said that one of the causes of unrest was the fact that the Government had excluded Blacks from the Constitution?

The hon the Minister of National Education said:

That is correct but that is what the Government has been doing for the past 39 years. Time and time again it was the policy of successive National Party governments that has been part of the process of creating violence and instability in this society.

There was another wise statement by the hon the Minister of National Education when he addressed a meeting of Nationalists. In regard to a report under the heading, “Nasionale Party se Swart Plan het op die rotse geloop” in Beeld he was quoted in the Cape Times as saying:

This is discovering the wheel! Obviously people want to vote where they live! Here we have a Minister admitting that for 39 years the National Party was wrong. If he was wrong for those 14 years, nine of which as a Minister, how can he be so sure that he is right now? Is it going to take him some more time to find out what was wrong with National Party policy?

I listened carefully to the hon the State President yesterday. I believe that he read more into his mandate than he was entitled to. He suddenly found it was a ten point mandate. I believe that if he approached the average voter he would be told it was only a question of voting for one government or another. I do not believe that he was entitled to read that in the mandate. The National Party was re-elected to govern but received precious little mandate as far as policy was concerned. It received very little mandate as far as policy was concerned because it presented very little policy for a mandate.

The National Party stayed away from the details of its policy as long and as hard as it could because it knew that as soon as it got trapped in its own policy it would split and divide. Nothing has therefore emerged in recent months. There was nothing, unfortunately, in the hon the State President’s speech that gives me any reason for hoping that the National Party can solve the problems of South Africa. However, what has emerged over the past few months is the hon the State President’s unequivocal personal commitment to the concept of race—he calls it a group, I will call it race—as the cornerstone of future constitutional structures. He says that is fundamental.

Through a series of interlocking statements and untested assumptions the hon the State President comes to the conclusion that one cannot protect individual rights unless one has compulsory race classification. This is illogical. I believe he is wrong. The rights and the freedom of the individual can be guaranteed and minorities can be protected far more effectively through a constitution and a society permitting voluntary association than through a constitution and a society that imposes race classification and compulsory group membership on its citizens. The hon the State President refers to countries like Great Britain, Belgium, Switzerland, the USA and West Germany. These are all instances of decentralised constitutions but there is a fundamental difference between decentralization or devolution of power and imposing apartheid on individual citizens by compulsory group membership.

There was no area where the hon the State President showed that he and the National Party were more committed to the concept of race than in the question of the Group Areas Act. In recent months we have seen that commitment firming up as the National Party has wilted under the pressure of the CP. As the CP has become rougher and tougher on the whole question of integration and apartheid so the National Party has tightened up on the issue of the Group Areas Act. By the middle of last year the hon the State President was firming up on this issue at various National Party congresses.

This happened at the very time that there was expectation that the Group Areas Act was going to be relaxed—the hon the Deputy Minister knows that a discussion was taking place in the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the President’s Council. Two days before its report was to be published—the hon the Deputy Minister must know this—it was general knowledge that the report was going to recommend far-reaching changes away from the principle as enunciated by the hon the State President. It was going to recommend—this had been reported by the Press— much more local option and far less rigidity in the application of the Group Areas Act. The day before it was due to be printed and debated, it was sent back to the relevant committee. Dr Oosthuizen said that he was disappointed that this had to be and that he had worked on it for two years. Dr Piet Koornhof was shunted off to Washington. We now know that that report will not become available until some time next year.

In the meantime the Government is tightening the screws of group areas apartheid throughout South Africa. This is the Government of real reform; this is the Government of which the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs says that they must act humanely when applying the Group Areas Act! It is busy tightening the screws. It is busy creating misery and insecurity for thousands of ordinary citizens. These are special citizens in a sense, because many find themselves trapped between the basic urge to have shelter—and a home for themselves and their families—and the harsh reality of a racially oriented Group Areas Act.

As in the days of Dr Verwoerd compassion and humanitarian considerations—I would say common decency in this sense—are being sacrificed on the altar of racial ideology. That is what is happening at present.

I believe that the Government should scrap the Group Areas Act. Even if it may take some time to do it, as it took some time to scrap the Pass Laws. The Pass Law system could not work for the same reason that the Group Areas Act is not going to work—I believe that that Act should be scrapped. Even if it cannot be scrapped until the report is published next year, I want to say that this Government owes it to tens of thousands of decent, ordinary South Africans to have a total moratorium on the eviction of people in terms of the Group Areas Act, or on the possession, confiscation or resale of their property.

Hear, hear!

At least it can show that it has a measure of balance and some compassion towards many ordinary people in this country.

What of the future, Mr Speaker? Neither during the election campaign nor in his speech yesterday did the hon the State President produce a programme that would bring hope for stability, prosperity and security for our nation. I would have hoped that the State President would have spelt out a meaningful plan of action. We got nothing more than we had last year. I actually found that the Opening Speech this year was much less exciting than the speech of 31 January 1986 and the advertisements that followed. Do hon members remember it? We have moved back since then. I must record in Hansard today that we remain convinced that there can be no lasting peace and no real stability, and from that, no prosperity, as long as the practice of a policy of apartheid continues in South Africa.

Hear, hear!

That is a fundamental point.

Three points emerge. Firstly, the Government can call it whatever it wishes. It can call it own affairs, it can call it self-determination, but as long as enforced race classification remains the cardinal feature of Government policy, apartheid will live on in South Africa and instability and lack of development will continue.

Secondly, as long as the Government makes the concept of race non-negotiable as far as constitutional structures are concerned, no meaningful negotiation on a new constitution for South Africa will take place. That is a fact.

Thirdly, as long as the Government closes the door to Black citizens of South Africa becoming members of the Parliament of South Africa, Parliament as we have come to know it over the years, instead of being a bastion of stability and reform in South Africa, will increasingly become the focal point of conflict in our society. That is a tragedy for South Africa.

We believe that Parliament has a role, that it can sweep aside apartheid as we move ahead … We believe that Parliament has a role to play, and we want to see to it that it does so so that it can sweep aside apartheid and South Africa can move ahead.

We in these benches desperately want negotiation to succeed. We believe that real negotiation is the key to the success of our constitutional procedures, but real negotiation is what I am asking for, not sham negotiation. The real leaders of the people must be at the negotiating table. Talking with leaders who find themselves compelled into talking on the basis of the National Party’s preconditions because there is no other non-violent course open is not real negotiation. Such talks are not going to produce any binding agreement. [Interjections.] Let the Black people decide. [Interjections.]

I believe one must identify apartheid as being one of the key issues which is making real negotiation in South Africa impossible. The second issue is that of violence. Nobody, least of all the Government of the day, can negotiate with a pistol at his head. That is a reality.

The PFP’s attitude on this is quite clear. In our declared policy in relation to who should attend our national convention when negotiation on a new constitution takes place we say the following quite specifically:

Let us accept, however, that we all condemn violence. Let us agree that we all find that violence is an obstacle to negotiation. Still, it is one thing to identify the obstacle—it is another thing to remove that obstacle.

Given the long history of violence and counter-violence in South Africa, the cessation of violence is more likely going to be achieved by the interaction of the main political actors than by unilateral demands from one side or the other that violence must just cease. It does not work that way.

Because real negotiation is of such fundamental importance we say the Government has a duty not just to declare itself to be against violence, but also to do something practical to try to bring violence to an end in this country. That involves talking to others. In the case of the Government it involves looking at themselves. We in this party are committed unceasingly inside and outside Parliament to try to bring an end to violence so that negotiation may commence.

Yes, we will oppose violence and we will try to bring an end to it. We will fight racism because we believe that racism causes violence. We will work for negotiation and reconciliation and a South Africa in which every citizen, irrespective of his race or colour or creed, can live with equal rights and dignity. We believe that the progress of our people to that kind of society, that new and great South Africa that could be, is being held up by the Government of South Africa because the Government has lost its way. It cannot come to grips with the realities of a multi-racial South Africa.

For these reasons we deserve at the very least that the Government has to be censured by this House.

Mr Speaker, I move as a further amendment:

†Mr Speaker, one feels almost embarrassed to criticize the hon member for Sea Point after the very hard knock he and his party took two weeks ago. [Interjections.] One would perhaps have some compunction in doing so if it were not for the fact that in his address this afternoon the hon member for Sea Point reiterated the same old stories and clichés which we have heard over the last number of years.

You keep making the same mistakes!

It seems that the result of the election on 6 May has had no effect on that party. We have been listening to the hon member for Sea Point who was wondering how it was possible that a rightwing attack could be directed against this Government. He asked if that reflected the reality of South Africa. That hon member’s party will remain on the skids in this country as long as it fails to see the realities of South Africa. Those realities were shown very clearly on 6 May. For five years the PFP has been trying to pooh-pooh the existence of right-wing sentiment in this country. It was shown on 6 May not that right-wing sentiment was something to be afraid of but that it was a reality. It was a reality which, in terms of voters’ support, numbered twice as many supporters as did the hon member for Sea Point and his party.

It shows the chosen direction of the Government as well.

Now that they have the painful proof of that, one would have thought that they would have ceased to say to this Government that it is spending far too much time on those people to its right. A government which takes into account the views of all the people in the country should at least take into account the views of people of right-wing sentiment, not that it should be dictated to by those people, as little as it should be dictated to by left-wing people of PFP supporters.

The election of two weeks ago exposed a whole series of myths which had been widely believed before. One of them was that the hon member for Sea Point had the ability to read political trends and that he was a master strategist. Yesterday, I reread his speech in this Chamber, when as Leader of the Official Opposition he moved his motion of no confidence on 2 February. It sounded like a voice from Alice in Wonderland. It finally dashed any claims that the hon member might have had to political insight. He said that the era of NP dominance in the Assembly was about to end. Instead, the Government increased its membership by six at the expense of that hon member’s party.

He hailed the way in which people ignored beach apartheid in the Peninsula and elsewhere. The NP promptly proceeded to capture Durban Point, Amanzimtoti, Walmer and Simon’s Town. In fact, on the whole of the Natal coast there is not a single beach left in the hands of the PFP. [Interjections.]

I can go further than that. There is also not a single beach in East London or Port Elizabeth left in the hands of the PFP. [Interjections.]

The hon member spoke of the brave fight of the people of Woodstock against the Group Areas Act. On 6 May his party lost Hillbrow and Bezuidenhout, and the NP spectacularly increased its majority in a constituency like Maitland into which Woodstock falls.

So the NP confirms its mandate as racists?

Finally, the hon member for Sea Point spoke of the enormous reserve of goodwill among people towards his party, a reserve they hoped to mobilize into, and I quote him: “… a tidal wave which would sweep this Government away”. The tidal wave broke on 6 May 1987 and left him without his former title, and with sadly depleted ranks.

It is against this background that one must judge the whole election campaign of the PFP and all the excuses they are now trying to find for their dismal failure. The fact of the matter is that the PFP misread the mood and preferences of the voters. They read it as badly now as before the election. They are now also misreading the reasons as to why even the majority of English-speaking voters turned their backs upon the PFP.

We read in the newspapers that the hon member for Sea Point called in his advisers as far back as early last year to devise their strategy. This strategy, as it unfolded during the election campaign, turned out to be no more than a series of election gimmicks. I am only going to mention a few of them.

Firstly, they identified some 20 constituencies which they regarded as being within reach. They subjected these constituencies to the full blast of a PFP computer-based election campaign. These were the constituencies which were subjected to the so-called “turbocharged campaign” of the PFP … [Interjections.] … a campaign which seems to have lost its entire charge! These constituencies were inundated with personalised mail and other material.

The second gimmick they tried was to get the kwaZulu-Natal Indaba, which they had earlier hijacked, to toe their party line. We warned them here in this Chamber that they would wreck the indaba if they dragged it into the election campaign. [Interjections.] Today the kindest thing we can say of the indaba is that if it goes ahead, it will be under new management.

Prof Hermann Giliomee of Cape Town wrote the following in The Natal Mercury on 11 May 1987:

That, too, has thus backfired against them.

By far the most expensive gimmick in their strategy, however, was …

Colin Eglin! [Interjections.]

… the formation of the so-called alliance of moderates or reform alliance. It is a measure of the despair of the PFP regarding their own ability ever to become the Government of this country that they regarded it as necessary to enter into an alliance with the NRP. We must remember that the NRP is, or was, a party based on the acceptance of pluralism in our society—a concept which is anathema and a heresy to the policy of the PFP. Despite this fundamental difference between these two parties this alliance was forged with the NRP, leading us to the conclusion that this was no organic fusion. It was rather a step of political expediency. That was the motive pure and simple. The PFP wanted to establish their credibility as a viable party in Natal. They had failed to capture the majority of seats in Natal in the previous election and they saw an alliance with the NRP as the only way in which they could do so. The NRP leaders, on the other hand, were clutching at straws to save their seats from a Nationalist takeover.

The election of 6 May has shown that the PFP-NRP alliance was a major miscalculation. It was a paper alliance which was not strong enough to erase the deep mistrust which the people of Natal had toward the PFP. Loyal NRP supporters felt that the PFP was suspect in the field of security and the maintenance of law and order.

One must remember that the NRP in Natal consists of people who learnt their political philosophy from leaders such as the late Gen Smuts, Douglas Mitchell and Vause Raw— leaders who were never afraid to speak up against lawlessness and subversion. [Interjections.] The result was just as we predicted—a prediction for which we were ridiculed— namely that NRP supporters would leave the alliance in droves and come over to the NP.

That was not all, however. Having compromised their principles for the sake of more seats, the PFP then cast about further afield in a search for more alliance partners. Firstly, they indiscriminately welcomed Dr Denis Worrall and his fellow Independents. At last, they thought, they had some genuine converts from the Nat camp. [Interjections.] What did they find, however? To their horror, the Independents crowded the PFP completely out of the front pages of the newspapers. They fell out of the newspaper headlines entirely. On some Sundays before the election one could not find a mention of the PFP in a Sunday newspaper.

Not even on the back page! [Interjections.]

That would have been all right if Dr Worrall and company had not at the same time done their level best to put as much distance as possible between themselves and the PFP. This escapade could well be the death knell of the PFP.

The Independents, after all, are untainted by the more outrageous utterances of PFP leaders. Little wonder that they and they alone inspire any enthusiasm among leftist voters.

The folly of the PFP strategists did not even stop there, however. When they found that this motley crowd they had assembled could not even in their wildest expectations hope to muster more than 50 odd seats, they started looking for further allies. Where did they find them, Sir? In the flights of fancy of an Afrikaans political journalist who in March last year described some 35 NP MPs as “New Nats”, men with so-called more modern views than others. Would you believe that the PFP had the gall simply to appropriate these NP MPs without so much as even a “by your leave”? They simply assumed that these NP members were ready to leave their party and join the PFP’s alliance after the election. If ever there were proof positive of the political bankruptcy of the PFP, this was it. Just imagine! Without even putting out feelers or sounding out these MPs, they felt themselves justified in bandying about their names. I should know, because my name was on that list until I became information chief of the NP, when my name was quietly dropped. [Interjections.]

Like people performing a macabre death dance, the PFP and its media became ever more enraptured with their own expectations of election successes. They became all the more taken up with their own wild claims, and they started believing their own farfetched dreams. They started to ignore the clear signals which any hardworking party with a claim to an organizational genius would have felt and seen was in the offing long before the election.

They had failed to count beforehand the costs of alliance politics. Political alliances are only feasible, after all, if the participants do not overstress their differences. So the PFP had to avoid projecting a clear cut, easily identifiable policy, and rather busied themselves with generalities like “building a new South Africa” without saying how.

The PFP in this campaign became long on form and short on substance. By blurring the image of their party and flaunting the alliance banner rather than that of their party, the PFP confused their voters and fed the distrust already prevalent among many opposition voters. This distrust soon became a wave of anti-Prog feeling, something of which I became aware throughout the country more than a month before polling day.

However, they had had their own warning. Their own newspapers warned then long before polling day. David Braun wrote in The Star of 4 April on the front page under the heading “Election: Shock New Trend Emerges”:

When one read further, one realized that the political party referred to was the PFP. This report talked of the Opposition Party’s inability to excite the electorate. It then said that there was a lot of discontent in the PFP about the way in which their campaign was being run. Talking about the PFP leaders David Braun said:

In the Sunday Times of that same week Otto Krause wrote:

Ormande Pollock wrote in the Natal Mercury:

The PFP therefore had ample warning.

Now that the election is over the PFP wants to give us—the hon member for Sea Point did so once again this afternoon—all the blame or the credit, depending on how one looks at it, for their crushing defeat. They are too kind! No publicity campaign, however adroitly conceived and executed, could create perceptions that would have that effect on a political party in a matter of ten days.

Some newspapers referred to R12 million that the NP spent on its publicity campaign. This is utter nonsense but even if such astronomical figures had been spent on publicity it would not have been possible to change voters’ attitudes entirely within a matter of 10 days.

You also used the SABC!

The hon member for Berea speaks of the SABC. I will come to that in a moment.

If the PFP itself neglected to project its policy clearly, it cannot blame us if we made our own deductions. We had to form our own conclusions on what its policy was. All we had to go by was the utterances, the salutes and the embraces of PFP members. That was all we had to go by. [Interjections.] How were we to tell what their intentions were if they did not tell us and if they were too scared to come out with their policies for fear that they might antagonize some of their alliance partners.

If their charge is true that we misrepresented and misquoted them, that we engaged in mud-slinging and that we used lies and half truths as the hon member for Green Point says, surely they have had recourse to the courts of the land. In fact, in one or two cases that slipped through where local organizations distributed copies of adverts which had already been corrected, the PFP did successfully apply to the courts for restraining orders.

Surely the PFP cannot now tell us that by that time the damage had not been done.Is that not exactly how the hon member for Houghton tells us we should deal with the ANC and the SA Communist Party? Is the hon member for Houghton not the one PFP leader who has been saying that our preventive measures insofar as these subversive organizations are concerned should be left to the courts? Did she not say that our preventive measures were unnecessary?

While we are on the subject of dealing with the ANC and the SA Communist Party may I just say in passing that even when the PFP started to reply to our advertising campaign they misread the accusations. When they came slong with their huge adverts proclaiming “Is the PFP for the ANC and Communism? No!”, they failed to grasp the fact that that was not the charge. We did not allege that the PFP sympathized with these organizations. We simply submitted that they did not know how to deal with these organizations. Perhaps the PFP was not so much addressing our advertising campaign as trying to address a perception which had gained universal currency among the electorate, namely that they were soft on security.

One of the hon members mentioned as one of the other excuses that the PFP has been using over the past few weeks that we used the SABC. This is one of their other complaints. They even had a monitoring survey at Rhodes University, but the best they could come up with was that just over 50% of TV time was being used by NP spokesmen.

However, first of all they failed to distinguish between NP spokesmen and Government spokesmen. [Interjections.]

Tell us the difference!

Secondly, even if it is so that more than 50% of TV time was used by NP spokesmen it does reflect the exact percentage of NP votes in this election.

The point is that it is impossible for a party enjoying no more than 14% of the support of the electorate to claim that it should receive 50% of the time on SATV.

If one wants extra time on SATV or the other media, one should earn that or, alternatively, buy it. However, the story that the propaganda campaign was really to blame for the PFP’S poor showing, does not wash, because in the province where I come from there is not a single newspaper which is NP-supporting. They are all pro-PFP papers. Not thanks to the efforts of those newspapers but despite their efforts, 119 000 Natal voters made the NP the majority party in Natal.

South Africans have a feeling for what is right and this time they knew that the only party in which they could put their trust was the National Party.

*The hon member for Sea Point says we are more vulnerable now. That is not true. The hon member says that if 600 000 votes went to the parties on the far right, the NP is now more vulnerable than before. That is not the case. The hon member is trying to suggest that the NP is purely a sectional party, by making continuous reference in his speech to “Nationalist Party”, whereas earlier he always spoke of “National Party”. It is not true that the NP is more vulnerable. I think we should take a look at …

… at your calculations!

Yes, that is correct. Let us look at the figures: 2 055 000 voters participated in this election. If one uses the 1980 census, approximately 60% of the population is Afrikaans speaking and approximately 40% English-speaking. It is actually slightly under 60% and 40% respectively because there are also other languages to take into account. However, that is a reasonable approximation.

This means that 1 233 000 Afrikaans-speaking voters and 822 000 English-speaking voters cast their votes. The right-wing parties, the CP and the HNP, obtained 610 000 votes. Let us say that in Natal and elsewhere approximately 60 000 English-speakers and 550 000 Afrikaans-speakers voted for parties on the far right. Therefore this means that 683 000 Afrikaans-speakers voted for the NP. A total of 1 074 000 voters voted for the NP and this means that 392 000 English-speakers voted for the NP. This is 48% of the total number of English-speakers that voted. What is more important, however, is that it means that 63% of the NP voting power was Afrikaans-speaking and 37% English-speaking. The Daily News in Natal therefore had to concede one thing in connection with these results. That is that the NP today is the party that is able to claim that it represents Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking voters in proportion to their numbers in this country.

This is the single greatest achievement of the NP. The fact that we have a further six seats in this House is not our greatest achievement but what is, is that for the first time the ratio of our Afrikaans-speaking to English-speaking supporters is exactly the same as that reflected in our population figures.

This is something the hon member for Sea Point will have to face because he has lost the right to speak on behalf of English-speaking South Africa forever. It is also something the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will have to face and digest, because he has never earned the right to speak on behalf of Afrikaans-speaking South Africa. There is only one political body in this country that can speak on behalf of both groups and that resembles South Africa in its composition. That is the National Party. This is something that not only South Africans and South African political parties have to realise, but also something our opponents here in South Africa, and also other population groups in South Africa, have to understand. If they want to speak to White South Africa there is only one organisation that represents White South Africa. This is something our northern neighbours have to understand. After 6 May 1987 there is no longer any point in trying to divide South Africans. If they want to speak to White South Africans, they will have to speak to the NP. This is something of which our trading partners throughout the Western World will have to take cognisance. After 6 May 1987 there is only one party and only one government—the first government in the history of South Africa—able to speak on behalf of both White population groups.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Umlazi used the term “White South Africa” for the first time in a very long while. I do not know whether he is aware of it but that term no longer appears even in the NP programme of principles. I should like to know what he regards as White South Africa. The hon member gave much prominence to the fact that they had seized so much support from the PFP especially in Natal. I shall indicate the source of this in the course of my speech.

So far two members on the Government side have participated in the debate and not one of them broached the points of principle by which this country will be governed in future. The hon the Minister of Manpower and of Public Works seized upon the 1981 manifesto but he is the last person who should quote from that document. Point 2 reaffirmed the policy of separate development and Dr H F Verwoerd’s name was mentioned under this point. Within nine months of 29 April 1981 it was in the waste paper basket. I do not believe further mention of the 1981 mandate befits that party.

The hon the Minister of Manpower and of Public Works also made the stunning comment that Black people would not enter Parliament. Unfortunately he is not present at the moment but I should like to ask him where the Blacks are to obtain participation in the central government of this country. The hon the Minister of Home Affairs stated categorically at Brits that Black participation in the central government of this country was Government policy now. The hon the Minister of Manpower and of Public Works said, however, that Blacks would not enter this Parliament.

I should like to reply to the last statement made by the hon the Minister of Manpower and of Public Works arising from a newspaper report he quoted. I wish to tell him unequivocally that this side of the House is not ashamed to admit that we stand for a White people in a White fatherland. I think the hon member for Sea Point was quite right in stating in his contribution that the NP was caught up in a process of ideological disintegration.

During the past election the CP proved incontrovertibly that it had the vigour and the ability to develop into the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly within the short space of a little over five years. One may also look at the large number of marginal seats on the political map of South Africa. Before I get to the marginal seats, however, let us examine the large number of seats gained by the CP. If we were to shade in those surfaces on the map, I venture to state that the overwhelming majority of landowners in the Transvaal are already CP supporters. [Interjections.]

In speaking of the large number of marginal seats, I make bold to say the election indicated that the general trend came down to a movement to the right.

Especially in Heilbron!

It is a tidal wave which will engulf South Africa, incapable of being stemmed. Consequently I wish to state categorically that a Conservative Party majority of seats in the next round is not preposterous. [Interjections.]

Shortly before the election the hon the Minister of Manpower referred very scathingly on television to the so-called rightist splinter parties but a rightist beam nearly flattened him in Lydenburg.

Bravo, Willie! [Interjections.]

Why is that so, Mr Speaker? The simple truth is that the Conservative Party is the only political party at present in this House protecting and safeguarding the entrenched political rights and the right to self-determination of the Afrikaner—and by this I mean the Afrikaner as well as the English-speaking Afrikaner. Hon members are free to ask the hon nominated member of our party personally in what light he regards himself as soon as he has made his maiden speech. I say the Conservative Party is the only one protecting, promoting and expanding the rights of the White people with the ultimate ideal of a proud and self-respecting people in its own fatherland alongside the other peoples of South Africa.

Well said, Willie!

Mr Speaker, it is when these ideals of a people are jeopardised or threatened, as is definitely happening at present, that true ethnic nationalism awakes again in that people and compels and drives it to fight and work enthusiastically for its rights and its freedom. How on earth can anyone become excited about the political rights of foreign peoples? That was the precise difference in enthusiasm between the Conservative Party and the Government party, especially in the rural electoral divisions of the Transvaal. The fervour and fire of Conservative Party workers simply overshadowed that of the National Party altogether.

It was the fire the AWB lit under you!

Mr Speaker, everyone who visited the constituency of the hon member for Standerton during the election campaign for instance would have thought there was only one party participating in the election there and it was definitely not the National Party. The same held in the entire Eastern Transvaal—in the vicinity of Barberton—as well as in the entire Northern Transvaal, with Waterberg to the fore, and in the Western Transvaal, with Lichtenburg taking the lead. It was like a fire tossed into dry grass. Nobody will be able to stop it before it has spread to the Free State, Cape Province and Natal. [Interjections.] Why not, Mr Speaker? Because the Government party has become entangled in the centre of the political spectrum in South Africa, with a growing polarisation to the left and the right.

Mr Speaker, let me illustrate this point to you. In the previous no-confidence debate at the beginning of the year I asked hon members of the National Party—it looks somewhat different on the other side now— whether separate development remained National Party policy. I even asked those who still believed that separate development was National Party policy to raise their hands but there was a deathly silence. [Interjections.] I do not know whether there may be some of the new hon members who perhaps still believe that separate development is National Party policy. [Interjections.] If there are such, would they please indicate it. I believe, however, there is no single member who would want to declare this. After all, we have the stance on power-sharing stated in writing by the hon member for Helderkruin. In it he stated categorically that separate development was no longer National Party policy. Is that right?

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Helderkruin confirms this. Obviously we cannot read this entire document aloud. Nevertheless it carries his categorical statement that separate development has been abandoned as a policy by the National Party. Now the hon member is denying this. On page 8 of his booklet he expresses it as follows:

I therefore accept it is no longer National Party policy. [Interjections.]

On that occasion when the election was looming on the horizon I was already warning them in the same speech and saying that, as they were stating that separate development was no longer NP policy, they should not saddle that old moke of separate development and mount it in rural areas of the Transvaal during the election battle. [Interjections.]

That is exactly what they did. When the hon the Minister of Manpower went to Pietersburg for his first meeting after he had been unable to hold a previous meeting …

When he ran away!

… there were many empty chairs in the guest rooms of Pietersburg. The hon the Minister had a pamphlet that looked like this placed on every chair. A stack remained because there were many empty chairs and consequently I could also obtain one. [Interjections.]

Believe it or not, the second subject on the pamphlet was that the NP advocated separate development.

Would you believe it!

Among other points there was also: Support the NP’s proven policy. It should actually have read: Support the NP’s former policy.

Yes, it was a printing error.

It is unbelievable because the policy of separate development was exchanged for many other standpoints of principle.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs is not present but let us discuss points of principle such as full and equal civil rights for all South Africans without discrimination because of race, colour, creed or sex; the sharing of political rights by all citizens without domination of one group by another; an open community without statutory discrimination; the right of all our people to maintain and develop their language and cultural and religious heritage, and equal opportunities for all in the economic sphere.

On a previous occasion the hon the Deputy Minister asked what was wrong with that; however, it came from the programme of principles of the PFP. Consequently it is not strange that the NP is in the process of adopting PFP policy and forcing that party from that leftist standpoint which it maintained there. [Interjections.]

Order!

We now have the amazing situation that the NP sometimes has to do battle to the right and at others to the left. When the NP saw that the rightist onslaught was growing, it suddenly produced posters on which it announced to the world in capital letters that it was a proponent of own schools and own residential areas.

The ludicrous nature of that poster was very well illustrated when workers placed this particular poster in front of a block of flats in Pretorius Street, Bloemfontein, which was one of the first occupied by Asians in the Free State. This merely illustrates the total absurdity of that party’s standpoints and the way in which it fought this election.

Let us examine another example … [Interjections.]

Order! There is far too much commenting aloud which in no way contributes to the debate. The hon member may proceed.

I want to cite another example. The hon member for Umlazi also referred to this report. Approximately a week and a half before the election the Sunday newspaper, the Sunday Star, carried a report on about 30 NP candidates who supposedly identified themselves with the so-called New Nats in private discussions. The candidates for Pietersburg and Potgietersrus numbered among them as well as other hon members such as those for Innesdal, Krugersdorp and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Hon members all know the New Nats over there only too well.

Nevertheless it was only after the hon leader of the CP had underlined the report in Pietersburg on the Wednesday a week before the election that the cat created sufficient havoc among the pigeons for the two candidates to have the opportunity to make the necessary denials on television during the six o’clock and the eight o’clock news. Needless to say it was of no avail because both those candidates lost in the election merely because the overwhelmingly conservative voters of that part of our country do not believe or trust leftist people. They do not even trust leftists within the NP. [Interjections.]

This left-wing image is not based on CP gossip and lies; it is based on what those people say in public themselves. I want to quote what the candidate for Pietersburg, Mr Lategan, who is a member of the President’s Council, appealed for in that council on 12 February 1985. I have the Hansard here because it is a public document. At the time he was participating in a debate on the principle of consensus on the Westminster system and he appealed for the spirit of a new broader nationalism among all population groups. He said there were a few ways in which this broader nationalism could be promoted (Hansard: President’s Council, 1985, col 233, 234):

If one thinks of a national anthem, one immediately wonders whether the pop song Together we will build a better future is perhaps a first effort at a new national anthem. As regards sport, I wish to ask immediately what NP policy is on mixed sport at school level. [Interjections.] My question arises especially as a result of the Menlo Park situation and other such incidents which have occurred. As an instance I read in The Citizen of 24 February about an incident relating to the E G Jansen High School I am pleased the hon member for Brentwood is present as I want to quote from this report:

Hon members should bear in mind that the subject is school sport—

I now want to ask the hon member for Brentwood whether he agrees with the chairman of his divisional council.

[Inaudible.]

This is the situation posing the problem. Directly after the election we had an indication that group areas legislation would in future be strictly applied but immediately afterwards this was repudiated by other members of the Government and by leading articles in the Press. This is the NP dilemma: If it moves too far left with the New Nats, there are hon members over there who prefer to resign rather than defend power-sharing to the bitter end; if it moves too slowly on the road to reform, however, it loses the independents and the academics on the other hand. As a columnist put it in The Argus:

[Interjections.]

Now only the politicians remain.

At this point I want to get to the actual crucial problem regarding the mandate the Government party alleges to have received. In the pamphlet in which it explains this mandate one finds inter alia under the caption “Vryheid, voorspoed, veiligheid …” as well as the last one as the four corner-stones of our future, as it is put, “volle deelname vir almal”, subjects or clichés like “individuele vryheid sonder rasse-diskriminasie sowel as selfbeskikkingsreg van groepe”, “beskerming van minderhede teen oorheersing deur gelyke geleenthede” and “besluite oor gemeenskaplike sake deur konsensus sonder oorheersing”.

The question now is how one is to accomplish that protection of minority rights in a unitary state with equal citizenship. One speaker after the other on this side of the House posed this question in the no-confidence debate at the beginning of the year. We asked the same question in the election campaign without receiving a reply. In the hon the State President’s opening address yesterday he broached this subject again. He said that in a multicultural country like the Republic of South Africa there could be no talk of the protection of individual rights if there was not simultaneous mention of the protection of minority rights.

Secondly, there could be no talk either of the protection of minority rights if there was not simultaneous mention of the protection of minority groups. Surely the rights of a group are inextricably bound to the group.

Nevertheless the question remains how a person is to protect those minority rights in such a situation. How will they be protected in South Africa because it has proved impossible to protect them effectively in the whole of Africa? Even the 20 White seats in Zimbabwe could not be entrenched.

I think the time has come for the Government to state explicitly how it intends accomplishing it in this country.

In the fourth reason for the motion of censure introduced by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition he said that the Government deserved censure because it had neglected to spell out clearly the mandate it sought with especial reference to the protection of peoples or minority groups and the prevention of a Black majority government for South Africa.

The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid took this somewhat further only as the general cliché of protection of minority rights. On 28 April he held a meeting at Brits and Beeld reported him as follows:

The Minister continued:

“Uitvoerende en wetgewende besluite in so ’n oorgangskabinet” was the nearest approach to an explanation of how it would take place.

In Rapport of 17 May Professor Hennie Kotzé asked this very valid question:

From the way the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid spelt out the policy and negotiating process it therefore appears that the possibility of a Black head of state is not excluded.

It is interesting to examine the utterance of a so-called moderate Black leader, such as Chief Buthelezi, arising from the election results. [Interjections.] Many people regard him as a moderate Black leader who could possibly become the state president or head of state. I read in a report in Beeld of 11 May that he had said at Ulundi that he would harness Black anger to sentence Whites to lifelong imprisonment in a democracy.

Is a peaceful consensus government possible in a climate as illustrated by a Black leader commenting on the result of an election? We claim it is impossible. Territorial division— partition—offers the only peaceful solution in the polyethnic and multicultural situation of Southern Africa.

The Afrikaner people is a people in the true sense of the word. Its existence and right to existence cannot be wished away. In terms of international law it has a claim to an own government and an own fatherland. I am not aware of any people in the entire world which was able to survive without a country of its own. Nationhood is inextricably linked to a geographic area as well as an area of jurisdiction which symbolize the freedom of such a people and also realize it. This was the basic motivation of every national movement in history. Hon members are free to look it up. This is and will remain the basic political philosophy of this side of the House and it will ultimately triumph here again in the land of our birth.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietersburg argued that we should discuss policy, and in the course of his speech, particularly towards the end, he also tried to spell out the policy objectives of the CP. He stated bluntly that the answer lay in territorial separation and partition. I think that is right, and it is fitting for an official opposition to discuss policy.

I also wish to be magnanimous and congratulate the hon members and leader of the CP on the new status they occupy in this House. An official opposition must, however unlikely it may be, be regarded as the alternative government. For that reason the policy of that party must be weighed against the question whether they afford the voters an alternative. This, of course, entails responsibilities, for every member individually as well as collectively for the party. The responsibilities require that speeches and debating should not be merely destructive but that positive contributions on policy should also be made. Apparently the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition shares this standpoint because in an interview with Rapport of 10 May he declared:

With all due respect I want to say that in my opinion the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, judged according to his own criterion, did not cast much light on the policies of the CP this afternoon. [Interjections.] I do not think the hon the leader and members of that party will take it amiss of me if I focus on the policy of the CP and ask whether what we have here is truly an alternative policy. An alternative policy must at least be capable of being implemented within the realities of South Africa. It must be practicable or else it is merely a fabrication and then we are dealing with a dream or an illusion whereby voters can very easily be led astray.

The question, then, which I wish to put with reference to the hon member for Pietersburg is whether the policy he sums up as territorial separation or geographical partition is feasible and realistic within the realities of South Africa. I wish to state here and now that the answer is no and I shall tell hon members why. [Interjections.] One of the important reasons is that the preconditions for a policy of total geographic separation or partition have already been tested and found unrealistic or unfeasible in South Africa.

By whom?

I shall come to that. The CP is propounding a policy, the important principles of which have already been tested in South Africa and found to be unworkable.

By whom?

Hon members of the Official Opposition should just give me a chance; if they do so I shall spell it out to them.

Just stay calm, Dawie.

I think that is a lesson that the hon member for Overvaal must learn for himself.

Never in history has the NP advocated a policy of total geographic separation—that is to say, partition. However, under Nationalist rule certain principles that must be regarded as essential prerequisites for a policy of partition have been tested and found to be unworkable. The principle tested was whether the movement of large numbers of people could be effectively controlled. The fact is today that effective control over the movement and establishment of large numbers of people is simply not possible within an undivided economic system. If an economic policy based on free enterprise is accepted, negative control measures cannot check the movement of people.

This is a fact that has been scientifically tested and proven in various parts of the world. These insights have emerged from socioeconomic and scientific studies in various countries over the past number of decades. These are insights that were not at the disposal of the NP in the fifties and sixties. For that reason the Government took steps at that time which could not be carried out effectively because they clashed with socioeconomic forces—forces that could simply not be deflected. Practical experience over the years and additional new scientific insights brought these realities home to us. The movement of people from rural and economically backward areas to cities and to areas with a higher economic growth is an irreversible reality.

Urbanisation is probably the most dynamic socio-economic and political process of this century. Its effect can only be compared with the process of industrialisation in the previous century.

What has our experience been in South Africa? Control measures relating to the movement of people have existed since Union. After the NP assumed power in 1948 these measures were dramatically extended and stepped up. Influx control measures and pass laws were introduced with the intention that the numbers in so-called White urban areas could be limited and eventually reduced.

An extensive corps of officials was established to administer these measures. Thousands of man-years of officials and of the SA Police were devoted to the implementation of these measures. Since 1910 more than 18 million people have been found guilty in terms of these measures. And what is the practical result? This brings me to the members of the CP.

Notwithstanding the most stringent implementation of these measures, the numbers in the urban areas—and in rural areas as well, but I am limiting myself to urban areas—have consistently and irreversibly increased. Notwithstanding the best intentions of previous governments under Dr Verwoerd and Mr Vorster reality turned out differently to what was expected. I do not say this reproachfully.

That is not true, man!

Yes, Sir, it is true. I do not say it in reproach, but so that we may learn from it. According to census figures—the hon member for Lichtenburg would do well to listen—the number of Black people in urban areas in 1951 was 2,3 million. We must regard these official figures as probably somewhat lower than the actual figures. Surveys have consistently shown that official figures are lower than the true figures. From 1951 to 1980 these figures nevertheless increased dramatically: From 2,3 million in 1951 to 3,5 million in 1960, 5,1 million in 1970 and 6,5 million in 1980. This represents an increase of 170% over three decades. Notwithstanding the most stringest implementation of these control measures over three decades, the numbers in urban areas have increased consistently and without interruption. That is the reality. That is why the NP has abolished these negative policies and replaced them by positive measures aimed at orderly urbanisation and an orderly geographic distribution of people.

This was not an easy decision for the NP. It was a difficult decision for the NP to abolish influx control because many of the supporters of the NP thought that these measures could contribute to different population ratios in our urban areas as well. However, the NP is a realistic party that is prepared to face the facts in the interests of a secure and prosperous future.

Simply give up.

No, we are not giving up, but we accept the realities, because in that way one serves the interests of the Whites and the other groups. One serves those interests if one accepts the realities within which one has to carry out one’s policy. [Interjections.]

Order! I believe an hon member of the PFP will speak after the hon the Minister and he will surely have the opportunity to respond to what the hon the Minister is saying.

*I believe that hon members of the CP will also take part in the debate, and when they do they, too, will have an opportunity to react. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I believe that through the recognition by the NP that negative control measures such as influx control do not work and that they should rather be replaced by positive programmes, this Government has brought South Africa far closer to workable and feasible solutions to our problems.

Now the CP comes along and in defiance of all realities and in defiance of practical experience in South Africa extending over more than 30 years and in defiance of proven scientific knowledge and insights, they offer the voters an alternative of geographic partition. This means that millions of Black people will simply have to be cleared out and taken back to the homelands.

Who says so?

I shall quote that hon member’s own spokesmen in that regard. Just give me a chance. [Interjections.]

The CP does not merely advocate control over the movement of millions of Black people; they also implicitly advocate the massive removal of millions of people back to their demarcated areas.

The chief secretary of the CP and former member for Koedoespoort said at Barkly West on 19 March 1987:

The hon member for Lichtenburg, the deputy leader of the CP, said in Durban, with the emotion engendered by an election:

Listen to this:

Yes, that they want to do within 10 to 15 years. [Interjections.] I do not think that we are still talking about an alternative policy. It seems to me we are talking about a revolution here. [Interjections.] Yes, 10 to 15 years. Hon members should note that there is here no further reference to evolutionary processes or negotiations. A statement is simply made about the removal of millions of people.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke about bloodshed today. I want to see what will happen if this policy is implemented as spelt out by the hon member for Lichtenburg.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but let me go further. [Interjections.] What did the chief secretary of the CP go on to say? What he said constitutes the point of departure of the CP. It is implicitly the principle on the basis of which they designed this policy of partition too. The chief secretary of the CP said at the same meeting:

I am tempted to say that that is the language of the AWB. It is not true. This country has never been a White country. [Interjections.] From the time the first White people came to the Cape there were thousands and later millions of people of other colours here who also knew only one fatherland, South Africa. [Interjections.] It is untrue that it is only a White country.

Hon members of the Official Opposition are creating false expectations among people. It is a dangerous and false expectation. It is a false image to try to create the impression that South Africa is a country to which only Whites can lay claim.

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

No, Mr Chairman, I have limited time.

Dawie, just walk over to the Progs.

It is pointless the hon member for Lichtenburg and other hon members of the CP closing their eyes to reality. It is incontrovertibly true that there are thousands and millions of other people in this country who know only one fatherland, South Africa. [Interjections.] It is not only a country of White citizens and other intruders. The longer the CP propounds this message, the more difficult it becomes ultimately to bring about workable solutions in South Africa.

We are going to do so more than ever before.

It is going to become increasingly difficult to bring about the reconciliation and peace needed among all population groups in this country, and the hon members of the CP know it.

I want to go further. This false expectation that is created must be tested against reality. Let us test it. If the hon member for Lichtenburg states that the CP will see to it that within 10 to 15 years, 70

of all Black people will be living in their own homelands, is he dealing with reality or is he trying to incite voters with a false idea? It is a dangerous game to tell Whites that there is a White state on the horizon.

You know where it is.

The hon member for Lichtenburg is almost like the “Jerusalem trekkers”. I want to warn him: His trek will similarly end in hardship and misery for many Whites.

I should like to come back to the realities that the hon member for Lichtenburg is putting up such a fuss about now. After all, he is an intelligent member.

That is an exaggerated statement. [Interjections.]

Even in his wildest claims during the election something of reality glimmmers through, because the hon member says that 10 to 15 years after the CP comes to power, 70% of all Black people will be living in their own homelands. Why 70%?

What about the other 30%?

The hon member for Lichtenburg knows that there will always, but always be many Black people here, millions of Black people, living and working in South Africa. He know it. [Interjections.] Let us dwell for a moment on that theme: The CP as an alternative government.

A smart government.

Let us embark on a flight of fancy and assume for argument’s sake that the CP had won the recent election. This new government now comes along …

The next one.

… and implements its policy in the terms spelt out by the hon member for Lichtenburg: The 10 to 15 years policy.

That’s right!

Now, we have to accept that the Black urban population in South Africa is already 6,5 million according to the 1985 census—that was two years ago. Let us now assume that the CP Government tackles the policy of territorial separation, geographical partition with a will, with a view to having 70% of all Black people resettled within 15 years. We should then have to draw some conclusions. The first is that during this 10 to 15 years the CP will have to relocate between 10 million and 15 million Black people from urban areas to their homelands in the course of this 10 to 15 years—the word Mr Van Staden used was “terugvoer”. I should like to refer to page 105 of the book Swart Verste-deliking in Suid-Afrika by Profs Smit and Booysens. I quote:

Therefore they are speaking about 21 million Black urbanites before the end of the century.

A movement of 70% will mean that that Government will have to resettle approximately 10 million to 15 million people. What is more important, let us take it for argument’s sake that the CP was able to succeed in resettling these numbers in the face of the international outrage that would be unleashed at such a massive forced removal, because that removal could only be forced … [Interjections.] More than the Defence Force would have to be called in, but let me leave it at that. Let us assume that it is possible, despite the deteriorating internal security situation that would develop in that millions of uprooted Black people would be chased into the hands of the terrorists to become their allies. Let us assume this despite that fact, too, and despite the fact that this policy and its implementation would be a shattering blow to economic confidence in South Africa and would jeopardise our economic stability. Let us assume this despite all those things. We should therefore be faced with exactly the same issue that we are faced with today, namely: How does one give meaningful content to the rights of Black people where they can rightfully lay claim to such rights; ie where they live and work? [Interjections.] In other words, after 15 years we shall be faced with precisely the same problem as we have to contend with today, namely: How does one give political rights, on a meaningful basis, to Black people in the urban areas of South Africa?

It is evident, therefore, that the alternative presented by the CP is no alternative. It is not feasible, and as I have already said it creates a dangerous false expectation among White voters who may think that one can simply shunt other population groups out of the South African system.

No, Sir, the South African reality is characterised by a variety of peoples and population groups but also by a communality that binds us together in many spheres. It is a pity that the way in which the CP propounded their unworkable policy during the election cast suspicion on this area of communality. It is a pity because it forms part of the reality of South Africa.

The CP wants to deny the communality, just as hon members of the PFP want to deny the diversity. Both parties deny part of the reality of South Africa—a reality that we have to deal with.

The NP, with all its shortcomings and deficiencies, is the only party that recognises both the diversity and the communality and deals with these aspects in its policy. Only through a policy of constitutional partnership with adequate protection of the rights of minorities can workable and feasible solutions be found in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The NP does not promise the Whites in this country a political utopia that they will never achieve. We do not create false expectations; we spell the facts out to the voters. [Interjections.] What is more, what this election proved once again is that the Whites in this country appreciate the realities. The Whites in this country realise that they will have to share power with others.

We will not!

They will, Sir. There is much common ground that we share with the other population groups, namely our prosperity, our peace, our security, our progress, our values and our future. The Whites are prepared to share, to conclude a new partnership, with Black people as well, but while preserving order, stability and our rights as minority groups. That is why in the past election the NP obtained overwhelming support from all the voters in this country who accept the reality and want to join the NP in building a new future.

The hon members of the Official Opposition can make an important contribution to the solution of South Africa’s problems. They can do so if they want to join us in recognising the unavoidable realities in this country.

We will not surrender with you.

Yes, if they want to admit it, they can help us design solutions that will address White interests but also the interests of all the inhabitants of South Africa in a just way. If they were to do so and were to return to reality they could begin to make a contribution towards a workable and stable solution in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, one seldom hears an hon Minister on the other side of the House really trying to wrestle with the realities of our country. Many of the points he raised and large parts of his arguments have been advanced from this side of the House for years. I am glad to hear that this type of argument is now emerging after the election. It is regrettable that one did not hear anything resembling these remarks of the hon the Minister’s during the election campaign. [Interjections.] There the emphasis was on trying to run away from reality and trying to herd the voters into the laager so that they could hide behind the security system.

†What we saw in the election was a repeat of the Rhodesian syndrome where White voters, through the employment of fear tactics and the effect of the turmoil in the country, preferred to hide from the realities of what was happening behind what they perceived to be the security shield the Government was offering. When the hon member for Umlazi said that South Africans have a feeling for what is right, it reminded me so much of what Ian Smith said after his last very successful election. I have a video at home which I would like to show the hon member of a fantastic public meeting where all the Smith fans were present. Outside and inside the country there was turmoil, but all the voters were there, and he said: “We have won the war. You knew what to do. You were right,” and they all cheered while all around them the realities of Rhodesia were dictating the pace of history.

The same happened in this election. Whilst the majority of White voters allowed themselves to be herded, pushed and cajoled into the security laager, the realities of what is happening outside our White politics are determining the future of our country. It is affecting this Parliament. All those new members, regardless on which side they are, probably believe that they have come into an institution where they can play a vital role in shaping South Africa’s future. Let me tell them, Sir, that no-one else but the State Security Council and the executive decide what is to happen in this country. The hon members have no say in what is brought before this House. [Interjections.] They are all rubber stamps. Unlike during the fifties when the NP caucus was still brought into the decision making process, they are now just a rubber stamp. They are here to earn a nice salary, and not to determine the direction of our politics. [Interjections.]

What is happening outside Parliament is something we need to take into account when we have debates here. I wish to refer to one aspect, namely what is happening in the trade union movements. The hon the Minister also referred to the free enterprise system and the fact that they removed the restrictions on urbanization because free enterprise could not work with those restrictions.

He is right. He also knows and the hon the Minister of Manpower knows that there is a growing tendency towards socialism among South African workers, particularly the Blacks. Free enterprise will not remain intact if the type of union-bashing exercise that is on the go at the moment continues. There are clear indications that the Government has embarked on such a campaign where they try to curtail legitimate trade union activities and to bash for example the trade union federation, Cosatu.

That is not true!

The union offices have been raided in various parts of the country and others have been bombed, burnt down or vandalised by unidentifiable individuals. Meetings have been banned or disrupted and, with the assistance of the SABC, feelings are being whipped up by …

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member? Does the hon member allege that the Government bombed Cosatu House? [Interjections.]

If the hon the Minister would only open his ears as much as he opens his mouth he would have heard that I said “by unidentifiable individuals.” I said so specifically. [Interjections.]

With the help of the SABC White feelings are being whipped up against trade unions and against Cosatu specifically. The turmoil and damage that took place during the SATS strike obviously came in handy to whip up feelings among voters. Those arsonists who set fire to the railway coaches made it much easier for the police to justify their action across the country against the unions. Those destructive and senseless acts are obviously counterproductive to the unions themselves. Cosatu have denied that they were involved in those acts of arson.

Three terrorists were arrested in Cosatu House. A few days later they were released without having been brought to trial. Necklace burnings took place and Cosatu was linked with them. Regardless of who did it there was no justifiable reason for necklacing and it was a savage act. Those people should be brought to trial. The Government should not try to smear and smash unions through insinuations and actions such as the ones that we are seeing now. [Interjections.]

During the few years under the new labour dispensation tremendous progress has been made in building up sound relations between management and labour. Increasing use is being made of the official conciliation machinery which is provided by the Act in order to resolve disputes between labour and management. In 1986 for example, 1 294 applications were received for the establishment of conciliation boards, compared with only 514 the year before. This is an indication that the machinery is being used by both sides.

It is foolhardy for the Government or the police to believe that unions will not respond to arbitrary clamp-downs. This is not only the case in South Africa and it does not matter whether they are White or Black. All over the world the unions stand together on those issues. It is an illusion to believe that the unions will not respond when a few trade unionists are removed without being charged. There already exist—the hon the Minister of Law and Order may laugh because perhaps he does not know this—severe tensions within the labour movements. Numerous wage negotiations are at the moment in progress. If the tension increases it increases the chances of deadlocks in those wage negotiations. Commerce and Industry knows the importance of those wage negotiations. Clamp-downs of the likes that we are seeing will most certainly polarise relations on the factory floor and will certainly break down relations which management and labour have built up over many years.

The South African economy cannot afford a breakdown in labour relations, particularly not at a stage where there are signs of an economic recovery and signs of economic growth. Most businessmen understand why the unions are becoming more and more politicised. However, the Government does not understand that and it still maintains that politics can be kept totally out of union movements.

Mr Chairman, I do not know of any country in the world where that happens, but that is the standard which is being set by this Government. Particularly in South Africa where Blacks are totally excluded from the political process, political aspirations will necessarily feature on trade union agendas and we have to get used to that. There is a growing militancy among trade union leaders, but it would be wrong to ignore the fact that this is as a direct result of a growing militancy and frustration on the last of the workers. It is not the other way around. The Labour Relations Act has made it possible to an increasing extent to channel the more aggressive aspirations of unions through the recognized channels of the Act and thereby defuse many of the issues. Both unions and management have become far more sophisticated than they were a few years ago in their dealings with each other, and all these achievements are now being endangered by a Government which is determined to force everyone into his own straitjacket.

If the existing negotiation forums in the labour area are destroyed or damaged, the only forum in South Africa where Blacks and Whites could have negotiated until now on more or less equal terms and with a more or less equal power basis, will have disappeared. That does not augur well for the future.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Law and Order stated at a meeting in Rustenburg on 24 April during the election campaign that trade unionists who were involved in bona fide trade union activities would be left in peace by the security forces. However, he went on to say and I quote from the Cape Times of 25 April:

We need to find out what he regards as being in the interests of the country, because two days after he made his speech a ban was imposed on a rally at which Cosatu was going to launch their living wage campaign. When this order was challenged in court, the hon the Minister through his legal representatives produced documents and arguments suggesting that the living wage campaign was communist-and ANC-inspired. Workers, and in particular Black workers, in South Africa do not need the Communist Party to tell them that they earn wages which are below the minimum level as determined by various bodies.

If we have reached the stage where a campaign by trade unions for a living wage is smeared by the hon the Minister of Law and Order as a communist plot, then we may as well classify those millions of workers who strive for a living wage as communists. It is outrageous to suggest that the millions of Blacks who receive wages below the minimum levels need communists or the ANC to incite them to claim decent living wages.

However, Mr Speaker, what is clear is that if nothing is done about the growing disparity between wealth and poverty in South Africa, large sections of our population will necessarily demand and strive for harder socialist lines. The hon Minister does not need me to tell him that because he knows it. If the gap between rich and poor keeps on growing as it is doing at the moment there must necessarily be a demand for a system where the romantic concept of nationalisation is more acceptable. That must come.

It is common knowledge that the calls for a more socialist system are growing. If this hon Minister tries to impede and undermine that campaign, he will actually be hardening the socialist views and playing into the hands of those who want to destroy those remnants of free enterprise that still exist. We know that poverty is, to a large extent, the cause of revolution and crime. If the hon the Minister tries to crush the trade union movement and if he tries to decapitate it by actions against some of its leaders he will be doing exactly what the revolutionaries are hoping for because it will then be far easier to convince them that this system equals racism and a police state. They will then go for the alternative which is an authoritarian socialist system. He is playing into their hands and he ought to be warned that it is a game which neither the economy nor the country can afford.

Mr Speaker, I have listened to the plea made by the hon member for Durban Central and it is evident that he is in fact looking for excuses for the hiding they received from the voters. [Interjections.] That is why the hon member is, in fact, insulting the voters when he says that they are suffering from a Smith syndrome.

The voters voted for realism, for common sense and for security on 6 May and that is why they voted for the NP. [Interjections.]

*The hon member referred briefly to the trade union movement. He insinuated that we were restricting the legal activities and functions of trade unions.

It was not even insinuated; it was stated clearly.

That is not true. He made a statement, but he gave no proof. The hon member referred to arsonists in connection with the strike experienced by the SATS. Who were they? Is the hon member asserting that they were members of the trade unions to which he referred?

Bring them to court; then we shall see who they are.

You see, Sir, the hon member was simply indulging in a little kiteflying without substantiating his allegations. He referred to workers of the SATS who were burned scandalously and cruelly. Who did that?

Do you know?

It is easy to level these things at the Government without saying what one means by them.

The hon member asserted that we had not made use of the machinery available for the settling of differences. Let me remind the hon member that in reality there was no dispute between the SATS and its workers.

I have not heard that before. I thought there was a dispute.

The hon member is uninformed. [Interjections.] There was a strike which was arranged as a result of a fine of R80. The management and I declared ourselves prepared at all times to negotiate and I also said that if there were any other trade unions which asserted that they represented a considerable number of workers, I would talk to them as well. They would have to prove it through the usual channels first, however, because I cannot negotiate with anyone who is joining in the game from the sidelines. It has to be done in an orderly way, not so? Trade unions have come to stay and are a democratic phenomenon. Those trade unions must stick to the discipline of the game, however.

The result of the recent election was correct and logical. As the English-speaking part of our community has dominated the economy of our country in the past, or still does, so the Afrikaner section has dominated the political scene in the past and still does. I maintain that the result was logical, because there is more room for right-wing radicalism in Afrikaner politics than for left-wing radicalism. That is why we have a right-wing radical Official Opposition today.

There is no such thing! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, then the hon member for Jeppe must go and have a look at the composition of his party right there behind him. There are members of the AWB among them, a body which in effect propagates a dictatorship in this country. Is that not radical?

One does not talk about right-wing radicals; one talks about right-wing reactionaries! [Interjections.]

Listen to that, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.]

Did you write a book about that, Koos?

Mr Speaker, the voters were also logical and correct in their rejection of the previous Official Opposition because, as Dr Denis Worrall said, the PFP has become irrelevant in South African politics. That has happened for two very good reasons, Sir. Firstly, the PFP treats Parliament, the highest institution in South Africa, with the utmost contempt.

That is not true! [Interjections.]

Of course it is true. They demonstrated that on two occasions this week—on Monday and on Tuesday—in relation to the election and to their conveying of their congratulations to the bearer of the highest office in this institution.

Explain yourself!

The hon member knows what I mean. He knows very well what I am referring to. Why is that so, Sir? Why do they disregard this institution? They do so because that party is moving in the direction of extra-parliamentary politics. They are following in the footsteps of their now defunct leader. [Interjections.]

There is also a second very important reason why I say they disregard this institution. The most condemnatory evidence against the PFP was produced by the research conducted by the party itself. From that evidence it was clear that only about half the people supporting that party’s line of policy vote for them. Why, Sir? That is because the voters do not trust the PFP. They do not trust the PFP with the political future of this country or with the safety and security of this country.

*Mr Speaker, I contend that it is logical that we have a right-wing radical Official Opposition. I want to congratulate them on their achievement. It is fortunate, however, that right-wing radical Afrikaner politics is limited. Its potential is also limited. The hon the Minister of Manpower has pointed out that in reality there has been no growth in right-wing politics, as has been maintained by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. In passing the hon the Minister referred to what Prof Dirk Laurie had found in the analysis he did which was published in Finansies en Tegniek of 15 May 1987. In that analysis Prof Laurie proves that in reality there has been a decrease in support of the right-wing political groups.

I want to take this even further, Mr Speaker. I want to quote better proof than than of Prof Dirk Laurie. I want to quote from Die Patriot of 18 November 1983—just after the referendum. Die Patriot, the mouthpiece of the Conservative Party, analyzed the results of the referendum and concluded that the conservative votes had numbered approximately 600 000. Hon members are welcome to go and read that edition of Die Patriot themselves. They will know who wrote it. In reality that is also approximately the true number of votes obtained collectively by the two right-wing parties in the recent election.

Did the Progs not also vote “no” in the referendum?

The hon member for Randfontein is asking whether the Progs did not also vote “no” then. If he were to go and read what his own party’s mouthpiece said about it … or was he not a member of the Conservative Party yet?

Connie was the editor of Die Patriot at the time! [Interjections.]

After having made provision for the Progs—the hon member for Randfontein said in any case that they had voted for the National Party—Die Patriot found that 600 000, who had voted for the right-wing or conservative group, remained. That is exactly the same figure that has been presented there now.

I maintain that the CP is in a more important position now than it was before. For that reason hon members have a much greater obligation and responsibility not to continue to maintain the position merely by means of emotion and slogans. Hon members can keep on saying Whites will govern Whites with the associated partition, but clear guidelines should be given as to how this will be achieved. The Government made this tricameral Parliament a reality as part of its guidelines in that very way.

What was the prediction of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition when the NP received the electorate’s mandate to realise this Parliament? Just after that referendum the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said in Beeld of November 1983:

What are the facts now? This tricameral Parliament has been in progress for more or less three years. The facts say it is a workable formula … [Interjections.] … in the evolutionary process of political development in this country. [Interjections.] The hon members are laughing! At least the hon member for Randfontein was almost correct when he said it was a magic formula.

That was a completely different system. [Interjections.]

In the beginning it was exactly the same, and the hon member knows that. [Interjections.]

I want to put certain facts to the hon members, whether they want to know them or not. This tricameral Parliament has made two exceptional contributions: In the first place that of granting this Parliament and its members—including hon members of the CP—experience in consensus government and consensus decision-making. [Interjections.] Yes, that is the truth! In the second place it has strengthened mutual trust between groups. That has also happened and is still happening constantly. [Interjections.]

The CP as an Opposition party is undertaking expressly to destroy this Parliament. When the Official Opposition as the alternative government gives an undertaking of this kind, they can be expected to say clearly what they would put in its place.

I see that as far as the House of Representatives is concerned, it is said that a Coloured homeland will be established. I read in Die Patriot of April 1987 for example …

You read good newspapers!

This newspaper said:

They then continue:

The statement I have just read contains at least five important elements of disinformation. In the first place it says 23% of that population group inhabits approximately 2 million hectares of land. It can be interpreted in that way. What does a rural area of 2 million hectares mean in effect, however? More or less half a million people—23% of 2,7 million people makes up approximately half a million—are already living in those areas and possess land there. Am I making the correct deduction? What are the facts? The fact is that not even 50 000 people live in those areas.

In addition the article says that approximately 2 million hectares of land is at the disposal of these people. What are the facts? The available land comprises 1,7 million hectares, which is not far from 2 million, but of that 1,7 million hectares, 1,6 million is desert and semi-desert. [Interjections.] Those are the facts. I take the areas in the North-Western Cape which are in my constituency, for example. Steinkopf comprises 329 hectares and in 1981-82 the agricultural revenue from this land was approximately R149 000; one can continue in this way. Concordia comprises 63 000 hectares and renders a return of R129 000, whereas Leliefontein’s 192 000 hectares renders R201 000.and Komaggas’s 65 000 hectares renders R15 000. Hon members must listen to this figure: The Richtersveld which borders on the Orange River, comprises more than half a million hectares, but the agricultural revenue from that are a mere R41 000.

It sounds wonderful when these things are put in fine words on beautiful paper, but when they are analysed one sees how impossible they are. I want to point out to hon members that irrigation possibilities in those areas are extremely limited, because the river runs through mountainous parts in precisely those areas.

The rich minerals are the most important element mentioned. The principal minerals there—the minerals which really lend themselves to viable exploitation—are the diamonds of Alexander Bay and Kleinsee, as well as O’Kiep’s copper mines and the mines of Aggeneys. Not one of these larger mines is in those areas, however.

Another very important question is what they mean when they refer to the Western Cape. If they mean that everything west of the line we generally draw between Humansdorp and Upington comprises the Western Cape, I want to tell them they are talking about an extremely large area. This area covers more than a thousand kilometres from the eastern border to the western border. To present that as an alternative to an existing structure is absolutely irresponsible.

Partition means division, and division rests on agreement. No agreement has any chance of succeeding if it is not based on reason, fairness and justice. The many lawyers we have here can tell me whether or not I am correct. [Interjections.]

With regard to this question of partition, the hon member for Lichtenburg—who is not here now—said on occasion that that party would decide unilaterally. In one of the newspapers he said recently that afterwards they would still have to say: “Thank you, Morêna.”

If those hon members are convinced that they have a fair policy and are making fair conditions, they should have no problem in going to the House of Representatives and asking any hon member there to submit a member’s motion in that House to argue their proposal. Would they do that? [Interjections.]

How many of them accept your proposals?

Mr Speaker, they are here. They have a political dispensation and the hon members on the opposite side supported it as well. [Interjections.]

That party’s partition policy is a smokescreen. They are using sweet-sounding words to conceal their real motive of domination. They know that, and that is why recently they have not been advocating the Coloured homeland as strongly as the White homeland, the “Boerestaat” of the AWB. [Interjections.]

I looked at the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s motion of censure. In the first place he is attacking our reform policy, and citing that as the reason that economic recovery is doomed. I want to remind the hon member that we have experienced a difficult economic period. The rest of the world has experienced it as well. No one can deny that South Africa’s economy is under pressure, but we have a vigorous economy. The price of gold—our most important source of income abroad—has dropped by approximately 50%. We have been conducting a war, which costs us a great deal of money, for many years. In addition we are experiencing the worst drought we have had in 200 years and it costs billions of rands to keep people on their farms and to keep farmers going. We are losing even more money—billions of rands—in a loss of production which is supposed to stimulate this country’s economy. [Interjections.]

If all these things are taken into account, it is an excellent economic achievement for this country to be able to announce that we shall finance the new gas project at Mossel Bay ourselves, with between R4 000 million and R5 000 million.

In reality the economy is already recovering. Gradually the outside world is beginning to invest in South Africa again. Our aeroplanes are carrying more tourists who are prepared to visit this country. Why is that the case? [Interjections.] The reason is that it is becoming clear that we can maintain stability in this country without having a massacre. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said we had no long-term plan to arrest revolution effectively. That was what he said, whereas someone of international renown, Dr Alan Debrovsky, a military strategist from the University of Georgetown, said on television recently that South Africa can probably become one of the first countries to win a terrorist war. The reason for that is that this Government knows how to conduct a terrorist war. They realise that violence has to be used, but it represents only 20% of their action. Eighty per cent of their action is of a social, economic and political nature. One cannot act using violence alone.

I am also referring to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition who said we had failed to spell out our objectives clearly. I do not think that is possible. The NP gave certain guidelines. We spoke about self-determination, power-sharing with regard to own affairs, evolutionary or step-by-step political development, and power-sharing without domination in respect of joint affairs. I do not think it is possible to spell that out clearly, however, because no one can see the end of the road.

Now we agree.

Yes, now we agree. I had a look at what some of our Afrikaner leaders said about this. In doing so I came upon this speech made by one of our Afrikaner leaders. He said:

Who said that? There he is. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition used these words at a youth meeting on 7 March 1981. [Interjections.] He was correct. At the time he was still a Nationalist who thought in the right way.

A responsible political party which strives towards responsible political development in South Africa, must recognize groups, protect minorities, and maintain civilised Christian norms and standards; circumstances require this of him. He must not advocate any instant democracy or unilateral and one-off reform, but should establish evolutionary reform, based on negotiation in an atmosphere of stability, step by step. Once again the electorate was correct and logical when it singled out the NP for this task.

Mr Speaker, I should like to begin my speech by referring briefly to a bomb explosion that took place in Johannesburg today, killing three White members of the SA Police. I should like to convey the deepest sympathy of this side of the House to the families of those deceased policemen and also to those who were injured.

We have had the opportunity of listening to three hon Ministers. What I find so interesting is that not one of them succeeded in answering the numerous questions that were put to the NP. They succeeded very neatly, however, in putting the CP in the dock. They examined our policy; they did not seem to realize that this was a censure debate. [Interjections.] This is the occasion on which the NP has to come up with answers. The mere fact that they shied away from doing so is proof that they do not have answers to our questions.

The hon the Minister of Manpower and of Public Works did not make any contribution. Really, he does not have the faintest idea of a Minister’s responsibilities and of the responsibilities a debate of censure places upon hon members. He merely tried to be funny—and in that he succeeded! One of his absurd comments was that there is no mandate for bringing Blacks into Parliament or into the Cabinet. He merely has to consult the hon the Minister of Finance who said in Beeld of 3 April 1987 that the NP was requesting a mandate to share power with Blacks in the Cabinet. They must decide now whether the Blacks must come in or not and whether they want to share power or not. To me it seems that the hon the State President told the members of the NP that they should go out and seek a mandate, and that he would tell them after the election what this mandate was for.

I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare on a much better contribution. He at least wished us luck; and he tried to debate. He did so at a high level too. What he said about separate development, viz that it has failed and that we should try something else, reminded me of Sir Roy Welensky. He went way back into the past, to Sir Roy Welensky’s “partnership” idea, an idea which proved to be a failure. The hon the Minister is concerned about the realities—he referred to them at least twenty times in his speech. We are aware of them too. He is obviously not aware, however, of the reality of the existence of Whites and of an Afrikaner people in this country, a people that will not allow others to dominate it, a people striving for freedom. The hon the Minister is also not aware of the reality that 600 000 people have aligned themselves with the right wing. Those are not realities to him; he is not concerned with them. He is concerned with other realities.

We will ensure that attention is given to the realities. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon the Minister of National Education encountered enough problems in Vereeniging. If I remember correctly, his majority was reduced by 70%. At one stage he was so anxious that he stormed around in his constituency in a frantic state. He must rather shut his mouth, before I get hold of him! [Interjections.]

It is obvious that the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare has never been a true Nationalist. I think he is one of those hon members in the House who secretly support Dr Worrall. He owes it to himself to be sincere and honest enough to go out and join Mr Wynand Malan and Dr Worrall, because that is where he belongs. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs does not realize how arrogant he is. I must add, though, that he conducted his debate at a high level. It was rather well done. It was arrogant of him, however, to say that the result of the election was both right and logical. In other words, he regards it as correct that 600 000 people voted against his party. He accepts that as being correct and is not concerned about it. That is arrogance. I might add what the hon the State President said, viz “Get them back!” The hon the Minister said they could go to the devil, but I want to tell him that their number will grow. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister said there was no difference between the 1977 proposals and this tricameral Parliament. Surely the hon the Minister came here at the same time as I did in 1977, or has his memory left him in the lurch?

According to the 1977 proposals, there were to have been three parliaments. Now there is only one Parliament. The fact that he contends that there is no difference between one parliament and three is a clear indication that the hon the Minister cannot count. In documents of his that Were prepared in 1977 the present hon Leader of the House said—I am not referring now to his alarmist stories— that there was no question of power-sharing. Now he comes here and says it is one and the same thing. I suggest to him that he goes and reads those documents again. [Interjections.] I actually mean the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, but I wanted to have a go at the other hon Minister and so you must excuse me, Sir! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs said that this new tricameral concoction works well. And after the referendum …

Order! The hon member may not refer to Parliament as a “concoction”.

I withdraw that, Mr Speaker. It is not a concoction, it is a tricameral Parliament.

Order! I am addressing the hon member. This is Parliament and not a concoction. The hon member must formally withdraw the remark.

I withdraw it. This is Parliament and not a concoction.

The hon member may proceed.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that the NP made a promise during the referendum. What did it promise? It promised prosperity, peace and overseas friends. Yet what do we have today? Instead of prosperity we have Dr De Loor saying that we are economically bankrupt. Instead of peace we have unrest. Instead of friends we are burdened with foreign sanctions. It is because the tricameral Parliament has failed. That is a fact. [Interjections.]

We looked forward with high hopes to the speech of the hon the State President in this debate. We hoped that light would be shed on this dark road of South Africa. We hoped to glean from the hon the State President’s speech his vision for the future. One could easily fit all the innovative and directive parts of the hon the State President’s speech on the back of a halfpenny stamp, however. Even Rev Allan Hendrickse, a Cabinet Minister, complained openly and said: “Nothing new.”

I think there is a typing error on this booklet. It reads “The road ahead”. I think that must be a typing error. It should actually read “The road to the bottom”, or “The road to nowhere”, or perhaps quite blatantly “Culde sac”.

The hon the State President’s speech contained absolutely nothing definite about the future. It reflects no vision and contains no firm principles. It does not spell out those matters the Government considers non-negotiable—that is, if there is still any such thing! The hon the State President’s speech was a kind of feeling in the dark, as has been the case for the past five years. It circumvents the realities of South Africa and the real points of dispute with which we have been grappling. It does not offer any hope for the people of South Africa. It is typical of a “middle of the road” party and of a leader who has served his time. It is high time that leader was replaced by someone else.

The disturbing aspect about the situation is that South Africa is more in the dark today than it ever was—and after a general election too!

The election was a triumph for the CP and a death-blow for the NP. [Interjections.] What is significant about this is that the CP achieved what it did in spite of the loyal and diligent support the NP received from its partner, Mr Riaan Eksteen and the television services. [Interjections.] I want to say today that the NP would have fared very badly without the television services. We want to tell Mr Eksteen and the television services: “You must get your house in order. You must begin to utilize television in an objective way, because the CP is not going to allow you to continue to abuse a medium of the State in this way.” [Interjections.]

The CP is now by far the second strongest political party in this country, with 27% of the Whites firmly behind us. Temporarily we are the Official Opposition, and after the next general election we shall be the Government of this country. [Interjections.] As things turned out, the CP was not a flaking-off, as the hon the State President scornfully referred to us. In fact, we have turned out to be the growing political power in South Africa. The voters have proved that the CP is a respected political party with a power base of more than half a million people. The CP now represents so many Afrikaners that the Government would be disregarding the interests of the Afrikaners if in future it did not regard the wishes of the CP in a serious light. [Interjections.]

It must be a personal disillusionment for the hon the State President to realize that 600 000 people, most of whom are Afrikaners, have rejected him. The people who stood by him and the Afrikaner leaders in the past, have turned their backs on the hon the State President. They have rejected him.

The voters have proved that the CP is a dynamic and modern political party, a party that is thoroughly aware of the realities of our time, a party that takes fully into account the numerous problems we are grappling with.

The CP has shaken off certain artifical labels that it was given during the election. In any case, those were labels which never suited us. According to those labels we are an extremist party that practises “ox wagon” politics and “ostrich” politics, a party that believes in instant solutions and advocates rash alternatives. We have shaken off those labels.

The voters have shown their trust in the CP as a party par excellence, a party with a solution to South Africa’s problems. That solution is, was and always will be separate development. Separate development is the only policy that can secure long-term peace and prosperity for South Africa. That is why the CP will most certainly govern South Africa in the future.

This election has, however, given rise to many more interesting issues. First of all, there was a coming into being of a new left-wing grouping. The independents who were so successful are not independents in the ordinary sense of the word. They are, in fact, the forerunners of a new left-wing political party that has its roots deep in this NP. Hon members have just heard one of their members speaking. That political party also has its roots in the PFP.

In time to come that party that will have been founded will be the traditional left-wing party, while the CP will put forward the right-wing alternative here. The NP will go the way of a “middle of the road” party and will disintegrate. Before long the NP will go the same way as the United Party, of which there is only one hon member sitting in the House today.

Secondly, this election has brought the real frailty of the NP to light. Even their much vaunted Cape political machine nearly failed to rescue their Cape leader. They launched a total onslaught against Dr Worrall. The NP’s support in the Cape has shrunk so much that today my majority is 27 times that of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon the Minister—he is not here now—that, considering his behaviour on TV when his result was announced, he can never again, while he is in public office, criticize the behaviour of another public figure.

There is another tendency that has come to light: If one really wants to have some fun, one should poke one’s head into a place where members of the NP are drinking coffee and shout “by-election!” About five of them would simply faint! [Interjections.] I understand that the two who faint most easily are “Pikkie” and “Pietie”. I do not know who they are. Fourthly …

Order! I want to point out to the hon member that I have given an official ruling that one may not refer to other hon members here by their nicknames or in any similar way. I appeal to hon members not to continue with this kind of thing. The hon member may proceed.

Fourthly, the chaps apparently worked very hard during this election. One newspaper wrote: “Pik …”. Mr Speaker, may I use this nickname?

Order! The hon member is quoting from a newspaper. He is entitled to do that.

The newspaper wrote: “Pik poegaai ná 30 vergaderings”. (“Pik exhausted after 30 meetings”.) [Interjections.] We collapsed with laughter about that one. My hon leader held 75 meetings, and he is still as fit as a fiddle—and ready to take over the State Presidency of South Africa in two years’ time! [Interjections.]

I should like to say something about the NP’s new policy, viz its approach to the group. Nowadays the NP emphasizes the group and not the people (“volk”) as the old NP did. Instead of each nation’s being entitled to its own land and government, people’s are being reduced to groups and referred to degradingly as minority groups. Suddenly everyone in the country has to be squashed into the same bottle, and then the bottle has to be sealed as well!

The simple truth about this so-called “group approach” is that it cannot work. One of the main reasons for this is that ethnically speaking, South Africa is a deeply divided country. There are very significant differences, and these differences cannot be sorted out within just one group. That could lead to conflict.

Secondly, South Africa is really a subcontinent comprising different peoples. The reality is that the existence of these peoples is too strong for one to suppress it by artificial means. It would be expecting the impossible to expect a people such as the proud one to which I belong, to sacrifice its freedom and be governed by others. This would lead to uncontrollable conflict.

There are also other reasons why the group approach cannot work, inter alia, the other significant differences between the people. For instance, the Whites in this country are First World citizens, while the others are Third World citizens.

Then there is also the law of numbers. It is only obvious—indeed it is quite unavoidable—that if we were all grouped within a system in which 83% of the inhabitants were non-Whites and 17% Whites, we would have a Black State President, as the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs once said. That is where the group approach will lead us.

The problem of conflict lies at the heart of this group idea that forms the basis of the NP’s new policy. Conflict is inherent in a system of consociational democracy. The situation in South Africa illustrates this. To substantiate my statement that conflict is inherent in a system of consociational democracy, I should like to quote from my source. Proceedings suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr Chairman, when proceedings were suspended earlier this evening, I was arguing that the group idea that forms the basis of the NP’s new policy cannot work because of its inherent potential for conflict. I wanted to quote the opinion of an authority to illustrate my point that the idea of a consociational democracy or group idea really cannot work. I quote from Hansard (House of Assembly, 1980, col 247):

The source from which I quoted contains the words of the hon the State President. [Interjections.] We find ourselves, therefore, in an absurd situation in which the hon the State President, after having condemned the group idea because of its inherent potential for conflict, continues to build on it.

As far as group areas are concerned, we are experiencing a situation in which the Group Areas Act is being applied inconsistently in South Africa; we have heard a number of conflicting pronouncements in this respect. I should like to know how the Government, if it cannot even apply the Group Areas Act consistently, is going to protect the various groups in this country.

The question arises, moreover, whether the State has the right not to apply certain laws, because the Government is not applying the Group Areas Act in certain areas, while in other areas they are applying it. The Government has made conflicting pronouncements in this regard and this is creating total confusion. [Interjections.] I wonder whether …

[Inaudible.]

It is precisely that hon member who said that the Group Areas Act may as well be abolished in Port Elizabeth, whereas his leader has said it is non-negotiable. So, those hon members must sort their little problem out themselves. They can go on making fools of themselves. [Interjections.]

My question is this: Is the State entitled not to apply certain laws of the country? We feel that, as far as group areas are concerned, the State is neglecting its duty, and we are receiving advice from legal authorities on the question of dereliction of duty and the question of whether the State has the right not to apply certain laws. [Interjections.]

All I still want to say is that I trust that those hon members of the governing party who are going to take part in this debate after me, will begin to make a sensible contribution to the debate and that they will answer the questions we have put to them instead of carrying on like clowns the way the hon the Minister of Manpower and of Public Works did. I hope they will realize the importance of this debate and that …

Order!

I withdraw that, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

The hon member may proceed.

The way the hon the Chief Whip of the Government is carrying on shows that he is well qualified for something like that. In any case, he is the biggest one in Kimberley. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude by saying …

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

I appreciate the ovation. I shall continue if that is what the hon members want, but I do not have the time.

The group idea has proved to be a failed model, and the only model that can work in South Africa is the CP’s model of partition or of separate development. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, at the beginning of his speech the hon member for Overvaal referred to the bomb explosion in Johannesburg, and expressed his sadness regarding those who had lost their lives, or had been injured. On behalf of the Government I should like to associate myself with that. I also want to convey our deepest sympathies to the next of kin of the three members of the South African Police and the other people who died in this bomb explosion, as well as to those who were injured. This was proof yet again of the cowardly deeds that South Africa’s enemies commit against innocent people.

I have listened to the hon member for Overvaal and as usual he tried to cover the whole spectrum, he touched on several matters, practiced his typical hit-and-run politics and asked us to make a meaningful contribution. Until now every contribution to this debate from this side of the House has been meaningful. I am afraid that the same cannot be said of hon members of the CP or PFP. The hon member for Overvaal made a big fuss about the potential for conflict supposedly implicit in the policy of the NP and the Government. He advocates partition as the solution that would ostensibly be free of conflict. I think it is high time that the hon members of the CP came down to earth again and tried to get an idea of the realities of South Africa as explained by various hon members on this side of the House today. Let me venture to say that no constitutional model, not their model of partition either, will avoid the conflict stemming from multicultural South African society.

The hon member for Overvaal said at the beginning of his speech that the NP tried today to put the CP in the dock today. That is true. The people in the dock after 6 May are the members of the CP. What did we find in this long run-up to the election of 6 May? Were we given any workable, achievable alternatives or solutions in regard to politics, constitution policy, the economy or anything else by the hon members of the CP or any other opposition party? No, we only received accusations and criticism against the Government and its leaders. Hon members forget what they have said in the past in this regard.

I want to quote an authority in connection with this. At a meeting held on 19 September 1981 in Clocolan in the Orange Free State, Dr A P Treurnicht, the then Minister of Public Works, of Statistics and of Tourism, said that criticism was the recipe people inside and outside the Republic of South Africa used to bring about revolution in the country. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition said that. What were the hon members of the CP guilty of during this election campaign other than mere unbridled criticism against the figures of authority of our country and the policy of the NP? They did not make a single contribution to an achievable solution.

On television and on a few other occasions the hon member for Randfontein feebly and vaguely tried to explain the policy of partition. This was done vaguely. Their policy has not yet been spelt out, in this House, during the election campaign or in this debate. Now the hon member for Overvaal tells us that their policy is the only one which holds no potential for conflict.

In the entire debate until now the CP and the PFP have flagrantly tried to evade the most important problem in South Africa; not one of the hon members on that side of the House have spoken about it yet. This concerns the question of national security. This was an extremely important aspect of the Government’s election campaign.

Were you not listening to the hon Leader of the Official Opposition?

Yes, I was listening to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, but he did not say anything in connection with this. [Interjections.]

I want to return to the suspicion-mongering that took place during the past election and the criticism of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to which I referred a moment ago.

We recall that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition a few years ago, when he was already the leader of the CP, referred mockingly and disparagingly to the incident in Pietermaritzburg’s city hall. He said that he had heard afterwards that “’n persoon met ’n bommetjie rondgeloop het.” That person with the “bommetjie” was convicted in a court in this country and is in gaol at the moment. [Interjections] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has never apologised for this remark, as is the case for many other things for which he has never apologised. [Interjections.]

During the recent election campaign the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon members of his party were also guilty of questioning the security conditions in the country. I should like to quote the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition again.

Order! The hon member for Krugersdorp need not provoke other hon members. The hon the Deputy Minister may continue.

After the SA Defence Force carried out an operation across the borders in Zambia and after the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs warned that there was an onslaught against South Africa and that the ANC had plans to disrupt the recent election, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to it. I quote what he had to say in the Business Day of 24 April 1987:

It is jokingly placed between quotation marks—

What the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did not take into consideration in regard to this is that after the operation journalists who visited the scene and found that the SA Defence Force had struck at a nerve centre of the ANC, reported in the Washington Post. I quote from a translation of that report in the Washington Post as it appears in Die Burger:

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition went further and mockingly said that we would just find something again. He said: “We will find something to prove our case.” Is this the man who has the security of our country at heart? He seeks to make political gain from a security action of the SA Defence Force. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition insults the SA Defence Force as if it carries out operations for the sake of politics. I think the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition owes the SA Defence Force an apology in regard to this.

You are speaking nonsense and you know it!

I want to go on to refer to what other hon members said during the election campaign. The hon member for Lichtenburg slunk from one platform to another and, with reference to the hon Minister of Foreign Affairs’ statement on this matter, said that the hon the Minister was going around boasting about his bunch of ANC terrorists. The hon member for Lictenburg said that if the CP were to come into power, they would immediately go and deal with those ANC terrorists. He made it sound as if 100, 500 or 1 000 terrorists were sitting and waiting for us outside under a thorn tree.

This shows one how little understanding those hon members have of the nature of the onslaught against South Africa. They do not understand the anatomy of the revolution and do not know what is going on. [Interjections.]

Order! There are some hon members on my left who are making too many interjections. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon members of the CP do not make use of the opportunities given to them to keep themselves informed of what exactly is going on in this country. While the hon member for Lichtenburg went from platform to platform he mockingly referred to what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs had said as an election ploy of the NP—the hon member did say this …

And it is true!

The hon member for Lichtenburg is confirming this. He says it was a ploy of the NP. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Lichtenburg should stop laughing, because while he was saying it, young constable Danie Boshoff died in Ventersdorp with a terrorist bullet in his head. Yet the hon member says that it was an election gimmick of the NP.

Weapons were taken out; we all know about them. If the hon member for Lichtenburg still has one grain of decency in him I want to ask him to go and apologize to Danie Boshoff’s parents for speaking so diaparagingly about a gimmick of the NP, while their child died. That hon member should have the decency to go to 1 Military Hospital to look at our boys who are lying there waiting to be rehabilitated after their bodies have been maimed in terrorist attacks in the onslaught against South Africa. The hon member, however, jokes about the situation. The hon members can really go and carry out an investigation in connection with this.

I want to associate myself with what the hon the Minister of Manpower and of Public Works said earlier this afternoon. I want to differ with the newspapers, because they only identified three hon members of the CP as members of the AWB. I think the newspapers are wrong, because someone who should know, the leader of the AWB in the Western Cape, a certain Mr Leibold, states that 80% of the members of the CP are also members of the AWB. If one makes a little calculation, one can state that at least 18 of those members over there are members of the AWB.

Are we all in the Cape?

I quote what has been said—

He says that it is written in his election manifesto and he goes on to say:

He is of course conspicuous by his absence in this House. [Interjections.]

If one examines the policy statements of Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche of the AWB on national security and if one thinks of the preaching of the politics of violence by the AWB and members of the CP, such as their candidate in Parys and the former member for Sunnyside—who is also conspicuous by his absence here—the AWB in my view appears to be a danger to South Africa. I regard the AWB as a danger to the SADF. Why? The AWB speaks the same language as the ECC. I shall return to the End Conscription Campaign at a later stage. The ECC is intent on crippling the Defence Force. At a meeting in Bredasdorp—I call the hon member for Swellendam as a witness—an hon member of the AWB, who was also an election agent of the CP’s candidate in the election, asked me at a public meeting: What would you and your Government do if after 6 May we no longer perform our national service for this country?

Order! Hon members are conversing too loudly. They should lower their voices a little. The hon member may continue.

In my opinion it is a very serious charge against an hon member of the AWB who was the election agent of an hon member of the CP in that constituency.

I want to ask the hon members who are sitting in the benches of the Official Opposition— whether there are 18 or only 3—to go and tell their leader, Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche— who very probably is also the leader of the CP if we take the numbers into account—that he is playing with fire. If one plays with fire, one burns one’s hands and also hurts the people around one. I hope that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will call to order in this regard those friends of his whom he so readily took into his party.

As far as Defence Force matters are concerned, in future we should very much like to remove the Defence Force from the sphere of petty politics which the CP is so fond of indulging in. I want to make a request of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I understand—if the newspaper reports are true—that the hon member for Overvaal will again be the chief Defence spokesman of that party. We know that if that hon member is not putting a foot wrong, he is putting his foot in the door. We know all about his relationship with the SADF. We have got to know him through his visits to the border and the operational area where he did not behave himself as an hon member of this House should.

You are lying and you know it.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal shall firstly withdraw those words and secondly apologise for them.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to apologise to him.

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

[Whereupon the member withdrew.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member may deny this charge as much as he likes. We also have proof of it. I ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition please to call his party’s defence spokesman to order. I ask the hon leader to speak seriously to the hon member for Overvaal so that he will cease to use the unbridled and crude language that he uses in this House in regard to the SA Defence Force, its leadership, the hon State President and the hon Minister of Defence in the interest of the security of our country. I ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition please to pay attention to this matter.

Andries is a model leader!

As far as the PFP is concerned, however, I am astounded by the way in which they have so far evaded the real issues in relation to security matters. I believe they have a record in this respect. The hon member for Green Point, who sits and laughs opposite, admitted in this House last year that he was the cheerleader of the PFP at UDF funerals. He also told me across the floor of this House that he was quite proud of it and that he would do it again. [Interjections.]

†The hon member for Green Point is the one who dealt the SA Defence Force probably one of the greatest insults at the time of the gathering that took place here in Green Point recently. This was when the hon member said that the parade was an orgy of the State President.

Tiaan, what was your majority in the election.

Tiaan, your majority certainly did not cause an orgy!

Mr Chairman, if the hon member for Green Point has any respect left, if he has any respect for the Head of State of this country, if he still has a grain of respect for the security forces of South Africa, I want to request him to at least consult a dictionary to establish the meaning of the word “orgy”. According to Bosman, Van der Merwe and Hiemstra’s Tweetalige Woordeboek an orgy is:

The hon member for Green Point professes to be an Afrikaner. We therefore assume that he knows the Afrikaans language. [Interjections.] The Verklarende Handwoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal describes an orgy as follows:

I therefore want to ask the hon member for Green Point if he really thinks that what he said about the Defence Force parade in Green Point is not the crassest insult also to the children of PFP supporters whose children also do their national service in the SA Defence Force. Is this not the crassest insult that they have ever been dealt? The hon member must give us a reply to this.

What the hon member for Green Point said, he said naturally. In the crassest language possible he tried to insult the Defence Force, the hon State President and all those present as much as possible. I think it is nothing less than right that we at least request him to offer his apology for it. [Interjections.]

We could of course refer to many hon members of the PFP as far as their record in regard to the security forces of this country is concerned.

Go away, man!

The hon member for Pinelands …

*The hon member for Pinelands has such an abominable record or lack of a record, in whichever way one wants to refer to it, that one cannot even talk to with him in this regard. I can recall, too, what the hon member for Constantia said in this House a few years ago. I shall quote his very words to him lest he forget what he said. He said:

That is what the hon member for Constantia said. [Interjections.] That is what he said. I have quoted him in more or less his own words. [Interjections.]

*The cardinal mistake made by those hon members, however, is that they do not give a fig for the security of this country, the security of this fatherland of ours or the security of all the inhabitants of this country. This is generally known.

†They are soft on security. This has been pointed out in so many ways. It has been said by someone who was a member of the caucus of that party, Mr Horace van Rensburg. It has also been proved in word and in deed inside and outside this House.

Where is he now?

We have the examples of the hon member for Houghton who in these difficult times in which we find ourselves, states that the ANC should be unbanned. I believe that she speaks on behalf of her whole party. I also believe that she speaks on behalf of the hon member for Yeoville. I should like to know whether the hon member for Yeoville agrees with that. [Interjections.]

The hon member states that we should legalise the SA Communist Party in this country and that we should talk to the ANC. [Interjections.] According to her we cannot negotiate the future if we do not talk to the ANC or do not allow the SA Communist Party to participate as a legal party in this country. [Interjections.]

While they still existed you banned them in 1950.

The hon member can make her own speech later on. The words she uttered in connection with this have been recorded. I hear the hon members of the CP are saying: “Legalise these …”

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether or not a member of the party of which he is a member in fact suggested that we should talk with the ANC? [Interjections.]

That is not the point I am making. [Interjections.] That is not the point I am arguing at the moment. I know what that hon member said. He has been taken to task about it because we have a leader who has the guts to talk to his people, unlike the hon leader of the PFP who allows his members to say whatever they like and never calls them to order. [Interjections.]

As far as the point I was making is concerned, I know that if we do what the PFP asks of the Government, namely that we should withdraw our security forces in the Black unrest areas; that we should unban the ANC; that we should unban or allow the SA Communist Party to operate freely, they say there will be joy and peace in this country. I know there will be dancing, there will be joy in the Kremlin. I know there will be joy and dancing in Mr Oliver Tambo’s home as well as comrade Sam Nujoma’s and among all the enemies of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I am sure that the hon members of the PFP will be dancing in the street with those people I have just mentioned. [Interjections.] To their way of thinking that will bring peace to this country.

May I ask the hon member a question?

No, I am not answering questions. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is not taking a question. The hon member must please resume his seat.

In conclusion I just want to ask the hon member for Yeoville for whom I have great respect whether he condones what has been said by the hon member for Houghton as far as the SA Communist Party is concerned. The hon member has made certain vague statements in this respect. I ask the hon member for Yeoville to stand up in this House and say whether he agrees with the hon member for Houghton or not.

May I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question?

No, my time is up. The hon member can make his own speech. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I do not believe that we should enhance the speech of that hon Deputy Minister by replying to the points he has made. The election has come and gone and he is basically still stuck with his election speech which he tried to make again tonight.

I intend to deal with a different subject, but I would like to say that the hon member for Green Point and the hon member for Houghton will be speaking very shortly in this debate and will deal with the personal attacks made on them.

The NP Government publicly places a high premium on the standard of administration of justice in our country. It often emphasises the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial powers in our system of government. Above all, time and time again it stresses that the judiciary is not subject to the executive. That is as it should be in any civilized society. Furthermore, the validity of this statement is often reinforced by judges around the country, who from time to time deliver judgements at variance with the viewpoints and actions of the Government. So, in the light of what I have just said, I was both shocked and saddened when I saw this tradition being depreciated, either wittingly or unwittingly, in February this year by the appointment by the hon the State President of a judicial commission of enquiry into the financing of certain advertisements.

In the no-confidence debate in February this year the hon the State President, while delivering a prepared speech and while using the privilege of Parliament, uttered the following words:

I think all of us know to what he was referring at the time. When he was challenged spontaneously by me in an interjection, the hon the State President gave an assurance at that time that the matter would be investigated in detail. Of course, he was as good as his word. Late that afternoon Mr Ball issued a statement, which was widely carried in the media, to the effect that the hon the State President was wrong. Mr Ball went further. He challenged the hon the State President to repeat the words outside Parliament and outside the protection of parliamentary privilege. Of course, the hon the State President, long experienced in the corridors of parliamentary power, had no intention of lowering any of his defences.

To paraphrase the hon the State President, however; it is being said in journalistic circles that the hon the State President was so infuriated by Mr Ball’s response that at an official function that evening he there and then summoned the Judge President of the Cape and told him he was to be appointed to a one-man commission of enquiry to investigate the allegations that had been made. The Judge President thus having been released of his more routine duties, his normal duties, began to adjudicate on this intriguing political dispute. He went to work with alacrity. He called witnesses, read affidavits, heard and reviewed 600 pages of evidence and brought out a 121 page report—all before election day. It was quite a remarkable feat by any standards.

What are you insinuating? [Interjections.]

The hon member must just listen to what I am saying, not to what I am insinuating. [Interjections.] I just want to tell those hon members that I am not going to insinuate anything. I am going to say it.

The report which I have before me makes interesting reading. Very early in the report the commissioner records that he rejected the offer received from a university professor to testify as to the financial and banking consequences of the hon the State President’s statement in the House of Assembly as he considered these consequences to be irrelevant to his brief. He was right, of course, because the terms of reference were specifically drafted so as to exclude from the scrutiny of the commissioner the background to the hon the State President’s statement, while focusing the spotlight solely on the actions of Mr Ball. This is hardly a way to ensure the carriage of justice, one might say. But then, Sir, what have we come to expect in this country?

The report itself is cleverly drafted. Understatement is shrewdly used in order to underline and emphasise. What was particularly significant to me was that when I asked to be given a copy of the report, and obtained it, I found that none of the evidence which had been recorded was attached. Presumably the copy released to the Press and the media also did not include the verbatim evidence which had been received. Therefore the reader has to rely on the commissioner’s personal and private selection of evidence in order to take an overall view. [Interjections.]

Several further aspects struck me, particularly in regard to the commissioners assessment of Mr Ball. On important facets of Mr Ball’s evidence, when, despite interrogation by the commissioner Mr Ball was unshakeable, firm and consistent—and here I refer to page 85 of the report—the commissioner’s reaction was: “Methinks he protesteth too much”. In other words, the commissioner is saying that Mr Ball is a liar.

In other circumstances, when Mr Ball was quite naturally slightly vague or uncertain, the commissioner went to great lengths to analysis virtually every nuance and probability, and on every suitable occasion he found against the possible truthfulness of Mr Ball— again on the probabilities only; this despite the fact that no evidence from any single witness before that commission even began to imply that Mr Ball at the relevant time was possessed of the knowledge of which he was accused.

The report is interlaced with unsolicited, gratuitous insults as to Mr Ball’s prudence as a banker, the inflated view which the commissioner felt Mr Ball took of his own banking expertise and, finally, as to Mr Ball’s integrity. [Interjections.] It is a report which will add no lustre to the annals of justice in South Africa.

Will you repeat that outside Parliament? [Interjections]

Order!

Why don’t you say that outside the House?

Why did the State President not repeat his statement outside the House? Why should I if he does not? [Interjections.] Why should I be better than he? [Interjections.]

You are making a hopeless speech today!

Order!

Mr Speaker, even the finding that Mr Botha’s statement in Parliament that “Mr Chris Ball advanced the money for the advertisement to the advertisers was literally correct”, was wrong in itself. Mr Ball did not give the money to the person at all. It was the bank which advanced the money. [Interjections.] It was not literally correct. Therefore that finding was wrong and anybody in this House who understands English—and I doubt whether there are many—will know that that finding is incorrect. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, when other hon members were interrupted in this manner, you ruled against it.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Thank you. I would like a little protection, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may leave the discipline in this House to the Chair. The hon member may proceed with his speech.

I trust that the hon members will keep quiet for a while.

Allow me to revert to the conduct of the hon the State President himself. Should this whole matter have been a proper subject on which to spend public money? Should there have been a commission? [Interjections.] The matter related to a political dispute, an issue which annoyed—as so many other things do—our Head of State. No one, including the hon the State President …

Listen to that “kolgans”!

What did the hon the Minister say? [Interjections.]

Order!

An uncouth member, Mr Speaker. I have asked the hon the minister what he said. I am sure it was an uncouth remark.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The hon the Minister of Manpower and of Public Works, I believe referred to an unpleasant animal. [Interjections.]

Order! A point of order has been taken.

May I request, Sir, that you ask him to repeat or confirm what he said.

I cannot consider a point of order unless the hon member tells me what the hon the Minister said.

Mr Speaker, I can handle that hon Minister with one hand tied behind my back. [Interjections.] Someone with a majority of 140 votes should not have the guts even to address me in this House! Come and talk to me about majorities. [Interjections.]

I asked why a commission should be the subject of the spending of public money. No one, including the hon the State President, the police and prosecuting authorities, had alleged that the advertisements were in breach of any law. The hon the Minister of Justice is here at the moment. Does he deny that there was no breach of law and no allegation of a breach of law? He stays absolutely silent so he knows that that is true. The Supreme Court had in fact ruled on that very matter—that there was no breach of the law in the publication of those advertisements.

Another fact is that no prosecution was contemplated or had been initiated against anyone in respect of the publication of the advertisements. The hon the Minister does not deny that because it is true. It is not alleged that any banking irregularity had occurred. The hon the Minister will not deny that because it is true. All that had happened was that a political dispute had arisen and the hon the State President, armed with transcriptions of secretly tapped telephone conversations, resolved to use the judiciary to win his point. That is what happened and that is why he appointed that commission. [Interjections.] Yes, it was a disgrace! The terms of reference were drafted so as to put the object of the hon the State President’s annoyance on trial while ensuring that the background to these presidential accusations were not investigated at all. The forum for the trial, while its choice was appointed at a cocktail party and appeared to be spontaneous, was in fact carefully selected. In a commission of enquiry one can indict people without ever giving them the opportunity to answer a charge. That is what one can do in a commission. Normal processes of court do not apply and the hon the State President knew that. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not going to allow the hon member to proceed in this way by insinuating things and accusing the hon the State President. [Interjections.] I am not prepared to allow it. I have given my ruling. The hon member may proceed but not along the lines that I have warned him about.

Mr Speaker, I am just going to describe what one can do in a commission of enquiry. [Interjections.] People on trial cannot call witnesses, nor can people who are accused of anything cross-examine those who give evidence. [Interjections.] Will the hon member for Turffontein and those hon members please just be quiet for a while? [Interjections.]

The one request—I refer to page ten of the report—to be able to cross-examine was turned down by the commissioner. Witnesses appear without prior knowledge of what they are to be confronted with or of what they are accused. None of the safeguards which our legal system provides to avoid miscarriages of justice are present in this sort of enquiry. Worst of all, in a commission of enquiry there is no right of appeal, not even of review. Once a finding has been made, it sticks. I therefore believe it was an ideal forum to suit the purpose for which it was created.

Order! I am sorry but I am not prepared to allow the hon member to proceed along these lines. [Interjections.] In my view he is misusing the privilege of Parliament to make an unwarranted attack on either the hon the State President or the judge president concerned. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I please address you on a point of order? [Interjections.]

Order! I have not ordered the hon member to discontinue his speech. I have told him that I am not prepared to allow him to proceed along those lines. He may proceed with his speech.

Mr Speaker, all I can say is that this commission and its finding in fact very nearly, in whatever manner, seriously damaged South Africa’s foremost bank and almost destroyed the career of its talented chief executive officer. I just want that recorded. [Interjections.]

I would like to address one last issue and to argue one last point. [Interjections.] It is my submission that, mero motu, in other words of his own accord and without having been asked, the learned commissioner should have recused himself from the commission and not adjudicated upon this matter at all. It is my belief that he erred in not doing this. Hon members may ask why he erred. I will give them four reasons.

Firstly, from the outset it was obvious that this was not a judicial issue—that is what I argued earlier—involving criminal or civil liability of any sort. The appointment of a commission, in my view, was a means to the advantageous resolution of a political and not a judicial dispute at the time of the election involving the head of the NP and one who disagreed with that party. I believe that judicial attention should not have been afforded in such an instance.

Secondly, this was an almost personal dispute between the hon the State President …

Order! Will the hon member please repeat the last sentence? I am sorry, I did not hear it.

I said that I did not believe that judicial attention should have been afforded in such an instance.

Secondly, this was an almost personal dispute between the hon the State President and the head of a major bank in our country. The commissioner concerned is wellknown and— he does not dispute this—to be a longstanding, personal friend of one of the disputees. [Interjections.] It is my honest submission that he should not have been party to this quarrel between these two people.

Thirdly, the dispute was essentially one which possibly may have affected the electoral fortunes of the NP—certainly within the business community—in greater or lesser measure. The commissioner is undeniably— he does not dispute this—a strong supporter of the governing party and I believe he should have avoided sitting on this matter at all.

Finally, and this is perhaps the most important reason … [Interjections.] I would be grateful if hon members would hear this.

Shut up!

In past years and on more than one occasion. Barclays Bank, for reasons relating to overdrawn accounts and to debt defaulting, had occasion unilaterally to close the account of the commissioner himself. The parting between the commissioner and Barclays was an unhappy one. His account was closed because of defaults of thousands of rand. As a result I believe that he had no right at all to sit on this enquiry. [Interjections.] Without being asked, an honest commissioner would have disclosed this and recused himself from the outset.

If it’s true!

I may state that this information came to me not from the bank, but from an enterprising journalist who conducted an intensive investigation on this matter. [Interjections.]

Order! I am sorry, but I am not going to allow Parliament to be used for commissioners to be smeared on the reports of enterprising journalists. [Interjections.] That is not what Parliament is here for. I am not going to allow the hon member to proceed on that point.

I should like to say the following: The end result of all the points that I have mentioned, is that I believe we have been presented with a travesty of justice, initiated by the hon the State President, aided by this particular commissioner …

Order! The hon member must please resume his seat.

Sir, would you prefer a formal motion on this …

Order! The hon member must please resume his seat.

David, well done! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Sandton has tonight demonstrated his ability here to attempt applying facts to his benefit and doing it in such a way as to obtain maximal publicity and to derive maximal advantage from his ability to besmirch without in any way considering the fairness of what he is doing to the judiciary. Times without number in the past the hon member, merely for the sake of short-term gain, publicity and frontpage news, destroyed these sacred exclamations on the independence and inviolability of the judiciary with a quarter of an hour’s speech. The hon member does not wish to accept that our bench is therefore independent and honourable if he applies this type of strategy. In a single speech he has done more than could ever have been done in the past to calumniate precisely what is so wonderful in South Africa according to him—we are all in agreement—namely our judiciary. Tonight the hon member was guilty of a disgraceful act! The hon member conducted sewer politics at their best. [Interjections]

The hon member knows what the position is. If he wishes to discuss a judge, he has to come to the House with a substantive motion. I have serious doubts whether this speech of his should be recorded in any way.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon the Minister, who, I see, has not resumed his seat, to talk about a colleague and say that he is using “sewer politics”? [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I did not hear your ruling.

Order! I gave my ruling and I said that I did not regard it as a proper point of order. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I shall leave the hon member at that point for the moment. The hon member attempted to profess that no judicial commission should be appointed here. The hon member for Yeoville, however, requested the appointment of a judicial commission immediately after the discussion here in the House. [Interjections.] I definitely prefer to listen to the sense which the hon member for Yeoville usually talks. The hon member immediately requested a judicial commission but, as on numerous other occasions, when a commission’s findings do not suit the former official opposition, they query the official findings of that commission. [Interjections.] They find them acceptable only if they condemn the Government, the Police, the Defence Force or the Security Forces; otherwise a judicial inquiry has never been acceptable. That is where they stand and that is why they are sitting in those seats. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sandton’s speech was preceded by an article which by all standards was even more condemnatory of that party’s integrity; this was an article by the former member, Mr Brian Bamford. In this article, which I shall deal with in detail presently, he covered more or less the same terrain as the hon member for Sandton. I find this significant but I am not too surprised because it is the same terrain which causes one to thirst for white dulcis and copaiva balsam. [Interjections.] Before getting to that, however, I merely wish to point out that the hon member for Sandton said that the Judge President was designated at a cocktail party. The fact is that the hon the State President called me in and, according to custom, asked me for my recommendation. Colleagues of mine in this front bench were present. With that piece of nonsense which he bruited about in this House the hon member broke one of our oldest conventions in pretending that he knew what took place at such a party. It is untrue, however. The hon the State President asked me whom I recommended. The hon the State President indicated to me that he was prepared to accept my recommendation. I shall tell hon members why I recommended him.

[Inaudible.]

I gave the hon member for Sandton the opportunity to speak; I did not interrupt him. [Interjections.] The fact remains that the hon member has now implied throughout that this report was distorted. He said, “It was cleverly drafted”, “The judge was cleverly selected”, “no evidence suggesting that so and so knew …”, etc. Then he subsequently added, “No prosecution was initiated.” He regarded all this as adequate indication to lead him to conclude that it was merely a political dispute which had to be resolved. He said it was a “choice appointment, carefully selected”. He then said that the Judge President should have withdrawn and he provided quite a number of reasons for this. The most important reason put forward was that it was the settlement of a “political dispute” between certain parties. He then involved the name of Barclays Bank in a very clever way. I now wish to state categorically: There is no dispute with Barclays Bank or its successor in title, name or in law.

This is a fine time to say so!

I wish to state it very clearly and unequivocally that there is no fault to be found in this case with Barclays Bank as an honourable financial institution. [Interjections.] While the hon member is practising his smear technique, I ask myself: What would he say if there actually were a prosecution in future? Would he then say that that prosecution should not have been instituted?

First state what offence was committed, then we can talk.

I am not asking for that hon member’s opinion. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for one hon member to refer to another as a “fool”?

Who is the hon member who referred to another as a “fool”?

It is a compliment. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it.

If hon members are referring to one another like that among themselves, I can live with it.

The report of the commission has nothing to do with the status and integrity of Barclays Bank. I wish to state this very clearly. At this stage we are dealing not only with the findings but also the question of the quality of the findings. This is what is at issue. The hon member caused this points to be drawn into this debate. He cast doubts on the quality of the findings.

I now wish to refer to the so-called “Bamford” article, read with the hon member for Sandton’s speech. Mr Bamford was similarly guilty of disgraceful defamation. He said:

†The facts are, however, that Mr Justice Munnik practised law for 15 years at the Johannesburg Bar. He was then appointed to the Eastern Cape Division Bench, where he sat for 11 years. Then he was seconded to Transkei as Chief Justice, where he remained for eight years. He was then asked to join the Cape Provincial Division Bench as Judge President. [Interjections.] From my experience I want to say tonight that Mr Justice Munnik, as a Judge President, is a great success.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but he was attacked. He was slandered. One cannot divorce the two, according to that hon member’s speech.

Is he going to be made Chief Justice?

In an administrative way I may say that he is indeed …

Is he going to be made Chief Justice?

Order! The hon member for Sandton must contain himself!

Yes? Yes, Mr Speaker?

Do not call me “yes”; I am “Mr Speaker”.

I did say “Mr Speaker”.

Order! The hon member for Sandton must stop his interjections.

Mr Speaker, I will try to stop my interjections, but the hon the Minister is being very provocative.

It is not for the hon member to try to stop his interjections; I am asking the hon member to stop his interjections. I am not ordering him to stop them. The hon member must please resume his seat.

Mr Speaker, I must say that I had very little help from hon members when I spoke.

Will the hon member please resume his seat.

The judge was also slandered in such a way as to suggest that he was imported and that this was against all tradition. However, since 1931 there have been several examples all over the country of gentlemen of the bench being asked to serve on other benches as judges president. What is more, at this very moment four judges who did not practise at the Cape Bar are serving on the Cape Bench. I think it is scandalous that a silk—a senior at the Bar—should misrepresent the facts in this manner.

Who is this silk?

Mr Brian Bamford. [Interjections.]

Let us have a look at some of his utterances. He said the following in his article:

This allegation loses sight of the fact that the commissioner in fact tried to protect Mr Surtee because his financial situation was at issue. Other witnesses are being protected in the same way. What is more, one of the ablest silks in this country represented the interests of Mr Ball. [Interjections.] Eventually, the Press revealed the identity of Mr Surtee in a weekend newspaper. After that it was senseless to try to prevent his name from being published. Now it is being said that Mr Justice Munnik tried to prevent his identity becoming known to the public. Mr Bamford went on to say in his article:

It is so silly to try to argue that there is a difference between Barclays Bank’s money and Mr Ball’s money.

Read the Hansard. [Interjections.]

Does the hon member say I should read the Hansard? Very well, I shall read the Hansard passage to him. The hon the State President said the following:

That was in fact the case.

It was not! [Interjections.]

That was the case. He took the decision to advance the money to Mr Surtee. [Interjections.] He advanced the money to Mr Surtee for the very purpose of placing the advertisements.

On page 43 of his report, the judge found as follows:

It was literally correct, so what is wrong with that?

It was not literally correct. [Interjections.]

What is more, the commission could have ended its findings there and it would have been in line with what had been said in Parliament.

Mr Bamford—and also the hon member for Sandton—suggested the following:

*It is interesting to note that neither the hon member for Groote Schuur nor the hon member for Sandton had the courage and conviction to say directly that the judge’s findings were incorrect. Nowhere in his speech tonight did he say that the judge’s findings were wrong. He conceded this to me. He told me that his speech dealt with the quality of the report. In his speech he attacked the integrity of the judge but nowhere did he or the hon member for Groote Schuur have the courage to say that the judge’s findings were incorrect. [Interjections.] It is obviously also true that the judge certainly analysed numerous documents in their entirety. Subsequently he came to the following conclusion on page 114 of the report:

†This has become the central issue. Did he know what the true purpose of the overdraft was? The judge says:

Mr Ball’s calibre as a witness and the quality of his evidence were not such as to lead me to a different conclusion.

I would say that Mr Bamford and the hon member for Sandton—I would not quite say “connived”—have obviously consulted. Mr Bamford states:

*The hon member for Sandton implied this tonight as well.

†The hon member said his conversations had been tapped, and he was not clear on this issue. He slanted, twisted …

Order!

I withdraw, Mr Speaker, I withdraw. The hon member presented his speech in such a manner that it left other alternatives wide open.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: It is very easy just to say in the middle of a sentence “I withdraw”, and think it is very funny. What did the hon the Minister withdraw, and what has been properly withdrawn?

The hon the Minister has withdrawn the words “slanted and twisted”. I am very sure that the hon the Minister has withdrawn those words. I accept that.

I do not accept it.

Order! It is not for the hon member to accept it. It is for the Chair to accept it when an hon member gives an explanation.

Mr Speaker, it is not only an inference on the part of Mr Bamford, but he says unequivocally:

Mr Bamford has done himself a disservice, because he creates the impression that he wrote this article without having read the report, since nowhere in the report is there the slightest suggestion that Mr Ball’s telephone was, is being, or will be tapped. There is no such suggestion at all.

May I ask a question? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister is not prepared to take a question. [Interjections.] If the hon member is not prepared to co-operate with the Chair I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber.

If the hon member for Sandton or Mr Bamford had read the report they would have found that it was made very clear that the telephone of Dr Allan Boesak …

… is always tapped.

… was being tapped, because he is a member of the UDF. [Interjections.]

*This is an affected organisation; this is stated in the report.

They were not at the time and they are not now.

What is more, this took place in terms of legislation of this Parliament.

†On page 9 of the report the following is stated:

In other words, there is no question whatsoever of a telephone being tapped illegally. There is no question whatsoever of Mr Ball’s telephone being tapped. That has been denied strenuously.

Give us a list of the tapped phones! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sandton attempted tonight to present the dispensation of justice as a whole as the institution in the country which should receive the greatest protection. [Interjections.] Simultaneously, however, he discredited a judge and that merely on the grounds of the evidence of an enterprising journalist. [Interjections.] I believe the hon member for Sandton called the judgement of the judge into question through this. He should be censured because he did not follow the correct procedure and decided to discredit a judge. This has never been done in this Parliament and it is a disgrace. [Interjections.]

I can understand that the hon member for Sandton is very unhappy about this matter. I read what journalists say and I see their analyses. They say it is very clear that funds enter the country and are used to affect the State structure in an unlawful way and also for extra parliamentary politics. [Interjections.] No, I am speaking about journalists who come to that conclusion and say it is clear that something is afoot here. There are journalists who say this should be investigated and that something unholy is going on. I also have the feeling and I do not require “investigating journalists” or “enterprising journalists” to tell me this. I also have a “gut feeling” that something is afoot. [Interjections.] I have a feeling that this should be looked into and I also have a feeling that the hon member for Sandton is unhappy about it.

Mr Speaker, I certainly do not intend to continue the subject of debate of the last two speakers. I want to return again to the main subject that was dealt with here this afternoon. That is the question of the election, the effects of the election, and some of the tactics and practices that were used during the election campaign.

I was somewhat surprised at the reaction of the hon member for Umlazi, who in his usual caustic manner was able to come up with some verbose statements in regard to the NRP/PFP election agreement. However, be that as it may, I think his remarks should be treated with the contempt they deserve. [Interjections.]

As one who fought the election in a rural constituency in Natal it was very interesting for me to observe at the numerous meetings which I addressed the reaction of the people who kept questioning me as to what the mandate of the Government was all about. The more I read the newspapers and the more I read the speeches that were made by certain hon Ministers and Deputy Ministers, the more confused I too became. I realised that there was a very deliberate attempt here …

You confuse easily!

Thank you very much indeed! [Interjections.] I realised that there was obviously a deliberate attempt to confuse the voters. I felt that for the NP to have asked for such an ill-defined mandate was almost an insult to the mentality of the White voters of this country.

The NP asked for a blank cheque, and what a blank cheque it was! When one read the speeches of the Ministers one noticed the manner in which they contradicted one another. I think of the Group Areas Act; reform as such; the statutory council and so many of those constitutional issues which one heard presented by one hon Minister, negated by another and, yet again, upheld slightly by another.

I think that what the White voters, and in particular the candidates, tended to forget, was the fact that what was being said in the campaign was not being said for their ears alone. If only some of the irresponsible statements that were made during the course of the election campaign had been given a little more responsible consideration by those who uttered them, it would have had a far better effect throughout the country. The one thing we have to realize, is that the present gloating which we are experiencing from the Official Opposition and from Government benches is probably justified in terms of the election results. However, it would be as well if we studied some of the reasons for these successes.

I want to make it quite clear that, as far as I was concerned, the actions of the SATV and the SABC were nothing short of scandalous.

Hear, hear!

I have no hesitation in claiming that the message that this medium presented was often twisted and statements had been taken out of context and had been deliberately manipulated.

Give us examples.

Yes, Mr Chairman, I can give examples. Inserts where certain people said “I am going to vote Nat”, were surreptitiously pushed into a programme on TV. Yet one hears that the time that was allocated to the NP was not out of proportion to its support. I accept that. However, what was interesting was that so much of what was said by the candidates of other parties was treated us irrelevant. In other words, only less significant aspects of their speeches were quoted, while Ministers and candidates of the NP were quoted in full and the positive aspects of their speeches were emphasized repeatedly. This cannot be denied, because I made a study of it. So what we find here, is that there was a blatant disregard for moral principles and one would have expected fairer treatment from a Government-controlled medium.

I want to deal with certain aspects of the campaign in Natal. In doing so I want to warn that the NP will rue the day it brought the Natal Indaba into the election campaign. [Interjections.] Let me tell that hon member that it was the NP who first brought the indaba into the election campaign. The tragedy to those of us who fought the election lies in the hypocrisy behind certain statements of NP members, and I do not think that will be easily forgotten. We heard so much about the protection of minority group rights; we have heard it again today. We heard it time and again during the election campaign but here in the indaba one had a complete reaffirmation and acceptance of the principle of minority group right protection.

No, a bill of rights.

Minority group rights in case the hon member does not understand.

May I say this: We will rue that day the NP turned its back on the principle that was established in that respect at the indaba. After eight months of deliberation the groups agreed among themselves on the principle of recognising the right to and the need for the protection of minority group rights. However, the National Party are now turning their backs on that. They say in one breath that they stand for the protection of minority group rights but in the next breath destroy it out of hand. [Interjections.]

The important thing here is that the Natal Indaba did succeed in attracting Black leaders to the negotiating table. I think that was quite clear. I want to say to the National Party: You do better. See whether you can attract those Black leaders to your negotiating table in public. If you can, well and good.

You are an old “Boerehater”.

No, I am not a “Boerehater”. [Interjections].

†However, what I want to say is this: Do not condemn an initiative of this nature on which the future negotiations of this country will inevitably be based. Do not destroy it now through irresponsible actions.

I want to raise another point. On the few nights that I was at home when I was not electioneering and watched TV, the one thing that struck me very forcibly was the fact that the time had come for consideration to be given to altering the Constitution so that the Head of State would no longer be the leader of a political party. [Interjections.] I have the highest respect the hon the State President in his capacity as the Head of State but when it comes to his capacity as the leader of a political party then I find that my respect diminishes considerably. I would suggest that consideration be given to separating the two positions with the object of having an executive as well as a ceremonial head of state.

One thing that I think also we should not lose sight of is the message that has been carried overseas by the outcome of this election. To be quite honest, I think it is sad. There was a genuine reform movement which presented itself to the White voters of this country. They turned their backs on it; one must accept that. I am sure that in time we shall see the long-term effect this will have on future pressures that will be applied against this country.

It is quite clear that reform initiatives cannot be delayed much longer. [Interjections.] The National Party has two years in which to put its money where its mouth is.

The taxpayers’ money.

I can assure you that if this is not done, the joy that the National Party experienced after this past election will be turned to grief by the time the results of next election are announced. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, as some wit put it earlier, it is not often that one has the opportunity to speak to a political corpse! [Interjections.] I am very pleased, however, that rigor mortis has not yet set in with the hon member for Mooi River! [Interjections.]

I would like to ask the hon member whether he still subscribes to the aims and principles of the NRP? Is he part of those aims and principles? I will read them and then ask the hon member the question:

Does the hon member agree with that? [Interjections.]

He said yes.

Then I want to ask the hon member …

Do you agree with it?

Yes I do, very much so.

Then why are you sitting there? [Interjections.]

I will tell you why.

Let us go back to the NRP and the Buthelezi Commission. I want to remind that hon member that he borrowed a set of transparencies from me and showed them throughout the Mooi River constituency, pushing the Buthelezi Commission down the drain. For what reason?

I shall read it to him. Here is an NRP document dated 19.04.1982 and it reads as follows:

This would mean that such proportional election of a joint government for kwaZulu of a hundred members …[Interjections.]

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

No, the hon member has had his turn.

I quite understand.

Oh, not at all. That was what the Natal leader said, but what did the leader of the day say? I quote:

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

No, wait a minute. I quote their leader of the day:

Does he still subscribe to that? [Interjections.] He does. That is very interesting.

I shall go a little further, because I should like to say that he supported the new constitution in 1983, and he knew full well that the referendum decision would mean the implementation of the new constitution which in turn would mean the abolition of the provincial councils. Is that right? Am I right? [Interjections.] It is right. What does one call this if it is not political expediency? Look at this Passport of the NRP; it is an official organ of the NRP. They agreed to the new Constitution in 1983, but in their official organ, dated July 1986, there is an advertisement:

[Interjections.] However, the hon member’s party was part of that murder. It held the knife and now advertises this as murder by the NP. [Interjections.] The hon member must make up his mind as to what he wants. My honest opinion is that he has been sold down the river by his party leadership. [Interjections.] I feel sorry for the hon member.

I would like to refer to the Pinetown by-election.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pinetown says: “Hear, hear!”

However, the hon member for Mooi River knows as well as I do that the NRP went to the NP in Natal and asked them to stay out of the Pinetown by-election. Why? The reason was that it was felt that if the NRP won that by-election it would be easier to join forces with the NP. [Interjections.] That was not very long ago. Does the hon member for Mooi River agree with that? I am sure he does. [Interjections.]

You were party to it!

Does the hon member for Mooi River agree that in June 1984 every office bearer in the NRP agreed that there was no future for the NRP? Would the hon member like to verify that?

Are you disclosing caucus secrets?

Not at all! It was common knowledge. Three of us who were members of the party, had the courage of our convictions, but that hon member did not— not by a long way. What came along next was the indaba.

Make a positive speech.

I am making a positive speech. I want to remind the hon member of what his party has done to many people in Natal. They have sold them down the river. “NRP, PFP plan electoral pact.” What brought these two parties together?

I will tell hon members what brought them together: The proposals of the indaba—no more and no less.

Have you read them?

Yes, but the trouble is that the hon member for Mooi River does not understand them. That is the big problem. I will come back to that in a little while.

I am not speaking with hindsight. I want to refer to a document which is called Courier Australe Parlementaire in which a debate takes place between two parliamentarians, and I was asked to comment on the indaba.

An NP publication.

No, not all. This goes back to August last year before the proposals came out. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must be given a fair chance to make his speech.

Can we ask him then who paid for it?

Order! The hon member must rise to his feet and ask the hon member for South Coast whether he is prepared to take a question.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member please to …

Order! Is the hon member prepared to take a question?

No, Sir. [Interjections.] Hon members on the other side are obviously getting hurt a little here and they do not like it. It is typical of the hon member for Yeoville to try to deflect what is coming. [Interjections.]

I was asked the following question by a certain parliamentarian:

Let me tell hon members what my reply was long before the proposals came out:

[Interjections.] I am glad to hear the hon member. Indeed they were rejected. I went on to say:

Whom are you quoting there?

I am quoting myself. [Interjections.]

I want to go a bit further. I then went on to say this as well …

Is an hon member allowed to read his speech?

No, not at all. [Interjections.] I said then that there were certain serious reservations within the indaba committee. I said that those reservations would only be known as and when the final report came out. The Natal Municipal Association withdrew and they became observers. The Natal Farmers’ Association withdrew. Why? [Interjections.]

For what reason do you think?

The hon member for Mooi River has had his turn to talk.

I say that the NRP tied themselves to the indaba purely on the basis of the political recommendations emanating from that indaba report. Their leadership took no cognizance of the aims and principles which that party stood for. They tied themselves to those proposals and never once did they go to their grassroots support to find out whether they were correct in doing so. No, they did not.

The hon member for Mooi River stated just now that the NP had made a political platform out of the indaba. I refute that and I want to say to the hon member that for the sake of political expediency, he and the PFP used the indaba proposals as a political platform because both of them were bankrupt in respect of political ideas. [Interjections.] I regret having to say that. Let us have a look at what their leader said not so long ago. I want to quote what Mr Bill Sutton said in Parliament on 6 February 1980 (Hansard, vol 85, col 279):

There is no guarantee.

There is a guarantee if one has one’s own power base that cannot be taken away from one. If every group could have that, and if power could flow from those power bases to a central area, for coordination and consultation purposes, one would have a safe political base.

That is in direct contrast to the proposals.

I also want to quote Mr Vause Raw who said in 1985 (House of Assembly Debates, 28 January 1985, col 81):

That is what the hon member of Mooi River’s former leader said a year and a half ago.The indaba proposals came. Then there was talk of a realignment, and so it went on.What did the hon member for Constantia say in February 1987? He said the following:

He goes on to say:

In fact, the so-called alliance is not only an act of desperation, but also a sellout by the NRP, by a small group of weak leaders led by Mr Bill Sutton who himself has now abandoned the group concept as expounded by him and his party in the past.

The hon member for Mooi River has made reference to what some of the Ministers said and some of the Ministers did not say, but I want to remind him of what Mr Frank Martin said not so long ago. Frank Martin said, and I quote from the Sunday Tribune of 13 July:

Well done, Frank!

The report stated further:

Does the hon member for Mooi River agree with that? Silence is golden!

I want to ask the hon member for Mooi River: What is the difference between the Buthelezi Commission report and the indaba? There is one difference: There is an upper house. However, the hon member for Mooi River does not know what the upper house is all about. I want to quote from an Inkatha publication called Clarion Call. I want to make the observation that while the PFP and the NRP have accepted the proposals of the kwaZulu-Natal Indaba, we are still waiting to hear what Inkatha, the senior member of the indaba has to say about it. They have not made a decision on it yet. [Interjections.]

No, hang on a moment. The indaba has not been accepted by Inkatha as a whole. Furthermore, while these two parties have accepted the proposals, it still remains to be seen whether Chief Mangosutho Buthelezi is going to accept it. He has not come out in favour of it yet. So, who is pre-empting whom?

I want to come back to the Clarion Call, and let us talk about the upper house—the NRP’s so-called protection of minority rights. I quote from the Clarion Call:

In this system one has two votes, one for the lower house and one for the upper house—

I wonder whether the hon member for Mooi River has let that sink in. It goes on: “Association with any group is voluntary.”

You read so badly …

The article then goes a little further, as follows:

What I am saying to the hon member for Mooi River, therefore, is that in actual fact, the upper house has a veto in respect of three things only, namely language, culture and religion—no more and no less.

What else do you want? [Interjections.]

Where does his protection of minorities come into it? I say it is down the drain.

I should like to quote further from a survey which the hon member for Mooi River would do well to read. This survey was conducted by Dr Michael Sutcliffe of the Department of Town and Regional Planning of the University of Natal, and reflects the attitudes of residents living in Natal and kwaZulu in respect of the kwaZulu-Natal Indaba.

Let us take a look at the Bill of Rights. They asked the question: “What do you know about the Indaba?” It is interesting to note with regard to those people surveyed in connection with the Bill of Rights that only 4% of the Whites knew anything about the Bill of Rights, whilst 0% of the Africans, Coloureds and Asians knew anything about it. What I am saying, is that a very smart publicity campaign was launched by the Indaba Committee. However, as the saying goes, they have tried to sell the sizzle without the hamburger. [Interjections.]

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

No, I am not prepared to take a question.

I should like to take this a little further. I say this with respect to the hon member for Mooi River and the party that he supports, a party which I believe made a fatal mistake—as the electorate has proved—in aligning itself with the PFP. I am afraid that they have lived to rue the day they did so. Be that as it may, when one looks at the survey, one finds that people were asked to suggest ways in which the Government could solve these problems. By far the majority of the respondents suggested some form of political solution ranging from a more conservative position, advocating the strictest state of emergency, to a more radical position of democratic negotiation by all.

Let us have a look at it, Sir. The table comes out, and it is asked, “How do you think the Government should solve these problems?” The question was asked by way of the Natal-kwaZulu Indaba. One percent of the Whites suggested that it was the right way to go about it. Once again zero percent of the Africans, Coloureds and Asians suggested that the Natal Indaba was not the correct way to go about it.

What I am saying to the hon member with all due respect is that he, because of his naivete, has allowed himself to be sucked in by the PFP and the leaders of the NRP who did not want to give the NRP a decent burial, but tried to get rid of it hastily. By doing so, they have aligned him with that party next to him. By implication he has been aligned with some of the very principles for which some of these people stand. Does he believe in supporting the End Conscription Campaign? That is all I ask him, because that is what he has aligned himself with. Does he believe in supporting the UDF? I do not believe he does. Far from it.

I want to return to the point that the NRP sold itself short on its principles.

It sold itself short on what it originally stood for. [Interjections.] We believe that the indaba per se is a very good instrument but it was hijacked by that particular party whether they want to admit it or not. [Interjections.] I am sorry, but it was hijacked. The hon member for Berea sits in the front row and he just smiles but by hijacking it they did the NRP and themselves a disservice. The voters of Natal are not that stupid and they saw through the matter from start to finish.

We will see in 1988!

Yes, we will see— there is no doubt about that. [Interjections.] I believe that the NRP has committed suicide by default.

I want to come back to an advert that was used against me in the election campaign. The advert which was used by my political opponent said: “Negotiation or confrontation? The New Republic Party with its history of South Africanism is committed to negotiation in politics.” I want to say to the hon member for Mooi River that the NRP did not negotiate in the indaba. It accepted the proposals which is a model built on domination whichever way one looks at it. They were not in a position to negotiate and they are now even less in a position to negotiate.

I believe the hon member for Mooi River does not belong to that clique; I do not believe that he belongs to the leftist clique.

It must be the scared clique that you are in!

No. The hon member for Greytown has had a great deal to say tonight but I would hang my head in shame if I was the hon member for Greytown and was seen on a public platform giving a clenched fist salute. [Interjections.] Isn’t it amazing!

I hope that the hon member will tell us, when he has the opportunity, what the clenched fist salute stands for.

Will you put me on TV to do it?

It is quite amazing. I could give a very good response to that. Without being disrespectful to the hon member for Greytown, I would suggest that maybe if he opened his hands he would fall out of the tree!

Mr Chairman, I want to tell the hon member for Mooi River that he has a contribution to make in this House and his contribution is not an insignificant one. I believe that he must reassess the position that he now occupies. I also believe that he finds himself a lonely petunia in an onion patch. His political career can blossom if he takes cognizance of the political philosophy he really stands for, which can be accommodated in the moderate approach to the problems that we face. I respectfully suggest to the hon member to seriously consider removing the tag that hangs around his neck which has been put there through no fault of his own. He should really make a commitment to get into the scrum and not stand on the sideline, taking the political position of so many others. For the sake of political expediency he should not stay where he is, but should make a firm commitment to get into that scrum. I firmly believe that it has been proved that his philosophy can be accommodated right here without any problems.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for South Coast will no doubt excuse me if I do not respond directly to what he had to say. We have discussed the past at length today, at a time when we should really rather have been discussing the future. [Interjections.] It is probably understandable that this hon member also felt obliged rather to discuss the past. As a man who himself has left the NRP, he made it is task to attack the poor hon member for Mooi River for not adhering to the principles of the NRP. How one can manage this, how one can reconcile it with one’s own conscience, and how one can take oneself seriously if one makes a speech such as this, goodness knows. However, I shall simply leave it at that.

We heard a speech this afternoon by the hon member for Umlazi who gave us his analysis of the election. Hon members are of course entitled to do so. There are several NP members that are thrilled about the election and this hon member was particularly thrilled. [Interjections.] I concede that the hon member may be thrilled, but it is important …

Order! I called upon only the hon member for Green Point to speak.

It is rather important to keep a certain perspective when one performs such an analysis.

This hon member derived particular enjoyment from referring to certain constituencies which the NP captured because of two main issues. He said, firstly, that the NP had won seats where we were dealing with coastal areas. He then said this had to do with mixed beaches and the Sea-shore Act. I find it interesting that the hon member said that because it reveals quite clearly that they won those seats on the grounds of racial privilege in the ranks of the electorate in those areas.

One could discuss this matter at length but I simply want to mention a few things. In the first place, it is the government in power and not us as PFP members of the House of Assembly that determines what happens on our own beaches. They are the Government and they make the laws. They institute the investigations and they prosecute if they feel like it. If things then go wrong on beaches, from their point of view it is probably their responsibility. The hon member now takes great delight in saying that they won seats on account of the whole question of beaches. The hon member should just bear in mind that he is not only a member of the governing party, and since they have won these seats I want to ask him what they are going to do about it and, more specifically, how he reconciles his standpoint of malicious pleasure with that of the hon member for Nev/ton Park who went to a great deal of trouble to take a flight from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth to go and vote in a referendum for open beaches. I respect that hon member for his actions.

The hon member for Umlazi says with malicious pleasure that the PFP lost seats to the NP because of the beach issue. The hon member should bear in mind that when in the future they are confronted with a similar situation, they will have to take a stand. The official NP standpoint in Port Elizabeth was that they wanted nothing to do with the referendum that had been called. They made it clear that it was a matter between the right wing and the PFP. They want nothing to do with it. They did not take a stand, but for all that, the hon member for Newton Park had the courage, the wisdom and the decisiveness to take a stand regarding this matter. He took the trouble to express this by means of his vote.

Furthermore, the hon member for Umlazi mentioned the areas where problems concerned with group areas are being revealed. He referred, inter alia, to Hillbrow, which the NP won. I want to point out once again to the hon member that his party is in power. It is therefore the duty of the NP to apply the Group Areas Act if they want to do so. It is the duty of the NP to institute an investigation into the matter if they want to do so. They, therefore, have to accept responsibility in this regard. The hon member may continue with his malicious pleasure, but since the NP now represents Hillbrow, I should like to hear at some time or another from the hon member for Umlazi or from one of his colleagues what they are going to do in Hillbrow. [Interjections.] Thus far they have not been inclined to offer us any solutions but what I will say for the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is that he reached a partial a solution. I am now quoting from a newspaper article in which he says:

It is the hon the Deputy Minister, who is responsible for the Group Areas Act, that says: “People say there are a lot of contraventions in Hillbrow.”

†If he says “people say” and he is not quite sure of it, I want to tell him that he must be the last man in South Africa to have heard about the contraventions of the Group Areas Act in Hillbrow, because everybody else knows it. Then he says:

*The hon the Deputy Minister is very sceptical. The facts are unpleasant for him to digest, so he denies them. He is sceptical in that regard.

I should now like to refer to the solutions the hon the Deputy Minister suggests. He says the Group Areas Board has investigated the matter. What possible solutions does he suggest? One solution is simply to declare Hillbrow a group area for another race. This was his solution. I should just like to ask him why he did not offer that solution on a political platform in Hillbrow before the election. It would have been very useful. Why did the hon the Deputy Minister not make this proposal at that stage? [Interjections.] He did not do so.

He is now talking about Mayfair. We all know what the situation is in Mayfair, and the hon the Deputy Minister’s solution to that is that perhaps they should shift the boundaries. One could refer to all these specific cases but I should prefer to indicate their philosophical background.

It is quite clear that the standpoint of the hon the Deputy Minister and his Government is that the Group Areas Act does exist, although it does not actually work, so if people move into areas in spite of the Act, they will simply shift the boundaries accordingly.

They simply shift the boundaries as it suits them. They are therefore able to suit the Act to the realities they cannot actually deal with. [Interjections.] If ever there was a situation in which an Act could not succeed and could therefore not be retained, it is this situation. This hon Deputy Minister has been showing that tendency for years. He is like a weather vane whose axle has been well greased. He is very sensitive to the wind and moves easily in the direction in which he is blown. [Interjections.]

Hon members had a lot to say about the Group Areas Act at an NP congress. After the congress he assured the public that they could simply complain to the police and that the matter would then be investigated and followed up. We all know how many prosecutions take place. The hon the Deputy Minister is also sensitive to the unpleasant publicity that flows from this. I understand the hon the Deputy Minister’s standpoint in this connection but in my opinion he should then get rid of the Act rather than drone on in his old clergyman’s voice of yesteryear, and tell everyone not to take too harsh action because it is a sensitive matter … [Interjections] … and that they should deal compassionately with this matter. [Interjections.]

Order!

If I have to try to be positive about the hon the Deputy Minister—because he really irritates me when he discusses the Group Areas Act—I can only think what a wonderful relief it must have been for the church when this hon Minister decided to enter politics.

A professional deputy.

I am pleased that my concern about the Group Areas Act in particular—it is a great problem in our country—is shared by many hon members on the other side of the House. I have already referred to the hon member for Newton Park in connection with another matter. Hon members know what he had to say about the Group Areas Act and what his ward council’s decision on the matter was. The standpoints of other hon members of the NP are also well known.

The hon member for Stellenbosch became involved in a debate with his independent opponent. The independent candidate said that according to the hon the State President, the group principle and the Group Areas Act would not be abolished under his leadership. The hon member for Stellenbosch then corrected the independent candidate by saying that the hon the State President said only that the Act would not disappear as long as he was the leader.

Does this suggest that the hon member for Stellenbosch is going to mark time and wait for the hon the State President to retire before he expresses his real standpoint and attempts to have it prevail? This is the kind of thing that is going on. Although one is sorry to see people with a standpoint they are not prepared or able to express, I must say I am still pleased there are people that do feel that way.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, the hon member for Maitland, also said, inter alia, in the the course of the election campaign that the Group Areas Act caused misery. In response to repeated challenges from our side he also said that he did not know of any Coloured, Indian or Black leader in this country that supported this Act. I am therefore pleased to say that hon members of the NP, even on a ministerial level, are aware of these things.

I should just like to return to the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He was the chairman of the select committee of Parliament that recommended that the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act should be repealed. I was part of that committee and I was happy to have had the privilege of serving on it.

At some stage it must have been clear to all of us that the abolition of that legislation must inevitably put pressure on the Group Areas Act. This is the case today; it is there for all to see. The position of mixed couples in particular is impossible. I receive telephone calls from these people. I know of many of them, and over the years I have had to advise them on certain matters.

I do not even know how many hon members on the other side of the House are aware of the discriminatory effect of section 12 of the Group Areas Act. It specifically stipulates that if a marriage takes place between any two persons of different race, the couple takes on the group character of the man except when a White person is involved. When a White person is involved they are moved away from the Whites. The group character of the couple is then always anything but White. Any person who is not White that reads that section and analyses it cannot but feel that it is an insult for him to be placed in a kind of second-class or tird-class category or something of that nature. He is simply not permitted to have anything to do with the White group. The White group has to remain pure. [Interjections.]

The tragedy is that that hon Deputy Minister was part of that committee. He must after all have been aware of the effect it would have in time on people’s personal lives. And it has an effect. It creates enormous problems for people. They do not know where they belong. They do not know the provisions of the Act. I know of a White man that married a Coloured woman and could not find legal accommodation anywhere. He then approached the Department of Housing for Coloureds and they told him: “Man, you are White. You cannot come to us to apply for housing.” He could not obtain housing and still today he roams from one place to another as a result of the Group Areas Act.

Mr Chairman, I am of the opinion that we should get rid of this Act. There is no point in discussing it in order to amend it again, as has already been done 17 times. It is pointless to talk about adaptability. The underlying principle of the Group Areas Act is one of inaccessibility and discrimination, and it is an insult to everyone that is not White. We cannot live with that. An Act of this nature is divisive and insulting and we cannot build a future on that kind of legislation. Everyone taking the whole reform programme and reform initiative in South Africa seriously knows that the next logical step has to be the abolition or drastic amendment of the Group Areas Act. There is no indication that the NP’s official spokesmen share that standpoint; to tell the tragic truth, they do not regard it as an unfortunate legacy from the past. They are building it into our plans for the future. They made it part of the tricameral Parliament and they are engaged in making it a part of the whole system of regional services councils. We cannot build a future on that basis.

Mr Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the hon member for Green Point had to say. He started out by referring briefly to my colleague, the hon member for South Coast, and the speech he made in reply to the hon member for Mooi River. He attacked the hon member for South Coast by, if I heard him correctly, suggesting that he had no real right to speak that way because he had crossed the floor and had joined the NP.

Like you!

Like me, and like the hon leader of the PFP and the hon member for Houghton and the hon member for Sandton, who also crossed the floor, as did the hon member for Berea, who also crossed the floor in due course … [Interjections.] Those self-righteous hon members criticize someone else who has crossed the floor, but up to this election nearly a third of their caucus had at some time or the other crossed the floor and had not fought a by-election.

Just about the whole of the CP had crossed the floor.

You do not know what “cross the floor” means! [Interjections.]

Well, they joined another party … [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.] Can the hon member for Yeoville not hear the Chair, or what is the problem?

No, Mr Speaker, I did not hear you say anything. [Interjections.]

Order! May I suggest to the hon member for Yeoville that he concentrate on hearing the Chair.

I think the point that the hon member for South Coast was making, was that he could not understand how our erstwhile colleague, the hon member for Mooi River, and his colleagues in the NRP could ever have seen their way clear to enter into an election pact with the PFP.

He does not understand much else either.

That hon member may say that, but the hon member for South Coast and I were, if I remember correctly, founder members of the NRP. I was on the constitutional committee of Natal for the NRP. I helped to draw up those aims and principles which the hon member referred to. I therefore know a little about what the NRP used to believe.

Well done!

Then you threw it away.

I did not throw it away. The hon member for Mooi River and his colleagues did. The NRP and the NP fought side by side in the referendum for the new Constitution, the very thing that the NRP had worked so hard for.

You joined the Nats!

So the Nats are implementing the very proposals which the NRP was formed to bring about. That is what the hon member for Mooi River must remember. The hon member for Mooi River must remember how the NRP and the NP fought side by side against those parties which wanted to destroy the very principles in which we believed in the old NRP. The hon member nods—he remembers it.

The parties which were determined to destroy those things we believed in were the PFP and the CP. The question which that hon member for Mooi River must ask himself is the following: What has suddenly happened that the NRP leadership should have seen fit to sacrifice those principles in order to enter into an election pact with the PFP?

They did it because they knew that had they fought this last election without forming a pact, they would have been obliterated. As it is, only that hon member returned to represent the NRP.

What has happened to your principle about Blacks in Parliament?

That hon member thinks he knows so much about what went on in the NRP. That issue was thrashed out by the federal council of the NRP, if I remember correctly, in the Edward Hotel in Durban. We said that we were prepared to accept the constitutional proposals of the tricameral Parliament despite the fact that it did not include Blacks. That is something we thrashed out in a very long debate, and therefore, if I may, I should now like to address the hon member for Mooi River. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he favours a fourth chamber now, as he did when he was a member of the NRP.

That hon member has asked me a very interesting question.

Answer it! [Interjections.]

That was the crux of the big debate and if that hon member will correctly recall what happened at the time—I remember it very clearly—he will remember that I stood up at that federal council meeting after the discussion and said that I reserved my right in regard to that fourth chamber. Does the hon member recall that? I shall refresh his memory. I can clearly remember saying that perhaps the NP in dealing with the problems of South Africa had more experience and more understanding of the situation in South Africa than we in the NRP had. That was my contribution to that debate, and we decided at that time that we would accept the tricameral Parliament.

The question that had to be answered during the past election was: How could the NRP sacrifice its principles in order to enter into this pact with the PFP? [Interjections.] They only did it because they knew that without the pact they would have been totally obliterated. The price they were forced to pay, was the signing of the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba. Moreover, in order to have that Indaba signed, the chairman and the PFP members of the Indaba rushed it through to a conclusion. Recently, the editor of The Natal Mercury accepted that fact. He said the indaba was rushed. Why? It was to try to get a pact or indaba signed to use in this election campaign. It was a tragedy that that happened. It was a tragedy for the NRP. The sooner the NRP is wrapped up and buried the better. I really could not understand why members such as the hon member for Mooi River fell for that Prog gimmick of an election pact. In this election the PFP were grasping at straws. They had to try to find something to indicate to the public that they were relevant and growing. They had advertisements talking of an “alliance of moderates”. I would like to ask the hon member for Yeoville whether he honestly believes, having gone through the period from 1974 to 1977, that there could have been an alliance of moderates.

I still believe that it will come.

It may come, but will it come among people with such diverse political principles as the PFP, the NRP and the hon independent member for Randburg?

Are you against an alliance of moderates?

I wonder whether there can be such a thing as an alliance of moderates as long as the PFP considers itself part of it, because they are not moderates.

What happened to the moderate colleague of that hon member who was a reformist left from the United Party? Why was Mr Horace van Rensburg not accepted as an Independent into the alliance of moderates which the PFP advertised so much about? [Interjections.] The reason why he was not acceptable into the alliance of moderates was because he was not radical enough for the members of the PFP. [Interjections.]

I do not know whether the hon members in the Cape or the Transvaal saw the type of full page advertisements such as the one that I am holding up here. The hon members of the Official Opposition have complained about the cost of the NP advertising but there were full-page adverts by the PFP even in the regional weekly newspapers in Natal. I would certainly like to know who paid for those.

Read it!

Read it? Very well. Let me quote to the House from this advertisement:

Does the PFP believe in real power-sharing?

Read a bit more.

What the hon member for Yeoville wants me to read is: “I am going to vote PFP/NRP because I agree with Harry Schwarz about …” [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon member for Yeoville what sort of kickback did the PFP get out of this very expensive advertising? The PFP was practically blotted out of Natal and in the next election they will disappear from Natal. There will be a wipe out for the simple reason that the people have become accustomed to the PFPs gimmickry.

In the day of the Reformists—if one remembers correctly—it was “Vote for the man, not for the party”.

As in Yeoville! [Interjections.]

Then it was “Vote for the effective opposition”.

Then it was “Vote for the effective opposition”. They are always full of gimmicks. During this election they said: “Vote for the alliance of moderates”, and yet they supposedly brought together the NRP and the PFP which had totally opposite political philosophies. Now I ask the hon member for Mooi River how he could have fallen for it. I hear from members of the NRP, some of whom are now sitting in these benches and who were members of the provincial council and executive members of the party, that the leadership did not take it down to the membership at constituency level to discuss this matter. The alliance was something which was cooked up by a few chaps at the top who had made a deal with the PFP.

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon the Deputy Minister. He will be able to proceed with his speech on the resumption of the debate tomorrow. The hon the Minister of Justice has asked me for an opportunity to address the House before the adjournment.

Question of Privilege

Mr Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to a matter of privilege. It concerns the speech of the hon member for Sandton that was delivered in this House this evening. I ask whether you will allow precedence to be given to a motion for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into and report upon a possible question of breach of privilege allegedly committed by Mr D J Dalling in what he said about the Honourable Mr Justice Munnik and the State President.

I am giving attention to the matter and shall consider the hon the Minister’s request after I have had the opportunity to peruse the hon member’s Hansard tomorrow morning. I shall give a ruling on the request tomorrow in the course of the day.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.