Order! I have to announce that I have called joint sittings of the three Houses of Parliament for Monday, 25 May, and Tuesday, 26 May, for the delivering of Second Reading speeches on certain bills.

Order! I have to announce that I have called a meeting of Opposition members for Monday, 25 May, at 09h30 in the Auditorium of the Parliamentary Building for the purpose of the nomination of members of the President’s Council in terms of section 70 (2) (a) (i) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

With reference to the point of order raised yesterday in connection with the provisions of Rule 40 relating to the resumption of bills in a subsequent session, I give the following ruling.

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).

Agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Order! With reference to the request addressed to me yesterday by the hon the Minister of Justice, I shall raise the matter later this afternoon and issue a further ruling then. The hon the Minister need not, therefore, move any further motion at this point; nor shall I give a ruling on the matter now.

Mr Speaker, just before the House adjourned last night, I was discussing the loss of credibility of certain individuals and political parties as a result of the election. I had referred particularly to the NRP and the PFP, and the fact that they had contrived an election pact in the hope of winning possibly one or two seats from the NP. It was a pact which was in no way whatsoever based on any agreement of basic political principle. It was rather a case of blatant political expediency in an effort—as I have just said—to win perhaps a seat or two from the NP. In the event, the South African electorate has proven that it was not fooled by this. Both the NRP and the PFP suffered a major defeat, and as a result of this their credibility has suffered.

However, last night during the debate, the question of the Natal Indaba was also raised and discussed. Talking about the loss of credibility, I believe that as a result of the actions of the Indaba Support Committee with its huge and expensive advertising campaign as well as statements made by the so-called steering committee of the indaba and its chairman, Prof Van Wyk, the credibility of the entire indaba exercise is now being questioned.

I believe one must ask at this time who exactly is running the indaba exercise, to what end and upon what mandate. Has the indaba become the private property of certain interested parties? Perhaps it is its own steering committee or its chairman, Prof Van Wyk, or even a pressure group or a certain group of Natal business interests. The actual participants in the indaba who participated earlier on last year, have now been excluded from the present action of the steering committee. The Natal Agricultural Union is out of the indaba, as is also the Natal Municipal Association.

These bodies have no say whatsoever in what is being said or done at the present time. Furthermore, Prof Van Wyk and his committee are progressively being proven to be misrepresenting the truth about the indaba.

I quote from the Natal Mercury of 22 April. The editorial is headed “It is the process!” May I say here that we in these benches believe in the process of negotiation. We hope that in the not too distant future the various groups throughout South Africa will gather in, perhaps, a statutory council to negotiate a further constitutional dispensation. Therefore we agree on the process. The editorial states “The weakness of the indaba was that it was …”—“the emphasis is on the word “was”—“… rushed”. When we talked about the indaba earlier this year, this was something we debated. The indaba was rushed in order to provide the PFP and the NRP with a platform from which to fight the recent election.

A further quote from this editorial reads:

Why were they not? [Interjections.]

They were present as observers, but the point is that they were not present as official representatives because they knew which way the indaba was going. [Interjections.] Yet the Indaba Support Committee—although it has absolutely no mandate from any recognised source to conduct such a campaign—proceeds with this extremely expensive advertising campaign, propagating the indaba and endeavouring to gain public support for its proposals. I would even go so far as to say that in so doing they are distorting the truth about the whole indaba exercise and its findings. Therefore I repeat my question: Exactly whose interests are these people serving?

I would like to give hon members an example of what I am getting at. In The Argus of 18 May in an article under the heading “Natal academic questions results of Indaba survey”, Dr Michael Sutcliffe who is a lecturer in the Department of Town and Regional Planning of the University of Natal raised some questions about this. I want to quote from that article:

As I have said this throws a question on the validity of the advertising campaign for the indaba.

I have that report here. In it one sees that 1 000 people were interviewed and they were selected from 50 different places throughout the province of Natal-kwaZulu. I would just like to quote from page 16 of the report where, according to Table 3, people had to answer the question: “Have you heard of the kwaZulu-Natal Indaba?” There we see that 49% of the Blacks had never heard of the indaba.

The report also refers to the question whether the participants were representative of the people of Natal-kwaZulu. I quote from page 18:

It goes further to ask: “What do you know about the Indaba?” This shows that there is great ignorance about the details about the indaba. One thing that has been pushed by the opposition as well as the advertising campaign, is the Bill of Rights. Yet, it was found that only 4% of the Whites interviewed in Natal had heard or knew anything about the Bill of Rights, whereas only 2% of the Asians knew something of the Bill of Rights, and no one among the Blacks or the Coloureds interviewed knew anything whatsoever about it.

When it comes to the protection of minorities, only 1% of the Whites knew anything about the indaba’s protection of minorities, 1% of the Asians and 0% of either the Coloureds or the Blacks.

So very little is known about the indaba in Natal.

They also asked these people what they considered to be the problems which exist in South Africa at the present time. The question was also asked: “How do you think the Government should solve these problems?” It was then asked whether these problems could be solved through the kwaZulu-Natal Indaba proposals. Only 1% of the Whites suggested that the kwaZulu-Natal Indaba could solve the problems, whereas none of the other groups interviewed felt that the indaba would solve their problems. I think this gives some indication of what the people of Natal know of or think about the indaba.

The question was also asked: “Do you believe that there should be a settlement in South Africa first, rather than a settlement in South Africa as a whole?” It is interesting to note that 63% of the Whites said that there should be a settlement in Natal first. One must expect that from Natal, because there are people there who still regrettably believe it is the last outpost of the British Empire.

Be that as it may, however, it is a fact that 60% of the Blacks said no, and 46% of the Coloureds and 51% of the Asians said that there should not be a settlement in Natal first.

The report goes on to say the following on p 36 and in my concluding comments I would just like to quote it:

That is a comment in this report. I would also like to point out that in all the advertisements that have appeared throughout Natal and certainly elsewhere in the country it has nowhere been pointed out that the indaba constitution can be changed without the consent of all groups involved. Similarly, nowhere in all the advertisements about the indaba do they point out that financial committees can rush through money bills without the consent of either the relevant standing committee or any of the two chambers. [Interjections.]

It is therefore clear that there has been misrepresentation of the indaba. On p 37 of this report it says:

In the concluding paragraph on p 39 there are some political comments made. They are the following:

Might I say in conclusion that it is a pity that the Official Opposition and the Press of South Africa do not support the hon the State President’s effort in establishing a National Statutory Council to get people around a table to discuss the future of South Africa. If this election has shown anything, it is that the White electorate of South Africa trust the NP with their future in South Africa. I think it is arrogance on the part of the PFP to claim that they represent the White electorate of South Africa. I believe that they should subject themselves to the will of the White electorate and promote among their people the hon the State President’s efforts to get all groups in South Africa around a table in the National Statutory Council.

Mr Speaker, the election has changed the composition of the House of Assembly, but very clearly not the debate. It is clearly apparent from the speech made by the hon the Deputy Minister that the debate is simply proceeding once again along the lines of the old formulas which are being addressed. Everyone is merely carrying on with a search for solutions based on formulas which have proved themselves unworkable.

The issue in the case of the indaba is not so much the correctness or otherwise of the proposals. The issue is a process and an approach. The issue also is the reactions to the process itself and to the proposals. My attitude to this, throughout the election as well, was that the proposals in themselves did not provide any answers, but that the reaction, particularly that of the Government, was very disappointing.

In the first reaction by the hon the Minister of Home Affairs and the subsequent reaction by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning the proposals were initially shot down. Later, within a specific framework, it was said: “We are prepared to proceed with a discussion on condition that it fits into a certain framework.” Ultimately, shortly before the election, the hon the Minister of Home Affairs came forward with an open approach in his reaction in the Tribune. I think this was an approach which could have been adopted at the outset. It would have made the whole process far more meaningful.

The opportunity I have had up to now to listen to the debate and to read extracts from it, even though it was at times by way of summary when I could not listen in person to what other hon members had to say, merely indicates to me that the attitude simply remains one of being more dedicated to one’s own standpoint and to doing one’s own thing—or rather doing more of the same thing—as if the answers had to be found in doing that. It is almost as if everyone is saying we are simply not doing enough of what we believe in; if only we could do a little more we would indeed find the answers.

We all know that the performance of a car is directly proportionate to the amount of fuel used. The harder one treads on the accelerator, the faster the vehicle travels. Yet that is not altogether true. [Interjections.] I see there is one hon member who understands the physics involved. If only the hon member were to apply it to politics! When the motor car ascends a slope it continues to lose speed. Its motion is inevitably circumscribed unless one is able to a new gear … [Interjections.] … unless one is able to place the problem in a new framework within which one can seek the answers.

What you are saying is way above their heads, Wynand. [Interjections.]

It is not merely the problem of the governing party in this House because it applies to the approach of all the parties in this House. It is also my impression that this is the attitude outside the House as well. It applies to all the actors who are involved in South African politics, whether they are in the formal or the informal political arena, or even abroad. These attempts from abroad to bring about isolation—sanctions and the threat of sanctions—do not appear to be having the desired effect. The reaction we are getting is merely that there should be more of it; then it will have the effect that those who advocate it want it to have. Violence is not forcing the Government to change and yet those who use violence say: All we need to do is apply a little more violence; we are simply not applying enough violence.

As far as the application of apartheid measures are concerned, it is felt that we are simply not applying effectively enough. If only we could be a little more effective in respect of the application of the Group Areas Act or whatever, or if only we could do the same thing in a different way—in fact just more of the same thing—we would begin to succeed in our efforts. It is as if that has remained the style of the debate. If one takes a look at how all the attempts at change have progressed, it almost brings one to the expression which says that the more things change the more they remain the same.

The facts speak very clearly. Isolation and economic punitive measures worsen everyone’s situation without improving it. Violence has the same consequences. Apartheid or dogma in whatever form has the same reaction. The problem remains the same problem. I believe it is time that we changed to a new political gear. This applies to the parliamentary participants but also to those outside Parliament and their conduct, and to the outside world.

†A new relationship is necessary. The nation is poised for the future. It is time to reframe in order to cope with problems. Let us start asking new questions, or at least the old questions in a new way. Who fears what, and why? Who expects what, and why? We tend to campaign at the level of models. We tender models as solutions. This is not only premature, Sir, but it excludes any possibility whatsoever of finding a synthesis. We each seem to hold pieces of different puzzles, which are by definition incompatible and mutually exclusive of each other’s expectations. If only we would accept for a moment that our expectations, our innermost fears and our basic aspirations could perhaps all be legitimate! Who expects what, and why? I believe the expectations of many Afrikaners—in which I share—to be legitimate. These are to find security in their identification with the “Afrikanervolk”; to practise its culture, religion and traditions; to speak the language and to have ones children educated through the medium of their mother tongue. Those are all legitimate expectations. I also believe that if we cannot find security for the Afrikaner with these expectations there will not be security for anyone in this country: I believe these expectations are in today’s politics best or mostly represented by the CP and partly by the NP.

The expectations of others of an enhanced quality of life are also legitimate. I believe that these are best represented by the NP and partly again by the PFP. Moreover, I believe that if the quality of life of everyone cannot be enhanced it will not be possible to protect the quality of life of anyone. The acknowledgement of human dignity is an expectation which is again as legitimate as all the others. The PFP and many of the organisations aligned with the UDF would be the flagbearers of this expectation. Inkatha again, has some of these expectations as well as others— all of which I believe to be legitimate.

The point is that I believe that these expectations are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, they are compatible. They are like different pieces of the same puzzle and, put together, it could make quite a picture. It only has to be acknowledged that there are roles for all to play in the process of negotiation. This process is what is important. It may even lead us all to become campaigners for each other’s expectation and to allay each other’s fears.

As the process gains momentum, so will its legitimacy. Its legitimacy will increase, and the more it increases the less relevant will each of our own model solutions become.

The hon State President in his Opening Address made mention of his assuming a more prominent role in the negotiation process. This poses a glimmer of hope, but if his role is again to be more of the same of the old formula approach, things will stay the same. As I have pointed out, negotiations have to take place among political groupings. It cannot be the executive branch of the parliamentary system negotiating with Blacks or negotiating on behalf of Whites. That will not work just as it did not work in the past. This really is the message of the Independents, and of what has, I believe, become the independent movement.

We do not ask other parties to forsake their following. They should keep on representing them, but then it must be done in a different gear. It must be at the level of expectations and fears, and not at the level of models.

There is no future in partition or in domination of any kind whatsoever. There is also no future for majority rule in a highly centralised system. There is also no future in White control, or in whatsoever kind of control by any specific group. Any or all of these excludes the expectations of others proposing different models.

*The voters of Randburg, Helderberg and Stellenbosch voiced their opinion strongly in favour of these ideas during the short election campaign. If the existing parties cannot react to this message their support countrywide will dwindle and they will have to relinquish support to the spirit which does in fact emanate from the independent movement.

I should like to quote the hon the State President in another context and say: “It is not a threat. It is merely a truth”. The growth of the independent movement would be indirectly proportionate to the ability of the existing parties to adapt to that which this spirit requires of them within their parties as well, namely to think in a new framework and to change over to another gear-ratio.

This “new spirit” has become a movement. We have already announced, after discussions with a number of supporters that a continuation committee has been formed. This committee is expanding under the convenorship of Advocate Dawid de Villiers.

On the committee there are familiar as well as new faces and names in South African politics. Those names will be announced soon. The independent movement will function and act as a political party within the parliamentary system. It will also be active in informal politics. The only requirement for participation will be support for the philosophy and policy of the movement. The movement will not only be active nationally but also at constituency level.

In the election campaign I used the example of a group of blind people who came across an elephant. The one grasped the elephant’s leg, the second the trunk and the third the tail. The first one thought the elephant was a tree trunk, the second thought it was a rubber pipe and the third thought it was a rope. Pollux of Rapport reacted to it with a Confucianism by saying that the party grasping the elephant at the rope end would soon put their foot in it. [Interjections.] Our problem is that for three centuries now we in this country have individually been viewing the problem from a different angle in the same way the three blind people experienced the elephant. Each individual is doing his own thing and does not believe that this part of the truth which each one is grasping could ever be the full truth. We are not going to get anywhere if we do not accept that each individual is grasping only part of the truth. Now, in the fourth century of our history, I think we should start thinking in terms of the whole. Together we must seek and together build the nation we can in fact be. There is widespread support for that.

I should also like to make use of the opportunity to apologize to colleagues who are still going to participate in this debate since I will not be physically able to listen to the entire debate. I shall read Hansard in the hope that something of the message that I should like to convey got through. I also want to convey my thanks to the Chief Whip of the NP who organized this opportunity for me to speak at a time which suited me. I appreciate it very much.

Mr Speaker, after the tremendous euphoria that erupted in South Africa around the Independent movement, we have listened with great anticipation this afternoon to what these people actually have to say to us and the public at large. The hon member for Randburg spoke in extensive clichés of old frameworks and a new vision. All I can honestly say to the hon member is to remind him of the chap who said there are only two people who know: The Pope and the bull, but the Pope is dead and the bull is not telling. [Interjections.] The hon member said that everything was outmoded. The parties here in this House are outmoded. The countries abroad are outmoded. Only Worrall and Malan know, but Worrall is not here, and Malan is not telling. [Interjections.]

It is a great privilege for us sitting in these few benches, Mr Speaker, to participate in this debate from conquered ground—conquered territory— after the great brag we saw in this country on the part of our hon friends in the PFP who spoke of 40 to 45 seats, and the Conservative Party who spoke of up to 60 seats. What went wrong, then? I believe the answer is simple. The National Party, under the leadership of the hon the State President and the other leaders of this party, in all modesty, presented the realities of this country to the electorate sincerely, open-heartedly and honestly and laid down the guidelines for the future. The people of South Africa decided that that made sense, and they consequently returned this party to this House with an increased majority.

You just have to tell us some time what those guidelines are! [Interjections.]

The voters voted for the National Party because no workable alternative was presented for which they could possibly consider voting. The hon the State President and our other leaders deserve the greatest respect and appreciation from us on this side of the House for the tremendous success they achieved in the recent election.

As in many other elections, Sir, 6 May also yielded its rarities, and once again reflected the absolute frustration of the so-called liberal establishment of South Africa. No stone was left unturned in an effort to mobilise, motivate, inspire, support and even abuse everything that is anti-NP, just to break the NP. The only success—and I say this with great respect—the only real success they achieved was to get the hon member for Randburg elected. For the rest they failed dismally. An absolute euphoria broke loose when the Worrall, Malan and Lategan trio entered South African politics. It was so bad that we read in the Press that this was the beginning of the end for the National Party. [Interjections.]

Now, Mr Speaker, I cannot quite understand what has become of the PFP’s goodwill towards these people. When these people made their appearance, the PFP stood back. “Make way for the Worralls and the Malans and the Lategans! Don’t oppose them!” And sure enough, Sir, when they had the opportunity really to show their allegiance to this alliance, they did not bring Dennis Worrall here; they brought the hon member Prof Olivier back to this Parliament. [Interjections.] Perhaps the Conservative Party has taught them something, since they at least have brought two or three of Eugène Terre’Blanche’s henchmen back to this Parliament with them.

Anything that could assist in breaking the National Party—whether to the left or the right of the political spectrum— was used to try and make this effort a success. What do we really have, however? The hon member for Randburg—and I put this to him directly this afternoon—is not an Independent. When one listens to him, it appears that he still remains dependent on the policy of the National Party, and he remains dependent on the PFP for votes. [Interjections.] The Sunday Times, The Star, The Argus and the Cape Times in particular were so obsessed with this Worrall-Malan-Lategan rarity that they completely forgot about the PFP-NRP alliance. The result—a rara avis—seven fewer PFP’s, four fewer NRP’s and an increased NP majority in this House. Does this correspond with the list of constituencies these hon members relinquished?

We are probably not permitted to bet in this House—I believe it is an unwritten rule—but as we spoke to one another all along, I am quite looking forward to the gifts that are going to be offered to me.

Now the dust has settled and the hon member for Randburg is sitting here as an Independent. I want to ask him independent of whom. Independent of the PFP? Independent of the liberal establishment that brought him here? Independent of the leftist antagonistic Press in South Africa? Independent of what? Independent today, and tomorrow?

What are they going to tell the people is the vision of the future they are presenting in the light of their sharp criticism that our leaders have no vision?

Where is the hon member going to fit in in respect of his politics in the days ahead? [Interjections.] I maintain that the hon member has no alternative to offer. What the hon member can do, he did here this afternoon. We do not want to quarrel with the hon member on that score. We can debate the tempo of the process of reform. That we can do. That is a fair argument, and we can debate on that.

We are all at least entitled to know what the final solution is the hon members wish to present. For example, we are hearing about committees that have been formed.

Surely the liberals in South Africa do not have the sole right to fairness and justice in South African politics. Let us assess the Independents on the basis of the standpoints reflected in their manifesto, the pronouncements they made, and the speech the hon member for Randburg made here this afternoon. Let us just look for a moment at the manifesto they issued. It contains generalisations and naïvities that do not take the realities of South Africa into account. On the contrary, there are repetitions of standpoints made from day to day by this Government in South African politics. They talk about there having to be a new attitude in the Republic of South Africa. A new attitude has taken hold in South Africa. I want to ask the hon member—he can go and ask his friends outside as well—who the people are who have cultivated the desire for reform amongst our people in South Africa.

This Government has also paid a price for that. There sits the CP. It is this Government under the leadership of the hon the State President that has brought South Africa along the path of reform to where it is today. They also say that there is unilateral reform. They say that the time for governments to strive for unilateral reform has passed. Is the 1983 Constitution not the result of years of hard negotiation to bring those people into the political process as well? [Interjections.] The Government went to the White voters again on 6 May. To do what? To ask for a mandate to continue the process of negotiation so as also to give the Black people in this country a joint say in matters of common interest, as well as a say in the decision-making processes that affect us all. Surely this is a process in motion.

I therefore reiterate to the hon member that we can debate about the process and the tempo, but they have no alternative to offer South Africa. If he does not wish to walk the path with us on this side as spelt out by our hon State President at the opening of Parliament, he will have to go and fit in with the people who voted him into this House, and they are his friends in the PFP who are sitting on that side.

The Independents say the time has come to turn this vision into reality. Surely the present constitutional proposals for our country, the standing committees we have introduced in this Parliament and the consensus approach are a continuous negotiation process taking place on a daily basis amongst the people participating. I concede that under the leadership of the hon the State President, in whom we have great confidence, we must and shall come forward with solutions in respect of the Black people as well, for which we shall obtain the consent of the White voters. So one could go on with the manifesto of the hon members. It contains clichés and fine words which are not going to solve this country’s problems, as this Government is doing.

Now the question is whether we should ignore the hon members. We cannot ignore them, since together with the liberal establishment and the antagonistic Press they present a view of this Government that really is not true. The view that this Government has become stagnant is being conveyed both here and abroad. It is being said that the Government is not prepared to speak to other people in the country and to come up with solutions to South Africa’s problems. We must therefore tell the hon members that they can say that the NP has no vision; that it has lost its ideology; that it does not have a policy or a standpoint and that it manipulates power—those are the words they use—if they so wish, but on 6 May the people resolved that those arguments were not true. The people of South Africa once again placed their trust in the NP Government.

Do the Independents have a vision for the future? I want to ask any outsider who listened to the hon member’s speech this afternoon whether he or the Press will be able to tell us tomorrow what the vision is we got from the Independent movement this afternoon. These people were confronted during the election campaign, and Dr Esther Lategan said:

A while later Dr Worrall himself said:

Surely the process of reform did not begin on 6 May this year.

The process of reform has been taking place for years in this country. For everyone who wishes to be honest and truthful, the successes of reform stand as monuments to the NP Government. If hon members do not want to believe that, they can go and ask oom Beyers Naudé, who is getting very old now, what he thinks of the reform that has already taken place in this country. [Interjections.] What do the hon members’ friends have to say about this? In the leader in The Argus of Monday 16 February, Dr Worrall was referred to as follows:

We on this side of the House accuse the hon member for Randburg and his friends outside of the same thing. If they can present us with alternatives, we can debate with them. The use of ambiguity and generalisations is going to get South Africa nowhere. They are merely a confirmation of the naïve approach to complex questions and mere repetition of many standpoints this Government has been stating for a long time in South African politics.

There are two questions the hon member for Randburg must answer. Firstly: What is the formula the Independents in South Africa are offering in respect of granting political rights? This is the dividing line. This is the watershed between the PFP and the NP. That hon member does not know where he belongs, because one day he speaks like a Nationalist, and the next like the biggest Prog. No-one knows where he stands. That is where the watershed lies: Is the Independent movement going to stand by the standpoint of the NP that political rights in South Africa must be granted on a group basis, and not on the basis of free association or the individual one man, one vote? That is the fundamental question.

That is also the criticism we got from the hon member for Sea Point. He said that this government was stagnant because it clung to the principle of group rights—the political rights of groups.

The hon member for Randburg will have to tell us where he finds a response.

I told you as long ago as February.

Is he with us, or is he with that side of the House?

The second question he will have to answer is where he stands in respect of the fair and orderly regulation of community life for all the people of South Africa. He either stands for the protection of entrenched minority rights—I am also speaking of the residential areas of our poorer and less fortunate people—or for turning the middle and lower income groups in particular over to an unbearable situation where it will no longer be possible to protect those entrenched rights.

Not the wealthy?

The hon member for Randburg will have to give us a reply, because we cannot debate with one another on the basis of ambiguities and generalisations. We want to know where we stand with the hon member and his friends. That is the crux of the PFP’s standpoint. One must be careful not to be compared with the story in which the question was asked what the difference was between a donkey and a zebra. All the man in the story could reply was that a donkey is a zebra without pyjamas.

What are the facts in respect of reform and the vision presented by the hon the State President? In his Opening Address he once again told us very clearly that the support of the voters has endorsed the “evolutionary approach the Government is pursuing in respect of the economic, social and constitutional development” of South Africa. The voters also endorsed the fact that security, order and stability are prerequisites for reform. The support of the voters also means a clear endorsement of the group approach and the broadening of the democratic system in South Africa. Furthermore, the hon the State President also told us that any future dispensation would have to bear in mind the protection of minority rights and the self-determination of groups. He referred to the prevention of domination of one group by another, the division of power in respect of decision-making concerning own community interests and power-sharing in respect of general and common interests.

These are the standpoints the Government is stating and the guidelines according to which the Government is moving. As regards constitutional development the Government has said that it received a mandate from the voters on 6 May to proceed with constitutional development and reform in South Africa, and it will continue to do so. Examples of the successes in this field are legion, and I am not going to waste the time of this House with that. [Interjections.]

If hon members want to be so prejudiced, I would suggest they once again go and read what the hon the State President had to say in this speech of his. It shows the way and it is the standpoint of a Government that knows what it knows and did not return without support. We put these matters from platform to platform across the length and breadth of South Africa and the people of South Africa put their trust in the Government.

I wish to conclude with the final remark the hon the State President made. He said:

From this side of the House we say to the hon the State President that he must proceed. We have come with a mandate after he told us to go and work hard and tell the people of South Africa what he wants from them. We did so in our modest way and we returned to this House with a large majority. We say to him that he must not allow himself to be put off by the CP, the depleted PFP, or a rara avis, an Independent. The turbo-charged PFP has backfired. The alliance of convenience was a damp squib. The voters of South Africa said: “Reform, yes! Surrender, no!”

Mr Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to support my hon leader’s motion of censure. I also want to congratulate him on his high standard of logical argument and clarity of vision when he moved that motion. It was such a high standard that the NP could not come close to grasping it, and therefore had to bring in the hon Minister of Manpower to draw the debate down to the lowest level permissible.

One could foresee this debate centring on the election results. On the one hand to present defeats as being victories and, on the other hand, to belittle the CP’s performance as much as possible. I do not want to dispute for one moment that the NP did well in the election that took place on 6 May. It was surprisingly good. The question is just: Was that a few last convulsions of the “Ruiter van Skimmelperdpan”, or was it the lotus attaining to its ultimate Nirvana as it wilted in a glorious deluge?

Well done, Thomas!

Time will tell. Prior to the election we had a crowd of Madam Roses making predictions about the prospects of the various parties. For this purpose they made use of everything from the customary crystal balls to the most sophisticated electronic computers. Be that as it may, the NP’s Transvaal mouthpiece acknowledged on 8 May 1987: “KP steek kleims af!”. They had to wait for seven days, until 15 May, to cry out with joy and to have Prof Dirk Laurie, of course, prove with figures that there was no swing to the right; on the contrary, that the CP had, in effect, lost ground.

Can you believe that!

This finding found a response here yesterday. I think that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs and the hon member for Umlazi wanted to stampede us with this finding, in particular in regard to the CP’s stagnation.

If one looks back one finds that one of the Madam Roses gave the CP an expected three to four seats. Elsewhere it was predicted that the NP would win back seats, including that of Soutpansberg, mention being made of majorities of about 3 000 and 4 000. [Interjections.] My majority is smaller, and I shall come to that in a moment and tell the hon member what happened to his majority in terms of percentages. [Interjections.] Mark en Meningsopname, however, gave the CP 15% support prior to the election, but what is the position when one looks at the election results. If one wants to compare by-election results and general election results with one another, and the trends surrounding those results, one cannot do so unless one allows for a specific factor to be taken into consideration, because in a general election it has been found that the governing party always does better than in a by-election. The reasons for that include its larger and stronger organization, its propaganda machine and it appears too, the sympathy of the electorate. Nor can one compare a referendum with a general election, because in a referendum all voters cast their votes, whilst in a general election they only vote in those constituencies which are contested. In this election my party did not contest 40 seats. In a referendum the voters also have a less restricted voting pattern than in a general election. If the one doing the analysis does not take these factors into consideration, his findings are not worth anything. I wonder whether the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs or the hon member for Umlazi can tell us whether this was done by their analyst.

What do the cold, clinical facts tell us about this election? They state that in 1977 the NP won 132 seats. This represented 80% of the seats at that time. In 1981, under the leadership of the present State President, the NP won 131 seats. This is 79,39% of the total number of seats. [Interjections.]

You are no good at arithmetic! [Interjections.]

In 1987 the NP won 123 seats, and this is 74% of the total number of seats.

But for them it is growth!

What are the additional facts about this election? The majority of the hon the State President’s Transvaal leader decreased by 64,8%. The hon the Minister of Manpower and of Public Works, the Northern Transvaal regional leader of the NP, had a majority that decreased by 94,33%. [Interjections.] The hon member for Krugersdorp, one of the prominent “New Nats”, had a majority that decreased by 98,33%. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the Cape leader of the NP and the architect of the new dispensation, had a majority that decreased by 98,67%. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he can tell us where the Cape leader of the CP is?

He is on his way back. [Interjections.]

Let me then tell the hon member for Langlaagte that I retained Soutpansberg with 54% of my original majority, and I did so after instructions had been issued from the very highest level that Soutpansberg should be retaken. That happened after the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said there was a man up north who had to go.

Eugène Terre’Blanche! [Interjections.]

After—so we have gathered—R130 000 had been pumped into Soutpansberg, after their having had a full-time regional organiser in that constituency since the 1984 by-election, we still retained Soutpansberg with a majority of 250. I now want to tell the hon member for Krugersdorp, one of those who meddled in Soutpansberg, that his friend, the hon member for Roodepoort, is no longer here. Nor will he be here after the next election.

Where is the hon member for Rissik?

Let me tell the hon member for Krugersdorp that they made every effort to take Soutpansberg, but the one who had Soutpansberg previously, retained the seat. Before the election Soutpansberg was a CP marginal seat and it is still a CP marginal seat. What is the most important aspect of this election? I would be glad if the hon the State President would also take some notice of this. For the first time in 40 years the NP lost four ministerial seats under the leadership of the present hon State President. What do these facts tell us? Up to and including 1977 the NP continuously prospered, but thereafter it went downhill— first by 0,6%, and in this election by 5%, if one calculates on the basis of seats.

We know the NP as a powerful party machine, relatively speaking probably one of the most powerful in the world. In the recent election the NP had more money than ever before. The NP has questioned the funds and the support of other parties, but where did the NP get the money it used in the election? We know that an American financier supplied R10 000. Where does the other money come from? It no longer comes from the farmers and the workers. It now comes from the large companies—the Altechs and other similar institutions. We shall never know how much money the NP pumped into this election, but it probably runs into millions. I am glad the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is nodding in agreement.

Actually, I am sitting here laughing at you.

The NP probably had the services of the top propaganda experts from South Africa and the rest of the world.

Mr Riaan Eksteen.

All the newspapers supported the NP. They grossly exploited radio and television, employing them for their propaganda purposes.

Then we come to another matter which is actually scandalous. They intimidated and victimized people in this country in a manner that cries to high heaven. [Interjections.] They threatened and intimidated old people and pensioners in an atrocious fashion. [Interjections.] In the Piketberg constituency they intercepted CP mail addressed to an old-age home. They also refused the CP access to old-age homes. We know that; that was a practice of theirs. A criminal charge was even brought against a candidate’s wife because of the way they treated old people. [Interjections.] And that does not only apply to old people, but also to officials seconded to neighbouring states. That was an everyday occurrence.

When one takes all that into consideration, one realizes that the miracle is not that the NP retained 123 seats, but in fact that the CP took 22 seats and that the PFP is still in existence at all. When, however, one looks at the CP’s circumstances—the fact that it is so young, its scant funds, the inexperience of its workers, its limited channels of propaganda and the modesty of the techniques it applies—and realizes how it dominates the Transvaal rural areas and has pegged its claims in the East Rand and the West Rand; when one considers its percentage support in the Orange Free State and observes its position in certain Cape seats such as Kuruman, De Aar, Namaqualand, Oudtshoorn, Uitenhage and Vryburg—actually beyond the point at which it stood in similar seats in the Transvaal two years ago—one knows that there have been far-reaching changes in South African politics and that things will never be the same again. Then one knows that the 123 seats were a material success for the NP, but a psychological catastrophe.

†Add to that the fact that the NP is a house divided within itself, and one may make use of the adjectives “battered”, “scattered”, “shattered” and “tattered”. [Interjections.]

I must say this to the PFP. Its leader said it was a sad day for South Africa that we should have a conservative opposition. However, many, many more people than those who voted for the PFP see in the CP’s success the first rays of hope in many, many years for South Africa. He must not begrudge us our success. He must lament his own party’s inability, firstly, to prevent the Nats from stealing its policy and, secondly, luring its supporters away or in fact abducting them.

I share his sense of calamity in one respect, namely in regard to the true political description of the present-day NP. We call that party liberal. This horrifies the hon member for Sea Point, and I suppose it horrifies the hon member for Houghton even more, although last year she expressed her satisfaction at the NP’s course. What do hon members on the opposite side of the House say? Are they liberal or are they conservative? How do they identify their party?

*I am now asking the hon the leader of the NP in the Transvaal whether his party is liberal or conservative. Is it a left-wing or a right-wing party?

It is national! [Interjections.]

I think we have a very real problem here. It is a liberal party, but sometimes it sounds rightist. In fact, I suppose, it is neither; it is a political hermaphrodite.

*We shall, however, spare them that appellation, and designate the NP as a party which is still national in name, but which otherwise is leftist-liberal.

The hon the State President said, after the election results, that he accepted the mandate. We have now repeatedly asked the NP what its mandate is. On occasion it has been said that the hon the State President would interpret the mandate. We are waiting.

Were you not listening to his opening address?

What was it other than the stringing together of a lot of clichés?

Does one request a mandate to safeguard South Africa cum suis against the ANC? Is that what one requests a mandate for? If that is what one requests a mandate for, one should not be in the seat of Government. It is, after all, the Government’s duty to defend the country. Did it seek a mandate to protect South Africa’s sovereign integrity against the outside world? Surely that is part and parcel of the Government’s task. Did it request a mandate to continue with the National Statutory Council? As early as last year it tabled a relevant draft Bill here and convened a special parliamentary session in which to pilot it through. Must the Government seek a mandate to restore the economy which the Government itself has devastated?

The NP contends that it already has a mandate for power-sharing. To put it another way, it is already sharing power with Blacks without a mandate. The question is—the Government must answer this question—how it wants to share power. I understand that the hon the leader of the NP in the Transvaal told a group of students—he must correct me if this is not so—that the NP had been searching for an answer for eight years now.

To whom did I say what?

When students at the University of Pretoria asked him how they were going to share power, he said that they had been seeking a solution for eight years. [Interjections.]

No, that is nonsense.

Oh, he did not say it. When someone asked the hon the State President how he was going to share power, he said: “Do not ask me such an irresponsible question.” The NP is not going to find a formula for power-sharing between ethnically different groups with different backgrounds. In the annals of human history there is no precedent for the Government’s kind of power-sharing; for two different ethnic groups coexisting without the one destroying the other.

What about Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people in South Africa?

Culturally they have the same Western background; they have the same religion and everything else. [Interjections.] Even at this stage their coexistence is similar to the coexistence and power-sharing in the United Kingdom. Hon members themselves know what Scotsmen still call the English today. If the hon the Minister does not know, I shall tell him later.

The NP has unfortunately reached the stage at which it reviles everything of its own, as the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare indicated yesterday.

You know that is not true!

The NP is now claiming as its own all that it previously reviled. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude. Yesterday the hon the Minister of Manpower and of Public Works again brought out his election speech and referred to the 12-point plan of which my hon leader was a co-signatory. My hon leader co-signed with the then leader-in-chief of the NP. What did he sign? Amongst other things, he appended his signature to the important point that the NP stood for the division of power amongst the South African Whites, the South African Coloureds and the South African Indians. [Interjections.]

I want to tell hon NP members that if they are bringing out the 12-point plan in an effort to drive my hon leader into a corner, they are achieving exactly the opposite effect. They are specifically casting a reflection on their own leader-in-chief.

Mr Speaker, at the first appropriate opportunity I shall say a few fitting words about my constituency, Sasolburg, and about the former hon member of Parliament for Sasolburg, the late Mr Hans Ungerer. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity, however, to react to the hon member for Soutpansberg. He spoke about “cold facts”. I too should now like to enumerate a few “cold facts”, if he is interested in listening to them.

He and the information chief of his party claimed with great bravado that they would win at least 60 seats during the recent election. The hard fact is that they have 22 seats. A further hard, cold fact is that the right-wing radical party in Sasolburg came third. A further cold fact is that the NP returned all four of its provincial leaders to this House. I wonder whether the hon member for Soutpansberg has counted how many of his provincial leaders are back in this House.

One!

Yes, one of the four is back. The runaway hon member for Jeppe—now the hon member for Overvaal— has just told us that. Yes, there is only one of them. Three of the four CP provincial leaders lost their seats.

Furthermore, in three of the four provinces of South Africa, the right-wing radical party did not win a single seat. That is a hard, cold fact. After all, the hon member for Soutpansberg said that we should talk about the hard, cold facts.

He said that the hon the State President had undertaken to formulate and expound the mandate he had received from the electorate.

Let us hear it!

Surely the hon member was sitting here at the time of the opening address. The hon the State President’s opening address was precisely his interpretation of the mandate he had received from the White voters of South Africa. Where was the hon member for Soutpansberg? [Interjections.] It seems to me he was fast asleep; that he was not even listening. He could at least have taken the trouble, after the hon the State President had delivered his opening address, to go and read it. Then he would at least have known what it was all about. The hon member says that the CP and the right-wing radical parties have grown in strength. In the past, I have often been reproached for speaking about the right-wing radical parties, but now there are at least three former members of the AWB sitting among the CP members in the House of Assembly. Some people claim that as many as 18 of the CP members are also members of the AWB. Nevertheless, I am taken amiss because I speak about the right-wing radical parties. I shall speak about these hon members again at a later stage, because I may not refer to them before they have made their maiden speeches. Mercifully, however, the time will come when they, will in fact, have made their maiden speeches. Meanwhile, I can exchange a few words about the AWB today with the leader of one of those right-wing radical parties, namely the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

The right-wing radical party won a few more seats than those with which it left here before the election, and it now has 22 seats. They are now the Official Opposition, and the electorate looks upon them as the “alternative Government”. The hon member for Soutpansberg has just told us that next time they will take over the government in this country. All the hon members of the CP are getting up and crowing that that is what is going to happen. Nevertheless, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and some of the right-wing radical parties must understand very clearly that if they continue to refuse to take a stand in regard to the ANC and national security in South Africa, as did the hon member for Sea Point, who was the previous hon Leader of the Official Opposition, the same thing is going to happen to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition as happened to the hon member for Sea Point. That is why he is now sitting where he is.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will have an opportunity to reply tomorrow, but I wonder whether he will then react to a few matters.

I now ask him—since he claims that they are the alternative Government—to take a stand in regard to two matters, namely the AWB and partition.

Will the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition tomorrow ask that those hon members of his party who are also members of the AWB to resign from the AWB?

Go suck an egg!

No, he will not do so. I have been told to go suck an egg, but the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition just sits there, as he always does. I know what will happen tomorrow when he replies. It will be a meaningless, rhetorical rambling, and he will not do anything about it. He will do tomorrow what he has done time and time again in the past. However, the voters of South Africa are looking specifically to his party, and they want the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to take a stand on these two important issues.

I should also like to know from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether he approves of the AWB’s policy objectives. Does he approve of them, or does he disapprove of them? Does he know what they entail? Does he know what their economic and constitutional objectives are, as well as through which violent methods those objectives are to be attained? Does he know what the AWB stands for? It is obvious that the right-wing radical parties become very jumpy whenever the AWB is discussed in this House. They are just as jumpy as the hon member for Sea Point was whenever matters concerning the ANC and the standpoints of hon members of his party in regard to the ANC came under discussion. Both those movements favour violent solutions to the problems in South Africa. The difference is simply that the right-wing radical party has members of the AWB within its ranks. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition most certainly knows that the constitutional policy of the AWB is the formation of a one-party authoritarian state.

If he does not know it, then I should like to place it on record in Hansard. I refer to a publication of the AWB, namely Sweepslag, 1984, number 2. I should like to quote a few extracts from page 6 of the publication, as follows:

A CP vote and an AWB vote.

Yes, Sir, if one is a member of the AWB, one has two votes. We who are not members of the AWB, in other words every White voter in South Africa, have only one vote. We do not have a political vote, only a general vote. We may only elect advisory members in this monstrosity of a constitutional model which the AWB proposes. Only the AWB members may assign the political power and appoint the President in this country. That is a one-party dictatorship if ever there was one. This is a party that has no respect whatsoever for democracy. Neither does it have any respect for people’s property and possessions, because its economic policy is one of large-scale nationalisation. That is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition for you; the one who is sitting there writing so furiously, refusing to listen to what the hon members within his party stand for. He refuses to listen. Sir. I understand that this applies to 80% of the members of his party. Here in this House we have at least three self-confessed …

Mr Chairman, would the hon member for Sasolburg tell us whether he does not think it would be better for him to quote from the CP’s programme of principles when discussing the Conservative Party? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I asked the hon member for Lichtenburg whether he was a member of the AWB. Is he a member of the AWB? [Interjections.] You see, Mr Chairman, the hon member refuses to answer me. I ask him again whether he is a member of the AWB. [Interjections.]

Do you not have ears to hear with?

I did not hear what the hon member said.

No!

The hon member is therefore not a member of the AWB?

No!

Mr Chairman, this is very important. I thank the hon member for his straightforward reply. I appreciate the fact that he is not a member of the AWB. I put it to him in his capacity as deputy leader of that right-wing radical party that the AWB, members of which are sitting within the ranks of his party, is a dangerous movement.

Mr Chairman, would the hon member for Sasolburg please inform the House whether he is a member of the Broederbond?

Mr Chairman, I do not know what that has to do with this discussion. [Interjections.] However, if the hon member for Brakpan really wants to know, the answer is: “Yes”. [Interjections.] However, there are members of the AWB sitting within the ranks of the CP, and I believe that the runaway hon member for Jeppe—now the hon member for Overvaal— is also a member of the AWB. His behaviour in this House is certainly such as to convince me that he is in fact a member of the AWB.

He kicks like one!

The hon member for Lichtenburg asked me whether I would not rather speak about the policy of the Conservative Party. I shall gladly discuss the policy of the Conservative Party. What is important to us, however, is knowing from those hon members whether they are going to repudiate the AWB. We want to know whether the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is going to repudiate what certain hon members of his party, who are members of the AWB and who are sitting in this House, stand for. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will have an opportunity to do so tomorrow, and I want him to repudiate what the AWB stands for when he makes his speech tomorrow. I have told him that if he does not do so, then after the next election he will be sitting on the same bench as that on which the hon member for Sea Point is now sitting. He is muttering under his breath, but what I am telling him now will happen if he does not do so. He must carefully handle that serpent at his bosom. I warn the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that that movement and its objectives for South Africa are just as dangerous as those of the ANC.

This is where we shall expose the AWB for what it really is. Since the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has been reluctant to take a stand on this issue here, I warn him about the danger of that movement. Of course, he does not want to take a stand on this issue because he is not allowed to do so. Moreover, because he is being manipulated from outside Parliament by bodies such as the AWB which favour violent solutions for South Africa, he will not react tomorrow either.

Mr Chairman, that brings me to the next matter I wish to discuss. I should like to ask a few questions about partition. I shall now address the hon member for Lichtenburg. After all, he too will have another opportunity to speak. I therefore ask him whether he will please answer the following few questions of ours regarding partition when he delivers his speech. He will have to tell the voters of South Africa what partition stands for.

I should first like to point out to the hon member, however, that in my opinion every constitutional policy solution for South Africa will have to comply with two conditions. These are two important conditions. In the first place, it must be acceptable. Secondly, it must be negotiable. Speaking of negotiation, I must point out that the negotiations between the right-wing radical party and the HNP regarding an election pact stand as a monument to the inability of the hon leader of the right-wing radical party to negotiate. In truth, he cannot even reach agreement with a kindred spirit. How, then, does he expect to govern South Africa?

Can you come to an agreement with Wynand Malan?

How on earth does he then expect to negotiate with a single other group or individual in this country that differs with him? How does he expect to negotiate with them? It was the most abysmal failure possible. His congress instructed him four years ago to negotiate with the Coloured leaders about a Coloured homeland. Today he has still not done so. Why not? Because he cannot negotiate. That is his problem. One could continue in this vein.

I should like to come back to the hon member for Lichtenburg. Would he please tell us whether partition entails the removal of people—yes or no? Does it mean, as the chief secretary of the right-wing radical party says, that South Africa must have all Blacks removed by force, if necessary? Alternatively, does it mean, as the hon member for Overvaal said—he is not here at the moment—that there will be no removal of people? That is what we want to know. Will people in South Africa be removed? Will they be removed by force, or will they be enticed to move with an economic carrot when it is time for them to move? We also want to know how many of them will have to move.

I accept that, and I would be pleased if the hon member for Lichtenburg could answer this question, because he is the one who is so quick to quote percentages regarding how many Blacks are already in the Black states and how many will eventually be there.

Does partition mean majority occupation? Is that what it means? Does partition entail majority occupation within each of the heartlands or dreamlands, or whatever the CP wants to call them? Will it entail White majority occupation in this country, and if so, how many Blacks will have to be removed if the CP wants to effect majority occupation by Whites in this country?

If one were to do one’s arithmetic, it would appear to me that one could easily arrive at the figure reached by the hon member for Lichtenburg, namely that 70% of the Blacks would be in their homelands within ten years of the right-wing radical party taking over the Government.

There are already a little more than 50% of them in the Black national states. According to his calculations, one would still have to move approximately half of those Blacks living within South Africa in order to increase that figure by a further 20% to a total of 70%. I think that is how the hon member for Lichtenburg reasoned in arriving at that figure of 70%.

That undoubtedly means that one would have to move a minimum of five million Blacks within ten years. It would have to be done quickly; otherwise there would no longer be five million, but probably closer to eight, nine or ten million.

Furthermore, we in South Africa want to know what it is going to cost. It is estimated that it costs R43 000 per person, including the creation of job opportunities, to move people from South Africa to elsewhere. If only five million Blacks are to be moved, then it would amount to a total estimated cost of R200 000 million. That is equivalent to five times South Africa’s total annual State budget!

My question is, who is going to pay the taxes to finance this?. Who is going to pay the policemen’s salaries? Who is going to pay the soldiers’ salaries? Who is going to pay the pensioners their pensions when the CP have to put this magic, instant solution of theirs into effect?

Just like the hon member for Randburg, this hon member also has his head in the clouds. The hon member for Randburg has a vision, but he keeps his head in the clouds and does not search for models. Practicalities irritate him. Putting things into practice irritates him, because it blurs his vision a little. When it comes to putting things into practice, the water is no longer quite as clear.

I want to tell the hon member for Randburg that a government that rules a country, has to rule it in practice. I hope I shall have another opportunity to debate with the hon member for Randburg. He must be able to apply his philosophy and his ideology in practice; otherwise it means nothing. It is a hollow sounding string of words; it means nothing.

I should also like to put another question to the hon member for Lichtenburg. I accept that when we speak of majority occupation, there will still be some Blacks inside South Africa. Will the number of Blacks living in South Africa be five million or four and a half million, or only one less than the number of Whites? Is that the number of Blacks that will live in South Africa? What about them? What about those Blacks in South Africa? Where will they give expression to their political rights? Will they exercise their political rights in the homelands, as we have always said, or will they exercise them by way of a linking policy. What does linking actually mean? If I understand the hon member correctly, linking means that the homeland governments will have to take decisions on behalf of the Blacks in South Africa.

I now want to ask a simple, practical question. Who will take decisions about education, local government, housing, health and welfare in Zamdela, the Black township of Sasolburg? One could continue in that vein. Who is going to take those decisions? In Zamdela there are three different population groups—Zulus, Tswanas and South Sothos. Which one of those groups’ homelands will or will not take the decisions? I also want to know to what extent the numbers of Blacks on farms will have to be reduced. The hon member for Randfontein is the master of express trains and commuter services.

Tube trains!

I now want to know—I shall conclude with this—whether old Jafta, when he has to come and milk the cows on a Sunday morning, will have to hop aboard the express train from Witsieshoek to Wolwehoek in order to do the milking and then return home again. What is the position? [Interjections.] We want to know from the hon member for Lichtenburg what is to happen to those Blacks who are living on the farms. What is to happen to them? If he as deputy leader, or alternatively his leader, stands up tomorrow to make his reply, and fails to reply to these questions, then he will certainly be sitting in the seat presently occupied by the hon member for Sea Point after the next general election.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sasolburg was conducting his own private argument with the CP, and I do not intend to enter into that argument. He had a good deal to say about the manner in which the election was conducted, and I intend to do the same in a few moments.

However, first of all, I wish to place on record the condemnation—in the strongest possible terms—of the PFP members in these benches of the horrible incident at the magistrate’s court in Johannesburg yesterday. We consider this to be a vile act of violence and terrorism. We condemn it completely, and we hope that the perpetrators will swiftly be brought to justice. We also would like to extend our condolences to the families of those people who were killed, and our sympathy to those who were injured. I do not think we ought to isolate ourselves so completely from events outside this House that we cannot give a thought to what is going on in other parts of the country.

The election on 6 May was the ninth election in which I have participated. I want to say at once that it was the nastiest, the ugliest and, I might add, the most dishonest election in which it has ever been my misfortune to take part. Yesterday the hon the Minister complained about the half-truths which were uttered by the CP during their election campaign, and I want to say that practically every advertisement — those numerous, costly, full-page advertisements—placed by the NP in the daily Press contained blatant untruths, half-truths, statements taken out of context, insinuations and guilt by association; in other words, every dirty trick imaginable was brought out of the box in this election. The tragedy is that the electorate fell for it, hook, line and sinker.

What about the photos?

I am coming to the photos, don’t worry about that. The electorate was scared witless by the ruthless propaganda put across by the NP in the Press, over the radio and, most effectively of course, on the television screen.

My own opponent, who is a liquor merchant, did not manage to co-opt enough Houghton voters to win the election, though he certainly tried hard enough. We were told by his agent that R80 000 had been allocated for fighting that campaign and, of course, the number one prize exhibit of the NP opened the campaign by speaking in Houghton. Big deal, Sir! It was the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. [Interjections.]

Not very effectively.

Well, he was all right. He had a big audience, but so did I when I spoke on 4 May, so we are equally prize exhibits. Some of us are, of course, a bit older exhibits than others. According to the agent R80 000 was at the disposal of this person—probably NP funds—of which something like R68 000 was spent. He bombarded the unfortunate electorate with glossy brochure after glossy brochure, pushing that old “soft on communism, soft on law and order” line as hard as he could.

He or the NP agent—I am not sure who— even sent a telex to Time magazine in New York to ask for permission to use a photograph which Time had published on 4 May showing Winnie Mandela and myself in an embrace. Can you imagine it, Sir? In an embrace! That photograph was taken last July at my home when Winnie Mandela had lunch with me and we were discussing the position of children and schools and troops in the schoolgrounds at Soweto. The photograph was taken there by the Time journalist whom she had happened to bring with her and it so happened that it was not used until 4 May.

The NP candidate telexed Time magazine and the message read: “We would like to use the photograph for promotional purposes.” [Interjections.] Now I am not too sure how a liquor merchant was going to use “for promotional purposes” this lovely picture of Winnie Mandela and myself in an embrace. Time magazine—not allowing their photographs to be used for political purposes— refused permission, but notwithstanding that, both Beeld and Die Burger pirated the photograph and printed it on their front pages, much the same as this one. That way, of course, they hoped to stampede the entire White South African electorate into the laager. [Interjections.]

I would like to place on record that, as I told an enthusiastic audience at my own final election meeting in Houghton on 4 May, I have no intention whatever of dissociating myself from Winnie Mandela or the Mandela family although our political views differ, as she herself said over the BBC last year. [Interjections.]

What about the SACP? [Interjections.]

Now wait a minute. The photograph would have been harmless enough, even, I think, to NP narrow-minded people, but it was of course linked to that extremely reckless statement which Mrs Mandela had made at Munsieville last April. The statement was linked to the photograph by printing it underneath in that context.

I condemned that statement at the time, but there we have a perfect example of guilt by association with the newspaper knowing full well that that statement had been condemned. [Interjections.] Disgusting tactics! [Interjections.] I do not think even the CP would resort to such tactics, although I would not put any money on it! [Interjections.]

Although the photograph had no effect in Houghton, there is no doubt in my mind that the unremitting campaign about unbanning the SACP and the ANC did have an effect. We have said repeatedly that if people— parties or organisations—act unlawfully, they will be breaking the common law of the land. They will be dragged into court and if their actions are declared unlawful, that is that.

On that basis the NP will have a difficult time.

On that basis the AWB will certainly be declared unlawful. There is no doubt about that.

Still, I am astonished at the number of people throughout South Africa who fell for that claptrap. After all, the SACP was banned in 1950 when the Suppression of Communism Act was passed. The ANC and the PAC were both banned in 1960 after Sharpeville. One would think that if banning was so effective all three organisations would have sunk without trace by now. [Interjections.] On the contrary, they have simply gone underground and although unseen, they are active and alive. Anybody who goes to an unrest-related funeral in the townships will immediately find their flags flying defiantly, particularly the green, gold and black flag of the ANC. [Interjections.]

I want to say quite unequivocally that if anyone or anything or any party has promoted communism in South Africa, it is the NP. It has done so by identifying everything and everybody who is anti-apartheid with communism, thus making communism very attractive to Black people. [Interjections.] By pursuing policies that harshly discriminate against Blacks, by failing to address the real and genuine grievances of the Black community and, most of all, by locking up moderate Black leaders, they have left the field wide open to extremists. That is exactly what they have done.

We have now reached the tragic situation where the fears of the White electorate were played on by the Government to such an extent that it succeeded in driving hundreds of PFP supporters into voting for them at the last election. However, let me also remind hon members that the NP also succeeded in driving thousands of its own supporters into voting for the CP. The NP has created a Frankenstein that it will not be able to control in the future. That is what the NP has done. The hon member for Turffontein—he has now disappeared—should bear that in mind next time he crows about the election results. They have created a Frankenstein which they will not be able to control.

From now on, as the speech of the hon the State President made manifestly clear, the emphasis of the Government will be of course on security. The mandate for reform is going to be relegated to the back-burner. Any hope of relaxation of the fundamentals of apartheid have been abandoned. All the guff that we heard on Tuesday about group identity simply ensures the ongoing and extended life of the apartheid regime. We will therefore have more repressive measures, more rigid censorship and more suppression of dissension. That will be the order of the day. That will all be in the interests of halting the swing towards the CP which has already captured 500 000 voters.

I hope—I want this on record too—that the ill-advised radicals who campaigned against participating or voting in the White elections will now appreciate the enormous damage which they have done to South Africa for, had they instead voted for and helped the PFP, the CP would today not be the Official Opposition.

We see the Government’s militant attitude immediately in its attitude towards the people ignoring the Group Areas Act. The fact that there are three quarters of a million housing units short in the urban areas for Black, Coloured and Indian people is apparently irrelevant as far as the Government is concerned. The fact that there are 37 000 units vacant in White areas also appears to be irrelevant to the Government because the people who are not White must leave these areas.

We also see the Government’s militant attitude in the emphasis on security, albeit spurious security, exercised in the unrestrained and ruthless use of detention without trial. We received the report of a senior police officer the other day in a case brought by the PFP in which mention was made of the 19 200 odd people who had been detained since the state of emergency was reinstated last June. We know that over 4 244 people are presently being detained of whom 1 424 are children between the ages of 12 and 18. I know personally of cases of people who have been held in detention since July last year. What kind of Government do we have that can only maintain law and order with measures which belong entirely to totalitarian states. What a shining example of democratic rule this is!

I have no doubt that all the regulations which have been declared invalid by the courts will be revalidated by this Government. That is what it always does. When it loses a case in the law courts it comes back and it changes the law. That is the way this Government works. I believe that everything points to the fact that the state of emergency is going to become a permanent part of life in the Republic of South Africa.

We see the menacing lurch towards more repression in the manner in which student protest meetings were handled on the campuses of both UCT and Wits. I hold no brief for students who seek confrontation and I say unequivocally that I believe the university authorities are making a mistake by not using the disciplinary means at their disposal to deal with such students.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

Yes, I say that. However, it is also my belief that the Government lends credibility to what they do by making all outdoor meetings unlawful no matter how peaceful they are and by now giving powers to the Commissioner of Police to declare all indoor meetings unlawful as well. That was what happened at UCT and at Wits, although, as I say, there are students who seek confrontation. The point is that that gives the police carte blanche. Making all meetings unlawful, however peaceful, gives the police carte blanche to go onto the campuses where they deal with students very violently. I happened to see the video of what happened at UCT two weeks ago. The vindictiveness with which the police assailed those students with their quirts, birdshot and teargas made me physically sick, I can assure you. That video was shown in London and I have no doubt that it is that video that is bringing reality to the viewers of the UK, but not to the viewers of South Africa for we did not see it. It has also led to the expulsion of an excellent journalist, reporter and producer on television, Mr Peter Sharpe. [Interjections] I believe that if South African viewers saw what was going on with their very own eyes, they would be as disgusted as I was.

We also see the militant hand of the Government in what is happening in kwaNdebele, that miserable little homeland some 70 kilometres out of Pretoria. The other day the hon the State President said very blandly in his speech (Hansard: Assembly, 1987, (Second Session) col 23):

I want to ask the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid whether a referendum has been held in kwaNdebele to determine whether the people want independence, because all the indications are that they do not. Last August, amidst great rejoicing, independence was set aside by the then legislative assembly. Since then there has been constant turmoil going on while those people against independence have been displaced from the legislative assembly and replaced by people who favour independence. I should like to ask the hon the Minister, why the urge to push kwaNdebele into independence? Does somebody want a casino? That is the only reason I can think of.

I can only say what is going on there is a disgrace. There are “kitskonstabels” acting there, burning down properties, beating young kids and arresting children. [Interjections.] Nobody is allowed into the place and I challenge the hon the Minister to allow the Press to go in and see what is happening. The Press are arrested the minute they set foot inside that territory. That does look like a place that is clamouring for independence, doesn’t it?

Behind the apartheid curtain.

That is absolute nonsense! It is absolutely disgraceful! [Interjections.] A lot of people are desperately anxious about this. Some 70 000 people commute every day to Pretoria and environs to their jobs. It affects not only those people who now become aliens after independence and who have to get work permits but also the people of Ekangala which has now been incorporated into kwaNdebele. Moutse, which was in such a state of uproar and settled down only after independence was quashed, is once again in a state of turmoil. What does the Government think it is doing? I challenge the hon the Minister to let the Press in so that they can see for themselves.

I have to say that the Government is a reflection of the people who put them there and they are going to get what they deserve! The electorate was stampeded into the laager but none of the problems that beset South Africa has been solved, not one.

Unemployment remains alarmingly high; inflation continues to erode all the savings and to lower everybody’s standard of living; unrest in the townships smoulders and erupts all over the country; and South Africa’s isolation from the Western world grows apace.

The Government’s plea in its advertisements was “to give it a chance” and to let it fix all these things. One would have thought that the NP had just come into power, instead of which it has been in power for nearly 40 years, heaven help us! Instead its policies have caused all the problems we have—the policy of apartheid, as we have emphasized over and over again.

Prof Piet Cillié, the ex-editor of Die Burger, made a cynical remark last year in which he said that the NP “had to try apartheid in order to show that it would not work.” Well, Sir, that failed experiment has certainly cost this country dear. We liberals, we sickly humanists, have warned all along of the evil effects of apartheid, and we are on record as doing so. We are on record in opposing job reservation, group areas, Bantu education and the pass laws, in opposing the denial of the permanency of the urban Blacks—all mistakes now admitted by the Government. We are on record in opposing the denial of the stability of Black home-ownership. We are on record opposing the removal of political rights from the Coloured people and the exclusion of the Blacks from the new Constitution, via section 39 of which the State President proudly reminded us on Tuesday, and which has caused exactly the polarisation we warned it would cause at the time of the referendum.

I could go on and on, but all I say is that history will record how costly that failed experiment has been to race relations at home, to the economy of this country and to our international relations.

Finally, we are going to be proved right that there can be no real security in South Africa until fundamental change comes about in South Africa and the apartheid system is scrapped in its entirety. The tragic event outside the magistrate’s court in Johannesburg yesterday proves that this is so. There is going to be escalating violence in South Africa unless fundamental change comes immediately. We are going to be proved right about the inevitability also of negotiating with the ANC. It is not a case of whether one negotiates, it is only a case of when one negotiates.

The hon member for Houghton accused the NP of untruths in advertisements that were inserted during the election campaign. [Interjections.] There are other hon members who are saying yes. The hon members of that party should be the last people to talk about that, because hon members of the PFP were caught out for having published untruths. They were caught out over that untruth they published concerning the hon the State President, for which they have still not apologized. [Interjections.] They did not do their homework, and as a result they lost not only voters but seats as well. Surely one does not tell such lies. They paid a heavy price for doing that. [Interjections.] Consequently we should rather not reproach one another about these things. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Houghton also referred to the photograph on which she and Mrs Winnie Mandela appear.

Do you want a copy? I shall give you a copy.

No, Sir, I am not a fan of hers, nor of Mrs Winnie Mandela … [Interjections.] Very well, I shall accept the hon member for Houghton’s photograph, but I do not want the other one. [Interjections.]

I just want to tell the hon member that it is true, after all, that one is known by the company one keeps, and the hon member and the PFP paid the price for that. Surely they know it!

Like your party and Frelimo! [Interjections.]

Nevertheless the hon member is still trying to make excuses for the difference between her standpoint and that of the hon member for Yeoville concerning the ANC, the SACP and Umkhonto we Sizwe. They can tell us all kinds of stories about this if they like, but the fact remains that the hon member for Yeoville adopts one standpoint in that regard, and the hon member for Houghton a different standpoint.

If that is so, why did you tell such lies in my constituency?

The hon member for Houghton said that the NP was furthering communism.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Yeoville must not sit there blustering now. He can be given a turn to speak and say what he wants to in a moment. [Interjections.] I did not say a word in Yeoville!

I said the hon member for Houghton said the NP was furthering communism. [Interjections.] There quite a number of hon members in that party who are saying yes. [Interjections.]

Of course!

Now I just want to ask the hon members whether there was also a NP in Angola, in Italy, in France or in Britain in which the Communist Party made progress.

What about Russia?

No, now those hon members are not saying a word. [Interjections.] It is easy to say that, but this argument is really too absurd for words.

The hon member for Houghton also complained about the detention of people without a trial. I personally and we on this side of the House also regret having to detain people without a trial. The NP’s standpoint in this regard is known to hon members. It is a fact, however, that throughout the world, under specific conditions, it is unfortunately essential to detain people without a trial—and in South Africa as well.

Where?

Among other places in Britain and in Israel. Many people are being detained without a trial there. The fact of the matter is that we, too, do not wish to detain people without a trial. However, we have a responsibility to this country and its people. When the security of this country and its people is threatened, we are obliged to discharge this responsibility, and we shall.

The electorate of South Africa has supported us in this matter. They pronounced judgment in the recent election. We told the voters why we were detaining people. They supported the NP and destroyed the PFP in the process.

They will be sorry.

Those are the facts—the people supported us.

The hon member for Houghton objected vehemently because we amended the regulations after the courts had pronounced upon regulations. However, we pay heed to what the judges in our courts tell us. The hon members of the PFP inter alia submit these regulations to the judges and to our courts. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens had egg on his face after he had submitted something.

We won both cases.

When the courts tell us a regulation is unclear, surely, we do not then lose sight of our objective. We take cognisance of the judgments, and we adjust the regulation to enable us to attain our objectives. [Interjections.] That is what we do.

The hon member for Houghton also referred to the student unrest here at her favourite university—UCT. She then alleged that the actions taken by the Police had been wrong, but the hon member did not mention the stones thrown by the students at innocent motorists. It was the voters of Wynberg, among others, who expressed their opinion of what happened. They pronounced judgment on the stone throwing by students of the University of Cape Town along De Waal Drive.

Did the hon the Minister not hear what I said?

Very well, Mr Chairman, if I have offended the hon member, I shall apologize to her. I am sorry. She did say it. The fact of the matter, however, remains that the voters of Wynberg pronounced their judgment on the stone throwing by students of the University of Cape Town. Yet the hon member for Houghton attacked the actions of the Police.

The hon member also knows what happened at the University of the Witwatersrand. She knows about the incitement that was in progress there in a certain hall to molest the ordinary members of the public in Johannesburg as well. For that reason we shall take action against these people whenever and wherever it is necessary to protect the safety of the public in South Africa in that way.

Last night the hon member for Durban Central also overstepped the mark a little on the subject of Cosatu. I should like have a few words with him about that.

In the first place the hon member expressed serious concern at the trade-union movement and labour relations. I want to tell the hon member that the Government is more concerned about good labour relations in South Africa than he is. We want labour peace. The Police want labour peace. We do not want stone throwing. We do not want unrest. We want peace. It will be far easier for us if we have peace in South Africa. We can then do our other work.

The NP placed certain laws on the Statute Book so that we could have labour peace in South Africa. Now the hon member is telling us that we are not concerned about labour peace; that we are disrupting it. I tell him that that is not true. I want to give the hon member the assurance that the South African Police do not interfere in any bona fide trade-union activities practised by any person in this country. We have no intention of interfering. In fact we encourage labour relations and labour negotiations—bona fide trade-union activities.

Bargaining must take place; there must be negotiation. Then we have fewer difficulties.

That hon member is now acting as an intercessor for Cosatu, however. He says that we allegedly provoked Cosatu. He then stated, all innocence, that unknown people had been responsible for the bombs, etc, that had been used against Cosatu. I want to reject this insinuation with contempt.

Surely he knows that Cosatu and some of its associated organisations recently contributed to thousands of Black people in this country losing their jobs. Surely he knows it. He is an advocate who knows about evidence; he ought to know what is happening in this country. Surely the thousands of Black people who lost their jobs know who was responsible for that. They are angry. They are angry at Cosatu and its associated organisations that were responsible for this. I should not like to contravene the sub judice rule, but in the cases of the four Railway necklace victims we are in possession of strong evidence of the crimes which were allegedly committed in Cosatu House. These cases will be brought before the courts soon, and the evidence will be submitted there.

The hon member for Durban Central also tried to imply that Cosatu meetings on the “living wage campaign” were being banned because they were allegedly demonstrating for a living wage. I tell him that that is a flagrant untruth.

For a while, I should like to take a closer look at this organisation, and I want to do so on the basis of evidence presented in a court case in Johannesburg. Firstly evidence was presented to the magistrate, and he prohibited the meeting. Subsequently that same evidence was presented to a judge, who confirmed the prohibition. The hon member knows what I am talking about now. Let us examine this evidence which was presented to the magistrate and to the judge. What was said in this case? I quote:

The SACP’s view of Cosatu as an integral part of the liberation struggle was clearly apparent from the documents which we presented to the court.

In regard to a publication entitled “A message to all members of Cosatu from the Executive Committee”, which was distributed among Cosatu members, the following was said in the court documents:

In documents on the “cheap labour system” it is stated that—

That is what Cosatu stands for. [Interjections.] Yet that hon member now wants us to allow Cosatu to continue to wage a campaign in the country to accomplish all these things.

You are helping them with it!

I now want to ask that hon member of the PFP something. They profess to be the bearers of the capitalistic ideal, but here they are acting as intercessors for an organisation which furthers socialism and the ultimate objective of communism in South Africa. [Interjections.] The hon member must tell us where he stands. Does he stand on that side now, or where does he stand? [Interjections.] We say to the hon members of the PFP that … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Durban Central must please contain himself!

The police and the Government are responsible for the safety of this country and all its people; including its workers. We cannot allow the radicals to hide behind any cloak in this country to endanger the safety of the South African public. Nor shall we allow such people to shelder and hide behind the cloak of labour relations. I want to make this very clear to that hon member this afternoon.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said in his motion that the Government had no long-term plan to check the revolution effectively. I listened to him carefully, because this is a very serious matter. Yet he made it clearly apparent from his analysis of the definition of a revolution that he did not fully understand what it was. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does not understand the essential features of a revolution. I wish to utter this really serious warning today: We must use the word “revolution” very carefully.

Yes, Sir!

I am pleased the hon member for Soutpansberg has regained consciousness. He has just said “Yes, Sir” to me when I told him this. I shall be pleased if he would also take cognisance of this.

We must take cognisance of the dangers of the use of this word, because if the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had known what it was all about, he would not have used it. He would then have seen that we were experiencing a revolutionary onslaught in South Africa, which manifested itself in various phases and in various spheres. At present it is more intense than ever before in our history. If we do not bring it to a halt, as it develops through its various phases, it could explode into a revolution.

We are in fact saying that you are not doing that!

To prove my allegation that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does not really understand what it is all about, I just want to quote to him from what he said yesterday. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said inter alia that the pattern of a revolution was clear and the symptoms were well-known. He said this with reference to Iran. He said that certain media were creating a climate of radical change and that religious leaders were supporting the leftist forces. He said the youth were being manipulated to act as shock troops. According to him they were creating a climate of ungovernability, the mobilisation of revolutionary forces, etc. Then the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that the overthrow of the White Government was the objective. Later in his speech he said there was no White Government here, but a mixed Government.

Surely that is true!

Then why did he say in his analysis of a revolution that it stood for the overthrow of the White Government?

Sir, let us rather see what the real experts say a revolution is:

This is an extract from a book by a well-known American author, Sarkesian, entitled Revolutionary Guerilla Warfare, published in 1975.

The above is very important, Sir—

In conclusion Col David Galula of the French army has this to say:

What I want is for us to have a frame of reference within which we can consider it. The ignorance of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition concerning revolution becomes even more clearly apparent from his remarks on the means with which the so-called revolution ought to be checked. I am quoting from his Hansard speech:

This is part of the solution, and I shall come to that in a moment. He went on to say:

He said that evils must be remedied, but we must not do these other things he mentioned. I do not understand it at all.

Surely he did not say that we must not do it!

He went further:

With what, then, does one check a revolution? [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did not tell us. He went on to say:

Does the hon the Leader want to tell us with these words that we should not educate these people?

How silly can you be?

Does he want to tell us with these words that we should not uplift these people economically?

You do not know what you are talking about!

Then why does he say these things in this way? That hon member must tell his leader that he is ridiculous. It is not I; I am merely quoting what he said. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition went on to say:

The question remains: With what does one check a revolution? The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has not given us a reply to that question. He made the statement that the NP was unable to check it, and that we had no plan, but we have not heard his plan either. I do want to give him credit for one aspect he had right, namely that the issue is the take-over of power. That is true, that is what it is all about.

Surely I said it.

Yes, I gave the hon Leader of the Official Opposition credit for that, and I said that was what he said.

The enemies want to seize power, and we must reply to them and know with what means we are going to prevent this. That reply we did not receive from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition: Will we prevent it with partition?

Of course!

Does he want to prevent it with partition?

Yes!

He wants to prevent it with partition, but yesterday we heard very clearly that it would culminate in brute force. [Interjections.] Of course he will have to enforce it; partition will not come about of its own accord. [Interjections.] The hon CP members are laughing, but they will still have to explain to the country how they want to achieve this.

Do we, on the other hand, want to check revolution by surrendering, as the PFP basically sees it. The correct answer to this question is not all that easy; it is not a simple one. It is complex, and consists of a multiplicity of actions that will have to be taken by the Government, its officials and the population of a country.

Experts on counter-revolutionary action, have the following to say:

Taken together, I want to interpret it as follows. It was part of our plan in the past, and is still part of our plan today. One must firstly use security force action. That means inter alia the utilization of security legislation. It means the use of emergency measures if necessary, if the ordinary legislation is inadequate.

Secondly it means good government for all the inhabitants of the country. This entails the following: The elimination of grievances, the improvement of living conditions, the provision of employment, the education and development of people, and the development of the country.

There is a third aspect one must consider: One must find a constitutional, political solution which is acceptable to the majority of the people affected by it. These are the three important aspects. Let us admit candidly to one another today that all three of these main points are equally important. If one were to place emphasis only on security force action, one would not win. If one were to place emphasis only on the constitutional solution, one would not win either.

One must consider all three of these aspects, because they are equally important. What I want to lay at the door of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is that hon members of the CP place emphasis on only one of these aspects. That is why, during the election and today still, we found over-emphasis on security force action. In the meantime they criss-cross the country saying that too much money is being spent on other race groups. Their constitutional solution is unworkable partition.

The PFP, on the other hand, maintains that a country’s difficulties will be solved if one is able to find a political solution. They reckon one can lift the ban on the ANC and release all the detainees, after which they will come and sit down around a conference table like little angels and do no more harm. That is an over-emphasis of the other side of the spectrum.

Only the NP has a plan to check a revolutionary onslaught effectively. Our application of these three aspects is is in the first place security force action. Take a look at our record. For many years we have experienced problems from the PFP in regard to this matter. They fought us tooth and nail and gave us no assistance in this connection. The NP says that we must use security force action, and we are doing so. We had he courage of our convictions and the will-power to proclaim an emergency when we did not have sufficient ordinary laws to deal with the situation.

The second aspect is good government. This is receiving our attention. Take a look at the Government’s record over the years. The hon members who are staring at me now were here when we ensured good government for all the people; the development of communities; the education of people; the development of the country; and the economic upliftment of the people. Surely those hon members were still among us then, and did these things together with us, before they became afraid and ran away. Then they were no longer prepared to pay this price. Surely the hon member for Randfontein also participated in this. When he was still a member of the NP, he himself realized what our planned intentions in this regard were.

The third aspect, the establishment of a political solution acceptable to the majority of the people is something with which the NP has also made progress. Over a period of decades the NP made four states independent. That is part of the constitutional solution.

It was never powersharing.

The NP granted self-government to six states, and that is a further part of the constitutional solution. Two years ago the NP introduced a constitutional solution for the Whites, Indians and Coloureds. That is what the record of the NP looks like, and it is the NP’s intention to check revolution in South Africa. Now the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says the NP does not have a plan. He said so in his motion.

Hear, hear!

It is too absurd for words.

Hear, hear!

Yes, I am pleased the hon member for Overvaal says “Hear, hear!” when I say that it is too absurd for words, because it is! [Interjections.]

The banana man!

Mr Speaker, experts say that this struggle to check a revolutionary onslaught …

Order! Which hon member made the remark about the banana?

I did, Mr Speaker.

Order! The hon member must withdraw it immediately.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: There was a decision from the Chair that steps would be taken against hon members who again made remarks in this connection. We therefore request that the hon member for Springs be ordered to apologize to the hon member for Overvaal for his remark.

Order! I took action and I shall use my discretion. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Experts say that this struggle is not an easy one to win, and will take a long time. They say:

It requires an exceptional concentration of effort. It will mean that use will have to be made of our total resources, as well as State officials. The endurance of the Government, and of the population of this country, will be tried to the utmost if we want to check this revolutionary onslaught. The voters have realized this, and that was why they voted for the NP during this election. That is why they said that they trust the NP with the plan we put forward to check the revolutionary onslaught on South Africa.

That is why the NP will continue with this plan to ward off the revolutionary threat on South Africa. The CP has no plan to prevent the revolutionary threat against South Africa, and that is why the voters are voting for the NP and returning us to Parliament with increased majorities.

Order! I wish to interrupt the debate briefly in order to give attention to the matter which was brought to my notice by the hon the Minister of Justice last night.

†A question of privilege was raised last night by the hon the Minister of Justice in connection with a speech made by the hon member for Sandton.

*I had the opportunity this morning of perusing the speech made by the hon member for Sandton, and I am prepared to allow a motion for the appointment of a select committee of the House of Assembly to enquire into the alleged case of breach of privilege.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I submit that in normal circumstances within this House a notice of motion can be given on one day and the motion then follows on the next day.

Order! I should like to assist the hon member. I have given my ruling. My ruling is not to be debated but as soon as the hon the Minister of Justice has moved his motion I shall give the hon member the opportunity to raise his point of order.

Mr Speaker, I wish to address you on the point that this is not a question of privilege and therefore the hon the Minister is not entitled at this stage …

Order! My ruling is that the hon member may not address me on my ruling but I shall listen to him as soon as the motion has been moved and then he can state his case.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: We clearly have a situation here where a motion is being moved in connection with an alleged breach of privilege. In the event of a definite breach of privilege the hon the Minister is entitled to give notice and move the motion on the same day. That is the one exception when this can be done. In the normal course of events the hon the Minister would have to give notice of his motion on one day and move the motion on the next. The question as to whether this is a valid motion today depends entirely on whether there was in fact a breach of privilege in terms of the Rules of this House. If I may, I should like to cite Erskine May in this regard. On page 71 under the heading “Breach of Privilege and ‘Contempt’ ” he states:

It is quite clear here, Sir, that “breach of privilege” relates to the members of this Parliament, its officers and to Parliament itself, not to a member of the judiciary who, I submit, does not fall under the provisions as set out by Erskine May.

When one looks further as to whether it is a breach of privilege at Ralph Kilpin’s Parliamentary Procedure in South Africa one sees quite clearly on page 103 that:

It then goes on to state that there are other statutes which bring this to light. Kilpin then concludes that particular paragraph by stating, on page 104:

I submit with respect, Sir, that the speech by the hon member for Sandton in relation to Mr Justice Munnik does therefore not constitute a breach of privilege because a breach of privilege can only be defined in terms of what May and Kilpin state in their works.

One can go further in relation to this matter by trying to define what the problem was, and I submit that the only mention that one can find in Kilpin relative to judges relates to unparliamentary language. I should like to quote again from page 89 of Ralph Kilpin’s Parliamentary Procedure in South Africa:

So, Sir, if one wants to attack a judge in his capacity as a judge or, presumably, in his personal capacity, one clearly has to do it by means of a substantive motion, and the language could be termed to be unparliamentary if it was not done in terms of a substantive motion. Therefore, Sir, I submit that it is out of order to accept this motion today as a motion relating to a breach of privilege. I suggest this does not amount to a breach of privilege at all. The authorities I have cited, I believe, are irrefutable proof of this fact.

Mr Speaker, in reaction to the point of order which was raised by the hon Chief Whip of the PFP I should like to argue that he is correct in so far as it goes. Where he makes a basic error of reasoning in his argument and upon which I also base my submission that we are in fact dealing here with a breach of privilege, is that what would normally speaking be a breach of privilege does not exclude other possible breaches of privilege.

Under section 36 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, 1963, a member of Parliament enjoys all the privileges, immunities and powers which applied at the time of the promulgation of the Constitution in 1961. This section should be read in conjuntion with section 36 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, 1911, which means that members enjoy the same privileges, immunities and powers as members of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom except where expressly amended by our legislation.

I was unable to find any statutory amendment which nullified the following established convention, which is therefore also part of our parliamentary system. In the same work to which the Chief Whip of the PFP referred on parliamentary practices in England, Parliamentary Practice by Erskine May, the following is said inter alia in connection with the rules pertaining to motions, and I quote from page 367:

A few other matters are mentioned, and then

Now the hon member himself has conceded this. My argument is, however, that the breach of privilege lies therein that a reference was made here to the hon judge without there having been a substantive motion. The fact that it could be breach of privilege lies therein that it was done without a substantive motion. Because this is the case the rules were contravened and a breach of privilege does in fact exist, into which an enquiry can be instituted, and should be instituted by a committee of this House.

Mr Speaker, I would like if I may to respond to the hon the Leader of the House on the issue of the point of order that we are dealing with and to make the following submission to you.

I have no problem with his argument that one cannot in fact attack the honour or the status of a judge in his judicial capacity except by means of a substantive motion. He is absolutely right, I concede that immediately. Where however he in fact is wrong, with great respect, is that the issue is: Is it a breach of privilege or is it in fact a breach of the rules of debate?

I will indicate to you, and I will show you by quoting various authorities, that referring to the judge in this manner without moving a specific motion is in fact merely a matter of a breach of the rules of debate, and not a question of privilege.

I would like to go back to a ruling that was given in 1926 by the then Speaker where the issue was that Mr Kentridge, the father of the counsel whom you are familiar with, referred to the conduct of certain judges of the Supreme Court who were sitting on a commission.

With respect I will submit to you that in fact one is entitled to refer to a judge on a commission and to challenge what he has done in that regard; but again one cannot impugn his honour or his personal status in debate.

In that particular case the issue was raised with the chairman of the House and was then referred to Mr Speaker, and Mr Speaker said the following (Hansard, Vol 6,1926, col 845):

In other words one cannot do this in the course of debate. He went on to say:

In that case it was said that the Government had appointed the judges to the commission in order to whitewash the misdeeds of the Government.

In this instance that was a rule of debate. A rule of debate had been transgressed. My submission to you is therefore that if what the hon member said last night could not be said except by substantive motion Mr Speaker could then have called him to order. He could then in fact have called upon him to withdraw the words and, if he would not withdraw the words, have dealt with him in accordance with parliamentary practice. That is what should have happened.

If as a result of what happened last night, Mr Speaker in the circumstances did not either appreciate the situation or see the speech as a whole, there is ample precedent in this House for his being able to have said on the following day: I have now read the speech of the hon member. I believe that he has transgressed the rules of debate and I call upon him to withdraw.

He may even call upon him to apologise, and he may then exercise certain other functions which he has in respect of the rules of debate. It is not, however, a question of privilege; it is a question of the rules of debate.

I wish to quote what I consider to be an important passage from the Minutes of 1924. I think you are familiar with it, Sir:

The only distinction apparent from this lies in the rule—it is a rule by practice, not one in accordance with the Rules of the House— that one cannot impugn a judge except by means of a special motion. It is therefore quite clear that this is a rule of debate, not a matter of privilege.

If this matter is to be dealt with as a matter of privilege, before the motion can be moved, Sir, you will have to form a prima facie view, in accordance with the authorities, that this is a matter which should be dealt with as a question of privilege. The judge referred to here is not a member of this House or a parliamentary functionary. As far as this House and Parliament are concerned he is a stranger. He is only protected insofar as it is the practice that one cannot impugn his character or honour except by means of a special motion.

With great respect, Sir, I therefore submit firstly, that you should not and cannot find that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege; and secondly, that you cannot allow this motion to be moved, unless notice is given in the usual manner so that it can be debated in the appropriate way.

I heard the motion for the first time only a moment ago; no advance copies of it were given to us. It actually refers to a question of privilege. If, then, the motion is adopted, and the committee finds that there was no question of a breach of privilege but merely a breach of a rule of debate, it will be unable to recommend anything at all. My third submission is, therefore, that the motion itself is wrongly framed; there is nothing to support the view that this matter is a case of breach of privilege.

I wish to return to the other point. The hon the Leader of the House said that the list of items was not exclusive. He is absolutely right because, in addition to the items referred to in section 10 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, some other items have been added by common law. I ask him, however, to give one example of a matter such as this being regarded as a breach of privilege. I say that this has not been the case, and that the contrary is true. When this has happened and the issue of judges has arisen, it has been regarded as a transgression of the rules of debate and not as a breach of privilege. The submissions made by the hon the Leader of the House are, therefore, erroneous.

Order! I greatly appreciate the serious and comprehensive discussion that hon members have conducted on this point of order. I thank them for their assistance in this regard.

Since last night I have been giving very careful consideration to the application of the hon the Minister of Justice, and I indicated last night that I would give a ruling today. As far as I am concerned, it is in accordance with the Rules of this House that I should only give a ruling on the matter this afternoon. It does not matter, therefore, whether or not it was on the same day.

I have also taken the opportunity of discussing this matter with senior advisers to Mr Speaker and to Parliament, and there is no doubt in my mind about the fact that prima facie there has in fact been a breach of privilege, and that the House of Assembly is therefore entitled to decide whether this House will appoint a select committee. The point of order is not acceptable, therefore. Consequently I put the motion.

Mr Speaker, is no debate going to be allowed on the motion?

No, not on the motion. The motion has been put.

But Sir, is this not a motion where a debate has to be allowed? You have only allowed debate on the point of order.

The only debate allowed was that on the point of order.

Are you allowing no debate on the motion itself?

No, the motion will be considered by the select committee.

But Sir, with respect, may I submit to you again on a point of order that this is a motion which is open to debate in the House. The House surely must be allowed to debate whether it wants to appoint a select committee, or not. I agree that the merits of your ruling that it is a question of privilege cannot be debated now, but surely, whether a committee should be appointed or not is now an ordinary motion before the House and the rules of debate relating to that motion apply. I ask you, Sir, to rule that a debate is allowed.

Order! There was a request by the hon the Minister of Justice that he be given the opportunity to move this motion in terms of the rule providing for it. I have already ruled that the motion as such is acceptable. The House can decide on the motion, but there is to be no debate on the motion as such now. The only point that could be debated was the point of order raised by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr Speaker, I could not raise a point of order once a division had been called and I was not aware of the content of this motion other than to have listened to it. We were not given a copy of it before the division was called. I rise on the following point of order: The allegation is that the hon member is guilty of a breach of privilege of Parliament.

This is purely a motion which has been adopted in order to appoint a select committee of this House. Therefore I ask you to declare that this motion is in fact a nullity because it should have read …

Order! That is not a point of order and the House has already decided upon the matter. I am not prepared …

Sir, I am asking you to declare it a nullity.

Order! I am not prepared to do so. I do not think that is a point of order and I am not prepared to declare it a nullity. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I address you on a point of order?

Order! This House has just decided by a majority vote on this issue. [Interjections.] I am not prepared to have the vote debated.

Mr Speaker, may I address you on this point of order? May I point out that the hon member for Yeoville was not allowed by you the opportunity to complete his argument. I suggest that in fairness and in terms of the procedures of this House the point of order be taken.

Order! I am not prepared to start proceedings all over again. The House has voted on the issue. For today that is the end of the story.

Mr Speaker, may I address you further?

Order! Not on this issue.

Mr Speaker, the issue is whether in fact this House is entitled, without the consent of the other Houses, to appoint a select committee on a breech of parliamentary privilege …

Order! I am not prepared to proceed with this debate any further after the House has given its decision by way of a proper vote in the House. I am not prepared to follow that procedure and therefore I am not prepared to listen to points of order on this issue any longer.

Mr Speaker, you are therefore not prepared to listen to argument?

Order! Will the hon member assist me and under the circumstances resume his seat. I have given my ruling.

It is not a fair ruling. It is most unjust.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member for Berea say that it was a “most unjust ruling?

Order! Did the hon member for Berea say that?

Yes, I did, Sir, because you are not listening to argument.

Order! The hon member will withdraw that remark.

Mr Speaker, I will not withdraw it.

Order! If the hon member will not withdraw his remark he is disregarding the authority of the Chair and he must withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting. [Interjections.]

I shall do so gladly.

[Whereupon the member withdrew.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it proper for the hon the Minister of Manpower and of Public Works to say “voertsek”in this House? [Interjections.] It may be funny, Sir, but I am asking you to rule on whether that is acceptable behaviour.

Order! What did the hon the Minister of Manpower an of Public Works say?

Mr Speaker, I said “voertsek” in general. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.]

Order! The debate on the motion of censure will now proceed.

Mr Speaker, it is a very great pleasure for me to support my hon leader’s motion here. It is also an exceptional privilege to be able to speak in this House again. On the previous occasion, the last time I requested a turn to speak in this House, it was a during a debate on the so-called “Information Affair”, and that privilege was denied me by my then leader, the then Prime Minister and present State President. It is therefore a privilege for me to speak now in these circumstances. On another occasion, when it suits me, and when a more fitting debate presents itself, I shall deliver the speech on that matter which I would have delivered at the time. I also want to say, in advance, that I am not prepared to answer any questions during the course of my speech. So members need not waste time trying to ask me any questions. I shall not be answering any. [Interjections.]

I just want to take a brief look at the results of this general election. Anyone who has any common sense and knows South African politics will indisputably acknowledge that there was a swing to the right in this election. The NP won seats from the PFP and we won seats from the NP. The few seats which the NP supposedly took back from us were never seats won by the CP in an election. A number of individuals crossed over from one party to the other, but were not necessarily reflecting the attitudes of their voters, and that is why the actual result of this election is that the CP, which had only two seats prior to the election, won 20 seats from the NP, now having 22 seats in Parliament. So there was a clear swing to the right in the political sphere, away from the left and towards the right. It is interesting that the NP’s source of strength, which lies in the PFP, is in the process of fading away and disappearing. The CP’s source of strength, which lies in the NP, is in the process of growing, and thousands upon thousands of people will be streaming to the CP as soon as they really see the light, politically speaking.

Secondly I want to refer to the basis on which the NP stands at present. The NP stands with one foot on the remnant of right-wing Afrikanerdom. Its other foot rests on the casual opportunistic votes of dissatisfied NRP members, certain Progressives, etc. That is a free-floating base which, in reality, has the party powerless, because if it moves to the left and the reforms continue, it loses votes to the right in the rural areas of the Free State and the Cape. If it does not proceed with the reform at the normal pace, it loses the votes to the left which it obtained in the election because it said it would continue with reform. The NP is therefore a large, clumsy body that dares not move, because the moment it does, to the left or to the right, it has problems and loses support. Anyone versed in the practical aspects of politics knows that.

Another fact—I say this almost with piety—is that what has been achieved, in the course of a number of years, bringing together what belongs together on the strength of inner conviction, has been torn asunder by this hon State President. In the annals of history he will be known as the man who tore asunder the people, his heritage. With those words I want to leave the election at that and come to the present-day political situation.

I want to begin at once by saying that it is difficult to govern a country such as South Africa. It is probably one of the most difficult countries in the world for any political party to govern. The reason is that we have an ethnic composition that differs from any other anywhere in the world. We are a microcosm of the world as a whole. Within the geographic area of South Africa are gathered First-World and Third-World nations which differ from one another. There is no instant solution to our country’s problems. There will be no solution without sacrifices. I therefore have respect for any government which honestly tries to find solutions to the difficult problems of South Africa.

One can look at the situation from whatever angle one wants to, but eventually there is only one of two views in South Africa which will eventually hold sway. On the one hand there is the standpoint of a unitary state in which one inevitably gives rights to everyone and in which, regardless of the built-in structures or formulas, one will eventually end up with a majority government of the groups which are in the majority. No artificial formulas or structures will prevail against the concept of an eventual majority government if the unitary state idea holds sway.

The alternative is to view the country as a subcontinent which one divides up into its constituent parts, like a subcontinent. The peoples then live side by side as peaceful neighbours, with all the implications and problems of a concomitant intertwined economy. That is the choice facing us, and that is the choice that has to be made in South Africa. All structures and formulas tried out in the interim are merely interim steps towards one of the two unavoidable final goals. That is why the hon the State President, in my view, crossed the Rubicon, not during his Durban speech when everyone expected him to so, but on 30 September 1985 in Port Elizabeth when he adopted the following standpoint, as reported in Die Burger on 1 October 1985:

Arising from this he said:

Then there is the built-in safety valve:

With that speech, stating that view, the Rubicon was crossed in South Africa. No longer does the NP adhere to the view of separate states. It no longer adheres to the view that what is unique to each people should be protected. From that day on it has adhered to the view of one South Africa with overall citizenship rights, an overall franchise and an eventual unitary state. With that in view we must look at the concept of “strukture van Suid-Afrikaners se eie keuse”. The hon the State President’s President’s Council had by then inevitably reported on the choices presenting themselves. The Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council, under the chairmanship of Dr Worrall and the deputy chairmanship of Dr De Crespigny, issued a report in which it presented six options for South Africa. I am not going to repeat all six of them here. They eventually chose the fourth option, ie a consociational democracy for Whites, Coloureds and Asians, but with very clear partition as far as the Blacks were concerned. That was the choice of the President’s Council after a thorough study of the whole situation had been carried out. They decided that that was how things would be. They therefore chose power-sharing between Coloureds, Indians and Whites, but clearly not as far as the Blacks were concerned. And that is why the 1983 referendum concerned the Coloureds, Whites and Indians, and it was very clearly evident from the introductory chapter of the blue booklet, distributed at the time, that this did not apply to the Blacks. “With the Blacks,” said the Government, “we adopted another course.” It is therefore a matter of power-sharing.

I now want to quote once more. What specifically did that same President’s Council’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs, comprised of those learned gentlemen, who were the fathers of our Constitution—after all this new dispensation is based on their recommendations in the report—say about why the Blacks could not be included? Why not? I quote from the President’s Council’s report No 3 of 1982, page 18, as follows:

That report of the President’s Council’s Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs was accepted, under the chairmanship of the present hon Minister in the Office of the State President, Mr Schlebusch, by the President’s Council and then sent through to the Cabinet. The Cabinet accepted and implemented it in the form of the Constitution we have at present. The President’s Council Committee, which made a specific study of this matter, issued a clear warning that the Blacks could not be involved either now or in the foreseeable future.

It is not a question of colour and is therefore not racism. It is rather a question of cultural differences that exist today just as they existed in 1983. It is also a question of relative numbers, which are now even more out of proportion than they were in 1983, also conflicting interests which are now even more clearly apparent in the whole conflict situation we are experiencing at present, and also divergent political aims, in regard to which there are as many differences discernible as there were at that time.

So nothing has changed. The erstwhile committee of experts, under the chairmanship of Dr Worrall, made that recommendation, and it was accepted as such by the Cabinet.

I now want to come to the new concept of power-sharing with Blacks. When speaking of power-sharing with Blacks, we must take a closer look at the situation. I quote firstly from the NP’s brochure entitled “Position Paper” drawn up by the hon the Deputy Minister of Information. I want to quote three passages from the brochure. The first reads as follows:

That is in the brochure, and it is an official publication of the party. It carries the NP’s emblem with its arrow pointing to the heavens. It is therefore an official document. I quote further:

That is what power-sharing means, according to the hon the Deputy Minister’s official definition on behalf of his party. I quote further:

It is then summarised in the brochure in a few points. The first point states that all South African citizens, Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Black people should participate fully in the process of government up to the highest level. Before proceeding, I just want to quote one further passage from this document:

It is clearly spelled out that this will take place up to the highest level. That being so, let me discuss the following few concepts in connection with the NP’s policy.

The first, which very clearly relates to that, is the so-called protection of minorities. I want to begin by saying that I, as an Afrikaansspeaking Afrikaner, deny being a member of a minority group. We are members of a full-fledged sovereign people. I still want to see anyone convincing the proud Zulus that they are members of a minority group. With their own king, royal house and traditions it is no wonder that the Zulus do not want to come any closer to the conference table. They are not, and they refuse to be, a minority group; they are a people in their own right. The same applies to the other Black peoples. One should therefore understand clearly that this is probably one of the reasons why these people do not want to come forward and co-operate, because they are insulted by being called a minority group. We are no minority group.

Secondly, mention is made of the possibility of the protection of minorities. How are minorities protected in the normal course of events? Firstly they are probably protected by a declaration of human rights. Secondly they can appeal to a federal court if they feel that their rights have been encroached upon. Thirdly they are protected by an immutable constitution. Those are the methods normally used to protect minorities. Such protection would definitely succeed perfectly in Europe, in First-World countries and probably also in America and Canada. In Africa, however, with its Third-World standpoints and views, these three protective measures, taken in conjunction, are not worth the paper they are written on.

Brochures on human rights are torn up, constitutions are violated, as in Zimbabwe at present. A federal court’s ruling is simply set aside by having two assessors appointed to make another ruling and overrule the judge. That is the picture in Africa.

For the rest the whole concept of the NP’s future dispensation has a federal basis. I want to say at once that federations work in Europe and in Canada. Throughout Africa, from here to the northernmost tip, there is not a single federation that has succeeded. Whether we like it or not, we are not part of Europe or of America. We are inextricably part of the continent of Africa and such norms apply here. There have been attempts at federal structures, for example in Nigeria, which have failed lamentably. They inherited a federal system. There were the murders in Biafra, where a few million people lost their lives, and eventually there was a military coup d’état and a dictatorship. The Central African Federation of Sir Roy Welensky was proclaimed and watched with great interest. It did not even last four years before being divided by partition into Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Partition worked in Africa. Federation failed. Federation does not work in Africa. Not even when the component groups are Black African countries. The idea of the hon the State President and his party is therefore that of a unitary state in South Africa. A unitary state has certain disadvantages and certain advantages. Let us be realistic with one another for a moment. At the moment only 17% of the total population in this unitary state are White. I now ask any hon member in the House, in all fairness, and I hope someone will reply: What right has a person, whether he is yellow or green or purple or blue—it makes no difference? What right has 17% of any nation in a unitary state to demand control of the Defence Force, of the Navy, of Parliament by way of a structure such as the President’s Council, by which control is retained, and control over the Office of the State President? When the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that a Black man could become State President, he was immediately repudiated. In other words, a demand is also being made, for the Office of State President. What right have 17% of any population to demand this for themselves?

It is therefore no wonder that neither the Blacks in our country, countries abroad or anyone else is prepared to look at that system. One creates the impression of a federal state in which all are citizens having a franchise, but by a very nice manoeuvre one wants to retain a privileged position for oneself with structures and clichés. That is why it cannot and will not succeed. It cannot meet the test of moral ethics.

The worst of it all is that this 17% is a dwindling percentage. Projections indicate clearly that by the end of this century, as a result of the birth rate, it will be a question of. 11%, whilst in a matter of 30 years, when our children have grown up and are in the prime of their lives, it will be only 5%. I now ask hon members: What right and what chance of survival have 5%? I am now speaking of the Whites.

The same also applies to the Coloureds. In this unitary state the Coloureds are going to be a minority group. They are going to be a strangled, struggling minority group which will find things increasingly difficult as the years go by. The same also applies to the Asians and to a few of the smaller Black peoples. This is a recipe for conflict and revolution worse than anything we have ever had before. The struggle of the larger Black peoples for power will turn South Africa into a bloodbath.

I can now speak about other consequences, for example the economic consequences. If all are citizens of a state, as is proposed in the unitary state, it is certainly the duty of the State to provide all its citizens with a decent livelihood. Then inevitably—that is the policy at present being implemented—it is the prosperous community, earning its own money, which one must hold back, keep in check and tax, using that money to uplift the other citizens, because they are all one’s citizens and must all be brought to the same level. There must then be parity in salaries and opportunities, because they are all one’s citizens. The Government must keep a check on one group by taxing it in order to uplift the other groups. I am now saying, in all fairness, that in South Africa, with its uniquely structured population, the economic burden, from a percentage point of view, is too heavy for the Whites to bear.

Who is going to pay for partition?

The fact remains that the Whites cannot bear the burden. If one speaks to the man in the street one sees that he is becoming impoverished, his position worsening by the month, each and every year. He is worse off than five years ago because this policy takes everything away from him and gives it to others in order to uplift them. That is part of the economic consequences of the political misconception of a unitary state in a multinational society such as that on the subcontinent of South Africa.

I do not unnecessarily want to elaborate on that. I want to use the rest of my time to put the CP’s alternative policy in regard to the same problem. [Interjections.]

The new leader!

I am enlarging on my hon leader’s standpoint; I am speaking about one of the four standpoints which he previously put forward in very strong and clear terms.

When anyone at all speaks about West Africa, no one thinks in terms of a single state, but in terms of a geographic area in which there are quite a number of states, for example Liberia, Senegal, the Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria—you name them. When one speaks of Western Europe, no one thinks in terms of a one-state concept. One realises that it is a geographic area in which a number of peoples live, for example the Spaniards, the Portuguese, the Germans and the French.

Why, then, do we have a feeling of almost reverential respect, so much so that when one speaks of the concept “South Africa”, it may not be a geographic concept of a subcontinent on which a number of peoples are living? Suddenly it is a unitary state that has to form one government and have some or other unitary system, come hell or high water. Try having one government in Europe and see if there would be any peace. Try having one government in West Africa and see if there would be any peace. In South Africa, come hell or high water, one government must be forced upon the peoples, whether they can or not, because this is a so-called inviolable concept.

How did South Africa come into being? With the best intentions in the world our forefathers drew artificial lines on the map. The lines were drawn to bring together the two former Boer republics and the two former British colonies. But what did these artificial lines actually result in? They resulted in 13 separate peoples or ethnic groups being brought together in one area. The situation is even worse than that, however, because four of those peoples had their territories cut in two, ie the Tswanas, the Basuto, the Swazis and the Shangaans. The Government nevertheless expects us to stick to those lines that were drawn, come hell or high water. We are not allowed to touch that configuration and take ethnicity or nationhood into consideration. We are expected to accept that this division is inviolate and that some or other structure must be worked out to accommodate everyone in one governmental dispensation. We in the CP say that we shall reshape the subcontinent of South Africa as it ought to be reconstituted. We shall reform it and we shall go to meet the year 2000 with strength and confidence, with a system of the division of the land area and the establishment, by way of partition, of the separate states which will constitute the subcontinent of South Africa. This subcontinent will be exactly like the existing subcontinents of West Africa and Western Europe. [Interjections.]

Show us the map!

I have not, for one moment, shied away from the fact that it is a difficult problem. I realise that we have an integrated economy that will have to be given special attention. Nor have I, for one moment, shied away from the question of numbers. That will also have to receive attention. When, however, one takes this CP policy as the basic point of departure, the basic principle, and one works towards that, one can find a peaceful solution for South Africa’s problems. If, however, one adopts the unitary course of the present Government, one is going to meet the future as an ever-dwindling minority on a definite suicide course which would eventually lead to one’s total downfall. Every citizen who studies the situation, realises this.

In this partitioned subcontinent we can comply with the world’s demand for “one man, one vote”. The Zulus will vote for the Zulu parliament, the Coloureds for the Coloured parliament, the Whites for the White parliament and the Sotho for the Sotho parliament.

How are you going to manage that?

Much more easily than the NP will be able to manage its whole set-up!

Each state will fully govern itself. The Zulus can be proud of being Zulus. They can honour their king and say “bayete” to him when it suits him. The Zulus, wherever they may be, will be able to give full expression to their pride within their own national state. In the same way the Whites will be able to do so, as would the Swazis and whomever else. The question of 17% of the population is then no longer a bothersome aspect. The subcontinent of South Africa will, when divided up into its composite 13 partitioned areas, also contain a White state. We shall have to give consideration to having the state choose another name for itself so that the whole group as such can be comprised of South Africans, whilst each state has its own name and its own citizenship.

Muldersdrift!

Eventually the subcontinent of South Africa, as in the case of Western Europe, will consist of a number of states, and this could possibly result in our eventually having to choose another name for the White state.

“Boerestaat”.

The name will certainly not be “Boerestaat”. I can say in advance, with force and conviction, that that will not be the name. In that White state only Whites will be able to obtain citizenship. Non-Whites will not be citizens of that state. The Blacks will be citizens of their own states, and at this moment that does not create any problems for me. How many citizens of Lesotho or Swaziland, independent sovereign Black states, at present earn their livelihood here in South Africa? They neverhteless do not pose any threat or danger to us, because they have no political rights here and have no claim, in political terms, to the future of our country. We safeguard ourselves. Thus each can govern its own, just as there can be Germans, Frenchmen and Hollanders here in South Africa, living, working and earning a livelihood here, but having no claim to political rights unless they have citizenship. That is why I am not concerned about numbers, because our future is safeguarded in our own state.

Look at the pattern in Israel. Israel consists of three and a half million people and is surrounded by more than one hundred million Arabs. Israel has nevertheless, for years now, met the challenges, because it has its own state in which only its own people have citizenship and the franchise.

Let me say a few quick words about livelihood as such. I see there is little time left for me. It stands to reason that we can offer voluntary assistance to our neighbouring states. I want to stand firm on Dr Anton Rupert’s standpoint: If they do not eat, we cannot sleep. That means that we shall certainly have to ensure that some of the other states obtain assistance, from time to time, from our strong economy, but then it is a voluntary gesture and not a duty imposed on us. I can certainly foresee that some of the Black states will be poorer and others wealthier. The states which have minerals in their areas will, of course, be wealthier. Their standards of living and their salary structures will, of course, be higher. Others, of course, will be poorer. Why are we expected to offer everyone an equal standard of living? Because we are making the wrong political choice, that of a unitary state. In Portugal salaries are lower than in Germany, but no one expects Germany to adapt its salary structure to that of Portugal. That will also be the situation in our country. There will be a difference in living standards.

There will be a Council of States which, it goes without saying, will discuss the common interests of the states on the subcontinent. Certain common interests will be discussed, for example the monetary system, defense, the economy and so on.

We have adopted very clear standpoints on these matters. That course was the one initially adopted by the NP, but they have deviated and are en route to integration. The people have now, for the first time, really felt the effects of integration. They have felt for the first time how they are being crowded out on the streets and in the shops, are no longer safe and they have seen how our people are being murdered.

How the group areas are disappearing.

Not to mention the group areas. All those things the people have seen, and it has been enough to have them turn around and say: We want to have nothing to do with that. The people have made their choice and, as time goes by, they will increasingly make us the object of their choice. The people will be prepared to make sacrifices—and sacrifices will have to be made—for separate states in a partitioned subcontinent with which we can safeguard the future. Partition is reasonable, it is just, it is safe, it is a recipe for the future, and as a result the future belongs to the Conservative Party and not to the Government.

Mr Speaker, before I reply to the political arguments of the hon member for Randfontein, I first want to say that his initial statement that he was prohibited by the then Prime Minister, the present State President, from stating his case is not correct.

In Parliament?

Yes, in Parliament.

In that debate?

In Parliament.

In that debate?

I did not interrupt the hon member once while he was speaking, because I was not afraid of his arguments. However, if this is the way he wants to conduct a debate, he is welcome to do so.

I am listening.

The hon member for Randfontein, who was then a Minister, had ample opportunity to state his case at a Cabinet meeting of 7 November 1978.

That is untrue.

Order!

At that Cabinet meeting the following Ministers, in order of seniority, were present: Mr S L Muller, Mr S P Botha, Dr P G J Koornhof, Dr C P Mulder, Mr H Schoeman, Dr S W van der Merwe, Dr O P F Horwood, Mr J C Heunis, Mr J T Kruger, Mr S J M Steyn, Mr A L Schlebusch, Mr A J Raubenheimer, Mr H H Smit, myself, Mr W A Cruywagen and Mr F W de Klerk. Some of the gentlemen whose names I have read out here, are sitting in this House. I allege in their presence that the hon member for Randfontein was afforded ample opportunity to state his case. If any of my hon colleagues wish to say that I am not telling the truth, they can do so now. However, they know it is true.

I repeat that it is untrue.

It is the truth and you know it. [Interjections.]

Order!

If he does not want to accept the words of colleagues who were present there, I appeal to him to accept his own word.

On 8 November 1978 he said, in a Press statement in which he announced his resignation, that he wanted to avail himself of the opportunity to state emphatically that the hon the Prime Minister, Mr P W Botha, had dealt with this matter with the greatest dignity, correctness, integrity and decency towards him. He continued to hold the Prime Minister in the highest esteem, he would continue to support him in the interests of South Africa and all of us. He hoped to make his own contribution in his own way and in his own time. Those were his words.

The time is now …

I hope he believes himself! [Interjections.] I hope he is beginning to believe himself. [Interjections.]

That is not all. I have in my possession a letter from the hon leader of the CP, dated 18 December 1978. It is a reply to a letter written at the time by the then Prime Minister, now the hon the State President, to the present hon Leader of the Official Opposition when he was still leader of the Transvaal NP. It is clear that the then Prime Minister asked the then leader of the Transvaal NP whether he could not support a motion to the effect that the then hon member for Randfontein should terminate his parliamentary career. The hon leader of the CP reacted as follows:

The hon leader of the CP then continued:

He must therefore lay the blame for his parliamentary career being cut short on his own leader. [Interjections.] I am making this point because it is being alleged that the hon member did not have an ample opportunity to state his case.

In Parliament.

It is therefore not true; whether it was in this Parliament or elsewhere, it is not true. [Interjections.] On one occasion he said so himself. In his own words, which I quoted, he had every opportunity.

Nothing is more constant than change, and the same applies to change in the hon member for Randfontein.

Let us now consider power-sharing for a while, with which he now wants to have nothing to do. Any person in this House can then form an opinion of the hon member’s own conception—it is not all that difficult— contained in a speech made on 4 July 1977, in which he explained how the then proposal for the constitutional plan for Whites, Coloureds and Asians would work …

The 1977 proposals; not the subsequent proposals.

The magic formula.

Yes, the magic formula. He said:

That Cabinet, I must just explain, was to have consisted of seven Whites, four Coloureds and three Asians. The numerical ratio would therefore have been 7:7. He went on to explain:

†I ask anybody in the world what this means. Surely this is joint decision-making or power sharing.

*But that is not all. On 24 August 1977 the hon member then made that magical statement which my colleague, the hon the Minister of Manpower, quoted:

Those are the 1977 proposals.

Yes.

Do you still stand by them? [Interjections.]

Then, on 14 September 1977 he said—hon members must listen to how interesting this is:

We are not inflexible about numbers, said the hon member for Randfontein.

From what source are you quoting?

I shall provide the hon member with all the quotations.

But from what source are you quoting?

I shall provide the hon member with all quotations.

And the sources?

Yes, and the sources. On 22 June 1978, in Paris …

You are brave when you are not in Pietersburg, Pik!

If the jackal howls, you know your shot has struck home.

You are carrying on like a “witgatspreeu”.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Overvaal is making an allegation to the effect that the hon the Minister is carrying on like a “witgatspreeu”. I do not think that is parliamentary language.

Order! I have made an appeal concerning this matter before. The same kind of example cropped up in a previous session, and I am not prepared to allow it again. I shall take action against any repetition. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. On 22 June 1978 he was acting as a Minister of State in Paris, France. One would have expected that an audience in another country would surely have been entitled to accept what a representative of this Government said, particularly if he was in addition a senior Minister and had served on the constitutional committee which helped to formulate that magic formula plan. And these were his words to the French audience and to the world:

On 28 September 1979—the year has changed—he suddenly said:

[Tussenwerpsels.]

A short while prior to that, on 26 September 1979, he was addressing his own new party concerning his own constitutional plan. When they asked him what his constitutional plan was, Dr Mulder said:

Let us now take a brief look, in sequence, at the history of statements of the Government of the day on which our representatives abroad and the inhabitants of the country were entitled to rely. These statements must be regarded as coming from a senior Minister in the Cabinet, who was in addition also responsible for the Department of Information, and whose statements could be accepted as authoritative. [Interjections.]

On 7 March 1975 the hon member for Randfontein said the following:

Where?

I have already said that I would furnish the hon member with all the particulars of the sources from which I am quoting. [Interjections.] Can the hon member remember holding a meeting in Pietersburg on 7 March 1975? There he said the following:

In this statement he was reacting to the criticism of people in Pietersburg—certain of them are now among his supporters—concerning a decision that a non-White would play in a South African team against a French team. [Interjections.]

I like the statement. [Interjections.]

So what? What are you achieving?

If the hon member says he still stands by it, I welcome his standpoint.

Does he still stand by it?

That is international sport, Sir.

Regardless of whether it is international or national sport, it was played in South Africa. I do not want to argue with the hon member about this, because it was a good statement. [Interjections.]

According to the House of Assembly Hansard of 8 April 1976, column 4849, the hon member said:

Correct, that is still the case today.

I want to thank the hon member, I appreciate it.

Partition includes that.

Order! The hon member for Randfontein had his turn and he cannot make a speech while seated in his bench. [Interjections.] He must obey the Chair.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I want to refer to the House of Assembly Hansard of 2 April 1976, column 4534.I must have this placed on record, because we are going to put it to good use. [Interjections.] A question was then put to him about the matter of non-White staff in the Public Service. Hon members must remember that the CP’s watchword now is “partition”. I quote the hon member:

Consequently there is no question of partition. I now want to refer to the House of Assembly Hansard of 4 May 1976, column 5956. An hon member asked him whether there were any non-Whites in his department, and I want to quote his reply:

Consequently there is no partition.

Let us examine the matter further. On 1 September 1976 the hon member used these wonderful words when addressing the Johannesburg Afrikaanse Sakekamer:

Hon members must please take note of the word “saam”.

While keeping what is his own.

He went on to say:

… and even less so through partition. [Interjections.] I have added the last few words.

You are reading things into it.

This was said when addressing the Johannesburg Afrikaanse Sakekamer on 1 September 1976. On the same occasion the hon member said:

It could just as well have been I who said this

As I quoted, could no longer be glossed over. Now we must listen carefully to the following …

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

… which the hon member held up as an example:

Mr Speaker,

Order! I am asking the hon member for Overvaal to co-operate. The hon the Minister is quoting. I shall listen to the hon member as soon as the hon the Minister has finished quoting. The hon member must please resume his seat. I shall afford him an opportunity to ask a question as soon as the hon the Minister has completed the quotation.

Certainly, Mr Speaker.

I quote from where I stopped:

The hon member quoted President Harry Truman approvingly in a speech made before the Johannesburg Afrikaanse Sakekamer.

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

No, Sir, not from that particular hon member.

Are you still in favour of a Black State President?

Order! The hon the Minister indicated that he was not prepared to reply to a question. The hon member must not try his luck now. I supported him, but if the hon the Minister has indicated that he does not wish to reply to a question, the hon member must not shout a question across the floor of the House. The Chair takes decisions, not the hon member. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. At the same time I hope that Hansard will depict the standard of the manners of certain hon members to our readers and voters among the public.

Are you still in favour of a Black President for South Africa? [Interjections.]

I quote further:

Just listen to this … [Interjections.]

Order! I want to remind the hon member that I have just given a ruling. Has the hon member no respect for the Chair?

Mr Speaker, the ruling you gave was that I should not react when you have said that I may not put a question. Now I am reacting, shortly afterwards, by way of a normal interjection …

Order! The hon member must respect the Chair or he will be prohibited from making any interjections. If he does so again, he will be asked to withdraw.

Mr Speaker, may I still make interjections?

Order! The hon member may under no circumstances make any interjections as long as the hon the Minister is speaking. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, it is a very important statement, which we can continue to apply exactly as it stands in the times in which we are living. The hon member for Randfontein said:

Owing to the beginning of the removal of colour discrimination. He went on to say:

In other words, the partition of the day was unacceptable to him. The hon member said:

Order! The hon member for Lichtenburg wishes to put a question.

No, Mr Speaker, I do not have the time. His party has already wasted an enormous amount of my time.

On 8 November 1976 Dr Mulder said that South Africa was committed to the idea of change. The elimination of statutory discrimination, he said, would keep pace with the desirable pace and practicability of such a step. [Interjections.]

But now I come to the most important part of the hon member’s standpoints of the past. The so-called Sullivan principles were presented to me as the Ambassador of South Africa in Washington early in 1977, shortly before I returned to South Africa to become Minister. At the time, when I conveyed those principles to the Government, I warned against the possibility that some of the aspects contained in those principles might be in conflict with our legislation, but nevertheless suggested that they should be seriously considered and that we should at least discuss matters to see whether some of the principles at least could be accepted.

Just as in the case of the “Declaration of Human Rights”.

Yes, I shall come to that in a moment. The principles read as follows:

1. 1. Non-segregation of the races in all eating, comfort, locker rooms and work facilities.
2. 2. Equal and fair appointment practices for all employees.
3. 3. Equal pay for all employees doing equal or comparable work for the same period of time.
4. 4. Initiating and development of training programmes that will prepare Blacks, Coloureds and Asians in substantial numbers for supervisory, administrative, clerical and technical jobs.
5. 5. Increasing the number of Blacks, Coloureds and Asians in management and supervisory positions.
6. 6. Improving the quality of employees’ lives outside the work environment in such areas as housing, transportation, recreation and health facilities.

What was the reaction? While I was still waiting for my Minister, Dr Hilgard Muller, and for the Government to give a proper reply, the reply was given here in the House of Assembly by the hon member for Randfontein, then a Minister:

If there is any doubt about this, hon members can look up this quotation in Hansard, 4 March 1977, column 2789-2790. [Interjections.]

We continue with the scenario of change, our calender of standpoints. In the House of Assembly, on 14 April 1977, the hon member for Randfontein, as Minister, said:

Not tomorrow, but “immediately”!

On 29 January 1978 he said:

A very good idea. [Interjections.]

In the House of Assembly, on 1 February 1978, he drew guidelines for his Department of Plural Development, as I think it was called at the time. The department underwent quite a number of changes as far as its name was concerned. He then said the following (House of Assembly: Hansard, 1978, column 226):

That is the one he had been given.

[Interjections.]

On 13 August 1978—is this not a gem?—the hon member for Randfontein said he could not foresee a time when the urban Blacks would no longer be present in White areas. He said that this dream must now be over for ever. [Interjections.] It seems to me that for him the nightmare is now returning.

But the best is yet to come. Yesterday the hon member for Randfontein met the international Press. Here I have the report on his interview with them, which was published this morning in a British newspaper. It reads inter alia:

[Interjections.]

In a further report on his conversation with foreign journalists he said:

Of course.

He went on to say:

That is beautiful. He continued:

[Interjections.]

[Interjections.]

[Interjections.]

I really wish it was not the case that we are being compelled, in 1987, to mull over concepts and perceptions which are gone for ever in a debate of this nature. [Interjections.] I simply wish I did not have to listen to and witness this scenario with which we are being kept busy, instead of wrestling with the problem of how we can create our structures by means of which power-sharing can take place in respect of our country as a whole and the rights of our minority groups in particular can be protected, because we are all minority groups, and this also applies to the Whites— he knows this … [Interjections.]

The Whites can only form a majority group if they bring about a single structure state in which only the Whites control that structure by virtue of their superior numbers. The hon members who suggest this must know as well as we do that the same problems, from which they are now hiding their heads in the sand, will present themselves to them or to any government. This is the struggle. The struggle in South Africa is no longer concerned with the question of whether power should be shared. The struggle is between the seizure of power and the sharing of power. That is the future struggle. The struggle they are trying to wage, is past. [Interjections.]

The struggle now awaiting us is between power-sharing and a power take-over; to share the prosperity and freedom of this country and to see whether we can cultivate among ourselves the communality of civilised norms all of us advocate and which many Black people, Coloureds and Indians advocate, in order to deal with a common enemy. Instead of seeking co-operation and understanding, those hon members refuse to join us in combating the common enemy, that has its knife in for them as well, on a collective basis.

There is no possibility in South Africa of dealing with any other struggle but the struggle between those who want to seize power and those who want to share it. The issue is that of “seizure of power” and “sharing of power”. The question I want to put to them in all sincerity, but which they do not want to reply to, is this: Would it not contribute to a safer South Africa if the vast majority of Blacks were home-owners and land-owners; if they felt safe in this country and if they could share in a system they felt was fair, which benefited them and which provided them with good health services and general prosperity? That is the answer to communism. (Time expired.)

Mr Speaker, if the previous two hon members who have spoken had been backbenchers, I think it would have given cause for concern. The fact that the one hon member came second in the prime ministerial race in 1978 and the other hon member came third, really gives cause for enormous dismay to anyone who is looking to the future of this country. [Interjections.] Their obsession with the past and with scoring petty political points that have nothing to do with solving our problems in the future, is in my opinion a waste of the time of this House.

They talked about asking for mandates during the past election, and it would appear to me that the only mandate some of the hon members seem to think they have, is to conduct a debate about how to write recent political history for the benefit of juvenile observers. [Interjections.]

The hon the State President’s speech was distributed to us under the title of “The road ahead”. The sort of debate we have heard during these past few days has seemed to me like someone trying to look at the road ahead through a rearview mirror.

I wish firstly to make a few comments about the general election. The NP won 123 seats in the election, and I am sure many of them are pleased about that. It may have been a disappointment in the sense that they won nine fewer seats than they had in the previous election, but the PFP was also disappointed because we won seven fewer seats.

However, over and above the number of seats they won the important issue is at what cost—to start with, the cost to South Africa— those seats were gained.

The main way in which they achieved a relatively small drop in their number of seats was through using their traditional “Swart gevaar” tactics; in other words they encouraged White voters to be scared of their Black fellow citizens. It amounts to nothing more and nothing less than that. This will inevitably result in polarization which is going to make reconciliation in this country more difficult than ever. That reconciliation will be necessary in due course, irresepective of which political party is in power.

Sir, “Swart gevaar” is based on fear. One fears one’s enemies, not one’s allies. The NP succeeds with their “Swart gevaar” tactics to the extent that they tell the White voters that their Black fellow citizens are their enemies, not their allies. If they did not succeed in that, “Swart gevaar” would not succeed. One sees it manifested in many ways of which I shall mention just two.

On the social level NP canvassers and speakers go around warning people in old age homes that they will be pushed out by hordes of people of another colour if they vote for the PFP. They go around to people in flats, particularly older and less well-off people, and try to scare the wits out of them about the Group Areas Act, about how they will be pushed out of their flats, how ten families will move into the flat next door, and how the whole neighbourhood will be a disaster in no time. All this raises the fear of Blacks and Coloureds with these people. They do it all the time politically, of course, saying: “Look at Black majority rule in the rest of Africa.” The Whites who they then convince quite logically feel that if one gives any rights to the Black man, if one gives him a finger he will take one’s whole arm.

That is the message they put across and it makes any kind of real reform and reconciliation that much more difficult. The result of their campaigning is that the problems of our plural society are aggravated.

The effect of all this on the NP is also interesting. I have no doubt that they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction. The CP in the first instance is the product of NP policies over decades and their “Swart gevaar” campaigning.

It is very interesting for me as a member of an opposition party to see what is happening to the NP today, compared to what happened to the old United Party in the 1960’s and 1970’s when I was a member of the Progressive Party. By and large with considerable success they went around in their fight against the Progressive Party with terrible scare stories about what would happen if people voted for the Progressive Party. They spoke of all the horrible things that the Black people would do in their neighbourhoods. They spoke of terrible misbehaviour that would follow and how one cannot trust Black people and dare not trust the Progressive Party. That message of “Swart gevaar” that they used against us was very often successful and they were able to retain quite a few parliamentary seats in that way.

However, what did it actually do? In due course it scared their supporters right across from the Progressive Party through the United Party and into the NP. Today, in scaring PFP supporters into voting for the NP, the NP has in the process scared their supporters into voting for the CP. That process will continue for as long as they continue with their “Swart gevaar” tactics.

South Africa is a complex country. Let us look at some of the features of our country today. We have a plural society that is deeply divided. It is wracked by conflict. I do not think that even the most optimistic hon NP member would not accept that fact. Racial stereotypes are rampant and are encouraged by the Government itself, the SATV and by the very education system that we have in this country.

We are facing deteriorating security and economic conditions. In such a situation, fear is very easy to engender in people. It is not difficult at all; any ham can do it. It is easy to engender fear in one racial group in that society, particularly in a minority group which consists of 15% or 16% of the population. However, trust and interracial goodwill are not easy to develop in such a society. It is impossible to turn the tap of fear on and off once one has unleashed it full blast, as the National Party has done for the past 39 years and in particular in the most blatant and disgraceful way in the previous election. The NP must not kid themselves into thinking that they will be able to turn it off when it suits them and that they can tell the Whites, out of whom they have scared the living daylights, that there is no reason for panic and that they can trust the Blacks, that there is a lot of goodwill, that everybody can work together and that some real reform is possible.

The NP’s election campaign has once again done a disservice to South Africa even if the Nationalists believe it has served their narrow party-political interests. In the election the NP promised security and reform. Neither has been delivered in the past, and the NP will not succeed in doing so in the future. This is because it is wedded to race as the basis of its thinking and therefore the NP cannot bring about fundamental change. This attachment to race—which inevitably means racial discrimination—causes race relations to continue deteriorating in our country. This gives rise to frustration and conflict.

Some of the hon members on that side of the House recognise this. I am thinking of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon the Minister of Defence and the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare. During the course of the campaign these hon Ministers referred to the problem of developing frustrations in other communities. I quote just one example from The Citizen of 25 March 1987, in which the hon the Minister of Defence, was reported to have said at Ventersdorp:

At exactly the same time the NP is telling South Africa that the ANC terrorists present a greater danger than ever before!

Well, what has pushed them into the arms of those ANC terrorists who are supposed to be a greater danger than ever before? The frustrations that that hon Minister is talking about.

I should also like to quote what Mr Justice Van der Walt said according to The Argus of 6 November last year when he was giving judgment in the treason trial of Marion Sparg. She was found guilty of treason and on two counts of arson and attempted arson. Amongst the things that he said were the following:

He regarded as an aggravating feature the fact that Sparg was White. I want hon members to listen to this statement of the judge:

So the judge is saying he could understand if a Black South African was a dedicated Marxist and revolutionary although he would not excuse it. He could understand it, however. Surely that is an absolute indictment of the political system of this country when a judge—and, in fact, Cabinet Ministers themselves—are saying that the policies of this Government are pushing Black people into the arms of ANC terrorists and that it is not surprising but can be understood when Black people become dedicated Marxists and revolutionaries. What could be a stronger indictment of the political policy of a government that has been in power for 39 years?

This frustration and conflict give rise to insecurity and instability within our country which in turn is manifested in people not having confidence in South Africa. I am talking about South Africans not having confidence in this country, let alone what people elsewhere may think. This immediately gives rise to insufficient investment. One need only look at the figures.

In 1986 the real gross domestic investment in factories and things of that kind was only 71% of what it was in 1981 and it had been dropping steadily.