laid upon the Table:

Mr Chairman, I was pointing out yesterday why the Government’s inability to bring about fundamental change and therefore provide security has resulted in a number of things, such as falling standards of living in our country, rising unemployment and an increase in crime. As result of these things we get greater frustration and more conflict, and the downward spiral continues in that way. The NP’s big mistake is that it thinks it can get away with minimal reform introduced at a snail’s pace and that it can cope with the unpleasant consequences simply by being tough.

This is a fallacy. Stability is essential but being tough is not enough. No lasting peace will come out of the barrel of a gun. Security management in recent years has often been counter-productive. It has polarised, politicized and radicalized whole communities in a way that no political party or organisation could have done.

The end result of 39 years of NP rule is more violence, more terrorism, more crime, less security and less stability than ever before. We must break out of the vicious downward spiral into which this Government has led us. This requires imagination and courage. It starts with fundamental change. It involves scrapping statutory racial classification as the basis for the social and political ordering of our society. Only when race relations improve will stability and confidence increase and the economy grow to provide jobs and a better quality of life.

We could then look forward to an upward spiral of peace, prosperity and hope for the future. The NP cannot do this. It is wedded to race. It will not bring about real reform, nor will there be lasting security.

I have pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon member for Sea Point.

Mr Chairman, before I reply to the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, I should like—coming as I do from the Cape - to express a word of thanks to Die Burger for the exceptional role it played in the election. [Interjections.] Immediately after the election was announced, Die Burger sprang to the task of publishing articles of a political nature, and I doubted whether it would be able to maintain the initial pace it had set for itself, but the discipline it exercised in its political reporting was certainly a journalistic tour de force. Many thanks to Die Burger.

The speech of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens reminds me of the old story we all know of the child who murdered his father and mother and then pleaded for mercy on the grounds of his being an orphan. This hon member has told us today that the voters have treated the PFP harshly, like orphans. They are of course to blame for that. It is futile for the hon members of the PFP to try to shift the blame on to members of the NP; they will not succeed on that score. It is also futile to try to lay the blame on television or the newspapers. In my opinion, they should start by looking for the fault within themselves. A long weekend lies ahead and I think that these hon members should use it for this purpose. They should hire a small venue somewhere—it does not have to be big because there are not very many of them—and there they should conduct a post mortem on exactly what has hit them.

Since my Whips have allocated me a little more time, I shall assist these hon members by telling them why they ought to hold such an indaba. [Interjections.] I notice in this pamphlet distributed by the PFP, The PFP’s plan and policies for a better, safer New South Africa, on page 6, a headline “Security for all—the PFP plan that will work” accompanied by a photograph of the hon member for Cape Town Gardens, next to which is a quotation, or so I gather, of the hon member which reads as follows:

That sounds wonderful, but then they go on to say:

This is what appears in black and white but I should like to hear from the hon member why he bothered to write it since the voters did not believe him. They refused to believe him because his party advocates the lifting of the ban on the ANC, while the express objective of that organisation is the violent overthrow of constitutional government in this country. The PFP wants to legalise the Communist Party.

That is not true. [Interjections.]

Is that not true? I should like to hear from the hon member for Houghton whether that is true or not, since the hon member for Yeoville denies it. [Interjections.]

It is an illegal organisation … [Interjections.]

But the hon member for Yeoville and his party want to legalise this organisation?

… because violence … [Interjections.]

Order!

What the PFP puts forward in its pamphlet is therefore not true. The SACP is not going to debate with the hon members on the other side in a parliamentary system. It is not interested in that. [Interjections.]

It is for precisely that reason that it is illegal.

The hon member must not be naïve; that is not the way things work. I should like to hear what the hon member for Houghton has to say about this. [Interjections.]

Order! I should appreciate it if the hon member for Yeoville would pay attention when the Chair calls for order. [Interjections.] Is the hon member for Parow prepared to take a question from the hon member for Yeoville?

I am indebted to the hon member; he is prepared to take a question. He is a gentleman. May I put the following question to the hon member: If an organisation has as its objective to overthrow the State by violence, does that not mean it is illegal in common law and cannot be allowed to function?

What the hon member for Yeoville is trying to tell me is that the leopard will change its spots. [Interjections.] The hon member is trying to tell me that his party will only legalise the SACP once they have abandoned their policy of violence. I am telling the hon member that a leopard does not change its spots.

The voters did not think so either.

That is a naïve perception which will not work. Furthermore, I should like to inform the hon member why the voters of South Africa rejected the PFP. They rejected the party because of the type of funerals members of this party attend and also because of the funerals they do not attend. [Interjections.] I wager that these hon members will not attend the funerals of the policemen who died in Pretoria. The voters see the hon members of the PFP at other funerals standing under the flags of the SACP and the ANC. Yet these hon members are surprised when they are rejected. They are never seen under the flag of the Republic at such a funeral. [Interjections.]

The voters rejected the PFP because of their attitude towards the police and the security forces. Have these hon members ever paid tribute in this House to the police and the security forces for the tasks that they perform under difficult circumstances, without adding the proviso: “But we want a commission of inquiry”, without speaking of “police brutalities”, without always accusing the police and security forces of acting beyond their powers and always siding with the stone throwers and arsonists? These hon members actually specialise in doing this, and for this reason the voters have rejected them. Next time they will be rejected to an even greater extent.

The PFP have also been rejected because of their association with and sympathy towards radicals and radical organisations. These hon members continually spring to the defence of the Tutus, the Mandelas, the Boesaks, the UDF, the ANC and the End Conscription Campaign. They appear in photographs embracing supporters of necklacing.

In spite of this, we are called petty. It is not we who are petty. The voters see with whom the hon members of the PFP associate. The voters see it clearly. The PFP is the party which springs to the defence of the Balls who are trying to mislead this country with self-evident and blatant lies. Any of us could see that.

To whom are you referring?

I am referring to Ball. The hon member can translate it himself if he pleases.

Are you prepared to repeat that outside? Will you have more guts …

Of course I am prepared to repeat it outside. He has been found guilty by a judge. [Interjections.] Those hon members must continue to say these sorts of things.

Go and repeat it outside to Ball! [Interjections.]

You are a coward!

The hon member calls me a coward but that hon member cannot even spell “ coward”.

Order! Did the hon member for Green Point call the hon member for Parow a coward?

I did, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman, but …

Order! The hon member must take his seat without stating any reservations. The hon member for Parow may proceed.

I thank the hon member for withdrawing that remark.

Order!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member said in fact that the hon member for Green Point could not even spell “coward”. [Interjections.]

Order! What is the hon member’s point of order?

The point of order, Sir, is that it is quite clear what the hon member is implying by making that comment across the floor, and I would suggest that he should be called to order.

Order! The hon member for Parow may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. May I point out to the hon member that literacy is not a prerequisite in order to sit in this Parliament and he can check up on that. [Interjections.]

You show it!

Let us take a look at the reasons why the PFP lost this election. If we look back for a moment on the Ball affair, when the hon State President brought this matter …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I understand that arising out of the Ball affair there is a select committee of this House to be appointed. I wish to have your ruling as to whether the Ball affair is now sub judice in this House and whether it may be discussed.

Order! I did not understand that a select committee will be investigating the Ball affair. That I am not aware of. I am aware of the fact that a select committee might investigate certain remarks made by the hon member for Sandton.

The hon member may proceed.

When the hon the State President brought this matter to our attention in this House, the rejoicing on that side of the House was plain to see. They thought that he had put his foot in it and made the sort of faux pas for which they had been waiting for years. This was the long-awaited faux pas with which they were going to destroy him. They grinned from ear to ear. We, on this side of the House, were also smiling, because my leader who is sitting there, is, as far as politics are concerned, a little longer in the tooth than all of them put together. My leader would not have said such a thing without having had a good reason for doing so. We were delighted by the English Press. We were delighted by what the hon members of the PFP said, and in the end it is they who are left with red faces concerning the Ball affair. [Interjections.]

No, no. The judgment was incorrect. [Interjections.]

The voters rejected the PFP because of their federal plan for South Africa which entails nothing less than Black majority rule. The voters of South Africa do not want Black majority rule. I hope that that has finally sunk in.

Nevertheless, I do not think those members have learned anything. Yesterday, or the day before, I listened with interest to what the hon member for Durban Central had to say. The hon member for Durban Central is, as far as trade unions are concerned, saddling the wrong horse. The hon member is saddling the wrong horse as far as this trade union matter is concerned. He should dismount; he is too much of a lightweight to ride it. One cannot stick one’s nose into trade union matters if one does not know anything about them. [Interjections.]

He will contract equine flu.

I should like to give the hon member some good advice. He should keep out of trade union matters. They are of too delicate a nature to allow him to poke his nose into them.

The hon member for Cape Town Gardens claimed that they had lost the election because we had told the elderly in old age homes that Blacks and Coloureds would move in with them. He is up in arms about this, yet that is their policy. And if we did inform the public about this, why is the hon member upset?

This brings me to a final important point. The voters have not yet forgiven the PFP for the damage done to that party by Drs Van Zyl Slabbert and Alex Boraine. The confidence in a party, whose leaders walked out on it one morning in such a way that, among the frontbenchers, there were those who were not even prepared to attend one’s farewell function, will not easily be reinstated. In these circumstances I have given the PFP something to think about. The PFP will stand accused in the history of South Africa as the former Official Opposition of lost opportunities. They will stand accused of standing in the way of reform. The PFP, with its radical ideas, makes many of our people afraid of reform.

They are scared of the realities of our country.

The hon member for Durban Central should leave reality alone, because he is blind to it.

The other thing that history will show is that the PFP did not have even the political sense of a teenager.

Mr Ian Smith also said that.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon member for Durban Central to one fact, of which he is possibly unaware, namely that this is South Africa and not Rhodesia.

We are not a British colony.

As my hon friend here says, we do not have an England to cajole us into a Lancaster House situation. We shall devise other plans to solve this country’s problems. That hon member should cease holding Rhodesia up to us. On the contrary, if one wants to use Rhodesia as an example, one can point out that the Progs’ policy failed miserably there. [Interjections.] In spite of this, that hon member informs me that we should look at what happened in Rhodesia. [Interjections.] And then the hon member has the temerity to point to Rhodesia as an example. [Interjections.]

In the time that is still available to me I should like to mention the Independents. I am sorry that the hon member for Randburg is not present.

He is here in spirit.

The hon member for Parktown should not make fun of the Independents like that because they are going to make as short work of the PFP as the CP did of the HNP. [Interjections.]

Precisely the same thing is happening in leftist politics as happened to the CP. After they broke away, they tried to find room for themselves between the HNP and the NP and there was none. They had to keep a distance between themselves and the NP, and, as a result, they moved closer and closer to the HNP. The only thing which kept them apart was that they were too ashamed to join the HNP. After all it was not dignified enough to be an HNP. The same is happening in leftist politics. The Worralls and those like them are just too ashamed to join the PFP. I understand why they feel ashamed because the PFP’s image of being soft on security led to their being rejected by the voters.

I do not believe that they will make the same mistake. The way in which this political scenario will develop, as I see it, is that in the course of this year a new party made up of the members of the PFP and this other group will be established, with—and I take pity on the hon member for Sea Point in this regard—a new leader. [Interjections.] There will be one or two of those hon members who will not feel comfortable in that new party, and within two years there will be another rupture as those on the extreme left break away again. I say in earnest to those hon members now that they should prepare themselves because the Independents are on the way to usurping their position in this House. They will succeed in this.

The election was an interesting one, in which we received a mandate for reform. [Interjections.] I should like to assure the hon members that we on this side of the House are looking ahead along the road of reform which is based on the principle of fairness and that we shall act in accordance with these principles and implement them as far as is humanly possible. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Parow will have to forgive me for not joining in the brotherly conversation he has had with his leftist friends. [Interjections.] However, I do wish to join him in one regard. The hon member expressed certain words of thanks, and it is also my heartfelt desire to express my thanks to certain hon members of this House. I wish to refer, in particular, to certain hon Deputy Ministers.

I want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs especially, for the meeting which he held in Carolina. I should also like to thank the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs for the meeting which he held in Breyten. Furthermore, I want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs for the meeting which he held in Belfast and, in particular, I want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, the hon member for Amanzimtoti, for the meeting he held in Hendrina. They really contributed to the success of my campaign in my constituency. [Interjections.] In particular, I want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology for explaining to the good farmers of Hendrina that for 15 years he had striven to bring the NP to the point where it accepted and implemented the policy of the NRP, and that two years after becoming a member of that party, he had succeeded, finally, in persuading the NP to accept the policy of the NRP. He said that, to the dismay of those farmers. Their reaction was: “But that’s a mistake; the man should never have said that”. People listened, however, and did not vote for the NP again.

As we are expressing our thanks, I expected a word of thanks from the side of the hon members of the NP. When the hon the Minister of Manpower had the floor, the least I expected from him was a word of thanks to Mr Dirk Beukes, his HNP stablemate in Lydenburg, for saving him. However, not a word was said in this regard.

I also expected the hon members for Innesdal, Krugersdorp and Geduld to express their thanks to the PFP, which announced that, owing to the political convictions of those hon members, it was not going to put up candidates against its own kind in those constituencies at all. [Interjections.] Perhaps that word of thanks will still be forthcoming.

We did not stand against you either! [Interjections.]

No, they voted for the NP. It is a fact that there are a handful of PFP supporters in my constituency, and that that handful voted for the NP. The hon member may as well go to sleep. [Interjections.]

It is alleged that the election gave evidence of a swing to the right. In a sense this is true. The hon member for Parow, in referring to this swing, claimed that the CP had sought a niche on the political spectrum between the NP and the HNP. This is not true. What really happened was that the NP of the past left the place which it had occupied in South African politics. [Interjections.] It left that place and moved to the left. The CP took over the place which the NP, traditionally, had held for decades. That is what happened.

The NP moved to the left. As a result of that move it successfully gained considerable support in the past election from the voters on the left in South Africa. The NP, heading in its new leftist direction, had become acceptable to these people. In the process, the NP apparently rejoiced at the exchange of Schweizer-Reneke for Hillbrow. That is the result.

If we are to look at the election realistically— and I speak from my experience in my own constituency—it is clear that the NP was still able to retain a reasonable percentage of its traditional support. This traditional support was not so much for the new policies of the NP, however, but was merely a matter of tradition.

We found that many conservative voters who still voted for the NP had the perception—to use the fashionable word—that the NP still wished to protect minority rights. This newfound cliche of the NP actually refers to nothing but the present de facto position in regard to the economy and political power. Many of these voters told one: “We are going to vote for the NP again because the NP will ensure that political power remains in the hands of the White man”.

I am reminded that last year, in a little place in my constituency, the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning addressed one of those meetings which are customary nowadays, which one may attend only by invitation. The local chairman did not inform him in advance that there would be English-speaking voters present as well. There the hon the Deputy Minister had the opportunity to speak openly to his fellow Afrikaners. There he told them: “You need not worry. The primary aim of the NP is to keep political power in the hands of the Afrikaner”.

No, that is not true.

This was said to the great concern of the English-speaking voters who were present there, with the result that those English-speaking voters all voted for the CP on the 6th of May. [Interjections.]

The fact that the NP returned to this House as governing party as a result of the support of thousands of conservative people who were under the impression that the NP would at all costs, retain the real political power exclusively in the hands of the Whites, is the dilemma confronting the NP in future. The dilemma of the NP in following its new policy, in which it declares that it is prepared to share power with the others, lies in the fact that at the same time and in the same breath, it wants to keep effective power in the hands of the Whites. Herein lies its dilemma.

The other day the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare spoke about a policy of partnership, but he did not make it clear whether it would be a policy of junior and senior partners or of equal partners. Are the partners to represent each race group or each nation? He will have to explain how the final casting vote would be decided in that partnership. It is said that it would be done by way of consensus. However, it is as clear as daylight that if consensus could not be reached, the majority vote would prevail.

It is repeatedly being asked of us in this debate what price will be paid for the CP policy. We do not deny that there will be a price to be paid for the implementation of the CP’s policy. It will be a high price. Why does the Government, however, neglect to outline the economic price which the Whites in South Africa in particular will be expected to pay in the future as a result of its new-found policy?

If one looks at the economic scene in South Africa, and at the socio-economic policy of the NP in the direction which it is taking today, one finds a dichotomy. For the Whites, the First World, the NP is a champion of capitalism. At the same time, however, one cannot but conclude that as far as the Third World component of South Africa is concerned, the NP is committing the country irretrievably to becoming a welfare state. The Government is attempting to successfully weave together two conflicting economic ideologies within a single economic structure.

The cost of this will be that the First-World component will pay the economic price for the welfare state of the Third-World component. If there is one primary reason for inflation in our country, it is the fact that people lay claim to and are granted a greater portion of the economic cake than they earn by their own labour.

In response to the decision made by the NP, that despite all economic laws, the so-called wage-gap must be eliminated at all costs, whether the people who demand it have earned it in practical terms or not, we ask the NP Government: What will be the economic price of this decision in future?

There is another point. If the NP Government wants to include the Third-World people as fellow decision-makers in the highest government forum of the day, how will it withstand the economic demands in the area to which I have referred?

The NP says that it wants consensus. However, our experience of so-called consensus negotiation in the Parliamentary standing committees over the past two years, shows us that time and again consensus is only reached once the demands of the other two Houses have been met. [Interjections.] Time and again, consensus could only be reached when their demands had been complied with. It is inevitable that the people of the Third World will also claim their “pound of flesh” and more, if they become fellow decision-makers on White affairs in South Africa.

During the election, the NP said that they were asking for a mandate. That mandate was never spelt out to us in practical terms. The closest the hon the State President came in his opening address to adding to what had already been said, was that he in fact expressed a motion of no confidence in his Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He drew our attention to Section 93 of the Constitution and said that now he himself would have to enter the process of negotiation with the Blacks. The NP told the voters that it was asking for a mandate for negotiation, but they did not dare, except in vague terms, explain to the voters what that negotiation was going to lead to.

Cas, did you also ask for a mandate?

Since the hon the Deputy Minister has just made an interjection, I believe he should also express a special word of thanks to the HNP for saving his hide.

Did you also ask for a mandate?

Of course we asked for a mandate, but we explained our mandate to the voters of South Africa. We told them what the policy of the CP was. Unlike the NP, we did not tell the voters of South Africa that we did not have a policy but that we would negotiate one. That is not what we said. [Interjections.] In its election propaganda pamphlets, including Die Nasionalis, the NP stated that the overwhelming majority of the Parliamentary members of the CP were still in Parliament as a result of broken promises and an NP manifesto which they endorsed in 1981 and were now repudiating daily. The hon member says this is true. The hon leader of the NP in the Transvaal, who is in this House—it seems he is going to speak next— also referred during the election to the NP policy of 1981. What did he say?

Then they have the audacity to accuse the CP of repudiating the 1981 manifesto, whilst they reject it in the same breath. We are told to accept the realities of South African politics. One does accept them. I must point out to the NP that one reality which it should not forget is that, in this election, it rejected more than a half a million of its own people, its own flesh and blood. In the future it will reject more and more of its own flesh and blood because, as soon as it becomes evident that the NP is allowing the real political power to slip from the hands of the White man, it will itself be rejected. The political realities will become manifest in the days ahead. Although the NP succeeded in retaining a large proportion of its traditional support, I found it significant that on election day the polling tables of the NP were manned by old people, whilst our tables were manned by young people who will make the decisions in future. [Interjections.]

Do you hate the old people?

No, I do not hate the old people. Many old people voted for us. [Interjections.] However, the NP is losing more and more of the support of the youth. [Interjections.] Those hon members can shout if they like because apparently they can do little else. Whether they like it or not, the CP, which they accused of being a splinter movement, has become a right-wing front in South Africa for conservative Afrikaans and English speaking Whites and will go from strength to strength.

Mr Chairman, it is interesting to hear how the hon member for Barberton tries to make half a million sound like more than a million. [Interjections.] It is interesting to hear the fuss the hon member for Barberton makes about a meagre result of 22 battles out of 126 fought by them. They suffered 104 losses. The voters rejected them in 104 places and accepted them in only 22, but he makes it sound like a victory. [Interjections.] However, we are used to the CP. It sounds as if there are more of them than there really are because they make more noise than we who are dealing with the real problems of South Africa.

The hon member showed the typical CP style in his speech. He made an incorrect statement and then developed a logical attack on the basis of that erroneous viewpoint. Let us take his statement that we advocate a capitalistic system for the Whites and supposedly advocate a socialist system for the Blacks. The hon member ignores the Small Business Development Corporation established by us. We established the SBDC precisely to help the Black small businessman develop so that he could become part of the free market and the capitalist system. He ignores our steps in regard to deregulation and privatisation which, amongst other things, will result in the average small businessman, such as the vegetable hawker and so forth, becoming more a part of the capitalist system. He ignores the fact that we are involved in a comprehensive effort to advance private home ownership amongst Blacks and to move away from the situation where all Blacks have to live in rented estate houses. His statement is therefore completely devoid of truth. However, he blithely continues with that argument as if his statement that we advocate a socialist system for the Blacks is true. As a consequence the CP’s arguments are not pure, because they are not based on the facts. They do not attack the standpoints of the NP, but attack standpoints which do not belong to this side of the House at all. I shall focus on this in the course of my speech.

He made a second statement, ie that if consensus could not be reached, it was quite clear that the majority vote would have to be the final answer. Surely this is not perfectly clear. When one works according to a consensus system, one particularly does not accept a majority vote or majority rule. There would have to be mechanisms for those occasions when consensus cannot be reached and that mechanism will have to be based on a system of checks and balances. That mechanism should not be vulnerable to manipulation or to being abused in such a way that it could lead to the domination of minorities.

We still have to negotiate the details, but I cite it as a goal. The NP states that there will in fact be such a mechanism and that that mechanism would have to satisfy specific requirements which would be completely attainable from a constitutional point of view. The hon member who has had legal training, realises this: One could develop three or four models which would not be vulnerable to manipulation merely by pressure of the majority. This is what we have to do. The hon member for Barberton is once again knocking down his own skittles.

I have a final comment on the hon member’s speech, because I would rather return to it later on. I should like to make one thing clear: At no stage did I say that the NP’s policy in regard to Black constitutional development had failed. I in fact said the old proposal and idea of linking in regard to the urban Blacks had failed. Despite the best of efforts, since Dr Verwoerd’s time and also the best efforts of the hon member for Randfontein when he was Minister of Plural Affairs, we did not succeed in attaining the following two things. Firstly we did not succeed in reducing the number of Blacks in metropolitan areas. Their numbers continued to grow. They did not start growing from 1978, but had been growing since 1984. We have been trying to stem the tide for 30 years, yet we are unable to do so. The hon member for Randfontein could not do so either. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition could not get it right when he was a Deputy Minister. In the same way the hon member for Lichtenburg could not get it right either. This is a reality that one has to accept.

In the second place: The ideal that a Zulu born and raised in Soweto would accept and be placated and would say “I can accept the franchise over there in kwaZulu as a meaningful political channel for me”, has not come true either. Time and again with all the elections, the percentage vote was high amongst the enfranchised who lived in those countries, but the voting booths erected by us in the Soweto’s stood empty on election day. This is the reality, and we should surely open our eyes and think creatively to devise another plan and not merely continue to cling to a dream which does not work in regard to this aspect of our policy. The NP is in the process of devising such a second plan.

Why did it take you so long to realize it?

Before I react to what the hon member for Houghton said, I just want to say that the PFP made a pathetic showing in the election and as a result their showing after the election is pathetic too.

†They attribute their dismal performance to NP propaganda. That is not true! The reality of the matter is that the electorate disagreed with the PFP and therefore rejected that party. The electorate does not want preventative security legislation to be scrapped. The electorate does not agree with the hon member for Houghton’s stance with regard to the South African Communist Party and the ANC.

What has that got to do with it?

The electorate does not want group security to become impossible in a so-called utopian non-racial society. The electorate also does not want enforced integration in State schools and in residential areas. These are the reasons why the PFP lost the election. The PFP lost because they could not and cannot sell a policy to the electorate which will mean suicide for that very same electorate.

And 30 years later you will be saying something else.

I again want to react to what the hon member for Barberton said. I understand the hon member has gone off to have a smoke, and I hope that he is standing outside and listening.

He received an urgent telephone call.

I do not want to participate in the numbers game about the election. The CP did better than the NP would have liked to see them do, but the CP fared much worse than they hoped or worked for. That is the reality. I am pleased the air has been cleared and that all the old claims of how strong which party is, was decided at the polling booth. The CP can now state that a fair percentage of the White population supports it. We can say that a far greater percentage, in fact, almost a two thirds majority of the White population supports us.

Temporarily. [Interjections.]

The battle continues from here on. We in the Transvaal are looking forward to the next election.

Where do you find your two thirds?

We have two thirds of the votes of us and the CP together.

Yes, but it is not of the whole White population.

But we are now discussing the battle between the NP and the CP.

Let us just analyse the election result from another point of view. Firstly I want to place the quality of the propaganda of the CP during the election campaign under the spotlight. Let us begin on the lighter side, with a CP report under the heading: “Kyk hoe het die Nasionale Party u geld gemors.” That was a scandalous report. It was a report that completely pulled the wool over the voters’ eyes and placed them under the wrong impression.

I just want to quote three examples: “R3 300 000 vir P W se kantoor”. That is surely not true. I am not quite sure whether the amount is correct, but that amount was spent on the maintenance of Tuynhuys, which was seriously deteriorating. If the hon Leader of the Official Oposition becomes President, as the CP hopes, is he going to allow Tuynhuys to fall into a state of disrepair? I also just want to ask him if he would not be flying more, because they gossip about the State President’s flying in a jet. Is he going to get himself a twin engined propeller aircraft to fly in when he becomes State President, or is he going to ride in an oxwagon?

A bicycle! [Interjections.]

We could perhaps obtain one of the AWB’s motorbikes for him.

Hendrik Schoeman’s.

How many aircraft have you people bought for the State President during the past three years?

A medium-sized company in modern South Africa also has an aircraft in which it transports the members of its top management.

The most scandalous remark in the CP report was: “R10 300 000 vir ’n parade voor P W Botha se kantoor waar hy medaljes gaan ontvang en uitdeel”. That really is absolutely scandalous. Surely they know that a decision was taken more than ten years ago that Stalplein had to be upgraded. It then developed into a giant parking garage—those hon members themselves park in it—being built under Stalplein. For all practical purposes, Stalplein is the roof of Parliament’s parking garage. The CP, however, creates the impression that we are wasting the taxpayers’ money in a luxurious way. I think that is an absolute disgrace.

The hon Leader of the Official Opposition, who is going to be speaking this afternoon, went further and accused us of financing the propaganda material of the NP, and more specifically the grammophone record of the hon the State President, with public and not with NP funds.

Did I allege that?

He was reported …

By whom?

… and when it rectified, he never availed himself of any opportunity to say that he himself accepted it or that he had rectified the matter. [Interjections.] We ask him to do so, otherwise we shall go the whole hog in tackling him on this.

Is this perhaps your scare stories?

Order! The hon Leader of the Official Opposition is going to be speaking and putting the CP’s standpoint this afternoon. If this is the kind of interjection that is made when the hon Leader of the House is speaking, it is unacceptable.

These are all the little old, trivial things with which they are trying to upset the voters. All the half truths and crooked presentations of which they made themselves guilty, ultimately had one general goal in mind. That was to create an image of an NP which is prepared to accept Black majority rule.

I want to read out to hon members a number of captions and statements from CP propaganda papers:

That is not true. Firstly, we are not forcing reform upon South Africa. We held an election and asked for a mandate. Surely that is not compulsion. Secondly, surely it is not “the same sort of reform”. After all, they know as well as I do that Mr Ian Smith applied PFP policy in a CP way. [Interjections.] Yes, he did that, because he did not have separate voters’ lists or an own affairs system. He did not say that the Matabeles and the Shonas should each have an own legislative and executive authority. He did not say power-sharing should take place on a basis of consensus and no domination of one group by another.

It is an untruth to say: “It is the same sort of reform.”

A second example is that the indaba proposals amount to Black majority rule. It is then claimed that Mr Pik Botha said the Government now wants a similar indaba for the whole of South Africa.

He did not say that.

What is the insinuation? No, the insinuation is that along with the indaba we accept Black majority rule. The truth is our standpoint on the indaba proposals are very clear. They do not make sufficient provision for group security, they do not rule out the possibility of one group dominating another, they are in fact a model for Black majority rule and therefore, while we welcome the process, we reject the findings.

Give us the formula.

It was therefore a misrepresentation aimed at making the voters believe something untrue about the NP.

We find the third example in a long list in which they say amongst other things that the NP advocates a unitary state. A unitary state and an undivided South Africa are two completely different things. [Interjections.] They insinuate, and it is an aim of their propaganda: People should believe we are prepared to enter into a system where one only counts heads and where one shares power in one place so that the majority can force its will onto the minority. That is not true of the NP policy.

Then they become more blatant and state: A vote for the NP is a vote for Black domination. They go on to say that if one votes for the NP, one is giving permission for South Africa to be governed by a non-White government. That is not true.

That is what you are saying.

The hon Leader of the Official Opposition spoke in a completely different way in his speech. Then he said he conceded that that was not what the NP stated, but he warned that according to his argument it could lead to that. I do not have any problems if we can argue with each other on that basis. But if he puts it across as fact to the uninformed voting public, he is misleading the voters. [Interjections.] I therefore say it is the great untruth …

Order!

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

No, please do not. This is the great untruth which was the main aim in this election campaign. That is why I am not concerned, because from now on until until the next election we shall bring home, to those voters who were in fact taken in tow by this, the untruthfulness of this not only by our words, but also by our deeds.

I do not want to elaborate on this for too long. They know what our actual policy is which they presented in such a way. [Interjections.] They play down own affairs because they know that there is a wealth of security for every group, also for the Whites, built into the concept of power-sharing. They ignore this when we say that for any system the final test should be that it should not be open to manipulation resulting in one group dominating another.

Tell us how.

Consequently their propaganda cannot in fact withstand the test of truth. No one has yet achieved a lasting success as a result of untruthfulness.

They unashamedly pulled the wool over the voters’ eyes as far as the NP was concerned. In a certain sense of the word a tragedy is in the process of being played out at a time when foreign pressure on our country has increased drastically and the revolutionary onslaught has assumed unheard-of proportions. The hon member for Randfontein is not so naive as to think that this is happening because the NP is in power. Does he think the foreign pressure would diminish if they were to come into power? Does he think the revolutionary onslaught would wane if they came into power? He knows that the opposite is true. At a time when intimidation and unrest causes the silent majority of peace-loving Black people anxiously to seek security and safety, at a time when we are struggling to recover from tremendous and unavoidable economic setbacks, at a time when the patriotism in the heart of each one of us, also in their hearts, tells us all that we should really stand together, at such a time the CP seizes upon untruths and half-truths to arouse anger in the Whites and to set them against each other, to arouse unnecessary emotionalism and bitterness and to create distrust and suspicion.

Fortunately the voters were sensible. They said no to unnecessary discord and suspicionmongering—regardless of whom it came from. More than a million of them said yes to the joining of forces in the NP—the party that wants to and will see to it that our freedom and self-determination is not destroyed; that our right to remain what we are will be maintained; that law and justice will also apply to everyone in South Africa, in accordance with our Christian calling; and that a system for co-operation between all groups and peoples is developed without one dominating the other. Fortunately they said yes to reform, but no to surrender and also no to the escapist politics of the CP.

Let us test the CP’s policy. I am very pleased that the hon member for Randfontein has revealed himself as the exponent of CP policy, because we got very little policy from that side, before he returned here. [Interjections.] We are pleased that he is here and we are pleased that he tried—he is a likeable man—to set out that policy so very directly and simply so that even we could understand it. In summing up it is partition—every people in its own country.

If it could work completely it would be a very good solution. Even the hon member for Yeoville, I seem to recall, said a few years ago in an article that if partition could work, it would be a fair and a very good solution.

If it could work.

The fact is that it really cannot work completely. Partition made a large contribution to constitutional development. We are proud of the fact that four states have become independent. This did not happen under the CP’s leadership. It was not under the CP’s leadership, but under the leadership of the NP that the self-governing states grew to be autonomous. It is the NP which is now in the process of granting the self-governing states greater autonomy. It is the NP which is still working on consolidation as a facet of that solution as well—this is a necessary aspect—and investing in it to ensure that the greatest possible contribution can be made to the solution of the problems in our country. We are still striving towards allowing Black peoples who want to become independent in their own country to do so.

And the Whites?

What is the reality as far as the rest is concerned? This method, which is also an aim of the NP, does not solve the problem of Black communities outside the national states. I want to ask the hon member for Randfontein who said yesterday that he still believed Soweto should become one of the finest cities in Africa …

Black cities.

Yes, Black cities. We also say that it is a Black city, but we say Soweto is a Black city whose inhabitants have to receive meaningful political rights, because one cannot always give them municipal rights only.

They can also become independent.

We also said that, but I want to ask the hon member whether Soweto is going to disappear. He says no! Is the Black township in Randfontein going to disappear? He says no! Is any other Black township next to any White town going to disappear? He says no!

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

No, I am arguing with these hon members.

*They are always going to live there. In previous debates hon members of the CP conceded—I am sure that the hon member for Randfontein will also concede it now— that there will always be millions of Black people in their so-called White South Africa. [Interjections.]

Their policy is that in so-called White South Africa those millions of Black people who are always going to be among us will have to remain without full political rights, unless they are satisfied to go and vote miles away, regardless of whether they are second, third or fourth generation inhabitants of South Africa. [Interjections.] This is the only manner in which they will have more than mere municipal rights. If the hon member for Randfontein denies this, I make the following proposition: If the Blacks cannot vote and become part of the decision-making processes affecting their lives here where they live, only one alternative remains and that is that either they do not vote and remain under White domination or they have to accept the linking which they do not want to accept. [Interjections.] The hon member for Randfontein is shaking his head and from that one can conclude that linkage is in fact his goal. [Interjections.]

Linkage did not work, not because we did not want it to work, but for the same reason as the hon member for Brakpan is not interested in voting in Piketberg. [Interjections.] The voters of Brakpan want to elect someone who can speak on their behalf at the place where the decisions are taken. They do not want to elect someone who has nothing to do with them and does not take decisions which affect their lives. The hon member will therefore have to give more details about his party’s policy if he wants it to be regarded as a workable alternative.

What are the details of your policy?

The hon Leader of the Official Opposition referred to nkosi Buthelezi in a tone of voice that was fairly aggressive and slightly cynical.

I am going to refer to him again.

He referred to him and said:

I should like to know from the exponent of this policy whether it is CP policy. Whichever of the two leaders wishes to reply may do so. [Interjections.] Is it the CP’s policy that they are unilaterally going to deprive of six million Zulus of their citizenship, even if they do not agree to it? We should like a reply to this this afternoon, because it is a fundamentally important question. [Interjections.] If one unilaterally takes away South African citizenship from people who particularly feel so strongly about that citizenship, it is a recipe for revolution. [Interjections.]

Order! There is much reaction from the members of the opposition—also from those who are not being addressed directly. The hon Minister is addressing the Leader of the Official Opposition. Give him an opportunity to do so.

I thought he was talking to the Chair.

If that is not their standpoint, they have a problem, because then their policy cannot work in regard to the Zulus. Then they are precisely where we are today. They must take account of that. If they cannot persuade the millions of urban Blacks to accept their attitude of “go away and manage for yourselves”, “we shall do away with equal wages and pay lower wages once more” and “you may only receive municipal rights”, they surely are in the same position as we are today. Then they should start thinking with us. [Interjections.]

I should like to know from the hon member for Randfontein what the Southland is going to look like. I shall be practical and not ask him now to draw a final map for me, but I should nevertheless like to know if Tzaneen, Messina and Pietersburg are going to be in the Southland if we draw up the map sensibly, because if we have to draw up borders sensibly, we have to exclude the large concentrations within the heartlands of the Blacks from our White Southland. I want to know if Christiana, Zeerust and Rustenburg are going to be Southland or Blackland. Who is going to guard all the borders if everything is going to remain in Southland? Who is going to guard the borders against the millions of rejected, poor and uprooted Blacks that they want to herd together in those undeveloped countries?

The AWB!

The CP says that they are in favour of a pure White police and defence force.

You do not understand our policy!

This debate has illustrated the great political reality of White politics anew. It is only the NP that is in any way working realistically on a workable plan. The PFP does not have a positive contribution to make because it shuts its eyes to the diversity of groups in South Africa. The CP refuses to accept and to face the logical consequences of the permanence of people who are living and will continue to live permanently in their so-called White South Africa. Their refusal to do this excludes them from any meaningful debate. The NP must, and will therefore have to carry the full responsibility to bring about an understanding that fits in with reality.

The leaders of other communities also have a very important role to play. They should therefore also take note of the result and the message of the recent election.

†The message is that the Government accepts—and is supported in this by the White electorate—that all South Africans, irrespective of race or colour, must be afforded full political, economic and social rights. We must reach an agreement on how this can and should be attained. We in the NP say it must be done with due regard to the multicultural character of South Africa. It must be done with effective protection of minority and group rights, and most important—and this is something different to just protecting minority rights—it must be done without any one group dominating any other.

How?

Mr Chairman, to those who suspect that our emphasis on group rights is a disguise aimed at the continuation of discrimination, I wish to state unequivocally that to compare measures aimed at protecting group security with the simplistic concept of so-called apartheid is unscientific. [Interjections.] Fundamental to our approach is the indisputable fact that intimidation, suppression and domination are rampant in many parts of Africa and elsewhere where minority rights are not and have not been effectively protected. In a multicultural country meaningful provision for group security is a matter of plain common sense. The Government has no ulterior motives aimed at the abuse of group rights in a way which will be to the detriment of any other group or section of the population. When we talk about or act on group rights we do so with the welfare of all groups in mind, and not only that of the Whites. Then we do not plead for the maintenance of established rights only, which we do want to do, but also for the extension of opportunities and rights to all South Africans.

In conclusion, I wish to point out that the time has arrived for the question of group security to be given a new perspective. The old well-worn argument in which every form of differentiation is condemned as being racist will get us nowhere. Many examples can be quoted of countries where differentiation based on culture, ethnicity and other related factors has brought peace and tranquility. By contrast, there are few, if any, instances where a disregard for group existence has made any contribution towards peace and stability.

It is for this reasonable approach that we received support, and it is this reasonable approach that we will implement in the years to come. We are prepared to go a long way to accept fundamental change, to take risks, to work hard towards a lasting understanding between all the peoples and groups of this country. We are prepared to share with all South Africans in all fields of endeavour, but we are not prepared to place ourselves on a slippery slope leading to domination by others. [Interjections.] There is among the majority of Whites as expressed by my party a quiet determination to remain in this country, to preserve our values and our freedom here and to ensure a safe future for our descendants. [Interjections.] We will not accept a majority rule system in a unitary state.

*The only solution that can work, is a balance of power, a system in which everyone has power and a share in the power, but in such a way that no one can manipulate the system to seize all the power. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I start off by saying to the hon the Minister of National Education that I think it is gracious to congratulate him and his party on their electoral success. I think it is appropriate because they have undoubtedly had a success. I also think it is appropriate to congratulate the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in his new position, because it is a new position for him and he has also achieved a degree of success. Whether that success on the part of either of the parties is in the interests of South Africa is of course another question.

In this regard I found the speech of the hon the Minister of National Education somewhat fascinating, because he became fervent and enthusiastic and really made a powerful speech attacking a policy which was the NP policy of a few years ago. In those days he defended it with exactly the same fervour with which he is attacking it now. The question I want to ask the hon the Minister is: What makes him so sure that he is right now if he was wrong before? That is the issue. What makes the hon the Minister so sure? I have some other fascinating material here from both this election as well as past elections. I have a pamphlet here, Afsonder-like ontwikkeling slaag, and this pamphlet sets out in some considerable detail how, in fact—and this was supported by the hon the Minister—separate development has succeeded. I want to quote as follows:

I should like to ask the hon the Minister a very simple question and I can go on telling him about the great things that he is doing. He said then: “Die NP het dus orde gebring in ons rasseverhoudinge.”

*Where is that order, Mr Chairman? We have had instability in this country for years; we have had unrest for years. We listened to the hon the Minister of Law and Order, and these are pamphlets on what they achieved, that were issued years ago. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon the Minister that he comes to light with the same story during every election. Every election pamphlet is the same; it promises that we shall have order in the country; it promises that we shall have sound coexistence, and in reality these things do not happen at all.

I have another little pamphlet here. I like this pamphlet, and I am sure there are members opposite who still remember it. I quote from it as follows:

At the time there was ecstasy about this. It was the policy at that time. The hon the Minister was just as excited about his policy then as he is now. I ask again why, if the hon the Minister was wrong then—he admitted that he was wrong—he is now right. This is a problem of the hon the Minister’s.

I should like to mention another example. I have another pamphlet here which deals with Shared political power.

†This is another pamphlet of the NP and what does it say about shared political power? It says that the sharing of political power among the Whites and the various Bantu nations, the Coloureds and the Indians in South Africa—what the so-called federal plan of the UP held for South Africa—is, in practical terms “a sell-out of the White man’s authority and sovereignty in South Africa.”

That was what he said then, and the hon the Minister became just as excited then …

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

Yes, Sir, I shall answer his question.

Was the hon member right when he was a member of the UP?

Yes, I said precisely the same thing in this House when I was a member of the UP, and I said the same thing when I was a member of the provincial council. It was the same policy. [Interjections.] I was undermined by people like the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs. [Interjections.]

They were already occupied with CP policy then, and in the NP they are now trying to adapt CP policy. What they have there now is simply the same subversion. When one looks at those old “Bloedsappe”—I used to like them—one realises that that hon Minister and his friends ensured that the “Bloedsappe” voted for the CP in large numbers. That is the problem. [Interjections.] The problem with that party is that they tell the same story at every election. The hon the Minister of Law and Order is a good friend of mine and I like him.

Whoa! [Interjections.]

But I must say that he is a strange person. [Interjections.] What he did—he is still doing it—was to decide, together with his colleagues, to wage the election campaign against the ANC rather than the CP or the PFP. [Interjections.] That is what he did. It is also exactly as we predicted. If one looks at the no-confidence debate which took place earlier this year, one will see that we predicted precisely what was going to happen during the recent election. [Interjections.] At the time I said the following:

†What did they do? Let me show hon members how they fought the election against the ANC. Only yesterday, the hon the Minister said that he agreed that I was opposed to the ANC. Am I right? He said it yesterday.

Yes, that is correct.

Other hon members have also said that I am opposed to the ANC and the Communist Party. If that is true, then why did he, as part of his election campaign— and this is his responsibility, together with the leader of the NP in the Transvaal, because he had to vet both the candidate and the policy—distribute pamphlets in my constituency headed: “Kruger rejects the PFP and the ANC”? Furthermore, why he did put up pictures in my constituency of Joe Slovo together with Yasser Arafat? What is the inference? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must tell me why he did it. Why did he launch a campaign in my constituency in which he tried to link me to the PLO? He must tell me why he wants to link me to the PLO. I say it is a dirty, filthy, rotten innuendo.

[Inaudible.]

What did the hon member say? [Interjections.]

Order!

What did that hon member say, Mr Chairman? I think it was unparliamentary. He has an unparliamentary face, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order!

However, I cannot ask him to withdraw his face, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw that remark.

Which remark, Sir?

The reference to the hon member’s face. [Interjections.]

I withdraw it, Sir; he does not have an unparliamentary face … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must not trifle with the Chair.

What am I doing, Sir? I have said that I withdraw my statement to the effect that the hon member has an unparliamentary face.

Order! The hon member must withdraw the remark and leave it at that.

That is what I have just said, Sir. I have said that I used the words “he has an unparliamentary face” and that I withdraw the words “he has an unparliamentary face”.

The hon member may continue.

Thank you, Sir. [Interjections.] I want to know from the hon the Minister of Law and Order what he seeks to suggest by linking me to the PLO. What does he expect to achieve?

But I did not do that.

Of course you did; it is your party. Do you reject it?

Order! I am not going to permit a dialogue across the floor of the House. The hon member must proceed with his speech.

Mr Chairman, there has been dialogue across the floor of the House between the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon the Leader of the House. In fact, the Chairman said he was addressing the Leader …

Order! I am not prepared to have the hon member argue with the Chair on this point. I have given my ruling and the hon member must proceed with his speech and not continue this dialogue across the floor of the House.

Very well, Sir, then I shall address you. As you wish to be addressed, Sir, I shall ask you why your party permits the PLO to be linked to me.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member is now drawing the Chair into the debate.

That is right; he wants me to do so. He has said that I must address him. [Interjections.]

Order! It is accepted practice in the House, in terms of the Rules, that the Chair must be addressed.

That is what I am doing.

Provided the hon member is addressing the Chair formally, of course that is in order. However, if the hon member is, by referring to the Chair, suggesting that the Chair should be held responsible for election procedures, then obviously he is out of order.

Mr Chairman, let me then ask the question of you, because only through you can I address the NP and its leader in the Transvaal.

The leader of the NP in the Transvaal looked for candidates—I know of eight of them—in order to oppose me until he found somebody. Eight of them turned him down. He moved the candidate from Bezuidenhout to Yeoville in order to get one, and put somebody else into Bezuidenhout. He personally took an interest in this election, for reasons I cannot understand, together with my hon friend from Turffontein, whose reasons I can understand. He will forgive me. [Interjections.] Why, then, does he as the leader of the NP in Transvaal approve of propaganda which finks one with the ANC and the PLO?

I have not seen the pamphlet. Please send me a copy.

I will do so with pleasure, and I hope that the hon the Minister will publicly repudiate it. The innuendos are not only defamatory, they are also despicable. The hon the Minister knows it.

Mr Chairman, let me give another example, through you, to the hon the Minister. Why is it necessary in a constituency, where there is no CP candidate or AWB candidate, to have pictures of Mr Terre’Blanche, of the Swastika, and to say that Kruger rejects the CP and the AWB? Why is it necessary to do that? I would like to know. There must be a very important reason.

Why not?

Why not? The reality is that the NP plays a dirty, filthy political game. [Interjections.] That is the truth of it. That is what takes place.

Show us your poster.

Is that hon member worried about my poster? I take pride in the fact that I am Yeoville’s MP. However, I had an invasion from Soutpansberg and Waterberg, from the people whom the hon member for Waterberg chased out there. They all came down to Yeoville. I therefore said that I was Yeoville’s own MP. Is there something wrong with that? Let us look at realities.

I have talked enough about the past. Let us talk about the future. Let us look at what is now going to happen in South Africa. The hon the Minister of National Education made a very dramatic speech about what his party was going to do in general terms. In general terms it sounded like PFP policy, until he started qualifying it. He said that he wanted full political, social and economic rights for all in South Africa. I ask somebody in this House on the side of the NP to tell me what in fact is meant by “full political rights in South Africa”.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon member to read a newspaper in the House?

Order! Which hon member is reading a newspaper? [Interjections.]

That NP pamphlet is not a newspaper.

I would like somebody on the NP side to tell me what is meant by this. One of the things that has gone wrong in this election is that this election was fought purely on the basis of fear. It was fought on the basis of creating a fear in the minds of the electorate, certainly in the seats that we were fighting. They were frightened, and they were frightened as a result of the NP propaganda.

They were scared witless!

They were scared, as the hon member says, out of their wits because of this propaganda.

However, they are right to be frightened, because there are threats against South Africa. There is unrest in South Africa and there is an ineffective management of the economy in South Africa. We are actually deteriorating as a nation as a whole. They therefore have reason to be afraid.

The problem is that instead of offering a solution in terms of which the fear can be removed this Government can only offer an hon Minister of Law and Order who says: “I will give you physical protection.”

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question? I should like to ask the hon member if he is aware that the PFP issued a pamphlet saying: “Over how many dead bodies will you vote Nat? Apartheid promotes communism and extremism, apartheid promotes violence.” Who is trying to frighten whom? [Interjections.]

I happen to believe that apartheid does promote communism and I have a little more experience than the hon the Minister in fighting communism.

It is a filthy tactic.

No, I do not think so. Who started the propaganda about dead bodies? Who started the adverts mentioning dead bodies? I think the hon the Minister as an hon member of the NP has no right to protest now about the “dead bodies” advertisement. I did not draw it up but the whole “dead body” issue was started by the NP. [Interjections.] It is all right when the NP does it, but when somebody else does it, it is wrong.

I want to try to find out what the NP actually has in mind for South Africa. I want to ask the speaker who follows me—I do not know for certain who it is but I think it will be the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance—to tell us how he sees South Africa politically 10 and 20 years from now. How does he see South Africa? Let somebody in a position of authority in the NP tell us whether it will be a federal South Africa. How will political power be exercised? During the whole of the election campaign I could not find a single NP spokesman who could answer that question for me. Nobody on the NP side has a blueprint for the future of South Africa. We have a constitutional plan but they have nothing and they react ad hoc to situations.

That is why people are afraid and why they say out of fear that we should be physically protected for a while. This is because nobody in authority seems to have an answer. That is how the NP has bluffed the whole of South Africa.

I would now like to turn to the issue of the economy. The hon the Minister of Finance said he did not want to fight the election on economic issues and I do not blame him. With a record such as he had for the economic management of this country how could he fight the election on economic issues? We have the highest inflation rate and the highest unemployment rate ever. There is a lack of growth in South Africa and a lack of confidence among the business community of South Africa. These are all the ingredients of NP policy.

Now we have an upswing due to the gold price. This Government lives on external factors to try to save itself as the higher gold price can now try to save us. On the grounds of management, however, there is not a single example or iota of proof of good management insofar as our economy is concerned.

Given this situation I want to concentrate on a single vital aspect. Let us take for example the question of the regional services levies. I find it unbelievable that in this day and age one can introduce a new form of taxation without its having been referred to the Margo Commission. The report of the Margo Commission is still being kept under wraps and we are not allowed to see it. Now the regional services levy has been introduced.

I thought the maxim in regard to taxes was that they had to be fair, convenient and easy to collect. However, what do we have in South Africa at the moment with the regional services levy?

We have some calculations that have been made which the hon the Minister of Finance may dispute and tell us in what respect they are wrong, if he can.

The cost of collecting the regional services levy for the first year will amount to about 70% of the amount to be collected, if not more. Is that good business? Is that effective taxation? Up to 70% of the amount to be collected will be spent on the collection, because business has to have new organization within itself in order to deal with the payments and there has to be a whole set-up to collect it. How can one have a method of taxation where virtually three quarters of what is collected has to be spent on collecting the money?

Let me give you another example, Sir. As far as South Africa is concerned, the Government has said that we will have an approximately 3% growth in the gross domestic product this year. It has been calculated that about 9% of the increase in that domestic product will be spent on the administration of this tax. Can that be good economy or economic management? It cannot be; there is no sense in it.

Let me make another point, Sir. At a time when we have the highest unemployment rate in South Africa—we have had a report from a President’s Council committee confirming that—this Government decides that it will not encourage employment by tax incentives but rather discourage employment by making one pay a tax on the number of people one employs and the salaries one pays them. This is absolute idiocy. It is unbelievable that one can do such a thing.

Another example is that they tax turnover. They do not, in other words, tax profits. One can have a business showing a loss but because it has turnover one has to pay tax. That seems to me to be a new principle of taxation, and an utterly illogical one. I do not understand how a government with the slightest degree of sense can seek to introduce a method of taxation into our economy in this way.

We are being taxed on turnover. When one has competitive market conditions, the higher one’s turnover can be, the easier it is to employ the economies of scale and the lower the profit margins can be. Therefore one can actually help to fight inflation. These Government taxes are on turnover. In the case of a business with a low turnover and a big profit, one pays a lower tax in respect of the regional services levy than if one had a business making a small profit or no profit but with a big turnover. Where can the sense of this be?

I want to appeal to someone in authority in this House with the power to see reason and logic that we should say at this eleventh hour: Put an end to this madness, this regional services levy. Let us look at this thing again and have a fair and reasonable system of taxation in order to finance local government. We cannot go on with this madness which is now being foisted on South Africa.

Mr Chairman, for the last few days so little has been said about the economy that it would appear to me as if things are going well for us.

Firstly, I want to dwell for a moment on the scheme which the hon member for Randfontein proposed for Southland. I should like to know from him whether Dr Verwoerd would have agreed or would have had a policy such as the one he proposed yesterday in this House. Would Dr Verwoerd have agreed with what is being proposed here in terms of partition? I should like to know, because the hon member for Yeoville says that we have changed. At that time Dr Verwoerd had the concept of partition, but we have changed.

Yes.

The hon member for Pietersburg says yes. May I ask the hon member for Randfontein whether Dr Verwoerd’s idea was that of total partition. He says yes.

I shall give you a quotation to substantiate it.

Order! I appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister not to entice hon members into transgressing the rules of the House.

Sir, Dr Verwoerd was opposed to the idea of total partition. I worked for him in 1957 and in 1958 and later I worked for his chief adviser, Dr Stephan Viljoen and this morning early I spoke to him about this view of total partition.

Dr Chris du Plessis of the Reserve Bank and I drew up a total partition plan for Dr Verwoerd. So there was something of that nature. That plan for total partition was called the horseshoe approach. According to that plan the country was divided in two. I merely want to tell the hon members over there that Soutpansberg, Waterberg and Potgietersrus were all Black areas. The border, according to that plan, ran from Potchefstroom just above Pretoria, through Barberton down to just beyond Port Elizabeth and then on the left-hand side the border went as far as Mafikeng. Dr Verwoerd asked us to predict what the population pattern would be in the year 2000. According to that document it appeared that the population on the Black side—as we called it—would be 95% to 98% Black. It is interesting to note that we recommended in the report that the Coloureds be included in the White area in order to keep the numbers favourable.

When that document was presented to Dr Verwoerd he did not like it. He told us to take care that the English-language newspapers did not get hold of it. That total partition was not acceptable to Dr Verwoerd and that is why we compiled a subsequent report for him that was based on regional development. I am therefore telling the CP that what the hon member for Randfontein said here yesterday was not Dr Verwoerd’s policy.

I shall read out a quotation to you.

I can also provide hon members with a document. It was not Dr Verwoerd’s policy because it was completely unacceptable to him economically. That party is continuously propounding partition. I now want to ask the hon member for Brakpan, who is the spokesman on manpower, whether they have told the White workers of South Africa how much unemployment would be causeed here in their White South Africa if partition were applied.

Let me give a practical example. During Dr Verwoerd’s tenure, when we had begun to move the clothing industry to the national states, the clothing unions came to us and said that we could not do it because the White women in South Africa would become unemployed. Those hon members should go and tell their supporters how much unemployment there would be among Whites.

Let me mention another example.At the time, Dr Verwoerd began his brilliant Rosslyn Ga-Rankuwa scheme. I still remember the idea was that Black development would take place north of the Magaliesberg. What happened then? The Whites were drawn towards this development. Today there are Whites on both sides of the Magaliesberg, working at Rosslyn. I am mentioning this, because those hon members propound a policy of partition to people in the rural areas, since they think that that is the solution. Again yesterday we heard about Southland. Those hon members can go and ask their adviser, Dr Berkhout. He did not serve under the present hon State President, but under Dr Verwoerd and Mr Vorster. His main function under Dr Piet Riekert was to reduce the influx to the cities. There was a formula according to which labour was pegged, for example one White as opposed to two Blacks and so forth. It was his task to see to it that those permits were issued if someone wanted to employ more Blacks. Dr Berkhout did not succeed. Let him write an article in the Die Patriot or Die Afrikaner or whatever in order to furnish the reasons for that, because it was not in these days of liberal people, but when apartheid still had to be applied.

There is something else I want to say to the CP. It was said on the radio that the NP was socialistic. I think the hon member for Barberton said it. Am I right? Surely he repeated it here this morning. It is a party which states in its manifesto that it accepts as a premise that its general constitutional policy cannot serve purely economical and financial considerations. What does that mean? It means that the economy and finance are totally subservient to constitutional decisions, for according to the CP, 70% of the Blacks must of course be relocated within the following ten years. They say consolidation should occur quickly and that the Coloured homeland should be developed.

In the Financial Mail a CP spokesman said his party was not in favour of privatisation because only large companies were going to benefit from it. Subsequently the same person said that the CP was going to tax the large companies more heavily in order to ease the lot of the farmers and to enable them to increase public service salaries. In this way he glibly listed everything that was going to be done with the money. What is being proposed here is not even socialism, but national socialism. One might as well say that it is Nazism and hon members are free to look up the definition of that idealogy namely “the principle of command economy”. I can give many such definitions. The CP does not in fact have an economic policy.

The hon member said that the public servants’ increase was not high enough and that there should have been an adjustment for inflation, but what are the facts? Firstly I want to ask the hon member whether or not he is in favour of indexing. Sir, you said I was not allowed to put any questions, but I assume that the hon member is in favour of indexing. That would mean that one would not be able to combat inflation at all. One should take the difficult economic circumstances over the past four years into consideration, and I shall deal with them in due course. What does a 12,5% increase plus a notch increase, plus a post increase amount to? Does it not amount to approximately 18%, and what is the inflation rate? No, one should not play with figures if you do not furnish the all facts. The CP should take care not to bind themselves as a party to indexing.

And what about “fiscal drag”?

I am coming to that. I shall deal with inflation presently. I should now like discuss what the hon member and the hon member for Yeoville said. The Government’s economic policy over the past four years can be described as something similar to the Marshall Plan. These are not mere contentions because I have the facts at hand. This Government’s financial policy will be described in the annals of history as having been one of the best under extremely difficult circumstances.

At no stage did I hear the hon member for Yeoville saying anything about the decline in the prices of our most important export commodities for example. For interest’s sake I took a look at the Economist’s commodity index. In 1980 the metals index was 100; in February 1987 it stands at 67.

And the rand prices?

Yes, just wait. I am coming to that. In February the food price index dropped from 100 points to 79,7 points. That is, from 1980 until …

[Inaudible.]

I am coming to that. The hon member for Yeoville need not concern himself about that. [Interjections.] The decrease in this case was from 100 to 79,7. I now want to know from the hon member for Barberton what the price increase was of imported sprays was. What was the increase in the price of medicines? What was the increase in the price of tractors? This is something which is often discussed. What was the increase in the price of combine harvesters?

When we consider how the South African exchange rate has weakened over the last five years we surely cannot say that it can be attributed to apartheid. [Interjections.] It happened as a result of circumstances beyond South Africa’s control. [Interjections.] I need only refer to Australia as well. In Australia there is no apartheid. In recent times Australia’s real income per capita declined between 3% and 4%.

A labour government! [Interjections.]

I want to go further. Their gross domestic private investments have declined during the past few years. The shortfall on their current account is alarming. I can go further and …

[Inaudible.]

Wait, I have not finished yet. I could also refer to Argentina. The hon member for Yeoville will of course tell me that it is the heritage of the Péron regime. [Interjections.] No, Sir, we cannot escape the fact that we were also subject to forces outside this country against which our economy could do nothing. Take the price of maize for example. Surely no one can suggest that the world price of maize has dropped so much as a result of apartheid. There is of course the price of sugar as well. The most interesting thing of all is that this was not the only influence in the world which had an effect on us. Nor are we the only country in which such influences had an effect.

For example we could also take a look at America. What I find extremely surprising is that the real family income in America has declined since the oil crisis of 1973 and thereafter. In the period since 1973 the real income of 80% of American households has declined. Granted, the issue of productivity is indeed relevant here. So, too, is the issue of competition from the Far East. It is perhaps true that a shift has taken place in world trade; that activity has shifted to the Far East. That has of course had a disadvantageous effect on the West. In the same way that it put the West at a disadvantage it also put us at a disadvantage, due to our close connection with the European and American markets.

We can take the matter further. I know the hon member for Yeoville made fun of the following point, but I think the hon member for Barberton will agree with me here. The effect on our country of the drought in our rural areas over the past four years has still not been fully realised. We have examined a model used for the IMF. In accordance with that model we have suffered a loss of R20 billion over the past four years. The State lost approximately R1 billion per annum in taxes. On our gross domestic product we have suffered a real loss of approximately 4,7% per annum. The hon member for Barberton will agree with me here. It hurt our people.

Furthermore, we had to deal with political undercurrents which caused capital to flow out of the country. We were not as fortunate as Australia, which experienced an inflow of capital. We watched capital flowing out of the country—R3 billion within a period of 12, 15 months. For the past five or six years we have no longer been receiving any risk capital. That had a tremendous effect on us. Added to this we experienced the way in which circumstances in the world moved in the direction of floating exchange rates. We could do nothing about that. We could not really prevent it. The world tendency was in that direction. All of this made economic management virtually impossible. Because of the shocks which we experienced, our real income simply had to decline. There was no other way out. In the meantime, however, the population increased. The population figures have not declined. People wanted schools. They wanted roads. They wanted hospitals.

The hon member for Barberton quoted figures in order to substantiate his accusation that this Government was moving steadily in the direction of socialism because we were allegedly doing so much for the Blacks. In this regard there was indeed an increase of R600 million to R1,6 billion between 1981 and 1986.1 can furnish the figures in regard to the Whites as well. In the same period the amount increased from R2 billion to R4,9 billion.

We kept the country on the go with a fluctuating exchange rate and price increases in our imported goods of 50% within a few months and yet the hon member for Yeoville says we should have controlled inflation. I want to return to him. I have read some of his speeches. He is always saying, and did so again today, that there should be greater employment and that inflation should be combated. Both must happen simultaneously. I should like to know from him how he is going to combat inflation. He has never quite spelt it out to us. Is he going to apply wage and price control?

I made an entire speech on that, but you were not listening.

I was listening, but the hon member never got to the point. [Interjections.] Oh yes, he did say that State expenditure was too high, but the IMF has just released a report in which South Africa is classified right in the middle in the various countries’ state expenditures, expressed as a percentage of their GDP, is calculated. All the Western countries are considerably higher up on the list than we are. [Interjections.]

Ours has increased from 20% to 28%.

On the basis of those facts Nedbank came to the conclusion that South Africa’s State expenditure expressed as a percentage of its GDP was still quite acceptable, notwithstanding the homelands, the appointment of Deputy Ministers and Ministerial Representatives appointed etc, etc.

That is because we do not have decent welfare services, and you know it.

I shall touch on the matter concerning welfare services when we discuss the question of regional services councilsin due course. [Interjections.]

Order!

Although we have not recently had the normal real economic, growth the State expenditure had to increase, percentage-wise, because the needs which the State had to satisfy increased while its real income did not increase as rapidly. I think we have weathered these shocks brilliantly.

According to yesterday’s figures our inflation rate has decreased to 16,2% while our production index is declining and the price index of imported goods has declined to 5 or 6%. Furthermore, I do not think there will be any distortion in administered prices within the next year or two because we know, on the basis of the reports by Dr Wim de Villiers, that rationalisation is taking place at Escom. We are therefore managing to bring these expansions and requirements under control. Furthermore, Mr John Maree promised that Escom’s tariffs would not be increased by more than 10% this year. Furthermore the rand exchange rate is quite stable at the moment at approximately fifty American cents.

I also think that we are offering our businessmen stability. On those grounds I therefore do not foresee any major increase in our inflation rate. I believe that at the moment we are keeping the interest rates market-orientated and as far as that is concerned there should not be any major changes. Furthermore, I cannot believe that our country will experience a sixth year of drought. I therefore believe that we are going to have good harvests. As far as the reconstruction of agriculture is concerned I believe we will be able to put agriculture back on its feet. Agriculture will therefore not make such a large contribution to the inflation rate as has been the case over the past four years.

I want to come to the regional services councils to which the hon member for Yeoville also referred. Who is at the moment attacking the levies—not on the regional services councils themselves, because they have accepted them—of the regional services councils? Assocom. In 1985 they, like AHI and FCI, agreed to the implementation of the regional services councils. Nobody was dissatisfied. On the committee which discussed which levies were to be introduced the Assocom member, quite correctly, put forward a proposal. They suggested a kind of “piggyback” taxation system which would be coupled to GST. They also proposed an additional fuel levy, but towards the end they were in agreement with the two proposed forms of taxation.

I was opposed to the thing, right from the start, and you know it.

Let us take a broad view of these matters, because there is no point in looking at tham in a piecemeal way.

In the same document which he has and which I also read, mention is made of the total income as being R700 million. If one is to be honest who is going to pay half of that R700 million? The State because the State, like the private sector, is also being taxed. Now we have R350 million left. That R350 million …

If the State pays it it is the taxpayer that pays.

Order! I cannot allow the hon member for Yeoville to keep on commenting on everything that the hon the Deputy Minister is saying. The hon member for Yeoville has had his turn to speak. No doubt he will have further opportunities to reply to the hon the Deputy Minister in future debates. I cannot allow the hon member for Yeoville to keep up a running commentary on what is being said. The hon the Deputy Minister may continue.

Furthermore, it can also be deducted from income tax. That is a further point. Another aspect is that licences are no longer payable nor are transport levies. I agree with the hon member that the costs will be high in the first year.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether the State is paying a portion of the regional services and turnover levies or both of them? If they are paying them, where does the State get the money from if not from the taxpayer? One is actually raising it from the taxpayer both ways.

The State should in either event subsidise local government. In any event it has to subsidise the losses incurred in the transportation of Black workers. To a certain extent we are dealing with a transfer of costs. The point that I am making is that we are now enabling a region to collect its own revenue and empowering it to spend it as that region sees fit.

There is nothing wrong with pay-roll tax. I glanced briefly at the various pay-roll percentages of various countries’s GDP: Sweden, 15,7%; the Netherlands, 20,2%; and France, 20,9%. The reason that they give is that pay-roll tax is one of the simplest of taxes. They realise the disadvantages attached to it, but say nevertheless that it is one of the simplest taxes which exists at present with which to acquire revenue.

I agree with the hon member who says that it is going to be difficult to implement it in one year. We and the community are, however, going to be thankful for the funds. I ask for everyone’s co-operation in order to make a success of this venture.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry the hon the Minister of National Education is not here because he raised the question of removing Zulu citizenship from those 6 million people without their approval. I wonder whether the hon the Deputy Minister who has just spoken, who comes from the Transvaal, will tell us whether it is the intention of the NP to remove the citizenship of the kwaNdebele people without their approval. Is the NP going to hold a referendum in that area before forcing independence upon them? He does not know. Perhaps the hon the Minister of Law and Order who is very involved in kwaNdebele at the present time can tell us whether he thinks NP policy is to hold a referendum in kwaNdebele before independence is given to those people. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may not answer now. The hon member may continue.

I believe that subject is within the rules of this debate.

Perhaps Pietie will know.

Pietie will know.

Order! It is not in order for members to put questions in the course of their speeches and expect immediate replies from members on the other side.

I was not aware of that rule. I thought I could do so as long as I was within the rules.

I must say the hon the Minister of National Education was much more realistic in dealing with the CP than the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the performance that we had from him yesterday afternoon. It was a performance par excellence. He had the backbenchers of that party rolling about in the aisles even though he was certainly not very realistic. I am glad the hon the Minister of National Education is back here with us in the Chamber because his approach to the CP was much more realistic today than the approach of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs yesterday afternoon who poked fun at the CP.

I say that the CP must be taken seriously, because they have Verwoerdian zeal in their eyes. They mean business. [Interjections.] There are members of the AWB sitting in those benches, and we know they are committed to violence if they do not get their way. [Interjections.] This is a very serious matter indeed. We know that the now hon Leader of the Official Opposition said in this House some years ago, “Ons sal dit nie vat nie.” These are not matters to be made fun of. [Interjections.] I am telling the NP to stop laughing at the CP. The NP had better get their act together, otherwise they will be sitting in the opposition benches after the next election and the CP will be sitting on the Government side. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I think the hon member mentioned that there are hon members in the CP who are committed to violence. Is he entitled to make such a statement?

Order! I did not hear the hon member for Johannesburg North make such a statement. Is he able to enlighten me on that point?

Sir, I said that there were hon members of this House who were members of the AWB, and that that organisation is committed to violence ultimately if they did not get their way. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, that is an insinuation that our party is committed to violence. [Interjections.]

Order! I interpret the statements implying that members of the AWB are committed to violence, and that if there were members of the AWB who were also hon members of this House, those hon members would be committed to violence.

Are there such members?

Order! I am not informed as to whether there are members of the AWB in this House. The hon member may continue.

The hon the Minister of National Education said that it was not true that NP propaganda had had an effect on the fortunes of the PFP in the recent general election. That is simply not true, because it was the misuse of the SATV which prevented us from putting our side of the story adequately, and I wish to devote a few moments of my time to the South African television services. I want to show that they became an agent for the NP and, in fact, an integral part of the NP campaign.

On 8 February there was a report in The Sunday Star of a Press conference addressed by Mr Riaan Eksteen and Mr Sakkie Burger of the SABC. According to the report they said the following:

I wish it had been so! One wishes that they had adhered to the principle contained in this important statement of all parties having ample time to put their views. We would have liked the SABC to have allocated equal time to the parties, as the BBC is doing during the general election campaign which is presently taking place in Britain. However, equal time itself is not the issue but rather the selection and presentation of news and views.

The hon member for Umlazi mentioned here on Wednesday that we could have bought time if we had not been able to present our views adequately. That is a fatuous statement, because he knows very well that we are not able to buy time. We have no facility at all for putting our point of view in our own way on the SATV. We would prefer to present our point of view in our own way rather than having the NP’s agents at the SABC presenting PFP policies and strategies as they perceive them to be.

What actually happened during the election campaign? Let us start at the beginning. Hon members will remember that there was a programme on which the hon member Prof Olivier appeared with Mr Horace van Rensburg, and there was a dialogue between the two of them. That was good, rivetting television, but when did we see a programme involving the hon member for Randburg and the leader of the NP in Transvaal, the hon the Minister of National Education? Why did we not have a programme like that? When did we see a programme with the former ambassador to London, Dr Worrall, and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the dispute between them? [Interjections.]

In an interview with The Sunday Star of 15 February, Mr Sakkie Burger let the cat out of the bag: He said:

Understandably!

The leader of the NP in the Transvaal decided that the NP would not debate the issues on television, and that was that. It was as easy as that.

While on the subject of the hon member for Randburg, one must refer to that infamous interview which caused such outrage and offence. Mr Kobus Hamman of the SABC admitted that there was a thin dividing line between a penetrating interview and interviews which gave offence. It did not cause outrage and offence because the hon member for Randburg was interviewed vigorously.

It was simply that that style was not pursued when dealing with any other member of the public or any other candidate or, in particular, any member of the NP. That approach was not applied consistently. In The Argus of 13 March Mr Anthony Doman said:

That was the pattern of the SABC presentations during this election.

I want to take a further example of SABC bias. During the early part of the campaign there was a stream of defections from the NP by academicians, businessmen, leading personalities and sportsmen. All of that was glossed over by the television services.

Let us take one example: Let us assume that Carel Du Plessis, Boland Coetzee and Naas Botha had announced that they were going to support the NP rather than that they had moved away from the NP. Can the hon members imagine what would have happened if Naas Botha had said that he was going to support the NP? That would have been major news and would have been blown up out of all proportion.

Let us look at the position of Prof Sampie Terblanche. I quote:

It was quite acceptable for 15 years while Prof Sampie Terblanche was a leading member of the NP, that he could remain a member of the board, for five years as vice-chairman. [Interjections.] As soon as he moved out of the NP he was dropped, without a ’phone call or a letter to advise him that his services as a member and as vice-chairman were no longer required. He was simply dropped. However, his successor is equally involved in politics. Prof Christo Viljoen at the time of his appointment chaired a meeting at Stellenbosch at which NP policy was propagated.

What about all the leaks to the various newspapers concerning dissatisfaction of individuals at what was seen to be an unashamed attempt by NP supporters in senior positions in the SABC to harness the corporation for an all out assault on voters?

The following report about a letter to this effect appeared in the Sunday Times of 22 March:

A major part of the PFP campaign was the meeting which was addressed by Chief Buthelezi at Westville on the Monday night before the election. The SABC pays regular attention to his views, but on this occasion— because it suited the NP—his views were excluded from all television interviews. They were completely ignored.

I have a number of other examples which I am afraid time does not allow me to give, but I believe that the SABC relentlessly pursued a policy of promoting the NP during the campaign. [Interjections.] It was a disgraceful act of treachery as they misused their position of public trust to promote the narrow sectionalism of one party. If a Minister raised an issue, this became the focal point for questions to opposition parties the following day, and this was never used to put Ministers on the spot.

I say that the SABC misused their position of public trust and they deserve to be condemned for the scandalous way in which they did that during this campaign.

Mr Chairman, to begin with I want to quote something, but I want to make it quite clear that I am not trying to be derogatory to Genl Smuts in the process. I merely want to demonstrate what we as an NP Government have inherited from a non-NP Government.

I am referring to an interview that Radio South Africa had with Mr T C Robertson about the war years. As we know, Mr T C Robertson was a confidante of Genl Smuts and co-operated closely with him. My time is very limited, but in the first place he pointed out that Mr Louis Esselen, who, of course, was Genl Smuts’s best friend, decided that a secret transmitter should be erected with a view to forceful war propaganda. Unfortunately I cannot read all of this, but he said inter alia:

Here comes the point:

I continue:

He then told how they had switched from this transmitter to a mobile transmitter. They did not listen to what Genl Smuts said in any case. [Interjections.]

†Having read that, I want to say to the hon member for Johannesburg North: Cowboys don’t cry. [Interjections.] But then, of course, the hon member does not measure up to a cowboy. [Interjections.] Politically speaking, at most he is a Sancho Panza on an emaciated donkey.

You are a disgrace!

Well, you are a Sancho Panza! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it in order for a Minister to call a member on this side a Sancho Panza?

Quite frankly, I do not know what the reference to Sancho Panza means. I cannot rule on that, but I do know what a disgrace is, and the hon member for Johannesburg North must withdraw his remark that the hon the Minister is a disgrace. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister called me a coward.

I did not hear the hon the Minister calling the hon member a coward.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask the hon the Minister what he meant when he called the hon member a Sancho Panza? I also ask you, Sir, to ask the hon members on the other side of the House whether any of them did call the hon member for Johannesburg North a coward.

Order! Can the hon the Minister tell me what he meant by calling the hon member a Sancho Panza?

Mr Chairman, I am terribly disturbed about the lack of knowledge of the classical works on the opposite side. [Interjections.] Sancho Panza was Don Quixote’s attendant and he was an honourable person. He was merely very stupid, [interjections.]

Order! Did any hon member on the right hand side of the House refer to another hon member as a ‘coward’?

†I did not hear such a reference. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, I reject with contempt any suggestion that the SABC was prejudiced during this election. [Interjections.] I have always found in this House that the hon members of the CP agree wholeheartedly with the hon members of the PFP, except—I wanted to express my thanks for this immediately—for the hon leader of the CP, because during his recent meeting at Kroonstad he said a number of very fine things about the SABC. Apparently he does not agree with some of his members.

I do not have much time left, because a lot of my time has been wasted, but in the first place I do want to give the House a few figures. To my surprise the hon member for Johannesburg North, who has just left, did not fling their so-called analysis by the University of Rhodes at me. I shall give you the figures for the period 1 January 1987 to 5 May 1987. The time given to the parties in the pre-election coverage was as follows: During that period the NP—and we must remember that the NP received approximately 52% of the votes [Interjections.]—received 40% of the time, the PFP, which was still the Official Opposition, received 21% of the time, the NRP 5,5%, the CP 19%, the HNP 6,5% …

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

I am not going to answer any questions, Mr Chairman. I have no time left.

* … the Independents 8,5%, and this makes up a total of 100%.

Let us also take a look at the time spent on giving the leaders of the respective parties an opportunity to speak. This was a percentage of the time granted to the parties as a whole. The NP’s leader was granted only 11,3% of his party’s time. The PFP’s leader was granted 19,2%; the NRP’s leader, 49,6%; the CP’s leader, 24,4%; the HNP’s leader, 44,2%; and the Independents, 38,2%. Does this look as though a single party was favoured? Of course not. [Interjections.]

It was an unequal allocation; any party could have won. [Interjections.]

I shall deal with the hon member later. I think he should sit still for a moment. [Interjections.] I say a fair amount of time was granted to each of the parties. [Interjections.]

Now we come to the question of direct debating. I should love to permit that. People pleaded that things would liven up considerably if there were direct debating. [Interjections.] I would not mind if all the parties agreed to consider implementing something of this kind in future. Do hon members know what the result of that would be, however?

The NP would lose! [Interjections.]

The result would be that these clever parties sitting here in front of me would say: “Yes, but the SABC interviewer was prejudiced” and the whole business would simply begin again. [Interjections.]

Not only was a fair amount of time granted to the parties to say their say during the recent election period, but they could say what they wanted to in the time at their disposal. The hon leader of the PFP said sweeping things about his party’s standpoint. He insulted the governing party, and I have no objection to that. What I do object to is his accusation that they did not have a chance to say their say in full. [Interjections.]

A further attack was aimed at the composition of the board. I am very satisfied that a strong and well-balanced board was appointed, and I maintained the norm that none of the board members should have a high political profile. [Interjections.] I did not appoint jelly babies, however. I have no objection to anyone’s belonging to a party, nor even to his serving in the party’s management or serving as a chairman of a closed meeting. It is something quite different, however, if someone launches a whole new direction in politics and advocates it strongly. [Interjections.] Then he has a political profile. What is more, I went out of my way not to appoint a single hon Member of Parliament or a member of the President’s Council.

The greatest brouhaha of the election arose when the hon member of the PFP, who is smiling so broadly, said the SABC was diabolical, and I reacted to his statement. A terrible fuss was made about the reasons for my attacking him. I gave reasons for his party’s failure, whereas he said it was the diabolical SABC that had prevented them from attaining success.

The Financial Mail of 15 May 1987, which is the mouthpiece of that party, agreed with me too. I quote:

†That is the Financial Mail. But it goes further:

We must therefore thank the hon member for Houghton, and we must thank her for that loving hug she gave to Winnie Mandela.

In an article written by John McLennan in the Sunday Tribune of 10 May 1987, he says:

*There one has the reasons for the PFP’s failure, given by their own sources. The hon leader of the PFP was rejected for these reasons. Politically speaking he was appointed a failure. His party came off badly. Now, like a great hero and a martyr, he and others are blaming the “diabolical television” for their miserable performance.

Every member of the opposition agrees with us.

Yes, I take it every member of the Opposition agrees with the reasons I have quoted here for the PFP’s failure.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, before business was suspended we were listening to the hon the Minister in the Office of the State President entrusted with Administration and Broadcasting Services who was trying to justify the Government’s utilisation of radio and television for its own election purposes. The hon the Minister reminded me of what an African leader once said that every man should be free to do what he wants to, and if he does not, he should be forced to. [Interjections.] We in South Africa are free to listen to what the Government thinks we want to hear.

I want to tell the House that the culmination of the whole utilisation of radio and television during the election campaign took place the evening the hon Minister felt the SABC people were not good enough to put the CP policy in a poor enough light, and he himself got onto the platform to state the CP’s policy. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon the Minister that he eclipsed even Sancho Panza that evening. [Interjections.]

We listened to the hon the Leader of the House this morning, and I want to congratulate him on his performance. He did this morning what was always done by Sir de Villiers Graaff, when he sat here as the Leader of the Opposition, and those who followed him, by explaining that we must accept that integration, and not separate development, is the answer. I want to congratulate him on having done this better than his predecessors did.

I think the climax of dramatic acting took place when the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs entered the debate yesterday afternoon. I should like to know how many man-days of his department were necessary to look up all the old files and newspapers from days of yore to get excerpts of statements made by the hon member for Randfontein. [Interjections.]

I want to tell hon members that if we want to quote statements from the Government’s past when they expressed the direct opposite of what they are saying now, we would keep the House busy for ten years. [Interjections.]

Order! I regret having to interrupt the hon member, but he must please resume his seat. If I remember correctly, the hon member for Johannesburg North withdrew from the House when he did not want to withdraw a remark. Is that correct?

Yes, Sir.

Did the hon member refuse to withdraw his remark?

Sir, I have discussed the matter with the Deputy Chairman, who said he would listen to the tape, discuss it with Mr Speaker and then give a ruling.

Order! I am not quite certain of that but I think until such time the hon member must leave the Chamber.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on a point of order? I understand that the hon member actually left the House before the Chairman even had the opportunity of either ejecting him or not. Therefore one sought clarification with the person concerned as to whether the hon member had actually been ejected. The fact is that he was not told by the Chairman on that occasion to leave the precincts of the House and neither did the Sergeant-at-Arms seek to see him. If it is acceptable, the hon member is prepared to withdraw the remark that he made.

Order! The hon member must then withdraw it.

I apologise, Mr Chairman. It was a misunderstanding on my part. I withdraw that remark.

I regret having had to interrupt the hon member. Unfortunately I had no choice. The hon member for Lichtenburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, we can quote statements made by the Government, and which are the direct opposite of what it is doing now, for ten years. To my mind one of the best ones was made by the hon the Minister of Development and Planning when he said South Africa would be destroyed if Blacks became part of the envisaged new constitutional dispensation. That is exactly what the Government wants to do now. It wants to destroy South Africa by bringing Blacks into the political system.

There is another example. The NP has always proclaimed that power-sharing leads to power struggle and bloodshed. This has been proclaimed from platforms and from everywhere else. Now the Government has begun to apply power-sharing and there is a power struggle in South Africa. The power struggle is raging in the Black residential areas among the revolutionaries, the ANC, the UDF and the moderate Blacks. There is bloodshed and gradually South Africa is being razed to the ground as a result of the power-sharing. The Government predicted that this would happen and yet it is responsible for this. We are seeing the results the Government predicted. That is why the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs … [Interjections.]

They are powerless; they cannot fight the CP’s policy, because they know they cannot. When they talk about their own policy, they disintegrate. That is why they cannot talk about their own policy. We had the serious phenomenon yesterday of the hon the Minister’s attacking the man himself. He was trying to destroy the hon member for Randfontein personally, because he knows they cannot destroy the ideology for which the hon member for Randfontein and the CP stand. No one can destroy it. The hon the Minister said that ideology was dead. [Interjections.]

Order! We cannot go on in this way. The hon member must be given the opportunity to complete his speech. I request hon members to lower their voices. The hon member may proceed.

That hon Minister said the ideology and the policy we stand for, was dead. I tell him it is more alive than ever before. The proof for this is that KwaNdbele is applying for independence once again. This is proof that freedom, self-determination and sovereignty for peoples is the answer for the separate peoples in South Africa.

They are powerless against that ideology, because there is a legitimacy in South African politics, which means that one cannot suppress nationalism. It can have a temporary set-back, like when the NP, the formal exponent of nationalism, exchanged it for liberalism. One cannot suppress it permanently, however. Nationalism has risen again, has once again created a home and built up a battlefront in the CP, which is continuing to proclaim true and sound nationalism in South Africa. That is why this Government is working out its notice. They are in exactly the same position as the United Party was in 1943, viz that of winning a great victory and then sitting in the opposition benches after the next election. They look exactly like the UP looked then. They have the same composition. Where are all the old UP supporters and NRPs today? There they are. The opposite side of the House is riddled with them. [Interjections.] There is another one talking. [Interjections.] No, sit down! I am grateful to the hon member for rising to show us what the old UP supporters looked like. The other UP supporters can also rise to try to put questions to me.

The NP has taken them all. Only the hon member for Mooi River is left. Now those old UP supporters and NRPs are helping them to steal the PFP’s policy. They are also helping them to take their people. The people are moving away from the PFP to them. The conservative people are moving away from them to us. The point is that the little bucket with which they are drawing from the PFP, is emptying. A large source is coming to the CP from the NP. The turning point in South African politics has arrived. That is undeniably true. The 1981 voice of protest is now the Official Opposition in this House of Assembly.

That party is in a vice, because if it proceeds with its reform policy, the voters swing to the right, to the CP, and if it does what the hon the State President wants to do, viz to try to get the 600 000 CP supporters back first, the left wing of the NP becomes troubled. That is why that party has a split personality and is actually made up of two parties. They say the voters expressed their confidence in the NP, but I want to know in which NP? Speaking through the hon the State President during the election campaign at Lichtenburg, the NP made certain statements about agriculture and promised the farmers that wonderful things would happen. The farmers had just started to believe this, when three days later they read in a newspaper:

It was “only a possibility”—that is the most of which the NP is capable.

Promises.

They make promises and in the meantime they are applying a policy which has harmed agriculture in the northern provinces to such an extent that three quarters of the farmers will never be able to recover. I want to know in which NP confidence was expressed. The one that says the gap between the First and the Third Worlds must be narrowed, retaining civilised standards, or the one that continues with radical redistribution of revenue? It is so bad that the President of the Reserve Bank said yesterday that the State’s expenditure during the first month of this financial year, viz April, was 30,7% higher than in April last year. He said the deficit before loans was R2,59 billion. That is the result of the redistribution of revenue. That is what one gets when the Government tries to buy peace, because the more it pays for peace, the more peace evades it and the more it loses control of State spending. The more they try to buy peace in future, the worse South Africa’s predicament will become.

In which NP was confidence expressed? In the NP which says the principles of the Group Areas Act must be maintained or the one that says this Act should be abolished?

Where are your glasses?

They are here. I see very well. Was this confidence expressed in the NP which says democracy should be broadened, but abolishes the democratic elected provincial councils at the same time? And then they appoint Mr John Mavuso, a former ANC member, to the executive committee of the Transvaal. He says he has not changed, he is still exactly the same person he was when he was charged with high treason and was a member of the ANC’s executive committee.

Was this confidence expressed in the NP which says an own community life must be maintained or in the one which said the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Population Registration Act should be abolished?

I want to know whether this confidence was expressed in the NP which says it is still on the same course or the NP of the Deputy Minister who says they have taken over the NRP’s policy in full and that he is proud of having done so. That is his achievement after two and a half years in the NP.

Is it the NP which says the Natal Indaba does not protect minority rights or is it the NP of the Minister of Foreign Affairs who says:

“Fully supports”, Sir. Not certain aspects—

You are being wilful.

That is not being wilful. If words have meaning, what do these words mean? [Interjections.]

Once again I want to know in which NP confidence was expressed. The one that says it wants to negotiate with the ANC if it denounces violence or the one that says that without the ANC, no solution can be found in South Africa.

Under NP policy, therefore, South Africa has two options: A South Africa under an unarmed ANC or a South Africa under an armed ANC. These are the options South Africa has under the NP policy.

We now come to the question of the mandate the Government requested. We heard that in his opening speech, the hon the State President would interpret the mandate and make a fundamental speech so that South Africa would know exactly where it stood. Mr Chairman, you will remember that on 31 December last year, the hon the State President also said that he would spell out to South Africa exactly what this mandate he intended requesting would be. What do we read in the hon the State President’s opening speech, however? It says that future political developments will be based on group interests. There is nothing new in that. We have heard it before; in the meantime the Goverment has not been implementing it, and is not doing anything to protect group interests. The hon the State President also said a national council would be established. That was raised a long time ago, and there is nothing new in that either. In the third place the hon the State President said he himself was going to enter the negotiations. I now ask whether the hon the State President went to the electorate to get a mandate to assist or to replace the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning as the negotiator! Is that the total mandate which was the issue of this whole election? In reality, the Government did not know what mandate it was requesting; nor does it know now what mandate it has received. In truth the Government has received no mandate. The Government told the voters that they should simply vote, then the Government would negotiate a little and return to the electorate later to approve the final arrangements. When the Government announced that it would go back to the electorate, it conceded that it had no mandate. That is why we cannot wait for the 1989 election. The CP is going to force it, as it forced this election. We must get rid of this Government! [Interjections.]

In this whole question of the mandate the Government has requested, the obvious question is: How are the minorities’ rights going to be protected? We hear from the Government members that they are going to have a unique formula for the protection of the minorities. The hon the Minister of National Education said this morning that it would be a mechanism which one would not be able to manipulate. That mechanism has not been shown to the people yet, however.

The only man who did say something about the NP’s policy in this debate, was the Minister of the Budget and Welfare. He was the only one who said anything in that direction. And he gave us an indication—the only indication we have had—that justice and the courts would protect the minorities. Justice is being torn apart and confetti is being made of it, but the courts can do nothing about it. We know that this has happened in South Africa. The hon the Minister gave us a vision—the same vision his friends, the Independents, have seen—and he said “partnership”. Partnership is the solution.

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said the CP’s ideology was dead, but I tell him the partnership ideology was dead and buried the day Sir Roy Welensky left the political scene. Now the NP wants to present us with that old obsolete concept which could not work anywhere and could not protect any minorities. The harsh fact is that those hon members say science has developed to such an extent that, since people can now land on the moon, they will also be able to develop a mechanism to protect minorities in a system of political integration and power-sharing. I can tell you, Mr Chairman, science has not developed to that extent. There is no such mechanism. Even if one were to stand on one’s head, one would not find it. The only existing mechanism is the CP mechanism.

What the NP wants from the voters comes down to this in practical terms: Give me a mandate to cut off your head and I promise you you will not die. The NP says that thus far all the people whose heads have been cut off have died, but it is going to find a unique formula to prevent a person from dying between now and when his head has been cut off. Nevertheless the NP expects the electorate to give their permission for this.

That is why I say they can appeal to science or to anything else. No formula exists. There is no precedent in the world in which, in a system of power-sharing, at least 20 million Blacks can be brought into the same dispensation with five million Whites and they can still be protected, except if one were to decide to cheat them. And how long is the National Party going to manage that? How long are they going to succeed in doing that? This cannot last even a year. That is why I say the only mechanism by which minorities can be protected, is the mechanism of the CP policy—the policy of partition, of international boundaries, in which each people has its own state in which it is sovereign, in which it alone decides without the interference of anyone else. That is the only mechanism by which minorities can be protected. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, Dr Marais, must stop making so many interjections.

That is the only mechanism by which minorities can be protected. Compared to these two National Parties in front of us, which look like the United Party of 1943—only much worse … Then it was one party which formed the Government. Now there are three parties which form the Government, three parties which are all disintegrating. The greatest alliance in South African politics today is that of the left wing and the right wing of the National Party. This is the greatest alliance in South African politics today. The recent election proved to us that alliances do not work. Alliances do not work in South Africa.

Compared to this, the Conservative Party is a strong unit—of one mind and one heart, amalgamated under one policy—a partition policy. [Interjections.] Strongly linked, Sir! [Interjections.] I must say we found the recent election a most difficult one to conduct. We fought under very difficult conditions. The election gave us one fantastic opportunity, however. This was the opportunity by which the Conservative Party could prove that nothing can throw it off its stride. [Interjections.] The Conservative Party does not allow anything to put it off.

We had problems between the CP and the HNP which are both right-wing parties. The hon the Leader of the House himself said the right-wing people were going to insist upon it and exert pressure to bring about right-wing unity. This was what happened. The people wanted to bring about right-wing unity. We negotiated with the HNP in all fairness. [Interjections.] We were not prepared, however, to conclude an unfair agreement with the HNP. We were not prepared to have our own people force us into an unfair dispensation. The CP kept calm throughout and said that what was fair and just would be done; otherwise nothing would happen. That problem was solved in the hard way. The problem has been resolved. We now have unity in the Conservative Party, and the beginning of the end of the National Party is approaching. [Interjections.]

That problem has been resolved, and in doing that the Conservative Party has proved that it does not allow others to prescribe to it; that it does not allow others to put it off. Of course, that is very different from the National Party, from whom we heard once again only this morning how terrible world pressure upon us is and that that is why we must take notice of world pressure. The National Party has allowed the liberalists to delude it into believing that separate development no longer works. I believe that a false illusion has caused them to jump from the frying-pan into the fire. Ambassador Douglas Holloway, the director of the Office of Public Diplomacy for South Africa, wrote in a publication, Africa Report, that they were trying to exert pressure on South Africa. He wrote the following:

The Americans themselves say their influence amounts to 2%. When the National Party listens to them, however, it sounds as if their influence amounts to 98%. Many of those hon members on the opposite side believe it does amount to 98%. The hon the Minister of the Budget is one of those who believes this and who has already jumped into the abyss. He is on his way to the bottom. That is why I say the National Party has allowed itself to be talked into something that was completely unnecessary. Now they are asking us what partition is. I tell them partition is the policy of separate development, which they abandoned when it was succeeding. That is the policy of partition, the policy of the Conservative Party, which we are going to apply. The Conservative Party’s partition policy, which will establish states for every people, represents the only way in which there can be peace and co-operation between the separate peoples.

That is the only way in which one can deal with joint affairs without anyone’s being dominated by anyone else. One does this on a voluntary basis and if the agreement does not suit someone, no one is bound to conclude it. In a system of power-sharing, which the NP advocates, the minority will necessarily have to yield to the majority, which is what our ambassador told the American President recently when he said politics would be based on majority consensus. Partition or separate states for the separate peoples is the only prerequisite for peace and co-operation. It creates the foundation for South Africa’s economic recovery. Only partition can uplift all peoples and people. Hon members of the NP ask us where the country of the White people is. Surely they know where the Black states are. We pointed out where the Coloureds territory would be.

Where?

It is because they are deaf and blind that they do not understand this. We pointed it out to them and we said White South Africa was that part of South Africa which would remain once those areas had been omitted. We did not steal that land. Our forefathers obtained it in an honourable way. Our history is different from that of the Americans. We did not take anyone’s land. We, and all other hon members who are sitting here, are Africa’s White children, and this is where we belong. Our presence in Africa has not been to the detriment of the Black children in Africa; on the contrary, it has brought about a better life for them. That is why we tell the Government it is no longer talking on behalf of the White children of Africa. We are talking on behalf of the White children of Africa, and we have no less a right than the Black children of Africa do. If the Black children of Africa each have a right to an own country and an own place, so do we. Our land is there, and we know where it is, and if the NP no longer knows, we are sorry they do not.

We are going to restore that land of ours, and in the process there can be better consolidation of the other states’ land. We have also said how this can take place and that we are going to carry out the partition policy from where the NP abandoned it. When they got cold feet, South Africa was making a breakthrough with that policy. The liberalists of the world convinced the Government, however, to abandon the policy. It is true that when the so-called homeland policy was first implemented in 1951, only 33% of the Blacks lived in their areas. In 1978, 27 years later, 52% of the Blacks were in their own areas. The progress made in 27 years was 19%.

With the cumulative experience of three centuries, this policy can be accelerated and implemented. We have worked out our strategy, and how we shall apply it in practice, in full. The natural forces that are working in South Africa indicate that the people all want their own fatherlands. Everyone wants a country in which he will be governed by himself and in which he is sovereign. Surely it is true that we have been successful and that we were on the point of stabilizing the number of Blacks in South Africa when the Government began to discover the slaughtering places and the sacred cows. The CP says it is true that half of the Blacks lived in their own states in 1980, and half of them in our country. It is also true that an overwhelming number of Zulus live in kwaZulu; there is no significant number of Xhosas or other people in that country. It is true that an overwhelming number of Vendas live in Venda. This applies to every Black state and there was no law which said they should live there. Natural forces and the desire of man to be in his own country and associate with his own people led to this. It is those natural forces that the CP is going to utilise to carry out that policy. In addition it is true that half of the 50% of Blacks who live here in White South Africa, live in districts which border directly on their states. In the first place a man chooses to live in his own country, and if he cannot make a living there, he lives as close as possible to that country. The CP is going to utilise those forces in a purposeful, sophisticated and modernised way, to revive the policy of separate development. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it was very interesting to listen to the hon member for Lichtenburg. I should like at the outset to make an admission. The hon member was correct in one respect although his timing was out. It is true that there was a time when the NP was split. This is true and I want to admit it but it was terminated when the hon member and his fellow party members left. [Interjections.] Since that time the NP represents the thinking of the entire party.

I wish to make a second comment regarding the hon member for Lichtenburg, which is to suggest that he is exhibiting a sensitivity in this debate which is quite amusing and which is evidenced by the debate which has taken place over the past three days. I want to ask the hon member why he comes here with half-truths. The hon member knows that the statement he ascribed to me on Black participation in this constitutional dispensation is incorrect. It is recorded in Hansard as being incorrect. In spite of that the hon member arrives here to disseminate an untruth!

In the second place we should listen to what the hon member said. He said we had been in the process of succeeding in population establishment from 1951 to 1978 to the extent that 52% of Black people were established in national or independent states at that time. The hon member suppressed, however, that those percentages were achieved by moving boundaries and not people. [Interjections.]

Now you are disseminating a half-truth.

It is untrue.

Yes, it is true. All I am saying is that the hon member should confine himself to facts in the debates here.

I now want to put another question to him. Why was the hon member the chairman of a committee conducting an inquiry into the linking-up policy and then came back and said it could not work?

I did not say that.

Oh yes, Sir.

I said it could work.

The hon member appealed for the institution of a system of second or secondary citizenship.

Oh no.

Yes, Sir, this is how it is recorded in his report.

I said linking could not work.

I did not interrupt the hon member. The basic reason for the inquiry was that no relationship existed between the urban Black people and the national and independent states. That was the essence of the matter. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to proceed and say it was very interesting and an experience to observe the development of this debate and be able to participate in it. What occurred here in the debate itself was very interesting.

When we listened to the Opposition speakers, one obvious characteristic was actually that, whereas the CP was embarrassed about its new role as the Official Opposition and did not know exactly how to handle it, especially in the light of the hon member for Overvaal’s conduct, the PFP was equally uncomfortable about the fact that it was no longer the Official Opposition.

The CP and the hon member for Lichtenburg exhibited definite sensitivity in this regard. I do not think they know what has really hit them in this debate. If one may use the jargon of the boxing ring, it is a fact that the NP had them so punch-drunk with hooks and blows that they collapsed on the boards.

That is what you looked like at 3 o’clock in the morning of 7 May.

This was the case to such an extent that one of them complained that the Nationalists had put them in the dock.

That is not true!

Of course it is true because that is patently where they belong. They belong there in consequence of their utterances and the methods they employ during elections. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sea Point is not present at the moment but the PFP arrived here in a daze. The hon member for Sea Point went from one election platform to another and said that there would be a complete landslide. He little knows how right that was. This actually happened!

In Helderberg?

No, Helderberg is represented here but where are Sunnyside and Jeppe?

Jeppe is 27 times larger than Helderberg.

Jeppe, from where they fled. What happened was that a landslide did take place there. Tons of rocks struck the PFP, however. I think they will definitely not emerge from that daze again; I do not think they will regain their consciousness.

What really happened in the election? What was the actual verdict of the voters on 6 May?

Thirty nine!

The only reason why 39 is significant to me is that I had hoped never to have anything in common with the hon member for Green Point, the hon member of orgy fame, but now I have. [Interjections.]

What happened first was that the former Official Opposition was rejected by the voters in the clearest possible terms. To them 6 May was the beginning of the end because on that day the voters said they were finished with people who made an orgy of a military parade. They were finished with people who lovingly embraced others who said, “Bring your matches, bring your tyres so that we may use them for the sake of liberation.” They also said they were tired of people who stood with clenched fists in the company of people who preached violence and wanted to destroy the system in which we live.

Who did that?

This applies especially to the hon member for Greytown.

Which of those people did that?

It is a further fact that the Afrikaans-speaking people rejected the PFP long ago. Now the English-speaking section of the country has also done so in unambiguous terms.

That is the significance of 6 May and I want to say immediately I have no sympathy with the old Official Opposition. They got what they deserved and the CP is the Official Opposition now merely because there is no other Opposition. That is the only reason and I shall deal with this briefly. In three of the four provinces this radical rightist party has no representation whatsoever. That is a fact but they are presumptuous enough to say they will win the election against the NP. [Interjections.] This is the proof that this provincial phenomenon which is called the CP half stunned itself on the boards of the boxing ring. It was seriously injured.

What about the so-called independents whose emergence was announced with fanfares and display? Only one of them is here and perhaps he is an independent among the independents. It is true, however, that at some time or other the independents will have to convert their vision into a practical, acceptable political programme and policy. [Interjections.] I contend they are unable to do so.

Go and tell that to over 8 000 of your own voters.

They are not capable of doing this for a specific reason. If they were to attempt it, half of their followers would be removed either to their right or their left. Those are the realities of politics.

Is that the clear vision of Helderberg?

The hon member for Greytown would be well advised to keep quiet. Look at his party in Natal. [Interjections.] I allege the independents, just like the PFP, will land in the extraparliamentary process of politics. Just like them, some of their masters will compel them into it. The House is aware of what became of the relevance of Van Zyl Slabbert the day he left his Parliamentary office. [Interjections.]

And what about the NP? The NP was indicated by the voters of the country, Afrikaans and English-speaking—there is no doubt whatsoever—as the party capable of expressing and realizing the ideals of moderate people. The voters said the NP was the only party of realists struggling with the problem of alternative constitutional models and using everything in its power to make the country livable and to give all South Africans a place in the sun. I myself have no doubts about the enormity of this NP responsibility. The NP is struggling with the key question which is occupying us all.

What are the answers?

I shall get to them if the hon member would only be quiet. The key question is how we can develop an alternative political system in which norms may be maintained, in which all may participate and one group therefore not be dominated by another.

We should in addition all be able to live together in justice. The NP cannot afford not to proceed along this road. It has every intention of continuing to do so.

After all the interesting points raised in the debate, certain fundamentals have crystallized. There are definitely matters which all the parties in the House have in common. I should like to refer to them.

In the first place all the parties in the House are agreed that the status guo—social, economic and constitutional—should not be retained, which is why each party is intent on changing it. We are all committed to changing the country in all spheres of life, including the constitutional.

In the second place we who sit in this House represent those who believe that change has to come with Parliament as the instrument and with the Parliamentary process as the means by which it should take place. I concede immediately that we advocate this process with varying degrees of enthusiasm. In all countries overseas there are people who wish to influence the course within Parliament from outside.

Thirdly, we all wish, even if it is merely in our utterances, to bring about a democratic dispensation in South Africa. I wish to repeat that I believe the courses of policy of both Opposition parties will inevitably lead to the destruction of democracy as we know it.

Fourthly, all in the House strive for negotiated settlements, if possible, although many of our statements may again make it impossible to negotiate solutions. An election is a choice for the future as one never exercises options on what is past. This election offered an opportunity to make fundamental choices and therefore no one can decry those choices as irrelevant or misguided. During the past election voters made the choice under NP leadership against violence as a method of finding a solution to the problems of the country. They knew that at the moment there were two process of change occurring in the country, namely those of violence and of negotiation. They pronounced a censure on violence and the PFP was the victim of that pronouncement. In the second place they expressed a choice in favour of negotiation. Let us harbour no doubts about this. It is a long and arduous process because, where groups inhabit a country, they compete for power. They did not start competing for this power when the new dispensation came into being. This is the essence of South African politics.

In the third place they also made a choice on whom to entrust with the negotiation on change. That choice fell to this side of the House and we have a two-thirds majority here.

We can pursue the matter further. In exercising these choices the voters judged the standpoints of policy, the points of departure, or the lack of them, of all the parties in this House. In addition the voters judged the different parties’ perception of reality and that judgment also bore condemnation. That is why the NP has been returned to this House with one of its greatest majorities ever. They decided who was to represent them. It is very clear that the voters decided in favour of the NP policy of peaceful, evolutionary development. They exercised an option for the maintenance of stability and order. They chose the NP vision of reconciliation of the group character of society and found that it related most closely to the reality of South Africa and held the best possibility of a solution on a democratic basis.

Let us admit this now. In spite of the idea of partition, this concept holds no viable possibility taking the reality of the demographic composition and of the population distribution in South Africa into account. This CP policy can only be executed through massive resettlement of millions of people with catastrophic economic consequences and only by force. This means that it cannot represent a workable policy in South Africa.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had the following to say on his party’s policy in his speech:

Is there anyone in this House who would not like this?

Apparently not you.

No, Sir. The fact is that neither the CP nor we are responsible for the diversity of God’s creation. Not one of us is able to change this. The actual question is whether we can live with it as it was created. [Interjections.] Please permit me to pursue my argument.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition continued:

I wish to tell him at once that he is quite right. It is merely an idea. It is simply an illusion without any practical viability whatever in our context. To hope to divide South Africa into a series of independent states for all the peoples as representing the only possible solution is nothing but an idea or a pipedream.

If we have to go further and add the CP statement that it intends devoting no money to those states, that it will not assist them economically …

When did we say that?

The former chief secretary of the CP said so. He said that even the existing agreements with independent states would be broken. [Interjections.] Surely the hon member knows that. It would almost appear as if the hon member for Barberton wishes to repudiate the chief secretary. That is what he said in a previous debate. We know the CP is now to finance those states; it is to support them financially. Now the hon member wants to say it is not going to do so.

We have proof of how the CP wanders from reality. The hon member speaks of a nation and he knows as well as I do, because the hon member is a scholar, that a nation represents a composite of all the citizens of a state.

That is only one definition.

Nevertheless it is a valid one. A nation need not be the equivalent of a people because nations may consist of various peoples. There are many examples and we are one of them. No people or group in South Africa can appropriate the South African state or territory solely for its group; not the Afrikaners, not the Zulus, not the English-speaking citizens, no single group can do this.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke of the idea—he called it a commendable one—of a White people in a White state. He was either making two mistakes or parroting other people. A White people simply does not exist in South Africa; there is certainly an Afrikaner people but there is no White people. [Interjections.] Is the hon member unable to grasp this? There is no possibility of a homogeneous White people in South Africa. The CP obviously desires a group state along the lines of an ethnic concept for the Greeks and the Jews. Surely we are supposed to have clarified our terms. [Interjections.] Do they want a White state and a “Boerestaat” in consequence of the AWB presence in their ranks? They should then merely tell us where the difference lies between the White state and the “Boerestaat”.

You are still punch-drunk after 7 May.

The hon member went on to give a definition of reform. I shall quote him as follows—he is off course again:

Surely the hon member himself knows from personal experience that reform means adjustment according to the demands of the circumstances in which one lives. How frequently has the hon member himself not changed his standpoint and said: “I have exchanged that for a better standpoint”? His life obviously exemplifies this. I want to tell the hon member that the essence of survival lies in the adaptability of peoples and communities. Consequently this should be a positive and not a negative element in our approach.

I want to tell him the NP does not conduct faction politics. We do not want reform solely to protect the interests of the Whites at the cost of others. We want to adjust and reform because this is in the interests of South Africa and of all its peoples. The security of White rights is dependent upon our ability to satisfy the rights of other peoples and communities. There is no doubt whatsoever that there will be no salvation or security for the Whites in this country if they isolate themselves in a fatherland which does not exist and does this at the expense of other communities.

The hon leader of the PFP is just as far removed from reality.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I am getting to that; the hon member will just have to exercise patience. He should not range himself with the UDF with clenched fists.

His majority is larger than yours.

The individualistic view of the PFP, which ignores the group character, is an equal danger to South Africa and that is why it was rejected. The voters had already decided on how the changes should take place and they repudiated those preaching violence or adopting a soft line against it. The approach to security of the PFP and its rainbow alliance was not acceptable to the majority of voters. They were also warned about this last year by a former hon member of their party. [Interjections.]

There are AWB supporters in CP ranks. We have yet to see the effect of AWB influence on the CP. We shall have to take special note of how the irresponsible reference to violence by that group will influence the CP and damage our negotiating capabilities.

I merely want to say that both the chief Opposition parties were rejected because the policy of each is aimed at take-over by a radical power clique in South Africa. One of them, the PFP, wishes to negotiate surrender but its policy means nothing but the destruction of democracy. [Interjections.] On the other hand the Official Opposition will stampede the entire population of South Africa into the hands of radicals. Both are a danger to the country.

The election results show that voters want neither the PFP nor the CP to negotiate for them. They decided not to entrust the negotiation nor the security of the country to either of them. [Interjections.]

I wish to close by stating that the election results hold certain elements of finality to which I wish to refer. Firstly, the voting public exhibited to the world and to South Africa that they could entrust the interests of South Africa to the NP.

Hear, hear!

I want to tell my hon colleagues in the NP that this is an enormous responsibility because we are not governing South Africa exclusively for the Whites. We are governing South Africa for all its communities until we can bring the others into the Government—and we are getting to that. [Interjections.]

Bring in where?

Yes, we shall bring them in. Surely we fought for that; the hon member is well aware of that. The voters united around the concepts of stability, freedom and reform.

Thirdly, the final death knell was heard for the NRP and the HNP and the writing is on the wall for the PFP. The PFP got exactly what they deserved for their obduracy on security matters, their leniency toward radicals and the general image that they were not to be trusted with the security of the country and its people. Their alliance with the independents was the only flickering ray of light for them.

I wish to address a word of warning to them. Perhaps the hon member Prof Olivier will convey this to the hon leader of the PFP. The hon member for Randburg and his friends should ask themselves this question: What is the significance of that one man’s victory if the voters cast his midwife, the PFP, on the refuse heap? I want to warn them to be careful because there is no reason why they should not land there too.

Fourthly, the election indicated—I wish to emphasise this—that the CP is incapable of maintaining the image of a strong team which it propagated in by-elections. The CP will also learn that the voters are left stone cold by people and parties using short-term slogans and who will ultimately create chaos in the long term.

The NP stated its policy explicitly and I wish to repeat it. It maintained unequivocally that this election hinged on two matters—negotiation among and participation by all the population groups of South Africa.

In the Cabinet too?

At the highest level.

Right into the Cabinet?

Yes, right into the Cabinet.

Blacks in the Cabinet as well?

In 1977 that hon member supported the inclusion of Brown people and Asians in the Cabinet too. I want to ask the hon member whether he still recognises that standpoint.

Will there be Blacks in the Cabinet too?

Yes, in a central executive authority. Of course. We said Blacks would be represented in the highest executive and legislative authority.

In what proportion?

Now that hon member wants to know the proportion. The voters united in support of the NP in this election and gave the NP a mandate. That was clear. We were also charged with implementing it.

Mr Speaker, firstly I want to express my appreciation for the privilege which has been granted to me to serve for another term as a member of this House.

By a hair’s breadth.

I want to express my appreciation to my colleagues in the PFP caucus who nominated me to this position.

I found it very interesting that the hon member for Turffontein suddenly came to life here as a champion of Dr Denis Worrall. I leave it at that, because I do not want to comment any further on the matter. It is very clear to me that the NP’s campaign was highly successful. At this stage I do not want to react to the speech made by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I shall do so later. I do though want to tell him that if he says that the choice in South Africa is between violence and negotiation and that the PFP is opposed to negotiation it is a total and flagrant misrepresentation of the PFP’s policy. The PFP’s policy has consistently been based on the necessity for negotiation, but I shall return to this point later. The hon the Minister also spoke about the disasters which struck the PFP. I do not wish to rub salt in any wounds, but I think that what struck the hon the Minister in the constituency of Helderberg was an avalanche.

He even had to eat sand as well.

Order! The hon member Prof Olivier must withdraw the word “flagrant”. He may not use it in that way.

Mr Speaker, I gladly withdraw it. At this stage I do not want to comment on the speech made by the hon the Minister in the Office of the State President on the broadcasting services, except to say that I think he may have failed to take into consideration the distinction which the Government itself draws between when Government spokesmen are acting in their capacity of Government spokesmen and when they are acting as party politicians.

You are the ones who fail to do so.

I shall return to that later. I shall not make any mention of it now. The hon member for Yeoville and other hon members in this House have clearly indicated the nature of the campaign which the NP conducted. It was suspect in more than one respect. The victory which the NP achieved in that campaign was nothing but a hollow, empty, Pyrrhic victory. [Interjections.]

Yes, the NP’s campaign did harm the PFP. That was certainly the case. The PFP did lose a number of seats. The NP’s propaganda did succeed in forcing large numbers of voters to the right—towards supporting the CP and the HNP and the CP in particular—because of the fear which it instilled in the voters. They did it to such an extent that the NP today represents only 35,8% of the total number of registered White voters in this country.

How many does your party represent?

It does not matter how many we represent; we are not the Government. I am talking about the Government, which represents only 36% of the total number of White voters in this country. That is why I say that it was an empty victory.

One has an interesting situation if one considers at the percentage of the total number of votes cast for the NP in this election compared to previous elections. I am referring only to the Transvaal now, because that was where the propaganda made the greatest impact on our people. In the Transvaal there are seven constituencies in which the NP percentage of the total number of votes cast declined by between 20% and 30% between the previous election and this one. In 22 constituencies the NP percentage of the total number of votes declined by between 15% and 20%. In 17 constituencies NP participation dropped by between 10% and 15%. In 14 constituencies the NP participation dropped by 10%. That is the percentage participation in terms of votes cast between the previous election and this one.

Therefore the NP must not come forward with all kinds of tales about how the right wing did not make any progress. They are simply not true, and the facts indicate that very clearly.

The result of the campaign the NP conducted was to drive people into the arms of the right wing. They wanted to harm the PFP yet all they managed to do was instil such fear into the voters that they voted for the right. Those are the simple facts.

Not only are the facts important; so is the system of values which goes with it. I am grateful that the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare and the hon the Minister of National Education did in certain respects at least try to give a certain measure of rational content to the NP’s policy. The two hon Ministers said something which we have been saying for years, namely that it is senseless to try to draw a distinction between a Black South Africa and a White South Africa.

There is the whole issue of the permanence of urban Blacks and that their political rights can only be exercised in the homelands. For years the PFP was crucified by the NP over these things, and I myself have personally been crucified in this regard over the last 20 or 25 years, when I was branded as a traitor. All that has now become NP policy, for which I am grateful.

It is, however, quite beyond my comprehension how my friends on my right—they are after all intelligent people—can advocate a policy which the NP itself has found to be completely impracticable and completely in conflict with reality. I listened attentively to what the hon member for Randfontein and the hon member for Lichtenburg had to say on this issue. As a thinking person I simply cannot understand how it can be justified in an intelligent way.

One day you will understand!

Furthermore the hon members on my right know that even as far as this tricameral system is concerned, which the hon CP members now reject as being a form of power-sharing, it is rejected by the majority of Coloureds and Asians; to say nothing of the Blacks. This whole system, as it exists at present, is rejected by the Blacks. How the devil can the hon members of the CP now hope to have their policy implemented in the face of the opposition which we all know will be experienced by the greater mass of our people? It is quite beyond me. Never-ending conflict lies in wait for us along that road, the end of which is completely unsure and which cannot be predicted by either the CP or by anyone in South Africa.

I also think it was a Pyrrhic victory because the division which existed within the NP before the election is still there. There is complete dissension concerning the direction in which we should move within the NP.I hope to return to this topic at a subsequent opportunity.

It was a hollow victory, because what the NP managed to achieve with its campaign was to elevate the ANC to the role of main opponent, not only of the NP Government, but of the entire White population and the whole system in this country. That is what their campaign managed to achieve. As the hon member for Houghton also said here, the ANC was elevated in this campaign to the status of being the major opponent not only of the NP but also of the Whites and of all people who advocate peace and order in South Africa.

I wondered what the election was all about. The hon the State President said in his address that the Government had asked for and received a mandate. What was that mandate?

The first one was to stand united against overseas pressure. I am not aware of a single political party that was in favour of overseas pressure, sanctions or disinvestment. It is quite beyond me that one had to vote on a mandate. It simply does not take the realities into account. The hon the State President said that it was concerned with the ANC. The hon member for Houghton indicated that the ANC has been banned for more than 20 years. To elevate the ANC into the position of chief opponent now, the main issue in the election, is nothing but an acknowledgment on the part of the NP Government that the policy which it has been applying in respect of the ANC has failed completely. How can one fight a movement for more than 20, 30 years and then say in a general election that it is the main opponent? If that is not self-accusation and an acknowledgment of the total failure of a policy, I do not know what else it can be.

I have said this before and I will repeat it here: Even if we were to invade Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Angola and Zambia and even if we were to drive the ANC out of Lusaka it would not bring us one step closer to a solution of our fundamental problems in South Africa. It is as simple as that. I shall return to this point later.

The second point that we gathered from the hon the State President was that there was a mandate for the maintenance of law and order. The fact that the government of a country, regardless of which government, is able to maintain law and order solely by means of the application of a state of emergency and emergency regulations is the greatest accusation which has ever been directed by a government against itself. After 40 years of power the Government is able to say that it is only able to maintain law and order only by means of the applications of draconian emergency regulations. A country does not deserve such a government. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, mention was made of a mandate for reform. What is being reformed? During the election I did not hear a single word, nor did I during this session so far, about what the reform is the NP Government is talking about. I am still waiting for it. I am still waiting for reform. [Interjections.]

Finally, it has been said that a mandate was asked and received to negotiate. What a farce! For the last two years we have been told in this House that the Government is negotiating. It has been said that there are 150 or more people with whom they are negotiating. The names have not been mentioned to us. If the Government has been negotiating for the last two years with Blacks, what was the mandate they asked for? Either it told a lie or it misled the electorate. I want to go further, however. A government does not need a mandate to negotiate. The Government did not ask us for a mandate to negotiate with Chester Crocker. The previous Prime Minister, Mr John Vorster, did not ask the people for a mandate to go and negotiate with Mr Kaunda on the bridge. A government has an inherent right to negotiate by virtue of being a government. If it now asks for a mandate to negotiate I want to tell you that we are confronted with the tragic problem that in 1983 this Government brought us a constitution within which Blacks cannot be accommodated. The main problem remains that of Black political accommodation. Even if the Government were to decide today to include the Blacks in the 1983 Constitution it would not be able to do so.

We are therefore saddled with a Constitution which cannot under any circumstances accommodate the Blacks politically. We should therefore consider a new constitution, and then we are confronted with the problem that the non-negotiable prerequisites stated by that side of the House render any negotiating process with the real leaders of the Blacks completely impossible. Therefore, in spite of all the fine-sounding words about negotiations on a new constitution, such a constitution can never be brought into existence because of the non-negotiable requirements.

Mr Speaker, listening to the hon member Prof Olivier, one could not help observing that there must have been special reasons for the PFP to have nominated this member as successor to the Afrikaner spokesman who fell by the wayside there in Bryanston. [Interjections.] The conduct of the hon member here today was rather ironic, because he as a pulverised victim expressed sympathy for the weakness and imminent collapse of the victor who pulverised him. One really does not know what else one may still expect from him.

I also want to point out that whereas the hon member spoke about a so-called Pyrrhic victory for the NP, and argued that large numbers of supporters had been driven from the NP to the CP, I want to remind hon members, as previous speakers in this debate have done, of one of the few really scientific analyses of the election results, the one made by Prof Laurie. He indicated that there had been no material growth, but in reality a slight falling off in the support which the CP received during this election compared with the other measurable support it had received, ie in the series of by-elections since it broke away.

If one looks back on this debate, it seems to me that three essential matters emerged very prominently. The fundamental question, as in the election, was how to accommodate political power in respect of Black communities— not Black communities in general, but those which are permanently established outside the self-governing areas. If the issue had simply been the accommodation of the political power for Black communities, there is already a whole historical success story to point out. This can be continued in respect of the accommodation of those Black communities that historically have their own residential territories in which development is possible around their own body politic. The essential problem at issue here, however, the greatest historical challenge that has ever confronted the White nation in South Africa, is the accommodation of those Black communities permanently established outside the self-governing areas. That is the heart of the matter.

The second matter which emerged prominently in this debate was the whole issue of partition. That is the solution suggested by the CP. Particular attention was paid to the attainability of partition. I suggest that everything the CP announces concerning policy, is ultimately concerned with the attainability or practicability of partition. In the long run everything revolves around whether partition can become a reality or whether it is simply a pious sauce with which to cover the pudding of White domination.

The third point at issue is the real need in any practicable new dispensation in which Black political participation can be accommodated for a solution to be found to the basis of group-defined political participation, and that it is senseless to talk about a non-racial society or a non-racial political solution because such a term has absolutely nothing to do with the complex population structure of this country.

I think everyone in this House accepts in principle the participation by all groups and individuals in political decisions affecting their interests and their destiny. Consequently I also think that everyone in this House—to all appearances at least—accepts that the Whites are no longer able, because they are Whites, to govern alone and to exercise sole control over the interests of other groups. We therefore accept that a breach has occurred in history between the old position of the nineteenth century and the first half of this century, when the Whites, world-wide, accepted without much disputation of their claim that they, merely because they were White, had a superior claim and could therefore exercise authority over other peoples in imperial, colonial or other systems.

As far as the NP, specifically, is concerned, we accept—I want to make this very clear— that autocratic White political rule has come to an end. Exclusive White political power over the destinies of all South Africans has come to an end. The NP accepts that other peoples and population groups are living within the borders of the country and the State, the Republic of South Africa, as permanently established entities. These groups cannot be imagined away and so far no really feasible proposal has been put forward to relocate them. These other groups must be able to participate, according to the principle I stated earlier and which I believe everyone accepts, in a political exercise of power affecting their interests.

We must be very clear about one thing, which is that participation by other groups in political power does not mean the loss or surrender of political power by the Whites. It does mean the surrender of exclusive White supremacy, but the Whites continue to retain, inalienably, their political power in the form of both self-determination or sole decision making over their own affairs affecting solely their community, as well as co-responsibility or power-sharing with other groups over common or general affairs.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was therefore wrong and misleading when he tried to create the impression in his speech that the surrender of exclusive political power was identical to the surrender of power.

I want to refer briefly to this. The hon the Leader of the Official Oposition said that the CP was saying to the Government across the floor of this House “their reform recipe of power-sharing entails in principle the surrender of power. According to the CP it means the loss of exclusive political power”.

It is typical of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to shift two concepts which differ essentially from one another closer together as though they were essentially the same. Furthermore it is in my opinion irrelevant and even futile of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to advance as an argument against the standpoint of the inevitability of granting self-determination and political power to the Blacks and other communities in this country that the revolutionary Black power, as he put it, is in reality seeking a take-over of power, and that power-sharing will not check this revolutionary Black power element in their aspirations.

These two statements of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition are of course true. Nevertheless this truth is by no means an argument against the NP’s reform policy of power-sharing. We know, we know better than the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, that nothing but abdication, nothing but the surrender of power, will satisfy the revolutionary forces who are waging an onslaught on this country. The NP, precisely as a result of our policy, will resist and demolish these objectionable revolutionary demands far more strongly, powerfully and effectively than the CP.

The reasons why the NP will be able to do this are in the first place that the constitutional reform of the NP is in fact part of the Government’s counter-strategy against revolution. As the hon the Minister of Defence said during the election campaign: By granting every citizen of South Africa a fair share in political rights, as also in social and economic opportunities, one is giving him an interest in the existing order, one is giving him something to lose, and consequently one is also giving him something to fight for. In this way one reinforces—from among the Whites, Blacks and Coloureds—the ranks of the anti-revolutionary element, the element that wishes to bring about peaceful negotiation and development. By that means the backing for the revolutionary element is reduced to a marginal minority, with minimum support.

I want to remind this House that experts on the revolutionary onslaught have frequently pointed out in recent times that only 20% of the counter-revolutionary strategy can be based on security force action. The remaining 80% is based on constitutional, economic and social actions. That is why this reform approach is an essential element of the revolutionary counter-strategy.

The second reason, however, is that against the revolutionary demand that all power be transferred to them, the National Party with its reform plan occupies a far stronger position than the CP, which strives to reply to this demand with the retention of exclusive own White power, the nakedness of which is covered by a tattered cloak of an unimplementable partition approach. As a result of its impracticability, this approach in essence amounts ultimately to White supremacy over Whites as well as over all the other inhabitants of South Africa. This is pre-eminently a good recipe for fomenting revolutionary support.

With reference to the debate on the question of what is involved in power-sharing, I also want to make it clear that the National Party’s objective amounts to equal political powersharing among all groups, that is to say in regard to Whites as well as in regard to the other groups.

Proportionally?

In such a dispensation the security, and consequently, too, the political power, of every group, every minority, must be protected and entrenched.

Have you any idea as to how you are going to do that yet?

This applies not only to the Whites, but to every minority in an equal way. Everyone must be protected against domination by other groups.

Who decides the matter?

Consequently I want to make it very clear that the National Party’s policy is by no means a camouflaged continuation of an exclusive protection of the political power of the Whites only. It wishes to bring about equal protection for all the groups, and therefore definitely for the Whites as well.

A further element which emerged prominently in this debate was the constant harping on the so-called inevitability of a Black majority in the central decision-making organs of the State—legislative and executive. It is also interesting that not only the left-wing opposition party, which aspires idealogically to this Black majority as inevitable, but also the right-wing opposition party, levelled this charge. Yet the whole approach of the National Party is in fact—and this the hon the Leader of the House also said earlier—to replace the majority concept, within our heterogeneous population diversity, as a basis for political decision-making, by instead of counting heads, instead of having a system of one man, one vote, establishing the concept of consensus decision-making among the separate groups.

The concept of a majority vote does not disappear. It is in fact recognised, but within each group and within the context of an own community, where the individual as individual enjoys security within a homogeneous community and comes into his own. Among the groups, however, consensus decisionmaking applies, whether the membership of the group is large or small. That is why it is also so ironic that time and again we find a return to the irrelevant standpoint of how many members there are now going to be in the separate decision-making bodies of the separate groups. If it is decision-making among groups, on a basis of which the majority vote within each group decides, surely it makes no difference out of how many members the House or legislative authority of each group is constituted. [Interjections.]

In his motion of censure the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition attacked the Government in particular for not ensuring adequate security in the country in various respects. He argued that the Government’s reform would be fatal to political stability. He said there was no long-term plan to check revolution effectively. He said, too, that the Government’s mandate did not spell out clearly enough the protection of peoples and of minority groups and the prevention of Black domination. The essence of this motion is therefore an indication of a threat to security and safety. I think, however, that these other two main themes of the debate which I mentioned, namely the policy of partition of the Official Opposition and the need for group participation in political decision-making, are two of the crucial matters around which the safeguarding of the future of our country revolves.

Reply to his motion now on the basis of his criticism against the Government!

I want to make it very clear that we in fact reject partition, not on the basis of the degree of success it has already achieved, but owing to its impracticability, its inability to resolve the essential remaining problem, namely the accommodation of the political rights of the Black communities outside the national states. I repeat that everything in the approach of the CP depends on the feasibility and implementability of partition. The CP will never become a real political alternative to the governing party unless they can succed in making partition truly creditable in the eyes of the voters.

I want to remind the hon member for Pietersburg how he once, when I was occupying a previous position in Johannesburg, asked me to come and address a meeting of the regional development association in Pietersburg. I had to go there to help counteract the partition plans which were at the time being disseminated in that area by the then chairman of Sabra, Professor Carel Boshoff. In terms of those plans Pietersburg, Potgietersrus, the Tzaneen area and all those areas were to become part of Black areas by means of a partition policy, which was logical on paper. We had to help advocate and point out that it was an impractical and unworkable approach. [Interjections.]

Let us examine the speech made by the hon member for Randfontein. One would have expected that he, who occupied, and will probably continue to occupy, an important position in our country’s history, would have returned here as a somewhat chastened politician and possibly even statesman. However, when we look up a few of his statements, we find him back here as the man with the magic formula. It is not a magic formula to bring something into existence which is difficult to establish, but a magic formula which misleads people so that a different policy can be followed once the formula has failed. This became clearly apparent here in the contribution made by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. To me it seemed a little more like Martino, the magician on the TV programme, than real statemanship.

Mr Speaker, is the hon the Minister prepared to reply to a question?

No, Sir, the time available to me is limited.

I should just like to quote a few sections from the speech made by the hon member for Randfontein. He said there were only two possible views of South Africa. The one was that of Southern Africa as a unitary state, and the alternative is that “one views the country as a subcontinent” and “divides it up as a subcontinent into its components”. That is neat. The hon member for Lichtenburg spoke about the mechanism of partition. A mechanism is something which works or which causes things to function. Here partition is being used like a mechanism or a magic formula. One divides up the country like a subcontinent into its components, and behold, the peoples are living together side by side as peaceful neighbours. This is the choice that has to be made in South Africa. It is a kind of magical approach. One confronts the problem and simply divides it up.

Later in his argument he compared us to the situation in West Africa and in West Europe and said that we should in the same way recognise and adopt the approach of there being various states in Southern Africa. He even pointed out that the division by means of the boundary lines of various peoples actually went very far, because some territories had been cut through the middle, such as those of the Tswanas, the Basutos, Swazis and Shangaans. I should like to know whether the hon member for Randfontein, in his partition policy, also makes provision therefore that to divide Southern Africa up neatly into its component parts and states, will also entail that Mozambique, Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho will have to fall in with the plans of the CP. He also said that the CP would “recreate” the continent “as it ought to be”. They are the creators and the recreators!

If one considers this almost arrogant approach to a problematical situation with which some of the best statemen, administrators, managers and planners have been struggling during the past few decades, one is really astounded that his time in the political wilderness did not have a more salutary effect on the hon member.

I want to emphasize again that partition did in fact bring about separate political freedom in own state areas, in quite a number of cases which we need not repeat here. As far as these areas are concerned—I am referring to the traditional, historic, existing homelands of Black people which it was possible to expand, consolidate and adapt—it has been a success.

To the extent to which it has been a success there, it remains as it is, and continues to be an essential part of NP policy. Consequently the NP stated clearly that if other self-governing areas which were still part of South Africa, and even possible metropolitan areas as well, wished to make progress on the way to self-government and self-determination and even progress in this way towards independence, the Government would not stand in the way of such a development. In that sense the positive, successful portion of partition is therefore part of NP policy.

I want to repeat however: Partition has failed and will continue to fail as an answer to the question of political rights for the Coloureds, the Asians and the permanently-settled Black communities outside the national states, and outside the self-governing areas. It is ironic that the CP is continuing to market that part of the former NP policy which did not work, and which cannot work either.

The hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare pointed out the premises which the hon member for Lichtenburg and the former member for Koedoespoort stated during the election in connection with the 70% of the Black population that would have to be resettled within the national states.

I want to quote another premise of the CP which is more fundamental, from their Programme of Principles and Policy. In article 2.1.2. it is stated “the CP strives for White majority occupation in the RSA at all times”. White majority occupation at all times!

I want to repeat what the hon the Leader of the House and the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare said in this connection. If the issue is White majority occupation, what about the Black minority? There remains a minority of millions of Blacks who are going to remain outside the self-governing areas within the RSA. There the problem still remains unsolved. These are permanent communities from whom one cannot, according to the basic premise, which I think everyone in this House fundamentally shares, withhold, or whom one cannot deprive of, a share in the political decision-making affecting their interests.

I should also like to make a few additions to the arguments that have already been presented here concerning the implication of large-scale resettlement which this premise of a so-called majority occupation entails. The estimated Black population in the RSA outside the national states is at present more than 10 million. We must bear in mind that these are not only urban Blacks; they are also rural Blacks. We must tell this to the farmers. A reasonably responsible projection indicates that by the end of this century the figure will be 18 million and after 20 years into the 21st century, 25 million. Merely to establish parity between Whites and Blacks, and consequently not even majority occupation, and also without making provision for the Coloureds and Asians who are also there, the following numbers of Blacks will have to be removed: At present approximately 5 million, and by the end of the century approximately 12 million. We shall also have to take into account that there will in the meantime be a natural growth of a further 8 million in the national states, the self-governing areas. In the year 2020 the figure would be 18 million Blacks who would have to be resettled.

I had a calculation made by my department, which has had experience of the resettlement of Black communities. In the most elementary sense it will bring about a minimum cost of between R40 000 and R30 000 per family unit to buy the existing assets of these people or to compensate them for those assets, to deal with the physical resettlement, to maintain people until such time as they have established roots in their new settlement areas and to establish the new infrastructure and new urban and residential development.

I think we indicated here …

These are people who are already living here, the money has already been spent on their places of residence. These are not additional people who are going to be resettled. These are people who have already been established, and whom one is now going to resettle. That is the point. This is a new, an unnecessary expense.

In addition, the CP cannot resettle people there and then leave them to their own devices. The basic problem, the reason why they are streaming in, is that there are no employment opportunities there. The most elementary spending to create an employment opportunity in an industrial context in the national states is at present at least R10 000 per employment opportunity. If we work out these calculations, it will take more than two, three, four year’s total State Budget, in the present terms, to carry out this exercise. It remains a cost, whether one spreads it over five or 10 years, and a party that says we are giving too much to the Blacks will simply be unable to sell this policy to any electorate if it is honest and candid with them. [Interjections.]

Having said all this, we have still not mentioned the standstill in the economy outside the self-governing areas which will be caused by such an operation. Reference was also made here to the inevitability of a large measure of force and compulsion to bring about the relocation. The hon member for Brakpan said in a television programme that they would not use any force; they would persuade the people. He knows what the best possible efforts at persuasion have accomplished during the past years and decades. Interjections.] He will persuade them, but he believes that as little as he believes the statement he made when someone said to him that the urban communities of South Africa were very heterogeneous, and he replied: “No, it is only Soweto that has a heterogeneous Black community”. Good Heavens, it astounded me that a person could say something like that in public, and survive.

I said it was primarily only Soweto.

That is en equally nonsensical remark. Once the people have been resettled elsewhere and no ideal living conditions have developed as regards their urbanization and employment opportunities, surely they will want to stream back to where they came from. One will also have to try to make a calculation of the immense expenditure on demarcation, fencing and preventive manpower. We must also remember that this is manpower in a purely White Police and Defence Force.

Consequently it is simply not a viable proposition, however badly one would like to implement it. For that reason I do not think that any meaningful political policy can be constructed on this premise.

The NP changed its policy. It tried for a long time to achieve this kind of goal. Even in the 1981 election the NP was still striving to attain this ideal, in respect of the urbanized Blacks as well, and that side reproached us, and was still doing so in the debates during the first session this year. Subsequently the NP came to the conclusion, however—it said so candidly and frankly by way of the address of the hon the State President at the opening of Parliament at the beginning of 1985—that it was no longer an attainable policy.

One of the fundamental reasons why it is no longer attainable is because we can no longer continue with the illusion of the temporariness of the Black communities outside the national states. In this we were guided and preceded by none other than the hon member for Randfontein, because on 14 August 1978 he said at an information conference of the NP—it was reported in Oggendblad of that date:

That is why he said—again I am quoting the newspaper, because so far as I know it was never repudiated:

He therefore recognised the permanence of Black communities.

What is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that. We believe it is correct, but also that we should formulate our policy on the basis of this premise, and not on the basis of an impracticable dream.

When the hon member was still Minister of Plural Relations, he said on 13 June 1978 (Hansard, vol 74, col 9248):

He also said:

This is one of the facts which the NP, after attempts to accomplish the opposite, accepted frankly. That is why it went to the voters during this election and not only asked for a mandate to negotiate, but for a mandate to negotiate according to a policy different to the policy presented to the voters in 1981. We have the courage to admit it to them candidly and to spell it out to them. We took the rap, and despite that won a two-thirds majority of the seats in this country, while that party, that was able to exploit this matter on a large scale, was unable to poll more than half of the votes we polled. [Interjections.]

That is why I believe that when we have discussed the essential points I have mentioned in this debate, we must accept that the matter which we will have to thrash out is the extent of participation and political exercise of power by established Black communities outside the national states. Secondly we shall have to thrash out to what extent there is any chance that the alternative to this offered by the CP on the basis of a policy of partition is in any way attainable, can in any way be sold to the voters and can in any way be implemented.

In this regard I do not think any right-minded person can have any doubt or reservations.

Mr Speaker, as the last speaker from these benches, I want to look back on some of the speeches that have been made over the past three days, in order to assess the sort of pattern which is going to be set in this post-election Parliament. The speech made by the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid was interesting in that he set out what he saw to be the important parameters which had been established in this debate.

The first question he dealt with was how to accommodate Black communities outside the self-governing states. Secondly he dealt at some length with the unattainability of the whole partition concept in South Africa. Thirdly he said that there was a need in a debate of this kind to establish that the only practical solution was to ensure group representation in any political participation which we might offer other race groups.

When one looks at that speech that underlines other speeches, it is clear that there is very little difference in principle on the basic racial issue which is going to be dividing the Government and the new Official Opposition. There are differences, but they are merely differences in degree, method or style. They may argue about the unattainability of partition, but one should also argue with the Government about the practicality of trying to evolve a solution which is based on forced group representation. That is what the Government insists on year in and year out when they talk about a negotiated solution. I believe that the two parties—that of the Government and that of the Official Opposition—quite clearly subscribe to enforced race separation or apartheid. In essence that means that both parties still believe in White domination in one form or another in South Africa. The only real difference between them is how White domination can best be maintained.

It has appeared quite evident today in the clashes across the floor, that the differences are in fact differences between two sections of the old NP. These two segments are battling it out in a power struggle for control over the race-oriented or apartheid-oriented constituency which they both claim to have inherited from the Verwoerdian era. This pattern has been clear in this debate, as it was clear throughout the recent election campaign.

The governing party did not fight the election on a reform ticket. Whatever their reform rhetoric was in the post-referendum period and the period running up to, perhaps, the middle of last year, they abandoned it completely in the election run-up. They did that, because they fell back on their well-tried tactics which they had used over 40 years in dealing with the White electorate. They concentrated on offering the White electorate a spurious form of security and playing on the fears and prejudices of Whites in the crudest way possible.

It was to be expected that in this debate the Government speakers would show delight in their election successes. They have not let us down in that respect. We do not begrudge them that, if it excites them. They have won seats and we in these benches have lost seats. If it excites them to have won four or five additional seats in an all-White election, so be it.

However, what has been worrying me over the past three days while listening to the speeches, is not as much the fact that they won seats as the manner in which they won those seats and the reasons which they have given for their victory during this debate. They employed the same tactics which they had employed in nine successive elections. They are tactics which clearly work—an appeal to White fear and prejudice. They involved themselves in a propaganda campaign on a massive scale, which was nothing less than an orchestrated litany of lies. That was what it was. [Interjections.] Yet, it worked, because it won them certain White seats and votes. [Interjections.]

At a time in our history when South Africa is divided as never before and when there is unrest and turmoil in this country as never before, the NP decided during this election campaign that they would go for short-term political gain, irrespective of the real interests of South Africa.

My concern is: What sort of legacy does this leave for us in South Africa? Instead of leading public opinion towards the reforms which every thinking South African knows are inevitable in the next few years, what they did was to concentrate people’s old prejudices and fears and to reinforce them, and they have made the process of reform much more difficult than it might have been otherwise.

I think a classic example of this sort of attitude was the speech made by the hon member for Umlazi—two days ago I think it was. I think the hon member for Umlazi is the information officer or holds some post in the NP relating to that information service. With a great deal of glee he looked at the NP successes and he identified two main areas of interest, namely the vexed question of mixed beaches and the vexed question of mixed residential areas. He said this with pride. He looked around the House and asked: “Who has captured the beaches now, and who has captured the beaches in those constituencies which are concerned?” Then he looked around the country and he looked at the Natal beaches and he said: “We have captured the beaches on the issue of mixed beaches.

He also asked, with regard to mixed residential areas, who had won seats like Hillbrow where this was a critical issue. He asked who had won with increased majorities in seats like Maitland. Now I want to ask the Government members, allowing for that sort of attitude, what they are going to do with the beaches in South Africa now Are they going to segregate the beaches? Are they now going to continue with their threats to unsettle people living peacefully in areas like Hillbrow and other parts of South Africa because of the colour of their skin? Is that what is going to happen as a result of their election victory? They won the election in those constituencies on that sort of issue, but I want to ask whether this is the reform they promised South Africa. Is this the type of reform we can expect?

The hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare also made an interesting speech two days ago. With some candour he said that influx control had had to be abandoned because it was out of date and it could not work. He pointed out all the old fallacies concerning the whole question of influx control which we on these benches had been pointing out for 20 years and more. He said it was out of date and had to be abandoned. I want to ask the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare what he thinks about beach apartheid. Is that out of date? Is that going to be abandoned? He is a Cabinet Minister. What are they going to do? What is the difference between that and the whole question of influx control? What does he think about the whole operation of the Group Areas Act? Is that not out of date too? Can that be justified at this time in the history of South Africa—that we should try to unsettle people in areas of this kind because of an ideology of the Government, an ideology which has failed and has shown itself to fail in their attempt to implement it.

I want to remind hon members who talk about issues such as mixed beaches, grey areas such as Hillbrow and elsewhere, that while they are talking about such issues, there are car bombs exploding in the centre of Johannesburg as car bombs have been exploding in other parts of South Africa. While that is happening, they are talking about whether or not it should be permissible for someone with a colour other than White to live in the neighbouring suburb of Hillbrow. I believe it is absolute lunacy for the Government to continue whipping up the fears and emotions of the people of South Africa on issues of this kind.

What are the consequences? One of the consequences of these tactics, as I have shown, is that the Government distances itself from any sincere efforts it might make, or ideas or plans it might have, to implement reform, because it is not educating public opinion. That is one of the consequences.

The other consequence is that it gets the Official Opposition which it so very richly deserves. That is what has happened in this election, because they had prepared the ground for the CP to make advances. We have seen how in this debate the same pattern emerged very clearly. What is now happening to the Government is that, with the new Official Opposition, they are being called to account for any minor transgressions or departures from the fallacies of the old Verwoerdian philosophy. Yet they still cling desperately to tenets of that philosophy themselves. We saw that this morning when the hon the Minister of National Education rejected the whole partition concept because he said, quite correctly, it is impractical. It cannot work.

But then he himself clings to the whole concept of compulsory and enforced racial group rights, and so do his colleagues. These must, in essence, be discriminatory. If one is going to differentiate in the South African society on the basis of group rights force people into a group situation, one is not going to get away from discrimination. The hon the Minister of National Education said today that Blacks in Soweto did not want to exercise their rights in remote homelands, and he was quite right; we told him that a long time ago when it was the policy of the NP. He must also realize that those same Blacks might reject the concept of group rights …

Or of a city state.

… or of a city state. What is his attitude to them going to be then around the negotiating table? Is he going to say that this is the policy of the NP and that they should take it or leave it, or is he going to negotiate on a much more reasonable basis?

We have tried racial groupings in this country. This tricameral Parliament is an example of political representation on the basis of racial groupings. What it really means is another form of White domination. We see it working here in this very Parliament where, in the whole essence of the Constitution, the domination of the White group is essential for the tricameral system to work. So we tie ourselves to enforced racial groupings and move away from the idea of voluntary association, we are in no way going to find a solution to South Africa’s problems.

The hon the Minister of National Education set out, for the benefit of the CP, all the illogicalities applying to their own party, but those same illogicalities apply to his own party’s approach to the racial issues. They pay lip service to phrases such as self-determination, group protection against domination, shared power among groups and all this kind of NP jargon. In his Opening Address the hon the State President also said that the mandate given to the Government included the following: Division of power among groups in respect of decision-making concerning their own community interests and sharing of power among groups in respect of general or common interests.

I want to say that until the Government abandons its preoccupation with rigid and enforced group consideration as a basis for change, there is going to be no chance of a negotiated change in South Africa, because that whole concept is apartheid. The Government must realize that apartheid is the problem in South Africa and can never be a solution for South Africa. [Interjections.]

I believe that is why the Government reacted as they did to the Natal Indaba. They reacted to and rejected the Natal Indaba because it does not conform with the policy of the Government relating to the whole question of group representation. That is why they have been hell-bent on wrecking the indaba from the time those proposals were first made public. The hon the Minister of Home Affairs and his Deputy Ministers have looked at the indaba from the start and have done everything possible to discredit it. They pay lip service by saying that the idea was a good one but that they cannot go along with it. We had the same thing from one of the hon Deputy Ministers yesterday when he used all kinds of arguments without substantiation. He said that the whole process at the indaba had been hastened unreasonably, and the hon the Minister of Home Affairs interjected that the indaba had been hijacked by me and the PFP. [Interjections.] I want to say that it is very flattering that they should think so, but it is unfortunately not true. I was one of the delegates at the indaba and there were 34 others including the chambers of industry, the chambers of commerce and the city councils; they included cultural organizations, trade unions and other political parties. What happened at the indaba was that an 82% consensus was achieved. However, this was not sufficient for the Government because the indaba did not come out with proposals which conformed with the Government’s ideas relating to group representation.

This is the Government which cannot be trusted with the reform process. The Government is in no way sincere when it talks of reform. It did not fight this election on reform; it did not ask for a mandate from the electorate for reform.I believe the Government is concerned only with the battle which is taking place between itself and the CP. Moreover, I do not believe it can be trusted with reform.

To sum up the debate, one finds that apart from the minor differences between the Government and the Official Opposition, in spite of their agreement on the whole question of racial separation in South Africa, the other factor which emerges is that it is only a party such as the PFP, with its philosophy of concentrating on the real vision for South Africa—a South Africa belonging to all its people—that can attempt to move this country in a direction that can save us from the disaster that awaits us unless there is change. For that reason, I believe that the amendment moved by the hon member for Sea Point must be supported and therefore we support it.

Mr Chairman, I want to tell the hon member for Berea that as the PFP leader in Natal, he has been very consistent in that over a period of many years he has consistently led his party to defeat. [Interjections.] He must therefore not expect us to pay much attention to his analysis of the election results, or to any of the views he may have about the challenges facing South Africa today.

The hon member referred once again at the end of his speech to the indaba, and it is peculiar to note that the PFP are becoming as radical as the far right of the CP. They are utterly intolerant; they cannot stand any argument that is not similar to their own. [Interjections.] The hon member said that he attended the indaba regularly, and I accept that to be the case. He spent a lot of time there last year.

It is said that negotiation breeds understanding, patience and trust. [Interjections.] Why, then, if the hon member made such a good contribution to the indaba, did the PFP level such vicious criticisms after the indaba at the Government in particular because the Government would not accept the recommendations of the indaba holus-bolus?

Because it did so 48 hours before it had been formally handed over! [Interjections.]

The indaba was an excellent exercise in negotiation politics, and this side of the House supports negotiation politics. There were many lessons to be learnt at the indaba, one of them being that only a short-term benefit can be obtained by hijacking the process at an indaba, as the PFP tried to do.

The other lesson, which is perhaps not so well known, but to which I should like to pay tribute this afternoon, is that the representatives of Inkatha and of the kwaZulu Government present at the indaba, acted with integrity as one should act when one is discussing the agenda of a particular meeting. They took the trouble to speak to those people who opposed their views and those people who had different political philosophies. They created an opportunity to discuss their views and those of their opponents in a calm atmosphere with those members who were opposed to their views and, in fact, they set an example to the likes of the PFP representatives. I do not wish to say any more about the indaba because our position has already been clearly stated. The hon the Minister of National Education did so this morning.The NP clearly indicated that the proposals, as they stand, are not acceptable to the Government. We are, however, fully prepared for further discussions.

Will the hon Minister take a question?

No, I have limited time. In this regard I want to point out that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has indicated that the Government would be prepared to enter into talks with the kwaZulu Government, the Executive Committee of Natal, and also the leaders of all political parties in Natal about further constitutional development in Natal and kwaZulu.

What about a referendum?

My first reaction to that question is that so few people know what the indaba is about that a referendum would be ridiculous.

One of the lessons to be learnt from the indaba is that only the central Government and other governmental institutions, as well as political parties, should in the final analysis be the negotiating parties on constitutional matters—at regional or central level.

*Mr Chairman, I also want to preen a bit. The NP in Natal fared very well in the election. The people who had supported the NP for years did not go to the CP or the PFP, but once again supported the NP. We also broadened our support, however.

†I wish to express my thanks for the valued support of thousands of English-speaking South Africans. The voters of Natal are levelheaded. They are sensible and down to earth. They cannot be taken for granted like the PFP did. They do not enter into alliances of convenience. They do not allow themselves to be hoodwinked.

Your whole party is an alliance.

They resisted an unprecedented campaign from the Prog Press in Natal. They campaigned to stampede them into voting for an unprincipled alliance.

That is not true. If there is a party that lacks principles it is the NP.

The result of the poll completely vindicated the stand taken by many former NRP public representatives and members. Some of them are present in this House today.

*I want to say something about the Press today. We are living in an era in which the media have established themselves firmly as means of communication. A society in a sophisticated world simply cannot exist in its plenitude without these means of communication. The Press, with which all of us have had to deal recently, is an indispensible part of these means of communication. The role of the Press is set out well by the Royal Commission on the Press in 1977. I want to quote a few sentences from their report.

†The Royal Commission, however, qualifies the role of the Press as follows:

The viewpoints of the Royal Commission have international backing. The International Covenant on Human and Political Rights accepted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1966 stipulates that the right to freedom of expression and to information carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as provided by law and are necessary for the respect of the rights of others and for the protection of national security or of public health or morals.

I want to make it clear that this Government subscribes to a free press but with due regard to the other fundamental principles. [Interjections.] It is subject to other fundamental principles accepted all over the world, be it self-constraint or statutory constraint. The object of both Government and the Press is to further the national interests. The right to freedom to expression and to information must be exercised in such a manner that it does not jeopardise other basic rights, the public order or national security.

*I want to come back to South Africa. Here one can distinguish clearly between a responsible and an irresponsible Press. The responsible Press belongs largely to the Newspaper Press Union and the Conference of Editors. An important part of the irresponsible Press is politically inclined. In the present era, they can be characterised as the pro-revolutionary Press.

In the first place, I want to turn to the responsible Press. The Government’s attitude to the NPU and the Conference of Editors is one of goodwill. The Government is still prepared to enter into dialogue with them on matters of common interest.

†As I understand the position, the Media Council was set up by the NPU after long deliberations with the Government. The Government has at all times been under the impression that the establishment of this council was an honest attempt, inter alia, to assist in putting the House of the Press in better order. As part of the negotiations the Government agreed not to implement certain sections of the Registration of Newspapers Amendment Act, 1982. This was agreed to in order to allow the Media Council time to prove its effectiveness.

Considering the issues that led to the adoption of this Act and the non-implementation of certain sections thereof, I am surprised to read in the Press that the chairman of the Media Council, Mr Justice van Winsen, said a few days ago, and I quote from The Citizen of 20 May 1987:

*The Constitution and Code of Conduct of the Media Council contains guidelines for honest, accurate and objective journalism. These are excellent guidelines, and the Media Council must ensure that these guidelines are adhered to.

Various discussions have taken place between the Government and the Media Council over a period of years.

In a letter to the Media Council, dated 14 February 1986, I pointed out a few problem areas. I put them as follows:

1. (a) Die behoefte om die beeld van die Mediaraad te bevorder en groter aandag op sy werk te vestig;
2. (b) die onbevredigende metodiek van regstelling van foutiewe berigte in koerante;
3. (c) die probleem van tendense van negatiewe beriggewing en misleidende opskrifte by koerante; en
4. (d) die aard van beriggewing in koerante wat nie lede van die Nuusblad-Persunie is nie.

In the same letter, I broached another aspect as follows:

It was with interest that I later took cognisance of the fact that some of these problem areas had been addressed. I noted with appreciation that advertisements which explained the activities of the Media Council had been placed in newspapers.

In terms of objective 1.5 of their constitution, the Media Council is also entitled to make statements about non-members of the Press Union. In practice, however, the Media Council acts mainly reactively. It reacts to complaints, but seldom if ever initiates action. I am aware, however, that the Media council does not have the infrastructure to maintain all their excellent objectives. I read the following in Beeld of 21 May 1987, however, about a Media Council meeting which took place this week.

I hope that these important matters will not be permitted to continue unresolved. Nevertheless, I look forward to further discussions with the Media Council and the Conference of Editors.

I want to dwell for a moment on the irresponsible Press and in particular on the pro-revolutionary Press to which I referred earlier. This section of the Press takes no notice of the journalistic ethics and norms of responsible reporting in any case.

I took only a handful of those media publications. I am sure all the hon members have seen some of them at some stage. This Press causes even the members of the NPU discomfort and concern.

†Without exception this Press directs its propaganda at the more vulnerable sections of our community. These are mainly pupils, students and the lesser privileged. On analysing these publications one finds numerous examples of distortions, exaggerations, misrepresentations and material omissions. They are full of deliberate attempts to activate and misguide the reader. The day to day socioeconomic problems in an imperfect world are unduly politicised.

Imaginary grievances are created. These are usually coupled with security actions, inadequate housing and education. It is continually suggested that a completely new social, economic and political structure is needed in South Africa. The dismantling of the entire order, and not only the government of the day, is the object of the continuous attempts to condition the public. Let me refer to the publication State of the Nation of 1 April. It prominently propagates and displays certain programmes of SAYCO, the South African Youth Council. It mentions: “Forming defence and propaganda committees against the May 6 White elections; campaigns against the Bantustans; intensifying organisation in the rural areas and fighting against superstition; a campaign to socially isolate collaborators; observing days such as May Day, June 16, Freedom Charter Day, Sharpeville Day etc; liaising with other organisations; and as part of the UDF taking up campaigns to unban the ANC and against the state of emergency and detentions and for people’s education.” The illegitimacy of the Government is reiterated here time and again.

*This Press presents the ANC and SACP as organisations which have our people’s interests at heart. People like Tambo and Slovo are presented as being heroes. Their crimes are ignored and it is said that they were imprisoned only because of political views. Let me give another example from New Nation. Letters are published, for example the one that appeared under the heading “Ten who could lead us to pastures of plenty”, with photographs of the 10 accompanying it. We also read:

In lighter vein there is the following:

[Interjections.] I say that in a lighter vein, however.

Where did you come in that poll?

I came nowhere. [Interjections.]

That is what I thought.

That is also where you are going.

I want to give one more example. Another edition has a long report which reads inter alia:

Propaganda is made in a subtle way in support of militant and radical organisations such as the ANC.

Violent action is stimulated and atrocities such as “necklacing” are justified. Freddy Dlamini, an important liaison officer of the ANC, who is abroad, had the following to say about this section of the Press:

It is illuminating that at this week’s meeting of the Media Council, Mr M B Kumalo made a plea for the placing of advertisements in the responsible Press. He was the one who spoke about the “responsible press” this time. According to Die Burger of 20 May 1987, Mr Kumalo said:

I want to make it clear that the prorevolutionary Press must take cognisance that their trouble-making will no longer be tolerated. These repulsive practices must be curbed in the interests of South Africa.

†In conclusion I should like to make a few remarks with regard to the foreign Press.

Anyone who has been overseas can vouch for the one-sided reporting in the overseas media. The Government has always been willing to accommodate the world media in South Africa. In return the Government expects that foreign media operating from South African soil will adhere to the general journalistic standards applicable worldwide. These standards are well expressed in the Code of Conduct of the South African Media Council. They are briefly the following: A clear distinction between comments and facts should be made and comment should not be presented as fact; furthermore, reporting on news events should be presented in a balanced manner and should be objective and accurate without any distortion, exaggeration or misrepresentation.

Why is the SABC not a member of the Media Council?

These journalists must obviously also obey the laws of the country which, inter alia, include the emergency regulations.

Foreign journalists operating from South Africa who do not comply with these standards …

… are taken to court!

… are seriously abusing the hospitality of this country. In such circumstances I will not hesitate to act against them.

Decisions of this nature are not taken lightly. I base my decisions on inputs from various sources after wide consultation. Very often this is preceded by discussions with those concerned and their editors or managing editors. I should like to give this House the firm assurance that each case is thoroughly considered solely on merit, always with the interests of South Africa at heart.

Mr Speaker, it is a privilege for me to reply to this debate. In a certain sense it is quite easy to do so because no exceptional replies emerged from the side of the governing party, and the questions they put to this side of the House have either been replied to already or will still be replied to. [Interjections.]

†I wish to express my gratitude for the attitude of the hon leader of the PFP. I believe he was courteous in his remarks about me. He was also magnanimous. It is, however, obvious that we do not agree with each other in relation to basic philosophy. This side of the House can never accept a philosophy of a non-racial society in South Africa, which would mean the denial of particular peoples, the denial of particular peoples, the denial of the existence of a White community in this country, and the denial of the Afrikaner people in particular.

*On that we can never agree. That is why we can be courteous to one another. Basically, however, we shall remain political opponents, and continue to differ very sharply with one another.

You can bet on that!

Mr Speaker, I want to convey my thanks to my hon colleagues on this side of the House, who acquitted themselves very well of their task. I think they indicated that they were worthy of their status of Official Opposition in the House of Assembly.

Now I want to come at once to my replies to certain speeches that were made here. I want to say in advance that I think it is clear and obvious that I will certainly not be able to reply to the many particulars of all the speeches. However, there are a few I should like to single out and to which I want to react. On a subsequent occasion—there will still be ample opportunity for debate—the relevant points can also be raised again.

I want to begin with the speech made by the hon the Minister of Manpower. I must say I think his reaction was disappointing. He made a remark—actually it was a statement— implying that I had known that I was telling a blatant untruth. He has offered me his apology for that, and I accepted it. I must just say, however, that it is a pity that such a remark should remain on record in the journals of Parliament, and that it was not withdrawn in public, here in this House.

Order! The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows what the background to that matter is. I do not think he should continue to discuss that point.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, I have already discussed it.

Unfortunately, yes. However, the hon the Leader may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. It strikes me, however, that people in this House come forward with allegations they would like to see placed on record, and which they would like to hear mentioned over the radio and on television, while we on this side of the House do not always receive an equal opportunity to reply to them.

Order! Is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition insinuating anything by that?

No, Mr Speaker, I am speaking about what is placed on record, while we, as far as the media is concerned, are not afforded an opportunity to rectify it. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Manpower made a reference here—as hon members of the National Party do only too frequently—to a statement Mr Vorster made in connection with the way in which the meeting of the Council of Cabinets would be handled, which would then function like a Cabinet.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon the Minister and hon members opposite to a speech made by Mr Vorster in which he dealt in great detail with this entire matter and placed that remark very clearly in perspective. I am referring to a speech which he made at Brandvlei at the beginning of 1983. A video tape and a transcription was made of the speech, and they are available. I think this has far more to say than a remark which was written down and could be interpreted differently, and is being quoted according to the taste of certain hon members in the NP. I shall refer to a single paragraph to illustrate this:

What about …

The hon the Minister must not lead me into temptation. He told an untruth about me in public.

That is an untrue contention!

Can I say to the hon the Minister that it was his contention that all the members of the House of Assembly in the caucus of Mr Vorster accepted power-sharing, and I tell him it is not true.

The 1977 proposals … [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister can present that argument somewhere else.

Mr Vorster went on to say:

So I can continue, but this is not the time to do so now. He continued:

I want to illustrate why the NP is misquoting him, and what the substance is of what he said:

[Interjections.] This is a very clear judgement against a mixed cabinet. [Interjections.]

That is intimidation.

He went further with his speech, and the paragraph with which he concluded I should also like to place on record here. He spoke about the Peace of Vereeniging, and pointed out that the British undertook, as long as they were masters of Southern Africa, not to extend the Cape Black and Coloured franchise to the Free State and Transvaal. Then he said:

This I want placed on record.

The hon the Minister said here that we had said splendid things with and for the NP. He can quote all those things. He can quote what I once said when I was Chairman for the hon the State President.

The subsequent report in a newspaper stated that I had called Mr P W Botha an eagle. He can quote all those things, but I said it of a man in the context of the policy for which he stood.

That is the point.

A husband and wife were married, but strife developed between the two. The wife accused the husband of being unfaithful, and for that reason she left him. Subquently the husband walked around with “love letters” saying: See what wonderful things my wife said about me when we were still together! [Interjections.] That is what the hon members are doing now. I shall leave it at that.

The hon member for Sasolburg had a lot to say about partition, and I just want to refresh his memory. I want to display goodwill towards him by reacting to his speech, yet in all courtesy I do wish to express misgivings about his manner of talking, which in my opinion is terribly arrogant. Nevertheless I shall oblige him in respect of certain questions which he put to me. I want to remind him that I made a comprehensive speech in this House on a private member’s motion dealing with the question of partition. I would suggest that the hon member have a look at that speech in the meantime, and then we can come back to the subject, but I discussed the principle and the practicability and the possibility of partition in this House, from that bench. We shall discuss the matter again.

The hon member for Sasolburg has the AWB on his brain. [Interjections.] I do not have the AWB on my brain, but I am prepared …

You have it in your party!

… to tell the hon member now what I said in public, and have it placed on record here. At a public meeting in the Pretoria city hall I discussed the CP and other political and cultural organisations, and I had this to say about the AWB:

That is the standpoint I stated in public concerning the AWB. [Interjections.] The hon member now has so many questions to put to us, but there was a question put here to him about his connection with the Afrikaner Broederbond, which I do not want to repeat because I know it is a confidential organisation and I myself was a member of it. Nevertheless I should like to know when we are going to hear comment from his side of the House on the AB document which was freely circulated. This document contained a paragraph which read:

[Interjections.]

The document accepts that there can be a majority of Blacks in the Cabinet of South Africa. I should like to know when hon members are going to comment on this for us. We should also like to know when the hon members are going to comment on the policy and the standpoints of the Labour Party, that has representation in the same Cabinet with the NP representatives. When are we going to receive a comment from the hon members on the following statement made by the Leader of the Labour Party, who sits in the Cabinet together with the hon the State President:

He therefore associated himself in a speech, in public, with Nelson Mandela. We are awaiting comment from that side of the House. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Law and Order carried on a little too arrogantly by telling me that I did not know what I was talking about, and that I did not know what a revolution was. I really do not think the hon the Minister meant it quite so seriously. To be Minister of Law and Order is an exceptionally responsibility, and the hon the Minister knows that he has the wholehearted support of this side of the House in the preservation of law and order. Yet I do think it was rather unnecessary to say that I did not know what revolution meant. I have read up a little on this subject, and I have a very interesting document on it in my hand. It was compiled by favourably-disposed Americans, and they were dealing with the Soviet strategy for the instigation of revolution in South Africa.

The hon the Minister admitted that the issue was power. It is not merely a power struggle of certain so-called moderate Black groups in South Africa, but a struggle on the part of people who believe exclusively in revolution, and who therefore want to bring about a violent change (ommekeer) in South Africa.

A violent change will not only mean that there will be a mixed government in South Africa. They are even opposed to a mixed government in South Africa. They want a full-scale take-over by Black power in South Africa.

But surely we are fighting against a take-over!

Very well then, the Government is fighting against it, but the point I wanted to make—I think I am right when I say this—is that if one is dealing with that revolutionary force that wants to take over in South Africa, and one involves it in a common dispensation in order to make it a co-ruler of yours, together with you in South Africa, and—this was the point in my speech—that if one abdicates and surrenders White political power, if one only surrenders it partially, it is an invitation to the revolutionary force to strive for the overnight take-over of that power. One will not stop it. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare came closer, in my opinion, than certain other members to an answer to the motion of censure. He said a few things to which I should just like to draw attention. The hon Minister made a statement here which has been made repeatedly on the opposite side of the House, and that was that this country has never been a White country. He spoke about the millions who know only one fatherland.

I should like to ask hon members on that side of the House whether that means that all who are not a non-White community in South Africa, including the Zulu people, the Xhosa people and so on, have an equal claim, together with the Whites, to every inch of soil in South Africa. Does it mean that all those Black peoples have an equal claim, together with the Whites, to every inch of the soil of South Africa? Is that what it means? There is a territory in South Africa where, although other population groups also lived there as employees etc, it was not in their lawful possession and ownership, and was the lawful area of jurisdiction of the White community. The CP says there are such areas over which the Whites have jurisdiction, have established their historic right and to which they want the sole claim to govern it. [Interjections.]

In my opinion the hon the Minister referred very candidly to partnership. I just want to refer to this, in order to have it placed on record again, because some of the hon Ministers, particularly the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, had many things from years ago placed on record here. Permit me, too, to have a little something from years ago placed on record here, Sir. I am quoting from an information document of the NP of a little while ago:

I know hon members opposite will say that they no longer adhere to this. Since we are having things placed on record here, however, this is what they once stood for. That was the language that party spoke. Until very recently that party was still speaking about White South Africa.

When the old United Party still had a great deal to say about power-sharing etc—the NP is now following that idiom precisely—the NP said this in its propaganda document:

Please note, in White South Africa. [Interjections.] The point I want to make is that it is a completely new view that there is no longer such a White South Africa. [Interjections/]

The hon the Minister said:

I think my colleague, the hon member for Lichtenburg, has already made suitable observations in this connection. However, I want to pass on an opinion to the hon the Minister—an opinion which I value rather highly and which I believe is a correct opinion. I am referring to Prof Arnheim’s article. I can get the hon the Minister the reference; I have it with me here. He said:

He made the statement on the basis of various historical examples. He went on to say:

The idea of a partnership is now fundamental to the approach of the NP. They are now seeking partners among the Black people to govern together in a unitary dispensation in South Africa and to come and sit in the same Parliament, although the hon the Minister of Manpower denies it. However, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said they were coming to the Cabinet. Now I want to ask the hon the Minister what kind of partnership he is going to have with the leader of the Zulu people, for example, when that leader of the Zulu people says the following to him, and I am quoting from a newspaper:

Here is a man who does not even wanted to be called a moderate. This is a man who frequently talks about violence, and this is the man with whom the hon the Minister wants to hold an indaba, and has in fact done so in Natal. This is the man who according to the Natal Indaba is going to be the Prime Minister designate for Natal. It is that dispensation in respect of which the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said:

The feasibility of that indaba story—negotiation opportunity or not, as the hon the Minister said—is fully supported by the Government. The Government also fully supports an indaba which could result in a Black Prime Minister for Natal and a Black Prime Minister or State President for the rest of South Africa. After all, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said:

He did not say that.

Surely he did say it. That is what is in store for us. This leader is then the obvious leader with whom he will want a partnership. I think the Government will give anything to be able to bring this man into a system in which he co-operates in formulating a constitution for South Africa. The Government will give anything if he would consent to become a member of the National Statutory Council. However, he has of course turned his back on it. [Interjections.]

I do not want to spend too much time on the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He said the CP were rehashing ideas and concepts that were past. Is the concept of a “people” something of the past for him? Is the concept of “nationalism” something of the past? Is own affairs and the idea of an own territory something of the past for him? It cannot be. If the hon the Minister were to persist and say that these things were something of the past, we do not really have a basis for conversation with one another any more. If they are not something of the past, however, he was talking nonsense.

Is the idea of sovereignty or self-determination for a specific people something of the past? I am not referring now to merely a say, but to real, meaningful self-determination. Is it something of the past? Is self-government and differentiation something of the past? Only this morning the hon the Minister of National Education again emphasised the idea of differentiation. Surely it is a recognised concept. Is is also something of the past for the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs?

This is the hon Minister who spoke about the difference between seizing power and sharing power. What he meant by that was that no one had to seize power, because he would give it to them in any case. [Interjections.] Of course the Government is giving it. This is really political deception, if I may call it that. It is political deception to say that one is going to share power, while one continues to retain it. Surely it is real political naivety to allege something like that. [Interjections.]

This hon Minister is the man who, as it were, is saying with clenched fists: “I surrender, come and take part of the power.” I should like to remind him of his speech at the UN, and place it within the perspective of NP propaganda. The NP placed that speech of his within the framework of the policy of separate development.

Mr Vorster warned against a policy which was not acceptable. Mr Vorster said:

The NP’s information document stated that Adv Botha spoke against this background at the UNO. I do not have sufficient time to discuss it fully, but he said inter alia:

He went on to say:

The hon the Minister of the Interior therefore went to state the policy of separate development at the UNO against the background of the assurance of the then Prime Minister, Mr John Vorster. He said there that one must not force people upon one another and that one must not force divergent peoples into a unity.

The statements we are now receiving are those of an undivided South Africa. I want to leave him at that.

I do not have enough time at my disposal, and must apologise to the hon the Leader of the House if I am unable to reply fully to his arguments. There is something else I want to mention just for the sake of interest. A short while ago the hon the Leader of the House made a speech on citizenship. My reason for quoting it is not because I think that he still stands by it, but because he then spoke these exceptionally wise words. He said:

He then goes on to say that they do not wish to relinquish that citizenship:

No. [Interjections.]

I think the hon the Minister has replied rather hastily now.

I realise that I will not be able to dispose of everything, but may I at least remind the hon the Minister of a statement he made elsewhere.

We do not give citizenship to migrant labourers.

Let me then quote from another NP document:

That is the standpoint of the NP.

The CP says a person has one of two choices.

Order! Hon members must please converse less loudly.

One includes those people as full-fledged citizens of the same state, or one keeps them citizens with their political expression linked to their own peoples for whom there is an own geographic basis or fatherland. Those are the only two choices.

Some time ago the hon the Minister was overseas, and according to Business Day of 8 October last year, he made the following statement:

It is stated in our manifesto.

It is stated there yes. That is precisely the issue. Must they be included in those same political structures and according to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning must they be included on an equal basis?

Mr Speaker, my time has expired, but I should like to continue the discussion at a subsequent opportunity.

Question put: That all the words after “That”stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided: