House of Assembly: Vol3 - FRIDAY 19 APRIL 1985
as Chairman, presented the Sixth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Mineral and Energy Affairs, relative to the Petroleum Products Amendment Bill [No 64—85 (GA)], as follows:
M H VELDMAN,
19 April 1985.
Bill to be read a second time.
Vote No 1—“State President” (contd):
Mr Chairman, before I deal with other matters I want to draw hon members’ attention to the Vote of the State President in the printed Estimate. Appearing there is the amount of R10,908 million, which is the appropriation for the 1985-86 financial year. Proceeding from the Government’s further economizing measures, the Commission for Administration addressed a request to all departments to make an effort to effect a saving of 8% on personnel expenditure. The Office of the State President tried to comply with that request, and it was decided that a further amount of R368 000 could be saved. This amount represents a saving of 8,7%. The total estimated expenditure therefore amounts to R10,540 million, instead of the printed amount.
Sir, the hon member for Umlazi, in a positive contribution yesterday, appealed to people to guard against a spirit of pessimism. I am in full agreement with him. I should like to see all of us take this further and warn against pessimism in this country.
The hon member for Ermelo emphasized the fact that better human relations ought to be promoted in accordance with the demands of fairness and confidence so that South Africa can be a country of hope. With that, too, I should like to associate myself.
The hon member Mr Van Staden correctly pointed out that the NP, in its years of participation in politics in South Africa, had consistently adopted a policy of reform; it had done so under the late Geni Hertzog, under the late Dr Malan and all those who succeeded them up to my predecessor.
The hon member for De Kuilen singled out one truth which I shall have more to say about later this morning. It is that the ethnic diversity of South Africa cannot be denied.
The hon member for Standerton emphasized what is indeed an important aspect of the decentralization effort, namely that the private sector must also make its full contribution to it. This is in line with the appeal which I made only last week when I opened the Rand Easter Show.
The hon member for Roodepoort stressed the importance of positive nationalism. That was followed by the blunder of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North.
Are you opposed to mother love?
No, but the hon member said it meant nothing. I do not know what his mother would have said about that.
The hon member for Stellenbosch also touched upon the point that the NP must of course be able to amend its strategy. The NP does not alter its course. It does not alter its objectives. However, it does alter its strategy and its policy from time to time to cope with the demands of the times. I am in full agreement with that.
Now—before I express a few thoughts on our inter-group relations—I first want to refer, by way of background, to certain security problems in our country. I think it is a big mistake to discuss inter-group relations without taking into account the security problems with which South Africa has to contend.
In this connection I want to say that since the 1960s in particular, more and more signs were evident that elements of Marxism and Leninism were becoming more strongly and openly present in the publications and statements of the ANC. The Communist Party, with its headquarters in London, regards the ANC as an instrument to achieve its particular form of liberation in South Africa.
†The ANC is, according to the SA Communist Party, the main immediate instrument for the achievement of the aims of the so-called national democratic revolution. Whether or not the SA Communist Party or the ANC will eventually be the dominating factor, is immaterial to this argument. The fact is that they influence one another to overthrow this State. They want to bring about a dictatorship supported by a so-called people’s militia which will replace the present South African Defence Force and the Police Force.
One has only to study the works of Dr Voslensky, for instance, his recently published Nomenklatura, to see what these forces—dictated to by Moscow—really have in mind. Through intimidation and dictatorial control, masses are exploited and used to serve the interests of the governing élite. In this connection, I am reminded of what Alexander Solzhenitsyn said:
No political party represented in this House can satisfy the demands of these forces of hatred—not the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition nor the hon leader of the Conservative Party nor the hon leader of the NRP nor I. We cannot satisfy the demands of these forces of hatred.
Consequently my plea is that we should stand up against these forces of hatred and that we should do so as a united effort. I want to go even further this morning, however, and I want to state that it is my conviction that these forces are not representative of the majority of South Africans. Any assessment of the security threat against the Republic of South Africa is at present dominated by a drastic escalation of the spirit of revolution in the country—led and instigated by these forces. The process of politicization and mobilization, in which especially the UDF plays an important role and which is taking place in a still deteriorating economic situation at the present time, has attained such proportions that the potential for extensive countrywide violence and disturbances has increased markedly.
While it is accepted that the real grievances exist which create unrest among Black people, the aim of the UDF and of most of its substructures is not peaceful socio-economic and political change. Their end goal is the destruction of our system of government and of civilized values. Although the UDF professes its opposition to violence, the results of its actions indicate the contrary, as is clearly evident from murder, arson and intimidation in, inter alia, parts of the Eastern Cape.
The immediate aim of the UDF is to mobilize the masses and to incite them to confrontation with the authorities. They hope in this way to create a spiral of increasing violence which will culminate in revolution.
Regarding the instructions by the ANC to the UDF to make the country ungovernable, Godfrey Motsepe, the ANC representative in the Benelux countries, said the following in a recent interview with a Dutch publication:
The extent to which supporters of the UDF have executed these instructions given by the ANC appears, inter alia, from a statement made by Thami Mali, the chairman of the committee which organized the stay-away in November 1984. After the stay-away he said that their purpose was to make South Africa ungovernable and to force the South African Government to declare so-called liberated zones. Furthermore, leading ecclesiastics such as Dr Beyers Naudé in effect propagate conflict with the authorities when he pleads for a campaign of responsible civil disobedience because, as he puts it, the Church has no choice but to organize meaningful resistance. Neither Dr Naudé nor any other church leader of his type can, however, guarantee that their calls for and planning of responsible disobedience will not lead to violence and loss of life. They plead for peaceful disobedience but when the violence starts one does not see them.
It has become particularly clear that the UDF not only acts in its own right but has also become an internal extension of the ANC and of the South African Communist Party. Motsepe in the interview which I have already mentioned refers to the support the UDF has received from the ANC by way of the distribution of pamphlets during the elections for the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates in the UDF’s boycott campaign at that time, and he adds the following:
There are strong indications that the South African Communist Party has strengthened its grip on the ANC to such an extent that little doubt remains as to who really sets the pace in the organization. As recently as January 1985 Joe Slovo declared to the Washington Post that the ANC has over years received extensive support from the Soviet Union and that the South African Communist Party enjoys a precious and unique position within the ANC.
The refusal by Mr Nelson Mandela to renounce violence, and the insistence by the ANC, SACP and UDF conglomerate on the convening of a so-called national convention clearly illustrate that they remain intent on the acquisition of power by any available means. In this regard Oliver Tambo declared in the New Year’s message in 1984:
Various ANC leaders have recently, as a result of my conditions for dialogue and negotiations, emphasized that dialogue has since its creation been part of the ANC’s policy. However, they also emphasized that the time for dialogue was not yet ripe because the ANC would have to negotiate from a position of weakness. The ANC, according to them, is only prepared to negotiate if the transfer of power is part of the agenda and if political prisoners can participate unconditionally. An analysis of these conditions which include the dismantling of the SADF and the SAP makes its quite clear that it is expected of the Government to abdicate before it will be granted the highly dubious privilege of participating in such a convention.
By making use in particular of susceptible youth as a trigger for radicalization, attempts are also made to incite parents, communities and workers’ organizations to solidarity actions and to challenge the State to confrontation. They do not do this because they are interested in the masses. They do not do this because they are interested in the parents or in the youth. They do so because they are interested in power and power alone. Once they have achieved this and they have the power, they will use that power to establish an élite government which will be the privileged, and will neglect the masses as they are neglected in Africa, as they are neglected in the Soviet Union.
This state of affairs cannot be accepted. I know I have the majority of South Africans supporting me that this cannot be accepted. If I say that the Government will not abdicate to these forces of hatred, I know I have the support of this House too.
*This is the background against which we should view population relations in South Africa. There are two forces confronting one another in this country. There are the forces of hatred and devastation, and there are the forces of civilizing principles and belief in Christian norms, things which this country has always striven for. These forces are not representative of Whites only. There are Whites with the ANC, as well as Coloureds, Indians and Blacks, but the forces of hatred are fed from Moscow because South Africa is of decisive importance in the global struggle. Unfortunately I must say this morning that to my astonishment there are Western governments which, for some inexplicable reason, are furthering the might of Moscow against South Africa. One fails to understand it. Whether it is for the sake of political expediency, or whether it is for the sake of trade interests or whether it is born out of weakness, one does not know. On the other side are the majority of the Whites, Coloureds and Indians, as well as Black people from all the population groups which they comprise, people whom I believe long for peace, who long for peaceful co-existence and who are prepared to hold a dialogue with one another in a proper way to ensure this country’s stability and progress.
At the opening of the Parliamentary session this year I emphasized, as I had done on previous occasions, that we were resolved, together with all communities, to pursue peaceful and democratic solutions that satisfy the requirements of fairness and justice. Secondly, I emphasized that it was the Government’s general constitutional goal, while maintaining security, stability and self-determination for each group, to give all the country’s people a say in decision-making processes that affected their interests. Thirdly, it remained the Government’s point of departure that, because of the diversity of South African society, it was neither desirable nor practicable to accommodate all communities in the same way. We are experiencing this daily in our practical coexistence with the various communities.
I do not wish to mention any examples here, because I could give offence by doing so. Consequently I do not wish to mention specific examples that we have experienced. I am prepared to inform the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and all the leaders of the various parties in this House personally of what our experience has been. Every day we have to deal with this problem of accommodating opposing population groups in the political sphere, and if it had not been for our contribution to peace, there would have been greater bloodbaths between Blacks and Blacks in South Africa.
I also agree with what the Chief Minister of kwaZulu said some time ago—that it was a tragedy that Blacks were now being incited to murder Blacks. Inherently there is the potential conflict between Black communities. There are threats of a bloodbath in respect of the re-allocation of a single district from one Black community to another. We experience this daily in our dealings with these people. In South Africa, therefore, one cannot, with the best will in the world, accommodate all communities in the same way. Structures will inevitably differ, without this implying that there are less effective or inferior structures.
Interdependence does exist—this is another truth—which must be accepted as a reality on the basis of co-operative co-existence. There is interdependence. There are matters of common concern in many spheres. We cannot get away from this. It is not our cross. It is not our burden; it is our challenge.
Today, after these statements, I want to say the following in the most practical way possible: At the opening of Parliament I referred to the fact that I, as State President, also bore a special responsibility, as spelt out in our Constitution, towards our Black peoples of the Republic of South Africa, and that the special Cabinet Committee would devote particular attention to aspects of our relations policy. It has always been the case, since 1910, that the head of state has been placed in a special relationship to the Black communities as well, and I cannot imagine that this will ever change.
As a result of further negotiation and deliberation the Government decided that it was possible to go ahead with full individual property rights for those Black urban communities and persons who qualified for the 99-year leasehold system. This followed from what I said at the opening of Parliament. With that we did not change the position of permanence. The fact that it was decided years ago to grant a 99-year leasehold system, was a recognition of the permanence of these communities. It was accepted by everyone in this House. All we are doing now is to introduce a more reasonable scheme so as to establish individual property rights as well.
The accusation which is being levelled at us is that we want to establish a middle class among the Black communities. Actually, that accusation is being made by the leftist radicals, by the ANC and those who colaborate with them. The accusation is that we wish to establish a middle class among the Black communities.
I make no secret of this. I should like to see a middle class coming into existence among the Black communities. I should like to see a responsible middle class coming into existence which will have possessions and will be prepared to protect what they possess.
This principle has no implications in respect of the retention of existing political rights. That is being effected by other measures. Therefore we need have no fear that taking this step will have any political consequences. We shall have to face up to political consequences in any case.
We also accepted that Black communities outside the national states would be able to develop effective governmental structures on local level, would be able to develop structures with far greater authority, and that it had to be possible to create points of liaison in regard to matters of common concern.
Naturally, because this is, practically speaking, the only option, one must talk about energy. We must talk to one another about water. One must talk about other services because if one does not want to discuss them, one is failing to do one’s duty.
These structures will have to come into existence after and through negotiation. In this connection we have already made progress in some spheres. We have made progress with the establishment of the regional services councils and this will enable us to submit legislation to Parliament soon.
At the same time, of course, an urbanization process is taking place, one which is assuming major proportions. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is fond of discussing this subject. I do not blame him for doing so. It is because of his training and background that he perceives these problems.
I do not pretend to be an authority in this field, but I have at least had some experience. Experience has taught me that to proceed from this standpoint that we should solve the problems of the urbanization process with metropolitan areas is a foolish idea.
I am not saying that our metropolitan areas will not grow. As a matter of fact I stated at the Rand Easter Show the other day that our metropolitan areas would definitely continue to grow, but in the growth of those metropolitan areas, surely we must take a few aspects into account.
The first is where would we get the water from, for people cannot live without water. One cannot make water; one can only convey it from one place to another. The second is where would we find the land for housing, even if we built upwards into the air. We already see what this is costing us in transport amenities. People complain that we ostensibly created this situation as a result of apartheid. Let us leave it at that for a moment because I think it is merely politicking.
Surely we could not have accommodated all these people in the central parts of our metropolises. Surely we had to accommodate them somewhere. Surely we could not have allowed them to continue to live in the Sophiatowns, the Windermeres and the Cato Manors. Surely we had to take them out of those areas, for otherwise they would surely have perished in the Sophiatowns, the Windermeres and the Cato Manors. Consequently we would have had to make provision for these people in any event, and we would have had to provide them with transport services. The only question is whether those wishing to use them should not contribute more to the transport services.
In spite of our adopting all these measures, the metropolises alone cannot solve the problems of the urbanization process. Deconcentration, with which the Government has made a start, will have to be introduced. We have made a start with this north of Pretoria, and it appears to be a success. Naturally we are experiencing growing pains but must we always exploit these growing pains at one another’s expense as we are now doing?
Apart from deconcentration, for that, too, will not be enough, decentralization will have to be introduced. I am referring to the decentralization of industries and underdeveloped areas. I am not saying this out of ideological considerations but out of the considerations of a balanced economy in South Africa. I am also pleased to see to what extent our decentralization policy is succeeding.
The question that is now being asked is what are we paying for these things. Surely they cannot come into existence free of charge. If we had not incurred expenses in this sphere we would in any case have had to take care of these people somewhere else. Is it not better to take care of the underdeveloped areas, where some people still remain, so that everyone may derive benefits from a balanced economy?
Apart from these things, we shall have to make greater use of agriculture in the underdeveloped areas. We shall not, with the decentralization of industries, be able to ensure the same measure of employment we are able to ensure with agriculture. Now I specifically want to discuss the Black population. The Black peoples are established in those parts of the country which have the highest rainfall and the best soil. Fifty per cent of South Africa’s arable farming land is situated there. If we develop agriculture in those areas correctly, we can provide an additional 25 million people with food and we can provide millions more people with employment under less disruptive circumstances than one would be able to establish for them in the metropolitan areas.
I want to return to the matter of property rights. Property rights are not confined to the urban areas of South Africa outside the national states only. Property rights in the national states will also have to be addressed. One of the greatest errors made in Africa was that the question of property rights was not addressed. We shall have to negotiate on this matter and convince people that property rights in the national states will have to be dealt with on a different basis than has been the case up to now.
From our experience and the negotiations we have conducted it is now apparent that there are no problems in principles. We shall now have to proceed, in co-operation with the leaders there, to allow the practical implementation of the principle to take place. Then we shall succeed in giving people a new livelihood on a large scale in the decentralized or underdeveloped areas.
If we look to the future, I am convinced that we must promote the objectives of security, progress and freedom. Those are our objectives. In these we wish to seek security for the descendants of all the population groups, progress for all, and disciplined freedom. It must not be a reckless freedom, but a freedom which, in accordance with the oldest terms still pays heed to discipline and law.
I said at the outset that South Africa was a country of minorities. It is not only a country of minorities, but a country of minority rights and we shall have to respect this in our future approach. We shall have to succeed in preserving these rights through a future political dispensation. This means self-determination as far as possible. However, I have already stated in earlier debates that self-determination is a relative terms. Even the mighty USA cannot speak of full self-determination. They must also have regard to what other people say. Self-determination over one’s culture in the broadest sense of the word and over one’s community life, which includes the right of the parent to have his own schools—these are what we wish to preserve for the minority. This must be assured beyond any doubt. Consequently the devolution of power is the cornerstone of any future constitutional development. One cannot get away from that.
Look at our population structure—I do not wish to furnish the figures now. The Zulus will not allow themselves to be governed by the Xhosas and the Xhosas will not be allowed themselves to be governed by the Zulus. A one-party state and a one man, one vote system in a unitary state, are unacceptable to this country. They will lead to serious danger and to threats to minority rights. In fact, the Official Opposition joined us in making this statement when we were doing the prepatory work which led to the first President’s Council.
On the other hand it is right that the State should as far as possible avoid discriminatory practises in legislation and administration. This is not the first time I have said this. That is why our administration is at present being improved. In my opening address during January this year I emphasized that the improvement of the everyday circumstances of Black communities could be effectively promoted by giving searching attention to attitudes and relations in the daily human contact situation. This matter is of so much importance to me that I do not wish to leave it as it is. Consequently we have already taken steps to improve the everyday circumstances of Black people. Firstly, approval was granted for the Human Sciences Research Council to institute an investigation into relations at points of contact between certain departments and members of the Black communities. The project must be given high priority, and must be geared to Black people themselves identifying and indicating the problem areas. After that, we can look into them.
In the second place, all governmental bodies must again make certain that Black communities are involved in decision-making on socio-economic matters which affect them. Such participation in decision-making fosters greater confidence in the purpose and the integrity of proposals that have to be considered.
Thirdly, all departments must devise and submit orientation programmes aimed at improving relations during the execution of their functions. These programmes will not be based on fictitious or imaginary problem areas, but on realities disclosed by the HSRC investigation.
Fourthly, the Commission for Administration is being held responsible for the general co-ordination of the orientation programmes of staff of all colours who daily find themselves in a contact situation with communities.
Fifthly, I want to make a very serious appeal to the media. I believe there are unlimited opportunities for everyone to help build better relations. I am not talking about a sickly spirit of obsequiousness emanating from guilt feelings. I am talking about an attempt at probity in this country. The media are able to help us, but they do not always do so. We have used threats, we have spoken appeasingly, we have consulted and we have appointed councils, but there are wilful elements among the media who are bent on bedevilling relations. I am making an appeal to them to evince a change of heart in South Africa. Months of tiring efforts to build up sound relations can be destroyed with one thoughtless deed or one inaccurate report. Inferences and comments may differ, but everyone has a solemn responsibility to acquaint themselves with the true facts and to use only truly reliable sources.
Whom are you talking about?
I am talking about all of us, including the hon member.
Who in the media?
Sir, if that is the kind of reaction one gets, I can accomplish nothing. Then my hands are tied. I did not come here in a spirit of accusation this morning. The hon member has shown me that he is not listening. [Interjections.] In the news media and among all the newspapers there are people who think of circulation in the first place and not of sound relations.
The task of creating sound attitudes rests equally heavily on everyone. Government employees and those in other governmental institutions are not the only people who have a responsibility in this connection. The greatest percentage of the personnel who serve Black people are already Black people. One sometimes finds that there is a lack of willingness among those people towards those whom they have to serve. The exercise of governmental functions must in all respect be decent and promote sound attitudes. By doing this, respect is engendered for the rules by means of which we wish to assure orderliness and stability in our society. At the same time I want to express thanks to the large number of officials who perform this tiring task every day. I want to express my thanks to them for the work they are doing.
I now want to say a few words about the concept of apartheid. It is well-known that I stated here in Parliament several years ago, when I became Prime Minister, that the concept of apartheid in a negative, oppressive sense was not acceptable to me. It was not a new approach. If hon members would read the speech which the late Dr D F Malan made when he made his first statement as Prime Minister of South Africa over the radio, they would see that he dealt with this aspect. It is unfortunately a word which has resulted in a false image of South Africa’s internal relations. It is a parrot-cry which has become general among our enemies as well as among the ignorant who have been taken in tow by them.
It gave birth to racist laws.
I regard that as an insulting remark. [Interjections.] Of course. What is more, I am not talking to the hon member; I am talking to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.
That is why I prefer to talk about co-operative co-existence. I have stated repeatedly that I talk about co-operative co-existence, because we must exist side by side in this country and we must also co-operate with one another. In the process I want to continue to eliminate as far as possible the unpleasant things attaching to this parrot-cry, without jeopardizing my own survival. This is my reply to the hon member for Rissik, who made a very unsavoury speech in this House yesterday, directed at my person. I want to tell him this morning—in all fondness—that he cannot spell out to me the rules of Afrikanership. He is still too green for that. [Interjections.]
I also wish to emphasize a second point. We cannot achieve this objective, namely the elimination of all the unpleasantnesses in our inter-group relations, with a single stroke of the pen. Even a person such as Mr Nelson Mandela admitted that if the ANC were to come into power—and this can be found in certain available documents—they, too, would not be able to eliminate it with a single stroke of the pen. An evolutionary development must take place. If the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition were to come into power tomorrow …
Hear, hear! [Interjections.]
Yes, well, I shall not reproach the hon members for saying that. If he should come into power tomorrow, he will not be able to change this system with one stroke of the pen. He has already admitted to me that if he had to convene a national convention, and they took decisions with which he did not agree, he would reject them. If the hon member for Waterberg should come into power, he would be faced with the same truths I have been faced with since I became Prime Minister. If the NRP should come into power—which will not happen … [Interjections.] … if the NRP should come into power, they would be confronted by the same truths, and because some of their leaders perceived this, they are now sitting here on my side!
In conclusion I want to say a few words about a few remaining aspects. No government can in the space of one or even two terms of office cope with all the facets of a country’s national life. New problems keep on cropping up. Particularly a country such as the RSA confronts one with new situations every day; it is the way our country is constituted, and we cannot get away from it. Therefore deliberation and consultation will be a future task for everyone who has an unselfish interest in our country’s future.
It is a fact that there still many important matters in respect of Black communities in which all of us in South Africa have an interest. There is firstly the important matter which was raised by the hon member Prof Olivier concerning citizenship. Investigation in depth has recently brought greater clarity to the Government, and for most Black people this is an important matter. I have found this to be the case from personal experience and from discussions I have had. The Government does not regard the loss of South African citizenship to be the inevitable result of a national state becoming independent. We are prepared to negotiate further on this matter and to seek solutions. I think there are examples which may fruitfully be studied.
Secondly, there is the need in respect of national states to progress to greater autonomy. I think it can be stated without any doubt that the TBVC countries and the self-governing national states consider themselves to be irrevocably autonomous entities. We cannot change that. None of the parties sitting here would, if it were to come into power, be able to do anything about that. Those states would not allow them to do so.
Further constitutional development, both individual as well as in an inter-state context, can only take place if geographic consolidation can be brought about in a meaningful way. Now I know that we have been wrestling with this problem since 1936. We have made a great deal of progress with the pledges of 1936, but consolidation is closely tied up with effective government and administration. It is also closely tied up with proper boundaries and the optimum development and utilization of infrastructure and land. For that reason we shall have to negotiate further on these matters. The negotiating process in South Africa can never be completely finalized. If we want peace, security and progress in this country, we shall have to keep on negotiating.
These matters constitute great challenges. I am not in any way suggesting that these tasks which I have sketched are superhuman, but they do require a great realization of responsibility on the part of political leaders and their followers. I am speaking from experience when I say that bitter partisanship and personal rivalry in dealing with these matters will cause out best efforts to fail, with disastrous consequences for our country. If the Republic of South Africa becomes paralysed and internally weakened, not only we but also our neighbouring countries will pay a heavy price.
If what I have said here today has the support of leaders of other political parties, I wish to issue an invitation to them and propose that we allow the special Cabinet Committee, as the central forum which I spoke about earlier, to act in such a way that those leaders may also be accorded a position there so that we may enter into negotiations on a non-party political basis with Black leaders who reject violence as a political solution. I am not advocating coalitions or any fusion of parties. There is enough over which we can strive with one another across the floor of this House and conduct debates. I am advocating the creation of a national team effort from this Parliament to seek solutions to our most burning issues in the way I have indicated. I am making that offer today. If they agree with me that we must thrust aside the proponents of violence, if they agree with me that we must oppose violence, if they agree with me on the general expositions I have presented here this morning, I am prepared to use the special Cabinet Committee which is the central forum for future discussion in such a way that they can be accorded a position on it, enabling them to make a contribution in a dialogue with peaceful Black leaders in this country.
I am making that offer. It is there for everyone who has an interest in these matters to accept or reject. I believe it is our opportunity to steer this country along a responsible course.
What does it matter if a leader goes under in this process? Leaders come and go; leaders are of an ephemeral nature. Leaders are not the most important factor. The most important factor is South Africa’s welfare, South Africa’s peace, South Africa’s security, its progress and its place as a regional power on the southern subcontinent of Africa.
Mr Chairman, the State President dealt with a number of matters concerning intergroup politics with which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will deal when he enters this debate later today.
There is one point in respect of which I want to take issue with the State President. I understand his irritation with the whole question surrounding the use of the term “apartheid”. I think the State President should really understand that he and I have been in politics long enough to know that apartheid was not invented by the Opposition. It was actually invented by a committee of the NP in order to fight the 1948 election. From that point onwards apartheid was a slogan. Indeed, it became a philosophy. So if it has a negative connotation, it is because it has a negative content. [Interjections.] That word symbolized nearly all of the laws which the Government is now busy repealing. The laws which the Government is repealing are linked with the connotation of apartheid. All we want to say to the State President is that we hope the day will come when we will have repealed all the apartheid laws in South Africa, when apartheid will have been relegated to the annals of history, and when it will not be tied round the neck of South Africa. That will only happen when we repeal the laws of apartheid in this country. [Interjections.]
I want to react on behalf of the Official Opposition to the announcement or statement the State President made on South West Africa yesterday. I will start by giving our reaction and end by delivering our plea.
In this whole drawn-out affair, one group of people with whom we have sympathy is the people in South West Africa. At times in their history they have been the victims of a form of neo-colonialism; they have been the victims of international intrigue, of big power politics and of conflicting regional interests. Particularly in recent years they have suffered the consequences of years of violence, terror, economic stagnation and political uncertainty. We sympathize with them. Moreover, the people of South West Africa have not even been the captains of their own fate. They have not been able to govern themselves and neither have they been able to lay down the conditions for their independence or for the attainment of self-government. The decisions and the conditions for the obtaining of internationally recognized independence for Namibia/South West Africa have been determined by the international community on the one hand and by the Government of South Africa on the other.
The South African Government has decided to deal with the unsatisfactory stalemate situation—and we accept that it is an unsatisfactory stalemate situation—by allowing the MPC to organize some form of interim government whilst South Africa still retains overall authority through its appointed Administrator-General. This proposed solution—it emanated from a suggestion by the MPC—that was born out of frustration with the circumstances may well produce certain positive results. These could include the direct participation in the government process of at least some of the people of South West Africa. The proposed solution could well lead to the introduction of a Bill of Rights and the removal of further discrimination or apartheid—something which the Administrator-General has not been prepared to do. It could also lead to the strengthening of a separate South West African identity. These are positive steps. However, we believe that, viewed against the overall situation, these steps will be outweighed by the negative consequences that are going to flow from this. That is the situation as we see it.
Inevitably, whatever the intentions of the State President and his Government may be, the shift in relation to the internal politics of Namibia will cause people to doubt South Africa’s commitment to the execution of Resolution 435. That is going to happen whether the State President likes it or not. In this regard I must say to him across the floor of the House that I believe it was a great pity that in his statement yesterday he did not refer specifically to Resolution 435 and that he did not reaffirm South Africa’s specific commitment to the execution of Resolution 435, subject to the condition of the removal of Cuban troops from Angola. He spoke of the international recognition of a specific commitment. I believe he should do that. I hope that when he speaks again later today he will make a commitment relating specifically to Resolution 435.
Furthermore, there are grave risks that the institution of such an interim administration could have a divisive rather than have a unifying effect on the people of the territory. The State President in his address said that the Multi-Party Conference—and regrettably so—had no mandate. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs on television yesterday evening said it was possible that it did not represent the majority of the people. I have every sympathy with the Multi-Party Conference. I believe they have many worthwhile ideas and some dedicated people too. I do want to point out, however, that there are some grave risks involved in giving legislative and executive authority to people who by no stretch of the imagination are representative of the people of the territory. This is just a practical problem. Added to this, the Multi-Party Conference administration will suffer the consequences of having to try to rule without international recognition and with the real power reposing in the South African Government while, at the same time, the independence process will be stalled because of conditions over which neither the people of South West Africa nor of the Multi-Party Conference have any control. I could not unfortunately get the exact context of Mr Mudge’s statement which was broadcast by the SABC, but what is interesting about this is that there is already an indication of discontent unless the Administrator-General has only titular and symbolic significance.
The third point that disturbs us, Mr Chairman, is the specific intention to set up a Constitutional Council that will proceed with producing a draft constitution for Namibia. However tentative that process may be, it is in conflict with the agreed process which was part of the settlement process in terms of Resolution 435. That agreed process—and it affected all parties including South Africa—involved first having elections in terms of the process. Only when the members of the Constituent Assembly had been elected would it be possible for them to get on with the task of drafting a constitution. Therefore, Mr Chairman, embarking on a process prior to the agreed independence elections—elections in which the real leaders of the community will be able to be identified—is likely, we believe, to make the process of constitution-making more difficult rather than easier.
What do we see then as an alternative to the route which the State President has announced? Let me repeat what I said at the beginning of the year on behalf of the Official Opposition:
I also pointed out that the withdrawal of Cuban troops had not been finally resolved:
There will be a clear difference of opinion between the State President and ourselves on this issue. There have, however, been differences before, for instance in connection with job reservation, the Immorality Act, the urbanization of Blacks etc. There have been many differences before. In the end, however, we found each other on the basis of what we had suggested.
What we want to say to the State President is that the differences between him and ourselves on this issue are irrelevant. Surely the people who are relevant are the people of South West Africa. Surely it should be the people of South West Africa who must decide whether the Cuban troops issue is critical. This decision should not be taken by either the Government of the United States of America or the Government of South Africa. It is their independence. If that is the last obstacle, they must decide whether that should hold up the process or not.
We appeal to the State President therefore to test the opinion of the people of South West Africa on the specific point as to whether they want the Cuban troops issue to be the obstacle to their independence or not, to test it in whichever way he wishes, before he sets in motion his new plan for an interim government. We suggest that it should preferably be tested by way of a referendum because I understand—and I correctly understand—that an election is out of the question.
However, we believe that if the people of South West Africa, after all these years of agony and frustration and in spite of the presence of Cuban troops in Angola, say that they want the independence process to start, I believe the Governments of both South Africa and of the United States of America should respect their wishes and should throw in their full weight behind an independence process in terms of Resolution 435.
Mr Chairman, I do not propose to address my remarks to South West Africa this morning but rather to some of the issues raised by the State President in the first part of his address to the House this morning.
I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that it cannot be denied that never before in the history of this country has South Africa had a government more desirous or more capable of expanding democracy and of bringing about equality of opportunity for all the people who live in our country than this Government led by the State President.
Since the hon Mr P W Botha became head of Government in 1978, the new Constitution for Whites, Coloureds and Indians has come into being. A Cabinet Committee has been appointed to look into the situation of Black rights. Within a month of the referendum, Black people had their first fully-fledged municipal elections. The work of the Cabinet Committee has already enabled the State President, in his speech on 1 January 1985, to make further initiatives known in respect of the political and constitutional advancement of the Black people, matters to which he again referred this morning.
All of this demonstrates to me quite clearly that the State President and his Government are not merely paying lip-service to the general idea of equality and of opportunity in the political, economical and social field for all who live in this land, but that they are implementing this commitment in real and concrete terms. The evidence is there for all to see. The hope of reaching this goal to which all the parties in this House purport to subscribe, although they differ on the methods of achieving it, has never burned brighter.
There is, therefore, no legitimate excuse for the violence that has erupted in the Black townships in various parts of the country. As far as I am concerned, this alone is sufficient evidence that there are people and powers in South Africa, ably abetted by the alien forces of like persuasion that the State President referred to this morning, who do not want peaceful constitutional advancement in South Africa but are bent on fanning the flames of revolutionary violence.
What is happening is nothing short of fiendish. On the one hand there are those who want to have Black people shot by the Police so that they can obtain ammunition for their hypocritical sanctions and disinvestment campaigns in the USA, at the United Nations and elsewhere. On the other hand there are regrettably also those who are seeking excuses to shoot Black people—those who would wish to fight it out now, once and for all. Neither attitude can benefit anyone in South Africa—not the Whites and most certainly not the Blacks—but can only play into the hands of our enemies. Orderly constitutional advancement cannot take place in conditions of chaos and upheaval. If it is to succeed, it has to proceed within very clearly defined parameters of law and order. Therefore, I welcome the steps announced by the State President for the co-ordinated action of all the security forces, namely the Police, the Defence Force and the Railways Police.
I consider criticisms of the supportive role the Defence Force has been playing in this area as totally unfounded. It remains axiomatic that the stronger one’s deterrent is, the smaller the risk is the one will have to use it. Let us be mindful of the fact that with every life lost this country becomes poorer. Above all, let us not forget that the supreme human right of all human rights is the right to stay alive.
In this context I wish to make it clear that I have no intention of referring specifically to the tragic events at Uitenhage on 21 March. I subscribe fully to the State President’s view that the Kannemeyer Commission is the best instrument for establishing the facts, and that there is no useful purpose to be served by further debates or investigations until the commission has reported its findings. This applies as much to debates in this House as it does to the totally unacceptable decision of the American Senate to have the US Administration conduct its own investigation. Not only is it impossible for any American investigation to be better than that of an independent judicial commission in South Africa but it also constitutes an unwarranted, unacceptable and impertinent attempt to interfere in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state. Let us make one thing clear: Neither the Kennedys nor the Tutus nor the Boesaks nor the Naudés nor anyone else in the world for that matter will succeed in shunting this Government around or blackmailing it into embarking on a course other than that of its own choosing.
There is simply no cause for allegations that we on this side of the House are bowing to extraneous pressures and forcing the Police to act with too much restraint. There is also no justification for the proclivity on the part of certain members of the Official Opposition invariably to pass Judgement on the police and prejudge and condemn them even before a proper investigation has been conducted. Not even responsible people abroad are prepared to do that. President Reagan, in an interview with the Washington Post, said that there were rival factions among the Blacks, as the State President said this morning. He added:
The Sunday Telegraph of London made the following comment:
I do not think that one can agree more.
Yet about these aspects the hon member for Houghton, whom I have not seen lately, and other members of her party in general, appear to be particularly silent. If anything, they appear to be siding with the Boesaks and their ilk and those who stop at nothing in thwarting the Government’s attempts to further peaceful constitutional development.
During the Coloured and Indian general elections the UDF, of whom Dr Alan Boesak is a patron, made no secret of taking part in open intimidation of those seeking to participate. Candidates were assaulted and their houses were pelted with stones and petrol bombs. Voters were dragged from their cars and beaten up. The same things happened in the Black community council elections. Of the 39 councillors elected in the Vaal Triangle area, 27 suffered material and personal damage or injury and four were murdered. While some of them stayed at their posts to serve their communities, others gave up in despair. Near Uitenhage the last remaining community councillor of KwaNobuhle and his son and two cousins were murdered in what one newspaper described as a “barbaric and frenzied street execution. Their bodies were hacked apart and burnt while their executioners danced and sang around the bonfire in the street.” Yet the UDF’s publicity secretary, Mr Terror Lekota, told the UDF congress in Pretoria that people being chased in the townships were councillors who have been kicking people out of their homes. Even if this were true, that is no excuse for mass mob-lynchings in the streets.
The UDF is unquestionably behind this. Yet, in a letter to the Sunday Times last week, a PFP provincial councillor who edits their official mouthpiece, Deurbraak, Mr Jan van Eck, wrote in defence of what he called “the political ideals that Dr Boesak so courageously propagates.” Now I would like to know what is so courageous about disinvestment and intimidation. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, I wish to apologize to the hon member for Benoni for not replying to him.
Arising from the strong standpoint adopted here by the State President regarding the ANC and other undermining forces, I should like to assure him in this regard that there should be no doubt whatsoever that we shall give the Government and the responsible Minister or Ministers concerned our utmost support in the safeguarding of the population of South Africa. That includes everybody and naturally our own population group in particular.
In illustration of what is taking place I wish to refer to a duplicated sheet, obviously distributed on the campus of the University of the North, as an indication of what turn of mind one is dealing with here among forces desiring to undermine order and orderly society in South Africa. These are not people seeking an orderly dispensation; they are people seeking revolution, sowing hatred and disseminating that hatred. I ask hon members’ patience in listening to this—the duplicated sheet distributed there. It has no direct bearing on the occurrences at Uitenhage but it is commentary and an attitude which is hatching in consequence of that incident:
referring to the bus disaster. It continues:
This is underlined:
The reason for my quoting this is just to indicate that it is the spirit and attitude one encounters among certain people who most assuredly are not going to participate in a peaceful planning for the future of South Africa.
I also wish to reply to the State President’s invitation to co-operate on the level of the Cabinet Committee. It concerns the political future of Black people in the Republic of South Africa and beyond. The CP’s contribution to this discussion is as an opposition party which has already stated its principles repeatedly. We have already stated our point of view by way of a positive indication of our belief that one can only solve a problem of the relations between the peoples of South Africa in this country in an orderly manner if it is done on the basis of partition and that the specific peoples should be able to rule themselves within their own territory. That remains our standpoint.
We do not wish to refuse co-operation but we have already adopted a specific stand and against that background we shall give all possible co-operation but we cannot co-operate in respect of accepted principles on which we differ from the Government.
I said our co-operation was that of an opposition party; we differ radically and strongly with the Government on various matters. It is common knowledge how strongly we differ with the Government on the abolition of section 16 of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and I do not need to debate that now. It is so deep-seated that there are people who tell us it is more serious than the opposition to the institution of the tricameral Parliament; that is the extent of the strength of opposition in certain circles. I am not debating it now; there will be opportunity for that later.
The point of departure, the decision of the Government—announced in the address of the State President—has been stated definitively. Aside from its permanence, the structure has been established, namely that they are here permanently and cannot give substance to their politics on a higher than local level in the national states. The deduction is those Black people are to realize the full potential of their politics within the same constitutional structure as the Whites, Coloureds and Indians.
That is a given datum point on which we cannot negotiate with the Government. We say one cannot bring about the political fulfilment of Black people, almost 10 million of them, within the same country in a unitary system. What alternative is there? Even if one were to consider a federation, that side of the committee would have to recognize that a federation was still the admission of a unitary system. An overall parliament would be requested in addition; one government would be requested as well because there cannot be more than one government in the country. We have not received an answer to this.
I shall read what the State President said:
People will therefore not be satisfied to have a say in an informal, non-statutory, minor body. They want to sit where final decisions are taken as Rev Hendrickse now sits in the place of final decision-making. Neither is he satisfied to be there on his own; he wants at least proportional representation there. Once he is there, that is power-sharing in practice.
I do not wish to exhibit negative reactions toward the State President; his intentions must surely have been good. The wisdom we can contribute to that discussion is the tried wisdom of separate development.
Let us say it straight from the shoulder. This side of the Committee does not and will never be able to countenance political power-sharing … [Interjections.] … because political power-sharing in this country will eventuate in a question of the majority’s being conclusive. That was the wisdom already expressed by Dr Verwoerd when he spoke on these matters in the past.
It was against this backdrop that the entire action was put into operation, namely to establish own states for the various Black peoples. We did this and, if the Government intends to pursue this, we support them.
Surely one cannot do this and give to almost as many people within the Republic as are within the Black states such an opportunity in whatsoever way because there cannot be two Parliaments—neither can there be two Governments. We are therefore still seeking the answer to accommodating them in some other way, if one does not want to treat them as inferior or subordinate, than in some way or other in the same Parliament. It is said it will not be a fourth chamber, but what else will it be? We could have had all those answers.
We say very clearly—concerning this hon members should not underestimate us: In truth, as regards this, as long as we live we shall fight the introduction of Black people into the same political system here … [Interjections.] … and our co-operation should not be requested in this sphere in seeking a formula for power-sharing with Black people within the Republic of South Africa.
We do not accept the image of a South Africa comprising only minorities. South Africa is not only a land of minorities. South Africa is a country of peoples among which an independent White community arose here—in spite of the Heese stories which have become ridiculous. An independent White community arose here with a sovereign Parliament.
If the Government tells us they still stand by the composition of the House of Assembly—this House must retain its composition—that already represents a considerable modification of the pre-referendum story when it was said it would have to retain its composition and its character. The character of the House of Assembly has been sacrificed in principle and the warning of the President’s Council is contained in a quotation they used there:
Twelve or thirteen years ago there was a warning from the ranks of the NP which referred to the proposals of the old United Party to bring in only a few Black people. It ran: “Ons geskiedenis wys dat dit niks anders kan wees as die breë weg na ’n hel van Blanke verskeurdheid en ’n algemene rassestryd nie.” Our plea is: Spare us that!
Mr Chairman, while the hon leader of the CP appeared or attempted to appear to be very strongly in favour of the retention of law and order in this country, it seems its hon members have adopted so firm a stand as regards their exclusive political philosophy that they do not see their way to participating in orderly discussion in South Africa. The question we on this side of the House put to the CP is the following: Is the CP in favour of discussion or not? [Interjections.] That is the question the hon the Leader has to answer for us. Will CP members consider—one wishes to plead with them to reconsider the stand adopted by their hon leader this morning—participating in an informal discussion forum in South Africa in terms of the State President’s invitation?
Their problem is that their point of departure differs so drastically that it cannot be accommodated in the politics of South Africa. They have obviously finished talking and already reached a decision and the rest of the people in this country merely have to say: “Yes, Sir. Thank you very much for what you are prepared to give us,” but beyond that they have finished talking. The problem of the CP is that it is experiencing an identity crisis with Carl Boshoff. CP members’ problem is that they wish to withdraw themselves exclusively to a White homeland in South Africa. Their problem is that under a policy of partition they wish to create a smaller South Africa which will be predominantly White and where, like the proverbial tortoise, they will withdraw head and legs to be able to say: “Behold! We are the only survivors inside the shell”.
The hon leader of the CP put these questions yesterday and expanded on them further today. He has already drawn his own conclusions from the address of the State President on 25 January and he has compiled his own blueprint from that address. The forum particularly intended for him to be able to put his questions and make a positive contribution is in an informal discussion situation in the politics of South Africa.
Today and yesterday we were able to listen to our State President who, in contrast to the CP, in the words of Piet Meiring is being rewarded for his daring in South Africa. Piet Meiring said in his book: “In hierdie stadium van Suid-Afrika se mensesituasie sou enige regering moes kies tussen geweld en gesprek as uitgangspunt vir die beleid in die toekoms.” To which he added: “Die P W Botha-regering het gesprek gekies.”
The question the hon member for Waterberg should answer for himself and South Africa is the following: If he had to choose between discussion and violence what would his choice be? That is the answer he owes South Africa. The following is yet another question: Where does the PFP stand in respect of discussion in South Africa? While the PFP clings to the idea of a national convention as the only model for a discussion mechanism in South Africa, since the creation of the President’s Council the CP has either summarily rejected all forms of discussion or attempted to make them suspect. Surely we know—as every responsible politician in South Africa should know—that the implementation of any action of policy is a fruitless effort without negotiation, consultation and discussion. The CP knows this only too well. It knows, too, what the NP problem was regarding the 1977 proposals. It knows those proposals could not be applied as they had not been negotiated with the Coloureds and Asians.
Against this the PFP has adopted the standpoint that a national convention where the so-called “real leaders” are also present can be the only successful discussion situation. We reject that standpoint because the establishment—this is the example we wish to present to the hon leader of the Official Opposition—of this new constitutional dispensation between White, Coloured and Asian is not the result of a national convention; on the contrary, it is the consequence of an orderly discussion mechanism in a form of a President’s Council instituted by the Government in South Africa. It was a suitable mechanism for a specific situation.
The State President and the Government now wish to create a discussion mechanism to deal in an orderly and evolutionary manner with the problem of Black people outside their national political allegiance.
In this blue book the PFP comes with so many conditions regarding a national convention that I want to tell the hon Leader of the Official Opposition now that he will get that national convention off the ground with difficulty. In this booklet the PFP says on the one hand that political rights in South Africa should be granted on a colour-blind basis. It also says an open community with free association should be created in South Africa. On the other hand, the PFP says in the same book we should ensure that one group—here it uses the word “group”—should not dominate another.
If all in South Africa should decide at a national convention that they wished to land in one group by free association there would be only one fate for South Africa and that would be a Black majority government. In addition the PFP well knows that radical elements in South Africa will be satisfied with nothing else but and nothing less than a Black majority government in this country.
As regards a national convention, I therefore say to the hon leader of the official Opposition: “Words words, words”—they are utterly meaningless; he will get no further with the idea.
The State President repeated to us today that the struggle in South Africa was against the powers of hatred and destruction. The majority of moderate people in South Africa have chosen in favour of discussion. In fact, the State President invited the Opposition in South Africa to participate in this discussion to enable us ultimately to triumph over violence in South Africa.
The Opposition is in a dilemma, however, which is why the hon member for Waterberg reacted so quickly. The question is whether the hon leader of the Official Opposition will be able to persuade its soul mates—the Boesaks, the Tutu’s, the Black Sash, the UDF and the ANC—to participate in discussion in South Africa. Can the CP induce its soulmates—the Boshoffs, the Terre’blanches, the “Kappiekommando”, the AWB and the AV—to take part in discussion in South Africa? Will the Opposition as they are sitting there, the PFP and the CP, be able to convince radical leftist and rightist elements that they should renounce violence in favour of discussion? Can they persuade them to reject confrontation in favour of consultation; to renounce siege in favour of deliberation and hate in favour of goodwill? [Interjections.] The man who can start with this is the hon member Mr Theunissen. In himself he can renounce hatred in favour of goodwill and then he will fare much better.
We on this side of the House and in fact South Africa as well can justifiably ask: Why is the disposition of goodwill which is exhibited by the State President constantly denigrated by rightist and leftist elements in South Africa, including the hon member for Waterberg, in favour of defamation? [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, I find myself in agreement with the hon member for Turffontein on the so-called real leader syndrome. I should just like to add that I believe the time has come in South African politics where, with the ongoing process of reform being pursued by the Government it is extremely dangerous for people to carry on with this parrot-cry of: Talk to the real leaders. What they should be doing, in fact, is to tell those so-called real leaders, if they know who they are, to come to talk and participate in the processes which have been created for them. If we are in the system and participating and not at the same time encouraging others to participate in it and saying to them that there is another way of doing it, then I do not quite know in which camp one belongs. I believe that this real leader syndrome must be killed once and for all and that every responsible body should now be told quite straightforwardly that there is only one way of doing it and that is to participate on an ongoing basis, in the systems that are being developed, and to get on with so doing.
We had experience of this in the Indian and Coloured elections when the UDF among whom there are supposedly some real leaders and who had every opportunity to participate and get themselves into representative Government and say what they wanted to say in order that the credibility of their actions could be tested, failed to participate. To continue supporting those sort of people, I believe, is a very dangerous and very unwarranted sort of action on the part of anybody who participates within the system and within Parliament.
I should like to take this opportunity of discussing a somewhat difficult topic, and I hope the State President will not take it amiss of me if I do not succeed in doing sc adequately. I really think that we lost an op portunity today by the State President’s not addressing all three Houses of Parliament this morning and by his address not being broadcast to the nation. I think the message that the State President had in respect of law and order and his announcement concerning participation in the forum by members of all political parties are of such great import that they should not go to the nation secondhand but that the moment should have been captured. This type of action by the State President is in fact what we and the country are looking for in terms of leadership in this very difficult and extremely dangerous reform period.
It has been said over and over again by erudite, learned men that the reform process is at its most difficult when hightened expectations are created. It is then that consummate statesmanship is required to navigate the ship of state through uncharted waters. We must not lose the opportunity of making maximum use of the office of State President in his role as leader of the nation. I believe that at this time the nation is crying out for that sort of leadership. The new Constitution has brought about a state presidency which has a political connotation as well as that of the leader of the nation. We believe, without a shadow of doubt, that more emphasis must now be placed on the aspect of leader of the nation and far less on the aspect of leader of a political party.
May I please ask a question?
I should just like to complete my argument.
The essence therefore of what I want to say to the State President is that far less leadership of the NP and far more leadership of South Africa is the sort of mix that is required in this very difficult period. I say this because the hon members of the CP are,—and I say this with the best will in the world—genuinely trying to make—as our national leader put it in his succinct manner—a “gogga” out of the State President, just as the NP did years ago with the late Jan Hofmeyr. They do so because they really have nothing to put to the nation. They have no valid policy and no alternative to put to the country. They do have something, but it is hopelessly inadequate for the purpose. [Interjections.] What is happening is that the NP, instead of giving these hon members maximum TV time to allow them to spell out to the country exactly what they do not have and what a “leë dop” …
Why did you not put up a candidate in Newton Park?
I shall give the hon member a straight answer: We do not have the money!
The money or the policy!
We believe that this is one of the pressures under which the State President finds himself. It is almost a siege situation. The other side of it is that the State President leads a country in which by far the greatest majority in totality are actually anti-Nationalist. The more he identifies the State President’s dual role with the political leadership of the NP, the more that majority resort to self-indulgent, perhaps self-pitying, emotional negativism and snipe at the NP, and the State President becomes embroiled in it.
I think in these difficult times the people have a right to have a leader for whom they have great regard. On the occasions when there is a little bit of a “blaps” like the so-called reference book affair with Koppel on the TV, and even yesterday with the question of the toast, all of South Africa feels that it does not do us much good. The State President’s reaction to the remark of the hon member for Umbilo concerning the question of a national toast, I believe, was wrong. I believe that the toast has in fact been something that is symbolic of the loyalty of people—in the forces in particular—and, because of the change in the Constitution, that toast no longer applies to an apolitical figure. It is not a question of people not wanting to toast him as a person; I believe all of us would toast his good health in very difficult circumstances; it is a question of giving a lead to the symbolic and patriotic feeling of a nation which is now no longer directed at the titular head of South Africa—the State President. I believe his reaction to that was not on the level and of the nature that the people outside would like to have from the State President.
The last point I should like to make in that respect, is that the State President mentioned in his speech that some of our members had seen fit to join his party. The people in Natal see it very differently. They see that those members have joined the party as part of the attempt by the Nats to take over Natal and was done on the basis of a reward to a Deputy Minister for attempting to …
That is nonsense!
I am telling hon members how the people in Natal see it. [Interjections.] All the NP has done is to strengthen their resolve to resist joining the party.
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member how they see the appointment of Mr Cadman as Administrator of Natal?
In all fairness, Sir, two very different sets of circumstances are involved. The one is not in politics and has not crossed the floor leaving all his supporters behind. The other is similar to the captain of a ship who abandons ship first and leaves the lot behind. [Interjections.] I am telling hon members what the perception is of people out there. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, the hon member for King William’s Town dealt with a number of unrelated subjects and I think he will forgive me for not replying to him as I should like to deal with a subject connected with economics.
Before doing this I want to say, as so often in the past, I did not quite understand what the hon member for Waterberg was saying to us. Is he going to participate in the Cabinet forum or not? He told us the only contribution he had to make was that of separate development but I did not hear him saying whether he was going to make that contribution or not.
Read his Hansard again.
I am not trying to be funny. I repeat: I do not know whether he is going to participate or whether he is not going to contribute there.
He does not know himself.
I think no one in the House knows. It does not appear to me that he knows because he does not wish to discuss it now. It would be a pity if this were the case but possibly he first has to consult the actual leader of the party before he makes pronouncements in this regard. We truly hope that in the interest of South Africa his party will make its contribution in this Cabinet forum as well.
Especially after the State President’s speech this morning, no doubt whatsoever can remain that the process of constitutional development will apply to everyone in the Republic of South Africa. In this the NP intends maintaining a balance between the rights of the individual and those of the group. Opposition parties in this House revere either individual rights or group rights which in my opinion are both inevitably headed for a blood bath.
Constitutional development without economic development is meaningless, however, and political rights without economic content are empty. Uhuru has never filled a belly in Africa which is why I believe the narrowing of the prosperity gap between the privileged and the underprivileged in South Africa is a condition for a successful constitutional development process. The problem of an unacceptably large gap in living standards is to a greater or lesser degree a world-wide phenomenon but the difference is that the prosperity gap in South Africa is to a large extent of ethnic structure which naturally complicates our problem. I believe that one of the objectives of the policy of economic development in South Africa should be to narrow the prosperity gap as effectively and speedily as possible. The rightist radical party naturally wants no part of this because it takes only White interests into account in its policy. In fact its leader said in Newton Park too much was being done for Black development. For purposes of this discussion, however, we shall not take them into account.
There are two main streams of thought in South Africa on methods by which this objective may be attained, namely the distribution and the redistribution of wealth. I shall attempt to explain what I mean by this. As regards redistribution, it is popular to put it to the underprivileged that one should take from the haves to give to the have-nots which is the basic socialist approach popular even among certain Whites. According to this it is the duty of the State to provide job opportunities and to see that equal allocation is made in the division of prosperity. The argument is easily proffered that the Afrikaner escaped from the poor White question of the depression years by using the railways, roads departments, the Public Service and other Government corporations to provide job opportunities and create prosperity. It may well have been that pick and shovel work assured many Afrikaners—as it did other members of the population—of a roof over their heads and something to eat. For the sake of convenience, however, it is forgotten why Afrikaner institutions such as the “Reddingsdaadbond” were established.
Let us examine the objectives of the RDB, the first of which was the creation of own capital. In this respect institutions such as Volkskas, Saambou, Sanlam, Santam, Federale Volksbeleggings and many others remain achievements on the Afrikaner road. The second objective was the encouragement of a sense of thrift; the third the canalization of Afrikaner buying power to its own people; a fourth the protection of Afrikaner labour power and the fifth was the best possible training. Those were the RDB objectives.
A central theme runs through all these objectives: They attempted to motivate and stimulate the Afrikaner to act on own initiative. Private initiative is the cornerstone of the system of free enterprise and effective competition or, as it is popularly known, the free-market system. That is the system the Afrikaner used to shed the shackles of poverty; the system which furnished the attainment of full political rights for the Afrikaner with their economic content.
I believe this system of free enterprise—and not a socialist one—can also assist other population groups out of their problems of poverty. The method of narrowing the prosperity gap does not lie in the redistribution of wealth but in the distribution of it. Here we are not speaking of purely geographical distribution but also in an ethnic sense. I think the NP strives to realize these very objectives in its policy of decentralization of economic activities. Now that political rights for all Black people—also those outside the national states—are no longer a handicap, ownership of land for Blacks in Black areas within the Republic of South Africa becomes desirable. Private ownership of land is, in fact, inextricably part of a system of free enterprise and in my opinion of crucial importance in creating confidence in the system among other population groups. Private ownership of land within the national states is also the key to sound agricultural development in these areas and I thank the State President for re-emphasizing this.
We honour the State President for opening these doors as well on 25 January and for continuing this process today. I consider the throwing open of central business districts a further step to ensure that more and more people are absorbed into the free-market system and become conversant with it.
I believe the reconstitution of the State President’s Economic Advisory Council as he presented it to us yesterday will bring even better perspectives as regards further methods of narrowing this prosperity gap more effectively. I also believe the discussion forum announced today will have this important matter on the agenda.
The NP has at its disposal not only the awareness of vocation to cause both processes of constitutional and economic development to proceed successfully but also the leaders. Through you, Mr Chairman, I say to the State President: Every success.
Mr Chairman, I should also like to make a few remarks on economic processes in South Africa under the heading of the country’s achievements.
It is a fact that no country in the world can exist in total isolation which also applies in respect of South Africa. After the Industrial Revolution values and criteria of communities changed drastically; urbanization followed, training patterns were adapted and employment programmes the order of the day. I wish to state that after the atomic, space and computer eras an even greater change and greater influence will have been exerted on man and his community than after the Industrial Revolution.
In consequence of this development, especially in the sphere of communications, national, community and economic borders have begun to fade; self-supporting countries and communities no longer exist. One moment South Africa and its economy was still dependent on secondary agriculture and mining for its existence and the next we found ourselves in the highly sophisticated economic environment of the international scene. Overnight South Africa became part of a modern economic interreaction making great demands of it. We had to adapt training programmes to keep pace with technological changes; we had to develop managerial styles to satisfy modern needs; new markets had to be exploited in competition with countries which had been active there long before us. The question now is whether we in South Africa have succeeded and whether we can hold our own in the world.
I believe we may say without contradiction that South Africa has performed well—in many spheres we have not only succeeded in keeping up but in setting the pace.
Let us examine a few of South Africa’s weak as well as strong points and judge our performance in the light of those. In spite of the following factors South Africa has been an achiever: An overwhelming percentage of our labour force was poorly or totally untrained; our people had little experience of competition at economic level in a considerably more refined world; we have to contend with a changeable agricultural climate; raw materials have to be transported over vast distances to processing points; distances between our domestic markets as well as between our markets in Africa and elsewhere abroad are very great; we were handicapped in the field of technological training because of the lack of experience in this sphere; we are involved in anatagonistic trade overseas with sanctions, boycotts, disinvestment, interference in our political processes and a continuous onslaught on our constitutional policy. In addition there is a lack of development capital and we are also concerned with a high inflation rate; we particularly lack liquid fuel and lubricants; we have a relatively small domestic market, especially regarding goods which can be manufactured more cheaply on a massive scale.
When we review these factors and take note of them, the logical deduction we can make is that South Africa will simply not be able to perform well in a highly competitive world.
Now let us note a few of South Africa’s strong points, one of the most obvious of which is our will to survive and our will to achieve. It is true we had access to large numbers of people who could initially be absorbed into the labour market at relatively low remuneration. We have natural resources, especially in the form of large—in some case even exclusive—mineral resources. We also have technologists capable of accomplishing the breakthrough which makes them world leaders in their field. Our Cape sea route is strategic and we have a thoroughly developed Security Force.
What have we achieved? South Africa’s dynamic development programme in constitutional, social and economic fields is succeeding. South Africa’s performance in the field of technology is without equal; the manufacture of liquid fuel from coal has become a reality in South Africa—performances achieved at the three Sasol installations are unequalled in the world. We are also performing very well in other chemical and technological fields; in the sphere of atomic energy South Africa has already become a world leader within a short period and that with limited financial resources at its disposal. This performance was achieved in spite of the anatagonism of the international community.
South Africa’s achievement in the field of the development and manufacture of weaponry is universally known; this serves as an example of our intent to survive and to continue to exist. It is of no avail to us to have mineral reserves if we are unable to use them.
South Africa is also a world leader in the sphere of mining. In this regard I shall mention a few examples: 99% of all platinum in Africa is mined here as well as 94% of all gold, 94% of all coal, 93% of all vanadium, 74% of all chrome and so on. One could proceed with a long list but there are only a few minerals mined in greater quantities in other countries of Africa. Almost 12 000 ships visit our harbours annually and in this process South Africa has developed a very modern shipping repair industry. In spite of many negative factors our management experts’ success in achieving performances without equal which has resulted in foreign investors’ making long-term investments in South Africa over many years.
Here we are not even thinking of the situation elsewhere in Africa where investors are predisposed to investments of two, three or five years. We are speaking of long-term investments spanning 50 years and more. South Africa’s financial management also receives worldwide recognition for its refinement.
As regards medical services, South Africa’s performance is unequalled in any comparable state. As an example we have one medical practitioner to 1 900 members of the population against, for instance, Nigeria’s 25 000 members of the population to one doctor.
South Africa has established a large import and export industry in the international market. This country has developed its arrangements and training regarding employees to the most refined in the modern world—the way in which our labour legislation has developed and the attention paid to training are evidence of this. I wish to mention in passing that all previous studies indicate that when South Africa is faring badly in the economic field, it is the Black people and unskilled workers who are most adversely affected.
Regional development—much has already been said on this—and employment near the worker’s place of residence have already reached an established and successful stage of realization. With regard to this process there is no country in the world contributing more in aid to developing countries in Africa than South Africa. Its education and training programmes as well as its industrial establishment serve as examples to the rest of the world. In consequence of this process South Africa also has the highest percentage of literacy in Africa.
I have refrained from going into detail as not one of these matters could possibly be dealt with in a speech of ten minutes. Of importance, however, is the fact that South Africa is performing extraordinarily well. The time has come for entrepreneurs in our country to receive recognition for their achievements; that we take off our hats with a flourish to our technologists and engineers for their creativity. The time has come to thank a Government which has created a climate in which these achievements can be realized. Let the gutless wail; South Africa’s performance cannot be stemmed. In spite of many negative factors the record shows one thing only and that is that South Africa is a country of achievement.
Mr Chairman, in 1957 the State President referred to certain house meetings held by the old United Party as “oeloe-oeloe” meetings and I quote (Hansard: Assembly, vol 93, col 686):
That was the old United Party:
I now wish to refer to such an “oeloe-oeloe” meeting held on 2 April at Harrismith. The speakers were Mr Danie Pienaar and Mr Roelf Dreyer, both Free State MECs of the NP and the NP candidate Mr Odendaal. Mr Pienaar explained the expertise and operation of the State President’s multiracial Cabinet with specific reference to the role of the hon Ministers Rev Hendrickse and Rajbansi. I now wish to quote Mr Pienaar. He says…
What are you quoting from?
If the hon member for Virginia does not want to believe me, here is the cassette. [Interjections.] Mr Pienaar says:
He does not refer to Rev the Hon Hendrickse but merely to “ou Hendrickse”. He replies to this by saying:
I now wish to ask the State President whether Rev Hendrickse is an enemy of the Government.
If you do not have the sense to think for yourself, why put these things to me? [Interjections.]
I now wish to ask the State President whether his MEC has the sense to know that Rev Hendrickse is a member of the Cabinet and not its enemy.
What are you quoting from?
My quotation comes from the tape recording of a speech of a Free State MEC which he made at one of the “oeloe-oeloe” meetings of the State President. In that speech he said, “Van der Ross en Adam Smal is net sulke vyande van die Regering as wat Hendrickse is.”
Yes, that was at their “oeloe-oeloe” meeting at Harrismith. [Interjections.]
This enemy, according to the opinion of Mr Danie Pienaar, Free State MEC, had been appointed to the Cabinet by the State President. Mr Pienaar continues:
Now hon members should note what fruit this dispensation has produced according to Mr Danie Pienaar, MEC:
Are you prepared to give that tape recording to the hon Chief Whip?
I am prepared to give it to you.
Then we shall phone Mr Pienaar. If he said that, I repudiate him.
Thank you very much. That is all we wanted. I am very glad the State President has said that because that is the way in which the NP in the Free State canvasses for votes for the National Party at these “oeloe-oeloe” meetings. [Interjections.] That is the manner in which meetings are held. That was an election meeting by two of the NP MECs and its candidate at which the party attempted to canvass for votes. [Interjections.]
I can continue quoting further but I am very grateful that the State President has repudiated Mr Pienaar—and I presume also the way in which these people humiliated a member of the Cabinet by presenting him in this light.
I also repudiate everything for which you stand.
I am also very grateful to the State President for that. The State President therefore also repudiates separate development.
No, I repudiate your personal…
Yes, you can repudiate me as well. I wish to tell the State President, however, why I have no confidence in him either and repudiate him. In 1978 the Cape congress of the NP approved the following proposal:
In 1984 a decision of the NP congress under the leadership of the State President was reported as follows:
That is from Die Burger of 27 September 1984. In 1978 the State President rejected leasehold rights in the Western Cape but in 1984 he and his coalition government implemented them there. Arising from the Erika Theron report, the State President reaffirmed in 1978 that the Western Cape would remain a preference area for Whites and Coloureds. In 1984 the system of Brown labour preference was abolished under his leadership.
Listen to what the State President says on the prohibition of mixed marriages and section 16 of the Immorality Act and I quote from Skietgoed:
In 1985 both these Acts were repealed under the leadership of the State President and his multiracial Coalition Cabinet.
I can also quote what the State President said on power-sharing. Basically he has already come to the point of asking us to accept power-sharing with Black people at local government level as well. The State President repudiates me but how can one support a party and a leader who within a few years have undergone such an absolute change of standpoint, policy and principle? How can one trust and believe the NP and its leader if they tell us now that they support separate schools and separate residential areas? How can South Africa believe them if they tell us this now?
If one examines the history of the NP under the leadership of Pres Botha, one reaches only one conclusion: The guarantees he and his party give South Africa are not worth the paper on which they are written. [Interjections.]
The State President is welcome to repudiate me personally but I wish to ask the State President to call a general election. The people of South Africa will repudiate the direction taken under his leadership. The White man in South Africa rejects the way of political integration he has chosen.
Mr Chairman, let us be, honest with one another and admit that if there were a general election today, I think the hon member for Kuruman would agree with me in saying he would be the first not to be returned. [Interjections.]
I have challenged Hendrik Schoeman!
That is altogether in order; I accept that challenge. Nevertheless let us put it pertinently that Kuruman would not return the same member again; they would return a Nationalist.
There will be many more of us—Vasco will also fall.
The hon member directed various challenges at the State President personally and I believe the State President will deal with them himself. I wish to reply to only one or two arguments.
The first is the question that the Cape is a labour preference area for Coloureds. That hon member will recall that he and I sat together in this party while at that stage there was no direct representation for Coloureds in Parliament. Technically we were the de facto representatives of Coloureds in this Parliament, which at the time was the only total Parliament, and had to discuss the Coloureds’ affairs and act on their behalf here. Now the situation has changed, however, and there is a bicameral Parliament in which the Coloureds discuss and deal with their own affairs in one of those Chambers. Surely the decision to abolish the old system resulted from a unanimous request from Coloured representatives. Would it then be reasonable of the State President and the Government to have refused that unanimous request? If the hon member tells me that is governing, he should tell me what he regards as a reasonable government.
Another matter I wish to go into is that of power-sharing and the history of the National Party mentioned by the hon member. If the hon member traces the historical development of the National Party from its inception, he will realize it is a party with a history of successful, sustained government in consequence of the one concept it continues to strive for under its various leaders, namely that in keeping with the times it has taken the lead in an evolutionary manner. That hon member and his party are retrogressing from 1979. That is the difference between the philosophies of the two parties.
As we are in the political sphere now, I wish to ask the State President just this: A few years ago I asked him to reply in respect of the need of the nation out there to know his feelings on infiltration. The State President replied to me successfully. The people out there accepted this and the assurance the State President gave them is still eliciting reaction today. At a time when we are in the midst of evolution and change and the repeal of old, existing laws, will the State President not respond for a few moments only and explain our plan and our way? The people will follow him. The State President is the leader, the great leader of the White population who is followed politically. The minority parties are sitting over there. He is the undisputed leader of the majority. I believe the State President could say to them now and then: “This is what we are doing; this is the way”—sketching it to us. He should just repeat what is not negotiable as I think it would be a good message once again for the people out there.
I should like to pause at the economic situation. In these times of our involvement with evolutionary renewal of the political situation of our Republic I believe democracy rests on two supports. On the one hand one has the democratic system in the political sphere which is inseparable from the capitalistic system on the other. At a time when we are progressing very well on the one hand I believe we have the problem—I should like the State President to respond to this—that the capitalist system is a support also requiring renewal just as is the case with the political support.
I should like to quote someone I believe is acceptably balanced to us all precisely because he stands outside politics. I am referring to Prof Richard van der Ross writing on the South African composition as regards the capitalistic system:
He goes further and to me this is the essence:
If one reads this in conjunction with the study on the capitalist system made over two years by Unisa, one finds among those of colour in particular a feeling not only of frustration but also of distrust regarding the capitalist system.
I wish to state that it is impossible to evolve politically in a democratic way if we do not see to it that in the first place our entire population understands the system of capitalism and secondly will accept it as the most advantageous not only for one part of the population which is the Whites.
On the basis of the question-and-answer survey conducted by Unisa, it was found if one asked the Black man the best way to increase his salary he would tell one it was to decrease the White man’s. The second way would be to increase the price of the commodity. Only at the fourth time of asking did one arrive at a positive answer concerning production.
To me this indicates that we have a problem in taking these masses with us. In all humility I wish to put the point to the State President that I think it essential—I know much is being done about it, positive things are being done—that a massive educational action will have to be tackled here to obviate this problem.
Furthermore I wish to devote attention to two specific matters—the first of which is agriculture. I should like to associate myself with the hon member Dr Odendaal who had already indicated how, through the agency of the Government, progress in the field of agriculture is already being made by all racial groups. I am plagued by the problem that at the moment two agricultural systems hold good for Whites and those of colour. I believe we can subsidize 60 000 farmers in various ways but we cannot subsidize 6 million. I think we shall be obliged in the first phase of development to use agriculture as the basis for determining the development of those of colour, especially of the Black people, in this country.
I believe we shall have to check that we include the trends of thought on agricultural matters of all the various racial groups. I am referring to quotas in particular at the moment. We should look at what Prof Nieuwoudt and other gentlemen have said on the limits to be placed on the country.
Let us take today’s maize price as an example. In the Republic this price is approximately R200 whereas it is about R450 in Transkei. That type of difference cannot persist. We shall have to attempt to get away from the quota system, from limits on agriculture and from various subsidized prices. We shall have to try to fix realistic prices to be paid to all.
I now get to the informal sector and ask myself the following: To what do we owe the origin of the informal sector and to what its phenomenal growth? I want to attempt to answer to a certain degree. I think we are trying to apply First World standards of control to second and third-tier government while in our circumstances we are dealing with population groups of the third tier. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with one point of the hon member for Vasco’s speech which is the struggle ahead over what economic system we shall have in this country—basically capitalistic or basic socialistic. I have spoken on this in the House before but I wish to refer to one of the State President’s pronouncements in his opening address of 25 January. At the time he stated his economic policy and said inter alia he accepted the responsibility of acting if the interests of certain groups were prejudiced by the disruptive conduct of others in the market. I wish to contend that we should retain that clear point of departure and also bear the authorities’ responsibility in mind throughout.
I want for a moment to return to the hon member for Kuruman who said he could not accept the paper on which the State President wrote his guarantees. The hon member would do well to return to the NP manifesto of 1981—of which his leader was a co-signatory. The hon member also referred to the Cape congress of 1978 and stated that the congress took a decision and that it was implemented by the leader. He further stated that the leader had carried out a different policy in 1984 but omitted to say the congress had prescribed another such policy to him. [Interjections.] The hon member should be fair. He is creating the impression that the State President is acting altogether contrary to his earlier decisions but the State President has a democratic approach and he does as he is asked by the people whom he represents. [Interjections.]
I wish to associate myself with one other aspect and that is the State President’s appeal to all the hon leaders of the opposition parties to participate in and join what he called the “central forum”. The hon member for Waterberg has already rejected this. I wish to appeal to the hon Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Durban Point to study these words again carefully before responding to them. I want to point out that participation is not requested on precisely the same basis; there is a particular request for the broadening of the discussion. The central forum forms the basis for future negotiation. I believe what the State President said should be acceptable to both the hon leaders and I think they can both make a great contribution to broaden the discussion and make the forum a real possibility.
Mr Chairman, I hope you and also other hon members will pardon me for returning only now to the State President himself and saying something about him. It is not often granted to a leader to bring something into being. Reformers are rather scarce. Most leaders are only status quo people and they find it difficult to adjust; they even find it difficult to acknowledge changed circumstances.
Even on achieving success, those who are remembered are people who have covered only a single sphere; Mr P W Botha’s case is different. There are two aspects of his basic approach which are fundamental to his action and I believe we should explain them. In the first place he is par excellence a manager of anti-revolution by which I am attempting to say he has a managerial style without which revolution would already have been a reality. Together with this the State President also has a point of view which forces him to comply responsibly with the demands of Christian justice and love. I contend his specific term goals reflect this as well.
I am mentioning these matters because most of us live and think in single terms. When someone possesses two such outstanding characteristics it can become confusing to the listener and I wish to confess—the State President is aware of this—that it can also confuse me from time to time. If it can serve as comfort to our State President, however, I wish to tell him there are millions and millions of people in the country who honour him. There are even more millions of people, also from the ranks of the opposition parties and from all population groups and all parties in the country, who pray that he will receive grace to achieve his objectives.
The new Constitution already exists as testimony to the State President. His further remodelling of constitutional development in respect of Black people in particular is already being addressed; objectives are being formulated in terms of ideas and strategies are being developed daily.
Nevertheless there is also a third field, namely that of the improvement of the standard of life of people to which the State President pays continued attention but he does it in a way that does not always earn him the acknowledgment he deserves. He is still often castigated—in ideological terms—and it is claimed that he thinks ideologically about regional development or deconcentration. Meanwhile, all his efforts are aimed at improving people’s quality of life.
In this respect I also wish to associate myself with the announcement that the Cabinet has decided to grant property rights to Black people. Thank you very much for that. Regarding this, however, I also wish to request that urgent note be taken of the need for applying an infrastructure to this decision as soon as possible. We should not again permit a long delay in this regard as happened with 99-year leasehold. The infrastructure is inadequate at present and therefore demands urgent attention.
I need not address the House on the extent of poverty; neither need I say much on the statistics of job opportunities and development as hon members are fully aware of their extent. In this regard I am grateful for the R100 million voted in the Budget for the creation of job opportunities. Time does not permit me to indicate what is being done in this connection in the agricultural sector in particular but it should be continued.
In association with previous speakers on this side of the House, I also wish to request that agricultural development be refined—it should be presented to the people involved in their own cultural idiom so that they can take to it as well. They should not regard the development as of our doing but of their own.
I have certain reservations on decentralization and the deconcentration policy. I wonder whether those making use of the allowances—all are in fact decentralizing—are doing so for positive reasons and in positive ways. I am afraid that on expiry of the commitment to the term of allowances, it may easily happen that these industries will again be transferred to metropolitan areas. Mechanization can naturally also be used as an alternative but it will lead to further unemployment which will again cause loud cries to be uttered. In addition it can create conditions worse than those at present.
Almost R500 000 000 is being spent on subsidies for transporting commuters, especially from rural to urban areas. The projection is that this figure will reach R1,5 billion by the year 2000. Here I am referring only to the remote, decentralized areas. Phasing out of this subsidy will create wage demands which employers will not grant unless the employee can maintain higher productivity. In his turn he is unable to comply with this because of long commuting hours. Great problems can therefore arise in this respect as well because the entrepreneur’s only answer will be mechanization again. There are individual cases of commuters travelling from remote areas and the subsidy of their commuting expenses exceeding their total earnings. We shall have to examine a long-term strategy which will have to have particular links with urbanization as well.
I shall say more on urbanization on a later occasion but at this stage my plea regarding urbanization—and I am grateful that it has been referred as an instruction to the President’s Council—is for care to be taken that it should be a well-ordered, chiefly informal urbanization. Although I agree we shall have to attempt to deal with the urbanization process by means of a decentralization policy, we shall not be able to prevent urbanization in and around our metropolitan areas as well. In a manner of speaking it will have to take place not only in our back yards but practically on our front verandahs. Nevertheless we shall have to guard against moving towards the suffocating congestion which is the fate of developing countries in particular. In 1950 there were only seven urban complexes in the world with more than 5 million inhabitants. Projections show that by the year 2025 there will be 93 such complexes of which 80 will be in developing countries. We shall not be able to escape our share of this congestion or this concentration. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, today and yesterday we heard the first reply of our new politicized State President and I merely wish to say I am very sorry that our State President overreacted so sharply and viciously yesterday to the stands adopted by my colleagues, the hon member for Soutpansberg and the hon member for Rissik, as well as the hon member for Durban Point. We make certain specific demands and I believe the public of South Africa makes similar demands of our State President, one of which is that he should not exhibit an image of intolerance. If people differ from him politically, I think he should be bighearted enough not to react as viciously as he did yesterday inter alia when our hon colleague for Soutpansberg told him he could not be here today, whereupon the State President attacked him sharply and said he was running away. [Interjections.] That is no way to create goodwill towards the office of State President. [Interjections.] That is a matter to be put right.
When the hon member for Rissik referred amongst other facts to the previous outspoken standpoint of the NP as regards the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act he was pointing out something from which the NP had deviated radically. I do not know whether it was a guilty conscience which caused the State President to react in that way because he has now executed a complete somersault regarding the points of view the NP revered on these two Acts. That is why I say this coalition government of the State President’s remains in the dock; the list of charges against this coalition Government increases by the day. The principal charge against the State President’s coalition Government is that he is leading South Africa to Black majority rule. [Interjections.] That is our principal charge against the State President. We say that what is happening now in this current dispensation will eventuate in a Black majority government in South Africa. [Interjections.]
This morning I listened quietly to the State President as he explained the old ideals of the NP. Together with him we dreamt of those beautiful old ideals again but while we are indulging in dreams on those ideals, the State President and his party are creating structures which will destroy all those beautiful ideals. These new political structures with which the NP is currently involved will see to it that those ideals are never realized. In spite of its good intentions, the NP is creating expectations of an equal political voice and ultimal total take-over of political power among millions of Black people. That is precisely the fundamental mistake the State President made when he started sharing political power. He made a basic mistake when he started sharing political power with Coloureds and Indians; he is now going further and intends sharing political power with Black people as well. We all know that the logical consequence will be that those people will ultimately take over the entire political structure in this country.
A British reporter who was here recently gave a very interesting description of his observations in South Africa. Amongst other points, he spelt out the coalition the State President was currently forming. This reporter, a Mr Wilf Thorn, wrote in the Sunday Telegraph of 7 April 1985 …
Leave the English newspapers alone!
I just want to tell my friend, the hon member for Winburg, not to be so allergic when we read from English newspapers. [Interjections.] We do not suck up to the liberal Afrikaans Press like a pet lamb—as he does. [Interjections.] He should also take note of the points of view of the English Press because he will then often hear the truth. [Interjections.]
This English correspondent makes the following interesting observation:
That is that correspondent’s conclusion: “Everything short of majority rule.” Then he goes further and with his intelligent grasp of the set-up in Africa he makes the statement:
[Interjections.] Here an Englishman is sketching reality to us as it is being experienced in South Africa today, namely our new coalition. He is intelligent enough to realize that the traditional power base of the State President, the conservative Afrikaans and English-speaking South African—has been abandoned by him. The State President has deserted them and he no longer has that political power base which is why he has turned to this new coalition as such a base.
That British newsman also realized the complexity of the land in which we live and he asked this question among others:
Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.
Mr Chairman, before the adjournment I said the new liberal power base the State President had chosen for himself was of such a nature that that base would ultimately force him to accept a Black majority government in this country. [Interjections.] I wish to say to the State President that however good his intentions in creating these structures, he and his party today form part of a plan aimed at dstroying separate development, of making it totally impracticable. His coalition partners, the Coloureds and the Indians, are becoming an increasing embarrassment to him. He created a forum for them in the hope that they would contribute in attempting to solve the ethnic problem in this country. What do we find, however? We find today that the members of those two Houses have become active working partners of the PFP, a party which is bent upon and whose goal is the institution of a system of one man, one vote, [interjections.] In addition I wish to say to the State President that, besides those partners, he also intends to involve the Blacks in a coalition partnership with him. This is why we want to warn the State President that he and his coalition party will become the victim of Coloured, Indian and Black pressure, of liberal White pressure and also of an interfering foreign pressure to cause him to move in a direction where Black majority government will be the final answer. Hence our complaint: His coalition government has become part of a system which, whether he admits it or not, will ultimately give rise to the establishment of Black majority government in this country. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, the hon member Mr Theunissen said that the Coloureds and the Indians in Parliament are an embarrassment to South Africa. I want to tell him that the greatest embarrassment to South Africa is the CP, the HNP, the Afrikanerweerstandsbeweging, the Kappiekommando and their fellow travellers. [Interjections.] The hon member Mr Theunissen is a lawyer by training and knows that, if one makes allegations, one must be able to prove them. He made some scandalous allegations which he knows are untrue and have no foundation whatsoever.
The hon member complained about the treatment the hon members for Soutpansberg, Rissik and Durban Point got and then he complained about the low level of tolerance of the State President. The State President went out of his way yesterday to reply early to the hon member for Soutpansberg as the hon member for Soutpansberg could not be here today, although he should have been. As I said, the State President went out of his way—and said so—to reply early to him. The hon member Mr Theunissen conveniently forgets that fact and does not mention it. The question is: Why? The hon member Mr Theunissen is not interested in the truth.
The hon member for Rissik and other members of the CP show no respect, inside or outside this House, for the State President and his office. They keep trying to drag him into the arena of petty politics. He has been in political life for so long that he is not going to fall for their shabby political tricks. The State President is absolutely correct in ignoring the behaviour and utterances of some of the members of the CP and is not prepared to sink to their level.
As regards the hon member for Durban Point, he and the State President have had a long association in politics and they are used to being frank and honest with each other. What is more, the hon member for Durban Point is quite capable of speaking on his own behalf. He does not need the hon member Mr Theunissen to speak on his behalf. [Interjections.]
The hon member Mr Theunissen says that the policies of the State President will lead to Black majority rule. He knows that that statement is totally untrue. In fact, if somebody outside of this House made that statement, one would be allowed to call that person a public liar. [Interjections.] The hon member knows that the allegations are totally untrue and he should be ashamed of himself for making allegations that have no substance whatsoever. He knows that Black majority rule can only come about if there is a common voters’ roll and a system of one man, one vote. He also knows that everyone in the NP rejects a common voters’ roll and one man, one vote in a unitary system. [Interjections.]
The hon member also knows that the NP is opposed to a fourth Chamber in this Parliament; and he knows that the Government has proceeded with the policy of sovereign independent states, self-governing homelands and Black local authorities. In fact, today another homeland declared that it would be seeking independence. Where, then, is the sense in that hon member’s arguments?
On 25 January 1985 the State President dealt in detail with the urgent needs of the Black people of South Africa. He announced a non-statutory forum to supplement the Cabinet Committee to deal with issues affecting the Black people. These are vital issues, and the State President made an appeal today to members of other parties to make their input and to show some interest in this situation in the interests of all South Africans. The CP refused, and that begs the question: Why? Nobody has asked the CP to change their policy. All they were asked to do was make an input. In other words, if the CP came into power in South Africa, they would not be prepared to talk to the Black people of South Africa. That is their policy.
The CP and their allies, the HNP, the AWB, the Kappiekommando and other organizations are exploiting the fears of the Whites. [Interjections.] At the same time, they are sowing the seeds of self-destruction of the Whites by not taking into account the legitimate aspirations of other population groups. The CP with their policies are promoting revolution in this country. They want to see a bloodbath in South Africa. [Interjections.]
There is one phenomenon which is of the utmost concern to all South Africans, namely rural poverty and all that goes with it. There are many things on which we in this House—and people outside of it—disagree. Rural poverty and the combating of it, however, is something no one can ignore. The State President dealt with this matter in depth. He has had conferences and consultations with the private sector, homeland leaders and also spokesmen of the independent homelands. Thereafter, the Government announced new proposals and far better incentives for decentralization on a regional basis.
Since the announcement of the concessions on 1 April 1982, 2 900 applications have been approved involving capital expenditure of approximately R4 572 million and creating job opportunities for approximately 194 000 people. The Kleu Report draws attention to the fact that the average factory worker supports five dependants. This means, then, that six people benefit in one family. Thus, from the 194 000 jobs that were created, about 1,1 million people will benefit, and the earnings of those people will be spent in the regional economy.
There is a further vital and urgent role that all South Africans can help to play. On 25 January 1985 the State President dealt with the enormous amount spent in an attempt to stabilize the agricultural sector. He said that research was concentrating on the promotion of efficiency in agricultural production. This includes the drawing up of a national pastures strategy aimed at the optimum utilization of grazing. Some 50 000 unemployed people have already been provided with jobs since 1953. The University of Natal’s Institute of Natural Resources points out that one of the greatest threats to long-term stability is the environmental and associated social problems resulting from lack of development in rural areas. The institute says that more than 50% of South African Blacks live in rural areas where abject poverty and unemployment need urgent attention. The institute received support from Dr Du Plessis, the chief executive of Sanlam, who proposed the establishment of an organization which can monitor the whole rural problem on a permanent, ongoing basis. Dr Du Plessis wants a suitable body to co-ordinate rural growth and family planning; and he says that the matter should be removed from the political arena. He asks for the establishment of a rural foundation, which should have a definite plan aimed at a solution to the problem of the rural poverty cycle. He says further that the organizational goals must be formulated by the private sector in association with the Government. We have seen the rapid strides in the important role played by the Urban Foundation. In the same manner a rural foundation, established by the private sector, will have to play a vital role.
There are very many South Africans who could serve on and contribute towards such a foundation. There are leaders in industry, in commerce, in agriculture and in many professions, as well as many active and retired people from the ranks of the Public Service, whose talents could be mobilized in order to work out programmes for the upliftment of the peoples of South Africa. A rural foundation could give particular attention to the enormous agricultural potential of the rural areas. The possibilities are limitless, and we have the expertise at our disposal, for example, in the agricultural sector, not only to assist South Africa but also Southern Africa in its entirety.
There will be a vastly improved agricultural production. There will be a general productivity increase. Malnutrition will be combated. There will be a prevention of the loss of forest land. We will also have increased incomes, better family planning and a reduced mortality rate. The increased number of job opportunities will ensure a better family life as the head of the household will not then be compelled to work far away from his home.
A rural foundation, together with the development corporations of the homelands and the Decentralization Board, can work towards establishing agricultural potential aimed not only at feeding the entire population but also at the eventual export of food and other goods. In the years that lie ahead food is going to be the most valuable commodity a country can have, both for local consumption and for export. Export for survival is of paramount importance to South Africa, and those rural areas will in time also formulate an export for survival strategy. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, it gives me pleasure to follow the hon member Mr Aronson and to associate myself with what he said. I believe that history as a science has the ability at some future time to judge objectively the period of office of this State President and its historic significance.
It is true that nobody wishes to be unpopular; it makes enormous demands of the integrity of a person to do what he has to do in specific circumstances—regardless of whether this is popular or unpopular. Up to this point in my career this State President has already on a number of occasions had the unenviable burden on his shoulders of taking unpopular steps; steps only too often regarded suspiciously by people and distorted by misrepresentation.
One of the necessary actions the State President carried out without delay was precisely that he caused the development of the process of decentralization and deconcentration away from the present four large metropolitan areas in South Africa. As the representative of an electoral division in the largest of the four existing metropolitan areas, I should like to express my thanks to the State President because he and the people of his office so rapidly identified the problem connected with the PWV area and as rapidly attempted to do what the Government was capable of doing in order to solve that problem.
In spite of the positive remarks made by the hon member for Standerton yesterday, I want the State President to note that there is concern among the inhabitants of the PWV area over the fact that the process of decentralization and deconcentration is not proceeding fast enough.
What is the story behind the establishment and development of these four metropolitan areas? In South Africa the White has proved himself as the one to bring about and maintain peace and order in his environment. He has proved himself to be a person striving for development and prosperity. He has proved himself to be the pioneer and entrepreneur in this country. Because of certain historical circumstances people ultimately became concentrated chiefly in these four metropolitan areas and eventually the Whites were followed there by the huge masses which we find there today. If we view the situation with clinical honesty, in effect it comes down to the fact that when we speak of decentralization and deconcentration, we shall have to move White people. It means we shall have to remove the initiator, the very person creating and developing things, from that metropolitan area to establish him in the very place from which people are pouring to the cities. A person should therefore take the work to the people asking for it instead of conveying the people to the work but that is what has been happening in recent times and is the very cause of the situation in which we find ourselves at present.
The tragedy of this entire circumstance in the PWV area lies in the fact that it has only one source of water which is the Vaal River. Statistics on the Vaal River indicate this tragic state of affairs, namely that in future 370 million cubic metres of water will be required in the supplying area for Upper Vaal and further development is pending in that region. The PWV area and the Lower Vaal development area are going to require 3 billion cubic metres of water annually. At present we are experiencing the end of the so-called dam-filling rainy season and the Vaal Dam has barely 25% of water. How much water has to be drawn from this dam? The picture does not look good if I say that 78% of the water required for mining comes from this area. In addition 34% of agricultural production is dependent upon water from the Vaal River catchment area, added to which there remains the threat that increasing numbers of people are pouring into this area.
I wish to refer in the right spirit to PFP points of view regarding this matter of the freedom of movement of people. If I contend today that this influx to the PWV area should be ended, it is not because of the skin colour or those who wish to storm there. It is for the salvation of the people who are there at present and of those who of necessity will still have to go there. If it is not controlled, however, it will lead to the ruin of the entire area. In naked terms it comes down to the fact that one will die of thirst because the taps have run dry.
With this cry I request the office of the State President for serious examination of this matter. We shall literally have to stand with our hands on the tap and say: I am turning off the tap; I have no water for you.
I do not know whether there is anyone in South Africa capable of determining how much has already been invested in that area. There are investments totalling millions of rand and not only in the form of concrete structures but as regards the entire vitality of the economic life of this country. If we stifle that vitality, we shall die as a nation. That is why as the representative of the PWV area I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to the State President for the serious light in which he regards this matter. I pray that swift progress be made regarding it but we cannot let it rest there. I want to make an earnest call from the PWV area to the region falling outside it, which has water and the necessary labour force and infrastructure to get something off the ground, to advertise their services for supplying people in their area with work on the spot. I appeal to them to advertise their services to retain those people who wish to come to this area because they are not doing well. [Interjections.]
I wish to close after explaining that I am concerned about this situation for two reasons. We should never cause the investor in the PWV area to think that uncertainty now prevails about securities he demands of us. That uncertainty is born of the fear that we are going to stifle one another in that region. On the other hand the flow of decentralization should be directed in such a way that the influx process to this area is visibly levelled off.
That is not all as there are other factors threatening this area. One is the provision of roads in this region. My own electoral division is at present in the throes of the planning phase of roads to serve the area so that the wheels can be kept rolling. It is frightening to see the area to be taken up by roads. There is obvious uncertainty among our voters about this as some live between two six-lane roads which run 500 m from each other. Indications are that if this tendency of the seventies persists, these roads will have to be built. The costs of the PWV 15 road which runs through the electoral division of the hon member for Boksburg and my own were estimated at R160 million at the time. If more of this type of road is to be built, the normal life of people in the immediate vicinity is going to be untenable. For this reason too there will have to be a second look at this area. After all the PWV area remains the region supplying most voters with the means at their disposal today—something of which we are very proud.
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brentwood spoke with great feeling of the need for decentralization. I believe that the hon member really does not understand this party’s true standpoint on decentralization. In the final analysis, the success of effective decentralization is going to depend not so much on the government of the day or on the fine speeches we make on this subject, but on the conviction of the individual businessman that it is in his interests to decentralize on an economically profitable basis. Unfortunately, a large number of these people decentralize on the basis of the profit they can make from incentives rather than their own ability to be effective businessmen. One gives a person certain incentives for seven years, or for a set period, and when the incentives disappear or the period expires, that person also disappears, and one has not decentralized anything and has simply wasted a lot of money. I am just mentioning this in passing, because this is not what I want to talk about.
†The State President has made some very important announcements. Yesterday he referred to the reorganization of the Economic Advisory Council. I think this is an important reorganization and I would like to ask him whether he does not think there is merit in the idea of having the executive of this reorganized Economic Advisory Council co-opted onto, for example, the Committee on National Priorities set up by him. I will tell him why. This will give them some kind of direct input into decision-making in a manner which I think could influence the determination of priorities as far as economic expenditure is concerned.
We intend to co-opt the chairman.
That is an important concession.
The State President also referred to violence and the spirit of violence as a means to bring about political change. Let me make it quite clear that my party and I deplore in the strongest possible terms any organization, group or individual that promotes or uses violence to bring about any kind of change in South Africa. It is intolerable that we can have a situation in our cities where we are reduced to arbitrary mob-rule. I want to make it quite clear that no society, no state, can tolerate that. I can honestly tell the State President that I am quite happy to use my influence, such as it is, and my contacts in the Black, Coloured and Asian communities to urge them in their turn to use their influence to prevent violence from spreading and arbitrary mob-rule from becoming the order of the day. I am quite happy to do that. Allow me to make my point quite clear: When one finds a situation in a society where violence, either to change or to maintain the status quo, has become the only means of political action, one has a totally polarized society. One then has a situation which becomes unpredictable, and a situation where that society inevitably begins to destroy the very resources that it has to use to reconstruct and build up that society. Therefore, I have not only a very deep moral objection but also a very deep practical political objection to violence as a means of either maintaining or changing the status quo in any kind of society. In this respect I am willing to explore any kind of constitutional mechanism, any kind of constitutional strategy to bring about evolutionary and orderly change in a society.
Let me make the Official Opposition’s position quite clear in this respect: Logically there is no other way of bringing about constitutional change in our society than through Parliament. Parliament has to initiate it and create the structures, and it has to try to persuade others to use those structures in order to bring about evolutionary change. My party and I have been accused of boicotting, of not wanting to participate. There has been a fundamental misunderstanding of this position of principle that we have adhered to right from the start. When I, on behalf of my party, refused to participate on the first President’s Council, it was not, as we saw it, an instrument of Parliament or linked to the parliamentary process. It was an advisory committee. It had fundamental flaws, and those flaws were of such a nature that we thought it would serve no purpose, in the principles and in the interests of evolutionary change, to participate in it.
However, when this new tricameral system came into being, after we had vigorously opposed it—and I have had no reason to have reconsidered my fundamental objections to it—we said that this was the final constitutional instrument available to this society to bring about change and we decided that we would participate in it. Even though we had objections to the previous one and we also had objections to this one, we would participate in it in order to promote further constitutional change.
Therefore, I have to consider the State President’s invitation that he issued this morning against the background of this principle that we have adopted as far as political change is concerned. I think it is a very important invitation. I do not want any confusion or any misunderstanding to stand between us concerning this particular invitation. Furthermore, if it appears in my response to this invitation that I am labouring under any misapprehension or that I misunderstand it, I would appreciate if the State President would disabuse me immediately of that impression or seek another opportunity to inform me further. However, in looking at this invitation to participate, I accept that this is meant in good faith from the State President. I also accept that the State President, as he has stated himself, accepts that there are fundamental differences between us on matters of policy and principle, but that we have one thing in common: That we accept that one group or one party cannot find the total solution to the problems in South Africa and impose it on everybody else. This has been said by both of us. To the extent that there are differences between us, we have to negotiate these differences, we have to talk about them and we have to try to find compromises and solutions to them.
Against that background I also understand the invitation to be an extension of the point that the State President made when he opened Parliament this year; in other words, I see it as an extension of the idea of the “informal forum”. I am not saying that it is exactly what the State President had in mind, but the object behind it seems to fit in logically with what the State President said this morning. I want to read to hon members what he said in that speech:
When the State President mentioned that, at the outset I responded by saying that I thought this was an important development and that I would urge other people in society, other Black communities to participate in this forum. Therefore I cannot urge others to do something which I am not prepared to do myself. On behalf of my party I can state to the State President, if it is along these lines that he issued the invitation, I am prepared and happy to participate and to accept his invitation. [Interjections.]
I think it also highlights the fundamental difference—I say this with respect—between the PFP and the CP in regard to matters concerning constitutional change. I should like to dwell upon this just briefly.
The CP argue that they have the solution, that there is no need for negotiation. The solution is partition. They have decided what that solution is, and therefore there is nothing that can be done about it. Therefore they are being absolutely consistent when they say to the State President that there is no need for them to sit in his forum because they have found the solution for the country.
The final solution.
Yes, the final one.
Unfortunately, the hon leader of the CP is not here at the moment—I did not ask for him to be present—but either the hon member for Kuruman or the hon member for Rissik may reply to the following question which I should like to ask the CP. Let us assume that according to the logic and philosophy of separate development which they espouse, all the Black states have taken fullscale independence. If it is not true—I want to ask just this one simple question—that there is an underlying racist current in their thinking or in their view of this problem, will they be prepared to accept a visitor from any of those Black states coming to South Africa on exactly the same basis that a visitor from Greece or Holland may come to South Africa? May that visitor go the same hotels, live in the same area, rent the same flat, do business here and so forth? Do they accept that?
We shall reply. [Interjections.]
That is a very important question. I would be very interested in the answer. If they are not prepared to accept such a visitor on the lines I have mentioned, then obviously the basis is not “volkere” or different “gemeenskappe”; the basis is simply that they do not want Blacks to live in the same way in this country as Whites five. That is the essential difference. I am looking forward to hearing the answer from the hon members there.
I come back to the State President. In looking at this search for a solution, in looking at negotiation for new constitutional initiatives, I want to come back to what I said in the first part of my speech. I did not do so facetiously. I said that we had to find long-term goals in terms of which we had to search for those solutions. I mentioned a few. I mentioned, for example, the question of citizenship being a long-term goal. The other one is freedom of movement.
I want to explain to the State President why I feel so strongly about these issues. If we are going to negotiate for a solution, then we have to accept two things. The reason why we negotiate is that people differ with us exactly as we differ with one another. That is why we are negotiating. If we do not differ, there will be no reason to negotiate. Secondly we shall have to negotiate with people whom we do not necessarily like. We may not even get along with them.
In that respect it is very important that we do not cut the ground from under the process of negotiation. Let me give an example to the State President. He must not suspect me of sinister motives when I make this point. I am prepared to talk to anybody in the UDF to tell them that they should not opt for violence or protest politics; they should come to negotiate. I shall then have to do that, and I am prepared to do that. If I can find them, I shall tell them that they should come to negotiate. Why? Because I accept that a movement like the UDF is a large-scale movement varying from left to right in their own circles. Some may be more disposed to negotiate than others. I do not think one should cut off that opportunity.
The same applies to the ANC. There are ANC members who are hardline communists, who are committed to violence. I agree there is no point in negotiating with those people. However, there are people who support the ANC and are part of it who are not like that. They are confused, but do not want violence. I feel one should say there is an opportunity for those people to negotiate as well. There is an opportunity to discuss matters. I am suggesting to the State President that we must be flexible, not flexible in our principles but flexible in our strategy and our willingness to negotiate and to persuade others to negotiate.
I come now to the question of citizenship and freedom of movement. I was fortunate enough to lunch today with a sovietologist. I am sure that he has also spoken to persons on the other side of this House and to persons in military intelligence etc. He is a well-known American sovietologist. I asked him to give me two key definitions of what he regards as a revolutionary situation in a society. He said the first was an increasing polarization between those who govern and those who are governed. The second is a loss of intellectual legitimacy and intellectual conviction on the part of those who govern. That is a fascinating statement. He says that when those who govern do not appear to know where they are going and what their plans are, this creates and adds to a revolutionary situation.
I am saying and I mean this sincerely: If we are going to initiate an effective process of negotiation in South Africa—and we have to because I believe the alternative is siege and violence—then we have to establish some kind of declaration of intent. It is difficult, it is not easy, but it must be a first priority to say: “Can we accept that we are going to negotiate on the basis of Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Asians having the same citizenship?”
That is a fundamental point of departure. In terms of that, one can then look at a whole range of constitutional alternatives. One may not even come to an agreement and still carry on negotiating, but that is a fundamental point of departure in terms of which we can lock people into the process of negotiation. We have to do that, we cannot prevaricate on that.
That is why I read the speech of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. One can read between the lines, but one does not negotiate between the lines. One cannot go to people and say to them that, if they read between the lines, they can see that they are being invited. One has to tell them clearly. What the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is really saying there, is that we are trying to find a solution based on a common South African citizenship. We are trying to find a solution where we will have to participate in the same constitutional structure without one group dominating the other. Then they can say whether they think it is worthwhile or not.
It is precisely because we have a loss of intellectual legitimacy at this stage in the history of the country that we cannot say that. I think that loss of legitimacy is a temporary one because the Government has moved away from some fundamental intellectual assumptions about its own ideology. The Government has moved away from those pillars of old-style apartheid. We must not bluff ourselves about it—it is happening. The Government is moving away from them, they are moving away from the props of those old pillars such as section 16 of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. This immediately creates an intellectual vacuum.
What is the paradigm, what is the model that is going to be substituted? When I refer to the model, I am not talking about the t’s being crossed and the i’s being dotted. I am talking about a fundamental basis for discussion.
This issue cannot be resolved by a committee for negotiation. Only this issue can make a success of that committee and, while I certainly hope it will be a success, it can only be resolved by the State President as the executive head of this country. It is from him that we have to receive that vision and that goal in terms of which we can persuade others that it is not only in the interests of themselves but also in the interests of the country that we move away from violence and confrontation and that we struggle together on these instruments for negotiation which are now being born.
Mr Chairman, the State President today issued a most exceptional invitation to all political parties. It must be the first time in history that a South African head of state has issued an invitation to his opposition leaders and parties to form a common base for finding solutions to the urgent problems of South Africa. I am pleased therefore that the hon Leader of the Official Opposition has not set conditions today regarding the basis on which he will take part. I wish to thank him for that. We on this side of the House appreciate that he and his party are prepared to serve on the Special Cabinet Committee which has to attempt to find solutions to these problems.
Against this we also expected the CP would not be prepared to accept the invitation because, as the State President so rightly said, its members are caught up in the past and do not take the actual, real politics of the day into account.
I think the NRP will also accept the State President’s invitation.
Before proceeding with my speech, I should like to thank my Chief Whip for the opportunity of participating in the debate today. I find it an exceptionally great honour as it means that I can take part in a debate on the Vote of one of my party’s greatest leaders. In fact, since 1958 the State President has been my political father; he is my political mentor; in politics he means everything to me which is why it is so much more of an honour to me to be able to take part in the discussion of this Vote.
For many years people have shied away from the fundamental problem of South Africa, namely how to give the Coloureds and Indians a say and co-responsibility; the problem of sharing with other groups in South Africa the power the Whites have of deciding for and governing all other people. Under the leadership of the State President the problem was addressed together with various leaders of the Coloured and Indian community—this is history. The Coloureds and the Indians are sitting in Parliament and in the Cabinet; each population group has its own Chamber; we have joint sittings in this House. In principle, however, it is the same plan as that of 1977 when every CP leader waxed lyrical on the wonder plan.
The State President has placed the South African nation irrevocably on the road to reform. Regardless of who is in power, the process of reform in South Africa is in motion. Some prophets of doom may say it is too late—others, again, can say the State President is moving too fast. If we wish to assure a future of peaceful coexistence for the youth of South Africa, I say we can never move too fast.
In the few years the State President has been the chief leader of the NP he has held discussions with more Brown, Indian and Black people than all other leaders in the past. Now we come to the Black people within the borders of the “so-called White South Africa”.
Before going further, I first want to define the NP policy of separate development as I see it. It is that I have to be prepared to give to every other population group in South Africa that which I demand for myself. If I cannot do that or if it is impracticable, I have to share what I have with other population groups. Each of us on this side of the House or who belongs to the NP and also two or three hon members of the CP know this and underwrite it which is why we have own affairs and general affairs.
Each political party here or out there will have to deal with this naked reality—the problem of urban Black people. The PFP says it sees the solution to this problem in a national convention. The hon leader of the PFP says he does not stand for one man, one vote culminating in a Black majority government. If at the convention this should be the absolute demand of the Black people and it were refused, would the hon Leader of the Official Opposition in that case merely proceed with government? If so, the consequences of continued government could be catastrophic for the entire South Africa. Similarly the CP will have to take part in discussion whether it likes it or not. Whether the leader of the CP says there are ten million Black people within the borders of South Africa or not, at one time or another he shall have to address the realities of Black politics. Even though the hon member for Kuruman is laughing at the moment, it remains a fact that CP members cannot escape this problem—at some time or other they shall have to enter into discussion with the Black man.
With every respect toward the hon leader of the CP who is not present, I wish to say that he and his party have not even succeeded in selling their plan to the present Brown or Indian leaders sitting in the two different Houses—let alone entering into discussion with Black leaders.
I wish to ask the hon member for Kuruman whether they intend revoking the Constitution if the CP were to come to power. He is not admitting to this now but he has said it outside the House. I say any government coming to power and revoking this Constitution is providing fuel for a revolution.
The State President has said times without number that a fourth Chamber for Blacks is not practical. The hon member for Kuruman accepts this just as he accepts and welcomes the coming of the All Blacks with Maoris and all and just as he accepts the Springbok team including Tobias without sacrificing his Afrikanerhood or his White identity. The State President has said time and again that he will talk about co-operative coexistence with Black people with all who renounce violence and convert words to deeds. The NRP has accepted the principle but unfortunately the CP has rejected this invitation from the State President.
The hon Leader of the Official Opposition said here today that he accepted the invitation and also that he renounced violence. There are Black people who believe that they have to overthrow the government of the day by violence in order to obtain a fair political voice. This must of necessity lead to a hellish blood bath which no right-minded person could welcome. In such a blood bath there are no winners—only losers. There are Black people who believe in one man, one vote and a Black majority government. The State President has repeated on numerous occasions that one man, one vote in a unitary state will necessarily lead to greater conflict and ultimately to Black dictatorship. Political solutions for all the people of South Africa therefore have to be based on the protection of minority rights of White, Brown, Asian and Black groups in South Africa. The whole of South Africa knows this is the State President’s policy.
An announcement has now been made of a discussion without an agenda; with an open agenda. I wish to appeal to all Black leaders who believe in peaceful solutions—no matter who—to enter into discussion with the Government. If we want to exemplify Christ’s message of peace and love, I also wish to invite Black spiritual leaders to take part in the discussion. In addition I also want to ask White political leaders of other parties and White theologians and academicians to stop attempting to find short-term solutions to South African problems but to strengthen the hand of the Government instead.
In closing I wish to thank the State President for what he has meant to the Northern Cape in particular and will still mean. Permit me to say here that through his agency a start has been made with the establishment of a national park which will be the third largest in South Africa. In conclusion I also wish to say that after many years’ struggle over the Riet River Scheme where there was no water, I was privileged to arrange an interview between the farmers and the State President and within a few weeks a solution was found which resulted in our now receiving water from the Orange River for the Riet River Scheme. This is no longer a dream but a reality. In the same interview the State President expressed his views on the further utilization of the Orange River Scheme and the Plooysburg Scheme. I believe that in my lifetime I shall see that these do not remain dreams but become visible realities. In the same way I know that, under the leadership of our State President, visibly peaceful, co-operative coexistence between all people in our great land will not remain a dream but that we, who are sitting here, will experience the reality.
Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House take pleasure in participating in this debate. I also regard it as an honour and a privilege to lend my support to this Vote on the occasion of its discussion. To us on this side of the House it is a particular honour and privilege because we believe we are living in very stirring times in a heavily and seriously shackled land.
I appreciate the hon Leader of the Official Opposition’s remarks regarding his party’s stand on violence—not that any of us expected anything else. I also appreciate the fact that he said the claim that the Government was not legitimate was being negated more and more the further we progressed. That is the truth. This Government has no intention of permitting South Africa to bow in any way before what is revolutionary in this country, which is why today’s announcements were of especially great significance to us. Seldom in our history of Black-White politics has so much drama, so much fact, so much seriousness and so much significance been included in a single speech. We should like to thank all leaders who have co-operated, and are still co-operating, in assisting South Africa in this very delicate hour of White-Black ethnic relationships.
The State President announced a plan here to be put into operation in all departments through the HSRC so that all who have to do with Black people in South Africa on a plane of contact may see in which spheres we can improve our human relationships. We should like to say thank you because it is a very practical step. Today I wish to request with all the conviction at my command that that inquiry instituted by the State President and the Cabinet should go just a little further and by means of our entire educational action concentrate especially on bringing home the realities of South Africa to our children and young people in schools and at universities. All other people outside the national economy should also be requested to co-operate here so that in future we can honourably launch a gigantic plan regarding ethnic relations and exercise our initiatives in a country in which we can discard violence.
Many of the problems concerning politics of the relationships in South Africa arise from misconceptions among many people. They arise from misguided emotions and misguided stereotypes held up to them from childhood. I wish to make an earnest plea that we request our educators in South Africa to work at good relationships with us. The most elementary point of good relations is acceptance of one another. If we do not accept one another, we cannot respect one another and if that happens we become polarized to such an extent that ultimately it can result in violence. There is no doubt that there are enormous numbers of children and young people who go through the entire educational process and when they have left university or even while still there, prejudice and stereotyped ideas persist in their hearts to such an extent that the danger of polarization in South Africa and the danger of violence arising from such polarization in truth may be traced back to those facts learned at the very beginning.
We have an enormous task in South Africa. We have a Government introducing courageous and dynamic changes, even where we know such changes to be unpopular. We have a Government which in the sphere of Black-White politics of relationships has launched a discussion of dramatic content. We have come—we heard it here today—with one of the greatest practical announcements in the history of Black-White relations in South Africa, namely that Black people will be able to own land. Ownership of land is one of the most elementary means by which we can improve ourselves economically on the road ahead and generate our own initiatives in South Africa.
I wish to say to hon members of the CP if they contend the White man’s future in South Africa lies in absolute partition and if that is their plan, the White man is doomed in this country—South Africa. Absolute partition does not exist; neither is there any possibility of it. Every party propagating this, bluffing voters that it can be achieved and that one cannot exist in this country without absolute partition and a good disposition among people, is pursuing a process of polarization in South Africa even if it is being done unconsciously.
I want to tell the hon member for Rissik that we in South Africa have to remove the power from the White skin and the Black fist and insert the power of the inner man. That is what this Government wishes to do with respect for the identity and rights of all. We wish to infuse into our people the power to generate, the power to build a political structure which assures coexistence, the power to build an economic structure to ensure opportunities for all and the power to build a social structure which can bring about good relations.
We should like to say violence does not resolve violence. I wish to say to the hon leader of the CP there are two people in South Africa who have recently been making noises which have left me wondering where precisely they stand. On the one side it is said “We renounce violence” and on the other “Do not underestimate the revolution among the Whites”. The leader of the CP, Dr Treurnicht, says this. On the other hand there is Bishop Tutu who at one moment says he is against violence and the next that people have a right to resort to violence. That type of double talk is intolerable to any political leader, any church leader, any academic leader and any responsible leader in South Africa.
In a book I read in the library recently which is available to any hon member—although unfortunately he is not permitted to remove it from the library—I found a single sentence which applies very pertinently to today’s debate, namely:
The date: 1961. The author: Nelson Mandela. He speaks of “no easy walk to freedom”.
Today I wish to make a point concerning our handling of the riot problem. It is a pity that much of the history and many of the points of view of Black Power organizations and radical Black leaders have unfortunately not been debated in political discussion in South Africa. I believe we have permitted ourselves to fall behind to some degree in this process.
I am also saying this with a view to the debate which is very necessary in the ranks of Black politics. I wish to appeal to the leaders and the Cabinet that in future we should make a selective presentation to the people of South Africa of the documentation and statements of points of view of radical Black organizations such as the ANC, the PAC, Azapo, Azanu, Azaso and a number of others. I believe heart and soul that the mass of Black people in South Africa totally reject radical political viewpoints—as explained by the State President. The Black people of South Africa will not lend themselves to permitting the power to go over into the hands of a single person who in fact will not permit justice for all afterwards. Let us highlight the discussion on these points of view and formulations by radical organizations. Take for example the point of view of the PAC and its progeny, Azapo, Azanu and Azaso, the so-called “Black Power” point of view. Most Black people reject that view because it is a political one which excludes the right of the White man in South Africa. That view is one which speaks of “repossession of land”. The mass of Black people and the Whites reject this.
I wish to make a serious plea that we should first orientate our children correctly in our educational process. In 1985 I see in my children’s history books that there is still mention of Bantu and Bantu peoples and tribes—terms totally outdated in the world of thought and discussion in politics of today. I appeal earnestly: Let us examine our educational action; let us examine political discussion with the Black people and let us make more of these things available to enable Black people to think about and understand what is involved. If this is done, the State President and the actions of this Government can only succeed.
Mr Chairman, I just wish to react very briefly to two matters raised by the hon member for Innesdal. He said that if our population groups did not respect one another, polarization would take place. Now I just want to say to the hon member that he definitely could not have the CP in mind in saying that because the CP’s policy is specifically one of respect for people. On that basis the CP states that it has so much respect for each population group, or for each race group, that it accords each group the right to govern itself within its own territory. If that is not respect, then I do not know what respect is.
By saying that I have furnished a reply in respect of the second issue as well, viz the issue of White skin power. I just want to say to him that the CP certainly does not believe that the Whites should dominate and rule over the other population groups of this country. It is for that very reason that it has spelt out, through its policy of partition, that it wants to see every group governing itself within its own territory. [Interjections.] It is a fact that a political party’s policy can only be carried out if it is in government. In other words, if it wins a general election it can carry out in the course of its government the specific policy that it advocates and in which it believes.
It is true that the NP is in power, and it has spelt out a specific policy which it is implementing in this country. I regard it as important that when a Government is in power and implements its specific policy it should spell out that policy clearly enough so that the voting public knows what that policy is. Moreover it must spell out the path it is following by way of that policy so clearly that the electorate knows where it is taking them in terms of that policy.
On a recent occasion the State President said on television that he did not know what the South Africa they are working on, will eventually look like. I believe that I interpreted what he said, correctly. That is the source of my frustration. When one debates a specific policy and has struck out on a course, one should at least have some idea of where one is leading the people; in other words, of one’s—and therefore of their—eventual destination. I have the problem that every time one enters into a debate with the ruling party in this House and quotes certain standpoints put forward in the past, one is told that that is history. However, the reading out of quotations is in order when the NP feels like it. Yesterday, for example, we saw how the hon member Mr Van Staden went back to the report of the Theron Commission. When one seeks to respond to that, the reaction is unfortunately not one appropriate to a debate. No, instead one is told:
“That person is offensive; one cannot react to him.”
Accordingly I wish to state clearly at this point that I regard it as important to debate two specific matters. The first is that in his Opening Address on 25 January 1985 the State President spelt out certain guidelines with regard to the introduction of Blacks into this political dispensation, with the granting of political rights to those Blacks who are within the RSA. He spelt out those guidelines but nevertheless invited the political parties—on the basis of those guidelines—to participate in the forum. I have problems with that. How can a party which differs radically from those specific principles or guidelines discuss matters within those guidelines? In other words, as far as the guidelines of power-sharing are concerned, how can it discuss structures to be built up? After all, the issue is one of structures that must be built up.
The other day, in the terminology of the hon member for Innesdal, the State President said that it is no longer a question of “whether”; that had already been decided on. It is now a question of “how”. Therefore the question is now what those structures are going to look like. Now we, too, ask what those structures are going to look like. It seems to me that as far as the nature of those structures is concerned, the Government is offering a blank cheque.
Now the State President has told the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that would not, after all, approve and accept at his national convention everything submitted to him; that he would turn down certain things. All I am asking now, therefore, is whether the State President will accept everything that is presented to him there, since he is going to that forum with a blank cheque? Is he going to accept all the demands put to him by the people there? Surely that would also mean that he would have to reject some of their claims; that he, too, would not accept and approve everything. Therefore he will find himself in the very same position as that in which, according to him, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition would find himself. Therefore exactly the same will happen with the State President and his forum as would—according to him—happen with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his national convention. Ultimately, then, there is no essential difference between these two forums for discussion. There will be no essential difference, because both will be saddled with the same set of problems of confrontation, of standpoint set against standpoint, with the inevitable forfeiture, eventually, of what is one’s own in order to accommodate the other. The only alternative is to shoot down the other man’s standpoints and demands, if it is evident that he cannot be convinced. If that, too, does not succeed, the whole thing will be a failure.
As regards the issue of “how”, the Government and the National Party now contend that there is not going to be a fourth Chamber. Well and good, Sir. Let us take it that there is not going to be a fourth Chamber. Then, however, I wish to state two standpoints. The first is the formula on the basis of which the governing party operates. That formula was also expounded by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in Rapport of 27 May 1984 when he dealt with the political rights of the Black people in this country. At that time he said that the formula included inter alia self-determination with regard to own affairs and joint responsibility with regard to general affairs. That is precisely the same formula that is used and in accordance with which the Coloureds and the Indians have found their way into the White system, and in accordance with which they have entered this Parliament and, what is more, are at present sitting in the Cabinet. That is the formula that has been used.
Now I want to ask the following question. After all, that formula still exists. Moreover, the State President said in his Opening Address on 25 January this year that this formula will apply to every other constitutional development that takes place. After all, the further constitutional development that is taking place is in respect of the Blacks. Now my question is this: Does that formula still apply—and it must apply because the State President said that it was the only formula that applied—and if that formula does still apply, then what does it imply for the Black people? Can the same formula now imply for them structures different to those which it has resulted in for the Coloureds and the Indians? After all, the Coloureds and the Indians have, in terms of that policy, been incorporated into structures of the Whites in order to share those same structures with the Whites.
I shall have to deal very briefly with the second matter I wish to discuss very briefly because my time has almost expired. The statement on 22 February 1982 by the State President was to the effect that there could be only one governmental authority in a country. Now I want to know whether that one governmental authority relates to Parliament and the Cabinet. What does it mean? Is that the governmental authority? At the time the State President said that he could not give the Coloureds in this country a sovereign Parliament of their own because there could only be one governmental authority in the country. On the basis of that standpoint of his he brought the Coloureds and the Indians into the same Parliament and the same Cabinet together with the Whites. Now, all I ask is whether that statement of his still applies, or whether that, too, has become history. If that statement of his still applies then it is important to me to know where the Blacks can go—in terms of that statement—if not to the same Parliament in which the Whites, Coloureds and Indians are now sitting and also to the same Cabinet. Does this mean that when the new building being constructed next to the Parliamentary building has been completed we may have only one Chamber for Whites, Coloureds and Indians, while the Blacks sit in a second Chamber?
Finally, I want to say here today that we can do what we like; what we are doing at the moment in this country is to destroy and trample underfoot the great ideal for which Adv Hans Strijdom lived and died. That ideal was an independent White Republic in South Africa. I say this here today to everyone in this House: Adv Strijdom is not turning in his grave because we now find ourselves on the road of integration and power-sharing; the spirit of Adv Strijdom is stirring in the Whites of this country who refuse to integrate and who refuse to share his power, and who strive to achieve his ideal.
Really, Mr Chairman, I must say, quite honestly, that if one really wanted to listen to a politically frustrated person then the hon member for Koedoespoort was the man to listen to this afternoon. Later I should like to come back to the hon member for Koedoespoort and to his party.
We in South Africa are engaged in a process of constitutional development. I think it is important that we should put it to one another very clearly in this House this afternoon that in South Africa, since we are engaged in a process of reform, we must accept one thing, and that is that we in our country do not have a struggle between White and non-White. We have a struggle between, on the one hand, the forces of chaos, violence and oppression, and on the other hand, Christian civilization, order, law and justice. The Government has taken the path of reform with one aim in mind and that is to ensure peace, security and prosperity for South Africa and all its people. However, it is unfortunately true that in these days we must take cognizance of certain events in our country. There are certain flames in the world that are burning high. Some of those flames are also clearly visible in the Republic of South Africa and I wish to refer to some of those flames this afternoon.
I refer to the flame of violence, the flame of terrorism, of intimidation, and I refer to the flame of lawlessness. When I speak of lawlessness I want to say there is also a tendency to make persistent and vocal pleas on behalf of the criminal, while the martyrdom of the victim and the right of society to be protected against the evildoer is blatantly ignored. If we wish to combat crime and curb the cost of offences committed by the enemies of our community then every citizen must make his contribution and assist and support the law officer. I refer to other flames, too, that we must take note of. There is the flame of over-population, of revolution, and the red flame of terrorism. These flames are an obstacle on the road to reform in South Africa.
This afternoon I should like to draw attention to the speech by the State President at the opening of Parliament on 18 September 1984. At that time he stated very clearly that as we proceed with the peace initiatives and the constitutional development in South Africa, these things will increase. He foresaw it even at that stage. However, I should like to address the leaders of the political parties in this House this afternoon. In the first place I wish to turn to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I want to say this afternoon that I am grateful that he has accepted the offer to take part in a discussion in order to make a contribution towards solving South Africa’s problems. I want to say to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that he is a person of exceptional qualities. He has only one problem, however, and I should like to point that out to him this afternoon. I am particularly grateful that he has done me the honour to take his seat in the House while I am speaking.
The problem with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is his lack of ability as leader of the party. I wish to state clearly that in recent weeks members of his party have once again shown us that they do not follow the path of the undertakings given by the Leader of the Official Opposition. Now that I have mentioned all the flames, flames that are burning high in South Africa, I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether it is not true that members of his party are fanning those flames in South Africa.
Mr Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon member entitled to say that members of the PFP are fanning the flames?
Order! What did the hon member for Wit-bank mean thereby?
Mr Chairman, I said that the Official Opposition is feeding the flames to which I have referred.
The hon member may proceed.
I should like to say to the Leader of the Official Opposition that there are as many leaders in his party as there are members of the party in Parliament. That is his problem and he must take that into account if he and his party want to take part in constitutional development and the process of reform.
I should like to say something briefly about the CP. If there is one thing that South Africa would pay a heavy price for, if they were to succeed, it is the scavenger politics of the anti-reformists and the politically hidebound.
What makes it even worse is that their leader does not correct or repudiate them but is in the forefront in practising scavenger politics and in wholeheartedly supporting them. It leaves any right-thinking person speechless. When the State President announced that a non-statutory forum would be created within which any Black man who did not advocate revolutionary reform could air his opinion, that party said that it meant the end of the White man. I should like to say to that party, that makes such a fuss about the Afrikaner, that if one wants to establish Afrikanerdom in South Africa at the expense of other groups one will thereby be achieving the demise of the Afrikaner people. If one seeks to promote Afrikanerdom in South Africa by inciting confrontation with other groups, then Afrikaners will be consumed in the confrontation. If one seeks to build Afrikanerdom in South Africa on the political domination of others, on isolation, on exclusivity, on legal entrenchment after legal entrenchment, on the arrogance of discrimination, then one will be responsible for the grave of the Afrikaner people.
On 26 January 1985 Prof Carel Boshoff sent a telegram to all newspapers in reaction to the speech of the State President at the opening of Parliament. I have the telex before me. I think it is unproductive to attack anyone outside the House from within this House, but because I know that some of his kindred spirits are sitting here I want to do so nevertheless. He says that if one gives right of ownership to Blacks in the White area this will result in many Whites leaving the country. Through his kindred spirits I want to tell Prof Boshoff that if ever there was an appropriate time to pack one’s bag and leave the country if one is not prepared to play one’s part, it is now. The State President has shown that he wants to extinguish and prevent the flames in South Africa. In this regard I refer in the first place to the Constitution and the process of implementing of a new dispensation. The State President went abroad to convey the message of South Africa to people overseas. Another important aspect is the decentralization policy implemented by the State President. What is more important than that, however, is the fact that the State President, as a pious person, humbly bowed his head in worship together with 3 million Black people in South Africa. In this way we prevent those flames. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, in his opening address on 25 January this year and in his speech in this House this morning the State President planted beacons within which Black constitutional and Black social development can take place in future. I agree with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—this act of statesmanship is a turning point in Government thinking as far as the Black man in South Africa is concerned. We have seen an act of statesmanship in terms of which it has been declared that Government thinking on strategic points must be revised. Accordingly, in referring to the State President’s invitation to the opposition parties to participate in the forum for discussion in the future, I want to thank the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition for having committed himself to taking part in the process. In South Africa there is a choice between only two possibilities. This is not necessarily the case in other countries, but in South Africa we must chose one of two possibilities: Either peace through negotiation, or conflict through domination. Only one of those two can be achieved. The State President and hon members on this side of the House have made their choice. Hon members on this side of the House prefer peace through negotiation. This invitation to take part in the forum for discussion is a strategy of the State President and hon members on this side of the House. What is being said in this way is that package deal solutions for the problems of South Africa are no longer viable. Accordingly I can understand that the CP is unable, as was explained by the hon member for Koedoespoort, to take part in this forum for discussion because they have a package deal solution that they want to put forward. That is the surest formula for conflict and the downfall of civilized norms here in South Africa.
In his speech the State President planted further beacons on the road to peace and prosperity in South Africa this morning when it was announced that freehold rights would be available to the Black man qualifying for the 99-year leasehold system. We in this House must not underestimate this action. Before a political system can be established for South Africa, relations must be stabilized at the social level. The freehold system, the access to freehold for the Black people as well, creates a climate among the ranks of the Black people in the sense that they have something to defend.
Before conducting round table negotiations with a view to a political system for South Africa it is necessary to put into effect in advance certain arrangements in the social sphere, because by doing so one scales down radicalism. I am convinced that conflict and domination can only be eliminated if the existing tension prevailing in the infrastructure of human relations is scaled down.
In this regard the State President has taken positive steps which history will indicate as having been in the interests of peace, prosperity and the protection of civilized standards and order in South Africa. The announcement in connection with citizenship must be seen in the same light. This represents an effort on the part of this side of the committee to hold out a hand to the moderates and to tell them that there is a place for everyone in South Africa.
In particular this announcement indicates that the Black man is not excluded from the constitutional process. The steps that have been taken indicate that the constitutional process is under way and that the Black man is sharing in the constitutional process. Certain structures have been created. The Black national states are realities, just as the urban Black man is a reality. These are two realities of South Africa that we cannot get away from.
Those who seek a formula whereby to achieve solutions in the mistaken impression that there are only homelands, or in the mistaken impression that there are only urban Black people, are not dealing with the realities of South Africa. There are homeland structures which have come into being in terms of the policy of the Government, and we must recognize that the answer to the Black problems lies between these two poles, but the basis of the answer must be ethnicity. Any one who ignores ethnicity in putting forward any solution relating to the Black people is not in touch with reality.
I want to refer briefly to something else. The State President and various speakers on this side of the Committee have pointed out that the discriminatory aspects of influx control must be reviewed. The Government is giving serious consideration to the discriminatory aspects surrounding the question of influx control. The fact is that today influx control is regulated by specific statutory measures. We could seriously ask ourselves whether section 10 is the most effective way of regulating influx control. In this regard I also think that the widening of the Cabinet Committee could make a very positive contribution.
The fact is that every generation has to make a choice with regard to the circumstances in which it is going to live. This is an inexorable demand that no generation can escape. Under the guidance of the State President this side of the House has decided that the circumstances in which it wants to live are circumstances of peace and prosperity. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, at the outset I want to say that my leader has welcomed the invitation by the State President in regard to the negotiation process, and has committed this party—as it has always been committed—to play any part it is asked or allowed to play in any process towards negotiating the constitutional future of South Africa. We are unequivocally and without limitation opposed to any forms of violence. We believe and give our full support to the State President in his references this morning to the security situation. I may come back to that if I have time at the end.
I want first to deal with something that happened yesterday. I think the State President and myself may have been on different wavelengths. I seemed to have touched him on a raw spot or something. [Interjections.] I was broadcasting on the waveband of broad South African nationalism and I think he was receiving on a South African NP waveband. What I asked the State President to do yesterday was exactly what he did this morning. That was all I was asking him for. I was trying to help the State President; I was trying to assist him. [Interjections.] If he gets so cross when one helps him, I hate to think what would happen if one really attacked him! [Interjections.]
I am sure he does not object to our pointing out those things which make his task more difficult. That was what I was doing. For instance, I am sure the State President did not feel happy when a “welcome home” party for a released prisoner at a Catholic mission was raided the night before he was to meet the Pope. That does not make his job easier. I am sure he did not feel proud of the fact that a co-ordinated pre-dawn raid was made to arrest a lot of kids who had been standing with placards at a protest meeting thus technically breaking the law. The world had to read that we sent our police to go out before dawn to pick up a dozen students who were holding placards on the university steps. It makes us look stupid and it makes the State President’s job all the harder.
We had another example that fortunately ended up the right way. I am referring to the series of ad hoc decisions of the hon the Minister of Co-operation, Development and Education on the squatter camps, illegal residents and various other matters. It seemed to be an ad hoc decision-making process that implied again—or certainly gave the impression—that policy was being made under pressure, protest and threat. The last thing we can afford is to indicate to people that if they protest, if they have marches and demonstrations they are likely to get more than when they are law-abiding.
However, it turned out right in the end in that the hon the Minister has now come forward with a clear policy on urbanization. It is these matters that I was warning the State President about.
The State President himself spoke about the decentralization programme. Yet when I approached the hon the Minister of Trade and Industry with an offer from a foreign industrialist who wanted to invest R500 000 in an industry, who wanted no money, no loan from South Africa, it was refused. He had R500 000 to invest; he had the knowhow and he wanted to start an industry in a growth area. However, because this industrialist was Taiwanese—I think we had a Taiwanese trade mission here today—he could not open up a factory unless he went into a Black homeland. He was not allowed to open up in a growth area. It took me three or four months of correspondence, of ducking and diving between one Minister and another, until eventually I got confirmation that it was a Cabinet decision. Permanent residence would not be given to Taiwanese people unless they established themselves in Black homelands.
Surely we want any industrialist who is going to bring us capital and knowhow when establishing a factory? In this case the industrialist wanted to open up a factory at a proclaimed growth point, in Tongaat, a growth point in Northern Natal. That area is proclaimed as a growth point, but because he is Taiwanese he cannot settle there. These are the things that make our task more difficult in selling South Africa.
The House had a good laugh this morning when the State President said “if the NRP became the government”. I do not begrudge the House a laugh because we have no illusions that we are going to become the government. [Interjections.] However, I should like to tell hon members about the views of a gentleman who is not one of our supporters. He is a professional man, an academic who, I should imagine, supports the Government party. Not long ago he said to me: If the history of this era in politics is honestly written, it will have to record that your party, the NRP, was the only party anywhere that had contributed more to the direction of change without ever being in power than has been seen anywhere else in a democratic country. That is our contribution.
In all these changes, in all the changes that have been made in, for instance, the urbanization policy—I can go through them all—in the direction of which party’s philosophy has the Government moved? That is the question I should like to put to the State President. They have not moved in the direction of the PFP’s policy or that of the CP. In every case they have moved in the direction of the philosophy of this party. If that is the legacy that we leave to South Africa one day, then it will be a legacy that we will have been very proud to create. [Interjections.]
The State President will have to admit that in the changes he has introduced he has moved away from the old NP policy. However, he has not moved in the PFP’s direction. He has not moved in the direction of the philosophy of a common society and the non-racial political system of PFP policy. He has moved towards our thinking. From the start we have advocated the idea of group-based political rights, a group-based political power basis to protect the rights, the identity and existence of groups as such, and co-operation in joint decision-making. That is the direction we are following, the direction that was rejected by that party when we used to talk about it in this House and elsewhere.
Finally, I want to say that in regard to the security situation that was outlined, and everything the State President said this morning I believe the State President acted as the President of the people of South Africa, of the whole of South Africa. He has given a direction which South Africa need badly at this time. In that approach of broad South Africanism, he will enjoy our support and the support of all right-thinking people. That is what we mean by broad South African nationalism. I thank the State President for what he said. I believe that that is the way in which he can bring together people who have the future of this country at heart.
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Point raised a point regarding which I should just like to set him right. The NP goes its own way, it does not follow them or the Progs or anyone else. We go our own way.
I listened with interest to speeches of the hon members of the opposition parties. The hon members tried to touch on all aspects of politics. But one of the most important pillars on which the survival of the Republic depends was not touched on at all, and I want to refer to it.
Let me start by quoting the late Dr Verwoerd who is usually quoted by the CP. On 3 September 1958—in serious times—he said:
Dr Verwoerd went on to say:
It is not necessary for me to ask where this Government is headed and what the future holds, because we have a deeply religious, just, resolute, firm and consistent leader in our present State President. His faith in the future of his people is based on the firm foundation of his belief in his God. He believes that his country will not be dictated to or governed by another country against its will, but that it will decide its own fate. He outlined the road ahead very clearly on the occasion of the opening of Parliament on 25 January 1985. I also want to quote his words on that occasion:
Then follow these words:
That is his objective. Unfortunately all South Africans, including some persons in our midst, are not reasonable people. I am asking hon members to bear with me for a moment.
Sir, under the present Government there is only one possible future for South Africa, namely a Black government in a country in which there are no longer any separating measures. Fortunately the person who said that also said, as far as he was concerned. As far as he is concerned that is the case. He went on to say that he had heard that in 1988 urban Blacks would be in this Parliament and in this Cabinet. He heard that the White election scheduled for 1989 would be postponed to 1993. He heard that by-elections were going to be abolished by the NP and that White schools were going to be integrated.
He asked whether that was the case.
He said that!
He asked. Reply to that question, then we will be satisfied.
They will have to reply now. Worst of all—and here I want to quote him verbatim he said:
He said this. He went on to say:
Is it necessary for me to unmask this man? I do not think it is necessary; he unmasked himself. He ripped off his own mask. However, let me tell hon members that it was the hon member for Jeppe. I want to ask whether I can call that man an honourable member? What an unsavoury, despicable, hate-inspired speech it was! By means of this speech he and his fellow-members and their hon leader are hoping that they can take control.
They are trying to take control by promising the people the immediate fulfilment of the most pressing ambitions of the masses. They are concentrating on promising the employee, as well as the employer, everything by saying to them: “If we take control we will do what you expect.” Assuming they do take control, I want to issue a warning right now that that party will not fulfil all its promises, even if it wants to. They are misleading the people very covertly. All I want to say is: “Evildoers are evilthinkers” and “There is none so blind as he who will not see”.
Their behaviour is no longer covert; it is being done openly now.
It is being done openly. Very well, I accept that.
It is a great pity that the hon the Leader of the CP is not here today. After all, the hon member for Waterberg is the leader of the CP. Is that correct? For that reason I hold him responsible for what the hon member for Jeppe said. The hon member for Jeppe said so himself when he pointed a finger at the State President and said that he was responsible for everything that happened in the Government. Since that is his standpoint I want to ask this question—he is not here, and I am going to put this question to any one of the CP members sitting there: Do they stand by what the hon member for Jeppe said, or are they going to say what their hon leader said: “He withdrew it, didn’t he”? But did he withdraw it in the newspaper? Did he withdraw that unsavoury report in Die Vaderland? The Leader of the CP is responsible for each and every one of the members in his party. [Interjections.] Let me make it quite clear: As the leader of that party, he is cherishing a serpent in his bosom, and he will be the first to fall because of that serpent.
This State President will lead our country and its people to what he is essentially striving for, namely a country of peace, prosperity and happiness. The State President appealed for safety and peace. Now I am appealing for us to join hands and support him at all times and under all circumstances. Let us stand by him. I conclude with his own words:
Mr Chairman, we have now heard very clearly from the Leader of the CP that they are not prepared to participate in the Cabinet Committee or to participate in the forum for discussion. They are not prepared to hold discussions with people who want to try to solve the real problems of our country. They are not prepared to sit around a table with other people to discuss serious matters in this country of ours. No, Sir, they are not prepared to do that, but let us see what they are prepared to do. Let us see who the hon members of the CP do sit around a table with. I should like to mention them. In the first place there is the Kappiekommando. It is of no avail for them to turn around and say to us that they actually have nothing to do with the Kappiekommando.
It is a women’s organization.
Yes, it is a so-called women’s organization. Their friend Marie van Zyl recently sent a circular to all “true nationalists”. I do not think the hon members of the CP received a copy because I do not think she calls them “true nationalists”. But I received one as a “true nationalist”. In it she says:
That is the one side.
On the other side they sit with an organization such as the AWB. In the past the Leader of the CP said that there were no negotiations between, or overtures by the AWB to the CP, and least of all by the CP to the AWB. Hon leaders can look that up in his Hansard.
Today I want to describe these two organizations as unworthy, racist and unchristian organizations, because this is definitely the image they reflect of our country and its people. When the CP saw that it was experiencing many problems with these organizations a front organization was founded, namely the Afrikanervolkswag. Sir, do you know, the Afrikanervolkswag is not even original enough to think up an emblem for itself. Do you know what it did? It looked at the AWB’s emblem with the three sevens, it just cut off one leg, took the remaining two, rearranged them slightly and it had its emblem! Then they still want to say that there is no link between these organizations. They did not even curve the three beautiful sevens of the AWB slightly; they took two sevens just as they were, joined them together and, behold, the Afrikanervolkswag was born.
I want to go further. What does the Afrikanervolkswag, die front organization of the CP, present to our people? I almost want to say “Morgenzon, o Morgenzon”, because they present us with a beautiful country in which there will not be a single Black. I want to mention in passing that I did not like it when the hon the Leader of the CP said yesterday in a snide manner—“and then they sit with a few little Blacks.” The tone is racist and it does not befit this Chamber. It is a tone which should not be used by anyone who loves this country and its survival.
I want to go further. There will be no Blacks in Morgenzon. There will be nothing Black there—behold, everything will be White. I want to repeat what my friend the hon member for Innesdal said: There are only going to be Whites in this White homeland, pure white and off-white, but there are not going to be any Blacks. Now I want to ask: Is that practical? Does the CP really think that all the food, fuel, motor cars and everything that will be brought into that White area, will only be made by pure white hands. Do the people not realize that we need each other in this country? We cannot say like the three monkeys that we do not hear the people of colour, we do not see them and we do not talk about them. They think that once they have said “everyone is gone” and there is partition, all the problems in this country of ours will vanish. [Interjections.]
The other day I read a beautiful quotation in a diary. It said:
I want to tell the CP that there is still time to change their minds. I also want to tell them that their leader changes his mind. He really changes his mind. A while ago he said to us in this House:
Do hon members know what he did then? He entered into election agreements with the HNP, in spite of the fact that he had said that we falsely wanted to bring him closer to the HNP. Yet he entered into agreements with them. Just fancy! And now hon members also know that he has entered into an agreement with the HNP not to stand in Newton Park. He entered into that agreement. But then he changed his mind because did those words of wisdom not say: “Diegene wat nooit van mening verander nie het hulleself gewoonlik liewer as die waarheid.” There was, however, just one problem when he changed his mind. He did not tell Mr Jaap Marais that he had changed his mind. No, he changed his mind and he decided to participate in the by-elections in Kempton Park covertly.
Yes, Newton Park. I will tell hon members why he has now decided to participate in the by-elections in Newton Park. In his warped mind he saw this as the only way in which he could possibly hurt the NP—if that seat could go to the PFP because of the few votes he could poll! That is the only reason. There cannot be any other reason.
There is also something else which surprises me. I have always thought that Mr Jaap Marais was fairly intelligent. Hon members know that he once said in Die Afrikaner, that newspaper of his, that the hon member for Waterberg was irresolute, a vacillator, an egg-dancer, a person who was adept in the art of playing with words. [Interjections.] Mr Marais actually allowed himself to be taken in; he believed what the hon the Leader of the CP said to him; and the hon Leader actually became a vacillator again. [Interjections.] This vacillation has been so beautifully illustrated in this House during the past few days. The hon member stood up here and, in my opinion, made a fairly moderate speech on foreign policy and what a good thing it was that we could not become isolated, etc. Just after that the hon member for Soutpansberg stood up and he told a completely different story about Renamo and so on—vacillation within the ranks of the CP! If that hon leader cannot even control the members of his own party, how can he ever control something which is a little larger?
Today they were afforded the opportunity to serve together on a committee for discussion. I take my hat off to the other opposition parties in this House who have said that they are prepared, in spite of their principles, to serve on that committee. But the same does not apply to the hon members of the CP. No, they say: “These are our principles,” and Ikabod! They say: “We are not even prepared to sit around a table and talk to you. Take this from us; we are the strong men and we will not put up with this.” That is what they said to us.
What is the CP trying to achieve by this? How do they think we are going to solve the problems facing this country of ours with this kind of attitude? Do hon members know what kind of politics these people are trying to practise? The hon the Leader of the CP stands up and says that the CP supports the hon the Minister of Law and Order. But we do not hear one word from them attesting to the fact that they are going to support the State President in his task. No, when I think of the political thuggery going on outside as far as the State President is concerned, I really want to say to those hon members today that it is a pity that some of them can really be described as political thugs. What they are saying about the State President outside does not do credit to this country of ours. It does not matter who the State President of the country is, who the actual person is, in this country under these circumstances we cannot continue to denigrate the highest authority in our country the way those hon members are doing at the moment. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, in the course of his speech the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition put a question to the Conservative Party. This question was directed particularly at the hon Leader of this Party. He wanted to know if the Conservative Party—when we have come into power and when our policy has taken shape to the extent that all the separate population groups in South Africa have become fully independent—would treat individuals or citizens of the Black countries in the same way as individuals or citizens of Britain, for example, or any other country. [Interjections.] I, too, want to put a question to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. To begin with, however, I just want to inform him of a few of our basic principles.
When we say we belong to a particular ethnic group—I specifically employ the term “ethnic group”—it is a fact that those ethnic groups have a particular character, nature, identity and so forth. Surely it is obvious, then, insofar as our immigration policy, for example, is concerned, that we would only accept individuals of another country or people who could be absorbed into our particular ethnic organism without causing it to change. [Interjections.] I hope the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition understands what I mean. In that regard—and the hon Leader will understand this—we will therefore recognize in our international and inter-state relationships, too, that people of certain countries are more acceptable as immigrants than those of other countries.
When people came here to sell us their labour we would, of course, also make provision for agreements with them insofar as it…
What about athletes?
Well, allow me at least to get down to my speech, too. [Interjections.] In the nature of things one would accommodate visitors from abroad as such in one’s country—whether they came here as labourers, or in whatever capacity—in such a way that they would not present problems for one’s survival, as one interprets it. [Interjections.]
Yesterday I stated my standpoint in regard to the fact that, according to my observations and in my opinion, the State President’s credibility as far as the Whites are concerned, is continuously diminishing.
That is due to your kind of politicking! It is the result of the gossip you are going around everywhere spreading! [Interjections.]
With reference to the assertion made yesterday by the hon Mr Van Staden that all the political changes we are dealing with today were actually born out of the report of the Erica Theron Commission, I referred to certain aspects indicating—and I have also indicated this—that the State President has changed insofar as certain standpoints he previously held are concerned. Someone in the National Party asked me when and in what capacity these things were said. I want to reply to that by quoting from a document I now have here in my hand. I quote from this as follows:
This standpoint stated by the State President was not, therefore, the standpoint of a backbencher of the National Party. It was not a standpoint of one of our lesser lights. The hon the Minister of Defence, after all, alleged that the small group of CP members were the lesser lights of the NP. This standpoint was expressed by the present State President when he was acting Prime Minister.
You were not even reverse lights!
It has been alleged today that when one discusses the credibility of these two parties, both of which lay claim to the basis of principles of that group of Afrikaners that is really seeking to ensure its survival, one is behaving offensively. One is therefore being offensive when one points, quoting chapter and verse, to the historical course of events in South Africa during the past forty years. I want to put it to the hon State President that he who wants to hide the truth, finds even the truth offensive.
I want to mention to the State President two examples of his credibility being called into question. His credibility, in fact, continues to diminish. In 1978, when Dr Piet Marais expressed the standpoint that we should have a trincameral parliament it was the State President who, on the authority of his congress in the Cape, used the strongest language to argue with Dr Piet Marais that it was not our standpoint that we should have a tricameral parliament.
That is not true.
I quoted it, but then the State President said that what he had in fact meant was that he did not want a tricameral parliament under the Westminster system. There was absolutely no question at that stage, however, of a three-chamber parliament in NP debating. All our discussions reflected a feeling that the Westminster system no longer satisfied all the demands. A tricameral parliament, however, was never the proposal of the NP, and the State President himself rejected it. Now, at a later stage, he comes and accuses this side of the House of diverging from the traditional standpoints and principles of the NP and of lacking credibility. The NP also very often brings up the so-called twelve-point plan which we had already accepted in 1981. I contend today that the policy the NP wants us to accept today in regard to the Black people does not accord with what we told the voters in 1981.
Was there a Coloured homeland policy in 1981?
No, of course not. [Interjections.] No, but let me explain now. The NP and the State President talk about people who are not dry behind the ears. I want to tell the hon the State President that I have perhaps been involved in active politics in South Africa for perhaps as long as most hon members in his caucus. I want to tell the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply that when I entered the party, the principle was one of non-integration and non-power-sharing with the Coloureds. The homelands policy for Coloureds was considered not feasible for practical reasons. This I accepted, but I had said before in this House that as a student leader I worked out a policy for the Afrikaanse Studentebond and my suggestion was a Coloured homeland policy. I never shied away from the fact. As far as that is concerned, I accepted the policy of the NP. This was merely an example in regard to the tricameral parliament. The State President has backtracked completely.
After all, we now have the new proposal of the hon the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs and of National Education regarding the repeal of section 16 of the Immorality Act and of the Mixed Marriages Act, and in this connection I once again want to point out where the credibility of the State President is called into question. In May 1982 his private secretary wrote to a concerned voter—so I suppose—in reply to certain pertinent questions in regard to the Mixed Marriages Act and so on. The State President’s private secretary wrote as follows:
I can find nothing wrong with this letter. [Interjections.] Someone wrote to the State President in 1982 and asked what his standpoint was in reply to this matter. He said that under no circumstances would he repeal these laws. Now, however, the State President is recommending through his hon Deputy Minister that these laws be scrapped. [Interjections.]
Daan, you are living in the past.
The hon member can say that I am living in the past, but I want to say it is peculiar that when I attack the NP, there is a group of PFP members next to me that begins to grow restive. [Interjections.] Then, when I fight the PFP, the left wing of the NP joins ranks with the PFP. [Interjections.] I understood the State President to say this morning that he did not want a coalition, but surely it is as clear as daylight to those of us who understand politics in South Africa that there are only two streams in South Africa, the liberal stream, based on power-sharing, and the conservative stream, that wants the nations in South Africa to continue to live separately. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rissik is probably the man who quoted Dr Verwoerd most often in debates. I wonder what he would say about Dr Verwoerd’s standpoint on maintaining the same principles in spite of changed circumstance. He would do well to go and read what Dr Verwoerd said in debates in 1959. At that time he told an opposition member: Do you, then, merely want to stick to the Union of 1910? He intimated thereby that changed circumstances required changed decisions.
Yesterday the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the hon leader of the CP said that we should exclude the malice from of our debates. That was very praiseworthy, and both of these gentlemen set the example. However, how is that to be reconciled with the conduct of those who spoke after them? How is that to be reconciled with what the hon member for Lichtenburg said during the discussion of the private member’s motion on partition, when he said that the NP was negotiating with the ANC? I challenge the CP to prove that. It is a party which is always very quick to say: Produce the evidence. This is their chance. Produce the evidence that the NP is negotiating, or has ever negotiated, with the ANC.
I also wish to refer to the hon member for Kuruman. The other evening—if he could have managed it, he would have done it—he almost stuck his finger in the eye of the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs and said: “I hate you (julle)!” If there is one man who is the least malicious person in this House it is surely the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, but the hon member for Kuruman said to him: “I hate you!”
I said that I hated integrationists.
The hon member said that he hated “you”. [Interjections.]
Order! I am not going to permit a dialogue. The hon member may proceed.
Thank you, Sir. [Interjections.] The hon member for Rissik, who is so talkative now, definitely requires the services of a gynaecologist, as the hon the Minister said the other day.
Yesterday the CP was challenged to discuss their policy. The reply, as expressed by the hon member for Rissik, was that it was not their policy that was at issue but the Government’s policy. That is true, that a short time ago they had the opportunity to discuss their policy when the motion of the hon member for Waterberg on partition was discussed. What did they do on that occasion? Did they discuss it then? All that happened was that the hon member for Waterberg said that the policy of partition was based on Dr Verwoerd’s policy of partition. Apart from that there was only an occasional reference to how they would tackle the matter. In that regard he and the hon member for Lichtenburg contradicted one another.
What was Dr Verwoerd’s policy of partition based on? There is not a single member of the NP, nor probably, of any other party in this House who did not regard Dr Verwoerd with the greatest respect, but there is no one in this House who will be able to dispute that he committed an error of judgement. On what did Dr Verwoerd base his policy of partition? In the first place he based it on demographic facts and projections at his disposal. The interpretation of the statistics on which he based it caused a problem between him and the opposition. Secondly, the demographic facts were the following: He said that by the year 2000 there would be only 2è million Blacks in the White rural area. In the White urban area there would be only 3½ million Blacks. That was the point of departure. At the same time there would be between 6 and 7 million Whites.
What are the facts of the matter? We are not yet in the year 2000. What do the demographic facts look like today? The survey in 1984 shows that there are already 25 million Blacks in the Republic of South Africa. Dr Verwoerd and his Government referred to 6 million. Now, I want to know whether one can still use the same model to solve a problem if the facts have changed so drastically. For example 3 x 4 = 12. If the 4 is changed to 2, will 3x2 still equal 12? Surely that is simply unacceptable. To get to 12 again, the 3 has to be changed to a 6. Then it is 2 x 6 that is equal to 12.
That is the problem. The hon members of the CP are not prepared to believe that if one’s data changes, the solution to the problem must necessarily also change.
It is a well-known fact that the public statements of the CP relate to partition but I challenge any of them to tell me today that, while the CP advocates partition, they have ever indicated, on the basis of any statistics, that it is in fact possible. Apart from this ratio to which I have just referred, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has also pointed out that there are only six cities in the entire Republic in which the majority of people are White. If, then, it is the case that there are only six cities …
… cities or towns with a majority of Whites, how are we to realize the ideal of Dr Verwoerd, who was quoted by the hon member for Waterberg, in the sense that he said that one should rather have a smaller South Africa with Whites, with its own police, its own defence force and its own navy? Where would we establish that South Africa?
Speaking of Morgenzon, I have just said that the two hon members to whom I referred, the hon members for Waterberg and Lichtenburg, differed in their point of departure on the homeland policy as far as the point of departure of partition is concerned. In the debate on partition the hon member for Waterberg said that he did not regard it as justifiable that large amounts of money were being spent on Black homelands while the Whites were in a wretched state. For the rest he said that the other problem was that the Government was spending too little money on the development of White homelands. In the same debate—not in a different debate—the hon member for Lichtenburg said that they were going to strengthen those homelands for the Blacks. They were going to expand them. They were going to begin with the adjoining districts. What are they saying? One says that he wants money for this whereas the other one says he wants money for that. At least they have one thing in common. The hon member for Lichtenburg says that he is going to have the Blacks driven to their place of employment. The hon member for Waterberg wants to have Whites driven to their place of employment. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kimberley South made the statement today that for many years the subject of the political future of the Coloured people had been shied away from. I agree with him on that score.
Dawie of Die Burger wrote—I think it was in 1972—that the NP had closed the door to a Coloured homeland and to integration. I concede the point to the hon member that the State President did not flinch from it but sought a solution. The State President said in 1982 that we would not stand before these two closed doors; we had to go somewhere. The State President then opened the door to the road of political integration with the Coloureds in this House. The CP stood before those two doors and said: We are not prepared to enter the door of integration with you; we prefer to enter the other door. We then founded a party which said that a Coloured homeland was the solution. [Interjections.]
I want to tell the hon member for Kimberley South that over the years the NP rejected integration in principle, and rejected a homeland for practical reasons. Therefore the NP has now accepted the principle of integration and we have decided that we are going to take the road of partition.
The hon member for Kimberley South went on to say that in recent times the CP was unable to sell its plan to a single Coloured leader.
That is so.
The hon member for Randburg says that that is so but I want to say that it seems to me that the Rev Hendrickse is systematically selling his plan to the NP. I think that the hon member for Randburg is helping him to do so. After all, I read in Die Vaderland of 11 April 1984 that the Labour Party stated that the following legislation had to be repealed: The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, Section 16 of the Immorality Act, the legislation relating to separate facilities, the legislation prohibiting improper political interference and the Group Areas Act. The first two measures that they mentioned are now being repealed—they are going.
The Coloureds said that the Black people should also be brought in at the level of local government; they should be involved in the regional services councils, as the PFP asked last year. In that regard, too, concessions have been made. As the Rev Hendrickse requested, they have been brought in.
The legislation on separate facilities and the group areas legislation, as well as the slum legislation, have been referred to the President’s Council. I am convinced that the President’s Council, which is a multiracial institution, will make a recommendation to the Cabinet, which is also a multiracial body. Ultimately a multiracial standing committee of Parliament will also investigate these pieces of legislation and then they, too, will go. The Rev Hendrickse will have his way as far as these pieces of legislation, too, are concerned. Recently the Rev Hendrickse has been very busy indicating that the NP is accepting his plan. [Interjections.]
Order! I have given the floor to the hon member for Kuruman only.
It is taken amiss of us in the CP that we do not accept the invitation of the State President. The CP says that the NP, the PFP and the NRP are at present fighting shoulder to shoulder to destroy separation in South Africa. Here we have received an invitation to serve on a committee which must also bring about power sharing with Blacks. The NP and the other parties in the Committee are fighting shoulder to shoulder to destroy separation in this country. The CP will stand alone in fighting for the retention of preservation in this House of Assembly and in South Africa.
It is very easy to say that we and the PFP agree, and a moment ago one of the hon members again made this stupid remark. However Mr Leon Marshall writes as follows:
In recent debates we have again had excellent examples of that. I quote further: “Not surprisingly, it has already led to rumours about the possible future coalition between the Progs and the Nats.” He goes on: “It must indeed be a strange sensation for many Nationalists to find themselves suddenly more comfortable in the presence of the Progs than anybody else in this new Parliament of their own creation.” Mr Chairman, the PFP and the NP can co-operate in future in the bodies they establish to destroy separation by way of integration. The CP will stand alone in doing everything in its power to fight this. [Interjections.]
The hon member for Umhlatuzana referred to questions asked by the hon member for Jeppe. In the second reading debate on the Appropriation Bill the hon member for Jeppe said that rumours were doing the rounds that Black people outside the homelands would obtain representation in Parliament and a seat in the Government in 1988. He asked that answers be furnished in that regard. [Interjections.] I now wish to say to the State President that those rumours are doing the rounds. I also want to say that I accept the standpoint that has already been stated by the State President and hon Ministers on behalf of the NP, viz that Black people will not obtain representation in this Parliament by way of a fourth Chamber. I want to ask the State President to put a stop to these rumours.
I want to ask the State President whether he perhaps envisages giving Black people representation in Parliament and a seat in the Cabinet in some other way, ie not by way of a fourth Chamber. We want answers to this. I want to ask the State President whether he can state categorically today that there will not be a Black man in his Cabinet within the next few years. Can he give us that assurance? [Interjections.]
I have before me the Financial Mail of 22 March, and I quote what is stated on page 63:
Prof Potgieter goes on to say:
The author of this article says that he has held discussions with prominent members of the NP as well as hon NP members in Parliament. [Interjections.] This professor creates the impression that he knows what is going on in the heads of the leaders of the NP. This professor is a good supporter of the NP. He says that the NP is going to lose still more support when the conservative voters within the NP realize what the full implications are of what the NP has in mind with regard to political rights for the Black people.
I want to ask the State President, who is a man of courage, to display this courage and tell South Africa today what he envisages with regard to the Black people outside the national states. He must tell us whether they, too, are going to have a seat in the coalition Cabinet. With what proposals will the State President approach the Black people in this Cabinet committee and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition? With what proposals will the State President go to this forum of his, which is nothing but the national convention of the PFP?
This professor, who supports the State President, says in the Financial Mail: “I cannot see how the Blacks can be kept out for more than twelve months or so.” I want to ask the State President: Tell us whether the Black people are going to obtain a different form of representation in this Parliament.
There are 44 extra seats in the new Council Chamber being built. I want to ask the State President: Tell us today who these 44 extra seats are for. [Interjections.]
I want to quote further from the Financial Mail:
Now I want to ask the State President today whether that report is going to be proved true? Practicalities are going to drive them until this multiracial tricameral Parliament is eventually a unicameral Parliament in which matters of common interest can be dealt with.
Mr Chairman, in the limited time at my disposal for replying to a number of matters which were raised here, I first want to ask the hon member for Durban Point to clear up the matter in connection with the Taiwanese on a personal level with the Ministers concerned. I am not in a position now to reply to him satisfactorily across the floor of this House.
†The hon member for Sea Point reacted to what I had to say yesterday on the South West Africa/Namibia question. He is quite right in having sympathy for the people of South West Africa. As I pointed out in my speech, they have been waiting seven years for independence and still they do not have it. This is, however, not South Africa’s fault. I am quite sure that the hon member will agree with me on this point. It is not South Africa’s fault. It is the fault of those who deviate from the Western proposals; of those who have recognized and continue to recognize Swapo as the sole and authentic representative of the people of South West Africa. It also the fault of those who continue to keep such large numbers of Cubans in Angola and of the Soviet interventionists. These are the main reasons why the people of South West Africa have them for not succeeded in finding a successful or satisfactory solution.
The people of South West Africa are indeed frustrated by the present internal political stalemate. It is precisely that stalemate that we wish to break by reinstituting interim legislative and administrative bodies which will enable them to attend to their affairs until they achieve internationally recognized independence.
We are doing this in a manner in which there can be no doubt about our intention to stand by international commitments. That was the point that the hon member raised. I did not refer specifically to Resolution 435 in my statement yesterday. However, I did refer to it in the subsequent Press conference that we had. I referred instead, to the internationally accepted settlement plan. There is only one such plan that includes Resolution 435, but it goes beyond this resolution.
As I have clearly stated for many years, and as we repeated in our aide-memoire to the four Western countries yesterday, the plan includes the framework of the understanding reached with the USA and the Western contact group. It also includes our requirement for the genuine withdrawal of the Cubans from Angola. The USA is adamant on this and we agree with them. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that the question of Cuban and Soviet involvement is not one that affects the interests of the people of South West Africa only. It affects the interests of our whole region, including the medium-term security of South Africa itself. As regards South Africa, irrespective of the attitudes which others may adopt, we will insist that all foreign forces in our region should be withdrawn. That is our policy and I am sure I have the support of all responsible political parties in this regard.
It is a precondition for independence? That is the point.
The United States adopted the attitude that there could not be any implementation of Resolution 435 unless there was proof that the Cubans were leaving. The United States adopted that attitude and we are supporting them. The people of South West Africa know full well that it is in their own interests that the Cubans must leave. I have put the question to them on many occasions during our discussions. The hon member raised the question of why we did not give them an opportunity to decide by way of a referendum. Well, we might. I do not say that it is going to take place but we might. Time will tell.
The hon member for Sea Point would like us to get out of South West Africa as soon as possible and to set the timetable to achieve this objective. Last year when I was in Europe I raised this matter with every head of government and said to them: You take over the responsibilities and foot the bill, then I will get out. I could not find one who was prepared to do so. The only straightforward reply I got was from the Prime Minister of Great Britain. She said to me: You are an optimist. [Interjections.]
However, I agree with the hon member. It is our policy to lead South West Africa and to help them to achieve independence and govern themselves. We would dearly like to get out of South West Africa as soon as possible but the difference between us is that we take our responsibilities to the people of South West Africa and to the whole region very seriously, and we do have responsibilities. As I stated yesterday in this House, should it eventually become evident, after all avenues have been thoroughly explored, that there is no realistic prospect of attaining the goal of Cuban withdrawal, all the parties most intimately affected by the present negotiations will obviously have to reconsider how internationally acceptable independence may best be attained in the light of prevailing circumstances. However, that is something for the future.
Will it be the near future?
I am not prepared to prophesy on this matter.
*In his speech the hon member for Benoni tried to bring home the concept that we are now resolved to make this matter our task, and I wanted to emphasize this this afternoon.
The hon member for Waterberg, who apologized for not being able to be present here, said that he was not going to participate in the dialogue I had offered. That is his choice. This is a free country, and that is his choice. But now is the time for people to accept responsibility. All people who wish to accept responsibility are now being afforded that opportunity, but of course if one does not wish to accept responsibility and wishes other people to bear the responsibility alone, then one adopts that kind of attitude. I shall consequently leave it at that. For the most part the hon member for Waterberg’s attitude was that he liked to make fine speeches, but left the responsibility to other people.
†The hon member for King William’s Town raised the question of why I did not convene a joint session of the three Houses to make my statement on security. I made a statement on security matters just before the short recess, and I called them together. On Monday I shall appear in the House of Representatives and I shall deal with matters there. However, I cannot call the three Houses of Parliament together every second day. Surely one House can take note of what is happening in another.
Then he took me to task about my attitude on the toast to the President. All I said was that we were not prescribing to the country. I said furthermore that we left it to all reasonable people to decide for themselves what to do. I do not think they are toasting my person. I do not think that is what we expect from them. They are not toasting my person; they are toasting the position of State President.
Is it not the usual form to toast the country?
They can toast the country, and they can toast the hon member too, if they want to! [Interjections.]
*The hon member Dr Odendaal, as always, made a well-balanced contribution on the distribution of wealth, on which I agree with him. The hon member for Springs raised a point that was important, namely our will to survive and to achieve something. We must have the will to survive and to achieve something, the mere passing of laws is not enough.
For lack of time I cannot reply to all the hon members. The hon member for Vasco asked me whether I would not, on some future occasion, again spell out what was not negotiable. However, I think that if one reads the speech I made this morning, it will be clear what is not negotiable. I said there were certain things we were not prepared to accept. We are most certainly—as one of the minority groups in this country, as one of the minority groups which developed a say in this country, through historical events, through our contribution here, our cultural heritage and the development of our language, but also through the English-speaking people and other White minority groups who developed into a larger unified White group in South Africa—not prepared to negotiate over our right to continue to exist in this country. I think that was clearly apparent from what I said this morning.
The hon member for Randburg raised an important point, namely the question of infrastructure within the urban areas of Black communities. The Government is giving its attention to this matter, and the sooner we do so, the better. The hon member Mr Theunissen is angry with me. [Interjections.] But he should not be angry with me; he should be angry with himself. He separated himself from the party that elected him. Now he knows that he does not have enough people to return him to Parliament, for there are any number of candidates for that position he occupies. He is going to have problems. He is angry with me, however, and I cannot help it. He will have to remain angry. I shall forgive him.
†The hon member Mr Aronson also made a speech here, and I am glad to see he is back and that he is positively and actively participating in the proceedings of the House again.
The hon members for Brentwood, Kimberley South, Innesdal, Witbank, Bellville, Randburg, Vasco, Umhlatuzana, Stilfontein and Heilbron all made positive contributions. In particular I want to thank them because all of them—or most of them—referred to the question of the development of the underdeveloped areas, to the question of a balanced economy and to the fact that we must have regard for the actual numbers which are being revealed today—and we must do this with the demographic knowledge at our disposal.
There are two steps which this Government has taken in recent years which can be, and are going to be, of decisive significance. The one is the establishment of the Development Bank of Southern Africa. I have here a short report of the Development Bank, but I am not going to stand here reading from it. Nevertheless I want to mention that when I was paging through it it struck me to what an extent the Development Bank was growing in stature and producing tangible proof of success. It is a joint institution which we share with other neighbouring states.
The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was present on the day we signed the agreements. What surprises me, however, is the 154 projects in respect of which the bank had fixed obligations in 1985, plus the 122 projects which were in various stages of preparation. The projects are distributed as follows among the various sectors: agriculture, forestry and fishery, 84; industries, commerce, tourism and mining, 34; urban development and accommodation, 39; manpower and education, 27; and infrastructure, 80. This demonstrates that the Development Bank is dealing with those matters which are important for the future.
It is indicated in this report that compared with the actual payment of loans totalling approximately R145 million in the 1984-85 financial year, the payment of loans to the value of R308 million is scheduled for the 1985-86 financial year. The intention is to shift the emphasis even further towards agriculture and rural development, manpower development, and urban development. Consequently we have here an institution which in a visible and tangible way is making a contribution towards helping us to succeed in our difficult struggle to establish a properly balanced economy in Southern Africa.
As far as regional development is concerned, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred somewhat cynically to the price we were paying to get people to participate. But what is the price we would have paid if we had not had this development? What is the price we would have paid in terms of water, housing and infrastructure in the metropolises, if we had not had this development? Has the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition ever calculated it? We are succeeding with this programme. We are definitely succeeding with it. In any event, it is a matter which could preferably be discussed when the Vote of the Minister concerned is debated. I do not wish to take this matter any further now. I do wish to say, though, that these two steps which the Government has taken during the past year, have great significance for the future of this country. If we are able to achieve unanimity in this regard, and if we are able to give added momentum to these things, we are doing something for South Africa in a tangible way.
I want to refer briefly to the hon member for Brentwood. He raised the question of Vaal River water. I am equally concerned about this problem. I am almost afraid to walk past the Transvalers, because they hear me talking about this all the time. The hon member was quite correct; that river has a limited water supply, and we cannot simply continue to replenish those supplies with water from other rivers. [Interjections.]
That is why we appointed Mr Braam Raubenheimer. He is a man with knowledge, a man who is most certainly the best equipped person to guide us in this investigation. I understand that he is going to report on this matter soon in order to dissect this entire problem for us and determine what steps we can take. I also intend to make further use of his services. If we succeed in our talks with Mozambique, I am prepared to make further use of his services to investigate certain aspects of water supply in conjunction with Mozambique and other states—from rivers which we share with one another.
The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made an important statement here today, which was that he supported me in an absolute rejection of violence. I also thank him for that. The hon member for Waterberg said the same thing. I accept that the NRP also said it through the hon member for Durban Point. Consequently this House has unanimously declared itself today to be opposed to any form of violence for achieving political objectives. This State is therefore opposed to the forces which not only commit violence but also plan it and unleash it on our country.
I think this brings us closer to one another. When we are unanimous in this regard, surely we have made a great deal of progress towards finding common ground among ourselves.
I also went further this morning. Naturally I do not want to repeat the speech I made previously. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knew what I was talking about. After all, he is intelligent enough to know what beacons I tried to plant, within which we shall have to move; and also what guidelines on which we shall have to negotiate. Naturally I was in earnest when I addressed that invitation. If we wish to drag down this greatest problem, namely relations between the White and Black communities in this country—the Black peoples—to the level of the party-political struggle, and strive to win votes off one another in the process, we are never going to arrive at the solutions. All I am advocating is the following. I was speaking from experience when I said that we must elevate this matter above the party-political struggle. This does not in any way mean that I said we should form a coalition. I do not believe we can enter into a coalition.
No, how would I ever be able to venture into a coalition with the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North? [Interjections.] He does not even have a mother; at least I had one. [Interjections.] Nor am I asking for fusion. What I am asking is that we should establish in regard to what matters we can help one another to carry Out this immediate task in the interests of the civilization to which we belong. In that spirit I thank the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition for his reaction. I also accept it in that spirit, and I hope that in our further talks we will find a way, taking into consideration our differences—because we do have differences—in which we can nevertheless act towards one another like South Africans.
I have the impression that the hon member for Durban Point has also executed a kind of somersault since yesterday.
It just takes him a little while longer! [Interjections.]
We shall simply have to see whether there is a little place for him as well. Perhaps there is a small seat available for him there; I do not know. We shall have to see. [Interjections.]
This brings me to two other matters which I still want to discuss in the short time at my disposal.
I have not yet had an opportunity to discuss the accusations hurled at me in regard to the Immorality and Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Amendment Bill. I admit that as acting Prime Minister I made a statement at the time on behalf of the Government. Of course I did. That was the Government’s standpoint. After all, I could not say in Mr Vorster’s absence that I held a different standpoint—surely that would have been disloyal of me. I made that statement because it was the policy of the Government, but after I became Prime Minister, I availed myself of the first opportunity I received to state a standpoint to my congress in 1979. It was the Cape Congress. As a matter of fact, I was attacked on that score in this country and a number of distorted stories were blazoned abroad. However, I said as long ago as 1979 that I did not think a mixed marriage was sinful. I said this from a platform. I went further and said that I could find no evidence in the Bible that it was sinful.
I then asked the churches to send delegations to come and see me. I met delegations from the English-language churches here in the Verwoerd Building, and I met delegations from the Afrikaans churches. I asked the churches to get together and give the Government some guidance in this regard. I begged them to do this. I told them I thought it was a matter which the churches of South Africa should in fact discuss with one another, and that I did not want to take the matter out of their hands because the original legislation had come about as a result of the representations from churches, women’s organizations and non-political bodies. After all, we know the history of this matter. A petition was handed in to this House, signed by 250 000 people.
The churches had an opportunity to get together, but they did not do so. I am not saying this in an accusatory spirit—do not go and misrepresent it again. I am mentioning this as a fact. Subsequently, however, the churches individually adopted a standpoint on this matter at their synods, one after another, because the debate on this matter became more serious and the churches had to state where they stood in this regard. Instead of the churches getting together, they discussed the matter individually in their synods.
There is not a single church of any importance, or a single religious denomination of importance in South Africa, which did not express an opinion in this regard. All of them said there were no biblical grounds on which a mixed marriage could be prohibited. The church of which I am a member, and of which I am proud to be a member, said it thought that the Act was desirable for social reasons. However, they themselves adopted the standpoint that there were no biblical grounds for the prohibition of such marriages. Consequently we now have the fact that, in spite of the failure of my efforts to obtain a unanimous decision from the churches by conducting a dialogue with them, the churches did make their individual standpoints known to South Africa.
What did I do then? Then my Government, of which I am the head, acted openly by appointing a select committee of this Parliament, at first of this House only, and subsequently of the Parliament as now constituted. Here we have the report before us. I need not read it; it is there for all hon members to read. Now accusations are being levelled here this afternoon that I am not to be trusted; that I am untrustworthy because I changed my standpoint. What nonsense from petty politicians! What has this to do with trustworthiness? There are many other things in life in regard to which one must be trustworthy.
As far as the Immorality Act is concerned, I say that all immorality is to be condemned. A state with character must have measures to combat immorality. Therefore I do not think it is right to allow the Immorality Act to be dwarfed by one section that has a racialistic connotation. This was the finding of the joint select committee. Most churches say that all immorality should be condemned. Consequently the Government referred this Bill to the President’s Council and issued terms of reference requesting that this matter be investigated in the light of the serious standpoint on the moral concepts that have to be maintained in this country. The President’s Council was requested to bring out a report, on which we shall take action.
Now I am being accused by petty politicians that my trustworthiness is in question. They are puny people who are scratching about in rubbish bins.
I want to conclude by dealing with the general charge that the NP and I are not to be trusted because we change our standpoints. I remember that great predecessors of mine steered South Africa in a different direction in regard to important standpoints. I want to mention only a few. In South Africa we held a referendum on the basis that we would remain within the Commonwealth of Nations. Shortly after we had achieved a victory in the referendum, we left the Commonwealth of Nations, under the leadership of Dr Verwoerd. Was that an act of untrustworthiness?
We did not have much option.
Someone has just said: “We did not have much option”, but the demands of the times required him to adopt a different standpoint. That is the point.
I can remember that there was a time when I knew Dr Malan, the great Dr Malan in the history of the Afrikaner, and when he believed in having the same voters’ lists for Coloureds as well as Whites. He also wanted to give the franchise to Coloured women. Did that make a traitor of him?
Shortly after Adv Strijdom became Prime Minister, he changed his standpoint on ‘Africa and enunciated new standpoints and new views on Africa. In fact, he went so far as to say that we would have to make satisfactory arrangements with Africa. Did that make him untrustworthy?
I want to read out to this House what the late General Hertzog said. No one can doubt his integrity, and the further we move away from him, the greater he becomes. This is of importance. What is important is whether a leader becomes greater the further one moves away from him. I should like to quote this interesting passage from what he himself said in one of his speeches about the relations between Whites and Blacks:
This is his peculiar language:
Those were words of wisdom, spoken years ago, in the 1920s, when General Hertzog presented his Native Acts. We are now living in that future. The other day I attended a meeting of Black people—I do not want to exploit this for party-political purposes—and enjoyed a luncheon in the company of Black people with doctors’ degrees and others who occupied professional positions. These are people who are at home in this country. We are now living in that period which General Hertzog envisaged and it is not our cross, it is not our burden, it is a wonderful challenge for us to make it our job to get these things done.
Vote agreed to.
Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Mr Speaker, I move:
The House adjourned at