Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I was under the impression that during the discussion of this Vote we could cover a slightly wider area than merely the specific matters concerned here. Therefore, I should like to react to certain allegations made by that side of the House which amount to those of us on this side of the House having fully agreed with virtually all decisions taken in the past from which we now dissociate ourselves. I am referring, in particular, to a few of the statements the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs made here last week in his reference to the decision with regard to South West Africa, and how we on this side of the House, and in particular the hon member for Lichtenburg and I, allegedly agreed with them.

I am referring here to his subsequent statement, and I quote from the Hansard report of his speech:

Mr Chairman, I should like to comment on this.

To begin with, it is not necessary to go to the border to get away from telephones. In fact, I do not know of a single Cabinet meeting that was disturbed by telephone calls. [Interjections.] If hon members on the opposite side want to disclose Cabinet confidences, I suppose I may do so as well. It was at a meeting that members of the Cabinet were told in advance to attend because decisions were going to be taken there.

On that occasion, we held a Cabinet meeting on the Sunday. On that Sunday we held a Cabinet meeting to beat all Cabinet meetings. One of the Ministers had to fly there especially to attend that Cabinet meeting.

Now, I want to say the following with regard to the discussions with the leaders of South West Africa. I want to make the following allegation. The statement that the whole South West African issue was discussed there in detail with the leaders of South West, and that it was unanimously agreed to, is as far removed from the truth as Cape Town is from Windhoek by foot. [Interjections.]

The South West leaders arrived in two contingents that afternoon. They did not discuss the South West issue with the Cabinet. Those two delegations of South West African leaders sat there and were addressed in a manner that made me ashamed. It was not an open discussion on the part of the Cabinet with the delegation that consisted of two groups.

That was the same occasion on which we were told a pious story by an outsider about teamwork, team-spirit and that type of thing. It was the same occasion on which the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning began to tell his story about joint decision-making on all levels, from the local to the higher levels, and where hon members sitting on that side aired their doubts, but before a decision was reached, that was dropped.

All I want to say is that the statement that the Cabinet discussed the matter in detail with the delegations from South West Africa and that a unanimous decision was reached, is as far removed from the truth as Cape Town is from Windhoek by foot. [Interjections.]

We do not believe you.

I have had to deal with many unbelievers! [Interjections.] If people are able to give a certain version of a meeting, I have as much right to give a version of the facts as I experienced them and as I remembered them.

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs went further and referred to the Cabinet meetings on 19 and 20 January 1982. Then he said:

I then said by way of an interjection: “That is not the whole truth!”

What we are concerned with here is Resolution 435 and the acceptance of certain principles and their application with regard to South West Africa. I am merely sketching the circumstances as I remember them, and shall not tire the House by going into detail. When it comes to Resolution 435 and the acceptance of its ipsissima verba by the hon member for Lichtenburg and me, I want to say that I strongly object to that simplistic representation by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

To begin with, I remember that on that occasion—I know about all the long letters that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs submitted to the Cabinet, all the letters beginning with “Dear Al” and the “Dear Pik” that we had to listen to, interminable things—that when it came to how things should be done in South West I had made certain remarks. Unlike what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said, it was not a question of no one being allowed to evade the issue and the then Prime Minister having taken us by the scruff of our necks and ordering us to talk.

I stated my standpoint and explained my problem. I said that my problem was that what was being proposed for South West Africa was a federal system. Furthermore I said that if I approved a federal system in South West Africa and had to defend it to the voters in South Africa, I would be like a boxer with one hand tied behind his back because if I had to defend our approval of a federal system in South West Africa, but said that a federation was out of the question in the Republic of South Africa, I would find myself in an anomalous position.

The hon the Minister said that he remembered my exact words. His exact words in reaction to my misgivings were: “Mr Prime Minister, I understand colleague Andries’s problem.” Why does he not say that here as well? If it were not unparliamentary, I would have said that he was telling a lie. Therefore, I shall not say that now, but I shall say it outside. Mr Chairman, thank you very much for your patience in this regard.

What were we supposed to have agreed with? I have Resolution 435 here. I should like to ask whether it is possible that even that Government, let alone those of us who disagree with it, could have agreed to each of these items.

I am now quoting from Resolution 435:

I want to ask whether that Government ever accepted that unconditionally. However, it is part of the Resolution. It is now being suggested that we agreed with the Resolution and that we are now dissociating ourselves from undertakings that we are supposed to have given to the outside world. Surely that is too ridiculous for words!

I quote further from Resolution 435:

I would ask which one of those hon members of the Government admits that South Africa’s administration of South West Africa is illegal—an “illegal administration”? However, it is stated in the Resolution.

With regard to the question of a one man, one vote election under UN supervision in South West Africa, surely those hon members did not simply accept it from the outset. It has come about over the years. I am now quoting from a publication South West Africa Survey 1967:

If we said that we agreed with that Resolution, it was on the specific condition that any election or voting would take place on an ethnic basis and not simply on a basis of one man, one vote in the region as a whole.

Did those hon members agree unconditionally to the withdrawal of all South African troops from South West Africa? Did they agree to the surrender of the arms and ammunition of all the commandos and citizen forces and the storing of these in drill-halls under the supervision of the United Nations? If those hon members want to imply that I agreed with that, then I say: “That will be the day!”

What about the mission to South West Africa of, for example, a UN military force of 7 500 mercenaries, together with an additional 2 300 officials? Surely those are not things to which we simply agreed.

The point that I want to make is that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs sometimes becomes so excited that his imagination runs away with him. The result is that as he stands there speaking he turns his back to the Chair and gazes intently at the back benches, but he cannot look us in the face, because we would tell him that he is not telling the whole truth. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to another matter, namely an allegation that we often hear here. It emanated from the hon the State President’s bench in reaction to a statement made by a former Minister—I am referring to Mr Schlebusch—who once alleged that there was not a single member of the NP caucus, since Mr Vorster’s time, who did not accept power-sharing. He made the statement and we denied it. On that day, if I remember correctly, the Minister concerned was not here but was seated in the gallery. The hon the State President then said—I do not know whether he was still the Prime Minister then—that the Minister was correct.

It was certainly the most arrant nonsense that could have been spoken. To begin with it was the clear principle of the NP over the years that it rejected power-sharing as an absolutely unacceptable political principle. [Interjections.] Whether it was called a method or a principle, the NP rejected it in one publication after another. [Interjections.]

If it were then accepted in 1977, the question is still how it was accepted. And if it was discovered afterwards that, despite all the assurances and despite the standpoint that we adopted that we were opposed to power-sharing in principle, there were in fact elements of power-sharing in the 1977 proposals—with regard to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council, I do not now want to ask whether they remember it, but I remember that it was said that there were elements of power-sharing in the 1977 proposals— my observation was:

One dissociates oneself from something that one objects to in principle and which has, in practice, slipped into the proposals. One then purifies the matter according to principle, but one does not adapt the principle to the practice.

If we have to come to that matter there is, for example, this pertinent question regarding the ’77 proposals: Does the Constitution plan not amount to power-sharing? That was a pertinent question that was asked at the time. I shall quote the answer that was given in Skietgoed:

Hon members are aware that we are very far from a Parliament of our own now. The point is: Here was a statement of principle opposed to powersharing.

And co-responsibility?

Hon members themselves know—I am pleased that the hon the Minister is raising this matter—that co-responsibility is the big word behind which they are hiding. I personally spoke to Mr Vorster about that concept. Hon members know that Mr Vorster’s approach was: “Coresponsibility? The countries of Nato all have co-responsibility with regard to defence in the Western World without Nato being a supergovernment or general government.” Hon members are aware that that was his standpoint, and I share that standpoint when it comes to the definition or the meaning of co-responsibility.

A further question was asked: Does the possibility not exist that the plan could eventually lead to Black majority rule? The answer was that “it could not happen, because the Blacks were being excluded from this plan. If one were to include them, even if it were only the urban Bantu, within 10 years the Whites, Coloureds and Indians would no longer have a chance”. I think Mr Hendrik Schoeman would have said that they would not have had a snowball’s hope!

Let us refresh our memories a little. It is being said that we agreed to power-sharing. Those of us who were at the caucus meeting in the Synod hall in August 1977, remember very well that the then hon member for Potchefstroom said that we could just as well tell the world that we stood for power-sharing. I was pleased that the Prime Minister and the present State President gave the assurance—especially the Prime Minister—that there was no power-sharing in the scheme. Furthermore, I said that we would have to take into account that in that system the position of the State President would find himself in the eye of the storm in our politics, because each of the participating groups would want to make sure that the person who played such an enormously responsible and decisive role in constitutional affairs was the right person, and preferably that he was a man from one’s own group. That was part of the discussion.

On that occasion the hon member for Barberton asked whether Parliament would remain a sovereign White Parliament. The answer was yes. That was the background to our decision to go along with things. We also asked our questions. Surely hon members themselves know that when the draft legislation was put on the table, or rather, circulated, it was discussed. I personally went to our present State President and said: “Sir, I have a problem with section 26 of that draft Bill because it provides that the legislative function in Parliament is vested in the House of Assembly, with the understanding that the Council of Cabinets may remove a specific function from the House of Assembly and transfer it to another body.”

I went to him with this and said I had a problem, for then the legislative power would no longer be vested in this Parliament. He sent me to Mr Schlebusch, a Minister at the time, and I discussed the matter with him. I am recounting these facts so that hon members on the opposite side cannot say that we merely acquiesced to all these things.

The other fact is that when that draft Bill came before the caucus, the following happened. One by one, the members of the caucus began to express their reservations, and what happened then? The Prime Minister stood up and told his colleagues that there would still be plenty of time to discuss this matter. In the meantime, before that draft Bill had been disposed of—it was not agreed to there—it was referred to the committee on constitutional affairs, and from there it went to the President’s Council. Am I correct?

Surely that is the course that it took. When we began to ask questions and to air our reservations about it, it was deftly removed from the table and we were told that there would be plenty of time to discuss it. For that reason, no one can now say that we all agreed with it. When the time came to discuss it, we were already out of the caucus. [Interjections.]

Just listen to this:

Who wrote that?

There is a further quotation that dates back to 1980, after the time that we all allegedly agreed to power-sharing. Then the Prime Minister, the present hon State President, made it very clear that the Government did not believe in power-sharing.

Here is something else from Skietgoed that dates back to 1977. It is not necessary for me to quote more than perhaps just this sentence to hon members:

We now have a racial federation—

Sir, I am grateful that you allowed me to return to these points. I just hope that before hon members on the other side again allege unconditionally that we agreed with everything, they will bear in mind that we also have something of a memory. Things happened slightly differently to what they sometimes make out. [Interjections.]

I shall make use of another occasion to come back to the hon member for Springs who stood up here and, in a question, simply alleged that I had given my permission for non-Whites to live in White hostels. I should like to cross swords with him on that little point on another occasion. I promise that it will be a pleasant and friendly, but very forthright discussion.

Mr Chairman, while the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was speaking, an hon colleague on this side of the House said: “Fancy footwork”. I do not think one can describe the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition any better than by saying that this is precisely what he was doing in this House this afternoon. However, I have something to add, and I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that I am christening him “Semantic Andries”. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition came here this afternoon and did something that I must say really surprised me. He spoke about the acceptance of something in South Africa by an NP Government, not by someone who later became Prime Minister, or by the present hon State President, but by a former State President, Adv John Vorster. I do not know about all the AWB’s sitting there, but the former Nationalists sitting there now were all in the NP under Mr John Vorster, when his Government— not this hon State President’s Government— accepted the principle of implementing Resolution 435 for South West Africa.

Surely every one of us sitting here could go through Resolution 435 point by point and say that there were details with which we disagreed. That is very easy. That is not the issue, however. I thought that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his other colleagues who were also in the NP at that stage had simply become angry with the present hon State President. However, it now seems to me that they were already angry or dissatisfied in the days of Mr John Vorster. [Interjections.] What surprises one, however, is why they did not stand up then and have the courage of their convictions to tell Mr Vorster that they should not accept Resolution 435, but should oppose it. [Interjections.]

This afternoon the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition took Resolution 435, quoted one sentence from it and said that Resolution 435 stated that there was “an illegal government in South West Africa”. I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition something. When the implementation of Resolution 435 was accepted, neither this government, nor Mr Vorster, when he accepted Resolution 435—I believe—nor the present hon State President, considered South West Africa to be in “illegal” hands.

The second point the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made was that the Government would summarily accept “one man, one vote” seeing that we had accepted Resolution 435. The present Government’s problems regarding SWA revolve, in effect, around the fact that whatever the interim government in SWA does, should be done in such a way that minority rights are protected there.

This afternoon the Leader of the Official Opposition took Resolution 435 point by point, and now he wants to cast these details in the teeth of the hon the State President and the Government of South Africa. I think that is disgraceful behaviour on the part of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Did he or did he not accept the implementation of Resolution 435 under Mr John Vorster’s Government? I am asking him a question! He had nothing to say. This afternoon he took certain aspects of Resolution 435 and discussed them. He spoke about a Cabinet meeting in 1981. Mr John Vorster was no longer active in South African politics at that stage.

Who referred to that?

I am not concerned about whether the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was referring to a Cabinet meeting. I am asking him a question. He was a member of the Cabinet in 1981. Surely he held discussions under the leadership of the present State President. Mr John Vorster was no longer there.

What has that got to do with the price of eggs?

It has everything to do with the price of eggs, and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows that just as well as I do. I was not a member of the Cabinet, but surely he can confirm that the hon the State President expressed reservations about the implementation of Resolution 435. The big difference, however, is that when that decision was made, the hon the State President did not turn around and say: “Wait a minute. I do not really like these details concerning the principles of Resolution 435”. He did not say that it was not his decision; it was the responsibility of his predecessor. No, that is the difference between the hon the State President of South Africa and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition!

Hear, hear!

Of course, nowadays one is no longer permitted to use the word turncoat in South Africa, but I find it very difficult to find a better word to describe the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I would be very glad if someone could help me to find a synonym for that word which would be acceptable in this House of Assembly.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition not only renounced the old NP to which he belonged. He also renounced Mr John Vorster, because the implementation of Resolution 435 was accepted in principle by the former Vorster Government of the NP. However, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has rejected it this afternoon.

The hon member made another point concerning the question of power-sharing. I do not think hon members feel like debating that in Parliament any longer, because we on this side of the House have accepted the principle that we have to implement power-sharing with Black people in South Africa in accordance with certain guidelines laid down by the NP Government. We not only took a decision in that regard, but also received a mandate from the electorate of South Africa on 6 May 1987.

I want to put only one question to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I want him to take another look at the NP’s 1977 plan with its tricameral system. I want him to come and show me where it is stated that South Africa will be divided geographically between the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians.

I will show the hon member! [Interjections.]

They must come and show us! Although it was not as interlinked as the present tricameral Parliament—the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will concede that—it was implicit in the 1977 plan that there would be only one Minister of Foreign Affairs in South Africa. It was implicit that there would be only one Minister of Finance in South Africa. In some way or other—it does not matter whether it would be in the same Parliament or in three Parliaments or in the Council of Cabinets, as embodied in the proposals—the Coloureds and Indians would have to decide along with the Whites. The three communities would have to reach consensus with one another, on behalf of a joint fatherland, on a common standpoint concerning finance, foreign affairs and defence.

If the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition can answer that for me, without saying that there was some or other inherent form of powersharing in the 1977 plan—even if the hon the Leader does not want to accept the concept of power-sharing—then he, or his people sitting over there at the back, or the hon member for Ermelo, who dictates the policy of that party, must stand up this afternoon and explain this to us. [Interjections.]

I wanted to make a speech this afternoon, but I submit that it is impossible to debate rationally and honestly in this Parliament, the highest authority in South Africa, with people like hon members of the CP.

Mr Chairman, for the umpteenth time the internecine strife between the CP and the NP has flared up once more, not about present or future events, but about who said what 10 or 12 years ago.

What was the underlying meaning of the 1977 proposals? That was 11 years ago, and they are still arguing about it.

We are arguing about the credibility of those proposals.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal must make fewer interjections. The hon member for Sea Point may continue.

Who accepted Resolution 435 in 1978? Who does so today? I was not in the Cabinet or in the NP in 1978 … [Interjections] … and I thank both the electorate and Heaven for that! Nor do I want to give an interpretation of the 1977 proposals.

In a certain sense, however, I should like to act as a referee here. [Interjections.] I actually want to blow the whistle on the old, hackneyed, senseless question of 10 years ago so that this Parliament and this House can again consider and discuss present and future matters.

As I see it, there are two groups of people who have changed their standpoint in regard to this matter. In 1978 the Vorster administration accepted Resolution 435. Under the Botha administration a few months later that was again confirmed. Many of the hon members on my right were either members of the Vorster administration or of the Botha administration at the time. The present Government, however, does not like Resolution 435, although it still accepts it. Hon members on my right say that they do not accept it today. So they have, in fact, changed their opinion. They are entitled to do so, but then they must acknowledge that they have indeed done so. [Interjections.] That is so; they have changed their opinion. If they had been in power, they would have blocked or jettisoned Resolution 435. They have therefore changed their view.

As I have come to know politics over the years, since I came here initially in 1958, the NP firmly adhered to the fact that they did not believe in power-sharing. That was the basic policy of the whole Verwoerdian government. No power-sharing—that was the Government’s policy. I remember our saying across the floor of the House, year after year, that the major difference in South Africa was between those who believed in powersharing and those who believed in separation. The NP of those days even threw the few White representatives of the Blacks out of the House because, according to them, it would have been wrong to have had to have power-sharing; the Blacks were to obtain separate homelands, with the prospect of independence, and under those circumstances they had to go. Under those circumstances, on the question of power-sharing, Japie Basson crossed the floor. At the time the NP did not believe in power-sharing. At the time the party said that power-sharing, the sharing of power, was not only unacceptable, but also undesirable. That was its standpoint. The NP came to its senses, however, realising that South Africa could not manage without power-sharing, whether it was desirable or not.

There could be a degree of separation, and later in this debate I shall quote the hon the Minister. They actually believed in separation, and their greatest wish was that there should, in fact, be political separation in South Africa. He said that after nine years in the Cabinet he had come to his senses and realised that total separation could not succeed and that he had to incorporate a portion of the undesirable power-sharing in the constitutional dispensation for South Africa. They then changed their view.

They must acknowledge that they changed their view about Resolution 435 and about powersharing, whether healthy or unhealthy powersharing. [Interjections.] They will first have to acknowledge that fact before one can proceed to analyse the present political set-up and where we are heading in the future.

I have now blown the whistle on these two matters. I am now asking hon members: Could we not simply proceed to deal with the realities of South Africa, without quibbling about words that were used 10 or 12 years ago?

†This is supposed to be a debate on the Vote of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly and, essentially, one of own affairs. We would find it quite distasteful if it was just own affairs but clearly own affairs has to be seen within the wider context of the relationship between own affairs and general affairs. This is a situation that we would like to abolish because we believe that in the end, although there may be cultural, linguistic and religious differences between people, we are basically all South Africans and that all South African affairs in a parliamentary sense should be general affairs.

I want to say a few words about the administration of own affairs. One of my colleagues will deal with it in some greater depth. I want to refer to the problems which arise in particular from the abolition of representative provincial government. Provincial government in the main dealt with what could be called the own affairs of Whites. It dealt with most of the things that have now been transferred to the own affairs administration. I believe a disservice has been done to the public of South Africa and to government in South Africa by the abolition of representative provincial government without replacing it with something else effective. I have no doubt about that.

We were dealing on a provincial level with sensitive, community-oriented matters. We were dealing with education, particularly primary and secondary education. We were dealing with local government, and nothing can be more intimate in the field of government than local government. We were also dealing with hospitals and health services. In this particular field there has been a centralisation instead of a decentralisation. These matters have been taken away from the local people and the local government and have been concentrated in the central Government under the various Ministers of Local Government. In this field of sensitive local matters, instead of broadening the base of public contact, there has been a concentration towards the centre.

In this field there is also no real direct accountability. There is an indirect accountability through MPs but basically one is standing in Parliament on national issues and not the very sensitive and community-oriented local issues. We believe it is a disservice to government in South Africa that with regard to matters that are closely associated with communities we should have a centralisation of power towards own affairs Ministers.

Furthermore, there is no doubt and hon members who are serious about their work will know that a very important link between the public and the Government was broken when the provincial councils were abolished and that nothing effective was put in their place. It may be said that the Government appointed ministerial representatives, but these appointees represent the Government downwards towards the people. What we want to see is that the people are represented upwards towards the Government. That very important link has been taken away and no money for offices etc can replace the fact that we sit in Cape Town for some six or even eight months of the year occasionally and the rest of the time many of us have to attend standing committees. Nobody can replace the intimate and important contact which should exist, especially in the field of education between the ordinary people—the parents of the children at school—and the government of the day. I believe it was a retrograde step and it should be put right.

So, next week, to put on a show we will be going to what will be called “provincial sittings”. This Parliament is going to be adjourned and at the taxpayers’ expense we are all going to be ferried around the country. We are going to be put up in hotels and special facilities are going to be provided. It certainly is going to be a show of provincial sittings. [Interjections.] I say it is a farce! [Interjections.]

Just consider the provincial sittings of this year. [Interjections.] Any hon member who is a member of a provincial committee will know about the work that is to take place—ten hours per province. Ten hours of discussion per province. [Interjections.] The PFP opposition party is going to get 30 minutes. Big deal! We are getting 30 minutes after having to trek up all the way to these other places and have a discussion about provincial matters. [Interjections.]

The representation in terms of the Rules is going to be unbalanced. In fact, there is not going to be representation on a provincial basis. Whether one has seats in a province or not, there has to be representation on an even basis. It does not matter whether or not parties have earned their spurs in those particular provinces. [Interjections.]

At the end of it all, when we have all gone to our respective provincial capitals, we will not be able to take decisions. We will not be able to come to conclusions. We will not be able to call anybody to account. When it is all over, we will say: “Thank you, we have had the discussion, and now we are going back to Cape Town.” [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point is trying very hard—as is his party—to disregard and underestimate the concept of own affairs. Today the hon member again intimated here that they would like to move away from the concept of own affairs—of group rights. They believe that this concept has no right to exist in our politics.

The hon member can refer as snidely as he wishes to the so-called fraternal feud between the NP and the CP, but the fact remains that at least the importance of the protection of group rights is acknowledged in the debate between the Official Opposition and us.

However, this opposition party, the PFP, is trying to talk the idea of group rights out of the political agenda of this country as much as possible. That opposition party suffered a defeat in last year’s election when it tried to ignore this concept, because it tried to suggest to the people that the concept of own affairs was not important.

Like his colleagues do from time to time, the hon member made all manner of superficial remarks about a fraternal feud; he suggested a moment ago that he should be the referee. However, before that party can again become part of the political discussion in this country, as the PFP and its predecessors were in the past, it will have to find an answer to the question of how group rights can effectively be protected in this country. [Interjections.]

If the hon member tries to deny this, I merely want to give him two examples of instances when his own people felt that their livelihood and living space was being threatened. There was the so-called Norweto affair in the Transvaal. When supporters of the PFP realised that there was a possibility of a Black township on their doorstep, they suddenly discovered ecological arguments against it. They then suddenly became big ecologists and argued on that basis that Norweto should not be established.

Similarly, when the State built a dam in the Kloof-Hillcrest area, Black people had to be moved from the Valley of a Thousand Hills. Where were they to have been put? They were to have been put next to the Prog residents of the Kloof area! Under the leadership of the hon member for Greytown, those Progs suddenly became big ecologists. [Interjections.] They then also became concerned about the green areas, the ecology which was suddenly being threatened! Then it was not a racial feeling which was at issue; it was the ecology which was suddenly being threatened.

It is no use the PFP running away from the issue of the protection of group rights. This is the fundamental question all the political parties in this country have to address. If they try to ignore it, they ignore it at their own cost.

At their own Klotze! (Tot eie Klotze!)

I want to submit that for 40 years … Yes, Sir, in that instance, too, there was an attempt to ignore group rights, and again he and his hangers-on were the one’s who came off second best.

I submit that in the past 40 years this Government has consistently tried to address, and has addressed, the issue of the maintenance of group rights in a multiracial community, with the consent of the voters of South Africa.

At the very beginning of this Government’s term of office in 1948, it started with apartheid measures which were measures aimed at effecting separation between communities that were becoming increasingly interlinked, with all the detrimental consequences arising from this. There were certain disadvantages attached to those apartheid measures. One of these was that the underdeveloped sections of our population experienced them as discriminatory measures, measures which only filled them with bitterness. Therefore the emphasis gradually shifted to other aspects of the protection of group rights. However, we cannot deny that the apartheid measures adopted in the early days of National Party rule were also aimed at the preservation and protection of groups.

Then the time came when the emphasis fell on territorial separation, on regional development. From this, four self-sufficient independent states and another six self-governing areas have developed. There we gave territorial substance to the protection of minority rights. This is the same concept the Official Opposition still accepts today as the only real, true way of protecting group rights. There, too, we found that valuable contributions were made to the protection of group rights.

Again the experience was ultimately, however, that that was not the complete solution and that there were still certain lessons to be learned from the implementation of a development-oriented geographic policy. The first lesson was that there would always be large sections of South Africa where it would not be possible to separate groups physically. Secondly, even where the groups were separated in so far as this could be foreseen in the future, the requirements of the areas would differ, and there would always be a large degree of interdependence. The concept of own affairs grew out of this realisation, to make provision in fact for group protection where physical measures or territorial separation was not the answer. In the past four years we have proved that effective government is possible on the basis of this concept.

However, there is one essential condition attached to this. It is a condition which is certainly not taken into account sufficiently by the hon members of the Official Opposition. I am referring to the fact that for this form of distinction to be really successful, it must take place on the basis of negotiation and must be acceptable to all population groups. It must be possible for all population groups to identify with it.

We have only one hope for a successful modus vivendi in this country, namely if we realise that there is no place for domination in the South Africa of tomorrow. Neither domination by the Whites on the basis of their historical position, nor numerical domination on the basis of the numerical superiority of the Blacks.

I submit that over a period of 40 years this Government has discovered part of the truth— the truth we need to protect groups effectively— in various fields, namely by way of physical apartheid measures, by way of territorial separation and by way of distinguishing between own and general affairs. However, the Official Opposition has grasped one small part of that truth and is clinging to it, even at the expense of the real protection of group rights which it professes to support, because it does not want to accept the principle that effective protection of group rights can only be negotiated protection. It can only be protection based on the acceptance, by all groups, of the fact that they all have certain things which they themselves feel it is important to continue protecting while, at the same time, also trying to serve the interests of the greater whole.

Mr Chairman, I take great pleasure in speaking after the hon member for Umlazi. He is an experienced parliamentarian who has made his mark in this House. I also have close links with him in the Federal Information Service, and I want to congratulate him, too, on the way in which he again specifically put paid to the PFP here this afternoon. [Interjections.]

The fact that I am once again able to take my place in this House, is thanks mainly to the goodwill of my Transvaal colleagues, and I should like to thank them for that. [Interjections.] Allow me, too, Mr Chairman, to address a word of congratulations to the hon member for Randfontein on the fine victory he achieved in the recent by-election there, [interjections.] I want to reiterate what I wrote to him in a note after he had made his maiden speech. I wish him a successful parliamentary career, although I do not necessarily wish him a lengthy parliamentary career. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I merely want to say the following to the CP, which achieved success in three byelections: You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. [Interjections.] At some time or other the voters in those areas where the CP achieved success are going to realise that the CP is, in fact, towing the voters off to a political dreamland. At some time or other the voters are going to realise that these promises the CP is making can never to fulfilled. That is when the tide is going to turn, and even a place like Randfontein will become Nationalist again. [Interjections.]

The CP is telling the voters of South Africa that the NP has sold the right to self-determination of the Whites for a mess of potage. They are telling the voters that the NP has actually reduced the right to self-determination of the Whites to an own affairs institution which forms part of a tricameral Parliament, and which does not have much substance in any case.

You do not believe what you are saying!

Mr Chairman, I am not the hon member for Losberg! [Interjections.]

Furthermore, the CP has promised the voters that they are going to restore the absolute right to self-determination of the Whites in South Africa. They have promised to restore the absolute right to self-determination of the Whites in South Africa.

Firstly, I submit this afternoon that it is not desirable to restore the absolute right to self-determination of the Whites, or anyone else, in the Republic of South Africa. Secondly, I submit that it is not possible to restore the absolute right to self-determination of the Whites, or anyone else, in the Republic of South Africa either. I want to substantiate the first statement—the statement that it is not desirable to restore the absolute right to self-determination of the Whites in South Africa.

South Africa is a country with a plural population. In South Africa there are a variety of population groups which claim South Africa as their fatherland, and when, in a country like this, a person or a group claims absolute self-determination, this also implies the domination of other groups, and this is a recipe for prolonged violent conflict.

I now want to substantiate the second statement, namely that it is not possible to achieve the absolute self-determination of any of the population groups in South Africa either. The only way in which it would be possible, in theory, for one to restore the absolute right to self-determination of the Whites, would be to adapt the pattern of the Oranjewerkers—therefore the pattern of secession. This would mean that the Whites, as Whites, would secede from the rest of South Africa and occupy an area in which there are no non-Whites. [Interjections.]

One could practise absolute self-determination in such an area, but everyone knows there is no such area. Supposing such an area did exist. Then the so-called absolute self-determination which the Whites could exercise in this attenuated little state would, in any case, not measure up to the relative self-determination they have in a larger South Africa at present, because they would be dependent on larger states for practically everything they needed to survive, so that eventually there would be very little left of their self-determination in any case.

A second possible way in which one could theoretically restore the absolute right to self-determination of the Whites, would be along the lines of partition, as the CP wants to do. The CP has gone on record as wanting to achieve White majority occupation by means of partition.

We have debated this matter time and again. In order to do that in the RS A, one would literally have to move approximately 5 million Black people at astronomical expense. Nevertheless, let us say it is still possible, but then one still has the problem of the minorities remaining in the partitioned areas. In any case, the hon member for Overvaal said that absolute partition was not the CP’s policy.

At the end of the day, one would not escape from power-sharing by resorting to partition either, because one of the conditions for successful partition is that one must meaningfully be able to accommodate minority groups politically. In fact, the present failure of partition as a conflictregulating model, lies in the fact that the rights of minority groups cannot be accommodated. I am referring to Ireland and Israel.

If one therefore wants to implement partition successfully, one must be able to accommodate the political aspirations of the remaining minorities, and as long as one is talking about one territory, there is no other way to do it except on the basis of power-sharing. Therefore it does not seem to me feasible or possible to achieve the absolute right to self-determination of the Whites, which the CP wants to do, using the two models of either secession or partition.

If there is time, I also want to say that the only meaningful way to give substance to the right to self-determination of the Whites, is to do what the NP is doing, and the NP is not in bad company either.

To those members of the CP who have a Potchefstroom background, I want to say that in point of fact we find support for our model in the philosophy of the legal precept with its two great principles of sovereignty in one’s own sphere of activity, interpreted as meaning self-determination for the various population groups, but at the same time the principle of universality in one’s own sphere of activity, interpreted as meaning that these various spheres or fields of activity are never absolute, but are also interlinked. The way in which the NP is constructing its constitutional model is therefore not at all foreign to this philosophy of which the hon the leader of the CP is also a proverbial disciple.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Dr Geldenhuys says it is not necessary to restore the absolute right to self-determination of the Whites, but let me tell him that the absolute right to self-determination of the Whites in their own fatherland is the policy and standpoint of this side of the House, and in fact that is what we will beat that side of the House with in the next election. [Interjections.] It almost sounded as if the hon member wanted to convince himself this afternoon that the baby in the shawl was still precisely the same one, but his arguments did not hold water. [Interjections.]

This afternoon I want to confine myself mainly to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in his capacity as Leader of the House and leader of the NP in the Transvaal, and then review his political status or political image and show how this status and image has reached unprecedented, disastrous lows this year with the general public, and not only that, but also in his party, to such an extent, in fact, that I doubt whether that hon Minister is still seriously being considered as a possible successor to the throne, even in the party, after his recent defeat by the “new Nats”.

Are there still hon members on that side who think that the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is going to be the successor to the throne? I do not think so, but let us take a look at his public image. [Interjections.]

At one time he was—perhaps he still is—the leader of the right wing of that party, and if we look at his history of Bangmaakstories No 5 fame, we see that he moved increasingly from the right to the left. Even after the 1981 election, he still said that the participation of the so-called urban Blacks in this dispensation was not part of the NP’s policy, or the Government’s way of thinking, philosophy, or vision of the future. He said the following:

In 1982 he still stated his standpoint firmly and with self-assurance to the Tukkie audience. [Interjections.]

A mere two years later, within the mandate period of the 1981 election, provision was made for Blacks in regional services councils in the third tiers of government. Wliite provincial councils were abolished and a former committee member of the ANC, Mr John Mavuso, became an MEC in the Transvaal.

On 9 March of last year, Beeld reported on an “oeloe-oeloe” meeting in Innesdal. According to that newspaper, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said it was untenable for a minority of Whites to govern over a majority of Blacks. It had not worked anywhere in the world, and it would not work in South Africa either. The big question is how one is going to achieve this. That remains the question which has not yet been answered, more than a year later. That remains the most important issue at this time. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council must tell us how he is going to achieve this and at the same time retain the self-determination and sovereignty of his people. Surely he cannot spell this out. That is why he is losing the support of the Afrikaners and Whites, day by day.

Let us now follow the chronological retrogression of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. During the election campaign he ventured upon a trial of strength by correspondence with the hon the Leader of the CP. Some people claim that this was initiated by the Cape establishment, because they knew about Prof Piet Cilliers’ time with Die Burger in those days. He should have known that if one engaged in a paper-war with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, one would lose, and that is what happened. [Interjections.]

Then came the television debate, with catastrophic consequences for the NP leader of the Transvaal. Everyone knows this, and everyone is saying this. [Interjections.] The CP tripled its majority in Standerton. The CP quadrupled its majority in Schweizer-Reneke. Then Randfontein put the cherry on the top, and the newest member on this side of the House attained the biggest CP majority. [Interjections.]

What did the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council say at his last meeting in Randfontein? With regard to group areas, he said that the Government would assist Whites to resettle if they did not want to remain in certain areas. Only Red Riding Hood would believe that story. [Interjections.] How on earth can that Government, which cannot even increase salaries or afford university subsidies, suggest that? Where will the money come from? I think everyone laughed about that statement. That, however, is the public image of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. It is an image which lacks all credibility.

However, let us consider for a moment what happened in that party, apart from the public policy. Hon members must see this against the background of Club 22, which is alive and well and operating on that side of the House. [Interjections.] This must specifically be seen against the background of the challenge to party authority and the Transvaal leadership by the hon member for Innesdal. He started this in 1986, and at that stage associated himself increasingly with the left-wing radical elements in South Africa, to such an extent that “our Albert” deserved an honourable mention by the PFP. [Interjections.]

Here I merely want to refer to the Sunday Times of 22 June, just after that ANC speech of the hon member for Innesdal. I am quoting from that report:

The report ends with this significant paragraph, and I am quoting:

Now let us take a look at this “agreement”, particularly after the leader of the Transvaal wanted to drag the hon member for Innesdal in front of the executive committee of the Transvaal, and the hon the State President himself intervened and protected that member. What was the result? This is a matter of record. In other words, it is now official NP policy that the so-called myth speech by the hon member on 30 April in this House has become the policy of the NP.

What did he say? I am quoting everything from that speech. It is a myth, the NP is therefore saying, that the Afrikaner should see himself as a person with a mission in this country. We in the CP say that we feel we have a mission to realise a people’s ideal of freedom. Through that hon member the NP is saying that it is a myth that the Afrikaner people is more important than the multiracial South African nation. In contrast we in the CP say that first and foremost the CP stands for the rights and freedom of the Afrikaner people and the other Whites who side with it. The NP says it is a myth that there is such a thing as a White South Africa. We in the CP say that the freedom of a people in its own fatherland is unassailable. If that Government allows this to be lost, we will win it back.

The NP is now standing by every word that hon member wrote in Inside South Africa. The CP, on the other hand, rejects any ANC participation in the future of our people. We reject it categorically. The NP said in that speech: “One cannot put left-wing ideals, aspirations and ambitions behind bars.” The CP says: “Lock them up. Do not release them, so that orderly government can take its course.” The NP now stands for a policy of power-sharing and nothing short of political rights for Black people in the central Parliament, no matter what it may look like.

Mr Chairman, all this happened because that hon; Minister lost the internal struggle within the NP. On the other hand the CP says that it stands for freedom with justice for every people on the subcontinent of Southern Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietersburg began by saying that the CP’s policy was one of absolute White sovereignty. Of course, that goes hand in hand with one’s own separate area, partition and all those things. I shall come back to this in the course of my speech.

It was logical, of course, that the debate today on the Vote of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Assembly would centre around own affairs. Of course, the NP has a specific view in this regard, in the same way that the CP-AWB and the PFP have their respective views. It is very important to remember that the relevant views of the CP-AWB and the PFP were rejected by the great majority of White voters as recently as 6 May 1987, while the NP’s balanced views on these matters and on power-sharing were approved by the Whites during both the referendum in 1983 and, after two years’ practical application of this in the tricameral Parliament, again on 6 May last year.

An extremely important fact that we must also take into account, not only in this debate, but in the practical politics of South Africa today, is that the NP’s view is at present being applied in practice.

Therefore, the NP’s view is at present being subjected to the test of reality, of practical, viable politics. On the other hand, the views of the CP-AWB and the PFP are at present only being presented and debated as possible theoretical alternatives to the NP view. In any analysis and debate of the NP’s view on own and general affairs, compared to the views of the CP and the PFP, we must, as the hon member for Randburg said, bring their policies back to earth a little.

What are the views of the PFP and the CP? The CP says everything is own affairs. The PFP says everything is general affairs. Briefly, the NP says there are own affairs, White own affairs as well. There must be own affairs. [Interjections.] Own affairs are very important. They are inextinguishable. They are an absolute requirement and prerequisite for peaceful coexistence in our country.

And negotiable!

I am saying that it is an absolute prerequisite, and I find it very interesting that the hon member for Pietersburg does not know what own affairs are. He need only look at what the Ministers’ Council does in this House to know what own affairs are. He can even ask Mr Rajbansi what own affairs are. He will also be able to tell him what they are.

Furthermore, the NP says—it has been proved in practice over decades—that White own affairs cannot be everything. There must be general affairs as well. There are also general affairs which, in practice, are necessarily embodied, inter alia, in power-sharing. It is therefore self-evident that own affairs are important. They are absolutely essential, but the same goes for general affairs and power-sharing. This is true purely as a result of the practical realities of our population figures, our population distribution, the laws of nature, the degree of economic integration and all the other realities.

What is it we are talking about? I want to quote again from what Prof De Lange, the chairman of the Population Development Board, said:

That is the reality that we are talking about in South Africa, which people now want to partition.

On the other hand, the CP-AWB members say that according to their policy they are also in favour of own affairs. However, they say that own affairs are all-important; so all-important that they include virtually all matters concerning Whites, and thereby totally exclude all people of colour. Defence is concerned with White defence; finance with White finance, taxation with White money; the economy is a White economy. According to them everything is own affairs. They say that there must definitely be no power-sharing. There is land that is White land only—it is White land that belong only to White people. The White money, the White land and the White tax, which includes a White economy, belong only to White people, and of course preferably to the Afrikaners, and to hell with the rest.

They say that other people’s affairs are their own affairs. They must govern themselves in their own territory, in isolation and on their own. They must manage their Black and Brown money, Black and Brown tax, Black and Brown defence, Black and Brown this and that, including finance, separately.

How does the CP intend to implement their policy in which own affairs are all-important? To achieve their objective, the CP uses the idea of “partition” as the basis of their policy. One partitions and compartmentalises every group on its piece of earth, and all matters concerning each group are then the own affairs of each group. When it comes to partition, in all its aspects, they build their policy on the idea that everything is own affairs. It is therefore only logical that if partition fails, their entire charnel-house will come tumbling down.

Hon members must remember that over the years many important aspects of the policy of partition have been shown to be unattainable. It cannot be the whole solution.

What, in fact, is partition? Partition is apartheid, super-apartheid, apartheid par excellence and apartheid in its crudest and most flagrant form. Allow me to mention a few practical examples.

For the NP, own affairs means one’s own separate schools and residential areas as far as this is practicable. Since the days of Jan van Riebeeck’s hedge up to the Hillbrow and Mayfair of today, it has never been possible to have entirely separate schools and residential areas. However, the CP says that no Coloured pupil may attend a White school, and that is that. No Black pupil may attend a White school. Under no circumstances may a Black pupil run on a White athletics track. If a Black pupil were to participate in a sports event along with Whites on their athletics track, he would pollute the athletics track and the event!

The CP even absolutises television advertisements. What does one see in the street when one walks out of here? One sees Blacks in shops. One sees Coloureds buying margarine. However, just let an advertisement appear on television, in technicolour at that, which shows a Coloured buying margarine, and the CP says: “Golly, now that is integration. That is indoctrination of the Whites. Here is, so help me, a Coloured buying margarine in the shop”. How ridiculous can one be?

As the hon member for Pietersburg said, the CP believes in total, absolute sovereignty for the Whites. They want a White parliament, founded and established on their own territory from which everyone else is excluded. Partition is necessary for that. In that territory only Whites may enjoy basic civil rights and have the vote. I have already quoted the figures. Total partition—as other hon members have indicated—is completely unenforceable.

On the other hand, the NP stands unwaveringly for the preservation of group interests, whether they be White interests, Coloured or Zulu interests. As elected representatives of the White voters, we shall unwaveringly protect and preserve White group interests. This is embodied in the practical application of the own affairs policy. Hence our standpoint on schools and residential areas as it has been spelt out.

At the same time, we may not fail to appreciate the reality of general affairs. We cannot and may not apply and implement own affairs in such a way that all other groups are excluded from general affairs. We know that by continuing to deny Black people political rights up to the highest level within South Africa, we shall fan the flames of revolution in such a way that White rights will eventually be destroyed. Thousands, if not millions, of Whites will literally destroy themselves. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to react to the hon member for Langlaagte, who tried to establish what the CP stood for. We spent the entire afternoon listening to the way in which they failed to state their case at all. They merely climb onto the back of the NP and see how much political advantage they can get out of it.

The best example that I can quote deals with the Vote of the Hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Assembly in which, inter alia, education ought to be dealt with as an own affair.

In the latest edition of the Patriot of 6 May, one finds this outrageous passage which I should like to quote:

This information is given as though it were a statement made by the hon the Minister of Education and Culture.

The tragedy of the matter is the fact that this is a cadaver of the hon member for Pinetown who put these assertions to the hon the Minister during question time one Tuesday afternoon a few months ago. The hon the Minister refuted these assertions completely and proved that under no circumstances could they be true. In other words, it is not even CP information. It is a PFP cadaver into which they are trying to breathe some life of their own.

These assertions are made for one reason only, and that is to imply that we are misusing money from the White budget by giving it to people of colour. However, we make no apology for this; R29 million is being granted to private schools. There have been private schools in this country for 200 years. Having paid out of their own pockets for the education of thousands of children for so many years, they have now approached the Government for assistance as a result of the circumstances in which they find themselves at present. The Government granted assistance to these schools by way of a fixed agreement. The small amount of money that we spend on White children in those schools as well is being exploited by the CP in this atrocious manner merely for the sake of petty politics.

However, that is not the only thing that they get up to with education as a White own, affair. During the past week a matter concerning the Afrikaner Jeugaksie came to my attention by way of a circular. It was distributed by a certain I A Kotze, who is a director. I assume he is one of the candidates who failed during the 1987 election. In a circular that he sent to educationists he wrote in the first paragraph:

AJA is the abbreviation for the Afrikaner Jeugaksie—

This invitation was extended to educationists to attend a meeting next Friday evening, the 20th— I am not advertising it now; this is a tragic matter—in the Verwoerdburg Town Hall. They will have to pay for their own meals—this is apparently also a fund-raising effort for the poor CP. This circular is an invitation to educationists, and the following appears in brackets, “onderwysers, dosente, lektore en hul gades”.

What is wrong with that?

I shall tell the hon member what is wrong with it in a moment. Mr Kotze says further:

There is a questionnaire attached to the circular in which the person concerned has to state whether he or she is a scholar, student, NFM, young working person, teacher, lecturer or member of a management council. Furthermore, these people are asked to state which schools they attended. They are also asked to indicate whether or not the school grounds are available. Does this concern the availability of school halls and other facilities such as school buses?

Come to the point now!

The point is that the CP are blatantly entering the field of education in order to establish its dubious politics in the minds of uninformed children. I am asking the CP whether it intends to have a survey in order to incite right-wing pupils in standard eight, nine and ten against the present formulated teaching programme, when it addresses this group of people on Friday evening.

Does it want to project resistance and disobedience with regard to the lesson content of the education department, by means of this meeting? Does it want to establish obedience to identified CP teachers, and on the other hand cause distrust of, doubt about and rebellion against those teachers who are not supporters of the CP? Do they in this way want to endorse that they are stirring up resistance among the right-wing teachers, lecturers and educationists in the country, as was reflected in the fact that they attacked Dr Bredenkamp, the Director of Education in the Transvaal Education Department in this House during the debate on the Education and Culture Vote a week ago? They also attacked his inspectorate which investigated matters within organised education.

Apparently they want to divide pupils in standard eight, nine and ten into camps in order to make a political statement. In this way the CP is committing a hideous deed of anarchy in the country. [Interjections.] That is the lowest that a political party has stooped with regard to education in this country, namely to incite teachers in the staff rooms against one another. [Interjections.] They round up children in columns to launch a political movement within organised education.

In this way they are resisting the formulated policy compiled by educational experts in South Africa. The contents of teaching subjects are compiled by syllabus committees, and not by the Government. The examinations that are written by pupils are set by an examination panel, but even in this regard, the seeds of doubt and resistance are being sown.

The CP practises a dubious form of politics, and they have now created a bizarre vehicle for their people. On the one hand there is a White horse and on the other a piebald horse with more than 700 spots, and there is a wicked family sitting on this cart. The one rein is in the hands of the AWB and the other in the hands of the CP. The AP Church is hanging over the one side to pull the key-pin from the one wheel and the Aksie Eie Toekoms is hanging over the other side to pull the key-pin from the other wheel. They would rather form their own political party because the CP is not fulfilling the mandate that was given to them. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the topic which has been dominating this debate so far has been the question of group rights in one form or another, as well as the protection of groups. The issue was highlighted, insofar as the attack on this party is concerned, firstly by the hon member for Umlazi who contended that the PFP ignores group rights and disregards them entirely. It is one thing to try to make a little political capital but it is another thing to deal with the truth.

The Constitution of the PFP specifically states, and I quote:

I think nothing can be clearer than that and the constitutional proposals make it very clear how we envisage that group rights should be protected.

There are some realities in this regard. Firstly, nobody can say that groups do not exist—that is a reality. There is a very real difference of opinion between us and the other parties in this House in regard to enforced membership of a group.

We believe in voluntary association. That is why we do not believe in the Population Registration Act. Nobody needs to tell me what group I belong to and nobody needs to be told what group I belong to. People know and I know. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council knows what he belongs to and what he is and so do we. The question of enforced membership of a group is quite clearly something which, to my mind, is unnecessary in the kind of society we are living in. Sooner or later the Population Registration Act will have to disappear from the Statute Book, and it will disappear from the Statute Book.

The second issue which I consider fundamental is that nobody says that groups should not be protected. The real issue is how one protects groups. The CP says, as the NP once did, that partition is the answer. Partition can be an answer in certain circumstances. There is no question about it! In Europe it has been an answer. It has been an answer in, for example, India and Pakistan. Imagine what it would be like if there was no partition there! But the reality of the situation in South Africa is that partition has been tried and partition has failed. It is not possible to get an equitable partition of South Africa which is acceptable to the population of South Africa as a whole. If it were possible, and if it were practical, then it would be an option which we would have to consider.

The other alternative is to have individual rights protected instead of looking to the protection of group rights. Unfortunately, my own historic experience shows that the protection of individual rights is often insufficient to protect the group. People are persecuted because they belong to a group and not because they are individuals as such. This is one of the major problems we have to deal with.

To my mind we are presently drifting along a path towards unitary majoritarian rule in South Africa. Unless we actually bring a halt to that and introduce a federation in South Africa while it is possible, we are going to end up with a situation where, when we want federation, it will no longer be possible. A federation is, as I think history will show one of the possibilities of protecting groups adequately in the kind of society one finds in South Africa.

In dealing with the question of own affairs today, I would like to try to deal specifically with the question of the finances and administration of own affairs for a short while. Firstly, I am pleased that the hon the Minister of Finance is here. We were told that we were going to get a measure in order to introduce a formula to be applicable to the division of funds among the various own affairs administrations during this session of Parliament. It was promised to us in this very House this very year. It has not yet appeared on the Order Paper and it has not yet been referred to the committees. Is it going to happen or is it going to be postponed again as has happened before?

Secondly, the question has arisen as to what is actually happening in the own affairs administration. The former Minister of the Budget has said in this House that the administration is running effectively and efficiently—I can quote him. He even went so far as to say that a whole number of vacant posts had been abolished. He said there were 1 334 vacant posts on the establishment of the House of Assembly as at 31 December 1987 of which 409 had been abolished.

The tragedy is that the administration of own affairs of the House of Assembly is in a mess at the moment. It is in a very real mess! There are so many examples to show that we are finding ourselves in a situation where the manpower is not available and where there is inefficient and ineffective administration. Every time one challenges this situation, one is given the answer that there is not only a staff shortage, but also a shortage of suitably qualified people.

Let me give the example of the Treasury situation. I have made the appeal in this House, not once but a number of times, that there should be one Treasury for the whole of the administration in South Africa—that is general and own affairs. There should not be separate Treasuries. There is no logic in it. There is no reason why it should take place. This own affairs administration has its own Treasury and I want to tell hon members that it is an ineffective organisation. It cannot perform its functions adequately. It does not have the skilled manpower, as a result of which there are inefficiencies which appear at every single turn; accounts are not prepared on time and vouchers are not produced by the hundreds and the thousands. The reality is that one cannot keep control because some people do not even keep adequate records so as to check whether there is control. A classic example of that is the Education Department.

There are so many examples of ineffective and inefficient administration that one cannot allow this to continue. I would like to say to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that he should call his Ministers together and get his house in order because, whatever the ideological basis of general and own affairs, we can debate about whether that is right or wrong, but there can be no justification for ineffective, inefficient and wasteful administration in our country. We cannot afford it, and I must say that I am surprised that we are told that everything in the garden is rosy and that things are going smoothly. However, when one removes the curtain one finds behind it a most serious problem which seriously affects the whole administration of own affairs of the House of Assembly.

I would like to make it clear to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that one of the problems which exist, is that South Africa has a great shortage of management skills. It has a great shortage of management skills in public life, and we cannot afford a situation where we do not use these management skills to the best advantage. By the unnecessary splitting of the administration, by not having Treasury control centralised, as well as by not having a method of transferring the departments adequately and efficiently, and by not having the situation where adequate skilled manpower is available, in the end it is costing the taxpayers of South Africa even more to put right the things that are wrong.

Therefore I would like to end, if I may, by making this appeal to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council: Get your house in order administratively and financially. Do not allow this mess to continue, because the South African taxpayer cannot afford it.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Yeoville usually delivers a good speech. In the first part of his speech this afternoon he just glanced over PFP policy, to which I may return later on. However, at the present moment I want to devote my time to some of the remarks he made about the administration of own affairs.

It is true that certain deficiencies were discovered in the financial administration of this department. That is quite true, but …

Quite a lot.

Well, yes, it all depends on what one means by a lot. There is a Select Committee on Public Accounts and we are scrutinising these deficiencies. They will be brought to the notice of the hon the Minister responsible and I can assure the hon member that something will be done about this. After all, this is a very young department. It is only about three or four years old and one must remember that—as was explained by one of the officials—they did not have the benefit of taking over any staff from the provinces. They had to find their own staff.

It is only natural then, especially when it comes to qualified people such as accountants, that one will find a shortage. We do hope nevertheless that this inefficiency will be wiped out in good time.

Furthermore, I should like to refer to the first part of the hon member’s speech in which he made a reference to group rights. When I listen to the hon member for Yeoville I become convinced that he has a lot in common with the NP. He agrees that South Africa is multiracial, that we have more than one population group in this country, and he also suggests as a solution to this problem of co-operation the possibility—not as a definite policy—of a federation.

Do you have anything better?

Mr Chairman, I think so. The current Constitution under which this Government is governing, was the product of very serious study over many, many years. Something for which I do blame the hon member for Yeoville and the PFP is that they took no part at all in those deliberations. They boycotted each committee. If they had taken part in the drawing up of the new Constitution, we might have had some of their ideas incorporated into this Constitution as well.

Did you not reject Worrall’s committee?

Mr Chairman, I am not talking about Worrall’s committee. I am talking about the Schlebusch Commission.

I served on it!

The hon member served on it? [Interjections.] When the Constitution was ultimately formulated, what did the hon member do then?

I brought out a minority report!

Oh? A minority report? That was as far as that hon member was prepared to go, Sir. I can remember a time when the PFP even refused to serve on the President’s Council. [Interjections.] Yes, I can remember that very clearly. Now they have suddenly changed their minds about all this. As you can see, Sir, it takes some people some time to see the light, and when they ultimately do see the light it is unfortunately too late. That is why that party has dwindled the way it has. [Interjections.]

*Mr Chairman, I should like to come back to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the speech he made here earlier this afternoon. While I was listening to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, and his excuses and denials in regard to certain matters …

He was merely putting the record straight!

… I was quite amazed at his consummate performance. It reminds one of the song which, until very recently, was still high on the hit parade—“Oh, Lord, it is hard to be humble when you are perfect in every way!” [Interjections.]

Oh, you funny man!

Mr Chairman, I am not being funny now. I am really being very serious. [Interjections.] When one listens very attentively to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s argument one realises—I can attest to that—that one has seldom before heard anyone who, on so many occasions, has tried so hard to break those ties with the past that he simply cannot get away from. [Interjections.] That was also the tenor of his argument today. It will dog his footsteps in his future career. Whether he wants to know it or not, from one platform to the next the NP will tell the people of South Africa where the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition stood before he and his party broke away from the NP in 1982.

Where did you stand?

And where were you lying? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, just like the albatross in The Ancient Mariner, that is now hanging around the Leader of the Official Opposition’s neck. He cannot get away from it. It is plainly and simply hanging round his neck.

One only hopes that when the voters of South Africa have, with this policy of his, been brought to the point of realising that it is impracticable, one will be able to say of them: “A sadder and a wiser man, he rose the morrow morn.” [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pietersburg said here that the CP said—I do not know to whom he was referring, but I take it he was referring to the Blacks—that they should be put behind bars so that we can govern properly.

I was referring to the ANC.

Oh, the ANC. So the hon member for Pietersburg wants to put the ANC behind bars, and he is saying that because he contends that the hon member for Innesdal supposedly said that one should not put the ANC behind bars. What the hon member for Innesdal did say was that one could not put ideas behind bars, and both the NP and I stand by that. One could try to put ideas behind bars, but one would never succeed.

It is this impractical advice, which hon members of the Official Opposition give to the electorate, which has the voters no longer believing the CP. Last Wednesday I had a municipal by-election in Olifantshoek. The CP took that seat previously in a by-election—they had a majority of three votes—but last Wednesday we won the seat by 52 votes. [Interjections.]

In that town the voters are learning a lesson. There they have a church which has hived off. They have a parish there, and when they wanted to hold church services, the exhibition hall was at their disposal. They discovered that there were no chairs. What was the logical step they took? They went along to the Coloured parish and borrowed their chairs to sit on. [Interjections.]

After they have finished there, at the end of the every month, when the Coloureds receive their pensions, they hold a jumble sale in the backyard of the magistrates’ court where the pensions are paid out. That is the kind of logic that brings people to realise that this does not work. All these policy statements, all these CP ideas, are dreams and nothing more.

Last but not least, we received a visit from South Africa’s super-White, the great champion of the Boerestaat, Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche, with the kombi emblazoned with the insignia and the name AWB, and also “die stryd duur voort” or something to that effect, but on the rear numberplate there was the number of some or other town in Bophuthatswana—YBA! [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is truly a quite astounding debate which is being conducted here this afternoon by the Official Opposition as well as by the PFP. It is quite true to say that if one keeps on barricading oneself against the realities of one’s country, it follows that one will lose track of what is happening in one’s country.

It seems to me as though neither the Official Opposition nor the PFP has yet discovered that South Africa is moving away from the Westminster system of government. Moreover, the hon members helped to make that decision, and in view of that decision, we are at present establishing structures in South Africa in which we are creating a place in the sun for every population group in this country.

The idea has emerged and is also being expressed in public that the whole concept of own affairs, having become a reality through the 1983 Constitution, is now supposedly a new idea with which South Africa is saddled, one aimed at impairing the sovereignty or the self-determination of the Whites.

The principle of own affairs is very deeply rooted in the history of South African politics, although it may not have been as sophisticated then as it is today. That does not, however, detract from the fact that the principle was established as far back as 1936 when the old Natives’ Representative Council was instituted.

The Blacks were granted certain powers and responsibilities in respect of the handling of the trust budget and the education budget in so far as it concerned their people. Those responsibilities were taken away from them in 1945 by none other than the old United Party. When Dr Verwoerd appeared on the scene he did not hesitate to express his regret at what he regarded as a very erroneous move in South African politics.

I concede that they were limited powers. They were, however, powers that were supposed to grow in proportion to the maturity attained by these population groups, but the principle remains that own affairs was established in 1936.

Dr Verwoerd made a speech in the Senate on 30 May 1952, and on that occasion he said (Hansard: Senate, 1952, col 3608):

What is this if not a confirmation of the own and the group character of South Africa?

Hon members of the Official Opposition were, of course, not opposed to the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council or the Indian Council. Those councils were nothing but own affairs governments which had to take care of the interests of the Coloured and Indian people. The self-governing states, which still exist in South Africa today, have more powers in some respects than was the case in the own affairs concept for the Indians and Coloureds as we knew it. The governments of the self-governing states are to a large extent own affairs governments, and surely the hon members of the CP are not opposed to that.

I want to state unequivocally here this afternoon that I believe this is the road on which South Africa must progress, and where the needs and requirements exist to establish our own administrations, we should not attempt to partition the South African population and scatter it to such an extent that our paths will never cross. It is true that no group in this country will ever be able to lay claim to complete sovereignty. The hon member Dr Geldenhuys elaborated on this point in detail.

The partition policy of the CP includes the idea of a Coloured state for the Coloureds, and they want to give all the peoples own sovereign governments. If such a government were to decide to allow the ANC into this mottled territory in South Africa, what would that side of the House, were they to come into power, do about that decision? [Interjections.] That is practical politics, which these hon members will have to take into account. [Interjections.] Are they going to forfeit their sovereignty, and are they going to remove the sovereignty of the Coloured Parliament and enter into discussions on such matters?

I contend that it should not be our task or our greatest ideal to move away from one another over affairs of common interest. We can only succeed in deliberating on and discussing matters of common interest in a meaningful way if we extend this own affairs concept, as contained in the new Constitution, and entrench in it the security afforded the various groups which allows them to exercise control over their own affairs.

We must never get so carried away in our idealism that we forget the realities of South Africa, because we will then be basing our own rights on the injustice done to others. I personally believe, and so too do most of the citizens of South Africa, that we are not interested in seeking our peace and freedom by trampling on and using other people as spring-boards.

I am of the opinion that it is possible to create a system in this country in which we can build a future together, without sacrificing that which belongs to us in the process of achieving better relations.

Mr Chairman, a few moments ago the hon member Dr Geldenhuys said you could fool some people some of the time, but you could not fool all the people all the time. That is the best I have heard from him since the byelection.

I have a document in my hand titled “Die Nasionale Party staan vas by sy beginsels”. In it mention is made of the preservation of identity. I quote:

Here the NP boasts about the fact that it stands by its principles. What do we have today? Today we have integration. If we look around in Hillbrow we see nothing but integration. The proposed open residential areas are nothing but integration. If one were to remove the cloak in which the NP envelops itself, it would stand naked before the electorate of South Africa, and therefore the time has arrived when the NP can no longer lead the South African voter by his nose. That time has passed.

Furthermore they speak about the self-determination of peoples. That is why the CP rejects power-sharing. Last week the hon member for Kimberley South almost had a seizure when we said we did not believe in power-sharing. He flew up on a point of order and said that he believed in power-sharing. Mr Chairman, for how long can the voter in South Africa still believe the NP?

The pamphlet continues, and I quote:

At the moment that is so far removed from the truth. There is no right to self-determination for Whites. I quote further:

Mr Chairman, surely that is not true. It has come to a complete standstill under the present Government. We are supposed to be one nation in South Africa. We can no longer go by that.

It continues, and I quote:

Mr Chairman, we are now going to have one sitting in which we are going to have joint debates, and one of these days a Coloured Cabinet or an Indian Parliament will no longer exist.

I quote further:

Test this one for example:

Where would you find a hotel today that is not open to all races? Integration is once again being propagated under die NP regime. And then this ludicrous statement follows, and I quote:

Mr Chairman, if one takes a look at what is taking place in hotels today, one finds that once again there is nothing but integration, which has been caused by the unsatisfactory conduct from that side of House that does not practice what it preaches.

I quote further:

What do we find? We were told that no Black would ever become a Springbok. Today we find that even a Black from another independent state becomes a Springbok and is lauded in South Africa.

When he participates in the Olympic Games he says that he was born in Lesotho and that he is going to represent Lesotho. This, therefore, means that we give them everything here in South Africa.

I should now like to come to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for a moment. During the no-confidence debate a flagrant attack was made on the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. It was alleged that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did not know anything about leadership. The saying goes, however, that one always sees the splinter in another’s eye. After self-examination, however, one finds a beam in one’s own eye. What has transpired under the leadership of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council since he has been leading the NP in Transvaal? As far as my memory serves me, the NP has never been as ineffective as it is at present. [Interjections.] During, 1981, while the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was a member of the NP, the NP never lost a seat. What, however, happened in 1987? In 1987 the NP, under the leadership of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, lost 22 seats to the right. [Interjections.] Then we had the by-elections. Hon members on that side of the House who pass it off as just another by-election are suffering from wishful thinking. They have indicated the path the nation wants to follow. [Interjections.]

Let us take it further. Previously reference was made to the hon member for Innesdal and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who said that the Transvaal executive committee would take steps against such a person. However, what happened? Nothing happened. I shall tell hon members why nothing happened. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is not a good leader. [Interjections.] He does not know how to lead the Transvaal. He was afraid that if he were to take action against the hon member for Innesdal, other people on that side of the House would follow him. This again is what took place under the leadership of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

Then there is Club 22. Club 22 is led by a Transvaal MP. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is the leader there too. What does he do? He establishes a club to promote the prospective State Presidency of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The hon the State President then said the club had to disband.

What, however, did the hon the Minister of Manpower say? He said the hon member had also referred to the secret organisation, Club 22. This hon Minister said: “I want to tell him that this is one of the clubs of which I am the proudest.” [Interjections.] He went further, but I am not going to waste my time.

If we now weigh up the circumstances, we once again come to the conclusion that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition kept the NP united, but when the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council took over, the NP disintegrated.

I now come to the question of where the NP is leading the nation. When the NP came into power in 1948, the UP said this, that and the other would happen. The NP has now reached the stage where they are saying exactly what the UP previously said. [Interjections.] There is no difference. I want to make it clear today that there is only one party which can and will assure the self-determination of the Whites in South Africa and that is the CP. [Interjections.] The Whites are realising this to an increasing extent. Their hope and support is with the CP, and nothing will prevent the CP from returning this country to where it used to be.

I want to return briefly to the hon member Dr Geldenhuys. When he congratulated the hon member for Randfontein, he said he hoped that he would be successful here, but that he could not wish him a long political life. I want to tell him that once again this is wishful thinking on his part. The hon member for Randfontein has come to stay. He will still be sitting in this House long after we have forgotten about the hon member Dr Geldenhuys. [Interjections.]

I now realise why the hon member became tired when he decided to tackle that steep incline in 1982. He knew that the CP stood for the rights of Whites and that the CP was not in favour of power-sharing. When he was halfway up the slope, however, he got tired. He would have had a place of honour on this side of the House and, if he had not tired so much, the voters of Randfontein would not have rejected him twice in such a short space of time. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is perhaps appropriate for me to enter the debate at this stage. Today we witnessed the spectacle of an Official Opposition whose total contribution to the debate, in the first place, was aimed at seeking justification for what had happened in the past. Secondly its members launched a personal attack on me. There it all ended.

It is very amusing to know that the CP is only making headway because of my worthlessness, and not as a result of their dynamic leadership! [Interjections.] They won 22 seats because I am a poor leader—not because their policy is the correct one. They did not win 22 seats because they had dynamic leadership, carried the voters along with them and marshalled them in the service of their great cause. They only managed to do so because I was such a bad leader. The mere fact that they take so much trouble to attack me is an indication to me that they are not all that convinced of their arguments.

I want to come to the hon the leader of the Official Opposition. I do not have an eidetic memory. I do not know whether he claims to have one. I shall therefore not attempt to quote directly from memory what he allegedly said or did not say on specific occasions.

The gist of the matter he raised was the concept of the joint responsibility of those who have seats in the Cabinet. If one disagrees about something when a decision has to be taken, and a matter of principle is involved, one takes one’s hat and leaves. If one submits to that decision, however, regardless of what one’s opinion was, one abides by the decision, as formulated. All experts in the field of constitutional law on that side will concede that that is a correct summing up of the situation.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition left the NP on a matter of principle, but surely that did not involve Resolution 435. Surely it was not because of the SWA/Namibia issue. This is the first time in the six years since the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition left the ranks of the NP that I have clearly and unequivocally heard him make a really serious critical issue of this.

[Inaudible.]

No, Sir. The fact remains that after the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition left in 1982 he did not say that he disagreed fundamentally with the Government on this issue either. He did not say that that was one of the reasons why he could no longer associate himself with the NP Government. That is the crux of the matter.

That was not why the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition broke away from the NP. The hon member for Sea Point correctly observed that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was not prepared to accept responsibility for what he had approved and accepted joint responsibility for when he was still in the NP benches. His whole argument about power-sharing is striking proof of this.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition argues against the background of the 1977 plans. He argues about his rejection of power-sharing against the background of assurances given to him by Mr Vorster. But a lot of water has passed under the bridge since 1977.

But you are pinning us down to 1977!

No, I am pinning the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition down to 1981, because there I have his signature. [Interjections.]

In that regard one is not speculating about what assurances were subsequently given. [Interjections.] I am again going to quote this to hon members and then, for a moment, I am going to examine it a little more closely than is normally done. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council must be given an opportunity to make his speech without unnecessary interjections. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

I did not once interrupt the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

Firstly the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition supported the 1977 plans. Secondly, he did not leave on 12 April 1978 when Mr Vorster gave a fundamental clarification which removed all doubt or ambiguity about one key issue, and that was what the role of the Council of Cabinets would be. When, in reply to Dr Van Zyl Slabbert’s question, Mr Vorster said in this House that it would function precisely as did this Cabinet—the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is at liberty to check the quotation—he went along with that plan up to 1981. Then he said firstly—and his signature is appended to that— that the policy he was then advocating was unworkable. Does he deny that? He said:

I said, did I not, that it was impractical.

Order! I am not going to permit a dialogue between the hon member for Overvaal and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

I do not know whether the hon member for Overvaal’s interjection means that he still adheres to that view. Is it still the opinion of those sitting there that the concept of independent own states for Whites, Coloureds and Indians—remember, not only for the Coloureds and Indians—is unworkable? The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition appended his signature to the statement that the concept of independent own states for the Whites, Coloureds and Indians was impracticable.

He was thereby saying three things. He was saying that an independent own state for the Whites was not possible in practice, that an independent own state for the Coloured was not possible in practice and that an independent own state for the Indians was not possible in practice. That is a nice clear-cut issue now. Has he changed his policy on this statement? [Interjections.]

I now come to power-sharing; this is only my first point. It is a simple question: Have those who were NP members changed their policy on this point? They cannot but say “yes”. Why are they ashamed to say “yes”?

[Inaudible.]

Yes, that is possible. [Interjections.] Secondly they say that at the same time there are also deep-rooted differences between these population groups—we say so too—making it realistic to distinguish between matters which are unique to each group and matters which are of common concern to all. Today, however, they no longer support that distinction. They say that everything should be own affairs. Everyone should have complete sovereignty over his own affairs and there should not be any interaction or co-operation between the various structures on matters of common concern.

Where did we say that?

On the question of joint decisionmaking they say “no”, or do they advocate joint decision-making?

No.

Very well, do hon members of the CP still advocate joint responsibility? [Interjections.] That was the third statement that was made.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: You have virtually forbidden us to make interjections. I merely want to point out to you that the style of debate being adopted by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is compelling us to put questions to him. [Interjections.] You must please tell us whether we are permitted to reply to him or not.

Order! Firstly I have not prohibited any hon member of the CP from making any interjections.

Mr Chairman, I said “virtually”.

Order! The hon member may say what he likes. I said that I was not prepared to allow a dialogue between the hon member for Overvaal and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. Nor do I intend to do so. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

The third statement endorsed by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was that because those were the facts, everyone should be involved in decisions on matters of common concern. That suggests the concept of joint responsibility. It is in regard to this concept of joint responsibility that we state that when three communities accept joint responsibility for decisions in the same country—not in individual, separate, independent countries, but in the same country—this should take place by way of a form of power-sharing. It should be power-sharing, however, in which one group does not dominate another. [Interjections.]

In regard to the old quotation about the rejection of power-sharing, from the pamphlet I drew up, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition himself quoted the qualification this afternoon. The NP still rejects power-sharing on the basis of everyone on the same voters’ roll and on the basis of one man, one vote, with all the votes thrown into one hat and with an ultimate situation in which it is merely a question of majority decisions being taken. The CP knows that our policy embodies the rejection of that concept. [Interjections.] They are trying to pull the wool over the voters’ eyes, however, with this quotation about the rejection of power-sharing. We still adhere to that.

Let us forget about semantics. Joint responsibility is also a form of power-sharing, but we draw a distinction, and for us it is something quite different to what the PFP advocates. We should rather debate the fundamental significance of joint decision-making and how this is arrived at. The CP is, of course, entitled to say that it does not want joint decision-making, but each and every day the CP is guilty of political dishonesty when it tries to equate the NP’s view of joint decision-making with the policy which the PFP advocates. There is a fundamental and deeprooted difference in principle.

What is it?

I have just indicated the difference. If the hon member does not understand it, he should ask the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke, because I see an intelligent gleam in his eye. He has apparently understood me. [Interjections.]

I should like to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that it is not a question of how power-sharing takes place in Nato. It is a question of the joint responsibility, which he subscribed to, amongst three population groups which share the same country, without the possibility of any of them, according to him, inhabiting an own, independent state. We are saying that within that framework the CP accepted power-sharing and that they had a hand in our preferring—for the sake of clear understanding of the matter—to use the concept “joint responsibility”. We shall continue to use that term, because we believe that we are completely justified in doing so.

Quote the rest of the manifesto to us.

The rest of the manifesto contains one fundamental point on which we have drastically changed our policy.

This brings me at once to an aspect of the hon member for Sea Point’s speech. In this House and from public platforms I have said that the NP had accepted a drastic change in policy in regard to Black participation. We did not simply do so willy-nilly, however, nor did we do so in secret. We first held a federal congress at which we clearly and unequivocally spelled out these principles, and then we obtained a mandate from each provincial congress which ratified all the resolutions adopted by the federal congress. We then recorded this in our 1987 manifesto.

What about the 1981 manifesto? Was it not contained in that manifesto?

No, of course it was not in the 1981 manifesto. [Interjections.] The policy on Black people has changed drastically from 1981 to the present day. We have never denied that; on the contrary, we have repeatedly spelled it out. There is not a single hon NP member here who would not agree that our 1987 policy on Black people differs fundamentally from the policy in the 1981 manifesto.

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister says that in 1981 there was no mandate to include Blacks. Was it within the ambit of the Government’s mandate, which it obtained at that time, to introduce Blacks at the third tier of government even then and, for example, to appoint a Black MEC too.

In the process of changing our policy, on several occasions we repeatedly focused on the differences and, on occasion, also went to the electorate. What the hon member has just referred to did not necessitate a fundamental amendment of the Constitution. [Interjections.] After all, there had previously been Black local affairs bodies. [Interjections.] In various forms consultative bodies already existed and co-operation was introduced, within certain structures, at local government level.

What about Blacks governing Whites as MECs?

What Black municipalities govern Whites?

Regional services councils!

The hon member is talking nonsense! The concept of regional services councils also embodies the absolute assurance that no one group will dominate another. That is one of the ways which illustrate, in practice, that it is possible to prevent one group from dominating another. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not prepared to have hon members constantly cross-examining the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. If an hon member wants to put a question, he should rise in the proper fashion and put his question to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, at least giving him an opportunity to answer the question. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I now come to the hon member for Pietersburg’s speech; leaving aside the personal attack about my having such a poor image, etc. Well, if that makes him happy, he is welcome to carry on.

Firstly he came to light with some old quotations. Old quotations which are relevant and which are open to honest political argument are certainly an effective political weapon in debates. Old quotations which are selectively made and which are argued on a very selective basis, however, do not serve anyone’s interests. They do not serve to strengthen the hon member’s argument, nor do they serve to promote constructive debate in South Africa.

He referred to the hon member for Innesdal. It seems to me as if they prefer to speak in the House after the hon Mr Justice Eloffs judgement. [Interjections.] I should like to quote for a moment from that judgement, because the hon member’s conduct, and his attitude towards the hon member for Innesdal today, has been typical of what his colleague, Dr Van Staden, did. The judge said:

The hon member also did so today when he again tried to tar the NP with an ANC brush. We lay that at the hon member’s door. We do so, because in his conduct today he was guilty of precisely what the judge had condemned so damningly …

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council?

No, now the hon member must just take his own medicine; I am not interested in answering any questions now.

Let us go further. Surely the hon member knows that the hon member for Innesdale’s article in Inside South Africa had had certain repercussions on a previous occasion. He knows, does he not, that a letter was published.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, a letter was published in which the hon member for Innesdal wrote:

He also rectified certain matters in that letter. He said, amongst other things:

In his speech here, after I had said that the executive committee would examine the matter, he said in a Press statement to Rapport, and also in a subsequent brief speech, that in the heat of the moment he had not referred to that but that he was reconfirming it. Why does the hon member omit that from his argument? No, Sir, he cannot say what he likes, because there is a good understanding between the hon member for Innesdal and us. He also stands by what he said in that letter.

You therefore accept his policy?

He said that in public, and the hon member for Pietersburg’s interpretation and formulation of what he said is an incorrect interpretation or distortion of what the hon member actually said.

No, look—FW, the great induna, has spoken!

That is why we are saying that the CP cannot be a divisive factor in our ranks any longer. They were a divisive factor while they were here, and since they have left things are going well for the National Party. [Interjections.] The hon member for Carletonville must be the happiest hon member there, because what do those people say today? Precisely what he said when he was opposing them as fiercely as he is opposing me. Everything! He has won. He is one of the winners in that party. He was an HNP a long time ago, and when he and Mr Jaap Marais said we should not open up the hotels, who joined me in opening them up? We served together on the select committee.

Everyone?

No, you and I.

No, everyone?

But the hon member for Brakpan and I served on the same select committee. The hon member for Brakpan and I.

And what was your recommendation?

When, in 1979, as Minister of Sport …

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council?

No, Mr Speaker, I should first like to finish making this point. When in 1979, as Minister of Sport, I stated in this House—after clearing the matter with my study group—that the Government’s policy on sport would be one acknowledging the autonomy of sports bodies and that we were no longer going to treat them prescriptively, those hon members backed me up, defending that policy of non-interference and the recognition of autonomy, and that was the case from 1979 to 1982. Today the hon member for Carletonville has won. They are now also saying: “Get rid of it!” They again want to control sport. The Government must interfere. They will decide who may be Springboks and who may not, and who may play against whom. They are going to bring sport under Government control.

The colour of the grass too!

He has won, Sir. I wish him luck, but looking at him over there I think to myself that it was a hollow victory. [Interjections.] The hon member may now put his question.

Mr Speaker, I want to ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council whether he remembers that those recommendations of that select committee were that own hotels and own areas for Blacks and Coloureds should specifically be encouraged. Can he remember that?

Yes, Sir. The Government proceeded along those lines. He should just take a trip to the self-governing territories and to various other places. He would see for himself. I do a bit of travelling around South Africa, and there are such hotels which meet those particular needs.

The hon member for Sea Point is naturally a bit irritated at the fact that we are conducting a debate while he has to adopt a somewhat irrelevant position on the sidelines. I do not blame him for wanting to come into the game, even if only as a referee. On the first point scored he gave a fairly good decision. Those hon members have, of course, basically changed their standpoint on power-sharing.

†His second point was that we had done this country a disservice with the dissolution of the provincial government. I want to say that, in a certain sense, I also think that the abolition of provincial government at legislative level has created a certain void, which all of us here in this House find difficult to fill. The people who elected them are not unrepresented. We represent them in the very same constituencies. It has added to our burden and to our task, yes. It is now the duty of MPs also to look at the interests of the parents and the children with regard to education, health and all the matters which have been transferred, but the people are not unrepresented.

It is wrong, however, to say that nothing was put in its place. As I have said, this House has taken its turn with regard to legislation. Next week’s meetings of the provincial committees have nothing to do with own affairs, and the hon member knows it. He must therefore solve that problem in another debate.

There is, however, absolutely wide coverage in this House of matters pertaining to own affairs. There is ample opportunity in, to use the old terms, a full-scale Second or Third Reading Budget Debate and also during the discussion of this specific Vote and of the individual Votes of all the Ministers who are members of the Ministers’ Council, to discuss own affairs. I believe, therefore, that from a democratic point of view there is ample opportunity to discuss, as necessary, those matters which, as the hon member so rightly put it, affect the members of our community so intimately. There is ample opportunity to discuss and to debate them here and to put forward certain points of view. I am not to blame for the fact that hon members of the opposition parties become involved in all sorts of highbrow ideological debates on own affairs as well, and that they do not deal also with the problems of the various communities so that we can conduct a debate in relation to how their particular interests are affected.

Do you think the current system is adequate?

Furthermore, Sir, we must fill this void. It is therefore the policy of this Ministers’Council to do so by the devolution of further powers to local government. We believe—we are working on projects in this regard—that local government must also be enriched with certain powers and functions which directly affect our community. Instead of dealing only with water supply, sewage and other similar services, we also need to get local government and local government members involved in community-related activities.

Such as integrating beaches?

We in this Ministers’ Council are going to work out schemes in relation to the further devolution of power, and I am sure that can and will make a contribution to the filling of that void.

In conclusion, the hon member for Yeoville said the PFP stood for no domination of one group by another. Now, it is one thing to quote from a pamphlet. I say, however, that in the documents of the PFP that amounts to lip service. I will tell hon members why I say this. I say it because the PFP stands for a geographical federation. The voters’ rolls for the common federal parliament and for each of those geographical states will be compiled on a basis of one man, one vote. If one divides this country in an equitable manner into regions, how many regions will there be in which the majority will be Whites? Whites will form a minority in each and every one of those federal states. If that is the position there will be majority rule. The Whites as a group will not constitute a majority. That is simple arithmetic.

By the way, Sir, the hon member referred to treasuries. How many treasuries will there be in the PFP’s geographical federation?

A single treasury!

Will each federal state not have its own budget? No, Sir, I cannot believe what I am hearing.

You are not listening! That is why you do not understand!

They say there will be a federation in which federal states will have no financial powers. That is what the hon member must be arguing. [Interjections.] I am sure he does not even believe himself. [Interjections.] No, Sir, in any diversified system which accommodates the multi-nationalism of our country—be it on a geographic or group basis or a mixture of both, as we have it now—there must to a certain extent also be a division of financial powers, but in such a way that there will be cross-checks and crosscontrols in the same way in which we have them now. The Auditor-General’s cross-control also with regard to what happens in the own affairs administration is ample proof that our system does provide for the sort of control the hon member refers to.

I could give him a long list of reasons why we have certain growing pains, also with regard to financial administration in our own affairs administration, but he knows that the Rules of this House do not permit me to go into any detail because certain matters in that regard are before the standing committee at the present moment.

Let me say that we are committed to improve where there is room for improvement. We are committed to service of an excellent standard, and we are working on particular schemes which will, hopefully, bring to fruition improved control. We are saddled with the problem in that certain functions are being transferred to us which already have their own problems. We also have the problem that, with regard to certain disciplines, we are still in a transitional period. Therefore, it is not a question of making excuses. There is no excuse for bad management. However, I do want to say that we are experiencing unique problems in the transitional period in which we find ourselves and which we are addressing. We are not closing our eyes to them at all.

*As far as the hon member’s question in regard to legislation is concerned, let me say that the hon the Minister of Finance is experiencing serious problems involving legal technicalities in the formulation of the promised legislation. One is nevertheless still hopeful that a timely solution will be found and that it will be possible to bridge these legal technicalities and comply with the undertaking. Whether that is actually viable, the next few weeks will determine.

I should like to participate once more towards the end of the debate. At this stage I should sincerely like to thank hon members on this side—seven of them spoke—for the fine quality of the speeches they made, for the analytical manner in which they succeeded in tackling the subject under discussion and also for the fine way in which they tackled hon members of the Opposition, because they have greatly facilitated my task. I thank them sincerely.

Mr Speaker, it is appropriate that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council came back once again to the issue of the group and the protection of group rights. Let us for once and for all be clear on this point: There is no difference of opinion in regard to the fact that, in a general sense, groups have to be protected against domination. However, there is a fundamental difference between the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and certain other hon members opposite representing a particular point of view on this issue, and ourselves in regard to what constitutes a group. Once again today he has absolutised race as the only factor upon which a group can be judged. That was what he said. Race is the single factor and the only factor, and that has to be entrenched in legislation and be the basis of group representation.

We believe that if groups are going to be the reality in South Africa, they should be constituted as a result of voluntary association. I want to put it to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, if he believes that all South Africans are as concerned about race as he is, why does he not accept our proposal? According to his argument, everybody would in fact start associating on the basis of race. Does the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council not accept that even if there is an association on the basis of race, there is also at times an important association on the basis of language? Does he not understand that some people have an important association on the basis of religion? Does he not accept that other people again have an association on the basis of culture? Surely to an increasing extent we are going to find people also associating on the basis of economic interests. Why does he make race the only factor when he should understand that in any form of power-sharing—even his own limited one—he should try to move away from race as the determining factor into other factors which are organic parts of our society? I have heard the hon the State President say on occasion—I cannot remember his exact words—that the final struggle in South Africa is not going to be between Black and White but between those who believe in Christian values and those who believe in communism and Marxism. What is going to be more important—Black or White; or Christianity or communism? [Interjections.]

The one does not cancel out the other.

As a political leader in South Africa, does he feel he has more in common with the Rev Alan Hendrickse who sits in Parhament or with Eugene Terre’Blanche who says he wants to get rid of the parliamentary system? With whom does he have more in common? Does he have more in common with the Rev Chris April who sits in Parliament or the white members of the ANC, Mr De Lange and Mr Grosskopf?

Where does his loyalty lie? Is race or the fundamental philosophy of people more important? Must we put all the Whites together, whether communists or Marxists, and keep the others out, or are we going to try to find cross-cutting interests in South Africa?

We do not say that race is not a factor. We are all human beings, of course. What we are saying is that one must not absolutise race. One must not make race the dividing line in apportioning the constitutional rights of people, because by doing so one is entrenching the very thing one wants to move away from.

I want to ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council what a group is, even in terms of his own philosophy. By law, it is a race group, but does that not refer to groups determined by the White Government as race groups? Does “groups” mean those—the Coloureds, Indians and others—who may want to be classified in race groups? At the moment, race groups are those determined by the White Government of South Africa. Is that to be the determination of a race group?

Secondly, even if one classifies all the people as White, Coloured or Indian, does every individual belong to one of those race groups? For certain purposes the Government will say that is so, and certainly when it comes to political decisionmaking. But what about when one goes to the beach? The NP has dismissed the mayor of Durban because he wants to open the beaches. Surely they can open the beaches if there are Whites who want to go to open beaches.

That is chaos.

The hon the Minister says it is chaos. [Interjections.] I thought that the NP wanted to move away from discrimination. [Interjections.] Yet when they do start moving away from discrimination, this Government says race must be the single criterion. [Interjections.]

Last year I asked the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to define what we wanted to protect in relation to race groups, and he defined group rights in the following terms (Hansard: Assembly, 21 September 1987, col 6236):

I want to take the first principle, which is the key one—“An own community life, including the right to own residential areas and own schools as far as possible.” Is that going to be determined on a racial basis in future or on the basis of voluntary association? Let me mention the key things in community life. I would have thought that the family was a critically essential part of the community. I was also under the impression that since the repeal of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act, a family is no longer being determined in terms of race, but is now formed on the basis of voluntary association. I presume that the key element of community life is based on voluntary association.

Secondly, we are told that groups must have their own residential areas. I had thought that we were moving—the hon the State President indicated as much in October last year—towards a concept of certain grey areas. So we are going to have some people classified as grey and some as White. [Interjections.] Well then, why should we have a single own affairs system when people are living in different communities?

I want to ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council whether, when it comes to business, it is going to be based on voluntary association or on race. When it comes to the church, is it voluntary association or is it going to be race? When it comes to sport and entertainment, is it voluntary association or is it going to be race?

We can go through the whole list of what is happening in South Africa and we will see that we are being impelled to an increasing extent in the direction of allowing people to make decisions for themselves on this matter. Yet, at the same time, the Government insists for constitutional purposes that there has to be own affairs based on race. These concepts are incompatible. We cannot have a society moving in the direction of greater sharing and a Government stuck in the mud as far as the future constitution is concerned, insisting that it has to be based on race.

Then there is the issue of self-determination. As far as self-determination through own affairs is concerned, what a miserable portfolio it is! If that is what self-determination means, heaven help those who believe that self-determination is going to save them! What is one left with? We have merely these five own-affairs ministries.

All the other important ministries will not include self-determination. There will be no self-determination in defence, finance or labour matters. This is not a valid constitutional philosophy. This is the NP still clinging to what is left of the past and of apartheid, because they cannot shake it off, and it is partly just pandering to the remaining prejudices of Whites.

We had an illustration of this from the hon member for Umlazi. He was trying to score debating points off the PFP by raising the issues of, I think, Norweto and the dam at Hillcrest. All I want to say is that if that is his definition of what constitutes own affairs and self-determination, and if in fact people objected to those things because Blacks were going to use them, that is racial prejudice.

Why did you object to it?

That was not the reason. I am saying that he is using it and illustrating that from his point of view the ultimate in determining whether there is self-determination or not is on an issue like that. If we carry on painting Whites into a little corner—and we only have to look at South Africa demographically and at what is happening in terms of numbers—in the end South African Whites will be painted into a little constitutional corner and one will find in South Africa the situation which the hon member for Yeoville described: One will be heading towards a dictatorship of the majority. White South Africans may, in those circumstances, have to accept what the AWB stands for, for all that will be left for them is a small “Blankestan” or a little “Boerestaat” somewhere in the North Western Transvaal.

This party wants Whites to be part of the majority in this country. We want to be an essential part of whatever majority it is. It may be a majority of Christians, it may be a majority of economic interests, it may be a linguistic majority or it may be a majority fighting for freedom and ordinary common decency in this country.

However, we object to this Government and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in particular. He is old-fashioned. He only has to compare his speeches with those of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who starts off with groups but says we must move in the other direction. However, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said in the debate last year that the whole concept of own affairs and groups had to be strengthened; we had to give it sharper definition and that future of South Africa rested on the basis of racial groups. We say that there is no future for South Africa on the basis of racial groups entrenched in the Constitution of this country.

Mr Speaker, the reference by the hon member for Carletonville to a Springbok jersey would seem to have caused the hon the leader of the PFP to abandon his role of referee and take part in the match. I do not want to reply to him in detail. The hon the Leader of the PFP was obviously holding a discussion with the hon the Minister. In a certain sense what I would like to present to you will in any case furnish certain replies to the vexatious questions of the hon the leader of the PFP.

What I want to concede at once is that the hon the leader of the PFP is seeking a solution which can bring peace. I believe that he is sincere in that search and that the majority of people in this country, of all groups and languages, yearn for peace in South Africa. However, one must be careful when one discusses the word peace, because different meanings are given to the word. There are people who consider peace to be the aftermath of a victory—once we have eliminated all opposition, we will have peace. The other view is that peace can be achieved by capitulating, by surrendering and offering no resistance; in other words to eliminate all forms of confrontation unilaterally and in that way achieve peace.

However, I believe that this side of the House is dedicated to the search for a position where every person and every group in South Africa voluntarily wants to keep its own ideals, ambitions and demands within bounds, because the ideals, ambitions and demands of others are also recognised. They want to base this on the fact that there is a common uniting ideal which everyone in this country shares. We on this side of the House are therefore seeking a peace plan every day.

One of the foundation stones which has already been laid by the Government is the concept of own and general affairs. The concept of own affairs encompasses the recognition of the historic reality that groups exist. It is impossible to get groups to materialise out of thin air by means of a law or the stroke of a pen, which is what the hon the Leader of the PFP requested. We live with historic realities in South Africa. To deny the groups which have already developed historically, is a false foundation on which to draft a peace plan.

The concept of general affairs is on the one hand based on the practical demands of the day, but also on the realistic view that a general emotional bond must be sought and developed which will unite all South Africa’s people and groups. The foundation stones of own and general affairs are therefore realistic; what is more they are morally justifiable, because they afford a foundation on which peace can be sought. I submit that as groups can find common ground as regards general affairs, the area which is served by own affairs is enlarged. Consequently the greater the uniting elements, and the greater the power of general affairs is, the stronger is the role which own affairs can play.

Why is this so? It is because general affairs incorporates the recognition of the co-ordinating, common, uniting factors. This eliminates the feeling of injustice, menace, neglect, and therefore friction between groups. After all, when I can come into my own without injustice, when I can come into my own across the entire spectrum of what everyone believes in, I then make room for the other person to maintain and develop what is his own. Under those circumstances what is unique to that person forms strong building stones; it is a very important facet of a great and growing South Africa.

I maintain that the maintenance and development of group identity, group interests and group rights is dependent on the recognition of common interests. When one denies common interests one is heading for confrontation because one is obsessed with the interests of individual groups. If peace is sought by adopting that course, it is only one kind of peace namely peace which is achieved either through victory of through capitulation; in other words through violence.

In the time remaining to me I should very much like to say a few words, and ask the hon members of the Official Opposition whether their peace plan is summed up by their standpoint on city council elections, as set out in their election manifesto which was published a week or two ago. All the old clichés appear in it. In this we read that when the CP comes into power they are going to abolish the system of regional services councils. We read here that racial friction can only be prevented by racial segregation. We read here that the system of influx control will be reintroduced. There is something new here, namely that the Blacks must to the greatest possible extent be settled in their own countries. There is also something interesting here. They say this is going to be achieved through the economic programme of decentralisation, with strict control over who may enter White towns and cities. If this had not been so funny one could have cried about it!

The immorality of this policy becomes apparent in what is said here. As long as people of colour can be of service to them and can work, as long as they can keep the farms of the Whites going, all is well. I wish I could ask Mr Speaker to ask hon members of the CP to raise their hands so that we could see how many of them own farms. I also want them to raise their hands so that we can see on whose farms there are more Whites than Blacks. Surely it is immoral to say that as long as a person is useful he is welcome. However, if a person cannot be used to their advantage he must get out.

Listen to this immoral statement, and I am quoting:

This is what would happen under a CP Government to Black people who had legally acquired property and businesses in White areas. These people’s businesses would simply be expropriated.

Then the CP claims that moral and permanent values such as family unity, religion, patriotism, national pride and nationalism will constantly be promoted! The CP is undermining these values by their behaviour. Is that not interesting, considering that there are theologians in that party?

Can you talk about morality?

I am now debating at a high intellectual level. I cannot pay attention to that hon member.

It is also interesting that religion is mentioned in the same breath as other “high values”. What about the principles of charitableness, love of one’s neighbour, justice and other Christian values, or do the CP qualify their religion with their nationalism? When is a CP member going to stand up here and say that his national pride and nationalism are qualified by his Christian values, or is it true—and I shall end my speech here— that they would prefer to release the national hero Barabbas if they had to make a choice?

Mr Speaker, I should like to react to what the hon member for Sundays River said about his debating at a high intellectual level. In view of the hon member’s compliment, I shall try my best to debate at that level too. However, I have no choice but to react to his closing thoughts regarding Christianness and Christian nationalism. I think he implied that the CP had abandoned Christianness and had only retained nationalism. He would do well to read our various documents. The crux is the search for Christianness and balance and this is what it is used as a guide.

The hon member said he was seeking peace. Obviously we are all seeking peace. It is stupid to suggest that anyone is not seeking peace. I do not think there is anyone in this House who would say such a thing. Everyone here is seeking peace.

However, the question involved here should be: How is one going to achieve that peace? The hon member said own and general affairs were a way of getting closer to this. My concern is that in emphasising own and general affairs—as has emerged in practice up to now—own affairs is playing an increasingly minor role, while general affairs is starting to play an increasingly important role. This is unavoidable in terms of the present Constitution.

Allow me to mention a single figure: In 1985, 1986 and 1987 we had 45 own affairs Acts compared with 277 general affairs Acts. It is inevitable that general affairs will increase. My dilemma is that the point of conflict is inherent in this. Eventually we will move further away from peace.

I do not believe that the future of South Africa will be decided outside this Parliament—it will be decided here. However, if one believes in democracy and elections, the final word does lie outside with the voters. They will decide what will happen here. In view of this I want to say something for the record regarding the by-election in Schweizer-Reneke. I should like to convey the message of the by-election to the voters—as well as to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

On 6 May 1987 we had a general election. This took place at the request of this House, as well as the Ministers’ Council. All manner of complex reasons were advanced at that stage why this election could not be for all three Houses.

The result of that election is well-known. I think it was a disappointment to hon members opposite, particularly as regards the fact that after its first general election the CP came back to this House as the Official Opposition. I do not think this was expected. Then the by-elections in Standerton and Schweizer-Reneke took place as a result of a technicality, which could have been avoided. The question is why all this trouble was taken to allow the by-elections to take place. I submit that the by-elections were held there so that the NP could concentrate all its forces on trying to prevent and eventually reverse this swing to the right, which became clear on 6 May. If one reads and knows one’s political history, one will know that this was an attempt to repeat a by-election like the one in Oudtshoorn in the seventies, in Schweizer-Reneke, which had a CP majority of 191. The newspapers also saw it in that light at that stage, and I am quoting from Beeld of 2 March, under the headline “Meer op die spel as net twee setels”:

The hon the leader of the NP in the Transvaal said the following in the same newspaper:

What should have been a shot in the arm, turned out to be an anaesthetic. However the NP in the Transvaal threw everything into the by-election, and I can vouch for that. The argument raised by the Cape MP’s that our stories in the Transvaal are wrong, does not apply in this case. A total of 12 NP meetings were held in the constituency, all of which were addressed by Ministers or Deputy Ministers. The A-team was there. The hon the leader of the NP in the Transvaal and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs were personally there as big shots. Meetings and door-to-door canvassing were not organised by ordinary canvassers, but by members of the President’s Council and the House of Assembly. The fact of the matter is that with the meetings, the canvassers and the election tabloid of the NP no voter could say that the NP policy had not been put to him and that he did not understand it. Full-time organisers of the NP head office were sent to every town, even two organisers to a town. Hon members can accept that no money was spared on posters and offices. A large-scale newspaper attack, containing AWB scare-mongering stories, was launched.

In view of all these efforts on 28 February 1988 Rapport discussed five factors which were going to have an influence on the election and which would probably help the NP to win. In the first place there was the fact that the NP had drastically improved its organisation in both constituencies. Secondly, the NP believed that a high percentage vote would benefit it. Thirdly there was the so-called Jaap factor in Schweizer-Reneke, which was supposed to help the NP. I would have liked to have discussed this if there had been time. Fourthly there were the new registrations on the voters’ roll, and in the fifth place there was the big television debate.

I should like to say something about the last two points. As regards the registration on the voters’ roll of Schweizer-Reneke, Mr Beyers was deprived of his seat on 4 December. Registrations for the voters’ roll closed on 30 November. This means that the CP did not get 1200 registrations, which we will have at the next election. As regards the television debate, I want to quote what Beeld said on 23 February:

As a communications expert I submit that this was a very cruel statement. It must have placed unbelievable pressure on the two participants in the debate. According to this the result in the by-elections would decide who the winner of the debate was. The implication is that after the result of the election Beeld had to deduce that Dr Treurnicht had won the debate, if that statement was true.

The question is what the effect of this enormous effort by the NP was. Firstly there was an unbelievable percentage poll of 81,5% in the byelection. We know that the percentage poll in subsequent by-elections, and the one in Randfontein, was on average 60%. More postal and special votes were handled than in any other recent election. However, in spite of all these efforts by the NP I say that the CP majority in Schweizer-Reneke was increased fourfold.

It is interesting to see how the media handled this result. The clever, informed, modern farmers of Schweizer-Reneke, who voted for Mr Willie Lemmer of the NP in 1981, were described as stupid, uninformed and confused backwoods farmers. Similarly the clever, sophisticated and realistic urban voters of Randfontein, who voted for the hon member Dr Geldenhuys of the NP in a previous election, this year suddenly became stupid mine-workers who did not understand the realities of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I should like to say something regarding the reaction of the hon the leader of the NP in the Transvaal to the results, specifically the one in Schweizer-Reneke. In the first place he said it was not a defeat for the NP. Secondly he said it was a “sympathy” vote, which made these majorities possible. Let me say that this reminds me of the court case in which the young man was accused of murdering his parents. When he was eventually found guilty and had to plead for extenuating circumstances, he said the court should take into consideration that he was a poor orphan. [Interjections.] The hon the leader of the NP in the Transvaal went on to say that the NP had increased its number of votes in Schweizer-Reneke. At first glance this is true, but if one does a projection on the higher percentage vote, this unfortunately indicates that they have deteriorated.

In conclusion he said that he was convinced that the NP was going to win in Schweizer-Reneke next time round. The standpoint of Die Burger of 4 May is probably closer to the truth, because it wrote as follows:

At the end of the day that was also the argument of the hon member Dr Geldenhuys.

I should now like to summarise my argument. The NP allowed by-elections in order to stop the swing to the right revealed by the 6 May election. They did everything they could as regards organisation, meetings and propaganda, so that there could be no possible confusion in the minds of the voters regarding their policy. Yet they lost the by-elections.

Through my election to this House I am bringing a clear message from the voters to the hon the State President and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in this House. The message is as follows. The NP’s mistake was not poor organisation, but the lack of a clear policy. It is easy to shoot down partition as a solution, but then one must put something in its place which is acceptable to the voters. The NP policy of powersharing, with vague promises and assurances to the voters regarding a secure future, is no longer acceptable to the majority of voters as a longterm solution, in the midst of the African realities of South Africa. Hon members can ignore this message from the voters, or they can react to it in the interests of South Africa. However, they must not say later on that they were not warned.

Gen Smuts also preferred to ignore the clear signs of the by-election in Wakkerstroom in 1947.

I also want to dwell briefly on the hon member for Springs. During the by-election he took trouble to use this House to state certain standpoints in order to achieve a certain effect in Schweizer-Reneke. He used this House and in a disgraceful way he used the protection which he enjoyed in this House … [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke. This afternoon it was rather disappointing to hear the hon member lapse into the problem all the hon CP members have, namely that they make an ordinary election speech every time they speak here. Other than that they only talk about the past. Of course the hon member made one or two mistakes. He wanted to judge own affairs by the amount of relevant legislation, but how can one do that? Surely it is not possible. The less legislation there is the better own affairs is being handled. Surely it is not the amount of legislation which determines how well a matter is being handled; it is the implementation of that legislation.

Furthermore the hon member referred to the tremendous progress which the CP ostensibly made during the recent by-elections. There were by-elections in 1985 too, and the NP won them all. In the 1987 general election the majorities achieved in the by-elections increased considerably. My constituency is an example of this, and my majority virtually doubled. The hon member must therefore not be too quick to talk about the tremendous progress made.

I am not going to allow myself to be led astray by reacting only to the hon member’s speech. I am going to say a few words about own affairs, but I also want to refer to the culture and the cultural organisations of the Afrikaner. I want to start by saying that South Africa consists of different groups, which are all minority groups. To a great extent these groups all maintain their own culture, their own language and their own pattern of life.

I think hon the Leader of the Official Opposition put this very well in his book Credo van ’n Afrikaner, which he wrote in 1975, when he still had a Nationalist point of view. He spoke about man as such, and said the following:

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition then went on to say:

What is the point you want to make?

I am coming to that.

What I have just quoted is also the principle on which the NP based its present system. It is the principle on which the present system is based and through which the survival of the groups in this country in their own communities can be assured.

I have said before that the Group Areas Act can also be used very well in this regard as an instrument to ensure orderly communities, but also to ensure and to protect the rights and the survival of every group in this country.

The Government also believes that this objective can be best achieved through the present tricameral system, each with its ministers’ council, for the handling of own affairs and a larger Cabinet for the handling of general affairs.

In contrast, and this was spelt out repeatedly here this afternoon, the Official Opposition says that the solution lies in partition. This is a policy which the NP says cannot work. This point was dealt with very well by the hon member Dr Geldenhuys as well as the hon member for Yeoville. One need only take a few realities into consideration to see that it cannot work. In the first place the Whites, Coloureds and Indians have already been accommodated in this tricameral system. Apart from the four independent states—ie the TBVC countries—there are also the self-governing states in which a large section of the Black groups live. There are still more than 11 million Black people most of whom live in the so-called White area of South Africa. What is more these 11 million people not only live here; they are also part of the economy. They are taxpayers, and some of them already have freehold.

A further fact is that the new Constitution was introduced with the approval of a two-thirds majority of the White voters. This Constitution can only be changed in co-operation with the other two Houses. It is surprising that the CP repeatedly says that if they come into power they will change this Constitution to make it possible for each group to decide on its own affairs in its own area. But of course these areas do not exist, and this afternoon this was confirmed here because the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition once signed a manifesto that such areas could not exist.

That is not true!

It is true. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council spelt this out clearly this afternoon.

We say it is not feasible to put groups in compartments so that they can deal with their own affairs best. Apart from the fact that there must be protection by the State to allow a group to realise its own rights, that group cannot survive if it does not have a desire to do so and is not prepared to protect its rights itself. That is why there are many organisations of the different groups to achieve this goal.

I am part of the Afrikaner group. I want to dwell for a moment on Afrikaner organisations because I would like to remain an Afrikaner. I would like to remain an Afrikaner as I see an Afrikaner—a person who loves what is his own, his language and his culture and his history and his traditions; not in a superior way or as a chosen person, but a person who also recognises and respects the rights and privileges of other groups; a person who realises his Protestant religious principles and convictions in such a way that he can set an example to others. I see the Afrikaners as a group that must command the respect of other groups, as well as the world at large. For that reason we must guard against organisations such as the AWB hijacking the concept of the Afrikaner and turning it into a caricature which will fill people with repugnance and fear.

In the history of the Afrikaner there were many times when the Afrikaner suffered hardships, but his desire for self-preservation and the protection and development of what was his own led to the establishment of various organisations. These organisations contributed a great deal to the upliftment of the Afrikaner. If we look back over the past 50 years there is a great deal the Afrikaner can be proud of, and a great deal which he achieved. I want to point out that the Afrikaner-Broederbond was also born out of the distress of the Afrikaner, according to the book Die Afrikaner-Broederbond: Eerste 50 Jaar, by Prof A N Pelzer—a well-known figure in arts and philosophy. It was founded with the following objectives, and I quote:

This is what Prof Pelzer said. This organisation was very valuable to the Afrikaner in preserving and safeguarding what was his own. However we shall have to guard against its being the Afrikaner who destroys his own organisations. I am sorry the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is not here this afternoon.

Why did you not ask him to be here?

He had occasion to say:

We know he was the chairman of that organisation-even I know that.

Why did you lot choose such a bad chairman?

Now we come to the fact that the CP’s leader in the OFS Mr Cehile Pienaar made the following statement in his first speech in the President’s Council. This was after he had had a great deal to say about the Afrikaner-Broederbond and what they would and would not do. He said:

All I want to do this afternoon is to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether he is satisfied that his leader in the Free State mentioning him in the same breath as the ANC— he who was the leader of the Afrikaner-Broederbond. If he is not satisfied with this, why did he not repudiate him? I shall tell hon members why he did not repudiate him. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, in a way it is a pleasure to follow on the hon member for Bethlehem. I must say that I was deeply disappointed to hear the tone of his speech.

*You know, Sir, we are all Afrikaners—there are English-speaking Afrikaners and there are Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners.

†The sooner we realise that in this country, the better it is going to be for everybody concerned. I do hope that in the course of debate for the rest of this session we will realise that we must respect and appreciate that South Africans are made up of English- and Afrikaans-speaking people.

Today we heard a lot again about “selfbeskikking” or self-determination, as well as “magsdeling” up to a point where one gets somewhat frustrated about it all. However, I do think we should realise that, whether we like it or not, the time has come for some form of power-sharing to be implemented on a broader basis than at the present time.

I think one has only to ask oneself where the apartheid system has landed us until now.

Up a gumtree!

I believe we should be talking in terms of phasing out apartheid in the future. I am not saying we must get rid of apartheid overnight. We cannot. Unless we come to that realisation I do not believe we will be building the foundations for a peaceful future for this country. Let us be honest. What are we looking for? We are looking for a future in this country which will be stable and prosperous and in which everybody will have a stake in the land. The realisation for which one is looking is also that Black political aspirations must be accommodated. This is an absolute prerequisite because the non-homeland Black—we must not bluff ourselves—will not accept a system which is seen to be inferior to what the other race groups have. This means that the non-homeland Blacks in particular must be brought into the decisionmaking process.

I want to stress that the stable future of this country will be dependent on the Whites’ realisation that they alone do not hold the right solely to make decisions that affect the political future of other race groups. Unless they are realistic in this respect, I can only say the outlook is gloomy.

I believe it is also appropriate at this stage to take a look at the present tricameral system. I want to say that I think it has been successful in its achievements so far, despite the criticisms levelled against it. It is true that it has had its ups and downs. It has also had its setbacks. Generally speaking, however, it has functioned satisfactorily. I do want to associate myself, however, with the remarks of the hon member for Yeoville, who emphasised the costs that were involved in the system, and I do want to support him in his submission that the efficiency of the system needs be looked at and that, in spite of what the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke says—I do not go along at all with his comments—we must be looking towards a streamlining of the functions of the tricameral system, from those of own affairs to those of general affairs. This is the spirit in which, I believe, we should be moving in order to get a far smoother functioning of this present tricameral system.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council referred to the question of a further devolution of power. I know it has also been mentioned that the provincial council system should be brought back. I think, however, that when people make that statement they must realise that under the tricameral system there is no possible way in which the provincial council system can be restored to what it was prior to the introduction of the tricameral Parliament. I should like to suggest, however, that mechanisms must be created in which the members of the executive committees must be elected to these important provincial positions, and not appointed. This is the only basis on which those who hold these important positions will have credibility in the eyes of the public. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow the hon member for Mooi River. Most hon members will agree that he is a sincere, deep-thinking person who puts the interests of his country first. The hon member expressed some reservations in respect of the phasing out of apartheid, but I am confident that this process is well under way and will continue apace under the NP Government.

The amount of R1 349 million requested for the 1988-89 financial year under the separate Vote created for the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly includes an amount of R454 million previously provided for under the National Education Vote. I think this is a logical step in the provision made for personnel expenditure falling under the control of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. This, together with R895 million transferred from Vote 5: Budgetary and Auxiliary Services, is obviously designed to improve the efficiency of the administration of matters under the control of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

The criticism by the hon member for Yeoville of past administrative problems may be warranted in part, but it is a pity that he did not give credit for the obvious steps being taken to rectify the situation.

A matter for concern at present is the exodus of White male teaching staff from the profession. This phenomenon occurred before, when excess employment became available in private enterprise at more attractive salary rates, and was brought about largely through an upturn in the economy. Hon members know that the alleged backlog in educators’ salaries is being and has been investigated by the hon the Minister, and he has made it clear that any proven backlog will be rectified as soon as possible, bearing in mind budgetary constraints.

The Teachers’ Federal Council has done and is doing its utmost to negotiate in a responsible manner in order to rectify this situation, contrary to what the hon member for Pinetown claimed I had said in the past.

[Inaudible.]

We trusted that they will continue to act responsibly in spite of the militant elements attempting to influence them. Irrespective of their attitudes, we all have sympathy with the teaching profession, and anxiously await developments on the matter of salary adjustments.

Much has been made in this debate of the pros and cons of political and socio-economic reform in South Africa. The Official Opposition claims that the Government, in its philosophy of powersharing, is following an integrationist hand-over route. The PFP, on the other hand, claims that the reform policies being followed are an extension of the doctrines of apartheid. As a mere mortal, I find great difficulty in reconciling these opposing points of view.

The striking diversity of our South African population is a result not only of comparatively recent migrations but also of a long process which is little known to historians. Of the whole process, perhaps only the past three or four centuries have been adequately documented, while the greater part is submerged in the depths of prehistory. What is true, however, is that we, more than any other country, are a microcosm of the whole world, reflecting the ethnic diversity of the globe, disparities in economic and social development and a rich heritage of cultures and subcultures.

It is relevant that not one of South Africa’s eleven major languages is spoken by the majority of the people. South Africa is a geographic designation rather than a reflection of one nation. Our country came into being, not because of any natural affinity among its peoples, but as a result of artificial lines drawn on the map of Africa by colonial rulers.

It is true that the futures of all our peoples are now inextricably interwoven, but if we wish to proceed in the reform process, we must accept power-sharing without isolating our various ethnic and cultural groups from the traditions that have provided stability and direction for them in the past.

At no time in our history has there been more rapid or meaningful socio-economic or political advancement for Black, Coloured and Indian South Africans than during the past few years, and not even the PFP can gainsay that. What has become clear from world pressures brought to bear on South Africa, however, is that the standards and norms expected of South Africa are expected of no other African country. This is simply reverse racism.

The Natal Municipal Association recently made representations to the United Municipal Executive on the President’s Council’s report covering the Group Areas Act and its related legislation, such as the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, the Slums Act and the Community Development Act. Most of the local authorities in Natal were approached—although some were not because of time constraints—in preparing a paper on the topic. The NMA felt that in order to make a rational judgement of the President’s Council’s recommendations it was necessary to postulate a set of criteria.

The main criteria emerging from the local authority reaction—and this includes Indian and Coloured local affairs committees—were that people of like background and culture show a natural tendency to want to live together, and that this desire should be protected. Then local government was far more immediate and accessible to citizens than central Government. Because of its uniqueness, there was a strong independent spirit in Natal which desired a far greater degree of devolution of power to the local government level. Local communities should determine the rate of change in their own society and should not be dictated to. I am afraid the PFP and KwaZulu Indaba constitution proposals appear to contradict this.

In the tricameral parliamentary system we have already satisfied a good number of the criteria which I have just identified, and the Indian and Coloured communities have made enormous strides in self-upliftment. It is interesting that in the preparation for local government elections in October interest is running high in the Indian and Coloured communities in Pietermaritzburg and registration is proceeding apace, but it is also interesting that intimidation has already started with visits to homes and threats being made.

To broaden community government to our Black peoples, regional services councils, I believe, should assist dramatically. A great deal has been written and said in recent times and many of us have been appalled at the extent of misinformation, misunderstanding and occasional pure media mischief for political purposes, which has been associated with the subject of RSCs and which has tended to mask the true nature and objectives of the RSCs.

Politically, RSCs are designed to extend democracy; they are not a replacement of the provincial system as some try to make out. But all communities will be represented with a real and meaningful say. They will also have an important role to play in the upgrading of the less-developed areas. However, there is a false perception that RSCs will be dominated by the established White local authorities and that the system is designed to force the Coloureds and Indians into independent local authority status. This is definitely not the case. There is no idea of trying to enforce a separate, independent local authority system.

As far as KwaZulu is concerned, I believe it is a matter for dismay and concern that the KwaZulu government’s co-operation has thus far not been obtained. Their objections appear to be based on the misconception of the provisions of the Regional Services Councils Act. The multiracial Natal Executive Committee is, I believe, doing everything in their power to negotiate participation. This will not be forced, neither will KwaZulu be prejudiced should they not participate. I think this has been made very clear by the executive committee. However, there are many practical benefits to be gained by participation of all communities in the system. This is not a system for the benefit of Whites alone, but is a new and innovative extension of local government which, with the full co-operation of all, will contribute towards a better and more peaceful South Africa for all our people.

Mr Speaker, two hon members of the NP referred to education in this debate. If I understood him correctly, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South was in fact urging the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, in his capacity as Minister of National Education, to improve the remuneration packages of teachers as soon as possible. The hon member for Brentwood also carried on here in the House this afternoon in an unbridled way about the dinner party that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is going to attend next Friday in Verwoerdburg at which he, too, is going to address the people present on education.

I can understand that the hon member is upset by the fact that we tell people the truth and the facts about what is happening in education at the moment. However, I want to tell the hon member this afternoon that the CP will use every opportunity to inform people in the education profession, and everyone who is interested in education—that includes parents—about the deteriorating situation with regard to education. We shall inform them of the lowering of education standards in White schools, as well as what the hon the Minister of Education and Culture admitted this year when he said that there were not sufficient funds last year to provide for basic educational needs in White schools. [Interjections.] We shall inform them of what the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid said this year in the House of Representatives when he referred to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture and said that he played a very important role in the reallocation of education funds for the various population groups. We shall inform them of the increasing number of Blacks in the White tertiary education institutions. We shall convey the facts and the truth to the voters of this country.

I actually want to ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for his attention this afternoon by referring to the closing down of the teachers’ training college in Paarl. As far as I could ascertain, a petition, signed by nearly 4 500 people, was recently submitted to him. I am raising this matter now because when it was raised during a previous debate, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture ignored it entirely and did not refer to it in as much as a sentence. I am also raising the matter because I am of the opinion that it is in the public interest that the real reasons for the closing down of the Paarl College of Education should be made public.

Let me make it clear again, as I did in the previous debate on this matter. It is not for me to say whether that college or the Wellington College of Education should be closed, or that neither, or both of the colleges should be closed. What must be made clear—the CP insists on this—is whether the matter was dealt with according to educational and economic demands.

The CP demands clarity with regard to the fact that according to Die Burger of 28 January this year, a respected person in education, Dr Philip Meyer, voiced the following opinion. He said that the closing of the PCE was the biggest mistake made in 1987. He said that he could not understand why the largest and the most important college in the Cape had to be closed. He also said that it was disturbing that such an important decision could be taken without the real reasons being made known.

Furthermore, I demand clarity on this because the hon the Minister of Education and Culture adopted an extremely evasive attitude on various aspects of this matter in this House. Every time he was asked a question about this matter in this House, he tried to avoid it and did not give us the full details in this regard. In reply to a question about what the recommendations of the Cape Education Department were with regard to the closure of the PCE, he replied inter alia as follows:

Why are the recommendations of the Cape Education Department being shrouded in such secrecy? Are they really so confidential that no one may know what the Cape Education Department recommended in this regard? Is it in the national interests that this information is withheld from the House and from the public, or is it perhaps in the interests of the NP?

I want to voice my strongest objection this afternoon to this kind of national administration. This House should be given the opportunity to test the educational and economic accountability of the Government’s decisions, including those on education matters. We need the facts to be able to do this. However, the hon the Minister now has the arrogance to tell us that he made the decision on this matter. His decision in this regard was correct and in everyone’s best interests. Apparently we have nothing to say about it, and we do not even need the facts to be able to make a decision. [Interjections.]

This mode of conduct is going to cost the Government dearly. They could perhaps have got away with such an attitude a few years ago, but it is now 1988, and the time for this kind of arrogant behaviour has passed. It is no wonder that Beeld, its biggest and most prejudiced propaganda organ, said the following in its editorial soon after the by-election in Randfontein, and I quote:

However, the hon the Minister was not only evasive about the recommendations of the Cape Education Department. He was just as evasive about the reasons for the closure of the PCE. He said that the submissions of the Cape Education Department were taken into account, but so were—I quote him—“enige ander verbandhoudende oorwegings”. What we want to know is what these so-called “ander verbandhoudende oorwegings” were. Were they educational reasons that were not taken into consideration by the Cape Education Department? Were they perhaps economic reasons that we did not know about? The hon the Minister would do well to listen to what I am saying. Were they perhaps the preferences of people or politicians outside of his department that would have wanted it to be done? What were those other relevant considerations? Is it really necessary that this remain such a secret, or would the publication of these considerations perhaps do the NP great harm? [Interjections.]

Please Chris, the hon the Minister is being addressed!

If the Government motivated it properly, surely the public would accept it. After all, the Government holds the so-called “ignorance” of the voter responsible for the defeat that it suffered in the by-elections.

Piet, common decency demands that you listen to this!

Do you think I am deaf?

How can you pay attention to two people at once?

It is being alleged that the voters have turned their backs on the Government because they could not provide the facts. Surely this a golden opportunity to provide the people who are eager for the facts of the matter— like the petitioners in Paarl—with the correct, true and undistorted information about the matter. Why does the hon the Minister not want to do this?

I referred to the evasive attitude of the hon the Minister. In reply to a question about the facilities available at the two colleges, he tried to create the impression that the WCE was in fact better equipped than the PCE. He gloated over the fact that the WCE had more hostels and training accommodation than the PCE. However, what he did not say was that with the new quota system that the PCE had implemented for student numbers, it had sufficient accommodation for all the students from the WCE and the PCE.

The hon the Minister went into detail about the music facilities at the WCE, but he dismissed the modern and well-equipped craft centre at the PCE—where students of the University of Stellenbosch are trained as well—in a single sentence, despite the fact that it is a three-storey block, that consists of one drawing room, one lecture room, three woodwork rooms, equipped with a machine room, polishing room, storeroom and office, an administrative office, a coffee room for students, two metalwork rooms, each with two storerooms and one office, one workshop which is jointly used for casting, welding and wrought metal work, and two large change rooms with showers for students.

The hon the Minister made much of the six additional tennis courts at the WCE, although I was told that he would have had to include the badly dilapidated old hostel courts in order to have arrived at that impressive figure. People in the know are laughing at the hon the Minister’s replies to this question.

I conclude with the request that we be given clarity on the following question as well. What is going to become of the fully-equipped computer centre in which high school pupils from the surrounding Boland schools were trained in computer science until matric during the past three years? [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I should have liked to react to the arguments of the hon member for Brits, but unfortunately two other hon members of his party referred to me in the course of the debate today. The hon member will forgive me if I react to them instead.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that he would like to cross swords with me some time with regard to a supplementary question that I asked here in the House about Coloureds in White university hostels.

I am looking forward to that opportunity very much, and I shall await it. However, this afternoon I listened to how he summarised the supplementary question I asked. I want to make a friendly request that he go and read Hansard to make sure precisely what I asked that day. Then we shall be able to debate the matter.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also referred to an occasion in the Synod Hall, during which the 1977 proposals were announced. I also had the privilege of attending that meeting as the political correspondent of an Afrikaans newspaper. It is interesting to note how the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to one particular matter that day, namely the reaction of the then Prime Minister to the suggestion that the 1977 proposals should be referred to as power-sharing. However, he did not go any further. Of course, what he omitted to say was that the then member for Rissik, Mr Daan van der Merwe, also moved that a resolution be adopted that power-sharing would never be part of the NP policy, and that the then Prime Minister was not prepared to forfeit that option. The then Prime Minister adopted the standpoint that he was not prepared to decide about the future and to try to govern from the grave, which was a balanced standpoint—not a one-sided one.

Unfortunately, time caught up with the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke towards the end, but I have a rebuttable presumption concerning what he wanted to discuss with me. I should like to keep it for that occasion. I want to give him some friendly advice: When we discuss the matter, he should not try to hide behind technicalities like his colleague the hon member for Standerton tried to do. He would do well to ask him what happened when he tried to hide behind technicalities while he was trying to catch me out about the information brochures of the NP during the by-election.

The blonde spy!

The blonde spy is history, but it will remain an embarrassment to those hon members for a long time.

I want to ask the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke something. When we have our discussion he should not only discuss with me the relations between himself and the Fouries—I should like to discuss that with him—but also what he has done since his election about the members of the CP who are using those who have been nominated to lease properties in Schweizer-Reneke. I should like to talk to him about that, because they have never given us an answer in that regard.

There is another matter I should like to discuss with him when we have that discussion. Before the election, the CP objected to the registration of Mr Willie Lemmer as a voter in Schweizer-Reneke. They entered his property illegally, took a photograph of an old dilapidated house and then asked a Black man if anyone had lived there recently. He said no, and they made no further inquiries; they stopped at that point because it suited them.

That was his registered address!

No, listen to the rest of the story, my friend. What did they do? They did not ask whether there were any other houses on that farm which were in fact occupied.

There is a house down at the river!

There is a house down at the river, on the same farm, my friend, where there is a telephone, furniture and everything. However, let us consider the facts.

The CP lodged a complaint with the police—that is how far they went—and built a propaganda ploy around it. However, when the Attorney-General decided not to prosecute, they kept silent because they knew they had lied and did not see their way clear to setting the matter straight. However, they did not stop there. They instructed a certain Mr Smit—we still do not know who he was—to approach the Department of Home Affairs and object to the presence of Mr Willie Lemmer and his wife on the Schweizer-Reneke voters’ list. In terms of the procedures of the Department of Home Affairs they could only give the matter a hearing on 11 March, which was after the election. What happened then? On 9 March, two days before the Department of Home Affairs would have given judgment on the matter, the CP withdrew their complaint and their objection. [Interjections.] Their own lie no longer suited them, because the by-election was over.

I now challenge the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke to have the courage to apologise in public in this House to Mr Lemmer for the way in which the hon member wrongly maligned him. He was maligned by the CP in an untruthful way.

Are you also going to do that?

We can argue with each other about those facts, and when we do, we shall iron out that matter. I am referring to the facts of Mr Lemmer’s situation. If the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke does not see his way clear to admitting that he made a mistake, I challenge him to lay a complaint in his own name. He must not use an anonymous Mr Smith, he must lodge a complaint in his own name. The hon member must subject himself to the test of the truth. [Interjections.] I shall leave the matter at that until we have a chance to discuss the matters the CP would like to discuss with me.

I should like to mention another matter, and that is the very interesting, schizophrenic attitude of the CP on the position of the urban Blacks, and the RSCs in particular. It has been noted that the CP accepts local government for Black people. In fact, the CP says that this is the highest level of political representation that Blacks will have in the RSA. In that way they recognise by implication that the presence of Black people in urban areas is permanent. If this is the case, and if they accept that those people should look after their own interests at local government level, then surely it is a fact that the geographical integration of local authorities in cities and other regions would result in the sharing of such things as infrastructure and resources and that there would be a degree of interdependence. This is not new; it is a need that arose many years ago, among White local authorities as well. Over the years, organisations such as Ormet in the East Rand, were formed to co-ordinate the transport network in the East Rand. Surely that need is going to remain. Must the Black people now be completely excluded? Is the CP’s hidden agenda not perhaps White supremacy?

A further interesting fact is that the hon member for Lichtenburg, who is the Deputy Leader of the CP, said that the RSCs were going to be boycotted, paralysed and destroyed. The hon member declared war on the RSCs. However, we now know that candidates, and in particular members serving in the CP, do not feel at ease about this attitude towards the RSCs. That is why they refuse to endorse, officially or unofficially, the statement made by candidates. Unfortunately, I do not now have time to debate this matter, but I shall do so on a subsequent occasion.

While the hon member for Lichtenburg says that they are going to paralyse these institutions, the CP is saying in its official manifesto for local elections that it will allow members of its town councils to participate in regional services councils, in the same way that the CP is participating in the present tricameral system. [Interjections.] On the one hand, the CP says that it is going to boycott, destroy and force these things to a halt, but in the official manifesto it says that they are going to participate until they come to power. The hon member for Lichtenburg says the CP is going to force the system to a halt before the CP comes to power. Somewhere the CP has been doing some window-dressing. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, now that we have reached the end of this debate, I first want to thank hon members who participated. Free use was made of the opportunity of raising specific points of view, as should be the case in Parliament, and in as far as I have not yet reacted to hon members, I shall try to do so now.

†I want to start by referring to the hon member for Mooi River. We have a great appreciation for the hon member. He is a good South African and a loyal parliamentarian. He must find himself in a terrible position as the executor of the NRP. [Interjections.] There is not much of an estate to deal with but, nonetheless, however small the estate may be, many people are clamouring for the spoils. The Independents all want a cut of the old NRP but I have the impression that this hon member is standing firm and loyal to the principles on which he was elected.

Are you wooing him now?

No, I am not wooing him. I am specifically honouring him because he maintains his own views in this House.

†The hon member referred to the importance of all South Africans, particularly the Afrikaans- and English-speaking South Africans, also recognising the close ties which bind them together. The NP subscribes to that view; we have no problem with that. We count English-speaking voters among our supporters—I think the greatest majority of English-speaking people who voted for one party, voted for the NP. [Interjections.]

He must, however, not tackle members on this side of the House on this issue; he must tackle the CP who shouted “Hear, hear!” when he spoke. It is the CP which divides English-speaking South Africans into categories and says that only one category of English-speaking South Africans will be acceptable to them. That is the category which will be prepared to sort of forgo their own cultural history and basis … [Interjections] … and say “Ek vereenselwig my met die Afrikaner”. [Interjections.]

*I do not altogether understand what place they allot the English-speaking in South Africa who say they are also proud of their distinctive character. They still have to clarify what exactly they mean when they say—as Eugéne Terre’Blanche also says—that only English-speaking people who identify themselves with the Afrikaner are welcome in their state. [Interjections.] They still have to clarify this to us to a greater extent.

Why are you so frightened of Terre’Blanche?

The hon member for Sea Point says we reduce race to an absolute. I think he is making a mistake. Surely our model would have looked quite different if we had absolutised race, unless his definition of race is based solely on colour, between Black and White—if he holds such a simplistic view.

It took us as Whites nearly 70 years, after a war between England and us, and after a time of deep division between specifically the English-speaking people on the one hand and the Afrikaners on the other, to get together, join hands and begin co-operating as an entity. The hon member knows very well that White party political division was based until quite recently in history on this cultural diversity among the Whites as well. He knows very well that we say the Black self-governing states are free to form a federation with one another if they wish it. He knows very well that increasing interaction is taking place between Whites and those of colour; that we are sitting together and taking decisions together increasingly within common structures.

Surely this does not sound like people who are obsessed with race and who want to push others away from them because they are of a different race. We want to develop bonds of co-operation—the hon member for Sundays River gave him a good answer. All participants in this dispensation which we are building, or the vast majority of them, nevertheless demand certain protective measures as minorities before they will be prepared to run the risk of power-sharing.

In this situation Whites form the group who also have to relinquish power in the process. That is a sober fact.

You have been saying that for ages.

Yes, but it must happen in such a way that we do not become the oppressed in our own country. [Interjections.] If one wishes to retain everything, one will lose everything. [Interjections.] Of course! When the power of decision-making is extended to others, that is a broadening of democracy.

I cannot understand why the hon member keeps harping on the same string as if we had painted ourselves into a corner in this case. We are specifically involved in establishing a new dispensation of participation by all, on a basis which will provide all the participating entities with adequate protection so that they will be prepared to accept those risks.

That is individual decisionmaking; not group decision-making.

They reject his model because it is headed for compulsory integration. He speaks about “voluntary association”. Voluntary association must also include the right to dissociation, specifically as regards matters which are of fundamental importance to a person’s identity and his survival. We also bear that pure definition of voluntary association in mind in our system when we say “The right to dissociate too”. [Interjections.] Let me finish, please.

As regards the sensitive matter of residential areas for instance, he knows very well that the opportunity does arise, without disturbing the basic pattern of own residential areas, for those who definitely feel strongly about it to bring the legal possibility of free choice in this regard under the scope of the Act. He knows that, regarding the system of private schools which has always existed in South Africa, we have brought about a better and a more favourable dispensation to make it more viable for those to whom it is important. He knows that the Prohibition of Political Interference Act has been amended to enable him to make every member of every population group a member of his party. [Interjections.] Nevertheless he also knows that he is making no progress with this. He also knows that the natural action is for people to organise themselves. He knows that a “Black caucus” exists in America where there is compulsory integration. He knows that outside South Africa powers and forces of various nationalisms unleash incredible forces because of the simultaneous presence of various peoples. This gave rise to the annihilation of some peoples in Africa. To say that we are obsessed with race because we recognise this truth and the power and force of diversity is a simplistic and simple flight from the fact and realities of South Africa. That is my reply to him.

Mr Speaker, since mention has been made of free association, would the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council associate himself with a written statement by the Ambassador to the United States, Dr Koornhof, in which he spoke about the “legalisation of the ANC”? Would the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council associate himself with that statement?

Sir, I think that it is really entirely irrelevant to the point I was arguing. The National Party’s standpoint on the ANC has been spelt out loudly and clearly. It has been repeated by the hon the State President. The hon member has mounted a horse which will throw him if he keeps on trying to suggest that we are soft on the ANC, on violence and on communism. It is a total untruth and everyone who utters it is guilty of a blatant lie. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Brits firstly referred—I shall return to the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke in a moment—to what he called the deteriorating situation in education. Once again this is one of those generalisations. I should like to furnish the hon member with a few figures, with which I am not trying to suggest that all is going wonderfully, but a few figures which do provide a little perspective. In the CS sector the appropriation rose from 1986-87 to 1988-89 from R2 827 million—I shall omit hundred thousands—to R3 249 million. That was a 14,9% increase over two years. The increase in White education as a whole— universities and technikons included—was 18,4% in total over the two years. If one adds the inflation rate to this, it is nothing dramatic. Simultaneously there was a decrease from 1 134 933 to 1116 819 in the actual number of pupils and college students. There was therefore a decrease in actual numbers; a 1,6% decrease. When one takes population movement into account as well, a pattern emerges which necessitates certain rearrangements in the rationalisation. This education which this hon member belittles to such an extent has 3 747 institutions at its disposal. This will also serve as a reply to the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke. These institutions fall under the Department of Education and Culture. To disparage all this as simply nothing, as dwindling, as the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke did, cannot pass the test of scientific argument.

The hon member referred to the question of the Wellington and Paarl Colleges of Education. That was certainly a painful decision. This hon member now finds himself on the Paarl bandwagon. If we had closed the Paarl College, I can assure hon members he would now be on the Wellington bandwagon. [Interjections.] Yes, then he would not have been singing Pollie, ons gaan Paarl toe, then he would have sung about Wellington sugar. [Interjections.] It is typical of an Opposition party to identify grievances and then try to exploit them to the maximum. I suppose one should not hold this against Opposition parties either.

Yes, so it is a grievance!

Mr Speaker, I want to tell the people of Paarl and the people of the Boland that it was a painful decision which had to be taken. In the process all facets of the matter were thoroughly considered.

What were the actual reasons?

There was thorough consultation. There were many arguments for and against.

Enumerate those arguments!

The arguments were not only of an educational nature. The issue was not the measuring up of surface area. The issue was not one of playing off a better laboratory here against a better hostel there. The issue was not which one was situated nearer to a telephone booth or the railway station, as we have seen from people’s correspondence. There were other arguments of importance too. There were demographic arguments; there was the argument of the policy opposed to the depopulation of rural areas. There was the question of where other essential objectives could best be reutilised.

Ultimately a decision is reached in such a situation. One of the two colleges had to be closed. This is a decision which is painful to one but perhaps delights another. Nevertheless it is a decision which does not bring pleasure to anyone. I want to give the assurance today that this matter was not treated casually or high-handedly. There was really in-depth reflection and ultimately it was definitely one of the most difficult decisions the Government probably ever had to take in this regard.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council?

Mr Speaker, this hon member has made his choice. How long ago was this college closed? The decision was announced four months ago. Nevertheless the hon member for Brits has allowed every debate so far to pass; every debate in which he could have obtained detailed replies to his question from the hon the Minister involved.

That is not true!

It was not really an in-depth theme of his speeches.

That is not true! [Interjections.]

Now he comes up with it here. Now that no turn to speak remains for him, he raises the matter here. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council?

No, Sir, I am not replying to any questions now. [Interjections.] The Third Reading still lies ahead. There are also quite a number of Tuesdays of this session left on which he may put specific questions. He may ask whatever he likes—how many square metres this or that thing comprises, how many hammers or chisels there are; whatever he likes. Let him come with his questions. He will receive thorough and fair replies from the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. [Interjections.]

I come now to the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke. Do not begrudge anyone his small pleasures. I hope he will also address us later more comprehensively on other subjects. He devoted a large part of his speech to successes the CP had achieved in the recent by-elections and specifically at Schweizer-Reneke. We do not begrudge him that pleasure. I merely want to ask him when he wants to enlarge on his analysis on a future occasion to give us an estimate—after all, he is an expert in communication—of how many people voted for the CP on the basis of that part of the propaganda which he is prepared to sponsor and how many voted for the CP on the basis of that part of the propaganda of which he was ashamed and from which he distanced himself. [Interjections.] We should like to hear his analysis in this regard.

We took note with great interest that this hon member had been ashamed of certain portions of the CP propaganda during the election campaign. I credit him with having shown the honesty of not fully associating himself with all that propaganda. The level of parts of that propaganda was of such a nature that I would definitely not have been able to associate myself with it either. [Interjections.]

The hon member expressed his concern about the concept of own affairs as one holding very few powers. I could present him with a long series of facts to indicate to him the fundamental effect the Ministers’ Council and its powers has on the mass of our people, our community. I do perhaps wish to make use of this opportunity to mention a few facts or figures to him.

The Administration: House of Assembly’s Budget is among the four or five largest items in the total national budget. I shall mention certain amounts for purposes of comparison, especially as regards the single items which are larger. The Department of Finance receives approximately R8 800 million, including statutory amounts; the Defence Force almost R8 200 million; the Department of Development Planning, which deals with the interests of four or five times more people, R7 700 million; the Administration: House of Assembly, R5 800 million; the Administration: House of Representatives, R2 300 million, and the Administration: House of Delegates, approximately R830 million.

I want to present a few more facts. An average— this fluctuates a little—of 215 000 Whites receive their pensions or allowances, including social, disability and old age pensions, from this administration. Over the past three years we have paid R1 514 million in respect of those allowances to our own needy people. We subsidise White homes for the aged at a rate of R121 million at present. This represents an increase of 87% over the past four years; four years ago it was only R65 million. The total monthly expenditure in respect of beneficiaries who receive pensions is almost R48 million, but those hon members belittle this. [Interjections.]

As regards health services, I could furnish hon members with figures on how many clinics—this includes mental health, dental, preventive, nutritional—are involved and how many private hospitals fall under the control of this department in respect of registration and inspection.

I do not need to enlarge on the agricultural sphere. Hon members know what is dealt with by the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply and how many comprehensive relief schemes there are.

I have already mentioned statistics relating to education. There is a great deal of gossip about housing too. During the short while this Ministers’ Council and this administration have been in existence we have already spent more than R104 million on family housing and R223,845 million on welfare housing in the same four-year period. The number of persons affected by this totals 9 171 for welfare housing alone. As regards family housing and welfare housing, 8 000 units have been provided for family housing and welfare housing. There is a rental subsidy for young beginners covering the first five years on a new loan, and in the short period since the introduction of that scheme we have furnished young people in our community with assistance amounting to R33 million.

That hon member must stop disparaging these matters as being of less importance to our people. [Interjections.]

But people do not perceive it like that.

Yes, but that is why I am giving the facts because that hon member is not helping them to perceive it. [Interjections.] The CP is trying to close their ears when they have to listen to these facts. I want to read these facts in the Patriot, but expressed in an unbiased, objective way, and then I shall believe that those hon members are serious about co-operation. [Interjections.]

To conclude what I want to say about that hon member: He is very proud that they have become the Official Opposition now. It is we who broke the Progs, however, and not they. [Interjections.] They actually tried the help the Progs. They put up candidates in seats where they did not have a snowball’s hope. [Interjections.] They tried to play a spoiling role there and they were prepared to create a situation which favoured the Progs by splitting the more conservative vote. [Interjections.] That was the role they played in this connection, so they should not claim credit for it.

It is impossible, if I may be permitted a serious word in conclusion, to debate about the concept of own affairs without starting with the central issue in the problems of the Republic of South Africa. If one argues with the CP in such a debate, the central issue is entirely different from when one debates with the PFP, the NDM, the IP or other liberal splinter groups. The PFP’s basic fallacy, and that of all the other groups surrounding it, is that the multinationalism and the diversity of South Africa’s population groups are in fact of minor importance and that they may be disposed of with a trifling gesture here and there. They ignore one great reality, however, which is that the NP is not the creator of the group idea. It merely expresses what so many people in South Africa feel. It expresses reality as it has come to us historically.

The second reality that they overlook and the reason why they commit a basic error of reasoning is that, just as the Zulus and the Northern Sothos and all the other Black peoples are not prepared to accept White domination, they are not prepared to accept domination by another Black people either. Just as urban Blacks, Coloureds and Indians are not prepared to accept White domination, the Whites of South Africa are not prepared to accept a dispensation in which they run a very real risk of being dominated.

No dispensation can succeed in South Africa if it does not provide for group security and group aspirations in a meaningful and practicable way. In the case of the Whites specifically, whom we are discussing here today, this statement is an incontrovertible truth. In 1987 82% of the White electorate voted for parties whose basic policy was founded on White group rights, alongside the rights of others. The PFP drew only 14,1%, the NRP and Independents 3,2% jointly and 0,7% represented spoilt ballot papers. The message emerging from this voting pattern is loud and clear. Power-sharing in a new constitutional dispensation must go hand in hand with effective group protection. This is a prerequisite to the White electorate. One cannot change this. The NP sets it as a prerequisite too. We say that we stand unashamedly for White interests in a way which is fair to all; never for White interests at the expense of others, but we stand for the interests of our people whom we represent here.

Of course, we know—and it is only right that the NP recognises this—that this coin has an obverse side and that similarly every new dispensation must provide for the effective fulfilment of the fair aspirations of other groups. It must not offer them a second-class, inferior dispensation. We accept this logical conclusion. We invite all who wish to work seriously with us on this matter to co-operate positively and constructively in finding a way. It is within this context that the concept of own affairs and the division of power must be seen as a logical consequence of the realities of South Africa and not as a method to ensure White domination in a dishonest way or to allow it to continue.

When we come to the CP, its members are guilty of another basic error of reasoning. They build their approach on the point of departure that an absolute division of power is possible and that power-sharing can be avoided. The hon member Dr Geldenhuys amongst others pointed this out effectively. The CP say own affairs must be replaced by full sovereignty for every component of South Africa’s population. Earlier this afternoon we debated the point of how fast they had changed their opinion on this. According to their own acknowledgement of 1987—not of 1981— this cannot be the solution for all.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said in reply to my letter which I think appeared in Rapport of 15 November:

Once one has admitted that one will live together permanently in the same country, surely some form or other of constitutional accommodation is inevitable. The way which the NP indicates is firstly that of own structures for every group. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also agreed with this in that same letter in which he, after he had insulted us, said we had to retain the White control over what was their own land by rights, as the CP advocated, and link non-Whites’ political participation to their own structures.

The question is where those own structures will be. Surely they will be in the very place where they are. This has already been conceded to us by hon members. In addition, the “place where they are” will also be among us; next to every town where we live. The CP is wrong in shrinking from the inevitable consequence that there will be existing own structures next to each other, within the same geographical area, in the same district or region, on each other’s doorstep, within one interdependent economic and labour dispensation. The inevitable consequence of that is that co-operation in certain matters must come from and between those respective structures.

This is what the NP regards as the issue when it talks about power-sharing without domination. The great truth which the CP ignores is that the absolute division of power is impossible in a country like ours. It is also within this context that own affairs should be judged. Under own affairs there is a demarcation of spheres in which every group has the sole say but also a recognition of the existence of common interests. Very simply summarised, this means that we cannot have the own affairs which the CP desires, and we cannot manage without own affairs either, as the PFP desires. Our circumstances demand the division of power and power-sharing in a way which ensures group security, satisfies group aspirations and prevents domination.

The concept of own affairs, as it is formulated in the Constitution, is still in its infancy; a great deal of shaping remains to be done. New functions will be added and this is already happening in essence. The new key role which own affairs has to play as regards the approach to residential areas is already beginning to crystallise in statements which have been made. This evening I want to say that we should be obsessed with the specific model as it appears in the Constitution. Just as the Constitution is not the final model yet, in the same way this model of own affairs has not been finally formulated yet. Self-governing states, which we have had for a long time already, are a form of own affairs to which one may link it successfully, by geographic links as well. The hon the State President’s announcement on the development of urban Blacks lends prominence to a further dimension of self-determination over own affairs within own structures, something which will certainly come in for a great deal of discussion in the near future and in the national council which is soon to be established.

What I want to say is that the key concept is the division of power as a foundation on which one establishes security, builds self-determination, provides safety and assures people that they can retain their identity. With so much security built into the scheme, one can then incorporate joint decision-making within joint structures and the concept of own affairs can make a contribution— not the only contribution—to ensure that one group does not dominate another. In that sense of the word the concept of own affairs is a fundamental pillar on which a new constitutional model will be built according to the views of this side. [Interjections.] It is a pillar which we shall not make absolute—we say that the one cannot manage without the other—because we cannot have absolute compartmentalisation in this country but at the same time we dare not ignore in this country the power and the force of the built-in diversity which exists here.

We shall proceed with confidence on those two foundations—which do not comprise dualistic thinking but thinking based specifically on the full reality and which tries specifically to deal with the whole truth instead of merely coming to terms with that half which suits a person—and the Whites of this country may also rest assured that their interests will be safeguarded and that they, together with the NP, will not lose the freedom they have gained in this country. The other people can also know that we are genuine and honest and that the dispensation which we want to build will really have to be just, really permit them to come into their own and really make domination an outmoded concept in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Debate concluded.

Order! I have to announce that a vacancy has occurred in the representation in the House of Representatives of the electoral division of Karee owing to the death of Mrs C S M Sweetland on 11 May 1988.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, I move without notice:

Order! I have already sent the family a telegram on behalf of the House.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the UDP I want to associate myself with the tribute paid to Aunt Cathy Sweetland.

When we think of Aunt Cathy, we think of a deeply religious person, a loving person, who began to play the organ in the church as early as 1947 to help her father, Rev Erasmus. She played that organ for 17 years. We also think of her as the person who started the library at Willowmore and for many years worked without receiving any remuneration to render a service to her people. We shall miss Aunt Cathy a great deal. She was a kind person; one never left her home empty handed, even if one left with only an apple.

Question agreed to unanimously.

Mr Chairman, it was with great concern that the UDP took cognisance of the problems concerning the first 130 dwellings at Blue Downs. This is particularly alarming if one considers the excessive prices for plots which certainly were not envisaged at the time of the original proposals. Consequently the UDP is appealing to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture firstly to liaise with the residents of Blue Downs and to institute an urgent enquiry to investigate their problems and grievances; secondly, to request the SABS to institute an enquiry into and to report on the quality of building methods and building materials which are being used in the area; and thirdly, to stop all activities in Blue Downs, pending the results of the above-mentioned enquiries. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon member wants to say something in connection with the statement, he may do so when it appears on the Order Paper.

Order! Before I give the hon the hon the Minister the floor, I want to welcome him and the hon the Deputy Minister to the House and wish them everything of the best in the important negotiations they are engaged in and in which they put South Africa first.

Mr Chairman, right at the outset I want to associate myself with what you have said and on behalf of my party I want to congratulate the hon the Minister and his colleagues upon their recent visit to Brazzaville and on what they were able to do there. Furthermore, I want to wish them everything of the best for the future.

I very seldom say thank you, but the time has come for me to acknowledge officially that the Defence Force played an important part during the recent flood disaster. We went on a tour a short while ago and we could see what assistance the Defence Force had rendered in the flood-stricken areas. On behalf of my party I want to express my gratitude for the assistance which Col Jooste, Comdt Durant and the 8 SAI Command of Upington rendered to the hon member for Macassar when he visited the flood-stricken area. We appreciate it. The visit took place at short notice and we cannot say enough about the assistance which was rendered to us.

It has been mooted that the SACC is going to be transferred from Faure. We on this side of the House want to express our strongest opposition to that. My party wants the SACC to be expanded so that the maximum …

Go to the West Coast!

No, that hon member wants voters. He has enough voters. My party wants the SACC to remain where it is, namely in the hon member for Macassar’s constituency, where it must be expanded. At the same time we also want to request that the camp in Queenstown be retained and be expanded. In places like Kimberley we have seen what miracles the Defence Force performs with young boys who cannot be accommodated locally because they do not have Std 8 certificates, but have been educated only up to Std 4 level. Those boys are not there because of a lack of intelligence …

You sent them there.

We shall send that hon member to the Kalahari. We appreciate what is being done there, because the children would not have had any chance in life otherwise and would have become layabouts. I should like to know whether the Defence Force envisages establishing such centres throughout the country so that the young men who cannot be admitted to the SACC camp at Faure can still have a chance to make their contribution.

I also want to touch on another matter. We must regain honesty in the House. We must cease to blow hot and cold. I should like to request that the hon the Minister, in his reply, and the hon member for Mamre discuss this matter. Recommendation 13 on page 108 of the President’s Council Report of the Committee for Social Affairs on the Youth of South Africa reads as follows:

Now comes the important point:

What I want to know is whether hon members are for or against national service. [Interjections.]

That is a question which hon members will have to reply to today, because we cannot continue in this way. We visit these places and we are not afraid of going to the border and visiting other places. However, when it comes to this issue of national service, we evade the question because it is a real hot potato.

It is not!

It is a hot potato, for that hon member as well. I want this hot potato to be discussed today. The hon members who were going to speak after me must tell me whether they are for or against national service, because suddenly a condition is attached to this compulsory national service. The condition is that we must first receive equal rights. We are no longer dreaming, however. We are dealing with reality in South Africa. [Interjections.] We know that equal rights will have to come.

When?

If that hon member would only be patient, we would tell him. Equal rights will have to be introduced.

†Why then do we not take the opportunity to spell out that we are prepared to accept compulsory conscription? Why do we have to hide behind a presidential report and, once the document has been signed, argue that we will accept compulsory military duty only if and when apartheid has been dismantled in this country? Why do we do that knowing full well that apartheid will not be dismantled overnight?

*I therefore want hon members to tell me today where they stand as far as this is concerned.

Where do you stand?

I stand right here where I am. Can hon members not see where I am standing? [Interjections.]

Order!

[Inaudible.]

Order! If the hon member for Retreat wants a turn to speak, the best thing to do is to request a turn to speak. [Interjections.] The hon member for Fish River must please help me by keeping quiet. If the hon member for Retreat wants a turn to speak, he merely has to request it, and then he can refute the facts which the hon member for Border mentioned when he has a turn to speak. Hon members need not shout and interrupt one another in this manner. The hon member for Border may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I expected this kind of reaction, because this matter is a hot potato, and it is when one is trying to avoid a hot potato that one makes such a fuss. [Interjections.]

I quote from page 11 of the report:

This is in comparison with the voluntary service rendered by our communities, namely by 2 402 of our people and 215 Indians during 1986. Hundreds of our young men are turned away from these camps annually because insufficient provision has been made for the recruitment of our youth. What we have to contend with here is the way in which the cake is being divided. A White boy is obliged to do two years’ military service. When he has finished, he can go to university on the money he has earned there, while our children are told that they may not do military service. If this is our country and if we are to have a share in it, our children must also realise that they must do military service. What does the hon member for Mamre have to say? [Interjections.]

After all, a man is someone who is able to defend himself, his home and his country. At the moment I cannot defend my home, much less my country. I can only defend myself; by definition, therefore, we are also losing out.

†It is all very well for hon members here to want to pass the buck. However, compulsory military training is a topic that must be debated. It is also something we have to accept. If we want to be citizens of this country, we will have to do compulsory military service, whether we like it or not. [Interjections.] The promise made by the hon members there was that we would come into this Chamber to break down apartheid. This is the way in which we can break down apartheid. Instead of having two years of compulsory military training for Whites only, why do we not have one year of compulsory military training for everybody in the country? By having White youngsters doing two years of compulsory military training, we are discriminating. After all, hon members came into this Chamber to break down all forms of discrimination. In the LP’s manifesto—I have several copies in my possession—it is stated clearly that they will tackle all forms of discrimination.

*This is a form of discrimination, because why should only the White boys do two years’ military service when our children go on a voluntary basis?

What are you doing?

I shall send that hon member to Bridgetown, because I think that is where he belongs. [Interjections.]

Order!

[Inaudible.]

Order!

The voters were told that all forms of discrimination were going to be abolished. However, here we still have a case of blatant discrimination because White South African citizens are obliged to do two years’ military service whereas our Coloured children have to join voluntarily. That is nothing but discrimination, yet the LP promised that it would abolish all forms of discrimination. The hon member on the opposite side of the House is shaking his head, but he knows it is the truth. I should like to know what other hon LP members have to say in this regard. [Interjections.] If one treads on someone’s toes in this House, hon members usually make a tremendous fuss and now they are making out that I am the one at fault. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member for Border whether he is advocating national service for Coloureds?

Sir, on page 109 of the book I have here, the LP itself requested that compulsory national service be introduced for our people. That was done behind closed doors, however, and I should like them to say it in public today.

Order! I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon member, but his time has expired.

Sir, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to utilize the remaining part of his allotted time.

Today we on this side of the House pointed out that discrimination still exists in our country. The hon member Mr Douw asked whether I was an advocate of military service. That is not what I say; that is what the LP said in this report. [Interjections.] I am a South African and what applies to one South African ought to apply to all South Africans. That is my standpoint. [Interjections.]

Sir, is the hon member prepared to ask the hon the Minister of Defence to amend the Defence Act in order to comply with his request?

Sir, all discriminatory legislation must be amended, including the legislation to which the hon member referred. I am a great advocate of that. I shall ask the hon the Minister to abolish the legislation in question as well as all other discriminatory legislation, because in so doing we shall be able to see where the LP members really stand. Does Uncle Dougie support me? [Interjections.] Hon members of the LP say things behind closed doors, but when these things are brought to light they are as silent as the grave. I want hon members on the opposite side of the House to tell us exactly where they stand. Will they say in public what they propagate behind closed doors, or are they going to evade the question? The hon member for Mamre is due to speak next and he can inform hon members of this House on the LP’s standpoint in this regard. The hon member must not conjure up spectres, however, because it would appear that that has become par for the course. Hon members must not say they will do one thing on condition that something else is done. They must not join things which do not belong together. They must tell us today exactly where they stand vis-à-vis compulsory military service.

Mr Chairman, it is a great honour for me to introduce the debate on defence. Over the past few years we have maintained a high standard in the debate, and I want to express the hope that we shall continue to do so.

The Official Opposition in this House has the temerity to make certain statements here, yet they do not have the courage to make political statements from public platforms. I want to challenge the hon member for Border to present the case he put forward here in the next election campaign. Then we can settle the issue. I find it strange that what the hon member says here differs completely from what he said during the election campaign.

[Inaudible.]

No, Sir, in the election campaign the hon members said “die boere se dinges”, etc, and spoke about the children who were shot and killed. We do not want to mess around with people’s right either to do or not to do military service. The hon member is free to challenge us, because in the past we have said that we have no problems about supporting those who want to join the Defence Force voluntarily. We support them, because it is our duty to do so. Hon members know, however, that discrimination is always involved in our discussion of politics in South Africa.

The LP says that until such time as all discrimination has been removed … [Interjections.] You can talk about the Defence Force; I do not want to drag politics into the discussion of the Defence Force now …

Order! An hon member must be referred to as an “hon member”.

The hon member … [Interjections.] I do not want to make a political issue of the Defence Force. I do not want to make a political issue of the people of the Defence Force. I want to give them my support, and if he wants to take me up on that matter, he can do so in the next election when he and I are on the same political platform. [Interjections.]

Address the issue here! Address the issue here! Come on, I challenge you! [Interjections.]

We know that you support compulsory military service, so keep quiet!

I should like to convey my party’s congratulations to the Chief of the SA Defence Force, Genl Geldenhuys, and his officers and men for the competent way in which they have performed their task during the past year. We realise that the military leaders are confronted with decisions directly affecting people’s lives almost daily. We know that those decisions also affect the lives of our boys in the Defence Force. We wish the Defence Force every success with the task that lies ahead. The LP says “forward”, because we do not look over our shoulders as those hon members do. We prefer to talk about moving forward. [Interjections.]

Forward, but where to?

Sir, let me quote from Time magazine of 9 May 1988:

It did my heart good to pick up this magazine and read this article, and I am proud of Armscor. The hon the Minister likes to refer to Armscor as a member of the Defence family, and I want to say that with Armscor at the helm of South Africa’s Defence Force and its development, we cannot lose. It is like Western Province—with Carel at the helm, Western Province cannot lose, and I say Western Province is always a winner. For that reason Armscor is always a winner too.

Since we discussed this Vote last year, there have been several promotions. I want to congratulate the new Surgeon-General. I also want to thank Genl Earp for the service he has rendered. I want to wish him the best of luck on his retirement. I want to congratulate his successor, Genl Von Loggerenberg; we have known each other a long time, and I also want to wish him everything of the best.

I also want to congratulate Genl Witkop Baden-horst, Chief of Staff Operations.

It is true that as soldiers many of our boys have had to pay the ultimate price for this fatherland of ours over the past few years, particularly this year. It is never pleasant to have to take note of this, but we know that their lives were sacrificed for our fatherland. We want to give their next of kin the assurance that we join them in mourning their loss. The memory of those killed in action will remain with us for a long time.

The hon the Minister and his Deputy Minister are old friends of this House, and I should like to welcome them here. The Defence debate is one of the most important debates, and it has always been a highlight in this House. We want to express our appreciation to the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister, the Ministry and the staff for the responsible manner in which they have supplied information to our members in the standing committee.

The discussions between the South African and Angolan delegations in Brazzaville during the past weekend have dominated the news, and I am glad the hon member for Border has also expressed his congratulations. I should like to compliment the hon the Minister on this tangible step in bringing peace and stability to Southern Africa.

In March of this year the hon the Minister suggested to the Russian leader that he make his conditions for a Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan applicable to Angola too. This statement undoubtedly resulted in a greater willingness to hold discussions in Southern Africa. To my way of thinking this has opened the door to negotiation.

One must not lose sight of the fantastic military successes that the SADF and Unita have had against Fapla, Cuban and Russian forces either. In the military field successful action is also being taken against Swapo. In the South African context it does not help to have a sound foreign policy if one does not have a strong defence force. Sir, it is not owing to our foreign policy that doors are opening up for us today; it is because people are afraid of South Africa’s Defence Force. These factors have made the discussions possible. If the hon member for Border woke up as early as I did in the morning, he would have heard on the radio that even Swapo is now welcoming the opportunity to hold discussions.

I knew that yesterday!

The fact that there are peace negotiations in this region now is the direct result of the Defence Force’s sustained efforts to check Marxist expansion in South Africa. Statements by the hon the Minister attest to a search for peace and stability on our subcontinent. We support the hon the Minister in his statement that revolutions in our neighbouring states are unacceptable. We support his statement that we have no expansionist objectives. The hon the Minister can be assured of our support as far as these opportunities for discussion are concerned. We know that he is always available when we want to discuss matters with him, and I should like to thank him for that.

The first subject I want to touch upon relates to the South African Coloured Corps. We support the Defence Force. I do not need the SACC in my constituency in order to get votes, but I am afraid that if the SACC were to leave the constituency of some other hon member in this House, he would not be re-elected. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must pardon me if I seem to be hypercritical of this. We on this side of the House have always identified ourselves with the SACC …

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

We are witness to the troubles there. Their interests are also our interests. They are our voters. For that reason I want to ask the hon the Minister to view the facilities there more objectively. We on this side—I think the whole House will agree with me; after all, that is the fortunate position in which our party finds itself in this House—feel that the facilities are not what they should be. Our plea to the hon the Minister is that he address this issue.

The main portion of my speech today deals with security. I am going to attempt, in a responsible way, to highlight a few relevant aspects. Whether we want to believe this or not, the fact is that we are living in a world of conflict. On 2 April of this year an interesting article about this appeared in the Weekend Argus. The allegation was made that at present 25 major wars are being fought in the world—almost all of them in Third World countries. In this conflict situation approximately three million people have already died, four fifths of whom were civilians. The article alleges that three quarters of these fatalities have taken place in Asia and Africa. It is illuminating that the author singles out Russia and America as those powers which are providing assistance to the participants in the majority of these wars.

The conflict is spurred on by their participation. Civil wars rage in countries such as Angola and Ethiopia, Mozambique, the Sudan and Western Sahara. The conflict there has a destructive and paralysing effect on the standard of living of the people on this continent of which we are a part. There are people who are trying to fan the flames of conflict in South Africa and Namibia. We know, however, that conflict is destructive and not constructive, that it drives people apart and not closer to one another. Surely that is not what we want. What we want is progress and advancement. Our efforts are aimed at development—we want to be constructive and not destructive. For this we need stability and peace.

It is for this reason that security is so important to all of us. Security builds bridges between people. Bridges bring us closer together so that we can build and make progress.

It is not clear to me whether we all realise to what extent we should regard our security as our top priority. In my judgement security is the ideal bridgehead through which we can move towards that Southern Africa we are all striving to achieve. As the hon the Minister himself said, we are striving to achieve a post-apartheid South Africa in which harmony will prevail and there will be respect for the authorities.

It is on record that we on this side of the House reject radicalism. Nor do we believe in revolutionary methods and aims for bringing about change. We know that many of these onslaughts are directed at our security. They are being made by other countries which would not be prepared to have such onslaughts made on them.

We on this side of the House stand for democracy, and consequently for the extension of democracy. Our ideal is that individual rights should be recognised and extended. That is why we are sitting in this House participating in this debate today. I hope hon members of the Official Opposition are listening.

Based on this principle, I should like to illustrate my plea for greater responsibility in regard to security as a bridgehead. I regard security as a priority, a prerequisite for stability. It would create the climate in which communities could develop and could understand and tolerate one another. It would result in progress and a situation in which democracy could develop further. These concepts are not foreign to us, because we know what influence security has on our own community life. To a greater or lesser extent we ourselves have found that security should enjoy top priority, because there is no opportunity for democracy to develop in a radicalised and politicised society. Such a society can be terrorised and even pulverised.

One could draw security through our community life like a golden thread. It is important in all facets of our community life. I am thinking of our schools, churches and local authorities. I could mention many more aspects of our community life in which security plays an important part, particularly as far as our families are concerned.

Security has a direct bearing on the daily lives of every one of us and on those of our voters. For this reason we are also expected to support our security forces. This weekend I read something that Genl Geldenhuys had written about the power struggle in South Africa and about the road ahead:

The nation as a whole.

The hon member can understand English and must please keep his mouth shut.

We support that. We must support and motivate our forces, because they deserve to be complimented and commended. We are aware of the revolutionary onslaught. It is a known fact that those who set off bombs in the midst of innocent people do not believe in broadening the democratic base. In fact, they want to restrict it. The bomb which exploded near Parliament the other day is striking proof of this. That bomb was also meant for us—we who have the courage to work for our people; we who have the courage and daring to stand up for the new, post-apartheid South Africa.

The successes achieved by our security forces against South Africa’s enemies have not been achieved by accident. Our people make a detailed study of the activities of these proponents of violence. The successes achieved by our security forces against these people have them scurrying for cover. Our forces are disciplined and purposeful and do, in fact, have a recipe for the course which the new South Africa must adopt. That is why I am saying that security is the bridge to the new South Africa.

The Defence Force and all other security forces need our assistance. We can grant this assistance by adopting a responsible and balanced view of security. Security is a broad concept, but it is an important concept which we must implement in the interests of our own people and our country.

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise once again merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to utilise the time allotted to him.

Thank you, Sir. I want to continue by saying that security is a priority for the new South Africa, the post-apartheid South Africa. Security unites all of us in this House and should motivate us all to support it. We are not aware of the onslaught in our daily activities, apparently because we find ourselves in a convenient and protected situation in which others must concern themselves about our security, it being their duty to do so and to make the sacrifices. I want to tell the Defence Force, the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister that we support them in the task they have of ensuring our security.

Mr Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate this afternoon. My contribution involves a dramatic subject, that of the development of Armscor and its various aspects.

In Beeld of 9 March 1988 there is the following item in banner headlines:

I shall say something more about that, Sir.

I also want to mention that Die Burger of 10 May 1988 spoke about the results of this Chilean exhibition. It stated:

Before I go any further, Mr Chairman, I should like to quote the following:

These are not South Africans who are saying this, Mr Chairman. I merely want to mention these few ideas which came to light in Die Burger of 12 May 1988. This report had its origin in London:

May I continue, Sir, by speaking about Armscor which has been clenching its fist for the past eight years now. From 1982 in Greece up to 13 to 20 March 1988 in Fida in Southern Chile Armscor has been clenching its iron fist. South Africa’s ability to provide for its own armament needs was first illustrated at the Greek international arms exhibition in 1982. Over the past two to four years, in 1984, again in 1986 and once again in 1988, we have seen the impressive exhibition of armaments at the Fida international airshow in Santiago in Chile. South Africa was one of the major exhibitors. Armscor, its subsidiary companies and several private contractors exhibited approximately 150 examples of South African armaments at that exhibition.

In 1982 Armscor set the whole world talking for the first time in Greece. Then there was its participation in the Fida air show in 1984, 1986 and 1988. According to Jane’s Defence Weekly, South Africa’s firing control system is a great success. Although the Chilean exhibition is actually an air show, as on previous occasions Armscor exhibited other armaments such as those for use in the artillery and armoured divisions. An article by Dawie Boshoff and others in the Suid-Afrikaanse Oorsig contains the following:

The remote-controlled reconnaissance aircraft, the Seeker, was also exhibited in Chile. It is equipped with video cameras which can relay images of the target to the control centre. The unmanned remote-controlled Seeker aircraft can remain in the air for up to nine hours and can identify targets with the aid of a built-in video camera. It can remain in service for long periods in difficult combat situations in enemy territory.

The Hedgehog was specially designed to transport five people into areas where terrorism is rampant. It is an armour-plated vehicle which is proof against anti-tank landmines and small-arms fire. It can be used by farmers in border areas, by local authorities, industries and security undertakings in high-risk security areas.

Order! I am sorry to have to interrupt, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to utilise the time allocated to him.

I thank the hon member for Swartland.

With the exhibition in Chile South Africa’s armaments industry indicated, that it has the ability to develop and manufacture high-tech weapons systems comparable with the best in the world. The exhibition emphasised South Africa’s ability to provide for its own armament needs and to remain at the forefront of technological development.

At Armscor’s first international armament exhibition in Greece, as far back as 1982, the world was first introduced to South Africa’s expertise in the development and manufacture of high-tech armaments.

Armscor’s new Alpha XH 1 Tandem combat helicopter and the CB 470 System cluster bomb are perhaps its greatest achievements. Armscor, however, must provide for the whole spectrum of South Africa’s security force needs, on land, at sea and in the air. Everything, from highly sophisticated combat aircraft to communications equipment, including support equipment such as parcels of rations and parachutes, is manufactured locally. Approximately three weeks ago we visited the parachute school in Bloemfontein, and there the commanding officer informed us that all his apparatus was manufactured locally and that overseas visitors were impressed by the quality of that apparatus. Armscor is continually engaged in the development of new equipment and armaments systems and in upgrading existing systems.

An example of the upgrading of existing equipment by Armscor can be found in the Mirage III combat aircraft. This has been used by the Air Force since as far back as the sixties, but now 50% of the existing aircraft have been rebuilt and equipped with the latest navigation and weapons systems. So far-reaching was the conversion that the plane was renamed the Cheetah.

Smaller, more manoeuvrable craft with impressive destructive power were built for the South African Navy. The first major supply ship launched in Durban is known as the SAS Drakensberg. According to the White Paper on Defence and Armaments Supply of 1986, logistics means the following:

According to an article in Time magazine of 9 May, Armscor received export orders for armament to the value of R10,035 billion. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in this debate today I want to focus my attention exclusively on the role of the South African Coloured Corps, our own unit, which I have been keeping my eye on since 1973. I saw that unit start up and I watched the progress that it made.

There is an old adage: “Every dark cloud has a silver lining.” At the moment things do not look very good for this country, but we want to give the hon the Minister the assurance that, as in the past, Coloured men and women will be there when they are called upon. We want to give the hon the Minister that assurance. [Interjections.]

This unit in the SA Defence Force can definitely be regarded as one of the best in the world. Unfortunately the hon member for Border is not present at the moment, but I want to tell him that he knows he is too old to do military service. He must remember the saying: “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.” I also want to say that my party has placed on record the reasons why it does not, at this stage, see its way clear to accepting military service. The resolution was adopted at our congress, and we shall stand or fall by that resolution until such time as the congress decides otherwise.

In 1973, when apartheid was at its worst, this very sought-after and important unit came into being. The unit is comprised of the cream of the Coloured population. It became so popular amongst our young people, and its membership is increasing so rapidly, that since the beginning of 1978 it has not been necessary to seek new recruits. A great deal has been said here today about discrimination, and I feel that what has to be said, must be said. I therefore want to compliment the hon the Minister and his general staff on their contribution towards making the wonderful SACC unit what it is today. We cannot but thank the hon the Minister very sincerely. He did this for our people.

Hon members must remember that this unit was established in 1973 with 173 members, at a time when apartheid laws were very strongly in evidence. I followed that unit’s establishment with great interest. I can remember that the men wore grey uniforms and were not entitled to look like ordinary soldiers. I can also remember that my wife and I and other guests were invited to a function at which the Whites sat on one side, and we were asked to take our refreshments on the other side of the room. At that stage I was a member of the CRC. Thanks to the hon the Minister many things have changed in the interim.

That is reform.

Sir, there were 173 men when the unit was established, but for security reasons I do not want to say how many men there are today. Many of our young people have made careers in the SACC. I do not know, however, whether hon members are aware that annually there is a steady stream of hundreds of young men to Eerste River, who go there at their own expense, in the hope of being accepted and being allowed to join the Defence Force. Over New Year a friend of mine from Port Elizabeth and I had the opportunity of paying a visit to the SACC unit at Eerste River. That was at a time when new intakes were being considered. I was amazed at the hundreds of young men waiting there. If military service were compulsory, I do not know what the Defence Force would do with all the young men in any event. There are so many who hope to join that wonderful and sought-after unit.

Mr Chairman, there are also hundreds who have to turn round and leave because there is no room for them and therefore they cannot be accepted.

What is the solution?

The days when Std 6 candidates were accepted is a thing of the past, because today only the best young men are recruited to join the unit. I want to appeal to the matriculants and graduates in our community to join the prestige unit so that they, in particular, can fill the professional posts—for example as doctors, lawyers, etc.

You are doing the spadework for Tutu too. [Interjections.]

Yes, Sir, the SACC has provided a great many job opportunities for our community. We want to thank the hon the Minister of Defence for the opportunities created.

I know my people, and I want to give the hon the Minister my assurance that if they are properly treated, the hon the Minister need never concern himself about these young people from our community ever disappointing him. That is an assurance I want to give him today. [Interjections.]

For all my brothers and sisters it is “we for you, South Africa”. That is why we are disappointed, at times, when people still doubt our word. Our people are aware that the Coloured community will not go unscathed in the onslaught against us, from whatever quarter. After all, it is also an onslaught on the freedom of our people. As I have said, for us it is a matter of necessity and of honour. That is why we would be prepared to shed our blood to protect and preserve that bit of freedom that we have.

In the SA Defence Force the Coloured soldiers are an important part of the forces available for the defence of the Republic of South Africa. They have proved themselves over and over again. I want to mention that today the following units provide companies and support personnel to South West Africa on a permanent basis: SACC Training Unit, SACC Battalion and the Cape Regiment. As hon members can see, of all the ethnic groups in South Africa, the Coloured soldiers have distinguished themselves. Gone are the days, therefore, when people looked down upon the young men who said they were going to join the SACC.

As far as I can remember, a Coloured soldier has never been charged with high treason. Not that I know of. What I want to tell the hon the Minister is that in the past Coloured soldiers have played their part and that in the future they will give nothing but their best for their country, South Africa.

Voluntarily or what?

We are very proud of our Coloured soldiers.

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to utilise the time allocated to him.

Last year I made a request to the hon the Minister, and this year I want to do so once again. With tears in my eyes, and from my heart of hearts, I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he does not see his way clear to allowing more of our women to join the Defence Force— even in the medical unit—because then they could be trained as nurses. They could also be trained as clerks in the Defence Force. I am certain, as in the case of White women, that Coloured women want to play their part in the defence of a new South Africa. Yes, they really want to be involved in the defence of the country, because the threat is also a threat to them.

Money will have to be found so that our young Coloured women can also be trained. If the Women’s Army College at George cannot be opened up to admit our people, the hon the Minister must find somewhere else for them. The time has come to give attention to our Coloured girls. Our Coloured women have proved themselves time and time again, and as examples of this I can mention the SA Police and the SA Prisons Service. Our people must also be given a chance to show their mettle.

Mr Chairman, I am very glad to be able to participate in the very relevant and very important discussion of the Defence Vote today.

If I had more time available to me I would have liked to tackle the hon member for Border. I have too many other aspects I want to bring to the hon the Minister’s attention, however, to allow me to waste my time on the hon member.

This debate is taking place at a time when the South African flag is flying very proudly. It is also taking place at a time when there is a tense atmosphere in the ranks of those—the anarchists—who want to take over South Africa by force. If we look at today’s newspapers, we see two B’s featuring very prominently: Not Brigitte Bardot, but Broederstroom and Brazzaville. South Africa’s flag is flying very proudly in Brazzaville especially, and I want to take the opportunity of congratulating the hon the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defence very sincerely on South Africa’s victory in Brazzaville. We cannot call it anything but a victory. If one looks at who acted as spokesman after the consultations and at the attitude of the otherwise arrogant Angolan negotiators, it was very clear after the discussions that they had, in fact, been persuaded to face up to the realities of the situation. I have said that I do not want to speak about Brazzaville or Broederstroom today. At a later stage the hon the Minister can give us a comprehensive report on those matters.

This afternoon, on behalf of our people in the Free State and the Northern Cape, I want to pay tribute to the Defence Force and its officers who carried out rescue operations in those areas during the flood disaster. If we look at newspaper reports and listen to what people in those areas have to say, it is clear that we owe the hon the Minister and the Defence Force nothing short of our utmost gratitude. We want to thank the hon the Minister for the units which carried out operations in those areas and also for the tents which are still pitched there and which serve as a shelter for our people who would otherwise be homeless. When the crisis was at its worst and things looked black indeed, when people were left homeless and the storm was at its most relentless, when men and animals were being swept away by the flood-waters and people had lost their possessions, the Defence Force came to their assistance.

They were the people who gave us help and food. Let us call a spade a spade today—I am going to use the vernacular of our people. When our people needed food the Defence Force was there to bring them food; when they stood naked, the Defence Force was there to clothe them; when our people did not have a roof over their heads, the Defence Force provided them with tents. At this moment there are still many tents from Wepener in the Eastern Free State up to Oranjemund in the North Western Cape, and many of those tents will not be recovered, because when the time comes for striking the tents, they will no longer be in a fit state to be of any further use.

You have been hawking them around.

We have not been hawking them around, Sir, but owing to circumstances, some of those tents have been damaged. Today we want to thank the Defence Force for what it has meant to our people there. [Interjections.] I find it interesting that when those people were in need, it was the Defence Force which assisted them …

We are opposed to national service!

… and I find it interesting that we did not see hide nor hair of the so-called “other people” who talk so boastfully of freeing the oppressed in South Africa.

Oh, now you are hinting at Abie!

I have said that we want to take the opportunity to extend our sincere thanks.

In the short time remaining to me I should like to speak about the role of the Defence Force as a catalyst to prosperity, job creation and the overall improvement in race relations in present-day South Africa. The value of Operation Molteno cannot be underestimated. The true value of the unit established in Kimberley can only be assessed in the new South Africa that we are on the way to achieving.

The so-called great spirit of liberation is wafting around abroad. The same great spirit was recently the recipient of the Nobel Prize. At the moment he is making proposals for sanctions abroad. Let us be realistic today.

Tell us who it is!

Every company or firm that withdraws from South Africa will contribute to unemployment, and unemployment leads to starvation. Starvation in turn gives rise to robbery, murder and anarchism and that is going to lead to a bloody revolution. Then on Sundays he stands before a congregation and reads from the Bible— the greatest book of all; the book of all books— about the Ten Commandments and says: “Thou shall not kill”, whilst at the moment he is inciting people to violence, murder and anarchism by advocating sanctions and disinvestment in South Africa. He is in the process of exterminating a people. This reminds me of what the Bible says. There are so many truths in that book. It was Jesus himself who said on occasion: “Get thee behind me, Satan!” He compared him to a whitened sepulchre. [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon member for Border say?

Mr Chairman, when the hon member said “Get thee behind me, Satan”, I said that everybody had gone …

Order! I do not think the hon member for Southern Free State was referring to anyone in particular. The hon member may proceed.

Jesus himself said that Satan was like a whitened sepulchre—full of skeletons and worm-infested … [Interjections.] Sir, if the hon member is really fighting for the freedom of people he should think of his people.

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Sir, I said that with the establishment of Operation Molteno, the Defence Force is not only employing our young people, but is also making it possible for them to learn certain trades. Thus they are being prepared to get jobs when they return to civilian life.

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

I am sorry, Sir, but I have very little time. If the hon member has a question to put to me, he must come and see me; I am always in my office. [Interjections.]

Secondly, with the establishment of the joint management centres, the Defence Force has played an exceptional role in the improvement of race relations in South Africa. In towns in which these JMC forums have been established, members of the respective communities now have an opportunity to discuss matters with one another. In the past they lived in the same town, but hardly knew of one another’s existence. They did not know one another. Now there is an avenue for them to communicate with one another. They can tell one another of the shortcomings, the bottlenecks and the needs that exist in their respective communities. Sir, no step taken by the Defence Force could have been more welcome. It would be difficult for us to estimate its true value, because now the various race groups are beginning to talk to one another. They are hearing what the needs of the other groups are and why certain groups think the way they do. We must make use of this platform to improve attitudes amongst the various race groups.

We would welcome it if MPs could be informed of the dates on which meetings are to take place in the areas in which these JMCs have been established. Matters of great importance are discussed. The matters which are discussed are very important and also affect the MPs. People could perhaps disagree with me, but in the town where I come from the establishment of a new youth movement—they joined the youth movement of South Africa—was directly due to the influence of the JMC. Sir, this is a good thing. Let us expand on it. Let us expand this forum. Let us expand this JMC. I know that with the development of these centres the great problem that stands between us and the dismantling of apartheid at present will disappear like mist before the sun; because we shall get to know one another, and when we sit around the negotiating table, we shall know that we have come to speak about what is most important, ie South Africa, the country we all love.

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to express my gratitude to the Whips for having given me an opportunity to participate in this debate. I take note of the fact that today, for the first time since 1984, an historic event is taking place in this House. Today, for the first time, members of the CP have come to listen to the debate in this House. [Interjections.]

Order! There is no cause for that statement. Everyone is welcome to listen to the debate and it is not necessary to single out specific people.

It is an exception, Mr Chairman.

Order! No, the hon member must please accept my ruling. CP members are part of the parliamentary set-up and are entitled to come here at any time.

They now have the floor.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I want to kick off by making it clear that the Defence Force is not there merely to wage war, but also to act as a channel of communication and to regard the security of the State as its primary task. The security of the State takes precedence over politics in this country. Every inhabitant of this country must be protected against the onslaught from both inside and outside the Republic of South Africa.

I want to dwell on the lightning-fast, short-lived coup d’état that took place in Bophuthatswana on 10 February. The quick action taken by the Defence Force really showed up the ignorance underlying the planned attacks on the Bophuthatswana Government. Because that 2 SSB unit, which is part of North-Western Command, has its headquarters in Zeerust in my constituency, I am proud to identify myself with that component. [Interjections.] I do so because Brig Coetzee and I have a very good working relationship. He takes the time to inform one of the security position in the country, and I must emphasise here once again that it is a difficult job serving there.

I should like to draw hon members’ attention to the fact that Zeerust is the nearest town to Botswana, and it is no easy task to ensure the country’s security or protect the country there. It is at Zeerust that 80% of the terrorists infiltrate South Africa. It is for that reason that I am compelled to commend that unit, its brigadier and its officers.

It is a cause for concern that there are people who voluntarily want to join the Defence Force and cannot be accommodated. The fact that there are 7 000 volunteers attests to a love of the Defence Force. These volunteers want to protect South Africa and serve because they love the country, but unfortunately they have to be turned away because there is insufficient accommodation.

Make it compulsory!

No. If we were to do so, we would be politicizing the Defence Force, because I believe that a soldier is a soldier. We must first open up those White units so that our young men, like those White troups, can protect their country. They have the same cultural background and speak the same language as those Whites. Therefore our young volunteers must be used in the same units as the Whites and not turned away as a result of the present problem with accommodation.

There is something else that bothers me a great deal, and this concerns the Navy. I read yesterday in The Star—unfortunately I do not have the newspaper here—that Rossouw Botha, the son of the hon the State President, is no longer happy in the Marines. [Interjections.] He wanted to be there to start off with, and I do not think he should get preferential treatment. I think that many of the other Marines would also like to be transferred, and we should not draw a distinction on the grounds of whose son it is and give him preferential treatment.

I want to dwell for a moment on Naschem. Our people work with explosives, and I think they should receive a special danger allowance. I know there are Whites who receive such an allowance, and I feel it is important to ensure that our people, whose lives are in danger, also receive those allowances. There are also other problems at Naschem which I want to highlight. Hon members painted such a vivid picture of how proud they were of Armscor. I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to Armscor at all, but there are fundamental problems in the labour field at Naschem, which is a subsidiary of Armscor. On 6 November, at Boskop, Naschem, three workmen were involved in a serious fire after an accident. The situation of the two Whites created a great stir in the newsletter, Die Salvo, but there was no reference to the Coloured man. Hardly had that accident been reported to the workmen’s compensation commissioner when a second worker injured his foot with a mortar. That accident, however, was not reported. There was a third case of a worker becoming ill as a result of working with explosives, so much so that subsequently he could no longer be employed, but he received no compensatory payment.

A firm such as Armscor, which has been highly praised for the arms it manufactures, must treat its workers properly. In fact, I believe that in the case of a corporation such as that, which employs 23 000 workers, its first priority should be to focus on the organisation itself. That means that there should be an improvement in labour relations and salaries so that everyone can reap the benefit of his labours and can be proud to work there. I would very much like to hold discussions with a very senior deputation from Armscor about attitudes so that the niggling problems that exist in the labour field at present can be eliminated very quickly.

So much has been said about Armscor since the recent arms exhibition in Chile. I want to quote from Die Burger of 10 May:

A firm selling such a large quantity of arms really should give recognition to the human dignity of each and every worker there. There is only one way in which to do so, and that is by eliminating the unnecessary discrimination in the labour field.

Mr Chairman, before I begin my prepared speech, I just want to quote a passage from page 4 of the Defence Force’s magazine, Paratus, vol 39 of 4 April 1988. The headline reads:

Let me then quote what the Commanding Officer of 2 Special Services Battalion had to say:

Sir, participating in this debate is one of the highlights of the year. This Vote is one in which one debates the security of South Africa and its people. Our country’s security is of primary importance to each and every one of us—those of us present in this House today and those outside this House who criticise us. The Defence Force also looks after their security.

Today, however, I specifically want to speak about the role played by the Coloured members of the Defence Force in our community. I am not referring merely to their role as soldiers in the Defence Force, but also to the role they play in the community, away from the battlefront. Before one can know what a soldier’s significance to the community is, however, surely it is necessary to look at who and what he is. I should like to quote certain names. There are certain people who have served this country honourably. I should like to mention the names of these men in this debate. I am thinking of people such as Mr Sonny Leon, erstwhile leader of the LP; I am thinking of Mr Nic Kearns, a man who played a very significant role in public life; I am thinking of Mr Bill Francis, an ex-soldier who recently received an award from the hon the State President for service in his community; and I am also thinking of Mr Cuthbert Loriston. He is someone who made an indelible mark in rugby in South Africa. Looking at all these people, one notices one outstanding element, and that is the element of discipline. Where did they get that discipline? The conclusion I have been able to draw from their lives and the service they rendered, a conclusion of which they themselves have given confirmation on more than one occasion, is that military life, with its emphasis on discipline, order and leadership, played a definite part in their lives.

Oh, so you are also a supporter.

I shall not react to the hon member for Border now; let us leave the matter at that for the moment. I prefer to use the time at my disposal to make my point. I prefer to speak about the characteristics those people displayed—the important characteristic of being a soldier, that of caring for one’s fellow human beings—and I want to say today that one gets it nowhere but in an ordered community, a community in which people look after one another’s interests. Those whose names I have just mentioned are people who could write a book about how one looks after the interests of others. It is these characteristics which, in conjunction with military tradition, have a strong influence on young soldiers. Young soldiers cannot simply live for themselves; they have to care for their comrades and to look to their security and welfare, as I have said. For that reason they naturally embody these characteristics in their daily lives in the areas or the communities in which they find themselves. They are also part of an organisation in which elementary leadership is an important requirement. It is identified and then rewarded by promotion and responsibility. They qualify themselves to take the lead and act responsibly.

Bearing in mind what I have just said, I want to come back to this House. I am thinking, for example, of the hon member for Grassy Park— an ex-soldier—and I can tell hon members that the hon member has given valuable service to this community, particularly in the field of education. [Interjections.] That hon member is a former member of the Defence Force. [Interjections.] I am also thinking of the hon member for Silvertown. [Interjections.] This year that hon member will have been serving the LP for 20 years. [Interjections.] He is doing a great job of work. I am also thinking of the hon member for Springbok. If I think of the buildings that hon member has designed, I can see the hand of the militarist at work. I am also thinking of the hon member for Fish River. I am thinking, for example, of the business interests he has built up in the community, and I say here is a disciplined man. I can therefore see the part played by the Defence Force and the militarist in South Africa. [Interjections.] It is the part played by Coloured soldiers and ex-soldiers in our community.

I would be neglecting my duty if I did not mention Comdt John Cupido today. He is one of our men who has stood out, not only in the Defence Force, but also in public life. I came to know Comdt Kupido in 1964 when the hon member for Riversdal and I played so much rugby. We did not only play rugby—we played provincial rugby. [Interjections.] I do not think there are many hon members here who know that the hon member for Riversdal and I played great provincial rugby in our day. [Interjections.] Our Defence Force friends have played their part in many spheres. Comdt Kupido is an ex-soldier whom the Defence Force and our community can rightfully be proud of. We call Comdt Kupido Oom John. As I have said, I came to know him in 1964 when I was a young rugby player.

Order! I am sorry to have to interrupt, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to utilise the time allocated to him.

I thank the hon Whip. I really must finish this short piece.

Today Oom John Cupido is President of the South African Rugby Federation. He is the equal of any sports administrator in South Africa and ought to become President of the South African Rugby Board one day. [Interjections.]

Lastly it is not possible for me to omit the name of Col Graham Jacobs. He is a person of whom the community as a whole and the Defence Force are exceptionally proud, not only as a soldier, but also as a community leader who finds it very easy to get along with people.

I see the involvement of the ex-soldier in our community life. I see him as a member of the church council, as a member of the school committee and actively involved in our sports bodies. Coloured soldiers have not only been soldiers, but have also immortalised our community’s name on the rugby field. Here I am thinking of Avril Williams who also wore the green and gold for South Africa. He was also a product of the Defence Force. I could speak about this subject for hours, and I would have liked the hon member for Border to join me in discussing this subject.

A week ago I was privileged to visit the bases at Kimberley and Bloemspruit, and there I saw again the part played by the Defence Force in preparing our young men who will be taking their place as full-fledged future citizens in the community.

I have just been notified that I forgot to mention Chaplain Ralph Sauls who played rugby for City and Suburban. He also coached the Matroosfontein team and also played fullback in provincial matches.

Today I want to make a request to the hon the Minister. I have pointed out to him the involvement of ex-soldiers in our community. The exsoldiers in my constituency of Vredendal have asked me whether I would not whisper into the hon the Minister’s ear that they would also appreciate an occasional train concession to travel home to their people. There are not many of them left, but it would be appreciated if the Defence Force could repay the few of them who are left and who have done so much for South Africa.

Mr Chairman, as leaders in this House we must be honest as to our assessment of the South African situation. My interpretation is that we are facing a very sophisticated onslaught. As a matter of fact, I call it warfare and although we are not fighting with guns, we are facing psychological warfare by forces trying to attack us on every front. In spite of it all there is much hope for the future and I want to be part of that hope.

We have a problem with terrorists in this country.

Over the weekend a newspaper was distributed free of charge in our townships in which people were identified—by name—as self-confessed terrorists. I think that every South African has to do his bit to combat this evil in our societies and to eradicate it from our townships. Every South African, irrespective of his colour, has a duty towards his country, and for this reason I want to say that I support our men in uniform. I have a lot of appreciation for these men. One of the things our present unrest situation did was to bring our men in uniform closer to the people living in the townships. You see, Sir, when we are sleeping, they are keeping a watchful eye over us, guarding our borders and protecting this God-given country of ours.

The type of warfare that has been taking place in the townships—I call it a warfare of mass mobilization—has shifted to our school premises. We must admit that, whether we want to be honest or not. Our young people from the townships are rallied together at our school premises for boycott actions. The idea behind this is to make this country ungovernable by using Nelson Mandela’s M-plan, called “street committees” which have been formed throughout our country, and especially in our townships. However, I want to say that this plan has not been successful.

The leaders and followers of the street committees are called comrades. One of the reasons why it is not successful is that they are divided into two camps. On the one hand there are the followers of the ANC freedom charter, and on the other hand there are the “zim-zims” of the Black consciousness groups who believe that this country belongs to the Africans alone.

The township warfare started with the rent boycott action which was initiated in 1983. This action sowed the seed of revolution. After this came the cry of “liberation first and education later”. This was another failure, because the people who were right in the forefront in telling our children to boycott in 1980, are now telling them to go back to school. We as South Africans cannot be neutral in this situation. All of us will have to take a stand and identify ourselves with this struggle. However, Sir, a struggle against what? A struggle against apartheid, yes! A struggle against injustice, yes! But it should not be a struggle for this country to be taken over by the communists. I will not be party to such a struggle and the vast majority of our people out there do not wish to see this country taken over by communists. I think that only a coward would desert this country, would pack his bags and run away from South Africa.

Those who are running to Australia and Canada are not part of the struggle in this country. [Interjections.] It is said that only rats desert a sinking ship. I want to say to those rats that South Africa is far from sinking. Our moral values are still very high and there is good discipline in our armed forces.

Of course, there will be changes, but these changes will come about through negotiation, and not through violence. I agree that there will be some degree of violence, but there will not be a revolution. If our future in this country is a violent one, it will be because we chose it to be so. God help us, and God help me, never to be part of a violent struggle in this country.

The world has no right to interfere in the domestic affairs of our country. We do not allow people to interfere in the domestic affairs of our homes, so why must we encourage people from other countries to interfere in our domestic affairs? Therefore, we should think of a solution in our country that would place us in a position to determine our future without influence or pressure from outside sources. I would like a future in which we are left to find our own solutions, without the threat of sanctions or disinvestment.

Some of these countries that are crying for sanctions are practising apartheid in their own way. Hon members should go and have a look at Australia and South America. I am totally against apartheid—that is why I am in this Parliament—but apartheid is a tool, a political device, used by the world around us. It is implemented in various forms and different ways in order to further the interests of the ruling classes. I want to work towards, and I want my children to inherit, a country that is not vexed by apartheid. Therefore, we, especially this department, shall not become complacent and overconfident, because there are enough outside forces, even on our borders, that would like to see this country go to the dogs because of their jealousy. The security of this country is a top priority. Irrespective of what government is in power, the security of this country should be number one. The security of this country rests on the shoulders of that hon Minister over there and his department. We expect him to look after our security.

We need to take time to think very clearly in this debate on the issues at stake. We should act and rid our townships not of the enemies of the system, but of the enemies of this country. We need to eradicate those forces and people who are not interested in the wellbeing of South Africa from our townships.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

We will need to devise ways and means and do everything in our power to win over the hearts and minds of our people. Some of our young people’s minds have been destroyed by wrong propaganda and people who have misused these young people in our townships. Every onslaught, every boycott, every petrol bomb and every strike must be seen as a function of war.

We appreciate the talks held between the Department of Foreign Affairs, the hon the Ministers and the Cubans about a possible withdrawal from Angola. Nevertheless I would like this department to play a much more meaningful role in those talks. We must never allow what happened in 1976 to happen again. We had participated in talks, but then had to withdraw from Angola when we were very near to Luanda. We must view all talks with the communists with suspicion. When they want to talk we must watch them very closely, for they will only talk when they are losing and when they have their tails between their legs. Perhaps they agreed to talk now after the good hiding we gave then in Angola. They must realise, and the world must realise, that South Africa does not want Angola. We do not want Mozambique. After all, what must we do with an Angola that has been torn apart by its own people? All we want to see is peace and stability within our borders, and to see that everyone in this country gets his rightful share of the cake.

Mr Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to rise after the hon member for Bonteheuwel. I want to congratulate him on his speech. I think his is a speech that should be heard not only in this House, but by all South Africans of all colours and creeds. The hon member has put his finger on the very essence of the revolutionary onslaught against our country, and I want to thank him for that. The hon member obviously has his feet firmly on the ground.

As far as other items are concerned, the hon the Minister will reply to them. Later in my speech I will refer to the presence of the SA Defence Force in our townships where they are doing a great job.

*Firstly, I want to thank hon members for the opportunity to speak here in my capacity as Deputy Minister for the second time today. I want to congratulate all hon members who have taken part in the debate so far—that goes for members on both sides of the House—for the particularly high standard of debate that was maintained in the discussion on this Vote. What I have just told the hon member for Bonteheuwel applies to all speeches that were made here this afternoon, and they deserve mention as well. I believe that the effects will be felt far beyond the precincts of this House.

Furthermore, I associate myself with the expressions of praise and tribute that various hon members paid to the SA Defence Force and its leaders as well as every member of the Defence Force. I should also like to pay tribute to those South African soldiers who, since our last debate here, have paid the highest price to keep our country safe against those things that the hon member for Bonteheuwel has just referred to.

In particular, we think of the families of the soldiers who were killed. Much is said in our country about sacrifices that must be made, but few feel the sacrifices as acutely as those families who have to learn to live without a loved one. We want those families to know that we are thinking of them.

I also want to say that it is a particular privilege for me to come into contact with the various units in the operational area, the Black residential areas and the rest of our country, where soldiers of all race groups are represented. I salute all the soldiers, and in particular the Coloured soldiers of our country, for the service that they render to South Africa at the level that they operate on.

Pursuant to what the hon member for Bonteheuwel said, I should like to express a few thoughts on the question of the presence of the SA Defence Force in Black residential areas, because there are people in our country—-those people that the hon member spoke about—that believe that if one were to withdraw the Defence Force from the Black residential areas, there would be peace in this country tomorrow; if one were to release certain people from prison, we would all be dancing in the streets tomorrow. We would all be happy and we would have a new South Africa and everything would be well. However, it is not as simple as that.

Parliament, of which this House is a part, is the sovereign legislature of our country, and in one of this Parliament’s laws, namely the Defence Act, the role of the SA Defence Force is spelt out very clearly. In Parliament’s instructions to the Defence Force according to the Defence Force Act, it is stated that inter alia it must prevent and suppress internal unrest. That is one of the tasks of the SA Defence Force and it must assist the SA Police in this regard.

There is a revolutionary onslaught in South Africa, as the hon member for Bonteheuwel said. That is a fact. It is a reality. We have all witnessed it recently. We have seen the flames of destruction. There are hon members in this House who have felt it personally as well; we have experienced it, but we are coming to grips with this revolutionary onslaught. However, in order to achieve the ideal of peace and prosperity, we must have stability and development. We cannot have development unless we first establish stability, and the presence of members of the Defence Force in Black residential areas, in support of the SA Police, is helping to achieve that state of stability.

The people who object to this are objecting to the order that the SA Defence Force is striving to maintain, as it was commissioned to do by Parliament. I do not think that the objectors think consistently about what they are doing. Sometimes I get the impression that these objectors do not want to grant our people in the Black residential areas the peace and quiet that they enjoy in their own areas. Towards the end of last year, the revolutionary element in the Pietermaritzburg area tried to spread the violence to the other areas. It is also ironic that the people who protested most against the presence of the SA Defence Force in Black residential areas, were the people who said there were extraordinary circumstances. The Defence Force had to become involved and lend assistance, just as if there were not extraordinary conditions in the other residential areas where the Defence Force had to act at that time.

I want to emphasise that the revolutionary onslaught is not merely aimed at territory. There are no fixed boundaries or frontiers in this conflict. In particular, the onslaught is aimed at the values and norms that we are all striving to uphold.

I believe that each one of us strives to uphold certain civilised values, because if our civilisation were to collapse we would lapse into a state of anarchy. For this reason the Defence Force plays an important part in an area where stability is being disrupted. Where stability is being destroyed in our Black residential areas, its task is just as important as it is on our country’s borders.

The peace-loving people in our country—I always say there are more peace-loving and reasonable people than unreasonable people in South Africa—will protect those values because we are all sincerely concerned about the improvement of the quality of life of all our people. We talk about survival, but it is also the quality of survival that is very important to us.

As hon members know, the Defence Force is involved in many community projects. I am thinking, for example, of sports training. Many of the sports facilities that exist in townships today were established with the assistance of our sappers. The Defence Force will continue to engage itself actively in these matters.

We believe that even the people in the Black townships have a right to peace and security. As the hon member for Mamre, amongst others, rightly said this afternoon, security is the bridgebuilder between people in South Africa. With stability as a basis we can develop and expand our country.

Furthermore, I want to thank the hon member for Rust Ter Vaal for the positive contribution that he made here this afternoon. He spoke about Naschem and about certain labour problems that arose. The hon member has raised certain problems here in the past as well. He has been to Potchefstroom once, and we invite him to approach us again this afternoon. Our doors, as well as those of Armscor and Naschem, are open to him. I believe that we shall be able to solve the problems that the hon member raised here today in the tranquillity of the office environment. I want to assure him that it is Armscor’s general policy that there should be no differentiation with regard to its personnel members. Therefore, I invite the hon member to come and speak to me. We can try to iron out the problems with regard to the danger bonuses as well. I believe that it will be possible to resolve that matter favourably.

Sir, I do not have much time, but I should like to make a few further observations in response to what hon members—especially the hon member for South Free State—said here. This hon member and I have known each other for many years—at a guess I would say almost 15 or 20 years—and when other people in this country were still talking about human relations, we were already applying certain principles in practice. He and I had crossed those bridges long before that. I should like to thank the hon member sincerely for the outstanding speech that he made here this afternoon. We—I believe I am speaking on behalf of the hon the Minister as well—could sense the pride with which the hon member spoke about the Defence Force. It was not only his words that bore witness to this; it could also be inferred from his attitude towards our country.

The hon member also referred to the joint management centres. He said that MPs should become more involved. I should like to invite them to become more involved, because suspicion is being sown with regard to the activities of these organisations. I blame certain newspapers for what they write—namely the small governments within the Government—because they do not know what they are talking about. They make certain remarks purely out of ignorance. I shall refer, in a moment, to the role that the JMC committees played during the recent floods.

The hon member for Border also referred to this. This suspicion-mongering must end and I think it would be a good thing if MPs paid an occasional visit. It is very easy to find out who the chairman of the JMC is in an area. Each MP has a part to play. I want to give hon members a short definition of these JMC committees. They co-ordinate the total ability of the Government departments to work together in order to cope with and manage any emergency situation, be it a security situation or a natural disaster such as the one that we experienced recently, in a co-ordinated manner. It would be a good idea if an MP were to speak to the member of the SAP, the member of the Defence Force, the member of the local town council and other members of the joint management centres so that we might in future be able to improve this system which is already working so well.

I want to express my sincere thanks to the joint management centres for the assistance they provided during the floods in Natal, the Northern Cape and the Free State. I want to say that if it had not been for the joint management centres, the loss of life and property and the shortage of food, clothing and accommodation would have been much greater. For that reason we in this House should expand and strengthen the joint management centres—we must convey the message to those outside—as they played a part with regard to the security situation in our country as well. They are assisting in the co-ordination of the security action, but are also prepared to deal with any action in our country in such a way that South Africa’s case will be put first and the interests of the people of South Africa, regardless of their colour, race or religion, will be served.

I believe that every hon member in this House can make a major contribution and praise the joint management centres for the important work that they have done in the past, especially with regard to the flood disasters.

Mr Chairman, having listened to the hon the Deputy Minister, I cannot resist the temptation to add my praise in respect of the part played by the Defence Force, and specifically the sappers, during the recent floods. It was something to see, especially if one bears in mind the tremendous criticism that the security forces received shortly before that. It made people change their attitudes.

†We in South Africa—I said this in this House last Wednesday and I wish to repeat it—are desperately looking for peace.

*We in South Africa believe in peace and believe that we must continue the search for peace. We want peace at almost any price. We want it so badly that we have even fought for it and have already had discussions between South Africa and the MPLA during the past weekend. I believe that this emphasises the earnestness of our desire for peace in this country. I believe that these discussions must eventually lead to that peace. I want to emphasise that they will not lead to surrender, but to real peace, not only for South Africa but for the whole of Southern Africa.

The community that is represented in this House is also involved in that fight for peace and they are doing so on a voluntary basis. No fewer than 33 000 young Coloured man have been trained at the South Africa Cape Corps since 1963. Thousands of these people are still in the service of the SA Defence Force today.

Let us be honest with one another in this House. There are many areas in which the Department of Defence is way ahead of other government institutions with regard to the removal of discriminatory measures. I shall go so far as to say that the Department of Defence often intervenes in areas that are not its direct responsibility. I shall qualify that. Hon members need only think of the enormous upliftment work that is being done by 1 Special Unit in Kimberley. This unit was formed especially for the less educated Coloured youths. These young men passed Std V at most and as a result have little hope of finding employment at a decent salary. According to the 1985 census, 69% of the Coloured population of South Africa has a Std 5 qualification or lower. This is an indication of the nature of our problem, because low qualifications are part of the socio-economic cycle of poverty. For this reason it is encouraging to see the work that is being done by the Defence Force at 1 Special Unit in training young boys not only in military discipline, but also in manual skills, so that these young people are placed in a position to equip themselves to be able to produce better work.

With regard to the SACC, it is a fact that more applications are received annually than can be dealt with and accommodated. For this reason I want to plead in this House today for the creation of more military units to accommodate the volunteers from our community. They are volunteers that have proved in the past that they are second to none.

Much has already been said in the House about the role of our defence forces in Africa. Allow me to add that Africa is a harsh continent. We are a part of Africa. Africa does not respect weaklings and South Africa has already proved that it is a regional power in its own right. South Africa has its own internal interests, but it also has regional interests, one of which is its safety. I do not believe that any hon member of Parliament expects Africa and the countries of Africa to speak well of our politics. After all, we ourselves say that our political policy is in the process of development. It is not for us to tell the people of Africa which political system they should maintain, no matter how great the temptation may be. However, mere co-operation can exist despite our political differences.

South Africa has continually offered to sign nonaggression pacts with countries in Southern Africa. What does this mean in practice? Is it not a way of showing that the politically inspired accusations of destabilisation are false? President Kaunda is often guilty of this which is strange, because his country is very nearly bankrupt.

As I said, we are diligently searching for peace, but it must be a peace that will still be there tomorrow. If we achieve a state of peace, we must be able to protect and maintain it. Recently there have again been signs of increasing rapprochement from the side of Mozambique with a view to establishing better relations with South Africa, to reassess co-operative agreements and to get the Nkomati Accord off the ground again. However, was it not strange that on the same day that the statements were issued, President Chissano also made a statement in which he repeated the accusations of his country and his government that South Africa was helping the resistance movement, Renamo?

Perhaps the hon the Minister should state the position unequivocally and clearly in this House this afternoon.

The President of Mozambique also said that the support, that was being denied by South Africa, was part of a criminal and irresponsible strategy to weaken Black states in Southern Africa. Sir, let us be honest with one another here today. In the final analysis, it is in South Africa’s own interests to ensure that this country achieves stability, and, for that matter, to ensure that all countries in Southern Africa achieve stability, because as they are at the moment, they are merely a nuisance to South Africa. Let us ask, Sir: Should South Africa not take a firm stand and demand that all accusations and propaganda in this regard from Mozambique must cease? After all Mozambique is increasingly dependent on the world for food to save its people, and it is just as dependent on South Africa to keep itself going. We need only look at the harbour in Maputo.

South Africa has stated time and again: We shall not tolerate the export of revolution, because in the long run, it is a threat to the security of our own citizens. That is a fact—allow me to place the matter in its perspective—and it has been stated time and again in this House in the past. We are not satisfied with the present political system in this country, but we are moving forward, and we want to protect what we are moving towards. We cannot allow the superpowers to get a foothold in Southern Africa in a stealthy way.

The superpowers must leave Southern Africa. Africa can solve its own problems. We do not mind if they remain in Southern Africa as interested observers—after all, that is their right—but I feel that that is as far as their involvement should go.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon member the opportunity to utilise his allotted time.

The hon member for Diamant may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I hope I did not misunderstand the hon Whip. I thought he said I should proceed with my inanities. [Interjections.]

We shall send you to Amsterdam if you are not careful. Proceed.

I do not mind the hon member for Border’s speaking in that way, Mr Chairman, because he is such a good chap.

I believe that neither the United States nor Russia are doing what is in the interests of Southern Africa. Both have their own ideologies, selfish big-power political interests. Africa will not exchange one form of colonialism for another. We who are from Africa shall solve Africa’s problems ourselves.

There has been a lot of mudslinging about South Africa’s involvement in Angola. Firstly, let us admit in this House today that South Africa cannot allow a distorted balance of power to emerge in Angola. It would not be in our best interests. However, we should always remember—especially those who call themselves democrats—that the MPLA regime in Luanda was self-appointed. They often forget that.

Recently there was once again a fierce attack on the Unita movement by the Cuban-Russian supported MPLA. Everyone in this House knows about the beating that the heroes of Africa were given.

†In that way, Sir, the Soviets’ dream of becoming the dominant superpower influence by military means was dealt a crushing blow. I believe we have now entered the second optional scenario, with a softer diplomatic line being used. While accepting this approach in good faith—and I think if we are earnest about peace in Southern Africa we have to accept it in good faith—I nevertheless believe that South Africa should be wary. We should ask whether the Soviets are not still trying to emerge as the dominant super power in the region through other means.

*Let me ask, while I am standing here, when the so-called frontline states are going to cease kicking up an incessant fuss about South Africa. It is interesting that they pride themselves on being the frontline states, as if they were involved in a war. If South Africa acts in a justified manner by setting off in hot pursuit of a fleeing terrorist group—as it did the other day—they whimper like a lot of mongrels. On top of that they have the audacity to refer to themselves as the frontline states. Clausewitz said: “War is the continuation of politics through other means.” The Kremlin, on the other hand says: “Peace is the continuation of war through other means.” We in South Africa are striving towards real peace for our children and their children, because, after all, it is we who have to remain here.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Rust Ter Vaal for the opportunity to take part in this debate. Hon members have spoken today about Armscor, the relationship of a soldier with his fellow man, the Defence Force, floods and so on, but as a former soldier I want to talk about the 1940-45 war. We took part in that war as volunteers. We felt it was our country, and that we would have to pay dearly to protect this country. Very few of the hon members sitting here, apart from the four hon members who took part in the war, know what it feels like to take part in a war. It is very easy to talk about war today if one has not been involved.

I want to issue a timeous warning with my participation in this debate. I want to talk about the injustice done to us, who wanted to protect our country. We felt it was our country too, and naturally we still feel that way today, but we were extremely disillusioned after the war, and we wondered whether our participation had really been worthwhile. We did not take part in the war for material gain; we took part to defend our country. After seeing how differently the various groups were treated, however, one asked oneself: “Am I not human too?” I want to repeat what another hon member said. What could one do with a bicycle after the war? What could one do with a long khaki coat? Hon members must remember that we sacrificed five years. What could one do with £30? Absolutely nothing. I mention that, because I do not want it to happen again. I want us to be realistic.

For 40 years, pensions were granted according to the ratio 4:2:1. The position was rectified in 1986, and everyone now gets the same pension, but this injustice existed for 40 years. That is why I am asking the hon the Minister today to do something about the matter. I know that he was not responsible for this, but he has the post today. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is not allowed to reflect upon an hon Minister.

No, Sir, I am not attacking the hon the Minister. I am talking about the Vote, and not about the hon the Minister. I asked the hon the Minister to see in future where he can rectify mistakes that were made in the past. I am not attacking the hon the Minister. [Interjections.]

We see a similar position today. Our children join as volunteers. They are not compelled to do military service. Our people do not run away, but come forward voluntarily. As the hon member for Border said, it is not necessary that there be legislation for us, because there are so many volunteers that they cannot all be accommodated. That is how we will fight for South Africa as South Africans. I do not want to say too much about this matter, but merely want to ask the hon the Minister whether he cannot try to do something, as the hon member for Vredendal requested, for the small group of remaining former soldiers. They do not have much time left, because all the soldiers who fought in the Second World War are old. We are all older than 60.1 am 67 and my hon colleague on the opposite side is over 70. [Interjections.] I am not talking on behalf of those of us sitting here, but on behalf of those people who get just over R200 per month. Can the hon the Minister not ensure that their housing is made cheaper by reducing the rent?

Give them the houses.

Yes, give them the houses. I agree with the hon member, if that is possible. I am not talking about Coloureds now, but about the soldiers who fought in the 1940-45 war. I am not talking about us, but about those who are not as strong as we are, physically and financially. Their needs must be taken care of so that we can tell them: Thank you for what you did for this country. Let us give them a free pass; they will not use it every year, because they are too old. In that way at least we shall be expressing our gratitude for what they did in the war.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure and a privilege to be able to take part in this debate once again. It is good to be able to talk about our Defence Force. It was wonderful to hear the hon member for Grassy Park waxing lyrical about our military muscle in South Africa. The SA Defence Force is our pride and joy.

The South African Defence Force is recognised by our community as the proud symbol of our security. All hon members in the House are aware that the best constituency in the country— I am talking about Riversdal—is celebrating its 150th anniversary this year. The Defence Force contributed during the festivities on Saturday, 16 May 1988, and I want to thank the hon the Minister sincerely for that.

Order! The hon member spoke about Saturday, 16 May, but it is 16 May today. [Interjections.]

I am sorry, Sir, it was 14 May on Saturday. Thank you for correcting me.

Participation of this kind is confirmation to the community that in reality the Defence Force is a force of peace. Our community would like to associate themselves with the good message of safety conveyed by the Defence Force.

What about national service, Uncle Dougie?

Sir, I am a very good South African, and the hon member must take cognisance of that.

I regard it as my duty to thank General Jannie Geldenhuys and all his people for the good relationship that prevails between us. They are positive in wanting to attend to our problems. It is truly a pleasure to work with people of that calibre.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, in a discussion of this Vote last year, I drew hon members’ attention to the enormous build-up of weapons by the Cubans and the Russians in Angola. I drew hon members’ attention to the immensely sophisticated weapons with which the Russians are supplying Angola. I tried to spell out the seriousness of the situation and its possible implications. I am pleased today that I did so. As far as I am concerned, it is essential that we should see what has happened in that country since then. It is also essential to determine what the purpose of that arsenal was.

We know that at the end of last year, Unita experienced the biggest military offensive against them. We also know that the MPLA, with Russian and Cuban support, had only one purpose in mind, viz the destruction of Unita. Unfortunately I must admit that I overlooked one aspect, and that is that the Russians do not simply let their weapons out from under them. No, Sir, the Russians themselves are there too. In my hand I have a photograph of a Russian officer at Cuito Cuanavale which appeared in the Star of 22 March 1988. Here it is.

Our presence in Angola is condemned by our enemies. It is even condemned by some of our own people. They do not condemn the Russians’ presence, however. If the Russians’ presence in Angola is justified by our enemies, I say that our presence in Angola is justified too. This photograph is sufficient proof that the Russians are serious in their intentions, and we must take cognisance of this.

If there is any doubt about the standard of Russian weaponry, one need only look at the losses they have suffered. This gives one an interesting perspective on the whole matter. The head of the South African Defence Force announced recently that Fapla had suffered the following losses in weaponry. Hon members should listen to this: 14 aircraft, 94 tanks, 108 armoured troop carriers, 372 logistic vehicles, 36 multiple rocket-launchers …

And how many goats? [Interjections.]

…3 82 mm recoilless cannon, 20 mortar positions, seven automatic grenade launchers, 3 122 mm single-shot launchers, seven vehicle-mounted bridges, 48 different SA missile systems, 36 cannon and anti-aircraft systems, four radar vehicles and five radar systems. It is very interesting that the enemy did not repudiate this announcement. If those were the enemy’s losses, one shudders to think of the amount of equipment they utilised.

Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Western Transvalers are good people.

Hear, hear!

I shall not allow myself to believe that their only objective was Dr Savimbi’s headquarters. No, Sir, it is clear that these people want to go further south.

Riversdale!

They want to see the sickle and the crescent unfurled in Cape Town.

I am grateful that our security forces could assist Unita in stopping the Cubans. I prefer to consider this as the enemy’s having come off second best.

I recently read a very interesting article in the second edition of the magazine called International Defence Review. This article, by Al J Venter, describes how effectively and professionally our security forces took action. This is an authoritative magazine, and I want to congratulate our soldiers on their action. That is what we have come to expect of them. Our Defence Force has been showing for some time that it has no equal in South Africa. I want to tell the hon member for Border that this fact is even acknowledged abroad.

I do not think I would be out of order if I singled out the military successes of Unita and the SA Defence Force as the greatest single factor contributing to the willingness of those people and the Cubans to talk now. Everyone in this House knows about the deliberations that have taken place in London and Brazzaville. Our doors were open in the past as well, but people never wanted to talk to us. When one is losing, however, one soon realises where the negotiation table is. Because of their enormous losses in weaponry and troops, the Angolans and Cubans have been forced to come and talk. Our winning recipe has forced them toward the negotiation table. I want to warn the hon the Minister, however, to be careful that we are not caught napping. I am concerned about the fact that while the hon the Minister and the Angolans were negotiating peace in Brazzaville this week, large numbers of Cuban troops were moved to the southern part of Angola. Allegedly almost 10 000 Cuban soldiers were sent to the strategic town of Lubango.

We are aware that diplomatic experts have issued warnings that Russia is tired of losing money and weaponry as a result of unsuccessful conflicts. Clear proof of this is the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. The Cubans, who have come off second best, nevertheless want to restore their prestige with Russia. In my opinion that is also the reason for the removal of their troops to Lubango. If they want to prove their military power, the result will be war, instead of an end to war. That is why one will have to insist in the ensuing deliberations that all movement of troops be stopped.

This is the first time the hon the Minister has appeared in a House after his visit to Brazzaville, and this House is waiting to hear what he achieved there. [Interjections.] No, Sir, it is no longer a secret—the hon the Minister has spoken to the hon the State President already … [Interjections.] …but if the hon the Minister sees fit to tell us a little something, we would appreciate it very much.

Now for the goat! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, we must be careful …

Of the goat!

…not to underestimate South Africa’s enemies. These people do not rest. We know what they want to do with this country of ours. We are experiencing a physical threat from our neighbouring states, and a physical threat is also discernible within our boundaries. These two facets must not be regarded in isolation, because ultimately they have the same purpose, viz to create chaos and disorder in our country. As members of this House, we also have a responsibility. It is our responsibility to take cognisance of this and to tell our people about it. There are alien influences which want to upset our dispensation in an undemocratic way. No form of violence is acceptable to us. It is our duty to take cognisance of this in a realistic way, and to warn our people against it.

Our Defence Force is doing good work, and our boys are there too. They are protecting us and our interests. We thank them for doing so.

It is the CP of the LP that is talking now!

Sir, the hon member for Border has just made a remark with reference to the CP.

I said it was the CP of the LP that was talking!

Listen to that! [Interjections.] If he says I am the CP, I want to tell him that as soon as one conducts realistic politics— especially if one is Coloured—one is ostensibly CP-oriented. I want to tell him today, however, that I am a moderate South African, and I want to tell him that the CP cannot sell its policy to me … [Interjections.] …but it looks as though the CP will be able to sell its policy to him! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I gladly take the floor after the hon member for Riversdal. I always consider it to be an honour, an exceptional privilege and a pleasure to be able to speak after him, because he always sets such a high standard. He always comes forward with a positive contribution. I must say one thing about him: He always sees the bright side of a matter, but in addition to that he is still a realist.

I want to assure him that the Security Forces have a tremendous amount of respect for him. I shall elaborate later on certain matters which he raised.

Sir, it is a refreshing experience to deal with my Vote in this House. This is the fourth time that we have discussed the Defence Vote in this House. It was very encouraging to listen to the hon members’ contributions. Every contribution which was made here—in my opinion there was no exception—was positive and constructive. The points of criticism were also constructive. The SA Defence Force and Armscor can and will cooperate with such a team, that knows what it is all about, for the good of South Africa and all our communities. This debate confirms that our Coloured community, as represented by this House, and our defence family have staunch and reliable partners in one another, and that the Coloured community have representatives here who have their safety, as well as that of everyone in South Africa, at heart.

I should like to thank the hon member for Mamre for the standard he set; it was a good example. Above all, though, his contribution testified to the fact that he regards security as a serious matter.

Before I deal with certain matters which hon members touched upon, I should like to associate myself with the condolences conveyed to the next of kin of those who lost their lives in the performance of their duties. The past few months have made tremendously heavy demands on the SA Defence Force. In South East Angola the SA Defence Force, in support of and together with Unita, performed its task with honour and achievement. I shall elaborate on that further in a moment.

Sir, some hon members of this House were in South East Angola. They personally experienced and saw the feelings and involvement of the South African soldiers there. The hon member for Riversdal referred to this with great insight. In the process 31 South African Defence Force soldiers made the supreme sacrifice. I can assure hon members and this country that that is not easy for us. However, we find comfort in the knowledge that the price has been paid now to prevent us from having to pay a perhaps even higher price later. We honour the memory of those men. They made the supreme sacrifice in the interests of South Africa and this subcontinent. We also honour the memory of other soldiers who, in the execution of their duties, paid the supreme sacrifice so that other South Africans can live a restful and normal life and so that we, as we are doing in this House today, can peacefully discuss the security and future of our country and can continue on our chosen path of broadening democracy. We wish their dear ones, friends and family God’s richest blessings and grace.

On this occasion I should also like to congratulate the chief of the SA Defence Force and the chairman of Armscor on their work and achievements during the past year. Thanks to excellent management and planning they served South Africa honourably. Various hon members—I am thinking in particular of the hon members for Grassy Park, Robertson and Vredendal— praised Armscor and the SA Defence Force. I should also like to say: Well done. These are truly two organisations of which all South Africans may be proud. I want to thank these non members for their interest, for the goodwill they displayed, as well as for the high standard of the speeches they made. I can assure hon members that the security forces are proud of those who represent them in this House.

Sir, this brings me to a few announcements I want to make. I am doing so specifically in this House so that hon members may be conversant with the planning, development and future prospects of certain of the SA Defence Force projects. The hon member for Mamre referred to the South African Cape Corps. He discussed the amenities there and plans for the future. I am pleased that he raised this matter. I believe that what I am about to say will clarify the situation once and for all. On a previous occasion I announced that a new base was going to be built for Coloured soldiers in Kimberley.

In view of requests received in regard to the location of the unit, a degree of replanning had to be done. Nevertheless I can now confirm that the unit will begin to function there during 1990. In the meantime all the amenities and facilities will be built and developed.

The third SACC Battalion, as well as 1 Special Training Unit, the so-called Molteno Project to which all hon members referred, will be accommodated in this base. The base will be situated in Midlands, Kimberley, and will be one of the largest bases in the South African Army. I want to assure hon members that all of us are going to be proud of this base. These units are going to make their mark on the future of South Africa. They are going to be known in future for their qualities as a fighting unit, as well as a unit which is going to equip people to deal with the future challenges of South Africa.

In addition it was necessary to reconsider the location of certain other Coloured units. As a result of various factors on which I do not want to elaborate any further now, it was decided that 2 SACC Battalion would have to be moved from its present location in Eerste River. At this stage facilities that are available at Grabouw are being investigated. Efforts are being made to take over facilities available there at an acceptable price from Eskom. Consequently it is not possible to attach a time scale to this matter. If the price is right, 2 SACC Battalion will move to Grabouw within the next few years. If the price is not right, we shall have to make other plans in this connection. In addition I have already granted approval for the Cape Regiment—this is the Citizen Force unit at which Coloured soldiers who have completed their initial period as service volunteers and who wish to render continuous service are accommodated—to be located in the unit lines of 1 SACC battalion in Faure in due course. I confirm that 1 SACC Battalion will remain at Faure in the medium and long term.

Finally I should like to announce that the training area in Touws River has recently been enlarged to make provision for the earlier use of these facilities by all units in the Western Cape. This need arose because the SA Defence Force relinquished Driftsands, which up to now has served as a training area for the SACC units in Eerste River.

I want to repeat what I announced last year, namely that an infantry element is going to be situated in Namaqualand in future. In the meantime considerable progress has been made with the planning in this connection, and the establishment of the first company there by the end of 1990 or the beginning of 1991 is envisaged if the necessary funds for this purpose can be found. Subsequently the unit will be developed to full strength over a period of five years, provided of course that the funds are available.

I feel very strongly about this unit. I think this is a territory which we are really going to serve well, and there is a reasonably high potential of men who would like to qualify in this direction. Since we still have to negotiate with other interested parties in that area about further possible locations for the units and the subunits, I cannot say any more about the unit now. I hope that this planning will help to make the Coloured community even more deeply involved in the SA Defence Force.

The hon member for Mamre also touched on a few other matters which I think are important. One of those matters is security, which is a unifying factor. The hon members for Bonteheuwel and Southern Free State also referred to it this afternoon.

This is an important matter and I should like to dwell on it for a moment. Reference was made to security as a bridgehead between people in our country. What the hon members said was good. It is necessary to say it and its right that it should be said, and I want to compliment them on how they said it. It is indeed true that a country’s security is indivisible. It is the responsibility of all its people. It is also true that the enemies of our country draw no distinction between class, colour, religion or sex. To the terrorist who accumulates arms in our midst—hon members referred to the recent case near Broederstroom—hon members and their loved ones, families and friends are targets just as any member of any of the communities in South Africa is. The terrorist and the revolutionary have only one purpose in mind and that is to mutilate and murder innocent people. In that way they instill fear and victimise and intimidate innocent people. Their goal is the eventual surrender of the population. Then they can take over political power. We must remember, however, that they want to take over this country by violent means.

The hon member for Mamre and other hon members who referred to this were correct in seeing security as a bridge-builder between people. When it is a matter of security and the utilisation of our security forces, we as the three Houses of the same Parliament cannot and dare not differ. Our security forces, whether the SA Defence Force or the SA Police, make no distinction on the grounds of colour in their protection of our people. Their task is to establish order and stability where it is being threatened and disrupted. The SA Defence Force protects people and their lives, their possessions and their right to a normal life, and as the hon the Deputy Minister said, also their values and lifestyles.

This protective task which is frequently carried out with heavy sacrifices, privation and even in the face of criticism, brings our men in uniform closer to the public—as many hon members said this afternoon. This is where the ties which are formed by security and security interests originate. We must develop these ties, with security as the link. We must make these ties closer, and hon members, who are elected members of this House, can make it their real task to make these ties even closer. That is why it is important that the security forces should be a mirror image of the population of South Africa.

The hon member for Diamant spoke here about destabilisation and accusations levelled at South Africa in this connection. I want to begin by thanking him for the constructive contribution. I am now going to deal with certain of those aspects. It has become fashionable to label South Africa as the bad guy. This technique, which by now is known to all of us, is frequently used, but it is a good thing the hon member discussed this again. It is a good thing that our people who can speak with authority should say how they feel and think about these things. In this connection I want to take hon members back to a single incident. To be precise it happened early in the morning on Saturday, 13 February this year. A group of terrorists crossed the border from Zimbabwe and attacked a farmhouse west of Messina with rockets and AK-47 rifles. They also planted landmines in public roads. The landmines were located and disarmed by our security forces. After the attack the terrorists fled back into Zimbabwe.

In essence the attack did not differ very much from other similar attacks from neighbouring countries. The purpose is to murder and maim civilians, and in that way intimidate a community through violence, which is committed quite indiscriminately. Another factor which forms part of this familiar pattern is the deliberate indifference of the Zimbabwean Government to South Africa’s protests, owing to the role that country plays in those and other incidents. That government denied that the terrorists had come from and fled back to Zimbabwe, and simply ignored conclusive evidence subsequently submitted to them. It was a characteristic example of the process of cause and effect, which has led to the politics of Southern Africa and a large part of the debate in the West being dominated by the question of destabilisation on our subcontinent.

In the hackneyed propaganda against South Africa it is accepted as self-evident that it is South Africa that is destabilising its neighbours. The accusers rely primarily on the indisputable fact that on various occasions South Africa’s security forces have crossed borders to eliminate terrorist bases and facilities in other countries. However, we have acted reactively on every occasion on which the security forces have crossed the borders. The terrorists were either engaged in preparations, planning or training in order to attack South Africa, or had already attacked South Africa. They were the cause of our counteractions.

The incident involving the terrorists from Zimbabwe was an example of how the truth about South Africa is violated. Surely there is no more flagrant way of destabilising a country than by means of brutal terrorism, in an effort to sow disorder and division in a society and to disrupt the normal community life and economic activities.

The incident in the Northern Transvaal, to which I referred earlier, was such an act. On numerous occasions South Africa has had to endure similar attacks from the territories of certain neighbouring states. South Africa has lodged objections with the governments of those countries against this most destructive form of destabilisation. Proof that terrorists made attacks on South Africa from their territories was submitted to the governments. In some cases we even furnished the governments with the details of where the terrorists were to be found, and South Africa offered its assistance in taking steps against those malefactors. Some governments, in accordance with their policy of regional co-operation, then reacted positively; others did not. They preferred to deny the facts shamelessly, and persisted in behaviour which made them passive and sometimes active partners in a campaign of destabilisation against the Republic of South Africa. The consequences were inevitable. That is why the South African Security Forces are sent across the borders to take steps against terrorists.

Undoubtedly the propagandistic reaction has also been inevitable. It is not the original committers of acts of violent destabilisation, but South Africa which took steps to protect itself and its people, which is presented as the destabiliser of Southern Africa. That is why South Africa has no alternative but to act decisively when its people have to be protected, and when its interests require this to be done.

This brings me to Angola. The hon member for Riversdal spoke about this. As usual he did his homework, as I have said before. I thank him once again for his extremely positive contribution. He referred authoritatively to aspects concerning Angola. I should like to add a few facts and elaborate on this subject so that hon members can have a full grasp of the situation.

Fapla—the MPLA—does not care about its people. To them human lives are cheap. This is a lesson for those in South Africa who want to speak to terrorists so readily. South Africa, on the other hand, does care about its people and that is why our operations in South East Angola were even extended so as not to run any risk, or as little risk as possible. The safety of our soldiers is our first priority. The hon member asked a question in this connection. Militarily our operation was a fantastic achievement. A force which never exceeded 3 000 men inflicted heavy losses on Fapla and other mercenaries. According to estimates the losses were in the region of 7 000 to 10 000.

I am pleased the hon member for Riversdal gave a statement of captured and destroyed equipment. I want to draw the attention of hon members to the fact that it amounted to more than $1 billion in value, which is no small loss. The Soviet Union made good the loss with even more advanced and sophisticated equipment, such as Mig 25 fighter helicopters, a wide range of antiaircraft missile systems, T-26 tanks, and so on. The purpose of this sophisticated equipment is to get other Southern African states into the same Eastern bloc as Angola. The ultimate target is of course, as we all know, the RSA. Many hon members also spelt it out this afternoon. South Africa acted in its own interests, and for the sake of the subcontinent of which it is part, and did so extremely effectively. Limited losses of life and equipment were suffered.

Let us now consider the participants, who have remained the same for the past 10 to 12 years. The forces that have tried to export revolution from Angola to SWA/Namibia, South Africa and other states in our region are the MPLA, the Soviet Union, Cuba, the ANC and Swapo. Opposing them are South Africa, Unita and the South West African Administration. Although the participants remain the same, a fundamental change has set in since the middle seventies.

In 1975 the MPLA assumed unilateral political power by means of a revolutionary coup and was at the beginning of its regime. Its position was strong, but only on the surface, because its decline as a result of a civil war still lay ahead. The Soviet Union had provided weapons aid on an unprecedented scale and of an unnecessarily sophisticated standard for a civil war. Cuba had sent mercenaries in their thousands. The objective was to establish socialistic internationalism in Angola.

The Soviet Union and its minions were in an expansionistic phase. Among the so-called frontline states optimism ran high. They calculated, erroneously, that socialism’s sun was rising over Africa. Today, 10 to 12 years later, socialism’s sun is setting behind the foothills of collapse and poverty. Socialism has failed, even in the Soviet Union. Even Premier Mikhail Gorbachev said so.

The Soviet Union can no longer afford its expansionism and is returning home. Afghanistan has cost the Soviet Union $2,5 billion over the past five years; weapons aid to Cuba has amounted to $6,4 billion and Angola has drained $4,9 billion from the Soviet Union’s coffers. Angola will probably have to foot the bill for that for decades, primarily from its oil and fishing resources. I found these statistics which I have just quoted in the US News and World Report of 9 May 1988.

Angola has proved to be an extremely expensive experiment in the export of Marxism. Today Angola finds itself in economic and social chaos, Cuba is living on hand-outs from Moscow and Swapo is generally recognised as a failure. The positions and capabilities of the players around the table have undergone a major change. South Africa—I want to confirm this—derives no pleasure from the collapse of Angola, because in the final analysis it is the people who are suffering.

I can assure hon members that the Cuban image has been heavily tarnished. Today the Cubans are being seen for what they are. They are mercenaries who are not welcomed by the people of Angola, and as allies they are unreliable in battle. Their rapid retreat from the van of the battle lines in South East Angola testified to that.

The Soviet Union was able to withdraw its own troops from Afghanistan, but what is Castro going to do with his roaming forces, which, like a swarm of locusts, can only destroy? Africa should be on its guard against this force’s ultimately continuing to roam the continent like a marauding swarm without any final destination. The reports we hear about these forces, in regard to diseases such Aids, bode nothing good either.

What is South Africa concerned with in Angola? I want to make a few fundamental statements in this connection. Firstly the withdrawal of Cuban forces for the sake of our interests, and those of Southern Africa, is a high priority. Their withdrawal is a key to the solution to the problems of that country, and those of Southern Africa. Secondly, Angola may not be dominated by aggressive expansionistic super powers. Thirdly an internal solution must be sought by means of national reconciliation. After the latest offensive, Unita has been established anew. It is a strong political factor which makes its influence felt throughout the whole of Angola. Fourthly, an African-oriented solution for Angola is necessary. For that reason the involvement of African states that are seeking stability is essential. Dr Savimbi is also in favour of this. Fifthly, a withdrawal of Cubans and a reconciliation between the warring factions can have far-reaching implications for South West Africa/Namibia. Finally, South Africa has a duty to protect its own interests and those of the region. In accordance with our ground rules for interaction between states, we have no desire for expansion or the domination of any other state. We are not forcing them into political solutions.

Talks between the respective parties are now in progress. The hon member for Riversdal referred to the fact that they first took place in London, and last week in Brazzaville. I welcome this development and hope for a positive outcome. We must be realistic, however, and remain levelheaded. We dare not allow too high expectations to force the realities into the background now.

I must reiterate that whether we are going to be successful or not depends on many factors. I am not over-optimistic that the negotiations are going to succeed very easily or very soon. A fundamental truth is that talks are not yet peace. I think that is what the hon member for Bonteheuwel was referring to this afternoon. Even within the milieu of talks there is an increase in advanced armaments in Angola and a concentration of Cuban forces southwards, north of Ovambo. Ostensibly approximately 25% of the 45 000 Cuban forces are being deployed in this direction. The hon member for Riversdal indicated his concern in this connection.

These Cubans are interspersed with Fapla forces and Swapo terrorists. Ostensibly they are paving the way for Swapo, from whom more aggressive action can consequently be expected. On the basis of where we stand now, our message is the following. The MPLA is holding talks with us. At the same time, however, Cuban mercenaries are trying with aggressive steps to achieve military and territorial advantage. It does not make sense, and is prejudicial to the negotiating climate. These actions by the Cubans can serve as a barometer to determine whether the MPLA is serious about the talks and about peace for Angola. Should the southward movement of the Cubans be of no assistance in that regard, there is no sense in any further talks with the MPLA.

In the second place, the Cubans are exceeding their mandate in Angola. They were not brought there, invited or sent there to form a shield for Swapo. They supposedly came to help the Angolans. This apparent mandate of the MPLA to the Cubans is not in line with reality.

In the third place I want to point out that while exploratory talks were in progress in London, Cuba sent further troop reinforcements to Angola. Hon members will recall that some newspaper reports referred to 6 000 troops, while others estimated the figure at 10 000. Among the most advanced armaments are being stockpiled there. This is not even in line with the climate of discussion, namely that they will ostensibly see to it that the Cubans withdraw from Angola.

Fourthly, Gorbachev came into power in the Soviet Union in 1985. While he began to negotiate with America on nuclear weapons, he tried to expand Soviet influence in various parts of the world dramatically. In exactly the same way as Afghanistan, Angola is in a state of regional conflict which the countries of Africa themselves must solve. South Africa is part of Africa and for that reason has an interest in what happens in Angola, particularly if our own interests are affected.

Fifthly, South Africa’s policy on the export of revolution and terrorism is very clear. The MPLA, which is affording the ANC training and other facilities, must stop doing so. This was stated clearly to the MPLA delegation in Brazzaville.

In the sixth place, South Africa realises that not all negotiations are the same. Last week the retiring chief of the Air Force issued a warning in this regard. Lt-Gen Dennis Earp is a man who can speak with first-hand experience. He spent 23 months as a prisoner-of-war in a Red Chinese camp, and saw Communism in practice. Finally, negotiations to the Communists mean the continuation of conflict through other means. Peace, as they understand it, is only attainable when they are able to get all those who are opposing them out of the way.

In this connection I should like to quote from Pravda, the mouthpiece of the Kremlin, which wrote the following on 9 October 1970, and I quote:

In the Bulletin van die Instituut vir Strategiese Studies van UP (No 1 of 1988) Dr R F Delaney writes the following about communist negotiating techniques, and I quote:

I want to refer, furthermore, to the good editorial column which appeared in Rapport of Sunday, 15 May. In this connection I just want to emphasise one or two aspects:

They end with these words:

I am certain that the hon member for Bonteheuwel will agree with what I am now going to say by way of summary. From the communist point of view negotiations are therefore a continuation, around the conference table, of the military struggle. During the negotiations, however, the military struggle is continued by the communist. On the other hand negotiations can also be used as a deliberate technique to obtain military relief when a negotiating state is under pressure.

South Africa desires peace and stability and also—as was requested and stated here this afternoon —stable neighbours. The Defence Force, which is in the front line of the war, desires peace and stability most of all, and precisely because we desire peace, we are taking part in discussions. We know, however, that other parties attach other meanings to talks, negotiations and peace than we do. Consequently we are going to the conference table with our eyes open and in a level-headed way to talk about peace which is permanent, and which can pave the way to development in Africa.

This brings me to Project Molteno. It was praised this afternoon. Quite a number of hon members recently went to see what was happening at grassroots level. I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the hon member for Diamant for his splendid observations about this project which is of great importance to him as well.

Project Molteno has a specific background. In the late thirties there was a programme in which unemployed Whites were taught military and manual skills. Out of that programme 1 Special Services Battalion was born, and I am certain many of our ex-soldiers sitting here are very well acquainted with that unit.

In 1985 I held out the prospect of a similar training programme for unemployed Coloured youths. The Defence Force, with the co-operation of the Department of Manpower, gave substance to Project Molteno. The objective is to provide the young men with military training. That is why they are trained as soldiers first of all, and utilised in that role. Their basic training period includes the same basic courses which are offered at any other unit of the SA Defence Force. Some of the hon members have paid a visit to 1 Special Training Unit, and they have seen the results that have been achieved. They will agree with me about the pride with which those young men conduct themselves as soldiers. The discipline of basic training as soldiers is the foundation to the great success of Project Molteno.

The young men are trained in the social sphere. This gives them an opportunity to attain an enhanced standard of living. They receive instruction on the use of money, a balanced diet and a hygienic way of life, and then there is also enough time for sport. This training, in the South African tradition, takes place in the spirit of our Christian values. They receive training in skills in order to participate in the labour market. After taking aptitude tests, the young soldiers are enrolled with the Northern Cape Training Centre to be trained in manual skills. Here all students attend lectures dealing with matters ranging from family planning to personal hygiene, apart from whatever course they are following. Courses are based on practical implementation, but also include quite a lot of theoretical work. Some of the soldiers are trained at 1 Special Training Unit in the maintenance and restoration of buildings, reinforced steel work and building work carpentry.

When they have completed their courses, the soldiers are able to weld and to do plaster work, woodwork, electrical wiring or plumbing. These men are definitely going to be an asset to their community upon their return. Spiritually as well as physically they can make a tremendously constructive contribution.

Many more courses are being offered, which I shall not go into at the moment. The success of Project Molteno has surprised everyone. Many firms are making enquiries about employing these men. This demonstrates that a recruit trained by the Defence Force is in demand. It is because he is a disciplined individual and possesses the necessary skills. As hon members heard here this afternoon, many of the young men who are being trained in Project Molteno have a higher qualification than Std 5. There was little hope for them in this life. The discipline and training which such a young man receives in the Defence Force gives meaning and direction to his life. If he wants to join the Defence Force, his application as a member of the Permanent Force is considered. If his application is successful he can lay claim to the same benefits as any other member of the Permanent Force in the same professional category.

I want to tell hon members that 83 of the young men trained in the pilot project did military service in the operational area in 1987. They proved that as soldiers they were as good as any other soldiers in the Defence Force. When this programme was started in 1987, 200 unemployed persons were recruited. This year the number has been increased to two intakes of 500 each. I have no doubt that this project is firmly gaining momentum. The success of Molteno is important to all South Africans. With this project the Defence Force has succeeded in giving meaning to the lives of many young men and their families. The once unemployed young men, who were ripe for revolutionary indoctrination, gained self-respect and became extremely useful citizens, with an interest in the future of South Africa.

This brings me to the hon member for Mamre. He referred to the Republic of South Africa that he should like to see in future. I think he also used the expression post-apartheid. In this regard, too, I want to make a few observations. Let us be frank about this, Sir—in its propaganda the ANC also refers to a post-apartheid era. The heart of the matter, however—the actual issue—is the way in which it is achieved. South Africa is moving into this post-apartheid era. We must determine how it is going to be governed into that era as it were.

The recipe of the SACP/ANC alliance is clear: Broederstroom gives the answer. It is the landmine or hand grenade, the AK-47—which is a symbol of violence and destruction. This is the path of intimidation and destruction. A so-called people’s democracy must ultimately emerge from this. Last year in this House I explained what the so-called people’s democracy was; I am not going to repeat it. It is no democracy as we are experiencing now. It entails government by a small power clique. The people’s democracy is a small leaders’ cadre that must be able to decide for will-less masses.

In juxtaposition to this is the other post-apartheid South Africa, of which many cornerstones have already been laid in the reform or restructuring process we are engaged in. Sir, in this process a contribution has been made by many different voices with different views. This process is inter alia discernible in this tricameral Parliament, where the present and the future of this country are being debated across the dividing lines of colour, language and culture. The same thing is happening in the provincial administrations and in many other bodies.

It is of essential importance, and a fundamental prerequisite for this post-apartheid South Africa, that it should take place by means of the democratic process. The broadening of the democratic process must take place in an orderly way and according to certain requirements and principles; otherwise we are going to lose everything that has been established in this country so far. All political reform and all political evolution in the Republic of South Africa must take place through orderly development and must be based on sound democratic principles.

There is no room in the negotiating process or in any new political dispensation for a party which, as the ANC is in its present form, is committed to violent revolution and, what is more, is allied to international communism. The hon member for Bonteheuwel referred to this as well.

The only way in which the ANC can become part of the process is to lay down its arms, to cease its terrorism, to refrain from planting bombs and taking innocent lives, to stop murdering people in Black residential areas and to sever its international ties with the SACP, as the hon the State President recently reiterated in Parliament. Then, and then only, can it participate in the negotiating process in South Africa. There is nothing new in my saying that South Africa finds itself in a transitional phase. The restructuring of South Africa is in progress. What is also certain, however, is that this process requires patience and constructive, creative work. It is evolutionary; not revolutionary. In this evolutionary restructuring we as South Africans must take one another’s hands and present a strong, united front.

This brings me to hon members, to whom I want to react quickly. First of all I come to the hon member for Border, who referred to the question of national service as opposed to voluntary service. It is very clear that it was not my blood he was after this afternoon; it was that of all the other speakers. However, I am prepared to state my own standpoint. It is stated in Hansard. Last year on 10 September, I said, and I quote from Hansard, col 2981:

I want to thank the hon member for his observations on Molteno. He spoke about a miracle. I hope it is going to be a miracle. I think it has the qualities of a miracle. As regards the expansion of Molteno, I want to say that I would want to expand Molteno as rapidly as possible, because I am of the opinion that it offers people a wonderful training opportunity. We shall have to see how successful it is first, however, and subsequently we shall have to see how we can decentralise it further, so that perhaps we could even be of assistance to other areas. I want to thank him for his constructive contribution and the high level of debating.

This brings me to the hon member for Mamre, who spoke about the facilities at the SACC. We understand this. The Chief of the South African Defence Force is present today. He has taken cognisance of what the hon member said, and will give attention to it. The hon member referred to security as a bridge builder. I replied to that and I tried to indicate that security is a priority for South Africa. I also tried to give an exposition of the new South Africa, the post-apartheid South Africa. I also want to thank the hon member for the positive and constructive contribution he made this afternoon.

I have already replied to the hon member for Grassy Park, but I want to thank him once again for his fine and constructive contribution on Armscor. To tell the truth, the hon member pointed out to me aspects of Armscor of which I myself am not always that aware. I thank him for doing so.

I appreciate the key words of the hon member for Robertson, namely that the Coloured soldier has always done his best for South Africa, and will continue to do so in the future. I agree with him; I thank him very much for that. I want to tell him that there are already nine Coloured nurses in uniform, while 36 Coloured nurses have been employed by the SADF as civilian nursing personnel. In 1988-89, 43 nursing posts will be available, for which members of any population group may apply. Applicants will be selected on the basis of stipulated selection requirements, and appointed.

The hon member also put a question to me in respect of women. The Defence Force undertook a major task with the Molteno Project. We must get that project going before we begin to give attention to other kinds of projects. I am in full agreement with the hon member as to the identification thereof; it is a very important project.

The hon the Deputy Minister replied to the hon member for Southern Free State. I want to thank him once again for his enthusiasm and positive attitude. The hon member hit the nail on the head with what he had to say about disinvestment, sanctions and the treacherous conduct of the church leaders in regard to the Republic of South Africa. I do not know whether they realise who in the RSA they are going to harm most if those efforts of theirs succeed. The hon member emphasised that today.

I also thank the hon member for the attention he gave to joint management centres. I think these centres are probably among the most important organisations for bringing about interaction between the respective communities and breaking down the walls which have been erected between the respective communities, so that we can talk to one another and jointly formulate a common objective.

The hon member for Rust Ter Vaal was very positive. The hon the Deputy Minister replied to him, but I also want to thank him for his contribution. He referred to the hon the State President’s son who, according to one of the newspapers, is in the Marines. This young man is at present doing his national service in the SA Navy. Before he began his national service he was a member of the sea cadets in False Bay for a number of years—I am not certain how many. I want to add that the sea cadets do not fall under my department, but it is an excellent organisation which is geared to instilling in young men a love of the sea, and related skills. I want to encourage hon members to send their own children or persuade their voters to send their children there, because they receive really good training. The son of the hon the State President was involved in the sea cadets before he went to the Navy. He chose the Navy and I think it was a good decision. I know the Defence Force and I am certain that they are treating him in exactly the way they would treat any other national serviceman. National servicemen are treated like soldiers or sailors, and I have no problems with that.

I want to thank the hon member for Vredendal sincerely for his positive attitude in regard to the community and the members and his statement about how important he considered discipline and religion to be, and the major role these aspects had played in the lives of the people of eminence whom he mentioned here this afternoon. I know 90% of those people. They are people of stature and when the hon member mentioned them one after the other, I realised that he had drawn up a very good list.

The hon member for Fish River made the same statement as the hon member for Vredendal in respect of ex-servicemen, and I shall reply to him at the same time. When I became Minister of Defence I called a meeting at the Ministry of Defence of all ex-servicemen’s organisations, for the specific purpose of giving attention to problems of this kind, because as the hon member correctly illustrated, these people frequently feel lost. They feel lost in the sense that they were important when they fought for their country. When they came back, they were merely given a bicycle and one shilling a day, and today they are simply being shunted around. I called this meeting in order to find a point of contact so that they could use my ministry to make contact with other Ministers who bore the actual responsibility in respect of ex-servicemen.

I want to suggest that in order to resolve this problem of isolation, the SACC should perhaps draw up a list of honorary members of the SACC. Then, when they take part in functions in a town such as Vredendal, those people can be personally invited to attend the functions these soldiers are taking part in. It is the small things, like being able to say that one has not been forgotten, which are highly appreciated. The issue here is not a financial one or anything of that kind, but whether or not they receive individual recognition. I thank the hon member for his suggestion.

†I have referred to what the hon member for Bonteheuwel said. He made an excellent contribution and expressed several truths.

One truth is that no South African can be neutral. The hon member for Bonteheuwel said the revolutionary onslaught demands our courage and also our deeds and I agree with him wholeheartedly. It is not a question of only using one’s mouth; one has to do something too. He went on to say that we have to mobilise our people, as the revolutionaries are trying to do. In other words we have to counteract them. He said we must beat them and that there is nothing better than a winner. A winner is always popular.

The hon member referred to our schools and spoke of the youth and I fully agree with what he said. However, the revolutionaries have other targets too like labour unions, churches, etc. The municipal elections of 26 October will also be a target, so we have to be wide awake. I want to thank the hon member for his contribution.

*Mr Chairman, this brings me to the hon member for Diamant. He said we were seeking peace and not surrender, and that we must guard against surrender. That is the one aspect we have constantly given attention to during the negotiations. I am a little concerned, however, because our people on the home front may have expectations in respect of talks that are too high. It must be borne in mind that talks are not yet peace. I want to thank the hon member sincerely for his fine words concerning Molteno. I am certain that this special training unit in the Kimberley vicinity is going to become a showpiece. I thank the hon member for his fine contribution.

I have already replied in part to the hon member for Fish River. He said that when he returned as an ex-soldier, he had received a bicycle. Today, however, there is a small difference, because at that time we were fighting for king and country; now we are fighting for South Africa and for all South Africans. We have reached the stage at which we all have an equally important share in the struggle awaiting us. I hope that that reference to the past—which was quite correct—will never be necessary in the era we are entering.

I have already dealt with most of the points raised by the hon member for Riversdal. I want to thank him once again for his enthusiasm and for the clarity with which he stated his case today. I can assure him that it is always a pleasure to listen to him.

Last but not least I want to refer to my hon Deputy Minister and thank him sincerely for the very good contribution he made in this House. The hon member for Mamre spoke about Western Province this afternoon, and how it can win. While I have a back stop like the hon the Deputy Minister, we can win every match, just like WP. [Interjections.] I want to thank him sincerely; it is a pleasure to be able to harness such a willing horse for such an important Vote as Defence.

Debate concluded.