presented a petition from Chief T G Mathebe, chairman of the Moutse Regional Authority and ex-member of the Lebowa Legislative Assembly for Moutse, and M W Chueu, ex-elected member of the Lebowa Legislative Assembly for Moutse, praying for leave to be heard at the Bar of the House in order to urge the House to disapprove of Proclamation No 227 of 31 December 1985 (Government Gazette No 10053) in terms of section 37 of the National States Constitution Act, 1971 (Act No 21 of 1971), read with section 17 of the Interpretation Act, 1957 (Act No 33 of 1957).

I deem it necessary to make this statement on a matter which can be resolved within the Parliamentary Rules so that it will not be blown up into something of national and international proportions.

In view of occurrences within the precincts of Parliament in connection with the use of the catering facilities, I wish to point out that the use of, and the presence of persons in, the precincts of Parliament are subject to rules and conditions determined by the Speaker. In performing these functions the Speaker acts in terms of the resolutions of a committee or committees. As regards the use of refreshment rooms, arrangements have been made by way of resolutions and negotiation.

It is important to note that the existing catering facilities in the precincts of Parliament were and still are inadequate for serving all members of Parliament simultaneously, and therefore provision is being made for additional catering facilities for members in the new building.

In the meantime, however, arrangements have had to be made to make the best possible provision for members of Parliament in the circumstances. In terms of these arrangements certain refreshment rooms have been allocated for the use of members of the various Houses, but not on the ground of race or colour. So, for example, guests, wives and staff of members are not permitted in certain rooms. The rationale behind the resolutions is, inter alia, to ensure some degree of privacy for members of Parliament.

Apparently there are members of Parliament who feel inconvenienced by these arrangements, and I have accordingly decided to convene a joint meeting of the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders of the Houses of Parliament with a view to discussing this particular matter.

Pending resolutions adopted at this meeting, I shall appreciate it if members will observe the existing arrangements. I also wish to appeal to the media which are accredited to Parliament and which render an important service to Parliament and its working, to refrain from reporting on and discussing this matter further until it has been brought to finality.

Mr Speaker, on a point of clarification, may I ask you a question in connection with your statement?

Order! I believe the matter can be cleared up at a later stage, in my chambers. I am not prepared to allow any questions in relation to this matter now.

as Chairman, presented the Fifth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Trade and Industry, dated 5 February, 1986 as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Sixth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Trade and Industry, dated 5 February 1986, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Agricultural Economics and Water Affairs, dated 5 February 1986, as follows:

Mr Speaker, if there is one thing which has emerged from the debate so far, it is the wide disparity among hon members of the National Party in their interpretation of the State President’s speech at the opening of Parliament.

On the one hand we had the narrow interpretation yesterday given by the hon the Minister of National Education, who did his best to reassure everybody that the State President’s speech was in fact only a small deviation from the existing policy of apartheid, and that all the foundation stones of apartheid were to be left firmly in place—separate residential areas, separate schools, and so forth.

On the other hand, Sir, we had the hon member for Innesdal who yesterday gave us a really euphoric exposé on a grand new apartheid-free South Africa.

I believe it would be very interesting if this House could know how many adherents there are to each of these schools of thought; how many agree with the interpretation of the hon the Minister of National Education, and how many agree with the views of the hon member for Innesdal. All I can say is: thank heaven there is not a by-election in the offing in a National Party marginal constituency right now, because I think of the bewilderment of the electorate trying to decide whether to believe the hon the Minister of National Education or whether to believe our Albert. [Interjections.]

I must admit that we on this side of the House are not too sure what to believe either. There are so many ambiguities in the State President’s speech. The good news, of course, is that the State President has informed us that the Government has outgrown what he called the “outdated” concept of apartheid. Well, “outdated” means “unfashionable”, but I would think there is a better word to describe the system of apartheid with all its implicit cruelties. Could it ever have been fashionable to have forced removals, to have millions of pass arrests, to have District Six razed to the ground or to deprive people of citizenship?

However I want to leave the ugly past behind and try to explore future possibilities. The famous advertisement, at taxpayers’ expense, contains ringing phrases like “We are committed to equal opportunity for all. Equal treatment. Equal justice.” I want to know if there can be equal opportunity for all as long as the land Acts, the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act—which in fact lays down separate but unequal public facilities—remain on the Statute Book. Can there be equal justice for all when due process of the law is subverted by detention without trial? I also want to know whether the scrapping of the pass laws by 1 July 1986, and the substitution of existing influx control measures by a system of urbanisation, will release Blacks from the stranglehold of immobility. I want to suggest here that a moratorium be called on all pass law arrests until 1 July 1986. [Interjections.] On last year’s figures alone, that will spare 83 000 people the harassment of arrest under the pass laws.

Unless these questions are satisfactorily answered, I believe that the State President’s ringing phrases are totally meaningless. They are then like Humpty Dumpty, with the attitude: “When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean—neither more nor less.” I believe that unless these questions are satisfactorily answered, we can abandon all hope of restoring stability in South Africa. Pressures from overseas for sanctions against South Africa will continue and we shall not even begin to create the necessary climate which will enable the Statutory Council to get off the ground.

Having said that about the State President’s speech, I want to turn to a few very specific issues. Firstly, I want to comment on the bizarre statement—that is all I can call it—the State President made concerning Nelson Mandela. He has changed the original stance which he adopted last year during the no-confidence debate. Then, humanitarian considerations were a side issue. The release of Mandela depended on his unconditional rejection of violence as a political instrument. That requirement was all that stood in the way of Nelson Mandela’s freedom. The State President said at the time that the choice was Mandela’s. That was on 31 January 1985. On Friday, 31 January 1986, however, the choice was no longer Mandela’s. It had become an international issue, with Shcharansky, Sakharov and Captain du Toit all in the act, and South Africa trading what were called humanitarian considerations with Soviet Russia and with Angola. Now I wonder why Russia should be presumed to want Mandela out of gaol if—as the State President told us—the South African Communist Party and the ANC have much to gain by Mandela’s remaining in prison.

By the same token, why does the South African Government continue to keep Mandela locked up in Pollsmoor Prison? Surely the State President lays himself open to the charge of furthering the aims of not one but two banned organisations, ie the South African Communist Party and the ANC!

I want to ask the hon the Minister of Justice, and I am glad to see he is here, whether the offer to release Mandela if he rejects violence still holds good? Does that hold good notwithstanding Russia’s humanitarian considerations? Does it still hold good for the other prisoners in the same category, as the State President last year said it would do? Can the hon the Minister of Justice answer this question? It is a question I ask because I know of two such prisoners who have indeed signed the statement that they will reject violence and who are still locked up; the hon Minister knows to whom I am referring. Does that offer still hold good is what I want to know? No answer. [Interjections.] I hope he answers the question when he does speak. [Interjections.]

The other issue I want to raise is the state of emergency and what has happened since it was declared by the State President on 21 July last year, after nine months of ongoing unrest and violence. The State President told us that he was declaring a state of emergency at the insistence of all responsible South Africans, especially of the majority of Black communities who asked that conditions be normalised.

The regulations that were issued with the proclamation gave extremely wide powers to the Police Force, to the Railway Police, to the Prisons Service and to the Army. All are indemnified for any act committed in good faith—and I may say that good faith is presumed unless the contrary is proved.

Well, if there is one thing the state of emergency has not done it is to restore peace and normality to the townships or anywhere else for that matter. Let us look at some figures. According to the South African Institute of Race Relations, from the start of the unrest in September 1984 to 21 January 1986, 1 097 people were killed in township conflict. From 21 July 1985, when the emergency was declared to 21 January 1986, 614 people were killed. In other words 483 people died in the ten months before the state of emergency was declared, as against the 614 people who died in the six months after the emergency was declared. Of those people killed, two thirds are estimated to have died as a result of police action and one third as result of Black-on-Black violence, which is a new and very alarming syndrome of the internecine political strife in this country. Nobody knows how many people have been seriously injured or incapacitated for life, and I imagine those figures are very high indeed. I want to place on record that it is my firm conviction that police excesses, details of which have been given by one of my colleagues, and others will give further details are in good measure due to the blanket indemnity police and army enjoy under the emergency regulations.

Thus we have the reckless use of tear-gas, birdshot and bullets, and day after day the Press carries reports of tear-gas fired into school rooms and into church halls and of people—many of them children—shot and killed and injured in seemingly unprovoked circumstances as, for example, the disgraceful Trojan Horse incident here at the Cape.

For months on end on TV screens across the world, (but not in South Africa), there were disgusting scenes of police shambokking peaceful protesters. I want to tell the hon the Minister of Law and Order that the ban on TV cameras and the Press at scenes of unrest since 2 November cannot erase those ugly images of police brutality. They are indelibly printed on the minds of millions of viewers all over the world.

The detention figures are also startling. From the declaration of the state of emergency to 16 January this year 7 548 people were detained, many of them for several months, in the interim losing their jobs—which nobody seems to care about—and causing their families great anxiety. Something like 3 600 people were detained under the Internal Security Act, mostly under the two weeks detention clause, but there are still 351 people detained under emergency regulations and there are 137 people detained under section 29 of the Internal Security Act. Until a few months ago, when the regulations were amended, these people did not even enjoy the rights of awaiting trial prisoners. The detention of many children is a matter of great concern because they do not enjoy the protection of the Children’s Act under the emergency regulations.

I want to mention the serious side-effect of detaining community leaders in the townships, namely the subsequent deprivation of responsible elements in these areas. There is no-one to negotiate with and the communities are left at the mercy of extremists who terrorise and intimidate the residents. Extended school boycotts have often been the result. The townships have become ungovernable as so-called collaborators are “necklaced” and their houses burned by the violent elements who cannot be too strongly condemned. In short, the state of emergency has, if anything, exacerbated the prolonged violence and unrest. The State President should have announced that he was going to lift the state of emergency forthwith and release all detainees.

I now want to say something about another extremely disturbing matter, namely the emergence of a sinister Third Force and of vigilantes. The Third Force or Death Squad is widely believed to be responsible for a number of unsolved murders of Black community leaders such as Victoria Mxenge, Mathew Goniwe, Fort Calata and others. It is also believed to be responsible for attacks on the property of prominent anti-Government persons, Black and White. How come, people ask—and I ask the hon the Minister of Law and Order—that none of the thugs engaged in these nefarious activities is ever brought to trial? As for the vigilantes who terrorise and kill members of the Black communities who are opposed to Government policy, these ruffians are apparently not only tolerated but in some cases actively encouraged by the police themselves.

I have affidavits about this happening in Huhudi near Vryburg, in the Black townships at Parys, Kroonstad, Krugersdorp, Bloemfontein, Queenstown, and no doubt elsewhere. Recently statements have been made alleging that the police at Leandra, although sent for urgently, did nothing to prevent the shocking assassination of Chief Mayisa by vigilantes, and they stood by while vigilantes attacked mourners at the funeral of the Chief.

At Moutse near Groblersdal appeals to the police to protect people who had been kidnapped and assaulted by vigilantes sent by Skhosana, who appears to run his own Mafia gangs from kwaNdebele, fell on deaf ears. In the resultant internecine warfare several people were killed and injured and two policemen were killed by infuriated Moutse men. At Ekangala also, kwaNdebele vigilantes have violently attacked residents opposing incorporation.

Has the hon the Minister of Law and Order no understanding of the inherent dangers of allowing these undisciplined gangs, which are often armed, to run amok, killing people and destroying property? It is tantamount to condoning anarchy with all its attendant violence. The Government is employing a very perilous strategy indeed in its tacit encouragement of uncontrolled elements in the Black community to take the law into their own hands.

I want to say a few words about the Moutse affair itself and the utterly reprehensible and incomprehensible decision of the Government to incorporate Moutse into kwaNdebele which is about to become an independent Black state, and to transfer the jurisdiction from Lebowa to kwaNdebele. Is it not amazing how easily the Government discards the sacred principle of ethnicity and group identity when it suits them to do so, and hangs on to it desperately when it does not?

During the recess I phoned the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I might add that he has been a very busy bee indeed during the recess, assembling a veritable empire unto himself. He has taken all the meaningful portfolios away from the former Minister of Co-operation who is now called the Minister of Education and Development Aid. Everything concerning influx control etc, is in the hot little hands of Emperor Heunis. [Interjections.] I phoned to complain about the incorporation of Moutse despite the strong opposition of the people concerned. The hon the Minister told me that the decision was irreversible. This is of course pure nonsense, as nothing is irreversible except death. Certainly a decision like this is reversible. Section 37 of the National States Constitution Act, No 21 of 1971 in fact, lays down the procedure whereby Parliament can reverse the idiotic decision taken by the Cabinet. Parliament merely has to disapprove of the Proclamation of Incorporation issued by the State President on 31 December 1985. I have taken steps to table a petition to that effect and I intend to introduce a motion asking this House to disapprove. I think that will be the correct stage at which to discuss details of the incorporation of Moutse.

Now you have your day for insults.

Yes, it is an excellent day for insults.

The incorporation of the Moutse people into kwaNdebele does not fall into the category of a physical forced removal which the Government has undertaken to suspend, but in every other respect it is a forced removal. This, I want to tell the Government, is the sort of callous action which totally disregards the views of the people concerned and which earns Pretoria the condemnation of the whole world. The world knows about Moutse, and the Government would do well to reverse this decision. It has turned a peace-loving community into a bloody, strife-ridden area. I see nothing but ongoing trouble and violence there if the Government proceeds with its plans. I put this affair in the category of those provocative actions which lead to punitive steps against South Africa. What is happening at Moutse will bring the threat of sanctions ever nearer.

What this Government apparently fails to realise is that the Western World has finally lost patience with South Africa. Very little is needed to tip the balance that will lead to the total isolation of the Republic of South Africa.

Mr Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday evening the hair on the heads of the hon members on the Government side was standing on end, after the hon member for Jeppe had been regaling this House for approximately a quarter of an hour with the kind of speech we have by this time come to expect from him. I do not wish to dwell on the contents of his speech for long but I shall, as is customary, at least refer to it. Although the hon member himself is not interested in this, I do nevertheless wish to tell him something. I think it would be better for the House, the CP and also the hon member’s voters if he were to try to cultivate a better attitude between himself and the hon the Minister of Defence. If one has to listen to criticism of the Defence Force and the defence of South Africa in the spirit in which it is being presented at present, it cannot be regarded as good debating. The hon member knows that I, who served for a long time with him in the defence group of the NP, mean this seriously. I feel that it serves no purpose to present it in the spirit in which it was again presented yesterday.

I want to dwell briefly on the speech made by the hon member for Houghton. She kicked off with a very strange remark today by thanking heaven that there was no by-election taking place in an NP constituency at this stage. This is the first time in all the years I have been serving in this House that I have heard that hon member express concern about the winning or losing of a seat by an NP member. [Interjections.]

Basically, the hon member addressed her speech to the hon the Minister of Law and Order and the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid, and therefore I do not wish to go into it in detail. Yet there is something I wish to say to the hon member. [Interjections.] I do not think that the hon member for Houghton, year after year and in one speech after another, need make a habit of trying to get at the SA Police. All of us have said on occasion that no one is blameless, and not members of the forces either. In these very difficult times, however, I think it is unnecessary for the hon member for Houghton to regard it as her task and duty, from one platform to another, to be as derogatory and disparaging as she possibly can towards the Police. [Interjections.]

Today the hon member did not utter a single positive word about what members of the Police—White, Coloured, Asian and also Black members—are having to go through in these difficult times in South Africa. The fact of the matter is that they, too, are having to ward off an onslaught, not only on behalf of every member of the population of South Africa, but also as far as their own homes, their own property and their own families are concerned. I think we—even the hon member for Houghton—at least owe it to them to express a little appreciation from time to time.

I am astonished that the hon member for Houghton and her colleagues tell us from day to day to withdraw the members of the forces from the Black areas; it is they in their Police, Defence and camouflage uniforms who are the stumbling-block; they are the cause of riots. When Black people and Black leaders then try to maintain law and order themselves, or try to regulate matters in their own areas themselves, the hon member is opposed to that as well. I can tell the hon member what the people in my constituency are saying. My voters say to me: Listen, if the Black people are able to maintain law and order among their own people themselves, you must stay away. That is what they say, and I think the voters of many other hon members say the same. Why do you want to interfere, they ask us, if these people wish to set their own house in order? I do not want to go into merits of this view now, but I am convinced that there are hon members on that side of the House, whose voters say precisely the same thing.

The contents of the State President’s opening address are being debated throughout South Africa, and probably throughout the world. I think the voters of every hon member sitting here welcome our examining the contents of that speech here in the highest forum of debate.

Today I want to dwell briefly on a single component of that speech, namely a few of its economic implications. I am convinced that the hon member for Brakpan is going to agree with most of what I am going to say. It is likely that the hon member for Pinelands is also going to agree with me because, basically, I want to talk about the ultimate emancipation of the employee in South Africa.

When the State President announced that influx control measures, as we know and have come to know them over the years, are going to be abolished, we arrived at the moment at which every employee in South Africa can say that total emancipation has taken place. Now there is no measure left which discriminates against an employee because the employee is a man or woman or because he or she has a white skin or a black skin. They can now become members of any trade union or organisation. It makes no difference whether the trade union is registered or not, whether people from different races are members, or whether it is exclusive or nonexclusive. The employee now has all those rights, and we now find ourselves at the beginning of a period of total freedom for the employee. The antipode of this freedom, however, is the acceptance of total responsibility by the employee.

I do not at this juncture wish to go into the pros and cons of this legislation, which we have been debating for decades. Nor do I wish to elaborate on the reasons mentioned here as to why there should or should not be influx control. There are probably many people who are pleased that these measures are going to be abolished. There are the Black people who are the people involved and who had personal experience of these measures, Black leaders who advocated its abolition from one platform to another, the hon members of the PFP who continually advocated this—I want to concede that to them—Assocom which advocated it and other bodies which advocated it, particularly in recent times.

I wish to point out a few facts to this House, though, facts which we cannot argue away simply because we have deleted the measures from the Statute Book. The two facts I want to highlight are of current interest to all of us and to every employee in this country.

In the first place we do no have enough job opportunities today for the workseekers in our cities and in our industrial metropolises. Today we almost do not have enough job opportunities for the people who are already there. We shall have to determine whether we are going to have them tomorrow for those are now going to be attracted to the big cities as if by a huge magnet.

Secondly, we do not have enough houses, flats, rooms or even squatter units or huts for the people now resident in these metropolises, not to mention those who are going to be attracted to the cities.

Thirdly, we do not have sufficient transport and the infrastructure necessary for the transportation for these people. We do not even have enough economic claim to the trains we have at our disposal. The trains are only used economically for the use of the commuters of South Africa for a few hours per day.

We have been told that we have hardly enough water for the PWV area, for example, and other metropolises.

I would be the last person to say that we can counteract urbanisation. We tried, and were not even able to delay it. We and our economists said, and the PFP kept harping on this, that our economic growth rate should be at least between 4 and 5% per annum if we wished to create job opportunities for our growing population. What was our growth rate last year? What growth rate do we project for the year which lies ahead? Less than 3%. Today we have arrived at a point at which we shall have to make new projections. The state alone—this is perhaps a cliché—cannot create sufficient job opportunities on its own. Employers, but now, too, employees and work-seekers will have to begin to meet their own needs. They will have to begin thinking of solutions to the problems themselves. With the completion of the emancipation of these people, we have begun to wean them from the State. If it is true that we as the NP Government, must continually turn the other cheek because of the blows we have received as a result of our measures, which we have now abolished, surely someone else should now begin to accept the responsibilities.

We as NP Government tried to encourage development far from the cities. We instituted investigations into how the problem was being solved in other parts of the world. We believed that if we could take the work to the people we could try to avoid inundation, as was happening in other parts, of the world.

But it seems to me as though this plan never gained the necessary momentum we had all hoped for. It seems to me as though the industrialists had their tongues in their cheeks when they discussed and worked out this plan with us.

They had a hand in the till.

That hon member has perhaps expressed it well: To a large extent they had a hand in the till.

I am of the opinion that too many of the premises and buildings which we made available for this purposes are not being used productively. I wonder whether I am wrong when I say that it seems to me as though we sometimes have to beg and implore industrialists to make use of development, border area industry and decentralisation benefits. Sometimes I receive negative feedback. It is being said that such benefits are sometimes being misused, that people sometimes do everything in their power to receive as much as possible from the Exchequer, and then their border industry disappears within a year or 18 months. The statistics in fact look promising: During the first year 747 people applied to establish such an industry. In the second year the number grew to 11 090, and last year there were 12 016 such applications. But not one of them can undertake to operate their undertaking in this area for a certain length of time. Only approximately 50% of the applicants succeed in holding out for longer than 12 months.

Yet there is something else which worries me even more. When I look at the people who are in fact making use of the decentralisation benefits in the border areas, I wonder where the financial giants of South Africa are. Surely we know who they are. We need only examine balance sheets, daily and Sunday newspapers to see who declared how much profit this year. We need only look at the boards of Assocom and the AHI, people who wish to dictate to the Government how this country should really be governed. But how many of them are participating in decentralisation? Only a few. Under those circumstances can we then expect such a policy to succeed?

As far as industrial establishment and housing is concerned, I want to suggest something else today. We have reached the stage in which we shall have to accept that we shall have to exchange the model for decentralisation which we wish to make popular in South Africa for another one, namely that of spontaneous development and spontaneous provision of housing, as I should like to call it. We cannot get away with what we wanted to do. It does not work. When I speak of spontaneous development, there could perhaps seem to be an element of casualness. There could even be an element of disorderliness.

If everything we are trying to apply is not challenging enough, is not good enough, and does not have the effect and the results we should like to see, then surely we must think again. Then we must ask ourselves what can succeed in South Africa.

I went to have a look at a place just outside Bronkhorstspruit. I think the name of the place is Ekangala. There is a tarred road, lights and water. Roads have been built and buildings constructed, but there are no people. Then, surely, we must allow industries to be developed in the area where people are going to live. Hon members may ask me whether we are going back to uncontrolled and unrestricted squatting, not only in the sense of residential areas, but also as far as industrial establishment is concerned.

I spoke to Mr Steyn of the Urban Foundation. He pointed out to me that the Urban Foundation, in the Durban metropolitan area, for example, had succeeded in constructing housing for people where the point of departure was that of “a roof over one’s head”. A very interesting term was used, namely “affordability”. I think that is a new term as far as housing is concerned. It means that a person should construct a roof over his head which he can afford—at first with what he can afford at the moment and later he could perhaps expand it further.

I want to congratulate the Urban Foundation because I think that is a good start. Perhaps it is something we should think about in future.

I want to make the statement that standards in South Africa are going to decline. I am not being a prophet when I say that.

They have declined.

They are going to decline even further. As far as the Black people are concerned, they will have to accept that the model which the White Government, the NP Government, wanted to create for them, wanted to establish for them in the form of Black housing and Black towns, is something of the past. It is not economically attainable.

That component of the population of South Africa, which we identify as the Third World, is too large to apply First World standards to. This applies not only to housing, but also to many other components of daily life. If I may end with the standard of living of the Whites, it is the Whites who will in future have to think bigger and build smaller.

If one travels through England, and one sees the old manor houses and the castles which can no longer be afforded, then one wonders how long we will still be able to drive through Waterkloof and through Constantia, those areas with the two-storey and three-storey houses, how long we will still be able to afford them?

I want to say a few things in regard to which the hon members for Brakpan and Pinelands are going to agree with me. I want to put this question: Does the hon member for Pinelands or the hon member for Brakpan know of a single voter in their constituency who will be prepared to see their tax money being used to build a new home or a new school or a new hall to replace those burnt down by Black people? One will not find such a person. The reasons for this is simple. My voters say: If a person burns something to the ground, they can do without it. [Interjections.] I believe that Black people—particularly now that they are receiving property rights and are able to own their own houses—are also inherently proud of what belongs to them. I want to express the wish that the Black leaders will accept responsibility for their own people who may now travel about in South Africa and work wherever they wish, and will also bring it home to them that they must stand up for their own rights and must protect their own possessions. I get the impression that Black men give up very easily. They give in to the children in the home and they also give in to the women. I think the time has come for them too to say that they would like to protect what belongs to them.

I should like to conclude with a few thoughts about the emancipation of the worker in South Africa. We hear employers saying to a greater extent that they would like to employ far more people, but are handicapped by the burden of minimum wages determined by the Industrial Council. There are Conciliation Board Agreements that have laid down minimum wages which many employers cannot afford. They mention the example of a family consisting of a married couple with two children. Only the husband works, although it would be possible to provide all of them with work, provided the Government and the Industrial Council were to allow employers to negotiate a salary with the workers. Surely these industrialists have a point, or so it seems at any rate. The trade union, however, maintains that if one were to allow that, it would mean that the industry would be deprived of its stability, because the trade union member who is protected by the trade union has a dwelling, makes use of transportation services and has a family to look after. But if a person were to allow a person who has to mix concrete to employ any squatter or any person living in the bush at any price, one sacrifices stability. I want to ask employers and trade unions to display the greatest measure of self-control and calm in these times, because if there are two things we cannot afford, they are excessive wage demands under these economic circumstances and dissatisfaction among trade unions, which could lead to strikes. That is why I am happy about the full emancipation of all workers in South Africa, but I want to express the hope that the responsibility which accompanies that will also be accepted by the leaders involved.

Mr Speaker, I should like to quote from the Programme of Action of the NP, with which they received a mandate to come to this House. I quote:

Then follows this important sentence:

Just below this the NP then says the following:

Since the NP has chosen the alternative of integration and conflict, which is eventually going to lead to the engulfment of the Whites in South Africa, I want to say today that the CP believes that the ideal dispensation should be striven for, namely a dispensation in which each people is able to govern itself as it wishes, preferably within its own fatherland.

Impossible.

The hon the Deputy Minister says it is impossible. Only this morning it was announced that the Ndebele people were going to ask for independence this year within their own geographic territory, and I want to ask that hon Minister whether he is going to refuse to give it to them. That Ndebele people, a small people numbering only 500 souls, announced this morning that they prefer to adopt the course of true freedom.

Five hundred thousand.

Yes, 500 000 Ndebeles, who want the course of true freedom. I want to tell hon members today that that small Ndebele people, after it has obtained its independence, will have more freedom than the 4 million Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Roodeplaat told us about his voters who said that peace should be restored in the Black residential areas and that we should leave it to the Blacks to solve the problem themselves. What is interesting is that in the fatherlands of the peoples who have already followed the full course of freedom, one hears nothing about murders or the burning down of schools and other buildings. Peace prevails in the land of the Tswana people. No schools are being burnt down, and law and order prevails.

Last year they said that it was Dr Treurnicht’s fault that there was no peace in Soweto. Since the new constitutional dispensation came into operation there has, however, been more unrest and extreme violence in this country than ever before.

The hon member for Roodeplaat is the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Manpower, and Mr Don Mateman, a Coloured member, is his Deputy Chairman. That standing committee consists of 11 Whites, 7 Coloureds and 5 Indians who are responsible for legislation in respect of labour in South Africa. We would have thought that the hon member would have spelt out to this House today how the Black people were also going to receive a say in respect of the legislation on manpower in South Africa in the new dispensation, since power-sharing with Blacks has also been accepted now. He did not do that.

That hon member also said his people thought that those persons who bum down schools should rebuild them themselves. The CP also says so. We say that if people—it makes no difference to what racial group they belong—bum down a school, they must rebuild it themselves. I maintain that the policy of the CP, in terms of which each people is able to govern itself as it wishes and preferably within its own fatherland, is the finest, the most just and the fairest policy one can find. It is also the only policy within which real peace can be accomplished in Southern Africa. The NP in fact itself said that the alternative was integration, conflict and swamping of the Whites in South Africa.

I should like to refer to the hon member for Innesdal who referred in this debate yesterday to what he called “interesting parallels between the left-wing-radical ANC and the right-wing-reactionary Conservative Party”. When one considers the speeches and the conduct of the hon member for Innesdal, then there is another parallel which becomes very clearly apparent. It is that the hon member’s fear of both the ANC and the CP is tremendous. He shudders when he thinks of them. I want to tell the hon member that he has good reason to shudder. At the next election the CP will terminate his presence in this House in a democratic way. [Interjections.]

There is another interesting parallel as well between the leftist-radical ANC, the PFP and the leftist-abdicating NP, which is that all of them now wish to get rid of apartheid. That hon member should like to see the legislation on separate amenities being abolished. Surely he knows that this legislation will be abolished before the end of this session. I want to ask him what amenities still remain exclusively for the Whites today, except the diningroom for members of the House of Assembly in the Parliamentary building.

The White beaches in Durban, East London, Port Elizabeth and the Cape Peninsula were occupied by people of colour during the past season. Just as our diningroom was occupied during the past week by the Coloured Members of Parliament and just as Members of the House of Assembly had to turn away yesterday and today because there was no room for them in their own facility, so the Whites in South Africa had to turn away from the beach facilities because there was no room for them during the holidays. The Blacks, Coloureds and Indians have their own amenities. However, it is the Whites who are systematically being crowded out of their amenities. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Law and Order, who is making such a noise here, is too useless to see to it that law and order is applied in this country. That is his responsibility. The Government of the State President watches powerlessly as Whites are being crowded out in every sphere of life. I want to put it in this way: The Government of the State President is the most powerless government this country has ever had. [Interjections.] It is powerless because it has, through the acceptance of power-sharing, allowed the power to slip out of its hands. I also want to tell the State President—I am sorry he is not present here—that he himself has become a powerless plaything in the hands of external and internal pressure. The State President and the NP cannot prevent the throwing-open of amenities such as the diningroom and other amenities because they accepted power-sharing and because the State President himself said that apartheid was going to disappear.

I also want to refer to the speech made by the hon the Minister of National Education. I think the rise in the value of the rand, as a result of the speech made by the State President, will turn into a fall after the explanation of the State President’s initiatives by the hon the Minister. After his performance, and particularly that of the hon member for Innesdal, it is very clear that there is a serious difference of opinion within the NP in respect of the political position of the NP. Although I differ drastically with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, I nevertheless have appreciation for his honest and consistent implementation of the Government’s policy of power-sharing and political integration. That is why he dwarfs the position of the hon the Minister of National Education, who again illustrated clearly yesterday that he is sitting on two stools. As regards the speech made by the hon the Minister, the headline in Die Burger this morning was: “Magsdeling en Magskeiding”. That is the policy of the NP as presented by him.

In the ’seventies the old United Party published a yellow booklet entitled “You want it, we have it.” With this pamphlet the old United Party tried to keep the present PFP, the Streichers and the Wileys and the conservative UP-men who are now in the CP, together. [Interjections.] They had separation for those who wanted separation and integration for those who wanted integration. What happened to the old United Party is now part of history. The NP under the leadership of the State President is following the same course. The speech made by the hon the Minister of National Education clearly illustrates that the NP, or at least the faction within the NP which he represents, now has a policy of “You want it, we have it”. They have power-sharing for the liberals and the foreigners, and separation of power for the Nationalist who still believe that the Whites should preserve themselves by means of the separation of power. Those are the members of the NP who still believe in separate development.

NP members will have to make a choice on the road which lies ahead. I want to tell my hon friends opposite that they cannot sit on two stools at the same time. They will have to choose whether they want to adopt the course of power-sharing, together with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the State President, or that of separation of power. I want to issue an invitation to those hon members today. I know there are many of them who feel very unhappy today about the course which is being followed today by the State President. [Interjections.] I want to invite them to come and fight within the CP so that the Whites can realise the ideal of again governing themselves within their own fatherland. If the Tswanas have that right then the Whites of South Africa also have the right to govern themselves in their own fatherland.

On 4 February 1983 the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was seated next to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on the opposite side. According to column 426 of Hansard, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was speaking and he asked the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning: “Is there going to be power sharing under that dispensation?”, to which the hon the Minister replied: “The answer is yes.” Ten days later the hon the Minister of National Education addressed a youth rally in the Transvaal and in Die Transvaler of 14 March he was reported as follows:

Time has already shown that that hon Minister has no political credibility left in South Africa—none at all. [Interjections.] The hon member said in his speech that the PFP said that apartheid was alive, while the CP said that apartheid was being destroyed by the NP. The hon the Minister wanted to know whom he should believe, the PFP or the CP.

I want to tell the hon the Minister whom he should believe and of whom he should take notice. I am referring to the letter of his leader, the State President. The State President wrote:

The State President told that hon member that the PFP, the UDF and others were saying that apartheid was alive, but that those who wished to share power—that is the hon the Minister and the NP caucus—knew that apartheid was disappearing. The State President went on to say that it was a fact. [Interjections.] That is what the State President wrote. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether the State President explained in the caucus how apartheid was going to disappear.

I want to add to that that since February 1982 the CP in this House have been witnesses to how the NP has step by step destroyed apartheid, separate development and White self-determination, so much so that on 27 May last year in the Coloured House and on 22 May in the Indian House, the own affairs appropriation of the Whites, Vote No 13, was agreed to.

I am telling the hon members opposite that they have not yet finished with their process of destruction. The State President’s announcement concerning the political future of Black people is the first step on the road to Black majority rule, the first step on the road to total destruction of the Whites of South Africa. In this letter the State President said—he underlined it:

Once again we have one country, one nation and one government. “Dit is die eerste stap na permanente magsdeling.” The State President, who on 26 August 1981, in reply to a question by the hon member for Pine-lands when he asked the State President whether he believed in power-sharing, said. “Nee, moenie nou onsinnighede kwyt raak nie,” is now writing in bold letters: “Ek en my regering is verbind tot magsdeling”. [Interjections.]

Order!

Power-sharing, whether it was in a federal system or within a unitary state, has failed to work anywhere in Africa. When one throws various races, peoples and cultural groups together into one government, one has conflicting group interests which lead to a power struggle, which lead to domination of the one group by the other, which eventually lead to Black majority rule.

I say here today that this first step—the State President described it as a first step—of the State President on the road to permanent power-sharing with Blacks, Coloureds and Asiatics, which is going to lead to Black majority rule in this country, is treason committed against the future of the Whites and of other peoples in Southern Africa. If the State President and the NP continue along this road, the judgment of history will be that he was the greatest traitor to the Whites in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, looking at the times in which we live I think it is in a way perhaps fortunate that we have the Conservative Party in this House at the present time. I say this because from what the hon member for Kuruman has just said we should all get a very clear indication …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member for Kuruman said a few moments ago that if the State President continued along the road he had chosen, the judgment of history would be that he was the greatest traitor South Africa had ever known. I submit that such an allegation is unparliamentary.

Order! I listened attentively to the hon member’s words. However, he made that statement at the very end of his speech, just before I called upon the hon member for Amanzimtoti to speak. Nevertheless, I shall give attention to it. I want to point out, however, that the hon member for Kuruman clearly said “if the State President continues along this road”. Therefore he did not call him a traitor at this point in time. On the basis of that, I am prepared, therefore, to rule that the hon member’s statement was not unparliamentary.

The hon member for Amanzimtoti may continue his speech.

Mr Speaker, as I was saying, the hon member for Kuruman has clearly indicated the views of his party and the perception which hon members of that party have of the State President’s initiative. I wish that more people in the outside world could hear what that hon member has had to say—also of course his hon colleagues, as well as the hon member for Sasolburg, when he spoke on Monday. I say this because it must give a clear indication to the outside world that there has indeed been change in South Africa and that there has been a movement forward in South Africa.

The hon member for Kuruman says that the National Party has moved away from the old, outmoded concept of apartheid. That is quite correct, Sir. It is indeed quite correct. I should like to point out, however, that the hon member for Kuruman is living in some sort of a dream world, perhaps similar to the world in which the old British colonialists used to live many, many years ago. Those hon members should perhaps ponder for a moment on what I have just said because they are today outdated, and, as the hon member for Yeoville once said, they are yesterday’s men. It is, however, good to hear what they have to say, especially in the light of what the hon Leader of the Official Opposition said on Monday, and also in the light of what the hon member for Houghton said earlier today.

It is very clear indeed from what the PFP say today that they try to prove to the world that there has been no change in South Africa. The hon member for Houghton said earlier this afternoon that the State President’s ringing phrases were meaningless. Yesterday, Sir, the hon Leader of the Official Opposition said: “Talk is cheap but it is money that buys the whisky.” This, Sir, I submit, implies that the State President is not sincere when he says that apartheid is outmoded and that it must be replaced by another system. I should therefore like to ask the hon Leader of the Official Opposition, and also the hon member for Houghton—I see she is not in the House right now—whether they disagree or whether they agree that this Government, under the present State President, has already gone a long way towards dismantling apartheid.

I believe that the hon Leader of the Official Opposition’s answer to this question is very, very important, and I should like to ask him whether he believes that the State President has already gone a long way towards dismantling the outmoded policy of apartheid. He does not say a word, Sir. I say this because his answer would reveal his perception of recent political happenings in South Africa. It might, however, also explain why so many people, both within South Africa and beyond our borders, are so misinformed about South Africa today, and have such a misguided and distorted and erroneous perception of South Africa.

The hon Leader of the Official Opposition said in his speech that this Government was continuing to destroy the South African economy. Those were his words, Sir. That statement is of course absolutely nonsensical, Sir. It is, however the typical sort of Prog rhetoric to which we have become so accustomed. What damage has been done to our economy? Of course damage has been done as a result of the international banks withdrawing their credit facilities from South Africa. This damage has been the result of their wrong perception of what is really happening in South Africa. It is a perception which is often the result of the type of rhetoric which the hon Leader of the Official Opposition advances in this House, and possibly also when he is visiting all those countries in the outside world. [Interjections.]

I repeat my question, Sir. Will the hon Leader of the Official Opposition not agree that the State President has spearheaded political change in South Africa, which has already gone a long way towards dismantling apartheid? Is that correct or not? You see, Sir he will not answer this question, and the outside world would like to know the answer to that question. [Interjections.] I want to refer to what Dr Verwoerd said in September 1958. He said:

Two years later he said that the ideal of total apartheid gave one direction. The ideal had to be total separation in all spheres.

When one studies Prof Nic Rhoodie’s book on apartheid, one finds that these spheres were clearly listed. The economic sphere, for example, was listed. As a result of those objectives of apartheid the idea was accepted that Blacks in South Africa were temporary sojourners. The Industrial Conciliation Act was promulgated to entrench job reservation. The Black registration system followed. We know—and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must admit—that amendments to that Act, some three or four years ago, dismantled that leg of the apartheid concept. Job reservation no longer exists.

Another sphere which was affected was the social, cultural and biogenetic sphere. The implication was that there should be total segregation—the very things which the CP and the HNP still call for. Total segregation in sport and in all cultural activities had to be applied. No mixed marriages and no sex across the colour line—hence section 16 of the Immorality Act—could be permitted. It is not correct—and I ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—that over recent years that whole aspect of apartheid has been dismantled? Is that not correct?

The other sphere that was affected was the geo-political and constitutional sphere. Sovereign, independent states were envisaged. We already have four. There was also the Black Authorities Act, the Group Areas Act and the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. Will the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition not agree that many of those Acts have already been dismantled? I therefore put it to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that he is misleading the South African public and the outside world when he says—as he has said—that no change is taking place in South Africa. The political concept of apartheid, as seen by former governments, is indeed outmoded today. To my mind, it is totally irrelevant in today’s politics.

What is extremely relevant today, Sir, is what the hon member for Yeoville said yesterday. He put the question: what will replace apartheid? In this regard I must commend the hon member for Yeoville on his speech in this regard yesterday because he revealed some very interesting perceptions. He said that while many parties and forces are ranged against this Government, one must take cognizance of the fact that they are by no means unified in their ultimate objectives. They are as diverse as the PFP is from the HNP and the CP. They are as diverse as the Communist Party of South Africa is from the AWB. Because of this, the most crucial and politically relevant question today is, as I have said and as the hon member for Yeoville says: what will replace apartheid? That is what I believe this House should debate in the future—not the things of the past as some hon members of the PFP and of the CP have been doing. We should rather try to establish where the future of South Africa lies with regard to constitutional matters. In considering this question we must never lose sight of the dangers which exist when a nation embarks upon reform. The danger exists that certain clichés may be used, for example, by hon members of the PFP resulting in the fact that incorrect perceptions may be created in the minds of people. This may prevent South Africa from taking the correct direction in the future.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says that what the State President says is just words. That is a false statement. He says: what we want is action. He wants action and he says that real reform means “changing laws”. I want to ask him why he does not tell the world that this Government has changed laws. Why does he mislead the world at this stage, which is a critical stage in our history? He says: “We want fundamental reform—no slogans and no tricks.” He ignores what has happened and he himself uses the slogans and he himself uses the tricks. I say to him: what has already been done in South Africa? He says talk is cheap, money buys the whisky. This is quite true. Talk is cheap, especially when it comes from the Official Opposition, but he does not have the responsibility to reform South Africa. I am sure that someone in the past must have said that the one thing we learn from history is that very few people learn anything from history, especially some politicians.

The entire thrust of the Official Opposition in this debate so far can be summed up by what the BBC said to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs on TV the other night. He asked whether what had happened so far in South Africa was in fact not too little too late. That is what we often hear. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his colleagues look upon themselves as reformers. The hon member for Yeoville when he and I came to this House for the first time in 1974 turned out to be the reformist darling of South Africa, especially the reformist darling of the English language Press. That was in the mid 1970’s, just ten years ago. He was labelled the leader of the Young Turks, and alongside him sits the hon member for Bryanston and behind him the hon member for Sandton; they were also the Young Turks. I remember those days, and I am happy to say that the hon member for Yeoville from his speech yesterday indicated to me that he had moderated a wee bit. What sort of reformers are they sitting in those benches? One must ask how they compare with the reforming State President we have today who I believe is the most courageous and the wisest reformer South Africa has ever seen. To answer this question I should like to say in reality that in the PFP and in another context some members in the CP, those people are a group of Young Turks, young Turks in the true sense and in the fullest meaning of the words I believe their actions, a track record over the past decade or so, must be measured against that of our State President. At this time in our history I believe all of us should consider the actions of the Young Turks in South Africa today and also the actions of the young Turks of old. We know about the Young Turks of the Ottoman Empire at the latter part of the last century. We know that at that time the Ottoman Empire extended over a vast section of the Middle East encompassing a great variety of peoples of different races, languages, religions and cultures—just as South Africa does today. However, at that time the empire required reforming, just as South Africa needs today. We know what happened. In the latter part of the last century along came the Young Turks and after agitating and causing disturbances they eventually took power.

What happened was that within a matter of twenty odd years that entire great empire was destroyed; there was no peace and there were people fighting one another and the whole thing was in ruins. That is the history of the young Turks of old. As I say, the hon member for Yeoville became a Young Turk in his day, and I want to remind him of what he did in his time. He became a leader of the old United Party in the Transvaal in about 1973 if I am remember correctly. From that point on there was a continuous battle within the United Party. There was always a problem in the United Party. There was always a harrowing of the United Party. By 1977, just four years later, the United Party was destroyed. At that time we called the hon member and his colleagues the young Turks—we called them the wreckers.

I believe we have to look at our own recent history in South Africa. I want to say to the hon member for Yeoville that certainly perhaps he was ahead of his time in his reform efforts but the way he went about it was wrong. Today we have a reforming State President who I believe is leading South Africa in a totally new direction which is required at this time by following a course which will unite all the peoples of South Africa. I believe that every one of us in this House must work to assist the State President, his Cabinet and those who are going to support him to achieve these objectives. I repeat what the hon member for Yeoville said, namely that we must be careful to make sure that we know what is going to replace the apartheid of old.

I now want to say a word to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. He said that if Inkatha, the UDF and the PFP could sit around a table, they would represent more people than the NP has ever had as supporters. Am I correct in saying that that was what he said?

Yes.

He is quite right, but that is a very big “if". The crucial question which one has to ask is: would these three groups agree among themselves? The UDF has denied its supporters membership of Inkatha. I want to tell the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central why this has been the case. The United Democratic Front is a front for the African National Congress. As we know the ANC executive is controlled by a majority of members of the South African Communist party. Inkatha represents traditional Zulu values and the traditional Zulu establishment. In the eyes of the ANC and the UDF this must be destroyed. It is therefore a very big “if" that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central put forward.

I am going to put an "if" forward to him: if the leader of Inkatha were to sit around a table with the State President of South Africa, what a powerful grouping that would be. Is that not correct?

I would welcome it.

The hon member went on to say that the State President’s plan, should it come about, would still mean a separate voters’ roll. Am I correct in saying that that is what the hon member said? He said that that would still represent apartheid.

Yes.

He said that there would still be separate schools and separate residential areas and that would be apartheid. I want to ask the hon member if the PFP accepts ethnicity. Does it recognise ethnicity in the South African politics?

It is a fact of life.

It is a fact of life. Does the PFP then believe that the rights of ethnic groups should be protected by the Constitution? [Interjections.] I am talking of the rights to these things which they hold dear—their language, their culture and their religion. Yes. Then these hon members must tell us in this House how they propose that this should be brought about.

Protect individual rights.

Those hon members must not lose sight of some of the happenings in South Africa in recent weeks, such as what has happened right next to my constituency in Natal in the Black township of Umlazi.

What are you doing about it?

The hon member asks what I am doing about it. I want to tell the hon member that what has happened in Umlazi between the Pondos and the Zulus is not something that I can do anything about. Why does he not speak to the Zulus about it? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member how the present system which is the one he supports has protected the Pondos or the Zulus who have been killed? Is there any difference in the protection they have because of the apartheid system?

That is a totally irrelevant question. [Interjections.] The point I was making is: do those hon members really understand why those actions occurred between the Zulus and the Pondos?

In those actions over 113 people lost their lives. There was not a single White person actively concerned in them. The police were sent in to stop it. What those hon members and the rest of South Africa have to realise is that as we move into changing our Constitution still further so as to accommodate the needs, feelings and traditions of all our peoples, we will have to take cognisance of ethnicity and cultural and traditional values. These have to be entrenched in the Constitution. Unless the hon members of the PFP realise this, they will not be helping the future of South Africa but may rather be doing what the Young Turks of old did to the Ottoman Empire. They may divert the country into various nationalistic groups such as we heard from the hon member for Sasolburg the other day. This will not only happen among Whites but also among Blacks. I leave these points to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to ponder on in the next few months to come.

Mr Speaker, I feel that the view of the PFP, and mine in particular, should be made clear for the benefit of the hon member for Amanzimtoti. I believe that our culture does not need the protection of legislation. If there is a bill of rights enshrined in the Constitution to protect the rights of individuals, those of groups will be secured in consequence.

The hon the member waxed eloquent about Turks, young and old. He seems to show an obsession with the past. I can only suspect he is looking for a job and would like to recommend to the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs that, when next an ambassador to Turkey is appointed, he be considered for the post.

Until yesterday afternoon, I did not doubt the seriousness of the intent of the State President in announcing his intentions for 1986. After all, the projected programme of legislation, geared mainly to removing certain laws, was not unimpressive at all. Many of the laws coming up for repeal touch upon some of the issues which in the past have created friction, conflict and polarisation in our society. I am referring to the pass laws, immigration restrictions, citizenship and the like. Their belated demise will be mourned by very few South Africans.

To add to my optimism, under the heading “Framework for the Future” the State President issued what can only be described as a form of statement of intent. I believed that the ringing phrases he uttered relating to freedom, personal liberty, democracy, justice and the like would not be lost on a populace, for so long overgoverned, overregulated, overrestricted and overcontrolled. Important questions, however, remain to be clarified, and the sentiments expressed remain as of yesterday to be given for clearer content and form.

One aspect in particular struck me as requiring clarification. If South Africa has outgrown the “outdated concept of apartheid” was it to be abolished systematically and in toto, or would its shobby foundation stones remain intact? As we all know, the law which creates the ground rules for apartheid is the Population Registration Act. Depending on the determination of one’s face classification in terms of the provisions of that Act, all further human rights flow, for instance, rights of family residence, choice of schools and level of political representation. It is this Act, together with the Group Areas Act, which epitomises all that is selfish and evil in apartheid.

Chief Buthelezi, in reacting to the State President’s speech, asked roughly the same questions. His participation in the proposed statutory council would seem to depend on the nature of the agenda of that council, as well as upon indication being given of a clear shift away from the tricameral system and ethnic politics.

What are the answers to those questions? Are the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act up for negotiation? Would they be part of the agenda of this statutory council? Equally important, is the dismantling of the system of ethnic parliaments even negotiable, or is the tricameral system an untouchable holy cow, a non-negotiable element in our future politics?

I should like to ask a further question. When answers are offered, whom are we to believe? Do we believe the State President who proclaims the concept of apartheid to be outmoded, or the leader of the NP in the Transvaal, the hon the Minister of National Education, who stated yesterday that there must be certainty as to the definition of group membership, and that therefore the Population Registration act must remain?

I did not put it that way.

May I ask the hon the Minister of National Education then if the Population Registration Act is negotiable?

Read my speech. [Interjections.]

I ask then, Sir, who speaks for the Government? Is it the State President, who on Friday stated that he accepted one citizenship for all South Africans, thereby implying equal treatment and opportunities? Or are we to believe the hon the Minister of National Education who, in elaborating on the State President’s speech, reaffirmed the NP commitment to enforced separate residential areas, to enforced separation of children in schools and to separate political institutions, and thus to all the inequalities and racial discrimination which go with that?

For my part, I honestly believe that apartheid cannot vanish until the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act have been repealed and until freedom of choice in relation to association, residence and schooling is granted as a primary right to all South Africans. You see, Sir, unless reform is properly thought through and is complete and all-encompassing, great injustices will continue to arise—even after the State President has proclaimed apartheid to be buried.

Allow me to relate the case of the family Roux of Johannesburg. I have their permission to tell their story. Mr M A Roux, a White Afrikaans-speaking South African, has been living with the woman he loves since 1975. She is Rona Roux (born Mtirara) who is classified a Cape Coloured. Since 1975 they have always lived in a White group area, mainly in the eastern part of Johannesburg. They have three children, aged seven, six and three. The children are Afrikaans-speaking. In 1980 this couple, not wishing their children to be deemed illegitimate, came to see me, and I managed to arrange for them to be married in the Catholic Church, thus making them man and wife at least in the eyes of God, if not in the eyes of the State. Last year, consequent upon the abolition of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, their marriage was validated and their three children were rendered legitimate in the eyes of the law as well. Having been granted a special permit in terms of the Group Areas Act, this family now resides happily and in harmony with their neighbours in Belgravia, Johannesburg.

The problem now relates to the two eldest sons aged seven and six, who have reached schoolgoing age. Mrs Roux approached the principals of the Malvern Laerskool and the John Mitchell School in Belgravia. In both cases the principals were happy to accept the children subject to the approval of the Transvaal Education Department. Mrs Roux tried to obtain permission at senior inspector level but met with no success at all. Eventually she came to see me again for help.

So, early in December 1985, I wrote a long letter to Mr Schoeman, the MEC in charge of education. I related the whole story. I told him that the nearest Coloured school was over 20 km away from the Roux home and that no facilities existed to transport the children across the entire city of Johannesburg on a daily basis. I asked him to allow the children to attend one of the local schools. Then I waited but nothing happened. After many follow-up phone calls I received a reply some days after the schools had already opened, by which time the Roux family were almost hysterical and in a state of despair. I quote Mr Schoeman’s reply in full. It is dated 16 January and reached me perhaps on 18 January. It reads as follows:

He well knew at that time that such an application would take months.

After receiving this letter, I phoned Mr Schoeman but he would not or could not speak to me. However, I left the following message: what about these children who are right now being denied education of any sort at all? His secretary came back to me, though, and told me that Mr Schoeman had said that there was nothing he could do about it and that, in any event, it was not his problem. So the “outdated concept of apartheid” lives on; and as we debate here today, the Roux children stay home while the neighbouring children go to school, for there is no public school within their reach which is allowed to accept them.

I ask, Sir, what have those two little boys done to this Government that they must be dealt this blow in life even before they have begun to grow up? [Interjections.] So I say, Mr Speaker, for reform to work, it must be complete and all-embracing. While the cornerstones of apartheid remain and are enforced, there can be no talk of a new South Africa, there can be no vision of reconciliation, there will be no end to violence, and no beginning to negotiations.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Sandton devoted most of his speech to practical problems with the implementation of the new dispensation. I have no doubt at all, and I think the same applies to every hon member on this side of the House, that reform goes hand in hand with many practical problems. But what we need most of all in the implementation of reform, is peace, peaceful conditions and law and order.

That is why I listened with very great interest on Monday to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, to hear what he had to say about the question of violence. I got the impression, and I was very pleased about that, that the hon leader of the PFP expressed himself very strongly opposed to violence. Here and there, however, one could not help hearing a qualifying note in his speech. After all, we in the NP know today that there is a little discord in the Official Opposition about the question of whether or not one should talk to terrorists. Today I should very much like to touch upon another matter which is related to that aspect.

To me it is very noticeable how the statements of the leftist radicals in the theological sphere are increasing in vehemence, and is doing so at this stage while reform is becoming a reality. Some of them are openly encouraging violence. This is happening at home as well as abroad. I shall mention one or two examples of what is happening in the outside world.

The moderator of the Reformed Church in the Netherlands, a certain Rev Huting, attended a church meeting in Zimbabwe at the end of last year. Upon his return to the Netherlands he spoke openly in favour of violence in order to overthrow the authorities in South Africa. The moderator of one of the largest churches in the Netherlands! That was his personal opinion. A month ago he was re-elected moderator of that church, and they have now in actual fact adopted that standpoint. At the same time a group of Dutch theologians expressed themselves in favour of days of prayer for the overthrow of the authorities in South Africa. That is what is happening abroad.

The hon leader of the CP referred to Bishop Tutu. He mentioned certain examples which make one shudder, and I agree with him. In this House there are members of the church denomination of which Bishop Tutu is a very senior minister. I should very much like to know how they can accept the statements and standpoints of a man like Bishop Tutu.

All the things which are being said by these people at home and abroad can hardly be compared with or be set-off against the so-called Kairos document which was recently published. What is interesting is that this document, which I have here in my possession, was drawn up by seven anonymous theologians, financed by the South African Council of Churches and signed by 152 theologians, including Dr Beyers Naude and Rev Nico Smit of the DR Church in Africa. There are also a few other ministers of the DR Church in Africa and a large group of other South African churchmen, in particular from the Belydende Kring. Hon members should take a look at that document. It is undoubtedly the most radical document on the part of churchmen ever to be published in South Africa. The problem is that many people abroad regard this Kairos document as the official standpoint of the church in South Africa. In my opinion this document falls entirely within the tradition of the theology of revolution. The Biblical message of salvation is forced into political categories in particular. It makes of God a political god and of liberation only the liberation of the oppressed. It deals with salvation which is exclusively the liberation of the politically oppressed and not, as we believe, something which can be gained by each individual personally.

What is interesting is the fact that this document analyses theology. There are many former theologians in this House. The document regards so-called State theology as the theology of the Government of South Africa, and particularly of the Afrikaans churches. In the second place it talks about “church theology” which according to them is the theology of the English churches in particular. It claims that not one of these two theologies is successful. Thirdly it mentions the so-called “prophetic theology”, which I should like to examine briefly.

This kind of theology bears a very strong anti-clerical character and is cast in the mould of neo-Marxism. It is a justification of polarisation and revolution, and is heading unrestrainably for conflict in South Africa. What perturbs me the most, however, is the harsh, uncompromising, radically unwavering and loveless attitude which emerges throughout this document, at a time when the Government is engaged in earnest reform initiatives, which are not even mentioned in this document.

Although I am not a theologian myself, I should very briefly like to take a closer look at the three theologies, as set forth in this document. I find their elucidation very interesting and I think hon members of this House should take cognisance of this document and express their opinions of it. In respect of State theology, for example, Romans 13, verses 1 to 7, is quoted, which inter alia runs as follows:

They say that this is not applicable to the Government of South Africa. On page 4 of this document they say:

The principal criticism of State theology in this Kairos document involves the use of the name of God. I should like hon members to listen carefully to what this document says:

And not only “Cabinet Ministers”; all of us do it:

In the right sense of the word.

It then goes on to quote from the Preamble as we agreed to it here—and I think it was agreed to unanimously:

Few countries recognise the sovereignty of God in their constitution. [Interjections.] But South Africa does. So does the USA. I think we are all proud of this, but listen to what these people say about the fact that we recognise God in our Constitution.

An idol.

What do they say next?

I think this is shocking. I should very much like a man such as the hon member for Pinelands or a man such as the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North to tell us very clearly where they stand in respect of the contents of a document that contains such terrible statements.

As far as church theology is concerned—and here they are in particular getting at the English-language churches—Kairos states that three standard sub-divisions exist, in which the English-language churches are now involving themselves. These are concerned with reconciliation, justice and non-violence. They say the English-language churches are far too soft in their condemnation of the Government’s policy.

In respect of reconciliation, Kairos states:

My goodness me, that is precisely what we are doing!

In respect of reform the document states that this reform which is in fact occurring in South Africa, means nothing, because it comes from the top. They say:

In regard to non-violent action, which is also part of church theology now, Kairos states:

Is done in self-defence. They then state that it is true that there is violence on both sides. They say the violence in fact comes from the “oppressors”, in other words the Government, and the violence from the other side is self-defence. Listen to the way in which they justify this.

I think that is shocking. In any event, Kairos says that State theology does not work, that church theology does not work, and therefore they state in this document that all that can work in South Africa is prophetic theology. Prophetic theology states that God is always on the part of oppressed and therefore one can justify anything to change that situation, even though it also involves violence.

I have no doubt at all that this document is a clarion call to rebellion, to revolution, to violence, to murder, even to high treason. It is no wonder that the people who wrote it remained anonymous.

When all these things have been said I would be the first—I am convinced that my colleagues on this side of the House agree—to admit that there are many things which are not right. That is why we are engaged in a reform effort in this country.

What is at issue is the right method. Christendom has always believe in peaceful reform. In any event, the world has seen enough of the catastrophic consequences of violent revolution.

With this I wish to conclude. This document has brought at least one benefit, which is that it has caused people to examine their own conscience. Even though I condemn this Kairos document because it advocates violence, I think there are a few matters which we can fruitfully examine. These are things which the CP and the HNP should certainly look at. In South Africa we may never allow God to be used by people, groups or parties as an insurance policy. It is so easy to say that we have been placed in this country by Providence, and have a task and a calling, and that all will therefore go well with us. There must always be a quid pro quo.

To my mind however, there is a second benefit attached to this document. Each one of us must ask ourselves whether we are all, every party and every citizen of this country, doing everything in our power to improve relations between various groups and races. Since I am now discussing this subject, I should like to conclude with a text from the letter which Paul wrote to the Collossians:

That is the only salvation for South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Paarl made an interesting contribution, but I am sure he will forgive me if I do not comment on his address as I have another matter that I wish to raise, particularly with the hon the Minister of Law and Order.

It is about the incident which took place in Mamelodi in November last year. The incident was preceded by a meeting, attended by about 4 000 people at the YMCA hall in Mamelodi on Tuesday, 19 November to discuss various grievances. By all accounts it was a peaceful meeting and a decision was taken to organise a stay-away from work on Thursday, 21 November in order to present the grievances to the Mayor for onward transmission to the authorities. Wednesday was to be used to spread the word throughout the township, urging residents to take part in the march. The four demands were that all White policemen should be withdrawn from Mamelodi; that the army should also be withdrawn; that the order restricting attendances at funerals to 50 should be lifted, and that there would be a protest about the proposed rent increases.

On the morning of 21 November crowds began converging on the administration offices and were joined by a group of between 8 000 and 10 000 people who had been led to the square by a Casspir. This was after an agreement had apparently been reached between the people and the policemen at the bridge separating Mamelodi East from Mamelodi West that the march would be peaceful. At the administration office a crowd of up to 50 000 people had assembled. All to whom I have spoken emphasise the peaceful nature of the occasion. In fact a large number of elderly women who were tired from the long march, removed their shoes and sat on the ground on arrival at the Mayor’s office, so confident were they that the assurances given to them by the police that there would be no violence would be adhered to. The Mayor, Mr Ndlazi, abandoned an attempt to address the people as the loud hailer offered to him by the police was either defective or ineffective and he could not be heard beyond the first few rows of the crowd.

Claims are made that at this stage the army trucks moved in and the area appeared to be sealed off. To the astonishment of all present the shooting started and, according to a number of witnesses, all hell broke loose. I am told there was chaos and confusion as parents, elderly women and others who had not been involved in any singing or stone-throwing were all convinced there would be no shooting or gassing as they had negotiated with the police.

As there had been no incidents which could possibly be regarded as provocative, it was taken for granted that there would be no shooting. I am told that the people expected to be addressed regarding their grievances and would then have dispersed. The question arises: did the Casspir lead the marchers from the bridge as a deliberate ploy? Was it a Judas goat?

In paragraph 2.6 on page 165 of the Kannemeyer report into the shootings at Uitenhage the judge notes that section 49 of the Internal Security Act provides that:

In paragraph 2.7 the judge concluded that:

That was the Uitenhage incident:

I do not have the time today to deal with all the aspects of the ghastly event at Mamelodi but I would like to know from the hon the Minister why he ignored the recommendations of the Kannemeyer Commission. Why were his men at Mamelodi not properly equipped when they had 36 hours notice that the march was to take place?

Has the hon the Minister given instructions to his men that they are to observe section 49 of the Internal Security Act? If so, why did they not obey him? Can the hon the Minister deny that he has lost control over certain sections of the Police Force? I believe he has.

I have not the time now to repeat my attitude toward the Police Force as such. I made it quite clear last year during the discussion of the Minister’s Vote that I am not anti police but anti those who abuse their position and give the entire force a bad name. My position has not changed since then.

As my colleague the hon member for Houghton has already pointed out today, in many of the townships throughout South Africa matters appear to have got completely out of hand. Ask any Black person who has had experience of police activities in the townships—and we have heard many stories during the recess concerning activities in the Transvaal in particular—and he will tell you it seems as though the police have declared war on the Black people of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Ask any overseas television viewer about the almost daily scenes of policemen beating, whipping and chasing Black men, women and children around the townships. The hon the Minister has stopped them taking photographs but the events of the past 12 to 15 months are indelibly printed on the minds of millions of Black people and millions of overseas viewers. The perception the world at large has of the SA Police was graphically illustrated yesterday in a quotation from Prof Arthur Keppel-Jones who said, and I quote:

As a viewer from Canada that is the perception he has of our Police Force. [Interjections.]

Mamelodi has long been regarded as a township of conservative people, people going about their daily business and behaving in a generally conservative way. Let me assure the hon the Minister that after the police action on November 21 and subsequent police activities in the township the following weekend when they moved from house to house intimidating the residents, there is no doubt that a massive branch of the ANC exists in Mamelodi. What they should do, is call it the Louis le Grange cell because it is as a direct result of the actions of the police and of that hon Minister that the youth in that township have been activated. At the funeral in Mamelodi that day there was hardly a young Black man without an ANC band on his arm, in what has always been regarded as a conservative area of the country. They have been activated by the activities of that hon Minister.

Louis Kumalo, president of the Mamelodi Parents’ Association has signed an affidavit to the effect that he was beaten up by the police on November 21. He says he was taken to a house south east of Mamelodi where he was assaulted and electrocuted. He claims he was hung upside down by his ankles from a tree, assaulted again and, after a fire had been lit under his head, he passed out. I saw Mr Kumalo in the Kalafong Hospital on 27 November, which was six days later, and he was in such a poor condition that he was hardly able to utter a sound. Does the hon the Minister think that Mr Kumalo, or any of the other many thousands of Blacks who experience similar treatment at the hands of the police, will be strong supporters of constructive co-existence, or of whatever apartheid is called these days? Does he think the hundreds of young people he has locked up in those revolutionary manufacturing machines at Diepkloof and Modder B are going to encourage their leaders to take part in the State President’s statutory council? This hon Minister has been a disaster, Sir, in that he has allowed some members of the Police Force to become a law unto themselves and thereby degrade the entire force.

The South African tradition holds that when an hon Minister has made a mess of his portfolio he is assured of his continued existence in the Cabinet. [Interjections.] I believe he should follow the Westminster tradition and resign from the Cabinet. [Interjections.]

He should have resigned yesterday already! [Interjections.]

I can do no better—and I believe I speak together with hundreds of thousands of South Africans when I say this to the hon the Minister …

You speak only on behalf of Peter Soal and nobody else!

… when I repeat the words used by Cromwell to the Rump Parliament in 1653, when he said:

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Johannesburg North addressed the hon the Minister of Law and Order in connection with certain incidents to which he referred. The hon member will excuse me for not responding to his remarks. I am sure the hon the Minister will, in due course, personally deal with those matters.

*Mr Chairman, it is a well-known fact that when a monkey is shot in the stomach, it often sits down somewhere and, in an effort to get at the cause of the pain and to remove it, pulls out its innards. On the strength of this, I ask myself what we are dealing with in this debate. Are we not—with all due respect, Mr Chairman—in this debate also, like that monkey, tearing at our own innards?

Why do you ask? Do you feel you have been wounded?

Having listened to the debate since Monday and having noted the conduct of hon members, one of whom has already been instructed to leave the Chamber because he refused to abide by the rules of the House, and having noted the general trend of the debate and the relevance of the debate conducted from the benches on the opposite side of the House, one asks oneself whether it can be true that South Africa does find itself in the dire straits that it actually is in.

Who got us into those dire straits? The National Party! (Interjections.]

It is like Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

Nero is careering round the Rubicon in his speedboat! [Interjections.]

Sir, do the hon members of the opposition parties then have no constructive contribution whatsoever to make in an effort to deal with South Africa’s political problems?

Are you now talking about John Wiley?

On Friday, 31 January 1986, the State President opened this session of Parliament with a speech which has been praised, from all quarters, as being interesting, orientational, positive and constructive. In all quarters it is regarded as forceful action in dealing with the political, economic, social and educational problems of South Africa. The State President’s speech was unequivocal refutation of the view that the Government’s reform initiative has ground to a halt. It also furnishes irrefutable proof of the reform initiative still being firmly in the Government’s grasp.

What have we found in this debate, however, since Monday? The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—I am sorry he is not present at the moment—moves a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet, motivating it, amongst other things, as follows:

From what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition subsequently had to say, however, it is clearly apparent that he expects the Government to anticipate any demand or demands from the radicals—including the ANC and the UDF—by complying with them even before they can be made. That is how the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition interprets the initiative that the Government should supposedly retain. What it amounts to is that he expects the Government to commit suicide in an effort to prevent an onslaught being made on its life. The outrageous and extremistic demands of the radicals are therefore being presented as the norm for Government action.

Basic to the standpoint of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is the view that the Whites have no vested rights in this country, but that their place and their future here are dependent upon the indulgence and goodwill of the radical Blacks. That is why one should, in advance, yield to the militant and radical Blacks.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also questions, in disparaging terms—something which is not unique to him—the credibility, political integrity and ability of the State President to implement his outspoken intentions in practice. Let me now ask hon members of the Official Opposition according to what rules of logic, or according to what distorted perceptions, such discrediting of the State President—the Head of State and figure symbolic of the Republic of South Africa—can be justified under the prevailing circumstances as being beneficial to, and in the interests of, the Republic of South Africa and its people.

Then the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has the temerity to bemoan the fact that he is not kept informed or consulted by the Government. Let me ask hon members of the Official Opposition what constructive contribution the Official Opposition has thus far made towards broadening the base of democracy in the Republic of South Africa. Every effort made by this side of the House, by the Government, to broaden the democratic base in this country, has thus far consistently been opposed by the Official Opposition. They have not yet made one single constructive contribution in this regard.

Mr Chairman, may I ask a question?

My time is limited. I may possibly not finish my speech. Sorry. I am asking hon members of the Official Opposition what constructive contribution they have thus far made towards improving attitudes and relations between the respective population communities in the Republic of South Africa. [Interjections.] They have consistently continued to discredit this side of the House, the Government, and the White sector of the population of this country in the eyes of the non-White sector of the population. That has been contribution they furnished.

When are you going to start tackling the CP?

What contribution has the Official Opposition made to the maintenance of law and order and toward eliminating the prevailing unrest in the Republic of South Africa? They have consistently—and again today in the House—sought the fault solely with the police and the security forces of the Republic. Never has there been any fault on the other side. [Interjections.] The hon member for Houghton is free to prove me wrong. There will still be debates conducted in this House in which she and all the hon members on that side will have an opportunity to prove me wrong.

Let me ask the Official Opposition what contribution, what constructive, positive contribution, they have already made towards improving the Republic of South Africa’s image abroad. [Interjections.] The only contribution they have made is that of travelling around abroad slandering this Government and this side of the House. [Interjections.] That is not a constructive contribution on their part.

[Inaudible.]

I am asking hon members of the Official Opposition what constructive contributions they have made. I am glad the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has now come in, because there are certain of his arguments I want to deal with further. Let me ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party what constructive contributions they have made recently which would justify the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition blaming the Government for the fact that he was not consulted or kept informed about certain things done recently by the Government.

So piously the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition assures this House of his being opposed to all forms of violence, including to the violence and terrorism of the ANC. I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that reality is not always merely a question of the facts. Often the reality of a situation is much more than merely the facts, because in particular reality—and specifically political reality—is frequently people’s perception of the facts. The overall perception of the White voters in this country, but also that of the ANC and the UDF, is that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and hon members of his party are prepared to gloss over and condone the ANC’s violence and terrorism.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Groote Schuur says I am wrong, but I do not have to prove anything to him. He need merely look at the proof furnished by the recent by-elections.

Where?

Where? In those constituencies where they did not even have the courage to put up a candidate and in those constituencies where they did put up candidates but had a poor showing. [Interjections.]

Where did we stand in Port Natal before?

The hon members of the PFP do not have to try to convince me. Nor do they have to accept what I am saying, but the voters of the Republic of South Africa will settle accounts with them, the ANC will also settle scores with them, as they have already done. And the UDF will also do so. [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has already had to offer to withdraw from the proposed national convention alliance because his presence, and that of his party, would also prove an embarrassment to those people. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must start taking notice of the perception that people have of his actions and those of his party. Then he would have a better time of it in politics. It is because the Official Opposition has such blatant disregard for people’s perceptions that they have such meagre representation in this House. That is also why their numbers in this House will continue to decrease and why they will become increasingly irrelevant in the politics of South Africa. [Interjections.]

About his recent world trip the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said: “I spoke to everybody to find the areas of agreement.” His dilemma, however, is that he was rejected by everyone he spoke to. I have just referred to the fact that he has even had to withdraw himself from the proposed alliance because he would also prove an embarrassment there. That reminds me strongly of the story of Uilspieël who complained: People hate me, but I ask for it.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also accuses the Government of “contempt of Parliament”. He says the Government uses Parliament merely as a rubber stamp.

That is true.

That is not true. But let us accept, in terms of my own argument about perceptions, that there are indeed people—this includes the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—who have such a perception of things. What I am saying is that this perception of things is attributable to the fact that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party have, by their own actions, made themselves irrelevant in South African politics. It is as a result of their own actions and their irrelevance that they now come to the conclusion that they are not being consulted or kept informed.

The hon members of the CP accused the State President and the Government of being in the process of selling the Whites down the river. The hon member for Waterberg says he is unashamedly preoccupied with the Whites. The hon member for Barberton claimed that if the Government was going to carry out its new objectives, it would do so over the political corpse of Afrikanerdom.

Like every hon member sitting in this House, I have been elected by the Whites to serve and to promote their best interests here in Parliament. In addition I want to say that I have always been grateful and, in all humility, proud—and I still am—to be a member of the Afrikaner people. To the best of my ability I have always tried, inside and outside this House, to serve the best interests of the Afrikaner people. Our voters, and the Afrikaner people in particular, deserve more from us, deserve a better deal from us, their representatives, than having us walk around lying to them about serving and protecting their rights and interests by way of a lot of Acts that cannot serve or protect their interests. Our voters, and the Afrikaner people in particular, deserve to expect from us, as representatives in whom they have put their trust, that we shall at all times be openly honest and sincere.

So why do you not do it?

I am going to indicate to the hon member that that is indeed what we are, but he will not understand it.

The realities of South Africa, with its plurality of population groups, is that it is not possible to promote the interests of one population community at the cost of those of any other. That is the most basic and elementary reality in the South African population set-up.

That, now, is rhetoric.

That is not rhetoric; those are facts. The hon member is free to attempt to refute them. The fact is that under prevailing circumstances in South Africa the freedom, the peace, the security and the prosperity of one population community cannot be promoted at the cost of the freedom, the peace, the security and the prosperity of the others. The fact is that in South Africa all of us are either going to enjoy freedom, peace, security and prosperity or we are all going to sink together.

Are you not going to start saying something new?

For some people the same truth has to be repeated over and over again in the hope that it will one day sink into their thick skulls. [Interjections.]

The reality to which I have referred is, I believe, one of the basic realities that was expressed in the State President’s speech last Friday. The speech is based on, and takes account of, the political and other realities of the Republic of South Africa. It is very easy to speak irresponsibly like hon members of the CP and like the hon member for Sasolburg who has now, as a member of the HNP, come along to add his voice to that choir. It is very easy to speak irresponsibly. It is also very easy to speak, as hon members of the Official Opposition do, for the radical Black audience. When, however, one is entrusted with, and is responsible for, the orderly government of this country with its complex problems, one cannot allow oneself the luxury of speaking the way hon members opposite do. [Interjections.] Then one has to evidence the wisdom of statesmanship. Then one must deal with the realities of South Africa, in the knowledge that those realities will not disappear or vanish as a result of a lot of rhetoric on one’s own part.

I want to conclude by quoting something I once read. I am actually doing so by way of a question to hon members of the Opposition parties with reference to the State President. Let me ask them:

[Interjections.] Now I am not trying to score political points, but am in all seriousness putting a question to the hon members opposite. They do not need to reply to it here in public; this evening, when they are at home, they can settle the matter for themselves. My question is: Was their conduct in this debate of such a nature that they can, with honesty of conscience, tell the State President: “Yes, you have my alliance”?

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Mossel Bay dealt with the speech of the State President, and I intend to do the same. I do not intend, however, to emulate the aggressive manner in which he attacked the opposition, and in particular the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Talking of baboons and their perceptions, I think the hon member for Mossel Bay should have learnt from the three baboons “to see no evil, to hear no evil, and to speak no evil.” He would have been a better NP not to have spoken at all about the evils he referred to in his speech.

Mr Speaker, the speech of the State President on Friday endeavoured to cover a wide range of presented problems and affairs of State, as well as to prove a “Framework for the Future” as he envisaged it. Unfortunately, and particularly in respect of the “Framework for the Future”, his statement is open to many interpretations. There is a Latin saying, quot homines, tot sententiae, meaning “For as many men as there are, can there be as many opinions.” Anyone who has listened to the debate in this House will realise that this is what has happened, even as far as the hon the Minister of National Education is concerned. For example, the State President said in his speech:

Does this mean that the State President will now ensure that the outdated system of paternalism shown by the NP towards persons other than Whites will disappear? Does it mean that the discriminatory statutes passed by this House since Union, and by its predecessors before Union, will be repealed? Does it mean the beginning of the end of our tricameral constitution, based as it is on that major apartheid statute—the Population Registration Act? Does it imply the future provision of identity documents with no reference to ethnic origin or will the documents be similar to the present ones which have warned all South Africans of the words of Heinrich Heine that: “A man must be very careful in the choice of his parents”?

We do not want to see “an outdated concept of apartheid” replaced by a “modern concept of apartheid”. Our multiracial country suffers from years of White indoctrinated political fear—“swart gevaar”—which has built up in contradistinction a non-White inferiority complex that too often sees violence as the only solution to the elimination of the cause of their complex.

The State President and I are almost of the same age. Our roots go back to people who were born and lived in a previous century, and our offspring will continue to grapple with problems in the coming century. Walter Lippman wrote:

The State President and I were born into a newly-formed Union of South Africa. Just before we were born, the four states which now comprise the Republic had different attitudes towards power sharing. In the Cape Colony and to a lesser extend in Natal, the introduction of a “colour blind” franchise was based on the right to vote being conditional upon the possession of specific capacities. It left the door open to the sharing of power in some distant future, but it did offer in the here and now of the last century, political rights to a handful of Blacks and to a larger number of Coloured people who were continuously rising towards the White standard of property and education.

The basic problem that arose among the Whites of the Cape Colony—and we have the same problem today—was whether they would have the resolution to stick to their principles when these other people, namely the Blacks and the Coloureds, would begin to dilute the political predominance of the Whites.

Against this, the Transvaal and Free State had a simple concept—“Geen Swarte in Kerk of Staat”. It has been the continual tug-of-war between these two concepts that the State President and I have experienced, although we have differed radically in our attitude.

The State President made a remarkable speech when unveiling a monument at the Anglo-Boer War graves in Delareyville on 10 October 1985. He surprisingly drew attention to the sacrifices made by Blacks during the Anglo-Boer War on both the British and Boer sides. In particular, he emphasised that, in addition to the some 28 000 Boer women and children who had died in the concentration camps, had to be added some 13 000 Blacks—men, women and children—who had died in those same concentration camps. He drew specific attention to the penalty the Blacks had paid, despite their participation. I quote from his speech:

That is the problem that we still have today.

What are the true facts? In his Biography on Smuts—many people have written about Smuts—Hancock states that Smuts had been summoned to Vereeniging not as an elected representative of the people, but as a legal adviser to the government of the Transvaal Republic. When Milner produced a document which would have affirmed the surrender of the Boers, he attached to this a schedule of the terms which had been offered to the Boers a year earlier at Middelburg. The actual words of article 8 first read as follows:

The draft therefore prejudged the decision in the natives’ favour. There was a clear implication that the franchise would be given to them. It was Gen Smuts who rewrote the article after consulting with the representatives of the Transvaal and the Free State, Smuts rewrote the article as follows:

Even to this day that question has not been decided. The subtle change of substituting the word “decide” for “grant” has been the basis of the political conflict throughout the lifetimes of the State President and myself. Hancock says:

What does the State President offer as recompense for “no franchise for natives until after the introduction of self-government”—in other words, never? He offers a National Statutory Council of Government representatives and Blacks from the self-governing national states and from South Africa who will consider and advise on matters of common concern, including proposed legislation.

If these be its limited goals, the National Statutory Council will be doomed to failure as was the original Natives Representative Council. However, the State President gives us hope when he says the peoples of the Republic of South Africa form one nation. Will this be the start of negotiations to unite us into one nation with one common loyalty—South Africa? Chief Buthelezi has said that with certain reservations he would be prepared to serve on that council provided it offered a basis for negotiation.

Whatever may be our differences on all sides of this House, we will eventually have to face the ultimate issue—a constitution for this new South African nation voting for a common parliament, without domination of one group over another, without danger to minorities, as the non-White voters begin to dilute the present political predominance of the Whites. That is the problem that this House faces.

To misquote Walter Lippman, I should like to say the following: “Perhaps we can become captives of a new future in our heads—we can build a new world that will really come to exist”.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Bezuidenhout took us down memory lane, reminding us of important milestones in our history. I think it is perhaps important that one pauses from time to time and looks back, particularly at a momentous time such as this when South Africa has, after the speech of the State President on Friday, shown absolutely clearly that it is moving into a new era.

When one looks to a new future and a new beginning, it is perhaps good to pause and look back in order to get some depth of perspective on the road that lies ahead for our country. If one does that along the lines indicated by the hon member for Bezuidenhout it becomes clear that ultimately there will not be peace in this land unless we have government structures that constitute government by consent. Insofar as people have failed in the past, the reason for that has always been that that which has been created has not been done with the measure of consent necessary to sustain that particular reform move at that particular time in history. In order to gain consent, one must consult and, of course, in order to consult, one needs the organised structures within which to consult. Here again the State President’s message on Friday was a message of hope because it opened up the possibility of structures within which a credible and positive debate for the future of this country can be held.

I would like to refer to the speech made by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central attacked my colleague, the hon the Minister of Finance, in the most extreme language. He said that a decision apparently taken by the hon Minister with regard to the question of tax deductions for sponsors of sporting events was—and I quote from the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central’s Hansard—

He went on to say:

I just want to say to the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central that what he is saying is absolutely and totally untrue. I will explain to him why. It is untrue for the reason that in the recess the executive gets any number of requests from any number of quarters about any number of matters. It has therefore to make up its mind whether or not the representations it receives are suitable and whether they should receive support and be acted upon. In this particular case, representations were received by the hon the Minister of Finance. In principle he agreed but, of course, his decision rests upon the fact of having to put a Bill before Parliament whereby parliamentary sanction will be sought for that particular step. When that Bill comes before Parliament—which will happen as a matter of routine—the hon member will have the fullest opportunity, as will this whole Parliament, to debate and assess this issue. The whole matter can then be discussed in the fullest possible terms.

The Press said that he had promised that it would go through.

I am not interested in what the Press said. The fact of the matter is that the hon Minister of Finance said that in principle he would be supportive of such a measure, but that it would have to come before Parliament, and the measure will come before Parliament.

Furthermore, I can tell the hon member now that the legislation that is contemplated will not be made retrospective. We are not going to try to initiate retrospective legislation in this regard at all. The hon member would have been well advised to pick up a telephone and ask the hon Minister, instead of basing his argument on the newspaper report. He knows that he is accessible. He knows that he is here. He knows where he is. He knows that his number is in the little yellow book. He knows what his extension number is. It is the easiest thing in the world to pick up the telephone and ask whether such and such is true or not.

I am afraid that that statement by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is wrong. Moreover, he implies that there is some new principle involved. There is no new principle here. The fact is that for promotional advertising expenditure now, any business institution can claim 100% anyway. If it is a profitable company the percentage claim is effectively 50%. Hence what is being requested here is an upgrading of the concession which already exists. So there is no new principle involved. Therefore to imply that he is doing something terrible, circumventing Parliament and bypassing the democratic process is simply incorrect.

The hon member went on to saying that there was not one cent available, for various worthy causes and yet this money was being ladled out. His words were: “to spend the taxpayers’ money, to pander to the leisure activities of the White population.” He said that the poor people in the townships were starving and it was this kind of action which was typcial of the kind of unfeeling attitude of this Government. That is absolutely wrong because that hon member will know—later on in his speech, if I may say so, he talks about the queues outside St Paul’s Methodist Church in his constituency—that the fact of the matter is that this Government is concerned about the poor. This Government is concerned about unemployed people in this country and took steps in the latter part of last year to raise between R400 million and R500 million by means of a surcharge in order to feed poor people. We launched massive food distribution programmes. We engaged churches, charitable organisations, the security forces and everybody who was able to distribute food effectively and quickly. Huge amounts of money, hundreds of millions of rands, were expended on training and employment and enabling unemployed people to learn new skills. Tens of thousands of people have been trained during this time.

But there are not tax deductions in respect of donations to feed starving people. That is the point I was making.

The fact is that money from taxation, public money, was used to feed underprivileged and disadvataged people in our country. [Interjections.] When that hon member says we spend taxpayers’ money on the leisure activities of the White population, he should know very well that the cricketing authorities in South Africa, of all people in this country, have been in the forefront of reform in South Africa. The cricketing people—and the hon member for Sandton knows this—have more than met the requirements of the International Cricket Union; there is no racialism at any of their crickets grounds; there is no racialism in any of the clubs; there is no racialism at any level of the sport and the sport itself is followed by all sections of the community in South Africa. In fact, the cricketing people do an enormous amount to foster cricket among Black, Coloured and Asian South African. If one goes to any cricket ground, one will see that those matches are supported by the public as a whole.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister if potential sponsors knew, before the endeavour was made to find sponsors for the cricket tour, that there would be a tax concession?

I do not know, but I shall make a point of finding out and giving the hon member an answer to that question. The hon member for Yeoville was not here when I began speaking, but the fact is that there is no new principle involved.

There is.

There is no new principle involved. Promotional expenditure for advertising purposes is currently deductible. [Interjections.] Certainly the allegations made by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central in this regard are absolutely fallacious and wrong. I want to say furthermore that to link this with starving people in South Africa is nothing short of irresponsible. That hon member hates this party. He says that we have been going backwards for the past 40 years, that we have been suffering and that he is ashamed to be a South African because of the things this Government has done. He must, however, be careful when he says these things. When he was the MP for East London that town went backwards, but ever since he left East London the place has been improving. [Interjections.] Ask any industrialist. [Interjections.] I do not want to be personal because that hon member is a man that I like on a personal level. However, ever since that hon member has been the member for Port Elizabeth Central they have had problems. He is the worst public relations consultant that they possibly could elect because that man fouls the nest of Port Elizabeth in that every time he stands up, he tells us what is wrong with Port Elizabeth. If he is trying to promote his city and his region—and there are so many wonderful opportunities and things that can be said about that part of the world …

Which I have said in this House!

The hon member whispers them and they are drowned in this terrible picture he paints of this ghastly place which, fortunately, I know is not true. [Interjections.] That deals with that aspect of his speech.

He also talked about Mrs Blackburn. Mrs Blackburn was a great champion for her particular political beliefs, and in a country such as ours where we also respect the views of our opponents, our antagonists and the people we do not agree with, nobody could say that she was not enthusiastic and fearless in promoting that which she believed. I think that when she died so tragically, the Administrator of the Cape paid tribute to her along those lines. I think it is fitting, as she was a colleague of his, that he should have paid her such a tribute in this House; she was certainly worthy of it.

However, having said that, he came here with a cheap shot saying that he looked forward to the day when the local airport was renamed after Mollie Blackburn. That is the type of cheap shot he came up with. He was then guilty of plagiarism by drawing an analogy between her and Emily Hobhouse—an analogy which he extracted from the newspapers and then presented it here as his own conception.

I want to say that regardless of how political figures may or may not be honoured either during their lifetime or after their death, I think that to follow the typically African example of renaming roads, demolishing statutes and changing the names of existing buildings, dams and so on, is not the kind of thing we should be doing in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The police station at Mount Road, Port Elizabeth, has just been renamed Louis le Grange Square. [Interjections.]

In my view, from whatever quarter that sort of thing comes, it is wrong. [Interjections.] We are certainly not going to rename Jan Smuts Avenue John Malcomess Avenue. [Interjections.]

The State President’s speech on Friday last really was a watershed speech not only from a constitutional point of view but from an economic standpoint as well. I think it is very important that we recognise the fact that in formulating his principles and guidelines as well as his value systems, the State President also brought economic value systems into his speech and highlighted them. Not only did he highlight them but he also outlined proposed legislation to underscore the credibility of his statements.

If we want to spend money—as we must—on building a society in which there is equal opportunity; if we want to co-opt and bring the Third World element of our society into the First World mainstream of our country; if we want streamlined government and less taxation, then there are certain structural changes that we will have to make. We will have to streamline our Government which will necessitate the policy of privatisation and deregulation.

Not only has the Government accepted that as a policy but the State President has already appointed my colleague the hon member Mr Eli Louw to perform that particular task. If it is our aim to have fewer officials, then there will have to be fewer laws for them to administer. By the same token, there must be fewer regulations. For that reason the State President also appointed the President’s Council to look into this whole question of the obstructions to entry into the economy particularly as it effects small business.

Other issues under scrutiny are the promotion of the informal sector and of small business; both positively by helping people get into the mainstream of our economy and, on the other hand, by removing measures that hinder people in their attempts to take up their position in the economy of our country.

I could go on enumerating examples in this way. When one looks at standardisation, at rationalisation and at the structural aspect of our society, as well as the Margo Commission which is reviewing the country’s entire tax system; when one looks at the way the State ranks its priorities in terms of its capital expenditure; and when one looks at the policy of urbanisation, then one finds that in almost every field of endeavour there are moves afoot on the part of the Government to make inclusion into the economy of our country possible for millions of South Africans. This augurs well not only for the economic advancement of this great country of ours but for its socio-political advancement as well.